Good News for Windows XP Users...

On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 19:33:59 -0700, Todd wrote:

Hi Caver1,

Red Hat is really on top of security issues. So, you are
constantly seeing kernel revisions. If you are in a high security
situation, you should consider switching to Red Hat. But, keep
in mind that Ubuntu is miles and miles and miles more secure than
any Windows version. M$ makes it easy for the bad guys.

Really? Care to post your IP address? That is all I need to gain root
access to your Linux machine. No seriously. I have your permission,
right? That makes everything legal you know. I am so surprised when
Linux users think their Linux is so secured when they are hacked so easy
and they never know it. Just one buffer overflow and you are in and they
will never know it. It is so simple. No wonder a rootkit was living on a
server and nobody caught it for 7 months. If it were on a Windows
server, it would have been dead in less than a second.

http://computingondemand.com/linux-i...y-complacency/


Did you mean to send this twice?

Perhaps it's a double-posting virus?

Rod.

Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 21:11:34 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

I can tell you that I converted a lot of my Windows machines to SSD
and they are about 5 times faster than those hard drives they used to
have. And I haven't seen any Linux on a hard drive beat Windows XP. 7,
or 8 on a SSD yet.

You might say that is unfair, comparing Windows on a SSD vs, Linux on a
hard drive. Yes, I suppose.
Geez, Bill, you're intelligent, you should know it's unfair. If you
want to compare boot speeds of one OS vs. another, that has to the the
only difference in the systems. The hardware must identical.

Makes no sense to me either. I have a couple of multiboot PCs (and
have set up various others), so can compare Windows and Linux on the
same hardware. It's the only sort of comparison that means anything.

To me, boot time is less important than the time taken to start
individual applications, as this is what you'll be doing while
actually seated at the computer, so this is where you'll really notice
the delay. Both my multiboot PCs have SSDs and quad core processors,
and I don't think I have any Linux applications that take longer than
about 2 seconds to start, while some Windows applications take more
than twice as long. Scrolling round the sky in Stellarium is
noticeably smoother in Linux than in the Windows version of the same
program too, though this sort of thing may be different for programs
originally written in Windows.

Anybody who thinks Linux is rubbish hasn't tried one recently. The
well supported and more user-friendly ones like Ubuntu and Mint just
keep getting better and better. If you don't think they offer Windows
any serious competition yet, things may be very different by the time
Windows 7 support runs out. That'll be the real decision time.

Rod.

Just a word of warning. There is plenty of variation from
one user setup to another. And one user might have a
"wonderful experience", while another sees something less
impressive.

I'm seeing 3 minute boot times on my Linux Mint Mate USB stick
install. And Ubuntu is getting rather slow here, too.

I'm seeing video render artifacts, on my Ubuntu VM installations
(the ones where apparently video card acceleration of the
desktop is being done - more than just Compiz-like stuff. I
see artifacts around the mouse cursor area.)

In the hands of an expert, yes, you can trim down an OS
to the essentials, and give the resulting install Ninja-like
boot times. But out of the box, it might not necessarily be
all that impressive.

If you want a demo of a "pig of a DVD", try the Gentoo
demo LiveDVD they did. I don't think it was intended as
a delivery vehicle for Gentoo (you install Gentoo normally,
by building from source, right onto the hard drive). The
Gentoo demo DVD, they stuffed as many drivers in it as
they did, as a means to show the breadth of support for
hardware. That was the first Linux I saw, with a 3 minute
boot time. If I install my own Gentoo, rebuild the kernel
and remove all unnecessary hardware from it, I can get
ood boot times by doing that. So those two extremes, could
have two people seeing 20 second or 3 minute boot times, all
with the same purported distro. As a Linux promoter, I could
"say the boot time was 20 seconds", whereas an unsuspecting
noob, downloading the DVD, would get to witness the 3 minute
"boot-fest". And neither user would really be wrong. It's
just the range of experiences possible.

If trying out a distro, I would recommend Linux Mint Mate
interface, for a trial. It will be a bit slow to boot (the
menus won't respond until the loading phase finishes). But
it has traditional menus. If you go with Ubuntu, it has
the Unity interface, similar to Windows Metro. I can *use*
Unity interface, but I don't like it. I can *use* Metro
interface, but I don't like it. And another word of
warning, like Metro, Unity appearance varies with screen
resolution. I you use a really tiny screen (that $100
15 inch LCD you bought years ago), some of the decorations
will be missing, making it harder to figure out some stuff.
The same thing happened to me with Metro when I first
started using it. When I tested on my backup machine
with the 1440 wide screen, either of those examples work
a lot better there.

Paul

On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:30:51 -0400, Paul wrote:

If trying out a distro, I would recommend Linux Mint Mate
interface, for a trial. It will be a bit slow to boot (the
menus won't respond until the loading phase finishes). But
it has traditional menus.

Lubuntu is another good one to try if you think your hardware
capabilities might be limited. It too has a traditional menu (though
not three of them to choose, like Mint Mate). Try Mint Cinnamon if you
want one where the sound effects actually work.

Rod.

On 06/20/2014 05:41 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
Anybody who thinks Linux is rubbish hasn't tried one recently. The
well supported and more user-friendly ones like Ubuntu and Mint just
keep getting better and better. If you don't think they offer Windows
any serious competition yet, things may be very different by the time
Windows 7 support runs out. That'll be the real decision time.

Really? This looks like Linux. It feels like Linux. It even has that
funny Penguin smell to it.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Ubuntu 12.04.1
Centrino Core Duo T2300 1.66GHz - 1GB - Thunderbird v24.5.0

In ,
Ken Springer typed on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 21:11:34 -0600:
On 6/19/14 4:21 PM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
Caver1 typed:
On 06/19/2014 02:50 PM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
Caver1 typed:
On 06/19/2014 01:43 PM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
Caver1 typed:
On 06/19/2014 12:26 PM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
Caver1 typed:
On 06/19/2014 08:42 AM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
Caver1 typed:

snip

I can tell you that I converted a lot of my Windows machines to SSD
and they are about 5 times faster than those hard drives they used to
have. And I haven't seen any Linux on a hard drive beat Windows XP.
7, or 8 on a SSD yet.

You might say that is unfair, comparing Windows on a SSD vs, Linux
on a hard drive. Yes, I suppose.

Geez, Bill, you're intelligent, you should know it's unfair. If you
want to compare boot speeds of one OS vs. another, that has to the the
only difference in the systems. The hardware must identical.

I really can't believe you would say this. :-(

Well a SSD for that Linux machine would cost about 50 bucks. And
spending 50 on Linux just doesn't seem worth it to me. As Linux will do
so little for me, it is better to spend money on Windows than Linux. I
do have another Linux machine an EeePC with a SSD, does that count?
Although those use a PATA SSD which is pretty slow anyway. And most fast
SATA hard drives can outperform them anyway.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

On 08/07/2014 17:44, BillW50 wrote:
it is better to spend money on Windows than Linux.

For once somebody has shown some common sense about Linux and all that crap.

I like both and have both on my 2 systems one for my linux stuff and windows for my other stuff


--
AL'S COMPUTERS
"Good Guy" wrote in message ...
On 08/07/2014 17:44, BillW50 wrote:
it is better to spend money on Windows than Linux.

For once somebody has shown some common sense about Linux and all that crap.

On Tue, 8 Jul 2014 11:44:52 -0500, "BillW50" wrote:

it is better to spend money on Windows than Linux.

You don't need to spend any money on Linux. It's free.

Still, it's your money...

Rod.

On 7/9/2014 5:11 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2014 11:44:52 -0500, "BillW50" wrote:

it is better to spend money on Windows than Linux.

You don't need to spend any money on Linux. It's free.

Still, it's your money...

Really? I had to spend $400 on my machines to put Linux on them. How did
you get yours for free? Plus there is the hundreds of hours learning
*nix too. In my book, that isn't free either.

--
Bill
Motion Computing LE1700 Tablet ('09 era) - Thunderbird v24.4.0
Centrino Core2 Duo L7400 1.5GHz - 2GB RAM - Windows 8 Professional

On 7/9/2014 12:53 AM, Andy wrote:
I like both and have both on my 2 systems one for my linux stuff and
windows for my other stuff

What Linux stuff? You mean LibreOffice, Firefox and Thunderbird?

--
Bill
Motion Computing LE1700 Tablet ('09 era) - Thunderbird v24.4.0
Centrino Core2 Duo L7400 1.5GHz - 2GB RAM - Windows 8 Professional

BillW50 wrote:

Really? I had to spend $400 on my machines to put Linux on them

Really? What did you buy?

--
Alias

BillW50 wrote:
On 06/20/2014 05:41 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
Anybody who thinks Linux is rubbish hasn't tried one recently. The
well supported and more user-friendly ones like Ubuntu and Mint just
keep getting better and better. If you don't think they offer Windows
any serious competition yet, things may be very different by the time
Windows 7 support runs out. That'll be the real decision time.

Really? This looks like Linux. It feels like Linux. It even has that
funny Penguin smell to it.


Ubuntu used to be good. Net Runner is much better.

--
Alias

BillW50 writted thus

On 7/9/2014 5:11 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2014 11:44:52 -0500, "BillW50" wrote:

it is better to spend money on Windows than Linux.

You don't need to spend any money on Linux. It's free.

Still, it's your money...

Really? I had to spend $400 on my machines to put Linux on them. How did
you get yours for free? Plus there is the hundreds of hours learning
*nix too. In my book, that isn't free either.

Bwahahahaha
$400 to get Linux?
mug!
It's open source, and that's FREE



--
Free Dropbox:
http://db.tt/aI6WBZ7w

On 7/9/2014 6:54 AM, tigger wrote:
BillW50 writted thus

On 7/9/2014 5:11 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2014 11:44:52 -0500, "BillW50" wrote:

it is better to spend money on Windows than Linux.

You don't need to spend any money on Linux. It's free.

Still, it's your money...

Really? I had to spend $400 on my machines to put Linux on them. How did
you get yours for free? Plus there is the hundreds of hours learning
*nix too. In my book, that isn't free either.

Bwahahahaha
$400 to get Linux?
mug!
It's open source, and that's FREE

It cost me $250 for the Asus EeePC (running Ubuntu, it used to have
Xandros) and $150 for the Gateway M465 (running Ubuntu and Puppy). So
how did you get your Linux Machine(s) for free? That is $400 I invested
into Linux that would have been better spent on Windows.

--
Bill
Motion Computing LE1700 Tablet ('09 era) - Thunderbird v24.4.0
Centrino Core2 Duo L7400 1.5GHz - 2GB RAM - Windows 8 Professional

BillW50 wrote:
On 7/9/2014 6:54 AM, tigger wrote:
BillW50 writted thus

On 7/9/2014 5:11 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2014 11:44:52 -0500, "BillW50" wrote:

it is better to spend money on Windows than Linux.

You don't need to spend any money on Linux. It's free.

Still, it's your money...

Really? I had to spend $400 on my machines to put Linux on them. How did
you get yours for free? Plus there is the hundreds of hours learning
*nix too. In my book, that isn't free either.

Bwahahahaha
$400 to get Linux?
mug!
It's open source, and that's FREE

It cost me $250 for the Asus EeePC (running Ubuntu, it used to have
Xandros) and $150 for the Gateway M465 (running Ubuntu and Puppy). So
how did you get your Linux Machine(s) for free? That is $400 I invested
into Linux that would have been better spent on Windows.


With the number of machines you have, you don't need to buy a "Linux
machine" and you won't have to "spend $400 on my machines to put Linux
on them".

--
Alias