regarding "just plain works" as a goal

[Billy Crook]

Leo Mauler,

I originally wrote to you, and not to the list, because I find
largely, when you post to the group, it is noise, and chases away
anything on topic.  If you're going to invoke my name in public and
inaccurately however, I will respond on list to what is on topic.
What you so gleefully redacted out of context included that I'm
"satisfied" with how Linux runs on old hardware.  It runs O.K., but
it's not going to turn water in to wine.  You just try running the
Gimp or OpenOffice on that Pentium 2, and tell me how it works out.
Try some Firefox plugins.  Try compiz.  Actually, try kde 4.1 or gnome
2.24.

Yes, Linux is better/faster than windows.  No, old crap isn't the
right place to show it.  Most people don't care what runs on old
hardware, and I find it rather repugnant to hear people say "Oh yeah,
Linux, that's the thing you put on old computers, right?"  No.  Stop
it.  Buy a brand new machine with Linux on it.  When people see Linux
on a slow computer, they see Linux is slow.  Yeah, it's not as slow as
the alternatives, but its sill slow.

Why don't you make it less of a marketing campaign for Linux, and
maybe spread awareness about the LUG instead.  Tell people about this
group of individuals they can network with and learn from.

On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 15:04, Leo Mauler <webgiant at yahoo.com> wrote:
> There are still FUD trolls out there talking about Linux trashing hard drives.

IT people know that software doesn't irrevocably damage hard drives.
At least they should.  God I hope they do.  The most recent "OMG
Linux!" fear circles around what the e1000e driver does to Intel pcie
gigabit adapters.

> Whether or not a computer is REAL is an entirely subjective opinion, as you seem to agree with despite emphatically insisting that "garbage" computers have no use and wouldn't be wanted by anyone for anything

It doesn't take much hardware to pass packets at 2008 last-mile
speeds.  That's something old hardware can keep up with.  I use
GNU+Linux because I don't like proprietary software, or rebooting, and
because it happens use the same remote access protocols, filesystems,
etc, as everything else I use.

> Full agreement with the "replace Vista" concept, but if I show up with a P4-3.0Ghz dual-core machine

If you, Leo Mauler, show up with a dual core Pentium 4, people will
think you're a lunatic, and remind you Pentium 4's were never dual
core, or that you probably meant hyper threading.  See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_4  And yes, I'm speaking in past
tense about Pentium 4.  I can't tell if you, Leo Mauler, meant to
imply that a Pentium 4 was fast by 2008's standards.  Perhaps if you
were, you'd be interested in a Core 2 Quad, or a Phenom.  Pentium 4
was released almost 8 years ago.  The very last of that era ended two
months ago.

> and run Linux, people may be tempted to think that the PC, not the OS, is what is causing it to fly.

Boot it off of a thumbdrive, and leave the case open and hard drive
blatantly disconnected.  When people ask how that works you'll have
your chance to rant about how fantastic Linux is.

I never said everyone hates Windows, and I don't see any connection or
cohesive thought in most of what you write.  Immediately cease ranting
about hatred of Windows.  I never mentioned any hatred of Windows, Leo
Mauler, and I'd appreciate if you'd get over it.  Additionally, you
are wrong.  Most people don't know what 'OS' means.  People don't like
old computers because old computers are old, and slower than new
computers.  You're not going to argue that fact out of existence.

Leo Mauler, you accused me of "insisting that people should not be
informed".  That is false, and libellous.  It has never been my goal
to prevent people from being informed.  You, Leo Mauler, miss the
point entirely, so I will summarize in on sentence:

If you're trying to market Linux, it's ability to run on old hardware
is not nearly as attractive as getting better performance than
alternative software on modern hardware.