Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2008 February 24

= February 24 =

Linksys Wireless-G Router
I've recently inherited a router, but the previous owner does not know the username and password for it, is there any default admin password, or can i reset the password? ThanksVagery (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a reset button on the back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.34.177 (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * AHA! It took a bit of digging, but I knew I've seen this before. It should be blank for username, and password being "admin". Taken from here Hpfreak26 (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Amarok requirements
What are the hardware requirements for the current stable Amarok? Would my 1.1GHz P3 with 512MB RAM and onboard sound and video meet them? Neon Merlin  03:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, Amarok isn't that demanding. --antilivedT 05:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Then what's bogging my laptop down? It probably isn't Kubuntu -- it only requires 256 MB RAM -- and I don't run that many tabs in Firefox or keep OpenOffice.org open when I'm not using it.  Neon  Merlin  03:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * run top and find out --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 03:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been running KSysGuard, which is similar to top, and from that it's clear that it isn't a lack of CPU speed or main RAM. Neon  Merlin  01:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Recognizing the uniquely-decodable property of a set of strings
I want is a reasonably efficient algorithm that determines, for a finite set S of strings, whether S is uniquely decodable. Or I want a description of a property that characterizes unique decodability. Or I want a reference to the literature where I can find such a thing. Details follow.

Suppose you're given a finite set S of strings over some alphabet &Sigma;. Let's say that S has the "uniquely decodable" property if, for every string s over &Sigma;, there is at most one representation of s as a concatenation of elements of S.

For example, {a, ab} is uniquely decodable: any string, say aaababaabab, can be decomposed into a concatenation of as and abs in at most one way, a a ab ab a ab ab in this case. But {ab, b, abba} is not uniquely decodable, since abbab can be decomposed as either ab b ab or as abba b.

A number of sufficient conditions for unique decodability are known. For example, if S is a prefix code (that is, no element of S is a prefix of another element of S) then S is uniquely decodable. But this condition is not necessary, since {a, ab} is uniquely decodable but is not a prefix code.

Thanks for any help or advice you can offer. -- Dominus (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't think of anything more efficient than just trying every offset and seeing if you have more than one solution.. straightforward to code but it's going to grind D\=&lt; (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Trying every offset in what? -- Dominus (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

How about you construct a directed graph as follows. Nodes are of the form $$((s,i),(t,j))$$ where $$s$$ and $$t$$ are words in $$S$$, the $$i$$'th letter of $$s$$ matches the $$j$$'th letter of $$t$$ and $$(s,i) \ne (t,j)$$. Additionally, we need a distinct start node $$n_0$$. From $$((s,i),(t,j))$$ there is a directed arc to From $$n_0$$ there is a directed arc to all nodes of the form $$((s,1),(t,1))$$ with $$s,t\in S$$.
 * $$((s,i+1),(t,j+1))$$ if $$i$$&lt;$$|s|$$ and $$j$$&lt;$$|t|$$,
 * $$((u,1),(t,j+1))$$ for all $$u\in S$$ if $$i=|s|$$ and $$j$$&lt;$$|t|$$,
 * $$((s,i+1),(u,1))$$ for all $$u\in S$$ if $$i$$&lt;$$|s|$$ and $$j=|t|$$, and
 * $$n_0$$ if $$i=|s|$$ and $$j=|t|$$.

As far as I can see, there is a one-to-one many-to-one correspondence between non-empty paths from $$n_0$$ back to $$n_0$$ in this graph, and strings over $$\Sigma$$ with at least two distinct decodings. The proof is left as an exercise for the reader... 84.239.133.86 (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction: strings with more than two decodings correspond to more than two paths in the graph. 84.239.133.86 (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is by no means certain, but the problem smacks of the Post correspondence problem to me. I imagine that your problem is not undecidable, but it may still be hard.  --Tardis (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I had been thinking the same thing, but I couldn't think of a reduction. Thanks.  -- Dominus (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The above graph construction does not easily extend for the Post correspondence problem, because of the requirement that corresponding words from the two sets be chosen in the same order. It seems that adding more state information to the nodes leads either to an infinite graph, or (using the notation in the Post correspondence problem article) you need to bound by a constant the difference between the lengths of $$u_{i_1}\cdots u_{i_j}$$ and $$v_{i_1} \cdots v_{i_j}$$ for $$j=1,\dots,k$$.   Interestingly, in terms of the reduction from a Turing machine shown in the article, the latter requirement means that the length of the tape is bounded by a constant, which of course makes the halting problem decidable.
 * Since the above graph contains less than $$N^2+1$$ nodes where $$N=\sum_{s\in S}|s|$$, and less than $$N |S|$$ arcs, depth-first search provides a polynomial-time algorithm for the problem. 84.239.133.86 (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume that you already have a working algorhytm 83.100.158.211 (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

One possibility would be to search for the shorter strings first - and hope it terminates (ie not unique) early, in the real world I imagine that would be useless to you.

If you could specify the type of strings you would expect that might help fine tune it.. in the general case though all I can recommend as now would be to sort your strings in lengthwise order and do the shortest first because 'ae' is more likely to match than 'aeiou' in random data...

If the data is not totally random there may be more hope..

Most speed ups would come from finding non-unique sets - if the sets you were checking were all unique (for whatever reason) I would start scratching for specks of hope for speed up.83.100.158.211 (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC) - method not complete or workable sorry - left in case reading it helps

(BY the way if not satisfied here try the maths desk - it's definately a maths problem - including the simplification of the task - so try there if you want)83.100.158.211 (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

OK ignoring stuff I wrote above - I think I have a method based on searching through all combinations of strings that are at least as long as the string A (and going through all strings A) - looking for matches at the beggining of the list and producing a table of 'radicles' eg 'ab' in 'abcdef' produces the radical 'cdef'. I then repeat this process through the radicals using the set of strings (producing more radicals if matches occur) (I also will have to expand the radicals if they are shorter than the strings.

Eventually I will have put all strings through radical number 1, and mark it as finished, then repeat through the rest of the radicals, ignoring any result that produces a duplicate radical. Eventually I reduce a radical to null eg "" or end up marking all the radicals finished..

This might be the same as the method another poster describe above - didn't understand the code used..83.100.158.211 (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I have the answer. The following reasonably simple and efficient   algorithm will decide whether a specified set of words is uniquely decodable, or produce a witness pair that it is not:


 * Thanks to everyone who offered assistance with this. -- Dominus (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing it up .. I didn't spot I could search both ways and would have had to have an extra bit of code.. Most enlightening keep up the good work.87.102.42.162 (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Firefox searching Wikipedia
I have found that using the "find" option in Firefox very often fails to find text that is definitely present on the page. Are others having this problem, is it known to the Firefox developers, and will it be resolved? JFW | T@lk  09:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you're typing it wrong.. find definitely works D\=&lt; (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, because FireFox is perfect, and if it behaves unexpectedly then it's obviously the user's fault.
 * I am not familiar with this problem. Can you give an example where it happens? -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you searching by / or by ctrl-f? Can you run ctrl-f and check if you have &#x2611; Mat c h case selected? --Kjoonlee 10:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with froth, this is not a bug in firefox. Either you have case enabled (that's happened to me a couple of times), or you are using ' to search, which only finds links. As Kjoonlee said, use Ctrl+F and make sure the checkbox isn't clicked in. If it still can't find it, the only other thing I can think of is that either the text is in an image (that is, not really text at all), or inside a flash-application or a Java-applet or something. If it is on the page itself, Find will find it. 83.250.202.130 (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are being completely ridiculous. Of course, it is very likely that the problem is one of those mentioned, but declaring "Firefox is flawless" without further information from the OP is silly. Is it that unthinkable that there is some bug in Firefox that prevents find from working properly in some special circumstances? -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This unfound text is not in side panels or something... I ignored the possibility that you are searching for text in a bitmap image??? Otherwise please give an example eg html page and text that fails to be found.87.102.42.162 (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Arabic transliteration font
Hi, hopefully you can help! This is a screenshot of a bit of the Ḏāl article. As you can see, I have all the proper Arabic fonts, but something has gone wrong with the font for the transliterated letters with diacritics. They should be just normal-looking letters with a dot under them (s, h, d, t), but somewhere along the line I must have downloaded some other font that superseded the correct one. So, does anyone know what this font might be, so I can get rid of it? I hope that is enough info to work with. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe a wrong font is selected in Internet Options => Fonts. Admiral Norton (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I've played around with that already. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I fixed it by just downloading even more fonts, I guess they overrode the weird ones. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Operating systems?
I'd like something very minimal that just boots quickly and can run a browser. It would also need to be able to start (and install without destroying anything with) Windows XP later on when someone has to do something heavier. What to get? --212.149.216.233 (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You might try one of the "desktop" type Linux distributions listed at Mini Linux; perhaps the easiest way is to install it onto a USB2 flash drive and configure your PC's BIOS to boot to that (if it's present) or to the normal internal hard drive it if isn't. This should boot more quickly that a Live CD, but not as quickly as if you partitioned your hard drive and installed the distribution there (something that those new to Linux sometimes find challenging). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * QNX is a lightweight microcernel based Unix-like operating system. There was even a bootable floppy that contains QNX operating system, web browser, web server, some demos and utilities all in a single floppy disk. -- PauliKL (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Splashtop is a small Linux distribution that lives in your BIOS and is instant-on (though some people's definition of "instant" is questionable; the article says 5 seconds). It is read-only and does not affect your normal heavyweight OS.  --Sean 15:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Vista explorer issues
Hi. I just installed a fresh copy of Vista Home Premium on a self-made machine I had lying around. It was working fine the first few restarts, but now it seems that when I open an Explorer window or anger it in some way, Explorer crashes. That is to say, the task bar disappears, my desktop goes blank, and all Explorer windows close. The sidebar and any running applications remain alright. No event is logged in the Reliability Monitor, and Explorer can be restarted through a run dialog from Task Manager. Any advice? Also, this time I restarted, I got an error message saying: "Error in C:\Users\[Me]\AppData\Local\Temp\wtskarfk.dll  Missing entry:run". I Googled that dll to no avail, and I can't use Explorer to find what the hell it is. Might I have possibly opened something I shouldn't have? Did I install something wrong? (Please, no "Linux is problem free" or "get a Mac" posts)... Thanks. -76.118.157.170 (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sound like a virus (due to the fact it has an unintelligible name and it's located in Temp). Admiral Norton (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You may have become infected with Spyware; some types hook into the system and you may have one that has done so unsuccessfully, making Explorer crash when the extension they've installed tries to work. First you should run a complete scan with an anti-virus program, as Admiral Norton's hunch is a good one. After that try a good antispyware program (like Spybot).  If those don't work then use System Restore to roll your OS back to a version immediately post install (and then run MSupdate to download all the patches released since then). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prompt reply, guys. I thought it might be spyware, but Defender didn't pick anything up. I then swept it with Symantec's online scanner (Norton, you sure you don't have a vested interest in this? :-P), but it's taking forever and hasn't found anything so far. From my experience, System Restore does absolutely nothing in the event of a virus, but I may have to do that eventually. Using command prompt to CD to my temp folder, I can see that the file was created at 10:13 this morning, as was another file, slftycqn.dll. When I try to delete either of those (running cmd as Administrator), I get an access denied message. Advice? -76.118.157.170 (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC) UPDATE: Symantec scan didn't find anything. Though another suspect file, jkhff.dll, seems to be involved with Trojan.Vundo and calls itself Winlogon Notify. Is this a real process, or can it be killed? -76.118.157.170 (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy, I had malicious stuff that attached itself to winlogon in Windows XP pro which meant that I could not even logon to the computer in any way except in safe mode.

If it is a freshly installed computer, I would suggest you go ahead and format the hard disk and start all over again, making sure that the install media itself is not compromised in any way. Kushal 22:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming what I heard is correct and it takes less than half an hour to install Windows Vista as opposed to about two hours that it would take to install Windows XP. Kushal 22:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, after years of being on a Windows machine, I am on a mac now. ... and trust me, I am not telling anyone to "Get a mac". But if you have not done a lot of housekeeping already, I would strongly suggest a clean reinstall of Windows. Moreover, if you want Linux later, you can add Ubuntu or SuSE or Fedora core on top of Windows but unless times have changed, you cannot do things the other way round. Just go ahead and get Windows Vista.One last comment,iIf you are just into everyday computing, I would suggest you to stick with FAT32, however. Kushal 23:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Why? Doesn't seem like great advice. FAT32 is relatively prone to corruption, and has size limitations. Journaled filesystems like NTFS, EXT3, and HFS Plus are great. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Most filesystems have size limitations.. FAT32's are just tiny D\=&lt; (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless NTFS write support in GNU/Linux has vastly improved in the last three years, the OP will have a hard time dual booting. That was my reason for suggesting FAT32. Kushal 16:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It has. NTFS-3G and Captive NTFS are both safe. Or you could just get an EXT2 driver for windows and use that (they will still mount EXT3 volumes, just without journaling support). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That's great news! (Obviously, I have been living in archaic times. If I remember correctly, the last time I installed Linux on a computer and actually used it was SuSE Linux 8.2 A friend had told me to stay clear of NTFS and I just said "OK!" Kushal 17:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Linkedin
I have a little flag next to my current position on my linkedin profile. Does that mean someone flagged that position meaning they think it's incorrect or not true or something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.145.66 (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume you have tried LinkedIn? Anyways, if you have not, it does not mention the flags. Could you tell us here what color the flag is? Kushal 17:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

iTunes problem
I am having a problem with my iTunes. With the last 2 cds I imported, the last track won't import. It just hangs trying to import. I've been waiting over ten minutes for a song to import when it should have taken 30 seconds. What can I do? MalwareSmarts (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(I assume the CDs are new and not scratched.) The first thing I would do is just let iTunes do its thing for a while. If it got outrageously slow, I would a. try playing the last song from the disk in the computer and b. try to think if it is the cd player on the computer that is at fault. Unless I had problems with every CD, I would not think about the second option too hard, though. Kushal 23:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've had this problem. The cd seems to spin, then slow, then spin, etc. I have to force the cd out and iTunes normally crashes. I use a Macbook Pro, so I get as many tracks as I can, then import the cd by dragging the file icons to the desktop, a data copy. Then open it up in iTunes and convert to MP3 that way. Radiofred (talk) 11:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Linux
Could someone explain linux to me, or direct me to a website that will explain it? For someone that doesn't know advanced programming stuff? I want to be able to do what I can do with Windows XP for example, just normal home usage, using the web, typing, watching videos, using photoshop, etc. Is this possible to do with Linux for free without being a hardcore programmer? If so, could you suggest what I should get(distribution or whatever)?--Charmpiano (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Those who like and use Linux a lot will quickly pipe up and say, "of course! It is easy! A child could use it, especially for the things you want to do with it!" Personally I have found otherwise; it's not any harder to use than XP when things work correctly, but when things go wrong, suddenly you're stuck with a Unix command prompt, a handful of cryptic acronyms, and precious little place to turn for help. All of the people I've known first-hand who used Linux (all of whom were what you might call "hardcore programmers") spent a huge amount of time just trying to get things running correctly, and that isn't pretty. If it were me, I'd stick with XP, as sad as that is to say. You can get most of the free programs that people use on Linux also on XP as well (e.g. The GIMP). If you know how to keep XP working fine, then you'll probably find it easier not to switch. I'm sure people will find this a heretical statement, but if you aren't ready to play around in bash (quick test: do you find this scary?) then you shouldn't get Linux, in my view. As has been said, Linux is free—if your time is worthless. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. If everything works it will be easy, but that's a big if. It doesn't hurt to try - install it, if it works - great, if not - leave it until it matures a bit or you find yourself with more time to get it working. This can greatly depend on your hardware, you would want to avoid anything too new.
 * Note that the software that runs on Windows will not necessarily run on Linux. You have mentioned Photoshop - this particular software will not run easily on Linux, but Linux has software equivalent to it, as well as to any other commonly used software.
 * If you are in any way altruistic, this can be another argument in favor of switching. The more people use Linux, the more hardware and software developers keep Linux in mind, thus Linux will enjoy greater compatibility and be used by more. This positive feedback loop will help shatter Microsoft's current vendor lock-in to the benefit humanity.
 * Ubuntu is a popular distribution, focusing on user friendliness, with an active community that can offer assistance in the forums. Personally I have tried it, was unsatisfied, and returned to Windows; I intend to give version 8.04 a try in a few months. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I had used Unix casually (I had a Netcom shell account for most of a decade) so bash didn't terrify me; but after a few years of frustration I was relieved to go from Linux to MacOS X, which is Unix in a pretty Apple wrapper. (vim is still my primary editor.)  The main annoyance with Linux for me was that, whenever I wanted to do anything beyond day-to-day Net use and some very simple programming, I had to look it up in three different books, without much confidence that I'd find it.  The trouble is that it's made by hackers for themselves, rather than for customers.  &mdash;Tamfang (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to argue with you, but that last is not necessarily trouble -- it's what I've always loved about Unix! —Steve Summit (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you don't know exactly what you're doing, never touch linux. D\=&lt; (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you don't know what you're doing, don't try to administer your own unix box. No harm in being a user on a machine run by someone else. In fact, that's how you get to know what you're doing. Try to skip the "non-root user" stage of learning, and you get in trouble. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 02:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm... If I am not the administrator on my MacBook, who is? Mac OS X, for all its flaws, is Unix -like . It may not be the best operating system in the world but it works for a casual user. Kushal 17:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's tempting to say, "Aww, you guys are being too pessimistic; Linux isn't that bad", but then, I'm what you might call a hard-core programmer.


 * So, Charmpiano, what made you think about trying Linux? Dissatisfied with XP?  Want something free?  Want something that's not a viral cesspit?  Looking for something new?  Looking for a challenge?


 * It's true, if you've never worked with Linux before, it won't be what you're used to. If there's anything nonstandard about your hardware setup, Linux may not install as cleanly on it, and you may have bizarre problems with arcane or non-obvious solutions.  (And of course, the same can be true of Windows!)  But if you have a good distro and standard hardware, Linux can be very easy to install and use.


 * With that said, depending on how significant your need is, you may find the price (which in the case of Linux is measured in risk/uncertainty, not dollars) worth it. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been using Ubuntu 7.10 for ~5 months and like it so far, despite having no background in programming. It is tough to get used to -- installing a single program, for instance, usually involves going to the website, looking at cryptic instructions, and fiddling around in bash for a while, although the more times you do it the easier it gets -- but if you're dissatisfied with Windows and want to try something new, sure, Linux is a good alternative. It will take some work to get just how you like it, and there are some things you just need Windows for (gaming, for instance), but yeah, once you get the hang of it it's pretty enjoyable. I think that the pros far out way the cons, but that's just me. I really only use my computer for word processing, music, and the Internet, so there's a lot of stuff that could very well not work at all in Linux that I'm not aware of. Why not dual-boot via Ubuntu 7.10's automatic partitioner and see what you think of it? -- ((FLYINGNINJAMONKEY))  ((BANANA!))  04:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually if you have a problem it's much more solvable in Linux than in Windows. Linux you have logs, which help tremendously: I once had this case where a phone's memory, when connected through USB, is always mounted as read-only. A simple dmesg shows that Linux had detected errors in the file system, while in Windows it would happily let you copy new files in, and throws an error only when you try to copy files out. In contrast, I have this problem with Windows that whenever I video chat for more than 20 minutes, Windows will enter a semi-crash state, with ping returning "host unreachable" to everything, mmc refusing to open (not enough quota or something like that), and basically the system is crashed. Nothing shows up in the event log, and I have yet to solve this problem after the second reinstall. This goes to show that problems are a lot easier to fix in Linux, provided you know how to view the logs, and then you can go on forums like ubuntuforums.org and ask about that particular error message; whereas in Windows it's more dependent on luck and more luck. --antilivedT 06:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Most apps in Ubuntu just require a simple 'apt-get install programname'. I actually prefer using a package manager like that to hunting around for stuff. Though certainly if it's not in the package repository then installation can be a great pain. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you consider playing around with a logical and transparent technical system with vast amounts of free software to be "fun", then Linux would be a good choice. If you just want to run Photoshop and other non-Linux apps and don't want to twiddle any knobs, then it probably isn't a good choice.  Windows security problems are so bad that the only real option for less technical users is MacOS, in my opinion.  --Sean 16:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * for your usage, complete waste of time - stick to windows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredrick day (talk • contribs) 16:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's the other way around. Since the OP has not expressed an interest in modern gaming or specialty software, Linux might be perfectly suitable. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The user did add the disclaimer that he wanted it to be just like Windows. Anyone who wants Linux to be just like Windows should not use Linux.  It is not just like Windows.  Some buttons are in a different spot.  Some programs will need to be changed for a mostly similar alternative.  None of these changes are huge things, but they all come at once and build up to a huge frustration. --  k a i n a w &trade; 18:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to get all meta here, but the user said no such thing. Saying "I want to be able to do what I can do with Windows XP" (a direct quote) is nowhere near semantically equivalent to "[I want it] to be just like Windows."  In any event, Photoshop (one of the example apps) is probably going to be the dealbreaker.  Maybe GIMPShop would do the trick though.  Despite all the naysaying above, I'd still recommend running a live CD distribution, probably Ubuntu.  That will give access to most of the functionality desired and allow him/her to get a feeling for the system.  The decision to move forward to a full install can proceed from there.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  21:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a pity that GIMPshop is to Photoshop what RC Cola is to Coca Cola. But I agree with what you said about trying at least a LiveCD of say... Ubuntu or something. TheGreatZorko (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Very well said, as always, LarryMac. :) Kushal 17:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The quickest way to tell if it's for you is to run a Live CD version. Live CDs run everything from the CD, and don't need to be installed to your computer (but they runs slower as a result). If you like it, you can install it; if not then you don't have to. I'd suggest Ubuntu Linux, one of the more popular and user-focused Linux distributions, which you can get here.
 * You could try some of the Linux software on Windows - Firefox, OpenOffice.org, VLC, Pidgin, etc, before trying full-on Linux.
 * 98.217.18.109's bash prompt image is scary - it showcases the expert features. Shortcuts like $ and !! are useful to coders, but you will never need to use it. (Also, half of the image is sh, not bash). You will only ever need to use the bash prompt when someone gives you a command to copy-and-paste. Incidentally, Mac OSX also has a bash prompt pre-installed. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)