1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Only 11 More Days to Go!

Discussion in 'Windows 7' started by Alias, Apr 18, 2010.

  1. Alias

    Alias Flightless Bird

    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
     
  2. Heywood Jablowme

    Heywood Jablowme Flightless Bird

    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!
     
  3. Alias

    Alias Flightless Bird

    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
     
  4. Robert Brereton

    Robert Brereton Flightless Bird

    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
     
  5. Alias

    Alias Flightless Bird

    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
     
  6. DanS

    DanS Flightless Bird

    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:pjGyn.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 ?
     
  7. Martin Langsholt

    Martin Langsholt Flightless Bird

    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
     
  8. Alias

    Alias Flightless Bird

    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
     
  9. Martin Langsholt

    Martin Langsholt Flightless Bird

    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.
     
  10. Alias

    Alias Flightless Bird

    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
     
  11. Martin Langsholt

    Martin Langsholt Flightless Bird

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

    On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:38:30 +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.
     
  12. Alias

    Alias Flightless Bird

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

    Martin Langsholt wrote:
    > On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:38:30 +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
     
  13. Martin Langsholt

    Martin Langsholt Flightless Bird

    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 20:38:30 +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.
     
  14. Robert Brereton

    Robert Brereton Flightless Bird

    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
    > news:pjGyn.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
     
  15. Frank

    Frank Flightless Bird

    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
    >> news:pjGyn.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.
     
  16. DanS

    DanS Flightless Bird

    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 news:pjGyn.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
    >
     

Share This Page