Tim: >> Even XP still seems to need a reboot to handle an IP change. Scott van Looy: > No. It requires a reboot to handle a netmask change (which can sometimes > happen if you start it and the DHCP server isn't reachable and then you > try and aquire an IP after you've made it reachable). A simple IP change > doesn't require a reboot. Did here... Even if it didn't, as you say, requiring a reboot for a netmask change is ridiculous. >> Reboots to get sense out of the display after changing a resolution or font. > Only if you change the base font resolution do you need a reboot (the bit > under advanced config marked "DPI Settings"). Again, this is a rediculous requirement. > If you change this in fedora you have to close and reopen the apps too Restarting an app is a lot different than a reboot. Background services continue to run unabated. >> Microsoft still doesn't understand multi-tasking, or multi-user - that >> they can all do things at the same time, and one doesn't bugger up >> the other. > Like what? Far as I understood it, Fedora 7 is copying Microsoft's fast > user switching feature, not the other way around? And frequently I have > more than one person logged on and they're all using the same apps > differently. Unlike my FC6 which refuses to share framebuffer or soundcard > ;) Multi-tasking, that every other thing running on the computer can continue to do what it's doing, no matter what a user is doing. Multi-user, that multiple users can use the computer at the *same* time, without adversely affecting the other, or concurrently (e.g. mixing up user preferences and system settings in silly ways). >> And what Windows newbie is going to know how to solve a Windows screw >> up? Which was part of my "bollocks" retort to your Windows is easier to >> manage bulldust. It ain't easier, it's different. *And*, as far as I >> and other Linux users are concerned, it's far worse. > Most windows newbies who have watched the intro movie and have half a clue > will have remembered "restore points" and that you can undo stuff using > them. > > Most windows newbies will understand what the "add remove programs" > control panel does ;) I scoff at either of those assertions. Even that many long term, but not highly skillled, Windows users even know that. >>> "Safe Mode With Network Support" >> Sounds nice, until you find that it doesn't actually work with your bits >> and pieces. Been there, tried it. > How so? It has always worked for me. Perhaps it doesn't work with wifi, > but I've never ever seen it not be able to bring up a wired connection Apparently, it'd seem to depend on what your hardware is (if it works for you, yet doesn't for others). >> Also note the recent story about some malware which does part of its >> nasty work in safe mode. So hapless users rebooting into safe mode to >> try and fix an issue, create yet another one. > Which recent story? > no sign of anything on google news that I can see Moderately recent, not recent as in the last few days. I'll see if I can find a reference to it again, but I don't bookmark Windows news anymore. >> Obviously you've never had to deal with hardware which doesn't install >> itself in the way Windows expects to work. There's still stuff which >> requires you to abort the Windows hardware set up and manually install >> or update their drivers. > If you read the manuals, almost all of them say "DO NOT INSTALL THE > HARDWARE FIRST". Nup. On the few bits of hardware that I've seen come with manuals, only one of them actually said that. Most say nothing, some say the opposite. > However, that point's entirely moot as it's not Microsoft's fault that > external manufacturers write bad drivers. It's still their fault for implementing the way that Windows discovers new hardware and goes about installing software for it. There's no real reason why software should have to be installed first, at the installation time the system should take care of this for you, in the appropriate order. >> Things that require software installation before hardware installation. > Indeed. You install the software and then add hardware and it all works, > no? No. >> Then there's other issues, like registry problems regarding users or >> application settings that aren't going to get fixed up that way, either. > Registry problems are usually self solving, Not in my experience. Registry errors are usually remaining broken until the user goes hacking to fix them up. > the OS keeps multiple backups of the registry and if it's corrupted in any > way it will automatically go back to a previous version. Which is often just as broken as the current one. Going back one version doesn't get you there, and going back several versions buggers up other things, in the process. > Application settings are nothing to do with Microsoft How the registry works, or self desctructs, on the whole, is due to Micrsoft. -- (This box runs FC6, my others run FC4 & FC5, in case that's important to the thread.) Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
