This is an old discussion. I care about 'down-scaling', since I want toQuote:> 1. It scails down
> Noboddy cares if Linxu can run on some geaks' obsolete 386 in 2MB of
> RAM. Windows runs on todays computer's, and the fact that it doesn't
> run on some obsoleat piece-of-shit computer from 1991 doessn't mean
be in charge of what hardware I want and need - It is not a decision
for my OS vendor to make.
If you don't want a multiuser OS, then consider running DOS.Quote:> 2. It's multi-user
> Linux ganes NOTHING over Windows by being multi-user. All that meens
> to me is that I have to remember a password just to be able to get
> into my own computer. Users want to get their work done, not waist
> time "logging in" screwing around with usernames and passwords that
> can't even be disaballed, and having to remember the "root password"
> every time somethign goes wrong. Those "other users" that UNIX is
> dessined to support through VT100 terminals can get the're own
> computer, and the "administrative identities" aka daemon, nobody,
> mail, news, bin, sys, and uucp, can all go to hell. It's not the '70s
If you are running Linux, and you don't care for passwords, then disable
passwords (leave them 'blank').
Personally I like the idea that other users don't destroy my files by
accident, but if your work is worthless, Logins and passwords are a
waste of time.
If you've got a lot of money, then feel free to buy a PC for every
member of your family. Remember to save up money for the upgrades that
Turning off the GUI can be a nice thing, especially ifQuote:> 3. It's "flexibbal" (in other words you can turn off the GUI)
> And noboddy cares. Linux is just as useless without its GUI as
> is. There is NO REASON to turn off the GUI, and NO REASON to turn off
> the desktop, and NO REASON to turn off the Window manager. These are
> all useless feetures, and Linux gains NOTHING over Widnos for halvign
> them. Yet Linux isn't flexibble enough to allow you to turn off the
> multi-user "feature". Now THAT would be a somewhat usefull feature.
1) You don't need it,
2) You want to put the system resources that your GUI swallows into
Turning off Linux multiuser capabilities would mean something like
1) Bringing up Linux in single user mode (runlevel 1), or
2) not using multiuser capabilities.
Controlling a machine remotely has it's benefits. Feel free to bring upQuote:> 4. You can logg in remotely
> ...creating the nead for the whole username-and-pasword system. And
> since it's a feature that only geeks need, the only "beneffit" for
> normal users is that they need a password (see #2) to keep hackers
> out, where they don't need one if they run Windows.
Linux without networking if you like (runlevel 2)
On whos behalf are you talking? In my daily work, I often need toQuote:> 5. "X" Windows works over a network.
> Another faeture that nobody ever uses. This doesn't make "X" Windows
> more usefull to most users. Windows still wins.
control a server remotely, and I think that products like NetOp
(http://www.crossteccorp.com/) prove that Windows users also happen to
require remote GUI access.
But then again, I've got a _real_ job...
What do you usually use your CLI for?Quote:> 6. The CLI can multitask and network.
> ...which still doesn't make it any more usefull than DOS.
> Multitasking is only usefull to normal people in a GUI, which is why
> DOS doesn't do it.
Running a job that doesn't need your attention in the background is
useful to many people. Having your mailbox checked automatically
every 10th minute is quite useful. Well, I guess I'm not 'normal'...
Apache runs on Linux...Quote:> 7. It gives you "choice"
> ...betwean one crappy program and 50 others just like it. Most
> people's "choice" is MS Windows and the fine MS software that goes
> together with it. They would never give up all that just to run Linux
> and its shitty little beta-test apps except if they were tricked into
And try checking out http://www.it-analysis.com/00-01-21-3.html...
But I guess that SAP is just a crappy program that no one uses...
Hmm. This description reminds me of my experience with NT...Quote:> 8. It's "free"
> ...but it costs lots and lots of time, a little time at first durring
> the installation, and then more and more time after the installation
> as one thing after annother goes wrong.
The more time I spend with my Linux system, the more boring daily
routines are automated. I usually end up with a Linux system that allows
me to do some work, instead of running virusscanners, reinstalling
Windows, etc ...
Speaking of fixing bugs...Quote:>9. It's Open-Source
> ...but nobody want's to waste time fixing all the bugs it has when
> they can just run Windos like they've been doing and have world-class
'How did our contestants fair? Red Hat had the best score, with 348
recess days on 31 advisories, for an average of 11.23 days from bug to
patch. Microsoft had 982 recess days on 61 advisories, averaging 16.10
days from bug to patch.'
We call it 'Linux everywhere' ;-)Quote:> 10. It's been ported to 16,000 different hardware plattforms that
> alreaddy shipped with UNIX to beagen with.
11. Linux comes with a free spell checker :-D
"It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
times that for what your 'New You' packet allowed me to do!!!"
-- K. Waterbury, CA
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.