With DaaS Windows Coming, Say Goodbye To Your PC As You Know It

On 08/03/2018 12:21 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 08/03/2018 08:53 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Bobbie Sellers wrote:
Canonical's Ubuntu developed in Europe and UK and named
after an African word for Freedom does not do things
as well as 20 year old Mandrake managed to do.

I will dispute that. Old Mandrake was certainly better than Redhat at
the time to setup hardware drivers with too much fuss. Last Mandrake I
used was v8.0. However, almost all hardware works OOTB with no user
interaction with Ubuntu. That goes for a wide range of hardware both
old and new. I have had direct experience.

Â*Â*Â*Â*If you are not a troll you and a subscriber to the
comp.os.linux.misc you would have read that I started with
Mandriva 2006.Â* I don't have any hardware besides my 9 year
old Dells and of course my afunctional Amiga and mal-functioning
Intel Compute Stick, a gift from another user.
Â*Â*Â*Â*I have tried to help people with similar aged hardware
and Ubuntu which was once the big item for new users but find
Unity and Gnome obscure. Those DEs obscure the working of
the computer.Â* So I see Ubuntu Forums to find information and
joined alt.os.linux.ubuntu to see what the users reported about
the newer releases.
Â*Â*Â*Â*I started with KDE on Mandriva Linux and 16 years later
am using KDE's Plasma 5 with PCLinuxOS.Â* I have had new computers
in the interval but they died young after a few years of my
intensive use. I have set up my new Linux users with PCLinuxOS
because after so many years of Mandriva and its forks I
am better able to instruct them and help with the problems they
encounter.
Â*Â*Â*Â*bliss


All GUIs obscure the working of the computer. That's what most DEs
are,GUIs. I agree that the Unity desktop is less customable then say
Gnome and KDE. Say not customable.
But it works very well. IMHO.

--
Caver1

On 08/03/2018 12:28 PM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:
Open office format from Office 2007 forward.Â* Add the
compatibility pack to Office 2003 and it could read open office
document formats as well.Â* Can't say I never saw any conversion
issues between MS Office products and open office suites because
I did.Â* But, you had the option of saving it to another format
where the conversion was not problematic.

In most cases the only formatting issue is not having the MS TTF use in
the document or a compatible opensource alternative installed on the
computer.


The formatting is constantly getting better, albeit slowly.

--
Caver1

On 08/03/2018 12:57 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"William Unruh" wrote

| I tried to work with them briefly when they came
| into a Windows group and asked for volunteers. But
| they didn't want to cooperate. The just wanted me
| to report bugs. And there was a very official,
| bureaucratic system in place to shepherd bugs through
| bugfix steps. If they'd shared their progress details
| I could have done my own research into why this
| or that wasn't working and then fixed it in my software
| while also sending an explanation to help their work.
|
| You do have the source code on which you could have done your research.
|

You mean the WINE source code? I guess you're
right. Shall I fork WINE? Would you like to help?
Are you free this weekend?

Come to think of it, we have the Linux source
code, right? How hard can it be to rewrite it to
directly support Win32? I have a couple of days
free next week. Then we can just skip WINE.

This reminds me of a story about Richard
Stallman. I don't know for sure that the story is
true, but it fits with what I've read of his quotes.
A man at one of his talks is said to have got
up to say he was having trouble with Stallman's
compiler. Stallman responded, "Then write your
own."

And yet some people don't want to switch
to Linux and compile their own stuff. Go figure.
I guess it takes all kinds, huh?



You can but don't have to compile anything.
I haven't compiled anything for awhile. In fact I don't remember the
last time I did. Bad memory.

--
Caver1

In article
nospam wrote:

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

| My issue with that is that it's not always a complete installation.
| The gui says it's installed. OK, where the hell is it? How to I
| envoke it. Why isn't there an icon on the desktop, or in the start
| menu-adjacent list? Well, depends on the program and the distro
| and...and. You shouldn't have to remember and type in a command
| line to bring up a GUI configuration tool.
|
| That is pure BS.

You're very good at insulting people.
that's not an insult.

Oh yes, it.

oh no it's not.

there is a very clear difference between criticizing what someone said
versus criticizing the person saying it.

in this case, someone claimed the above is bs.
nowhere did he insult the person by calling him an idiot, stupid, etc.

of course, there needs to be proof one way or the other. simply saying
bs is insufficient.

In article
Dan Purgert wrote:

Mayayana wrote:
"Anonymous" wrote

| This is really a very disappointing explanation of the various Linux
| systems. I am almost certain that you have never done more than
| installed a Linux GUI system, played with it for a short time,
| condemned it in you mind, and uninstalled it.

Twice I tried getting used to it and once I looked
into the feasibility of porting VB6 software using
WINE. Do I need to use it and like it in order to
assess it?
Linux just isn't a desktop. It's fine for a server,
but I don't need a server. What Windows offers is
universality and relative ease of use, coupled with
tools for people at all levels.

To be fair, the "low skill level" people are just as lost in Windows as
they would be in Linux.

The biggest problem I've seen with people converting is "in Windows, I
did ..." and then being highly resistant to the response "You don't do
things that way in Linux; instead use ..."


The last time I tried Linux was a few years ago. I
had a simple test: Set it up and use it without needing
command line and get a firewall that would be easy to
configure to control all outgoing and incoming communication.
As easy as Online Armor is on XP. Even those 2 simple
requirements were impossible to fulfill. The response from
Linux fans: Command line is better and you don't need
a firewall to block outgoing on Linux because it's not
unsafe like Windows. That's classic Linux fan logic: If
you want what we don't got then you're wrong.

Yeah, that's a big difference in paradigms right there. Windows kind of
takes the route of "No user-serviceable parts inside" as opposed to the
linux approach of "have at it!".

That being said, for the firewall side, I believe they've made headway
in graphical utilities (although, I don't really pay attention there -
iptables on the commandline is good enough for me).

Software is easier to write for Windows. [...]

That's a bit of a bold statement there, and probably more of a "for you"
argument than anything.

As far as I care to look, there are realistically very few
"Windows-only" programming languages. The rest, which include (but are
not limited to) C, C++, Java (ew), Python, and Perl are all
cross-platform.

[...] Example: RAW photo work.
Aftershot Pro is very reasonably priced. On Linux?
Last I saw there was only UFRaw, which wasn't much
good. Even for basic graphics I have lots of choices.
GIMP isn't one of them. Or rather, GIMP is a choice
on Windows but not one worth using.

Yeah, a bit of a downside when the software is provided 100%
free-of-charge, and is subsequently only supported in someone's free
time and/or by donation.

A quick check shows that there are about a dozen potential alternatives
that support Linux. However, that's as far as I looked (I don't know
enough about the former to provide a proper comparison).


I can also write my own software on Windows.
Writing on Linux would be a steep learning curve.

Depends on which language(s) you write software in. VB.NET? yeah,
you've got a learning curve (mostly syntax though).

Any of the cross-platform languages? No curve at all, barring "I need
to find a new IDE."

| [...]
| The other Linux distributions make it easy to install some good
| programs right there in their interface.

That's what I *don't* want. If I moved to Linux
it would be to get free of busybody interference.

I think "their interface" more refers to whichever (graphical) "app
store" that the distribution chose to go with, as opposed to your
takeaway here.

I don't want a system forcing file restrictions on me.

Care to explain what you mean here?

And I don't want a system with an applet middleman to oversee software
installs.

I wouldn't exactly call synaptic (or whatever graphical frontend you
prefer) an "applet middleman" to the underlying package management tool.
But, it's kind of arguing semantics; and you don't "have" to use it -
you can always just run the package management tool from the
command-line (or build from source).

I don't want it calling home. I want it to work smoothly without ever
needing to call home.

Gotcha covered there - unless you consider the package repos as "calling
home".

Last time I tried Linux it was so intrusive about
file restrictions that I ended up making FAT32
partitions for storing files.

Basic rule of Linux filesystems, by default the user can only write to

- their individual "home" directory (rough equivalent to
C:\users\yourname, and subdirectories thereto on Windows)
- the tmp directory
- Auto-mounted directories created when plugging in removable media /
inserting blank optical media.

As I understand it, Windows is becoming somewhat similar - e.g. you
cannot write to C:\ without "user elevation" (or whatever Windows calls
it).


That's the problem I was talking about: Linux has
been going from half-built to Mac-style lockdown,

Both Linux and Mac use UNIX-style permissions. That is, they make a
clear-cut distinction between "a user" and "an administrator".

Windows systems, on the other hand, tended to have everyone running
around "as administrators" (although that has gotten considerably better
since Win7).

without ever reaching the sweet spot of Windows:
An OS that does what you want without needing
to learn a lot, but still allows almost any degree of
customization.

Here's the rub though - how long have you been using Windows? I mean,
If you've been using it through at least one release cycle, there's
ample time for you to have forgotten how much "learning" you needed to
do.

And for the younger generations, they kinda just "grew up with it", so
that whole period of "this is stupid, I hate this machine" was tempered
by parents showing them how it works...

Of course, Microsoft are working to
change that. But Linux and Mac are not worthy
substitutes. If you treat computer users as dumb
then your OS will be dumb.

Linux doesn't treat their users as dumb, in my experience. Can't really
say about mac -- but then again, to pay 2-3x the price for the same
hardware as that Dell right over there ...


| I am a software engineer and
| hated to have to re-learn how to use the Linux comandline. But there
| were many places on the web that explained how to install programs
| using the Linux comandline that were not in the GUI install interface.

That's fine if that's what you like. It's not
my preference. And it's not the preference
of the vast majority. To defend it and say
one can learn about it online is the classic
Linux defense, as I said above. There is no
defense for not having GUI options for virtually
anything you might want to do. It's been
relatively easy to achieve for over 20 years
now. But of course, it's easier on Windows,
because Microsoft want to encourage software
developers, so they make easy, RAD tools.

There's literally nothing stopping one from writing GUI tools for
anything and everything they want. The simple fact with Linux is there
is quite a bit of "if it isn't broken...", and so the commandline tools
that work are left alone. Why spend time on writing a GUI program that
does the same thing, when you can write something else?

[...]
In the rare cases where I need to do something
with command line, if I need to do it more than
once I'll probably write a script. For instance,
registering COM libraries. I can run a command
but since I do it occasionally I wrote a script
that works by just dropping the DLL onto the
script on my desktop. Why would I go to the trouble
of looking up and typing that command over and
over when I can use drag-drop?

You can do exactly the same thing in Linux...


What most Linux fans won't admit is that
command line is really a pointless fetish -- an
unwillingness to adapt. They want to light their
stove by rubbing sticks together because it makes
them feel like masters of arcane knowledge. Which
would be silly enough, but then they scorn others
who want to click a button rather than type out
an incantation.

No, I use it because, as you said, I can script the machine to do
whatever it is *I* want it to do, not what some GUI-developer decided i
could do.

In my experience, the biggest limiting factor of a GUI is when you have
to do the same task multiple times to individual files (e.g. renaming
them).


Part of the problem there is also the culture. There
are too many unsocialized geeks who spend their
time either programming or playing childish computer
games. It's an adolescent culture. (Just look at
what gets top WINE support to see what the main
priorities are. A grown man playing video games is
a sad state of affairs.)

Perhaps because 'games' are a way to unwind. Just like model-building,
or hobby machining, or whatever other activity you happen to prefer.

Linux is not likely to ever be
a well designed system unless well-rounded people,
concerned with usability and productivity, decide
to polish it. And since there's no business case for
anyone doing that, it's not likely to happen.

Good news, you don't need a "business case" to do something in Linux.
See a problem? Feel free to fix that problem.

Perhaps you should read the text "The Cathedral and the Bazaar", by Eric
S. Raymond. It may give a bit of insight into some of the difference in
thinking that "Linux People(tm)" tend to have.


--
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

On 08/03/2018 10:56 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-08-02 22:42, nospam wrote:
In , Mayayana
Â* wrote:

"Jonathan N. Â* wrote
| mike wrote:
| My issue with that is that it's not always a complete installation.
| The gui says it's installed. OK, where the hell is it? How to I
| envoke it. Why isn't there an icon on the desktop, or in the start
| menu-adjacent list? Well, depends on the program and the distro
| and...and. You shouldn't have to remember and type in a command
| line to bring up a GUI configuration tool.
|
| That is pure BS.

Â*Â* You're very good at insulting people.
that's not an insult.



Oh yes, it. And from past experience with you, you do get that, since
I've more than once called you out on your sillier posts, and you've,
erm, taken severe umbrage with me.

Have a good day,


Actually he was talking about me. Not intended as an insult, just being
very blunt on calling out pure balderdash.


Gotta love these Win-Lin ****ing matches, haven't you guys ran out of
Beer yet?

Rene

On 03/08/18 18:22, Caver1 wrote:
On 08/03/2018 12:57 PM, Mayayana lied:


Â*Â*Â* And yet some people don't want to switch
to Linux and compile their own stuff. Go figure.
I guess it takes all kinds, huh?



You can but don't have to compile anything.
I haven't compiled anything for awhile. In fact I don't remember the
last time I did. Bad memory.


I am never wuite sure whether a kernel ugrade recompiles all the
drivers, since it happens automatically.

I've not compiled distro code for over 6 years now.

I do have my own specialised code running on a server, that is
re-compiled quite often


--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

On 08/03/2018 02:04 PM, Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-08-03 10:40, Caver1 wrote:
On 08/03/2018 10:15 AM, Mayayana wrote:
[...]
Â*Â* But Windows groups have been consistently
interesting and helpful. I'm in 5 now. Two for
programming and 3 for Windows.



I have found the opposite to be true.
The fanatics cross over to Linux newsgroups to troll and spread
falsehoods.
Just try bashing Windows on a Windows newsgroup and see what you get.
The same as Windows trolls bashing Linux in a Linux group.

Only when there's cross-posting. I don't bother editing the To field. If
some Lindroid has started a slanging match, too bad. If there's some
on-topic discussion, good.

IIRC, this thread drifted into "Why Linux is a better desktop OS than
Windows" territory. It is in some respects, but lacks in others. The
lacks are the deal-breakers for most ordinary folk. As mick very nicely
pointed out. If you think pointing out deal-breaker weaknesses is
bashing", too bad. After all, the flaws in Windows are deal-breakers for
you, right? In short, for most people, the choices that Linux offers
aren't relevant. If you want 'em, good for you, Linux will satisfy.

Have a good day,


I can't say that it's only cross-posting. When a Windows troll shows up
here they are not always cross-posting.
Maybe the thread has but look at the above and there is no mention of
software or which OS is better.
Most all of what I read was correcting falsehoods.

--
Caver1

In article
Caver1 wrote:

On 08/02/2018 10:47 PM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Mayayana wrote:
"Jonathan N. Little" wrote

| mike wrote:
| My issue with that is that it's not always a complete installation.
| The gui says it's installed. OK, where the hell is it? How to I
| envoke it. Why isn't there an icon on the desktop, or in the start
| menu-adjacent list? Well, depends on the program and the distro
| and...and. You shouldn't have to remember and type in a command
| line to bring up a GUI configuration tool.
|
| That is pure BS.

  You're very good at insulting people. Do you really
think he's making that up just to annoy you?

Just calling it what it is. Me specifically? No, but awfully tired of
"Linux issues" that are just patently false. Just as false as when Linux
users say you can delete C:\Windows while running Windows and trash your
system.

This is an example of another big Linux problem: Identifying with the
product. A misplaced, emotional sense of loyalty. You think he's
making up criticism. You think I'm a "Windows fanboy". You feel under
attack because you identify with Linux. That's your trip. It's not
ours. We just want to use computers. It's not a religious issue for
us.
I use both. Not religious either, just maters if what is stated it true
or not.


  What you don't get is that Windows doesn't engender
the kind of vehement loyalty that happens with Macs
and Linux.

Whoa! No Windows trolls in Linux NG?

Windows is the Ford Taurus of cars. Mac is
a sports car -- pretty but limited. Linux is a custom
build.

Can be, depends on the distro. Some are pre-canned to run OOTB like
Ubuntu, Mint, and many others. And others are more niche specific,
Scientific Linux comes to mind. Others more like kits such as Slack and
LFS Linux From Scratch

But Windows is just a Taurus. People don't start
Ford Taurus fan clubs. No one's trying to beat your team.
We don't have a team.

Or more like Henry's vision of the Model T where you can get it in any
color also long as it is black.



Windows is more like a modern car. You can use it but you dare try to
modify anything.
Whereas Linux is a good classic car. You can easily use it and modify it
to your hearts content.

--
Caver1

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

| My issue with that is that it's not always a complete installation.
| The gui says it's installed. OK, where the hell is it? How to I
| envoke it. Why isn't there an icon on the desktop, or in the start
| menu-adjacent list? Well, depends on the program and the distro
| and...and. You shouldn't have to remember and type in a command
| line to bring up a GUI configuration tool.
|
| That is pure BS.

You're very good at insulting people.
that's not an insult.

Oh yes, it.

oh no it's not.

there is a very clear difference between criticizing what someone said
versus criticizing the person saying it.

in this case, someone claimed the above is bs.
nowhere did he insult the person by calling him an idiot, stupid, etc.

BS = Bull****.

you don't say!

In a face-to-face argument saying that will likely result
in an offer to teach you manners. If the argument has become heated, the
lesson may well be administered without forewarning.

face-to-face arguments are normally more cordial than usenet, however,
manners isn't the issue. diversion attempt noted.

of course, there needs to be proof one way or the other. simply saying
bs is insufficient.

Not so. If you characterise the other person's claim as false in any
way, you need to provide some proof.

yep. that's what i said.

first you say not so, then you agree with me. that's ****ed up.

try to get your story straight next time.

Not to do so is in itself an
insult, since it implies that the claim is not worth taking seriously,
and hence the person who made it not worth taking seriously.

nope.

a single incorrect claim does not mean the person cannot be taken
seriously. it simply means a given statement is incorrect.

also, many claims are clearly wrong that there's no need to go into
detail. example: the moon landings were faked.

And that is a very serious insult indeed.

ad hominem noted.

In article , Wolf K
wrote:


Actually he was talking about me. Not intended as an insult, just being
very blunt on calling out pure balderdash.


I was talking to him. He claimed that "bs" is not an insult.

and it isn't.

it's a criticism of a statement, not the person who made it.

Nospam has a history of comments like bs, nonsense, wrong, etc, with no
elaboration whatsoever. I don't think he realises that at the very least
some clarification is in order. I mean, if I;m mistaken about something,
I do want to know what the mistake is.

first of all, this isn't about me. that's yet another one of your
feeble attempts at a diversion as well as an hominem attack since
there's nothing to back up your claim.

second, whenever i say nonsense, it's because a given statement is *so*
wrong it's not worth the trouble to provide an itemized list as to why,
which would usually fall on deaf ears anyway. however, if asked for
specifics, i will elaborate.

On 08/03/2018 03:01 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Wolf K
wrote:

| My issue with that is that it's not always a complete installation.
| The gui says it's installed. OK, where the hell is it? How to I
| envoke it. Why isn't there an icon on the desktop, or in the start
| menu-adjacent list? Well, depends on the program and the distro
| and...and. You shouldn't have to remember and type in a command
| line to bring up a GUI configuration tool.
|
| That is pure BS.

You're very good at insulting people.
that's not an insult.

Oh yes, it.

oh no it's not.

there is a very clear difference between criticizing what someone said
versus criticizing the person saying it.

in this case, someone claimed the above is bs.
nowhere did he insult the person by calling him an idiot, stupid, etc.

BS = Bull****.

you don't say!

In a face-to-face argument saying that will likely result
in an offer to teach you manners. If the argument has become heated, the
lesson may well be administered without forewarning.

face-to-face arguments are normally more cordial than usenet, however,
manners isn't the issue. diversion attempt noted.

of course, there needs to be proof one way or the other. simply saying
bs is insufficient.

Not so. If you characterise the other person's claim as false in any
way, you need to provide some proof.

yep. that's what i said.

first you say not so, then you agree with me. that's ****ed up.

try to get your story straight next time.

Not to do so is in itself an
insult, since it implies that the claim is not worth taking seriously,
and hence the person who made it not worth taking seriously.

nope.

a single incorrect claim does not mean the person cannot be taken
seriously. it simply means a given statement is incorrect.

also, many claims are clearly wrong that there's no need to go into
detail. example: the moon landings were faked.


And you expect to be seriously taken?


--
Caver1

Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-08-03 12:18, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

Not really correct. There are just a few main families of Linux
distros and they have their corresponding package formats. The two
main versions rpm for Redhat family and deb for Debian family. Just
pick the one for the family you are using and it will work.

Exactly. And it's absurd, as I said. Either standardise the package
format, or build installers that will install any package format.

Well you are putting your Windows-which-has-only-one-vendor perspective
on multi-vendor Linux. Also with Windows, until recently with their
attempt at the Microsoft Store, user culture is to look to external
sources, stores, and various websites to find and install software.

Most modern Linux distros have an associated repository where the
software is already complied, tested, and configured with the
appropriate package type. They also have a GUI app to manage it all.

Where you can run into trouble is when you go outside of the
repositories and download and install from those other sources. That
said, most neophytes or casually users normally have no need to go
outside of the official repositories.

As I said there really is basically only 2 main package types, either
rpm or deb. So all you have to do is know if your have a Redhat based
distro or a Debian based distro. Many third-party sources have both
types for downloads or use an install script like "some-softwarware.run"
that will handle all that for you.


New completely encapsulated format are being developed, Flatpak and
Snappy by Canonical. Not sure on the the future of Snap but had no
problem installing Flatpaks on Ubuntu.

Looks like a step in the right direction.


Yep, progress.


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On 08/03/2018 09:46 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 08/03/2018 08:53 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Bobbie Sellers wrote:
Canonical's Ubuntu developed in Europe and UK and named
after an African word for Freedom does not do things
as well as 20 year old Mandrake managed to do.

I will dispute that. Old Mandrake was certainly better than Redhat at
the time to setup hardware drivers with too much fuss. Last Mandrake
I used was v8.0. However, almost all hardware works OOTB with no user
interaction with Ubuntu. That goes for a wide range of hardware both
old and new. I have had direct experience.

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*If you are not a troll you and a subscriber to the
comp.os.linux.misc you would have read that I started with
Mandriva 2006.Â* I don't have any hardware besides my 9 year
old Dells and of course my afunctional Amiga and mal-functioning
Intel Compute Stick, a gift from another user.
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*I have tried to help people with similar aged hardware
and Ubuntu which was once the big item for new users but find
Unity and Gnome obscure. Those DEs obscure the working of
the computer.Â* So I see Ubuntu Forums to find information and
joined alt.os.linux.ubuntu to see what the users reported about
the newer releases.
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*I started with KDE on Mandriva Linux and 16 years later
am using KDE's Plasma 5 with PCLinuxOS.Â* I have had new computers
in the interval but they died young after a few years of my
intensive use. I have set up my new Linux users with PCLinuxOS
because after so many years of Mandriva and its forks I
am better able to instruct them and help with the problems they
encounter.

Not a troll and not a subscriber to the comp.os.linux.misc NG.

rummages thought old CDs to refresh memory finding Mandrake 10
community disks I had 8.0 install not sure if upgraded to 10. Remember
how hard it was you get analog modems and video drivers to install.
Switched to Ubuntu in '07 by version 10.04 LTS everything would install
most times on various hardware without issue. I have 16.04 runningÂ* on
retired Dell Latitude D820. Library has some ancient Opt-plex 380s and
well and brand new Lenovo ThinkStations. And I have installed on various
hardware around for neighbors and just works...


It was a bit hard to find fully functional modems
after Windows got so big and so many modems that used cpu
and ram to do their work was on the market but I managed
on the Amiga to find what I need sometimes being given stuff
by people who were moving up to DSL. After I moved to the
notebooks/laptops I had to find used 56 K modems that fit
the PC expansion slots then when I went to DSL I had to find
a DLS modem that fit the same slot.

I used to have a Dell Inspiron 4000 with a 700 MHs
Coppermine Pentium and 384 Megabytes of ram and 8 megabytes
of video ram. I got it with XP and moved to Mandriva 2009
which I cut back to a single virtual desktop and it ran
well enough. I figured out that if it was designed for
XP with a single desktop it would work with Mandriva and
a single desktop. I had all the extra bits as well with
a DVD R/W drive and could pull out the optical drive and
install an extra hard drive. Never found a satisfactory
expansion dock. I had added a 256 Megabyte sodimm to bring
up the memory from 256 total.

bliss

--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

On 08/03/2018 10:14 AM, Caver1 wrote:
On 08/03/2018 12:21 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 08/03/2018 08:53 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Bobbie Sellers wrote:
Canonical's Ubuntu developed in Europe and UK and named
after an African word for Freedom does not do things
as well as 20 year old Mandrake managed to do.

I will dispute that. Old Mandrake was certainly better than Redhat at
the time to setup hardware drivers with too much fuss. Last Mandrake
I used was v8.0. However, almost all hardware works OOTB with no user
interaction with Ubuntu. That goes for a wide range of hardware both
old and new. I have had direct experience.

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*If you are not a troll you and a subscriber to the
comp.os.linux.misc you would have read that I started with
Mandriva 2006.Â* I don't have any hardware besides my 9 year
old Dells and of course my afunctional Amiga and mal-functioning
Intel Compute Stick, a gift from another user.
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*I have tried to help people with similar aged hardware
and Ubuntu which was once the big item for new users but find
Unity and Gnome obscure. Those DEs obscure the working of
the computer.Â* So I see Ubuntu Forums to find information and
joined alt.os.linux.ubuntu to see what the users reported about
the newer releases.
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*I started with KDE on Mandriva Linux and 16 years later
am using KDE's Plasma 5 with PCLinuxOS.Â* I have had new computers
in the interval but they died young after a few years of my
intensive use. I have set up my new Linux users with PCLinuxOS
because after so many years of Mandriva and its forks I
am better able to instruct them and help with the problems they
encounter.
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*bliss


All GUIs obscure the working of the computer. That's what most DEs
are,GUIs. I agree that the Unity desktop is less customable then say
Gnome and KDE. Say not customable.
But it works very well.Â* IMHO.

I find Unity and Gnome to be opaque.

I used Midnight Commander and Dolphin under
Mandriva to explore the whole installation which is
not obscuring the system but allowing the poor typist
to explore it as I had done earlier on the AmigaOS with
SID and other tools. KDE is nearly matched in
customization by a few other DEs but after a long time
using it I don't find as good a file manager as Dolphin
on any other major distribution.

And when I started out with Linux I joined a
Linux Users Group which helped me with getting online
via WiFi and a few other points as to where Grub
configuration files were stored.

bliss

--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com