In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:57:48 +0000
<6811740.QtID3XKMa9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> Linux is easier to install than XP
Unless one can find a preinstalled system. For XP, that's becoming
rather difficult. ;-)
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Mint, on the other hand, let me point out,
> | had no trouble with any of my hardware.
> | Thus Ubuntu-based Linux recognized the equipment,
> | it set it up and let me get to work. It was Windows
> | that proved to be a pain in the rump.
Given that one has to install Windows (not at all a
given because of the OEMs out there more than willing
to preinstall a copy and to suffer thereby for you [so
that they can get a discount from Microsoft, I guess],
which works until one needs to reinstall because of bit
rot), it turns out Linux is far easier, unless there's a
hardware issue such as a missing driver -- an increasingly
rare happenstance nowadays, though I'm not that familiar
with such things as RAID-capable drive arrays.
> |
> | Greg Kroah-Hartman, a prominent Linux developer,
> | is right. Linux Journal recently reported that
> | he recently told an audience at the Ottawa Linux
> | Symposium that ?Linux supports more different types
> | of devices than any other operating system ever has
> | in the history of computing.?
> |
> | Linux isn?t perfect that way, as Kroah-Hartman would
> | be the first to admit.
Indeed...my Winmodem, even though it is supported, seems
to like to lock up. Of course I don't exactly use it
all that much anyway -- in fact, not at all; it's certainly
not required for initial installation if one uses a CD/DVD.
> | Based on what I experienced,
> | though, Linux is much better than Windows at
> | supporting modern hardware.
And is so much better than Windows at supporting
modern users. ;-) At least this particular user, anyway.
> |
> | We have this illusion, that?s just because Windows
> | works on the systems it comes pre-installed on,
> | that Windows has great built-in driver support. No,
> | it doesn?t. Once you move to installing Windows
> | on a new system, you?ll quickly find that Linux,
> | not Windows, has the better built-in hardware
> | support.
> |
> | Yes, that?s right. Linux, not Windows, is easier
> | to install on a new PC. Just something to think
> | about as you get ready to strip Vista off your new
> | computer.
> `----
>
> http://practical-tech.com/infrastructure/linux-is-easier-to-install-than-xp/
>
>
> Recent:
>
> Installing a modern Linux distribution
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | A modern Linux install should take no more than
> | forty-five minutes
Pessimist. :-) Granted, one might have to copy a
lot of stuff if one wants...a lot of stuff.
> | for the initial install and maybe an hours worth
> | of tweaking to get the missing bits running the
> | way the user wants this may take longer with more
> | complected setups like using ATI or NVIDIA cards
> | with Compiz.
> `----
>
> http://www.raiden.net/?cat=2&aid=393
>
[rest snipped for brevity]
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
GNU and improved.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
|
|
