Has anybody ever connected a Linux machine to a Windows machine on anetwork?

On Mar 31, 3:46*pm, John Williamson
wrote:
RayLopez99 wrote:


Fair point. *That is indeed the allure of Linux. *But the way I see
it, it's like passing by a crummy bar, club or pub that you visited
years ago and had a bad time in: no service, bad beer, rude bartender,
ugly barflies or worse, no girls at all. *Now you pass by the
storefront a second time and see a new sign: "Under new management!".
Do you check it out,

Personally, I check it out, and more often than not, it's improved. Just
as the one that I used to like a few years ago has sometimes turned into
a dive. After all, what's the cost of the effort of walking through the
door compared to the pleasure of finding that it *has* become a pleasant
place to meet people? It's not hard to walk (straight) back out of the
door, after all.

Yes, but it takes time and effort to check out the bar--and some money
on drinks. The analogy with Linux: it takes an afternoon out of your
life (and don't deny it takes several hours, minimum, to install
Linux) to install Linux--and several DAYS to get to learn how to do a
simple thing (last I checked) as read your CD-ROM drive ('swap' comes
to mind, or rather 'mount', unmount). I even bought a book, the Linux
Bible, just to learn how to use Linux (unfortunately I trashed it out
of frustration--I probably should have kept it for any future
reinstall).

You're asking me to install Linux for the THIRD time John--once I did
in 1995 or so (dual boot with NT, it did work, but as i recall I had
to actually manually configure the CRT to work at the right
resolution), once in 2007 or 08, and now again? Both times I found it
wanting. You're asking me to spend a week out of my life just so I
can supposedly benefit from virus-free internet surfing, which, EVEN
IF TRUE, is solving a non-existent problem: I've never had a serious
virus (a few false positives) in over 20 years of Windows PC use!

That's taking quite a risk, no? Reminds me of the time this friend
played a practical joke on me and got me and another friend to check
out a new bar--he said it was full of hot chicks and he knew the
management--he even gave me the name to drop--this was San Francisco.
My friend was from out of town, we put on our stylish clothes, got all
ready for action, and walked into this place...found it was all guys
wearing leather. I actually laughed but my friend was not amused...
That's Linux for you. And that penguin with a weird smile...what's up
with that? Don't bend over with that penguin around...



Nope, I may be a fool, but I'm no sucker.

So, you're just spamming us with your opinions, which seemingly are
based on a single experience with Open Source software in the dim and
distant past, then. You're not willing to make a minimal, no risk
experiment to prove the validity of your claims to yourself, either.
After all, someone clever enough to be a rocket scientist, who also
claims not to have to work because they're so rich could easily make
time for such an experiment, *if* they were telling the truth and were
interested in finding things out.

I'm interested but some things are best left to the imagination, or
not tried at all. That penguin again.


That indeed makes you a fool, and deliberately ignorant, and proves that
your mind is inflexible and closed to new experiences.


Sh iite yes if it means violation of my being. And frankly, Linux is
violation of my being. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

RL

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:47:06 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2010-03-31, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:


John Williamson pulled this Usenet boner:

JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2010-03-30, Moshe wrote:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.p...ighlight=samba

That's 90+ pages showing how "easy" it is to set up Samba.

That doesn't alter the fact that people have been using it for years
and years and years and doing so in a manner that's transparent to the
relevant Windows or MacOS users.

I did notice that most of the posts were along the lines of either "Is
WEP or WPA encryption better?" and the answers, or "Thanks for making it
so clear, it was easy to get working by following your instructions."

For setting up file and print shares, 90 pages of explanation of Samba
aren't necessary.

If you have half a brain, the smb.conf file was always pretty self
explanatory. It's very well (self) documented. There have been shiny
happy tools available over the years but I've never bothered.

Stuff stays setup in perpetuity.

If you're using a distro for nontechnical users, there'll be a gui to
handle it.

For example, ubuntu, on the gnome desktop, go to places, 'network'. You'll
see a list of machines, and their shares. Setup time? zero.
Time to figure it out? 4 seconds.

RayLopez99 wrote:
On Mar 31, 3:46 pm, John Williamson
wrote:
RayLopez99 wrote:

Fair point. That is indeed the allure of Linux. But the way I see
it, it's like passing by a crummy bar, club or pub that you visited
years ago and had a bad time in: no service, bad beer, rude bartender,
ugly barflies or worse, no girls at all. Now you pass by the
storefront a second time and see a new sign: "Under new management!".
Do you check it out,
Personally, I check it out, and more often than not, it's improved. Just
as the one that I used to like a few years ago has sometimes turned into
a dive. After all, what's the cost of the effort of walking through the
door compared to the pleasure of finding that it *has* become a pleasant
place to meet people? It's not hard to walk (straight) back out of the
door, after all.

Yes, but it takes time and effort to check out the bar--and some money
on drinks.

Which you'd be buying anyway....

Also, if you don't make the effort, you'll *never* know what you've missed.

The analogy with Linux: it takes an afternoon out of your
life (and don't deny it takes several hours, minimum, to install
Linux) to install Linux--and several DAYS to get to learn how to do a
simple thing (last I checked) as read your CD-ROM drive ('swap' comes
to mind, or rather 'mount', unmount). I even bought a book, the Linux
Bible, just to learn how to use Linux (unfortunately I trashed it out
of frustration--I probably should have kept it for any future
reinstall).

The last install I did took under two hours, including the download. The
only thing that didn't work immediately was the link to a Windows Mobile
PDA. CD and DVD drives have been able to automount if you want that for
years. Whisper it quietly, but you can even configure Linux to
automatically play an audio CD or DVD movie on insertion.

You're asking me to install Linux for the THIRD time John--once I did
in 1995 or so (dual boot with NT, it did work, but as i recall I had
to actually manually configure the CRT to work at the right
resolution), once in 2007 or 08, and now again? Both times I found it
wanting. You're asking me to spend a week out of my life just so I
can supposedly benefit from virus-free internet surfing, which, EVEN
IF TRUE, is solving a non-existent problem: I've never had a serious
virus (a few false positives) in over 20 years of Windows PC use!

I had trouble getting both Windows and Linux to talk to the monitor in
1995, too.

Third time lucky, then. But if it takes you a week to get surfing with
Linux on an existing broadband or modem connection, then you're probably
beyond help. On average, it takes me under two hours from putting the
install medium into the drive to getting a new Linux installation safely
connected to the web, and I only need to be near the computer for a few
minutes of that time. That's faster than Windows XP, even from a maker's
restore medium, mainly because I don't need to install the malware
prevention software.

As for reinstalling systems, this computer needed three install attempts
to get Windows XP running. Linux (Two different distros) worked straight
out of the box. Should I have given up, and just ignored Windows for ever?

Last time I installed Vista (On a dual core,fast for its day, PC with
plenty of RAM.), it took four hours to just get the machine to boot
properly with everything working, and another hour or two to get
on-line, even with the help of the maker's installation program. Ubuntu
9.10 installed to a second partition on that machine yesterday in an
hour, and worked fully straight away, apart from the Windows PDA
problem. *And* it dual boots.

That indeed makes you a fool, and deliberately ignorant, and proves that
your mind is inflexible and closed to new experiences.


Sh iite yes if it means violation of my being. And frankly, Linux is
violation of my being. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

So, sunni, when *are* you going to fix Windows? I've just had to
download *another* set of patches today, so it ain't fixed yet. The last
batch was yesterday. Same for Linux......

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Apr 1, 5:08*am, John Williamson
wrote:
The last install I did took under two hours, including the download. The
only thing that didn't work immediately was the link to a Windows Mobile
PDA. CD and DVD drives have been able to automount if you want that for
years. Whisper it quietly, but you can even configure Linux to
automatically play an audio CD or DVD movie on insertion.

A lot of Linux users are hobbyists who enjoy installing OSes. Same as
the homebuilt group--they like doing things like overclocking.

I had trouble getting both Windows and Linux to talk to the monitor in
1995, too.

But the difference is 90% of the computing public uses Windows, so you
have to just suck it up, grin and bear it. Why struggle so I can join
the 1% of the computing public in Linux land?



As for reinstalling systems, this computer needed three install attempts
to get Windows XP running. Linux (Two different distros) worked straight
out of the box. Should I have given up, and just ignored Windows for ever?

No, for the reason I just cited.


Last time I installed Vista (On a dual core,fast for its day, PC with
plenty of RAM.), it took four hours to just get the machine to boot
properly with everything working, and another hour or two to get
on-line, even with the help of the maker's installation program. Ubuntu
9.10 installed to a second partition on that machine yesterday in an
hour, and worked fully straight away, apart from the Windows PDA
problem. *And* it dual boots.

I know that feeling. It also took me two DAYS to get Vista correctly
installed on my dual core, since I had SATA drives that were not being
recognized. It was a real pain.

Since you seem to be honest, unlike most here (I come here just to
flame and troll mostly) I might try Linux again in the future, using
your suggestions, but with much more modern hardware. I concluded
that perhaps the problems I was having with Linux had to do with the
limited hardware I was using for it.

But I will never make Linux my sole OS--no need--it will just be a
hobby for me. Might try the virtual route or the dual boot route, on
a separate partition. But it will not be a few hours, but rather a
week of study and another week of installation (with study). Nothing
with computers takes a few hours.

RL

RayLopez99 wrote:
On Apr 1, 5:08 am, John Williamson
wrote:
The last install I did took under two hours, including the download. The
only thing that didn't work immediately was the link to a Windows Mobile
PDA. CD and DVD drives have been able to automount if you want that for
years. Whisper it quietly, but you can even configure Linux to
automatically play an audio CD or DVD movie on insertion.

A lot of Linux users are hobbyists who enjoy installing OSes. Same as
the homebuilt group--they like doing things like overclocking.

I don't enjoy installing operating systems, but if the one I use doesn't
do what I want to do, then I'll try another. I didn't switch from 98 to
XP until I needed hardware that refused to work under 98. I don't use
computers as a primary part of my job, but I need (For a certain value
of need) certain computer related things to happen while I'm at work.
It's currently working out that there are a lot of major interface and
functionality changes between XP and 7, so I reckon I'll be as well off
installing and learning more than just the basics of Linux before MS
pull support for XP. While I'm doing that, I'll probably try a couple of
dozen distros until I find or customise one that works for me. IMHO,
Vista has been one of the best ever promotion tools for Linux.

I had trouble getting both Windows and Linux to talk to the monitor in
1995, too.

But the difference is 90% of the computing public uses Windows, so you
have to just suck it up, grin and bear it. Why struggle so I can join
the 1% of the computing public in Linux land?

It's getting less of a struggle all the time.

As for reinstalling systems, this computer needed three install attempts
to get Windows XP running. Linux (Two different distros) worked straight
out of the box. Should I have given up, and just ignored Windows for ever?

No, for the reason I just cited.

OK, then.

Last time I installed Vista (On a dual core,fast for its day, PC with
plenty of RAM.), it took four hours to just get the machine to boot
properly with everything working, and another hour or two to get
on-line, even with the help of the maker's installation program. Ubuntu
9.10 installed to a second partition on that machine yesterday in an
hour, and worked fully straight away, apart from the Windows PDA
problem. *And* it dual boots.

I know that feeling. It also took me two DAYS to get Vista correctly
installed on my dual core, since I had SATA drives that were not being
recognized. It was a real pain.

Linux would probably have "just worked" (tm) after a google search for
and download of drivers. That's the kind of geeky stuff that people
enjoy writing drivers for.

Since you seem to be honest, unlike most here (I come here just to
flame and troll mostly)

I'd noticed. :-D

I might try Linux again in the future, using
your suggestions, but with much more modern hardware. I concluded
that perhaps the problems I was having with Linux had to do with the
limited hardware I was using for it.

Most problems I've had with Linux installs have been hardware that's not
supported, either because the makers don't want to, or it's too new or
too old. One of my sound interfaces is a case in point. Made for '98,
the makers released a basic XP driver, and the info for someone to write
that same basic driver for Linux. The driver exists, but I'm blowed if I
can get it to work under Linux, but then again, the design is
prehistoric by computer standards, as it was designed in the days of
Windows 95. The sweet spot seems to be the last generation but one of
hardware. It's usually still available off the shelf, often cheaply, and
mature enough that someone will have worked out how to get it to work.
It's also still capable of running everything except the latest games.

But I will never make Linux my sole OS--no need--it will just be a
hobby for me. Might try the virtual route or the dual boot route, on
a separate partition. But it will not be a few hours, but rather a
week of study and another week of installation (with study). Nothing
with computers takes a few hours.

If you don't try it, you'll never know, but a virtual machine or dual
boot is easily reversible, needs only a few Gigabytes of HDspace, and if
you just get a basic installation running, then you can fiddle and learn
when you get a spare hour. If you normally work with Windows, then
Ubuntu is probably the easiest to learn, with a couple of hours to get
the basics sorted out, then as much or as little time as you want to
spend on it. I find that with computers, it's easiest to just install it
and use it, learning as I go, knowing that it's almost impossible to
damage the hardware, and that I can always get back to my starting point
by rebooting, and, if necessary, re-installing stuff. YMMV, of course.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 2010-04-01, RayLopez99 wrote:


On Apr 1, 5:08Â*am, John Williamson
wrote:
The last install I did took under two hours, including the download. The
only thing that didn't work immediately was the link to a Windows Mobile
PDA. CD and DVD drives have been able to automount if you want that for
years. Whisper it quietly, but you can even configure Linux to
automatically play an audio CD or DVD movie on insertion.

A lot of Linux users are hobbyists who enjoy installing OSes. Same as
the homebuilt group--they like doing things like overclocking.

A lot of Linux users just want less bull****.

[deletia]

--
It's a great paradox. |||
/ | \
Mac users aren't supposed to be capable of organizing their
own files with the Finder or browse the storage on a digital
camera yet they can be expected to track down their own QT
extensions with no real help from Apple.