Comedy Break

http://www.picturebookmarking.com/ga...ap_as_hell.jpg

http://www.picturebookmarking.com/ga...ap_as_hell.jpg

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:52:04 -0700, romanom wrote:

> http://www.picturebookmarking.com/ga...ap_as_hell.jpg

Well, actually, you're not all that far off the mark. Indeed, Linux
is free, and it doesn't require the kind of idiotioc hardware upgrade
Vista needs to run acceptable (if it runs at all).

My main workhorse here is now 8 (eight) years old and still going strong:
an Intel Celeron 670 MHz machine with 512MB of RAM and an old nVidia
graphics card with 32MB of video RAM. The only hardware upgrades have
been doubling the RAM (originally 256MB), and two new HD's (the original
one biting the dust after 6 years of 24/7 service).

It's not just as workable with Linux as day one -- it's even better, as
KDE has gotten streamlined along the way (KDE can run in as little as
128MB of RAM -- not fast, mind you, but workable all the same).

This machine can do almost everyting Vista can; only the 3D desktop
effects are a bit too much to ask for; but that's no loss at all, as
I think 3D desktop effects are more of an annoyance, and not enhancing
productivity in any way.

I have several other older and newer Linux boxes around, and they're
equally well-behaved: they just run, apart from occasional hardware
failures.

So in all, I spend perhaps $100 annually in hardware costs to keep
five Linux boxes running, and doing all my work. For all the rest,
I have no software costs, and spend perhaps a few minutes per week
per box on maintenance.


And oh, lately, one of my users went shopping for a new machine (as
his old one -- a Dell Optiplex GX50 -- got fried during a thunderstorm).
He ended up with a fast AMD64 machine, featuring 512MB of RAM and a
128MB RAM graphics card, for only $200. And it runs Linux lightning
fast, without a single hitch, for

Had he followed the sales droid's advice, he'd have ended up with a
$400 Vista box, with lots of trouble and extra cost (new software,
paying "Windows experts" for troubleshooting etcetera) guaranteed,
as Vista is best described as bloated beta crapware.
But with Linux, he's just as cheap as hell as I am :-) Why spend more
when the free stuff runs better?

Richard Rasker
--
http://www.linetec.nl/

Linux is no piece of cake to set up neither. The people here with Vista
issues would be in a Linux forum with issues. Wait until they set up their
modem to run under Linux.

"Richard Rasker" <> wrote in message
news: l...
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:52:04 -0700, romanom wrote:
>
>> http://www.picturebookmarking.com/ga...ap_as_hell.jpg
>
> Well, actually, you're not all that far off the mark. Indeed, Linux
> is free, and it doesn't require the kind of idiotioc hardware upgrade
> Vista needs to run acceptable (if it runs at all).
>
> My main workhorse here is now 8 (eight) years old and still going strong:
> an Intel Celeron 670 MHz machine with 512MB of RAM and an old nVidia
> graphics card with 32MB of video RAM. The only hardware upgrades have
> been doubling the RAM (originally 256MB), and two new HD's (the original
> one biting the dust after 6 years of 24/7 service).
>
> It's not just as workable with Linux as day one -- it's even better, as
> KDE has gotten streamlined along the way (KDE can run in as little as
> 128MB of RAM -- not fast, mind you, but workable all the same).
>
> This machine can do almost everyting Vista can; only the 3D desktop
> effects are a bit too much to ask for; but that's no loss at all, as
> I think 3D desktop effects are more of an annoyance, and not enhancing
> productivity in any way.
>
> I have several other older and newer Linux boxes around, and they're
> equally well-behaved: they just run, apart from occasional hardware
> failures.
>
> So in all, I spend perhaps $100 annually in hardware costs to keep
> five Linux boxes running, and doing all my work. For all the rest,
> I have no software costs, and spend perhaps a few minutes per week
> per box on maintenance.
>
>
> And oh, lately, one of my users went shopping for a new machine (as
> his old one -- a Dell Optiplex GX50 -- got fried during a thunderstorm).
> He ended up with a fast AMD64 machine, featuring 512MB of RAM and a
> 128MB RAM graphics card, for only $200. And it runs Linux lightning
> fast, without a single hitch, for
>
> Had he followed the sales droid's advice, he'd have ended up with a
> $400 Vista box, with lots of trouble and extra cost (new software,
> paying "Windows experts" for troubleshooting etcetera) guaranteed,
> as Vista is best described as bloated beta crapware.
> But with Linux, he's just as cheap as hell as I am :-) Why spend more
> when the free stuff runs better?
>
> Richard Rasker
> --
> http://www.linetec.nl/

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:50:23 -0400, NonTarget wrote:

[snip top-posted comment relocated}

> "Richard Rasker" <> wrote in message
> news: l...
>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:52:04 -0700, romanom wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.picturebookmarking.com/galleries/uploaded/
Linux_users_are_cheap_as_hell.jpg
>>
>> Well, actually, you're not all that far off the mark. Indeed, Linux is
>> free, and it doesn't require the kind of idiotioc hardware upgrade
>> Vista needs to run acceptable (if it runs at all).

[snip Linux advocacy]

>> Why spend more when the free stuff runs better?
>>
>> Richard Rasker

> Linux is no piece of cake to set up neither.

Hold it right there. Most people here actually bought preinstalled Vista
machines, which /should/ work just fine -- yet they stumble upon problem
after problem. Weird, stupid, or even outrageous problems, many of which
indicate that Vista is not a viable product at all, but a sick joke.

> The people here with Vista issues would be in a Linux forum with
> issues.

Setting up a modern Linux distribution is about as easy as setting up
Vista -- a matter of popping in the DVD (or CD) and just going with the
default choices, after which you'll end up with a fully functional
machine -- including a huge amount of fully operational software, nothing
like the crapware fest Windows users are used to.

When doing the install yourself, the only thing presenting problems is
proprietary stuff, such as drivers and codecs which cannot be distributed
freely, but even that hurdle is easily overcome by most computer-savvy
users.
For the less computer-savvy users, there's the option of Linux
preinstalled on their machines (a service which I happen to offer);
people who choose this option actually have far less problems with Linux
than with any Windows variety you may care to mention. Their machines
just work, and keep on working. The only problems here lie in the realm
of commercial computer games, unsupported new hardware and unavailable
software titles -- problems which, how ironic, are among the many major
showstoppers in Vista right now.

> Wait until they set up their modem to run under Linux.

The only reason why telephone modems are difficult to set up in Linux is
because most of those modems are explicitly made to depend on the Windows
operating system, and because manufacturers of said modems refuse to give
Linux developers access to any necessary information to make these
devices work with Linux.

Besides, as long as many Vista users have major trouble with extremely
basic OS tasks such as copying or moving files, or getting the Start menu
to behave properly, I would refrain from commenting on problems with
third party products altogether. Even with Microsoft's stranglehold on
the market apparently unbroken, and with little else but Vista offered,
businesses, governmental organisations and private consumers are avoiding
it in ever larger numbers.
Face it: Vista is nothing but a pathetic failure, which took six years to
develop, and there's nothing those stupid clickdummies calling themselves
MVP's can do about it. My prediction is that this news group will succomb
to an ever increasing number of cries for help, as Vista is foisted onto
an ever growing portion of the world's population.

Richard Rasker
--
http://www.linetec.nl/

You take your gripe against Vista a little too serious. Ranters with an axe
to grind against Microsoft aren't very accurate with their "guesses" about
how many people do or do not have Vista issues. If you like Linux, and your
raggety little shop wants to sell it, thats great. But the success of Vista
is obvious by you're seeking of its newsgroup to promote "Hey, dont knock
it, its free Linux".

"Richard Rasker" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:50:23 -0400, NonTarget wrote:
>
> [snip top-posted comment relocated}
>
>> "Richard Rasker" <> wrote in message
>> news: l...
>>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:52:04 -0700, romanom wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.picturebookmarking.com/galleries/uploaded/
> Linux_users_are_cheap_as_hell.jpg
>>>
>>> Well, actually, you're not all that far off the mark. Indeed, Linux is
>>> free, and it doesn't require the kind of idiotioc hardware upgrade
>>> Vista needs to run acceptable (if it runs at all).
>
> [snip Linux advocacy]
>
>>> Why spend more when the free stuff runs better?
>>>
>>> Richard Rasker
>
>> Linux is no piece of cake to set up neither.
>
> Hold it right there. Most people here actually bought preinstalled Vista
> machines, which /should/ work just fine -- yet they stumble upon problem
> after problem. Weird, stupid, or even outrageous problems, many of which
> indicate that Vista is not a viable product at all, but a sick joke.
>
>> The people here with Vista issues would be in a Linux forum with
>> issues.
>
> Setting up a modern Linux distribution is about as easy as setting up
> Vista -- a matter of popping in the DVD (or CD) and just going with the
> default choices, after which you'll end up with a fully functional
> machine -- including a huge amount of fully operational software, nothing
> like the crapware fest Windows users are used to.
>
> When doing the install yourself, the only thing presenting problems is
> proprietary stuff, such as drivers and codecs which cannot be distributed
> freely, but even that hurdle is easily overcome by most computer-savvy
> users.
> For the less computer-savvy users, there's the option of Linux
> preinstalled on their machines (a service which I happen to offer);
> people who choose this option actually have far less problems with Linux
> than with any Windows variety you may care to mention. Their machines
> just work, and keep on working. The only problems here lie in the realm
> of commercial computer games, unsupported new hardware and unavailable
> software titles -- problems which, how ironic, are among the many major
> showstoppers in Vista right now.
>
>> Wait until they set up their modem to run under Linux.
>
> The only reason why telephone modems are difficult to set up in Linux is
> because most of those modems are explicitly made to depend on the Windows
> operating system, and because manufacturers of said modems refuse to give
> Linux developers access to any necessary information to make these
> devices work with Linux.
>
> Besides, as long as many Vista users have major trouble with extremely
> basic OS tasks such as copying or moving files, or getting the Start menu
> to behave properly, I would refrain from commenting on problems with
> third party products altogether. Even with Microsoft's stranglehold on
> the market apparently unbroken, and with little else but Vista offered,
> businesses, governmental organisations and private consumers are avoiding
> it in ever larger numbers.
> Face it: Vista is nothing but a pathetic failure, which took six years to
> develop, and there's nothing those stupid clickdummies calling themselves
> MVP's can do about it. My prediction is that this news group will succomb
> to an ever increasing number of cries for help, as Vista is foisted onto
> an ever growing portion of the world's population.
>
> Richard Rasker
> --
> http://www.linetec.nl/

Hey , I have a copy of Novell's Suse Linux 10.1 sitting in a box unused.
You want it?
It was a 2 day ordeal trying to install it, and Novell's lack of support is
10000000(accurate to Linux users) times worse than Microsoft's.
But I don't go on Linux forums, ranting about Linux...I just dumped it back
in the box.

"Richard Rasker" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:50:23 -0400, NonTarget wrote:
>
> [snip top-posted comment relocated}
>
>> "Richard Rasker" <> wrote in message
>> news: l...
>>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:52:04 -0700, romanom wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.picturebookmarking.com/galleries/uploaded/
> Linux_users_are_cheap_as_hell.jpg
>>>
>>> Well, actually, you're not all that far off the mark. Indeed, Linux is
>>> free, and it doesn't require the kind of idiotioc hardware upgrade
>>> Vista needs to run acceptable (if it runs at all).
>
> [snip Linux advocacy]
>
>>> Why spend more when the free stuff runs better?
>>>
>>> Richard Rasker
>
>> Linux is no piece of cake to set up neither.
>
> Hold it right there. Most people here actually bought preinstalled Vista
> machines, which /should/ work just fine -- yet they stumble upon problem
> after problem. Weird, stupid, or even outrageous problems, many of which
> indicate that Vista is not a viable product at all, but a sick joke.
>
>> The people here with Vista issues would be in a Linux forum with
>> issues.
>
> Setting up a modern Linux distribution is about as easy as setting up
> Vista -- a matter of popping in the DVD (or CD) and just going with the
> default choices, after which you'll end up with a fully functional
> machine -- including a huge amount of fully operational software, nothing
> like the crapware fest Windows users are used to.
>
> When doing the install yourself, the only thing presenting problems is
> proprietary stuff, such as drivers and codecs which cannot be distributed
> freely, but even that hurdle is easily overcome by most computer-savvy
> users.
> For the less computer-savvy users, there's the option of Linux
> preinstalled on their machines (a service which I happen to offer);
> people who choose this option actually have far less problems with Linux
> than with any Windows variety you may care to mention. Their machines
> just work, and keep on working. The only problems here lie in the realm
> of commercial computer games, unsupported new hardware and unavailable
> software titles -- problems which, how ironic, are among the many major
> showstoppers in Vista right now.
>
>> Wait until they set up their modem to run under Linux.
>
> The only reason why telephone modems are difficult to set up in Linux is
> because most of those modems are explicitly made to depend on the Windows
> operating system, and because manufacturers of said modems refuse to give
> Linux developers access to any necessary information to make these
> devices work with Linux.
>
> Besides, as long as many Vista users have major trouble with extremely
> basic OS tasks such as copying or moving files, or getting the Start menu
> to behave properly, I would refrain from commenting on problems with
> third party products altogether. Even with Microsoft's stranglehold on
> the market apparently unbroken, and with little else but Vista offered,
> businesses, governmental organisations and private consumers are avoiding
> it in ever larger numbers.
> Face it: Vista is nothing but a pathetic failure, which took six years to
> develop, and there's nothing those stupid clickdummies calling themselves
> MVP's can do about it. My prediction is that this news group will succomb
> to an ever increasing number of cries for help, as Vista is foisted onto
> an ever growing portion of the world's population.
>
> Richard Rasker
> --
> http://www.linetec.nl/

In message <u9Mz$> "NonTarget"
<> wrote:

>Linux is no piece of cake to set up neither. The people here with Vista
>issues would be in a Linux forum with issues. Wait until they set up their
>modem to run under Linux.

Or try to install MS Office and connect to an Exchange server, or works
with MS Project, or any of the other things that the business world
finds essential.

--
You can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than just a kind word.