DSL = GREAT Distro = THANKSForum: User Feedback Topic: DSL = GREAT Distro = THANKS started by: lkraemer Posted by lkraemer on April 18 2008,11:52
I was led to DSL by a co-worker, and it works great on my oldCompaq Presario 1672 (AMD K6-2 350MHZ w/384 Meg RAM). I am just running it from LiveCD ver 4.2.5 right now, but have it working with: Wireless with ndiswrapper, Ethernet, Internal Lucent WinModem, and External US Robotics Modem. WHEW! I guess I was lucky to have the correct Internal Modem installed from the folks at Compaq! I've bought your DSL book, studied, read, tried a lot of things, and I appreciate all of the work put forth by the GURU's that are working on the code. You guys are the greatest! Thanks for all your hard work. The MYDSL Extensions are GREAT also. I can't live without them. Now if I can just get enough time, and nerves to install to the Harddrive. Goodbye Wonders.......as in I wonder why Gates & Company are FORCING XP users to VISTA? YUK! Haven't they learned anything? LK Posted by lucky13 on April 18 2008,16:38
Geez, they're not "forcing" anyone to do anything. They're doing the same thing Linux is doing in transitioning from one series to another -- the migration from NT to ME to XP to Vista is akin to the migration from 1.0 to 2.0 to 2.2 to 2.4 to 2.6. I don't understand why people give Microsoft crap about this but Linux gets a free pass. With new hardware comes new software and vice versa. It's called progress. I remember the same Luddites didn't want to give up on Win98 or NT when XP was released. Now they're the same ones crying over XP's end of cycle. Bunch of babies. As far as what Microsoft has learned, I think they've learned a lot which is why Vista is an upgrade in every way -- including security -- over XP. I went even further yesterday on my blog and wrote that Vista is inherently more secure than Linux (but my caveat is always this: the user is the weakest link, not the operating system itself). Why? Several reasons. Chief among those reasons is that security through obscurity isn't security. With less than 2% of desktops using Linux, it isn't much of a target for the criminal class to attack. That doesn't mean it's not an easy target, it just means it's not a lucrative one. Same applies to OSX. Meanwhile, Microsoft has embraced new paradigms in tightening their own code and how others' code interacts with Windows. I'm not exactly a Microsoft fan, but I think some people get a little carried away with BS about other operating systems -- Microsoft is just a convenient whipping boy. The problem is, if it applies to your OS of choice you shouldn't take MS to task. That makes you less an advocate and more a hypocrite. And this IS germane to DSL because DSL is about to abandon kernel 2.4 the same way Microsoft is cutting XP support. Think about it. < http://lucky13linux.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/an-os-comparison-article/ > Posted by ^thehatsrule^ on April 18 2008,17:22
Posted by lucky13 on April 18 2008,17:59
Even so, will DSL's kernel 2.4 versions end up having about a seven-year support cycle like XP and other Windows versions have had? Or maybe just shy of seven years? Will DSL's development eventually be 2.6-only? (If you tell me 3.x and 4.x will still be useful even if they cease to be developed I'll remind you the same is true of older Windows versions, and it's just as easy to find old/new software to run on it.) (Edit: For full disclosure, I'm one of the supporters of DSL moving to 2.6. Technology isn't stagnant.) This is what Robert wrote:
< http://damnsmalllinux.org/cgi-bin....5;st=75 > |