Re: UNIX & Windows...????

["Wye Enterprises" <wye@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well Said Atul I agree, In my own experience I can tell installing winX os
is as easy/difficult as any os if the right components are
missing/compromised for cheep ones....  I agree that the Vendors are *not*
linux literate, and their objective is to sell what they have, u as a
user/buyer should ask for what u need and get what u know will work ....
Yoganand G
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Atul Chitnis <achitnis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <linux-india@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 1999 3:33 PM
Subject: RE: UNIX & Windows...????


> > ( It sounds crazy to hear that one has to change the graphics
> > card if Linux is not aware of it!!!! )
>
> It may sound crazy to someone who comes from a Windows background, but *X*
> is not Linux! Linux is fully functional without a GUI, so let's first of
all
> put that baby to sleep - don't blame Linux for the inability of X to use
> your Windows-specific machine components.
>
> >  On the other hand , when I installed windows 95 ,
> >  it was completed in 30 minutes flat. Everything was configured
> > the way I wanted including the display & graphics stuff.
>
> Does that make Windows good?
>
> In that case Linux is better - my record stands at 19 minutes from the
start
> of a Linux installation to the time that the machine was connected to the
> Internet and the LAN, sending and receiving mail and allowing LAN users to
> browse the net. This included X and Netscape, on a KDE desktop that did
> *more* than any Windows desktop can ever do. And this included all the
> development stuff I could ask for - stuff that a Windows user would still
be
> filling a purchase requisition form for.....
>
> Now I may be called a Linux power-user who knows his way around, but that
> was not a factor in this case. All I did was stick the CD into the
machine,
> boot off it, answer a few questions, and then let the installation program
> take charge.
>
> The point I am trying to make is that "Linux failed to install" for you
> because it was unfamiliar territory for you. You blame Linux for the
problem
> you had, instead of checking with someone before you passed judgement. You
> expected your Windows knowledge to be useful in your quest to install
Linux.
>
> You expected Linux to be Windows. It isn't. Deal with it.
>
> >    Now I am not trying to start a flame war here. But honestly ,
> > how many people can the Linux-builders expect to know about such
> > intricate Hardware details.
>
> I think a reality check is seriously required here - how many Windows
users
> can install Windows? Let me give you the answer - virtually none. Give a
> Windows CD to a computing newbie and ask him to install it, don't expect
him
> to be successful. People like that depend on their dealers or IS staff.
>
> In German there is a saying (I think it exists in English, too) - "A
single
> swallow does not make the summer". Your's is an increasingly isolated
case.
> The reason is that unlike in the past, Linux now focusses more and more on
> current, even state-of-the-art hardware. Most popular (even high-end)
> display cards are supported. May I ask just what display card it is you
> have? It wouldn't perchance, be a lowly SiS card? Or a i740?
>
> > Though I have always loved the Unix world , for once I was really
> > frustrated about this whole circus one has to perform when
> > installing an Operating System!!.
>
> I just *love* that attitude. Instead of saying "I have a problem
installing
> X for an xyz display card", you coredump completely and pronounce the
whole
> thing as a circus.
>
> Have you ever tried to install SCO, AT&T, Solaris, AIX, etc? Tell me, on
the
> basis of *which* other OS install are you basic this statement?
>
> Have you ever tried to install *Windows* on a machine that has a funky
BIOS,
> a bad display card, etc? You can't even *install* Windows if your graphics
> card doesn't work as advertised or is unsupported! Linux, on the other
hand,
> will happily install *and* run without graphics, allowing you to get up
and
> running.
>
> Pronouncing Linux "bad" because *you* couldn't install it (while millions
of
> users worldwide have had few, if any, problems doing so) is a sweeping
> statement that one wouldn't expect off someone who claims to be familiar
> with the Unix world.
>
> Having said all that, could you tell us just what problem you have
> installing X (not Linux)? What machine were you installing on? What were
the
> specs, what display card does it have? What distribution of Linux were you
> using?
>
> Maybe we can help you. But we won't if you stand there pronouncing
judgement
> on something we all use and love - all on the basis of an isolated,
personal
> experience.
>
> Atul
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> For more information on Linux in India visit http://www.linux-india.org/
> Linux India is NOT a forum for Microsoft/India/Pakistan/US/UK bashing.
> Flame baits will not be tolerated.  If you can appreciate satire read
> http://www.templetons.com/brad/emily.html
>

- --------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information on Linux in India visit http://www.linux-india.org/
Linux India is NOT a forum for Microsoft/India/Pakistan/US/UK bashing.
Flame baits will not be tolerated.  If you can appreciate satire read
http://www.templetons.com/brad/emily.html

------------------------------