Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 19th Apr 2010 13:10 UTC
Linux We all know Synaptics, the company that seems to produce just about every touchpad you can get your hands fingers on. Their touchpads also do a lot of multitouch and gesture stuff, but up until now, their set of gestures, the Synaptics Gesture Suite, was only available on Windows. Luckily, they've ported it over to Linux, and made it available for OEMs building Linux laptops.
Thread beginning with comment 420038
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by spinnekopje
by spiderman on Wed 21st Apr 2010 05:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by spinnekopje"
spiderman
Member since:
2008-10-23


I have an ASUS eeepc 901L, the L stands for Linux and my eeepc came with Xandros installed. The hardware should be completely supported then, right? I mean, it has Linux in the name, right?

I've got pentium 133 machine. It came with windows 95. So it should be compatible with Windows right? I mean it is sold with windows so it should be compatible right? Wrong! I tried to put Vista on it and nothing works! And do you remember the "vista compatible" logo? How has it worked out?
Your computer was compatible with the Xandros distro that came with it. It was not supposed to run Ubuntu. The vast majority of the people who bought this exact same model stick to the system that came installed with it. If you want to hack the system, it is at your own risk.

Reply Parent Score: 2

bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

spiderman retorted...

I have an ASUS eeepc 901L, the L stands for Linux and my eeepc came with Xandros installed. The hardware should be completely supported then, right? I mean, it has Linux in the name, right?

I've got pentium 133 machine. It came with windows 95. So it should be compatible with Windows right? I mean it is sold with windows so it should be compatible right?


Indeed it should be Windows compatible, with like systems within its system specifications. So by all means you should be able to update it to Windows 98, (although if you do might I recommend the wonderful 98Lite tool by Shane Brooks, or that you hunt down a copy of "Revenge of Mozilla" before you do so?) or even Windows NT 3.x to WIndows NT 4.0. If you wanted to run Windows 2000 on it you might be stressing things a bit, but if you check out Fred Vorck's site he can tell you how to create a disc without IE intergrated that will run much smoother for you.

I should know--my first computer was an 133mhz pentium! ;)

spiderman retorted...
Wrong! I tried to put Vista on it and nothing works!


Oh c'mon now! That's hardly comparing apples and apples! You're not even comparing apples and oranges here, this is more like trying to compare apples and watermelons! It doesn't fit!

If you simly must make a Windows analogy then the situation is more comparable to the switch-over from Windows XP to Windows XP SP2... Minor revisions of the same codebase that nevertheless left many people with broken systems or significantly reduced performance over driver issues. Or are you seriously going to try to argue that the upgrade from Ubuntu Hardy Heron 8.04.x to Ubuntu Karmic 9.10 is that huge of a leap it should be compared with going from Windows 95 to Vista?

Bear in mind that Ubuntu does not use version numbers, those are the month and year of the date of release...

Bear in mind also that this is hardware that is les than two years old, not hardware over a decade old...

Yeah...not exactly comparing apples and apples are we?

spiderman retorted...
And do you remember the "vista compatible" logo? How has it worked out?


What does that have to do with the price of a haircut in Taiwan? (I can make non sequiturs too!)

spiderman retorted...
Your computer was compatible with the Xandros distro that came with it. It was not supposed to run Ubuntu.


Your reading and comprehension skills leave something to be desired, as I said in my first post the version of Xandros that came with the eeepc 901 was the same version that came with the 701. The two devices came with different chipsets! The Xandros version on it was nearly useless as it was nearly impossible to add applications to its menus and would have been little more than a toy otherwise.

As it is I've been a happy Ubuntu user for nearly all of my two years with my eeepc, while there were some issues with powermanagement in the beginning Grigori Goronzy's eee-control swiftly fixed things there, as did the aforementioned array.org kernel from Adam McDaniel. No, it may have come with Xandros, but it was sold as a Linux machine. I know that I and many others' attraction to the eeepc wasn't just in its tiny size, or its wonderful battery life (still getting about five hours or more on a single charge here!) but also on the fact it did not come with the Microsoft tax.

spiderman spouted...
The vast majority of the people who bought this exact same model stick to the system that came installed with it.


Actually the vast majority of those who bought the model I did are using either some form of Linux (ArchLinux, Ubuntu, Mandriva, Debian, etc all the majors seem to be represented) or have installed Windows XP or higher on their eeepcs. A small majority have put on a version of OSX86 after replacing the SSD that came with the system. There are some who choose to run with Xandros, but even of those who do, they run an updated version of the distro maintained by the community, not the abandonned and bitrotted version that came out of the box.

spiderman trolled...
If you want to hack the system, it is at your own risk.


What?? Now installing Linux on a netbook is hacking???

Okay, good one. I see that I've fed you quite a bit with these posts by taking you seriously. My bad. I'll try not to feed the trolls next time...

--bornagainpenguin

PS: I notice you didnt bother to address any of my main points in my earlier post, but I guess that's par for the course when dealing with a troll.

EDIT: fixed hanging quote x2

Edited 2010-04-21 15:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by spinnekopje
by spiderman on Wed 21st Apr 2010 15:28 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by spinnekopje"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

not exactly comparing apples and apples are we?

it was an hyperbole:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

What does that have to do with the price of a haircut in Taiwan? (I can make non sequiturs too!)
I was refering to the fact that many computers sold as "Vista ready" could not actually run Vista.
What?? Now installing Linux on a netbook is hacking???

Maybe not for you indeed. What I meant is that most people who bought the netbook you bought didn't install another distro on it, despite what you say. I'm pretty sure about that. They surf the web and read emails. They got it from their phone carrier.
Anyway, I'll address your comment about Ubuntu breaking things, yes they do. Ubuntu is based on unstable software. They break everything every 6 months. They have LTS releases that are somewhat less unstable. If you have to run Ubuntu, I advise you to stick to LTS releases. But if you don't, there are more stables distros that don't break your system every six months and try not to introduce big regressions when you upgrade. The stable distros that I think about are debian (stable), Red hat, slackware, etc...
Ubuntu is one of the so called "bleeding edge" distros. If you use it, you are in for some bugs and regressions every now and then. People use it because they want to experiment with new features and sometimes because it's the only distro they know. In the later case, they would be better advised to read some more before choosing Ubuntu.

Edited 2010-04-21 15:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2