Feanor

Fedora requires more ram as minimum than what I have on this vintage system (256). Probably it is too few even for Xubuntu, that I tried only for checking the installer (that failed).

You can't use any utility if the system does not boot because it does not complete the install and does not put Grub either Lilo in the MBR. I tried from the live CD but again, when it worked the best I could get was too high or too low resolution. I mean, what is the point of setting X for 1600px at 60Hz when the monitor supports 1200 at 85Hz? My guess is current Xorg implementation (coupled with current kernels) does not like my assembly of old CRT Nec monitor and Matrox G400 graphic card.

Anyway, like I said, Salix installed and allowed me to set the proper resolution in the user session. Yet it kept probing the monitor at EVERY boot and booted in the wrong resolution, I had to log in a very high resolution boot splash screen before I could finally get the user desktop. Where, BTW, fonts did not follow the global settings and I had to manually set the DPI. Another funny thing was that sometimes after the monitor probing I got an error and I had to reboot.

Yes, Puppy. But if I must use something that looks like Win95 then I can stay with Windows 2000, that BTW installs without much pain besides the fact that you need to install the service pack and IE 6 separately before you can download the about 100 security updates. This is the good thing of Windows, it works. And, with some exceptions, you can run the same software on Win2K and Win7 12 years later.

I often quote an italian poet from the early middle ages, Dante Alighieri, who wrote a sort of "comedy" about hell, purgatory and paradise. When writing of Ulysses while addressing his ship mates to convince them of a dangerous expedition: "you were not made for living as brutes but for pursuing virtue and knowledge".

I say it again, I was setting the PC for giving it away, it must be "average" so a pensioner can use it. And it is not about decoration, it is about being in the same century as the user. Puppy is fine until you think it runs entirely in RAM from a live disk but it is unbearable lame as desktop.

About a parallel universe... well saying that setting up a Linux box is easier than Windows is obviously a lie. Go reading the forums. Much like the "stability" propaganda. I have updated Windows machines for ever and NEVER got one that gets killed while it happened several times with Linux. And here we are speaking of the big distros, not the small ones. Of course you can opt for Debian which is stable but it means you must use software that is obsolete for years. While like I said above, the latest version of Opera installs on Win2K the same as on Win7.

I would be happy to have somebody show me how easy is to install Linux on my old PC, pity there isn't anybody around.

It is not you, it is the propaganda.

The strange thing is Linux fans aren't even aware of the self irony of having in the same site one page saying how easy and effortless is installing some distro, then documentation, wiki and forums which provide assistance in installing the same distro and troubleshooting any sort of issue with video, audio, networking, wireless, etc. Who ever in the Universe went reading an howto or a wiki for installing Windows?

Does Windows ask you to partition your disk, select the size of each partition, the type, the mountpoint and the filesystem (there are only two)? Does Windows fail installing because it doesn't like the video card or monitor? Does it ask about what bootloader you want, to configure it and where to put? Does Windows come with several different desktop environments, each followed by a completely different set of applications and tools? And nowadays, the DEs also have different using conventions (see KDE vs Gnome3).

And once installed, the main problem with Windows is third party drivers and software. Which is exactly the same for Linux, see drivers for ATI and Nvidia cards. But in Windows you don't have to worry of "versioning", like installing some software requires backporting or compiling. Opera comes in one single installer that works across ALL Windows versions.

Serious, if some hardware vendor develops the accompanying operating system, with all the needed components and drivers, you bet it works as good as Mac. IBM or HP could have done that but they either failed when they tried (see OS2) or preferred to partner with Microsoft.

Yes, since Windows Vista Microsoft has got a wrong turn. The problem is both hardware vendors and software vendors aim to create "new markets" to sell more and more "new" stuff. And it doesn't matter if people actually don't need it. See the current trend of "one OS fits all" so you must have the same software (OS+DE+Apps) on ANY device, PCs, tablets, smartphones, etc. Or the "cloud" and "software as service". If you go reading the american tech sites, the music is "this is the end of the PC era". The result is more and more confusion.

That said, the real issue with Linux is Canonical DOES NOT develop almost anything in-house. They just take a "snapshot" of all the available software that come from many independent projects (that make a point of ignoring each other), apply some patch if needed, package it with an installer and that is Ubuntu. The result is you get issues in any single project, issues that come from the interaction of a piece with another, issues from the selection of pieces, issues from the few software made in-house and patches, issues from the installer. That is why in the Linux world they speak of the controversial concept of "upstream".

Felix, Windows have two kind of problems, the subtle ones that are usually due to some bug in third party software like drivers or the catastrophic ones that come from bugs in some Windows component and that usually don't get even fixed. But in most situations you manage to get Windows running without much effort. It is just a matter of numbers, considering how many different systems are running with Windows, it is quit obvious it works.
Linux instead have the same problems as Windows, plus the basic fact that, due to the few human resources available and the fact that those resources are spread across countless projects that are conflicting against each other, the software for Linux is poor on average. At any level. The kernel cannot interact properly with some BIOS so your laptop battery lasts half on Linux than on Windows, the Xorg cannot detect the hardware, the video drivers don't have all the features or some are bugged, the sound layer works maybe 70% of the times, etc. Then there are some ridiculous things like almost everything related to the DEs. Gnome decides to re-invent the desktop, Canonical does not like it and re-reinvent it. Pity when both release their DEs are incomplete and perform poorly and/or miss configuration tools.
So when Linux fails you can tell what went wrong but NOBODY can do anything about it unless you want to fork and start coding your own project.

Oh, I forgot to mention above:
I have installed all the named distros on the same machine years ago and they more or less worked. The fact that the install fails nowadays means that some components have been updated and they probably dropped support for some key hardware on my vintage PC. In theory I could try installing outdated distros, like I did with Windows 2000. But then there is the "backport" problem with simple stuff like a browser, that in Windows is almost non-existent.

Felix, I don't blame anybody. But like I said, if I install Windows 2000 I could still get most of the same software I have on Windows 7, like lets say the latest version of Opera. While if I install a 10 years old Linux NOTHING of current software would work. This forces me to install a more or less recent distro but the fact that Linux runs on old hardware is just another of the said above "propaganda myths". Yes, in theory Linux runs on a wristwatch and on the mars rover, but in reality for a working desktop you need a relatively modern assembly.

BTW, the last thing I want in life is to poke with system internals. Like most sane people, including Linus Torvalds, I want a system that works and stay out of the way while I do my stuff with it.
This leads to the old topic of why Open Source projects exist.
Until they exist only for the entertainment, learning, popularity of the developers alone, they will be not much more than geek toys.
If you want Open Source software to be used by people, you must design and develop with people in mind.
Having the option of grabbing the source, make your changes, recompile, or the option of "poking" countless options, parameters, features, etc, DOES NOT appeal anybody but the few who think personal computers are toys instead of tools for having a job done.

I named Canonical because it is an obvious example of making Linux popular. But like I said, Canonical cannot change the reasons behind development of all the software they pack in their distro. I mean, they don't like Xorg, their only option is to pick Wayland. They aren't going to develop an alternative in house.
See what Apple did instead.

I have got a scooter. I don't even know where the engine is. I take it to the mechanics for maintenance, put the gas when needed and ride it. That's all. The scooter takes me from point A to point B without needing me to stop every once in a while and dismantle it for "tuning", "compiling" or "customizing". If Honda gave me a box of pieces and tools saying "look you can build and customize your own scooter" I would have laughed.

Felix, sorry but the sentence "we do it the only way we know, the way that works for us" is rather silly. It is like I go to an ice cream shop and the shop keeper says "see, there is mint and lemon because it works for me". How many business do you know that run that way?

And besides, I don't even buy it is because people don't know it any better, the plain truth is there isn't a working OSS "business model", only an ineffective one that produces sub-optimal results. It is rather easy, everybody who can code is God of his/her own little project, regardless if the project makes sense or not. Then you put together all those autistic "gods" with just a little supervision of those corporations that pay for some niche of interest to be developed. It is like expecting kids from an elementary school to put together a space rocket. Or the famous 1000 monkeys typing who soon or later write a book.

Apple took code here and there to develop MacOS but in their case there was an organization behind development and the goal of selling to customers, not "it works for me".

Sami, I tried three distros in my old PC because in the past I could successfully install them.
Here is the proof, old Xubuntu installation on the same PC, year 2007:


Xubuntu, Salix and Zenwalk. All three were the latest stable release available. The only one that could complete the installing procedure was Salix. With Xubuntu I tried but the "alternate" and the "live" install, the alternate could not install Grub, asking to insert CD while the CD was in, the live could not boot, spitting errors almost immediately. Zenwalk refused to install because an error with Xorg, Salix installed but for some reason refused to work with the available monitor.

Felix, uff, the old song about Radhat... lame indeed.
Radhat does NOT have any "consumer software" division, they sell SERVICES on the enterprise market. Radhat Linux is way behind Fedora Linux and the reason is current Fedora is too bugged for being a business. It is like MS had a business division selling XP and then they gave away Windows7 for free.
Guess why Oracle bought MySQL and MySQL did not buy Oracle.
Then again, Linux being used/successful on any device BUT personal computers pretty much demonstrates the point.

I am not speaking of Linux being handy when you need free software that you can manipulate for any sort of project you have. It is not an accident that Linux was born as student project and it is still mostly used in academic researches.

I am speaking of the basic fact that Linux does not work on my personal computer. Or, to be more precise, it works with so many issues that at the end I am forced to go back to Windows to get something done, instead of spending all my time fixing, setting, compiling, installing, updating, breaking, re-installing, etc.

And no, there is not other way around.
Speaking of the scooter, if it breaks in the middle of the road I am not going to fix it for sure. I call the insurance and they send a service truck that loads the scooter and brings it to the closer repairs. It is 2012, not 1812 and the scooter is not a chariot with a mule attached.

They don't make billions with Linux. If you go reading the interviews with Shuttleworth, the millionaire who founded Canonical, he admits that Canonical is basically losing money and that it is not possible to ship Ubuntu and earn money with it. His bet is to make Ubuntu spread enough on both the consumer and enterprise market so they can sell ENTERPRISE and CONSUMER SERVICES on top of it, like support, certification, cloud software/services, media services and so on. It is not an accident that Ubuntu was inspired by MacOSX, before the current mobile and "one fits all" trend.

Read this carefully: I don't care of ANYTHING but the fact that Linux doesn't work on my PC. I don't care if NASA uses Linux for sending robots in space, I don't care if it is used at the local University, I don't even care if Linux works perfectly on 1% or 10% PCs, since it still doesn't work on mine.

I have told you what the problem is. In theory I could install an old version of Xubuntu, the same i installed in 2007, since it worked. Problem is I must stick with all the provided software, like Opera from 2007.

See requirements for Firefox:
Windows:
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows Server 2003
Windows Vista
Windows 7

Linux:
Firefox will not run at all without the following libraries or packages:
GTK+ 2.10 or higher
GLib 2.12 or higher
Pango 1.14 or higher
X.Org 1.0 or higher (1.7 or higher is recommended)
or higher
For optimal functionality, we recommend the following libraries or packages:
NetworkManager 0.7 or higher
DBus 1.0 or higher
HAL 0.5.8 or higher
GNOME 2.16 or higher

Back to the self-irony.
Ask average Joe what "libstdc++ 4.3" is.

Sami, you missed this point:
Xubuntu WORKED on the same PC in 2007. It doesn't work now.
It is fine with me, Windows7 does not work on that PC for sure, I cannot install any version of WIndows above XP. I have installed Win2k because it doesn't require the "activation key".
Then, while I can have a more or less updated desktop software with old versions of Windows, that is not possible with any Linux distro.

On top if this, I recall when I installed Xubuntu in 2007 the audio was mute and I had to manually edit some ALSA config file in order to get it working. Not a big deal, but you see it is not a matter of drivers.

The corporate environment is much easier than the consumer. Of course you deploy 20 workstations that are all the same and you can decide what hardware pick for them so it is "supported" or even "certified" for Linux. It is not like your pensioner uncle comes home with some device and wants to plug it in. Or you have some vintage PC and you want to recycle it.

Since I got more or less the same issue across 3 different distros (one based on Debian, two based on Slackware) my guess is some version of Xorg has dropped support for my old video card or CRT monitor or both.

Or maybe they did not drop it on purpose but nobody has actually tested on the same configuration so there is some regression that went unnoticed. Same as Mozilla when they shipped broken software for XP.

Latest stable, 11.10.

The reason why I go for the latest version is because I have read the known issues of the previous one.

It is normal, all software have bugs.
What makes things difficult with distros is they just put together software that comes from independent projects. You can have a completely stable component and a very bugged one in the same release because each project goes on its own way, with its own goals and schedule.
So in theory to get an "almost finished" distro you must either stay with obsolete and tested components (see Debian) or you must be VERY lucky and take a snapshot in the very moment each component is more or less bug free.