I'd like to use Linux but...

7.10 has a REALLY annoying bug that means my backlight won't go off when I close the laptop lid, and "da community" won't release a fix until April (probably because it's a kernel bug). This gives me the shits, but the fact that Vista's first service pack won't be out until next year puts things into perspective.

Guilting people into using Linux? Huh??

Do you really want to support the EVIL empire, Microsoft? Are you just a just a puppet, a corporate TOOL who has never considered that the OS yr PC comes with might not be the ONLY OS? Are you really in favor of PROPRIETARY applications that limit FREEDOM in favor of bloody PROFITS? Have you sold your SOUL for thirty pieces of SILVER?

And so on. By and large, folks who say they'd like to run Linux, but... are often speaking from some vague sense of guilt-by-association with Microsoft, not by a desire to have some functionality Linux offers that Windows doesn't. (I'm not saying that anyone here ain't Linuxing entirely of their own free will, etc., nor that there's a Linux guilt squad on the loose.) The geeks who are driven to Linux by a need to tinker never find themselves in need of an "excuse". And I sure have heard a lotta folks offer guilty excuses regarding why they aren't using Linux. This is sad. Folks ought feel no obligation to do this or that or whatever with their computers. If you want to tinker, then do so, but it's not an obligation.

Besides, there are more tinkerable choices than Linux, anyways.

Oh yeah, fair enough.

Beryl/Compiz alone is incentive enough for people to look beyond Windows/Mac.

(Incidentally, whilst typing the above sentence my work Windows PC froze for 20 seconds for no reason.)

The whole reason I went (back) to Linux 10 months ago is Windows-specific issues: Viruses and spyware, poor performance, hulking registry.

I have learned much. Lesson #1 -- RTFM. Do not go off googling stuff and installing programs and drivers that were compatible with earlier editions of the OS. That's a bad idea, born of hubris.

Ok, so I reinstalled and started fresh, and with user manual on screen and a determination not to mess with what need not be messed with, I have reached to point of saying that Ubuntu Linux 7.10 is a thing of blinding operating-system beauty. I installed it on my work PC now, and was amazed -- AMAZED! -- at the way it detected networks, computers, printers... it was the easiest computer setup I've ever had the pleasure of overseeing. It looks great. It feels intuitive. It's endlessly customizable. It runs Office docs with grace and aplomb. It's fast as doo doo. Compared to XP, it's the difference between It's A Small World and Space Mountain. I am totally sold.

:) :)

I'm struggling with red hat seeing my physical hardware (nothing coming from lspci)

It's OK to Google stuff, dude.

The longer you hold out on Linux, the less you have to learn to make it work if you finally give it a go.

It's OK to Google stuff, dude.

well yeah, but it's bad to follow instruction for installing nvidia drivers from two versions of the OS ago, when now all that stuff works out of the box. You end up confusing the machine. Sometimes everything would boot ok, and then sometimes it would FREAK OUT and not know what to load on startup. So, reinstall, start over. Much better now.

they're like people smug about not owning a television set.

So unbelievably OTM. Just listened to two people brag about how they only use open source, Microsoft sux, Apple sux, blah blah blah and then complain that GIMP isn't doing what they want to do. (we have a Photoshop site license here)

BUT IT'S FREE

So I'm getting the gOS PC that runs the Ubuntu-style "Google OS." I'll mess with it a bit, but fully expect to put Ubuntu on top of it. Looking forward to it.

I can provide hints and tips

Can Linux read or write to a HFS+ partition these days?

http://sourceforge.net/projects/linux-hfsplus
http://www.ardistech.com/hfsplus/ <-- slightly better, I think

I can provide hints and tips

-- Autumn Almanac, Wednesday, January 9, 2008 3:02 AM

awes

xp, thanks. Things have certainly moved on since I last used Linux in anger. http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/thread/20071111.064900.63247010.en.html#i20071111.064900.63247010 suggests to me that this is going to be impossible on a Debian 3.0 system on which I am not root.

Is the best bet for a filesystem that both Linux and OS X can read still FAT32?

Ubuntu 7.10 can read and write to ntfs now.

for the folks who need photoshop. it's not free or open source, but it runs on linux.

and it's about half the price of photoshop.

btw is it pronounced lie-nux or linn-ux ?

latter...

http://www.boxingforum.com/photopost/data/2/Lennox-Lewis.jpg

Actually

Yeah but he has an accent, see....

Lee-nux or Linn-ux. But not Lie-nux.

for me, Lie-nux even though i know that's wrong - i knew it was named after Linus T but figured his name was pronounced the same as the Peanuts character... i am too old to change my ways now.

i run linux (new computer) and winxp (old) ... i chose fedora 8 because it has pulseaudio which let's me connect audio software. also cause vista is too pricey and will probably end up being slow. (it's not very fast on my wife's laptop.)

i still end up using my old windows box a lot tho.

seriously, linux has gotten WAY easier than it used to be. you don't have to be a smug fuck... just possibly a poor fuck whose willing to try something a little different.

i say lihnnucks... lienucks makes sense... lee-nucks i don't have the accent for. it would be awkward.
m.

From a job seeker's perspective:

I started with Linux back in 2000. I've only had intermittent opportunities to work with it since then, mainly since I've been employed to do Microsofty things and have lacked the time to take it on seriously as a home project.

A few years ago I decided to do a BA in a completely unrelated subject and now I've just returned to the real world and am looking for a job. I now notice that A LOT of analyst or admin type job adverts now say something like 'experience administering Windows and Linux servers.' This is a pretty sharp contrast to what it was five years ago when you had to ASK your boss to let you run a Linux server.

Surely this can't be true. Surely it's got something to do with trying to push more IT training through the economy, or filter out a glut of workers that are the product of an earlier surge of cheap IT skills. These are pretty unremarkable jobs, often targeted at total n00bs to the industry, so I find it hard to believe the level of skill expected has actually gone up that much and that this isn't some sort of Best Value-generation exercise.

My question for you all is what you think 'must have Linux experience' actually translates to in terms of familiarity with the O/S, considering most people who say they do probably don't (maybe they took Introduction to Linux or some shit two-day course) and most jobs that are framed primarily in terms of a Microsoft-style analyst/support role probably don't DARE actually let average IT bods loose on the Linux servers .... See what I mean?

(This advertisement is primarily aimed at LinUKsers but LinUSAers also welcome to apply.)

i don't know how to partition my hard drive

"must have linux experience" means that you should not immediately freak the fuck out when confronted with a *nix window manager other than Apple's Finder.

and you should know how to get around in bash.

I'm involved in an erp selection process and oracle is recommending running their system on linux. when a tier 1 erp provider is recommending you run a mission critical app on linux, I'd say it's arrived. 5 years ago they would've been recommending hp-ux or aix, so things have definitely changed.

Oracle has been humping Linux for some time. Probably since Oracle 7.

I dunno, I did an oracle implementation back in '99 and never heard the l word once.

I think the thing is everybody's realized you can in fact run redhat and still get "mission-critical" uptimes, so it's not oracle (app vendors don't give a shit what you run it on, it's all the $ame to them), it's the service providers/outsourcing businesses and their customers

and of course very little has actually changed in the last six years or so besides the volume of anecdotes out there supporting linux as a perfectly respectable business decision for a CIO

IMO

Ellison kinda does care, personal vendetta or no.

oracle cares for two reasons 1) they host their apps so they're in the service provider business, and 2) they're not in the os business so if linux support keeps their customers away from vendors with a competing enterprise rdbms (e.g. ms/ibm) all the better

but, yeah there are enough success stories out there that the risk is perceived to be low by trembling cios

I'm not a massive nerd.

thanx for that, pants

beat it kid, the nerdz are talking

richer than you lol

except tom he works for the gubbermint

Le ouch.

um

http://www.clearancejobs.com/security_clearance_jobs_salary_survey3.pdf