Posts in by tag
80s 90s Retro Vintage Porn
applications
Computer Keeps Shutting Down Virus
desktop
Drivers
firefox
Free Business Writing Exams
gnome
Harris Teeter Jobs
Harris Teeter Jobs In Hampton Roads
Harris Teeter Management Jobs
Network Video Chat
Niagara Falls Sex Chat Rooms
office
Port Everglades Fl Jobs
Port Everglades Fl Jobs Employments
Port Everglades Fl Security Jobs
printing
Single Cup Coffee Makers Reviews
updates
Recent Poll's
User login
Navigation
Syndicate
You have to be an 31!te GEEK, to grasp it ???
Tue, 01/13/2009 - 05:08 — xuserx2000
Ok...
So I think i'm smart.... I've been a network admin for over 14 years now...handling enterprise level windows / cisco networks, routers, firewalls, networking...etc. You name it...I've done it all...
And then comes linux...
The final frontier,...when you finally get bored with knowing everything all the time.
I download the distro, install it... immediately I have errors... (CENTOS 4.5)..
So what do I do ?..I switch into super tech mode, bust out the google, stay up till 3 am every night reading wiki after wiki, forum after forum......resolving the issues one by one. 1 week later I have a semi-stable system with "less" errors...but.... WITH NO SOUND !... and now I want to break something, because a desktop IS NOT a desktop UNLESS you can play music and video's on it !!!!
WTF !!!!!!!
so i'm thinking to myself......
If this seems a bit complicated, for me..... why in the hell would any non-technical end-user type individual ever be inclined to want to even try a linux distro once they've experienced windows ? How could these distro- developers ever expect a "non-geek", to be able to use this thing ?
Case in point....
If I want to install ...for example... Google earth... On windows, you download and open the file....click "I agree".. next, next ,next, finish....VIOLA !!!!!...you've got a working program...
On LINUX !..... let's see.... which is it... yum.... sudo... apt-get ...xxxxxx.... make , make config, make install, ... blah blah blah...... Oh and don't forget to check your video drivers...then tweak some conf files... read a few rambling wiki's and forums....and if you're lucky you have a working application before the sun comes up !
Linux SUCKS !... but I guess you get what you pay for...
Чипсы - это
Чипсы - это умение продать одну картофелину по цене килограмма.
В парную можешь не ходить, но выпить с другом ты обязан.
Избитые истины уже не требуют доказательств.
В прыжках побеждает тот, кто всех перепрыгает, а в стрельбе - кто всех перестреляет.
Допинговый
Допинговый скандал разгорелся на олимпиаде по русскому языку.
В шоу-бизнесе есть много способов добиться успеха,но у женщин на один больше.
Мы в ответе за тех в кого спустили!
Меняю листы формата А4 на Ауди той же модели.
I semi-agree with this. I
I semi-agree with this.
I use both Ubuntu and Windows and as of right now, I use my Windows box more because I don't have a lot of issues with certain things (printing being the certain thing). That being said, Ubuntu is great. I play around with it and come across issues every now and then, but the thing I keep in mind is that I am a born Windows user so naturely, I tend to favor it more. To me Windows is home. I find Linux challenging, but in a good way. It has helped me with troubleshooting and just recently, I was able to get my Ubuntu box to join a Windows domain using my AD account (although it took all day). Email through Evolution works great. File sharing and all that is awesome. Only issue I ran into was printing.
Linux doesn't suck, it just takes some getting used to. The only negative thing I can say about it is that it does take a while to fix certain issues and besides the obvious software limitations, it works great.
Oh and I got my Mom who couldn't tell a laptop from her desktop using Ubuntu and she has had no problems with the interface. She browses the web, checks emails, watches DVDS/ videos, listens to music, plays games; everyting a home user expects to do on their PC/Laptop. Maybe you should try another flavor, they are mostly free afterall. :)
I disagree with everything
I disagree with everything that you said. I installed a BETA version of ubuntu, and it was just fine right after I installed it.
Well, that may sound like a
Well, that may sound like a fundamental thought, but THE FACT, THAT YOU DON'T GET SOMETHING DOESN'T UNDERSTAND, THAT IT SUCKS. The opposite attitude can be observer in the real world [not an OS world]:
I DON'T UNDERSTAND 'EM, SO I AM AGRESSIVE AND I BEAT 'EM.
You know what? That's the thing that really sucks.
And don't get me wrong - I also think, that linux sucks somewhat: it's unstable, buggy, overhyped, bloated, chaotic and non-standard [it's no unix - believe it or not].
The point is this: A GUI
The point is this: A GUI should be user friendly.
To a windows user, it's like the old analogy where one guy asks a second guy how to get to the store... and the second guy answers by telling him how to build a car.
Windows has always been designed with the general market in mind (does "A Computer on Every Desktop" ring any bells?). This doesn't mean that the very techno savvy do or should find windows simplistic... and I think we can all agree that Linux is not.
Bottom line is this:
To teach one how to use windows, you teach from the top down (ie, you can effectively use it before you understand it); and
To teach one how to use Linux, you have to teach from the bottom up (ie, you have to understand it before you can effectively use it).
Now, does any of this make Windows an inherently BETTER OS? Not necessarily. However, it DOES make it a better "seller.' (Metaphorically speaking, of course, since one doesn't have to pay for Linux per se. But isn't that fact in and of itself a telling one? Even being free, Linux struggles to make the desired headway to being a preferred OS).
From the perspective of the average Windows end-user, LINUX is overly technical and a bit Klugy. Verdict: they prefer Windows.
BUT
From the perspective of the average LINUX end-user, Windows presents too many boundaries, road blocks, etc... Verdict: they prefer LINUX
The question is this: For whom should LINUX be developed? I believe that if that question is answered, then there will be a better idea of what to develop, how to develop it, and in what order. Further, you will have a better answer for Windows folks venturing into the LINUX who don't get it at first. You can tell them why it makes sense to you and not them... instead of just coming back with responses on the order of ,"Your mother! Linux is totally superior because windows sucks."
THE END.
I agree. To many articles
I agree. To many articles writeen by Linux users talking about how their grandma can use it. Not enough about how technically proficient 'power users' might want to use it. They are too focused on 'mr/miss average' they are ignoring those who would use and appreciate Linux for what it is, and what it can do. Thats sad.
But I disagree that Linux is much harder. Often, the community gives command line/complex solutions to problems which could have been done with the GUI. Linux is easier than it is made out to be. You can edit any config file without leaving the GUI or suing 'su' at the command line. You can install software without typing a thing. Its just that when a newbie asks for help, they are often given the more 'technical' solution. Many avenues exist in linux to configure it, and often, its is NOT the most 'graphical, windowsesque way' which is offered. Hence the user thinks that it is all like back in 1985. I've fallen into that trap, banging away at the keyboard editing scripts, only to end up ignorig the 5 year old 'howto' and finding GUI program which did the same thing, flawlessly with a simple GUI form. Why didn't I do this first? Linux community must be mindful to make sure new users dont fall into the trap of trying the 'hard way' in vain, and not trying the 'easy way' first.
CentOS isn't a desktop
CentOS isn't a desktop distro yet you demand that it be? Nor dues it use apt. Typical Windows arrogance. When you show up at a party do you but into people's conversations, too? Then make demands that they discuss something else?
I bet that's just the type of person you are.
Good luck with Windows.
Oh, PS: To install GoogleEarth on my Linux machine I just double click, too. WHat are you "bragging" about, fool?
I've been wanting to get
I've been wanting to get into Linux for some time. It appeared to be a new land of opportunity and IT people need to be up on these things. Bought a new HP Pavilion laptop before that which was to be my new private computer for experimentation (as opposed to the XP one used for games at home). As with most, it is a Vista machine, but figured I could get it to be a dual-boot. Also bought two new Linux books from the bookstore. After having trouble getting Feisty Fawn to work, I loaded the most recent version (Hardy Heron) and was delighted to find that I had indeed gotten it set up to dual boot. Next would be the internet. No more insecure browsing for me!
Troubles began to pile up immediately. Linux could not find the wireless signal while Vista could. I tried everything in my books. Finally, called a friend on the horn with a freelance network admin business and had Linux. He's been using Linux since the old days when you had to compile everything to install it on linux. We went to several screens and tried to find out what was going on. In the end, he concluded there had to be a bad installation of part of the program. We were able to uninstall drivers and several other parts but then couldn't re-install the new ones. Finally, as he was busy and had spent two hours, he recommended I uninstall Linux completely and perhaps re-install it.
That has turned out to be a real fun problem. Most instructions deal with an installation with XP as the Windows portion. Also, where is the Linux partition? I installed it from Windows, as instructed, and have been unable to locate it. It certainly doesn't uninstall from Windows. Windows may think it's gone, but it's not. To sum it up, I have to uninstall stubborn software before I can even make another go at it. And as the song once said, "The Thrill is gone".
Well, as I've already read
Well, as I've already read somewhere else, you might be a genius in Windows, but Linux is a whole different world. Here, you are a newbie, just like a whole bunch of other people.
Now, I'd say that you should try out with another distro. For example, Ubuntu. I'm quite sure that you will have very few, if no problems with it.
Install Google Earth here is nothing... Just download the .bin, browse to the folder where you put it, and run (from console) "sh ./[name_of_file]"
I use Ubuntu, and I'll gladly help you out, or point you where you can get some help for your specific case. Send me a mail if you need help: villanueva.arg (at) gmail (dot) com
" Just download the .bin,
"
Just download the .bin, browse to the folder where you put it, and run (from console) "sh ./[name_of_file]"
"
THAT'S THE POINT, you shouldn't need to do that to install a GUI app.
if it was "google earth for DOS", ok, you are supposed to switch to the folder and either run the setup file or uncompress the thing you downloaded or just type "ge" to run it,
but in a GUI enviroment aimed at end users that couldn't care less about the command line, they should be able to just run or open the file they downloaded, FROM WITHIN THE GUI.
before I get flamed: YES, I
before I get flamed: YES, I KNOW THE COMMAND LINE THING THAT BOOTS IN LINUX IS NOT DOS, I USED THE "if it was google earth for DOS" THING AS AN EXAMPLE.
yes, I'm familiar with DOS,"real windows", as in "the gui program that runs on top of the DOS operating system" (as in "from 1.0 up to 4.5 aka ME); and with "not-actually-windows", aka "the 32 bits operating system in itself that doesn't run on top of DOS", aka "nt/200/xp".
I'm using computers since 89, and I gave linux several chances, and yes, I tryed ubuntu, and no, it wasn't really an option to consider serioulsy as a desktop os, it's like a hobby or an interesting experiment, like "look, some people actually made a thing that boots itself without DOS or NT!", but it can't be taken serioulsy when in the same computer you can run "the real thing".
and be serious and realistic about the "old hardware" thing.... most distros even older versions, are as bloated and resource hogs as xp,
the only way to actually do stuff on a 386 is to use DOS 6.22 and win 3.1 or "dos 7.0 + win 4.0" aka 95, and I wouldn't recommend the last one unless it's really nesessary.
and this reminds me, for people that says "the 'there are no games for linux' thing is a myth" and point to a live dvd or distro or whatever with lots of "games",
COME ON, we gamers want "the real deal", real games, not cheap knock off or unfinished beta or tech demos or engines that let you "fly" in the game world without actually playing. a x por of a bubble bobble clone that has 10 or 20 user-created levels works for a while,and so does one of those open rts things,
but when the novelty wears off, you just want to play the real warcraft and the real empire earth and the real crusader no remorse and the real system shock...hell, even the real bubble bobble for DOS, and the only way to do that is using a DOS or a windows emulator.
so, don't pretend we can't see through the "there are games for linux" excuse.
(ok, you have ports of the ID games like doom and quake...but getting them to work properly with full sound or to use the resolution you want, is a nightmare).
"So I think i'm smart....
"So I think i'm smart.... I've been a network admin for over 14 years now...handling enterprise level windows / cisco networks, routers, firewalls, networking...etc. You name it...I've done it all..."
Really? I don't believe that for a second.
I guess you havn't been a network admin for 14 years, but you ARE 14 years.
hhaah I like how the OP is
hhaah I like how the OP is the only verified user.
why man get a life.
why man get a life.
...then I guess, judging by
...then I guess, judging by your post, you must be 12.
This is why people get frustrated with linux...
Things that should be simple are not, and when you point it out, ...the linux people get angry at you instead of thinking about how to make it better/easy.
It might make YOU feel superior to be able to bash those commands in the shell to get things going, but for most people is just anoying...
This one example of installing Google earth, is just one example of many that could be provided...as to how overly complicated it is to install basic END-USER type programs on linux...then you have to read up on every distro to make sure you do it right, and every program has different dependencies and steps....
On windows....you double click a single setup.exe.... anyone can install a program easily on windows... that is the point.
Yes lets personally attack
Yes lets personally attack the OP because they couldn't get something to work. Its that attitude that sucks arse in the linux world.
I'm sorry that you had
I'm sorry that you had problems with your linux but I would advise you to try a live disc before you install it on your hard drive just to make sure everything works. Not all linux are created equal. If a Windows user who wants to try linux I would advise them to use either Sabayon or Linux Mint. Since these two os installs the codecs, drivers for your video card and soundcard.
How would you know that
How would you know that otherwise? When I started wanting to use Linux, I didn't even know about Distros. I just thought there was one "Linux" OS. I ended up getting Definite Linux 7 because it cames with a magazine and an install guide and BASH tutorial. But apart from trying or researching you can't know.
I tried Sabayon and couldn't even log in because it didn't like my GeForce 2 graphics card. Linux Mint I've never heard of, but would it be easy to install all manner of softare for it? Are there Linux Mint packages for Opera, Wine, Firefox, etc? Same with Sabayon, these are all valid concerns for new Linux users.
The problem that having lots of distros gives, is that you CANT determine beforehand which one works best, and quite often, the choice of distro isn't a matter simply of taste, but rather having to settle for one that gives the least trouble. It's more a matter of which features/workings do you want to trade off?
(Do I sacrifice speed and go for SuSE or Fedora with all their prepackaged software? Do I go for good hardware support and efficiency and go for puppy and forgo installing anything which isn't in the puppy repo limiting my software choices? Do I go for Kilroy Linux OS and get something that works kind of good, but no sound and little support?)
I totally agree with this
I totally agree with this post. I run Linux on a VM for no other reason than the coure I'm doing uses Linux. I just tried for 3 hours to get the java dk running, and I give up (and this is on fedora, which is supposed to be an easy distro). Let's try this on windows shall we? Download, click, click... Done!
I know Linux is supposed to be more powerful, but so far everything I've done on it I could do on windows, and it was easier.
I apologize for ranting, but
I apologize for ranting, but its late and im bored. I guess my point is that that there are advantages to the gui and command line approach. One of my greatest concerns with windows is lack of control. Do some reading and you can find some info about the windows gui approach vs bash. the analogy is a swiss army knife (GUI's) vs very specific refined tools (command line). lets say my desktop is cluttered with down-loads, pdf files, avi, mp3, and .doc's, and i want to unclutter, the command line approach is faster and more refined.
first GUI: open my computer, browse to the folder you want, right click, create new folder, type in name, go to desktop, find all the files you want to move into that folder, repeat.
bash: open xterm, mkdir movies music docs, mv Desktop/*.avi movies Desktop/*.docs,.*pdf docs Desktop/*.mp3 music.
it may not seem like it, but it's easier and faster, just less visual.
Firefox install--no click click but, open xterm, tar xvf firefox.tar.bz2, and create an icon where you see fit. Its about control and choice, but really it's just different, better and worse. And actually you can click, click you still have to create an icon somewhere though. this is just a very simple example, but you would be surprised at the power of command line tools/ scripting(btw m$ saw fit to incorporate an almost copycat feature to BASH in windows 7 --PowerShell--), albeit they are harder to use. For me every trying experience has been a learning one with linux, a challenge. I come away knowing more about computers every time, hands down. Perspective people, its about perspective
You can do that in DOS, and
You can do that in DOS, and those little unix utilities can be ported to windows. Most, if not all, already have been. Cygwin??
Point is, the OS matters little. Linux advocates (and Microsoft too) make the OS to be far more important than it is. But I'm currently running Opera. Whether I'm running under Windows or Linux, point is, I'm runinning the SAMe program on the SAME hardware. Yes the OS is supposed to be such a big deal?
OS's (Windows, Linux, MacOS) suck because they try to make it 'marketable', when in reality the LESS the OS matters, the better it is.
Good point, I got a little
Good point, I got a little off topic here, but most people will agree that bash is more easily integrated within the OS, and linux is as functional without any GUI, more so than windows and has more functioning than DOS without the ported utilities (another *dows rip from someone else). Linux for me is about choice, I like windows, it is very easy. But until XP SP2 or whatever it has been an insecure unstable POS (still a little unstable). XP SP3 is fast, lean, cheap and easy to use. M$ in general is a money grubbing corporation I'm no freetard I understand the basics of economy and that Bill Gates is the reason this computer is in my hands, not IBM AT&T, *NIX or even Xerox ;). But a windows only world is scary to me, as a capitalist. Power to choice and people giving up their time to make an OS as usable as *dows IMO
I'm not sure what the last
I'm not sure what the last two sentences mean, and what it has to do with Capitalism. Bill Gates is not the reason the computer is in your hands by the way. If he didn't write an OS, someone else would have. You can't claim 100% credit for doing something that was inevitable. It's like saying that without Henry Ford we'd all be riding horses to work. If it wasn't for Bill,it would have been someone else with another company (or various companies), as someone else would have done what was inevitable and obvious, and do what MS did. We wouldn't have cared less anyway if it didn't happen.. Either way, everyone was going to have a PC, it just might have taken a little longer without Bill. Not that people would have missed them anyway.
Linux probably deserves more credit than Bill, because he did something a little more novel and went against the grain, rather than did the easy thing and ride the wave in to shore. Problem is that the opportunity is being severly wasted by the Linux zealots. Frankly, the only good things about Linux are the UNIX aspects of it and maybe the kernel
"The central axiom of
"The central axiom of Capitalism is that the best allocation of resources is achieved through consumers having free choice, and producers responding accordingly to meet collective consumer demand."
a excerpt from a report on capitalism. My point was only that I appreciate that capitalism (ideally) is rooted in choice. Obviously choice can be easily influenced and controlled economically by one company. In this case M$. And I stand by the fact that Bill gates is the soul reason computers are in my hand. Ok so someone else could have done what he did, but no one did. So thank you bill for being the reason that THIS computer is in my hand on THIS VERY DAY. He had a great business sense that allowed software (other than OS creators) and hardware companies to explode worldwide (among other economic benefits). UNLIKE Apple, who at the time who was trying to make everything proprietary and ultimately would have slowed the growth of the industry as a whole.
Yes, true linux has take almost all of it's good points from unix which is why i try to be general in giving credit to *nix as apposed to linux.
it's too bad Gates didn't copy *nix (oh yeah he couldn't steal from the already copyrighted software, or trick AT&T into 'giving' it to him).
Linux's biggest problem is it's ability to make revenue, to survive it will have to make money. And I don't see that working to well for OSS. The future will bring a blend of OSS and closed source (it really is already happening). Not just one or the other. Nevertheless i will chose the road of choice not the 700 dollar alternative, because it works. you just have to learn it as you learned windows.
Thats not the central axiom
Thats not the central axiom of Capitalism, it's an idealised romantic view of it. You dont need capitalism for that, or to reward hard work, just like the fact you don't need Communism to have community efforts and you dont need Christianity to help your fellow man. Political ideologies tend to take general positive ideals and claim that their specific system, and their system alone represents that ideal and without thier system, we would be devoid of those social ideals. This attitude is the very essence of dogmatism. If you want to know what the central axiom of Capitalism is, I'll give you a hint, it's in it's very name.
Secondly, to say that no one other than Bill did it again doesn't make sense. It's like saying without the Wright brothers we wouldn't have planes, because no one since then has invented them. You dont need to re-invent, or redo whats been done. Once I invent product X, or bring product Y to the mass market, it effectively REMOVES the opportunity for someone else to do so because there is no point in doing it again. So the argument that no one else has done it is flawed. You don't care that you don't have NOW, that quarzlorts and coogamanga's that future generations will have. They're certaintly useful though, and they wonder how we ever did without them. Maybe John Carraman came close to being the first to give you the quarzlort, but he didn't. Does it matter to you? Again, it's only after the fact it matters. However, it if was a cure for cancer he nearly created, then people WOULD care. Likewise, children only care about toys that exist, they dont care that they don't have toys that dont exist or ones they don't know about. There is a big difference between a product that people want prior to its appearance (cure for cancer), and one that only becomes a want after it's appearance (toys, home PC's). Besides, if Bill Gates didn't bring MS-DOS to the world, maybe someone else would have brought a BETTER system to the world.
I don't think Linux has to make money. Chocolate cake isn't proprietary, but lots of people make money selling it. Software is merely the implementation of an idea and an idea doesn't have to make money to be useful. Linux is useful to a lot more people than the general population realise, but it's really just technical aspects holding it back, not the fact it can't generate revenue. It can succeed because you don't need revenue to distrubute it. Just like a religion can spread by merely spreading ideas. Ideas cost little to distribute, as does software, so ideas people will want to adopt will spread. Proprietary software relies on selling people more and more complicated "solutions" to problems that don't really exist, creating a never ending consumption cycle, ie, having to upgrade and spend money all the time, just do keep peforming the same tasks.
By the way, I do use Linux myself largely because the Windows way of doing things has in my opinion severely retarded the 'IT' industry. Most companies I've worked for still use manual tools which are time consuming and cumbersome where the computing power to perform those tasks already exists, has been purchased and been around for ages. The problem is, that there is no one single app which does exactly what the company needs, so nothing is done. Instead of developing the software, or combining tools together to perform these tasks (the unix method), development just stalls and people use clumsy excel spreadsheets to keep track of paper records, etc. Windows works on the 'one app' approach, that you need an 'all in one' application. Unix works on customising existing tools to perform complex tasks, but most Windows users don't appreciate, or comprehend this, so all they say is "app X is missing, app Y is missing" etc. The inability for most IT people to think of, and implement new possibilities is astounding, which is why I suppose I've worked for multi-million dollar pharmaceutical companies with clumsy systems.
Think of it like this, you
Think of it like this, you had to learn windows ins and outs when it first hit the market. not to mention you and I have continuously paid for the crap that bill gates put out in stores. He was a great business man; that is how he could sell such a bad product to millions of people. Back to my point, if you take the time to learn what linux has to offer, expert or not, It is really no that bad. Try debian, or ubuntu, sudo apt-get is an option not the only way. SYNAPTIC is incredibly user friendly and has a plethora of powerful packages at your fingertips. Allow me to name a few big ones: Firefox, Mplayer, VLC, azureus, skype, firewalls, network tools, graphics drivers, sound drivers, mail clients, apache, ftp servers...I think it is something like 1800+ packages. All installable via a GUI(click, click) and guaranteed to be free of any dependency errors. Linux gets, easier and more stable by the day. I do agree that it should be more of a hobby for most people right now, I do miss some things about windows, namely the 'click, click' and its installed, but that is partly how so many people got tooled into infecting their own computers with countless trojans, malware, and spyware. Which leads to security, *nix was built from the ground up to be a multi-user, netwroked, internet safe OS. Windows has luckily had the financial foothold to reinvent itself/hack itself/ take more ideas from existing OS's to make itself more like *nix was 10 years ago; a multiuser, networkable, internet safe system. UAC- hate it? Linux has always had it(sort of, PAM/su) Windows finally employed this in what, 2006?? wow. Non-admin default install --*nix 1st, not windows. true multiuser system--*nix first. XP couldn't even ship with the simplest defense against internet attacks, a firewall; a script maybe 10KB in size as a first line of defense?!!? insanity until SP2.5 or whatever came out. I like windows, but I use linux now for everything i did on windows, it took me 2 years to get comfortable, but I must say it took at least that long with windows as well. It hasn't always been click, click...all is good. It used to be click, click **pray** aww $!#$! BSOD and no journaled filing system
As far as using linux for
As far as using linux for everything, I'm a gamer, and use my computer for it.
I'm guessing Synaptic is sorta like autoten? Cos it had to be installed through the command line. Currently, I'm trying to get the GCC running. 3 hours later and the command line currently reads "error: cannot find install-sh or install.sh"
Apparently, I'm supposed to build the package before installing it, but why the hell do I want to do that? All I want is to be able to compile c programs. That's IT. Nothing else. Should be simple, for a language that's been around for years...
And as far as stability, I've never actually had a problem with windows on that front. I'm running the Windows 7 BETA (<- i.e. not supposed to be fully stable) and so far it's crashed once. Because of overclocking (so not its fault).
Fedora 10? It crashed when I had the absolute gall to open a text file. It's crashed about 5 times now, in 2 weeks.
And I still never got the JDK running (read up). I gave up, and took about half an hour to get it done on windows (including download).
I know I know, you say they
I know I know, you say they beta hasnt crashed... ok, bu I say my last version of Xp out of the box gave me the BSOD regularly granted it was due to a driver problem, but I can say i haven't had that happen with *nix. So IM not sure what the problem is between your experiences and mine. Also my point is that M$ has billions and billions for a decade and they have barely begun to really put out a good product. Linux puts out a product that is a decent alternative with little revenue. Give linux a billion dollars for a few years and see what happens. As far as gcc problems and compiling
apt-get install build-essential
or
use synaptic and click your way through
Whoops, and there we
Whoops, and there we go.
While trying to install the GCC compiler, "error: no acceptable C compiler found"
GCC stands for "GNU Compiler Collection", doesn't it?