Why Linux?

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

What are you talking about? I already stated my work stuff can't use linux. For example million dollar HP ICP/MS's for example have a HP computer with windows 2000 and windows software, two CD's incidently, to run the machine. That's just two pieces of about 30 other instruments which function in similar fashion.. for work. I'm sure there are hundreds of other examples like accounting, engineering, pharmancy, medicine software profesionals use everyday which are only winOS.

And I'm sure people in other industries can name dozens of pieces of software that only run on some version of commercial unix or some custom RT OS or even a RT version of Linux.

You need to get out more. I used to do support - and every dentist - Dr's office, law office, engineering firm used windows software proprietary to thier industry - expensive packages like $15,000- $35,000. You'd think they'd move in a heartbeat if a linux "free" alternative was out there. Never seen it. Linux is fine if you want to play around - run servers etc but people working with computers prefer windows and dare I say always will. Has linux user base even grown in the last 5 years? doubt it and it's "free".. Public opinion has voted and Linux is pretty bad when you can't even *give* a product away.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Has linux user base even grown in the last 5 years? doubt it and it's "free".. Public opinion has voted and Linux is pretty bad when you can't even *give* a product away.

Alright, you may as well just stop arguing now

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Nothinman

What are you talking about? I already stated my work stuff can't use linux. For example million dollar HP ICP/MS's for example have a HP computer with windows 2000 and windows software, two CD's incidently, to run the machine. That's just two pieces of about 30 other instruments which function in similar fashion.. for work. I'm sure there are hundreds of other examples like accounting, engineering, pharmancy, medicine software profesionals use everyday which are only winOS.

And I'm sure people in other industries can name dozens of pieces of software that only run on some version of commercial unix or some custom RT OS or even a RT version of Linux.

You need to get out more. I used to do support - and every dentist - Dr's office, law office, engineering firm used windows software proprietary to thier industry - expensive packages like $15,000- $35,000. You'd think they'd move in a heartbeat if a linux "free" alternative was out there. Never seen it. Linux is fine if you want to play around - run servers etc but people working with computers prefer windows and dare I say always will. Has linux user base even grown in the last 5 years? doubt it and it's "free".. Public opinion has voted and Linux is pretty bad when you can't even *give* a product away.

To the vast majority of people Windows is free also. Also it comes pre-installed on their computer.

Windows is generally more difficult to install, and secure, then most Linux distros (depending heavily on the hardware involved), but 95% of everybody I know are completely incapable of installing any operating system. Half of them are incapable of installing Microsoft Office and installing Firefox or Adaware is a fairly significant technological acheivement for them; almost on par with programming their VCRs (which they still use).

Most people don't even realy understand what a operating system IS, much less on how to install one.

So already, because Linux is simply unavialable to the majority of people due to the fact that Microsoft has a stranglehold on OEM computer market(for various reasons), your limited to the maximum theoretical Linux userbase of around 5-7% of the population that is savy enough to install complex software themselves.

Out of that limited number of people probably half still don't have to pay for Windows either. They still purchase OEM computers and get Microsoft 'for free' also.

So your left with maybe 1-2% of the population (if that) that actually do build computers for themselves.

So finally the only people that the cost of Windows is EVEN A ISSUE is a sub-sub-group of technically knowledgable people that build their own computers.

With those folks your dealing with mostly gamers or PC-related professionals and the like that require Windows to either run their favorite games or software that is required for their work for various reasons.. so in comparison to not being able to run those games and applications paying 90 dollars for a OEM version of Windows for a 1000 dollar computer is not unreasonable and is frankly required.

So the price of Windows versus the price of Linux is pretty much a crappy thing to argue about.

Still though, Linux is very popular OS despite all of this. It's is the second most popular operating system your going to find _anywere_ and in almost any catagory of computers and the most common OS in many of them. (embedded, server, enterprise server, desktop, supercomputers, etc). Although in Desktop-land there is some dispute wiether Linux or OS X is more popular.

As for Linux's growing user base, or lack thereof, keep in mind that the majority of people you see in this forum asking questions about Linux or trolling about how Linux is wonderfull haven't been using it for more then a year or two.

 

[Zebo]

Good reply Drag / I had'nt seen the "unavailablity" aspect of linux to novices either from MS "stranglehold" though pre-builts or just being novices in general as you eluded to for linux lack of market penetration. It's certainly why I don't use it which brings me to my next point. No Windows is not "more difficult" to install and it's certainly not as difficult to use as linux. The install proceedure is basically identical - click throughs/date times/domains etc - but to even get my monitor to display it's native res I had to spend three hours hunting down how to edit some text X somthing rather config file in linux vs. a simple right click on the desktop with windows. Installing software can be much more difficult on linux than windows - like sometimes you even have to compile the thing for your machine before you can even install it. Most everyone here at AT is a geek ("PC-related professionals") and linux is just too geeky even for them. Nothing to do with games in some cases. You're right it's not price - that was sorta a dig- I've tried linux twice now it's not near as polished - near as simple or near the software selection of a winPC simple as that.

 

[nweaver]

hmm...moved an Ubuntu default install from a 17" crt to a 15" lcd, and it autoconfigured for me...guess that was tough


If you think linux is really as bad as you say it is, then keep on your windows box...I'll keep my money and my options. I'm a dual user, but I find linux MUCH easier to use then windows after using it for about a year (I was 4+ on windows).

Also, as far as install, buy a brand new laptop with an atheros based or intel based wireless card, and install XPSP2 and Ubuntu 5.10, see which is easier to get running. As a hint, i just got a D810, Ubuntu had all my stuff except 3D support (although native res 1280X800 out of box) and missing winmodem drivers. XPSP2 was missing video (no native res), sound, NIC, wirless, chipset, and maybe one other (been a while). So tell me, which would be eaiser for a novice to get running? One with all drivers but 3d (and it's a laptop, so /shrug) or all those drivers (including NIC, so you can't download them direct).

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Good reply Drag / I had'nt seen the "unavailablity" aspect of linux to novices either from MS "stranglehold" though pre-builts or just being novices in general as you eluded to for linux lack of market penetration. It's certainly why I don't use it which brings me to my next point. No Windows is not "more difficult" to install and it's certainly not as difficult to use as linux. The install proceedure is basically identical - click throughs/date times/domains etc - but to even get my monitor to display it's native res I had to spend three hours hunting down how to edit some text X somthing rather config file in linux vs. a simple right click on the desktop with windows. Installing software can be much more difficult on linux than windows - like sometimes you even have to compile the thing for your machine before you can even install it. Most everyone here at AT is a geek ("PC-related professionals") and linux is just too geeky even for them. Nothing to do with games in some cases. You're right it's not price - that was sorta a dig- I've tried linux twice now it's not near as polished - near as simple or near the software selection of a winPC simple as that.

Try installing Windows and updating it in a secure fasion from a typical Windows XP SP1 install disk. Or even a SP2 disk.

You have to have a entire LAN network setup with a NAT-style firewall (typical consumer internet 'router') to protect it until it's updated or you have to be sure to save and have easy access to updates on a cdrom or a slipstream cd or something so you can get major updates done so that it's safe to connect to the internet.

After you get the base system installed your still not finished as you need to activate your OS (or make a phone call to MS if your unlucky) as well as visit updates.microsoft.com or do the automatic update type thing.

Then you still have to go out and download and update drivers to stable versions and get and install virus scanners and firewalls and all the fun stuff that goes with that. Then if you want to use many Windows-supplied applications such as Internet Explorer or Outlook Express you have to go through more steps to lock them down such as disabling ActiveX and maybe a couple other features.

Compare that to a typical Ubuntu install and apt-get/synaptic update/upgrade and whatnot. The major headache for Linux is going to be hardware support, and that only realy applies to wifi cards and newer/fancier video cards, unless your realy unlucky.

With the Ubuntu install you also get a couple office suites, some programming stuff, a nice secure browser and many other peices of software that you don't get with Windows by default. It would take several more hours of downloading and install software for your Windows install to match the functionality you'd get with Ubuntu.

Of course those Windows-only games and Windows-only applications are going to be painfull to deal with via Wine or Cedega in comparision.

Becareful when you look at Windows being polished or easier when compared to Linux that your not thinking that because your just very familar with Windows and Linux is fairly alien to you in comparision. Long-time Linux/Unix users often find Windows very frustrating.

The flip side though is that majority of people here have been using Windows since DOS days. The concept of 'C' drive makes sense to most people here, as a easy example. It's something that would only make sense to a Windows user, but there is no good technical reason behind it and it doesn't even realy make sense since C is never actually a drive! It's usually a partition. Windows is probably going to be the only OS your going to see this side of 1995 that still has concepts like that. There are a lot of other little things like that with Windows that doesn't make much sense, but is absolutely familar, expected, and easy to deal with for lots of people here none-the-less.

 

[stash]

You have to have a entire LAN network setup with a NAT-style firewall (typical consumer internet 'router') to protect it until it's updated

That's simply not true. The default-on firewall will protect you.

After you get the base system installed your still not finished as you need to activate your OS (or make a phone call to MS if your unlucky)

That whole three clicks thing is just too much hardship, huh?

as well as visit updates.microsoft.com or do the automatic update type thing

Wait, you don't need to update Linux? Do you want to go there?

Then if you want to use many Windows-supplied applications such as Internet Explorer or Outlook Express you have to go through more steps to lock them down such as disabling ActiveX and maybe a couple other features

Why the hell would you do that?

If you want to use Linux, by all means use Linux. Use what WORKS FOR YOU. That's all you needed to say, these reasons are really lame.

 

[smack Down]

The concept of 'C' drive makes sense to most people here, as a easy example. It's something that would only make sense to a Windows user, but there is no good technical reason behind it and it doesn't even realy make sense since C is never actually a drive! It's usually a partition. Windows is probably going to be the only OS your going to see this side of 1995 that still has concepts like that. There are a lot of other little things like that with Windows that doesn't make much sense, but is absolutely familar, expected, and easy to deal with for lots of people here none-the-less.

I never understood what people have against the concept of drive leters.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: smack Down

The concept of 'C' drive makes sense to most people here, as a easy example. It's something that would only make sense to a Windows user, but there is no good technical reason behind it and it doesn't even realy make sense since C is never actually a drive! It's usually a partition. Windows is probably going to be the only OS your going to see this side of 1995 that still has concepts like that. There are a lot of other little things like that with Windows that doesn't make much sense, but is absolutely familar, expected, and easy to deal with for lots of people here none-the-less.

I never understood what people have against the concept of drive leters.

It's a horrible solution?

My drives/partitions should be molded around my directory structure, not my directory structure around my drives/partitions. Want to give redundency to your user settings? Easy to move /home to another disk, partition, usb drive, samba/nfs share, software raid partition, etc. Try moving Documents and Settings in windows, you don't get that same "ease".

Stash, we arn't saying windows is the worst thing ever, just that to say it's "easier" then linux is a misnomer. Ease is in the experience. I find typing "sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get upgrade" easier then windows update. That one command, and possible a singel reboot (if you update kernel) easier then the multiple reboots/visits to Windows Update. Drag is far from a troll, as are you. Consider the source before getting upset and calling a valid point of view "lame excuses"

 

[nweaver]

Then if you want to use many Windows-supplied applications such as Internet Explorer or Outlook Express you have to go through more steps to lock them down such as disabling ActiveX and maybe a couple other features

Why the hell would you do that?

If you want to use Linux, by all means use Linux. Use what WORKS FOR YOU. That's all you needed to say, these reasons are really lame.

because activeX is a major secuirty problem

 

[stash]

I absolutely considered the source, which is why I was surprised. I expect better than that from drag.

I find enabling auto updates and no doing anything else easier than typing a command in a shell. I also don't reinstall my OS every week like many people around here seem to do, so I don't have multiple reboot issues.

The activation argument has been rehashed over and over. It is so overblown, and most people buy computers from and OEM so they don't have to activate in the first place!

Setting up NAT to update your computer? Come on...

Disabling ActiveX? Do you disable plugins in Firefox? The technology is not the problem. Both have the same level of risk.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: stash

You have to have a entire LAN network setup with a NAT-style firewall (typical consumer internet 'router') to protect it until it's updated

That's simply not true. The default-on firewall will protect you.

Ya, if your using a SP2 install cd I suppose.

After you get the base system installed your still not finished as you need to activate your OS (or make a phone call to MS if your unlucky)

That whole three clicks thing is just too much hardship, huh?

Sure. It's just extra steps you have to go through that's all. Not to mention typing out that activation code or cdkey or whatever you call it gives me a headache.

That and if you want to upgrade a motherboard generally speaking you can just take a disk out of one Ubuntu box, stick it in another with different hardware and boot it up. With XP that rarely works, and when you reactivate it your going to have to make a phone call.

Also it's not unusual to get activation denied for various reasons including changing out hardware to often, or reinstalling to often, or ending up with a key on the blacklist for whatever reason.

These aren't HUGE things, but it's still a mark against 'easy'.

as well as visit updates.microsoft.com or do the automatic update type thing

Wait, you don't need to update Linux? Do you want to go there?

I did mention that If ya looked at it. Open Synaptic, select update, select go. Or do apt-get if you like it that way.

Then if you want to use many Windows-supplied applications such as Internet Explorer or Outlook Express you have to go through more steps to lock them down such as disabling ActiveX and maybe a couple other features

Why the hell would you do that?

Because ActiveX is buggy and insecure?

I thought this was a 'duh' thing. I can't beleive that any knowledgable person would even have to think about this for more then 15 seconds or so.

Take http://secunia.com/advisories/9534/ and multiply it by something like '8'.

Solution:
Remove the ActiveX plugin if it is installed.

Configure Internet Explorer to prompt before accepting or executing any ActiveX plugins or block the ActiveX plugin using your proxy server.

If you want to use Linux, by all means use Linux. Use what WORKS FOR YOU. That's all you needed to say, these reasons are really lame.

I think you misread my post completely.
These weren't reasons to use Linux vs Windows.
That post was simply me pointing out that Windows isn't nearly as 'easy' or 'polished' as it seems to a long time Windows user.

As for using Linux vs Windows I have hell of a lot better reasons then these.

 

[nweaver]

yes, I disable plugins in firefox....


Activation is a non issue, imho. I have reinstalled windows in the lab so many times, and the most is a few calls to MS support for about 5 minutes. I will agree with you there.

btw, after Ubuntu is running, it pops up in the systray saying "you have updates" and you click that, it shows you what it has, with options to install them. many windows updates do require a reboot, where as very very few linux ones do.

TBH, these linux/windows fanboy threads get old quick. Both are simply tools to get a job done, and you should select the tool best suited to get the job done. I do also think it's goo do know what tools are out there (learning linux and windows) so that you can make an informed decision.

I will make one last comment against windows, though. WTH is up with not being able to import a CSV file into DHCP or DNS? Pain in the butt. I had to write a perl script to parse my csv and make a netsh file, and had to get an external command from the res kit to do the DNS. otherwise it would be setting up 600 reservations by hand.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: nweaver

Originally posted by: smack Down

The concept of 'C' drive makes sense to most people here, as a easy example. It's something that would only make sense to a Windows user, but there is no good technical reason behind it and it doesn't even realy make sense since C is never actually a drive! It's usually a partition. Windows is probably going to be the only OS your going to see this side of 1995 that still has concepts like that. There are a lot of other little things like that with Windows that doesn't make much sense, but is absolutely familar, expected, and easy to deal with for lots of people here none-the-less.

I never understood what people have against the concept of drive leters.

It's a horrible solution?

My drives/partitions should be molded around my directory structure, not my directory structure around my drives/partitions. Want to give redundency to your user settings? Easy to move /home to another disk, partition, usb drive, samba/nfs share, software raid partition, etc. Try moving Documents and Settings in windows, you don't get that same "ease".

Stash, we arn't saying windows is the worst thing ever, just that to say it's "easier" then linux is a misnomer. Ease is in the experience. I find typing "sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get upgrade" easier then windows update. That one command, and possible a singel reboot (if you update kernel) easier then the multiple reboots/visits to Windows Update. Drag is far from a troll, as are you. Consider the source before getting upset and calling a valid point of view "lame excuses"

Why wouldn't you want the directory structure to model the physical directory structor. A drive isn't a folder so modeling it as so seems wrong. How is it any easyer to cpoy the documents and settings to s different drive and editing the registery then moving /home to a different partion and editing the fstab.

 

[stash]

Ya, if your using a SP2 install cd I suppose.

Given that this is the only version of XP on the market for the last 18 months, this is a big point. It's disingenuous to point out an issue that hasn't been an issue for 18 months.

I do need to stop posting in these threads though. Same stuff over and over

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: stash

Ya, if your using a SP2 install cd I suppose.

Given that this is the only version of XP on the market for the last 18 months, this is a big point. It's disingenuous to point out an issue that hasn't been an issue for 18 months.

I do need to stop posting in these threads though. Same stuff over and over

Well.. Ya. Most people I help out with computers and such their computers are older then 18 months. So that's probably why I still think about it.

Of course most those people I have bullied into having them put behind seperate router if they have 'broadband' (horribly misused word) a long long time ago.

Personally I still don't feel to safe sticking even very new Linux distros directly on the internet either. The only OS I'd trust for that sort of work is OpenBSD.

 

[Zebo]

Ease is in the experience.

Succinct discription of what I'm hearing here. Obviously windows has a heck or a head start and install base thus it follows that windows *is* easier by virture of that popularity, no?

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Ease is in the experience.

Succinct discription of what I'm hearing here. Obviously windows has a heck or a head start and install base thus it follows that windows *is* easier by virture of that popularity, no?

for the enthusist....my mother has never reinstalled windows, so it's a toss up on which would be eaiser to install/find drivers/get running. I would actually put my money on Ubuntu for her to reinstall/get running for web/email/IM, because I know her nic drivers arn't supported out of box for XP.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: nweaver

Originally posted by: smack Down

The concept of 'C' drive makes sense to most people here, as a easy example. It's something that would only make sense to a Windows user, but there is no good technical reason behind it and it doesn't even realy make sense since C is never actually a drive! It's usually a partition. Windows is probably going to be the only OS your going to see this side of 1995 that still has concepts like that. There are a lot of other little things like that with Windows that doesn't make much sense, but is absolutely familar, expected, and easy to deal with for lots of people here none-the-less.

I never understood what people have against the concept of drive leters.

It's a horrible solution?

My drives/partitions should be molded around my directory structure, not my directory structure around my drives/partitions. Want to give redundency to your user settings? Easy to move /home to another disk, partition, usb drive, samba/nfs share, software raid partition, etc. Try moving Documents and Settings in windows, you don't get that same "ease".

Stash, we arn't saying windows is the worst thing ever, just that to say it's "easier" then linux is a misnomer. Ease is in the experience. I find typing "sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get upgrade" easier then windows update. That one command, and possible a singel reboot (if you update kernel) easier then the multiple reboots/visits to Windows Update. Drag is far from a troll, as are you. Consider the source before getting upset and calling a valid point of view "lame excuses"

Why wouldn't you want the directory structure to model the physical directory structor. A drive isn't a folder so modeling it as so seems wrong. How is it any easyer to cpoy the documents and settings to s different drive and editing the registery then moving /home to a different partion and editing the fstab.

I have a directory tree, I don't CARE how my phsical part plays into that, that's the admins job.

adding /home to another partition is MUCH easier then with windows. Not to mention, it's about 10 keyboard stroke during the install of ubuntu/Debian. How hard is it during windows install?

and the S/W raid kills winodws options. I know, I use s/w raid in linux all the time. It's nice to have a couple old 20 gig drives to mirror /home to, and that it can be setup during the install.

and to throw on top of this network stuff...you cannot mount a network share (nfs, dfs, or samba) to anywhere BUT a drive letter in windows. You also cannot share a share. I have a secure lab (no outside access) and a linux server that mounts a samba share from my fileserver on the regular network, and then shares that out to the test network, so I can put my test reports on there, go to my desk to polish them and pdf them before emailing them out to customers.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: nweaver

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: nweaver

Originally posted by: smack Down

The concept of 'C' drive makes sense to most people here, as a easy example. It's something that would only make sense to a Windows user, but there is no good technical reason behind it and it doesn't even realy make sense since C is never actually a drive! It's usually a partition. Windows is probably going to be the only OS your going to see this side of 1995 that still has concepts like that. There are a lot of other little things like that with Windows that doesn't make much sense, but is absolutely familar, expected, and easy to deal with for lots of people here none-the-less.

I never understood what people have against the concept of drive leters.

It's a horrible solution?

My drives/partitions should be molded around my directory structure, not my directory structure around my drives/partitions. Want to give redundency to your user settings? Easy to move /home to another disk, partition, usb drive, samba/nfs share, software raid partition, etc. Try moving Documents and Settings in windows, you don't get that same "ease".

Stash, we arn't saying windows is the worst thing ever, just that to say it's "easier" then linux is a misnomer. Ease is in the experience. I find typing "sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get upgrade" easier then windows update. That one command, and possible a singel reboot (if you update kernel) easier then the multiple reboots/visits to Windows Update. Drag is far from a troll, as are you. Consider the source before getting upset and calling a valid point of view "lame excuses"

Why wouldn't you want the directory structure to model the physical directory structor. A drive isn't a folder so modeling it as so seems wrong. How is it any easyer to cpoy the documents and settings to s different drive and editing the registery then moving /home to a different partion and editing the fstab.

I have a directory tree, I don't CARE how my phsical part plays into that, that's the admins job.

adding /home to another partition is MUCH easier then with windows. Not to mention, it's about 10 keyboard stroke during the install of ubuntu/Debian. How hard is it during windows install?

and the S/W raid kills winodws options. I know, I use s/w raid in linux all the time. It's nice to have a couple old 20 gig drives to mirror /home to, and that it can be setup during the install.

and to throw on top of this network stuff...you cannot mount a network share (nfs, dfs, or samba) to anywhere BUT a drive letter in windows. You also cannot share a share. I have a secure lab (no outside access) and a linux server that mounts a samba share from my fileserver on the regular network, and then shares that out to the test network, so I can put my test reports on there, go to my desk to polish them and pdf them before emailing them out to customers.

Not one of those things listed has anything to do with the directory structure. Adding /home to a partition could be made just as much a pain in the ass as doing moving documents and setting in windows. S/W raid has nothing to do with it.

Shareing a share again has nothing to do with the directory structor it could just as well be unsupport in / directory structor as in windows. As for not being able to mount a share anywhere but a drive letter who cares.

As for not caring about the physical parts plays into that being the admins job. Want to take two guess who is the admin most window boxes? Most people care if they just saved the file to the floppy disk or installed a program on to the network share.

 

[n0cmonkey]

What is the purpose of the A: drive? B: drive? C:? D:? E:? F:? Real purposes. What goes there (or is supposed to go there)? Maybe a definition for every Windows PC out there. Explain drive letters to someone that doesn't understand them.

I can tell you what /, /usr, /tmp, /home, /var. /usr/local are for. It's also nice to have one hierarchical tree, instead of a half dozen stumps.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Not one of those things listed has anything to do with the directory structure. Adding /home to a partition could be made just as much a pain in the ass as doing moving documents and setting in windows. S/W raid has nothing to do with it.

Shareing a share again has nothing to do with the directory structor it could just as well be unsupport in / directory structor as in windows. As for not being able to mount a share anywhere but a drive letter who cares.

As for not caring about the physical parts plays into that being the admins job. Want to take two guess who is the admin most window boxes? Most people care if they just saved the file to the floppy disk or installed a program on to the network share.

no, moving /home is so much simpler. It's a single, well documented text file. Is the registry/moving stuff like that well documented?

I care about mounting network shares somewhere besides a drive letter. That's enough for me.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: nweaver

Originally posted by: smack Down

Not one of those things listed has anything to do with the directory structure. Adding /home to a partition could be made just as much a pain in the ass as doing moving documents and setting in windows. S/W raid has nothing to do with it.

Shareing a share again has nothing to do with the directory structor it could just as well be unsupport in / directory structor as in windows. As for not being able to mount a share anywhere but a drive letter who cares.

As for not caring about the physical parts plays into that being the admins job. Want to take two guess who is the admin most window boxes? Most people care if they just saved the file to the floppy disk or installed a program on to the network share.

no, moving /home is so much simpler. It's a single, well documented text file. Is the registry/moving stuff like that well documented?

I care about mounting network shares somewhere besides a drive letter. That's enough for me.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q236621/
looks like it is.

Besides that has nothing to do with using drive letters or not.

 

[nweaver]

so you cannot do it in a default install. A person has to make an unattended disk (not exactly end user material) to do it. on the other hand, Debian lets you partition the drive, and define the mount point pretty simply during the install, no hassles.

Also, can you do S/W raid during the setup?

edit: It has everything to do with drive letters. You cannot discuss directory structure without pulling drive letters into the mix. It's an archaic system.

Posted by n0cmonkey

What is the purpose of the A: drive? B: drive? C:? D:? E:? F:? Real purposes. What goes there (or is supposed to go there)? Maybe a definition for every Windows PC out there. Explain drive letters to someone that doesn't understand them.

 

[bersl2]

Why does this entire thread leave me with the feeling that several months' worth of at least basic understanding between our various factions has been suddenly undone? Yay, regression.

Mission Accomplished for Chosonman?