Replies

1. Perhaps my computers are more expensive with Windows XP, but I can't buy them cheaper without it so... it didn't cost me anything that I could have recovered.

2. Yes. It isn't configured correctly but... I can't figure out how to configure it correctly. I've been working with microcomputers since the first CP/M Altos.

3. I'm NOT running a server. I don't care how well it works on a server. That is completely and utterly irrelevant to me.

4. It IS slow and it DOES take more resources to run than WIN2K.

5. It DOES crash. Win2k didn't.

6. I don't know what the heck FUD is, but all I'm spreading is the facts as they happened to me.

7. I have a T1 line, but downloading 2 gigabytes is ridiculous even with that capability. Three different FTP sites have crashed while I was downloading. Perhaps Redhat's FTP sites are slower and less reliable than some, but the download would take most of a day at the speed they fed my lines.

Here's what I do know. I buy Windows machines and hook them up. They work. When I do a clean installation of XP, it works and it recognizes all of my hardware and it runs all of my software.

I decided to try Linux because there are so many people who cream their pants at the mention of its name. They claim it is free, runs flawlessly and never crashes. Many say it will run on older computers and run fast. It turns out that it is way too big to download so it isn't free. It didn't run worth a damn on my Win2k machine. It doesn't recognize my network printers and the documentation is so completely undecipherable that I can't figure out how to configure it properly.

Your friend may have two Master's degrees. I'm a college professor. I teach Business Computing. I've got plenty of degrees. They aren't helping with Linux. And no... I do not plan to try to rewrite the Linux code. I have enough of my own applications to deal with.

I haven't given up yet. I plan to try a few more versions of LINUX to see if there is one that will run as an acceptable desktop operating system. So far, my experience has been terrible.

Now I hear that Redhat and another major desktop Linux provider are both likely to drop Linux as a desktop environment. I've had several different people recommend several different versions of Linux from several different companies. I have no way to know if any of them are going to install easily and run. From what I have seen, I'll need a Linux expert to do the installation. I'm going to try a maximum of three more versions before I give up on Linux and stick with Windows and Unix.

As an experienced computer user who has been building PCs for 21 years and running them for 27 years I should be able to install a good operating system without a hundred hours of experimentation and manual reading. When I'm done, the operating system should run at least as fast as Windows on the same machine. If it doesn't, all the hype is just that, hype.

Okay, let's play...

but I can't buy them cheaper without it so... it didn't cost me anything that I could have recovered.

Yes, you can. Got to http://mwave.com and you can configure a machine and save $$ by NOT buying an OS.

Yes. It isn't configured correctly but... I can't figure out how to configure it correctly. I've been working with microcomputers since the first CP/M Altos.

I don't care how long you've been 'working on computers', if you don't know what you're doing, stay away. RTFM and all that. 'man' pages. Read the "How-To's" that are out there. The information is free and easy to find.

I'm NOT running a server. I don't care how well it works on a server. That is completely and utterly irrelevant to me.

So why are you running it? To sound 1337? So you can check out the groovy desktops? What do you want to do? Linux may not be the answer.

It IS slow and it DOES take more resources to run than WIN2K.

This is so insane, I don't know where to begin. The only thing I can imagine is that you turned everything on when loaded it. Your probaby have more services running than you know what to do with. The Linux core requires precious few resources. I believe the last kernel would still run on 486s! And there are still versions that run on 386 machines.

It DOES crash. Win2k didn't.

Linux does not crash. It can hang. You can get kernel panic. But if it freezes, you can hit ALT + F2 and open a new terminal and su in and kill whatever processes where going on in your first session.
Your lack of knowledge on this and your assertion that Win2K 'never crashes' are the biggest load in your whole post. It may not have crashed for your yet, but it will. Because it does. And Win2K is the least likely to do this. But it still will.

I don't know what the heck FUD is, but all I'm spreading is the facts as they happened to me.

FUD == Fear Uncertainty Doubt
You don't know what you're doing and discouraging others, possibly less foolish than you, from trying.

I have a T1 line, but downloading 2 gigabytes is ridiculous even with that capability. Three different FTP sites have crashed while I was downloading. Perhaps Redhat's FTP sites are slower and less reliable than some, but the download would take most of a day at the speed they fed my lines.

Red Hat caps the speed of downloads. Use a mirror. In fact, Red Hat makes this exact point on their site.

I should be able to install a good operating system without a hundred hours of experimentation and manual reading.

Stay away from Linux. If you're not prepare to even read the download instructions on Red Hat's site, you won't be able to get anything to work.

Here's what I do know. I buy Windows machines and hook them up. They work.

Port 139 is exposed. They work for crackers, too.

I'm a college professor. I teach Business Computing.

So, you're not a computing professional. That explains a lot.

Look, I can recommend some good books and websites. But, like I'm sure you tell your students, if you don't do the work, you're not going to get the results.
Download a copy of Mandrake. That's the easiest and you can say you 'run Linux' since that sort of thing matters to you. (CP/M on Altos indeed).
But don't make up statements about resources on crashing. If somebody who didn't know how to drive bought a car and crashed it would you blame Dodge?

My RH versions run nicely as desktops. I use a 500mhz PIII 384mB 20GB 5400 rpm disk as a base test bed system. I purposely use a low end system to test end user performance. There is little user performance difference between this system and P4 systems except when the task is CPU specific. You can't expect low end HW to load as fast regardless which OS is installed.

Over my cable modem line I generally get 350+kByte average transfer rates. In some cases I get rates over 500kBytes. That is all the 10mb enet cable modem can spit out.

Performance with the latest Fedora release, 'yarrow', is marginally faster than the prvious RH9 release due to kernel tuning additions. Fedora replaces the old Red Hat. If you want commercial then I go with SUSE. Fedora is free so upgrading an old PC is a lot cheaper than any other way. Support and updates are available auto-magically online at the RH sponsored fedora ftp site and user mail lists.

I think you have setup problems since the stock RH or SUSE CDs install and perform at this speed for me. Linux is not slow when compared to the Win98 or WinXP it replaces on the exact same hardware. Since I have my test bed system set up to change hard disks for testing, one disk one OS, I can swap between the OSes and see how the exact same hardware performs. Linux is provably faster.

Here is what I do. I buy RH or SUSE Linux box sets, usually under $40. Install Linux on old Win98/Win2000 or even new WinXP PCs. They install in under a hour total. They just run.

Problems I have mostly is with newer machines, where particulary HP, designs their hardware 'windows specific'. That is fixed by just buying new white box systems with stock Intel motherboards. Right now I use D965PERLx boards. Problems I encounter with older machines is some of the old legacy enet cards are crap. Usually fixed with a new $20 card from the local shop. Old video cards are generally fixed by buying new cards for under $50. Both make the systems run better regardless what OS is installed.

The systems I install are generally used for internet and business with OpenOffice. The customers then use the money saved to actually run their business rather than pay for more software and hardware upgrades.

Most of my clients are money sensitive, not OS sensitive. We set up a church as an recent example. As long as the browser and office package work they are happy. May not work for all, works for me.

Lately buying pre-installed new systems with Lindows from Walmart online is catching on with clients I have. Cheap, warranty and they just run. Not everyone cares about the latest $10 widget working with their PC. If you care, then maybe sticking with Windows suits you.

I know what FUD is, it mostly comes out of Redmond.