begin steve wrote:

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 22:27:56 -0500, Talbot wrote:
I really wanted Linux to work, really I did, but after 3 months of
screwing around, surfing the net, looking for help, exchanging emails
with developers and pulling my hair out I finally gave up trying to make
Linux work for me.

You will of course be able to cite these emails as I can find no evidence
of you posting to any NGs with your problems.

Oh, flatfish posted to newsgroups. Just under different names, though, such
as

Aftab Singh, allison_hunt1969, Anna Banger, anonymous, Baba Booey, Babu
Singh, bill.gates.loves.me, bison, Bjarne Jensen, BklynBoy, Charlie,
Choppers McGee, Christine Abernathy, Claire Lynn, Collie Entragion,
Deadpenguin, Elliot Zimmermann, Fawn Lebowitz, flatfish+++, foamy, Gary
Stewart, gilligan, GregÂ*Laplante, Heather, Heather69, hepcat, Ishmeal
Hafizi, itchy balls, IvanaBSuckyB, Jeff Szarka, juke_joint, kathy_krantz,
Les Turner, Lilly, Lindy, long_tong_ling, Lukumi Babalu Aye, Major Mynor,
McSwain, Moses, nate_mcspook, okto_pussy, PaddyÂ*Â*McCrockett,Â*Patricia,
phoung quoak, pickle_pete, Poopy Pants McGee, Quimby, rothstein_ivan, Saul
Goldblatt, Sean, Sean Fitzhenry, Sean Macpherson, Sewer Rat, sewer_clown,
Spammy_Davis, spanny_davis, Stephan Simonsen, Stephen, SunnyB, Susan Wong,
Suzie Wong, Swampee, The Beaver, Thorsten, Tracee, trailerpark, Wang
Mycock, Whizzer, Wilbur J, Willy Wong, Winnie Septos,Wobbles and zyklon_C.
Plus many, many, many more.


And all his problems were made up. He just searches newsgroup and blows any
problem found out of proportion
--
Longhorn error#4711: TCPA / NGSCP VIOLATION: Microsoft optical mouse
detected penguin patterns on mousepad. Partition scan in progress
toÂ*removeÂ*offendingÂ*incompatibleÂ*products.Â*Â* ReactivateÂ*yourÂ*MSÂ*software

"Conor" wrote in message
. ..
In article Ranando King says...
Let's be perfectly honest here. All Linux distros have exactly 3
weaknesses:

1. A lack of decent, fully functional, audio content creation tools
(Talbot's complaint)
2. A lack of driver support for some cheap and/or relatively uncommon
pieces
of harware (mosly because of companies being "tight-lipped" about
supporting
linux)
3. A lack of support for popular commercial games (currently being
solved by
the Wine package)

Fortunately, other than this, Linux Distros make for a far better OS
than
any variation of Windows.

You mean other than the three most important things to do with a PC,
Linux distros make for a far better OS.


????

Wait a second. Your statement is too general. For people working in a
typical business office, productivity applications are the most important
thing you can do with a PC. Notice that's not on the list of weaknesses? For
people working in movie studios, graphic editing would be the most
important. Again, not on the list. For scientists, number crunching would be
the most important. Also not on the list. Now, if you're just someone who
only uses the PC for playing games, someone who either doesn't have the
money or the knowledge to buy good common hardware, or someone who writes
music a lot, then you might have some difficulty with Linux Distros because
those are it's weak points.

Just because it may be the most important issue for you doesn't mean that
it's important for everyone (or even anyone) else.

R.

Paul Ciszek wrote:
In article ,
Amol Vaidya wrote:


Richard Crowley wrote:
I'd bet that she didn't install any software or re-compile the kernel,
etc. etc. etc.

She hasn't recompiled her kernel, but she installs everything herself.
Quite honestly, it's not hard reading installation instructions and
following them.

Has she installed a wireless LAN card? Successfully? If so, can I
send her my desktop computer and have her install mine?

Most of the PCI wireless cards do not seem to be supported under Linux,
although at least one of the Linksys cards works well with SuSe.

I can't find any local computer helper guys who do Linux.

Where are you? Surely you have a local Linux users group... the Linux
community today is a lot like the way the microcomputer community in the
eighties was. Lots of local groups with people that sit around and complain
about computers a lot but do trade useful information.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 2004-12-27, Talbot wrote:

I work with Keith Richards, Steely Dan, Aerosmith, John Mayer, Norah Jones.....

And you have the time to spew your troll messages here? How?

On 2004-12-27, Conor wrote:

WPA isn't a problem unless you're a software pirate.

It's never been a problem for you, clearly, but that does not
mean it's never been a problem. I had an experience I'd not like
to repeat, when I bought my MSDN subscription.

The subscription key had already been assigned. The Microsoft reps
treated me like a complete bag of **** when I asked them to activate
the product. They referred me to the reseller, who referred me back
to Microsoft. They both really thought I was going to simply go away
after spending $2500 on their products. It took more than a month to
straighten it out, and it didn't happen while I was still being polite.
When I stop being polite, there's no transition, I go straight to
maximum hostility. (That's why I was never good at fighting, or sports,
because I'll tend to let everything slide, until I decide it's time for
killing. There's no in-between. Maybe a pareital lobe problem, or
something, but serious.)

Now, imagine you're in the field. Say, on a relief effort with the
UN in Burma or Sri Lanka. You have to replace a piece of hardware in
the only PC your unit has, with something that has been scavenged.
There's no phone, there's sure as hell no internet access, and your
XP installation has decided that now is the time to require activation.
Contrived example, ok, but someone more clever and more patient can
surely think of a real scenario where this could be a problem, or
perhaps, show a situation where it HAS been a problem.

I know I didn't appreciate having to hook a freshly installed PC to the
network just so it could call home and ask permission to run, and I
don't particularly care for the alternative, to call on the phone, sit
on hold, and answer questions for some person in Asia who has been
trained to fake a midwestern accent, either.

I'm not a software pirate, and I'm telling you, software activation is a
problem. It's a problem because I SAY it's a problem. I'm the
customer, and I'm right.

On 2004-12-28, Richard Crowley wrote:

Most users consider their computers to be tools and platforms
for the application softare they want to use. Most of them DO NOT
want to become computer experts just to do email, surf the web,
or run a game, etc.

I have a continuous memory back to the time, which seems like yesterday,
when the only people interested in computers, were indeed willing to
become proficient in their operation in order to use them as the tools
for their intended purposes.

I wasn't party to the contract that said it needed to be otherwise.

I won't suggest you use a press brake before learning how to avoid
cutting your thumbs off. Why should I encourage someone to remain
ignorant while they try to use any tool?

It seems to me a great deal has been taken for granted, that the tool
is supposed to be able to do it's work despite the ignorance of the
person using it. It's wonderful that you can get away with that
approach for many applications, but I don't think you should take it for
granted, and I don't think it's a reasonable benchmark for quality.

"james of tucson" wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote:
Most users consider their computers to be tools and platforms
for the application softare they want to use. Most of them DO NOT
want to become computer experts just to do email, surf the web,
or run a game, etc.

I have a continuous memory back to the time, which seems like
yesterday, when the only people interested in computers, were
indeed willing to become proficient in their operation in order
to use them as the tools for their intended purposes.

And there was a time when everyone who drove an automobile
had a set of tools in the trunk and had to use them when their car
broke down alongside the road. But I'd bet that even on this news
group, the majority of people here have never even changed their
own oil on their current vehicle.

I have rebuilt engines in my youth, but don't have time for that
now. A vehicle is just a tool that I use to get myself and my
equipment from here to there.

I put together a 3.6GHz P4 machine just last week which I am
now using for video NLE (or will be when I get over the Adobe
Premiere 6.5-to-Pro learning curve!). But I can easily see how
most people wouldn't want to build and load their own computers
just to surf the web, play games, or send email and pictures to
grandmother.

I doubt there are many 11-year old girls (or boys) building
their own Linux machines who don't have a geek-dad to advise
them on at least which distribution/version to use. I might even
be more inclined to try Linux myself if it weren't for the incredible
Tower of Babel that dominates the Linux landscape.

james of tucson wrote:

On 2004-12-28, Richard Crowley wrote:

Most users consider their computers to be tools and platforms
for the application softare they want to use. Most of them DO NOT
want to become computer experts just to do email, surf the web,
or run a game, etc.

I have a continuous memory back to the time, which seems like yesterday,
when the only people interested in computers, were indeed willing to
become proficient in their operation in order to use them as the tools
for their intended purposes.

I wasn't party to the contract that said it needed to be otherwise.

I won't suggest you use a press brake before learning how to avoid
cutting your thumbs off. Why should I encourage someone to remain
ignorant while they try to use any tool?

It seems to me a great deal has been taken for granted, that the tool
is supposed to be able to do it's work despite the ignorance of the
person using it. It's wonderful that you can get away with that
approach for many applications, but I don't think you should take it for
granted, and I don't think it's a reasonable benchmark for quality.


Some folks simply do not know the difference between tools & toys.

And if Windows is supposed to be so simple & trouble-free, why do so many
of my friends who use it keep calling me to come over & fix their computers?

Richard Crowley wrote:

And there was a time when everyone who drove an automobile
had a set of tools in the trunk and had to use them when their car
broke down alongside the road. But I'd bet that even on this news
group, the majority of people here have never even changed their
own oil on their current vehicle.

And I, for one, consider that shameful.

I put together a 3.6GHz P4 machine just last week which I am
now using for video NLE (or will be when I get over the Adobe
Premiere 6.5-to-Pro learning curve!). But I can easily see how
most people wouldn't want to build and load their own computers
just to surf the web, play games, or send email and pictures to
grandmother.

No, but they should at least have some notion of what is going on inside
them. I remember when the first thing you learned about in Computers 101
was the binary code and the general notion of what the machine did at a
low level (fetch/decode/execute etc.). Today it's just magic to most people.

Magic is bad, whether it's your car or your computer.

I doubt there are many 11-year old girls (or boys) building
their own Linux machines who don't have a geek-dad to advise
them on at least which distribution/version to use. I might even
be more inclined to try Linux myself if it weren't for the incredible
Tower of Babel that dominates the Linux landscape.

Actually Linux isn't so bad. Part of the problem is that Linux is a clean
and basic Unix that has had a huge amount of crap layered on top of it to
make configuration "automatic" and "easy." That crap does more harm than
good in my opinion. I'd be sooner apt to recommend NetBSD or something that
has less automated stuff thrown on top, because that automated stuff is
part of what is wrong with the Windows world, and emulating it does not seem
a good thing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
No, but they should at least have some notion of what is going on
inside
them. I remember when the first thing you learned about in Computers
101
was the binary code and the general notion of what the machine did at
a
low level (fetch/decode/execute etc.). Today it's just magic to most
people.

Magic is bad, whether it's your car or your computer.

But we have to accept a certain degree of abstraction to get
on with our lives in the modern world. You certainly aren't
proposing that one should have a fundamental understanding
of organic chemistry to eat, digest (or even bake) bread?

We can be smug about knowing how low-level computing works,
and even basic logic: gates and latches, etc. But there is even
lower-level technology that we are completely taking for granted.
Even "digital/binary" integrated circuits are "analog/linear" at the
logical component (transistor) level. But we can take for granted
that the circuit designers and process technology engineers have
handled that for us so we can worry about higher-level issues.
And the circuit designers and process-technology engineers are
relying on the expertiese of the device engineers and material
physics scientists, etc. etc. etc.

I doubt there are many 11-year old girls (or boys) building
their own Linux machines who don't have a geek-dad to advise
them on at least which distribution/version to use. I might even
be more inclined to try Linux myself if it weren't for the incredible
Tower of Babel that dominates the Linux landscape.

Actually Linux isn't so bad. Part of the problem is that Linux is a
clean
and basic Unix that has had a huge amount of crap layered on top of it
to
make configuration "automatic" and "easy." That crap does more harm
than
good in my opinion. I'd be sooner apt to recommend NetBSD or
something that
has less automated stuff thrown on top, because that automated stuff
is
part of what is wrong with the Windows world, and emulating it does
not seem
a good thing.

Philosophically, I agree. But making technology simple to use
for the mass public is what makes the progress and innovation
that makes our lives easier/simpler/faster and drives the (local
& global) economic engine.

It is easy enough for geeks think that everyone should have some
minimum technological knowledge. But for me the theory breaks
down when I consider the areas where I have little/no knowledge
and rely on the expertiese of others (like organic chemistry, etc.)

Richard Crowley wrote:

But we have to accept a certain degree of abstraction to get
on with our lives in the modern world. You certainly aren't
proposing that one should have a fundamental understanding
of organic chemistry to eat, digest (or even bake) bread?

No, but you should have some concept of what yeast does and how it works,
because if you don't, all you can do is follow a recipe without really
understanding WHY the ingredients are there in that proportion.

Understanding is what makes human beings different than machines. If you
are just going to follow a recipe all day long, you might as well be a
machine.

We can be smug about knowing how low-level computing works,
and even basic logic: gates and latches, etc. But there is even
lower-level technology that we are completely taking for granted.
Even "digital/binary" integrated circuits are "analog/linear" at the
logical component (transistor) level. But we can take for granted
that the circuit designers and process technology engineers have
handled that for us so we can worry about higher-level issues.
And the circuit designers and process-technology engineers are
relying on the expertiese of the device engineers and material
physics scientists, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, although all of that stuff is specific to implementation and not
to the concept of the machine. You could make a computer with pneumatic
valves or hydraulics, and it would still be Turing-complete. Konrad Zeuse
made a complete machine out of Fischerteknik blocks as I recall.

The fact that the computers that you and I use happen to use solid state
devices is interesting and worth knowing something about, but it's just
an implementation detail and not specific to the nature of computers.
Computers are really just a mathematical abstraction.

Actually Linux isn't so bad. Part of the problem is that Linux is a
clean
and basic Unix that has had a huge amount of crap layered on top of it
to
make configuration "automatic" and "easy." That crap does more harm
than
good in my opinion. I'd be sooner apt to recommend NetBSD or
something that
has less automated stuff thrown on top, because that automated stuff
is
part of what is wrong with the Windows world, and emulating it does
not seem
a good thing.

Philosophically, I agree. But making technology simple to use
for the mass public is what makes the progress and innovation
that makes our lives easier/simpler/faster and drives the (local
& global) economic engine.

I disagree. I think that technology that people don't understand makes
their life more difficult in the long run when it goes wrong and strands
them, or when they make bad decisions based on insufficient information.

It is easy enough for geeks think that everyone should have some
minimum technological knowledge. But for me the theory breaks
down when I consider the areas where I have little/no knowledge
and rely on the expertiese of others (like organic chemistry, etc.)

The problem with the Windows world is that most of the "experts" don't
have any clue how systems really work inside, and rely entirely on
symptom-cure mapping. This means than when things -do- get to the point
where you call in an expert, he's apt to just reinstall the operating
system and be done with it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
No, but you should have some concept of what yeast does and
how it works, because if you don't, all you can do is follow a
recipe without really understanding WHY the ingredients are
there in that proportion.

Understanding is what makes human beings different than machines.
If you are just going to follow a recipe all day long, you might as
well be a machine.

And yet millions of people are cooking right now, producing
(and even innovating new and delicious treats) who don't know
how the chemistry works, or even that it exists.

The fact that the computers that you and I use happen to use
solid state devices is interesting and worth knowing something
about, but it's just an implementation detail and not specific
to the nature of computers. Computers are really just a
mathematical abstraction.

But that is my point. Regardless of the implementation (even
using mouse-traps as some have done), every layer of technology
is abstracted on top of another layer that is taken for granted.
I'm just suggesting that the computer is slowly evolving from
geek toy to toaster appliance.

I disagree. I think that technology that people don't understand
makes their life more difficult in the long run when it goes
wrong and strands them, or when they make bad decisions based
on insufficient information.

But that effect is by no means exclusive to (or a result of) things
involved with technology.

It is easy enough for geeks think that everyone should have some
minimum technological knowledge. But for me the theory breaks
down when I consider the areas where I have little/no knowledge
and rely on the expertiese of others (like organic chemistry, etc.)

The problem with the Windows world is that most of the "experts"
don't have any clue how systems really work inside, and rely entirely
on symptom-cure mapping. This means than when things -do- get
to the point where you call in an expert, he's apt to just reinstall
the
operating system and be done with it.

But that is a fundamental tradeoff that we see many places. Closed-
system MSwin functionality and low-cost/volume vs. quality-control,
debugging methodology, etc. etc. Or fossil-fuel, internal-combustion
transportation economic, societal benefits vs. environmental factors,
etc etc. The comparisons are numerous.

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On 2004-12-30, Steve Firth wrote:
Talbot wrote:

I'm a musician with a very limited budget and little time to fool around
with computers.

How odd, nearly 100% of all the musicians I work with use UNIX, BSD in
fact or MacOS X to be completely accurate. Only complete prats try to
use Windows for anything to do with music.

What? No one is still holding onto their ST's anymore... ?


--

|||
/ | \

Richard Crowley wrote:

I have a continuous memory back to the time, which seems like
yesterday, when the only people interested in computers, were
indeed willing to become proficient in their operation in order
to use them as the tools for their intended purposes.

And there was a time when everyone who drove an automobile
had a set of tools in the trunk and had to use them when their car
broke down alongside the road. But I'd bet that even on this news
group, the majority of people here have never even changed their
own oil on their current vehicle.

Keep in mind that despite how ubiquitous they have become, personal
computing is by no means a mature technology. They became ubiquitous
bacause the hardware became affordable VERY quickly, & that had a lot more
to do with economics & the semiconductor industry than with PCs themselves.
A lot of people EXPECT that anything cheap SHOULD be simple.

When automotive technology was at the same point that PC technology is now,
cars were stil very expensive. Consequently, they were mostly bought by
people who had some need for one AND was willing to learn at least a little
bit about how to work it. Of course, there were rich people who could hire
a chauffer. But I can't imagine many people in the 30s, 40s, or 50s buying
a car for their kids to play games with.

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...

I disagree. I think that technology that people don't understand
makes their life more difficult in the long run when it goes
wrong and strands them, or when they make bad decisions based
on insufficient information.

But that effect is by no means exclusive to (or a result of) things
involved with technology.

No, but only with technology do people claim to be proud of their
ignorance or at the least unconcerned with it.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Understanding is what makes human beings different than machines. If you
are just going to follow a recipe all day long, you might as well be a
machine.

By that analogy no one should be flying in jets anymore.

I disagree. I think that technology that people don't understand makes
their life more difficult in the long run when it goes wrong and strands
them, or when they make bad decisions based on insufficient information.

I would say that not understanding the technology makes life more expensive,
but not necessarily more difficult. The reality of computers, cars, planes,
bicycles etc... is that if you don't want to understand them, or don't take
the time to understand the inner workings, you have to pay someone who does.

There is nothing wrong with that if you ask me. Musicians used to record that
way, and they still could write great music. People far more knowledgeable
(about recording techniques) recorded it, and it seems that everyone
benefited, including the people who bought the records.
And before you respond to the analogy, I do agree that someone in the chain
understood the technology, but often as not it wasn't the end user record
buyer or the musician recording.


The problem with the Windows world is that most of the "experts" don't
have any clue how systems really work inside, and rely entirely on
symptom-cure mapping.

There is close to 80 million lines of code in Windows now and even MS
engineers themselves don't understand the whole package.

This means than when things -do- get to the point
where you call in an expert, he's apt to just reinstall the operating
system and be done with it.

Sometimes the bludgeon method is the best...and least time consuming and
therefore most cost effective. However, I do appreciate your point.

--
Nathan

"Imagine if there were no Hypothetical Situations"

lamer.


Am Sun, 26 Dec 2004 22:27:56 -0500 schrieb Talbot:

Talbot

Scott Dorsey wrote:

you should have some concept of what yeast does and how it works,
because if you don't, all you can do is follow a recipe without really
understanding WHY the ingredients are there in that proportion.

This is counterintuitive to a Hedonist who cares only to savor the aroma
and flavor of freshly baked bread.

--
ha

Why are yall feeding the trolls??

Let him go back to that bug infested POS
produced by M$.

WW

Wald wrote:
Talbot wrote:


On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 22:14:16 -0600, Liam Slider wrote:


On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 22:27:56 -0500, Talbot wrote:


I'm a musician with a very limited budget and little time to fool
around with computers.

I work with Keith Richards, Steely Dan, Aerosmith, John Mayer, Norah
Jones.....


Somehow those two statements kind of contradict each other...

Wald

On 2004-12-30, Richard Crowley wrote:

And there was a time when everyone who drove an automobile
had a set of tools in the trunk and had to use them when their car
broke down alongside the road. But I'd bet that even on this news
group, the majority of people here have never even changed their
own oil on their current vehicle.

Yeah, we're talking across purposes. You're thinking in terms of daily
driver cars. I'm thinking in terms of machine shop equipment. You
wouldn't think of setting up a machine shop if you weren't going to be
a machinist, or at least, employing a machinist. I think of computers
on that level, albeit without the same risks to life and limb for
someone trying to use the tools without becoming a journeyman machinist.

The automobile analogy doesn't work for me, and I hope the reasons are
obvious.

But I can easily see how
most people wouldn't want to build and load their own computers
just to surf the web, play games, or send email and pictures to
grandmother.

I see the people using computers to do those particular activities as
a side effect of the technology, and nothing like a primary purpose.
It's great that they can get some benefits from the technology, with as
few problems as they encounter. But I don't remember when they were
supposed to start taking it for granted.

In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Most of the PCI wireless cards do not seem to be supported under Linux,
although at least one of the Linksys cards works well with SuSe.

Which one? Manufacturer means nothing so much as little details that
can change between rev A and rev B of the same product. If one of
the older ones would be a better bet (as has been suggested elsewhere)
then maybe I can find it used.


--
Please reply to: | "When you are dealing with secretive regimes
pciszek at panix dot com | that want to deceive, you're never going to
Autoreply is disabled | be able to be positive." -Condoleezza Rice

Paul Ciszek wrote:

Has she installed a wireless LAN card? Successfully? If so, can I
send her my desktop computer and have her install mine?

I can't find any local computer helper guys who do Linux.


Linux wireless lan how-to:

http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Jean_.../Wireless.html

HTH

Peter

In article ,
peter wrote:

Linux wireless lan how-to:

http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Jean_.../Wireless.html

I am trying to make sense of this. I really am.

What I need is a guide to Wireless LANs under Linux that even a
Windows user can follow.

First of all, I cannot walk into CompUSA or Best Buy and ask for an
Orinoco chipset. I can only ask for a wireless LAN by brand name and
model number. The stores in my area have never heard of Orinoco or
Lucent. They have heard of Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, and a few others;
none of these names appear in the wireless lan how-to page above.

Second, all of the advice I have received so far assumes some knowledge
of Linux. Where can I find instructions on how to install new drivers,
written for a recovering windows user? Not ones that start with "first
you compile the source code..." Compile using what? How? That sort of
thing. I need to know how to go from the file I download from the
internet to an installed working driver.

Now that I have resolved the IRQ conflicts, I have a SuSE 9.2 KDE
environment that is as easy to use as Windows. All need is the ability
to get online via a wireless LAN card, and I can do everything in
Linux that I used to do in Windows.

I have aquaintances who swear that Linux is ready for the general public.
Except for wireless LANS, that may very well be true. It is my hope that
once I can get over this network issue, I will never need to use Windows
again.

--
Please reply to: | "So, what are you gonna do with
pciszek at panix dot com | that Ring, Brain?"

(Paul Ciszek) wrote in news:crcte0$foe$1
@reader1.panix.com:

Second, all of the advice I have received so far assumes some knowledge
of Linux. Where can I find instructions on how to install new drivers,
written for a recovering windows user?


http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyT...764543334.html

Paul Ciszek wrote:
First of all, I cannot walk into CompUSA or Best Buy and ask for an
Orinoco chipset. I can only ask for a wireless LAN by brand name and
model number. The stores in my area have never heard of Orinoco or
Lucent. They have heard of Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, and a few others;
none of these names appear in the wireless lan how-to page above.

By all means, then, order one of the Orinoco branded cards over the net.
You will be VERY pleased that you did if only because the RF performance
is substantially better than the typical Best Buy stuff. No matter WHAT
operating system you are using, it's worth the expense.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 2005-01-03, peter wrote:

Linux wireless lan how-to:

The bottom line here is often, if your wireless card wasn't configured
by your installer, it might just mean that the card you have is not
supported by the wlan driver in linux. The reason is that the
manufacturer *vehemently* wants it to NOT have driver support under
linux.

One really huge problem I have with the wlan howto, is that while it
lists a lot of cards that have driver support, you can't really take
that list to the store and ask for something from the list. You are
stuck with whatever is available in your region, at your retailer, the
day you want it. And it does NOT say on the box "This is a Broadcom
chipset, not for use with Linux".

Even some cards that, by make and model, are supposed to be
Prism/Intersil (the best choice for compatability), have been changed
to Broadcom without changing the model number!

Too bad if this is what's built in your laptop, it means you'll have to
use some other PCMCIA card (and, sorry, nobody can really tell you
exactly which one to get!), and THAT means your battery life will be
diminished at the airport and coffee shop.

Lucky for me, my Toshiba had a Prism2 built in. But I had no way of
really knowing that before buying it.

All those cards listed in the HOWTO compatability chart? Some are not
available in your country. Many are discontinued. A few that used to
be compatable have had their design changed but not their model number.

I still don't know of one single PCI 802.11g card that works with Linux,
and I don't have a make/model number of a PCMCIA card that has the
assurance needed to put it on a purchase order and guarantee it to a
client.

There are some solutions to the unsupported card problem, but they all
stink for production use. And if all you have is the incompatible
wireless card to begin with, you've got a show-stopping bootstrap
problem, because how are you going to download special drivers?

It's good that there is a Linux wireless howto, but that document paints
a much prettier picture than the reality of the situation. That long
list of compatable devices is useless, unless you have a vendor who
understands that you want to spec products by chipset and not by brand.

At least with pro audio cards, I can spec something that's assured to
work under Linux -- cards with the ICE171x/Envy24 chip, which includes
the Delta line and I *hope* the ESI Juli@ (sic) card.

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 02:01:36 +0000, Paul Ciszek wrote:

[snip]

Now that I have resolved the IRQ conflicts, I have a SuSE 9.2 KDE
environment that is as easy to use as Windows. All need is the ability
to get online via a wireless LAN card, and I can do everything in
Linux that I used to do in Windows.

I use currently SuSE-9.2 Pro installed on a Compaq Evo N1000 laptop. The
WLAN card (PCMCIA/PCCARD) is ZyXEL ZyAIR G-100, which works perfectly
AFAICT. There were no problems in installation using YAST. Only
requirement was a separate installation of firmware (Atmel), but this was
handled by the YAST also (1: Install/Remove Software, 2: Search
for 'firmware', 3: Select 'Atmel...', 4: ...).

[snip]


HTH,

EsaR

On 2005-01-04, Scott Dorsey wrote:

No matter WHAT operating system you are using, it's worth the expense.

Of course it is. But what's the name of that vendor who will sell wi-fi
cards and guarantee linux compatability? And exactly what 802.11g
device do you order from there?

I've been burned a few times by Linksys changing from Orinoco to
Broadcom, and once by D-Link changing to Atmel. It is frustrating
to identify a make/model of a device and then recommend that to someone
else, only to find out they've changed the design without changing the
model number.

Talbot wrote:
I'm a musician with a very limited budget and little time to fool around
with computers. If I had a 48 track Studer in my studio I would be happy,
but I dont. I have an Intel system with a P4 3.0ghz and 2gig of memory and
plenty of hard disk space. I have an RME card which works great.

I suffer admiting this, but I don't think Linux it's a good choice
for a Musical Studio. If you don't want to stick with Windows you
can try MacOSX.

--

Jose Maria Lopez Hernandez
Director Tecnico de bgSEC

bgSEC Seguridad y Consultoria de Sistemas Informaticos
http://www.bgsec.com
ESPAÑA

The only people for me are the mad ones -- the ones who are mad to live,
mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time,
the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn
like fabulous yellow Roman candles.
-- Jack Kerouac, "On the Road"

Jose Maria Lopez Hernandez wrote:

Talbot wrote:
I'm a musician with a very limited budget and little time to fool around
with computers. If I had a 48 track Studer in my studio I would be happy,
but I dont. I have an Intel system with a P4 3.0ghz and 2gig of memory
and plenty of hard disk space. I have an RME card which works great.

I suffer admiting this, but I don't think Linux it's a good choice
for a Musical Studio. If you don't want to stick with Windows you
can try MacOSX.


I seem to recall an article about using Linux in a recording studio, in the
Linux Journal a while back.

James Knott wrote:

I seem to recall an article about using Linux in a recording studio, in the
Linux Journal a while back.

I use NetBSD in the studio myself. It's used for accounting and scheduling.
For recording, we use tape machines. But to be honest, while recording is
important and is the basis of the business, accounts payable is even more
important.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Talbot wrote:
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 19:51:10 -0800, filesiteguy wrote:


On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 22:27:56 -0500, Talbot wrote:


I'm a musician with a very limited budget and little time to fool around


Jack worked sometimes and refused to work other times.
Audacity clobbered some of my source files.
Ardour would all of a sudden decide I had no direct access to the sound
device and refuse to work.

Sorry but after a couple of months of that kind of crap, I gave Linux the
boot.

Sorry to hear of your issues.

Linux works great for me.


My Commodore 64 can read email and print letters.


Of course, I'm not a musician. I imagine you use expensive proprietary
software which handles your MIDI, synth, etc...


I use software that WORKS.
I can easily find FREE software for Windows that works reasonably well.
Not as good as the commercial stuff, but FAR, FAR better than ANYTHING
Linux has to offer.
In fact, I got software with my Soundcard, with my DVD with my CDROM that
worked FAR better than anything Linux has to offer.


Good luck downgrading to windows.


Downgrading?
Hah!
That's your opinion, and an uneducated one at that.
Why not graduate into the real world and understand that while Linux may
do some things well, desktop computing is not one of them.

BTW how can anyone downgrade any lower than from Linux where the
applications simply do not work?
It doesn't get any worse than that does it?

Well, you should know after you have read posts in this forum and all
other Linux forums... It is the Linux way, or the Wrong way.

So, you took the wrong way, It does not matter if when you had linux
you could not do the things you did to pay the bills (I mean, the music
stuff).

I personally think it is better to have a downgrade OS where I can do
something than having the BEST system but... well, that does not let me
do anything (oh yes! sorry, it does let me configure it, messing with
all the .conf files).

=o)
Cheers.

Amol Vaidya wrote:
Didn't we just get done with this thread two minutes ago?

It's really too bad that you can't get Linux to work for you, as it is,
in my opinion, *much* better than Windows. Given, every OS has its
advantages and disadvantages, but when you match up Linux with Windows
you'll see that the advantages of Linux heavily outweigh its disadvantages.

I find it difficult to believe that you have a hard time finding good
software on Linux, simply because there is a plethora of choices offered
to you. If you don't like something, there's always an alternative.
"Applications don't work?" On the contrary, the applications work with
far greater efficiency than I have ever seen with Windows. I believe
that statement should read, "I can't get my applications to work."

So, now I, the user should take care of making my applications work...
you know? I think that is the difference of paying $0 for The Gimp and
$450 for Photoshop (just an example), I have now realized that what I am
paying is for Adobe to MAKE THEIR DARN APPLICATION WORK!! so I do not
have to take care of that.

And... yep, because free software is sometimes also 0-bucks software,
there is no way to make the developers take care that their applications
work.

Amen.

I also fail to understand how you can say that Linux is a difficult OS.
As I said before, my 11 year-old sister can use it without any
difficulty, and she's not at all computer savvy.

Omar Baqueiro wrote:
Amol Vaidya wrote:
Didn't we just get done with this thread two minutes ago?

snip

So, now I, the user should take care of making my applications work...
you know? I think that is the difference of paying $0 for The Gimp and
$450 for Photoshop (just an example), I have now realized that what I am
paying is for Adobe to MAKE THEIR DARN APPLICATION WORK!! so I do not
have to take care of that.

And what will you do if Photoshop doesn't work for you? You could call
their hotline and hope for a bug fix within the next year. I had many
comercial apps for windows. Many of them have bugs over several versions.

And... yep, because free software is sometimes also 0-bucks software,
there is no way to make the developers take care that their applications
work.

For "0-bucks software", i call it freeware, there it's possibel for
other developers to step in and fix a problem themself and submit it
back to the community

Amen.

Hale Luja ;-

Greetings, Urs

Urs Weder wrote:
Omar Baqueiro wrote:

Amol Vaidya wrote:

Didn't we just get done with this thread two minutes ago?


snip

So, now I, the user should take care of making my applications work...
you know? I think that is the difference of paying $0 for The Gimp and
$450 for Photoshop (just an example), I have now realized that what I am
paying is for Adobe to MAKE THEIR DARN APPLICATION WORK!! so I do not
have to take care of that.


And what will you do if Photoshop doesn't work for you? You could call
their hotline and hope for a bug fix within the next year. I had many
comercial apps for windows. Many of them have bugs over several versions.


And... yep, because free software is sometimes also 0-bucks software,
there is no way to make the developers take care that their applications
work.


For "0-bucks software", i call it freeware, there it's possibel for
other developers to step in and fix a problem themself and submit it
back to the community

Well, I wrote 0-bucks software because some ppl dislike that someone
refeer to open software as free (as in gratis) software.
Now for the "it's possibel for other developers to step in and fix a
problem"
Well, it is possible, but also, it is not, who knows? who can I force?
NO one, and I mean NO one, because, they will say: "allright, you *want*
that feature, go ahead, download the last CVS snapshot and add the
feature", although I may be just a magazine publisher without
time/knowledge to program.

Meanwhile, with Photoshop, yep, I could call to their hotline, and ask
for the X feature, now for the bad thing here (yep it sounds
contradictory) is that the feature will come in the next version, which
*yep* I'll have to pay. But hey, anyway, I will pay for the service if I
use it to do my work.

I think that is the way the economy works, someone that does something
needs something you do, and also to do what you need to do, you needs
something some other person (or company e.g. Adobe) does.

Now, about the bugs, well I always read that when discussing about Linux
vs Windows, and as they tell you in the 1st year of Bachellors degree in
Computer Science, or Engineering, ALL programs have bugs, I guess even
'touch' has a bug =oP . So, yes, Linux programs have bugs, yes, for the
nature of the Open Software, bugs tend to be corrected faster but, *BUT*
only for active projects, mmm what about this JabRef project? (have
you heard about it anyway?) cool project, I am considering helping it,
but has lots of bugs and, it is not complete (anyway, is there any time
where an Open software is complete? (not saying that for bad or good) ).

Personally I think that there must be some kind of change in the Open
Source model, because, I look at a lot of projects, in SF.net that are
in beta, I mean, look at the differences:

1 - Planning (14895 projects) [whoop! lots of ideas]
2 - Pre-Alpha (11379 projects)[ Some ppl even begin! ]
3 - Alpha (11487 projects) [ Hey it is good, more than Pre-alpha!]
4 - Beta (14622 projects) [ Great!, more than alpha!]
5 - Production/Stable (12215 projects) [Ok, I will try this kind of app]
6 - Mature (1102 projects) [So, these are the *could be comercial apps*]
7 - Inactive (1062 projects) [ RIP ]


Now, look at the great jump between 5 and 6, I am sure that some people
will say that the Production/Stable project is good enough but
personally I think that most people (outside developers/geeks/etc...)
would wait for a Mature version so they can trust the app.

Also, It could be an interesting research to see how many of those
projects have been in Planning for how long or in the other states, I
mean, a project with more than 3 years in Alpha should go directly to
the Inactive set (consequently aslo the pre-alpha and planning).

So, all that was just to say that there must be something that gives an
incentive for the programmers to continue with the development, after
the incentive of "yeah! I want to contribute to the Open Source" has
gone with that 4:00 am programming night.

I mean, the "service" buissnes model is good, but for the big companies,
for the lone coder something else must be done.

Anyway, I found something that could be useful in that direction
(maybe... again, maybe not) and it is the scriptlance.com site, why not?
to do money while selling the program with the service to someone who
need it.

That way, maybe the JabRef team could sell for some $$$ that program and
a service of "implementing what you need" for some months.

Anyway, that are just ideas.

Cheers!

Me, again and again.



Amen.


Hale Luja ;-

Greetings, Urs

dollars are a part of budget as is time.
linux is for people who have time and enjoy mucking around with their
OS instead of doing their work.
while windows may never be all things to all people it's autorun
functions very well for many.

mcnews wrote:

dollars are a part of budget as is time.
linux is for people who have time and enjoy mucking around with their
OS instead of doing their work.
while windows may never be all things to all people it's autorun
functions very well for many.

The same can be said for Linux. Yet, anyone who is honest will admit Linux
still has a ways to go before it is a solid desktop system.

For me, the real difference is that Linux is improving and Windows is like a
broken robot, it keeps doing the same thing over and over again, thinking
it is doing something new.

Deb

mcnews:
may be you were right, no offense: Linux is a ambitious project.
At this time it still require some technnical knowledge and is far from
"idiot proof".
Also it would be instructive to know why you wished to use Linux.

Both Apple and MS did a good job in this area, and MS not as good a job
getting a solid and powerfull product as Linux.

If you have no desire for learning Linux (that I understand if you are an
end user), then even if you stick with XP you will continue to greatly
benefit from the healthy competition that Linux has brough to this market.

If you are a technical guy, then I would suggest you should reconsider:
Linux as any Unix requires work to apprehend, so you need a few good books,
and the litterature is often excellent and affordable.
Note that most Unix books can be used too.
Try to understand Linux basics, and I have little doubts that you will love
it and will not want to go back to an overcontrolled programming
environement.
MS has killed almost every single business which supported Windows
developement and all the great products from Borland, Watcom, IBM, Symantec
etc... And it shows: now this environment is a bit sterilized!

If you look for immediate gratification, stick with Windows...until Linux
takes over, as it appears now it will, but it always will be room for
multiple OS'es, Browsers, Office suites, etc...

BTW:
You may have a dual boot system, keep W-XP and start learning Linux, and
SUSE, Redhat (and some others) are good solid distros.
SUSE is a lot windows like!

AFC3
--------------------
mcnews wrote:
dollars are a part of budget as is time.
linux is for people who have time and enjoy mucking around with their
OS instead of doing their work.
while windows may never be all things to all people it's autorun
functions very well for many.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 26 Jan 2005 05:30:30 -0800,
mcnews wrote:
dollars are a part of budget as is time.
linux is for people who have time and enjoy mucking around with their
OS instead of doing their work.
while windows may never be all things to all people it's autorun
functions very well for many.



yeah, MS-Windows autorun functions very well for many viruses and
trojans, and other malware.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD4DBQFB+M1jd90bcYOAWPYRApv0AJ45LV6g/dpBhngWeyTGSPVAmcwfXgCVHefx
u5gCgzVmlYkS2P5+Jn7o3Q==
=e6c7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
IE, because every click, should be an adventure.

Jim Richardson wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 26 Jan 2005 05:30:30 -0800,
mcnews wrote:

dollars are a part of budget as is time.
linux is for people who have time and enjoy mucking around with their
OS instead of doing their work.
while windows may never be all things to all people it's autorun
functions very well for many.




yeah, MS-Windows autorun functions very well for many viruses and
trojans, and other malware.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD4DBQFB+M1jd90bcYOAWPYRApv0AJ45LV6g/dpBhngWeyTGSPVAmcwfXgCVHefx
u5gCgzVmlYkS2P5+Jn7o3Q==
=e6c7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Shut up troll...

yeah, MS-Windows autorun functions very well for many viruses and
trojans, and other malware.
Viruses, trojans and other malware that Microsofts makes... no?



--
std P.S. I gladly accept replies with constructive and intelligent
information, please abstent of writing flames or anything else as I
will only read them and laugh (i.e. I will not answer them.)