FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Give Me Linux or Give Me Death!





feder
Hello everyone....

Great set of forums here! I thought I'd say hello and let you all know that Linux is a big passion of mine and am 95% of the way to eliminating my need for windows anymore. So, I'm going to jump right in here at the CTH support forums and help out where I can.

[UPDATE: this thread gathered soooo much useful information that it should be something that linux newbies will benefit greatly from reading.....so let's make this thread the place where we leave important install and starting out in linux information}
_________________
banner stands trade show exhibits
csoftdev
I am another linux user. I have been using unix to begin with since 1998 and then have my own linux in 1999. i have since using linux and windows as dual boot on my system and I have slowly shift my needs to linux rather than using windows nowadays.
jembo
feder wrote:
Hello everyone....

Great set of forums here! I thought I'd say hello and let you all know that Linux is a big passion of mine and am 95% of the way to eliminating my need for windows anymore. So, I'm going to jump right in here at the CTH support forums and help out where I can.

[UPDATE: this thread gathered soooo much useful information that it should be something that linux newbies will benefit greatly from reading.....so let's make this thread the place where we leave important install and starting out in linux information}
_________________
banner stands trade show exhibits


what's wrong?
windows is still good enough to be used...
smspno
jembo wrote:
windows is still good enough to be used...


Windows is still not stable and secure enough to be used Smile.
LostOverThere
Hah.

Yeah, Windows isnt exactly secure or stable. You've all heard it, but I'll say it again, I wouldn't run a hospital on Windows.

I guess its stable [enough] for the average user. But no where near stable enough for a web or mission server.
Studio Madcrow
LostOverThere wrote:
Hah.

Yeah, Windows isnt exactly secure or stable. You've all heard it, but I'll say it again, I wouldn't run a hospital on Windows.

I guess its stable [enough] for the average user. But no where near stable enough for a web or mission server.

Are you kidding? A properly configured Windows NT server is just as stable and reliable as a Unix-based one. It's just that most Unix-based solutions are way cheaper (why pay hundreds of dollars when you can get something just as good except in terms of GUI configuration tools for free?)
Arnie
Is there some kind of radicalisation going on here? Think
pll
LostOverThere wrote:
Hah.

Yeah, Windows isnt exactly secure or stable. You've all heard it, but I'll say it again, I wouldn't run a hospital on Windows.

I guess its stable [enough] for the average user. But no where near stable enough for a web or mission server.

Agreed. I think linux is way better to make servers.
Laughing I wouldn't run a hospital on windows Laughing Lmao! Nobody should.

EDIT : this is my 700th post!
BigMo420
smspno wrote:
jembo wrote:
windows is still good enough to be used...


Windows is still not stable and secure enough to be used Smile.


Linux does not have enough programs to effectively replace Windows. Especially in the area of manufacturing applications like CAD/CAM.

Windows is more stable and secure and usable than ever before, but it is still too bloated.
Arnie
Although Ubantu and e.g. Firefox have that problem too.
{name here}
pll wrote:
LostOverThere wrote:
Hah.

Yeah, Windows isnt exactly secure or stable. You've all heard it, but I'll say it again, I wouldn't run a hospital on Windows.

I guess its stable [enough] for the average user. But no where near stable enough for a web or mission server.

Agreed. I think linux is way better to make servers.
Laughing I wouldn't run a hospital on windows Laughing Lmao! Nobody should.

EDIT : this is my 700th post!

Heh... Actually the hospitals that I've been in do, in fact, use windows, or a console based application most likely using MS-DOS, PC-DOS, or DR-DOS.
LostOverThere
{name here} wrote:
pll wrote:
LostOverThere wrote:
Hah.

Yeah, Windows isnt exactly secure or stable. You've all heard it, but I'll say it again, I wouldn't run a hospital on Windows.

I guess its stable [enough] for the average user. But no where near stable enough for a web or mission server.

Agreed. I think linux is way better to make servers.
Laughing I wouldn't run a hospital on windows Laughing Lmao! Nobody should.

EDIT : this is my 700th post!

Heh... Actually the hospitals that I've been in do, in fact, use windows, or a console based application most likely using MS-DOS, PC-DOS, or DR-DOS.


Shhh...its just an expression. Wink
qscomputing
BigMo420 wrote:
Linux does not have enough programs to effectively replace Windows. Especially in the area of manufacturing applications like CAD/CAM.

I disagree - it depends on what you want to do. Maybe Linux doesn't have great CAD/CAM applications - but in all but the most specialized areas it is an effective replacement for Windows for certain users. In fact, in some areas (mostly server-related) Linux is a much better solution than Windows.
Diablosblizz
IMO, Linux is for advanced users or at least the Linux I tried. I tried DSL, on my USB stick and it was pretty complicated. I didn't like how I had no clue how to install something. On windows, you just click the msi and press next a couple of hundred times. Wink

I am waiting my Ubuntu CD though, so I will give that a try. Hopefully, it will be easier to use.
Arno v. Lumig
smspno wrote:
jembo wrote:
windows is still good enough to be used...


Windows is still not stable and secure enough to be used Smile.


Linux is still not fast enough to be used Smile.
MrBlueSky
I like both. Very Happy

That being said, you can't compare Linux to Windows as such. Windows is an OS with a builtin Window manager and Desktop manager. Linux is a kernel. It makes more sense to compare Windows and a Linux Distribution. Or compare Windows and a Linux installation running Gnome or KDE. This, of course, nullifies some of the pros of Linux. Desktop Linux isn't more stable or faster than Windows. As a desktop OS, Linux is still staying behind. It hasn't even reached the level of Windows XP yet. I like Linux as a server platform, I like Linux as an development environment, I even like working with a desktop linux installation because if gives me easy access to the former. But would I recommend an average user to switch to Linux? No.
BigMo420
qscomputing wrote:
BigMo420 wrote:
Linux does not have enough programs to effectively replace Windows. Especially in the area of manufacturing applications like CAD/CAM.

I disagree - it depends on what you want to do. Maybe Linux doesn't have great CAD/CAM applications - but in all but the most specialized areas it is an effective replacement for Windows for certain users. In fact, in some areas (mostly server-related) Linux is a much better solution than Windows.


:sigh:

Perhaps you missed the part where I clearly and obviously stated "especially in the area of CAD/CAM" ??? If you did in fact miss it, which seems obvious from your lack of cogent response, I highlighted it for you above. Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes
LostOverThere
But BigMo420, you did say:

BigMo420 wrote:
Linux does not have enough programs to effectively replace Windows.


That sentence didnt just imply CAD/CAM applications.
Arno v. Lumig
LostOverThere wrote:
But BigMo420, you did say:

BigMo420 wrote:
Linux does not have enough programs to effectively replace Windows.


That sentence didnt just imply CAD/CAM applications.


No, more then just CAD/CAM is missing from Linux.

GIMP can't replace Photoshop, Blender can't replace 3Ds Max/Maya, there is no Flash replacement, OpenOffice doesn't work as smooth as MS Office. The Flash Player crashes frequently, and Gnash doesn't work either.

But yeah, Linux generally is better at server-stuff then Windows is.
LostOverThere
WINE now works with Photoshop (either CS1 or 2) and you should really try Krita. Its a great program!

I personally much prefer Open Office to MS Office. Besides, theres plenty of solutions like Wine-Doors or PlayOnLinux if you really must use MS Office.

Although I must agree with you on Flash. The Adobe Flash player for Linux is awful.
BigMo420
LostOverThere wrote:
But BigMo420, you did say:

BigMo420 wrote:
Linux does not have enough programs to effectively replace Windows.


That sentence didnt just imply CAD/CAM applications.


Oh my God. Are you pretending to be ignorant or are you being argumentative?

Quote:
Especially in the area of manufacturing applications like CAD/CAM.


Incredible. Rolling Eyes
BigMo420
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
No, more then just CAD/CAM is missing from Linux.


I agree.

Quote:
GIMP can't replace Photoshop,


What can Photoshop do that Gimp cant? Just because YOU can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done.

Quote:
Blender can't replace 3Ds Max/Maya,


Same question... what does 3dS or Maya do that Blender can't?

Quote:
there is no Flash replacement,


I'll get back to that.

Quote:
OpenOffice doesn't work as smooth as MS Office.


MS Office is bloated and slow and crashes more than OOo. Perhaps your settings suck?

Quote:
The Flash Player crashes frequently, and Gnash doesn't work either.


I thought you said there was no flash replacement?
smspno
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
smspno wrote:
jembo wrote:
windows is still good enough to be used...


Windows is still not stable and secure enough to be used Smile.


Linux is still not fast enough to be used Smile.


Are you kidding me ;> ?
carlospro7
I like them both. I see a purpose for both of the operating systems on my computer.
LostOverThere
BigMo420 wrote:
Quote:
Especially in the area of manufacturing applications like CAD/CAM.


Incredible. Rolling Eyes


No, you said "Especially", not "Only". That implies that you are suggesting there are other programs that cannot replace Windows. If you meant Only CAD/CAM programs you would have stated "Only", or something similar.

BigMo420 wrote:
Oh my God. Are you pretending to be ignorant or are you being argumentative?


No, im just pointing out that your previous sentence implied more then just CAD/CAM software. Smile
Arno v. Lumig
BigMo420 wrote:
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
No, more then just CAD/CAM is missing from Linux.

I agree.
Quote:
GIMP can't replace Photoshop,

What can Photoshop do that Gimp cant? Just because YOU can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done.

Ahh come on... Don't even begin. What about: Having a usable gui (And gimpshop isn't much better), soft selection, better layer settings, resizable brushes...
Quote:

Quote:
Blender can't replace 3Ds Max/Maya,

Same question... what does 3dS or Maya do that Blender can't?

Have you even used these programs?! What about decent splines and curved surfaces? There are so many things that are better in 3Ds or Maya then in Blender.
Quote:
Quote:
there is no Flash replacement,

I'll get back to that.
Quote:
OpenOffice doesn't work as smooth as MS Office.

MS Office is bloated and slow and crashes more than OOo. Perhaps your settings suck?

Nah, on default settings MS Office 2008 (!!) starts in 1 second on my PC, while OOffice took at least 8 seconds (also default settings). And yes, I'm using Vista.
Quote:
Quote:
The Flash Player crashes frequently, and Gnash doesn't work either.

I thought you said there was no flash replacement?

There is a difference between Flash and Flash Player. Flash is the program that is used to create Flash files, which can then be played in Flash Player, but not on Linux, because it crashes a lot and Gnash doesn´t work either.
smspno wrote:
Are you kidding me ;> ?

Nope I'm not. Do your own research. I did, and Windows Vista outperforms Linux on startup time of applications as well as the OS itself. That is, a default Ubuntu compared to a default Vista with virusscan and firewall. The only distro's that are faster are the ultra-light distro's like Puppy Linux and DSL, but they are not really ready to be used as a desktop system.
ammonkc
Studio Madcrow wrote:
LostOverThere wrote:
Hah.

Yeah, Windows isnt exactly secure or stable. You've all heard it, but I'll say it again, I wouldn't run a hospital on Windows.

I guess its stable [enough] for the average user. But no where near stable enough for a web or mission server.

Are you kidding? A properly configured Windows NT server is just as stable and reliable as a Unix-based one. It's just that most Unix-based solutions are way cheaper (why pay hundreds of dollars when you can get something just as good except in terms of GUI configuration tools for free?)


I disagree. unix bases solutions are much more stable than windows. plus with linux/unix systems you can customize it to do only what you need it to do. no matter what you want to do with a windows server, it still has way too much bloat. When it comes to the desktop, people can use whatever they are comfortable using, but I could never recommend windows over a unix server.
LostOverThere
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
Quote:

Quote:
OpenOffice doesn't work as smooth as MS Office.

MS Office is bloated and slow and crashes more than OOo. Perhaps your settings suck?

Nah, on default settings MS Office 2008 (!!) starts in 1 second on my PC, while OOffice took at least 8 seconds (also default settings). And yes, I'm using Vista.


That doesn't stop it being bloated. If you really care about start up times you cna always install Redahead on your favourite Linux distribution.
smspno
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
smspno wrote:
Are you kidding me ;> ?

Nope I'm not. Do your own research. I did, and Windows Vista outperforms Linux on startup time of applications as well as the OS itself. That is, a default Ubuntu compared to a default Vista with virusscan and firewall. The only distro's that are faster are the ultra-light distro's like Puppy Linux and DSL, but they are not really ready to be used as a desktop system.


Maybe only on your machine... ;]
Arno v. Lumig
smspno wrote:
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
smspno wrote:
Are you kidding me ;> ?

Nope I'm not. Do your own research. I did, and Windows Vista outperforms Linux on startup time of applications as well as the OS itself. That is, a default Ubuntu compared to a default Vista with virusscan and firewall. The only distro's that are faster are the ultra-light distro's like Puppy Linux and DSL, but they are not really ready to be used as a desktop system.


Maybe only on your machine... ;]


Yeah, maybe only on the 4 completely different machines I tried it on.

Do your own research.
Arno v. Lumig
LostOverThere wrote:
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
Quote:

Quote:
OpenOffice doesn't work as smooth as MS Office.

MS Office is bloated and slow and crashes more than OOo. Perhaps your settings suck?

Nah, on default settings MS Office 2008 (!!) starts in 1 second on my PC, while OOffice took at least 8 seconds (also default settings). And yes, I'm using Vista.


That doesn't stop it being bloated. If you really care about start up times you cna always install Redahead on your favourite Linux distribution.


Which chips 3 seconds off the OOo startup times. 4 seconds to go. Anyone?
[FuN]goku
Meh, imo, i like windows for "SOME" things, like .NET framework programming, mostly because Mono isn't that great, but on linux i do like all the server stuff , like apache, mysql etc. Seems to run alot smoother, errm... If one window stops responding your whole desktop doesnt slow down like it can on windows. Uses a hell of a lot less memory than windows.

Actually, they both have their up's and downs, but things like CAD, are more... User preferenced. I prefer to use Cinema 4D on windows, as opposed to blender. It's because i'm use to it, and like it, blender is probably just as good, but i'm not a big fan of it, but i do like the fact its free and i know it can create some awsome looking stuff.

Openoffice, i actually use it on windows, its free, and well... i dont like MS office.

Anywho.
mehulved
What's the point of arguing like this? Also, by this topic, are you people fighting about the OS or about the apps? Seems more like apps than the OS. It's not the fault of linux community if adobe can't make decent flash version for linux and so on.
And even if such applications did exist, still it'd be personal preference of each one as to which they find better.
ammonkc
mehulved wrote:
What's the point of arguing like this? Also, by this topic, are you people fighting about the OS or about the apps? Seems more like apps than the OS. It's not the fault of linux community if adobe can't make decent flash version for linux and so on.
And even if such applications did exist, still it'd be personal preference of each one as to which they find better.


Well said. you are gentleman and a scholar
Arno v. Lumig
ammonkc wrote:
mehulved wrote:
What's the point of arguing like this? Also, by this topic, are you people fighting about the OS or about the apps? Seems more like apps than the OS. It's not the fault of linux community if adobe can't make decent flash version for linux and so on.
And even if such applications did exist, still it'd be personal preference of each one as to which they find better.


Well said. you are gentleman and a scholar


No. It's nonsense. That Adobe won't make a decent flash player for Linux makes Linux worse. If I can't use sites that need Flash in Linux that is a very big minus for Linux, because I can on Windows. It's not Linux' fault, but that doesn't mean that it suddenly is not important anymore.

Someone who says that Linux is ready for the desktop is lying: it can't play Flash properly yet, rendering it useless for desktop use.
mehulved
Arno v. Lumig wrote:

No. It's nonsense. That Adobe won't make a decent flash player for Linux makes Linux worse. If I can't use sites that need Flash in Linux that is a very big minus for Linux, because I can on Windows. It's not Linux' fault, but that doesn't mean that it suddenly is not important anymore.

Someone who says that Linux is ready for the desktop is lying: it can't play Flash properly yet, rendering it useless for desktop use.

Maybe you need to read my post again. I just emphasised that it's not the fault of linux, or the technology behind it.
But, it's very true that the lack of softwares like flash, more games, etc is a hindrance, which we'd like to see improve soon.
But, again these things aren't much in the hands of the community. There have been attempts at making softwares like gnash which can play a lot of content, and are open source, but come it's not easy to chase a moving target when it refuses to even show up fully.
Arno v. Lumig
mehulved wrote:
Arno v. Lumig wrote:

No. It's nonsense. That Adobe won't make a decent flash player for Linux makes Linux worse. If I can't use sites that need Flash in Linux that is a very big minus for Linux, because I can on Windows. It's not Linux' fault, but that doesn't mean that it suddenly is not important anymore.

Someone who says that Linux is ready for the desktop is lying: it can't play Flash properly yet, rendering it useless for desktop use.

Maybe you need to read my post again. I just emphasised that it's not the fault of linux, or the technology behind it.
But, it's very true that the lack of softwares like flash, more games, etc is a hindrance, which we'd like to see improve soon.
But, again these things aren't much in the hands of the community. There have been attempts at making softwares like gnash which can play a lot of content, and are open source, but come it's not easy to chase a moving target when it refuses to even show up fully.


You're right. I apologise if I sounded a bit offensive. It really isn't the fault of the community or of the developers, but it is a valid reason not to like or use Linux.
BigMo420
Arno v. Lumig wrote:


Someone who says that Linux is ready for the desktop is lying: it can't play Flash properly yet, rendering it useless for desktop use.


That's just absurd. What an ignorant statement.

Presence or lack of Flash is not a deal breaker for criteria to be a "desktop" PC. I don't run flash on AMY of my computers. If a web site requires flash, I go somewhere else.
Arno v. Lumig
BigMo420 wrote:
Arno v. Lumig wrote:


Someone who says that Linux is ready for the desktop is lying: it can't play Flash properly yet, rendering it useless for desktop use.


That's just absurd. What an ignorant statement.

Presence or lack of Flash is not a deal breaker for criteria to be a "desktop" PC. I don't run flash on AMY of my computers. If a web site requires flash, I go somewhere else.


Have you ever looked at how many people use YouTube? I really think that not being able to do a simple task as viewing a Flash movie ruins the whole Linux-as-a-desktop thingie.

Linux is ready for the desktop, if you don't use complex Excel spreadsheets, don't need Flash, don't use exotic hardware, don't use a wireless network card that's unsupported, don't need the extra buttons on your mouse, don't need high performance and are not interested in Adobe software in general (Photoshop anyone).

I challenge you to do a performance test on a default WinXP install compared to a default Ubuntu install, on a somewhat modern computer. You'll be amazed how slow Ubuntu is.
BigMo420
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
I really think


Stop right there. That's the entire point.

I seriously doubt that YOU are the defining factor in determining the usefulness of a desktop based on its components. I'm sure you're very bright, and you must think very highly of yourself, but be realistic here. YOUR perception of what makes a desktop a desktop is highly insignificant. Rolling Eyes
Arnie
And so is yours. Except you're not citing any facts / research to back up your opinion, and Arno is. So that makes your opinion much less significant, actually.
Arno v. Lumig
BigMo420 wrote:
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
I really think


Stop right there. That's the entire point.

I seriously doubt that YOU are the defining factor in determining the usefulness of a desktop based on its components. I'm sure you're very bright, and you must think very highly of yourself, but be realistic here. YOUR perception of what makes a desktop a desktop is highly insignificant. Rolling Eyes


I personally don't really need Flash either. I actually use Linux from time to time in the area's where it is better then Windows (and there are areas where Linux is better), but that the majority of people need Flash means it is a requirement to be "ready for the desktop".

What you're saying would mean that everyone claiming Linux is ready for the desktop is also saying bullshit, because what they think a desktop needs might not be needed for everyone.

But in that case, Windows is not ready for the desktop either. I think you can safely say that Linux is ready for the desktop for just like 20% of the people (just an estimate), because all the other people probably need something else that just isn't available for Linux. (and I can go on all day giving examples of these things)

Dankjewel Arnie Wink
Arno v. Lumig
Why is noone replying to this topic anymore? It was just starting to get interesting.
LostOverThere
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
Why is noone replying to this topic anymore? It was just starting to get interesting.


Because you're all over us. Razz

Plus, whats there more to say other then I like Linux cause its free, fast, open source, and virus free. My opinion of course. Smile
Arnie
LostOverThere wrote:
...its free, fast, open source, and virus free. My opinion of course. Smile
Those are not opinions, they're four claimed facts without evidence to back it up. Although some of them are so obvious that requiring evidence would resemble Wikipedia, others are clearly not.

As for the topic, it was doomed from the start by its title.
Arno v. Lumig
LostOverThere wrote:
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
Why is noone replying to this topic anymore? It was just starting to get interesting.


Because you're all over us. Razz

Plus, whats there more to say other then I like Linux cause its free, fast, open source, and virus free. My opinion of course. Smile


You know what the problem is? A few months or weeks after this thread is gone an other Linux guy will open a new thread, also claiming that it's much better then Windows, and we'll either have the same discussion, or the Windows people will just ignore it and the thread will turn into a distro war. Why are the only people with facts the Windows people, and do the Linux people just make claims that it's faster, more user friendly etc etc? I have proven that Windows is faster then most Linux distro's on the computers I tested this on, and then noone replies to the thread anymore. But sure, you still claim that Linux is fast.

I know I am a bit generalising here, but this is really the way it always goes on forums. It's pretty similar to the Firefox vs. IE discussion, really.

I really don't bother if you use Linux because you think that Windows is not worth the price, but just stop making claims that are not true!
Is open-sourcedness worth the disadvantages to you? Go ahead and use Linux.
Arnie
It's true that the zealots easily overlook evidence contradicting their favourite software (Firefox' speed, or rather the lack of it, being the best example).

Although in this particular case, there are aspects where Linux has advantages over Windows, just as well.
LostOverThere
Hehe, fast but not fastest Smile
But seriously, I understand your point of view. But really, it is free, it is fast (I have not claimed "fastest") it is opensource. It isn't completely virus free but it has very few security flaws.

Arnie wrote:
Those are not opinions, they're four claimed facts without evidence to back it up. Although some of them are so obvious that requiring evidence would resemble Wikipedia, others are clearly not.

As for the topic, it was doomed from the start by its title.


Well, how would you like for me to state my opinion then? Because that's really my opinion. Neutral
I'm not trying to start a fight, I just wanted to state my opinions. By all means, if you like Windows - use it. If you like Mac - use it. If you like Linux - use it.


Also, we really need to stop these useless arguments. They end the same way, that we all accept that if someone likes something they should use it. Obviously, this is as much my fault as anyone else's. Damn these debates
Arnie
I would like you to state your opinion with arguments. And "it's fast" etc. is not an argument unless you show some evidence.

The fact that you experience it to be fast is likely to have something to do with wishful thinking. Although that would be a valid reason for you to use Linux, it does make you seem awfully narrow-minded. If you really care you'd take the effort to do some objective measurements. And if you don't really care, I'd expect you to stay out of a topic like this.

Well ok, maybe (considering the title) this topic is just right for you and I'm in the wrong place with my "objective measurements"...
LostOverThere
I cant argue with that, really. You're damn good at debating, Arnie.
Arno v. Lumig
LostOverThere wrote:
Hehe, fast but not fastest Smile


I knew you would use that against me. How can something be "fast" when it's one of the slowest things around? That is just like saying cycling is fast (not fastest... cars, planes, trains, boats etc are faster). You can't say you prefer Linux over Windows because it's fast, because Windows beats Linux on that point.

I'm still wondering where the other Linux people are staying though.. They're usually not afraid to stand up for their OS. They're probably still tweaking their kernel to be faster then WinXP Smile (And if you want Linux to be faster then Windows I'll give you a hint: Start with X.Org, that's the performance hog)
ssthanapati
Well linux may be great and free and better than windows but its still better suited for servers instead of home computers.

I am not being judgemental here but its far more easier 2 work with windows than with linux. And that is one of the reasons y many people prefer to stick to windows. And abt security... who cares if u dont have something really important to protect in ur PC. An avg user dosent have much of data to be protected and taking a backup works just fine. Atleast its saves all the trouble that linux gives as it dosent work in administrator mode all d time.

Personally I would prefer 2 use Windows. and abt security, a free firewall and antivirus like zonealarm and AVG works just fine 2 do that. And abt crashes. Xp seemed 2 crash a lot less that win 98 and my vista hasent crashed even once since i bought it abt 7 months ago. Dunno abt others though
Related topics
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Computers -> Operating Systems

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.