[SATLUG] Video Drivers

[Robert J Hewitt]

I use Microsoft on my dells and I have it on one of my custom machines
as well,  but for the most part I do like the security of Linux.  I use
a Linux firewall on a dedicated machine and I have a Fedora 7 system
running now that I have a few of the network bugs out of the way Its
integration into my windows network is fine.  I even have a 2000 server
that will more than likely be shut down permanently as soon as the
stability of the Fedor box is 100% verified.  But this does not mean I
will abandon Windows, the wife still like it and it did come with all
the Dells I own.  I will also concede that the Media players that come
with Linux although harder to initially setup are better than what come
with windows. I only wish there were a media manager Like the Itunes
program for windows were avaliable to Linux.  It's making me want to go
and Buy a MAC more and more every day.  (no this is not a knock on MAC)
I just need to save an go and get one.
This was my 2 cents worth


RObert 
   kc5jmr at grandecom.net

   
On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 09:26 -0500, Geoff wrote:
> Daniel J. Givens wrote:
> >
> >
> > ALSA and NetworkManager have both addressed these fairly well. Granted
> > they aren't seemless, but they are pretty good. When it comes to
> > wireless, I've had more difficulties with Windows. Do you use the
> > Windows wireless manager or do you use the manufacturer's utility.
> > Sometimes, things don't work correctly unless you use one or the other
> > depending on the device. Maybe I've just figured out how to deal with
> > the bumps in the road to the point that I just don't notice them as much.
> >   
> 
> Not that anyone asked, but here's -My- opinion.
> 
> If you want a gui'ed desktop system, with all the latest fancy bells, 
> whistles whizz-bang doo-dads and so forth... Go with Microsoft. 
> 
> The trade off is, Linux has -much- tighter security, in that the layers 
> around the ip socket inherently make Linux one of the most secure OS's 
> available on the open market.  M$ is coming around, but it's taking a 
> long time. 
> 
> On the other hand, their desktop display management is second to none.  
> I suppose it's whatever you get used to, but I've got a gui'd linux 
> system running Knoppix (installed)... I guess it's just me, but I've 
> never been a fan of the linux desktop.  In general, the fonts are too 
> small to read.  By the time you've got 'em big enough to see, you've 
> distorted them so that the text is out of it's container and not all 
> visible.
> 
> I've got two monitors on my desk top, two keyboards, and two mice, and 
> three machines. (one being the server, which runs SuSE Linux (for now - 
> it'll probably get changed to a debian based product in the future) so 
> this is a side-by-side comparison.  the Windows gui has it all over the 
> Linux gui, in -my- opinion. 
> 
> Do I trust M$?  Certainly not!  It is, after all, behind a -linux- 
> firewall ;-)
> 
> However, sound works better without having to futz with much, Video 
> cards have better support, there's more general hardware support for 
> Windows than Linux (although that's changing and I welcome it!), it's 
> just that to me, I can get along with a M$ gui -much- better than gnome, 
> kde, flux, or any other linux wm.
> 
> I think the -hard-core- Linux users beat their chest and drum so loudly 
> about Linux, is not because Linux is superior (in some ways, yes - in 
> others, no) but rather because there's a hatred for M$, what it stands 
> for, how it was started, blah-blah-blah. 
> 
> The Bottom line is, what works for you?  For me, my printer, scanner, 
> video and sound card work in XP, natively.  The OS found those 
> peripherals when it was loading.  Linux still doesn't support my 
> printer, my sound card needs to be manipulated and massaged evertime the 
> linux gui is booted, and the network card had problems, but that's now 
> corrected.
> 
> Is Linux ready for the desktop? 
> 
> I think my answer is "It depends on how badly the user hates Microsoft".
> 
> --
> -Geoff
>