PCLinuxOs...

[Lang Murphy]

I've said it many time before, and I'll say it again... nix ain't ready for
"Joe Normal."

Sorry, I forget the person who suggested I try PCLinuxOS, and, that said, I
d/l'd it today and installed it on a desktop. (Tried installing it on a
laptop with a wireless NIC, but, uh, no go?)

So I installed PCLOS, as it's called, on a desktop. Install went OK. Got to
the desktop fine. Where's the Network icon? None. How does one access the
local network? Ah, open "My Computer". Heh, heh, heh... then open "Remote
Places." Then open "Local Network", only to receive the msg "The Lisa daemon
does not appear to be running. In order to use the LAN browser, the Lisa
daemon must be installed and activated by the system administrator."

Uh, OK... where does one go from here? (NOT looking for answers from nix
folks, it's a rhetorical question.)

Is it so hard to put a "Network" icon on the desktop?

Is it so hard to have that functionality be transparent to the user? Is the
"Joe Normal" user going to know how to log on as administrator and install
and activate the Lisa daemon? Uh, no?

OK... this may appear to be an attack on nix... it's not, believe me. Were
one to have the time to determine how to install and activate the Lisa
daemon... well, no issue, right? One can figure it out -eventually-, right?

And, of course, I'm not saying that Vista is "issue free." That said... when
I install Vista, I get a "Network" icon on the desktop that takes me right
to the stuff I'm tryng to access. No "install Lisa daemon" stuff...

So, yeah, Vista's not "issue free." We all know it, and I'd be a dope to
claim otherwise.

And I -am- most interested in trying different nix distros ones that might
be considered "Joe Normal" friendly.

Have yet to discover -that- nix distro.

And, no, don't tell me Ubutnu. Been there, done that.

Lang

 

[Ian Betts]

You lost again friend, this is a Vista list.

Go to a linux list.

--
Ian

"Lang Murphy" <lang_murphy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:330D72CD-8EAC-42BC-8144-3C11E57ADC52@microsoft.com...
> I've said it many time before, and I'll say it again... nix ain't ready
> for "Joe Normal."
>
> Sorry, I forget the person who suggested I try PCLinuxOS, and, that said,
> I d/l'd it today and installed it on a desktop. (Tried installing it on a
> laptop with a wireless NIC, but, uh, no go?)
>
> So I installed PCLOS, as it's called, on a desktop. Install went OK. Got
> to the desktop fine. Where's the Network icon? None. How does one access
> the local network? Ah, open "My Computer". Heh, heh, heh... then open
> "Remote Places." Then open "Local Network", only to receive the msg "The
> Lisa daemon does not appear to be running. In order to use the LAN
> browser, the Lisa daemon must be installed and activated by the system
> administrator."
>
> Uh, OK... where does one go from here? (NOT looking for answers from nix
> folks, it's a rhetorical question.)
>
> Is it so hard to put a "Network" icon on the desktop?
>
> Is it so hard to have that functionality be transparent to the user? Is
> the "Joe Normal" user going to know how to log on as administrator and
> install and activate the Lisa daemon? Uh, no?
>
> OK... this may appear to be an attack on nix... it's not, believe me. Were
> one to have the time to determine how to install and activate the Lisa
> daemon... well, no issue, right? One can figure it out -eventually-,
> right?
>
> And, of course, I'm not saying that Vista is "issue free." That said...
> when I install Vista, I get a "Network" icon on the desktop that takes me
> right to the stuff I'm tryng to access. No "install Lisa daemon" stuff...
>
> So, yeah, Vista's not "issue free." We all know it, and I'd be a dope to
> claim otherwise.
>
> And I -am- most interested in trying different nix distros ones that
> might be considered "Joe Normal" friendly.
>
> Have yet to discover -that- nix distro.
>
> And, no, don't tell me Ubutnu. Been there, done that.
>
> Lang
>

 

[Alias]

Lang Murphy wrote:
> I've said it many time before, and I'll say it again... nix ain't ready
> for "Joe Normal."
>
> Sorry, I forget the person who suggested I try PCLinuxOS, and, that
> said, I d/l'd it today and installed it on a desktop. (Tried installing
> it on a laptop with a wireless NIC, but, uh, no go?)
>
> So I installed PCLOS, as it's called, on a desktop. Install went OK. Got
> to the desktop fine. Where's the Network icon? None. How does one access
> the local network? Ah, open "My Computer". Heh, heh, heh... then open
> "Remote Places." Then open "Local Network", only to receive the msg "The
> Lisa daemon does not appear to be running. In order to use the LAN
> browser, the Lisa daemon must be installed and activated by the system
> administrator."
>
> Uh, OK... where does one go from here? (NOT looking for answers from nix
> folks, it's a rhetorical question.)
>
> Is it so hard to put a "Network" icon on the desktop?
>
> Is it so hard to have that functionality be transparent to the user? Is
> the "Joe Normal" user going to know how to log on as administrator and
> install and activate the Lisa daemon? Uh, no?
>
> OK... this may appear to be an attack on nix... it's not, believe me.
> Were one to have the time to determine how to install and activate the
> Lisa daemon... well, no issue, right? One can figure it out
> -eventually-, right?
>
> And, of course, I'm not saying that Vista is "issue free." That said...
> when I install Vista, I get a "Network" icon on the desktop that takes
> me right to the stuff I'm tryng to access. No "install Lisa daemon"
> stuff...
>
> So, yeah, Vista's not "issue free." We all know it, and I'd be a dope to
> claim otherwise.
>
> And I -am- most interested in trying different nix distros ones that
> might be considered "Joe Normal" friendly.
>
> Have yet to discover -that- nix distro.
>
> And, no, don't tell me Ubutnu. Been there, done that.
>
> Lang

Ubuntu 7.04 has a network icon so you haven't been there or done that.

Alias

 

[MICHAEL]

Lang Murphy wrote:
> I've said it many time before, and I'll say it again... nix ain't ready for
> "Joe Normal."
>
> Sorry, I forget the person who suggested I try PCLinuxOS, and, that said, I
> d/l'd it today and installed it on a desktop. (Tried installing it on a
> laptop with a wireless NIC, but, uh, no go?)
>
> So I installed PCLOS, as it's called, on a desktop. Install went OK. Got to
> the desktop fine. Where's the Network icon? None. How does one access the
> local network? Ah, open "My Computer". Heh, heh, heh... then open "Remote
> Places." Then open "Local Network", only to receive the msg "The Lisa daemon
> does not appear to be running. In order to use the LAN browser, the Lisa
> daemon must be installed and activated by the system administrator."
>
> Uh, OK... where does one go from here? (NOT looking for answers from nix
> folks, it's a rhetorical question.)
>
> Is it so hard to put a "Network" icon on the desktop?
>
> Is it so hard to have that functionality be transparent to the user? Is the
> "Joe Normal" user going to know how to log on as administrator and install
> and activate the Lisa daemon? Uh, no?
>
> OK... this may appear to be an attack on nix... it's not, believe me. Were
> one to have the time to determine how to install and activate the Lisa
> daemon... well, no issue, right? One can figure it out -eventually-, right?
>
> And, of course, I'm not saying that Vista is "issue free." That said... when
> I install Vista, I get a "Network" icon on the desktop that takes me right
> to the stuff I'm tryng to access. No "install Lisa daemon" stuff...
>
> So, yeah, Vista's not "issue free." We all know it, and I'd be a dope to
> claim otherwise.
>
> And I -am- most interested in trying different nix distros ones that might
> be considered "Joe Normal" friendly.
>
> Have yet to discover -that- nix distro.
>
> And, no, don't tell me Ubutnu. Been there, done that.
>
> Lang

Why didn't you email me? All the questions you have can be
answered by google, too. It's okay to ask questions when you're
not sure what needs to be done, there are forums and websites-
just like there are for Vista and all Windows' products.

Your experience with PCLinuxOS, or any Linux flavor for that
matter, may take some readjustments..... just like Window users
getting used to Vista- it's really not much different in the way one
has to retrain the brain/habits/familiarity. Perhaps, the terminologies
and placement of tools takes a bit getting used to in Linux compared
to Windows, and that should be expected after dealing with a
Windows world for so long. It's like moving to a new city and not
being able to find your way around, but eventually you do. Don't
let unfamiliar surroundings keep you from seeing and enjoying the sites.
Unfortunately, for many they only ever "visit" Linux as a tourist, and never
really get the true experience or really learn how to navigate around....
they miss a lot and make far too many assumptions based on the Windows
world they came from. They cut their visit short and leave. In reality, Linux
can offer them the exact same things that they believe only exist in their
gated Windows community.

No, I haven't left Windows megalopolis, yet. But, I sure do get out
a lot more often than I ever did, and I've really started enjoying the
nice and comfortable ride... not many car-jackings around these parts,
either. The scenery is looking better all the time, too.


Take care,

Michael

P.S.
Lang, let me know if you need a lift... there's plenty of room.

 

[xfile]

Thanks for sharing.

In addition, mainstream users buy computers as a "solution" just like other
products, and they don't want nor have the interest to do DIY needless to
say to install a new OS or switch to a new OS.

Linux are for techies because they never want to userstand mainsteam users,
and they have no idea about what is "solution" or "offer". Over years, they
have been told countless times but they are too proud to take any others'
advises, and yet, they blame why people don't appreciate their works. LOL.

Using automobiles as an example, they are sales people for auto accessories
and parts, while the mainstream car owners want to buy a finished car.

My two cents.

"Lang Murphy" <lang_murphy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:330D72CD-8EAC-42BC-8144-3C11E57ADC52@microsoft.com...
> I've said it many time before, and I'll say it again... nix ain't ready
> for "Joe Normal."
>
> Sorry, I forget the person who suggested I try PCLinuxOS, and, that said,
> I d/l'd it today and installed it on a desktop. (Tried installing it on a
> laptop with a wireless NIC, but, uh, no go?)
>
> So I installed PCLOS, as it's called, on a desktop. Install went OK. Got
> to the desktop fine. Where's the Network icon? None. How does one access
> the local network? Ah, open "My Computer". Heh, heh, heh... then open
> "Remote Places." Then open "Local Network", only to receive the msg "The
> Lisa daemon does not appear to be running. In order to use the LAN
> browser, the Lisa daemon must be installed and activated by the system
> administrator."
>
> Uh, OK... where does one go from here? (NOT looking for answers from nix
> folks, it's a rhetorical question.)
>
> Is it so hard to put a "Network" icon on the desktop?
>
> Is it so hard to have that functionality be transparent to the user? Is
> the "Joe Normal" user going to know how to log on as administrator and
> install and activate the Lisa daemon? Uh, no?
>
> OK... this may appear to be an attack on nix... it's not, believe me. Were
> one to have the time to determine how to install and activate the Lisa
> daemon... well, no issue, right? One can figure it out -eventually-,
> right?
>
> And, of course, I'm not saying that Vista is "issue free." That said...
> when I install Vista, I get a "Network" icon on the desktop that takes me
> right to the stuff I'm tryng to access. No "install Lisa daemon" stuff...
>
> So, yeah, Vista's not "issue free." We all know it, and I'd be a dope to
> claim otherwise.
>
> And I -am- most interested in trying different nix distros ones that
> might be considered "Joe Normal" friendly.
>
> Have yet to discover -that- nix distro.
>
> And, no, don't tell me Ubutnu. Been there, done that.
>
> Lang

 

[Alias]

xfile wrote:
> Thanks for sharing.
>
> In addition, mainstream users buy computers as a "solution" just like other
> products, and they don't want nor have the interest to do DIY needless to
> say to install a new OS or switch to a new OS.
>
> Linux are for techies because they never want to userstand mainsteam users,
> and they have no idea about what is "solution" or "offer". Over years, they
> have been told countless times but they are too proud to take any others'
> advises, and yet, they blame why people don't appreciate their works. LOL.
>
> Using automobiles as an example, they are sales people for auto accessories
> and parts, while the mainstream car owners want to buy a finished car.
>
> My two cents.

Your sweeping generalizations.

Alias
>
> "Lang Murphy" <lang_murphy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:330D72CD-8EAC-42BC-8144-3C11E57ADC52@microsoft.com...
>> I've said it many time before, and I'll say it again... nix ain't ready
>> for "Joe Normal."
>>
>> Sorry, I forget the person who suggested I try PCLinuxOS, and, that said,
>> I d/l'd it today and installed it on a desktop. (Tried installing it on a
>> laptop with a wireless NIC, but, uh, no go?)
>>
>> So I installed PCLOS, as it's called, on a desktop. Install went OK. Got
>> to the desktop fine. Where's the Network icon? None. How does one access
>> the local network? Ah, open "My Computer". Heh, heh, heh... then open
>> "Remote Places." Then open "Local Network", only to receive the msg "The
>> Lisa daemon does not appear to be running. In order to use the LAN
>> browser, the Lisa daemon must be installed and activated by the system
>> administrator."
>>
>> Uh, OK... where does one go from here? (NOT looking for answers from nix
>> folks, it's a rhetorical question.)
>>
>> Is it so hard to put a "Network" icon on the desktop?
>>
>> Is it so hard to have that functionality be transparent to the user? Is
>> the "Joe Normal" user going to know how to log on as administrator and
>> install and activate the Lisa daemon? Uh, no?
>>
>> OK... this may appear to be an attack on nix... it's not, believe me. Were
>> one to have the time to determine how to install and activate the Lisa
>> daemon... well, no issue, right? One can figure it out -eventually-,
>> right?
>>
>> And, of course, I'm not saying that Vista is "issue free." That said...
>> when I install Vista, I get a "Network" icon on the desktop that takes me
>> right to the stuff I'm tryng to access. No "install Lisa daemon" stuff...
>>
>> So, yeah, Vista's not "issue free." We all know it, and I'd be a dope to
>> claim otherwise.
>>
>> And I -am- most interested in trying different nix distros ones that
>> might be considered "Joe Normal" friendly.
>>
>> Have yet to discover -that- nix distro.
>>
>> And, no, don't tell me Ubutnu. Been there, done that.
>>
>> Lang
>
>

 

[euroeddie]

Get a Mac.



"Lang Murphy" <lang_murphy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:330D72CD-8EAC-42BC-8144-3C11E57ADC52@microsoft.com...
> I've said it many time before, and I'll say it again... nix ain't ready
> for "Joe Normal."
>
> Sorry, I forget the person who suggested I try PCLinuxOS, and, that said,
> I d/l'd it today and installed it on a desktop. (Tried installing it on a
> laptop with a wireless NIC, but, uh, no go?)
>
> So I installed PCLOS, as it's called, on a desktop. Install went OK. Got
> to the desktop fine. Where's the Network icon? None. How does one access
> the local network? Ah, open "My Computer". Heh, heh, heh... then open
> "Remote Places." Then open "Local Network", only to receive the msg "The
> Lisa daemon does not appear to be running. In order to use the LAN
> browser, the Lisa daemon must be installed and activated by the system
> administrator."
>
> Uh, OK... where does one go from here? (NOT looking for answers from nix
> folks, it's a rhetorical question.)
>
> Is it so hard to put a "Network" icon on the desktop?
>
> Is it so hard to have that functionality be transparent to the user? Is
> the "Joe Normal" user going to know how to log on as administrator and
> install and activate the Lisa daemon? Uh, no?
>
> OK... this may appear to be an attack on nix... it's not, believe me. Were
> one to have the time to determine how to install and activate the Lisa
> daemon... well, no issue, right? One can figure it out -eventually-,
> right?
>
> And, of course, I'm not saying that Vista is "issue free." That said...
> when I install Vista, I get a "Network" icon on the desktop that takes me
> right to the stuff I'm tryng to access. No "install Lisa daemon" stuff...
>
> So, yeah, Vista's not "issue free." We all know it, and I'd be a dope to
> claim otherwise.
>
> And I -am- most interested in trying different nix distros ones that
> might be considered "Joe Normal" friendly.
>
> Have yet to discover -that- nix distro.
>
> And, no, don't tell me Ubutnu. Been there, done that.
>
> Lang

 

[Frank]

Alias wrote:


>
> Your sweeping generalizations.
>
> Alias
>
-----------------------------
Your lying generalities!
Frank

 

[Charlie Tame]

Lang Murphy wrote:
> I've said it many time before, and I'll say it again... nix ain't ready
> for "Joe Normal."
>
> Sorry, I forget the person who suggested I try PCLinuxOS, and, that
> said, I d/l'd it today and installed it on a desktop. (Tried installing
> it on a laptop with a wireless NIC, but, uh, no go?)
>
> So I installed PCLOS, as it's called, on a desktop. Install went OK. Got
> to the desktop fine. Where's the Network icon? None. How does one access
> the local network? Ah, open "My Computer". Heh, heh, heh... then open
> "Remote Places." Then open "Local Network", only to receive the msg "The
> Lisa daemon does not appear to be running. In order to use the LAN
> browser, the Lisa daemon must be installed and activated by the system
> administrator."
>
> Uh, OK... where does one go from here? (NOT looking for answers from nix
> folks, it's a rhetorical question.)
>
> Is it so hard to put a "Network" icon on the desktop?
>
> Is it so hard to have that functionality be transparent to the user? Is
> the "Joe Normal" user going to know how to log on as administrator and
> install and activate the Lisa daemon? Uh, no?
>
> OK... this may appear to be an attack on nix... it's not, believe me.
> Were one to have the time to determine how to install and activate the
> Lisa daemon... well, no issue, right? One can figure it out
> -eventually-, right?
>
> And, of course, I'm not saying that Vista is "issue free." That said...
> when I install Vista, I get a "Network" icon on the desktop that takes
> me right to the stuff I'm tryng to access. No "install Lisa daemon"
> stuff...
>
> So, yeah, Vista's not "issue free." We all know it, and I'd be a dope to
> claim otherwise.
>
> And I -am- most interested in trying different nix distros ones that
> might be considered "Joe Normal" friendly.
>
> Have yet to discover -that- nix distro.
>
> And, no, don't tell me Ubutnu. Been there, done that.
>
> Lang


Strange, I had no such trouble. My biggest problem thus far has been
with Video drivers and Printers.

However you do mention one of the major irritations of Vista, ie things
not being where expected or even where they would be logical. These
cosmetic changes impose a quite unnecessary learning curve on users.

You said

Is it so hard to have that functionality be transparent to the user? Is
the "Joe Normal" user going to know how to log on as administrator and
install and activate the Lisa daemon? Uh, no?

So why is the user who is moving to Vista expected to know that
"Add/Remove" programs is gone and hiding in control panel when all the
other control panel stuff is elsewhere? Why disguise display resolution
as something else?

You are citing unfamiliarity as a problem yet Vista has it designed in...

What I see so far is a slower, more awkward, more cumbersome version of
XP with fancy visual effects. When you look at what is really "New"
there is very little, well, maybe a mail client that's already on it's
third replacement cycle and still doesn't actually work

 

[Stephan Rose]

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 02:23:05 -0400, Lang Murphy wrote:

> I've said it many time before, and I'll say it again... nix ain't ready for
> "Joe Normal."
>
> Sorry, I forget the person who suggested I try PCLinuxOS, and, that said, I
> d/l'd it today and installed it on a desktop. (Tried installing it on a
> laptop with a wireless NIC, but, uh, no go?)
>
> So I installed PCLOS, as it's called, on a desktop. Install went OK. Got to
> the desktop fine. Where's the Network icon? None. How does one access the
> local network? Ah, open "My Computer". Heh, heh, heh... then open "Remote
> Places." Then open "Local Network", only to receive the msg "The Lisa daemon
> does not appear to be running. In order to use the LAN browser, the Lisa
> daemon must be installed and activated by the system administrator."
>
> Uh, OK... where does one go from here? (NOT looking for answers from nix
> folks, it's a rhetorical question.)
>
> Is it so hard to put a "Network" icon on the desktop?
>
> Is it so hard to have that functionality be transparent to the user? Is the
> "Joe Normal" user going to know how to log on as administrator and install
> and activate the Lisa daemon? Uh, no?
>
> OK... this may appear to be an attack on nix... it's not, believe me. Were
> one to have the time to determine how to install and activate the Lisa
> daemon... well, no issue, right? One can figure it out -eventually-, right?
>
> And, of course, I'm not saying that Vista is "issue free." That said... when
> I install Vista, I get a "Network" icon on the desktop that takes me right
> to the stuff I'm tryng to access. No "install Lisa daemon" stuff...
>
> So, yeah, Vista's not "issue free." We all know it, and I'd be a dope to
> claim otherwise.
>
> And I -am- most interested in trying different nix distros ones that might
> be considered "Joe Normal" friendly.
>
> Have yet to discover -that- nix distro.
>
> And, no, don't tell me Ubutnu. Been there, done that.

Well I am telling you Ubuntu. Go there, do that again. =P

As far as I am concerned, it is by far the most newbie friendly.
Everything else doesn't even register on the radar for me honestly.

Though, disregarding OS, I think we all forget one big thing.

Does "Joe Average" go out, buy an OS, and install it on their computer?
No, "Joe Average" generally does not do that. Sure, there are
exceptions...but generally speaking, "Joe Average" simply goes out and
buys a computer with the OS pre-installed.

"Joe Average" would likely have plenty of problems installing and
configuring *any* operating system, I don't care who makes it and what it
is called. There can be a fair share of problems installing windows too.
Right now I am dealing with the problem that my file system under XP isn't
quite toast yet but appears to have damage from somewhere (non-hardware
related, disk passes any and all tests I have thrown at it). But I also
can't re-install XP because not a *single* XP install CD I have, and I
have several, will boot on this computer (*nix live CDs as well as the
maxtor diagnostic cd boot fine though ruling out a problem with the
drive)! Appears that the problem resides with the XP Setup's inability to
handle certain types of partitions or too many of them causing it to
freeze in the very beginning.

Could "Joe Average" deal with this? Actually yea Joe Average could...by
taking it to a computer shop and having the OS installed for them...

What I am trying to get at is that everyone focuses too much on the one
thing that most uses do the list: "Installing the OS".

This can be anything ranging from a pleasant experience to an absolute
nightmare with every OS depending on the hardware thrown at it. Vista
Included!

What's more important, and nobody appears to care about this, is using the
OS once it is installed and configured. I rank that far higher than any
problems I could ever encounter when installing and configuring an OS.

And in that regard, I just recently set up a co-worker with Ubuntu who had
a WinXP install so horribly messed up it was beyond repair. His level of
technical knowledge is so low that he thought having 60
concurrently running malware, spyware and virus processes was normal. No,
I am not exaggerating. I counted them.Ya really think he would be able to
install any version of windows or would know where to even start? Even if
said installation were easier than say Ubuntu?

He's had absolutely zero problems with Ubuntu once I installed and
configured it. He just happily uses it. Reinstalling XP would have been
pointless as it would have been a matter of time until it became that
infected with crap again.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[ray]

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 02:23:05 -0400, Lang Murphy wrote:

> I've said it many time before, and I'll say it again... nix ain't ready for
> "Joe Normal."
>

We've been running Ubuntu Linux and RedHat Enterprise Linux on nine public
access internet computers at the local library for nearly two years. Zero
complaints. The patrons have easily adapted and find their needs are met
quite handily.

 

[Mike]

In article <330D72CD-8EAC-42BC-8144-3C11E57ADC52@microsoft.com>,
"Lang Murphy" <lang_murphy@hotmail.com> wrote:

> And, of course, I'm not saying that Vista is "issue free." That said... when
> I install Vista, I get a "Network" icon on the desktop that takes me right
> to the stuff I'm tryng to access.

Actually, no, you don't. The default install has very few icons on the
desktop. You have to place the network icon the desktop.

Mike

 

[Lang Murphy]

"Mike" <no@where.man> wrote in message
news:no-287722.11541021072007@news.supernews.com...
> In article <330D72CD-8EAC-42BC-8144-3C11E57ADC52@microsoft.com>,
> "Lang Murphy" <lang_murphy@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And, of course, I'm not saying that Vista is "issue free." That said...
>> when
>> I install Vista, I get a "Network" icon on the desktop that takes me
>> right
>> to the stuff I'm tryng to access.
>
> Actually, no, you don't. The default install has very few icons on the
> desktop. You have to place the network icon the desktop.
>
> Mike

Mike,

Good catch! I stand corrected.

Lang

 

[Lang Murphy]

"Ian Betts" <igb123@talktalk.net> wrote in message
news:0B1E55A5-40F3-4E41-B577-AD9736C0AFB1@microsoft.com...
> You lost again friend, this is a Vista list.
>
> Go to a linux list.
>
> --
> Ian
>


Ian,

I'm a regular here. I know which ng this is... thanks, anyway.

Lang

 

[Lang Murphy]

<snip>
>> And, no, don't tell me Ubutnu. Been there, done that.
>>
>> Lang
>
> Ubuntu 7.04 has a network icon so you haven't been there or done that.
>
> Alias


Geez, even putting in disclaimers means nothing to you. Read my post again.

Lang

 

[Lang Murphy]

<snip>
>> And, no, don't tell me Ubutnu. Been there, done that.
>>
>> Lang
>
> Why didn't you email me? All the questions you have can be
> answered by google, too. It's okay to ask questions when you're
> not sure what needs to be done, there are forums and websites-
> just like there are for Vista and all Windows' products.
>
> Your experience with PCLinuxOS, or any Linux flavor for that
> matter, may take some readjustments..... just like Window users
> getting used to Vista- it's really not much different in the way one
> has to retrain the brain/habits/familiarity. Perhaps, the terminologies
> and placement of tools takes a bit getting used to in Linux compared
> to Windows, and that should be expected after dealing with a
> Windows world for so long. It's like moving to a new city and not
> being able to find your way around, but eventually you do. Don't
> let unfamiliar surroundings keep you from seeing and enjoying the sites.
> Unfortunately, for many they only ever "visit" Linux as a tourist, and
> never
> really get the true experience or really learn how to navigate around....
> they miss a lot and make far too many assumptions based on the Windows
> world they came from. They cut their visit short and leave. In reality,
> Linux
> can offer them the exact same things that they believe only exist in their
> gated Windows community.
>
> No, I haven't left Windows megalopolis, yet. But, I sure do get out
> a lot more often than I ever did, and I've really started enjoying the
> nice and comfortable ride... not many car-jackings around these parts,
> either. The scenery is looking better all the time, too.
>
>
> Take care,
>
> Michael
>
> P.S.
> Lang, let me know if you need a lift... there's plenty of room.

Michael,

Thanks for the reply. My intent, although probably not clearly stated, was
to open a thread about the, er, intricacies, of getting any flavor of nix up
and running, as compared to Vista. I guess, no... I know, that my attempts
at getting any flavor of nix up and running are half-hearted, mainly because
when I hit the wall, so to speak, I have no interest in trying to climb over
that wall.

Yes, my 20 years of Windows experience puts me at an advantage over those
who don't "do" IT for a living. And, yes, my experience with Windows no
doubt slants my perspective. I think the points you make are right on the
money. That said, I think it's just too much to expect "Joe Normal" to jump
into nix. I've seen some of the other replies about how "I've installed nix
and my users are happy campers." Well... the users are happy campers because
they've got an IT guy who takes care of any problems they have. Well... I
know, as stated, that my Windows experience slants my perspective.

I've still got PCLOS installed on a box here. When time allows, I will look
further into the lisa thing.

Again, thanks for the reply. And, as always, thanks for being civil greatly
appreciated!

Lang

 

[Lang Murphy]

"xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OJGq3l5yHHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for sharing.
>
> In addition, mainstream users buy computers as a "solution" just like
> other products, and they don't want nor have the interest to do DIY
> needless to say to install a new OS or switch to a new OS.
>
> Linux are for techies because they never want to userstand mainsteam
> users, and they have no idea about what is "solution" or "offer". Over
> years, they have been told countless times but they are too proud to take
> any others' advises, and yet, they blame why people don't appreciate their
> works. LOL.
>
> Using automobiles as an example, they are sales people for auto
> accessories and parts, while the mainstream car owners want to buy a
> finished car.
>
> My two cents.
>

<snip>

xfile,

Thanks for the acknowledgement... that's exactly what I was doing: sharing.
For good or ill. -)

Lang

 

[Lang Murphy]

"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
news:%23Zxa$W6yHHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Lang Murphy wrote:
>> I've said it many time before, and I'll say it again... nix ain't ready
>> for "Joe Normal."
>>
>> Sorry, I forget the person who suggested I try PCLinuxOS, and, that said,
>> I d/l'd it today and installed it on a desktop. (Tried installing it on a
>> laptop with a wireless NIC, but, uh, no go?)
>>
>> So I installed PCLOS, as it's called, on a desktop. Install went OK. Got
>> to the desktop fine. Where's the Network icon? None. How does one access
>> the local network? Ah, open "My Computer". Heh, heh, heh... then open
>> "Remote Places." Then open "Local Network", only to receive the msg "The
>> Lisa daemon does not appear to be running. In order to use the LAN
>> browser, the Lisa daemon must be installed and activated by the system
>> administrator."
>>
>> Uh, OK... where does one go from here? (NOT looking for answers from nix
>> folks, it's a rhetorical question.)
>>
>> Is it so hard to put a "Network" icon on the desktop?
>>
>> Is it so hard to have that functionality be transparent to the user? Is
>> the "Joe Normal" user going to know how to log on as administrator and
>> install and activate the Lisa daemon? Uh, no?
>>
>> OK... this may appear to be an attack on nix... it's not, believe me.
>> Were one to have the time to determine how to install and activate the
>> Lisa daemon... well, no issue, right? One can figure it out -eventually-,
>> right?
>>
>> And, of course, I'm not saying that Vista is "issue free." That said...
>> when I install Vista, I get a "Network" icon on the desktop that takes me
>> right to the stuff I'm tryng to access. No "install Lisa daemon" stuff...
>>
>> So, yeah, Vista's not "issue free." We all know it, and I'd be a dope to
>> claim otherwise.
>>
>> And I -am- most interested in trying different nix distros ones that
>> might be considered "Joe Normal" friendly.
>>
>> Have yet to discover -that- nix distro.
>>
>> And, no, don't tell me Ubutnu. Been there, done that.
>>
>> Lang
>
>
> Strange, I had no such trouble. My biggest problem thus far has been with
> Video drivers and Printers.
>
> However you do mention one of the major irritations of Vista, ie things
> not being where expected or even where they would be logical. These
> cosmetic changes impose a quite unnecessary learning curve on users.
>
> You said
>
> Is it so hard to have that functionality be transparent to the user? Is
> the "Joe Normal" user going to know how to log on as administrator and
> install and activate the Lisa daemon? Uh, no?
>
> So why is the user who is moving to Vista expected to know that
> "Add/Remove" programs is gone and hiding in control panel when all the
> other control panel stuff is elsewhere? Why disguise display resolution as
> something else?
>
> You are citing unfamiliarity as a problem yet Vista has it designed in...
>
> What I see so far is a slower, more awkward, more cumbersome version of XP
> with fancy visual effects. When you look at what is really "New" there is
> very little, well, maybe a mail client that's already on it's third
> replacement cycle and still doesn't actually work


Charlie,

Good points all. No doubt Vista's UI is worlds apart from XP's. The thing I
like about the "new" CP is its search box. Not sure where they put
Add/Remove programs? Try the search box. I use it quite often. To good
effect, I think.

And, I guess, folks might have problems with drivers and printers with
Vista. That issue is keeping me from installing Vista on one of my personal
PC's. I have legacy hw that doesn't have Vista drivers. Or... nix drivers.
So I'm stuck with XP on that box until I can upgrade my hw to Vista
compatible stuff.

Thanks,

Lang

 

[Lang Murphy]

<snip>
>> And, no, don't tell me Ubutnu. Been there, done that.
>
> Well I am telling you Ubuntu. Go there, do that again. =P

I may... if time allows. -)

> As far as I am concerned, it is by far the most newbie friendly.
> Everything else doesn't even register on the radar for me honestly.
>
> Though, disregarding OS, I think we all forget one big thing.
>
> Does "Joe Average" go out, buy an OS, and install it on their computer?
> No, "Joe Average" generally does not do that. Sure, there are
> exceptions...but generally speaking, "Joe Average" simply goes out and
> buys a computer with the OS pre-installed.
>
> "Joe Average" would likely have plenty of problems installing and
> configuring *any* operating system, I don't care who makes it and what it
> is called. There can be a fair share of problems installing windows too.
> Right now I am dealing with the problem that my file system under XP isn't
> quite toast yet but appears to have damage from somewhere (non-hardware
> related, disk passes any and all tests I have thrown at it). But I also
> can't re-install XP because not a *single* XP install CD I have, and I
> have several, will boot on this computer (*nix live CDs as well as the
> maxtor diagnostic cd boot fine though ruling out a problem with the
> drive)! Appears that the problem resides with the XP Setup's inability to
> handle certain types of partitions or too many of them causing it to
> freeze in the very beginning.
>
> Could "Joe Average" deal with this? Actually yea Joe Average could...by
> taking it to a computer shop and having the OS installed for them...
>
> What I am trying to get at is that everyone focuses too much on the one
> thing that most uses do the list: "Installing the OS".
>
> This can be anything ranging from a pleasant experience to an absolute
> nightmare with every OS depending on the hardware thrown at it. Vista
> Included!
>
> What's more important, and nobody appears to care about this, is using the
> OS once it is installed and configured. I rank that far higher than any
> problems I could ever encounter when installing and configuring an OS.
>
> And in that regard, I just recently set up a co-worker with Ubuntu who had
> a WinXP install so horribly messed up it was beyond repair. His level of
> technical knowledge is so low that he thought having 60
> concurrently running malware, spyware and virus processes was normal. No,
> I am not exaggerating. I counted them.Ya really think he would be able to
> install any version of windows or would know where to even start? Even if
> said installation were easier than say Ubuntu?
>
> He's had absolutely zero problems with Ubuntu once I installed and
> configured it. He just happily uses it. Reinstalling XP would have been
> pointless as it would have been a matter of time until it became that
> infected with crap again.
>
> --
> Stephan
> 2003 Yamaha R6
>
> å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
> å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

Good points, Stephan. I think, maybe, my issue with nix, is that, as I've
gotten older, I'm WAY less tolerant of having to learn new stuff. Vista, as
different as it is from XP, is not a challenge to me. Any flavor of nix that
I've tried, which includes, up to now, RedHat, SuSE, Ubuntu, and now,
PCLinuxOS, every one of them, has thrown challenges at me that I'm not
willing to address.

My intention of starting this thread was to hear back from folks like
yourself... folks who are cognizant of the differences between Vista and
other OS's. And it's always pleasant to trade thoughts in a civil manner.
Not something that happens with any frequency in -this- ng, these days.
So... thanks for that. Always appreciated!

Lang

 

[Lang Murphy]

"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
newsan.2007.07.21.15.26.33.406650@zianet.com...
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 02:23:05 -0400, Lang Murphy wrote:
>
>> I've said it many time before, and I'll say it again... nix ain't ready
>> for
>> "Joe Normal."
>>
>
> We've been running Ubuntu Linux and RedHat Enterprise Linux on nine public
> access internet computers at the local library for nearly two years. Zero
> complaints. The patrons have easily adapted and find their needs are met
> quite handily.
>


Ray,

Well... I don't know if public access PC's are the same thing as home PC's.
I would guess that your library computers are locked down so the general
public can't screw things up. I would hope so, anyway... -) In that
environment, I would think just about any locked down OS would do the job
with little complaint from anyone. They have access to what, the library
catalog and the internet, right? Maybe a word processor and a spreadsheet?
But not the system configuration stuff, right?

I play with nix because I -am- a computer geek. I'd love to have a nix
distro that "felt right" to me. I just haven't run across that distro yet...
and, truth be told, I couldn't run nix on either of my home PC's because of
hw and sw incompatibilities. It's all about the apps, right?

Anyway... thanks for the civil reply. Appreciated!

Lang