"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 07:54:34 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote:

One caveat. Most of the current Linux distributions seem to pride
themselves on being "pure" open source applications and generally do
not do such things as play MP3 music, which is a proprietary encoding.
Of course it is possible to download and install additions to the
existing applications that will play MP3 files but the initial Linux
probably won't do it.

All well and good but what is the advantage in trying to make Linux
look like Windows when it is so easy to dual boot into a true Windows
environment? All this nonsense about Windows being unrelaible is
just that. I have Windows machines that stay up for 6 months or more
without a single crash or reboot. Resource usage is also a non-issue
when you can get quad-core machines with 4 GB of memory and 1 TB hard
disks for very reasonable prices.



Doesn't your Windoz box have to reboot for updates from time to time? Mine
does. While mine hasn't crashed in over a year, I certainly see it's
restarted after a major update.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Doesn't your Windoz box have to reboot for updates from time to time? Mine
does. While mine hasn't crashed in over a year, I certainly see it's
restarted after a major update.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Likewise. WinXP sp2 running on a "several years old" HP Pentium4 running at
a snail's pace of 2.53ghz and limping along with 1 gb memory. But it gets me
by, and stays running 24/7 hardly ever being rebooted. From time to time I
do some disk maintenance and cleanup, that's about it. XP has been very
stable on this machine.

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:16:01 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

Doesn't your Windoz box have to reboot for updates from time to time? Mine
does. While mine hasn't crashed in over a year, I certainly see it's
restarted after a major update.

My machines don't update unless I request it, which is not often.

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 22:06:20 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 07:54:34 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote:

One caveat. Most of the current Linux distributions seem to pride
themselves on being "pure" open source applications and generally do
not do such things as play MP3 music, which is a proprietary encoding.
Of course it is possible to download and install additions to the
existing applications that will play MP3 files but the initial Linux
probably won't do it.

All well and good but what is the advantage in trying to make Linux
look like Windows when it is so easy to dual boot into a true Windows
environment? All this nonsense about Windows being unrelaible is
just that. I have Windows machines that stay up for 6 months or more
without a single crash or reboot. Resource usage is also a non-issue
when you can get quad-core machines with 4 GB of memory and 1 TB hard
disks for very reasonable prices.

Not sure what you are responding to but many people are reluctant to,
or aren't familiar, with installing Linux and mistakenly believe that
installing the new system automatically destroys the old. I was merely
pointing out that it isn't necessarily so.

No one is trying to make Linux look like Windows... don't know where
that comment came from. Nor, the "nonsense about Windows not being
reliable" as neither the OP nor myself discussed that.

I have been listening to similar comments to your "Resource usage is
also a non-issue" for something like 20 years now. I can remember when
a BIG mainframe had an astounding 64K of core memory. Now video cards
have more then that. In a couple of years your amazing quad-4 with
its miserly 4 G memory and your TB of disk is going to be referred to
as a "legacy machine" and another guy will be talking about his 64
core with the multi-TB of ram.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:16:01 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 07:54:34 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote:

One caveat. Most of the current Linux distributions seem to pride
themselves on being "pure" open source applications and generally do
not do such things as play MP3 music, which is a proprietary encoding.
Of course it is possible to download and install additions to the
existing applications that will play MP3 files but the initial Linux
probably won't do it.

All well and good but what is the advantage in trying to make Linux
look like Windows when it is so easy to dual boot into a true Windows
environment? All this nonsense about Windows being unrelaible is
just that. I have Windows machines that stay up for 6 months or more
without a single crash or reboot. Resource usage is also a non-issue
when you can get quad-core machines with 4 GB of memory and 1 TB hard
disks for very reasonable prices.



Doesn't your Windoz box have to reboot for updates from time to time? Mine
does. While mine hasn't crashed in over a year, I certainly see it's
restarted after a major update.

My theory is if it isn't broke, don't fix it. I use a ten year old
version of Agent.

Casady

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:27:49 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote:

No one is trying to make Linux look like Windows... don't know where
that comment came from. Nor, the "nonsense about Windows not being
reliable" as neither the OP nor myself discussed that.

No offense intended, just pointing out/debunking some of the reasons I
hear from people who persist in running Linux on their PCs for one
reason or another. The list usually goes something like this:

1. Windows is not reliable (frequent crashes).

2. Windows uses too many resources.

3. I don't like Bill Gates.

4. Micrsoft is an evil empire.

5. Windows could never understand my inner creativity and genius
(also used by incurable Apple users).

6. Linux is free.

All in good fun of course... :-)

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:32:07 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:


1. Windows is not reliable (frequent crashes).

At one time this was true. Perhaps you don't remember the Blue Screen of
Death?

2. Windows uses too many resources.

Well, Linux has kept many older computers from filling up landfills. I
use an old P1 as a dedicated router/firewall.

3. I don't like Bill Gates.

Never met the man, so I can't say, but how many people use Windows
because they like Bill Gates?

4. Micrsoft is an evil empire.

In many ways it is. Ever here of the Microsoft Tax? If it bit you, I
don't think you would like it.

http://www.linfo.org/microsoft_tax.html

5. Windows could never understand my inner creativity and genius (also
used by incurable Apple users).

Oh well, us geniuses are never understood. ;-)

6. Linux is free.

Something wrong with that? But I don't use Linux because it's free. Due
to the above MS tax, I have copies of most MS OS including Vista, funny
but I never use them, ever.

Look, I prefer Linux, you don't, so what? I'm not trying to cram Linux
down your throat. I just wish Microsoft would stop trying to cram their
product down my throat.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:16:01 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

Doesn't your Windoz box have to reboot for updates from time to time? Mine
does. While mine hasn't crashed in over a year, I certainly see it's
restarted after a major update.

My machines don't update unless I request it, which is not often.



You're missing out on various security fixes and program updates.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:32:07 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:27:49 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote:

No one is trying to make Linux look like Windows... don't know where
that comment came from. Nor, the "nonsense about Windows not being
reliable" as neither the OP nor myself discussed that.

No offense intended, just pointing out/debunking some of the reasons I
hear from people who persist in running Linux on their PCs for one
reason or another. The list usually goes something like this:

1. Windows is not reliable (frequent crashes).

2. Windows uses too many resources.

3. I don't like Bill Gates.

4. Micrsoft is an evil empire.

5. Windows could never understand my inner creativity and genius
(also used by incurable Apple users).

6. Linux is free.

All in good fun of course... :-)

One of the reasons that I do not read or write to the Linux sites is
that they are full of zealots that interpret any post except a paean
of phrase to Linux as derogatory and they attack feverishly.

I recently asked about the availability of an memory based dictionary
and thesaurus and got told that Open Office had a dictionary... I
already knew hat OO had a dictionary and I suppose that had I said
that I would have been castigated for not using OO.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Bruce In Bangkok wrote in
:

One of the reasons that I do not read or write to the Linux sites is
that they are full of zealots that interpret any post except a paean
of phrase to Linux as derogatory and they attack feverishly.



They sound like Apple fanbois. iPhone fanbois are a rabid group,
too....great fun to pick on, though...(c;]