Discussion:
I just want to browse my network!
(too old to reply)
jim
2008-06-09 00:54:05 UTC
Permalink
Dammit! I want so badly to get the hell away from Windows, that I am
spending ALL of my spare time trying out different Linux distros.

I tried xubuntu for a day or so - bad graphics.

I tried backtrack - not all that it's cracked up to be.

I am now trying Ubuntu 8.04 and I'll just be damned if the simple stuff
isn't still hard in Linux!!

This is what I would like.... With my XP Pro laptop, connecting to a
wireless network and browsing shared folders was as easy as clicking
"Connect to network" slecting the wireless network and clicking "Connect".
If there was a required key or password, Windows asked for it. You supply
the info and Windows simply connects to the network.

You can then open Windows Explorer and browse any shared folders that are
not password protected.

This is BASIC functionality that ALL Windows users NEED. What the hell is
this samba configuration crap?

I must be missing something here.

PLEASE tell me I am missing something here and that connecting to a network
and browsing shared folders really IS just as easy in Linux as in Windows.

jim
Dan C
2008-06-09 01:38:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim
I am now trying Ubuntu 8.04 and I'll just be damned if the simple stuff
isn't still hard in Linux!!
Fuck off, troll.


___________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please do |
/ O O\__ NOT |
/ \ feed the |
/ \ \ trolls |
/ _ \ \ ______________|
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ \ __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
Now filtering out all posts originating from Google Groups.
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Unruh
2008-06-09 02:16:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim
Dammit! I want so badly to get the hell away from Windows, that I am
spending ALL of my spare time trying out different Linux distros.
And you are going about it all wrong. Just pick something and use it. (Of
course you are probably a troll anyway, in which case it does not matter)
Post by jim
I tried xubuntu for a day or so - bad graphics.
Since all distros use the same display-- X -- this is the same everywhere,
unless you happened not to like the particular pictures it displays. This
is like getting a new car because paper seat matts the garage put down are
the wrong colour.
Post by jim
I tried backtrack - not all that it's cracked up to be.
I am now trying Ubuntu 8.04 and I'll just be damned if the simple stuff
isn't still hard in Linux!!
What simple stuff.
Post by jim
This is what I would like.... With my XP Pro laptop, connecting to a
wireless network and browsing shared folders was as easy as clicking
"Connect to network" slecting the wireless network and clicking "Connect".
If there was a required key or password, Windows asked for it. You supply
the info and Windows simply connects to the network.
You can then open Windows Explorer and browse any shared folders that are
not password protected.
This is BASIC functionality that ALL Windows users NEED. What the hell is
this samba configuration crap?
It is an attempt to give you access to the proprietary Windows crap.
Post by jim
I must be missing something here.
PLEASE tell me I am missing something here and that connecting to a network
and browsing shared folders really IS just as easy in Linux as in Windows.
Lets see, you tell us that you want to use Linux and then complain that it
does not deal with Windows as well as windows deals with windows. Hmm.

Why not complain about your windows machine that it does not connect to the
Linux NFS system easily.
jim
2008-06-09 02:34:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Unruh
Post by jim
Dammit! I want so badly to get the hell away from Windows, that I am
spending ALL of my spare time trying out different Linux distros.
And you are going about it all wrong. Just pick something and use it. (Of
course you are probably a troll anyway, in which case it does not matter)
Why are you people fo fucking paranoid?

Is it because YOU are so abusive to people that come here with questions?
Post by Unruh
Post by jim
I tried xubuntu for a day or so - bad graphics.
Since all distros use the same display-- X -- this is the same everywhere,
unless you happened not to like the particular pictures it displays. This
is like getting a new car because paper seat matts the garage put down are
the wrong colour.
The graphics just looked crappy. Ubuntu looks fine.
Post by Unruh
Post by jim
I tried backtrack - not all that it's cracked up to be.
I am now trying Ubuntu 8.04 and I'll just be damned if the simple stuff
isn't still hard in Linux!!
What simple stuff.
Keep reading.....
Post by Unruh
Post by jim
This is what I would like.... With my XP Pro laptop, connecting to a
wireless network and browsing shared folders was as easy as clicking
"Connect to network" slecting the wireless network and clicking "Connect".
If there was a required key or password, Windows asked for it. You supply
the info and Windows simply connects to the network.
You can then open Windows Explorer and browse any shared folders that are
not password protected.
This is BASIC functionality that ALL Windows users NEED. What the hell is
this samba configuration crap?
It is an attempt to give you access to the proprietary Windows crap.
Why doesn't it "just work"?
Post by Unruh
Post by jim
I must be missing something here.
PLEASE tell me I am missing something here and that connecting to a network
and browsing shared folders really IS just as easy in Linux as in Windows.
Lets see, you tell us that you want to use Linux and then complain that it
does not deal with Windows as well as windows deals with windows. Hmm.
If you want people to use Linux, it HAS to be able to go and do what they
used to do in Windows.

This is just another stumbling block to adoption by Windows users.
Post by Unruh
Why not complain about your windows machine that it does not connect to the
Linux NFS system easily.
They don't have to play nice - they already own the desktop. You'll rarely
see a monopoly spending time or money to undo it's chokehold on a market.

jim
Unruh
2008-06-09 02:47:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim
Post by Unruh
Post by jim
Dammit! I want so badly to get the hell away from Windows, that I am
spending ALL of my spare time trying out different Linux distros.
And you are going about it all wrong. Just pick something and use it. (Of
course you are probably a troll anyway, in which case it does not matter)
Why are you people fo fucking paranoid?
Is it because YOU are so abusive to people that come here with questions?
You did not come here with questions. You came here to qvetch.
Despite that I gave you an answer.
Post by jim
Post by Unruh
Post by jim
I tried xubuntu for a day or so - bad graphics.
Since all distros use the same display-- X -- this is the same everywhere,
unless you happened not to like the particular pictures it displays. This
is like getting a new car because paper seat matts the garage put down are
the wrong colour.
The graphics just looked crappy. Ubuntu looks fine.
What graphics looks crappy? This is trying to ask a question? As I said,
this is like screaming because the car shop uses the wrong colours on their
seat mat protectors.
Post by jim
Post by Unruh
Post by jim
I tried backtrack - not all that it's cracked up to be.
I am now trying Ubuntu 8.04 and I'll just be damned if the simple stuff
isn't still hard in Linux!!
What simple stuff.
Keep reading.....
Post by Unruh
Post by jim
This is what I would like.... With my XP Pro laptop, connecting to a
wireless network and browsing shared folders was as easy as clicking
"Connect to network" slecting the wireless network and clicking "Connect".
If there was a required key or password, Windows asked for it. You supply
the info and Windows simply connects to the network.
You can then open Windows Explorer and browse any shared folders that are
not password protected.
This is BASIC functionality that ALL Windows users NEED. What the hell is
this samba configuration crap?
It is an attempt to give you access to the proprietary Windows crap.
Why doesn't it "just work"?
Why should it? Windows is a proprietary operating system. Microsoft hides
their stuff under huge layers of both laws ( trade secrecy) and active
discouragement. Why should it "just work"? Tell Microsoft to open their
systems and it will just work.
Post by jim
Post by Unruh
Post by jim
I must be missing something here.
PLEASE tell me I am missing something here and that connecting to a network
and browsing shared folders really IS just as easy in Linux as in Windows.
Lets see, you tell us that you want to use Linux and then complain that it
does not deal with Windows as well as windows deals with windows. Hmm.
If you want people to use Linux, it HAS to be able to go and do what they
used to do in Windows.
It does? Why does it HAVE to do that? I thought you used your computer for
work, not for browsing windoes folders>
Post by jim
This is just another stumbling block to adoption by Windows users.
It is?
Post by jim
Post by Unruh
Why not complain about your windows machine that it does not connect to the
Linux NFS system easily.
They don't have to play nice - they already own the desktop. You'll rarely
see a monopoly spending time or money to undo it's chokehold on a market.
So, go an use Windows. It seems to do everything you want it to do.
I certainly do not need Windows, nor do I need the ability to browse
folders on another windows computer. But if you do you can set up samba to
allow you to do so. But you apparently do not want to do that.
Christopher Hunter
2008-06-09 06:23:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim
If you want people to use Linux, it HAS to be able to go and do what they
used to do in Windows.
Linux does. It invariably does things /properly/ rather than "like
Windows". Networking in Linux is /trivially/ simple compared to Windoze
networking. Perhaps you need to read the manuals!

C.
jim
2008-06-09 06:43:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Hunter
Post by jim
If you want people to use Linux, it HAS to be able to go and do what they
used to do in Windows.
Linux does. It invariably does things /properly/ rather than "like
Windows".
That's right! Let's get all self-righteous and pissy instead of enabling
new linux users to get the work done that they need to.
Post by Christopher Hunter
Networking in Linux is /trivially/ simple compared to Windoze
networking.
You are soooooo right! Hell it'd take 2, maybe 3, clicks to see the shares
on any Windows system. Here, it evidentally dosen't work out of the box at
all.

Yep. Having to put together your OS is a hell of an improvement to just
getting to work!
Post by Christopher Hunter
Perhaps you need to read the manuals!
A link to solve these issues would be nice -- assuming you actually know
what you're talking about.

jim
Christopher Hunter
2008-06-09 07:38:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim
That's right! Let's get all self-righteous and pissy instead of enabling
new linux users to get the work done that they need to.
No question of self-righteousness - Windows /deliberately/ makes networking
obscure in an effort to prevent other OSs connecting to it. MS want you to
be locked-in to their rubbish forever.
Post by jim
Post by Christopher Hunter
Networking in Linux is /trivially/ simple compared to Windoze
networking.
You are soooooo right! Hell it'd take 2, maybe 3, clicks to see the
shares on any Windows system.
It takes /1/ /click/ to see other machines on /this/ network, with /proper/
networking enabled straight "out of the box".
Post by jim
Here, it evidentally dosen't work out of the box at all.
You just have to /tell/ your machine what the others are called, and give
passwords to them. It's trivially simple, and no more difficult than if
you were setting up a Windoze network with some measure of "security"
(there's actually no such thing as "Windows security" - it's very easily
breached).
Post by jim
Yep. Having to put together your OS is a hell of an improvement to just
getting to work!
Post by Christopher Hunter
Perhaps you need to read the manuals!
A link to solve these issues would be nice
Fair enough:

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/SettingUpSamba

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=202605

Google might help you too!

C.
jim
2008-06-09 10:15:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Hunter
Post by jim
That's right! Let's get all self-righteous and pissy instead of enabling
new linux users to get the work done that they need to.
No question of self-righteousness - Windows /deliberately/ makes networking
obscure in an effort to prevent other OSs connecting to it. MS want you to
be locked-in to their rubbish forever.
Unless Linux gets simple enough for the Windows masses to use, they'll get
their wish.
Post by Christopher Hunter
Post by jim
Post by Christopher Hunter
Networking in Linux is /trivially/ simple compared to Windoze
networking.
You are soooooo right! Hell it'd take 2, maybe 3, clicks to see the
shares on any Windows system.
It takes /1/ /click/ to see other machines on /this/ network, with /proper/
networking enabled straight "out of the box".
I am installing OpenSuse right now. If that doesn;t work right out of the
box, I give.
Post by Christopher Hunter
Post by jim
Here, it evidentally dosen't work out of the box at all.
You just have to /tell/ your machine what the others are called, and give
passwords to them. It's trivially simple, and no more difficult than if
you were setting up a Windoze network with some measure of "security"
(there's actually no such thing as "Windows security" - it's very easily
breached).
If I join a network using Windows I don;t have to know the names of the
other machines. And, I only have to know the usernames and passwords if the
shared folders are password protected.

The folders on my home network are shared and NOT password protected. I
should be able to see them with no problems - right out of the box.
Post by Christopher Hunter
Post by jim
Yep. Having to put together your OS is a hell of an improvement to just
getting to work!
Post by Christopher Hunter
Perhaps you need to read the manuals!
A link to solve these issues would be nice
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/SettingUpSamba
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=202605
I have Google so much that they banned my IP. All roads point to the same
linux tangled instructions of setting up Samba with machine names and
usernames and passwords. None of which is needed for shared folders without
passwords in Windows.

Thanks for the links. I'll check them out now.

jim
Dan C
2008-06-09 13:09:28 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 06:15:15 -0400, jim wrote:

<snip>
Post by jim
I am installing OpenSuse right now. If that doesn;t work right out of
the box, I give.
Good. Does "give" mean that you'll give up and just stick with your
precious Windoze, and therefore disappear from these Linux newsgroups?

Will the rest of you morons quit feeding this obvious fucking troll?
Sheesh.
--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
Now filtering out all posts originating from Google Groups.
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Sir Robin
2008-06-17 23:29:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim
Post by Christopher Hunter
Post by jim
That's right! Let's get all self-righteous and pissy instead of enabling
new linux users to get the work done that they need to.
No question of self-righteousness - Windows /deliberately/ makes networking
obscure in an effort to prevent other OSs connecting to it. MS want you to
be locked-in to their rubbish forever.
Unless Linux gets simple enough for the Windows masses to use, they'll get
their wish.
I have no doubt that it will get simple enough in every place where it is not
yet just as simple or even simpler... There are many things (not only, but
also including compatibility with various Windows specific areas, like NTFS
support) that 5 yers ago were more difficult (if not impossible) to set up
than in windows that are now simpler or just as simple. The development has
been amazing in spee and quality (not tomention features of linux that windows
dont even know about).

What ever is still lacking or harder will soon be just as easy. The developers
do know that it's a must for linux to be adopted also by the great majority
who dont want harder to learn (even if it's often more efficient when you do
learn) on desktops.
Post by jim
Post by Christopher Hunter
Post by jim
Post by Christopher Hunter
Networking in Linux is /trivially/ simple compared to Windoze
networking.
You are soooooo right! Hell it'd take 2, maybe 3, clicks to see the
shares on any Windows system.
It takes /1/ /click/ to see other machines on /this/ network, with /proper/
networking enabled straight "out of the box".
I am installing OpenSuse right now. If that doesn;t work right out of the
box, I give.
In all this time you could have stayed with one distro and learned how to do
it the "hard" (not that hard) way long time ago and could be using the system
now. If you are willing to spend this much time installing different distros
to just check it they support it out of the box would you not have the time to
learn how to set it up if it does not work out-of-the-box? Would have taken
less time...

If it helps, I can advice you how to maunt a known windows share from terminal
- there are other ways but I have not needed them so I dont remember off-hand
how to search for shares, how to mount them fram GUI, but I know how to mount
them and after that they are available on any file manager.

Other people (and guides) have information on how to do this and more in other
ways, I have just not felt the need to use other ways so I have not opent time
te check them out. I do know that there is GUI tools supporting these things.
Post by jim
Post by Christopher Hunter
Post by jim
Here, it evidentally dosen't work out of the box at all.
You just have to /tell/ your machine what the others are called, and give
passwords to them. It's trivially simple, and no more difficult than if
you were setting up a Windoze network with some measure of "security"
(there's actually no such thing as "Windows security" - it's very easily
breached).
If I join a network using Windows I don;t have to know the names of the
other machines. And, I only have to know the usernames and passwords if the
shared folders are password protected.
Naturally - you should be able to search them in Linux too, it does support
that, but then again, you propably do know the IP's and share names on your
local network so you could set up the system to automotically mount them with
this information too? Naturally linux also requires you to use name/password
(ie. credentials) if the share is not available without them.
Post by jim
The folders on my home network are shared and NOT password protected. I
should be able to see them with no problems - right out of the box.
You have a big thing with this "out of the box" thing. Even if you dont get
the support out of the box, you will have more things working out of the box
than you will with windows. If you insist them go ahead and keep looking a
distro that has this - I'm quite sure that there is such. However if I were
you, I would spend (less) time and learn how to set it up if not working out
of the box and after that you would not have to warry about that (and you
would know how to set it up again if you were to install another system on
your network with linux).

If you want to use linux, believe me, setting it up is not a big issue if it
really is not yet supported by major distros "out of the box" or at least by
very simple graphical tool.

Again, if you want, I can give instructions how to set up mounting a share
from terminal window - you have to set it up only once and after restarting
computer you can have it mount the share autamtically on boot or with one
command on command line after the boot. Other that that, I never have needed
anything more, that allows accessing the share, which I believe is the only
really necessary thing.
Post by jim
Post by Christopher Hunter
Post by jim
Yep. Having to put together your OS is a hell of an improvement to just
getting to work!
Post by Christopher Hunter
Perhaps you need to read the manuals!
A link to solve these issues would be nice
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/SettingUpSamba
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=202605
I have Google so much that they banned my IP. All roads point to the same
linux tangled instructions of setting up Samba with machine names and
usernames and passwords. None of which is needed for shared folders without
passwords in Windows.
Scrape off the username/password options if they are not needed. You dont have
to set those if your share is available without them - they are just options
that can be set, not must.
Post by jim
jim
--
***/--- Sir Robin (aka Jani Saksa) Bi-Sex and proud of it! ---\***
**/ email: ***@fiveam.NO-SPAM.org, <*> Reg. Linux user #290577 \**
*| Me, Drugs, DooM, Photos, Writings... http://soul.fiveam.org/robsku |*
**\--- GSM/SMS: +358 44 927 3992 ---/**
"Kun nuorille opetetaan, että kannabis on yhtä vaarallista kuin heroiini,
niin tokihan he oppivat, että heroiini on yhtä vaaratonta kuin kannabis."
Nemo
2008-06-18 09:50:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sir Robin
I have no doubt that it will get simple enough in every place where it
is not yet just as simple or even simpler... There are many things
(not only, but also including compatibility with various Windows
specific areas, like NTFS support) that 5 yers ago were more difficult
(if not impossible) to set up than in windows that are now simpler or
just as simple. The development has been amazing in spee and quality
(not tomention features of linux that windows dont even know about).
What ever is still lacking or harder will soon be just as easy. The
developers do know that it's a must for linux to be adopted also by
the great majority who dont want harder to learn (even if it's often
more efficient when you do learn) on desktops.
You may be confusing simple with easy, they are *not* the same thing.
A straight line is 'simple', a circle is 'simple' neither are 'easy' to
draw, unless one has the tools to do the job. Microsoft®/Windows®
is 'easy', but is it simple underneath the GUI? By simple I mean simple
enough to be able to do the same things as Microsoft®/Windows® does
with a GUI Wizard by editing Microsoft®/Windows® config files on an
equivalent to Midnight Commander?
--
Nemo
"Feather-footed through the plashy fen passes the questing vole"
Collin
2008-06-11 01:08:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan C
<snip>
If you want people to use Linux, it HAS to be able to go and do what they
used to do in Windows.
This is just another stumbling block to adoption by Windows users.
Post by Unruh
Why not complain about your windows machine that it does not connect to the
Linux NFS system easily.
They don't have to play nice - they already own the desktop. You'll rarely
see a monopoly spending time or money to undo it's chokehold on a market.
jim
We don't *want* people to use Linux. It's your choice. Linux too hard
for you? Go back to Windows. We don't give a damn, and we're happy with
our operating systems.

Collin
jim
2008-06-11 05:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Collin
Post by Dan C
<snip>
If you want people to use Linux, it HAS to be able to go and do what they
used to do in Windows.
This is just another stumbling block to adoption by Windows users.
Post by Unruh
Why not complain about your windows machine that it does not connect to the
Linux NFS system easily.
They don't have to play nice - they already own the desktop. You'll
rarely see a monopoly spending time or money to undo it's chokehold on a
market.
jim
We don't *want* people to use Linux.
Exactly.

jim
Dan C
2008-06-11 13:07:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim
Post by Collin
We don't *want* people to use Linux.
Exactly.
OK, now that that's settled, run the fuck along, troll, and use your
Windoze all you want. Just go away.
--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
Now filtering out all posts originating from Google Groups.
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Collin
2008-06-12 02:58:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim
Post by Collin
Post by Dan C
<snip>
If you want people to use Linux, it HAS to be able to go and do what they
used to do in Windows.
This is just another stumbling block to adoption by Windows users.
Post by Unruh
Why not complain about your windows machine that it does not connect to the
Linux NFS system easily.
They don't have to play nice - they already own the desktop. You'll
rarely see a monopoly spending time or money to undo it's chokehold on a
market.
jim
We don't *want* people to use Linux.
Exactly.
jim
I'm sorry, taking my post out of context here? Very much so.
Sir Robin
2008-06-17 23:33:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Collin
Post by Dan C
<snip>
If you want people to use Linux, it HAS to be able to go and do what they
used to do in Windows.
This is just another stumbling block to adoption by Windows users.
Post by Unruh
Why not complain about your windows machine that it does not connect to the
Linux NFS system easily.
They don't have to play nice - they already own the desktop. You'll rarely
see a monopoly spending time or money to undo it's chokehold on a market.
jim
We don't *want* people to use Linux. It's your choice. Linux too hard
for you? Go back to Windows. We don't give a damn, and we're happy with
our operating systems.
"We" are assholes. I'm not.

We then agin do want people to use linux. Specially those who are cleacly
interested, even if they need to be instructed that sometimes you need to
learm more to in the end get easyer te use system TrollBoy.
Post by Collin
Collin
--
***/--- Sir Robin (aka Jani Saksa) Bi-Sex and proud of it! ---\***
**/ email: ***@fiveam.NO-SPAM.org, <*> Reg. Linux user #290577 \**
*| Me, Drugs, DooM, Photos, Writings... http://soul.fiveam.org/robsku |*
**\--- GSM/SMS: +358 44 927 3992 ---/**
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur."
Dan C
2008-06-18 01:36:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sir Robin
Post by Collin
We don't *want* people to use Linux. It's your choice. Linux too hard
for you? Go back to Windows. We don't give a damn, and we're happy with
our operating systems.
"We" are assholes. I'm not.
You are a week late to the party, Win-droid. Stop feeding the fucking
troll, and go play with your Windoze like he does.

Bugger off and go update your viruses, or whatever it is you drooling
Win-droids do with your computers.
--
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he saw yet another BSOD occur.
Sir Robin
2008-06-17 22:34:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim
Post by Unruh
Post by jim
Dammit! I want so badly to get the hell away from Windows, that I am
spending ALL of my spare time trying out different Linux distros.
And you are going about it all wrong. Just pick something and use it. (Of
course you are probably a troll anyway, in which case it does not matter)
Why are you people fo fucking paranoid?
Is it because YOU are so abusive to people that come here with questions?
Not all of us. There are some assholes who spoil the good name of linux -
please just ignore their elitistic crap.
Post by jim
Post by Unruh
Post by jim
This is what I would like.... With my XP Pro laptop, connecting to a
wireless network and browsing shared folders was as easy as clicking
"Connect to network" slecting the wireless network and clicking "Connect".
If there was a required key or password, Windows asked for it. You supply
the info and Windows simply connects to the network.
You can then open Windows Explorer and browse any shared folders that are
not password protected.
This is BASIC functionality that ALL Windows users NEED. What the hell is
this samba configuration crap?
It is an attempt to give you access to the proprietary Windows crap.
Why doesn't it "just work"?
That depends. Also on how you define "just work" - if the distro is by default
configured to load modules (kinda drivers) or has them built in kernel for
supporting smbfs or cifs filesystem mounts them from terminal every related
tool already does work. If the distro is also by defaul using a file manager
that supports browsing and mounting windows network shares then it does just
work.

Some distros may be, I would think that Ubuntu prapably has quite good support
for this, how it works (I dont have Ubuntu and I mount shares from command
line, I prefer that) is prapably well documented on Ubuntu.

Other than this group, ubuntu web forums are also great source of information
(and seem to have loss those earlyer mentioned unfriendly elitistic assholes
around).
Post by jim
Post by Unruh
Post by jim
PLEASE tell me I am missing something here and that connecting to a network
and browsing shared folders really IS just as easy in Linux as in Windows.
Lets see, you tell us that you want to use Linux and then complain that it
does not deal with Windows as well as windows deals with windows. Hmm.
If you want people to use Linux, it HAS to be able to go and do what they
used to do in Windows.
Agreed. You should still understand that things may be just as ealy but Linux
is not windows - it has good support for accessing windows shares but it does
not mean that you do it same way. There are many ways how things can be done
and some are easyer, some harder. In windows it's quite easy to learn but not
most effective to use. On linux there are several ways.
Post by jim
This is just another stumbling block to adoption by Windows users.
I hope yau wont give up too easy :) It's a great system.
--
***/--- Sir Robin (aka Jani Saksa) Bi-Sex and proud of it! ---\***
**/ email: ***@fiveam.NO-SPAM.org, <*> Reg. Linux user #290577 \**
*| Me, Drugs, DooM, Photos, Writings... http://soul.fiveam.org/robsku |*
**\--- GSM/SMS: +358 44 927 3992 ---/**
"Kun nuorille opetetaan, että kannabis on yhtä vaarallista kuin heroiini,
niin tokihan he oppivat, että heroiini on yhtä vaaratonta kuin kannabis."
ray
2008-06-09 03:25:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim
Dammit! I want so badly to get the hell away from Windows, that I am
spending ALL of my spare time trying out different Linux distros.
I tried xubuntu for a day or so - bad graphics.
I tried backtrack - not all that it's cracked up to be.
I am now trying Ubuntu 8.04 and I'll just be damned if the simple stuff
isn't still hard in Linux!!
This is what I would like.... With my XP Pro laptop, connecting to a
wireless network and browsing shared folders was as easy as clicking
"Connect to network" slecting the wireless network and clicking
"Connect". If there was a required key or password, Windows asked for
it. You supply the info and Windows simply connects to the network.
You can then open Windows Explorer and browse any shared folders that
are not password protected.
This is BASIC functionality that ALL Windows users NEED. What the hell
is this samba configuration crap?
I must be missing something here.
PLEASE tell me I am missing something here and that connecting to a
network and browsing shared folders really IS just as easy in Linux as
in Windows.
jim
1) Linux is NOT MS.
2) have you tried 'linneighborhood' - that used to do what you asked
though I have not tried for several years.
jim
2008-06-09 06:44:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray
Post by jim
Dammit! I want so badly to get the hell away from Windows, that I am
spending ALL of my spare time trying out different Linux distros.
I tried xubuntu for a day or so - bad graphics.
I tried backtrack - not all that it's cracked up to be.
I am now trying Ubuntu 8.04 and I'll just be damned if the simple stuff
isn't still hard in Linux!!
This is what I would like.... With my XP Pro laptop, connecting to a
wireless network and browsing shared folders was as easy as clicking
"Connect to network" slecting the wireless network and clicking
"Connect". If there was a required key or password, Windows asked for
it. You supply the info and Windows simply connects to the network.
You can then open Windows Explorer and browse any shared folders that
are not password protected.
This is BASIC functionality that ALL Windows users NEED. What the hell
is this samba configuration crap?
I must be missing something here.
PLEASE tell me I am missing something here and that connecting to a
network and browsing shared folders really IS just as easy in Linux as
in Windows.
jim
1) Linux is NOT MS.
2) have you tried 'linneighborhood' - that used to do what you asked
though I have not tried for several years.
No. I saw it, but development stopped several years ago (2002 I think).

jim
elaich
2008-06-09 03:37:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim
I am now trying Ubuntu 8.04 and I'll just be damned if the simple stuff
isn't still hard in Linux!!
It's not necessarily hard. It's just different. It's "hard" becuase we have been used to doing things a
certain way for years, and learning a new way to do it seems daunting.

The easy network accessibility you mention in Windows is one of it's huge security holes.

I finally sat down today, and spent it getting Ubuntu up and running, with Xnews working. Xnews is
important enough to me that I won't run anything it won't run on. I had it running in Wine before, but
buggy as hell. Well, it just took some searching and experimentation and I have it running (almost)
perfectly. There's just one graphical glitch left which is just a minor bother.

Getting around the Linux file system is a major pain for a long time Windows user to learn, and being
denied the ability to do what I wish with my files is annoying. All that took was getting used to opening up a
terminal and typing 'sudo nautilus'. I grew up on CP/M, so I can learn this stuff. Windows makes you lazy.

I bet if you take the time, you'll find using Ubuntu just as easy, if not more so.
jim
2008-06-09 06:54:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by elaich
Post by jim
I am now trying Ubuntu 8.04 and I'll just be damned if the simple stuff
isn't still hard in Linux!!
It's not necessarily hard. It's just different. It's "hard" becuase we
have been used to doing things a
certain way for years, and learning a new way to do it seems daunting.
What seems daunting is having to do 10 times the work and still not get the
results you are after. What's daunting is having to figure out just how
your OS works and put the damn thing together (with missing parts scattered
about the internet and no "parts list" to tell you where they are).

If people had to learn how their fuel injected cars and the associated
computerized systems work, had to go on some sick scavenger hunt for parts
that are missing from the car (let's say the air conditioner's condenser)
there'd be about as many drivers as there are linux users.
Post by elaich
The easy network accessibility you mention in Windows is one of it's huge security holes.
I hear this a lot. But, I have NEVER gotten a virus. NEVER been hacked.
NEVER had to worry abotu security because the free solutions like Zone Alarm
ARE easy to install and configure. They come with everything. They just
work.
Post by elaich
I finally sat down today, and spent it getting Ubuntu up and running, with
Xnews working. Xnews is
important enough to me that I won't run anything it won't run on. I had it
running in Wine before, but
buggy as hell. Well, it just took some searching and experimentation and I
have it running (almost)
perfectly. There's just one graphical glitch left which is just a minor bother.
Spent the day to get an OS up and running? Wow. XP takes just over an hour
(with updates - but without antivirus, and other apps you'll need).
Post by elaich
Getting around the Linux file system is a major pain for a long time
Windows user to learn, and being
denied the ability to do what I wish with my files is annoying. All that
took was getting used to opening up a
terminal and typing 'sudo nautilus'. I grew up on CP/M, so I can learn
this stuff. Windows makes you lazy.
Lazy? Some would say that riding in a car instead of biking 10 miles to
work is lazy. I'd call it efficient.

Windows let's people (of all skill levels) just get work done. I've been
fighting with this Linux shit for a week and still haven't seen a single XP
PC through any of the distros I have tried.
Post by elaich
I bet if you take the time, you'll find using Ubuntu just as easy, if not more so.
Time is one thing I do not have to waste.

It works out of the box or it doesn't.

And I'm only one of BILLIONS of people that feel that way.

If Linux slows businesses down as much as it has slowed me down, there's no
way in hell linux will ever take the desktop.

jim
Christopher Hunter
2008-06-09 07:45:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim
If Linux slows businesses down as much as it has slowed me down, there's
no way in hell linux will ever take the desktop.
If you can't be bothered to /read/ /the/ /manuals/ then you can't blame
Linux for /your/ inadequacies!

Windows is entirely unusable for business - it /might/ be nice for gamers
and other kiddies, but if you're truly serious about getting work done,
Linux is your only viable option. Innumerable big businesses have seen
this - even the biggest global Banks are using Linux!

Take a step back. Read the damn manuals. /Forget/ /everything/
you "learnt" for Windows, and start again. Remember - there's a *right*
*way* and the Windows way for everything.

C.
jim
2008-06-09 10:22:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Hunter
Post by jim
If Linux slows businesses down as much as it has slowed me down, there's
no way in hell linux will ever take the desktop.
If you can't be bothered to /read/ /the/ /manuals/ then you can't blame
Linux for /your/ inadequacies!
Windows is entirely unusable for business - it /might/ be nice for gamers
and other kiddies, but if you're truly serious about getting work done,
Linux is your only viable option. Innumerable big businesses have seen
this - even the biggest global Banks are using Linux!
ROFLMAO! Dude!!! I owe you one. I am so f'ing tired, I really needed
that!

Windows is used in more businesses in a single country than all linux
installations in the world.

With Windows, you just get in a drive. With Linux, you have to assemble the
transmission, run all over town finding parts for the air conditioning,
radio, etc..

As far as big business is concerned, IBM is planning on dumping linux for
Macs. Yes, I know the cores are the same, but the implementation of the
distro is a hell of a lot different.
Post by Christopher Hunter
Take a step back. Read the damn manuals. /Forget/ /everything/
you "learnt" for Windows, and start again. Remember - there's a *right*
*way* and the Windows way for everything.
Look, I REALLY REALLY want to be a Linux advocate. But I cannot ethically
(or simply as a user) ignore the huge gapping holes in Linux.

PCs are made to help people get more done. And. as insecure as Windows
definitely is, more people can get more done with that bloated, insecure
piece of shit than they can with Linux.

I am speaking from a new user's experience here. This is not conjecture.

I will let you know how OpenSuse goes in a bit. I hope that their dealings
with Microsoft atleast lets them play well on the same network together
RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX.

I'll let you know.

jim
Christopher Hunter
2008-06-09 20:44:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim
Windows is used in more businesses in a single country than all linux
installations in the world.
Err... No! There are /many/ more computers (for example) in China than
there are in the USA. All the Chinese machines run their variant of Linux.

It's getting towards *Game* *Over* time for Windows.
Post by jim
With Windows, you just get in a drive. With Linux, you have to assemble
the transmission, run all over town finding parts for the air
conditioning, radio, etc..
Wrong. With Windoze you get "Notepad", a crippled web browser and that's
about it. With any competent distribution of Linux, you get a /full/
complement of programmes.

With Windoze, you have to get all the obscure hardware drivers for your
equipment - you're /really/ screwed if you want to use "Vista" - there are
almost *no* drivers available for most hardware.
Post by jim
As far as big business is concerned, IBM is planning on dumping linux for
Macs.
Hahaha! Don't be so silly. IBM /sponsor/ Linux development, and
abhor /anything/ to do with Apple.
Post by jim
Yes, I know the cores are the same, but the implementation of the
distro is a hell of a lot different.
Get a clue. Mac OSX is based on BSD - /nothing/ to do with Linux - and is
a /very/ poor implementation. Apple made some really stupid decisions
which have rendered their operating system highly vulnerable and rather
unstable.
Post by jim
Post by Christopher Hunter
Take a step back. Read the damn manuals. /Forget/ /everything/
you "learnt" for Windows, and start again. Remember - there's a *right*
*way* and the Windows way for everything.
Look, I REALLY REALLY want to be a Linux advocate. But I cannot ethically
(or simply as a user) ignore the huge gapping holes in Linux.
Do you mean "gaping"? Can't see any. That's why 90% of web servers run
Linux. That's why major global corporations went with Linux. That's why
the governments of all the /growing/ economies in the world are using
Linux. That's why /sensible/ people all over the world use Linux.
Post by jim
PCs are made to help people get more done. And. as insecure as Windows
definitely is, more people can get more done with that bloated, insecure
piece of shit than they can with Linux.
/Entirely/ wrong.
Post by jim
I am speaking from a new user's experience here. This is not conjecture.
It might be *your* experience - but all that shows is either your
unwillingness or inability to learn or your fundamental stupidity.
Post by jim
I will let you know how OpenSuse goes in a bit. I hope that their
dealings with Microsoft atleast lets them play well on the same network
together RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX.
It won't. It's not meant to!

*PLONK*
Davorin Vlahovic
2008-06-09 21:34:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Hunter
Post by jim
As far as big business is concerned, IBM is planning on dumping linux for
Macs.
Hahaha! Don't be so silly. IBM /sponsor/ Linux development, and
abhor /anything/ to do with Apple.
No, no, he's actually right on this one.

http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/04/16/ibm-steps-up-mac-migration-experiment-with-good-feedback

But do note that developing on unix os (which MacOS X is) is better for Linux
than developing on/using windows platform. It's not very likely that IBM will
embrace Objective-C so Linux-compatible source code (ie. OpenGL+POSIX
apps written in C/C++) is still a go.
--
Due to a shortage of devoted followers, the production of great leaders
has been discontinued.
Sir Robin
2008-06-18 01:56:11 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 21:34:22 +0000 (UTC), Davorin Vlahovic
Post by Davorin Vlahovic
Post by Christopher Hunter
Post by jim
As far as big business is concerned, IBM is planning on dumping linux for
Macs.
Hahaha! Don't be so silly. IBM /sponsor/ Linux development, and
abhor /anything/ to do with Apple.
No, no, he's actually right on this one.
http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/04/16/ibm-steps-up-mac-migration-experiment-with-good-feedback
Ah, so they are not at all going away from Linux. Quote:
"Combined with the ability to run Mac OS X, Linux, and Windows, and their
award-winning industrial design, Apple computers are starting to win over IT
departments.n"
--
***/--- Sir Robin (aka Jani Saksa) Bi-Sex and proud of it! ---\***
**/ email: ***@fiveam.NO-SPAM.org, <*> Reg. Linux user #290577 \**
*| Me, Drugs, DooM, Photos, Writings... http://soul.fiveam.org/robsku |*
**\--- GSM/SMS: +358 44 927 3992 ---/**
"Sir Robin valehtelee järjestelmällisesti" - Nikolas Mäki
jim
2008-06-09 21:50:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Hunter
Post by jim
Windows is used in more businesses in a single country than all linux
installations in the world.
Err... No! There are /many/ more computers (for example) in China than
there are in the USA. All the Chinese machines run their variant of Linux.
It's getting towards *Game* *Over* time for Windows.
Are you high? Seriously....have you been bowing at the bong altar today or
what?

Microsoft loses approx $1 BILLION a year to piracy in China. Even the
Chinese want to run Windows. They won;t pay for it, but they'll run it.

As for "their (own) variant of Linux", that story was circulated circa 2000,
2002, 2004. Haven't heard anything about it in nearly 4 years now....but we
keep hearing about the Microsoft Windows piracy that is STILL so rampant.
Post by Christopher Hunter
Post by jim
With Windows, you just get in a drive. With Linux, you have to assemble
the transmission, run all over town finding parts for the air
conditioning, radio, etc..
Wrong. With Windoze you get "Notepad", a crippled web browser and that's
about it. With any competent distribution of Linux, you get a /full/
complement of programmes.
I can't even browse shared folders on a network without writing out some
fucking config file for Samba! Who gives a shit what apps you have if you
can't i nteract with 95% of the civilized world.
Post by Christopher Hunter
With Windoze, you have to get all the obscure hardware drivers for your
equipment - you're /really/ screwed if you want to use "Vista" - there are
almost *no* drivers available for most hardware.
That was true when it first came out, but now most devices have Vista
drivers. Don;t get me wrong, there are other reasons not to use Vista - so
stick with XP.
Post by Christopher Hunter
Post by jim
As far as big business is concerned, IBM is planning on dumping linux for
Macs.
Hahaha! Don't be so silly. IBM /sponsor/ Linux development, and
abhor /anything/ to do with Apple.
I don't believe it! I have actually found an elusive fucktard running loose
in the wild!

If you can be bothered to pull your head out of that penguin's ass for a
moment, you may want to read
http://www.tuaw.com/2008/04/16/ibm-considering-macs-for-employees/ and
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/04/16/ibm-launches-pilot-program-for-migrating-to-macs/.
Post by Christopher Hunter
Post by jim
Yes, I know the cores are the same, but the implementation of the
distro is a hell of a lot different.
Get a clue. Mac OSX is based on BSD - /nothing/ to do with Linux - and is
a /very/ poor implementation. Apple made some really stupid decisions
which have rendered their operating system highly vulnerable and rather
unstable.
IBM doesn't think so. But, I'll bet you are years ahead of some little
company like IBM in researching Apple, aren't you?
Post by Christopher Hunter
Post by jim
Post by Christopher Hunter
Take a step back. Read the damn manuals. /Forget/ /everything/
you "learnt" for Windows, and start again. Remember - there's a *right*
*way* and the Windows way for everything.
Look, I REALLY REALLY want to be a Linux advocate. But I cannot ethically
(or simply as a user) ignore the huge gapping holes in Linux.
Do you mean "gaping"? Can't see any. That's why 90% of web servers run
Linux. That's why major global corporations went with Linux. That's why
the governments of all the /growing/ economies in the world are using
Linux. That's why /sensible/ people all over the world use Linux.
When did "sensible" and big corporations and big government ever meet? They
are the FIRST sign that something should be avoided like the black plague.
Post by Christopher Hunter
Post by jim
PCs are made to help people get more done. And. as insecure as Windows
definitely is, more people can get more done with that bloated, insecure
piece of shit than they can with Linux.
/Entirely/ wrong.
Dude, I live it.
Post by Christopher Hunter
Post by jim
I am speaking from a new user's experience here. This is not conjecture.
It might be *your* experience - but all that shows is either your
unwillingness or inability to learn or your fundamental stupidity.
Yes, that must be it.
Post by Christopher Hunter
Post by jim
I will let you know how OpenSuse goes in a bit. I hope that their
dealings with Microsoft atleast lets them play well on the same network
together RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX.
It won't. It's not meant to!
Finally a little truth. Linux is not meant to work out of the box.

Open Suse took 3.5 hours to install (because of all of the fking downloads
and patches) and then it crashed on restart.
Post by Christopher Hunter
*PLONK*
Thank you.

jim
Baldylocks-Ubuntu
2008-06-09 22:13:59 UTC
Permalink
On Monday 09 Jun 2008 22:50 jim licked a pencil and jotted:

snip
Post by jim
Open Suse took 3.5 hours to install (because of all of the fking downloads
and patches) and then it crashed on restart.
Post by Christopher Hunter
*PLONK*
Thank you.
jim
That'll be the chair:keyboard interface driver. It would appear to be
incompatible with your hardware.

David
--
Knowledge is of two kinds: we know a subject ourselves, or we know where we
can find information upon it. (Samuel Johnson)
Only the mediocre are always at their best. (Jean Giraudoux)
(Reply address genuine - Checked occasionally)
Sir Robin
2008-06-18 04:32:37 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 17:50:45 -0400, "jim" <***@home.net> wrote:

NOTE: After almost finishing writing this message I decided to google and with
ONE search and TWO links found guide on EXACTLY what you want - it's in the
end of mesage - no configuration file editing needed.
Post by jim
Post by Christopher Hunter
Post by jim
With Windows, you just get in a drive. With Linux, you have to assemble
the transmission, run all over town finding parts for the air
conditioning, radio, etc..
Wrong. With Windoze you get "Notepad", a crippled web browser and that's
about it. With any competent distribution of Linux, you get a /full/
complement of programmes.
I can't even browse shared folders on a network without writing out some
fucking config file for Samba! Who gives a shit what apps you have if you
can't i nteract with 95% of the civilized world.
Although I said that I dont know how to do them (I've never checked) I DO know
that I had a fucking graphical tool for configuring Samba already years ago on
my Red Hat 9, maybe even on Red Hat 7! You have not even TRIED to rheck the
basic manus, those setup tools were already back then installed automatically,
not afterwards by me (as I never needed nor used them).

MAYBE you should even try to look through the administration menu!?

Besides the point I dont know what is the big fuss on writing Samba
configuration file... but nevertheless, I'm pretty sure that Ubuntu for
example has such tool installed by default - if not then one can be installed
(dont know names for any as, again, neven have needed them myself).
Post by jim
Post by Christopher Hunter
With Windoze, you have to get all the obscure hardware drivers for your
equipment - you're /really/ screwed if you want to use "Vista" - there are
almost *no* drivers available for most hardware.
That was true when it first came out, but now most devices have Vista
drivers. Don;t get me wrong, there are other reasons not to use Vista - so
stick with XP.
What if I have, for example, a second video card, old PCI card I bought on 95
and that I use for my third monitor to get, hmmm... right, windows cant show
two different desktops at same time, but maybe it can use more than one vid
card... Anyway, there propably never was any XP driver made for it... But it
works on my linux which comes supporting it without installing extra drivers.
It's perfectly good enough for many things and for example in gaming I can use
the display on my modern card - hmm, if set up to use two cards with three
monitors, can I run 3d accelerated games on just the modern card even if
desktop is stretched on all three monitors (the old card does not even support
3d acceleration, but why would I buy new one, I dont need that for what I do
on third monitor and the old works fine?)
Post by jim
Post by Christopher Hunter
Post by jim
As far as big business is concerned, IBM is planning on dumping linux for
Macs.
Hahaha! Don't be so silly. IBM /sponsor/ Linux development, and
abhor /anything/ to do with Apple.
I don't believe it! I have actually found an elusive fucktard running loose
in the wild!
Yes, it's true, they use mac - to run OS X, Windows and... *drum roll*
...linux!

They did not dump Linux for macs, they dumped PC's for macs... Linux, unlike
windows, runs on hyge scale of different platforms but as macs are what they
are today they did not even switch processor architechture. If they need to
run these three OS's then the switch was reasoned as you cant legally run OS X
on non-apple computers.
*Nothing* to do with dumping linux, which was a false claim.
Post by jim
If you can be bothered to pull your head out of that penguin's ass for a
moment, you may want to read
http://www.tuaw.com/2008/04/16/ibm-considering-macs-for-employees/ and
No mention of Linux here, only Windows and OS X, however...
Post by jim
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/04/16/ibm-launches-pilot-program-for-migrating-to-macs/.
...I have no idea if you read those articles, but you need to read better...
Let me quote:
**** Start quote ****
A summary of the pilot program, detailed in a IBM document obtained by
RoughlyDrafted, revealed that IBM is actively working to move away from its
dependence upon Microsoft Windows and toward a heterogeneous cross-platform
future.
"In line with IBM's external strategy of offering a true 'Open Client' that
may be Windows, Linux or a Mac," the document noted, "Research IS is focusing
on providing an IBM application stack on multiple Operating Systems, rather
than be confined to one or the other."
**** End quote ****

So the thing that they are not dumping is not linux - not windows either, but
they are "dumping" dependence on windows... So how do you make it a loss for
linux out of these artiles? It's actually mostly negative for MS, which has
shown growing concern about Linux. Propably not so negative for apple, they
have their own loyal customer base based on very different things than windows
users (and macs can be used to legally run any/all of these three OS).
Post by jim
Post by Christopher Hunter
Get a clue. Mac OSX is based on BSD - /nothing/ to do with Linux - and is
a /very/ poor implementation. Apple made some really stupid decisions
which have rendered their operating system highly vulnerable and rather
unstable.
IBM doesn't think so. But, I'll bet you are years ahead of some little
company like IBM in researching Apple, aren't you?
The reasons were explained an above, quote from article you linked and which
proved your own claim wrong. If they want cross-development for platforms
including OS X then macs are not a choice but a must. You cant buy a license
for OS X separately and the license does not allow installing on PC (although
it's possible since macs use x86 processors now too).
Post by jim
Post by Christopher Hunter
Do you mean "gaping"? Can't see any. That's why 90% of web servers run
Linux. That's why major global corporations went with Linux. That's why
the governments of all the /growing/ economies in the world are using
Linux. That's why /sensible/ people all over the world use Linux.
When did "sensible" and big corporations and big government ever meet?
Sometimes - hove no statistics on how often versus how often not ;)
Post by jim
Post by Christopher Hunter
Post by jim
PCs are made to help people get more done. And. as insecure as Windows
definitely is, more people can get more done with that bloated, insecure
piece of shit than they can with Linux.
/Entirely/ wrong.
Dude, I live it.
So far you have told about trying couple distros, not "living it". I need to
use both but at home I use over 99% of time linux (100% concidering that I run
only win on virtual machine on top of running linux). I have lived it since
2002 and used windows since Win 3.0 on old 286. The only thing I ever have to
check is that hardware I buy is supported - and so far I had not found myself
havinc to choose more inferior product because something is not supported nor
to choose equivalent but more expensive product. Next addition to system will
be Hauppages digital TV card. I believe that the video player I have installed
already supports it too so there should be nothing to set up for viewing but
posibbly something for saving (although I thin mplayer/mencoder could well
have support for that too, at least it has an option to use saving to file as
"output device".

I live it. I love it. The reasons to stick with linux have been only growing,
zero reaons to other direction since 2002.
Post by jim
Post by Christopher Hunter
Post by jim
I will let you know how OpenSuse goes in a bit. I hope that their
dealings with Microsoft atleast lets them play well on the same network
together RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX.
It won't. It's not meant to!
Finally a little truth. Linux is not meant to work out of the box.
That is not what he said - he might be unpolite, but you are twisting his
words on this.

Different distros may have different purposes - there are some made specially
for one purpose (example one is for music producing with goal of everything
working out of the box - although not necessary for all other uses) and while
some distros are specifically made for those who like to build their systems
by hand almost totally (as hobby), most distros most certainly are made to
work as far as sensible "out of the box".

More deeply then again: What is the goal of linux? Nothing and everything - as
a kernel it can be used in almost anything controlled my microprocessor. I'll
let Locutus explain it if yau are interested (a bit out of topic):
What is the ultimate goal of linux:
http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/linux/locutus/archives/what-is-the-ultimate-goal-of-linux-25291
Post by jim
Open Suse took 3.5 hours to install (because of all of the fking downloads
and patches) and then it crashed on restart.
I say that judging on your messages I have so far read you should try Ubuntu
again. While it's not my choice I would say that the distro to most propably
fullfill your needs is Ubuntu. And remember, there are tools to setup Samba
and it's not hard with them (easyer than setting up network adapter for static
IP on local network on Windows I bet, and would you call that hard?) - ubuntu
propably (I would bet) installs with such program by default (if not, ask a
name for good one, run synaptic packet manager and select it for install).

I preferred and on my 1st computer still have fedora but fell in love with
debian after installing it on this second (my main reason to try it was that I
had little experience of it, knew it was good and allowed to select a very
plain and small base install). Ubuntu is based on debian and although that
would not be MY choice (personal preferences) it's a very good distro and has
what you want as one of main goals (to "just work") with very strong emphasis.

HOW TO BROWSE FILES (Ubuntu):

I found uber simple guide for both sharing and browsing for other windows
shares. The link is in bottom, but essential parts for accessing shares I
paste here (if you want to share from linux, very easy on Ubuntu, all set up
done with graphical tools too.

1. Install smbfs package: Open terminal window and type
"sudo apt-get install smbfs". Your password will be asked. After install close
terminal window.

2. Network configuration: From the menus start "System -> Administration ->
Network".
In the "general" tab fill in options:
Host Settings
Hostname: <yourcomputer>
Domain name: <yourdomain>

Windows Networking
Tick Enable Windows networking
Description: <whateveryouwant>
Domain/Workgroup: <yourdomainorworkgroup>

3. Browsing SMB shares

Ubuntu and Gnome make it easy to access files on a Windows network share.

Open the Computer Menu, then click on "Network". You'll see a "Windows
network" icon, open it. The next window shows all the domains/workgroups found
in your network. Inside each domain/workgroup you get all the computers in it
(that is, those sharing something !). Double-click on a computer icon to
access its shares and files. Could it be easier ?

This information and info to set up samba server to also share from linux was
at:
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/SettingUpSambaa

Now I did quite a job just to make it easy as possible for you, even cut&paste
all the essential info you have been asking for from guide. Can you still say
that it's too hard, needs assembly? Could it be easyer? Only if smbfs was
installed by default (I'm surprised it's not on Ubuntu) so you could drop step
1.

ONE SEARH ON GOOGLE - you were talking about gaping holes and everything?

Anyway, good luck and try a little harder next time ;) No offence meant by
that - remember, this guide is for ubuntu specifically. Other distros may have
minor differences, some may have large. Install Ubuntu, I recomment that
distro for your needs.
--
***/--- Sir Robin (aka Jani Saksa) Bi-Sex and proud of it! ---\***
**/ email: ***@fiveam.NO-SPAM.org, <*> Reg. Linux user #290577 \**
*| Me, Drugs, DooM, Photos, Writings... http://soul.fiveam.org/robsku |*
**\--- GSM/SMS: +358 44 927 3992 ---/**
"I like the trees, you know? I like the way that the trees are on mountains,
all the different... the way the trees are."
dennis@home
2008-06-09 22:29:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Hunter
Post by jim
Windows is used in more businesses in a single country than all linux
installations in the world.
Err... No! There are /many/ more computers (for example) in China than
there are in the USA. All the Chinese machines run their variant of Linux.
really? even the windows ones?
Post by Christopher Hunter
It's getting towards *Game* *Over* time for Windows.
Post by jim
With Windows, you just get in a drive. With Linux, you have to assemble
the transmission, run all over town finding parts for the air
conditioning, radio, etc..
Wrong. With Windoze you get "Notepad", a crippled web browser and that's
about it. With any competent distribution of Linux, you get a /full/
complement of programmes.
The same programs are also available on windows in case you hadn't noticed.
There are many reasons why someone might need to run linux but not being
able to run OSS on windows isn't one of them.
Post by Christopher Hunter
With Windoze, you have to get all the obscure hardware drivers for your
equipment - you're /really/ screwed if you want to use "Vista" - there are
almost *no* drivers available for most hardware.
Yet again you are here telling me that the vista machine I am using can't
work.
You keep doing that and it still does.
Post by Christopher Hunter
Post by jim
As far as big business is concerned, IBM is planning on dumping linux for
Macs.
Hahaha! Don't be so silly. IBM /sponsor/ Linux development, and
abhor /anything/ to do with Apple.
Post by jim
Yes, I know the cores are the same, but the implementation of the
distro is a hell of a lot different.
Get a clue. Mac OSX is based on BSD - /nothing/ to do with Linux - and is
a /very/ poor implementation. Apple made some really stupid decisions
which have rendered their operating system highly vulnerable and rather
unstable.
Get a clue, 99% of BSD is the same software as a linux distro.
The kernel is different and in many ways better if you have the right
hardware.

Is everything you post so flawed?
Sir Robin
2008-06-18 04:59:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@home
Post by Christopher Hunter
Post by jim
With Windows, you just get in a drive. With Linux, you have to assemble
the transmission, run all over town finding parts for the air
conditioning, radio, etc..
Wrong. With Windoze you get "Notepad", a crippled web browser and that's
about it. With any competent distribution of Linux, you get a /full/
complement of programmes.
The same programs are also available on windows in case you hadn't noticed.
There are many reasons why someone might need to run linux but not being
able to run OSS on windows isn't one of them.
Yes, you can get many (not nearly all) of them but:
* Does not ship with install media
* Cant be searched' selected and installed via packet manager...
* ...resultung alsa in no autamatic fetching & installing of missing
dependencies (ie. GTK library for pidgin/gaim or vbrun libraries required by
many visual basic programs), you have to install them separately and just like
programs...
* ...you will need to search web, find & download installer and run it. For
each program/library (with exception of unix programs converted to run under
cygwin & available from cygwins installer/setup program)
Post by ***@home
Post by Christopher Hunter
With Windoze, you have to get all the obscure hardware drivers for your
equipment - you're /really/ screwed if you want to use "Vista" - there are
almost *no* drivers available for most hardware.
Yet again you are here telling me that the vista machine I am using can't
work.
You keep doing that and it still does.
Vista not good for work propably holds true on more cases than linux not good
for same work though...
--
***/--- Sir Robin (aka Jani Saksa) Bi-Sex and proud of it! ---\***
**/ email: ***@fiveam.NO-SPAM.org, <*> Reg. Linux user #290577 \**
*| Me, Drugs, DooM, Photos, Writings... http://soul.fiveam.org/robsku |*
**\--- GSM/SMS: +358 44 927 3992 ---/**
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur."
Sir Robin
2008-06-18 01:48:21 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:44:49 +0100, Christopher Hunter
Post by Christopher Hunter
Post by jim
Windows is used in more businesses in a single country than all linux
installations in the world.
Err... No! There are /many/ more computers (for example) in China than
there are in the USA. All the Chinese machines run their variant of Linux.
Nope, "all" is quite an overstatement and overstatements, as all lies do no
benefit for linux - unless if by "all" your mean computers used by intitutions
of government.
Post by Christopher Hunter
It's getting towards *Game* *Over* time for Windows.
Hopefully and IMHO eventually this then again will happen in time.
Post by Christopher Hunter
Post by jim
With Windows, you just get in a drive. With Linux, you have to assemble
the transmission, run all over town finding parts for the air
conditioning, radio, etc..
Wrong. With Windoze you get "Notepad", a crippled web browser and that's
about it. With any competent distribution of Linux, you get a /full/
complement of programmes.
Excellent point. Vista comes on DVD wile some distros can still be installed
from sigle CD and come with huge amount of all kinds of software from little
used obscure servers to most common office program package after MS Office
(hopefully in future The most common). With Windows you have to intall them
afterwards - and no, there is no program where you can select "WinSCP" and
press install but you have to search them from meb pages, dowload them and run
the installer. This is to be done for every application you can download for
free - there is NO any kid of repository system.
Post by Christopher Hunter
With Windoze, you have to get all the obscure hardware drivers for your
equipment - you're /really/ screwed if you want to use "Vista" - there are
almost *no* drivers available for most hardware.
And with lot of hardware you dont get only what yau need but usually a bloated
pack of software that you prapably never end up using.

Still to be truthfull, there is certain hardware types with very support for
very limited amount of products and couple video cards that you need to
install a preprietary drivers for (however I hear that nowdays even ATI and
nvidia drivers are available straight from repositorys on many distros so you
no longer have to hand-install them - which was a pain for many with ATI
drivers).
--
***/--- Sir Robin (aka Jani Saksa) Bi-Sex and proud of it! ---\***
**/ email: ***@fiveam.NO-SPAM.org, <*> Reg. Linux user #290577 \**
*| Me, Drugs, DooM, Photos, Writings... http://soul.fiveam.org/robsku |*
**\--- GSM/SMS: +358 44 927 3992 ---/**
"Kun nuorille opetetaan, että kannabis on yhtä vaarallista kuin heroiini,
niin tokihan he oppivat, että heroiini on yhtä vaaratonta kuin kannabis."
Sir Robin
2008-06-18 01:27:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim
Post by Christopher Hunter
Post by jim
If Linux slows businesses down as much as it has slowed me down, there's
no way in hell linux will ever take the desktop.
If you can't be bothered to /read/ /the/ /manuals/ then you can't blame
Linux for /your/ inadequacies!
Windows is entirely unusable for business - it /might/ be nice for gamers
and other kiddies, but if you're truly serious about getting work done,
Linux is your only viable option. Innumerable big businesses have seen
this - even the biggest global Banks are using Linux!
ROFLMAO! Dude!!! I owe you one. I am so f'ing tired, I really needed
that!
Windows is used in more businesses in a single country than all linux
installations in the world.
With Windows, you just get in a drive. With Linux, you have to assemble the
transmission, run all over town finding parts for the air conditioning,
radio, etc..
Simply not true. You have brought up ONE issu that you have. I can list more
issues than that one on linux - but I can list more issues than that from
Windows.

Don-t exagarate, Linux is not today what it was it was in 90's (unless of
course you pick up a distro meant for those who WANT to assemble all things or
really start building your own system piece by piece. You CAN do that with
linux, you DON'T have to and most DO NOT.

Some people have been assholes and other peoples may have opinions that seem
radical to you - but dont lower yourself on the asshole-ones level.

Here's one radical opinion - you dont have to agree and I will still help you
where and if I can no matter what you think: I say that today with modern
distros targetted for rogular people your claim holds more true if you swap
the names Windows and Linux from your claim - and I could IMO even justify the
claim but I have no enerdy to spend time on that. Think of my claim what you
want, but let's not make it an obstacle between us no matter if you disagree.
Post by jim
As far as big business is concerned, IBM is planning on dumping linux for
Macs. Yes, I know the cores are the same, but the implementation of the
distro is a hell of a lot different.
This means little without knowing their reasons for the change. The
differences in implementation however are propably way smaller than you think
- and it's not like either implementation (or implementations, as for linux
there are various ways for various things) have only benefits over another.
Surely both have their good and bad sides. Personally I cant thin of why they
have come up with such decision, but I'd love to know.
Post by jim
Post by Christopher Hunter
Take a step back. Read the damn manuals. /Forget/ /everything/
you "learnt" for Windows, and start again. Remember - there's a *right*
*way* and the Windows way for everything.
Look, I REALLY REALLY want to be a Linux advocate. But I cannot ethically
(or simply as a user) ignore the huge gapping holes in Linux.
So far yau have mentioned one issue - and I dont know if yau have many more,
but even if it seems such for you now I know that this issue is hardly a
gapping hole but at best a small nuance that is easy to overcome.
Post by jim
PCs are made to help people get more done. And. as insecure as Windows
definitely is, more people can get more done with that bloated, insecure
piece of shit than they can with Linux.
I am speaking from a new user's experience here. This is not conjecture.
Most people could learn... the issues linux still has that are really too hard
or impossible to overcome for some peoples needs are most issues that really
cover only a small part of regular users. For most users the biggest issue is
that some people need things that need a bit more learning to set up than they
do in windows. And I've seen computer newbies handle many such issues - most
using ubuntu and following guides from ubuntu support pages and/or forums.
They may have had to enter commands that they dont understand in terminal
window but the lack of understanding is no different than lack of
understanding what exactly happens inside of windows whan you select the final
"Ok" button for mapping a network drive ;)

Yes, I know that this still needs to got even easyer for those who want it
easy but I know you could cope with it.

Now, again, if yau have more issues that seem big for you I'd like to hear
them and see if thef are big or mall and if I could help with them :)
Post by jim
I will let you know how OpenSuse goes in a bit. I hope that their dealings
with Microsoft atleast lets them play well on the same network together
RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX.
Still, consider the option of accepting it to not work "out of the box"... it
is NOT a big thing to set up if it does not work and there are people (like
me) whe are willing to help out with it. I might even spend little time to
check other ways for it but I could easily explain how to maunt a share from
terminal and even to set it mount it automatically mount at boot - and about
terminal, when set up corrrectly there is a command to list available shares
that show themselves on local network...

I'm pretty sure that ubutu also has graphical filemanager that can browse
shares and mount them - I dont know if it works out of the box... And remember
to have correct ports on your firewall open - in ubuntu use FireStarter for
really easy firewall setup (FireStarter should be available for most other
distros too but I personally use automatically generated and then hand editet
script that sets up it with iptables on boot).
Post by jim
jim
--
***/--- Sir Robin (aka Jani Saksa) Bi-Sex and proud of it! ---\***
**/ email: ***@fiveam.NO-SPAM.org, <*> Reg. Linux user #290577 \**
*| Me, Drugs, DooM, Photos, Writings... http://soul.fiveam.org/robsku |*
**\--- GSM/SMS: +358 44 927 3992 ---/**
"I like the trees, you know? I like the way that the trees are on mountains,
all the different... the way the trees are."
Johan Lindquist
2008-06-09 08:34:57 UTC
Permalink
So anyway, it was like, 08:54 CEST Jun 09 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
jim was all like, "Dude,
Post by jim
What seems daunting is having to do 10 times the work and still not
get the results you are after.
When the results you are after boils down to "working exactly like
microsoft windows and integrating seamlessly with microsoft windows
systems", the easiest way to achieve them is generally to run
microsoft windows.

hth, hand.
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
10:32:35 up 40 days, 15:59, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00
Linux 2.6.23.12 x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729
birre
2008-06-09 09:14:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim
If people had to learn how their fuel injected cars and the associated
computerized systems work, had to go on some sick scavenger hunt for parts
that are missing from the car (let's say the air conditioner's condenser)
there'd be about as many drivers as there are linux users.
Ohhyeees, the car is back :-)

Now you have a car designed to stop on some roads, but the manual tell you
that the fuel injection box has a jumper you can move to make it run on all roads.

You will find that the average Joe/Jane driver will figure out how to move it,
and they who are to stupid can get help.

The reason for your problem and the lack of network browsing in linux is due
to the fact that windows is designed for personal usage in a home or small office.

You will not browse network resources of a large enterprise network, so
it is not active by default, but can be setup for experts.
Q. Why only for experts?
A. If any n00b enable it, there will be broadcast/multicast storms.

I have one slp server at home, where all my network services will be registered.

At the moment I install a new linux machine, it instantly know about
all servers on the net, like ssh,IPP,NFS,VNC,NTP, and whatever.

Just install and printers, shares are there for usage.
And I can browse all services with just slp:/ in konqueror from any
machine.

/bb
jim
2008-06-09 10:24:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by birre
Post by jim
If people had to learn how their fuel injected cars and the associated
computerized systems work, had to go on some sick scavenger hunt for
parts that are missing from the car (let's say the air conditioner's
condenser) there'd be about as many drivers as there are linux users.
Ohhyeees, the car is back :-)
Now you have a car designed to stop on some roads, but the manual tell you
that the fuel injection box has a jumper you can move to make it run on all roads.
You will find that the average Joe/Jane driver will figure out how to move it,
and they who are to stupid can get help.
The reason for your problem and the lack of network browsing in linux is due
to the fact that windows is designed for personal usage in a home or small office.
You will not browse network resources of a large enterprise network, so
it is not active by default, but can be setup for experts.
Q. Why only for experts?
A. If any n00b enable it, there will be broadcast/multicast storms.
I have one slp server at home, where all my network services will be registered.
At the moment I install a new linux machine, it instantly know about
all servers on the net, like ssh,IPP,NFS,VNC,NTP, and whatever.
Just install and printers, shares are there for usage.
And I can browse all services with just slp:/ in konqueror from any
machine.
But can you browse an XP machines shares if it connected to your network
using native functionality?

jim
birre
2008-06-09 14:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim
But can you browse an XP machines shares if it connected to your network
using native functionality?
jim
You mean Native for Windows XP, not the same protocol that is native for vista,
and not native for anyone that Microsoft has on the enemy list.

No, I can't, since I have no windows boxes on my network, and their spamming
broadcasts are stopped by the routers.


But I read about others that have them in their net, browsing them just fine.

/bb
Beej Jorgensen
2008-06-09 17:50:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim
If people had to learn how their fuel injected cars and the associated
computerized systems work, had to go on some sick scavenger hunt for parts
that are missing from the car (let's say the air conditioner's condenser)
there'd be about as many drivers as there are linux users.
But they'd all be very happy. :)

Look, man, you know how business works. You know there has to be some
sort of gain for the people involved.

Sometimes that's money. Generally speaking, though, it's not money that
drives OSS development. It's the fun of it all. And working on making
things super-user friendly isn't the most fun of software projects.

Some companies work hard to produce "easy to use" distros like Suse or
Ubuntu. They think they can make money, and probably do for all I know.
My favorite distro is not at all user-friendly, and it makes money!

In short, the growth of Linux is a very organic thing. The people who
want to market the distros don't have much control over who develops the
systems, unlike at MS or Apple.

It's like cars, again. But think 1920.

"If you ever want this device to be as popular as a horse and
carriage, there are going to need to be some radical
simplifications!"

"Shut up and go back to your horse and buggy, n00b!"

People knew how to fix their cars; they knew how they worked. Now,
however, a car is an off-the-shelf commodity device. Ask the average
person on the street if their brand new car is fuel-injected, and they
won't even know. Or care. Just like the majority of the people who
buy ASUS Eee Linux laptops. Or Linux cellphones.

Linux will get developed, but you're just going to have to wait until it
happens enough for your liking. Always use the right tool for the job.

(However your problem is not my problem, because I'm happy with the
state of affairs, the way things are going, and the distro I use is in
the black.)

-Beej
Baldylocks-Ubuntu
2008-06-09 18:47:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim
Post by elaich
Post by jim
I am now trying Ubuntu 8.04 and I'll just be damned if the simple stuff
isn't still hard in Linux!!
It's not necessarily hard. It's just different. It's "hard" becuase we
have been used to doing things a
certain way for years, and learning a new way to do it seems daunting.
What seems daunting is having to do 10 times the work and still not get the
results you are after. What's daunting is having to figure out just how
your OS works and put the damn thing together (with missing parts
scattered about the internet and no "parts list" to tell you where they
are).
If people had to learn how their fuel injected cars and the associated
computerized systems work, had to go on some sick scavenger hunt for parts
that are missing from the car (let's say the air conditioner's condenser)
there'd be about as many drivers as there are linux users.
Post by elaich
The easy network accessibility you mention in Windows is one of it's huge security holes.
I hear this a lot. But, I have NEVER gotten a virus. NEVER been hacked.
NEVER had to worry abotu security because the free solutions like Zone Alarm
ARE easy to install and configure. They come with everything. They just
work.
Post by elaich
I finally sat down today, and spent it getting Ubuntu up and running,
with Xnews working. Xnews is
important enough to me that I won't run anything it won't run on. I had
it running in Wine before, but
buggy as hell. Well, it just took some searching and experimentation and
I have it running (almost)
perfectly. There's just one graphical glitch left which is just a minor bother.
Spent the day to get an OS up and running? Wow. XP takes just over an
hour (with updates - but without antivirus, and other apps you'll need).
Post by elaich
Getting around the Linux file system is a major pain for a long time
Windows user to learn, and being
denied the ability to do what I wish with my files is annoying. All that
took was getting used to opening up a
terminal and typing 'sudo nautilus'. I grew up on CP/M, so I can learn
this stuff. Windows makes you lazy.
Lazy? Some would say that riding in a car instead of biking 10 miles to
work is lazy. I'd call it efficient.
Windows let's people (of all skill levels) just get work done. I've been
fighting with this Linux shit for a week and still haven't seen a single
XP PC through any of the distros I have tried.
Post by elaich
I bet if you take the time, you'll find using Ubuntu just as easy, if not more so.
Time is one thing I do not have to waste.
It works out of the box or it doesn't.
And I'm only one of BILLIONS of people that feel that way.
If Linux slows businesses down as much as it has slowed me down, there's
no way in hell linux will ever take the desktop.
jim
I installed ubuntu on yet another PC yesterday. p4 1.7 with 768MB ram and an
nVidia Geforce MX440 64MB graphics card

It took 25 minutes to install and 1 hour after putting the cd in I had it
fully updated, the proprietary nvidia drivers and a bunch of useful apps
installed and the compiz 3D desktop running with all the bells and
whistles. It was networked and I was running its command line from my pc.

On my main PC, when I did a fresh install to upgrade from version to
version, it took about half an hour to get back to my original customised
desktop with all my settings back as they were, right down to contents of
my clipboard, my subscribed newsgroups and what articles were read/unread.

When my mobo died previously I built a new PC, transferred my primary hdd
across and was up and running in about 2 minutes from pressing the button.
Old one was a an Athlon new one was a P4. Try that trick with windows.

When I used the text based install to install Ubuntu server it took me less
than an hour to get a fully featured, secure and powerful
web/file/print/database server installed and operating. Have you *any* idea
how much it costs and long it takes to install, configure and secure a
windows equivalent of a linux LAMP stack server?

I have been using Linux for about a year.

If you are serious about wanting to get away from Windows, stop whining and
open your mind to a *different* way of doing things and you will fine, you
will find lots of people willing to help, myself included.

If you are just a troll then I am pissed off at myself for wasting time
replying.
--
Knowledge is of two kinds: we know a subject ourselves, or we know where we
can find information upon it. (Samuel Johnson)
Only the mediocre are always at their best. (Jean Giraudoux)
(Reply address genuine - Checked occasionally)
jim
2008-06-10 02:55:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldylocks-Ubuntu
I installed ubuntu on yet another PC yesterday. p4 1.7 with 768MB ram and an
nVidia Geforce MX440 64MB graphics card
It took 25 minutes to install and 1 hour after putting the cd in I had it
fully updated, the proprietary nvidia drivers and a bunch of useful apps
installed and the compiz 3D desktop running with all the bells and
whistles. It was networked and I was running its command line from my pc.
But were you accessing your PCs shared, unprotected folders from your linux
box WITHOUT having to set up Samba - using a lot of info that Windows users
may not have (if they are connnecting to an open network) and have never
needed to simply share some silly files.
Post by Baldylocks-Ubuntu
On my main PC, when I did a fresh install to upgrade from version to
version, it took about half an hour to get back to my original customised
desktop with all my settings back as they were, right down to contents of
my clipboard, my subscribed newsgroups and what articles were read/unread.
When my mobo died previously I built a new PC, transferred my primary hdd
across and was up and running in about 2 minutes from pressing the button.
Old one was a an Athlon new one was a P4. Try that trick with windows.
I do that all of the time with Windows and Acronis.
Post by Baldylocks-Ubuntu
When I used the text based install to install Ubuntu server it took me less
than an hour to get a fully featured, secure and powerful
web/file/print/database server installed and operating. Have you *any* idea
how much it costs and long it takes to install, configure and secure a
windows equivalent of a linux LAMP stack server?
Actually I do. The same stack runs on Windows and is free.
Post by Baldylocks-Ubuntu
I have been using Linux for about a year.
If you are serious about wanting to get away from Windows, stop whining and
open your mind to a *different* way of doing things and you will fine, you
will find lots of people willing to help, myself included.
I don't mind different...as long as it is no more difficult than the way I
was doing it. If it wastes my time or requires steps and info that I did
not need with the old method, then the different way is a step backwards.

I use PCs to be more productive. To pass the test with me, the new,
different method must be faster and MORE convenient than the old method. If
not, it fails.

I don't adopt things just for the sake of being different.
Post by Baldylocks-Ubuntu
If you are just a troll then I am pissed off at myself for wasting time
replying.
Linux ng's are one of the worst on the net for calling someone a "troll" for
expressing real life, unflattering examples of Linux failing to pass the "if
is faster and easier than X" test.

If you can't take hearing the truth from regular end users like myself,
maybe you're backing the wrong horse.

jim
Dan C
2008-06-10 03:58:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim
Linux ng's are one of the worst on the net for calling someone a "troll" for
expressing real life, unflattering examples of Linux failing to pass the "if
is faster and easier than X" test.
You are a very obvious troll, and not even a good one.

Just fuck off and leave, asswipe.

Will the rest of you dipshits quit fucking replying to this dimwit, fer
chrissakes???!!!
Post by jim
If you can't take hearing the truth from regular end users like myself,
maybe you're backing the wrong horse.
You don't know what the truth is, troll-boy. Just fuck off and leave.
--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
Now filtering out all posts originating from Google Groups.
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Baldylocks-Ubuntu
2008-06-10 22:41:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim
Post by Baldylocks-Ubuntu
I installed ubuntu on yet another PC yesterday. p4 1.7 with 768MB ram and an
nVidia Geforce MX440 64MB graphics card
It took 25 minutes to install and 1 hour after putting the cd in I had it
fully updated, the proprietary nvidia drivers and a bunch of useful apps
installed and the compiz 3D desktop running with all the bells and
whistles. It was networked and I was running its command line from my pc.
But were you accessing your PCs shared, unprotected folders from your
linux box WITHOUT having to set up Samba - using a lot of info that
Windows users may not have (if they are connnecting to an open network)
and have never needed to simply share some silly files.
My PC has no unprotected shares. But yup, the very first time I installed
Ubuntu about a year ago I went to:
System>Remote places>MyWindowsNetworkName>MyWin2k3FileServer, put in my
Domain user credentials when prompted and accessed the shared folders.
Simple as that. Granted sharing directories *from* the my linux PC for the
first time took a little more head scratching, but that was down to a bug
in KDE then.

My headless, GUI-less server has about 20 shares on it, they were a piece of
cake to set up and can be accessed fine by both Linux and Windows clients.

I connect to a Win2k3 Terminal Server at work from my Linux PC more easily
than my colleagues using Vista.
Post by jim
Post by Baldylocks-Ubuntu
On my main PC, when I did a fresh install to upgrade from version to
version, it took about half an hour to get back to my original customised
desktop with all my settings back as they were, right down to contents of
my clipboard, my subscribed newsgroups and what articles were
read/unread.
When my mobo died previously I built a new PC, transferred my primary hdd
across and was up and running in about 2 minutes from pressing the
button. Old one was a an Athlon new one was a P4. Try that trick with
windows.
I do that all of the time with Windows and Acronis.
Really? You use an XP image from a PC with a mobo for an AMD Athlon CPU and
then put that image onto a PC with a completely different chipset, CPU
Manufacturer, NIC and RAM type and you are back up and running within
minutes. WOW. You must have a very spheshul version of XP. We can't even do
that with a proper sys-prepped image from one minor revision of P4 Dell
hardware to another. And can you do it as quickly as turning the PC on?
Post by jim
Post by Baldylocks-Ubuntu
When I used the text based install to install Ubuntu server it took me less
than an hour to get a fully featured, secure and powerful
web/file/print/database server installed and operating. Have you *any* idea
how much it costs and long it takes to install, configure and secure a
windows equivalent of a linux LAMP stack server?
Actually I do. The same stack runs on Windows and is free.
Windows 2k3 is free now? And to think of all the £1000s of pounds we have
spent this last year on licenses at work!!!! Wish somebody had told me. I
should have been more clear - I meant Microsoft not Windows BTW. MS-SQL,
ASP, 2k3/8 pretty pricey. Oh, and I don't think the *L* AMP stack runs in
Windows, unless you have it in a VM ;)

And a LOOONG time to install and configure. Did Microsoft write the code for
all the components of the LAMP stack?

Tell me, the first time you did it - how long did it take you to install a
Windows server OS, then install and configure Apache, mySQL and PHP then
update it all and make secure? I suspect significantly longer than 1 hour.
Post by jim
Post by Baldylocks-Ubuntu
I have been using Linux for about a year.
If you are serious about wanting to get away from Windows, stop whining and
open your mind to a *different* way of doing things and you will fine,
you will find lots of people willing to help, myself included.
I don't mind different...as long as it is no more difficult than the way I
was doing it.
It's not, all things being equal. It's, um, just different. Of course it's
going to be harder than what you are well practised in.
Post by jim
If it wastes my time or requires steps and info that I did
not need with the old method, then the different way is a step backwards.
Riding a bike 5 miles to work is a lot more complicated than walking it - if
you can't ride a bike. If your options were to carry on walking the way you
always have or spend some effort learning to ride a bike to make your life
easier would you carry on walking, just because it's too complicated at
first, and anyway everyone else walks?
Post by jim
I use PCs to be more productive. To pass the test with me, the new,
different method must be faster and MORE convenient than the old method.
If not, it fails.
Me too, which is why, after a suitable period of acclimatisation I am now
using, for me, a faster, more convenient, more efficient, more secure, more
stable and more useful operating system - with a helluva lot more striking
effects than Vista users could even imagine - when I am bored and can be
bothered to turn them on.
Post by jim
I don't adopt things just for the sake of being different.
Nor me, I try different things to see if they are better - well, some
things! :O If they show potential I continue.
Post by jim
Post by Baldylocks-Ubuntu
If you are just a troll then I am pissed off at myself for wasting time
replying.
Linux ng's are one of the worst on the net for calling someone a "troll"
for expressing real life, unflattering examples of Linux failing to pass
the "if is faster and easier than X" test.
I am *extrememly* careful not to accuse people of being a troll. I hate the
way it is bandied about totally inappropriately. Which is why I said "if" -
and I would be pissed off after writing such a long post *if* you are.

Most sensible, non-trolls, when finding something they cannot understand in
their first few minutes of stumbling about in a new operating system take
the time to find out what they are doing wrong, then if they still can't
figure it, out ask for help.

Only morons or trolls or bad workmen bitch about their tools. Remember these
forums are not staffed by people paid by the large corporation who took
your money, to offer support to the drooling masses. Most of the people
here are only too happy to help those who are willing to engage their
brains and ask the right questions, or even the wrong ones if asked in the
right way.
Post by jim
If you can't take hearing the truth from regular end users like myself,
maybe you're backing the wrong horse.
jim
I'm not backing any horse, I'm happily using my PC the way I want to, for
the first time in years. Ya know, I don't think you are a troll - I pity
you for not having the courage to expand your limited horizons.

I've asked what appear in retrospect to be pretty dense questions in
a.o.l.ubuntu and never had anyone take the piss or accuse me of being a
troll, I've always had informative answers, or sometimes better still -
gentle prods in the right direction.

David
--
Knowledge is of two kinds: we know a subject ourselves, or we know where we
can find information upon it. (Samuel Johnson)
Only the mediocre are always at their best. (Jean Giraudoux)
(Reply address genuine - Checked occasionally)
Christopher Hunter
2008-06-11 04:42:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldylocks-Ubuntu
Tell me, the first time you did it - how long did it take you to install a
Windows server OS, then install and configure Apache, mySQL and PHP then
update it all and make secure? I suspect significantly longer than 1 hour.
It's a trick question! There is *no* *way* to make /any/ version of Windows
at all "secure".

The company I work for has offices near to the Cambridge MS offices. Our
heavy use of FOSS software is quite well known, so we received a visit from
an MS salesman recently. He spent half an hour extolling the virtues of
MS' new server products, and explained that our TCO would be "considerably
cheaper" than with SuSe products.

We decided to play with him a bit - it wasn't really fair: think of a cat
playing with a mouse. We asked to see their latest products in action, and
asked if we could run some "basic security tests". He thought he might
have a sale, so readily agreed...

Suffice to say, MS' "security" was shown to be sadly lacking, and their
server farm seems to have caught a /particularly/ nasty cold! We had the
salesman in tears when he saw how trivially easy it was to first get an
unauthorised user account on their servers, and then escalate privilege
to "administrator"...

You can be certain that MS won't be making any sales to /our/ company!

C.
Sir Robin
2008-06-18 05:26:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim
Post by Baldylocks-Ubuntu
I installed ubuntu on yet another PC yesterday. p4 1.7 with 768MB ram and an
nVidia Geforce MX440 64MB graphics card
It took 25 minutes to install and 1 hour after putting the cd in I had it
fully updated, the proprietary nvidia drivers and a bunch of useful apps
installed and the compiz 3D desktop running with all the bells and
whistles. It was networked and I was running its command line from my pc.
But were you accessing your PCs shared, unprotected folders from your linux
box WITHOUT having to set up Samba
You dont need Samba server for accessing shares, only smbfs installed and that
needs no configuring. Ubuntu for exaple provides graphical network setup tool
for setting workgroup and such that you need to have set up in Windows too and
it allows you to browse network shares from desktop.
Post by jim
- using a lot of info that Windows users
may not have (if they are connnecting to an open network) and have never
needed to simply share some silly files.
3 steps on ubuntu to get what you want. 3rd one is to browse, 2 first are
extremely simple.
Post by jim
Post by Baldylocks-Ubuntu
On my main PC, when I did a fresh install to upgrade from version to
version, it took about half an hour to get back to my original customised
desktop with all my settings back as they were, right down to contents of
my clipboard, my subscribed newsgroups and what articles were read/unread.
When my mobo died previously I built a new PC, transferred my primary hdd
across and was up and running in about 2 minutes from pressing the button.
Old one was a an Athlon new one was a P4. Try that trick with windows.
I do that all of the time with Windows and Acronis.
And it "just works" no matter what hardware changes and how many times? I have
heard about this license verification thing - I know that there are pirate
versions where it has been hacked though but I doubt that it "just runs" like
my fedora which has been on very different computers (basically only the hard
disk where it was installed has been same all the time).
Post by jim
Post by Baldylocks-Ubuntu
I have been using Linux for about a year.
If you are serious about wanting to get away from Windows, stop whining and
open your mind to a *different* way of doing things and you will fine, you
will find lots of people willing to help, myself included.
I don't mind different...as long as it is no more difficult than the way I
was doing it. If it wastes my time or requires steps and info that I did
not need with the old method, then the different way is a step backwards.
"Info that I did not need" - holy hell, there will certainly be info that you
need with linux and that windows has no clue about - and the other way around.
That holds true with all OS's and even with Windows versions distant enough
(ie Win95 & WinXP). If that scares you, stick with one version of one OS.

I say that if you dont do power user stuff then the differences are smaller
than benefits. And about power using, Linux provides possibilities that some
may need more learning than first seem good but enable you to control and do
work on efficient ways not easily if at all even possible with windows. But if
you only need functionality that you have on windows - most propably with
right distro you get it, it may be different, it may need to be learned but it
does not take any amount of time that is actually worth consideration. You go
Ubuntu, that should suit you quite well and has VERY good support available.
Post by jim
I use PCs to be more productive. To pass the test with me, the new,
different method must be faster and MORE convenient than the old method. If
not, it fails.
I don't adopt things just for the sake of being different.
You must still accept that there are differences that do not make it harder
nor easyer. You surely understand, no "start" menu, user management and such
slightly different and placed possibly on separate menu from regular
application, etc...

Differences like these are to be expected, hell there are such between every
release of windows too.
Post by jim
Post by Baldylocks-Ubuntu
If you are just a troll then I am pissed off at myself for wasting time
replying.
Linux ng's are one of the worst on the net for calling someone a "troll" for
expressing real life, unflattering examples of Linux failing to pass the "if
is faster and easier than X" test.
If you can't take hearing the truth from regular end users like myself,
maybe you're backing the wrong horse.
I dunno, considering how easy I found it to be to setup what you have asked
for under ubuntu...
--
***/--- Sir Robin (aka Jani Saksa) Bi-Sex and proud of it! ---\***
**/ email: ***@fiveam.NO-SPAM.org, <*> Reg. Linux user #290577 \**
*| Me, Drugs, DooM, Photos, Writings... http://soul.fiveam.org/robsku |*
**\--- GSM/SMS: +358 44 927 3992 ---/**
"Sir Robin valehtelee järjestelmällisesti" - Nikolas Mäki
Sir Robin
2008-06-18 00:45:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim
Post by elaich
Post by jim
I am now trying Ubuntu 8.04 and I'll just be damned if the simple stuff
isn't still hard in Linux!!
It's not necessarily hard. It's just different. It's "hard" becuase we
have been used to doing things a
certain way for years, and learning a new way to do it seems daunting.
What seems daunting is having to do 10 times the work and still not get the
results you are after. What's daunting is having to figure out just how
your OS works and put the damn thing together (with missing parts scattered
about the internet and no "parts list" to tell you where they are).
This kind of issues were around still when I started using Linux. Good thing
it didn't stop me. With modern day distros there may be some issues, but they
are rare and comparable issues exist in other systems too. Even back then
after spending some time setting things up I found I had now better system
that I had with windows. Most things nowdays, when it comes to setting up the
system are easyer than in most OS's (specially in Windows), believe me...

Do you really have as big problems as this lets me understand or is it just
the networking? Even from command line only it's not hellish and if no other
issues then you should just go for it, set it up once and have it working
after that. No need to browse notwork shares whan you have set them up for
simply monuting (automatically at boot or by command line with one line after
the boot). I believe that should be enogh unless you keep changing your shares
and computer names & IP's...

If yau have other issues too please list them and let' see if the solution is
simpler than you have thought... It might be only because the system is
different, not harder, that yau have these problems.

Nowdays when installing software, most stuff is available in reposities,
telling linux to install, for example, firefox will nowdays also check if your
system is missing libraries that it needs and install them autamtically too.
No missing parts scattered around - actually that is a problem that no OS has
fully solved but today it's actually more common on windows than in linux.
Trust me on this.
Post by jim
Post by elaich
The easy network accessibility you mention in Windows is one of it's huge security holes.
I hear this a lot. But, I have NEVER gotten a virus. NEVER been hacked.
NEVER had to worry abotu security because the free solutions like Zone Alarm
ARE easy to install and configure. They come with everything. They just
work.
Good. Most common users dont know anything about firewalls or antivirus
softwares (only that there is such and that maybe they got one pre-installed).
With windows you have had to learn about these, where to get one, mhich one to
use and how to configure it. Just like with windows, not having everything set
up automatically is not an issue that you cant overcome. Clearly yau can. In
linux most distros set up the basic iptables rules for simple firewall
automatically but there may be some other thing that does not work out of the
box.

That was not an issue for you in Windows, it wont be in Linux either if you
dont want it to be :)
Post by jim
Post by elaich
I finally sat down today, and spent it getting Ubuntu up and running, with
Xnews working. Xnews is
important enough to me that I won't run anything it won't run on. I had it
running in Wine before, but
buggy as hell. Well, it just took some searching and experimentation and I
have it running (almost)
perfectly. There's just one graphical glitch left which is just a minor bother.
Spent the day to get an OS up and running? Wow. XP takes just over an hour
(with updates - but without antivirus, and other apps you'll need).
Getting it "up and running" does not take a day - it takes less than win XP (I
have tried). Getting the software you need installed and set up may take up
from 10 minutes to weeks on ANY OS - it depends on what you need. I had my new
computer set up with most plain debian basic install + hand installing (via
apt-get) and configuring X-windows, apache+php+perl+mysql, browsers for text
and graphics modes, Ion and fluxbox windows managers and two monitors + some
additional software took me a day. Note that to install minimal setup for
saving space I intentionally took a longer route by starting with most minimas
installation and could have saved time by selecting automatically both server
and desktop installation options when installing the OS.

I know from experience that this cant be done as fast nor without more work
(searching and dowloading softare from www for example) in windows 2000 or XP.

Spending a day to get OS set up, running and having the tools that you need -
ti depends on what you need, but a day is not much. If I had chosen the
easyest install I would have had desktop environment and the servers installed
in the time (or less) than it takes to set up plain Windows with only the
software that comes on the installation CD (which is not much).
Post by jim
Post by elaich
Getting around the Linux file system is a major pain for a long time
Windows user to learn, and being
denied the ability to do what I wish with my files is annoying. All that
took was getting used to opening up a
terminal and typing 'sudo nautilus'. I grew up on CP/M, so I can learn
this stuff. Windows makes you lazy.
Lazy? Some would say that riding in a car instead of biking 10 miles to
work is lazy. I'd call it efficient.
Actually in many different ways windows is not efficient. It's easy te learn,
easy to use for basic stuff but for anything more it certainly is not
efficient. Often the most efficient systems take some time to learn at first
but after that are more efficiet to use.

OS X of apple is a prime example of providing both - the underlying unix
system provides the "hard" to learn, efficient to use power of unix and alike
systems and the easy to use environment provides even esyer to learn
environmont than windows but not as efficient to use than the harder to learn
ways.
Linux has had the powerful unix-like usability from the start and today it's
also getting closer and closer to OS X in having more and more thing "just
working" and getting easyer and easyer for end users to set up anything.

All systems have some weaknesses. Lets say that windows does not have the
efficiency of fully powered unix systems but it has quite easy to learn
environment. Linux may still lack on the later part on some places but the
amount of such is getting smaller and smaller specially on systems like Ubuntu
that are specially made for regular people who want things "just to work"
Post by jim
Windows let's people (of all skill levels) just get work done. I've been
fighting with this Linux shit for a week and still haven't seen a single XP
PC through any of the distros I have tried.
There are many opinions on this. I would have painful time with some things I
do if I had to do them mith windows - of course installing cygwin would lessen
this but still it would be painful.

I started to use Linux in 2002 - bought a new computer, intalled Red Hat 7.1
and planneh to install Win2k later (dual boot) - after a week of fiddling with
it I have never wanted to have windows installed on anything else than running
under VWWare or similiar system and I use it only for cross-development and
even in that mostly for testing.

There are things that are a real pain to do in Windows when compared to *nix
systems. So Windows, just like none of operating systems today, cant be said
to let people (all of them) to just get work done.

Btw, are you sure that you have allowed linux to have TCP&UDP ports needed for
windows/samba filesharing to work opened for incoming connections from trusted
home network? Just like with Windows, you need that in linux too naturally...
Ubuntu for example comes with really easy pragram to set up linux kernels
internas netfilter system (for firewalling and other things) called
FireStarter...

Other systems may come with just iptables (which is set up with script
usually) or some other more rare tools with easy graphical or text based
environment to set it up. If you want it easy then FireStarter is really easy
one (although it has some things that I dont accept, like the fact that you
cant open a port just for TCP or UDP but always for both - but I dubt it's a
big issue inside trusted network).
Post by jim
Post by elaich
I bet if you take the time, you'll find using Ubuntu just as easy, if not more so.
Time is one thing I do not have to waste.
You have wasted already way mare time than you would have needed by installing
and trying different distros. From what I understand I would recommend you to
go with ubuntu, spend a little time to learn how it works or needs to be set
up and I will guarantee that in the end you will save the time used for that
when afterwards using your then-working linux system instead of windows. I
know many people wo I have had hard time to convince them to believe this but
who have later told me that they have been most satisfyed. Only one switched
back and even in that case the reason was not that Linux did not do everything
he wanted as easy as he wanted - it's a silly case and silly person, but I
wont go deeper into that.

Sure, still today there are issues mhy linux is not the solution for everyones
needs but so far I have not heard any issue fram you that I would see as too
large obstacle. The solutions for your network problem are certainly not too
time taking to learn and set-up once (and if needed to set up later on second
system, well then yau already know how to do it and doing is not a large job).
Post by jim
It works out of the box or it doesn't.
And I'm only one of BILLIONS of people that feel that way.
If Linux slows businesses down as much as it has slowed me down, there's no
way in hell linux will ever take the desktop.
If eventually you come to conclusion that it's not yet good enough for you
that does not implicate that it wont be. Having seen the development in past 7
years any such issues remaining wont take long to dissapear totally.
Post by jim
jim
--
***/--- Sir Robin (aka Jani Saksa) Bi-Sex and proud of it! ---\***
**/ email: ***@fiveam.NO-SPAM.org, <*> Reg. Linux user #290577 \**
*| Me, Drugs, DooM, Photos, Writings... http://soul.fiveam.org/robsku |*
**\--- GSM/SMS: +358 44 927 3992 ---/**
"I like the trees, you know? I like the way that the trees are on mountains,
all the different... the way the trees are."
Dan C
2008-06-18 01:40:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sir Robin
I started to use Linux in 2002 - bought a new computer, intalled Red Hat 7.1
and planneh to install Win2k later (dual boot) - after a week of fiddling with
it I have never wanted to have windows installed on anything else than running
under VWWare or similiar system and I use it only for cross-development and
even in that mostly for testing.
Ummmm...... right............
Post by Sir Robin
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
So, are you doing some "cross-development" right now, or some "testing"?

Bugger off, Win-droid troll.
--
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he hacked up a hairball.
birre
2008-06-09 08:55:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim
This is BASIC functionality that ALL Windows users NEED. What the hell is
this samba configuration crap?
I must be missing something here.
PLEASE tell me I am missing something here and that connecting to a network
and browsing shared folders really IS just as easy in Linux as in Windows.
jim
Well, if you will do that, you should not try the windows way but the unix way.
Just enable auto.net in /etc/auto.master , then you access
/net/<hostname_OR_IP_of_remote_host/
(it will be mounted under your feets when you step on it)
And the files are there just as local for ya if they are exported.
When you leave the place, it will be unmounted after about 10 minutes.

After working with Unix more then 30 years, I have yet not found a way
to do something that simple on windows.

unix/linux <-> windows has some issues, not only different protocols,
authentication systems, but also different level,
since unix/linux is multiuser systems with support for timezones,
so files can be shared over continents without messing up the
mod/access times order, and all files has an owner.

Since unix was first, it's really windows that can't be joined in the
network even if all protocols are open and free to implement, so yet
again, solve the problem on the unix side, using non open Microsoft protocols
and then blame unix/linux for all problems.

If you don't like samba, try to get your winbox to use NFS and auto.net
, and you will find that samba is not that bad after all.

/bb
Nemo
2008-06-10 01:00:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim
What seems daunting is having to do 10 times the work and still not
get the results you are after. What's daunting is having to figure
out just how your OS works and put the damn thing together (with
missing parts scattered about the internet and no "parts list" to
tell you where they are).
I tried xubuntu for a day or so - bad graphics...
...BackTrack....
I will let you know how OpenSuse goes in a bit...
The pattern emerges... you're dumping Windows and trying to replace it
with something you're getting for *free* and then bitching because it
doesn't work "RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX". Try buying a distribution, most of
them will give you after sales support. Suse if you buy it, comes, I
seem to recall, with an extensive set of printed manuals. Or you could
try this, http://rute.2038bug.com/index.html.gz for more generalized
help.

There's no such thing as a free lunch and the price for a 'Free' as
in 'Free Beer', GNU/Linux distribution is that you do your homework.

There is a distribution that is 'Free as in 'Free Beer/Lunch', it is
Debian. It has a wonderful community of those prepared to help those
who are prepared to help themselves. To the best of my recollection it
also has on-line support, see "Support" on this page
http://www.debian.org/sitemap there are also several newsgroups all
specialising in Debian, where knowledgeable, enthusiasts spend their
time helping those who seem to have made a little effort to help
themselves. Try typing debian into what ever passes for a newsreader in
windows and see how many you get, in several languages.
--
Nemo
"Feather-footed through the plashy fen passes the questing vole"
Patrick Schueller
2008-06-12 13:39:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim
This is what I would like.... With my XP Pro laptop, connecting to a
wireless network and browsing shared folders was as easy as clicking
"Connect to network" slecting the wireless network and clicking
"Connect". If there was a required key or password, Windows asked for
it. You supply the info and Windows simply connects to the network.
You can then open Windows Explorer and browse any shared folders that
are not password protected.
This is BASIC functionality that ALL Windows users NEED. What the hell
is this samba configuration crap?
I must be missing something here.
PLEASE tell me I am missing something here and that connecting to a
network and browsing shared folders really IS just as easy in Linux as
in Windows.
I'm not sure whether I should answer in this flame and trolling thread,
but have you tried smb4k (http://www.kde-apps.org/content/show.php?
content=9814)? It's for KDE, works fine here for Linux samba shares, but
since there aren't any shares on the Windows machine in our network, I
can't tell whether it will work for you.

Patrick
jayjwa
2008-06-16 05:32:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim
Dammit! I want so badly to get the hell away from Windows, that I am
spending ALL of my spare time trying out different Linux distros.
I tried xubuntu for a day or so - bad graphics.
I tried backtrack - not all that it's cracked up to be.
Linux is like Pepsi. You have Caffine-free, Diet, Cherry, etc. but it's
all still brown-colored soda pop. They are all basically the same in
many areas. Just pick one and make it work.
Post by jim
I am now trying Ubuntu 8.04 and I'll just be damned if the simple stuff
isn't still hard in Linux!!
This is what I would like.... With my XP Pro laptop, connecting to a
wireless network and browsing shared folders was as easy as clicking
"Connect to network" slecting the wireless network and clicking "Connect".
If there was a required key or password, Windows asked for it. You supply
the info and Windows simply connects to the network.
I just spent 4 hours trying to help someone get their Windows XP to
connect to a wireless router and then get their laptop and the router all
talking WPA. It was anything but easy: I kept getting "Wizards",
hand-holding this, training wheels that, when all I wanted was to set WPA
on the wireless network. In Linux, that's like one command on a command
line. But there I was, awash in a river of GUI and menus up the wha-zoo.
The laptop auto-connects alright - to someone else's network! Let's hope
they didn't mind too much.
Post by jim
You can then open Windows Explorer and browse any shared folders that
are not password protected.
[ ***@vdrl:~>] smbclient -A ~/.smbauth -L //atr2
Domain=[ATR2NET] OS=[Unix] Server=[Samba 3.0.30]

Sharename Type Comment
--------- ---- -------
cifs Disk CIFS/SMB global public root
share Disk Incoming/uploadable storage space
IPC$ IPC IPC Service ([ATr2 RG 2008/06/16 00:32:16] atr2 SMB/CIFS 3.0.30.)
jayjwa Disk Home Directories
Domain=[ATR2NET] OS=[Unix] Server=[Samba 3.0.30]

Server Comment
--------- -------
ATR2 [ATr2 RG 2008/06/16 00:30:04] atr2 SMB/CIFS 3.0.
VDRL [ATr2 RG 2008/06/10 19:39:31] vdrl SMB/CIFS 3.0.

Workgroup Master
--------- -------
ATR2NET VDRL


then connecting is just smbclient -A ~/.smbauth //machine-name/folder.
smbclient works like an ftp client.

Samba handles Windows sharing stuff in Linux.
Post by jim
This is BASIC functionality that ALL Windows users NEED. What the hell
is this samba configuration crap?
I must be missing something here.
1. Install the collection of tools that give the function you want
2. Fill out their config files, if they have any.
3. Run the programs, which read the config files.

Many (most?) apps in Linux find out what you want them to do by reading a
configuration file. That is either system-wide, usually in /etc/, or
user-specific, in under ~/. If there is no config file, you usually use
command line switches. Many apps you can run with "--help" to see options.
Post by jim
PLEASE tell me I am missing something here and that connecting to a
network and browsing shared folders really IS just as easy in Linux as
in Windows.
You're missing about a month's worth of exclusive Linux use and
corresponding manual/howto/website/newsgroup-reading. That's about how
long it took me when I gave Windows the boot. It might have been a bit
faster because I killed Windows completely: if I wanted something done, it
*had* to be done in Linux.

Linux is like a box of tools that you can use to harness the power of
computer hardward and make it do anything you might need. Whether you use
the right piece for the right job, learn how to wield them, and make them
all work together, or get upset because they lay on the ground in front of
you in a pile, is up to you.
--
[** America, the police state **]
Whoooose! What's that noise? Why, it's US citizen's
rights, going down the toilet with Bush flushing.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/27/bush_nsa_internal/
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/08/wiretap
http://www.hermes-press.com/police_state.htm
http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-559597
dennis@home
2008-06-16 08:44:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by jayjwa
I just spent 4 hours trying to help someone get their Windows XP to
connect to a wireless router and then get their laptop and the router all
talking WPA. It was anything but easy: I kept getting "Wizards",
hand-holding this, training wheels that, when all I wanted was to set WPA
on the wireless network.
You did it wrong then.. for future reference..

log into the router and set WPA like you would with linux.
Turn on XP
It will then say wireless networks have been found, do you want to connect?
choose the one you have just set
enter the key
done.

The only way to make it harder is if you hide the ssid which is pointless
and just makes life harder.
Post by jayjwa
In Linux, that's like one command on a command
line. But there I was, awash in a river of GUI and menus up the wha-zoo.
The laptop auto-connects alright - to someone else's network! Let's hope
they didn't mind too much.
So change it so it doesn't.
One setting, no wizards needed.
You can even do it using the command line if you want.

Don't blame XP because you don't know what you are doing, just as you
wouldn't want someone blaming linux if they didn't know what they were
doing.
Sir Robin
2008-06-17 22:21:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim
Dammit! I want so badly to get the hell away from Windows, that I am
spending ALL of my spare time trying out different Linux distros.
I tried xubuntu for a day or so - bad graphics.
You really ditched it because of hat? How about just change the graphics and
judge by real features of OS distro, not by the default look that is the
easyest thing to change on gaphical desktops? :)

No offence, that just seems like a really bad judgements... I have my own
reasons to not want any ubuntu based distro but this was never one of them
even though default coloring of basic ubuntu is (IMHO) ugly.
Post by jim
This is what I would like.... With my XP Pro laptop, connecting to a
wireless network and browsing shared folders was as easy as clicking
"Connect to network" slecting the wireless network and clicking "Connect".
If there was a required key or password, Windows asked for it. You supply
the info and Windows simply connects to the network.
You can then open Windows Explorer and browse any shared folders that are
not password protected.
This is BASIC functionality that ALL Windows users NEED. What the hell is
this samba configuration crap?
Nothing really hard, kust a different way of doing it. I would think that
Ubuntu would have a GUI tool for that though, but I like to hand edit
configuration files and really, it's not that hard, just requires one to
(*gasp*) a little bit of documentation.

If you just neeh to connect to windows share then you dont need to configure
samba - that you really need only for sharing directories for other windows
and/or samba/cifs clients.
Post by jim
I must be missing something here.
PLEASE tell me I am missing something here and that connecting to a network
and browsing shared folders really IS just as easy in Linux as in Windows.
I don't know how you should do it from GUI on ubuntu, but it propably is. From
terminal window it can be done with one command line - I never browse them
thoug, I just mount them (I actually use samba although I share only between
linux servers and clients).
--
***/--- Sir Robin (aka Jani Saksa) Bi-Sex and proud of it! ---\***
**/ email: ***@fiveam.NO-SPAM.org, <*> Reg. Linux user #290577 \**
*| Me, Drugs, DooM, Photos, Writings... http://soul.fiveam.org/robsku |*
**\--- GSM/SMS: +358 44 927 3992 ---/**
"Kun nuorille opetetaan, että kannabis on yhtä vaarallista kuin heroiini,
niin tokihan he oppivat, että heroiini on yhtä vaaratonta kuin kannabis."
Unruh
2008-06-17 23:02:27 UTC
Permalink
He is a troll. I have tried to answer him similarly to you. He likes
complaining and wants everything to be exactly that same as on his windoes
machine, no matter how insecure it is.
Post by Sir Robin
Post by jim
Dammit! I want so badly to get the hell away from Windows, that I am
spending ALL of my spare time trying out different Linux distros.
I tried xubuntu for a day or so - bad graphics.
You really ditched it because of hat? How about just change the graphics and
judge by real features of OS distro, not by the default look that is the
easyest thing to change on gaphical desktops? :)
No offence, that just seems like a really bad judgements... I have my own
reasons to not want any ubuntu based distro but this was never one of them
even though default coloring of basic ubuntu is (IMHO) ugly.
Post by jim
This is what I would like.... With my XP Pro laptop, connecting to a
wireless network and browsing shared folders was as easy as clicking
"Connect to network" slecting the wireless network and clicking "Connect".
If there was a required key or password, Windows asked for it. You supply
the info and Windows simply connects to the network.
You can then open Windows Explorer and browse any shared folders that are
not password protected.
This is BASIC functionality that ALL Windows users NEED. What the hell is
this samba configuration crap?
Nothing really hard, kust a different way of doing it. I would think that
Ubuntu would have a GUI tool for that though, but I like to hand edit
configuration files and really, it's not that hard, just requires one to
(*gasp*) a little bit of documentation.
If you just neeh to connect to windows share then you dont need to configure
samba - that you really need only for sharing directories for other windows
and/or samba/cifs clients.
Post by jim
I must be missing something here.
PLEASE tell me I am missing something here and that connecting to a network
and browsing shared folders really IS just as easy in Linux as in Windows.
I don't know how you should do it from GUI on ubuntu, but it propably is. From
terminal window it can be done with one command line - I never browse them
thoug, I just mount them (I actually use samba although I share only between
linux servers and clients).
--
***/--- Sir Robin (aka Jani Saksa) Bi-Sex and proud of it! ---\***
*| Me, Drugs, DooM, Photos, Writings... http://soul.fiveam.org/robsku |*
**\--- GSM/SMS: +358 44 927 3992 ---/**
"Kun nuorille opetetaan, että kannabis on yhtä vaarallista kuin heroiini,
niin tokihan he oppivat, että heroiini on yhtä vaaratonta kuin kannabis."
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...