I'm a poweruser and know my way around computers well, but I really don't want to spend 2 days recompling the kernel or whatever just to make the linux work well on my system. that will never take off.

___________________
this is it.

quote:

Originally posted by Haunted I'm a poweruser and know my way around computers well, but I really don't want to spend 2 days recompling the kernel or whatever just to make the linux work well on my system. that will never take off.

You don't have to if you dont want to. Use a dist with a pre compiled kernel (most dists except perhaps Gentoo has).

quote:

Originally posted by Haunted I'm a poweruser and know my way around computers well, but I really don't want to spend 2 days recompling the kernel or whatever just to make the linux work well on my system. that will never take off.

There's no reason to recompile the kernel if you have a decent machine (i.e. one that will allow you to run Windows XP). Furthermore, if you wanted to recompile the kernel it wouldn't take two days. It's been a looong time since I dabbled with that, and even at that time there was a simple point and click interface. As far as I remember I had to write two lines of commands in a shell to compile the new kernel. (The compilation process itself did take a while, though, but you can do other stuff while it's happening.)

i just don't understand the point of all that.
i personally think OSX is much better than Linux, i really don't care if Apple makes money, it's a great OS, both based off Unix. i like the look of OSX and i don't need to configure it. it's good enough for me

___________________
this is it.

I used OSX for about a month, but ended up yearning to get back to Linux. I got tired of the fact that most of the applications I wanted to run didn't compile on OSX, and I had to get dedicated versions from some software library (what was the name of that thing, Elf?). I also missed my virtual desktops, which I find most useful for organizing my windows.
The flashy stuff of OSX sure were cool at first, but as time passed I started to get more annoyed at the small delays caused by everything having to be animated in some cool manner, and never got around to familiarize myself with the notion of colours for maximize, minimize and close window, rather than the more standard icons. Finally, I found that you're not supposed to mess around with system files - even if you're root. I managed to crash the machine so badly that it refused to start up, prompting me only with a red screen. Just because I decided to delete a user profile directly in the /etc directory. Unforgiving, I'd say.
But that's just personal experience from someone who's used to the Linux system. Maybe if you're coming directly from Windows you won't get annoyed at these things. I do know a lot of happy Mac users.

why would you want to recompile and want to mess with the system files? haha. most people really don't care about that, its arbitrary for most.

oh and I like the animations and I think the OS X dock is better then anything i've seen on Linux

it's just about ease of use. things are becoming automated.. sure driving a car in manual is fun sometimes, but who cares really. you feel so outdated and it gets annoying. i feel the same with operating systems.

you can customize everything, COOL. how about do it graphically.

___________________
this is it.

quote:

Originally posted by Haunted why would you want to recompile and want to mess with the system files? haha. most people really don't care about that, its arbitrary for most.

I agree, most people do not want to do that, but I'll tell you why I want to do it sometimes. Compiling the kernel means that you can optimize the performance of your machine and leave more memory to applications. Optimizing means less sluggishness, faster start up times, and a more stable system (less code is executed so the chance of hitting a bug is reduced).
Why would anyone mess with system files? At Linux I rarely do, but with the Mac I managed to ruin my user-configuration files for some application, and I couldn't figure out what parts were causing the problems. So after a while, I decided "to heck with it", and copied my work into another directory, started up as root and wiped everything in that user directory (at Unix this is a fine quick alternative to doing a format-reinstall cycle). Unfortunately, OSX didn't want to play along and refused to let me log in as that user afterwards, and I then thought that I would remove the user completely and create a new one. So I went and edited the user out of the passwd file - and then OSX completely refused to boot up.
If you accept that sometimes programs just stop working after you have messed around with their settings (as happens on Windows), then I guess you won't need to mess with system files, but if you're a stubborn fool like me then you do.

quote:

Originally posted by Haunted it's just about ease of use. things are becoming automated.. sure driving a car in manual is fun sometimes, but who cares really. you feel so outdated and it gets annoying. i feel the same with operating systems.

Well, there's two kinds of ease of use: There's how much can you *learn* to do in a week or month, and then there's how much can you *achieve* in a week or month once you know the system. In the latter department I have yet to experience anything as effecient as Unix. A simple example of the difference is the keyboard short-cut vs. the menu option. If you're learning about the capabilities of your new tool, then the latter makes the product easy to use. If you're using the tool to do something, then the keyboard short-cut increases your effeciency, since you don't need to grab for the mouse and/or move it around for this, and thus makes the tool easy to use. Same goes for OSX's Exposé vs. Linux window managers virtual desktops. It takes a while to get a habit of using the virtual desktops consistently, but once you've gotten used to it, you can find the window you want within a fraction of a second, which is not always the case for Exposé (which arranges windows in a fashion you have no control of).

Microsoft's antipiracy tool phones home daily

By Joris Evers

Story last modified Thu Jun 08 05:40:17 PDT 2006

Microsoft has vowed to better disclose the actions of its antipiracy tool once it is installed on Windows PCs.

The tool, called Windows Genuine Advantage Notifications, is designed to validate whether a copy of Windows has been legitimately acquired. However, it also checks in with Microsoft on a daily basis, the company confirmed Wednesday.

This has alarmed some people, such as Lauren Weinstein, a civil liberties activist, who likened it to spyware in a blog posting.

Microsoft disputes that notion. It said that WGA's regular call home is innocent and done for necessary maintenance purposes.

"The WGA Notifications program checks a server-side configuration setting to determine if WGA should run or not," a company representative said in an e-mailed statement. "As part of the pilot, this gives Microsoft the ability to disable the program if necessary."

No meaningful data is exchanged during the check-in with Microsoft, which happens after a computer starts up, the software maker said. Regardless, the company does receive a user's IP address and a timestamp, Weinstein said in his blog posting.

"We can argue about whether or not the tool's behavior is really spyware," Weinstein wrote on his blog Tuesday. The question is whether Microsoft has provided sufficient notice, he added.

Microsoft acknowledged that it has not been forthcoming enough about the antipiracy tool's behavior, but countered that its tool is not spyware, since it is not installed without a user's consent and has no malicious purpose. Still, Microsoft is considering several options to make its actions clear to the user, including amending the software license, the company representative said.

Microsoft launched WGA in September 2004 and has gradually expanded the antipiracy program. It now requires validation before Windows users can download additional Microsoft software, such as Windows Media Player and Windows Defender. Validation is not required for security fixes.

Originally, people had to validate their Windows installation only when downloading additional Microsoft software. Since November last year, however, Microsoft has been pushing out the WGA Notifications tool along with security updates to people in a number of countries.

The first time that a user runs WGA Validation to check if their version of Windows is genuine, the information sent to Microsoft is the Windows XP product key, PC maker, operating system version, PC bios information and the user's local setting and language. Microsoft discloses that this information is sent in the WGA tool license.



Copyright ©1995-2006 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

USED WITHOUT PERMISSION FOR NON-COMMERCIAL EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

___________________

This is exactly the kind of mentality that makes me loathe M$: "We know what is best for you. You're just a stupid user who don't need to know what's going on in your machine."

Posted this in the wrong thread by accident:

@ trancaholic (and any one else who wants to add somethintg): So, now I have enough time on my hands to back up my hard drive and install a new OS (Linux). I'm kind of torn between Fedora 5 and Ubuntu (possibly even Kubuntu or Suse?). And I'm not sure what the benefits of installing one over the other would be. Any ideas? I'm still running Fedora rightnow BTW.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

I can't really give advice on which of those distrobutions to choose. It's my experience that the major differences between distros are in their installation and maintenance, and I've only tried maintaining Fedora in the last few years. I've heard positive things about Ubuntu from a colleague, but he admitted that he hadn't really been using anything else either. When I asked him about what was so great about the system, it turned out that these things could be said about Fedora as well.

If you're already familiar with Fedora, I'd just stick with it. Besides, there might even be upgrade options available instead of a complete re-install. (Although I'd recommend a clean install) As said though, most of the "upper" distros are pretty much identical. Some just add a few base programs and others take them away.

I'd suggest making a seperate "home" folder partition and that way you can install other OS's relatively easily and try them until you find one you like.

Speaking of new OS's...has anyone tried the public Vista Beta 2? I downloaded it yesterday and I'm thinking of giving it a shot just for fun.