3 dozen Linux installs, not a single one worked

Discussion in 'Windows Vista Help' started by VistaEra, Feb 9, 2007.

  1. In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Dustbin
    <>
    wrote
    Obviously. One of the things that keeps Windows people on their toes is
    the preponderance of online malware and viruses, and the patches
    therefor, making everyone rush madly to figure out what needs to be
    patched and in what order, and scheduling reboots.

    On Linux, we just sort of sit here and go "duh, what virus?"

    Yeah, that's pretty stupid all right.
     
    The Ghost In The Machine, Feb 13, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. VistaEra

    Damian Guest

    Dustbin got it wrong. You're quite a lot dumber than he thinks if you
    believe he's your soul-mate "VistaJustWorks"
     
    Damian, Feb 13, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. VistaEra

    Hachiroku Guest

    Well, take a look at my sig...

    Now, I could tell you how to get this to install. Takes all of 3 seconds
    and 1 click of a mouse. But, you don't REALLY want to know afterall, do
    you?

    No, better stick with Vista. It's been dumbed-down enough so even people
    that haven't a clue what a computer is can use one.

    Oh, BTW, not only did I get it to install AND upgrade, I'm also running it
    from a USB HDD.

    Now, for a REAL challenge! I'm going to get Beryl installed and running on
    this installation. That actually may take a couple days, but since I
    already got it running on SuSE and now know what to look for, it may not
    take as long.

    Oh, yeah! Thanks for the pointer to the .ISO!!!
     
    Hachiroku, Feb 13, 2007
  4. VistaEra

    Hachiroku Guest


    After his pointer to the Feisty-Fawn ISO, I was able to get it running and
    installed...on a USB Drive!

    Now, I gotta go pick up some parts so I can finish putting the engine on
    my Supra back together! Ta-Ta!
     
    Hachiroku, Feb 13, 2007
  5. VistaEra

    Hachiroku Guest

    What?
     
    Hachiroku, Feb 13, 2007
  6. Sorry...not familiar.

    BTW, check my sig...I fixed it...
     
    $)CHachiroku +O+A+m+/, Feb 13, 2007
  7. Ok...now look at the sig...that's better...
     
    Hachiroku +O+A+m+/, Feb 13, 2007
  8. In comp.os.linux.advocacy, =?iso-2022-kr?q?=1B=24=29CHachiroku_=0E+O+A+m+/=0F?=
    <>
    wrote
    Looks good to me. SLRN tends to filter out signatures
    on reply so you won't see it here, and *my* sig gets
    mangled by Teranew's service so that they can put their
    own .sig below. Not a lot I can do about it. :)
     
    The Ghost In The Machine, Feb 13, 2007
  9. VistaEra

    Damian Guest

    Yes, I already knew that. I made no claim that it did... Are _YOU_ just
    finding out?
     
    Damian, Feb 14, 2007
  10. The last product I got 'excited' about was Win '95. A real breakthrough
    for the WinTel machines. It's been all downhill since then. There isn't
    really an OS I think is worth a damn, Linux, XP and Win2K included,
    although Win2K is probably the best of the bunch. It just works...
     
    Hachiroku +O+A+m+/, Feb 15, 2007
  11. Curious point of view. W95 was a graphical shell over a very primitive
    DOS OS. While the user interface was arguably more advanced than DOS, it
    was way behind the user interface of MacOS at the time. But in all ways
    this was a very primitive OS underneath - filesystem support, interrupt
    services, security model... You have some bizarre criteria.
     
    Daniel Packman, Feb 16, 2007

  12. it was certainly more advanced and configurable than what it replaced!
    Yes, I know it was over DOS '7', but it was an advance for Windows boxes.
    And it WORKED, which was the best thing.

    I got on the tail end of the "Chicago" beta, installed it and said,
    Bleh... for basically the same reasons you just mentioned. removed it 2
    days later, and 2 days after that realized how much I missed the interface
    and File Manager.

    When the actual release hit the streets, File Manager was 1/4 of what it
    was in the Beta...a big disappointment. So I moved to NT.

    And yes, MAC OS has always been years ahead of Windows, but I didn't like
    it because I COULDN'T get below the OS and 'tinker'. One of the main
    reasons I like Linux so much! After all, X merely rides above a bunch of
    commands, which actually is a GOOD thing when it pukes.

    OK, how about this: I only had a MAC for a very short time when I was Tech
    Support for GE. How does OS X operate? It leans heavily on Unix/BSD...
     
    Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B, Feb 16, 2007
  13. You could always tinker with MacOS and you still can.
    (Don't use MAC for Macintosh... capitalized it means something else)

    You can read up on OSX in many places. It has a mach microkernel with
    FreeBSD services.

    http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/
     
    Daniel Packman, Feb 18, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.