On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:39:34 -0400, ken scharf
wrote:

Danny Richardson wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 09:26:24 -0400, "xpyttl"
wrote:

"ken scharf" wrote in message
...

The advantage of Linux is that the development tools are free, and Linux
will run on any computer that runs windows.
Not entirely true. Linux doesn't always have the hardware support,
especially on newer boxes.

You can also install Linux
on top of windows (on the same computer anyway) and dual boot, so you
can have your cake and eat it too (or have your poison and antidote too
in my opinion!).
And why would you? Why would you suffer the complexity and frustration of
Linux if Windoze is working just fine for you?

Personally, I fully enjoy having Linux servers an Windoze desktops on my
home LAN, and with the magic of Cygwin, I can have Linux tools on my Windoze
box, and seamless access to my Linux apps, withough fully suffering the
clumsy Linux desktop.

But that is just me. Most folks want to use the applications, not the OS.
Most hams aren't going to write programs, and the features of Linux will be
lost on them, but the complexity sure won't. For them, all they want is a
little Digipan and email, why on earth would they subject themselves to yet
another set of stuff to learn? As far as i can tell, the only ham app on
Linux that is better than what is available on Windoze is gEDA. Everything
else is harder to use and less capable.

Now, I have a lot of ham apps on Linux that I have personally written.
These provide me with functions that aren't easily available on Windoze, and
the Linux environment makes it much easier. But I'm not most people. Not
too many hams are comfortable writing their own applications, or even if
they could, that isn't how they enjoy the hobby. For most people, including
most hams, Windoze serves the purpose.

Everyone has their own set of needs, and one size doesn't fit all. I
suspect there may even be some people for whom the Mac is the best answer,
although I can't imagine who they might be. But the getting in price for
Linux is still pretty high in terms of learning curve, and for most hams,
the return is close to zero. So why bother?

..
Excellent response. I too have a Linux system on my shack computer
dual-booting with Winders. I removed Linux from my main computer as
after several months of searching I could never find a decent driver
for my video card and wasn't about to buy another card when there was
nothing wrong with one I have except there aren't any Linux drivers
for it.

Plus setting the sucker up is a PITA. Kind of a cross between DOS and
Window '98. Finding extensions, plugins, or what ever you may call
them is some what like a scavenger hunt and takes a LOT of time and
effort.

If one takes the time and endures the learning curve the results are
often quite good. The system is very stable and works well.

73,
Danny, K6MHE
Those of us that have gone through the trouble of getting there know
the rewards of Linux. I agree, it's not something for everyone, but I
would think that if you have the brains to get a ham ticket and build
your own gear, you can figure it out. Also Ubuntu, Linspire (and
Freespire) provide a brainless install that usually just works.

I really don't want to debate this but will add this comment: I did
not find that true with Ubuntu. Try playing videos or mp3s without
addding a bunch of stuff after the install. Its not a slam-dunk yet.

It really a choice thing and we don't all make the same choices. G

very 73,
Danny, K6MHE

[snip]

"ken scharf" wrote in message
...
The advantage of Linux is that the development tools are free

Not true. A fairer statement would probably be something like "there are
significantly more free development tools for Linux than there are for
Windows." On Windows, the "express" editions of the Microsoft compilers are
free, older Borland tools are free, GCC is free, etc. On Linux, there are
plenty of commercial development suite, which in many cases are well worth the
money.

and Linux
will run on any computer that runs windows.

Also not true. Especially with laptops, drivers for Linux are often
non-existent. In fact, where I start thinking, "hmm... I should do something
with Linux..." the *first* thing I have to consider is whether or not I have a
PC around that'll have its hardware fully supported.

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Joel Kolstad wrote:

"ken scharf" wrote in message
...
The advantage of Linux is that the development tools are free

Not true. A fairer statement would probably be something like "there are
significantly more free development tools for Linux than there are for
Windows." On Windows, the "express" editions of the Microsoft compilers are
free, older Borland tools are free, GCC is free, etc. On Linux, there are
plenty of commercial development suite, which in many cases are well worth the
money.

I'm not that aware of how many (and how good) developement tools are there
for Linux but...see bellow...

and Linux
will run on any computer that runs windows.

Also not true. Especially with laptops, drivers for Linux are often
non-existent. In fact, where I start thinking, "hmm... I should do something
with Linux..." the *first* thing I have to consider is whether or not I have a
PC around that'll have its hardware fully supported.

My little story....

I have been told that there are laptops out there, with Windows
pre-installed, that will not even run DOS or Win3.1 any more.

Laptop support for anything other than what software the laptop was
designed for is a major problem.

I have had vastly more success intalling the earlier versions of Linux on
"any" PC laying around. Just like Windoze, Linux has also tightened up its
hardware compatibility requirements and particularly in the driver
category.

I've had, and installed, from Red Hat 4.2 to 5.2, 6.2, 7.3 (problems with
7.4, very buggy GUIs in 7.1,7.2), and mostly failure with one of the
Workstation (Taroon, version 3.0) versions (based on the 3.5 inch
boot disk with included CD-ROM driver portfolio was changed from a small
number of prior CD-ROM drivers to new RAIDs, etc, and the new drivers
don't recognize anything older than about 4-5 years, now). And, I was
profoundly disappointed. Also, that same Linux (Taroon) required 256 MB of
ram to run. It would boot with less (32 mb), but barely get the GUI up.
Anything beyond that would run into the swap partition and be slow as
hell. Actually both 6.2 and 7.3 (which installed sucessfully less often
than 6.2 or 5.2) are pretty good (eg. drag and drop file manager, gFTP,
automount-dismount drives, etc). StarOffice 5.1 & 5.2 installed well on
5.2 and 6.2. The problems with 7.3 and prior were the buggy web browsers
or they would crash on moderate to advanced websites.

I never set up the firewalls, IP chains, or whatever, and some months
after I was running it on the intenet, I got hacked (I actually witnessed
it as it was happening: hard drive started cranking like mad, and lots of
bytes were being downloaded (as could be seen on the download bytes/sec
rate meter and graph). By the time I could get to the phone line to
disconnect, the bugger downloaded a rootkit somewhere and every time I
booted it up, I could see a package of outgoing data (red bars) leave my
box (and without confirming green bars) to some unknown point on the
internet. At a later point, I nuked the HD and re-installed.

As an aside, I still run DOS & Win3.1 for a lot of internet aps. At one
time, www.securityspace.com ran free vulnerability tests with hack attacks
(I think www.grc.com does too) and could not hack my Win3.1 with Netscape
2.01 dialer (probably because it has no ports for anything but email, ng,
ftp, and http protocols), but it could hack my Linux and Win98SE boxes
(without ZoneAlarm). Most of the time I access my shell account with a DOS
terminal program (dialup terminal mode, not ppp). I think my home box is
pretty safe that way (not much is going to cross from Unix to DOS, and I
don't keep any vital info in files/folders on my shell directory.

On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:39:34 -0400, ken scharf wrote:


About the only thing I find lacking is Macromedia Flash support for Linux,
though there is a GNU project to provide it (gnash).

Flash working fine here on Mepis 3.4-3.

Even runs my LinkSys WPC54G wireless card when other distros wouldn't.

About the only thing I find lacking is Macromedia Flash support for Linux,
though there is a GNU project to provide it (gnash).

Flash working fine here on Mepis 3.4-3.

Even runs my LinkSys WPC54G wireless card when other distros wouldn't.
===================================
Question : Do you run 'Simply Mepis' from a live CD or have you
installed that distro on your HD ?

'Simply Mepis' upgrades come hard and fast ; last month the Linux Format
magazine's DVD carried version 6.0

Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 21:56:18 +0100, Highland Ham wrote:
About the only thing I find lacking is Macromedia Flash support for Linux,
though there is a GNU project to provide it (gnash).

Flash working fine here on Mepis 3.4-3.

Even runs my LinkSys WPC54G wireless card when other distros wouldn't.
===================================
Question : Do you run 'Simply Mepis' from a live CD or have you
installed that distro on your HD ?

'Simply Mepis' upgrades come hard and fast ; last month the Linux Format
magazine's DVD carried version 6.0

They shouldn't be coming "hard and fast" from here on out. Mepis is now
Debian-based and will follow that distro's roll-out schedule(s). There
can be/will be security updates -- which I believe is A Real Good Thing.
The updates are done with ease.

But new, full releases will appear less often. 'Tis said, as well, that
Mepis release's will each now come with "Long Term Support". Dunno what
that means in actuality, but I've gotten damn tired of Mandrake
deprecating my installations each time I finally get them fully fleshed
out, fine tuned, and stable. Then it is upheaval all over again.

I will be moving off the Mandrake ("Mandriva" - yeech!) distro (MDK 10.2
on my primary box), and I have recently installed Mepis 6.0 on my
'down-level' box (was MDK 9.1). Mepis 6.0 installed as slick as you'd
ever want an install to go.

Recommended.

Jonesy -- Mikro$oft free since 1991
--
Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux
38.24N 104.55W | @ config.com | Jonesy | OS/2
*** Killfiling google posts: http//jonz.net/ng.htm

Leroy wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:39:34 -0400, ken scharf wrote:


About the only thing I find lacking is Macromedia Flash support for Linux,
though there is a GNU project to provide it (gnash).

Flash working fine here on Mepis 3.4-3.

Even runs my LinkSys WPC54G wireless card when other distros wouldn't.

There are TWO different flash plugins. Macromedia is NOT supported
under linux. There is another pluging also called flash that is.

Danny Richardson wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:39:34 -0400, ken scharf
wrote:

Danny Richardson wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 09:26:24 -0400, "xpyttl"
wrote:

"ken scharf" wrote in message
...

The advantage of Linux is that the development tools are free, and Linux
will run on any computer that runs windows.
Not entirely true. Linux doesn't always have the hardware support,
especially on newer boxes.

You can also install Linux
on top of windows (on the same computer anyway) and dual boot, so you
can have your cake and eat it too (or have your poison and antidote too
in my opinion!).
And why would you? Why would you suffer the complexity and frustration of
Linux if Windoze is working just fine for you?

Personally, I fully enjoy having Linux servers an Windoze desktops on my
home LAN, and with the magic of Cygwin, I can have Linux tools on my Windoze
box, and seamless access to my Linux apps, withough fully suffering the
clumsy Linux desktop.

But that is just me. Most folks want to use the applications, not the OS.
Most hams aren't going to write programs, and the features of Linux will be
lost on them, but the complexity sure won't. For them, all they want is a
little Digipan and email, why on earth would they subject themselves to yet
another set of stuff to learn? As far as i can tell, the only ham app on
Linux that is better than what is available on Windoze is gEDA. Everything
else is harder to use and less capable.

Now, I have a lot of ham apps on Linux that I have personally written.
These provide me with functions that aren't easily available on Windoze, and
the Linux environment makes it much easier. But I'm not most people. Not
too many hams are comfortable writing their own applications, or even if
they could, that isn't how they enjoy the hobby. For most people, including
most hams, Windoze serves the purpose.

Everyone has their own set of needs, and one size doesn't fit all. I
suspect there may even be some people for whom the Mac is the best answer,
although I can't imagine who they might be. But the getting in price for
Linux is still pretty high in terms of learning curve, and for most hams,
the return is close to zero. So why bother?

..
Excellent response. I too have a Linux system on my shack computer
dual-booting with Winders. I removed Linux from my main computer as
after several months of searching I could never find a decent driver
for my video card and wasn't about to buy another card when there was
nothing wrong with one I have except there aren't any Linux drivers
for it.

Plus setting the sucker up is a PITA. Kind of a cross between DOS and
Window '98. Finding extensions, plugins, or what ever you may call
them is some what like a scavenger hunt and takes a LOT of time and
effort.

If one takes the time and endures the learning curve the results are
often quite good. The system is very stable and works well.

73,
Danny, K6MHE
Those of us that have gone through the trouble of getting there know
the rewards of Linux. I agree, it's not something for everyone, but I
would think that if you have the brains to get a ham ticket and build
your own gear, you can figure it out. Also Ubuntu, Linspire (and
Freespire) provide a brainless install that usually just works.

I really don't want to debate this but will add this comment: I did
not find that true with Ubuntu. Try playing videos or mp3s without
addding a bunch of stuff after the install. Its not a slam-dunk yet.

Ubuntu tries to be a totally free (as in freedom) distro so they don't
distribute closed source drivers and plugins by default. As you noticed
it's possible but requires user intervention. There are scripts
available to do this for your with one click.

It really a choice thing and we don't all make the same choices. G

very 73,
Danny, K6MHE

[snip]

Yes! choice is good!

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 21:56:18 +0100, Highland Ham wrote:

About the only thing I find lacking is Macromedia Flash support for
Linux, though there is a GNU project to provide it (gnash).

Flash working fine here on Mepis 3.4-3.

Even runs my LinkSys WPC54G wireless card when other distros wouldn't.
===================================
Question : Do you run 'Simply Mepis' from a live CD or have you installed
that distro on your HD ?

'Simply Mepis' upgrades come hard and fast ; last month the Linux Format
magazine's DVD carried version 6.0

I originally ran it from a Live CD to test it. It found and set up all of
my hardware without any messing about or configuring on my part. After a
few days I wiped out Mandrake and installed it to the HD.

The only thing I really miss is Midnite Commander...and a partition that
got munged when I disregarded previous experience and was bopping back and
forth between Partition Magic and QTParted. I could re-write the partion
table by hand with a hex editor but it's tedious work and I'm not sure
that what's gone is worth the effort.

This machine is set up to dual-boot with Win 98, but the only reason I
keep it is for one business app that manages my inventory and invoicing.
I'm used to the way it works and too lazy to port it over or try to
convert it to something else.

I have the Mepis 6.0 Live distro but this is working fine. It ain't broke,
so I'm not going to "fix" it. But if I decide to build a new laptop with
one of those nice 17" screens and a dual-core AMD CPU, that is most likely
what will go on it.

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 19:28:05 -0400, ken scharf wrote:


There are TWO different flash plugins. Macromedia is NOT supported
under linux. There is another pluging also called flash that is.

The Macromedia flash plugin works fine on my Linux box. You can get it
from:
http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get...7_linux.tar.gz

or with this shorter URL: http://tinyurl.com/prmdd

I think it is closed-source, binary only, so it will probably only
work with X86 versions of Linux.

Note that Macromedia are called Adobe these days.

Anyway, thats enough OT for me. This is turning into a
Linux advocacy group :-)

73, Ed. EI9GQ.



--
Remove 'X' to reply by e-mail
Linux 2.6.17