Prev: Simple hack to get $500 to your home
Next: No mount after swinging LUN from NetApp to a new host "very big device"
From: RayLopez99 on 11 Jun 2010 04:51
When I say "pleasantly surprised" I mean it in the way that you are
"plesantly surprised" you don't get food poisoning eating at a greasy
spoon locally owned interstate cafe on a road trip. You know, the
kind found where Doofus lives, in the American Deep South, that have a
hand painted sign that sez "Foods Here". LOL. Chitlins and pork
rinds are good though...if you have plenty of beer or moonshine to
wash them down.

So today I was playing around with some utilities in the hobbyware
called Linux (always a dangerous excercise), and no I was not logged
in as root, when much to my chagrin, I found the left and right mouse
buttons reversed on my USB mouse when I rebooted. The utlity was only
for controlling mouse speed, not buttons, and even though I tried
various things in the utlity nothing works. I guess I might have to
just live with clicking on the right button when I want the left, but
it's a productivity drain. Unless somebody can suggest what to edit
in what configuration text file (scary!?)

Also if anybody knows what this means:

on bootup:

"Can't locate module xfs"
"Can't locate (or load maybe) hfs"
"Can't locate minix"

? System still seems to "work" though.

I also found out that in addition to the 1 GB (!) primary hard drive,
I have a second 3 GB HD--but I have not figured out how to access it,
even after I "mount" it. Apparently--I found this out with the CD
ROM--if you 'mount' in linux you can only browse it if there's
something there to be read--unlike Windows which will show you an
empty icon for the CD-ROM even if no CD is in it. With Linux (or at
least the Damn Small Linux file manager, "emelfm") that's not the
case. So perhaps my 3 GB slave drive is not formatted for Linux,
though it was formatted for NT. I would ask how to format a HD, but
in view of this mouse disaster, I'm afraid to play around with these
alpha and beta utilities found in D.S.L.--I'll just live with the 1 GB
drive, which btw is 70% empty anyway.

Now if I can only get these mouse buttons reversed...

"Windows is doomed" --LOL.

RL

PS--Firefox is not 100% the same in Linux as Windows--everytime I
navigate away from a page, it asks me if it's OK, despite having
clicked the checkbox saying "Do not warn me again". Windows is
doomed...LOL.
From: RayLopez99 on 11 Jun 2010 05:44
On Jun 11, 11:51 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...(a)gmail.com> wrote:


And if you think I'm trolling...just check the header...you'll see I
posted the OP from within Linux using a Linux Firefox browser. Now
I'm inside my Windows machine replying via Windows Firefox (which is
superior to the Linux version).

RL

From: Nico Kadel-Garcia on 11 Jun 2010 07:08
On Jun 11, 5:44 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 11:51 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> And if you think I'm trolling...just check the header...you'll see I
> posted the OP from within Linux using a Linux Firefox browser.  Now
> I'm inside my Windows machine replying via Windows Firefox (which is
> superior to the Linux version).
>
> RL

You're still being pretty insulting.

Your big problem is that you shot yourself in the foot using a
deliberately stripped Linux to accomplish sophisticated work on a
machine with way, way, way too little RAM for graphical applicatons,
and you expect it to work seamlessly. When offered "fast, cheap, good:
pick two", you seem upset that you're not getting all 3 automatically.

The result is that you are using far too old of versions of software
for polished behavior: Polish takes disk space for the resources, and
RAM for the scanning and testing that presents the polished interface:
the result is that you only have 1/3 of your 1 Gig drive occupied, but
you can't run powerful graphical tools like OpenOffice or recent
versions of FireFox. Damn Small Linux was designed for robust behavior
on limited hardware, not fancy behavior, and you've gotten what you
insisted on.

Now add up the time you've spent, and use a similar amount of time to
either earn the money to buy a new box, or do a bit of dumpster diving
or hardware swapping to get something better to work with and save
yourself pain.
From: RayLopez99 on 12 Jun 2010 18:30
On Jun 11, 2:08 pm, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You're still being pretty insulting.

I would say I'm being realistic.

>
> Your big problem is that you shot yourself in the foot using a
> deliberately stripped Linux to accomplish sophisticated work on a
> machine with way, way, way too little RAM for graphical applicatons,
> and you expect it to work seamlessly. When offered "fast, cheap, good:
> pick two", you seem upset that you're not getting all 3 automatically.
>

No, I got cheap and good. It surfs the net (slower than Win2k or NT4
though), and it was a throwaway PC (cheap).


> The result is that you are using far too old of versions of software
> for polished behavior: Polish takes disk space for the resources, and
> RAM for the scanning and testing that presents the polished interface:
> the result is that you only have 1/3 of your 1 Gig drive occupied, but
> you can't run powerful graphical tools like OpenOffice or recent
> versions of FireFox.

True enough--I don't even have Java in my Firefox, but I think I can
do online banking (I'll have to check but I'm pretty sure most
functionality does not require Java but just plain HTML).


> Damn Small Linux was designed for robust behavior
> on limited hardware, not fancy behavior, and you've gotten what you
> insisted on.

Yes, true.

>
> Now add up the time you've spent, and use a similar amount of time to
> either earn the money to buy a new box, or do a bit of dumpster diving
> or hardware swapping to get something better to work with and save
> yourself pain.

Not for me amigo, for this cheapskate. She does not believe in
throwing things out.

Anyway, I'm not that disappointed with Linux. You know why? Because
though Win 2k and NT 4.0 were faster than Linux is on this old
hardware, they needed antivirus and firewall protection, that needs
daily downloads. Keep in mind this girl uses a dialup modem...very
slow to get a 300kb file downloaded everyday on dialup. So for her, I
think this Linux OS might be a good thing. For her. Not for me.

RL
From: The Natural Philosopher on 12 Jun 2010 18:34
RayLopez99 wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2:08 pm, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> You're still being pretty insulting.
>
> I would say I'm being realistic.
>
>> Your big problem is that you shot yourself in the foot using a
>> deliberately stripped Linux to accomplish sophisticated work on a
>> machine with way, way, way too little RAM for graphical applicatons,
>> and you expect it to work seamlessly. When offered "fast, cheap, good:
>> pick two", you seem upset that you're not getting all 3 automatically.
>>
>
> No, I got cheap and good. It surfs the net (slower than Win2k or NT4
> though), and it was a throwaway PC (cheap).
>
>
>> The result is that you are using far too old of versions of software
>> for polished behavior: Polish takes disk space for the resources, and
>> RAM for the scanning and testing that presents the polished interface:
>> the result is that you only have 1/3 of your 1 Gig drive occupied, but
>> you can't run powerful graphical tools like OpenOffice or recent
>> versions of FireFox.
>
> True enough--I don't even have Java in my Firefox, but I think I can
> do online banking (I'll have to check but I'm pretty sure most
> functionality does not require Java but just plain HTML).
>
>
>> Damn Small Linux was designed for robust behavior
>> on limited hardware, not fancy behavior, and you've gotten what you
>> insisted on.
>
> Yes, true.
>
>> Now add up the time you've spent, and use a similar amount of time to
>> either earn the money to buy a new box, or do a bit of dumpster diving
>> or hardware swapping to get something better to work with and save
>> yourself pain.
>
> Not for me amigo, for this cheapskate. She does not believe in
> throwing things out.
>
> Anyway, I'm not that disappointed with Linux. You know why? Because
> though Win 2k and NT 4.0 were faster than Linux is on this old
> hardware, they needed antivirus and firewall protection, that needs
> daily downloads. Keep in mind this girl uses a dialup modem...very
> slow to get a 300kb file downloaded everyday on dialup. So for her, I
> think this Linux OS might be a good thing. For her. Not for me.
>
> RL
Odd that windows can be faster on net access, when its only limited by
the actual modem speeds, which have nothing to do with the operating
system at all.

So once again you seem to be bending reality to fit your prejudice.

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Simple hack to get $500 to your home
Next: No mount after swinging LUN from NetApp to a new host "very big device"