cyto>

True, I could have left out my snide remark. Let's forget that and get back to my question.

I fully understand that you think Linux is for mature people. However, you didn't define 'mature'. Is it someone who doesn't need a GUI, is it someone who should know how to hack, just in case something goes awry? What exactly is a mature person?

You say Linux is a bit hard to use and configure. From my experience, the modern distros aren't more difficult to configure or use than Windows in many aspects; in some areas, they might even be easier, in others, more difficult.

If a programmer who knows a couple of languages migrates to Linux and has problems setting up his network, or getting his sound card configured, does this qualify him as being immature?

From my point of view, no.

I think it's just a language problem here and nobody meant to call the other immature however maybe Cyto's attitude was a little aggressive so it's easy to interpret it as abuse from Cyto. I understand how passionate one can be about something.

But I'm hoping that I can fix this problem and then maybe I can post my next message from my linux box instead of this Windoze box.

Any ideas?

Thanks guys.

You are not getting my point. If you can't configure something, it doesn't make you immature. I use linux without much problems, it doesn't mean that i am mature(i am mature while considering other stuffs). I can configure my linux machine quicker than a windows machine. Again i am not talking about others maturity. I didn't say that he is immature. Forget about the mature thingy. My point is stop blaming linux and try to solve it. I am not saying that he have done something wrong and thats why it is not working. I am offending anyone.

And about the programmer, i dont think he is gonna blame linux for not being able to setup things properly.

Thanks.

I was not offending you or anyone else. If you think that my attitude was a little aggressive, then i am sorry. I couldn't see any reason to blame linux.

Well... i think i should leave this forum now. Sorry for all those troubles and thanks for all those helps and encouragements. Have fun.

GOODBYE!!!

Cheers

all flaming apart, although I sure will not blame Win users for appreciating the "easiness" feeling they experience, I would like to question the whys and hows of that supposed easiness.

Computers, to me, are basically programmable devices : that means the user may change what he/she does with the machine at will. Of course, 2 persons will usually use their computers in radically different ways. Linux, for a number of reasons, allows me to do that.

On the other hand, Bill considers computers to be appliances : like a toaster, or a micro-wave oven, it does a limited number of things, and ifi you want to do them better, or to do other things, Bill & friends would like you to buy a new machine.

Proof ? For those (they are millions) who use computers to run an office suite, there is no real important functional difference between Office 97 under Win98 and Office XP under Win XP Home; yet to run it comfortably we must have machines 8 times faster, with 16 to 24 times more memory... We cannot go back, because Office 97 won't open Office XP files without losing all the fantastic new features we didn't know we needed...

Those of us who are only concerned with easiness, and not with understanding, will soon be running X-boxes and no longer real computers. There is nothing wrong about that, but we must be aware that it puts the power in the supplier's hands...

When I run into trouble with Linux, it is almost always because hardware makers give their specs to MS, and not to Linux developpers... Neither Linux nor the developpers are to blame, only trusts between large companies aiming to monopolies !

As sysadmin I am not too much interested in GUI and all that (server configuration is so much more straightforward in command-line). GUI's under Linux are in great progress though...

I see it from another angle, I have SUSE 9.1 personal, my understanding is that with this distro they are competing with windows/winXP, so let it be better than winXP if you want it to be accepted/adopted. People don't like change, that's a fact of life, at least get it to the baseline (winxp).

Some good theories/philosophies there. Sure makes an interesting read. But if it carries on like this I'm only gonna be reading it from my Windows XP machine for the forseeable future.

cyto> OK, I think I understand you. Let's let it rest as two different understandings of the word "mature".

cidrolin>

I agree with you that computers are programmable devices, but I also see them as tools in the sense that cars or toasters are. In my opinion, a good definition is of an expandable appliance, a type of Swiss Army Knife for all things digital.

I believe that computers are supposed to make things easier, they are supposed to simplify processes. Even though cyto said in a previous post that he switched to Linux because it is more difficult to use, I cannot imagine that any rational person would subject himself to more difficulties than necessary, necessary being here an ulterior motive behind that wish, such as learning, having fun hacking around, etc. This idea can also be used in real life, and I guess that's why most people are overweight, lacking in fitness, etc.; humans, in general, like to take it easy. That's also one of the basic driving forces behind innovation.

As a case in point, you yourself said that server configuration is much more straightforward in command-line. You choose the easier method to do what you wish/need to do.

Regarding people who buy new machines to cope with the newest software and the problem of backward compatibility in some types of programs, well, that's a pity. Still, I don't think it is a Windows problem. One could see the parallels to todays society, in which the citizens are letting their power and rights being taken away by governments on the pretext that there is no other way to combat the rise of terrorism. People who are willing to trade freedom for supposed security.

In the words of Thomas Jefferson:

Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.

Perhaps this is also what cyto wanted to express by using the word "mature".

WindowsIsBetter> Sorry, I can't help you with your problem either. I also have a network problem, but so far, unfortunately, nobody has even posted in the thread.

In case you, or anybody else, is interested in it:

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...hreadid=273368

(tries to push this train back on track)

WindowsIsBetter, sorry for all of this nonsense you've been exposed to. Let's try to take care of your problem.

Ok, first of all, you probably have to su to root in order to ifconfig. It's a security measure. However, you can do all of this in Yast, like someone else said.

I have had similar problems with my wireless card. Sometimes, it just didn't work. What it usually comes down to is improper autodection. Make sure that yast picked the right driver for your card. You can always go and google.com/linux "(wireless card name) driver". Chances are, someone has had this problem before.

Keep me informed on your progress.

>windowsisbetter
wireless under Linux is notoriously troublesome, because wifi cards producers do not document appropriately the chipsets they use in their products (sometimes different chipsets go into the same product reference, depending on the production date), and do not distribute Linux drivers. So a little search might be expected.

However, what puzzles me is that you said it worked at first, then stopped working; that is unusual. Moreover, if you can't get ethernet to work either, you may have another problem. I suggest you try to fix the ethernet connection first, it's usually easier, and has less fuzzy areas to look at. See if the loopback responds (if so the IP stack is ok). Check your boot logs to see if the networking components and devices go up normally. Try working with static address rather than dhcp.

When you get the networking going using good old cables, you can try getting the wireless up.

Just for the record, I've happened to run in tricky networking problems with Windows OS also, I'am not sure they are easier to debug.

>habala
some good points; I just wish to add a prescision, that when I use command line for server admin, I do not really look for an easy way, but for a way that gives me a better understanding of what the machine is doing. When configuring a IIS server, for example, I always get uneasy because the way the "commands" rule the software are obfuscated by the chrome.

hey people.
stop arguing with people like this
and help people who deserve it!

billy