Linux Issues

A couple of posts ago, I responded to your inquiry as to why I want to switch to Linux, with all its associated problems, with a discussion of frustrations with Microsoft and the direction of the commercial software in general. After thinking about this for some time, I have re-evaluated my true motivations, for which my opinions of the software world are but a handy cover. The REAL reason I am looking at switching to Linux, the deep down, personal motivation, is "because I can".

KDE and Gnome both are only graphic interfaces and its can work along and at the same time. I.e. you can launch any KDE program under Gnome and vice versa after downloading of some libraries. In any case it is not a great problem at all.

I've nothing against that you're prefer Excel as well as I am friendly to anyone who is using Windows or any other OS and software.

All linux distros plus-minus the same and I use SuSE as it "irony" stable and has all needed libraries for compiling any thing (like minicom and not only one). I'm using Mandriva as it's very fast, though not so accurately completed.

But I repeat your choice is good - as Ubuntu is optimal way for migration. Hope you work for porting your old VB program to Gambas as well as Excel stuff to Gnumeric will be successfully done gradually .

Good luck.

If you can do what you want with Linux, then I say more power to you. However, as you said, you don't like programming... The only issue I have with that is as a Windows user, I have never had to use the "c" word - "compiling!" I just install stuff. Mind you, I can program, and don't mind it, but I really don't want to mess with my operating system all the time. I just want to run applications. If it wasn't for the applications, I never would have bought this beast.

Although, I do know it is a free country.

Philosophically, I am with you 100%. The computer is a tool. Where possible, I would prefer just running applications (and Windows does offer the best means of loading applications I have encountered- loading applications in Linux is an exercise in frustration). I don't want to have to mess with my operating system, either. By the same token, I don't want anyone else messing with it either- like MS downloading "upgrades" that render some applications inoperative (which has happened to me on several ocassions with the only machine I put on line). I define a stable system as one that works, and works the same way every time I turn it on (if I should happen to turn it off or suffer a power failure). Windows XP and Vista do not fit my definition of stable systems. Windows 98 SE does. Linux, so far, does not (Linux developers seem to be hung up on this "me, too" thing, rather than looking for solutions to problems MS choses to ignore. It seems they keep changing things for no good reason- but if I can get the system working the way I want it to, I will be able to cut off the developers from messing with my system. since XP, you can not even use Windows without going on line to get permission from MS to use it!).

The other problem I face is that I suffer from some sort of mental disorder in that I seem to want to do things with my computers that I am not supposed to want to do, according to most commercial applications writers. Something simple, like reading data from a test system, using perfectly good but dated equipment that utilizes RS232 communications, etc. Once the data are in the computer, there are all sorts of wonderful applications for analyzing it, manipulating it, and making pretty pictures, independent of the operating system (Apple seems to be supreme at making pretty pictures, but that is the least of my concerns, for the most part). For the most part, I have no problem paying for an application that actually does something for me (my current dream is to buy AutoSignal, but at $800, it is a little steep for my budget right now!).

So here's the thing that I believe most people don't get...

Are you old enough to remember when computers had to be run in climate controlled environments and in very clean environments? If you are, think about this... These days we have the CPU, the memory, the hard drives and the circuitry miniaturized to an insane level and if it's a laptop, we expect to treat it as if it's just a book. On the other hand, if we are using a desktop, we expect it to run under any heat and humidity loads. Not to mention, we expect to just throw software on the system and expect it to work. Forget whether the programmers had our system in mind! Forget that we might need a special upgrade or anything else!

For Christ-sake! These are friggin' computers! Some of the most ephemeral and sophisticated devices on the planet! Yet, we seem to get all pushed out of shape when we can't treat them like toaster ovens! This doesn't even take into account all the clone manufactures and dealers out there that are all too willing to sell you a box full of spurious parts!!!

What the heck do you want? Would you treat your own brain the way you treat your PC?! So, I'm asking - How much of these problems are MS' fault and how many are the fault of hardware and how we treat it?!

You have some good points about how we treat computers- think also of the imbedded systems in automobiles, etc. I remember the climate-controlled rooms, the delicate nature of early PC's, and yes, hardware has come a long way. By the way, I have very good luck with off-brand boxes- clones, if you will. Much better luck than I have had with major brands, such as Hewlett Packard. I get about 4-5 years out of a hard drive these days (quality brand or clone), and have never had a problem with a motherboard or processor. I've had to replace a couple of CD drives as well, but it is hard to determine if it is because they are cheap parts or over-used. My issue is not with hardware. Hardware is cheap and rugged. My issue is not only with Microsoft, either, but with the entire software development community (including the Open Source community). I am pretty well convinced that most software writers (Open Source and commercial alike) haven't a clue about how to use a computer, or what is important, at least to me (and, from what I read, at least a few others). I am not at all impressed with exotic GUI's- I want to do serious work with my computers. A major problem I have is getting information into the computer- raw data from measurement systems. This used to be easy. Today, the excessive concern over "security" makes such simple tasks extremely complicated, and I do not see easy ways to turn off the security features (if I never put the computer on line, why do I need all this exotic security?). I still write most of my reports in straight ASCII editors (i.e., MS Notepad), and import into the word processor after I am through creating, just to add the window dressing. I do like multiple windows, but I was using multiple windows (and multitasking) with HPUX back in the mid '80's- a whole lot more efficiently than the systems I am using today (I could record data from multiple systems while writing a report or doing a schematic drawing on that old HP machine). Today, I can't even get an HP machine to function correctly out of the box- before I try to add all those exotic applications that the systems developer can not even envision. Which is why I now buy clones.

I have one machine running Windows 98SE, which is the machine that works the way I want it to work. I purchased this machine after Microsoft stopped selling Windows 98- I had to threaten not to buy the machine to get the vendor to agree to load Windows 98. I have two machines running Windows XP- neither of which works the way I need to work. One I use for the Internet- it is OK for that, but not much else. The other machine, I threw out Office 2003 and loaded Office 2000- and sped up Word and regained access to some Excel functions that are important to me, but which I could not find in Office 2003. I hzve seen enough of Office 2007 to know that we are talking a pretty steep learning curve to get to where I am today with Office 2000.

Gee, I am rambling on and on, here, and you have probably heard it all before. To be honest, I have seen some pretty promising things from the Apple camp these days, but I have to ask myself, am I willing to invest the time required to switch to a system that is not proven to accomplish what I want to accomplish? I had some bad experiences with Apple a few years ago, when they were still running a closed system, and I really shouldn't hold that against them. I am looking at Linux because I had hopes that it would be closer to the old Unix that I loved so dearly (unfortunately, Linux developers are so hung up on the "me, too" type competition that they are ignoring the real opportunity, which is addressing those areas where the majors are failing). I am also VERY fond of the Palm OS- it is a shame no one has thought of porting that to a real computer...

I am really surprised that you do not like XP. For me, it's been the best of the Microsoft lot! Although, I do not use Excel, so I cannot sympathise with your observations.

On the other hand, I am loathed to go to Vista, knowing that most of my XP applications cannot run directly on Vista, and this amounts to several thousands of dollars to replace the software if and when it exists!

Just for the heck of it, you might want to get a small piece of freeware called "KatMouse." If you've lost the ability to scroll within a window with your mouse's wheel, this program will return that ability. Furthermore, you can scroll the window in focus AND scroll windows that are not in focus. That's really handy!!!

Scrolling Windows not in focus sounds like a really handy feature- I will have to give that a try...

My primary issue with XP is that a lot of the old software I use won't run on XP. To upgrade my 98 box to XP would require an investment of something like $7000- CAD software, accounting software, some SICE software and analysis programs that I use frequently. Some of the older stuff works somewhat with XP, but some of it doesn't work at all.

I recently discovered one of my main issues with XP- I had a hard disk crash, so I paid someone to put XP back on that machine (I probably would have been better off loading it myself, but time is sometimes critical for me). I get the machine back, and my sound no longer works (I am not using anything really fancy for a sound board) and the video locks up frequently. This being my test bed, I later loaded Linux on the same machine. Straight away, I have sound (meaning the appropriate drivers were included with the distro I downloaded from the Internet), and no problem with the video. I go back to XP, and the video problem has almost gone away- I suspect the problem was that XP was putting the swap file too far out on the large hard drive, and by making the XP sector smaller, it takes less time to do a refresh, but I am not sure. (The new hard drive is the same size as the original- I believe 80G, but originally it was split into C and D drives). What is interesting is that I use the same hard drive with the 98 machine without this problem, and the sound drivers are there on the original 98 CD- I don't have to go on the Internet to download new drivers.

Both machines are, of course, clones. When I get down to the DOS level for some of my instrumentation work (not often, but occasionally much faster), the XP machine seems to be faster than the 98 machine (I don't know offhand what the clock speed is, and I believe both have Pentium processors, but it's been so long since I have had to think about that, I'm not sure. Currently, I am away from the office, so I can't verify what the machines really have). I also have done no serious testing- this is just a gut feel. Running identical software on the two versions of Windows (for example, Word 2000 or Excel 2000), the XP machine is noticably slower (especially noticable when doing something like rescaling a graphic in Excel). Running Excel 2003 on the XP machine is even slower, and Word 2003 drives me crazy with the "auto format"- specifically, my illustrations don't stay where I put them, even though I manually change the anchor criteria (I have this same problem with Open Office and IBM Symphony). Old Word Perfect would do what I asked it to do, newer software seems to think it knows more about what I want than I do.

More rants...I enjoy these exchanges with you.

I, too, got bit in the butt by XP. A bunch of my software had to be replaced. This is an experience I do not want to repeat soon (AKA Vista).

You can turn off all of that automatic stuff in the Microsoft software. The first thing I did was to kill Mr. Paper Clip!

One thing I have found is that XP seems really sensitive to the state of its registry. I've found using a registry cleanup app (e.g.: RegCure) makes a lot of difference in the way my PC runs! Mind you, I wouldn't try it myself using RegEdit - I think the app is way more informed than I am.

Ah, yes, the Registry! I have tried out a couple of different cleaners, current one being cclean. They seem to help, but the various ones I have tried all seem to give different results. More helpful is a book I found on line, "Microsoft Windows XP Registry Guide" by Jerry Honeycutt, originally published by Microsoft Press. Unfortunately, I don't have a record of the link where I downloaded it. But it gives some pretty good background on the logic thinking behind the registry concept. Which is another reason I am looking for alternatives to Microsoft...

One of my problems with Office 2003 is I don't have the CD- I bought the machine used with Office 2003 already installed. I have since downgraded to Office 2000 (which I own leagally) on XP, and I do not have the problems I had with Office 2003. I have looked at Office 2007 on other computers, and I dread having to go that direction...2000 meets my needs. Why change?

Depending on how your install was performed, the Data Analysis package may be sitting in a directory on your PC. On the other hand, you might try seeing if you can get the package from a Microsoft web site for free.

You just got me interested and I opened a piece of software that I didn't even know was on my machine. Finding it, I thought I'd try to find a solution for you. And this it the thanks I get?!

By the way, I have a Geiger counter that connects to my PC via serial port. It comes with graphing software that produces counts per "anything." I'm assuming that this is the way my system is set up - to constantly query the serial port. I've never had a problem, even when I moved it to my laptop, which doesn't have a serial port, and I need to use a serial to USB converter.

I, too, have some software utilizing the serial port that moves nicely from machine to machine, and then some that doesn't. Another one of my pet peeves is that I have to buy additional adapters to add a serial port to my new laptop- and another adapter to add a parallel port, because that is what my oscilloscope uses. My old IBM ThinkPADS (may they rest in peace) came complete; but, then again, I paid considerably more for them...