On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Tom Achtenberg wrote:

> After several weeks of unsuccessful effort to install Linux on a desktop
> I am giving up and returning to more profitable activities.  I have
> tried 3 different distributions (Mandrake 9.1, Red Hat 8.0 and Knoppix
> 3.2) all with much hassle and no success.  Some on this list have
> alluded that I have a hardware problem yet the same PC was rock solid on
> Windows 98 SE.  

Somehow I missed this discussion.  What's wrong?  What doesn't work?  
Perhaps I'll have to scan the archives later.

> Last night I installed Windows 2000 server on it with no
> problems whatsoever.  The evidence leads me to conclude that Linux has
> some small niche areas it is good at, as a desktop OS it is simply not
> there.  

Linux is just like every other OS in existence.  Some hardware it likes, 
some hardware it doesn't.  Ever try to load Windows 98SE on some early 
Compaq gear?  YIKES!  I still have an imprint of a desk on my forehead.


> Yes, if you are geeky enough and have the time to spend editing
> config files by hand and recompiling every app so it works on your
> machine it may be fun.  I need to spend my time in more productive
> environments.  

K.  Perhaps this task should have been delegated.

> Using Dereks criteria when he labeled FoxPro a "toy"
> database I have to say Linux is a "toy" OS.  

Not touching this - missed this discussion too apparently.

> Good for specific narrow applications but run the whole enterprise on 
it?  No way.

Quick.  Somebody call Google, eBay and Amazon... they need to remove Linux 
immediately.  :-)  

I understand your frustration.  This is similar to my first experiences 
installing IRIX.  *shudders*