Good Linux alternative for Windows 9x/ME era computers.

This is a version of linux called u-lite. It is based on ubuntu, so it is
completely updatable, and uses the latest programs and browsers easily.
It can use the latest youtube and other flash video sites, for instance,
because it uses a recent version of adobe flashplayer with a modern gecko
based browser, like firefox and kazehakase. Win9x won't do this without
some major hacking.

It uses the lxde desktop so it runs on very low resource computers. You
just need about 32mb of ram, and anything over 486dx with some swap space.
That's all.

I dual booted Windows 98 with various linux for a long time, but I stuck
with mainly Win98 for as long as possible, because many of the linuxes I
used just operated too sluggishly. Unfortunately Win98 got hosed at some
point. I couldn't reinstall it from my oem compaq restore disk because I
had upgraded the hard drive and it would only install on the original
owing to some copywrite protection code. I had to resort to linux. This
caused me to hunt for lighter versions of linux. U-lite thus far is the
best one I have used.

Now some info about linux in general. Like alot of people who resort to
old versons of windows, I don't have alot of money, and linux gives me
access to thousands of good free opensource programs at the end of my
fingertips through synaptic. There are equivalents to most of the
programs I used on Win98, and when it isn't available I can generally run
my old windows 98 programs through a program called wine. I use wine
mostly for my old games.

http://u-lite.org

I am sure there are others. Anyone else had some good experiences
recently with a version Linux?

 

Now in Linux mode again... and outside of win98.gen forum standards:

The major issue associated with newer Linux compilations when using older
machines will likely be the display used [almost everything else is
supported natively or via readily downloaded support files, e.g., sound
cards, scanners, cameras, USB devices, printers, etc.].
The defaults now generally found in Linux use EDID and DDC to find the
display/monitor. Older monitors will not be found and you will be locked
into 640x480 or 800x600.

Two choices can be used to work around the issue.
Manually editing the xorg.conf file [not for beginners] or using the messa
driver package which includes most of the older display models in its data
base.
A work-around to manually editing the xorg.conf is to install the COMPLETE
messa package [the default installations generally include just a base
installation], use it to create the xorg.conf by setting up your older
display, and then IF NECESSARY install the video adapter specific files
[like for nVidia]. The drivers will use the settings placed by the messa
package related to your display, to setup your older display with the device
specific driver. Workarounds have been found to do such things as install
DirectX and several other issues that Windows users might be familiar with,
or find they need.
IF you want or need to manually setup the xorg.conf [or other conf files
{configuration files}and settings], *make sure* to first install and/or
setup your ability to become "root" in terminal [kind of like MSDOS Mode or
MSDOS Prompt, or CMD].

Presently I have run short term tests on Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu, SUSE,
Fedora, Simply Mepis, and Debian [gnome and KDE]. These seem to require at
least 384 megs memory and a 500+ Mhz. CPU to run adequately in a configured
installation. More memory, bigger drives, and faster CPUs are not an issue
in Linux and will make the experience more enjoyable.

There are now several other packages available to run Windows within Linux,
beyond Wine [including VMWare]. Windows users can also install Linux into a
virtual machine in Windows, or create or download "Live disks" [CD/DVD] of
Linux not requiring installation should they wish to find out what Linux has
now become.

--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______



"No Alternative" <noalternativeREMOVETHISSTUFF@operamail.com> wrote in
message news:gtn030$45a$1@news.motzarella.org...
> This is a version of linux called u-lite. It is based on ubuntu, so it is
> completely updatable, and uses the latest programs and browsers easily.
> It can use the latest youtube and other flash video sites, for instance,
> because it uses a recent version of adobe flashplayer with a modern gecko
> based browser, like firefox and kazehakase. Win9x won't do this without
> some major hacking.
>
> It uses the lxde desktop so it runs on very low resource computers. You
> just need about 32mb of ram, and anything over 486dx with some swap space.
> That's all.
>
> I dual booted Windows 98 with various linux for a long time, but I stuck
> with mainly Win98 for as long as possible, because many of the linuxes I
> used just operated too sluggishly. Unfortunately Win98 got hosed at some
> point. I couldn't reinstall it from my oem compaq restore disk because I
> had upgraded the hard drive and it would only install on the original
> owing to some copywrite protection code. I had to resort to linux. This
> caused me to hunt for lighter versions of linux. U-lite thus far is the
> best one I have used.
>
> Now some info about linux in general. Like alot of people who resort to
> old versons of windows, I don't have alot of money, and linux gives me
> access to thousands of good free opensource programs at the end of my
> fingertips through synaptic. There are equivalents to most of the
> programs I used on Win98, and when it isn't available I can generally run
> my old windows 98 programs through a program called wine. I use wine
> mostly for my old games.
>
> http://u-lite.org
>
> I am sure there are others. Anyone else had some good experiences
> recently with a version Linux?
>

 

MEB wrote:
> Now in Linux mode again... and outside of win98.gen forum standards:
>
> The major issue associated with newer Linux compilations when using older
> machines will likely be the display used [almost everything else is
> supported natively or via readily downloaded support files, e.g., sound
> cards, scanners, cameras, USB devices, printers, etc.].
> The defaults now generally found in Linux use EDID and DDC to find the
> display/monitor. Older monitors will not be found and you will be locked
> into 640x480 or 800x600.
>
> Two choices can be used to work around the issue.
> Manually editing the xorg.conf file [not for beginners] or using the messa
> driver package which includes most of the older display models in its data
> base.
> A work-around to manually editing the xorg.conf is to install the COMPLETE
> messa package [the default installations generally include just a base
> installation], use it to create the xorg.conf by setting up your older
> display, and then IF NECESSARY install the video adapter specific files
> [like for nVidia]. The drivers will use the settings placed by the messa
> package related to your display, to setup your older display with the device
> specific driver. Workarounds have been found to do such things as install
> DirectX and several other issues that Windows users might be familiar with,
> or find they need.
> IF you want or need to manually setup the xorg.conf [or other conf files
> {configuration files}and settings], *make sure* to first install and/or
> setup your ability to become "root" in terminal [kind of like MSDOS Mode or
> MSDOS Prompt, or CMD].
>
> Presently I have run short term tests on Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu, SUSE,
> Fedora, Simply Mepis, and Debian [gnome and KDE]. These seem to require at
> least 384 megs memory and a 500+ Mhz. CPU to run adequately in a configured
> installation. More memory, bigger drives, and faster CPUs are not an issue
> in Linux and will make the experience more enjoyable.
>
> There are now several other packages available to run Windows within Linux,
> beyond Wine [including VMWare]. Windows users can also install Linux into a
> virtual machine in Windows, or create or download "Live disks" [CD/DVD] of
> Linux not requiring installation should they wish to find out what Linux has
> now become.
>



Yep . I've switched over to Linux also (at least 95%)

I have found that most old machines that had win9x on them will run

either Puppy Linux or Dam_ Small Linux quite well

 

On Mon, 04 May 2009 15:02:12 -0500, philo wrote:

> MEB wrote:
>> Now in Linux mode again... and outside of win98.gen forum standards:
>>
>> The major issue associated with newer Linux compilations when using
>> older
>> machines will likely be the display used [almost everything else is
>> supported natively or via readily downloaded support files, e.g., sound
>> cards, scanners, cameras, USB devices, printers, etc.].
>> The defaults now generally found in Linux use EDID and DDC to find the
>> display/monitor. Older monitors will not be found and you will be
>> locked into 640x480 or 800x600.
>>
>> Two choices can be used to work around the issue.
>> Manually editing the xorg.conf file [not for beginners] or using the
>> messa driver package which includes most of the older display models in
>> its data base.
>> A work-around to manually editing the xorg.conf is to install the
>> COMPLETE messa package [the default installations generally include
>> just a base installation], use it to create the xorg.conf by setting up
>> your older display, and then IF NECESSARY install the video adapter
>> specific files [like for nVidia]. The drivers will use the settings
>> placed by the messa package related to your display, to setup your
>> older display with the device specific driver. Workarounds have been
>> found to do such things as install DirectX and several other issues
>> that Windows users might be familiar with, or find they need.
>> IF you want or need to manually setup the xorg.conf [or other conf
>> files
>> {configuration files}and settings], *make sure* to first install and/or
>> setup your ability to become "root" in terminal [kind of like MSDOS
>> Mode or MSDOS Prompt, or CMD].
>>
>> Presently I have run short term tests on Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu,
>> SUSE,
>> Fedora, Simply Mepis, and Debian [gnome and KDE]. These seem to require
>> at least 384 megs memory and a 500+ Mhz. CPU to run adequately in a
>> configured installation. More memory, bigger drives, and faster CPUs
>> are not an issue in Linux and will make the experience more enjoyable.
>>
>> There are now several other packages available to run Windows within
>> Linux,
>> beyond Wine [including VMWare]. Windows users can also install Linux
>> into a virtual machine in Windows, or create or download "Live disks"
>> [CD/DVD] of Linux not requiring installation should they wish to find
>> out what Linux has now become.
>>
>>
>
>
> Yep . I've switched over to Linux also (at least 95%)
>
> I have found that most old machines that had win9x on them will run
>
> either Puppy Linux or Dam_ Small Linux quite well

darn-small linux runs good, but is a little too feature-lite for me to be
interested in it. Puppy runs great but I didn't think program repository
selection was very good.

 

On Mon, 04 May 2009 14:44:05 -0400, MEB wrote:
.. Older monitors will not be found and you will be locked
> into 640x480 or 800x600.

I have more issues finding drivers for newer lcd displays than older ones.
>
> Two choices can be used to work around the issue.
> Manually editing the xorg.conf file [not for beginners] or using the
> messa driver package which includes most of the older display models in
> its data base.

> IF you want or need to manually setup the xorg.conf [or other conf
> files
> {configuration files}and settings], *make sure* to first install and/or
> setup your ability to become "root" in terminal [kind of like MSDOS Mode
> or MSDOS Prompt, or CMD].
>

this worked for me with my newer lcd displays, yes. My old display on
the windows 98 machine, just defaulted to 1028x768 fine.

> Presently I have run short term tests on Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu,
> SUSE,
> Fedora, Simply Mepis, and Debian [gnome and KDE]. These seem to require
> at least 384 megs memory and a 500+ Mhz. CPU to run adequately in a
> configured installation. More memory, bigger drives, and faster CPUs are
> not an issue in Linux and will make the experience more enjoyable.

this version doesn't uses gnome or kde so it runs with much lower system
specs.
>
> There are now several other packages available to run Windows within
> Linux,
> beyond Wine [including VMWare]. Windows users can also install Linux
> into a virtual machine in Windows, or create or download "Live disks"
> [CD/DVD] of Linux not requiring installation should they wish to find
> out what Linux has now become.

If you have windows, you can do this yes. I run win3x in a vmware. wine
doesn't run windows as it is a windows emulator for running windows
applications.
>
> --
> ~
> --

 

No Alternative wrote:
> On Mon, 04 May 2009 14:44:05 -0400, MEB wrote:
> .. Older monitors will not be found and you will be locked
>> into 640x480 or 800x600.
>
> I have more issues finding drivers for newer lcd displays than older ones.

Yeah, that appears at times, though with the numerous
newsgroups/forums/etc.. one can generally find SOMEONE who has already
worked out the necessary generic settings.

>> Two choices can be used to work around the issue.
>> Manually editing the xorg.conf file [not for beginners] or using the
>> messa driver package which includes most of the older display models in
>> its data base.
>
>> IF you want or need to manually setup the xorg.conf [or other conf
>> files
>> {configuration files}and settings], *make sure* to first install and/or
>> setup your ability to become "root" in terminal [kind of like MSDOS Mode
>> or MSDOS Prompt, or CMD].
>>
>
> this worked for me with my newer lcd displays, yes. My old display on
> the windows 98 machine, just defaulted to 1028x768 fine.

The defaults for these [on the test machines with the mentioned
compilations] turned out to be 800x600 with only 640x480 as an option
until running the messa config.

The idea for the original comment was for the many Windows converts
who end up complaining about no support for their older CRTs or screens,
going the various support forums or otherwise and being told how to
MANUALLY edit the xorg.conf.
The messa utility gives them the more comfortable and familiar "pick
from the list" they had with Windows.

>
>> Presently I have run short term tests on Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu,
>> SUSE,
>> Fedora, Simply Mepis, and Debian [gnome and KDE]. These seem to require
>> at least 384 megs memory and a 500+ Mhz. CPU to run adequately in a
>> configured installation. More memory, bigger drives, and faster CPUs are
>> not an issue in Linux and will make the experience more enjoyable.
>
> this version doesn't uses gnome or kde so it runs with much lower system
> specs.

Right. There are numerous compilations with plainer GUI interfaces.
I suppose that is the hardest for many to understand, the ability to
download one GUIed version and install another GUI while having the
ability to switch back and forth, or mix and match among the various
offerings related to the GUIs...

>> There are now several other packages available to run Windows within
>> Linux,
>> beyond Wine [including VMWare]. Windows users can also install Linux
>> into a virtual machine in Windows, or create or download "Live disks"
>> [CD/DVD] of Linux not requiring installation should they wish to find
>> out what Linux has now become.
>
> If you have windows, you can do this yes. I run win3x in a vmware. wine
> doesn't run windows as it is a windows emulator for running windows
> applications.

I suppose what I originally wrote was somewhat misleading.. the idea
is to note the ability to use their familiar "Windows" [which is really
based more upon familiar applications than the actual OS]. Between the
emulators and the virtual machines, they need not leave their
comfortable Windows, yet they don't NEED the newest computer to *use*
another Microsoft OS ... and yet still be able to progress to a newer OS
in which they can do the things they now can't in Windows 9X.. using
such things as Open Office, Kommander or Gnome Commander [based upon
their favourite file managers] or staying with the pre-configured
Nautilus {like Explorer}, and other like/similar applications.

 

I'd avoid using Linux. Linux makes people go insane. First they cut
off all contact with actual people, and spend every waking hour trying
to make the thing run. Then they lose interest in everything except
their computer because they have to try every distro and version of
linux in existance, and spend all their time deleting and reinstalling
the latest linux distro .

Soon they can no longer speak english, or spanish, or whatever they
originally spoke, and can only speak in programming code and they
begin using fantasy words like gnome and troll, and words with no
meaning at all, such as gnu.

It's not long after they begin worshipping linux as their god, and
stop attending church. That's when the linux god takes complete
control of their mind. It's this point where they become dangerous to
others around them. If they are in the midst of setting up the latest
distro, and their mother walks into the room to ask them what they
want for dinner, they often murder their mother because she
interrupted their linux trance.

Finally comes the addicted linux-drug pusher state. They begin
installing linux on everyone elses computers. They begin bashing and
trashing Microsoft, Macintosh, and any other computer operating
system. They become very demanding and crude about it. Anyone using
any non-linux OS is a target to abuse. Worse yet, anyone else who is
using linux MUST be as knowledgable as them, or they call the person
all sorts of names and makes sure to demean any other linux user who
is not as superior as them. They brag about their computer knowledge
and defame anyone who is not as great as they are. Their whole
personality and purpose in life evolves around which Linux distro they
use.

The final phase is when they become violent because linux has
destroyed their minds. Their brain cells are all bleeding from techie
geek overload. They now believe they have become part of linux and
will try things like locking themselves inside their computer case, or
connecting their power supply to their bodies, or even going so far to
attempt to replace their heart with an intel quad core processor.

This is often where they stop sleeping, stop eating, and cut off
contact with all persons. This is the point where they often smash
their computers because the computer would not boot or refused to
recognise their mouse. Once the computer is destroyed, they normally
commit suicide or go on a murdering rampage, killing large numbers of
people in computer stores, schools, churches, malls, or theaters with
a handgun. They do this while imagining they are playing dungeous and
dragons or another violent computer game. Those who survive end up in
prison or mental institutions for the duration of their lives, where
they sit babbling random programming code to themselves until their
death.


Do you really want to mess with their evil satanic operating system?

I sure hope not, but if you do, remember, no one will pray for you.
The day you load your first Linux distro is the day your spirit dies
and satan enters your mind and soul for eternity.


------------------------


On Mon, 4 May 2009 14:44:05 -0400, "MEB" <MEB@not@here> wrote:

>
>Now in Linux mode again... and outside of win98.gen forum standards:
>
> The major issue associated with newer Linux compilations when using older
>machines will likely be the display used [almost everything else is
>supported natively or via readily downloaded support files, e.g., sound
>cards, scanners, cameras, USB devices, printers, etc.].
> The defaults now generally found in Linux use EDID and DDC to find the
>display/monitor. Older monitors will not be found and you will be locked
>into 640x480 or 800x600.
>
> Two choices can be used to work around the issue.
>Manually editing the xorg.conf file [not for beginners] or using the messa
>driver package which includes most of the older display models in its data
>base.
>A work-around to manually editing the xorg.conf is to install the COMPLETE
>messa package [the default installations generally include just a base
>installation], use it to create the xorg.conf by setting up your older
>display, and then IF NECESSARY install the video adapter specific files
>[like for nVidia]. The drivers will use the settings placed by the messa
>package related to your display, to setup your older display with the device
>specific driver. Workarounds have been found to do such things as install
>DirectX and several other issues that Windows users might be familiar with,
>or find they need.
> IF you want or need to manually setup the xorg.conf [or other conf files
>{configuration files}and settings], *make sure* to first install and/or
>setup your ability to become "root" in terminal [kind of like MSDOS Mode or
>MSDOS Prompt, or CMD].
>
> Presently I have run short term tests on Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu, SUSE,
>Fedora, Simply Mepis, and Debian [gnome and KDE]. These seem to require at
>least 384 megs memory and a 500+ Mhz. CPU to run adequately in a configured
>installation. More memory, bigger drives, and faster CPUs are not an issue
>in Linux and will make the experience more enjoyable.
>
> There are now several other packages available to run Windows within Linux,
>beyond Wine [including VMWare]. Windows users can also install Linux into a
>virtual machine in Windows, or create or download "Live disks" [CD/DVD] of
>Linux not requiring installation should they wish to find out what Linux has
>now become.
>
>--
>~

 

On Mon, 04 May 2009 23:54:54 -0500, Jimw wrote:

>
> I sure hope not, but if you do, remember, no one will pray for you. The
> day you load your first Linux distro is the day your spirit dies and
> satan enters your mind and soul for eternity.
>
>

ok lol!

http://english-158465906205.spampoison.com
http://u-lite.org

 

Glad you pointed that out, ,,, dang for all these years I thought that was
what Microsoft Windows did... and to now know its all GOD's plan, what a
refreshing realization... oh how sneaky that devil guy is...

So when were you to take your last medication, apparently you forgot...
?X~Q

--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______



"Jimw" <jimw@mail.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:0igvv4lphjlcuvserv16nf5lpggq8abmhn@4ax.com...
> I'd avoid using Linux. Linux makes people go insane. First they cut
> off all contact with actual people, and spend every waking hour trying
> to make the thing run. Then they lose interest in everything except
> their computer because they have to try every distro and version of
> linux in existance, and spend all their time deleting and reinstalling
> the latest linux distro .
>
> Soon they can no longer speak english, or spanish, or whatever they
> originally spoke, and can only speak in programming code and they
> begin using fantasy words like gnome and troll, and words with no
> meaning at all, such as gnu.
>
> It's not long after they begin worshipping linux as their god, and
> stop attending church. That's when the linux god takes complete
> control of their mind. It's this point where they become dangerous to
> others around them. If they are in the midst of setting up the latest
> distro, and their mother walks into the room to ask them what they
> want for dinner, they often murder their mother because she
> interrupted their linux trance.
>
> Finally comes the addicted linux-drug pusher state. They begin
> installing linux on everyone elses computers. They begin bashing and
> trashing Microsoft, Macintosh, and any other computer operating
> system. They become very demanding and crude about it. Anyone using
> any non-linux OS is a target to abuse. Worse yet, anyone else who is
> using linux MUST be as knowledgable as them, or they call the person
> all sorts of names and makes sure to demean any other linux user who
> is not as superior as them. They brag about their computer knowledge
> and defame anyone who is not as great as they are. Their whole
> personality and purpose in life evolves around which Linux distro they
> use.
>
> The final phase is when they become violent because linux has
> destroyed their minds. Their brain cells are all bleeding from techie
> geek overload. They now believe they have become part of linux and
> will try things like locking themselves inside their computer case, or
> connecting their power supply to their bodies, or even going so far to
> attempt to replace their heart with an intel quad core processor.
>
> This is often where they stop sleeping, stop eating, and cut off
> contact with all persons. This is the point where they often smash
> their computers because the computer would not boot or refused to
> recognise their mouse. Once the computer is destroyed, they normally
> commit suicide or go on a murdering rampage, killing large numbers of
> people in computer stores, schools, churches, malls, or theaters with
> a handgun. They do this while imagining they are playing dungeous and
> dragons or another violent computer game. Those who survive end up in
> prison or mental institutions for the duration of their lives, where
> they sit babbling random programming code to themselves until their
> death.
>
>
> Do you really want to mess with their evil satanic operating system?
>
> I sure hope not, but if you do, remember, no one will pray for you.
> The day you load your first Linux distro is the day your spirit dies
> and satan enters your mind and soul for eternity.
>
>
> ------------------------
>
>
> On Mon, 4 May 2009 14:44:05 -0400, "MEB" <MEB@not@here> wrote:
>
> >
> >Now in Linux mode again... and outside of win98.gen forum standards:
> >
> > The major issue associated with newer Linux compilations when using
older
> >machines will likely be the display used [almost everything else is
> >supported natively or via readily downloaded support files, e.g., sound
> >cards, scanners, cameras, USB devices, printers, etc.].
> > The defaults now generally found in Linux use EDID and DDC to find the
> >display/monitor. Older monitors will not be found and you will be locked
> >into 640x480 or 800x600.
> >
> > Two choices can be used to work around the issue.
> >Manually editing the xorg.conf file [not for beginners] or using the
messa
> >driver package which includes most of the older display models in its
data
> >base.
> >A work-around to manually editing the xorg.conf is to install the
COMPLETE
> >messa package [the default installations generally include just a base
> >installation], use it to create the xorg.conf by setting up your older
> >display, and then IF NECESSARY install the video adapter specific files
> >[like for nVidia]. The drivers will use the settings placed by the messa
> >package related to your display, to setup your older display with the
device
> >specific driver. Workarounds have been found to do such things as install
> >DirectX and several other issues that Windows users might be familiar
with,
> >or find they need.
> > IF you want or need to manually setup the xorg.conf [or other conf files
> >{configuration files}and settings], *make sure* to first install and/or
> >setup your ability to become "root" in terminal [kind of like MSDOS Mode
or
> >MSDOS Prompt, or CMD].
> >
> > Presently I have run short term tests on Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu, SUSE,
> >Fedora, Simply Mepis, and Debian [gnome and KDE]. These seem to require
at
> >least 384 megs memory and a 500+ Mhz. CPU to run adequately in a
configured
> >installation. More memory, bigger drives, and faster CPUs are not an
issue
> >in Linux and will make the experience more enjoyable.
> >
> > There are now several other packages available to run Windows within
Linux,
> >beyond Wine [including VMWare]. Windows users can also install Linux into
a
> >virtual machine in Windows, or create or download "Live disks" [CD/DVD]
of
> >Linux not requiring installation should they wish to find out what Linux
has
> >now become.
> >
> >--
> >~
>

 

On Tue, 05 May 2009 12:18:41 -0400, MEB wrote:

> Glad you pointed that out, ,,, dang for all these years I thought that
> was what Microsoft Windows did... and to now know its all GOD's plan,
> what a refreshing realization... oh how sneaky that devil guy is...
>
> So when were you to take your last medication, apparently you forgot...
> ?X~Q
>

Wait a second! Just because he's paranoid doesn't mean I'm not out to get him! Hail Satan!
--
http://english-158465906205.spampoison.com
http://u-lite.org

 

No Alternative <noalternative@REMOVETHISSTUFFoperamail.com> wrote in
news:gts7uq$4c9$1@news.motzarella.org:

N A .........
Their stock is gettin low but get rid of that Dell restore disk
and get a first edition CD, which you can build up with utilities and
packs from www.majorgeeks.com

http://www.9software.com/Microsoft_Windows_98_Software_s/19.htm

--
Origin: "Battle Beyond The Stars"[1980,George Peppard,actor.Roger
Corman,producer,low budget but fun to watch]
Must See: "The Magnificent Seven" & "The Seven Samurai"
"Classic" Trekker and now a Browncoat!

 

In message <gto9l3$rkh$1@news.motzarella.org>, No Alternative
<noalternativeREMOVETHISSTUFF@operamail.com> writes:
>On Mon, 04 May 2009 15:02:12 -0500, philo wrote:
>
>> MEB wrote:
>>> Now in Linux mode again... and outside of win98.gen forum standards:
>>>
>>> The major issue associated with newer Linux compilations when using
[]
>> either Puppy Linux or Dam_ Small Linux quite well
>
>darn-small linux runs good, but is a little too feature-lite for me to be
>interested in it. Puppy runs great but I didn't think program repository
>selection was very good.

What confuses we outsiders (one of the many things) is that there seem
to be so many different Linuces, without it being at all obvious what
the differences are - at least in terms we can understand. I gather one
of the main differences is what GUI they use - there seem to be gnome
and KDE - but for practical purposes, these are both GUIs.

I know there are multiple versions of Windows - Home, Pro, and so on -
but I get the impression that unless you are a business, there is little
difference between them: certainly they are all similar to _use_, there
are just some things the more expensive ones can do that the cheaper
ones either can't or have to jump through hoops to. And we didn't have
this with '98 - there was only FE and SE, really, and again they _look_
the same.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

If you don't know how to orient your card to swipe it through the reader, the
checkout person will say, "Strip down, face toward me." (DNRC newsletter 1997)

 

On Thu, 07 May 2009 08:28:40 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

>
> What confuses we outsiders (one of the many things) is that there seem
> to be so many different Linuces, without it being at all obvious what
> the differences are - at least in terms we can understand. I gather one
> of the main differences is what GUI they use - there seem to be gnome
> and KDE - but for practical purposes, these are both GUIs.

Yes, those are desktop environments. My chosen distro uses lxde. There are
many windows a managers and desktop environments to chose
from. There are also diffent packages offered. A good place to get a feel
these is http://distrowatch.com. http://linuxquestions.org is another good
place.
>
> I know there are multiple versions of Windows - Home, Pro, and so on -
> but I get the impression that unless you are a business, there is little
> difference between them: certainly they are all similar to _use_, there
> are just some things the more expensive ones can do that the cheaper
> ones either can't or have to jump through hoops to. And we didn't have
> this with '98 - there was only FE and SE, really, and again they _look_
> the same.



the biggest differences in xp are between pro and regular xp. It is mostly
in the permission, and networking. Media Center is kind of a rip off. There are
better freeware programs for most of the extra features they give you.




--
http://english-158465906205.spampoison.com
http://u-lite.org

 

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <gto9l3$rkh$1@news.motzarella.org>, No Alternative
> <noalternativeREMOVETHISSTUFF@operamail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, 04 May 2009 15:02:12 -0500, philo wrote:
>>
>>> MEB wrote:
>>>> Now in Linux mode again... and outside of win98.gen forum standards:
>>>>
>>>> The major issue associated with newer Linux compilations when using
> []
>>> either Puppy Linux or Dam_ Small Linux quite well
>>
>> darn-small linux runs good, but is a little too feature-lite for me to be
>> interested in it. Puppy runs great but I didn't think program repository
>> selection was very good.
>
> What confuses we outsiders (one of the many things) is that there seem
> to be so many different Linuces, without it being at all obvious what
> the differences are - at least in terms we can understand. I gather one
> of the main differences is what GUI they use - there seem to be gnome
> and KDE - but for practical purposes, these are both GUIs.
>
> I know there are multiple versions of Windows - Home, Pro, and so on -
> but I get the impression that unless you are a business, there is little
> difference between them: certainly they are all similar to _use_, there
> are just some things the more expensive ones can do that the cheaper
> ones either can't or have to jump through hoops to. And we didn't have
> this with '98 - there was only FE and SE, really, and again they _look_
> the same.

Yeah, that is another issue to Windows users.

Here's how this works.

The KERNEL and base compilation are used throughout the "Linux"
versions. This would be the underlying "DOS" aspect Windows users would
be familiar with. The *commands* used in this base environment remain
basically the same as when the first "Linux" appeared. Changes in this
part of "*nix" are generally made to ENHANCE command variables, or take
care of flaws or security issues.

The "GUI" aspect is what makes the "*nix" environments unique from all
the pre-configured *mass-market* commercial products such as OSX,
Windows [any flavour], etc...
With Linux, the *INDIVIDUAL* picks the desktop environment that suits
their purpose [meaning came pre-configured with the most things they
liked] or pleases their eye. One can stay within that desktop
compilation if one wishes, which would mimic the FORCED aspect of
Windows. The commends and tools would remain basically the same, until
modified either by the individual, or the parties who created that
particular compilation [as in Microsoft's changes].
..
They [Linux users] are NOT, however, constrained to even just that
GUI/desktop, they CAN bring parts of other "GUI" compilations into the
one they chose as the base desktop. Meaning here is that one can choose
[for example]; Gnome as the base, yet run either parts [or tools
associated with that desktop/GUI] of KDE, XFce, EDU, or any of the other
*WITHIN* the base GUI, OR add one of the desktop "changers" and actually
run separate, distinct GUIs WITH completely unique settings PER that
desktop environment[yet still with the same basic "root" {DOS/CMD like}
commands].
Also, within these desktop environments, you will find there are
"windowed environments" or individual desktops. So one can have the base
desktop environment as "window1", with "window2" containing a root
terminal environment [think CMD or DOS PROMPT in 9X], "window3" running
one of the other desktop environments or one of the tools thereof,
"window4" connected to the Internet or compiling some new program you
just created, etc...

UNLIKE Windows which forces the user into just that desktop and base
system, "*nux ix" offers numerous alternatives.
Most now come with an automatic updater [which was chosen by the
master compilers of that particular desktop environment such as Gnome or
KDE, or such as via Fedora or Debian] yet even here the individual is
NOT constrained or forced to use just that updater [packager]. One can
either install one of the many other packagers, or configure the one
included to use other packager sites, even to the point of using CPAN,
sourceforge, or some other, in addition to the base packager [or in
place of the prior packager]. Here the ability is to switch between .rpm
[RedHat/SUSE/etc], to .deb [Debian based], to some "source code" or
special application/control/whatever found somewhere.
This ability comes from the universal and inherent base kernel and its
numerous "hooks" [pre-compiled abilities] {the root system}, and the
ability to add "libraries", C support files [the familiar coding
environment associated with Windows], Python, perl, SOAP, .NET, various
scripting environments, in addition to "*nix/*nux" specific codes,
source, and coding environments.

*So the "trade off" when comparing "*nix/*nux" to Windows is your
individuality and personal control.*
*MS Windows* decides FOR YOU what you need and should do verses YOU
deciding what you want, how much control you need, how secure you wish
to be, how the system is updated, what the desktop/GUI is and what that
contains, etc..

For present MS Windows users, their trade-off is the comfort they have
come to know over *numerous years of using a system they did not
control* [and regardless of the command variables associated with any MS
OS the individual can NOT control every aspect of the OS], for one which
they might have to spend a short time learning (though most commands are
similar) some basic commands [though one CAN use one of the Linux
compilations and never need any command-line control knowledge or change
anything]. Stay within that one desktop/GUI and you will find the
familiar "from one version to the other" of Windows. Its a matter of
*your personal choice* which one YOU choose to use.

The second trade-off is that Windows users have come to expect being
REQUIRED to buy new peripherals and computers to even install or
properly use Microsoft's newest OS [as displayed throughout its
history]. Windows users may complain a lot about this necessity, but
they still do the upgrades [and waste money in the process].
For instance, I just short tested the previously mentioned Linux
compilations [the newest - including the new downloaded kernel updates]
on machines which would BARELY have passed as XP capable or could NOT be
used, and for which I had NO official support for my scanner [due to a
refusal by the manufacturer to provide a driver for XP]. In Linux, all
my old peripherals were supported NATIVELY or by a downloadable support
package. Think of that,,, got some old printer or scanner you couldn't
use because it was not supported by Windows or the manufacturer,,, Linux
likely supports it natively or there is some package available, unlike
Windows which dropped support and the manufacturers are REFUSING to
supply support and a driver to FORCE you to buy new.
-------


____ So what is it that *YOU WANT*? _____


Did you just buy a spankin new "screamin" motherboard or device?
Within a month or so Linux will likely have the necessary libraries
and other necessary for support, *and you can use your OLD peripherals
with it* [as long as the board still has supporting connections]. If you
still can't find what you need, post a request in any of the numerous
coding or Linux compilation groups and they will likely work something
up for your specific needs. Post whatever information pursuant the
issue/device/motherboard and give it a few days.
--------

Is it that you want the ability to work with NTFS OSs?
Not a problem with Linux, there is now read/write/create support.
Reiser? HFS? other?
Linux supplies support.
--------

Is it that you want inter-operability with other OSs?
For the most part Linux also supplies that support [qualified because
Microsoft apparently attempts to make that difficult when offering a new
OS or even at times when "updating" some segment of an existing OS]. You
have to remember Microsoft is in business to make money,,, and is
generally not very open about what it changes...
-----

Is it that you want a specific type of server [firewall, web, file
server, DNS, mail, whatever]?
Linux supplies that type of support to create whatever you need for FREE.
-------

Freedom of choice?
Linux provides that.
-------

Comfort?
That can be found in Linux and Windows.
-------

Are these going to be the same type of *comfort*?
Sure, the same base/root commands I used in the 80s/90s still work,
for the most part [some have been changed or removed, generally replaced
by *enhanced* commands].
--------

Need help?
Numerous communities supply that support; there are downloadable or
already installed help files; you can always "man whatever" or "whatever
--?" [and/or some other choices depending upon what you're searching for
or attempting to use] for documentation/command help.
----------

Is it easy to dual boot/install?
YEAH, installing Linux on a system with another OS will install a boot
loader [Grub or other} allowing you to choose between the OSs.

*A WARNING:* Make sure you check what the intended changes to your
disks are BEFORE you click to install Linux. It MAY think you want to
use ALL available hard drive space [remove and clean the disk(s) prior
to installation]. Most/all presently used GUI partitioning tools allow
you to check before changes are made. MAKE SURE YOU DO!

Most GUIed installers also allow you to modify the amount of space
[they will look for free space/un-used space] and where to place Linux
[don't try manually setting up the actual physical partitioning UNLESS
you know the relationship to Linux and what is required].

*SECOND WARNING:*
The NTs and OS2 have special installation requirements, not to worry
though, the HOW TOs on the Internet are readily available.

*THIRD WARNING:*
Make sure you scan and defrag the present partitions BEFORE attempting
to install one of the Linux compilations. I recommend disabling virtual
control [9X], re-starting in Safe Mode [to remove the swap file], and
scanning and defragging there [whatever drive/partition you intend to
use] prior to installing Linux. This allows compacting the Win9X file
system to its smallest footprint and clears the hard drive of spurious
file parts scattered all over the partition/disk.
Re-enable virtual control in Windows AFTER installing. Make sure you
at least allow sufficient space for the Windows new swap file when you
re-partition for Linux.
IF hard drive space is of that much concern, it might be advisable to
just use one of the available Live CDs of Linux.
------

Can I revert back to my old comfortable Windows 9X OS?
Easily done with 9X. Use one of the partition "editors" [like BootitNG
or other] to remove the Linux partition(s), check that your old/original
boot partition is set ACTIVE, use something to re-install the standard
MBR code. Your basically done.
Use the disk maintenance tools [like scandisk and defrag, or other
disk maintenance tools] to check the original partition(s). After
checking the original partition(s) use a partitioning tool [like
BootitNG] to assign the previous Linux partition(s)/empty/free space.
Now you are done.
--------

Will I be able to transfer and/or use files from other OSs?
All present filing systems are supported. You can "auto-mount" any
filing system [or do so manually - mount means access BTW] -
fat/vfat/reiser/NTFS/HFS/etc. and assign "privileges/permissions"
[read/write/create/delete/execute] to supported filing systems. This
may, however, require that you "authorize" this type of activity [may
require you to install permission granting tools and/or file system
support files {NTFS is now supported via ntfs3g}].
Using other OS files/applications can be achieved via either emulators
[OS or processor/environment - which even includes the old CM-C/PM,
Amiga, or something specific like Commador] or using a virtual environment.
------

How much hard drive space will I need?
Hmm, a personal choice.. I would recommend nothing less than 8 or 9
gigs, though if you're just testing, a couple gigs (2) can be used and
would still provide everything you might need to test the OS [or
potentially use forever, that's actually a lot of space to a base Linux
installation] like Internet, mail, newsreader, chat, file tools, GUI,
etc.. using/installing one of the free Office apps though [like Open
Office, KOffice or other] will require more space over time.

REFERENCES:
Don't get lost in this stuff, there is a lot of "old information" not
applicable to the newer file/partition formats. You should look for
ext3/ext4 filing/partitioning and LVM for recent developments.

INFO:
http://www.debian.org/releases/3.0/i386/ch-partitioning.en.html

Red Hat Linux 9: Red Hat Linux x86 Installation Guide:
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-9-Manual/install-guide/ch-partitions.html

1.5. Which Installation Class is Best For You?
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-9-Manual/install-guide/s1-steps-type.html

2.2. Recording Your System's Hardware
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-9-Manual/install-guide/s1-x86-table-sysreq.html
-----

Can I use large drives?
Sure if the motherboard or adapter supports them OR you use a
secondary attachment [like USB or other]. You have a few choices for a
*standard base file system* - ext2, ext3, ext4.

Do you have MASSIVE hard drive space to deal with?
Use LVM [logical volume management]. You also might also want to setup
a file server or other servers. I mean really, think about it,,, just
what the heck do you need 500+ gigs of Windows or Linux DESKTOP space
for. Got massive hard drive space, multi-core processor(s), and gigs of
memory, why not use them for what they are actually there for [and it
sure isn't JUST to run the desktop environment [unless you use Windows
that is].

Think NTFS style journaling is important [or even unique]?
See ext3 ext4
------

I have or want RAID support, does Linux supply support?
Support comes either from device specific support or from included
software support. Testing seems to indicate, depending upon what
device/chipset is involved, software may be quicker than hardware.
------

How about Flash, JAVA, PDFs, and other stuff?
Yes, you're not limited. The ports come fairly rapidly if not supplied
via the original creator.
-----

How about browsers, email clients, and stuff?
Yes, those are also generally included in these compilations [some
default is supplied, you can pick others], and generally use the most
recent versions. FireFox, yes; Thunderbird, yes; Seamonkey, yes; Opera,
yes; etc...
PLUS several other [from full blown, to limited or even text
only/command line] browsers, email, chat, and other Internet
tools/applications NOT available to Windows.
-------

Can I import my contacts and stuff from Windows into {whatever
comparable Linux program}?
Generally, yes. Export your info and import into the Linux
application. First check to see what the Linux app *can* import, then
use that format in the Windows app for export. OR as previously
mentioned, use a virtual environment to use Windows in Linux.
-------

Copyright 2009 Maurice Edward, Brahier - MB Enterprises - peoplescounsel

--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______

 

I've wanted to try Linux for awhile because I know it will run on
older computers and had other benefits, besides getting off the MS
bandwagon where they keep requiring new hardware and making the older
hardware and software obsolete.

But reading this info makes me quivver. It seems Linux is developed
only for those who think in techie terms. Not all of us think that
way, and I know I am not one who can or does.

I did manage to boot to Linux from one of those bootable demo CDs, and
it looked ok, but actually installing it and using it seems like
something only possible for someone who works with computers for a
living and spends their whole life learning this stuff.

I guess I'll just stick with Win98 and Win2000, and when they get
obsolete, I will likely be too old to use a computer anymore. I know
for fact I will never go to Vista, when I cant even stand XP.

The fact that the user can configuer Linux for what the user wants is
great. MS seems to take more and more of that ability away in each
new version. I guess we're all stuck with either playing the MS
upgrade and obsolete game. or we have to spend all of our time in
front of a computer to use Linux. Maybe Macintosh has more to offer.
The last Mac I used was around 1992, so I'm sure they offer more now.
I guess if I was forced to get a new computer, I'd try Mac, but one of
the advantages of being elderly is that I can likely use Win98 for the
rest of my life.

Two things you mentioned puzzle me. You said Linux has DOS or similar
to Dos? It does ?????? I didn't know that. Does it use the same dos
commands?

Then you mentioned that the user can choose their desktop. What's
there to choose? In Win98 I can change my desktop appearance,
wallpaper, icons, font, size, etc. What else is there to change? I
recall reading a little about Linux awhile back, and after reading
this article it refreshed my memory about choosing gnome or kde. I
recall getting frustrated back then, over this matter. Why do I have
to choose one? Can't I just use the default desktop and modify the
wallpaper, icons, layout, font, etc just like in Win98? This alone if
very confusing.

One other thing, can Linux be installed on a Fat32 or NTFS partition?
If not, what is the Linux partition called?

I was also told that Linux can not run any Windows software. If this
is true, then I know Linux is not for me. Learning a new OS is tough
enough, but if I also have to relearn all the software (programs),
that is just far too much. I'm not ready or willing to go back to the
1980s and have to start all over again on the computer. Why cant
Linux make an OS that's compatible with Windows software? Somehow I
get the feeling Linux wants to be TOO different, and that is why it
has not become popular. It seems that half or more computer users are
dissatisfied with MS and want an alternative, yet from what I read,
the percentage of Linux users is under 1%. That says something in
itself..

LM





On Thu, 07 May 2009 16:46:46 -0400, MEB <meb-not-here@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Here's how this works.
>
> The KERNEL and base compilation are used throughout the "Linux"
>versions. This would be the underlying "DOS" aspect Windows users would
>be familiar with. The *commands* used in this base environment remain
>basically the same as when the first "Linux" appeared. Changes in this
>part of "*nix" are generally made to ENHANCE command variables, or take
>care of flaws or security issues.
>
> The "GUI" aspect is what makes the "*nix" environments unique from all
>the pre-configured *mass-market* commercial products such as OSX,
>Windows [any flavour], etc...
> With Linux, the *INDIVIDUAL* picks the desktop environment that suits
>their purpose [meaning came pre-configured with the most things they
>liked] or pleases their eye. One can stay within that desktop
>compilation if one wishes, which would mimic the FORCED aspect of
>Windows. The commends and tools would remain basically the same, until
>modified either by the individual, or the parties who created that
>particular compilation [as in Microsoft's changes].
>.
> They [Linux users] are NOT, however, constrained to even just that
>GUI/desktop, they CAN bring parts of other "GUI" compilations into the
>one they chose as the base desktop. Meaning here is that one can choose
>[for example]; Gnome as the base, yet run either parts [or tools
>associated with that desktop/GUI] of KDE, XFce, EDU, or any of the other
>*WITHIN* the base GUI, OR add one of the desktop "changers" and actually
>run separate, distinct GUIs WITH completely unique settings PER that
>desktop environment[yet still with the same basic "root" {DOS/CMD like}
>commands].

 

On Fri, 08 May 2009 00:04:46 -0500, letterman wrote:

> I've wanted to try Linux for awhile because I know it will run on older
> computers and had other benefits, besides getting off the MS bandwagon
> where they keep requiring new hardware and making the older hardware and
> software obsolete.
>
> But reading this info makes me quivver. It seems Linux is developed
> only for those who think in techie terms. Not all of us think that way,
> and I know I am not one who can or does.
>
>
In older days, that was true. It is not true anymore.


> I did manage to boot to Linux from one of those bootable demo CDs, and
> it looked ok, but actually installing it and using it seems like
> something only possible for someone who works with computers for a
> living and spends their whole life learning this stuff.

It is fairly easy to install it now. Easier than installing Windows.
>
> I guess I'll just stick with Win98 and Win2000, and when they get
> obsolete, I will likely be too old to use a computer anymore. I know
> for fact I will never go to Vista, when I cant even stand XP.

Well if your reasoning for sticking with windows is that you don't like
change, rather than money concerns perhaps Linux is not for you.
>
> The fact that the user can configuer Linux for what the user wants is
> great. MS seems to take more and more of that ability away in each new
> version. I guess we're all stuck with either playing the MS upgrade and
> obsolete game. or we have to spend all of our time in front of a
> computer to use Linux. Maybe Macintosh has more to offer. The last Mac
> I used was around 1992, so I'm sure they offer more now. I guess if I
> was forced to get a new computer, I'd try Mac, but one of the advantages
> of being elderly is that I can likely use Win98 for the rest of my life.

Unless you want to get on the internet. They don't make browsers for it
anymore.
>
> Two things you mentioned puzzle me. You said Linux has DOS or similar
> to Dos? It does ?????? I didn't know that. Does it use the same dos
> commands?
>
>
The both have command lines. It is like the command line you get when you
log out of windows. They don't use identical commands.


> Then you mentioned that the user can choose their desktop. What's there
> to choose? In Win98 I can change my desktop appearance, wallpaper,
> icons, font, size, etc. What else is there to change? I recall reading
> a little about Linux awhile back, and after reading this article it
> refreshed my memory about choosing gnome or kde. I recall getting
> frustrated back then, over this matter. Why do I have to choose one?
> Can't I just use the default desktop and modify the wallpaper, icons,
> layout, font, etc just like in Win98? This alone if very confusing.

Most distros have default desktops, either gnome or kde, and in the case
of ulite lxde. Yes you can change the fonts the wallpaper, size etc... on
all of them.
>
> One other thing, can Linux be installed on a Fat32 or NTFS partition? If
> not, what is the Linux partition called?

yes.
>
> I was also told that Linux can not run any Windows software. If this is
> true, then I know Linux is not for me. Learning a new OS is tough
> enough, but if I also have to relearn all the software (programs), that
> is just far too much. I'm not ready or willing to go back to the 1980s
> and have to start all over again on the computer.

You can run many windows programs on wine.

Why cant Linux make
> an OS that's compatible with Windows software? Somehow I get the feeling
> Linux wants to be TOO different, and that is why it has not become
> popular.

It takes huge amounts money, to create programs that run on both systems,
because you have to reverse engineer windows, to do this. Windows doesn't
release the source code for their OS.

It seems that half or more computer users are
> dissatisfied with MS and want an alternative, yet from what I read, the
> percentage of Linux users is under 1%. That says something in itself..

This is slowly changing particularly with advent of netbooks. I would say
the percentage now is more around 4 percent, and rising.





--
http://english-158465906205.spampoison.com
http://u-lite.org

 

On Fri, 08 May 2009 08:55:42 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

>
>>1980s and have to start all over again on the computer. Why cant Linux
>>make an OS that's compatible with Windows software? Somehow I get the
>>feeling Linux wants to be TOO different, and that is why it has not
>>become popular. It seems that half or more computer users are
>
> I think you've got it - different for the sake of being different.
>
Not different for different sake. It is just very hard to make a program
for both oses, if you don't have the source code for one of them. In
this case Windows. You have to do reverse engineering, which is what
wine has done, but wine is a work in progress that has already been in
the works for a decade.





--
http://english-158465906205.spampoison.com
http://u-lite.org

 

letterman@invalid.com wrote:
> I've wanted to try Linux for awhile because I know it will run on
> older computers and had other benefits, besides getting off the MS
> bandwagon where they keep requiring new hardware and making the older
> hardware and software obsolete.
>
> But reading this info makes me quivver. It seems Linux is developed
> only for those who think in techie terms. Not all of us think that
> way, and I know I am not one who can or does.

Ah, you apparently missed that you DON'T need to do the techie stuff.
just pick the desktop/GUI environment you like and do what you do in
Windows.

>
> I did manage to boot to Linux from one of those bootable demo CDs, and
> it looked ok, but actually installing it and using it seems like
> something only possible for someone who works with computers for a
> living and spends their whole life learning this stuff.

since you apparently do not use the command-line much, you would be a
prime candidate for Linux. The only thing that might puzzle you [and
apparently it still does] is that you CAN choose your desktop/GUI.

>
> I guess I'll just stick with Win98 and Win2000, and when they get
> obsolete, I will likely be too old to use a computer anymore. I know
> for fact I will never go to Vista, when I cant even stand XP.
>
> The fact that the user can configuer Linux for what the user wants is
> great. MS seems to take more and more of that ability away in each
> new version. I guess we're all stuck with either playing the MS
> upgrade and obsolete game. or we have to spend all of our time in
> front of a computer to use Linux. Maybe Macintosh has more to offer.
> The last Mac I used was around 1992, so I'm sure they offer more now.
> I guess if I was forced to get a new computer, I'd try Mac, but one of
> the advantages of being elderly is that I can likely use Win98 for the
> rest of my life.
>
> Two things you mentioned puzzle me. You said Linux has DOS or similar
> to Dos? It does ?????? I didn't know that. Does it use the same dos
> commands?

Its the "root" system CALLED Linux. The same form of structure that
Windows uses. A base upon which some GUI is layered.

Not the exact commands, but similar. CD means the same, ls means dir
[but can be used for a lot more], etc... you need to remember that MSDOS
came from IBM, Windows came from posix [portable Unix]. Microsoft
changed things around and you ended up with a Windows user who thinks
they run something they actually don't.

>
> Then you mentioned that the user can choose their desktop. What's
> there to choose? In Win98 I can change my desktop appearance,
> wallpaper, icons, font, size, etc. What else is there to change? I
> recall reading a little about Linux awhile back, and after reading
> this article it refreshed my memory about choosing gnome or kde. I
> recall getting frustrated back then, over this matter. Why do I have
> to choose one? Can't I just use the default desktop and modify the
> wallpaper, icons, layout, font, etc just like in Win98? This alone if
> very confusing.

Hey, try one of the compilations, don't like it, download another one
FOR FREE and try that one. Can you do those "Windows things", sure, why not.

There is no default desktop in Linux, is a command-line interface, the
DOS prompt of old.

>
> One other thing, can Linux be installed on a Fat32 or NTFS partition?
> If not, what is the Linux partition called?

Linux has its own format which has progressed ext4. Its generally
seen as "Linux Native" by partition tools that understand the format.
Linux isn't designed to run "on" fat32, though it could be done
previously. Ext is NOT visible to 9X. Fat32, on the other hand, can be
accessed, modified, and otherwise used by Linux.
Why can't Windows 9X see ext, because its based upon fat and can't see
anything else without outside help.
Why CAN Linux see Fat, vfat/Fat32, and the others?
Because it has support files for those formats.

>
> I was also told that Linux can not run any Windows software. If this
> is true, then I know Linux is not for me. Learning a new OS is tough
> enough, but if I also have to relearn all the software (programs),
> that is just far too much. I'm not ready or willing to go back to the
> 1980s and have to start all over again on the computer. Why cant
> Linux make an OS that's compatible with Windows software? Somehow I
> get the feeling Linux wants to be TOO different, and that is why it
> has not become popular. It seems that half or more computer users are
> dissatisfied with MS and want an alternative, yet from what I read,
> the percentage of Linux users is under 1%. That says something in
> itself..
>
> LM

Gees,, and I even wrote about this twice already in this discussion...

You can use an emulator to run some Windows programs, you can dual
boot, or you can run Windows in a virtual machine. No one actually knows
the number of Linux users:

1. Its freely downloadable and no one keeps track of the number of
downloads. You can buy a copy, get one from a torrent, direct, from a
registered mirror, from a friend, from... you get the picture.

2. You can configure Linux to produce a fake OS presentation for any
on-line tools that would discover you're running Linux. So those tools
are essentially useless for discovering Linux users.

3. Linux comes from the public. It progresses as the people/coders
choose to take it.

4. Windows and Linux come from the same history - posix - one received a
heck of a lot of money for development, the other is supported by
donations, free activities, and inspiration. One created vast commercial
agreements with manufacturers, the other has to engineer much of the
device coding or Windows drivers just to see its coding and create support.

Why can't Linux create something like Windows?
Is that a real question?
Windows has patent and copyright to a large percentage of the "Windows"
style, look, and such. Haven't you ever noticed when Apple and Microsoft
get into a "cat fight" over some part of their respective OSs?

The ultimate question is WHY should Linux mimic Windows?
The compilations/GUIs have a Windows look, function in the same basic
fashion, can include the same base functions and applications of a
Windows installation.
But you want what, the same lettering and ICONS on the applications,,,
the same folder looks, the same commands, the same .. Linux ISN'T
Windows, its Linux... and guess what, most of those ARE in the GUIs for
Linux. The same root commands aren't because Microsoft coded them
differently. How about WHY isn't Microsoft more like Linux, which
maintains a closer relationship to its actual roots - Unix and posix.

So what is it that you actually want,,, you want 9X to be supported.
You want Microsoft to continue to supply a browser for you, you want
Microsoft to supply updates, you want,,, to be comfortable. There isn't
a good reason for you not to be...


--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______

 

In message <gu0r5b$top$1@news.motzarella.org>, No Alternative
<noalternative@REMOVETHISSTUFFoperamail.com> writes:
[]
>It takes huge amounts money, to create programs that run on both systems,
>because you have to reverse engineer windows, to do this. Windows doesn't
>release the source code for their OS.

Why do you need the source code?
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"I have learned to use the word `impossible' with the greatest caution."
- Werner von Braun

 

On Sat, 09 May 2009 00:29:35 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> In message <gu0r5b$top$1@news.motzarella.org>, No Alternative
> <noalternative@REMOVETHISSTUFFoperamail.com> writes: []
>>It takes huge amounts money, to create programs that run on both
>>systems, because you have to reverse engineer windows, to do this.
>>Windows doesn't release the source code for their OS.
>
> Why do you need the source code?

You have to know how both oses work to create 1 program to run on both
oses. Though you can create windows and linux versions of the program,
but he is asking why he can't get quicken for windows to work on linux.
quicken could make a separate version for linux. The programmers of
quicken just choose not to. This has nothing to do with linux developers.

> []





--
http://english-158465906205.spampoison.com
http://u-lite.org