For free as in beer operating systems, my advice would be the same as it is for this woman: too bad. Don't expect any support for something that cost you nothing.
If you want support, go pay for it. That's not free as in beer. It's what keeps Red Hat in business. Support is expensive, and NOBODY is offering it for free.
Have you tried playing Blu-Ray on said laptop? HD-DVD? If you did, I think you'd find that you can't play it in high definition.
Have you tried it? The non-HDCP signal degradation is optional, at the disc maker's option. My understanding is that most discs being shipped now do *not* have this degradation option enabled, because the studios know that most equipment out there right now does not have HDCP. A link from the article below claims that Hollywood promises not to enable the degradation until 2012 (take that promise for what it's worth.) So if your ancient laptop actually had a Blu-ray, it would probably play fine.
Get ride of the I'm Feeling Lucky Button, the only time I've ever used this button is when some sends me an email saying I should search for Weapons of Mass Distruction and hit that button. haha fun, nothing found.
I read an article saying that Google focus grouped this issue. Most people don't even know what the button does, and hardly anybody uses it. But Google keeps it because they think it makes the front page more whimsical.
Live phone wires! Try live electrical wires! I can recall at least two instances of people attempting to steal electrical transmission line or, even better, transformers, as those are full of tons of wire. Unfortunately they have been electrocuted!
As Leo Laporte pointed out, Sony already has decided to lose the war. It won't produce Bluray porn discs, so the biggest video sellers will be using HD.
Sure, the results of the "debate" will be worthless, but that the BBC will be hosting it shows how much things have changed in computing. Ten years ago, the Mac was dying, fading into irrelevance. Few would have dreamed of using Linux on a desktop for routine computing. Windows 95 brought a lot of Mac usability to the PC. A debate like this would have been a yawner.
Now, the Mac is back, and Linux is a viable choice for scores of computer users. Here's to competition and choice.
What you say is quite odd, because the Europeans are not being pro-consumer. They are being pro-record label.
The Europeans want Apple to make its DRM more widely available. Who wants DRM? Not consumers. What consumer says "ohh, I love DRM, give me more of that"? Nobody. At best consumers tolerate DRM.
DRM is there because record labels want it. The Europeans want it to be easier for labels to use DRM. How is that pro-consumer?
As for the whole lock-in argument, I don't buy it. Apple does not lock anybody in to the iPod. If you don't want DRM files, don't buy them. Buy a CD or go to eMusic or Magnatune or any other place that sells DRM free music. The labels whine that they don't have a broad-based DRM system. That's the labels' problem, not Apple. If the labels want a Master DRM System, then they need to partner up with somebody who will offer that. Oh wait, they tried that with MS. Didn't work.
Or the labels need to forget DRM and start selling DRM free files. It's not Apple's fault that the labels are scared to sell DRM free files.
The way I see it, the Europeans legislators have been just as bought off as the American legislators. "Open DRM system," pro-consumer? Ha.
Flash Player 7 for Linux used OSS. This required loading the ALSA-OSS compatibility modules, or or using aoss. Both methods had occasional quirks. I'll be glad to get rid of my last OSS application.
I always hate the Slashdot discussions that aren't about technical issues. They're never fact based. They always consist of people mouthing off with their random "well, I think such-and-such" tirades. It's the modern version of old men sitting around in the barbershop. The discussions here are typically worthless when the topic turns to outsourcing, gender, race, law (even the law of software licensing) or politics.
The question posed in the summary really is one for social scientists, not the software geeks that dominate Slashdot. This discussion resembles what you'd have if you went to a convention of psychologists and asked them to discuss the technical merits of Red Hat versus Debian.
The headline and summary state that "Apple is DRM's Biggest Backer" as though this is fact, so I was disappointed to see that the link is just to an opinion piece--I was expecting a smoking gun, like Jobs saying "DRM is wonderful; DRM forever."
I'll set forth my own opinion: Apple gains nothing from DRM. Apple makes its money selling hardware, like iPods and Macs. Nobody credible believes that Apple is making much, if any, money from the iTunes music store. Instead, it seems the iTMS exists for the convenience of Apple's customers--that is, so Apple can sell more iPods.
Therefore, in economic terms, music is the complement to the iPod: the more music that's out there, the more iPods Apple sells. It's in Apple's interest to ensure there is as much digital music out there as possible. DRM in the iTMS is merely a means to an end, in that it makes it possible for Apple to sell downloads in an easy-to-use, legal product. I don't mean that DRM makes it *technically* possible, because of course Apple could sell DRM free MP3s. It makes it possible from a *business* perspective, as the labels would cry bloody murder if Apple sold DRM free MP3s in its easy-to-use store.
Because the DRM exists ultimately for the convenience of Apple's customers--that is, so they can download music from an easy-to-use store--Apple doesn't care about the DRM. They just want the music to be easily available in an easy-to-use store (P2P services are not nearly as usable as the iTMS.) Prices at the iTMS are relatively high, considering what ALLOFMP3 is selling music for. But Apple isn't making much money here. Apple would be better off without the DRM, if it could get away with that, and with cheap prices--remember, the more music that's out there, the more iPods Apple sells. More music also would drive appetites for bigger capacity iPods, thus driving sales for newer models.
I think the evidence shows that Apple realizes that DRM benefits it little and that DRM hinders its customers, thus ultimately reducing the sales of iPods. Apple does not license its DRM scheme to other players. I think part of the reason for that is because Apple realizes that it would not benefit from having an industry standard DRM scheme. Such a scheme would keep music prices high, which would mean that customers would have less money to spend on iPods and less music to put on them.
Also, look at the weakness of the iTunes DRM. Burn to a CD, rip it back. It's a well-known hole. Apple has done nothing to close it (unlike Microsoft, which has attempted to implement digital watermark schemes) because Apple doesn't want the DRM to be a hassle. They only have the DRM to placate the labels, and the DRM works well enough for this purpose. This hole is a hassle for customers, though. I think Apple would prefer no DRM at all.
I realized all this when I heard of the lawsuits of people complaining that the iPod is not interoperable. That's absurdity. The iPod plays MP3, the most universal music format there is. The iPod is interoperable with any store that sells MP3s. It's not Apple's fault that the other music stores (except the brilliant ALLOFMP3, along with other players like Magnatune and eMusic) are selling music encumbered with Windows DRM. If Apple were truly interested in locking people in with DRM, then Apple would make their music players play ONLY Apple DRM-locked files.
TFA says "The lock-in afforded by FairPlay creates an Apple ecosystem that essentially ties the iPod to iTunes and to Apple, at least for commercial transactions." That's equally absurd. There is an ecosystem between iPod and iTunes, making them easy to use together. That certainly benefits Apple. However, FairPlay is not creating the lock-in. The majority of music in most people's iTunes collections are ripped from CDs or are downloaded through means other than the iTMS. If Apple sold unencumbered MP3s in its store, then there would still be an easy-to-use Apple ecosystem. The purpose of the ecosystem is to sell more iPods, not to lock people in to a DRM scheme.
OO? Oh God no, that thing takes forever to load even on an AMD 64 X2. Hopefully Abiword and Gnumeric will work on it though. I use Vim Outliner to take notes at meetings, and a OLPC would be ideal for that.
basically mimic Windows down to everything but the trademarks and patents.
?? Give the people a choice between Windows and Windows, and they'll pick Windows every time.
If something is a perfect knock-off of Windows except for some IP issues, why use it? Why not just use Windows? Because the non-Windows would be cheaper? You've already said that its security would be no better.
I'm not sure if this is still the case, but at one point new ebuilds had to sit in ~arch status (sort of like test repository in other distros) for one month without complaint before being marked as stable. It didn't seem to matter if anyone actually tested or even looked at the ~arch ebuild during that month. It was just a mandatory waiting period in which the dev hoped that some users bothered to test the ebuild and complain if it broke.
Well, my understanding is that a new ebuild has to sit in ~arch for at least a month. After that though, it's not as though promotion to stable is automatic unless anybody complains. The ebuild stays in ~arch until somebody files a bug to promote it to stable. Generally the person who files this bug will be someone who uses the package and hasn't had any problems with it. But often things sit in ~arch for months, indefinitely, until somebody asks to get it promoted. And, if there are big bugs against it, it won't get promoted to stable.
I wonder what effect dual format players like this LG player will have? Seems to make the whole war less significant from the consumer's standpoint. I have a DVD +/- RW drive in my PC now, so it doesn't much matter to me which burnable media I buy.
...they are called Windows Media Center PCs, or Linux PCs running MythTV.
These have not caught on because they are too complicated. Mapping all these functions onto one box leads to a hard-to-use box. That makes little sense these days, when PCs are CHEAP! The mainframe days, when one box NEEDED to do many things because the box was expensive, are over. Instead we get little specialized boxes that are good at doing one thing. Home routers, TiVos, and iPods are all devices packed with a ton of computing power, and they do one thing well. The PVRs you get from your cable system are another example.
Even geeks are figuring this out, as they are building their own specialized MythTV boxes. Yes, the box can do anything, but why bother when one can have the box just for MythTV? Plus, installing KnoppMyth, which is specialized for this purpose, is easier than installing Ubuntu and getting Myth working on it.
The jack-of-all-trades PC will always have a place. It will be used for things we can't even foresee yet. But all-in-one entertainment boxes will remain a niche, as it's so much easier to get a few specialized boxes to do the same thing.
For those who don't run their own mail servers, look at Spam Gourmet. Disposable email addresses. (I actually find that keeping track of a bunch of email addresses is just too much trouble, and it's less troublesome to just rely on spam filters.)
Vonage is rotten. Their service went downhill. I called to cancel. They put me through hell to do that, then they charged me $50 for the "free" phone adapter. They said I'd get the money back if I sent the adapter back.
So I sent the adapter back; UPS showed that it had been delivered. No credit. I got my credit card bank to charge it back.
Vonage is rotten, and I don't miss a chance to tell that to anybody.
Re:From vi to vim, now back again to vi
on
The Birth of vi
·
· Score: 1
Where do you even find the original vi? As a user of various Linuces I've never even seen vi. It's always vim.
Dell sells a product with an explicit offer to return a component for a refund under certain conditions. Did the terms of sale presented when you purchased the Honda/house/silverware offer a refund of the cost of the unused component? If not then you're not provided comparable scenarios. Why does it anger you to hear about customers satisfying the conditions to obtain the offered refund?
Says a comment on Linux.com:
The Windows EULA says you can get a refund if you don't agree to its terms. It does NOT say that you can get a refund for JUST the Windows operating system. Nor does it say what the purchase price of your copy is.
If you disagree with the EULA and call Dell, they have every right to say "Yes, we will happily issue you a refund for the entire bundle you purchased if you return it" or say "Your copy of Windows was provided to you at no cost as a free add-on to your purchase."
Dell's "terms of sale" which they push on every page of their website and to which you must agree before they complete a sale specifically say that the operating system is bundled software and may only be refused/returned if the entire system is returned.
They'd also be totally in the right to say that there is no purchase price for Windows because they provided it to you free as an incentive to purchase their system. When I bought my Dell, I got a free memory upgrade. I would be totally in the wrong if I called them up and wanted to return the additional memory chip for its full retail value.
I agree with you that Windows shouldn't be forced on users, and that there should be "no-OS" options for customers. But I have to say that I think you're in the legal wrong here. Dell would be totally in the right to say "Yes, we will issue you a refund per the EULA of your entire purchase price upon return of the computer."
I'm not mad that he got a refund; good for him that he spent all that time to get $50 even though he knew the machine came with Windows and he knew he wouldn't want it. But it's ridiculous that he claims this is about "principle." If he wants to support Linux, go get a system with no OS or a system with Linux preinstalled. Nagging Dell the megacorp for $50 is not the best way to support Linux, not when there are vendors out there who really do want to support Linux on laptops.
Principle? No way. If he cared about principle, he wouldn't be buying a Dell laptop which came preinstalled with Windows, and then demand a refund. He would buy a computer with Linux preinstalled, or buy a computer with no OS at all and then install Linux on it. That there are no Linux laptops available is a myth: see list at bottom of message. The best way to support Linux is to support Linux laptop builders, not to throw more money at Dell. Maybe the Dells are cheaper. Fine, then buy the Dell and throw the Windows away. I think it's ridiculous to buy the Dell and demand refunds. I don't smoke and have no gizmos, so I demand that Honda give me a refund for the cigarette lighter in the car. I don't need his and hers sinks, so I demand the home builder give me a refund for one sink in the bathroom. I don't need the knives in the silverware set I just bought, so I demand a refund from Oneida. I don't need the Print Screen or SysRq buttons on the keyboard, so I demand a refund for them. Ridiculous.
You only looked at new articles. That will pull a vastly disproportionate amount of dreck. Almost any useful topic will already have a Wikipedia article, so lots of new articles will be dreck. It would be more interesting to look at the most recent edits to all Wikipedia articles, and then I bet you'd see that there is useful content being added to Wikipedia every minute.
b) Last time I checked, Ubuntu doubled as a live CD.
So, like every wise guy that offered help, you failed to read the part where I said I did this at a time before they combined them.
You don't understand. Every Linux install CD is a live CD. Not all of them have pretty GUI desktops, but every single one of them is a Live CD. What Ubuntu recently did was put a pretty GUI desktop on their installer CD, but previous versions were a Live CD as well.
When the installer CDs first boot, you're given the option of typing something that will give you a prompt instead of the installer. From there it's possible to troubleshoot the GRUB problem.
It seems no one explained this to you in such explicit terms, which is unfortunate, because I imagine your GRUB problem could have been fixed--sometimes installers screw up on multiple hard-drive systems which, again, is unfortunate. I can see why you had trouble getting help, though--getting mad at volunteers who are trying to help you is quite counter-productive.
Slashdot Mirror
For free as in beer operating systems, my advice would be the same as it is for this woman: too bad. Don't expect any support for something that cost you nothing.
If you want support, go pay for it. That's not free as in beer. It's what keeps Red Hat in business. Support is expensive, and NOBODY is offering it for free.
Have you tried playing Blu-Ray on said laptop? HD-DVD? If you did, I think you'd find that you can't play it in high definition.
e n
Have you tried it? The non-HDCP signal degradation is optional, at the disc maker's option. My understanding is that most discs being shipped now do *not* have this degradation option enabled, because the studios know that most equipment out there right now does not have HDCP. A link from the article below claims that Hollywood promises not to enable the degradation until 2012 (take that promise for what it's worth.) So if your ancient laptop actually had a Blu-ray, it would probably play fine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_Constraint_Tok
I'm no DRM or Vista fan, but a lot of people on both sides of this debate are spreading misinformation.
I think it's better to promote Linux because of what it does well, rather than promoting Linux by saying MS is no good.
Get ride of the I'm Feeling Lucky Button, the only time I've ever used this button is when some sends me an email saying I should search for Weapons of Mass Distruction and hit that button. haha fun, nothing found.
I read an article saying that Google focus grouped this issue. Most people don't even know what the button does, and hardly anybody uses it. But Google keeps it because they think it makes the front page more whimsical.
Live phone wires! Try live electrical wires! I can recall at least two instances of people attempting to steal electrical transmission line or, even better, transformers, as those are full of tons of wire. Unfortunately they have been electrocuted!
As Leo Laporte pointed out, Sony already has decided to lose the war. It won't produce Bluray porn discs, so the biggest video sellers will be using HD.
Sure, the results of the "debate" will be worthless, but that the BBC will be hosting it shows how much things have changed in computing. Ten years ago, the Mac was dying, fading into irrelevance. Few would have dreamed of using Linux on a desktop for routine computing. Windows 95 brought a lot of Mac usability to the PC. A debate like this would have been a yawner.
Now, the Mac is back, and Linux is a viable choice for scores of computer users. Here's to competition and choice.
What you say is quite odd, because the Europeans are not being pro-consumer. They are being pro-record label.
The Europeans want Apple to make its DRM more widely available. Who wants DRM? Not consumers. What consumer says "ohh, I love DRM, give me more of that"? Nobody. At best consumers tolerate DRM.
DRM is there because record labels want it. The Europeans want it to be easier for labels to use DRM. How is that pro-consumer?
As for the whole lock-in argument, I don't buy it. Apple does not lock anybody in to the iPod. If you don't want DRM files, don't buy them. Buy a CD or go to eMusic or Magnatune or any other place that sells DRM free music. The labels whine that they don't have a broad-based DRM system. That's the labels' problem, not Apple. If the labels want a Master DRM System, then they need to partner up with somebody who will offer that. Oh wait, they tried that with MS. Didn't work.
Or the labels need to forget DRM and start selling DRM free files. It's not Apple's fault that the labels are scared to sell DRM free files.
The way I see it, the Europeans legislators have been just as bought off as the American legislators. "Open DRM system," pro-consumer? Ha.
"a guy with apparently way too much time on his hands"
Actually it looks like a good thing to do with spare time: he was creative. That took some thought, design work, and craftsmanship.
"a guy with apparently way too much time on his hands" is apparently code for "I think how you spend your free time is silly."
Flash Player 7 for Linux used OSS. This required loading the ALSA-OSS compatibility modules, or or using aoss. Both methods had occasional quirks. I'll be glad to get rid of my last OSS application.
I always hate the Slashdot discussions that aren't about technical issues. They're never fact based. They always consist of people mouthing off with their random "well, I think such-and-such" tirades. It's the modern version of old men sitting around in the barbershop. The discussions here are typically worthless when the topic turns to outsourcing, gender, race, law (even the law of software licensing) or politics.
The question posed in the summary really is one for social scientists, not the software geeks that dominate Slashdot. This discussion resembles what you'd have if you went to a convention of psychologists and asked them to discuss the technical merits of Red Hat versus Debian.
The headline and summary state that "Apple is DRM's Biggest Backer" as though this is fact, so I was disappointed to see that the link is just to an opinion piece--I was expecting a smoking gun, like Jobs saying "DRM is wonderful; DRM forever."
I'll set forth my own opinion: Apple gains nothing from DRM. Apple makes its money selling hardware, like iPods and Macs. Nobody credible believes that Apple is making much, if any, money from the iTunes music store. Instead, it seems the iTMS exists for the convenience of Apple's customers--that is, so Apple can sell more iPods.
Therefore, in economic terms, music is the complement to the iPod: the more music that's out there, the more iPods Apple sells. It's in Apple's interest to ensure there is as much digital music out there as possible. DRM in the iTMS is merely a means to an end, in that it makes it possible for Apple to sell downloads in an easy-to-use, legal product. I don't mean that DRM makes it *technically* possible, because of course Apple could sell DRM free MP3s. It makes it possible from a *business* perspective, as the labels would cry bloody murder if Apple sold DRM free MP3s in its easy-to-use store.
Because the DRM exists ultimately for the convenience of Apple's customers--that is, so they can download music from an easy-to-use store--Apple doesn't care about the DRM. They just want the music to be easily available in an easy-to-use store (P2P services are not nearly as usable as the iTMS.) Prices at the iTMS are relatively high, considering what ALLOFMP3 is selling music for. But Apple isn't making much money here. Apple would be better off without the DRM, if it could get away with that, and with cheap prices--remember, the more music that's out there, the more iPods Apple sells. More music also would drive appetites for bigger capacity iPods, thus driving sales for newer models.
I think the evidence shows that Apple realizes that DRM benefits it little and that DRM hinders its customers, thus ultimately reducing the sales of iPods. Apple does not license its DRM scheme to other players. I think part of the reason for that is because Apple realizes that it would not benefit from having an industry standard DRM scheme. Such a scheme would keep music prices high, which would mean that customers would have less money to spend on iPods and less music to put on them.
Also, look at the weakness of the iTunes DRM. Burn to a CD, rip it back. It's a well-known hole. Apple has done nothing to close it (unlike Microsoft, which has attempted to implement digital watermark schemes) because Apple doesn't want the DRM to be a hassle. They only have the DRM to placate the labels, and the DRM works well enough for this purpose. This hole is a hassle for customers, though. I think Apple would prefer no DRM at all.
I realized all this when I heard of the lawsuits of people complaining that the iPod is not interoperable. That's absurdity. The iPod plays MP3, the most universal music format there is. The iPod is interoperable with any store that sells MP3s. It's not Apple's fault that the other music stores (except the brilliant ALLOFMP3, along with other players like Magnatune and eMusic) are selling music encumbered with Windows DRM. If Apple were truly interested in locking people in with DRM, then Apple would make their music players play ONLY Apple DRM-locked files.
TFA says "The lock-in afforded by FairPlay creates an Apple ecosystem that essentially ties the iPod to iTunes and to Apple, at least for commercial transactions." That's equally absurd. There is an ecosystem between iPod and iTunes, making them easy to use together. That certainly benefits Apple. However, FairPlay is not creating the lock-in. The majority of music in most people's iTunes collections are ripped from CDs or are downloaded through means other than the iTMS. If Apple sold unencumbered MP3s in its store, then there would still be an easy-to-use Apple ecosystem. The purpose of the ecosystem is to sell more iPods, not to lock people in to a DRM scheme.
OO? Oh God no, that thing takes forever to load even on an AMD 64 X2. Hopefully Abiword and Gnumeric will work on it though. I use Vim Outliner to take notes at meetings, and a OLPC would be ideal for that.
basically mimic Windows down to everything but the trademarks and patents.
?? Give the people a choice between Windows and Windows, and they'll pick Windows every time.
If something is a perfect knock-off of Windows except for some IP issues, why use it? Why not just use Windows? Because the non-Windows would be cheaper? You've already said that its security would be no better.
I'm not sure if this is still the case, but at one point new ebuilds had to sit in ~arch status (sort of like test repository in other distros) for one month without complaint before being marked as stable. It didn't seem to matter if anyone actually tested or even looked at the ~arch ebuild during that month. It was just a mandatory waiting period in which the dev hoped that some users bothered to test the ebuild and complain if it broke.
Well, my understanding is that a new ebuild has to sit in ~arch for at least a month. After that though, it's not as though promotion to stable is automatic unless anybody complains. The ebuild stays in ~arch until somebody files a bug to promote it to stable. Generally the person who files this bug will be someone who uses the package and hasn't had any problems with it. But often things sit in ~arch for months, indefinitely, until somebody asks to get it promoted. And, if there are big bugs against it, it won't get promoted to stable.
I wonder what effect dual format players like this LG player will have? Seems to make the whole war less significant from the consumer's standpoint. I have a DVD +/- RW drive in my PC now, so it doesn't much matter to me which burnable media I buy.
...they are called Windows Media Center PCs, or Linux PCs running MythTV.
These have not caught on because they are too complicated. Mapping all these functions onto one box leads to a hard-to-use box. That makes little sense these days, when PCs are CHEAP! The mainframe days, when one box NEEDED to do many things because the box was expensive, are over. Instead we get little specialized boxes that are good at doing one thing. Home routers, TiVos, and iPods are all devices packed with a ton of computing power, and they do one thing well. The PVRs you get from your cable system are another example.
Even geeks are figuring this out, as they are building their own specialized MythTV boxes. Yes, the box can do anything, but why bother when one can have the box just for MythTV? Plus, installing KnoppMyth, which is specialized for this purpose, is easier than installing Ubuntu and getting Myth working on it.
The jack-of-all-trades PC will always have a place. It will be used for things we can't even foresee yet. But all-in-one entertainment boxes will remain a niche, as it's so much easier to get a few specialized boxes to do the same thing.
For those who don't run their own mail servers, look at Spam Gourmet. Disposable email addresses. (I actually find that keeping track of a bunch of email addresses is just too much trouble, and it's less troublesome to just rely on spam filters.)
Vonage is rotten. Their service went downhill. I called to cancel. They put me through hell to do that, then they charged me $50 for the "free" phone adapter. They said I'd get the money back if I sent the adapter back.
So I sent the adapter back; UPS showed that it had been delivered. No credit. I got my credit card bank to charge it back.
Vonage is rotten, and I don't miss a chance to tell that to anybody.
Where do you even find the original vi? As a user of various Linuces I've never even seen vi. It's always vim.
Says a comment on Linux.com:
I'm not mad that he got a refund; good for him that he spent all that time to get $50 even though he knew the machine came with Windows and he knew he wouldn't want it. But it's ridiculous that he claims this is about "principle." If he wants to support Linux, go get a system with no OS or a system with Linux preinstalled. Nagging Dell the megacorp for $50 is not the best way to support Linux, not when there are vendors out there who really do want to support Linux on laptops.
Principle? No way. If he cared about principle, he wouldn't be buying a Dell laptop which came preinstalled with Windows, and then demand a refund. He would buy a computer with Linux preinstalled, or buy a computer with no OS at all and then install Linux on it. That there are no Linux laptops available is a myth: see list at bottom of message. The best way to support Linux is to support Linux laptop builders, not to throw more money at Dell. Maybe the Dells are cheaper. Fine, then buy the Dell and throw the Windows away. I think it's ridiculous to buy the Dell and demand refunds. I don't smoke and have no gizmos, so I demand that Honda give me a refund for the cigarette lighter in the car. I don't need his and hers sinks, so I demand the home builder give me a refund for one sink in the bathroom. I don't need the knives in the silverware set I just bought, so I demand a refund from Oneida. I don't need the Print Screen or SysRq buttons on the keyboard, so I demand a refund for them. Ridiculous.
http://www.linuxcertified.com/
http://www.emperorlinux.com/
http://www.shoprcubed.com/
http://www.kc-computers.com/
You only looked at new articles. That will pull a vastly disproportionate amount of dreck. Almost any useful topic will already have a Wikipedia article, so lots of new articles will be dreck. It would be more interesting to look at the most recent edits to all Wikipedia articles, and then I bet you'd see that there is useful content being added to Wikipedia every minute.
Shouldn't shred used on the device (/dev/sdc or whatever) work fine for Linux users?
b) Last time I checked, Ubuntu doubled as a live CD.
So, like every wise guy that offered help, you failed to read the part where I said I did this at a time before they combined them.
You don't understand. Every Linux install CD is a live CD. Not all of them have pretty GUI desktops, but every single one of them is a Live CD. What Ubuntu recently did was put a pretty GUI desktop on their installer CD, but previous versions were a Live CD as well.
When the installer CDs first boot, you're given the option of typing something that will give you a prompt instead of the installer. From there it's possible to troubleshoot the GRUB problem.
It seems no one explained this to you in such explicit terms, which is unfortunate, because I imagine your GRUB problem could have been fixed--sometimes installers screw up on multiple hard-drive systems which, again, is unfortunate. I can see why you had trouble getting help, though--getting mad at volunteers who are trying to help you is quite counter-productive.