🚀 go-pugleaf

Linux was made for the specific purpose of annoying Windows users.

It's been the "Holy Grail of operating systems" for decades. I remember
it being called that in an argument between two guys when I first got on
USENET through that phone company (I forget the name, not AT&T) that
controlled most of the communications backbone.

Just know that Linux is a server operating system. Windows is a consumer
operating system. It's easy enough to cope with when you are aware of
those facts. And stop taking the bait. Linux Lunatics who tell the
average user he (or she) will have no trouble with applications and
hardware are LYING. A tiny user base spells trouble.

The idiot changed the follow-up groups...

--
Load Dropper <deepnwide2109 mail.com> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED.AjJUhMnGxw3uNHYs7FKKMA.user.gioia.aioe.org!not-for-mail
> From: Load Dropper <deepnwide2109 mail.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
> Subject: Is Linux the rectum of the Internet?
> Followup-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
> Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 00:54:43 +0000 (UTC)
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Lines: 50
> Message-ID: <XnsAABFD4BC3BE1990a8dk 46.165.242.75>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: AjJUhMnGxw3uNHYs7FKKMA.user.gioia.aioe.org
> X-Complaints-To: abuse aioe.org
> User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
> Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.os.linux.advocacy:767412 alt.comp.os.windows-10:101690
>
>     This person thinks so.
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!
> msg/comp.os.linux.advocacy/kBVUMFMrfFI/OF003R8UIG8J
>
> "There is simply no doubt in my mind that comp.os.linux.advocacy is
> the
> rectum of the internet.
> The end of the poopy pipe.
> The asshole of the earth.
> The endless parade of complete assholes in this group is both
> humorous
> and sad to watch all at the same time.
>
> Losers like Peter K"hlmann, also know as >The Krazy Kraut<  who
> spreads virus's with his messages and rarely utters anything but
> obscenities from his sewer mouth.
> The guy is a walking septic tank.
>
> Then we have the real bozo's like Rapskat who hasn't been around
> for a
> while because he was >away<, whatever that means.
> This simian moron is about as bright as a dim bulb which is why he
> actually believes in Linux.
> Get a clue dude, nobody believes in Linux but plenty of people are
> getting a good laugh at it.
>
> The biggest douche bag in the bunch is Angerthas Daeron who I think
> is
> really a Windows troller because he likes to post under different
> names but he's not smart enough to not get caught.
> I've never seen anyone say so little with so many words.
> The idiot babbles on and on and on and on and on, but he never
> actually says anything?
> I think he's just another sicko in the Lino-Loony-Bin.
>
> Then we have Rex Ballard. Will somebody please tell this fruitcake
> that 90 percent of what he is babbling about is just plain wrong.
> Even
> the Lino-Loonies try to persuade him to check his facts before he
> posts.
>
> The guy is like a douchebag with a leaky nozzle.
>
> There is no advocacy in COLA only Microsoft bashing and lies.
>
> Well it's time to give this freaking froup an enema and flush the
> poopy pot so we can actually discuss why Linux sucks so much.
>
> Anna"
>
>

On 2019-09-04 2:38 a.m., John Doe wrote:
> Linux was made for the specific purpose of annoying Windows users.
>
> It's been the "Holy Grail of operating systems" for decades. I remember
> it being called that in an argument between two guys when I first got on
> USENET through that phone company (I forget the name, not AT&T) that
> controlled most of the communications backbone.
>
> Just know that Linux is a server operating system. Windows is a consumer
> operating system. It's easy enough to cope with when you are aware of
> those facts. And stop taking the bait. Linux Lunatics who tell the
> average user he (or she) will have no trouble with applications and
> hardware are LYING. A tiny user base spells trouble.
>
> The idiot changed the follow-up groups...

Installing applications in Linux _is_ very easy. The problem is that
getting all of your hardware to work correctly is not that much of a
piece of cake even if you follow all of the instructions you find on the
net very carefully. Most people who try Linux will have issues with
their computer waking from sleep and there is little they can do to fix
the problem. THAT is where Linux fails the most.

On 2019-09-04 10:35 a.m., Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <kkObF.68020$id3.30378@fx12.iad>, Rabid Robot  <rabid@rob.ot> wrote:
> ...
>> Installing applications in Linux _is_ very easy. The problem is that
>> getting all of your hardware to work correctly is not that much of a
>> piece of cake even if you follow all of the instructions you find on the
>> net very carefully. Most people who try Linux will have issues with
>> their computer waking from sleep and there is little they can do to fix
>> the problem. THAT is where Linux fails the most.
>
> As always, the issue is the pre-install issue.
>
> I.e., when you buy a PC, you get Windows - that is a solved problem (solved
> by someone else).  Whereas, with Linux, you are on your own.  You will
> never do as well as the original manufacturer can and does.
>
> The point, in case it isn't clear, is that if Windows didn't come
> pre-installed, you'd never get that working right either.

You can buy a computer from a Linux-centric manufacturer like System76,
but I'm not sure that the operating system works properly even then. I
imagine that they provide support and do a better job of making sure
that things work out of the box than a Linux-desiring consumer would but
I have yet to even meet a person who bought a computer from them.

On 9/4/2019 9:36 AM, Rabid Robot wrote:
> On 2019-09-04 10:35 a.m., Kenny McCormack wrote:
>> In article <kkObF.68020$id3.30378@fx12.iad>, Rabid Robot  <rabid@rob.ot> wrote:
>> ...
>>> Installing applications in Linux _is_ very easy. The problem is that
>>> getting all of your hardware to work correctly is not that much of a
>>> piece of cake even if you follow all of the instructions you find on the
>>> net very carefully. Most people who try Linux will have issues with
>>> their computer waking from sleep and there is little they can do to fix
>>> the problem. THAT is where Linux fails the most.
>>
>> As always, the issue is the pre-install issue.
>>
>> I.e., when you buy a PC, you get Windows - that is a solved problem (solved
>> by someone else).  Whereas, with Linux, you are on your own.  You will
>> never do as well as the original manufacturer can and does.
>>
>> The point, in case it isn't clear, is that if Windows didn't come
>> pre-installed, you'd never get that working right either.
>
> You can buy a computer from a Linux-centric manufacturer like System76,
> but I'm not sure that the operating system works properly even then. I
> imagine that they provide support and do a better job of making sure
> that things work out of the box than a Linux-desiring consumer would but
> I have yet to even meet a person who bought a computer from them.
>

I got an i7 based HP that used to have windows on it.  I installed
OpenSuse linux on it with no problems whatsoever.  It has a 2tb hard
drive, beats audio board, AMD radeon graphics board, and a bunch of USB
sockets.  Works great.

Rabid Robot wrote:
> You can buy a computer from a Linux-centric manufacturer like System76,
> but I'm not sure that the operating system works properly even then. I
> imagine that they provide support and do a better job of making sure
> that things work out of the box than a Linux-desiring consumer would but
> I have yet to even meet a person who bought a computer from them

Have you have had a system from System76? They just work. Additionally
when someone installs Linux for a typically user (eliminating the
pre-install factor), they have no more issues with using the system than
a Windows system...only issue that I have had for those I have installed
Ubuntu on their systems is having to repeatedly tell them to toss that
driver disk that comes with some new peripheral that they bought. Also
with Windows new "feature update" every 6 months I have found newbies
handle a LTS release update without issue, whereas even competent
computer users dread the 6-month crapshoot MS offers.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On 2019-09-04 12:40 p.m., Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> Rabid Robot wrote:
>> You can buy a computer from a Linux-centric manufacturer like System76,
>> but I'm not sure that the operating system works properly even then. I
>> imagine that they provide support and do a better job of making sure
>> that things work out of the box than a Linux-desiring consumer would but
>> I have yet to even meet a person who bought a computer from them
>
> Have you have had a system from System76? They just work. Additionally
> when someone installs Linux for a typically user (eliminating the
> pre-install factor), they have no more issues with using the system than
> a Windows system...only issue that I have had for those I have installed
> Ubuntu on their systems is having to repeatedly tell them to toss that
> driver disk that comes with some new peripheral that they bought. Also
> with Windows new "feature update" every 6 months I have found newbies
> handle a LTS release update without issue, whereas even competent
> computer users dread the 6-month crapshoot MS offers.

I was a Linux user for a long time and it is not true that there are "no
more issues with using the system than a Windows system." Perhaps
Windows 2000 or XP had consistent issues with waking the computer after
going to sleep but nowadays, one can install the operating system on ANY
hardware and the function will work unlike Linux. System76 helps this by
installing the operating system AND configuring it properly so that no
user ever faces this issue.

On 9/4/2019 11:50 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> [Troll group free.spam snecked.]
>
> [N.B. I didn't sneck all the troll groups, because that would give an
> empty Newsgroups: header.]
>
> Rabid Robot <rabid@rob.ot> wrote:
>> On 2019-09-04 10:35 a.m., Kenny McCormack wrote:
>>> In article <kkObF.68020$id3.30378@fx12.iad>, Rabid Robot  <rabid@rob.ot> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> Installing applications in Linux _is_ very easy. The problem is that
>>>> getting all of your hardware to work correctly is not that much of a
>>>> piece of cake even if you follow all of the instructions you find on the
>>>> net very carefully. Most people who try Linux will have issues with
>>>> their computer waking from sleep and there is little they can do to fix
>>>> the problem. THAT is where Linux fails the most.
>>>
>>> As always, the issue is the pre-install issue.
>>>
>>> I.e., when you buy a PC, you get Windows - that is a solved problem (solved
>>> by someone else).  Whereas, with Linux, you are on your own.  You will
>>> never do as well as the original manufacturer can and does.
>>>
>>> The point, in case it isn't clear, is that if Windows didn't come
>>> pre-installed, you'd never get that working right either.
>>
>> You can buy a computer from a Linux-centric manufacturer like System76,
>> but I'm not sure that the operating system works properly even then. I
>> imagine that they provide support and do a better job of making sure
>> that things work out of the box than a Linux-desiring consumer would but
>> I have yet to even meet a person who bought a computer from them.
>
>    At one time, I bought a (pre-installed) Linux system. Then I wised up!
> :-)
>
>    But seriously, just use what suits *your* needs best.
>
>    FWIW, I have well over three and a half decade of - mostly
> professional - experience supporting, managing and using (real) UNIX
> systems. But for my private/personal/<whatever> use, I use Windows,
> because it suits my needs better/best. And in order to still feel a bit
> 'at home', I use Cygwin [1], a Linux like environment on Windows! :-)
>
>    And this post is brought to you courtesy vi[m](1) [1] and tin [1], a
> CUI newsreader of Unix heritage.
>
>    Moral: YMMV/YMWV.
>
> [1] Which proves that one *can* run 'good' software on a 'bad' OS.
>

If you use Windows 10 Pro then just install the sub-system for linux.
It is had from their app store.

In article <kkObF.68020$id3.30378@fx12.iad>, Rabid Robot  <rabid@rob.ot> wrote:
....
>Installing applications in Linux _is_ very easy. The problem is that
>getting all of your hardware to work correctly is not that much of a
>piece of cake even if you follow all of the instructions you find on the
>net very carefully. Most people who try Linux will have issues with
>their computer waking from sleep and there is little they can do to fix
>the problem. THAT is where Linux fails the most.

As always, the issue is the pre-install issue.

I.e., when you buy a PC, you get Windows - that is a solved problem (solved
by someone else).  Whereas, with Linux, you are on your own.  You will
never do as well as the original manufacturer can and does.

The point, in case it isn't clear, is that if Windows didn't come
pre-installed, you'd never get that working right either.

--
Rich people pay Fox people to convince middle class people to blame poor people.

	(John Fugelsang)

On 04 Sep 2019, Rabid Robot wrote
(in article <kkObF.68020$id3.30378@fx12.iad>):

> On 2019-09-04 2:38 a.m., John Doe wrote:
> > Linux was made for the specific purpose of annoying Windows users.
> >
> > It's been the "Holy Grail of operating systems" for decades. I remember
> > it being called that in an argument between two guys when I first got on
> > USENET through that phone company (I forget the name, not AT&T) that
> > controlled most of the communications backbone.
> >
> > Just know that Linux is a server operating system. Windows is a consumer
> > operating system. It's easy enough to cope with when you are aware of
> > those facts. And stop taking the bait. Linux Lunatics who tell the
> > average user he (or she) will have no trouble with applications and
> > hardware are LYING. A tiny user base spells trouble.
> >
> > The idiot changed the follow-up groups...
>
> Installing applications in Linux _is_ very easy.

That depends on the application.

> The problem is that
> getting all of your hardware to work correctly is not that much of a
> piece of cake even if you follow all of the instructions you find on the
> net very carefully.

Oh, I can get the _computer_ to work reliably with modern Linux, though that
was not necessarily the case a decade ago. It’s the other bits of hardware
that cause trouble. We have several items which, when new, cost from $150,000
to over $300,000. There are Mac drivers. There are WinXP and 7 (but not 10)
drivers. (the fact that there are MacOS 9, NT4, W2K, and XP drivers should
indicate how old some of this hardware is.) In theory I could use the Mac
drivers and hack ‘em to get at least some Linux support. In theory I could
also get the Win 7 drivers to work on Win 10. In fact that’s way too much
work, and would be completely unsupported by the vendors, so we’re going to
have at least one Mac running macOS 10.13 and at least one WinBox running 7
for the foreseeable future, as we have every intention of not spending
hundreds of thousands of dollars until we absolutely have to. The vendors do
have ’solutions’ for Win 10 and newer macOS, at a price; they have no,
none, zero,’solutions’ for Linux. When the time comes that we must
replace the hardware, we may insist on Linux support. That time is not yet
here, and probably won’t be here for years.

> Most people who try Linux will have issues with
> their computer waking from sleep and there is little they can do to fix
> the problem. THAT is where Linux fails the most.

Not in my experience. It’s 3rd-party software which screws things up.
Either there are no direct equivalents for Linux (I use several applications
on a semi-regular basis for which there are no Linux equivalents; some of
them talk to the hardware mentioned above and are necessary to use the
umpty-ump thousand dollar equipment.) or the Linux equivalents have problems.
Examples:

LibreOffice does most of what MS Office does, for free. The trouble is that
it mangles many Word documents. It has been my experience that long, heavily
formatted with stylesheets and otherwise (I checked by redoing without
stylesheets; nope it’s the formatting) with tables and images (IOW,
_important_ documents) do not survive round-trips in either direction from
Word to LibreOffice. They can be fixed, but it takes time and effort to do
that. Meanwhile a DOCX file can be read by Word 2007 on up, and even by Pages
(with some minor corrections, hey, it’s Apple, they think different). As
long as we must correspond with people who use MS Office (translation: as
long as we’re in business) we must be able to round-trip MS Word files
reliably. LibreOffice doesn’t do that. There are similar, but not as bad,
problems with PPTX files, and similar but worse problems with Excel files,
mostly templates and macros. (I have one Excel template which has been in use
for literally two decadeswhich works on Mac and Windows but which causes
LibreOffice to barf. And the less said about macros the better. Even if the
Word and PowerPoint problems were addressed (unlikely) the Excel problem is a
showstopper. Yes, LibreOffice works with _most_ documents, Word and
PowerPoint and Excel. No, it doesn’t work with _all_ documents. No, despite
filing bug reports, have the more critical problems been fixed; there was a
bug which caused the entire document to show as bold-italic when migrated
from MS Office and to stay bold-italic when round-tripped; that’s fixed.
(WordPerfect Office did that, too...) Other problems remain. When they get
fixed we can talk. I’m not holding my breath waiting.

The GIMP does some of what Photoshop does and there are Linux tools which can
at least partially replace Illustrator, etc.; we are, however, bailing from
Adobe and going to Affinity. Affinity products run on Mac, Windows, and iPad,
but NOT on Linux (IOW, Affinity products run on our existing hardware and
operating systems). We’re not going to migrate our users to a Linux
product, assuming we could find one which does what the Affinity product
does, which is unlikely; I looked prior to our moving to Affinity. Perhaps
Affinity will set up on Linux. Perhaps not.
Perhaps if we were just starting and had no existing hardware, software, or
vendors we might consider a Linux solution. We’re not scrapping our
existing systems, particularly our existing hardware, not now.

On 2019-09-04 2:31 p.m., AnonLinuxUser wrote:
> On 9/4/2019 9:36 AM, Rabid Robot wrote:
>> On 2019-09-04 10:35 a.m., Kenny McCormack wrote:
>>> In article <kkObF.68020$id3.30378@fx12.iad>, Rabid Robot 
>>> <rabid@rob.ot> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> Installing applications in Linux _is_ very easy. The problem is that
>>>> getting all of your hardware to work correctly is not that much of a
>>>> piece of cake even if you follow all of the instructions you find on
>>>> the
>>>> net very carefully. Most people who try Linux will have issues with
>>>> their computer waking from sleep and there is little they can do to fix
>>>> the problem. THAT is where Linux fails the most.
>>>
>>> As always, the issue is the pre-install issue.
>>>
>>> I.e., when you buy a PC, you get Windows - that is a solved problem
>>> (solved
>>> by someone else).  Whereas, with Linux, you are on your own.  You will
>>> never do as well as the original manufacturer can and does.
>>>
>>> The point, in case it isn't clear, is that if Windows didn't come
>>> pre-installed, you'd never get that working right either.
>>
>> You can buy a computer from a Linux-centric manufacturer like System76,
>> but I'm not sure that the operating system works properly even then. I
>> imagine that they provide support and do a better job of making sure
>> that things work out of the box than a Linux-desiring consumer would but
>> I have yet to even meet a person who bought a computer from them.
>>
>
> I got an i7 based HP that used to have windows on it.  I installed
> OpenSuse linux on it with no problems whatsoever.  It has a 2tb hard
> drive, beats audio board, AMD radeon graphics board, and a bunch of USB
> sockets.  Works great.

How does the sleep/wake situation work for you?

On 9/4/2019 2:43 PM, Rabid Robot wrote:
> On 2019-09-04 2:31 p.m., AnonLinuxUser wrote:
>> On 9/4/2019 9:36 AM, Rabid Robot wrote:
>>> On 2019-09-04 10:35 a.m., Kenny McCormack wrote:
>>>> In article <kkObF.68020$id3.30378@fx12.iad>, Rabid Robot
>>>> <rabid@rob.ot> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> Installing applications in Linux _is_ very easy. The problem is that
>>>>> getting all of your hardware to work correctly is not that much of a
>>>>> piece of cake even if you follow all of the instructions you find on
>>>>> the
>>>>> net very carefully. Most people who try Linux will have issues with
>>>>> their computer waking from sleep and there is little they can do to fix
>>>>> the problem. THAT is where Linux fails the most.
>>>>
>>>> As always, the issue is the pre-install issue.
>>>>
>>>> I.e., when you buy a PC, you get Windows - that is a solved problem
>>>> (solved
>>>> by someone else).  Whereas, with Linux, you are on your own.  You will
>>>> never do as well as the original manufacturer can and does.
>>>>
>>>> The point, in case it isn't clear, is that if Windows didn't come
>>>> pre-installed, you'd never get that working right either.
>>>
>>> You can buy a computer from a Linux-centric manufacturer like System76,
>>> but I'm not sure that the operating system works properly even then. I
>>> imagine that they provide support and do a better job of making sure
>>> that things work out of the box than a Linux-desiring consumer would but
>>> I have yet to even meet a person who bought a computer from them.
>>>
>>
>> I got an i7 based HP that used to have windows on it.  I installed
>> OpenSuse linux on it with no problems whatsoever.  It has a 2tb hard
>> drive, beats audio board, AMD radeon graphics board, and a bunch of USB
>> sockets.  Works great.
>
> How does the sleep/wake situation work for you?
>
Worked ok, as far as I know.

A while back, my uncle had an old HP with a pentium II in it... the
sleep caused the power supply to overheat and eventually started to smoke.
LOL!  But then it had windows 95 on it.

[Troll group free.spam snecked.]

[N.B. I didn't sneck all the troll groups, because that would give an
empty Newsgroups: header.]

Rabid Robot <rabid@rob.ot> wrote:
> On 2019-09-04 10:35 a.m., Kenny McCormack wrote:
> > In article <kkObF.68020$id3.30378@fx12.iad>, Rabid Robot  <rabid@rob.ot> wrote:
> > ...
> >> Installing applications in Linux _is_ very easy. The problem is that
> >> getting all of your hardware to work correctly is not that much of a
> >> piece of cake even if you follow all of the instructions you find on the
> >> net very carefully. Most people who try Linux will have issues with
> >> their computer waking from sleep and there is little they can do to fix
> >> the problem. THAT is where Linux fails the most.
> >
> > As always, the issue is the pre-install issue.
> >
> > I.e., when you buy a PC, you get Windows - that is a solved problem (solved
> > by someone else).  Whereas, with Linux, you are on your own.  You will
> > never do as well as the original manufacturer can and does.
> >
> > The point, in case it isn't clear, is that if Windows didn't come
> > pre-installed, you'd never get that working right either.
>
> You can buy a computer from a Linux-centric manufacturer like System76,
> but I'm not sure that the operating system works properly even then. I
> imagine that they provide support and do a better job of making sure
> that things work out of the box than a Linux-desiring consumer would but
> I have yet to even meet a person who bought a computer from them.

  At one time, I bought a (pre-installed) Linux system. Then I wised up!
:-)

  But seriously, just use what suits *your* needs best.

  FWIW, I have well over three and a half decade of - mostly
professional - experience supporting, managing and using (real) UNIX
systems. But for my private/personal/<whatever> use, I use Windows,
because it suits my needs better/best. And in order to still feel a bit
'at home', I use Cygwin [1], a Linux like environment on Windows! :-)

  And this post is brought to you courtesy vi[m](1) [1] and tin [1], a
CUI newsreader of Unix heritage.

  Moral: YMMV/YMWV.

[1] Which proves that one *can* run 'good' software on a 'bad' OS.

On 2019-09-04 7:29 p.m., AnonLinuxUser wrote:
> On 9/4/2019 2:43 PM, Rabid Robot wrote:
>> On 2019-09-04 2:31 p.m., AnonLinuxUser wrote:
>>> On 9/4/2019 9:36 AM, Rabid Robot wrote:
>>>> On 2019-09-04 10:35 a.m., Kenny McCormack wrote:
>>>>> In article <kkObF.68020$id3.30378@fx12.iad>, Rabid Robot
>>>>> <rabid@rob.ot> wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Installing applications in Linux _is_ very easy. The problem is that
>>>>>> getting all of your hardware to work correctly is not that much of a
>>>>>> piece of cake even if you follow all of the instructions you find on
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> net very carefully. Most people who try Linux will have issues with
>>>>>> their computer waking from sleep and there is little they can do
>>>>>> to fix
>>>>>> the problem. THAT is where Linux fails the most.
>>>>>
>>>>> As always, the issue is the pre-install issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> I.e., when you buy a PC, you get Windows - that is a solved problem
>>>>> (solved
>>>>> by someone else).  Whereas, with Linux, you are on your own.  You will
>>>>> never do as well as the original manufacturer can and does.
>>>>>
>>>>> The point, in case it isn't clear, is that if Windows didn't come
>>>>> pre-installed, you'd never get that working right either.
>>>>
>>>> You can buy a computer from a Linux-centric manufacturer like System76,
>>>> but I'm not sure that the operating system works properly even then. I
>>>> imagine that they provide support and do a better job of making sure
>>>> that things work out of the box than a Linux-desiring consumer would
>>>> but
>>>> I have yet to even meet a person who bought a computer from them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I got an i7 based HP that used to have windows on it.  I installed
>>> OpenSuse linux on it with no problems whatsoever.  It has a 2tb hard
>>> drive, beats audio board, AMD radeon graphics board, and a bunch of USB
>>> sockets.  Works great.
>>
>> How does the sleep/wake situation work for you?
>>
> Worked ok, as far as I know.
>
> A while back, my uncle had an old HP with a pentium II in it... the
> sleep caused the power supply to overheat and eventually started to smoke.
> LOL!  But then it had windows 95 on it.

I have yet to own a machine on which Linux can be installed and the
waking function run properly.

Rabid Robot wrote:
> I have yet to own a machine on which Linux can be installed and the
> waking function run properly.

No issue for Dell Latitude D820, a HP 110 netbook or my current ThinkPad
540. Installed for others on Toshiba Satellites, and HP whateves it has
not been an issue. Not has an issue with modern distros...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On 2019-09-04 8:54 p.m., Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> Rabid Robot wrote:
>> I have yet to own a machine on which Linux can be installed and the
>> waking function run properly.
>
> No issue for Dell Latitude D820, a HP 110 netbook or my current ThinkPad
> 540. Installed for others on Toshiba Satellites, and HP whateves it has
> not been an issue. Not has an issue with modern distros...

Good to know that it seems to work for your machines. In those cases,
it's clear that Linux is a fantastic option.

Rabid Robot wrote:
> On 2019-09-04 8:54 p.m., Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>> Rabid Robot wrote:
>>> I have yet to own a machine on which Linux can be installed and the
>>> waking function run properly.
>>
>> No issue for Dell Latitude D820, a HP 110 netbook or my current ThinkPad
>> 540. Installed for others on Toshiba Satellites, and HP whateves it has
>> not been an issue. Not has an issue with modern distros...
>
> Good to know that it seems to work for your machines. In those cases,
> it's clear that Linux is a fantastic option.
>

My point was my experience across a wide range of hardware hadn't been
an issue. Only some older broadcom and realtek wifi drivers were an
issue, but that was a while ago...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On 09/03/2019 05:54 PM, Load Dropper wrote:
> This person thinks so.
>

There's not much that Linux won't do and, while not necessarily a
rectum, it certainly /can/ be.
Let me give you an example: The newsservers that we use are all powered
by Linux. If we see there's a post by you, and we click on it, what does
the server spew our way? Shit, we get shit. So Linux has functioned much
as a rectum.

You're the troll that recently posted as Load Sack, inquiring about a
Jiz Linux distro. You might want to give Penix a look.

In article <qkppn4$vtm$1@dont-email.me>,
Jonathan N. Little <lws4art@gmail.com> wrote:
>Rabid Robot wrote:
>> On 2019-09-04 8:54 p.m., Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>> Rabid Robot wrote:
>>>> I have yet to own a machine on which Linux can be installed and the
>>>> waking function run properly.
>>>
>>> No issue for Dell Latitude D820, a HP 110 netbook or my current ThinkPad
>>> 540. Installed for others on Toshiba Satellites, and HP whateves it has
>>> not been an issue. Not has an issue with modern distros...
>>
>> Good to know that it seems to work for your machines. In those cases,
>> it's clear that Linux is a fantastic option.
>>
>
>My point was my experience across a wide range of hardware hadn't been
>an issue. Only some older broadcom and realtek wifi drivers were an
>issue, but that was a while ago...

The overall takeaway is that, yes, it works (usually) on high-end-ish,
supported hardware.

But it doesn't work on low-end cheapie stuff you buy at Walmart.

I've had this conversation/discussion/argument with people on these forums
before and they always say "Well, it works for me on my Dell whatever or my
Lenovo Whatever or whatever", and I say, yeah, sure, but you paid a lot
more for that machine than I usually pay for mine.  And they come back with
words to the effect of "Well, it wasn't thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat expesive" or
"You get what you pay for" or "You buy cheap sh*t, you get cheap sh*t".

And I say, well, yeah, you're right, but you're making my point.  In order
to get Linux to work properly with off-the-shelf hardware, you always end
up buying fairly high-end stuff.  Which is fine, if you've got the money to
spend.  If you don't, and you buy low-end stuff, you're gonna have problems.

--
When someone tells me he/she is a Christian I check to see if I'm
still in posession of my wallet.

Rabid Robot wrote:

>It sort of defeats the purpose to make Linux work well with high-end
>stuff but not so much with the cheaper hardware.

Oh, that sort of "defeats the purpose" of Linux, does it?

It's only laptops, where you might have a valid point.  I think that
Linux still has plenty of "purpose" in our world, dipshit.

>Anyone with lots of
>money will buy great hardware but also won't mind paying more for the
>high-quality software Windows or MacOS offer.

Idiot.  People who use Linux use it because it works better, for them.
Almost no one uses Linux because it "costs less".

>The only place Linux could theoretically compete (idiocy snipped)

What you think doesn't mean shit, jackass.  You're lying.

>but it seems that it would be in the Linux
>developers' interest to make sure that garbage is supported.

What some dipshit, like you, claims what something "seems", is
meaningless.

The Linux community doesn't have the resources to cover all the bases,
in laptop hardware.  You don't know what the community "should be"
doing.  You're an ignorant asshole (as well as a hate-filled bigot).

Life isn't perfect.  Deal with it, dipshit.

--
"My religion made it very clear that what the world is currently
seeing,with its acceptance of transsexualism, homosexuality and the
incoming sympathy for pedophilia was foretold"  -  "Slimer", AKA
"Rapid Robot"

On 2019-09-04 9:51 p.m., Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> Rabid Robot wrote:
>> On 2019-09-04 8:54 p.m., Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>> Rabid Robot wrote:
>>>> I have yet to own a machine on which Linux can be installed and the
>>>> waking function run properly.
>>>
>>> No issue for Dell Latitude D820, a HP 110 netbook or my current ThinkPad
>>> 540. Installed for others on Toshiba Satellites, and HP whateves it has
>>> not been an issue. Not has an issue with modern distros...
>>
>> Good to know that it seems to work for your machines. In those cases,
>> it's clear that Linux is a fantastic option.
>>
>
> My point was my experience across a wide range of hardware hadn't been
> an issue. Only some older broadcom and realtek wifi drivers were an
> issue, but that was a while ago...

Oh, don't get me wrong, Linux can handle all of my hardware now. It
detects everything and there are no compromises in graphical, audio or
network performance. However, sleep and wake continue to be an issue and
have been one since the beginning of time with Linux. I have never once
had any computer EVER work properly with waking since I started using
Linux. I've changed a number of options in GRUB and tried again to some
improvement but most of the time, it goes back to freezing whenever I
make an attempt to wake the computer. It's enough for me to swear off of
the operating system completely.

On 2019-09-05 2:09 a.m., Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <qkppn4$vtm$1@dont-email.me>,
> Jonathan N. Little <lws4art@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Rabid Robot wrote:
>>> On 2019-09-04 8:54 p.m., Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>>> Rabid Robot wrote:
>>>>> I have yet to own a machine on which Linux can be installed and the
>>>>> waking function run properly.
>>>>
>>>> No issue for Dell Latitude D820, a HP 110 netbook or my current ThinkPad
>>>> 540. Installed for others on Toshiba Satellites, and HP whateves it has
>>>> not been an issue. Not has an issue with modern distros...
>>>
>>> Good to know that it seems to work for your machines. In those cases,
>>> it's clear that Linux is a fantastic option.
>>>
>>
>> My point was my experience across a wide range of hardware hadn't been
>> an issue. Only some older broadcom and realtek wifi drivers were an
>> issue, but that was a while ago...
>
> The overall takeaway is that, yes, it works (usually) on high-end-ish,
> supported hardware.
>
> But it doesn't work on low-end cheapie stuff you buy at Walmart.
>
> I've had this conversation/discussion/argument with people on these forums
> before and they always say "Well, it works for me on my Dell whatever or my
> Lenovo Whatever or whatever", and I say, yeah, sure, but you paid a lot
> more for that machine than I usually pay for mine.  And they come back with
> words to the effect of "Well, it wasn't thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat expesive" or
> "You get what you pay for" or "You buy cheap sh*t, you get cheap sh*t".
>
> And I say, well, yeah, you're right, but you're making my point.  In order
> to get Linux to work properly with off-the-shelf hardware, you always end
> up buying fairly high-end stuff.  Which is fine, if you've got the money to
> spend.  If you don't, and you buy low-end stuff, you're gonna have problems.

It sort of defeats the purpose to make Linux work well with high-end
stuff but not so much with the cheaper hardware. Anyone with lots of
money will buy great hardware but also won't mind paying more for the
high-quality software Windows or MacOS offer. The only place Linux could
theoretically compete is on the low end where people are willing to live
with a compromised GUI and a limited library of software. I can only
imagine what kind of hardware the computers sold at Walmart have -
probably garbage produced by Chinese companies whose life span is as
long as a fruit fly's - but it seems that it would be in the Linux
developers' interest to make sure that garbage is supported.

dave61430 wrote:

> Dynamo Fireball wrote:
>>
>> Load Dropper wrote:
>>>
>>> This person thinks so.
>>
>> There's not much that Linux won't do and, while not necessarily a
>> rectum, it certainly /can/ be.
>> Let me give you an example: The newsservers that we use are all powered
>> by Linux. If we see there's a post by you, and we click on it, what does
>> the server spew our way? Shit, we get shit. So Linux has functioned much
>> as a rectum.
>>
>> You're the troll that recently posted as Load Sack, inquiring about a
>> Jiz Linux distro. You might want to give Penix a look.
>
>It beats the life out of me why all the replies to this OP.

+1

The "intellect" of a Linux-hater, like the OP is incredible to behold,
but it requires no rebuttal.

>I've used
>both and now only use Linux on my desktop. My wife's 2010 laptop was
>getting slow so I installed Mint along side windows. She loves it and if
>she can use it, anyone can.
>I don't proselytize for either system, some people have to use windows
>for work or special windows only programs, but speaking for myself I much
>prefer Linux Mint.

Well, you sound a reasonable person!

--
"The Linux/OSS community is totally AGAINST freedom of choice - unless
it's the choices they deem acceptable."  -  "DFS", lying shamelessly

On 2019-09-05 9:27 a.m., chrisv wrote:

(snipped, unread) - I forgot to filter you in alt.comp.os.windows-10,
apparently.

On 2019-09-05 9:38 a.m., dave61430 wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 22:07:59 -0700, Dynamo Fireball wrote:
>
>> On 09/03/2019 05:54 PM, Load Dropper wrote:
>>> This person thinks so.
>>>
>>>
>> There's not much that Linux won't do and, while not necessarily a
>> rectum, it certainly /can/ be.
>> Let me give you an example: The newsservers that we use are all powered
>> by Linux. If we see there's a post by you, and we click on it, what does
>> the server spew our way? Shit, we get shit. So Linux has functioned much
>> as a rectum.
>>
>> You're the troll that recently posted as Load Sack, inquiring about a
>> Jiz Linux distro. You might want to give Penix a look.
>
> It beats the life out of me why all the replies to this OP. I've used
> both and now only use Linux on my desktop. My wife's 2010 laptop was
> getting slow so I installed Mint along side windows. She loves it and if
> she can use it, anyone can.
> I don't proselytize for either system, some people have to use windows
> for work or special windows only programs, but speaking for myself I much
> prefer Linux Mint.

Linux Mint is what I install for people who have slowdown issues with
their hardware. They love it because any of the minimal things they do
with a computer (print, browse, send e-mails, like status updates) works
flawlessly in that system. In most cases, they use machines which they
never put to sleep anyway so the issue I have with Linux isn't even
encountered by them in any way.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 22:07:59 -0700, Dynamo Fireball wrote:

> On 09/03/2019 05:54 PM, Load Dropper wrote:
>> This person thinks so.
>>
>>
> There's not much that Linux won't do and, while not necessarily a
> rectum, it certainly /can/ be.
> Let me give you an example: The newsservers that we use are all powered
> by Linux. If we see there's a post by you, and we click on it, what does
> the server spew our way? Shit, we get shit. So Linux has functioned much
> as a rectum.
>
> You're the troll that recently posted as Load Sack, inquiring about a
> Jiz Linux distro. You might want to give Penix a look.

It beats the life out of me why all the replies to this OP. I've used
both and now only use Linux on my desktop. My wife's 2010 laptop was
getting slow so I installed Mint along side windows. She loves it and if
she can use it, anyone can.
I don't proselytize for either system, some people have to use windows
for work or special windows only programs, but speaking for myself I much
prefer Linux Mint.

On 9/4/2019 6:32 PM, Rabid Robot wrote:
> On 2019-09-04 7:29 p.m., AnonLinuxUser wrote:
>> On 9/4/2019 2:43 PM, Rabid Robot wrote:
>>> On 2019-09-04 2:31 p.m., AnonLinuxUser wrote:
>>>> On 9/4/2019 9:36 AM, Rabid Robot wrote:
>>>>> On 2019-09-04 10:35 a.m., Kenny McCormack wrote:
>>>>>> In article <kkObF.68020$id3.30378@fx12.iad>, Rabid Robot
>>>>>> <rabid@rob.ot> wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Installing applications in Linux _is_ very easy. The problem is that
>>>>>>> getting all of your hardware to work correctly is not that much of a
>>>>>>> piece of cake even if you follow all of the instructions you find on
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> net very carefully. Most people who try Linux will have issues with
>>>>>>> their computer waking from sleep and there is little they can do
>>>>>>> to fix
>>>>>>> the problem. THAT is where Linux fails the most.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As always, the issue is the pre-install issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I.e., when you buy a PC, you get Windows - that is a solved problem
>>>>>> (solved
>>>>>> by someone else).  Whereas, with Linux, you are on your own.  You will
>>>>>> never do as well as the original manufacturer can and does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The point, in case it isn't clear, is that if Windows didn't come
>>>>>> pre-installed, you'd never get that working right either.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can buy a computer from a Linux-centric manufacturer like System76,
>>>>> but I'm not sure that the operating system works properly even then. I
>>>>> imagine that they provide support and do a better job of making sure
>>>>> that things work out of the box than a Linux-desiring consumer would
>>>>> but
>>>>> I have yet to even meet a person who bought a computer from them.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I got an i7 based HP that used to have windows on it.  I installed
>>>> OpenSuse linux on it with no problems whatsoever.  It has a 2tb hard
>>>> drive, beats audio board, AMD radeon graphics board, and a bunch of USB
>>>> sockets.  Works great.
>>>
>>> How does the sleep/wake situation work for you?
>>>
>> Worked ok, as far as I know.
>>
>> A while back, my uncle had an old HP with a pentium II in it... the
>> sleep caused the power supply to overheat and eventually started to smoke.
>> LOL!  But then it had windows 95 on it.
>
> I have yet to own a machine on which Linux can be installed and the
> waking function run properly.
>

This particular HP was one made by their High end makers.  Everything is
beefed up with huge heat sinks on a lot of items.

On 9/4/2019 6:58 PM, Rabid Robot wrote:
> On 2019-09-04 8:54 p.m., Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>> Rabid Robot wrote:
>>> I have yet to own a machine on which Linux can be installed and the
>>> waking function run properly.
>>
>> No issue for Dell Latitude D820, a HP 110 netbook or my current ThinkPad
>> 540. Installed for others on Toshiba Satellites, and HP whateves it has
>> not been an issue. Not has an issue with modern distros...
>
> Good to know that it seems to work for your machines. In those cases,
> it's clear that Linux is a fantastic option.
>

With a bit of research, HP made sure Linux works on their machines.

AnonLinuxUser wrote:
> On 9/4/2019 6:58 PM, Rabid Robot wrote:
>> On 2019-09-04 8:54 p.m., Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>> Rabid Robot wrote:
>>>> I have yet to own a machine on which Linux can be installed and the
>>>> waking function run properly.
>>>
>>> No issue for Dell Latitude D820, a HP 110 netbook or my current ThinkPad
>>> 540. Installed for others on Toshiba Satellites, and HP whateves it has
>>> not been an issue. Not has an issue with modern distros...
>>
>> Good to know that it seems to work for your machines. In those cases,
>> it's clear that Linux is a fantastic option.
>>
>
> With a bit of research, HP made sure Linux works on their machines.
>

Yeah had no issue with craptastic Toshiba Satellites, cheap Wallymart
specials. Linux does not need high-end hardware. Cheap stuff, high-end
stuff, old stuff, and new stuff. Installed and a new I think it was a
Lenovo with a touch screen and everything worked including the touch
screen OOTB.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com