Linux

[Aeternus]

http://www.gadgetopia.com/post/2598 might be useful. Havent tried it myself though (use Nero on Laptop and K3b/cdrecord on Desktop).

 

[Edit]

 

Gaz beat me to it, sorry for the repost. Could someone please delete it? (Admins)

[Sayonara]

The only recent Windows operating system that was very bad was Windows ME.

You just said something that was true, so I am going to hold back a bit.

 

 

IE is an excellent browser.

That may be your opinion, but it is demonstrably true that IE lacks many significant features that the other market leaders have in common. It is also a fact that IE neglects to adhere to any one of the most important web standards.

 

Every browser has security issues, but Microsoft has WindowsUpdate.com where you can download fixes. Most companies that make browsers don't take the time to update their browsers.

I think you'll find that this is because IE is badly written. It needs to be constantly updated because developers are constantly finding holes that nobody noticed in the last (major or minor) release.

 

By contrast, other browsers like Opera and Firefox release a mere few updates each quarter because that's all they need to release.

 

 

Netscape rarely releases any type of updates, and they are one of the worse browsers.

Actually, Netscape is THE original web browser, and is based on the Gecko engine, which is considered to be excellent. The reason you don't get "updates" is because security holes and flaws are fixed before version-incrementing releases are made.

 

 

Almost all web sites work perfectly with IE. When I tried Netscape, I was unable to enter a chat room that worked fine with IE. When I tried Firefox, I was having trouble accessing StormPay's claim center.

Most web sites that "work" with IE and not other browsers do so because they are poorly coded, which is a practice that IE's lack of standards support actively encouraged. A shrewd business move on Microsoft's part that is literally destroying the interoperability of the web. Berners-Lee is probably furious.

 

 

When you try these poorly designed browsers, you will always come across web sites that don't work right.

The browsers are not "poorly designed", the sites are. This is common knowledge and easily demonstrated.

 

 

Do I even need to mention all the problems AOL members have? Have you noticed that some links say, "Click Here" and then there is a separate link that says, "AOL Users Click Here"? That is because IE can load the web site, and AOL can't.

AOL actually is an example of a shit browser. Guess what? It's based on the same engine as IE5, the worst version>4 browser ever made.

 

 

The same thing happens with all other browsers. I own several web sites, and I don't even take the time to make sure my sites work with other browsers.

Then you aren't adhering to standards. That's an issue with you, not "the other browsers". Try visiting the W3C some time.

 

 

Web site owners shouldn't have to worry about people downloading other browsers when IE comes with almost all computers.

Web site owners who know what they are doing don't have that concern.

 

 

What type of people are running this web site? Why do they say IE version 6.x is the most recent version? THAT ISN'T EVEN A REAL VERSION NUMBER!

Business people. It's called a high level view.

 

 

The real version number is 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2_gdr.050301-1519 and that number is the version with all the security fixes and updates.

Seriously, how does that not tell you everything you need to know about how stable IE is?

 

 

The site you posted about is complaining about every security issue with any IE6 browser. The first IE6 was released a long time ago, and Microsoft has made many changes. That is why the version number keeps changing. That site obviously doesn't understand that.

You don't seem to understand that any software that so frequently requires high priority fixes and patches is quite obviously a bag of shit.

 

 

I would still recommend Windows XP.

To whom?

 

Without knowing what the system is intended to be used for, any recommendation is premature. Presumably you mean "home use by a PC novice", in which case I'd tend to agree. But that's an issue of market share and educational saturation, not technical superiority.

 

 

Why? You are the one that wants a crappy operating system. If Linux was so good, they would be installed on new PCs.

I think you ought to search for the last Linux vs Windows thread. You seem to think that Linux is the poor man's crappy OS, which is just laughable.

 

 

I think that PC manufacturers would know which operating system is best for their system. Almost all of them select Windows XP. If everything I am saying is crap, it is strange that so many PC manufacturers seem to agree with me.

That's an argument from ignorance I'm afraid. Try researching how the hardware manufacture / Microsoft relationship came about.

 

 

The main reason many people hate Microsoft is because they don't want to pay for a nice operating system and computer. They would rather buy a cheap low-quality product, and then complain about the stuff that is better than what they have.

Even if the first part was correct, the rest would not make sense. The resentment of Microsoft has to do with the anti-trust practices and their aversion to industry standards, not licenses. And I think you'll find that running XP on a different machine does not magically change how it was designed.

 

 

I'm really not sure. I don't have AOL, but I see separate links for AOL users all the time. I did use the AOL browser on somebody else's computer before. I don't remember which web site I was trying to access, but I was unable to access it with AOL. I had to minimize it, and use IE.

The bottom line is that it's not relevant. Pointing out another browser is crap does not show that IE is not crap - that's a red herring.

 

Incidentally this is the relevance of yourdad's remark about you being a creationist. Many creationists love to use red herring fallacies in arguments, and he quite rightly highlighted the fact that we can expect such reasoning from you in this thread. Perhaps not completely fair dragging that up, but you have to admit he turned out to be right.

 

 

IE 7 is coming soon, and it will have tabbed browsing with many other things.

Too little, too late.

 

When they support alpha channels, full CSS2, XML, and XHTML in the correct fashion, web designers will take notice again.

 

 

I was aware of what they meant when they said "6.x". My point was they shouldn't have referred to the version "6.x" because there have been so many changes since the first IE 6 and the newest IE 6. It doesn't make sense to group every IE 6 problem together, because most of those problems have been fixed in the newer versions.

Presumably you did not read down the page then.

 

The page gives a security and vulnerability overview of all of 6.x, including a report for every vulnerability that has been found which includes the patched/unpatched status (and the ever amusing "partial fix"). It is a high-to-low level document.

 

 

I am not a newbie, I am a computer specialist. There are many ways to customize Windows components without installing or uninstalling programs. Just make some edits in the system registry. You can edit almost anything in Windows. If you know what you are doing, you can change the GUI and give Windows XP a completely new look. I'm not talking about just changing the themes in the Control Panel, but you can actually replace the entire Luna GUI.

All true, but not the best argument to use when the "Windows is easier than Linux" gloves are coming off.

 

 

If you aren't a very advanced Windows user, you can download free tweak programs from Microsoft's web site. However, if you are a very advanced user you can modify almost anything. You can even change some of the error messages to say funny things.

The same applies to many of the recent Linux distro releases.

 

 

I'm not a Microsoft fanboy. In fact, I think the Xbox is junk.

I don't think we even need to consider X-Box, so that doesn't really count for anything.

 

 

I just think Windows XP is the best operating system.

Perhaps what we could do with here is a list of criteria that "the best operating system" would need to meet, before we start going around handing out prizes.

 

 

Also, the Windows Media Player is nice.

Oh dear.

 

Pretty yes, but it really is the spawn of satan. Google for "WMP DRM outrage".

 

 

Do you really want to go to the store, and look on the system requirements of each program until you finally find one that works with Linux?

That's not how it works. Linux users generally just download what they need for free, after a cursory search to find the best tool for the job.

 

 

I like to play games on the computer, and many of my favorite games aren't available on Linux. 3-D games like Need For Speed, SimCity, and many others only work with Windows XP.

Emulate or dual-boot.

 

 

When I see a good program that I can download from the Internet, I wouldn't want to worry about whether or not it will work with Linux. I would rather use Windows XP, because it will probably be compatible with any program I want.

For each one you see, you can bet your ass there are seven free versions for Linux.

 

 

Having used it and knowing people who have seen the code I have to say I'm not that impressed the tab's seemed to be some what of an after thought to me, it just didn't feel right. Which is a shame I'd like to see a nice new good recoded version of IE I really would

They were not so much an afterthought as a final hard-won concession to the tens of thousands of web developers who screamed and screamed and screamed at MS when they said tabs would not be in IE7.

 

 

The question is why would you want an operating system that disables your computer's ability to run most programs?

That's either intellectually dishonest, or really stupid...

 

 

Many people are blaming program designers for not making their programs compatible with Linux. The real problem is that Linux made their computers not compatible with the programs.

...sorry, but I'm going with stupid.

 

"Linux" don't "make computers". Win32 software has a foreign architecture to Linux software, just like it is foreign to Macs. Requiring non-Windows platforms to support software that is designed for Windows platforms is retarded.

 

If you absolutely have to insist on using that fallacious argument, then I would like to know why Windows doesn't support any Linux or Mac software. How crap is that?

 

 

Also, web site owners should not have to worry about other browsers than IE.

Given that IE (and by extension AOL) is the only browser that deliberately breaks its own implementation of W3C standards, I'd love it if you could please justify that statement.

 

 

If somebody decided to install an operating system that won't work with most programs, that is their own fault.

Bear in mind that only an idiot is going to try and use non-native software with any given OS, and someone who specifically seeks out a new PC with a Linux distro is unlikely to be an idiot.

 

 

This would be like buying a good car. Now, let's say that you take out the engine and install the engine for a lawnmower. Sure, it will be easier to fix if something goes wrong. However, I don't think you would be able to drive the car on the road.

That isn't like it at all. Windows is no more "designed for" the generic PC than you are designed to fit into your clothes. Again, do some research on the history of the home computer market.

 

 

What are you talking about? Press ctrl+alt+del in Windows XP and click on the processes tab. You can terminate any process.

Not true. System processes are protected, and hangers won't die.

 

 

IE comes with almost every computer. Therefore, there is no reason for somebody to need to access a web site with any browser besides IE

The browser a person uses is determined by their requirements from such software, not by which one is installed first.

 

Don't bother replying to this point - all the judges in all the anti-trust cases of the past five years agree with me, not you.

 

 

Therefore, all web sites should be designed to work with IE.

Your logic is - to be blunt - a joke.

 

 

The proof is at any computer forum that has a section for Linux users. There are so many people asking how they get a certain program working with Linux. If they just used Windows XP, they wouldn't be having these problems.

All that proves is that there is a high migration rate from Windows to Linux and a large population of new users. If they are leaving Windows and don't immediately turn back the moment they find a minor problem (i.e. they haven't replaced their packages yet), we can reasonably assume that they find Linux meets their needs more closely than Windows did.

 

 

When are people going to learn that IE is the standard?

Correlation is not causation.

 

IE has become a de facto standard (which is a weak position in terms of directing actual standards, unless you are downright nasty) because of Microsoft's naughty business practices, not because it is superior software. You aren't the first person to use web logs as "proof", and by god you won't be the last, and I tire of explaining why it's a crock.

 

By the way, the IE browser share has dropped nearly 20% since the first beta version of Firefox was released. What does that say?

 

 

Why should web site owners worry about such a small number of people that decided to stop using IE and start using something else?

Because inclusion, accessibility, and interoperability are the founding and primary principles of the World Wide Web. Seriously, you need to take a look at the WWW Consortium's web site.

 

 

Ok, this doesn't make sense. A web site comes up with all these things that aren't compatible with the browser that almost everyone uses. However, they are compatible with a browser that very few people use. Let me make a comparison that will show how silly this is.

You are the one who doesn't get it.

 

The way IE displays those pages is wrong because it disobeys the CSS2 specifications, which are laid out by the W3C and accepted by industry working groups.

 

Your analogy is kind of correct, but you have it the wrong way around. To borrow from another thread, imagine that English is the standard language for the entire planet. IE's interpretation of those pages is like a country sending a diplomat to a global meeting when he speaks Martian every fifth word.

 

 

I believe that Microsoft has earned its position in the #1 spot. Bill Gates wasn't born a billionaire. Starting Microsoft required a lot of work. Windows did a lot that the competition didn't. That is why Windows became so popular. I'm sure that if another competitor came that was much better than Windows, it would take over the #1 spot.

Wrong. Read "Accidental Empires", ISBN 0-14-025826-4. It will explain why Windows is so widespread.

 

 

I don't know.

He was being sarcastic.

 

The reason you get so few non-IE visitors is because you don't accommodate them.

 

 

Anyway, this is largely off-topic so I hope you feel good and properly crushed by now

[herme3]

Hi Sayonara³. I will reply to your comments in a little while. First I'm going to install Linux and make my own comparisons between Linux and Windows.

 

If you don't hear from me for a while, it means my computer and I are lost in a cruel world of Linux. Please call Bill Gates and ask him to save us!

[Aeternus]

If your talking about FreeBSD and the FreeSBIE live cd, its UNIX or a UNIX variant, not Linux (ie its not based on the Linux Kernel). I know it may sound pedantic, but trust me its for your own safety, if you call FreeBSD Linux in the wrong forum, youll likely end up floating down a river somewhere due to the FreeBSD/UNIX fanatics

[radiohead]

herme3, being an active programmer, I can tell you these things from a programmers point of view.

 

1.The Win32 API is dirty and slow compared to Linux.

2.Bill Gates bought the Windows opeating system from some guy. He knows shit about programming and the only reason Microsoft is has taken off the way it has is because Bill Gates knows how to play his cards right and he knows how to hide cards up his sleeves too. His business practices are wrong. He basically forces Microsoft out into teh market. I had to pay 30 dollars more to get Windows taken off of a newly bought computer because I didn't want it. Microsoft is a monoply. When you buy a new computer that's 400 dollars, you are also buying Windows. Now, if it was an option to not have it come with Windows, the computer would only be about 250 dollars. But when I bought my comp, it was 430 dollars because I didn't want Windows on it.

3.IE is a very crappy browser. It doesn't comply to standards and I have found at least three of my own exploits in it too execute malicious code. In Firefox, Opera, and Netscape, I have found NONE.

4.I run Linux. I play Halo, Civ 3, and Sims on it with WINE and emulators such as Cedega and Point2Play. In fact, I can execute anything programmed in .NET on Linux like I can in Windows with a little tool called mono.

 

You don't seem to get that easier is not always better and just because it costs more, it isn't better. In fact, if you don't believe what these guys are saying, I hope you get a rude awakening after reading this.

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/340

[theTrench]

I use WinXP, purely because it's the latest operating system I have. I do have two kinds of lynux, Turbo Lynux and PHLAK. But both are very old versions. (Just as a side question, you know where I can download an awesome version of Lynux?) But from my expirence, yeah, Windows actually is the worst of all operating systems. Lynux is harder to use, but is more versatile, and Macs, though even easier to use sometimes than windows but even less versatile, have a way better visual than windows. It's the only thing most photojournalists, journalists, and graphic designers use. Even Halo2's visuals were made on a Mac, and it was made for Microsoft's XBox. The only reason most people think windows is better is because Microsoft has better advertising than anything else.

[herme3]

If your talking about FreeBSD and the FreeSBIE live cd, its UNIX or a UNIX variant, not Linux (ie its not based on the Linux Kernel). I know it may sound pedantic, but trust me its for your own safety, if you call FreeBSD Linux in the wrong forum, youll likely end up floating down a river somewhere due to the FreeBSD/UNIX fanatics

 

Ok, I meant UNIX. Wasn't Linux built using UNIX?

 

herme3' date=' being an active programmer, I can tell you these things from a programmers point of view.

 

1.The Win32 API is dirty and slow compared to Linux.

2.Bill Gates bought the Windows opeating system from some guy. He knows shit about programming and the only reason Microsoft is has taken off the way it has is because Bill Gates knows how to play his cards right and he knows how to hide cards up his sleeves too. His business practices are wrong. He basically forces Microsoft out into teh market. I had to pay 30 dollars more to get Windows taken off of a newly bought computer because I didn't want it. Microsoft is a monoply. When you buy a new computer that's 400 dollars, you are also buying Windows. Now, if it was an option to not have it come with Windows, the computer would only be about 250 dollars. But when I bought my comp, it was 430 dollars because I didn't want Windows on it.

3.IE is a very crappy browser. It doesn't comply to standards and I have found at least three of my own exploits in it too execute malicious code. In Firefox, Opera, and Netscape, I have found NONE.

4.I run Linux. I play Halo, Civ 3, and Sims on it with WINE and emulators such as Cedega and Point2Play. In fact, I can execute anything programmed in .NET on Linux like I can in Windows with a little tool called mono.

 

You don't seem to get that easier is not always better and just because it costs more, it isn't better. In fact, if you don't believe what these guys are saying, I hope you get a rude awakening after reading this.

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/340[/quote']

 

Why did you pay extra to have Windows taken off the system? Why didn't you just purchase the computer, and manually uninstall Windows? Also, I thought Microsoft said they decided not to buy Claria.

 

I tried the FreeBSD, and I couldn't get it to work with my wireless Internet. Does anyone have any suggestions?

[Sayonara]

Hi Sayonara³. I will reply to your comments in a little while. First I'm going to install Linux and make my own comparisons between Linux and Windows.

 

If you don't hear from me for a while' date=' it means my computer and I are lost in a cruel world of Linux. Please call Bill Gates and ask him to save us! [/quote']

I bet your face looked like your avatar when you saw that post

 

 

I have just installed Ubuntu, and it's truly delicious. Much nicer than Mandrake 10, and quite a bit more "out of the box".

[Gaz]

I couldn't get it to work with my wireless Internet. Does anyone have any suggestions?

 

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/network-wireless.html

[radiohead]

Why did you pay extra to have Windows taken off the system? Why didn't you just purchase the computer' date=' and manually uninstall Windows? Also, I thought Microsoft said they decided not to buy Claria.

 

I tried the FreeBSD, and I couldn't get it to work with my wireless Internet. Does anyone have any suggestions?[/quote']

 

I wanted to have a fresh hard drive. you do lose memory, be it very little, everytime you format a hard drive.

Also, it's the fact that they even considered buying them and that they lowered the priorty of known spyware and adware.

[Dak]

Also, I thought Microsoft said they decided not to buy Claria.

 

they have, indeed, called off their plans to buy claria, but they shouldnt have concidered it in the first plase, considering they own an antispyware program -- talk about a conflict of interests!

 

The fact they abused their trust as an antispyware program producer to effectively delist claria products whilst they were concidering purchasing claria is dispicable.

 

by-the-by, have downloaded knoppix and am playing around with it. its too early to pass judjemnt, but im already surprised by how fast it runs, concidering its running off of a CD.

[Aeternus]

Hehe, Dak i think alot of that might be because due to the fact it abstains from using the harddrive (so it can promise it didnt alter anything), it uses your RAM like a HD and basically has its whole file system on RAM. This gives some obvious speedups in certain things as HD access times are something like a factor of 1000x slower than memory.

[herme3]

Well, I guess trying FreeBSD has only increased my opinion about Windows being my favorite operating system. I have two computers, and each of them has wireless Internet cards. With Windows, one of the wireless cards connected immediately. There was no need for setup or anything.

 

The other wireless card required a driver from a CD. After I installed the driver in Windows, the card started working perfectly. Well, with FreeBSD NONE of my wireless cards work. I checked the manuals of both cards, and both of them only work with Windows. I can't understand why anyone thinks these other operating systems are better than Windows. Now I actually have my own proof that these other operating systems have major compatibility issues.

 

I do not agree with some of Microsoft's business practices. I also don't think Windows will always be the best operating system. When I find a better operating system, I'll install it on my computers. However, I still think Windows XP is the best when you consider compatibility.

[ydoaPs]

you deciding to buy crappy hardware makes every other OS bad?

[Gaz]

I can't understand why anyone thinks these other operating systems are better than Windows. Now I actually have my own proof that these other operating systems have major compatibility issues.

 

If you fully read the link i gave you (and you clearly didn't) you will have seen the following:

 

Unfortunately, there are still many vendors that do not provide schematics for their drivers to the open source community because they regard such information as trade secrets. Consequently, the developers of FreeBSD and other operating systems are left two choices: develop the drivers by a long and pain-staking process of reverse engineering or using the existing driver binaries available for the Microsoft® Windows platforms. Most developers, including those involved with FreeBSD, have taken the latter approach.

 

It's your fault it doesn't work since you chose to support and buy inferior hardware from manufacturers who favour closed computing hardware.

 

You can get most of the crappy windows-only hardware to work using NDIS wrapper, it seems you are too ignorant to learn for yourself how to do this.

[Sayonara]

I can't understand why anyone thinks these other operating systems are better than Windows.

And yet they still do. How mysterious.

[herme3]

you deciding to buy crappy hardware makes every other OS bad?

 

Crappy hardware? One of my wireless cards is what came with my notebook computer. It happens to be one of the best and most expensive notebook computers available. It obviously isn't a hardware issue, because it is working fine with Windows XP. The other wireless card is made by Netgear, which is recognized as one of the top manufacturers of wireless products.

 

Since the other operating systems have so many compatibility issues with many types of software and hardware, I would say it is an operating system issue. Anyone with common sense would say that the other operating systems are crap before they say there is something wrong with nearly ALL the hardware and software available.

 

It's your fault it doesn't work since you chose to support and buy inferior hardware from manufacturers who favour closed computing hardware.

 

You can get most of the crappy windows-only hardware to work using NDIS wrapper' date=' it seems you are too ignorant to learn for yourself how to do this.[/quote']

 

Wow! How stupid of those manufacturers! Why would they support an OS that 95% of their customers have? They should be thinking about that remaining 5% instead.

 

I don't think I should have to worry about doing all these special things just to get my computer to work with another operating system. It works fine with Windows XP.

 

Ok, so why is everyone still criticizing me for supporting Windows? I can understand the criticism at first. I was stating my opinion before trying another operating system. Now, I've actually tried another operating system and compared it to Windows XP. I can now say I tried the other operating system with an open-mind and decided I still liked Windows XP better.

 

Even if I ignore the compatibility issues, I still don't see anything great about FreeBSD. I didn't even see a music store, or online radio in the Media Player. I couldn't find any games built into the operating system. Windows XP has Minesweeper and other classics. They also have online games built into the operating system. I didn't see anything like that in FreeBSD. It only had one desktop background, and I didn't even see a screen saver!

 

I was going to see if my web sites worked in Firefox, but the stupid thing wouldn't even connect to the Internet. Anyway, now that I've listed my dislikes about FreeBSD, I would like to hear the opinions of other members.

 

What does everyone like about FreeBSD? There has to be something I am missing here. Even if you don't like IE, you can still download Firefox in Windows. So, why would anyone want FreeBSD?

[radiohead]

It doesn't have all those wallpapers because the developers didn't pack FreeBSD with stuff you don't need. It probably does have many screen savers. Just because it isn't out in front of you doesn't mean it isn't there.

[Aeternus]

Wow! How stupid of those manufacturers! Why would they support an OS that 95% of their customers have? They should be thinking about that remaining 5% instead.

 

Ok, lets just look at this shall we, because this seems to be the main jist of your entire argument.

 

You mention earlier on that you have no problem with Windows or Windows software such as IE losing their top position if something better (ie technically superior) comes along. How in the hell do you expect them to lose their top spot if all of the hardware manufacturers say "oh no i wont make software for this new OS or software package because it isnt in my 95% demographic".

 

You've stated MULTIPLE times that "Linux should just make their OS more compatible with this hardware". Are you seriously retarded or something? Do you understand what that entails? Do you know why the companies themselves give drivers rather than Windows supporting everything? It's because the companies keep the inner workings of their hardware a secret and in many countries it can be a felony to actually try and work some of these things out. Reverse Engineering can be done to find out exactly how the hardware works and how to interface with it, allowing makeshift drivers to be written, but this isn't easy and certainly isnt a perfect solution as it doesn't always come out with drivers that support all the features, or that are of the same quality or efficiency as drivers written with prior knowledge of the architecture. Reverse Engineering has been done for a large amount of hardware but as Gaz's link stated it is a long and laborious process and isnt an ideal solution. There is a solution and if you cant be arsed to look around for it then thats your problem. Not all hardware works first time with Windows XP either, in fact is alot of legacy equipment that won't work at all with it anymore (if you remember the XP Compatibility List problems). You slam Linux's compatibility but I havent seen Windows running on PowerPC or Sparc processors or a host of other processors and architectures...... oh wait.. does that mean Windows isn't compatible??

 

Also, you basically said "why should companies help support an OS that 95% of their consumer base dont use", uh...again, lets look at that from a different direction, wireless cards are common not only in the desktop seen but increasingly in the server and networking scenes where Linux and Unix systems are in the Majority, so how can you actually justify them not helping support it?

 

Seriously, go do some actual research and actually think about how other systems could gain dominance or could get some market share if everyone thought like you did.

 

Lastly, you used FreeBSD, this is UNIX not Linux, FreeBSD is a great OS but it may not have everything you want straight out of the box, there are other UNIX distros and there are Linux distros that come with a variety of other software or very little at all depending on your preference. I said to you that you probably wouldn't like the linux experience because you like Windows too much and you dont seem likely to change. All i asked was that you find some respect for Linux, Unix and other operating systems, which you have failed to do because you really didnt give it a chance.

[Sayonara]

Even if I ignore the compatibility issues' date=' I still don't see anything great about FreeBSD. I didn't even see a music store, or online radio in the Media Player. I couldn't find any games built into the operating system. Windows XP has Minesweeper and other classics. They also have online games built into the operating system. I didn't see anything like that in FreeBSD. It only had one desktop background, and I didn't even see a screen saver!

 

I was going to see if my web sites worked in Firefox, but the stupid thing wouldn't even connect to the Internet. Anyway, now that I've listed my dislikes about FreeBSD, I would like to hear the opinions of other members.

 

What does everyone like about FreeBSD? There has to be something I am missing here. Even if you don't like IE, you can still download Firefox in Windows. So, why would anyone want FreeBSD?[/quote']

FreeBSD is not intended to be an alternative to Windows, and never will be

 

Try Mandriva 10.1, or Ubuntu 5.04.

[1veedo]

Wow, a lot of posts sense I was her last. Anyway, I already wrote up this post...

I believe that Microsoft has earned its position in the #1 spot. Bill Gates wasn't born a billionaire. Starting Microsoft required a lot of work. Windows did a lot that the competition didn't. That is why Windows became so popular. I'm sure that if another competitor came that was much better than Windows, it would take over the #1 spot.

I'm sure you're right. That's why Windows will eventually be a thing of the past

 

Oh, and BTW, M$ is number 1 because of their marketing strategies. You can find all kinds of "50 page books" about Bill Gates. Read one; I'm sure you'd be surprised.

For another business, I recovered all the files from a hard drive after the operating system was accidentally deleted.

Lol, I've done the same thing using knoppix. Around my area I have a report for being able to fix computers and one day I got a call because windows kept crashing telling her "Disk is corrupt."

 

Not knowing at the time, I called up a local computer store asking them about it. He said, quote

 

"We get this all the time. I normally charge $100 to save their data but all I do is boot knoppix to put their files on an external HD. When I reinstall everything their computer good as new" Actually, most specialists according to him know about this little trick. I think it's kind of funny. I mean, 100 just to transfer files? I guess most computer users don't really know all that much.

 

Btw, as a computer specialist, knowing Linux could be very valuable for your career. Many corporations, includign the US government run *nix. Even if you still decide that Windows is better, playign around with it a bit could save you at a very unexpected time.

[Klaynos]

The other wireless card is made by Netgear' date=' which is recognized as one of the top manufacturers of wireless products.

 

[/quote']

 

Firstly I have a wifi network at home. 2 different wifi cards in 3 computers, tried 4 different distro's of Linux in the last year or two on all the types of cards, guess what. Worked every time streight from the install.

 

And Netgear = sucky, I actually laughed when I read this.

 

I would recommend you have a try with knoppix, or ubuntu live, if you want games both have games installed on the live cd's, both have multiple wallpapers, ubuntu has HUNDREDS of screesavers, and multiple desktop themes. But the ubuntu screen savers will not run very well because you wont have your graphics card drivers installed just generic ones. To get your wifi card working you may need to change the default channel it uses. If you need to do this pop onto IRC with your other computer (I can give you a link to a java applet if you really want) and talk you through the simple steps to how to get it working.

 

As has been noted ndis wrapper can be used to fix alot of driver compatibility issues within Linux by running windows drivers.

 

Check out:

 

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/HowToSetUpNdiswrapper

and

https://wiki.ubuntu.com//HardwareSupport

 

But please bear in mind these are not CONCLUCIVE lists of the supported hardware (genrally chip sets are more important than actual manufactures) and that this is a single distrobution of Linux.

[1veedo]

Ubuntu is definitely my favorite distro. I installed FC4 over it and was rather disapointed considering FC3 was my first distribution. Actually, herme3, you may be interested in why I, personally, left Windows for Linux:

 

http://scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7915

 

I was telling you earlier how I fix computers around my neighborhood. Just a couple hours ago there was a 98 computer that started IE with popups upon loading (without telling it to start). It was extremely slow. Random programs running in the background kept "performing illegal operations," and IE would randomly start while the computer was running. Plus there was this really wierd error: Explore.exe has told explorer to stop in an unusual way... at which point there was just a background. I ran ad aware and found 979 objects, erased some of them "successfully". The computer booted a little quicker but it was still in bad shape. These problems were all caused by IE. Proof is actually that all the spyware according to adaware was contracted from IE. I actually installed firefox and it ran 100% faster then IE did. They said that they loved firefox!

 

Anyway, I came back the next day with an unused 120g HD to backup her 20g (16mb free -- very clutered, one reason it was running slow). Windows didn't recognize the HD even after spending around 40 minuets installing a CD that came with it. (furthermore, 98 doesn't recognize above 30 or so gigs anyway)

 

Eventually I booted Ubuntu live, which required 2X RAM then they had (64 -- 128) but managed it by creating a SWAP on my 120. From there I backed up their entire disk. Anyway, I reinstalled Windows. It runs just like new. A little slow, but not too bad considering it's a pentuim 3. They run firefox now and agree that it's better then IE. I explained how by running that instead of IE would keep their computer running fast and free of scumware -- They think I'm some kindof genius but I'll be the first to admit that I'm really not (I'm not even going into computers for a career).

 

It's problems that I saw in Windows fixing computers that eventually caused me to turn to Linux. Hehe, now I always have to point out to my customers (you could call them) that Linux never has these kinds of problems. And this is completely honest. You probably wouldn't believe the problems I've had to deal with in the past! As a computer specialist you probably fix a lot of problems that arise in Windows. I'll tell you right now that none of these issues ever pop up in Linux.

[ydoaPs]

i didn't know you could do that kind of stuff until this thread, so i had to format my harddrive more than once.

[Klaynos]

I'd just like to say that Linux isn't inpregneble by any means, and if you don't keep things up to date and are connected directly to the interenet and you have listening ports (sshd, httpd etc...) then you will probably have a compromised system within a short while depending how much activity your IP range gets (unlike the windows XP sp2 install which I belive averages 12 mins)