Has anybody ever connected a Linux machine to a Windows machine on a network?
in [Home Built PC]
|
Prev: don't Fail to miss 'fourteen'
Next: Has anybody ever connected a Linux machine to a Windows machine on a network?
From: John Williamson on 1 Apr 2010 06:49 RayLopez99 wrote: > On Apr 1, 5:08 am, John Williamson <johnwilliam...(a)btinternet.com> > wrote: >> The last install I did took under two hours, including the download. The >> only thing that didn't work immediately was the link to a Windows Mobile >> PDA. CD and DVD drives have been able to automount if you want that for >> years. Whisper it quietly, but you can even configure Linux to >> automatically play an audio CD or DVD movie on insertion. > > A lot of Linux users are hobbyists who enjoy installing OSes. Same as > the homebuilt group--they like doing things like overclocking. > I don't enjoy installing operating systems, but if the one I use doesn't do what I want to do, then I'll try another. I didn't switch from 98 to XP until I needed hardware that refused to work under 98. I don't use computers as a primary part of my job, but I need (For a certain value of need) certain computer related things to happen while I'm at work. It's currently working out that there are a lot of major interface and functionality changes between XP and 7, so I reckon I'll be as well off installing and learning more than just the basics of Linux before MS pull support for XP. While I'm doing that, I'll probably try a couple of dozen distros until I find or customise one that works for me. IMHO, Vista has been one of the best ever promotion tools for Linux. >> I had trouble getting both Windows and Linux to talk to the monitor in >> 1995, too. > > But the difference is 90% of the computing public uses Windows, so you > have to just suck it up, grin and bear it. Why struggle so I can join > the 1% of the computing public in Linux land? > It's getting less of a struggle all the time. > >> As for reinstalling systems, this computer needed three install attempts >> to get Windows XP running. Linux (Two different distros) worked straight >> out of the box. Should I have given up, and just ignored Windows for ever? > > No, for the reason I just cited. > OK, then. >> Last time I installed Vista (On a dual core,fast for its day, PC with >> plenty of RAM.), it took four hours to just get the machine to boot >> properly with everything working, and another hour or two to get >> on-line, even with the help of the maker's installation program. Ubuntu >> 9.10 installed to a second partition on that machine yesterday in an >> hour, and worked fully straight away, apart from the Windows PDA >> problem. *And* it dual boots. > > I know that feeling. It also took me two DAYS to get Vista correctly > installed on my dual core, since I had SATA drives that were not being > recognized. It was a real pain. > Linux would probably have "just worked" (tm) after a google search for and download of drivers. That's the kind of geeky stuff that people enjoy writing drivers for. > Since you seem to be honest, unlike most here (I come here just to > flame and troll mostly) I'd noticed. :-D I might try Linux again in the future, using > your suggestions, but with much more modern hardware. I concluded > that perhaps the problems I was having with Linux had to do with the > limited hardware I was using for it. > Most problems I've had with Linux installs have been hardware that's not supported, either because the makers don't want to, or it's too new or too old. One of my sound interfaces is a case in point. Made for '98, the makers released a basic XP driver, and the info for someone to write that same basic driver for Linux. The driver exists, but I'm blowed if I can get it to work under Linux, but then again, the design is prehistoric by computer standards, as it was designed in the days of Windows 95. The sweet spot seems to be the last generation but one of hardware. It's usually still available off the shelf, often cheaply, and mature enough that someone will have worked out how to get it to work. It's also still capable of running everything except the latest games. > But I will never make Linux my sole OS--no need--it will just be a > hobby for me. Might try the virtual route or the dual boot route, on > a separate partition. But it will not be a few hours, but rather a > week of study and another week of installation (with study). Nothing > with computers takes a few hours. > If you don't try it, you'll never know, but a virtual machine or dual boot is easily reversible, needs only a few Gigabytes of HDspace, and if you just get a basic installation running, then you can fiddle and learn when you get a spare hour. If you normally work with Windows, then Ubuntu is probably the easiest to learn, with a couple of hours to get the basics sorted out, then as much or as little time as you want to spend on it. I find that with computers, it's easiest to just install it and use it, learning as I go, knowing that it's almost impossible to damage the hardware, and that I can always get back to my starting point by rebooting, and, if necessary, re-installing stuff. YMMV, of course. -- Tciao for Now! John. |