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

Re: Just Upgraded from Ubuntu 9.04 to 9.10...Won't even boot....

Discussion in 'Windows 7' started by Moshe Goldfarb, Jan 23, 2010.

  1. Moshe Goldfarb

    Moshe Goldfarb Flightless Bird

    On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 06:15:57 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

    > On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:37:59 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    >
    >> So now what?
    >> Boots to a CLI.
    >> The person who owns this system is not happy. She clicked update and
    >> that was it.
    >> Gone good bye.
    >>
    >> Yea Linux is great.
    >> Sure it is.
    >> Keep telling yourselves that.

    >
    > And KSODs and BSODs never happen with Windows, either. Get a life,
    > flatline.


    Upgraded 12 systems to Windows 7 and not a single problem.
    Everything just works.
    I'm not sure what you and your friends are doing wrong, but it
    works fine for me.

    I have a life BTW.
    The reason I have a life is because I don't run Ubuntu which
    consumes time like a cheap whore consumes sperm.

    You Linux freaks spend all your time making Linux work.
    It's a losing battle BTW.

    Almost 20 years and Linux still is less than 1 percent of the
    desktop market.
    That's a failure in most people's eyes.

    It's pretty pathetic when something that is free is ignored.


    --

    1/24/2010 1:23:43 AM
     
  2. RonB

    RonB Flightless Bird

    On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 01:27:13 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

    > On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 06:15:57 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:37:59 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    >>
    >>> So now what?
    >>> Boots to a CLI.
    >>> The person who owns this system is not happy. She clicked update and
    >>> that was it.
    >>> Gone good bye.
    >>>
    >>> Yea Linux is great.
    >>> Sure it is.
    >>> Keep telling yourselves that.

    >>
    >> And KSODs and BSODs never happen with Windows, either. Get a life,
    >> flatline.

    >
    > Upgraded 12 systems to Windows 7 and not a single problem. Everything
    > just works.


    Wow. This is actually something you would brag about. "I installed
    Windows 7 twelve times and it worked every time!!!" You are a card,
    flatline.

    > I'm not sure what you and your friends are doing wrong, but it works
    > fine for me.


    No friend of mine has ever installed Windows 7. More of your strawmen, I
    guess. Learn to deal in reality.

    > I have a life BTW.


    Yeah, I know. It consists of inventing 40 nyms and posting on COlA 24/7.
    I guess I should have qualified that -- get a *real* life, flatline.

    > The reason I have a life is because I don't run Ubuntu which consumes
    > time like a cheap whore consumes sperm.


    No, you spend 24/7 complaining about something you don't even understand.
    Should I give you a medal, or a chest to pin it on?

    > You Linux freaks spend all your time making Linux work. It's a losing
    > battle BTW.


    Again, only in your imagination. Keep making stuff up and pretending it
    actually applies. You need an active imagination when you're stuck living
    in your mother's basement.

    > Almost 20 years and Linux still is less than 1 percent of the desktop
    > market.


    Big deal. Corporations are making billions of dollars off of Linux, and
    Microsoft has identified it as its biggest threat. And personally I could
    care less about usage numbers, bogus or not. Linux is superior to Windows
    and I use it and will continue using it.

    > That's a failure in most people's eyes.


    Only ignorant liars like you and your fellow failures, the other
    WinTrolls who spend your whole lives posting in a newsgroup against
    something you are clueless about.

    > It's pretty pathetic when something that is free is ignored.


    Good, you *OPINION* noted. Now opine somewhere else where someone gives
    as shit.

    --
    RonB
    Registered Linux User #498581
    CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
     
  3. Ignoramus27518

    Ignoramus27518 Flightless Bird

    On 2010-01-24, Moshe Goldfarb <goldee.loxnbagels@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 06:15:57 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:37:59 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    >>
    >>> So now what?
    >>> Boots to a CLI.
    >>> The person who owns this system is not happy. She clicked update and
    >>> that was it.
    >>> Gone good bye.
    >>>
    >>> Yea Linux is great.
    >>> Sure it is.
    >>> Keep telling yourselves that.

    >>
    >> And KSODs and BSODs never happen with Windows, either. Get a life,
    >> flatline.

    >
    > Upgraded 12 systems to Windows 7 and not a single problem.
    > Everything just works.
    > I'm not sure what you and your friends are doing wrong, but it
    > works fine for me.
    >
    > I have a life BTW.
    > The reason I have a life is because I don't run Ubuntu which
    > consumes time like a cheap whore consumes sperm.
    >
    > You Linux freaks spend all your time making Linux work.
    > It's a losing battle BTW.
    >
    > Almost 20 years and Linux still is less than 1 percent of the
    > desktop market.
    > That's a failure in most people's eyes.
    >
    > It's pretty pathetic when something that is free is ignored.
    >
    >


    Assuming your example from yur original post is true:

    What you had was a person interested in Linux, who used it and became
    discouraged due to Linux bugs.

    This was not a person who was not interested. It was a person who was
    interested and then turned away because of bugs.

    Now, as a side note, Linux is a huge success in server space. Why?
    Because the server parts of Linux are robust, well tested, perform
    well, and mostly are free of bugs.

    And yet, it is not as successful in desktop space.

    Why?

    My own conclusion on this matter is that what really "slows down
    desktop adoption of Linux" is the fact that desktop Linux is full of
    bugs. The bugs turn people away because they cannot fix bugs. If it
    was not full of bugs, we would see use of Linux at least 10%.

    As of now, desktop Linux is great, until you encounter some bug with
    zero path to resolution.

    i
     
  4. RonB

    RonB Flightless Bird

    On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:39:51 -0600, Ignoramus27518 wrote:

    > My own conclusion on this matter is that what really "slows down desktop
    > adoption of Linux" is the fact that desktop Linux is full of bugs. The
    > bugs turn people away because they cannot fix bugs. If it was not full
    > of bugs, we would see use of Linux at least 10%.
    >
    > As of now, desktop Linux is great, until you encounter some bug with
    > zero path to resolution.


    Really? I've been using various distributions of Linux exclusively for
    two years and haven't run into any bugs with "zero path to resolution" --
    so, perhaps, you give a couple examples?

    --
    RonB
    Registered Linux User #498581
    CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
     
  5. Zootal

    Zootal Flightless Bird

    >
    > My own conclusion on this matter is that what really "slows down
    > desktop adoption of Linux" is the fact that desktop Linux is full of
    > bugs. The bugs turn people away because they cannot fix bugs. If it
    > was not full of bugs, we would see use of Linux at least 10%.
    >
    > As of now, desktop Linux is great, until you encounter some bug with
    > zero path to resolution.


    I've never found a Linux bug or issue that did not have a resolution. I
    can't say the same about Windows. I've used Linux and Windows both for many
    years, and Linux is by far less buggy and more reliable than Windows. If
    you want to compare Linux to Windows, when it comes to bugs and reliability
    Windows falls flat on its face.

    What slows down desktop adoption of Linux is simply that the Windows
    software that we like/want/need won't run under Linux, and there isn't
    always a native alternative. It really is that simple. This is where Linux
    falls flat on its face. When the day comes that I can do everything I want
    in Linux, I will very happily chuck Windows in the trash. As it is, I have
    to spend half of my time with Windows doing stuff that I can't do in Linux.

    Linux wasn't really designed for the technically light of heart. It was,
    and still is, designed for the technically competent. That right there
    eliminates 99.99 % of desktop users. If you don't like the cpu scheduler,
    change it, modify it, or write your own. Want to change how the memory
    manager allocates memory, or how the block i/o scheduler prioritizes disk
    reads? Help yourself. I've done that - it's a lot of work, btw, not
    something I'd recommend doing unles you really have a good reason to do so
    - but at least with Linux I can do that if I want to. Good luck doing that
    with Windows. Linux isn't about being easy to use, nor is it about being a
    desktop for the technically clueless. It's about making it do what you
    want, the way you want it to, when you want it to.
     
  6. Ignoramus27518

    Ignoramus27518 Flightless Bird

    On 2010-01-24, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:39:51 -0600, Ignoramus27518 wrote:
    >
    >> My own conclusion on this matter is that what really "slows down desktop
    >> adoption of Linux" is the fact that desktop Linux is full of bugs. The
    >> bugs turn people away because they cannot fix bugs. If it was not full
    >> of bugs, we would see use of Linux at least 10%.
    >>
    >> As of now, desktop Linux is great, until you encounter some bug with
    >> zero path to resolution.

    >
    > Really? I've been using various distributions of Linux exclusively for
    > two years and haven't run into any bugs with "zero path to resolution" --
    > so, perhaps, you give a couple examples?
    >


    Sure. I will give you one example instead of requested two. It is
    getting late.

    Ubuntu Karmic.

    Firefox browser runs with youtube video open.

    User leaves and comes back after 1 day.

    Sound from firefox no longer works.

    User closes firefox.

    User starts another firefox.

    New firefox says "another instance of firefox is running".

    No way to start a browser now.

    The "problem" is that pulseaudio support on ubuntu is full of bugs,
    hence disappearance of sound, and another problem is that in this
    situation, old firefox does not actually die, though the window goes
    away.

    Figuring all of that out requires some googling skills, knowledge of
    "ps", "grep" and other general Unix troubleshooting skills. If the
    user could do it, open terminal, and type something like "killall
    firefox", he or she would be able to continue, but a less skillful
    person would just give up.

    i
     
  7. Snit

    Snit Flightless Bird

    RonB stated in post hjgq68$rt5$7@news.eternal-september.org on 1/23/10 11:43
    PM:

    > On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:39:51 -0600, Ignoramus27518 wrote:
    >
    >> My own conclusion on this matter is that what really "slows down desktop
    >> adoption of Linux" is the fact that desktop Linux is full of bugs. The
    >> bugs turn people away because they cannot fix bugs. If it was not full
    >> of bugs, we would see use of Linux at least 10%.
    >>
    >> As of now, desktop Linux is great, until you encounter some bug with
    >> zero path to resolution.

    >
    > Really? I've been using various distributions of Linux exclusively for
    > two years and haven't run into any bugs with "zero path to resolution" --
    > so, perhaps, you give a couple examples?


    How about just finding a desktop distro that has a decent user interface
    which follows even basic UI guidelines agreed by pretty much anyone who has
    looked at such things. Not even looking for perfection - just one done
    well.

    The fact desktop Linux does *not* follow such guidelines is a pretty big
    deal in terms of usability, efficiency and error reduction.

    --
    [INSERT .SIG HERE]
     
  8. RonB

    RonB Flightless Bird

    On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:56:19 -0600, Ignoramus27518 wrote:

    > On 2010-01-24, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:39:51 -0600, Ignoramus27518 wrote:
    >>
    >>> My own conclusion on this matter is that what really "slows down
    >>> desktop adoption of Linux" is the fact that desktop Linux is full of
    >>> bugs. The bugs turn people away because they cannot fix bugs. If it
    >>> was not full of bugs, we would see use of Linux at least 10%.
    >>>
    >>> As of now, desktop Linux is great, until you encounter some bug with
    >>> zero path to resolution.

    >>
    >> Really? I've been using various distributions of Linux exclusively for
    >> two years and haven't run into any bugs with "zero path to resolution"
    >> -- so, perhaps, you give a couple examples?
    >>
    >>

    > Sure. I will give you one example instead of requested two. It is
    > getting late.
    >
    > Ubuntu Karmic.
    >
    > Firefox browser runs with youtube video open.
    >
    > User leaves and comes back after 1 day.
    >
    > Sound from firefox no longer works.
    >
    > User closes firefox.
    >
    > User starts another firefox.
    >
    > New firefox says "another instance of firefox is running".
    >
    > No way to start a browser now.


    Oh really. And this "zero path to resolution" user has never heard of the
    kill command?

    > The "problem" is that pulseaudio support on ubuntu is full of bugs,
    > hence disappearance of sound, and another problem is that in this
    > situation, old firefox does not actually die, though the window goes
    > away.


    Applications also do this sort of thing in Windows. The advantage of Linux
    is that you have a kill command. (Look it up.)

    > Figuring all of that out requires some googling skills, knowledge of
    > "ps", "grep" and other general Unix troubleshooting skills. If the user
    > could do it, open terminal, and type something like "killall firefox",
    > he or she would be able to continue, but a less skillful person would
    > just give up.


    Oh, so you know about the resolution -- and yet you claim that there is
    "zero chance of resolution." Not very convincing, WinTroll.

    Now give those two examples of "zero chance for resolution" problems that
    supposedly exist in Linux. Because you sure didn't do that with what you
    wrote above. (And it's obvious that you're clueless about the subject...
    surprise, surprise.)

    --
    RonB
    Registered Linux User #498581
    CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
     
  9. RonB

    RonB Flightless Bird

    On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:17:10 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > How about just finding a desktop distro that has a decent user interface
    > which follows even basic UI guidelines agreed by pretty much anyone who
    > has looked at such things. Not even looking for perfection - just one
    > done well.


    I've found several Linux distributions that are enough alike that they
    work almost exactly the same for me. Four of them are Puppy Linux, CentOS,
    VectorLinux and openSUSE. Each one uses a different Desktop -- Gnome, KDE,
    Xfce and JWM -- but each UI is similar enough that I have absolutely no
    trouble navigating and running the same programs on all of them. Maybe
    their UI's don't fit your crank requirements for a "proper" UI but I
    really don't give a flying fig. And most Linux users aren't cranks, like
    you and are quite happy with the UI *as is.*

    And no, I'm not going to argue about your crank opinions on this subject
    for four more thousand posts -- just as I won't stand behind a coughing
    cow that has diarrhea.

    --
    RonB
    Registered Linux User #498581
    CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
     
  10. Snit

    Snit Flightless Bird

    RonB stated in post hjgvgr$6fm$5@news.eternal-september.org on 1/24/10 1:14
    AM:

    > On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:17:10 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> How about just finding a desktop distro that has a decent user interface
    >> which follows even basic UI guidelines agreed by pretty much anyone who
    >> has looked at such things. Not even looking for perfection - just one
    >> done well.

    >
    > I've found several Linux distributions that are enough alike that they
    > work almost exactly the same for me. Four of them are Puppy Linux, CentOS,
    > VectorLinux and openSUSE. Each one uses a different Desktop -- Gnome, KDE,
    > Xfce and JWM -- but each UI is similar enough that I have absolutely no
    > trouble navigating and running the same programs on all of them. Maybe
    > their UI's don't fit your crank requirements for a "proper" UI but I
    > really don't give a flying fig. And most Linux users aren't cranks, like
    > you and are quite happy with the UI *as is.*
    >
    > And no, I'm not going to argue about your crank opinions on this subject
    > for four more thousand posts -- just as I won't stand behind a coughing
    > cow that has diarrhea.


    Your "defense" of desktop Linux is all the UI research is just wrong.

    With no support.

    Lovely.


    --
    [INSERT .SIG HERE]
     
  11. RonB

    RonB Flightless Bird

    On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 01:31:49 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > Your "defense" of desktop Linux is all the UI research is just wrong.
    >
    > With no support.
    >
    > Lovely.


    What can I say? I'm not a crank.

    --
    RonB
    Registered Linux User #498581
    CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
     
  12. Dabbler

    Dabbler Flightless Bird

    "Ignoramus27518" <ignoramus27518@NOSPAM.27518.invalid> wrote in message
    news:RtSdnZ_XWMiqdsbWnZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d@giganews.com...
    >
    > Assuming your example from yur original post is true:
    >
    > What you had was a person interested in Linux, who used it and became
    > discouraged due to Linux bugs.
    >
    > This was not a person who was not interested. It was a person who was
    > interested and then turned away because of bugs.
    >
    > Now, as a side note, Linux is a huge success in server space. Why?
    > Because the server parts of Linux are robust, well tested, perform
    > well, and mostly are free of bugs.
    >
    > And yet, it is not as successful in desktop space.
    >
    > Why?
    >
    > My own conclusion on this matter is that what really "slows down
    > desktop adoption of Linux" is the fact that desktop Linux is full of
    > bugs. The bugs turn people away because they cannot fix bugs. If it
    > was not full of bugs, we would see use of Linux at least 10%.
    >
    > As of now, desktop Linux is great, until you encounter some bug with
    > zero path to resolution.


    I think the main reason for Linux's success in the server arena is that
    servers are usually tended to by dedicated system admins who are tech
    gurus compared to the average desktop users. I've used Linux from about
    version 0.93 and eventually I gave it up because it just took too much
    of my time to manage compared to Windows. As you get older, time becomes
    too precious to waste.
     
  13. RonB

    RonB Flightless Bird

    On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 02:11:14 -0800, Dabbler wrote:

    > I think the main reason for Linux's success in the server arena is that
    > servers are usually tended to by dedicated system admins who are tech
    > gurus compared to the average desktop users. I've used Linux from about
    > version 0.93 and eventually I gave it up because it just took too much
    > of my time to manage compared to Windows. As you get older, time becomes
    > too precious to waste.


    It seems the opposite to me. About once a week I'll check for updates and,
    if there any, issue the command and get out of the way. No worries about
    constant anti-virus updates or running anti-malware programs. I spend much
    less time maintaining Linux than I did maintaining Windows.

    --
    RonB
    Registered Linux User #498581
    CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
     
  14. Dave \Crash\ Dummy

    Dave \Crash\ Dummy Flightless Bird

    Dabbler wrote:
    > "Ignoramus27518" <ignoramus27518@NOSPAM.27518.invalid> wrote in
    > message news:RtSdnZ_XWMiqdsbWnZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d@giganews.com...
    >>
    >> Assuming your example from yur original post is true:
    >>
    >> What you had was a person interested in Linux, who used it and
    >> became discouraged due to Linux bugs.
    >>
    >> This was not a person who was not interested. It was a person who
    >> was interested and then turned away because of bugs.
    >>
    >> Now, as a side note, Linux is a huge success in server space. Why?
    >> Because the server parts of Linux are robust, well tested, perform
    >> well, and mostly are free of bugs.
    >>
    >> And yet, it is not as successful in desktop space.
    >>
    >> Why?
    >>
    >> My own conclusion on this matter is that what really "slows down
    >> desktop adoption of Linux" is the fact that desktop Linux is full
    >> of bugs. The bugs turn people away because they cannot fix bugs. If
    >> it was not full of bugs, we would see use of Linux at least 10%.
    >>
    >> As of now, desktop Linux is great, until you encounter some bug
    >> with zero path to resolution.

    >
    > I think the main reason for Linux's success in the server arena is
    > that servers are usually tended to by dedicated system admins who are
    > tech gurus compared to the average desktop users. I've used Linux
    > from about version 0.93 and eventually I gave it up because it just
    > took too much of my time to manage compared to Windows. As you get
    > older, time becomes too precious to waste.
    >

    I think the reason for Linux's success in the server arena is that MS
    servers are so expensive.

    --
    Crash

    "The fewer the facts, the stronger the opinion."
    ~ Arnold H. Glasow ~
     
  15. Chris Ahlstrom

    Chris Ahlstrom Flightless Bird

    Ignoramus27518 pulled this Usenet boner:

    > My own conclusion on this matter is that what really "slows down
    > desktop adoption of Linux" is the fact that desktop Linux is full of
    > bugs. The bugs turn people away because they cannot fix bugs. If it
    > was not full of bugs, we would see use of Linux at least 10%.


    It has nothing to do with bugs. Windows itself is buggy, in all its forms.

    > As of now, desktop Linux is great, until you encounter some bug with
    > zero path to resolution.


    Same for Windows.

    Also, Flatso's 1% bullshit, although it is 4 times the 0.24% bullshit he
    used to purvey, is still low-balling Linux. Check this out:

    http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

    2009 Win7 Vista Win2003 WinXP W2000 Linux Mac
    December 9.0% 16.0% 1.4% 61.6% 0.6% 4.5% 6.5%

    2003 WinXP W2000 Win98 WinNT Win95 Linux Mac
    March 29.1% 41.9% 14.8% 6.6% 0.8% 2.2% 1.8%

    Windows in 2003, 93.2%
    Windows in 2009, 88.6%

    Windows' "market share" is, to some extent, coasting on existing installs of
    Win XP, an older product.

    What has happened in 6 years?

    Linux "share" has doubled.
    Mac "share" has tripled.

    This in spite of Microsoft having almost total control of the desktop
    market, giving deep discounts to block emerging markets, relying on
    third-party freebies to partly subsidize consumer systems, advertising hard
    in teevee advertising, and working hard to embroil Linux in litigation and
    bury it in paid-for propaganda and FUD plastered all over the internet.

    --
    Q: How do you save a drowning lawyer?
    A: Throw him a rock.
     
  16. Ignoramus12856

    Ignoramus12856 Flightless Bird

    On 2010-01-24, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:56:19 -0600, Ignoramus27518 wrote:
    >
    >> On 2010-01-24, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:39:51 -0600, Ignoramus27518 wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> My own conclusion on this matter is that what really "slows down
    >>>> desktop adoption of Linux" is the fact that desktop Linux is full of
    >>>> bugs. The bugs turn people away because they cannot fix bugs. If it
    >>>> was not full of bugs, we would see use of Linux at least 10%.
    >>>>
    >>>> As of now, desktop Linux is great, until you encounter some bug with
    >>>> zero path to resolution.
    >>>
    >>> Really? I've been using various distributions of Linux exclusively for
    >>> two years and haven't run into any bugs with "zero path to resolution"
    >>> -- so, perhaps, you give a couple examples?
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Sure. I will give you one example instead of requested two. It is
    >> getting late.
    >>
    >> Ubuntu Karmic.
    >>
    >> Firefox browser runs with youtube video open.
    >>
    >> User leaves and comes back after 1 day.
    >>
    >> Sound from firefox no longer works.
    >>
    >> User closes firefox.
    >>
    >> User starts another firefox.
    >>
    >> New firefox says "another instance of firefox is running".
    >>
    >> No way to start a browser now.

    >
    > Oh really. And this "zero path to resolution" user has never heard of the
    > kill command?


    Exactly.

    >> The "problem" is that pulseaudio support on ubuntu is full of bugs,
    >> hence disappearance of sound, and another problem is that in this
    >> situation, old firefox does not actually die, though the window goes
    >> away.

    >
    > Applications also do this sort of thing in Windows. The advantage of
    > Linux is that you have a kill command. (Look it up.)


    I am not sure whny you insist on comparing to Windows, but, if so,
    Windows does have a kill command, it is called task manager.

    >> Figuring all of that out requires some googling skills, knowledge of
    >> "ps", "grep" and other general Unix troubleshooting skills. If the user
    >> could do it, open terminal, and type something like "killall firefox",
    >> he or she would be able to continue, but a less skillful person would
    >> just give up.

    >
    > Oh, so you know about the resolution -- and yet you claim that there is
    > "zero chance of resolution." Not very convincing, WinTroll.


    I have used Linux since 1995. So I know a few things.

    > Now give those two examples of "zero chance for resolution" problems that
    > supposedly exist in Linux. Because you sure didn't do that with what you
    > wrote above. (And it's obvious that you're clueless about the subject...
    > surprise, surprise.)


    You want a second example? Is that what you want?

    i
     
  17. Hadron

    Hadron Flightless Bird

    Ignoramus12856 <ignoramus12856@NOSPAM.12856.invalid> writes:

    > On 2010-01-24, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:56:19 -0600, Ignoramus27518 wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2010-01-24, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:39:51 -0600, Ignoramus27518 wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> My own conclusion on this matter is that what really "slows down
    >>>>> desktop adoption of Linux" is the fact that desktop Linux is full of
    >>>>> bugs. The bugs turn people away because they cannot fix bugs. If it
    >>>>> was not full of bugs, we would see use of Linux at least 10%.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> As of now, desktop Linux is great, until you encounter some bug with
    >>>>> zero path to resolution.
    >>>>
    >>>> Really? I've been using various distributions of Linux exclusively for
    >>>> two years and haven't run into any bugs with "zero path to resolution"
    >>>> -- so, perhaps, you give a couple examples?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Sure. I will give you one example instead of requested two. It is
    >>> getting late.
    >>>
    >>> Ubuntu Karmic.
    >>>
    >>> Firefox browser runs with youtube video open.
    >>>
    >>> User leaves and comes back after 1 day.
    >>>
    >>> Sound from firefox no longer works.
    >>>
    >>> User closes firefox.
    >>>
    >>> User starts another firefox.
    >>>
    >>> New firefox says "another instance of firefox is running".
    >>>
    >>> No way to start a browser now.

    >>
    >> Oh really. And this "zero path to resolution" user has never heard of the
    >> kill command?

    >
    > Exactly.
    >
    >>> The "problem" is that pulseaudio support on ubuntu is full of bugs,
    >>> hence disappearance of sound, and another problem is that in this
    >>> situation, old firefox does not actually die, though the window goes
    >>> away.

    >>
    >> Applications also do this sort of thing in Windows. The advantage of
    >> Linux is that you have a kill command. (Look it up.)

    >
    > I am not sure whny you insist on comparing to Windows, but, if so,
    > Windows does have a kill command, it is called task manager.
    >
    >>> Figuring all of that out requires some googling skills, knowledge of
    >>> "ps", "grep" and other general Unix troubleshooting skills. If the user
    >>> could do it, open terminal, and type something like "killall firefox",
    >>> he or she would be able to continue, but a less skillful person would
    >>> just give up.

    >>
    >> Oh, so you know about the resolution -- and yet you claim that there is
    >> "zero chance of resolution." Not very convincing, WinTroll.

    >
    > I have used Linux since 1995. So I know a few things.
    >
    >> Now give those two examples of "zero chance for resolution" problems that
    >> supposedly exist in Linux. Because you sure didn't do that with what you
    >> wrote above. (And it's obvious that you're clueless about the subject...
    >> surprise, surprise.)

    >
    > You want a second example? Is that what you want?
    >
    > i


    WronG was inspired by the stirring speeches of Keith Bigshot recently
    and has decided to nail a stake into the ground to proclaim his own OSS
    immortality and vision. Unfortunately WronG just shuffles distros and
    knows jack about Linux or any of the OSS apps. And, like Keith "Now its
    in Python expect huge improvements" Bigshot, he contributes nothing
    himself. For WronG it's all about saving a few pennies. We know that
    because he recently started over stating how he "purchases" Vector
    Linux. No one believes him. Not even himself.
     
  18. Ignoramus12856

    Ignoramus12856 Flightless Bird

    On 2010-01-24, Dabbler <dabbler@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    > "Ignoramus27518" <ignoramus27518@NOSPAM.27518.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:RtSdnZ_XWMiqdsbWnZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d@giganews.com...
    >>
    >> Assuming your example from yur original post is true:
    >>
    >> What you had was a person interested in Linux, who used it and became
    >> discouraged due to Linux bugs.
    >>
    >> This was not a person who was not interested. It was a person who was
    >> interested and then turned away because of bugs.
    >>
    >> Now, as a side note, Linux is a huge success in server space. Why?
    >> Because the server parts of Linux are robust, well tested, perform
    >> well, and mostly are free of bugs.
    >>
    >> And yet, it is not as successful in desktop space.
    >>
    >> Why?
    >>
    >> My own conclusion on this matter is that what really "slows down
    >> desktop adoption of Linux" is the fact that desktop Linux is full of
    >> bugs. The bugs turn people away because they cannot fix bugs. If it
    >> was not full of bugs, we would see use of Linux at least 10%.
    >>
    >> As of now, desktop Linux is great, until you encounter some bug with
    >> zero path to resolution.

    >
    > I think the main reason for Linux's success in the server arena is that
    > servers are usually tended to by dedicated system admins who are tech
    > gurus compared to the average desktop users. I've used Linux from about
    > version 0.93 and eventually I gave it up because it just took too much
    > of my time to manage compared to Windows. As you get older, time becomes
    > too precious to waste.
    >


    For me, Linux takes less time to manage than Windows. I manage Linux
    at home and at work with scripts instead of GUI, and it takes no
    time. For example, if I find a package that I like and want to add it,
    I append it to a certain list of packages and it is installed at night
    automatically on all boxes that I manage that have a proper
    "role". Works out great, especially if a computer needs a complete
    reinstall, for example.

    That automation is great in Linux and much more difficult than in
    Windows.

    I also find that Gnome is a great UI that works well in most cases.

    But the bugs are maddening and they negate the whole experience for
    users who are not experienced troubleshooters.

    i
     
  19. Chris Ahlstrom

    Chris Ahlstrom Flightless Bird

    Ignoramus12856 pulled this Usenet boner:

    > On 2010-01-24, Dabbler <dabbler@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    >
    > For me, Linux takes less time to manage than Windows. I manage Linux
    > at home and at work with scripts instead of GUI, and it takes no
    > time. For example, if I find a package that I like and want to add it,
    > I append it to a certain list of packages and it is installed at night
    > automatically on all boxes that I manage that have a proper
    > "role". Works out great, especially if a computer needs a complete
    > reinstall, for example.
    >
    > That automation is great in Linux and much more difficult than in
    > Windows.
    >
    > I also find that Gnome is a great UI that works well in most cases.
    >
    > But the bugs are maddening and they negate the whole experience for
    > users who are not experienced troubleshooters.


    Well, that is what the Geek Squad (and other vendor task forces)
    are for! =D

    --
    You will be surprised by a loud noise.
     
  20. Hadron

    Hadron Flightless Bird

    Ignoramus12856 <ignoramus12856@NOSPAM.12856.invalid> writes:

    > On 2010-01-24, Dabbler <dabbler@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    >> "Ignoramus27518" <ignoramus27518@NOSPAM.27518.invalid> wrote in message
    >> news:RtSdnZ_XWMiqdsbWnZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d@giganews.com...
    >>>
    >>> Assuming your example from yur original post is true:
    >>>
    >>> What you had was a person interested in Linux, who used it and became
    >>> discouraged due to Linux bugs.
    >>>
    >>> This was not a person who was not interested. It was a person who was
    >>> interested and then turned away because of bugs.
    >>>
    >>> Now, as a side note, Linux is a huge success in server space. Why?
    >>> Because the server parts of Linux are robust, well tested, perform
    >>> well, and mostly are free of bugs.
    >>>
    >>> And yet, it is not as successful in desktop space.
    >>>
    >>> Why?
    >>>
    >>> My own conclusion on this matter is that what really "slows down
    >>> desktop adoption of Linux" is the fact that desktop Linux is full of
    >>> bugs. The bugs turn people away because they cannot fix bugs. If it
    >>> was not full of bugs, we would see use of Linux at least 10%.
    >>>
    >>> As of now, desktop Linux is great, until you encounter some bug with
    >>> zero path to resolution.

    >>
    >> I think the main reason for Linux's success in the server arena is that
    >> servers are usually tended to by dedicated system admins who are tech
    >> gurus compared to the average desktop users. I've used Linux from about
    >> version 0.93 and eventually I gave it up because it just took too much
    >> of my time to manage compared to Windows. As you get older, time becomes
    >> too precious to waste.
    >>

    >
    > For me, Linux takes less time to manage than Windows. I manage Linux
    > at home and at work with scripts instead of GUI, and it takes no


    What scripts do you use to manage your Home linux system? And why
    are they are any quicker than adminning with a GUI? Keeping in mind that
    most is set up once and then run automagically. You do know there are
    solutions for central adminning of windows workstations too don't you?


    > time. For example, if I find a package that I like and want to add it,
    > I append it to a certain list of packages and it is installed at night
    > automatically on all boxes that I manage that have a proper
    > "role". Works out great, especially if a computer needs a complete
    > reinstall, for example.


    This is a great example - but about the only one IMO that is so much
    easier than comparative Windows solutions. If the SW you want is apt
    supported for example it's a breeze. You might also consider centralised
    apt caches so its downloaded only once by your proxy repository.

    >
    > That automation is great in Linux and much more difficult than in
    > Windows.
    >
    > I also find that Gnome is a great UI that works well in most cases.


    Peter Koehlmann says its garbage and only for Window Fanboyz and
    idiots. Linus Torwalds uses it.
    >
    > But the bugs are maddening and they negate the whole experience for
    > users who are not experienced troubleshooters.
    >
    > i


    Indeed.
     

Share This Page