Why do you put up with Windows?

[graphic7]

The reason why the GPL is this way is to encourage contribution to the orignal source code. Otherwise people will just take the code, make major improvements and give nothing back.

In RMS's (and almost every other Linux zeoloat's) argument the other day he stated the CDDL was bad because it prevents people from ripping code out of OpenSolaris and reusing it (perhaps porting it to Linux). See something ironic here?

 

[dduardo]

Yeah, we all know linus wants to port dtrace.

 

[graphic7]

Yeah, we all know linus wants to port dtrace.

That just goes to show how ignorant the man is. There's a better technology out there, and he won't even take a look at it. In fact, he relies about "3rd party accounts" to tell him how good OpenSolaris is. It also shows that he's quite political/religious.

In fact, I'm sort of glad he isn't into porting dtrace. That just adds one more feature to Solaris to make it more superior to Linux.

 

[dduardo]

I would actually try OpenSolaris when it is released, but it has even worse driver support than Linux. Nvidia only supplies accelerated drivers for Linux and FreeBSD.

 

[faust9]

The BSDL allows anyone to take my code and do whatever they want to with it. That's true software freedom, but no, you have these GPL hypocrits running around and spewing their garbage. With the GPL, any software under the GPL must stay GPL'd. What's the point in that?

The point is to prevent company 'A' from simply taking code, modifying it and not returning the modifications to the code base to improve the original piece of work (Microsoft and the BSD IP stack for instance). Why not give the original creator of code freedom to do with the code as he/she see's fit? GPL does this while BSD simply says "hey you want it--take it. If you make it better, well then keep that secret so no one else can benefit."

If you are a developer and don't feel like writing a chunk of code and would rather cut and paste from a GPL'd piece of work then the original creator of the work should get credit should he/she not? GPL says develope your own code from scratch if you like. If you do then license it however you want. If you decide to use a piece of GPL'd code in your project though you must agree to abide by all of the terms of the GPL. Again, if you don't like it don't use GPL. Sounds pretty simple doesn't it?

If you don't like GPL don't use it. If you develope software and prefer BSD or any other IP scheme then feel free to use what you like.

Oh, RMS is not a Linux Zealot BTW. In fact I'd say he's the exact opposite of a Linux zealot. RMS only cares about the FSF and GNU. He harps about Linux as much as he does about plan 9 or solaris or aix.

 

[dduardo]

Just saw this on slashdot:

http://management.silicon.com/itpro/0,39024675,39127619,00.htm

Bill Gates talks about interoperability and open source.

Microsoft and interoperability is an oxymoron. Maybe if they helped out interoperate with other operating systems this wouldn't be an issue. It is always the open source projects reverse engineering the microsoft protocol.

 

[graphic7]

"hey you want it--take it. If you make it better, well then keep that secret so no one else can benefit."

This is a capitalist society. Software development is not some sort of pseudo-religious philosophy. It's about making money. When will the GPL nuts understand this?

If you are a developer and don't feel like writing a chunk of code and would rather cut and paste from a GPL'd piece of work then the original creator of the work should get credit should he/she not? GPL says develope your own code from scratch if you like. If you do then license it however you want. If you decide to use a piece of GPL'd code in your project though you must agree to abide by all of the terms of the GPL. Again, if you don't like it don't use GPL. Sounds pretty simple doesn't it?

Correct. This is why many software development teams are forbidden to look at or use GPL'd software during the software development process, because of the fear that the developers will be contaiminated, therefore, letting them possibly incorporate the GPL code into the propiertary software. If anyone finds out the software developers were contaminated and did in fact incorporate the code they could be sued the FSF, etc. That's very nice of them isn't it? With the BSD, the true open-source license, all of this is avoided.

Oh, RMS is not a Linux Zealot BTW. In fact I'd say he's the exact opposite of a Linux zealot. RMS only cares about the FSF and GNU. He harps about Linux as much as he does about plan 9 or solaris or aix.

This is for the most part incorrect. RMS loves IBM, therefore, he really has no beef with AIX (at least I haven't seen it). As for Solaris, I've made it apparent that he does not like Sun. Plan 9 is now under a BSD license. If he criticizes that, he's just making an even larger mockery of the open-source movement. I haven't seen him criticize Linux lately; however, I believe I've seen it before. To criticize your own followers is pretty stupid. He wouldn't make a very good politician/businessman would he?

 

[faust9]

That just goes to show how ignorant the man is. There's a better technology out there, and he won't even take a look at it. In fact, he relies about "3rd party accounts" to tell him how good OpenSolaris is. It also shows that he's quite political/religious.

In fact, I'm sort of glad he isn't into porting dtrace. That just adds one more feature to Solaris to make it more superior to Linux.

Please feel free to list the superior aspects of Solaris over Linux. I use both(Red Hat and Solaris) plus XP plus OS X on a daily basis. I've yet to see superior aspects in Solaris over any other *nix. Unigraphics runs better on XP, Most engineering software available for *nix's run better on Red Hat(Matlab runs much much better on Linux as does Maple and Mathematica than on Solaris). Graphics applications run much better on a G5. The superiority of Solaris is not present in by dealings with it IMO.

 

[graphic7]

Please feel free to list the superior aspects of Solaris over Linux. I use both(Red Hat and Solaris) plus XP plus OS X on a daily basis. I've yet to see superior aspects in Solaris over any other *nix. Unigraphics runs better on XP, Most engineering software available for *nix's run better on Red Hat(Matlab runs much much better on Linux as does Maple and Mathematica than on Solaris). Graphics applications run much better on a G5. The superiority of Solaris is not present in by dealings with it IMO.

You've failed to mention what version of Solaris you are using. dtrace is a feature of Solaris 10. Keep in mind that Solaris 8 is over 6 years old, and Solaris 9 is around 4 years old.

You've also neglected to mentioned what hardware platforms you're comparing them against. Were you running Solaris and Linux on an x86 when you compared the Matlab/Mathematica performance, or are you comparing an x86 to an UltraSparc?

Unless you're doing any sort of system administration you probably won't notice Solaris' advantages of Linux, however. Solaris 10 should make workstation advantages more apparent. dtrace for developers will be a godsend:

http://www.samag.com/documents/s=9171/sam0406h/0406h.htm

Do not bother to compare dtrace to kprobes or LTT.

Solaris 10 also has a 128-bit filesystem that will soon be released, called ZFS.

Solaris has had ACLs since version 8, I believe. The ACLs were incorporated, and not some cheesy 3rd party addon like grsecurity for Linux.

Solaris has slick graphical administration utilities for almost everything. DNS, DHCP, basic system tasks, etc. Show me a Linux utility that is as slick as SMC.

Solaris' Disk Solstice blows the relatively new Linux LVM out of the water in both performance and slickness.

Solaris is compliant with virtually almost every UNIX standard in existence.

I could go on and on.

And the Solaris documentation is excellent. Take a look at http://docs.sun.com. There's lots of other products for Sun on there, not to mention almost every version of Solaris. Each has their own documentation.

 

[faust9]

This is a capitalist society. Software development is not some sort of pseudo-religious philosophy. It's about making money. When will the GPL nuts understand this?

Hello pot, kettle your black... Hey killer scroll up a few posts where you wrongly complained about an ad hominum attack and then reread the above paragraph.

Now to address you idea about software being about capitalism. Your wrong. Corporate or private projects paid for with the expectation of financial return is about capitalism. If these projects want to develope code more quickly and do so by clipping code from a privat GPL'd project taking part as a community hobby (which is essentially what most GPL projects boil down to) then so be it. The capitalistic project must then abide by the restrictions put in place by the original (re: owner of the code) creator. That is capitalism. Code owners--even GPL'd--can sell their rights if they choose to do so. They can change from the GPL to another scheme mid development if they choose to do so. It's their right.

Correct. This is why many software development teams are forbidden to look at or use GPL'd software during the software development process, because of the fear that the developers will be contaiminated, therefore, letting them possibly incorporate the GPL code into the propiertary software. If anyone finds out the software developers were contaminated and did in fact incorporate the code they could be sued the FSF, etc. That's very nice of them isn't it? With the BSD, the true open-source license, all of this is avoided.

How many FSF lawsuits are pending? Last I checked, SCO was trying to work the system in reverse...

This is for the most part incorrect. RMS loves IBM, therefore, he really has no beef with AIX (at least I haven't seen it). As for Solaris, I've made it apparent that he does not like Sun. Plan 9 is now under a BSD license. If he criticizes that, he's just making even a larger mockery of the open-source movement. I haven't seen him criticize Linux lately; however, I believe I've seen it before. To criticize your own followers is pretty stupid. He wouldn't make a very good politician/businessman would he?

RMS has criticized AIX, Solaris, Plan 9, and Linux. Look into it. RMS gripes about every piece of software not explicitly released under GNU. Please feel free to read what RMS has actually said rather than simply atttaching him to Linux.

Good day.

 

[faust9]

You've failed to mention what version of Solaris you are using. dtrace is a feature of Solaris 10. Keep in mind that Solaris 8 is over 6 years old, and Solaris 9 is around 4 years old.

I use 8, 9 and 10--all are on site.

You've also neglected to mentioned what hardware platforms you're comparing them against. Were you running Solaris and Linux on an x86 when you compared the Matlab/Mathematica performance, or are you comparing an x86 to an UltraSparc?

Sparcstation5's Ultrasparcs, dual G4 and dual G5 powermacs, and Dell computers--optiplex I believe. Matlab runs faster on RH on the dells than on the Sun's or under Xp or in X11 on the Macs. [edit] forgot about the blades (100's, 150's, 1000's, 1500's,) and the Sun Opteron W1100Z I use on occasion, so my comparison point is between XP units runniny anywhere from 1.3 GHz to 2.26 GHz Vs sun boxes from 500MHz to 1.7Ghz vs Macs running from 950MHz to dual 2.5GHz.

Unless you're doing any sort of system administration you probably won't notice Solaris' advantages of Linux, however. Solaris 10 should make workstation advantages more apparent. dtrace for developers will be a godsend:

http://www.samag.com/documents/s=9171/sam0406h/0406h.htm

Do not bother to compare dtrace to kprobes or LTT.

Solaris 10 also has a 128-bit filesystem that will soon be released, called ZFS.

Solaris has had ACLs since version 8, I believe. The ACLs were incorporated, and not some cheesy 3rd party addon like grsecurity for Linux.

Solaris has click graphical administration utilities for almost everything. DNS, DHCP, basic system tasks, etc. Show me a Linux utility that is as slick as SMC.

Solaris' Disk Solstice blows the relatively new Linux LVM out of the water in both performance and slickness.

Solaris is compliant with virtually almost every UNIX standard in existence.

I could go on and on.

The rest is not very impressive as far as superior qualities go. GUI's Woo-hoo XP and OSX have superior GUI's. You would have done better to simply link us to the Sun site IMO.

Now, reviewing the benefits of Solaris over Linux leads me to wonder why ANYONE would be so foolish as to choose Linux? I wonder...

 

[graphic7]

Forgot another feature:

Solaris zones.

Basically this is multiple instances of Solaris, each of which are independent from one another. You don't have to put up with the overhead requirements of Xend or VMware. Not to mention that they are secure and have a very clean interface used to manage them.

Each zone takes up around 50mb of space, and the same amount of ram as the idle global zone, itself. You could create a totally independent zone, which essentially clones the global zone, so that you have write access to all the cloned filesystems.

This is another developer godsend.

 

[graphic7]

I use 8, 9 and 10--all are on site.

I doubt 10 is on your site. 10 FCS was just released a few days ago. If you were working in a production envionrment it'd be very foolish to run a 10 beta.

The rest is not very impressive as far as superior qualities go. GUI's Woo-hoo XP and OSX have superior GUI's. You would have done better to simply link us to the Sun site IMO.

This is anothing more than a subjective post. You've done nothing to rebutt my claims.

In fact, I gave you a link to the SysAdmin magazine, which is a very respectable magazine.

Now, reviewing the benefits of Solaris over Linux leads me to wonder why ANYONE would be so foolish as to choose Linux? I wonder...

I fail to see the significance of this.

Solaris 9 & 10 both have excellent x86 hardware suppport. I'm running Solaris 10 on a dual Xeon sitting right beside me. You cannot compare an x86 running Red Hat to an UltraSparc running some version of Solaris. In fact, I was unaware that Matlab or Mathematica had x86 versions for Solaris.

 

[graphic7]

I think I finally see the misunderstanding.

Solaris runs on multiple platforms just like Linux does. You cannot infer that Solaris is for Sun hardware only. Your comparisons are invalid. All your argument has done is to state that x86's are faster than UltraSparc's, which I agree. What you have not done is illustrate me the fact that Linux is faster than Solaris on x86.

 

[faust9]

I doubt 10 is on your site. 10 FCS was just released a few days ago. If you were working in a production envionrment it's be very foolish to run a 10 beta.



This is anothing more than a subjective post. You've done nothing to rebutt my claims.

In fact, I gave you a link to the SysAdmin magazine, which is a very respectable magazine.



I fail to see the significance of this.

Solaris 9 & 10 both have excellent x86 hardware suppport. I'm running Solaris 10 on a dual Xeon sitting right beside me. You cannot compare an x86 running Red Hat to an UltraSparc running some version of Solaris. In fact, I was unaware that Matlab or Mathematica had x86 versions for Solaris.

So, you doubt 10 is on my site yet you say it's right next to you... Interesting. I'll tell the computer science geeks to shut their toys off because we obviously don't have it available to play with. I never said The above had x86 version BTW. I said Matlab and the like run faster on RH x86. Split hairs if you like but the simple fact is engineering aps available for Solaris and Linux for the most part run faster on Linux. While UG runs faste on XP.

 

[dduardo]

Graphic7, Linux has something like Solaris zones. It is called usermode linux

http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/

-----

Also, let's not start with the personal attacks. Just stick with your facts and opinions on the differences between the software.

 

[graphic7]

So, you doubt 10 is on my site yet you say it's right next to you... Interesting. I'll tell the computer science geeks to shut their toys off because we obviously don't have it available to play with. I never said The above had x86 version BTW. I said Matlab and the like run faster on RH x86. Split hairs if you like but the simple fact is engineering aps available for Solaris and Linux for the most part run faster on Linux. While UG runs faste on XP.

Again, what's the point of your argument?

You attempted to compare Matlab/Mathematica performance on Solaris to Red Hat on x86. I corrected you by saying there are no versions of Matlab/Mathematica for x86, making your comparison invalid. You have no argument to say that Matlab/Mathematica performance is better on Red Hat x86.

 

[faust9]

I think I finally see the misunderstanding.

Solaris runs on multiple platforms just like Linux does. You cannot infer that Solaris is for Sun hardware only. Your comparisons are invalid. All your argument has done is to state that x86's are faster than UltraSparc's, which I agree. What you have not done is illustrate me the fact that Linux is faster than Solaris on x86.

No, what I have infered is that the available sun hardware and combined sun software runs most applications available on both the Linux PC's (with comperable specs) to the same pieces of software running on the sun hardware. FEMLAB, ANSYS, LabVIEW, CPLEX, Maple(the one I use the most), Mathematica, MatLab, evan Maya run better under Linux.

I'm not making a comparison of Sun's newest top shelf offerings to those from Dell, or Apple. I'm comparing hardware/software all purchased at about the same time running on different systems with different OS's and doing so find Solaris lacking when compared to other systems.

 

[graphic7]

Graphic7, Linux has something like Solaris zones. It is called usermode linux

http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/

-----

Also, let's not start with the personal attacks. Just stick with your facts and opinions on the differences between the software.

I've heard of UML before. I've never used it, therefore, I won't badmouth UML (for the moment)

I will, however, tell about my experience with Solaris zones.

I can setup a fully functional Solaris zone in roughly 5 minutes, not counting the install procedure (which is totally automated and about 5 more minutes of time).

The commands zoneadm and zonecfg are very nice for writing scripts for.

Once the zone is installed, you can have access to the zone's console, which is a tty, not a ptty.

When the global zone is patched, patches can be applied to the non-global zones, themselves. Or you can localize patch applications to one or two, or so on non-global zones and leave the global zone not effected. You can also install packages this way.

Last I recall, UML was a kernel patch. Has it been incorporated into the base kernel, yet? Solaris zones have been deemed for production use. I've heard of a few sys admins already using them to start minimizing the number of actual systems running.

 

[graphic7]

No, what I have infered is that the available sun hardware and combined sun software runs most applications available on both the Linux PC's (with comperable specs) to the same pieces of software running on the sun hardware. FEMLAB, ANSYS, LabVIEW, CPLEX, Maple(the one I use the most), Mathematica, MatLab, evan Maya run better under Linux.

I'm not making a comparison of Sun's newest top shelf offerings to those from Dell, or Apple. I'm comparing hardware/software all purchased at about the same time running on different systems with different OS's and doing so find Solaris lacking when compared to other systems.

Yes, Sun hardware/Sun software is slower than typical PC hardware/Linux software.

 

[graphic7]

Also dduardo, from my understanding (recent reading), UML or Xen do not have any sort of Fair Share Scheduling. This allows me to allocate n number of CPUs to a specific zone for sharing or actual allocation.

 

[faust9]

I've heard of UML before. I've never used it, therefore, I won't badmouth UML (for the moment)

I will, however, tell about my experience with Solaris zones.

I can setup a fully functional Solaris zone in roughly 5 minutes, not counting the install procedure (which is totally automated and about 5 more minutes of time).

The commands zoneadm and zonecfg are very nice for writing scripts for.

Once the zone is installed, you can have access to the zone's console, which is a tty, not a ptty.

When the global zone is patched, patches can be applied to the non-global zones, themselves. Or you can localize patch applications to one or two, or so on non-global zones and leave the global zone not effected. You can also install packages this way.

Last I recall, UML was a kernel patch. Has it been incorporated into the base kernel, yet? Solaris zones have been deemed for production use. I've heard of a few sys admins already using them to start minimizing the number of actual systems running.

So, essentially what you are saying is that you're a solaris zealot (the term you've generously thrown at others be they linux zealots or not) simply because you use it and have not had a comperable experience using Linux. How often do you use Linux BTW?

 

[graphic7]

So, essentially what you are saying is that you're a solaris zealot (the term you've generously thrown at others be they linux zealots or not) simply because you use it and have not had a comperable experience using Linux. How often do you use Linux BTW?

Incorrect. I've recently been doing quite a bit of AIX administration. I would actually recommend AIX for some things over Solaris, however, for a general workstation/server OS, I would use Solaris any day of the week.

I last installed a Linux distribution, Gentoo, roughly two weeks ago. I played around with it for several days and was not impressed, pending an immediate uninstall. Before that, I ran Fedora Core 2 for about 6 months. I was glad to move that system to a FreeBSD install. I used Linux heavily about 2 years ago - a big Debian/Redhat ~7.3-- user. I fell out of the Linux crowd and moved to FreeBSD, then onto Solaris and AIX.

I would say I have a decent amount of Linux experience to make an accurate decision regarding OS superiority concerning Linux. I administered around 20 Redhat/Debian servers at my last posting.

A few years ago I was quite a Linux zealot, myself. I never would've ran Solaris or any other propiertary operating system, until I started using them heavily. Not just a quick install and humour break, but for serious system administration.

 

[graphic7]

Here's a nice Solaris zones tutorial/overview:

http://www.blastwave.org/docs/Solaris-10-b51/DMC-0002/dmc-0002.html

And, and another thing called `Live Upgrade,' or simply LU:

Live Upgrade allows a system to do an install or an upgrade of Solaris on a running Solaris system (x86 & Sparc). If I have a 2 9gb partitions, one with the running version of Solaris and the other blank, I can use the LU utility to either upgrade, which clones the 9gb partition, and then does the upgrade, or I can just do the install without the cloning process. While the system is still running (all services uninterrupted), the Solaris upgrade or install will be happening on the other partition. I can then reboot, and I'll be running the newer version of Solaris, while the older version will be inactive. I can then reformat that partition and use it for something else.

This allows someone to upgrade a system with the only downtime being the time it takes to reboot a system. The only downside to LU is that it requires some extra space to take place.

I'd like to see a Linux system do that.

 

[graphic7]

I would actually try OpenSolaris when it is released, but it has even worse driver support than Linux. Nvidia only supplies accelerated drivers for Linux and FreeBSD.

At the moment there is no DRI support in Solaris. I'm using an Nvidia GeForce2 and Matrox G450 on my Solaris workstations. Of course they aren't doing anything 3d, that would require acceleration, but they run fine.

OpenSolaris is edging out slowly. From my understanding the OpenSolaris codebase will be essentially the same as what the Solaris 10 codebase is now. Eventually Sun will be using builds of OpenSolaris for Solaris customer shippings. You can think of the relationship between Solaris and OpenSolaris as something between OpenOffice and StarOffice.

Solaris 10 is free now, but OpenSolaris will be open-source-free later on. You should go ahead and give 10 a try.

Edit: Be sure to check the HCL at http://www.bigadmin.com. This has a list of hardware that is supported in Solaris. As you know, Solaris doesn't support everything. My Xeon is SCSI-based and almost everything is supported, however, the SB Live! did require 3rd-party open-source drivers. I've had a relatively decent experience with my IDE-based system. Solaris doesn't like older IDE cards that do DMA, so in some cases you may find yourself disabling DMA from the Solaris bootloader. There's plenty of documentation out there, and I can certainly provide a solution if you need it. Any recent IDE controller, though, should have no problem. Especially, if the controller can be found on the HCL, you should be in luck.

Hopefully the hardware support in Solaris should increase once OpenSolaris gets released.

Also, feel free to install Solaris 10 in VMware. I did an install yesterday, with all the default VMware options. Worked great, however, the SoundBlaster card that VMware uses required those 3rd-party drivers to be installed that I mentioned earlier. There's also no tools for it yet, though, the mouse seemed very responsive. There's some fullscreen'ing issues present doing installs also, but that's fixed after the install process is finished.

 

[graphic7]

Here's some screenshots:

http://riemann.solnetworks.net/~dlewis/images/screenshots

Note that in one or two, Solaris 10 now includes gcc, not to mention all of the GNU compiler collection. There's a few assorted screenshots of my VMware install, CDE desktop, and JDS (Sun's modified Gnome, which is very slick).

 

[RoboSapien]

I want to use Linux but when I install it nothing looks like windows at all. I am very comfortable with WinXP but there not single linux that looks exactly like windowXP with all its features.

Secondly Every time I install a new LinuxOs, it looks is complete different than what I had previously used this has happened almost every time with me. Now I am bored with linux, its all talk and no walk. As if there are no standards for linux.

WinXp is also very userfriendly, there are no commanline options that I require. It seems as if BillGates asks users before programming windows features on how they want them and what they want them. Please tell me where to submit my most wanted features that I want in Linux.

I love the hibernation option of WinXP, it has saved lot of my time.

Thanks.

 

[dduardo]

RoboSapien,

1) Does OSX have to be identical to windows to be usable? If you are the type of person that doesn't like change, then stick with windows.

2) During the install you can pick which desktop environment you want. Linux is about choice. Personally, I don't need all the razzle dazzle of a full desktop environment so that is why I use Fluxbox.

Screenshot:
http://fluxbox.sourceforge.net/zoom.php?shots/rojaro_fluxbox.jpg

Now if you want a more "windows" like interface go with kde.

Screenshot:

http://www.kde.org/screenshots/images/3.3/snapshot3.png

If you want an apple interface go with gnome or E17.

Screenshot:
http://www.gnome-look.org/content/preview.php?preview=1&id=20865&file1=20865-1.jpg&file2=20865-2.jpg&file3=20865-3.jpg&name=Platisk+%2B+Industrial
http://img182.exs.cx/img182/5922/ebshot4s3nl.jpg

You can even make kde look more apple by changing the style. You can find themes here:

http://www.gnome-look.org/
http://www.kde-look.org/

3) If you don't like to use the command line then get a linux distro like SUSE or Linspire

http://www.novell.com/linux/suse/index.html
http://linspire.com/

With these distro your going to have to pay for the hand holding support.

4) Linux does have hibernation, but if your not using a distro like suse or linspire, you're going to have to configure it yourself, which isn't that hard, but you need to use the command line.

 

[RoboSapien]

dduardo

Thanks for your efforts. That is very useful.

But your 4th answer is very repulsive for a non geek like me.

But yet is there a single linux that is only based on users need and feed back, if not then linux is for the geeks indeed or for the developers who decide what I want. Sorry for my harshness but I think that is the major hurdle in me gettng on linux.

Any way I like Open Office, It is gona give MS run for its office money.

Because I have used linux very less eventhough I am pro enough to install it. I want to know if there is anything revolutionary in Linux That will be useful for me like WinXP Hibernation ?

 

[RoboSapien]

And Yes Last time I installed FedoraCode 3. I was happy to get latest on my P4 but as I installed it I could not play my Mp3 In its player, So I got this Wine or Some Mediplayer for Linux. When I doubleclicked its RPM It did install something But Then nothing happned, It said It needed some files to run software. Now I am already listening Mp3 on WinXP . No what do U have to say about that ? Why can't thing work smoothly on first go ?