On April 29th, the Long Term Support version of Ubuntu will be released,
a release that Mark Shuttleworth devoted all his time to so that Ubuntu
will finally shoot Windows out of the proverbial window. Get it at
http://www.ubuntu.com/ You'll be glad you did.

What can be done with Ubuntu:

Email
Surf the web
Burn CDs.
Rip CDs.
Listen to music.
Watch vidoes/DVDs.
Scan and print.
Spreadsheets.
Presentations
Newsgroups.
HTML editing.
Games like Chess, Tetris, all kinds of solitaire, etc.
Make videos.
Download photos from a camera and organize them.
Translations.
Use a dictionary
Learn how to touch type.
Edit images.
Send and receive a fax.
Take screenshots.
Create .PDF files.
Create and use a data base.
Instant messaging with over 10 different programs in one including
Windows Live Messenger.
IRC.
Bluetooth.

and much more!

What you can't do with Ubuntu:

Worry about:
WPA, WGA and WAT raising their false positive ugly heads,
DRM,
Viruses,
Root kits,
Spyware,
and
Malware.

--
Alias

 

Re: Only 11 More Days to Go for that SHITTY Ubuntu patch that nobody wants or needs

> On April 29th, the Long Term Support version of Ubuntu will be released, a
> release that Mark Shuttleworth devoted all his time to while he was in
> prison. Ubuntu will finally shoot itself in the foot and out of the
> proverbial window. Get it at http://www.ubuntu_for_retards.com/ You'll be
> sorry you did.
>
> What can be done with Ubuntu:

Nothing of importance!

 

Re: Only 11 More Days to Go for that SHITTY Ubuntu patch that nobodywants or needs

Heywood Jablowme wrote:

>> http://www.ubuntu.com/ You'll be glad you did.
>>
>> What can be done with Ubuntu:
>
> Nothing of importance!

Translation: the nymshifter is too stupid to use Ubuntu which is amazing
when you consider how user friendly it is. What's even more amazing is
that he admits it daily in almost every post!

--
Alias

 

Re: Only 11 More Days to Go for that SHITTY Ubuntu patch that nobody wants or needs

"Alias" <aka@maskedandanymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
news:hqfa48$400$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Heywood Jablowme wrote:
>
>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/ You'll be glad you
>>> did.
>>>
>>> What can be done with Ubuntu:
>>
>> Nothing of importance!
>
> Translation: the nymshifter is too stupid to use Ubuntu which is amazing
> when you consider how user friendly it is. What's even more amazing is
> that he admits it daily in almost every post!
>
> --
> Alias

OK Alias,

I have an old Toshiba laptop 997ghz, 512MB ram, 37 gb HDD, DVD drive, FDD.
I have tried several times to install your 'flagship' OS and each time it
failed with errors, and when I finally got it to install it would not give
me resolutions greater that 800x600 and also would not recognise any
wireless network. Given that you are a great Ubuntu Guru would you like to
explain why such a user friendly OS will not install and actually work on
this basic laptop.

I was always given to understand by Linux whizzkids, of my acquaintance,
that Linux distros would install on most pieces of old kit esp. low spec
ones. I await your expertise with bated breath.

Bob

 

Re: Only 11 More Days to Go for that SHITTY Ubuntu patch that nobodywants or needs

Robert Brereton wrote:
>
>
> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
> news:hqfa48$400$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Heywood Jablowme wrote:
>>
>>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/ You'll be glad you did.
>>>>
>>>> What can be done with Ubuntu:
>>>
>>> Nothing of importance!
>>
>> Translation: the nymshifter is too stupid to use Ubuntu which is
>> amazing when you consider how user friendly it is. What's even more
>> amazing is that he admits it daily in almost every post!
>>
>> --
>> Alias
>
> OK Alias,
>
> I have an old Toshiba laptop 997ghz, 512MB ram, 37 gb HDD, DVD drive,
> FDD. I have tried several times to install your 'flagship' OS and each
> time it failed with errors, and when I finally got it to install it
> would not give me resolutions greater that 800x600 and also would not
> recognise any wireless network. Given that you are a great Ubuntu Guru
> would you like to explain why such a user friendly OS will not install
> and actually work on this basic laptop.
>
> I was always given to understand by Linux whizzkids, of my acquaintance,
> that Linux distros would install on most pieces of old kit esp. low spec
> ones. I await your expertise with bated breath.
>
> Bob

Xubuntu would run better on that machine.

--
Alias

 

Re: Only 11 More Days to Go for that SHITTY Ubuntu patch that nobody wants or needs

"Robert Brereton" <robert.brereton@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
newsjGyn.125622$3T3.20664@newsfe28.ams2:

>
>
> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanymous.com.invalido> wrote in
> message news:hqfa48$400$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Heywood Jablowme wrote:
>>
>>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/
>>>> You'll be glad you
>>>> did.
>>>>
>>>> What can be done with Ubuntu:
>>>
>>> Nothing of importance!
>>
>> Translation: the nymshifter is too stupid to use Ubuntu
>> which is amazing when you consider how user friendly it
>> is. What's even more amazing is that he admits it daily in
>> almost every post!
>>
>> --
>> Alias
>
> OK Alias,
>
> I have an old Toshiba laptop 997ghz, 512MB ram, 37 gb HDD,
> DVD drive, FDD. I have tried several times to install your
> 'flagship' OS and each time it failed with errors, and when
> I finally got it to install it would not give me
> resolutions greater that 800x600 and also would not
> recognise any wireless network.

What happened when the live CD was run prior to installing ?

 

Re: Only 11 More Days to Go for that SHITTY Ubuntu patch that nobody wants or needs

"Alias" <aka@maskedandanymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
news:hqfc3r$ita$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Robert Brereton wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
>> news:hqfa48$400$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Heywood Jablowme wrote:
>>>
>>>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/ You'll be glad you did.
>>>>>
>>>>> What can be done with Ubuntu:
>>>>
>>>> Nothing of importance!
>>>
>>> Translation: the nymshifter is too stupid to use Ubuntu which is
>>> amazing when you consider how user friendly it is. What's even more
>>> amazing is that he admits it daily in almost every post!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alias
>>
>> OK Alias,
>>
>> I have an old Toshiba laptop 997ghz, 512MB ram, 37 gb HDD, DVD drive,
>> FDD. I have tried several times to install your 'flagship' OS and each
>> time it failed with errors, and when I finally got it to install it
>> would not give me resolutions greater that 800x600 and also would not
>> recognise any wireless network. Given that you are a great Ubuntu Guru
>> would you like to explain why such a user friendly OS will not install
>> and actually work on this basic laptop.
>>
>> I was always given to understand by Linux whizzkids, of my acquaintance,
>> that Linux distros would install on most pieces of old kit esp. low spec
>> ones. I await your expertise with bated breath.
>>
>> Bob
>
> Xubuntu would run better on that machine.
>

No! Xubuntu uses the same core as Ubuntu. No difference in hardware
compatibility.

> --
> Alias

 

Re: Only 11 More Days to Go for that SHITTY Ubuntu patch that nobodywants or needs

Martin Langsholt wrote:
>
>
> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
> news:hqfc3r$ita$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Robert Brereton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
>>> news:hqfa48$400$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Heywood Jablowme wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/ You'll be glad you did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What can be done with Ubuntu:
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing of importance!
>>>>
>>>> Translation: the nymshifter is too stupid to use Ubuntu which is
>>>> amazing when you consider how user friendly it is. What's even more
>>>> amazing is that he admits it daily in almost every post!
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Alias
>>>
>>> OK Alias,
>>>
>>> I have an old Toshiba laptop 997ghz, 512MB ram, 37 gb HDD, DVD drive,
>>> FDD. I have tried several times to install your 'flagship' OS and each
>>> time it failed with errors, and when I finally got it to install it
>>> would not give me resolutions greater that 800x600 and also would not
>>> recognise any wireless network. Given that you are a great Ubuntu Guru
>>> would you like to explain why such a user friendly OS will not install
>>> and actually work on this basic laptop.
>>>
>>> I was always given to understand by Linux whizzkids, of my acquaintance,
>>> that Linux distros would install on most pieces of old kit esp. low spec
>>> ones. I await your expertise with bated breath.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>> Xubuntu would run better on that machine.
>>
>
> No! Xubuntu uses the same core as Ubuntu. No difference in hardware
> compatibility.
>
>> --
>> Alias
>

It's a lighter version of Ubuntu. As I don't use WiFi, I can't help him
with that. Can you? Or can you just hurl feces from the peanut gallery?

--
Alias

 

Re: Only 11 More Days to Go for that SHITTY Ubuntu patch thatnobody wants or needs

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:27:22 +0200, Alias wrote:

> Martin Langsholt wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
>> news:hqfc3r$ita$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Robert Brereton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
>>>> news:hqfa48$400$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> Heywood Jablowme wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/ You'll be glad you did.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What can be done with Ubuntu:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing of importance!
>>>>>
>>>>> Translation: the nymshifter is too stupid to use Ubuntu which is
>>>>> amazing when you consider how user friendly it is. What's even more
>>>>> amazing is that he admits it daily in almost every post!
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Alias
>>>>
>>>> OK Alias,
>>>>
>>>> I have an old Toshiba laptop 997ghz, 512MB ram, 37 gb HDD, DVD drive,
>>>> FDD. I have tried several times to install your 'flagship' OS and
>>>> each time it failed with errors, and when I finally got it to install
>>>> it would not give me resolutions greater that 800x600 and also would
>>>> not recognise any wireless network. Given that you are a great Ubuntu
>>>> Guru would you like to explain why such a user friendly OS will not
>>>> install and actually work on this basic laptop.
>>>>
>>>> I was always given to understand by Linux whizzkids, of my
>>>> acquaintance, that Linux distros would install on most pieces of old
>>>> kit esp. low spec ones. I await your expertise with bated breath.
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>
>>> Xubuntu would run better on that machine.
>>>
>>>
>> No! Xubuntu uses the same core as Ubuntu. No difference in hardware
>> compatibility.
>>
>>> --
>>> Alias
>>
>>
> It's a lighter version of Ubuntu. As I don't use WiFi, I can't help him
> with that. Can you? Or can you just hurl feces from the peanut gallery?

I know it's supposed to be a lighter version of Ubuntu, but it's not. At
least I did not find it more light on system resources.

 

Re: Only 11 More Days to Go for that SHITTY Ubuntu patch that nobodywants or needs

Martin Langsholt wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:27:22 +0200, Alias wrote:
>
>> Martin Langsholt wrote:
>>>
>>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
>>> news:hqfc3r$ita$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Robert Brereton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
>>>>> news:hqfa48$400$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>> Heywood Jablowme wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/ You'll be glad you did.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What can be done with Ubuntu:
>>>>>>> Nothing of importance!
>>>>>> Translation: the nymshifter is too stupid to use Ubuntu which is
>>>>>> amazing when you consider how user friendly it is. What's even more
>>>>>> amazing is that he admits it daily in almost every post!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Alias
>>>>> OK Alias,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have an old Toshiba laptop 997ghz, 512MB ram, 37 gb HDD, DVD drive,
>>>>> FDD. I have tried several times to install your 'flagship' OS and
>>>>> each time it failed with errors, and when I finally got it to install
>>>>> it would not give me resolutions greater that 800x600 and also would
>>>>> not recognise any wireless network. Given that you are a great Ubuntu
>>>>> Guru would you like to explain why such a user friendly OS will not
>>>>> install and actually work on this basic laptop.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was always given to understand by Linux whizzkids, of my
>>>>> acquaintance, that Linux distros would install on most pieces of old
>>>>> kit esp. low spec ones. I await your expertise with bated breath.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob
>>>> Xubuntu would run better on that machine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No! Xubuntu uses the same core as Ubuntu. No difference in hardware
>>> compatibility.
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Alias
>>>
>> It's a lighter version of Ubuntu. As I don't use WiFi, I can't help him
>> with that. Can you? Or can you just hurl feces from the peanut gallery?
>
> I know it's supposed to be a lighter version of Ubuntu, but it's not. At
> least I did not find it more light on system resources.

If you don't use Compiz, it should run fine on that machine, as should
Ubuntu for that matter. Now, hot shot, can you help the OP with his WiFi
problems?

--
Alias

 

Re: Only 11 More Days to Go for that SHITTY Ubuntu patch thatnobody wants or needs

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 2080 +0200, Alias wrote:

> Martin Langsholt wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:27:22 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>
>>> Martin Langsholt wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
>>>> news:hqfc3r$ita$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> Robert Brereton wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:hqfa48$400$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>> Heywood Jablowme wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/ You'll be glad you did.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What can be done with Ubuntu:
>>>>>>>> Nothing of importance!
>>>>>>> Translation: the nymshifter is too stupid to use Ubuntu which is
>>>>>>> amazing when you consider how user friendly it is. What's even
>>>>>>> more amazing is that he admits it daily in almost every post!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>> OK Alias,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have an old Toshiba laptop 997ghz, 512MB ram, 37 gb HDD, DVD
>>>>>> drive, FDD. I have tried several times to install your 'flagship'
>>>>>> OS and each time it failed with errors, and when I finally got it
>>>>>> to install it would not give me resolutions greater that 800x600
>>>>>> and also would not recognise any wireless network. Given that you
>>>>>> are a great Ubuntu Guru would you like to explain why such a user
>>>>>> friendly OS will not install and actually work on this basic
>>>>>> laptop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was always given to understand by Linux whizzkids, of my
>>>>>> acquaintance, that Linux distros would install on most pieces of
>>>>>> old kit esp. low spec ones. I await your expertise with bated
>>>>>> breath.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob
>>>>> Xubuntu would run better on that machine.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No! Xubuntu uses the same core as Ubuntu. No difference in hardware
>>>> compatibility.
>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Alias
>>>>
>>> It's a lighter version of Ubuntu. As I don't use WiFi, I can't help
>>> him with that. Can you? Or can you just hurl feces from the peanut
>>> gallery?
>>
>> I know it's supposed to be a lighter version of Ubuntu, but it's not.
>> At least I did not find it more light on system resources.
>
> If you don't use Compiz, it should run fine on that machine, as should
> Ubuntu for that matter. Now, hot shot, can you help the OP with his WiFi
> problems?

Well, the info is much to scarce to do be able to help, but if the card
isn't supported by the linux kernel, ndiswrapper will always get wifi up
and running.

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/WifiDocs/Driver/Ndiswrapper


BTW, archlinux with xfce is very light on system recourses.

 

Re: Only 11 More Days to Go for that SHITTY Ubuntu patch that nobodywants or needs

Martin Langsholt wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 2080 +0200, Alias wrote:
>
>> Martin Langsholt wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:27:22 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>
>>>> Martin Langsholt wrote:
>>>>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
>>>>> news:hqfc3r$ita$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>> Robert Brereton wrote:
>>>>>>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:hqfa48$400$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>>> Heywood Jablowme wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/ You'll be glad you did.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What can be done with Ubuntu:
>>>>>>>>> Nothing of importance!
>>>>>>>> Translation: the nymshifter is too stupid to use Ubuntu which is
>>>>>>>> amazing when you consider how user friendly it is. What's even
>>>>>>>> more amazing is that he admits it daily in almost every post!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>>> OK Alias,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have an old Toshiba laptop 997ghz, 512MB ram, 37 gb HDD, DVD
>>>>>>> drive, FDD. I have tried several times to install your 'flagship'
>>>>>>> OS and each time it failed with errors, and when I finally got it
>>>>>>> to install it would not give me resolutions greater that 800x600
>>>>>>> and also would not recognise any wireless network. Given that you
>>>>>>> are a great Ubuntu Guru would you like to explain why such a user
>>>>>>> friendly OS will not install and actually work on this basic
>>>>>>> laptop.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was always given to understand by Linux whizzkids, of my
>>>>>>> acquaintance, that Linux distros would install on most pieces of
>>>>>>> old kit esp. low spec ones. I await your expertise with bated
>>>>>>> breath.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>> Xubuntu would run better on that machine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> No! Xubuntu uses the same core as Ubuntu. No difference in hardware
>>>>> compatibility.
>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Alias
>>>> It's a lighter version of Ubuntu. As I don't use WiFi, I can't help
>>>> him with that. Can you? Or can you just hurl feces from the peanut
>>>> gallery?
>>> I know it's supposed to be a lighter version of Ubuntu, but it's not.
>>> At least I did not find it more light on system resources.
>> If you don't use Compiz, it should run fine on that machine, as should
>> Ubuntu for that matter. Now, hot shot, can you help the OP with his WiFi
>> problems?
>
> Well, the info is much to scarce to do be able to help, but if the card
> isn't supported by the linux kernel, ndiswrapper will always get wifi up
> and running.
>
> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/WifiDocs/Driver/Ndiswrapper

Now that didn't hurt, did it?

> BTW, archlinux with xfce is very light on system recourses.

How's the support?

--
Alias

 

Re: Only 11 More Days to Go for that SHITTY Ubuntu patch thatnobody wants or needs

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:16:47 +0200, Alias wrote:

> Martin Langsholt wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 2080 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>
>>> Martin Langsholt wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:27:22 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Martin Langsholt wrote:
>>>>>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:hqfc3r$ita$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>> Robert Brereton wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:hqfa48$400$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>>>> Heywood Jablowme wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/ You'll be glad you did.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What can be done with Ubuntu:
>>>>>>>>>> Nothing of importance!
>>>>>>>>> Translation: the nymshifter is too stupid to use Ubuntu which is
>>>>>>>>> amazing when you consider how user friendly it is. What's even
>>>>>>>>> more amazing is that he admits it daily in almost every post!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>>>> OK Alias,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have an old Toshiba laptop 997ghz, 512MB ram, 37 gb HDD, DVD
>>>>>>>> drive, FDD. I have tried several times to install your 'flagship'
>>>>>>>> OS and each time it failed with errors, and when I finally got it
>>>>>>>> to install it would not give me resolutions greater that 800x600
>>>>>>>> and also would not recognise any wireless network. Given that you
>>>>>>>> are a great Ubuntu Guru would you like to explain why such a user
>>>>>>>> friendly OS will not install and actually work on this basic
>>>>>>>> laptop.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was always given to understand by Linux whizzkids, of my
>>>>>>>> acquaintance, that Linux distros would install on most pieces of
>>>>>>>> old kit esp. low spec ones. I await your expertise with bated
>>>>>>>> breath.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>>> Xubuntu would run better on that machine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No! Xubuntu uses the same core as Ubuntu. No difference in hardware
>>>>>> compatibility.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Alias
>>>>> It's a lighter version of Ubuntu. As I don't use WiFi, I can't help
>>>>> him with that. Can you? Or can you just hurl feces from the peanut
>>>>> gallery?
>>>> I know it's supposed to be a lighter version of Ubuntu, but it's not.
>>>> At least I did not find it more light on system resources.
>>> If you don't use Compiz, it should run fine on that machine, as should
>>> Ubuntu for that matter. Now, hot shot, can you help the OP with his
>>> WiFi problems?
>>
>> Well, the info is much to scarce to do be able to help, but if the card
>> isn't supported by the linux kernel, ndiswrapper will always get wifi
>> up and running.
>>
>> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/WifiDocs/Driver/Ndiswrapper
>
> Now that didn't hurt, did it?
>
>> BTW, archlinux with xfce is very light on system recourses.
>
> How's the support?

If your're into fixing this yourself, then it's great. (well written
wiki) But if you're not, then it sucks.

 

Re: Only 11 More Days to Go for that SHITTY Ubuntu patch that nobody wants or needs

"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in message
news:Xns9D5E86C162FE2thisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131...
> "Robert Brereton" <robert.brereton@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
> newsjGyn.125622$3T3.20664@newsfe28.ams2:
>
>>
>>
>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanymous.com.invalido> wrote in
>> message news:hqfa48$400$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Heywood Jablowme wrote:
>>>
>>>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/
>>>>> You'll be glad you
>>>>> did.
>>>>>
>>>>> What can be done with Ubuntu:
>>>>
>>>> Nothing of importance!
>>>
>>> Translation: the nymshifter is too stupid to use Ubuntu
>>> which is amazing when you consider how user friendly it
>>> is. What's even more amazing is that he admits it daily in
>>> almost every post!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alias
>>
>> OK Alias,
>>
>> I have an old Toshiba laptop 997ghz, 512MB ram, 37 gb HDD,
>> DVD drive, FDD. I have tried several times to install your
>> 'flagship' OS and each time it failed with errors, and when
>> I finally got it to install it would not give me
>> resolutions greater that 800x600 and also would not
>> recognise any wireless network.
>
> What happened when the live CD was run prior to installing ?
>
The live CD has the same problem. The Wi-Fi is a Belkin pcmcia network
card. I also tried a Netgear USB dongle. Neither was recognised. The
resolution could not be changed from 800x600 either with live CD or when
installed on the hard disk (dual boot).

DSL or puppy Linux cds ran fine and allowed resolutions to be manipulated.
A work colleague who supports a few Linux clients said Fedora was a much
better bet as it supported a bigger range of kit and that he would prefer to
use windows xp home over Ubuntu if this laptop was going to be used for any
productive purpose.

I was hoping to get a Linux distro loaded on this machine to at least get
some knowledge of its workings to be able to provide some support to Linux
users, but I guess Ubuntu is not fit for this purpose and I will try Fedora
or Suse instead, and carry on with windows XP/7. Sorry Alias did not have
the expertise to provide any help.

Bob

 

Re: Only 11 More Days to Go for that SHITTY Ubuntu patch that nobodywants or needs

On 4/18/2010 3:25 PM, Robert Brereton wrote:
>
>
> "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in message
> news:Xns9D5E86C162FE2thisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131...
>> "Robert Brereton" <robert.brereton@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
>> newsjGyn.125622$3T3.20664@newsfe28.ams2:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanymous.com.invalido> wrote in
>>> message news:hqfa48$400$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Heywood Jablowme wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/
>>>>>> You'll be glad you
>>>>>> did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What can be done with Ubuntu:
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing of importance!
>>>>
>>>> Translation: the nymshifter is too stupid to use Ubuntu
>>>> which is amazing when you consider how user friendly it
>>>> is. What's even more amazing is that he admits it daily in
>>>> almost every post!
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Alias
>>>
>>> OK Alias,
>>>
>>> I have an old Toshiba laptop 997ghz, 512MB ram, 37 gb HDD,
>>> DVD drive, FDD. I have tried several times to install your
>>> 'flagship' OS and each time it failed with errors, and when
>>> I finally got it to install it would not give me
>>> resolutions greater that 800x600 and also would not
>>> recognise any wireless network.
>>
>> What happened when the live CD was run prior to installing ?
>>
> The live CD has the same problem. The Wi-Fi is a Belkin pcmcia network
> card. I also tried a Netgear USB dongle. Neither was recognised. The
> resolution could not be changed from 800x600 either with live CD or when
> installed on the hard disk (dual boot).
>
> DSL or puppy Linux cds ran fine and allowed resolutions to be
> manipulated. A work colleague who supports a few Linux clients said
> Fedora was a much better bet as it supported a bigger range of kit and
> that he would prefer to use windows xp home over Ubuntu if this laptop
> was going to be used for any productive purpose.
>
> I was hoping to get a Linux distro loaded on this machine to at least
> get some knowledge of its workings to be able to provide some support to
> Linux users, but I guess Ubuntu is not fit for this purpose and I will
> try Fedora or Suse instead, and carry on with windows XP/7. Sorry Alias
> did not have the expertise to provide any help.
>
> Bob
Yeah...he (alias) is all blow and no go...just like ubuntu.

 

Re: Only 11 More Days to Go for that SHITTY Ubuntu patch that nobody wants or needs

"Robert Brereton" <robert.brereton@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:wNLyn.83615$oe5.1257@newsfe27.ams2:

>
>
> "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote
> in message
> news:Xns9D5E86C162FE2thisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131...
>> "Robert Brereton" <robert.brereton@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote
>> in newsjGyn.125622$3T3.20664@newsfe28.ams2:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanymous.com.invalido> wrote in
>>> message news:hqfa48$400$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Heywood Jablowme wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/
>>>>>> You'll be glad you
>>>>>> did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What can be done with Ubuntu:
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing of importance!
>>>>
>>>> Translation: the nymshifter is too stupid to use Ubuntu
>>>> which is amazing when you consider how user friendly it
>>>> is. What's even more amazing is that he admits it daily
>>>> in almost every post!
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Alias
>>>
>>> OK Alias,
>>>
>>> I have an old Toshiba laptop 997ghz, 512MB ram, 37 gb
>>> HDD, DVD drive, FDD. I have tried several times to
>>> install your 'flagship' OS and each time it failed with
>>> errors, and when I finally got it to install it would not
>>> give me resolutions greater that 800x600 and also would
>>> not recognise any wireless network.
>>
>> What happened when the live CD was run prior to installing
>> ?
>>
> The live CD has the same problem.

Well at least that makes sense. If the Live CD worked fine, then you had
install errors that woul dbe something different.

> The Wi-Fi is a Belkin
> pcmcia network card. I also tried a Netgear USB dongle.
> Neither was recognised. The resolution could not be
> changed from 800x600 either with live CD or when installed
> on the hard disk (dual boot).

The 800x600 thing is an ongoing issue for some. When I installed the
second-to-last Ubuntu release, I had the same issue, but fixed it in 5 minutes wioth
some help from the UbuuntuForums.

I had installed a couple Ububntu releases on a very old Toshiba Laptop,
a Satellite Pro 4260, with a low speed PIII and 256 Megs of RAM, which also had an
older PCMCIA card wirless that did work right out of the box. I was shocked. I don't
know if I'd try to use that again for any of the later releases, as they are requireing more
CPU juice with each release.


> DSL or puppy Linux cds ran fine and allowed resolutions to
> be manipulated. A work colleague who supports a few Linux
> clients said Fedora was a much better bet as it supported
> a bigger range of kit and that he would prefer to use
> windows xp home over Ubuntu if this laptop was going to be
> used for any productive purpose.

This is what I don't understand.....once installed, Linux distro's are pretty much the
same. You need to do the same troubleshooting, and operate the same way. GNOME
form distro x looks and oerates just like GNOME from distro y, and the same thing
with the KDE desktop. The KDE-centric apps however seem to much more polished
than the GNOME-centric apps.


> I was hoping to get a Linux distro loaded on this machine
> to at least get
> some knowledge of its workings to be able to provide some
> support to Linux users, but I guess Ubuntu is not fit for
> this purpose and I will try Fedora or Suse instead, and
> carry on with windows XP/7.

Ubuntu is based on the Debian unstable release, why, I don't know, but I'm sure that is
some of the reason.

> Sorry Alias did not have the expertise to provide any help.

Nor could I. I would have pointed you towards the Ubuntu forums. As I've said before,
I don't have a whole lot of Linux knowledge because, for me anyway, just about
everything seems to work as advertised, and haven't had to troubleshoot anything
important.

If you try it, and don't like it after giving it a fair shot, so be it. At least you tried it, and
didn't just listen to some flunkie saying things that are completely innaccurate, or even
outright untrue. I don't care one way of the other who uses what. I'm just a fan of
accuracy.

I use whatever gets the job done.....(or whatever I'm booted into when I get back to the
PC).







>
> Bob
>