Re: debian

[John Sunderhaus <jsunderhaus@cox.net>]

On Sat, 2003-06-21 at 15:30, cr wrote:
> On Sunday 22 June 2003 01:39, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 01:07:21AM +1200, cr wrote:
> > > > And, just so I can join in the foray of the auto-detect flame-fest
> > > > here, if a user doesn't know his hardware well enough to be able to
> > > > pick it from a list he shouldn't be installing an OS in the first
> > > > place.
> > >
> > > Errr, *wrong*.  Much of my gear is second-hand, and of course the
> > > first thing the original owners invariably do is lose the manuals.
> > > :( My current motherboard is the first one I've ever had a manual
> > > for, ditto my S3 VGA card, and I've *never* owned any monitor of a
> > > brand that's been listed in the 'X' config options.
> >
> > Actually, he's right.  It's 2003 and people still don't know about
> > Google?
> 
> You think I didn't *try* that?    ;)
> Short of taking the monitor apart and looking for some name on the chassis 
> inside, I could find nothing.
> And that does presuppose one has a spare working PC with an Internet 
> connection handy.
> 
> > > Yet, both RedHat and Mandrake's graphical installers and Debian's penguin
> > > logo display fine with *whatever* card I'm running - what is it the
> > > installers know that they won't tell X config ?    :(
> >
> > X is not the framebuffer.
> 
> I don't know the technicalities, it still seems odd to me that the installers 
> can display a graphical image perfectly while they're installing, yet when 
> they reach the point of setting up X, she don't work.    Not to mention, 
> frustrating.
> 
> cr
> 

My two cents...

First, cr, you hit the nail on the head re: your observations on RedHat
and beancounters.  I could not have stated it better.

However, trying to get any Linux distro to perform better than Windoze
on inadequate equipment is like trying to pull an 18 wheeler with a VW. 
There is no magic in the world that can be applied to that VW to pull an
eighteen wheeler.

First, I am very happy to inform the world (outside of Debian world)
that Debian Linux *is ready* for the desktop. The caveat is this:  While
Windoze seems to work OK on PCs with 32Mb to 64Mb of RAM, there is *no
way* Linux can compete on that equipment.  In order to graphically see
that Linux *looks better* and *performs better* than Windoze, you *must*
have the following:

	Tons of memory - I'd say at the very minimum, 256MB.
	A graphics card that can do a color depth of 24bpp or better
	A monitor (CRT) that can do 30-95 HZ horizontally and 50-160 HZ
vertically.

As far as I am concerned, if your equipment can't do the above, then
getting a Linux desktop running X to outperform Windoze is an impossible
mission - and a waste of time.  You are better off running Windoze.  

However, on equipment that meets the above criteria, I am quite pleased
to see that in very many ways, Linux, qualitatively speaking,
outperforms Windoze.  Not only does my desktop implementation *look MUCH
better*, I have many, many more choices than Windoze.  Not only do I
have more choices - those different choices don't cost me a dime.  Down
the road, I don't see how MS is going to compete.

I don't have expensive equipment.  My implementation of Debian is
running on a home-built Pentium II 400, with an ATI Rage 128 graphics
card with 8MB of on board memory (as I recall, thats about a $60 card). 
I have over 500Mb of memory, and diskdrive space up the wazoo.  The
monitor I have is a CTX VL710 built in 1998.  My equipment supplier
lists 2 17" CRTs and a 19" CRT that meet the above specs for less than
$200 - this is brand new equipment.  And with this equipment, Windoze
does not compete.  The only "appearance" advantage windoze has over
Linux on my PC is the font - rendering - and that may be due to the fact
that I have yet to investigate all the different font packages on my
distro.  The images rendered when I hit the internet on Linux *are
clearly better* than the images I see when using windoze. 

I just don't see how its physically possible to install Linux on a 
machine with less than 256MB and a nameless monitor and find happiness -
unless you like working at the command prompt. 

And thats my two cents...

jsunderhaus