From: Bert Haskins (bhaskins_at_triton.net)
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 - 17:26:11 EST
760xd, xl, ed, 380xd TPs with some 770x and 770z systems on the way.
The switch can be easy or hard, depending on your hardware.
Modems are the toughest part, since most are "winmodems".
A few of these have been made to work though.
On one of my recent installations (380xd) the complete
installation took less than 20 minutes of my time.
Netscape installs could hardly be easier, it's part of a normal installation.
I fact, that what I'm using now, on a 380xd with Mandrake Linux
Word may be a someday thing under the Wine project but today
you probably will have to learn a new word processor.
You also may go into withdrawal from not having the blue screen, lockups,
and other crashes which are such an inherent part of the windows experience.
I've also had good luck with having Linux and Win98Se and/or W2K on
the same machine.
I absolutely refuse to have anything to do with WinXP untill/unless they
change the EULA.
Gee, I think I've said that before.
Believe it or not, I'm even a Microsoft stockholder.
--Bert
Bryan Daum wrote:
> Hi Bert,
>
> If you are a Linux fan could you tell me which machine you are running
> it on? I have a 600X and am inclined to make the switch "just for
> something new to do."
>
> I would be interested on just how hard is the conversion in terms of
> getting laptop things to work, ie., power meter, function keys, suspend,
> etc.
>
> I must also confess to being much more of an appliance operator rather
> than being geeky, hence the idea of doing a self configuration scares
> hell out of me. I would only need Word and Netscape (I use the
> Communicator version now) and little else.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bryan
> 600X
>
> Bert Haskins wrote:
> >
> > /* !!!!! RANT WARNING !!!!!
> > I was/am a software developer from the late 60s to the present although
> > today
> > I'm mostly retired and only take on projects that I really want.
> > IMHO OS/2 blew away the whole basket when during the short critical period
> > when
> > they had a true 32-bit OS and microsoft didn't some pointy-hair pea-brained
> > manager
> > decided it would be a good business plan to (badly) screw the small
> > developer.
> > They did change this later but by then they had POed most of us and BG and
> > company
> > had a win32s and NT 32bit sort-of system.
> > If you follow the history of the personal computer, most of the killer-apps
> > were at
> > least started by the real propeller heads.
> > This is why I truly believe that someday groups like this will be delivering
> > the eulogy
> > and doing the monday-morning quarterback number on what caused microsoft to
> > throw it all away.
> > I got very angry with them when they decided to rape and pillage my beloved
> > 'C' with that
> > !@#$%^ C# . Nobody needs crap like that (except microsoft).
> > This, the new EULA, and a bunch of other things have made me decided to blow
> > them away
> > and believe me, I'm not alone..
> >
> > The winner? Linux of course and if you haven't tried it lately, I'll try to
> > urge you to do it.
> > I bounce back and forth between Red Hat and Mandrake but both of these are
> > very!!
> > good and getting better.
> >
> > With Linux why is there any need for OS/2?
> > -- Bert
> > end RANT warning */
> >
> > "Dr. Jeffrey Race" wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 21:05:13 -0600, Len Conrad wrote:
> > >
> > > >>(leaving aside os/2, which came later and was never marketed properly)
> > >
> > > Could we please get this straight for the record? IBM marketed OS/2
> > > aggressively, and I got tons of support from them. They got stuck on
> > > the same problem that MS did, viz. these are complex systems which
> > > require lots of support to work right, particularly when you have
> > > lazy "whatever" users, which most American users are. (OS/2 is still
> > > hot in Germany, because the Germans have not yet degenerated to American
> > > cultural levels.) IBM and MS have come to different solutions.
> > >
> > > IBM: Support serious users who are willing to pay annual fees for
> > > a bulletproof system. (IBM still sells OS/2, still supports
> > > it to businesses, and has licensed the kernel to a private
> > > firm who sell it as part of an enhanced package for power
> > > users; development continues. I am one of these users.) You
> > > have to pay a few hundred dollars a year for this (wonderful)
> > > support.
> > >
> > > MS: Produce not a bulletproof system but one that works well most
> > > of the time for most casual users. Push off the support
> > > burden on the hardware vendor. Get revenue by releasing
> > > upgrades which are in practice mandatory due to intentional
> > > version incompatibilities. However this model has problems
> > > so eventually move (XP) to an annual lease model in which the
> > > customer is eternally imprisoned by the system's non-modularity,
> > > secret hooks, and proprietary embedded processes like Passport
> > > for support.
> > >
> > > Both systems make money for their owners. The difference is one
> > > system is built to sound engineering standards for reliability,
> > > security and supportability, sold on an ethical business model, and
> > > produces a good reputation for its proponent. The other is a
> > > security and operational nightmare, is traded using unethical (and
> > > occasional criminal methods) and causes the firm to be universally
> > > hated.
> > >
> > > I write this with no animus and I think it is a fair summary.
> > >
> > > Jeffrey Race
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:58:19 EST