Leo Mauler,
I originally wrote to you, and not to the list, because I find largely, when you post to the group, it is noise, and chases away anything on topic. If you're going to invoke my name in public and inaccurately however, I will respond on list to what is on topic. What you so gleefully redacted out of context included that I'm "satisfied" with how Linux runs on old hardware. It runs O.K., but it's not going to turn water in to wine. You just try running the Gimp or OpenOffice on that Pentium 2, and tell me how it works out. Try some Firefox plugins. Try compiz. Actually, try kde 4.1 or gnome 2.24.
Yes, Linux is better/faster than windows. No, old crap isn't the right place to show it. Most people don't care what runs on old hardware, and I find it rather repugnant to hear people say "Oh yeah, Linux, that's the thing you put on old computers, right?" No. Stop it. Buy a brand new machine with Linux on it. When people see Linux on a slow computer, they see Linux is slow. Yeah, it's not as slow as the alternatives, but its sill slow.
Why don't you make it less of a marketing campaign for Linux, and maybe spread awareness about the LUG instead. Tell people about this group of individuals they can network with and learn from.
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 15:04, Leo Mauler [email protected] wrote:
There are still FUD trolls out there talking about Linux trashing hard drives.
IT people know that software doesn't irrevocably damage hard drives. At least they should. God I hope they do. The most recent "OMG Linux!" fear circles around what the e1000e driver does to Intel pcie gigabit adapters.
Whether or not a computer is REAL is an entirely subjective opinion, as you seem to agree with despite emphatically insisting that "garbage" computers have no use and wouldn't be wanted by anyone for anything
It doesn't take much hardware to pass packets at 2008 last-mile speeds. That's something old hardware can keep up with. I use GNU+Linux because I don't like proprietary software, or rebooting, and because it happens use the same remote access protocols, filesystems, etc, as everything else I use.
Full agreement with the "replace Vista" concept, but if I show up with a P4-3.0Ghz dual-core machine
If you, Leo Mauler, show up with a dual core Pentium 4, people will think you're a lunatic, and remind you Pentium 4's were never dual core, or that you probably meant hyper threading. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_4 And yes, I'm speaking in past tense about Pentium 4. I can't tell if you, Leo Mauler, meant to imply that a Pentium 4 was fast by 2008's standards. Perhaps if you were, you'd be interested in a Core 2 Quad, or a Phenom. Pentium 4 was released almost 8 years ago. The very last of that era ended two months ago.
and run Linux, people may be tempted to think that the PC, not the OS, is what is causing it to fly.
Boot it off of a thumbdrive, and leave the case open and hard drive blatantly disconnected. When people ask how that works you'll have your chance to rant about how fantastic Linux is.
I never said everyone hates Windows, and I don't see any connection or cohesive thought in most of what you write. Immediately cease ranting about hatred of Windows. I never mentioned any hatred of Windows, Leo Mauler, and I'd appreciate if you'd get over it. Additionally, you are wrong. Most people don't know what 'OS' means. People don't like old computers because old computers are old, and slower than new computers. You're not going to argue that fact out of existence.
Leo Mauler, you accused me of "insisting that people should not be informed". That is false, and libellous. It has never been my goal to prevent people from being informed. You, Leo Mauler, miss the point entirely, so I will summarize in on sentence:
If you're trying to market Linux, it's ability to run on old hardware is not nearly as attractive as getting better performance than alternative software on modern hardware.