FW: Re: Half Baked Linux = Corel Linux

["Nagendra, VU2CLN" <ewiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Intresting Post from Corel Linux Newsgroup, View from a conumers point
who see's Linux besides MS on the table to be brought

After reading this it makes me re-think "Is Linux really worth all this
trouble"
(note : at least the desktop one)
----
Virtually yours,
Nagendra

73's, VU2CLN, ICQ : 4779564 | nagendra@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Imagination is more important than knowledge |
| - Albert Einstein  |

Joe Leggett wrote:

> > Corel is not the most difficult package to get to this level ... BUT
> it
> does
> > have some quirks that need sorting out. Looking at CL from a Windows
> users
> > point of view ... it's close .... a lot closer than most other Linux
>
> > distro's. A serious effort on Corel's behalf will bring the package
> to the
> > same arena as Win9x .... (note arena ... not the ring yet).
>
> Wasn't gonna write this but after the 7th install between Caldera and
> CLOS
> and it still won't work with my hardware after reading all of Corel's
> files,
> buying and following a $45 book, and visiting the appropriate hardware
> sites
> (not to mention being up all nite) I feel it is necessary......
>
> Maybe it might be in the parking lot of the arena - the lot without
> the
> skywalk where you need to brave the elements to get to the arena.  I
> have in
> fact seen posts from several who have this OS working just fine -
> however,
> many of them have needed WIN to get the downloaded files and drivers
> to make
> it work or have given up on certain hardware (some of which is fairly
> new
> hardware - SB Live cards, ATI Rage 128 cards to mention the ones that
> don't
> work for me).   Many have referred to using FDISK to initially set up
> the
> hard disk.  I tried CLOS because I thought that with it being a
> "for-sale"
> commercial release, it may actually have an install shell that handled
> the
> driver installation and such for you.  Not the case at all.  Most
> people in
> this country do not have the time or the resources needed to make this
> OS
> work and don't care to learn to compile kernels and the like.  Not if
> we
> also need to use a PC to be productive.  I've used a few OS's since
> 1988
> with DOS and the DOS utils like QEMM, DesqView, 4DOS, etc. as well as
> an
> excellent install of OS/2 that did support the hardware at the time
> (even
> though it took a short bit of time for IBM to get the drivers) and all
>
> flavors of WIN.  None of these have been so cryptic or buggy as
> Linux.  My
> feelings are that Linux would work fine with last decades hardware
> (had I
> not upgraded it).  This I expected when it was merely a fringe
> download and
> not for general retail sale.  However, with Corel, Suse, RH, and the
> others
> marketing versions that simply do not work without a lot of tweaking,
> endless reading, reinstalls and even buying new hardware, I can only
> feel
> that as a consumer, I have been scammed bigger than one could ever be
> scammed by MS.  And I imagine I am not alone.  Too bad because many
> people
> were hoping for a WIN alternative as it has it faults as well.  Too
> bad that
> these companies are releasing the software without it truly being
> ready.  I
> am just plain sick and tired of beta testing software that I have paid
> for.
> There was a joke that's gone around about every WIN package being beta
> -
> well, if that's the case then Linux is Alpha.  The government, prior
> to any
> consideration of breaking up MS should pay close attention to all of
> the
> trouble people experience with this other OS by reading these posts.
> Prior
> to trying Linux (RH, CLOS, and Red Hat - none of which work with my
> hardware
> while this same hardware works in all versions of WIN), I was in favor
> of a
> MS breakup.  Not anymore.  Not when I know that people like my mother,
> Aunts
> and Uncles, and brothers and others could NEVER get this other OS to
> work.
> I have yet to get it working though as a hobby I will most likely keep
>
> trying and probably get it eventually.
>
> It seems that in order to install any new drivers and support, one
> needs to
> do things like compile the kernel - but in some installs, the support
> source
> files are not installed.  And the kernel updates will not work without
> the
> source.  If so, shouldn't the source files be installed by default?
> Would
> seem to make sense to me.  In Caldera, I got the support files
> installed but
> the floppy drive would not work nor did it not recognize my NIC (same
> in
> CLOS) so i could not get the driver files to the machine to even
> attempt to
> do the kernel update.  I was humiliated by some people about not
> understanding "mounting" the floppy drive.  Should this not be a
> default
> when a floppy is present on a machine?  Can Corel not place an updated
>
> kernel on their site which does have support for Linksys NIC's, SB
> Live
> flavored cards, and ATI Rage Video cards, etc.?  They should if they
> expect
> people to pay for the product.
>
> In OS/2, I had to download some drivers to get all of it working.  But
> the
> OS installed the drivers for me.  Ditto with WIN (all versions).  DOS
> you
> simply added the right lines in the boot files (and for some hardware,
> ran
> alternate boot files and mem configs).  But it worked.  This is the
> year
> 2000 and this is the most difficult install I have ever seen.
>
> I hope I don't ruffle too many feathers here.  Merely comparing apples
> to
> apples.  CLOS and others are lemons.  If these companies want the
> profits by
> retail sales, then they should have the kernel installs automated for
> things
> like new hardware and be updating these continuously.  Or, when it
> doesn't
> work, they should give our money back at the store where we bought
> it.  They
> should be actively working day and night to make this a true
> competitor and
> ensure customer satisfaction.  The WIN registry is not simple to most
> people, but the install shields get most users around this.  If these
> Linux
> alternatives had a simple GUI based shell (Corel did a good job with
> the
> file manager that other flavors are lacking) that would install new
> drivers
> for those of us who do not have the time or desire to learn the
> command
> line/console, then they might be in the arena.  Until that time, the
> retail
> boxes should say in BIG BOLD LETTERS "For Advanced Users Only!" along
> with
> "Not all hardware supported".  This would be called truth in
> advertising.
>
> Again, hope I don't ruffle too many feathers here.  This is simply
> constructive criticism.  As a consumer, I truly believe these packages
> are
> being sent to market before they are ready.  I believe that the
> companies
> selling the Linux packages do not properly support them and instead
> rely on
> the Linux user base to support the product they are making a profit
> on.  MS
> has been accused of this as well.  We don't need another trip down
> that
> road.  I wrote letters to my Senators and Congressmen about the lack
> of
> accountability in WIN based systems (hardware and software) that are
> retail
> marketed.  Well, with many flavors of Linux now being retailed, the
> same
> applies.  And from the sheer number of problem posts along with the
> relatively small percentage of users, it is by far buggier than any
> version
> of WIN.  Linux may end up doing well as a dedicated OS in web
> appliances.
> For today, for the average desktop, it's not ready.  I tried Linux
> because I
> wanted to see something else succeed and maybe have an alternative.  I
> think
> many others  have done the same.  Meanwhile, Corel and the others walk
> off
> into the sunset with the cash as they destroy what could have been by
> marketing it too soon or without proper support.  Just another
> American scam
> or will it be these companies who will put nails in the coffin of what
>
> others have spent years developing?