Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => Linux and UNIX => Topic started by: Dark_Me on 24 October 2005, 17:09
-
Newbie here...
Okay the basics.
I am running on:
Intel Celeron Pentium 4 with 2.3 Ghz
212 Mb of RAM
3 hard drives, 17 GB, 17 GB,39 GB
Only onboard graphics so far :(
This is just for basic home use, nothing fancy or too taxing. Just surfing the net mostly.
I took the Linux Distribution Choser test and got:
Mandriva
PCLinuxOS
Linspire
Xandros
Don't really need a live disc, I do however need dual boot and GUI.
I also need to run Windows programs. Hmm... wine mabey?
As an ending note I would just like to say that I'm a complete noob when it come's to Linux so I need something that's easy to use. I realize that this is one of the flaws (thinking of the average comp user) in Linux but well I can dream can't I?
Oh and Hi!
And since this is a anti-Microsoft forum... Down with Microsoft! All hail er... something else.
-
Oh and I should probably mention that I have no problem with learning GNU/Linux, it's just that I don't know it. Some resources on the matter would be greatly appreciated.
-
Well I'll always recammend Ubuntu for desktop use for all "Human Beings" (non-geeks or demigeeks). Ubuntu has an incredible community, great HW support, great app resources, a near perfect package manager - apt, is quite demanding on resources, but that's not really an issue on a 2.3 GHz CPU (The RAM might be prablematic) - I have 1.6 GHz and 0.75 GB RAM.
Do NOT, I repeat: Do NOT use Linspire! That is Microsoft's incarnation on earth. The evil within the good. The dark spot on the Sun...
-
xandros is gross too. ubuntu is okay to start with, when I get better i'd go for Debian.
-
Just one question why could this not be have posted here (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9765)?
Duplicate threads are annoying and can lead to confusion so could a moderator please append this to the aforementioned thread.
-
could a moderator please append this to the aforementioned thread.
No, but i'd like to make this comment:
SEARCH!!
-
:confused:
Edit:
Was that aimed at me or the origional poster?
And why can't this shit be moved?
-
This is just for basic home use, nothing fancy or too taxing. Just surfing the net mostly.
- Vector Linux 5.1 SOHO - you shouldn't to install any new software (except wine) and it should run great on your system.
http://www.vectorlinux.com/mod.php?mod=userpage&menu=21&page_id=19
I also need to run Windows programs. Hmm... wine mabey?
- no guarantees it will work.
I recommend using one drive for ubuntu, one for vector linux and one as storage. Use ubuntu for emergencies :) and keep your documents in the storage so you can access them from both distributions
-
Using my drives like you suggested would be great but I need to dual boot with Windows XP as I'm not the only user of this comp and I'm too lazy/incompetent to sort out any formatting/compatabilty issues that may arise. So for now the evil stays. That and right now everything is everywhere in respect to my drives. Gotta sort them. I need my own box.
They say if you play a Microsoft disc backwards it plays satanic messages. That's nothing, if you play it forwards it installs Windows!
-
Woah... Deja vu, man.
Dark_Me... check this out:
The Linux Distro Chooser (http://www.zegeniestudios.net/ldc/)
...oh, and interesting quote.
-
*Ahem*
I took the Linux Distribution Choser test and got:
Mandriva
PCLinuxOS
Linspire
Xandros
The qutoes from snipe.net. Donno where she got it from. You could always ask her...
EDIT: oh and I'm getting Ubuntu now, so that's the distro problem solved. I hope...
Now what else to get?
-
EDIT: I decided that this was a stupid post.
-
I've tried ubuntu, and (for what it's worth) here's my opinion:
Installation
This was pretty easy and like Vector Linux and Windows XP it didn't give me very much choice, so on this front it's very newb friendly, and everything worked apart from my NTL cable modem.
Configureation
I still had to edit some text files to get things to work the way I like so on this front it isn't ver newb friendly.
General use
Not too bad, GNOME is fairly easy to use and most tasks are point and click.
Overall
Ok, a fairly average newb distro, but I wouldn't recommend it to a tru newb as you often still have to edit text files to get things working the way you want.
I found this and would just lke to say that code doesn't scare me it's just that when I see it I have no idea what I'm looking at. Thanks for this Aloone_Jonez. Again I would just like to say that any resources on GNU/Linux or coding would be greatly appreciated.
-
:confused:
Edit:
Was that aimed at me or the origional poster?
Nope, it was aimed at evryone and anyone.
Search, then post. That's the motto.
And why can't this shit be moved?
The truthful answer is because I have better things to do with my life, but I also prefer not to mess with people threads when it is not absolutely nessesary.
You asking me to merge it isn't a mandate for it to happen.
-
Using my drives like you suggested would be great but I need to dual boot with Windows XP as I'm not the only user of this comp and I'm too lazy/incompetent to sort out any formatting/compatabilty issues that may arise. So for now the evil stays. That and right now everything is everywhere in respect to my drives. Gotta sort them. I need my own box.
No problem, I have XP on my original 40gig Disc. I bought a 80 disc and installed vectorLinux on it. The stock install recognised XP and next time I booted I was given the lilo boot option screen. easy as.
I haven't got any experience with having more than one version of linux installed they may override each others boot setup when installing but this is easy to fix/reconfigure.
-
I think I've got the dual boot thing worked out. I got a drive with 16GB free on it. I think i'll just paritition 14GB of it for Linux and use the other 2GB for the swap partition. Then just put Windows on one disc and everything else on my largest drive (39GB). Will that work? Still got to download Ubuntu though. Got it off p2p and it wasn't an .iso image dammit! It's all there but it's not an image. Oh and by the way what Torrent client/program can I use with Ubuntu? The one I'm currently using is BitLord.
-
Azureus is a good choice, Bittornado's available and then there's the built in Bittorrent client.
It will work, but if you want both Linux and Windows to be able to acces the drives, have to use the inferior FAT32 fs, or stick with EXT3, but then you'll need third party Windows softwore that can read EXT3. I'm not sure what that is - but it exists.
-
but then you'll need third party Windows softwore that can read EXT3. I'm not sure what that is - but it exists.
http://www.fs-driver.org (freeware)
-
Thanks. You guys have been really helpful.
-
http://www.fs-driver.org (freeware)
Well I never, piratePenguin suggesting something non-open source what's the world comming to? :D
-
Well I never, piratePenguin suggesting something non-open source what's the world comming to? :D
Yeah, I usually do that, but I won't this time, here's an open source solution that is far better:
http://uranus.it.swin.edu.au/~jn/linux/ext2ifs.htm
-
Refalm,
I think in this case the closed source program that piratePenguin suggested is better as it can both read and write to a ext file system where as the one you suggested is read only.
-
Never knew about the free one, thanks Rafalm.
I initially wasn't gonna post that link, but I thought, if I inform him that it's freeware, he can make his own decision on whether to use it or not.
This software is freeware. It may be copied and distributed free of charge as long as no modifications are made in the software and no components are added or removed.
Stupid, unnecessary (I can only assume) restrictions if you ask me.
I think in this case the closed source program that piratePenguin suggested is better as it can both read and write to a ext file system where as the one you suggested is read only.
It might be better, but your freedom is restricted.
-
It might be better, but your freedom is restricted.
La libert
-
Never knew about the free one,
It might be better, but your freedom is restricted.
It depends on your point of view, personally I'd rather have the freedom to both read and write to ext under Windows rather than be limited to read only access. The restrictions on my freedom imposed by the licence are of little importance and far out weigh the restrictions that would be imposed by using an inferiour piece of software even though it has a less restrictive lisence. I don't wish to alter the source or compile for a differant OS which would defeat the object of this program anyway, if I wanted to do that I'd just mess around with the origional Linux ext code.
-
I agree with Aloone_Jonez. I feel that being able to both read and write is worth it. Besides, if I wanted to alter it I wouldn't know where to begin, so it's really a nonissue for me.
I now have Ubuntu and have burnt it to disc, however I can't install it. I tried running it in Windows, then realised that trying to install another OS while the other was running was a bad idea. That and it wouldn't work. I then tried booting from it. That didn't work. I went into BIOS and changed the boot order to no avail.
Hmm, I just thought of something. If I change the boot order so that it's only option is to boot from CD will that work?
-
Opps, it wasn't BIOS, just the boot order in setup. And it didn't work Godammit!:(
I have AMI BIOS if that helps. Tried pressing delete during boot. Didn't work.
Okay so I admit it, I'm stuck. Someone help me. The disk won't boot. Or rather my box won't boot from it.:nothappy: I need help.
EDIT: I might try Vector Linux if Ubuntu won't/can't install. Apparently that is very easy to install.
EDIT:Or any other distro that suits my needs/unreasonable demands and will install.
-
I really hate it when people decide "who gives a crap about the licence, the product is far superior".
No wonder the world is in such a state.
But sometimes they don't have much choice.
I wonder why.
-
I've just installed this software and it works a treat.
I have AMI BIOS too and I've never had a problem booting from the CD. I press F11 and it takes me to a boot menu then I select the CD and it boots with no trouble at all.
To get in to setup you need to press F2 when you boot your machine, be as quick as possible, do it just as the screen turns on before it goes beep.
Do any of these keystrokes work?
Do you have a usb keyboard?
If you do that might be the problem as I don't think the BIOS recognizes them so you'll have to use a normal PS2 keyboard, most usb keyboards come with an adaptor it's normally light green coloured.
-
So the setup is BIOS. How was I suppost to know? What the hell is BIOS anyway?
F2 and F11 work. My problem is that it wont boot from the disc so I can install it. It's not a live CD or anything. I have played around with the boot order so that it will boot soley from CD and it recongnizes the prescence of a CD but cannot boot from it. I might have to play around with the setup a bit.
Also Ubuntu was suppost to be an .iso image, which it wasn't. Unless you can veiw .iso images without a CD. As folders and various other things.
There isn't any other way to install Ubuntu other than booting from disc is there?
-
I really hate it when people decide "who gives a crap about the licence, the product is far superior".
Depends on your view, I hate it when people say "it might be superiour but I won't use it because they won't let me view the source" no wonder people think the GNU fan club are a load of stuck up biggots.
No wonder the world is in such a state.
[sarcasm]Oh so people are starving because some software developer won't let me view the source code for their software.[/sarcasm]
Yeah right. :rolleyes:
But sometimes they don't have much choice.
I wonder why.
We do in this case, either use some shit open source software or a superiour alternative that suits our needs that doesn't cost anything more anyway.
Give up, it's the whole idea that the users have the "basic human right" to have access to the source code for all the programs they use is bullshit because the developers have just as much right to keep their source code secret.
So the setup is BIOS. How was I suppost to know? What the hell is BIOS anyway?
F2 and F11 work. My problem is that it wont boot from the disc so I can install it. It's not a live CD or anything. I have played around with the boot order so that it will boot soley from CD and it recongnizes the prescence of a CD but cannot boot from it. I might have to play around with the setup a bit.
Also Ubuntu was suppost to be an .iso image, which it wasn't. Unless you can veiw .iso images without a CD. As folders and various other things.
There isn't any other way to install Ubuntu other than booting from disc is there?
Can you actually execute the set up program?
How about other distros?
Does knoppix, or live Ubuntu work?
-
Wow. Just... WOW. I've neer seen ANYONE go so far to reinforce such an outmoded concept as propietary software.
Depends on your view, I hate it when people say "it might be superiour but I won't use it because they won't let me view the source" no wonder people think the GNU fan club are a load of stuck up biggots.
No wonder people think you're full of yourself. You'd rather support the pay alternative than put some actual EFFORT into improving the FOSS software? Then you're going to call the community that DEVELOPED YOUR COMPUTER a bunch of BIGOTS? Check out the Win2K source some time, and tell me how much of that ISN'T BSD. Go on, we'll wait. Done yet? Good. The next time you want to criticise the open-source community, you might give it the credit that its due. Without us, you'd still be stuck on CP/M - assuming they even had an R&D lab at the time. Blindly criticising a movement as a bunch of bigots without knowing - or caring about - their agenda is like attending a Klan rally to be more political. We'll start respecting that opinion about the time you figure out how you got to it.
[sarcasm]Oh so people are starving because some software developer won't let me view the source code for their software.[/sarcasm]
As a matter of fact, the odds in favor are higher than the odds against that possibility. How many people don't have jobs fixing the numerous bugs in Internet Explorer, Word, Flight Simulator, and so on because Microsoft won't let anyone but a handful of NDA-bound individuals even REVIEW the source, let alone MODIFY it? How do YOU know who would and would not have a job given these circumstances? Save your sarcasm for a time when it's warranted. Better yet, since you can't seem to apply it judiciously, don't use it at all.
We do in this case, either use some shit open source software or a superiour alternative that suits our needs that doesn't cost anything more anyway.
Bear in mind that you only use the "superior alternative" because you lack the knowledge to fix the Open Source Software, and the foresight to learn how. Basic coding knowledge will serve you well once your computer starts running your life in a few decades - or do you intend to let Microsoft tell you when to get up, how (little) much to eat, what shows you can watch, and how many times you can piss in a twelve hour period? I have an ethical question for you: would you rather die of old age, in a non-predetermined manner (silently, in your sleep; awake, of a heart attack; in a car, resulting in a massive fireball, wiping out a nearby Mercedes dealership), or commit suicide - say by cyanide pill - and not have to deal with the pain? Which is the "superior alternative"? You see, "superiority" is NEVER a good reason to do ANYTHING. It is relative, at best; repressive, at worst.
Give up, it's the whole idea that the users have the "basic human right" to have access to the source code for all the programs they use is bullshit because the developers have just as much right to keep their source code secret.
Give up, it's the whole idea that the users have no "basic human right" to have access to the source code for all the programs they use is bullshit because the developers have just as much right to make their source code public.
Would you be pissed off if your car suddenly stopped working, and you had no recourse to fix it, because you open the hood and see a small black box that indicates "generic engine fault - see mechanic" instead of a broken fan belt, or would you lie down and take it like a lame horse?
-
I hate it when people say "it might be superiour but I won't use it because they won't let me view the source"
In that case, GET HELP!
Some people like to support other people who give them more freedom (and I mean actual freedom) than those who don't. FFS it'd probably be less of an inconvenience for non-free developers to use free-software licence. They're putting effort into taking away your freedom. WELL FUCK YOU NON-FREE DEVELOPER!
Oh so people are starving because some software developer won't let me view the source code for their software.
I guess you could say that, but I was actually thinking of the software-world (and many other like-worlds I guess).
Do yourself a favor and read some of the licences (I'd almost be willing to bet that you've never done so before.) that you openly accept and might as well be supporting.
We do in this case, either use some shit open source software or a superiour alternative that suits our needs that doesn't cost anything more anyway.
That's hardley much of a choice, is it?
Give up
Mmmm letmethinkletmethink
Nah :).
-
Wow. Just... WOW. I've neer seen ANYONE go so far to reinforce such an outmoded concept as propietary software.
I'm neither for it nor against it but in some cases I've seen it produce better quality software so for this reason alone I think it should stay. Open source is good and I'm definitely for it but I don't believe it produces better quality software and under certain circumstances I believe the reverse is true but I accept that there is nothing but anecdotal evidence to prove either way.
Companies can't make money from free software purely on its originality and so they can only rely on the services they provide with it, hence there is no real competitive reason for them to innovate. For example why should a company bother to add a new feature to thier program when their competitor can simply use the code and make their product equal in quality so the consumer will have no reason to prefer their product over their competitor's? If their program was closed source then they would have a reason to do this since it's be a lot harder for thier competitor to make thier program equal.
No wonder people think you're full of yourself. You'd rather support the pay alternative than put some actual EFFORT into improving the FOSS software? Then you're going to call the community that DEVELOPED YOUR COMPUTER a bunch of BIGOTS? Check out the Win2K source some time, and tell me how much of that ISN'T BSD. Go on, we'll wait. Done yet? Good. The next time you want to criticise the open-source community, you might give it the credit that its due. Without us, you'd still be stuck on CP/M - assuming they even had an R&D lab at the time. Blindly criticising a movement as a bunch of bigots without knowing - or caring about - their agenda is like attending a Klan rally to be more political. We'll start respecting that opinion about the time you figure out how you got to it.
Blah blah blah, I don't give a fuck, who said about paying for anything here?
The fact that you have access to the source is immaterial in this case both pieces of software cost fuck all, the only differance is one is better than the other and having the source doesn't mean jack if you're not a programmer.
The thing that pisses me off about the GNU crew is their belief that eveyone should have the right to have access to the source for all of the programs they use. I say bullshit if you create something then you have a choice as to whether you release the blueprints no one else and no, you're not evil for choosing not too disclose your secrets.
As a matter of fact, the odds in favor are higher than the odds against that possibility. How many people don't have jobs fixing the numerous bugs in Internet Explorer, Word, Flight Simulator, and so on because Microsoft won't let anyone but a handful of NDA-bound individuals even REVIEW the source, let alone MODIFY it? How do YOU know who would and would not have a job given these circumstances? Save your sarcasm for a time when it's warranted. Better yet, since you can't seem to apply it judiciously, don't use it at all.
Microsoft this, Microsoft that, Windows 2000, non of the aforementioned have been brought up here, we're talking about a program that lets you read ext under Windows for fuck sake.
Why the fuck should any company pay anyone to fix another company's product?
What motive would they possibly have for reparing Windows 2000?
If I were to employ someone to repair a bug in an open source program then that modification would also be open source so it'd give me no advantage over my competitors.
Bear in mind that you only use the "superior alternative" because you lack the knowledge to fix the Open Source Software, and the foresight to learn how. Basic coding knowledge will serve you well once your computer starts running your life in a few decades - or do you intend to let Microsoft tell you when to get up, how (little) much to eat, what shows you can watch, and how many times you can piss in a twelve hour period? I have an ethical question for you: would you rather die of old age, in a non-predetermined manner (silently, in your sleep; awake, of a heart attack; in a car, resulting in a massive fireball, wiping out a nearby Mercedes dealership), or commit suicide - say by cyanide pill - and not have to deal with the pain? Which is the "superior alternative"? You see, "superiority" is NEVER a good reason to do ANYTHING. It is relative, at best; repressive, at worst.
I don't care, all I care is that the software I use does what I want, I'm no programmer I just want the shit to work out of the box. I'd rather download some decent proprietary software rather than having to make good some shitty open source crap.
EDIT: Forgot to respond to this.
Give up, it's the whole idea that the users have no "basic human right" to have access to the source code for all the programs they use is bullshit because the developers have just as much right to make their source code public.
I agree with you on this, I have never disputed this, of course the developers have an equal right to make their source code public but they have an equal right to choose to make thie code public as they do to keep it private.
Would you be pissed off if your car suddenly stopped working, and you had no recourse to fix it, because you open the hood and see a small black box that indicates "generic engine fault - see mechanic" instead of a broken fan belt, or would you lie down and take it like a lame horse?
No, as this is already the case with lots of cars under 10 years old, lots of the parts are non-user serviceable, just you try to fix a car that has a bug in the ECU.
In that case, GET HELP!
Some people like to support other people who give them more freedom (and I mean actual freedom) than those who don't. FFS it'd probably be less of an inconvenience for non-free developers to use free-software licence. They're putting effort into taking away your freedom. WELL FUCK YOU NON-FREE DEVELOPER!
Face it.
99.99% of people don't care.
99.99% of people don't give a fuck about the source.
99.99% of people just want software to work out of the box.
99.99% of people. . . Oh well I hope you get the point you're a minority.
I guess you could say that, but I was actually thinking of the software-world (and many other like-worlds I guess).
Please try to understand the concept that choosing not to share the source is no more evil than choosing not to share most of your money. Sharing money can do a fuck of a lot more than sharing code can. Sharing of the former can save people from starvation and buy them computers while sharing of the latter is only any good when they're already well off enough to buy computer.
Do yourself a favor and read some of the licences (I'd almost be willing to bet that you've never done so before.) that you openly accept and might as well be supporting.
In this case the only thing restrictive about the license is that you distribute the software as is without any modifications, oh FUCK ME THIS IS SO UNFAIR I CAN'T USE IT BECAUSE OF THIS RESTRICTION IS SO FUCKING EVIL LOL LOLOLOLOLOLOLOZZZZZZ. OMG I'VE COMMITED A FUCKING SIN! LET'S HAVE THE DEVELOPERS BURNED ALIVE. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
That's hardley much of a choice, is it?
Mmmm letmethinkletmethink
hmmm, let me think, I can eitther use a piece of software that perfectly suits my needs and has a restriction placed on it that means I can't modify it and I have to distribute it as is, or use a shitty piece of software that I'll have to go to college and learn how to program to modify it to get it to do what I want. Duh, fucktard, of course I'm going to use the one that works perfectly and I don't give a fuck about the restrictions placed one it as why the hell should I want to modify it as it does exactly fucking what I want it to do.
Nah :).
I'd rather use software that does what I want in the first place.
*sigh another thread fucked up by the hapless free/non-free debate*
-
OI start another thread, stop spamming this one.
-
Can you actually execute the set up program?
Can't get it to boot at all. It tries to boot but says it can't (no boot record on CD) then just goes on to boot Windows.
Does knoppix, or live Ubuntu work?
Havn't tried Knoppix or the live CD.
How about other distros?
I havn't tried any other distos yet. Well, since Ubuntu is being a prefect waste of time and effort I might just trundle off and get another disto.
EDIT: I think i'll try the live CD first as that should have a boot record on it.
-
Try Damn Small linux, its pretty cool.
-
OI start another thread, stop spamming this one.
This debate always hijacks threads, perhapps you're right, perhapps we should stop wasting our time as we'll never agree with each other.
Can't get it to boot at all. It tries to boot but says it can't (no boot record on CD) then just goes on to boot Windows.
It sounds like you're having problems burning the CD correctly. I don't think it's ubuntu's fault in this case , I could be wrong so try another distro lie Knoppix, failing that try ordering a CD.
-
I've just been using Nero Express and burning all the files to disc. I was assuming that I didn't need any alterations.
Order the CD? Well it's totally free but I can't be bothered waiting 4-6 weeks for it. I'm downloading Damn Small Linux now. It's a nice idea, running an OS off a flash stick.
And on the licencing/closed source issue it depends on how it's used. Take MS for example. They place restictions on their software to gain an unfair advatage in the market. However someone may ligitamately place ristictions on their software to protect their hard work. Hackers gotta eat.
-
I've just been using Nero Express and burning all the files to disc. I was assuming that I didn't need any alterations.
Order the CD? Well it's totally free but I can't be bothered waiting 4-6 weeks for it. I'm downloading Damn Small Linux now. It's a nice idea, running an OS off a flash stick.
Go for it, at least darn small Linux in't a large download, and if you don't want to keep wasting CDs then you should get yourself some rewritable ones.
And on the licencing/closed source issue it depends on how it's used. Take MS for example. They place restictions on their software to gain an unfair advatage in the market. However someone may ligitamately place ristictions on their software to protect their hard work. Hackers gotta eat.
This has been my point all along, I couldn't agree more, you're getting an approve for that. :thumbup:
-
Yay! My reps back in the green!
And on the licencing/closed source issue it depends on how it's used. Take MS for example. They place restictions on their software to gain an unfair advatage in the market. However someone may ligitamately place ristictions on their software to protect their hard work. Hackers gotta eat.
That didn't take too much thought. It's the whole duality of "good"/"evil" thing. Everything can be used for "good" or "evil". Take say, a sword, it can be used for defending ones home and family or for attacking antothers home and family.
You may have noticed the qoutes on "good" and "evil". Thats because my own personal belifes have a more Buddist leaning (I think, I'm not one). I myself belive that "good" and "evil are concepts that only exist in the human mind and not in reality.
I wonder, has anyone ever hijacked their own thread before?
-
Yay! My reps back in the green!
I don't know why it was ever out of the green, as in my oppinion you've haven't made a post worthy of any negitive reputation yet.
That didn't take too much thought. It's the whole duality of "good"/"evil" thing. Everything can be used for "good" or "evil". Take say, a sword, it can be used for defending ones home and family or for attacking antothers home and family.
The same with guns I suppose but there again you would not have to use the sword or gun if your home and familly weren't under threat by evil. Cars are a good example they make our lives easier but if used irresponsibly they kill people.
You may have noticed the qoutes on "good" and "evil". Thats because my own personal belifes have a more Buddist leaning (I think, I'm not one). I myself belive that "good" and "evil are concepts that only exist in the human mind and not in reality.
That's a very interesting point.
I wonder, has anyone ever hijacked their own thread before?
This debate always takes over when some open source software is compared with similar closed source software and it often drags on for a few pages until we get bored of it and give up.
-
The problem is not the argument or the people making it but that your trying to find moral absolutes. This particular issue is nether "good" nor "evil". It is ether both "good" and "evil" or nether.
The world is nether black nor white nor even grey but all the colours of the rainbow. And we have noone tell us what the colours are. - Me
-
mostYou don't have to be a programmer to support free software.
The non-free developers work hard to take away your freedom. Why shouldn't that be enough to not-support them and support the alternatives that give you all the freedom you could ask for?
If a free ext2 driver only has read support and no write, then that's not even an accidental restriction on your "freedom". Maybe a bit of support is all they need? You could always ask/pay them/someone to get write-support working.
Depends on your view, I hate it when people say "it might be superiour but I won't use it because they won't let me view the source" no wonder people think the GNU fan club are a load of stuck up biggots.
Try this: "it might be a better program, but I won't support it's developers (in any way) because they're actually putting effort into restricting my freedom". Is there something wrong with that?
I'm neither for it nor against it but in some cases I've seen it produce better quality software so for this reason alone I think it should stay. Open source is good and I'm definitely for it but I don't believe it produces better quality software and under certain circumstances I believe the reverse is true but I accept that there is nothing but anecdotal evidence to prove either way.
Funny, I thought you believed that the licence had nothing to do with the quality of the product?
http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=103899&postcount=89[/url])] thought I'd already established this, the licence doesn't determine the quality of software, the developers do.
Companies can't make money from free software purely on its originality and so they can only rely on the services they provide with it, hence there is no real competitive reason for them to innovate. For example why should a company bother to add a new feature to thier program when their competitor can simply use the code and make their product equal in quality so the consumer will have no reason to prefer their product over their competitor's? If their program was closed source then they would have a reason to do this since it's be a lot harder for thier competitor to make thier program equal.
What about the fs-driver developers, eh?
Also, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html).
and having the source doesn't mean jack if you're not a programmer.
In a similar way that whether Jews are being thrown into concentration camps means jack shit to non-Jewish people? Alot of them didn't give a shit, but you shouldn't disrespect them who did (feel free to disrespect them who didn't, IMO).
I know it's not the same thing, and I didn't sugest that it is. My point is that something doesn't have to directly effect you in order for you to support it (and whether a program is free will directly effect you) or to refuse to support opponents to that something. If you think software should be free, that's enough, whether you are or aren't a programmer (I wouldn't call myself a programmer).
Why do you think "open source" is a good thing Aloone_Jonez? Are you a programmer?
I say bullshit if you create something then you have a choice as to whether you release the blueprints no one else
I never disagreed with that. I'm for users supporting free software and refusing to support non-free software (unless absolutely necessary. Non-free software is so rampant some people don't have much choice but to support it in one way or another.). If enough people did it, things would likely go their way. And the (software-)world would be a better place. Better software (due to people and companies collaborating more), and everyone's free and it'd be easier to break out of lock-ins (should they occur).
and no, you're not evil for choosing not too disclose your secrets.
Well IMO you are (e.g. if I asked some company could I have the code for their printer driver so I could improve it, and they said no. This happened RMS once (long time ago), he wasn't impressed.), and thus I won't support you unless I absolutely must (exclude software on PLAs or whatever crap. I never put it there, I was never asked what I wanted there).
Microsoft this, Microsoft that, Windows 2000, non of the aforementioned have been brought up here, we're talking about a program that lets you read ext under Windows for fuck sake.
So what? He had a damn good point against what you said.
Why the fuck should any company pay anyone to fix another company's product?
What motive would they possibly have for reparing Windows 2000?
Lots.
If they were running Windows (2000), then they can have their computers have less bugs or change it to be whatever they want it to be.
Why would any company bug fix any program they didn't write? Ask Red Hat.
If I were to employ someone to repair a bug in an open source program then that modification would also be open source so it'd give me no advantage over my competitors.
The bug would be fixed (you will benefit if you use the software. And so will every other user of that software), people might begin to respect you/your company. Just take a look at Xara!
Xara Sponsors XAR/SVG Converter Development
October 2, 2005
Xara announced last week that it is sponsoring Eric Wilhelm for $10,000 to develop a conversion utility based on Uber-Converter, a library for creating 2D vector format conversion tools. This tool will enable Xara users to interoperate with Inkscape and other SVG-based tools.
Suddenly, I know I love Xara far more (because they did a good thing).
[not-exactly-ontopic]
Xara Goes Open Source
October 14, 2005
Xara has announced that they are porting Xara Xtreme to Linux and will be releasing it as Open Source under the GPL! There is a prototype version available and an intriguing video for download.
It is not yet known when the source code will be made available; presumably a matter of weeks. Xara also expresses interest in working closely with Inkscape to find ways we can share code, coordinate efforts, and make Open Source graphics superior to anything available in the proprietary world.
Xara->Love *= 100;[/not-exactly-ontopic]
No, as this is already the case with lots of cars under 10 years old, lots of the parts are non-user serviceable, just you try to fix a car that has a bug in the ECU.
What if it was something that you knew you could fix pretty damn easilly?
Face it.
99.99% of people don't care.
99.99% of people don't give a fuck about the source.
99.99% of people just want software to work out of the box.
99.99% of people. . . Oh well I hope you get the point you're a minority.
In that case, .01% of people do care, and they've started a damn-huge movement, and I'll support them. Got a problem with that?
Please try to understand the concept that choosing not to share the source is no more evil than choosing not to share most of your money. Sharing money can do a fuck of a lot more than sharing code can. Sharing of the former can save people from starvation and buy them computers while sharing of the latter is only any good when they're already well off enough to buy computer.
If you start a movement of (rich aswell as just about confertable) people giving the majority of their money to charity, I'll support you too.
In this case the only thing restrictive about the license is that you distribute the software as is without any modifications, oh FUCK ME THIS IS SO UNFAIR I CAN'T USE IT BECAUSE OF THIS RESTRICTION IS SO FUCKING EVIL LOL LOLOLOLOLOLOLOZZZZZZ. OMG I'VE COMMITED A FUCKING SIN! LET'S HAVE THE DEVELOPERS BURNED ALIVE.
Have a bit of respect.
Wasn't it you that suggested to me that I try better to look at things from other peoples perspective?
Hypocrite.
hmmm, let me think, I can eitther use a piece of software that perfectly suits my needs and has a restriction placed on it that means I can't modify it and I have to distribute it as is, or use a shitty piece of software that I'll have to go to college and learn how to program to modify it to get it to do what I want. Duh, fucktard, of course I'm going to use the one that works perfectly and I don't give a fuck about the restrictions placed one it as why the hell should I want to modify it as it does exactly fucking what I want it to do.
Try this: "it might be a better program, but I won't support it's developers (in any way) because they're actually putting effort into restricting my freedom". Is there something wrong with that?
*sigh another thread fucked up by the hapless free/non-free debate*
True.
They place restictions on their software to gain an unfair advatage in the market.
Example, please? You're talking about in the licence, right?
(reason I'm asking is because Microsoft use much the same kinda restrictions as the much of every other non-free software developer in the world)
However someone may ligitamately place ristictions on their software to protect their hard work.
The GPL does a good enough job of that.
Good enough for Xara anyhow.
Hackers gotta eat.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html)
Whatever thousand of free software developers do eat.
-
I don't care about this debate any more there are more important things to discuss, sure I could go through and refute eveything in your post but I don't see what it'd achieve as you and I haven't raised any new issues. I did think about deleting my previous post but I thaught, fuck it I've posted it and you'd probably written a response so I thought it would've been rude to have deleted it.
I think we should both just calm down and walk away from this one as the debate as ceased being productive.
Edit: Hang on I haven't finished yet there are more people in this thread than piratePenguin, I am aware of his opinions on this matter but what about other people.
Dark_Me,
Let's go back to the point you made bofore:
You may have noticed the qoutes on "good" and "evil". Thats because my own personal belifes have a more Buddist leaning (I think, I'm not one). I myself belive that "good" and "evil are concepts that only exist in the human mind and not in reality.
This suggests that people will have differant opinions of what good and evil are which is kind of like the GNU debate.
Have you read the other flame wars about free/non-free software before?
How about anti-MS articles on this site and others, have you read them too?
Short of forcing all software to be open source what do you think could be done to improve things?
-
When I thought up that I wasn't thinking of any particular examples, but i'll try.
MS licences their software so that you have to pay for liceneces, subscripitons etc. Also you can't copy it.
From what I know of the fs-driver.org software it simply cannot be altered. Seeing as it's free it's knida pointless from my point of veiw.
I know these are bad examples but as I said I wasn't thinking of any particular examples when I wrote that. The main reason I chose MS was because it's just such a wonderful company.
Also can someone please post a link to the GPL?
EDIT: Don't bother, I just googled it.
-
When I thought up that I wasn't thinking of any particular examples, but i'll try.
MS licences their software so that you have to pay for liceneces, subscripitons etc. Also you can't copy it.
Yea well alot of non-free software have the same restrictions.
From what I know of the fs-driver.org software it simply cannot be altered. Seeing as it's free it's knida pointless from my point of veiw.
I agree (if I'm interpretting that correctly) - a pointless restriction.Stupid, unnecessary (I can only assume) restrictions if you ask me.
-
I don't care about this debate any more there are more important things to discuss, sure I could go through and refute eveything in your post but I don't see what it'd achieve as you and I haven't raised any new issues. I did think about deleting my previous post but I thaught, fuck it I've posted it and you'd probably written a response so I thought it would've been rude to have deleted it.
I think we should both just calm down and walk away from this one as the debate as ceased being productive.
I just hope you know where I'm coming from.
You don't needa be a programmer to support free software exclusively. Non-free developers put effort into restricting their users. I don't want to support them. There is a movement for free software, which enables me not to support them. I'll support that movement as much as I can.
IMO keeping source code to yourself is selfish and therefore evil. So might be not giving enough of your money to charity (IMO more rich people should give more money to charity. Some poor people that can't afford it should be excused. Comfortably OK people should share a bit.), but there is no huge-movement to rid the world of this selfishness and evil, and I'm not gonna start one (at least no time soon :)). If there was, I'd support it as much as I can, too.
Short of forcing all software to be open source what do you think could be done to improve things?
IMO the only way would be if more users supported free software. It's the only way free software will ever get ahead IMO.
-
Yea well alot of non-free software have the same restrictions.
My point was that they can be used in ways which benifit only the company. That really wasn't a very well thought out example.
Have you read the other flame wars about free/non-free software before?
How about anti-MS articles on this site and others, have you read them too?
Short of forcing all software to be open source what do you think could be done to improve things?
I don't think I have.
I've defanatly read the ones on this site (if your talking 'bout front page) and am in the process of reading another rather lengthy one. I'd like to read some more. Makes a good basis for an argument.
As for improving things this goes deeper that software. The current buissness attitude is not "How will this benifit people?", it's "Who cares about anything other than myself? How can I make the most money from this?". Now while I realise that this is not true of all people it's still their in one form or another with anything thats paid for. This is the problem with the prevaling market, capitalism, it's based on personal greed and gain. Now this would not be such a problem if their where checks in place to prevnt this getting out of hand but there aren't. See my sig for more information. I hope I understood you corectly.
-
Alright I'm back in, but first I must apologize for this post (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=104927&postcount=34) it was written under the influance of alcohol but I wasn't that drunk so it's no excuse.
I just hope you know where I'm coming from.
Don't wory, I've understood your arugument all along.
You don't need a be a programmer to support free software exclusively.
Of course I understand this argument, but open source software benifits programmers more than anyone else. Having said that there are also disadvantages for the programmer too, for example if they can't to sell their code purly to one body. I'm no programmer so I'd rather pay some money for some software that does what I want it to rather than having to improve some existing software.
Non-free developers put effort into restricting their users.
I depends on the restrictions they impose on me, if in this case they just want me to distribut their software as is without modification than that's fine by me.
I don't want to support them. There is a movement for free software, which enables me not to support them. I'll support that movement as much as I can.
It's your right to do that but don't count on my support or the support of most people for that matter.
I don't believe that free software is the only way of doing things. I don't think that open source is the best way to produce novel and creative software. Financial gain is a very big incentive for companies to create good software, and allowing them to keep their trade secrets provides them with a very large motive to innovate because their innovation will benifit them not their competitors thus putting them further ahead. Off course the open source community can make good software too and companies will contribute to it, for example they might add a feature/bug fix to some software they use but I can't see them all giving donating their best code to the public domain.
IMO keeping source code to yourself is selfish and therefore evil. So might be not giving enough of your money to charity (IMO more rich people should give more money to charity.
I say again, money can do more to improve the quality of human life than software ever can.
Some poor people that can't afford it should be excused.
Some companies can't afford to donate their code (we can't), I know they might still be able to scrape togeather some money from services but thir ability to do this depends on the sort of software they release and their bussines model some are more open source friendly than others.
Comfortably OK people should share a bit.), but there is no huge-movement to rid the world of this selfishness and evil, and I'm not gonna start one (at least no time soon :)). If there was, I'd support it as much as I can, too.
Of course there is.
IMO the only way would be if more users supported free software.
There's a big differance between supporting free software and only supporting free software though.
It's the only way free software will ever get ahead IMO.
Which from one side of the fence migh seem like a good thing but I'm not convinced either way as I don't believe that the standard of software on the whole would improve.
Edit: I really should read all of the replies before I post:
My point was that they can be used in ways which benifit only the company. That really wasn't a very well thought out example.
I don't think I have.
I've defanatly read the ones on this site (if your talking 'bout front page) and am in the process of reading another rather lengthy one. I'd like to read some more. Makes a good basis for an argument.
Please take into account that our front page was written a while ago.
As for improving things this goes deeper that software.
Of course it does software is quite an insignificant thing in the scheme of things.
The current buissness attitude is not "How will this benifit people?", it's "Who cares about anything other than myself? How can I make the most money from this?".
In some cases in a weird way this is good as you'd assume that people will choose their products if they are better so they'll get richer but MS has proved this worng.
Now while I realise that this is not true of all people it's still their in one form or another with anything thats paid for. This is the problem with the prevaling market, capitalism, it's based on personal greed and gain.
Until now capitalism works to some degree, we've tried communism and it didn't work so I don't know what else is left.
Now this would not be such a problem if their where checks in place to prevnt this getting out of hand but there aren't. See my sig for more information. I hope I understood you corectly.
The problem is that people can be bribed so I don't know if this'll work.
To remove capitalism we need to get rid of money, but what would that lead to? Communism? We surly don't want the latter do we?
The open source is more communist than capitalist which is a big reason why I don't support it exclusively.
-
Getting back to the prior point of this thread:
Dark_Me, have you been burning from an image to the CD-R drive, or simply mounting the ISO (with D-Tools, or Alcohol, or some other similar program) and burning the files directly across as a data disc? The latter fails to include a number of alterations the CD needs to be considered "bootable."
-
I havn't been getting CD images. Both Ubuntu and Damn Small Linux are just a bunch of files. After that is I unpack them from their WinRAR arcive. Mabey this is my problem? Are you just suppost to burn the archive?
-
To remove capitalism we need to get rid of money, but what would that lead to? Communism? We surly don't want the latter do we?
Their is a difference between Red Communism and Purist Communism.
The reason communism never worked is because 1) Ether it was only a sham to set up a dictatorship. 2) or they didn't implement it coreclty.
Now the thing about communism is that ALL and I mean all "communist" countrys are not true to the ideals of communism. The first givaway is that they have a government. Open source hardware (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9681)
-
I havn't been getting CD images. Both Ubuntu and Damn Small Linux are just a bunch of files. After that is I unpack them from their WinRAR arcive. Mabey this is my problem? Are you just suppost to burn the archive?
That sounds like the problem. The cd is being formatted as whatever format windows uses. To make a disc bootable, and not just a coaster, you have to use a .iso image. Anything else won't work. Then, you must burn the image to cd. Mounting it and copying the files won't work, neither will just putting the .iso file onto the cd, I think NERO has an option to make discs from an image, but I use a mac so I'm not sure.
-
Yeah it does, the problem is that their not images.
Oops looks like they are. At least Damn Small Linux is. Now to see if it works.
-
EDIT: Double post.
-
I am now posting from Damn Small Linux. Yay! Damn this print is small. Seems the problem was that I wasn't burning them as ISO's . I got the Ubuntu installer workng but got stuck at paritions. Can someone please guide me through?
-
I can't remember how I did this now, what partitions on what hard drives do you currently have?
I had to resize by Windows ntfs drive to make way for a an ext3, swap and FAT32 partition to share work between Linux and Windows (although you might not want to bother with the latter since you can use some software to read ext under Windows and Linux can read ntfs - FAT32 sucks). To do this I had to defragment the existing ntfs drive, this best way to do this is in Windows, right click on the appropiet drive and click properties, select the tools tab, click on defragment, select the volume and defragment it whether Windows says it needs it or not, this might take several hours. Now you need to set up the partitions, I can't remember how in Ubuntu because I used Knoppix which has a very user friendly (I mean Windows easy) tool called Qparted.
-
I think that I just have one single partiontion for each drive. I'm defragging all my drives right now. How do you parition in Windows?
-
You can partition unsed space that doesn't have any file system allocated to it just using Windows but as far as I'm aware you can't resize your current partitons, not without using some expensive 3rd party program anyway. Your best bet is to use a Linux program to do that, I personally recommend Qparted but that's because it's the only utility I have experiance with, perhapps someone else here can answer this one better than I can.
-
QtParted (http://qtparted.sourceforge.net/) (which I think is what Aloone_Jonez was referring to) uses libparted, which is provided by GNU parted (http://gnu.org/software/parted) (a command-line tool for partitioning).
GParted (http://gparted.sourceforge.net/) also uses libparted, but it's for GTK+.
In order to be able to resize NTFS, you'll need ntfsprogs (http://linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net/) too.
See here (http://gparted.sourceforge.net/features.php) for more.
-
QtParted, that's it!
I didn't need to download ntfsprogs but that's because it was probebly built in to Knoppix which I think is the most newb friendly way of doing this.
-
Huston we have Ubuntu! I just got Partition Magic. The rest is history.
I'm knida imbaressed. Turns out I just had 3 partitions on a 80GB hard drive. I just resized the one with the least on it and created a 10GB Ext3 partition. Will that be enough? BTW browsing with linux is wicked fast.
-
Will that be enough?
Should be, for a good while anyhow.
Did you make a swap partition?
-
Even though I recommend using a swap, I've used Linux on my 256MB machine with out a swap and never run out of memory, having said that I didn't edit any large images or anything, but I doubt this could be done with Windows.
-
Nope no swap partition. I got enough room to make one though. What's it used for anyway?
-
Nope no swap partition. I got enough room to make one though. What's it used for anyway?
Whenever you run out of RAM, information gets stored in the swap partition. Windows stores it in a file, called a pagefile. You can use a file for GNU/Linux too, but using a partition is more efficient.
You'd want one of at least 512mb, just to be on the safe side.
-
I see. But if I don't have a swap partition then won't my comp/programs just wait till system resources are freed up?
-
I see. But if I don't have a swap partition then won't my comp/programs just wait till system resources are freed up?
I dunno (always have a huge swap partition), but that's probably alot of waiting ;)
-
Haha, I tried to use firefox on my laptop with damnsmalllinux and 22mb memory.
It just sat there thrashing for half an hour.
-
Although I haven't tried it DeLi Linux (http://www.delilinux.de/) sounds good for shitty old hardware.
-
Although I haven't tried it DeLi Linux (http://www.delilinux.de/) sounds good for shitty old hardware.
That sounds like quite something. I always used muLinux for that, but it's no longer updated, and uses Netscape 3.0 and kernel 2.0 and stuff like that. This is more up to date.