🚀 go-pugleaf

Reuben wrote:

> How can levels be skipped in Quake 4. I'm tired of dealing with 
> "protecting rhodes" for about the hundredth time. TIA

By cheating.

NEXT!

sittingduck <spam.no.sitting-duck@spamgourmet.com> wrote in 
news:Xns9719EC284E45Fduckrulestheuniverse@news.easynews.com:

> Reuben wrote:
> 
>> How can levels be skipped in Quake 4. I'm tired of dealing with 
>> "protecting rhodes" for about the hundredth time. TIA
> 
> By cheating.
> 
> NEXT!

Well duh! I'd rather cheat a little bit to get through to the next 
level than erase the program from my computer and waste the money I 
spent on it.

What is the cheat command?

Reuben wrote:

> 
> What is the cheat command?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=quake+4+cheats&btnG=Google+Search

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 14:53:41 +0000, Reuben wrote:

> Well duh! I'd rather cheat a little bit to get through to the next 
> level than erase the program from my computer and waste the money I 
> spent on it.

Don't be an ignorant pussy your whole life.  Play the game right.
 
> What is the cheat command?

Pussy.

-- 
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

Dan C wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 14:53:41 +0000, Reuben wrote:
> 
>> Well duh! I'd rather cheat a little bit to get through to the next
>> level than erase the program from my computer and waste the money I
>> spent on it.
> 
> Don't be an ignorant pussy your whole life.  Play the game right.

Mmmm, how exactly does playing a game one payed for the way one wants to,
qualify one as an "ignorant pussy"? 

Using cheats in multiplayer games is unfair and despisable. Using them in
Single Player is not. We should not play the games the way the makers want
them played. We should play them the way WE want to play them. Hell, we
should have game maker MAKE games the way we want them made: the client is
the boss, not the servant.

I can give my money to the maker of a game. I see it fair, because it's a
product I want to use. What I am not going to give them is my will... do
you?

I usually find that cheating in SP is unfullfilling, because you end up
taking the fun out of the game... but that's just me.

-- 
Iñaki Silanes
Chemistry Faculty UPV-EHU Donostia
http://www.sc.ehu.es/powgep99/dcytp/teoricos/staff/inaki/inaki.htm

Also visit:
On Intelligent Design: http://www.venganza.org/

Ińaki Silanes wrote:

> Mmmm, how exactly does playing a game one payed for the way one wants to,
> qualify one as an "ignorant pussy"? 

Nevermind the group troll.... I think he was beaten severely as a child, and 
is taking it out on us now.

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 12:20:42 +0100, Iñaki Silanes wrote:

>>> Well duh! I'd rather cheat a little bit to get through to the next
>>> level than erase the program from my computer and waste the money I
>>> spent on it.
 
>> Don't be an ignorant pussy your whole life.  Play the game right.
 
> Mmmm, how exactly does playing a game one payed for the way one wants to,
> qualify one as an "ignorant pussy"? 

Maybe I was too hasty.  I guess he's just a "pussy" then.  The "ignorant"
part must have come from his inability to use Google to find out something
as simple as what he wants to do.

> I can give my money to the maker of a game. I see it fair, because it's
> a product I want to use. What I am not going to give them is my will...
> do you?

No, I don't.  You've described one way of looking at the situation. 
Another would be having the will to overcome the game as presented by the
maker, who has challenged you to beat the game.  Giving up and cheating
is giving in to his will.

> I usually find that cheating in SP is unfullfilling, because you end up
> taking the fun out of the game... but that's just me.

That's me too.

-- 
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:05:34 +0000, sittingduck wrote:

> Nevermind the group troll.... I think he was beaten severely as a child, and 
> is taking it out on us now.

Troll?  I think not, n00b.  And I've never been beaten severely.  Where do
you come up with such garbage?

-- 
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

Dan C wrote:

> If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
> Linux Registered User #327951

HAHA! the edge? you linux tards never cease to amuse.

Linux does some things VERY well, but as a desktop system it compares to 
Windows like Paint compares to Photoshop.

sittingduck wrote:

> Dan C wrote:
> 
>> If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
>> Linux Registered User #327951
> 
> HAHA! the edge? you linux tards never cease to amuse.

"Linux tards"? I thought Dan C was the troll...
 
> Linux does some things VERY well, but as a desktop system it compares to
> Windows like Paint compares to Photoshop.

Ever heard the term "FUD"? Linux compares to Windows as Firefox (or Opera,
or Konqueror, or Galeon...) compares to IE or KMail (or Thunderbird, or
Evolution, or Sylpheed...) to Outlook. 100% virus-free, a bazillion times
less bugs.

Next time you feel like berating Linux in the desktop, do the following
test: see the taskbar, or whatever name the panel at the bottom of your
Windows desktop bears? Can you make it hide automatically when the cursor
moves out of it? Oh, sure you can. Now, make it so that its background is
transparent... easy? Now, make it appear vertically on the left border of
your screen. Now, deprive it of its system tray (or whatever the thingie
where the minimized windows go is named. After all, it looks silly in a
vertical panel), and create a new, independent panel which only contains
that system tray. Make that systray panel appear on the top border of the
screen, of at least 50% of the screen width, and automatically growing and
shrinking to accomodate more or less minimized windows... Did your Windows
box pass the test?

Oh, but you seldom use the panel when you use a desktop environment. And you
probably also hardly ever find a use for a web browser that is not
bug-ridden and virus-friendly.

-- 
Iñaki Silanes / Chemistry Faculty UPV-EHU Donostia
http://www.sc.ehu.es/powgep99/dcytp/teoricos/staff/inaki/inaki.htm
On Intelligent Design: http://www.venganza.org/

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 20:28:48 +0000, sittingduck wrote:

> HAHA! the edge? you linux tards never cease to amuse.

Wonder why you switched the subject to something unrelated.  Is that all
you got at this point?  Attack Linux?

> Linux does some things VERY well, but as a desktop system it compares to
> Windows like Paint compares to Photoshop.

Did you read that from PC-World magazine?  What do you know about Linux.
It makes a damn fine desktop system here.  I guess you tried it, and
couldn't figure it out, so now you have to bad-mouth it, huh?  Pitiful,
you ignorant little worm.

-- 
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

Dan C wrote:

> Did you read that from PC-World magazine?  What do you know about Linux.
> It makes a damn fine desktop system here.  I guess you tried it, and
> couldn't figure it out, so now you have to bad-mouth it, huh?  Pitiful,
> you ignorant little worm.

Hey, if you do so little with your computer that linux works for you, that's 
just great. I'm happy for you. I've never seen any PC magazines, are they any 
good? I've tried linux, and its shite for anything besides basic use. (on a 
desktop machine, a server would be another story)
God, you wankers are easy to bait. 

"Ińaki Silanes" <isilanes@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:dmfqmf$73l$1@localhost.localdomain...
>
> Next time you feel like berating Linux in the desktop, do the following
> test: see the taskbar, or whatever name the panel at the bottom of your
> Windows desktop bears? Can you make it hide automatically when the cursor
> moves out of it? Oh, sure you can. Now, make it so that its background is
> transparent... easy? Now, make it appear vertically on the left border of
> your screen. Now, deprive it of its system tray (or whatever the thingie
> where the minimized windows go is named. After all, it looks silly in a
> vertical panel), and create a new, independent panel which only contains
> that system tray. Make that systray panel appear on the top border of the
> screen, of at least 50% of the screen width, and automatically growing and
> shrinking to accomodate more or less minimized windows... Did your Windows
> box pass the test?
>

Linux does run bugger-all in the way of games though. Doom and the Quakes,
and that's about it. I never heard of Linux binaries for, say, Age of
Empires, or Diablo II, or Serious Sam... or even DirectX for that matter.

Less bugs and better on the desktop, sure. But as a gaming OS it still has a
long way to go.

-- 
-- 
EvilBill - http://www.evilbill.org.uk

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:22:21 +0000, sittingduck wrote:

> Hey, if you do so little with your computer that linux works for you, that's 
> just great.

You'd be surprised at what I do.  Why would you assume that I do "so
little"?

> I've tried linux, and its shite for anything besides basic use. (on a 
> desktop machine, a server would be another story)

You haven't tried it, and you're not fooling anyone.  You don't know shit
about it, or what it can do.  Be quiet until you learn something, doofus.

-- 
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

Dan C wrote:

> You'd be surprised at what I do.  Why would you assume that I do "so
> little"?

Because Linux has limited abilities. Kind of like your ability to relate to 
people, very limited. 

Let me know when you can run any decent CAD/CAM programs in Linux, or kick-
ass video editing programs, or even 10% of the games that are out there. Face 
it, Linux is light years behind when it comes to applications, and hardware 
support. All you have is the fact that nobody writes viruses for it, because 
hardly anyone uses it for anything but servers. It's a moot point that it's 
safer as a desktop, because if a person is computer-literate enough to use 
Linux, they are easily able to avoid the crap that can come with windows.

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 02:51:55 +0000, sittingduck wrote:

>> You'd be surprised at what I do.  Why would you assume that I do "so
>> little"?
 
> Because Linux has limited abilities. Kind of like your ability to relate to 
> people, very limited. 
 
> Let me know when you can run any decent CAD/CAM programs in Linux, or kick-
> ass video editing programs, or even 10% of the games that are out there. Face 

Do you do any CAD/CAM work (on a regular basis) at home?
Do you do any video editing work at home?
All the games that I care about playing are available for Linux.

> it, Linux is light years behind when it comes to applications, and
> hardware support.

Wrong on both counts.  How long has it been since you looked at Linux?

-- 
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

Dan C wrote:

> Do you do any CAD/CAM work (on a regular basis) at home?
yep
> Do you do any video editing work at home?
yep
> All the games that I care about playing are available for Linux.
That's nice for you. 
>> it, Linux is light years behind when it comes to applications, and
>> hardware support.
> 
> Wrong on both counts.  How long has it been since you looked at Linux?

About 6 months. I could see where it might be ok though, if you had very 
basic needs. 

EvilBill wrote:

> "Iñaki Silanes" <isilanes@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
> news:dmfqmf$73l$1@localhost.localdomain...

[snip]

> Linux does run bugger-all in the way of games though. Doom and the Quakes,
> and that's about it. I never heard of Linux binaries for, say, Age of
> Empires, or Diablo II, or Serious Sam... or even DirectX for that matter.

For the record, I play Diablo II (with the CDs I bought for Windows) under
Linux with Wine (not WineX), which is freely available. Any non-3D game has
a fair chance of being supported by Wine.

> Less bugs and better on the desktop, sure. But as a gaming OS it still has
> a long way to go.

That's the same complain always: proprietary software, games and commercial
programs...

Once and for all: what the heck do the capabilities of an OS have to do with
the (commercial) software it runs!!!??? Linux can't run many games, sure.
But that's only _commercial_ strategy of game makers. If you don't want to
use Linux because you don't have your favorite games ported, that's fine.
But blame the game makers, NOT the OS, for God's sake!

MS has a dominant position in the s/w market, and, guess what, they put
pressure into the game makers not to produce versions for other OSs (Mac,
Linux, BSD). So do they into the h/w makers. Yes, MS does shit in the
driver part of an OS. The h/w makers have to make the drivers for Windows
themselves (NOT the programmers at Redmond) because otherwise people will
not buy their modem, screen, keyboard or printer... since, hell, everyone
has Windows. Guess what, most Linux drivers for h/w that require it have
been reverse-engineered by volunteers... and still some of them are better
than the Win-natives!

The only thing necessary to have more games on Linux is to have a bigger
customer base. If commercial games are worth producing for Linux, they will
be, like big games are available for Mac, because they are sold, but small
ones are not, because there aren't enough Mac users that would buy them.

Two anecdotes on Windows and its desktop capabilities:

1) MS Word (also Access, Excel...) is based on a closed standard, meaning
that no-one knows the format of the .doc file itself, except MS. One can
use Word to open a .doc, but how can one make a .doc reader, if the
underlying format is unknown? 

Conversely, all the Linux formats (e.g. OpenOffice.org formats) are open,
like HTML is, for example. Anyone can buy (or download for free) a manual
that says how to write a tilde with HTML, and with OpenOffice.org documents
it is the same: the instructions to make OOo readers are openly available,
and so are the instructions to make OOo formatted text writers.

So, how come the Linux volunteers have reverse-engineered the .doc format,
so that OOo can read and write them, whereas MS Word is incapable, to date,
of even reading, let alone writing, OOo documents? And still people
complain that OOo .doc compliance is not 100%! That would be indeed amazing
in a reverse-engineered product! But still more amazing is the inability of
Word to read OOo documents!

2) Video editing is better supported in Windows... yeah, sure. Some weeks
ago a conference was held in San Sebastian (Spain), conmemorating the 100th
anniversary of the publication of five important articles by Albert
Einstein. Among the speakers there were some Nobel laureates, and one of
them was Dudley Herschbach. Dr. Hershbach did appear on the Simpsons
(Treehouse of Horror XIV, season 15), and I did have the episode recorded
from the TV. So, I edited (with Linux), the part where he appeared, and
gave it in a usb pendrive to the organizers, so that they could show it in
the little presentation Dr. Hershbach would get before his talk.

The conference presentations were all run from a Windows laptop (of course)
and the organizers had the good sense of trying the video first. They
couldn't make it run under Windows Media Player, or some other rubbish MS
passes as a player, so they called me. There was a problem with the codecs
(fair enough), and finally they d/l-ed some video codecs that would make it
run... at least the image part. The sound, they couldn't get it going for
the life of them. We perused many a page of Windows warez and d/l-ed all
kind of (illegal) cracked commercial s/w that would convert the audio to
another format... to no avail. In the end, I took over and said... "I know
of an open source video editor for Linux... maybe there is a Windows
version" Ten seconds later, I had d/l-ed and installed the nifty program
(its name is AviDemux, first entry at Google, go to Downloads section, look
for "Windows", currently version 2.0.42). Fifteen seconds later, I was
editing the video, and saving its sound content into some of the bunch of
different codecs AviDemux offers, until we found one (the third or fourth
try) that WMP would be able to play. And that happened ten minutes before
Dr. Herschbach began his talk... open source s/w saved the day, certainly.

Bottom line is: AviDemux uses only (legally) freely available codecs, so WMP
should be able to play ALL the videos made with codecs AviDemux can handle.
However, MS and his s/w maker friends try to sell us programs that do it
for free in the open-source world. And sometimes, it's hard to find such a
Windows program, even paying (or illegally d/l-ing cracked copies).

-- 
Iñaki Silanes / Chemistry Faculty UPV-EHU Donostia
http://www.sc.ehu.es/powgep99/dcytp/teoricos/staff/inaki/inaki.htm
On Intelligent Design: http://www.venganza.org/

"Ińaki Silanes" <isilanes@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:dmhd3d$o1n$1@localhost.localdomain...
> EvilBill wrote:
>
> > "Ińaki Silanes" <isilanes@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
> > news:dmfqmf$73l$1@localhost.localdomain...
>
> [snip]
>
> > Linux does run bugger-all in the way of games though. Doom and the
Quakes,
> > and that's about it. I never heard of Linux binaries for, say, Age of
> > Empires, or Diablo II, or Serious Sam... or even DirectX for that
matter.
>
> For the record, I play Diablo II (with the CDs I bought for Windows) under
> Linux with Wine (not WineX), which is freely available. Any non-3D game
has
> a fair chance of being supported by Wine.
>


That's cool :) I play a lot of games both 3D and otherwise, it's nice to
know that at least some of them can be made to run on Linux.

> > Less bugs and better on the desktop, sure. But as a gaming OS it still
has
> > a long way to go.
>
> That's the same complain always: proprietary software, games and
commercial
> programs...
>
> Once and for all: what the heck do the capabilities of an OS have to do
with
> the (commercial) software it runs!!!??? Linux can't run many games, sure.
> But that's only _commercial_ strategy of game makers. If you don't want to
> use Linux because you don't have your favorite games ported, that's fine.
> But blame the game makers, NOT the OS, for God's sake!
>


I'm not blaming the OS at all. Just outlining the main reason why most
people are still stuck with Windows. ;)

> MS has a dominant position in the s/w market, and, guess what, they put
> pressure into the game makers not to produce versions for other OSs (Mac,
> Linux, BSD). So do they into the h/w makers. Yes, MS does shit in the
> driver part of an OS. The h/w makers have to make the drivers for Windows
> themselves (NOT the programmers at Redmond) because otherwise people will
> not buy their modem, screen, keyboard or printer... since, hell, everyone
> has Windows. Guess what, most Linux drivers for h/w that require it have
> been reverse-engineered by volunteers... and still some of them are better
> than the Win-natives!
>


I agree. I know Linux does now have a large hardware support base...
winmodems and USB ADSL modems notwithstanding <g>

> The only thing necessary to have more games on Linux is to have a bigger
> customer base. If commercial games are worth producing for Linux, they
will
> be, like big games are available for Mac, because they are sold, but small
> ones are not, because there aren't enough Mac users that would buy them.
>


Well, id usually release Linux and Mac binaries for their games and games
that use their engines; sadly, there aren't many other developers who do the
same. (Blizzard make Mac versions of their games IIRC, but not Linux.)

> Two anecdotes on Windows and its desktop capabilities:
>
> 1) MS Word (also Access, Excel...) is based on a closed standard, meaning
> that no-one knows the format of the .doc file itself, except MS. One can
> use Word to open a .doc, but how can one make a .doc reader, if the
> underlying format is unknown?
>
> Conversely, all the Linux formats (e.g. OpenOffice.org formats) are open,
> like HTML is, for example. Anyone can buy (or download for free) a manual
> that says how to write a tilde with HTML, and with OpenOffice.org
documents
> it is the same: the instructions to make OOo readers are openly available,
> and so are the instructions to make OOo formatted text writers.
>
> So, how come the Linux volunteers have reverse-engineered the .doc format,
> so that OOo can read and write them, whereas MS Word is incapable, to
date,
> of even reading, let alone writing, OOo documents? And still people
> complain that OOo .doc compliance is not 100%! That would be indeed
amazing
> in a reverse-engineered product! But still more amazing is the inability
of
> Word to read OOo documents!
>


Oh, that's simple: Micro$uck wanting to hang onto their precious little
corporate secrets so they can continue to sell M$ Office at exorbitant
prices (some editions cost over Ł1000 here!!)

> 2) Video editing is better supported in Windows... yeah, sure. Some weeks
> ago a conference was held in San Sebastian (Spain), conmemorating the
100th
> anniversary of the publication of five important articles by Albert
> Einstein. Among the speakers there were some Nobel laureates, and one of
> them was Dudley Herschbach. Dr. Hershbach did appear on the Simpsons
> (Treehouse of Horror XIV, season 15), and I did have the episode recorded
> from the TV. So, I edited (with Linux), the part where he appeared, and
> gave it in a usb pendrive to the organizers, so that they could show it in
> the little presentation Dr. Hershbach would get before his talk.
>
> The conference presentations were all run from a Windows laptop (of
course)
> and the organizers had the good sense of trying the video first. They
> couldn't make it run under Windows Media Player, or some other rubbish MS
> passes as a player, so they called me. There was a problem with the codecs
> (fair enough), and finally they d/l-ed some video codecs that would make
it
> run... at least the image part. The sound, they couldn't get it going for
> the life of them. We perused many a page of Windows warez and d/l-ed all
> kind of (illegal) cracked commercial s/w that would convert the audio to
> another format... to no avail. In the end, I took over and said... "I know
> of an open source video editor for Linux... maybe there is a Windows
> version" Ten seconds later, I had d/l-ed and installed the nifty program
> (its name is AviDemux, first entry at Google, go to Downloads section,
look
> for "Windows", currently version 2.0.42). Fifteen seconds later, I was
> editing the video, and saving its sound content into some of the bunch of
> different codecs AviDemux offers, until we found one (the third or fourth
> try) that WMP would be able to play. And that happened ten minutes before
> Dr. Herschbach began his talk... open source s/w saved the day, certainly.
>


Sweet. :)
I use Winamp for all my media-playing needs, although it does seem to have
difficulty with some WMV files... no doubt M$ trying to ensure they only get
played with Media Player. Bah.

-- 
-- 
EvilBill - http://www.evilbill.org.uk

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 06:47:14 +0000, EvilBill wrote:

>> For the record, I play Diablo II (with the CDs I bought for Windows) under
>> Linux with Wine (not WineX), which is freely available. Any non-3D game
>> has a fair chance of being supported by Wine.
 
> That's cool :) I play a lot of games both 3D and otherwise, it's nice to
> know that at least some of them can be made to run on Linux.

Many, many (nearly all) will run either natively, or via Wine/Cedega.
 
>> But that's only _commercial_ strategy of game makers. If you don't want to
>> use Linux because you don't have your favorite games ported, that's fine.
>> But blame the game makers, NOT the OS, for God's sake!
 
> I'm not blaming the OS at all. Just outlining the main reason why most
> people are still stuck with Windows. ;)

Gaming is not the "main reason".  It is for some, but the real reason is
that most Windows-droids either have never heard of Linux, or find it "too
hard".  In reality, it's not harder, just different.  Once some of that is
understood, there's no comparison.  Almost never will you see a Linux user
decide to go back to Windows.

-- 
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

Dan C wrote:

> Many, many (nearly all) will run either natively, or via Wine/Cedega.
>  
Yeah, let's load an operating system that needs a windows emulator to do 
anything beyond basic tasks. Brilliant.

> Almost never will you see a
> Linux user decide to go back to Windows.

Almost always, these same linux users STILL run windows for certain tasks, 
and linux for others. (wackjobs like yourself excluded, of course)

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:04:30 +0000, sittingduck wrote:

>> Many, many (nearly all) will run either natively, or via Wine/Cedega.
  
> Yeah, let's load an operating system that needs a windows emulator to do 
> anything beyond basic tasks. Brilliant.

It's not a windows emulator, doofus.  You should really try to learn
something about what you write, so you don't look so stupid.
 
>> Almost never will you see a
>> Linux user decide to go back to Windows.

> Almost always, these same linux users STILL run windows for certain
> tasks, and linux for others. (wackjobs like yourself excluded, of course)

You're still pissed about not being able to figure out how to use Linux,
huh?  Whatever, dumbass.  Stick with windoze, it's where you belong.  Now
run along and play in traffic, winboy.

-- 
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

"Dan C" <youmustbejoking@invalid.lan> wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.11.30.21.11.34.326012@invalid.lan...
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 06:47:14 +0000, EvilBill wrote:
>
>>> For the record, I play Diablo II (with the CDs I bought for Windows) 
>>> under
>>> Linux with Wine (not WineX), which is freely available. Any non-3D game
>>> has a fair chance of being supported by Wine.
>
>> That's cool :) I play a lot of games both 3D and otherwise, it's nice to
>> know that at least some of them can be made to run on Linux.
>
> Many, many (nearly all) will run either natively, or via Wine/Cedega.
>
>>> But that's only _commercial_ strategy of game makers. If you don't want 
>>> to
>>> use Linux because you don't have your favorite games ported, that's 
>>> fine.
>>> But blame the game makers, NOT the OS, for God's sake!
>
>> I'm not blaming the OS at all. Just outlining the main reason why most
>> people are still stuck with Windows. ;)
>
> Gaming is not the "main reason".  It is for some, but the real reason is
> that most Windows-droids either have never heard of Linux, or find it "too
> hard".  In reality, it's not harder, just different.  Once some of that is
> understood, there's no comparison.  Almost never will you see a Linux user
> decide to go back to Windows.
>
> -- 
> If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
> Linux Registered User #327951
>

Hmpfh.   The apps that are most important to me are not supported in Linux 
at all.  I've read elsewhere that Paint Shop Pro middle versions are being 
run with some success under Wine.   I have to have version 9 and X.   But 
that isn't the only issue.
I'll keep at it occasionaly.   One of these days, someone will promise to 
walk me through installing nVidias or ATI's full driver set, and keep it. 
If I can actually understand what I'm doing with that, then I should have no 
problem with full driver sets for sound, mouse, pen tablet etc.
McG. 

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 00:54:18 +0000, McGrandpa wrote:

> Hmpfh.   The apps that are most important to me are not supported in Linux 
> at all.  I've read elsewhere that Paint Shop Pro middle versions are being 
> run with some success under Wine.   I have to have version 9 and X.   But 
> that isn't the only issue.

Well, run PSP under Wine then, or use the Gimp.

> I'll keep at it occasionaly.   One of these days, someone will promise to 
> walk me through installing nVidias or ATI's full driver set, and keep it. 

To install the Nvidia driver, all you have to do is run the script
installer that's on their website.  It installs itself.  Then, usually you
have to edit one config file, very basic, and it's done.

> If I can actually understand what I'm doing with that, then I should have no 
> problem with full driver sets for sound, mouse, pen tablet etc.

Sound drivers will get loaded automatically (comes with virtually any
Linux distro you would use), and the others don't need drivers, they are
built in to the OS.

-- 
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

"Dan C" <youmustbejoking@invalid.lan> wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.11.30.23.31.04.345718@invalid.lan...



Your Linux Registered User number.   Being that small, it's a pretty old 
number, right?   I registered with Slackware 1.0, I wonder what my would be?

   Want to help an old windows git install proper Linux video drivers?

I have a couple of more recent distros to choose from.  Redhat 8,9 (fedora). 
Mandrake 9 and possibly 10.   I have bootable ISO's ready to go, already 
tested each at least once!  I can pretty much pick n choose which crate to 
put it on.  I'll use a seperate HD just for Linux.  I'd like to see how the 
64 bit version runs with my X2 4800+ , 2 gigs DDR400 in dual channel, 6800 
GT.  I haven't bought into SATA drives yet.  I have a bunch of EIDE drives 
ranging from 20g to 160g.
But mostly, I'd really like to *understand* what I'm doing with the file 
system and installing drivers and software.   I think Linux is a pretty good 
operating system today.  I can remember when a few Unix people I know 
referred to Linux as a toy operating system.  This has changed, I think. 
I'd love to master Linux on my system at least as well as I have XP Pro.
You're too right.  Some of us just don't 'get' the differences.  But some of 
us are stubborn and want to.   Reading all the help files and tuts I've 
found still didn't explain what should be a fairly straightforward thing. 
Installing video drivers.  I found people getting frustrated with my 
ineptitude in other ng's and forums.  I am quite used to working in DOS, and 
have used every version of DOS since 2.1 and Win 3.0.  I have used OS/2 2.11 
and Warp 3.0 (probably will again on an older box sometime).
Dan, this is a fairly simple and honest request, so TIA for at least a 
simple honest answer!  :)
McG.

> -- 
> If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
> Linux Registered User #327951
> 

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 01:25:11 +0000, McGrandpa wrote:

> I have a couple of more recent distros to choose from.  Redhat 8,9 (fedora). 
> Mandrake 9 and possibly 10.   I have bootable ISO's ready to go, already 
> tested each at least once!  I can pretty much pick n choose which crate to 
> put it on.  I'll use a seperate HD just for Linux.  I'd like to see how the 

Those are all pretty old distros...  I'd go with the Mandrake 10 unless
you want to download something newer.

> 64 bit version runs with my X2 4800+ , 2 gigs DDR400 in dual channel, 6800 
> GT.  I haven't bought into SATA drives yet.  I have a bunch of EIDE drives 
> ranging from 20g to 160g.

All of the versions you mentioned above come in 32-bit only, which is
fine.  Will run on a 64 bit CPU.

> Dan, this is a fairly simple and honest request, so TIA for at least a 
> simple honest answer!  :)

No problem.  Once you get the Linux distro installed (32 bit version),
download this file:
<http://download.nvidia.com/XFree86/Linux-x86/1.0-7676/NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-7676-pkg1.run>

In a terminal, type "su" and then your root password, and then use the
"cd" (change directory) command to navigate to wherever you saved the
above file.  Then type (without quotes): ./NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-7676-pkg1.run
Note that there is a (period) in front of that command...

The installer should run at that point, and then you'll need to edit your
XF86Config-4 file, as outlined here:
ftp://download.nvidia.com/XFree86/Linux-x86/1.0-7676/README.txt

It sounds harder than it actually is.  Good luck.

-- 
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

Dan C wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:04:30 +0000, sittingduck wrote:
> 
>>> Many, many (nearly all) will run either natively, or via Wine/Cedega.
>   
>> Yeah, let's load an operating system that needs a windows emulator to do
>> anything beyond basic tasks. Brilliant.
> 
> It's not a windows emulator, doofus.  You should really try to learn
> something about what you write, so you don't look so stupid.

What's wrong with people nowadays? From what I read, Sittingduck sounds like
a youngster fearful of the unknown, and hence defending himself through
blind attack, and Dan C sounds like a not-so-young "techie" faking being a
rude kid to wind up his hate for the world. I don't mean it's it, but
sounds like it.

I am nobody's mother (I'm a 28 years old guy), but...

Dan, what the hell are you trying to do? I mean, I agree that some of
Sittingduck's views are incorrectly biased against Linux... but your
attitude doesn't help correct Sittingduck's misconceptions. And you are not
giving a good image of us Linux users, either (probably, not that you
care). So, in the name of the Holly Tux, I prompt you to give up :^)

Now, Sittingduck... do not fear. No, I mean it. It's not that I like being
paternalist (you might be the age of my grandpa, for all I know), but trust
me: Linux is not so difficult to get a hold of. Linux is not such an alien
product. It's just different, and, to be honest, _much_ better than MS
Windows. And you know it, otherwise you wouldn't be fearful.

The "windows emulation" is not needed to do anything serious. It's just
needed to run some proprietary s/w that the makers didn't find "necessary"
to port to Linux. The TCP/IP protocol we all use to surf the web was
developed in a BSD environment, as was SSH. BSD is yet _another_ OS,
related to UNIX, the "father" of Linux. So, every Windows user is using a
"borrowed" system to connect to internet servers (which, by the way, run
Apache in the majority), and also to make secure connections to other
machines. The really "serious" things are made with Unix and Unix-like s/w,
don't let anyone fool you into thinking otherwise.

>>> Almost never will you see a
>>> Linux user decide to go back to Windows.
> 
>> Almost always, these same linux users STILL run windows for certain
>> tasks, and linux for others. (wackjobs like yourself excluded, of course)

Dan's point is not a moot one. Day by day more and more Windows users get
fed up of their crappy OS and move to Linux. I'd be amazed of seeing just
ONE case of the contrary. This tells you something.

And what it tells you is magnified by the fact that, as you say, many
applications (Photoshop, AutoCAD) and games are only natively available for
Windows (remember: it's simply a commercial decision of the makers, nothing
to do with quality of the OS), so the Windows refugees escape from it
_even_ if they have to say goodbye to some pieces of s/w.

On the other hand, Linux users don't ever go back to Windows _despite_
having all these sweet games waiting for them in the "promised MS-land".

Do you imagine ALL s/w being equally available in both plataforms? Linux
would clean the house hands down! (forgive me if my slang is flaky, English
is my third language).

-- 
Iñaki Silanes / Chemistry Faculty UPV-EHU Donostia
http://www.sc.ehu.es/powgep99/dcytp/teoricos/staff/inaki/inaki.htm
On Intelligent Design: http://www.venganza.org/

Ińaki Silanes wrote:

> Do you imagine ALL s/w being equally available in both plataforms? Linux
> would clean the house hands down! (forgive me if my slang is flaky, English
> is my third language).
> 

Don't get me wrong.. I would probably use Linux on all of my computers if the 
software I like to use worked on it. I have used linux, though not for long. 
I ran Mandrake on one of my computers for a while, but found it pretty 
impractical. I run Apache (in windows) and built and maintain several 
websites on a Linux server. As I stated earlier, Linux is very good at what 
it does, but for my needs as a desktop it falls WAY SHORT. For me to spend 
the time to learn a completely new system for my home network, and then not 
be able to use dozens of programs that I am used to using almost daily, just 
does not seem worthwile.

sittingduck wrote:

> Iñaki Silanes wrote:
> 
>> Do you imagine ALL s/w being equally available in both plataforms? Linux
>> would clean the house hands down! (forgive me if my slang is flaky,
>> English is my third language).
>> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong.. I would probably use Linux on all of my computers if
> the software I like to use worked on it. I have used linux, though not for
> long. I ran Mandrake on one of my computers for a while, but found it
> pretty impractical. I run Apache (in windows) and built and maintain
> several websites on a Linux server. As I stated earlier, Linux is very
> good at what it does, but for my needs as a desktop it falls WAY SHORT.
> For me to spend the time to learn a completely new system for my home
> network, and then not be able to use dozens of programs that I am used to
> using almost daily, just does not seem worthwile.

Hey, if Windows works for you, then go for it! I wish every MS customer was
happy... just because I am so good-hearted :^)

If some day you decide to make the switch, remember that there are thousands
of forums out there that can help you out. Also remember that Linux has
some programs that can substitute (sometimes poorly, sometimes fairly
advantageously) some proprietary s/w that hat not been ported to Linux
already (say, there's no Photoshop for Linux so far, but The GIMP is a
fairly decent substitute. IE does not run under Linux, but there are
several other browsers that can meet your requirements... and so on).

-- 
Iñaki Silanes / Chemistry Faculty UPV-EHU Donostia
http://www.sc.ehu.es/powgep99/dcytp/teoricos/staff/inaki/inaki.htm
On Intelligent Design: http://www.venganza.org/

"Dan C" <youmustbejoking@invalid.lan> wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.12.01.02.49.07.620880@invalid.lan...
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 01:25:11 +0000, McGrandpa wrote:
>
>> I have a couple of more recent distros to choose from.  Redhat 8,9 
>> (fedora).
>> Mandrake 9 and possibly 10.   I have bootable ISO's ready to go, already
>> tested each at least once!  I can pretty much pick n choose which crate 
>> to
>> put it on.  I'll use a seperate HD just for Linux.  I'd like to see how 
>> the
>
> Those are all pretty old distros...  I'd go with the Mandrake 10 unless
> you want to download something newer.
>
>> 64 bit version runs with my X2 4800+ , 2 gigs DDR400 in dual channel, 
>> 6800
>> GT.  I haven't bought into SATA drives yet.  I have a bunch of EIDE 
>> drives
>> ranging from 20g to 160g.
>
> All of the versions you mentioned above come in 32-bit only, which is
> fine.  Will run on a 64 bit CPU.
>
>> Dan, this is a fairly simple and honest request, so TIA for at least a
>> simple honest answer!  :)
>
> No problem.  Once you get the Linux distro installed (32 bit version),
> download this file:
> <http://download.nvidia.com/XFree86/Linux-x86/1.0-7676/NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-7676-pkg1.run>
>
> In a terminal, type "su" and then your root password, and then use the
> "cd" (change directory) command to navigate to wherever you saved the
> above file.  Then type (without quotes): 
> ./NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-7676-pkg1.run
> Note that there is a (period) in front of that command...
>
> The installer should run at that point, and then you'll need to edit your
> XF86Config-4 file, as outlined here:
> ftp://download.nvidia.com/XFree86/Linux-x86/1.0-7676/README.txt
>
> It sounds harder than it actually is.  Good luck.
>
> -- 
> If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
> Linux Registered User #327951
>
Thanks, I've saved that, will use it when I get a 64 bit distro installed. 
Just dl'd one :)
McG. 

"Ińaki Silanes" <isilanes@bluebottle.com> wrote in message 
news:dmmitj$lmh$1@localhost.localdomain...
> Dan C wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:04:30 +0000, sittingduck wrote:
>>
>>>> Many, many (nearly all) will run either natively, or via Wine/Cedega.
>>
>>> Yeah, let's load an operating system that needs a windows emulator to do
>>> anything beyond basic tasks. Brilliant.
>>
>> It's not a windows emulator, doofus.  You should really try to learn
>> something about what you write, so you don't look so stupid.
>
> What's wrong with people nowadays? From what I read, Sittingduck sounds 
> like
> a youngster fearful of the unknown, and hence defending himself through
> blind attack, and Dan C sounds like a not-so-young "techie" faking being a
> rude kid to wind up his hate for the world. I don't mean it's it, but
> sounds like it.
>
> I am nobody's mother (I'm a 28 years old guy), but...
>
> Dan, what the hell are you trying to do? I mean, I agree that some of
> Sittingduck's views are incorrectly biased against Linux... but your
> attitude doesn't help correct Sittingduck's misconceptions. And you are 
> not
> giving a good image of us Linux users, either (probably, not that you
> care). So, in the name of the Holly Tux, I prompt you to give up :^)
>
> Now, Sittingduck... do not fear. No, I mean it. It's not that I like being
> paternalist (you might be the age of my grandpa, for all I know), but 
> trust
> me: Linux is not so difficult to get a hold of. Linux is not such an alien
> product. It's just different, and, to be honest, _much_ better than MS
> Windows. And you know it, otherwise you wouldn't be fearful.
>
> The "windows emulation" is not needed to do anything serious. It's just
> needed to run some proprietary s/w that the makers didn't find "necessary"
> to port to Linux. The TCP/IP protocol we all use to surf the web was
> developed in a BSD environment, as was SSH. BSD is yet _another_ OS,
> related to UNIX, the "father" of Linux. So, every Windows user is using a
> "borrowed" system to connect to internet servers (which, by the way, run
> Apache in the majority), and also to make secure connections to other
> machines. The really "serious" things are made with Unix and Unix-like 
> s/w,
> don't let anyone fool you into thinking otherwise.
>
>>>> Almost never will you see a
>>>> Linux user decide to go back to Windows.
>>
>>> Almost always, these same linux users STILL run windows for certain
>>> tasks, and linux for others. (wackjobs like yourself excluded, of 
>>> course)
>
> Dan's point is not a moot one. Day by day more and more Windows users get
> fed up of their crappy OS and move to Linux. I'd be amazed of seeing just
> ONE case of the contrary. This tells you something.
>
> And what it tells you is magnified by the fact that, as you say, many
> applications (Photoshop, AutoCAD) and games are only natively available 
> for
> Windows (remember: it's simply a commercial decision of the makers, 
> nothing
> to do with quality of the OS), so the Windows refugees escape from it
> _even_ if they have to say goodbye to some pieces of s/w.
>
> On the other hand, Linux users don't ever go back to Windows _despite_
> having all these sweet games waiting for them in the "promised MS-land".
>
> Do you imagine ALL s/w being equally available in both plataforms? Linux
> would clean the house hands down! (forgive me if my slang is flaky, 
> English
> is my third language).

This is true.  If all sw was equally available on both platforms, I'd be a 
dedicated Linux user.  I would forget M$ everything.
McG.

>
> -- 
> Ińaki Silanes / Chemistry Faculty UPV-EHU Donostia
> http://www.sc.ehu.es/powgep99/dcytp/teoricos/staff/inaki/inaki.htm
> On Intelligent Design: http://www.venganza.org/ 

"Ińaki Silanes" <isilanes@bluebottle.com> wrote in message 
news:dmnaep$2ku$1@localhost.localdomain...
> sittingduck wrote:
>
>> Ińaki Silanes wrote:
>>
>>> Do you imagine ALL s/w being equally available in both plataforms? Linux
>>> would clean the house hands down! (forgive me if my slang is flaky,
>>> English is my third language).
>>>
>>
>> Don't get me wrong.. I would probably use Linux on all of my computers if
>> the software I like to use worked on it. I have used linux, though not 
>> for
>> long. I ran Mandrake on one of my computers for a while, but found it
>> pretty impractical. I run Apache (in windows) and built and maintain
>> several websites on a Linux server. As I stated earlier, Linux is very
>> good at what it does, but for my needs as a desktop it falls WAY SHORT.
>> For me to spend the time to learn a completely new system for my home
>> network, and then not be able to use dozens of programs that I am used to
>> using almost daily, just does not seem worthwile.
>
> Hey, if Windows works for you, then go for it! I wish every MS customer 
> was
> happy... just because I am so good-hearted :^)
>
> If some day you decide to make the switch, remember that there are 
> thousands
> of forums out there that can help you out. Also remember that Linux has
> some programs that can substitute (sometimes poorly, sometimes fairly
> advantageously) some proprietary s/w that hat not been ported to Linux
> already (say, there's no Photoshop for Linux so far, but The GIMP is a
> fairly decent substitute. IE does not run under Linux, but there are
> several other browsers that can meet your requirements... and so on).

The Gimp is not even close as a substitute for PS or Paint Shop Pro.  At 
all.  Ugh.  Yes, I've used it.
Mozilla is a good browser, and I love Agent for the binary ngs.   There are 
lots of nice desktops to choose from, and any number of the 'common' proggys 
to replace browsing, email, etc.
if I can get this driver thing sorted, I'll have at least one rig that's 
Linux only.  And probably dual boot my main rig also.
McG.
>
> -- 
> Ińaki Silanes / Chemistry Faculty UPV-EHU Donostia
> http://www.sc.ehu.es/powgep99/dcytp/teoricos/staff/inaki/inaki.htm
> On Intelligent Design: http://www.venganza.org/ 

McGrandpa wrote:

> This is true.  If all sw was equally available on both platforms, I'd be a 
> dedicated Linux user.  I would forget M$ everything.
> McG.

yep, I feel the same way. For MY needs however, Linux doesn't even come 
close.
Trust me, I have no problem using NON windows programs, I abhorr OE, use 
Firefox for browsing, and refuse to use WMP past V 6.4. I load up my own 
personal favorite programs for almost everything. I have XP stripped down to 
195MB, and it runs really well.

"sittingduck" <spam.no.sitting-duck@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message 
news:Xns971FA1CD0B76Educkrulestheuniverse@news.easynews.com...
> McGrandpa wrote:
>
>> This is true.  If all sw was equally available on both platforms, I'd be 
>> a
>> dedicated Linux user.  I would forget M$ everything.
>> McG.
>
> yep, I feel the same way. For MY needs however, Linux doesn't even come
> close.
> Trust me, I have no problem using NON windows programs, I abhorr OE, use
> Firefox for browsing, and refuse to use WMP past V 6.4. I load up my own
> personal favorite programs for almost everything. I have XP stripped down 
> to
> 195MB, and it runs really well.

formatting a new 160g IDE drive to ntfs as I type.  Then I have another 160g 
drive to move stuff off of then format to NTFS.   I hope Linux can read 
ntfs?  I'll have an 80g drive to dedicate to Linux.
mcg