If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I don't 
know how I would get along without them now.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0

On Mar 4, 9:08=A0pm, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I don't
> know how I would get along without them now.

I understand the usefulness, but I hear there is a software patent
issue involved.

Vaughn Bode wrote:
> RonB wrote:
> 
>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
> 
> I understand the usefulness, but I hear there is a software patent 
> issue involved.

Software patents are the dumbest concept to man I have ever heard of.
It is just another trick to keep lawyers employed, IMHO.

-- 
HPT

On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 21:52:46 -0800, Vaughn Bode wrote:

> On Mar 4, 9:08 pm, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
> 
> I understand the usefulness, but I hear there is a software patent issue
> involved.

So that's why Windows doesn't use them? Who holds the patent -- surely 
someone who actually publishes an OS.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0

On Mar 5, 12:52=A0am, Vaughn Bode <unionpe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 9:08=A0pm, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I don'=
t
> > know how I would get along without them now.

> I understand the usefulness, but I hear there is a software patent
> issue involved.

Xerox patented the "Virtual Desktop" and the various forms of "desktop
switcher" for X11.  They contributed to the X11 project as Open
Source, but do not permit Microsoft to use it - until they settle up
for some of the other technologies they took without paying.

When Apple and Microsoft came to the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center
to look at SmallTalk and the Xerox Alto, they were not forced to sign
overly restrictive non-disclosure agreements.  The East Coast company
had been used to dealing with companies like Kodak and Bausch and Lomb
and other ethical companies who were more than willing to negotiate
for patent and copyright exchanges and/or royalties.

Neither Apple nor Microsoft paid royalties to Xerox.  They just
pirated the code, converting smalltalk to other languages.  Xerox
responded by filing for patents for the virtual desktop, and then
giving it away to the X11/Unix and Linux communities, but witholding
it from Microsoft.

As I understand it, the latest releases of OS/X support X11 and
therefore workspaces.  Microsoft has tried to implement workspaces
that didn't violate the patent, for example the NT 4.0 extensions,
that included posix, a butchered version of ksh, and a few other bsd
type tools.  Unfortunately, the implementations didn't work out that
well, and were dropped in later releases of Windows.

On 2010-03-05, the following emerged from the brain of Rex Ballard:
> On Mar 5, 12:52 am, Vaughn Bode <unionpe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 4, 9:08 pm, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I don't
>> > know how I would get along without them now.
>
>> I understand the usefulness, but I hear there is a software patent
>> issue involved.
>
> Xerox patented the "Virtual Desktop" and the various forms of "desktop
> switcher" for X11.  They contributed to the X11 project as Open
> Source, but do not permit Microsoft to use it - until they settle up
> for some of the other technologies they took without paying.
>
> When Apple and Microsoft came to the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center
> to look at SmallTalk and the Xerox Alto, they were not forced to sign
> overly restrictive non-disclosure agreements.  The East Coast company
> had been used to dealing with companies like Kodak and Bausch and Lomb
> and other ethical companies who were more than willing to negotiate
> for patent and copyright exchanges and/or royalties.
>
> Neither Apple nor Microsoft paid royalties to Xerox.  They just
> pirated the code, converting smalltalk to other languages.  Xerox
> responded by filing for patents for the virtual desktop, and then
> giving it away to the X11/Unix and Linux communities, but witholding
> it from Microsoft.
>
> As I understand it, the latest releases of OS/X support X11 and
> therefore workspaces.  Microsoft has tried to implement workspaces
> that didn't violate the patent, for example the NT 4.0 extensions,
> that included posix, a butchered version of ksh, and a few other bsd
> type tools.  Unfortunately, the implementations didn't work out that
> well, and were dropped in later releases of Windows.

Damn, I didn't know that. I can see where Xerox comes from, but I
still think the patent suck. Without it I'd probably have nice virtual
desktops on my Windows box :-(

-- 
Middle age is having a choice between two temptations and choosing the
one that'll get you home earlier.
	~ Dan Bennett

On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:14:33 -0800, Rex Ballard wrote:

> On Mar 5, 12:52 am, Vaughn Bode <unionpe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 4, 9:08 pm, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> > If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>> > don't know how I would get along without them now.
> 
>> I understand the usefulness, but I hear there is a software patent
>> issue involved.
> 
> Xerox patented the "Virtual Desktop" and the various forms of "desktop
> switcher" for X11.  They contributed to the X11 project as Open Source,
> but do not permit Microsoft to use it - until they settle up for some of
> the other technologies they took without paying.
> 
> When Apple and Microsoft came to the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center to
> look at SmallTalk and the Xerox Alto, they were not forced to sign
> overly restrictive non-disclosure agreements.  The East Coast company
> had been used to dealing with companies like Kodak and Bausch and Lomb
> and other ethical companies who were more than willing to negotiate for
> patent and copyright exchanges and/or royalties.
> 
> Neither Apple nor Microsoft paid royalties to Xerox.  They just pirated
> the code, converting smalltalk to other languages.  Xerox responded by
> filing for patents for the virtual desktop, and then giving it away to
> the X11/Unix and Linux communities, but witholding it from Microsoft.
> 
> As I understand it, the latest releases of OS/X support X11 and
> therefore workspaces.  Microsoft has tried to implement workspaces that
> didn't violate the patent, for example the NT 4.0 extensions, that
> included posix, a butchered version of ksh, and a few other bsd type
> tools.  Unfortunately, the implementations didn't work out that well,
> and were dropped in later releases of Windows.

Didn't know any of this. Thanks. Another reason to use Linux.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0

Rex Ballard pulled this Usenet boner:

> Xerox patented the "Virtual Desktop" and the various forms of "desktop
> switcher" for X11.  They contributed to the X11 project as Open
> Source, but do not permit Microsoft to use it - until they settle up
> for some of the other technologies they took without paying.

Did Apple "settle up", then?

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spaces.jpg

> When Apple and Microsoft came to the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center
> to look at SmallTalk and the Xerox Alto, they were not forced to sign
> overly restrictive non-disclosure agreements.  The East Coast company
> had been used to dealing with companies like Kodak and Bausch and Lomb
> and other ethical companies who were more than willing to negotiate
> for patent and copyright exchanges and/or royalties.
>
> Neither Apple nor Microsoft paid royalties to Xerox.  They just
> pirated the code, converting smalltalk to other languages.  Xerox
> responded by filing for patents for the virtual desktop, and then
> giving it away to the X11/Unix and Linux communities, but witholding
> it from Microsoft.

-- 
Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time
to reform.
		-- Mark Twain

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:41:08 +0000, RonB wrote:

> On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:14:33 -0800, Rex Ballard wrote:
> 
>> On Mar 5, 12:52 am, Vaughn Bode <unionpe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mar 4, 9:08 pm, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> > If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>> > don't know how I would get along without them now.
>> 
>>> I understand the usefulness, but I hear there is a software patent
>>> issue involved.
>> 
>> Xerox patented the "Virtual Desktop" and the various forms of "desktop
>> switcher" for X11.  They contributed to the X11 project as Open Source,
>> but do not permit Microsoft to use it - until they settle up for some
>> of the other technologies they took without paying.
>> 
>> When Apple and Microsoft came to the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center to
>> look at SmallTalk and the Xerox Alto, they were not forced to sign
>> overly restrictive non-disclosure agreements.  The East Coast company
>> had been used to dealing with companies like Kodak and Bausch and Lomb
>> and other ethical companies who were more than willing to negotiate for
>> patent and copyright exchanges and/or royalties.
>> 
>> Neither Apple nor Microsoft paid royalties to Xerox.  They just pirated
>> the code, converting smalltalk to other languages.  Xerox responded by
>> filing for patents for the virtual desktop, and then giving it away to
>> the X11/Unix and Linux communities, but witholding it from Microsoft.
>> 
>> As I understand it, the latest releases of OS/X support X11 and
>> therefore workspaces. 

What do you mean by "the latest releases of OS X" and support? There have 
been X11 implementations available since Jaguar, at least. I installed 
X11 and gtk apps in Jaguar. I don't remember if the x11 version I used 
supported virtual workspaces, though.

>> Microsoft has tried to implement workspaces that
>> didn't violate the patent, for example the NT 4.0 extensions, that
>> included posix, a butchered version of ksh, and a few other bsd type
>> tools.  Unfortunately, the implementations didn't work out that well,
>> and were dropped in later releases of Windows.

There have been X11 implementations available for Windows for years. And 
there have been Virtual desktop implementations for Windows for years.

> 
> Didn't know any of this. Thanks. Another reason to use Linux.

I'd like to see references to this Microsoft-X11 patent restriction o 
that I can learn someting about it.

-- 
Rick

On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 23:14:33 -0800 (PST), Rex Ballard <rex.ballard@gmail.com> wrote:

>Neither Apple nor Microsoft paid royalties to Xerox.  They just
>pirated the code, converting smalltalk to other languages.  Xerox
>responded by filing for patents for the virtual desktop, and then
>giving it away to the X11/Unix and Linux communities, but witholding
>it from Microsoft.

Strange.  Microsoft offered a desktop switcher for XP as a power toy:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/Downloads/powertoys/Xppowertoys.mspx
  Virtual Desktop Manager
    Manage up to four desktops from the Windows taskbar with this PowerToy.
    
I tried it and found it to be an unreliable piece of shit.  I figured
that was the reason they've no incorporated it in xp,vista or W7, that
their GUI was too damn flakey to support the idea of virtual desktops.

On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:03:38 -0700, High Plains Thumper wrote:

> Vaughn Bode wrote:
>> RonB wrote:
>> 
>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>> 
>> I understand the usefulness, but I hear there is a software patent 
>> issue involved.
> 
> Software patents are the dumbest concept to man I have ever heard of.
> It is just another trick to keep lawyers employed, IMHO.

Is that why you pirate software HPT?

On 3/5/2010 6:45 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Rex Ballard pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> Xerox patented the "Virtual Desktop" and the various forms of "desktop
>> switcher" for X11.  They contributed to the X11 project as Open
>> Source, but do not permit Microsoft to use it - until they settle up
>> for some of the other technologies they took without paying.
>
> Did Apple "settle up", then?
>

It is often folly to treat anything that Rex posts as factual. 
Regardless of the details of this myth, any patent issued to Xerox would 
have expired more than a decade ago.  IIRC, there never were any patent 
issues with GUI developments.  The legal issues surrounded the notion of 
copyright of "look and feel" that was dismissed by the courts almost 20 
years ago and resulted in the dismissal of Apple's actions against 
Microsoft.

On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 05:08:06 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I don't 
> know how I would get along without them now.

No.

Instead we have Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, Nuendo etc and
dual monitors working out of the box.

However if you would like workspaces under Windows 7, Google is
your friend.

Then you can have workspaces and use all of those professional
quality applications as well !

Something that *can't* be done under Linux.

On 3/5/2010 6:45 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Rex Ballard pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> Xerox patented the "Virtual Desktop" and the various forms of "desktop
>> switcher" for X11.  They contributed to the X11 project as Open
>> Source, but do not permit Microsoft to use it - until they settle up
>> for some of the other technologies they took without paying.
>
> Did Apple "settle up", then?
>

It is often folly to treat anything that Rex posts as factual. 
Regardless of the details of this myth, any patent issued to Xerox would 
have expired more than a decade ago.  IIRC, there never were any patent 
issues with GUI developments.  The legal issues surrounded the notion of 
copyright of "look and feel" that was dismissed by the courts almost 20 
years ago and resulted in the dismissal of Apple's actions against 
Microsoft.

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:45:26 -0600, AZ Nomad wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 23:14:33 -0800 (PST), Rex Ballard <rex.ballard@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>Neither Apple nor Microsoft paid royalties to Xerox.  They just
>>pirated the code, converting smalltalk to other languages.  Xerox
>>responded by filing for patents for the virtual desktop, and then
>>giving it away to the X11/Unix and Linux communities, but witholding
>>it from Microsoft.
> 
> Strange.  Microsoft offered a desktop switcher for XP as a power toy:
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/Downloads/powertoys/Xppowertoys.mspx
>   Virtual Desktop Manager
>     Manage up to four desktops from the Windows taskbar with this PowerToy.
>     
> I tried it and found it to be an unreliable piece of shit.  I figured
> that was the reason they've no incorporated it in xp,vista or W7, that
> their GUI was too damn flakey to support the idea of virtual desktops.

I didn't like the XP variety either.
I tried some shareware program that was equally awful.

The utility that comes with Nvidia cards is pretty good though.
N-Desktop I think it's called.

With large LCD dual monitors I don't really need it but Linux has
the best implementation from what I have seen.

On 05/03/2010 14:50, amicus_curious wrote:

> It is often folly to treat anything that Rex posts as factual.
> Regardless of the details of this myth, any patent issued to Xerox would
> have expired more than a decade ago. IIRC, there never were any patent
> issues with GUI developments. The legal issues surrounded the notion of
> copyright of "look and feel" that was dismissed by the courts almost 20
> years ago and resulted in the dismissal of Apple's actions against
> Microsoft.

Is is untrue that M$ have patented using a selection box with the right 
mouse button to bring up the context menu?

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:04:16 +0000, White Spirit wrote:

> On 05/03/2010 14:50, amicus_curious wrote:
> 
>> It is often folly to treat anything that Rex posts as factual.
>> Regardless of the details of this myth, any patent issued to Xerox would
>> have expired more than a decade ago. IIRC, there never were any patent
>> issues with GUI developments. The legal issues surrounded the notion of
>> copyright of "look and feel" that was dismissed by the courts almost 20
>> years ago and resulted in the dismissal of Apple's actions against
>> Microsoft.
> 
> Is is untrue that M$ have patented using a selection box with the right 
> mouse button to bring up the context menu?

And IBM patented the cursor automatically jumping to the next line
on a monitor when it reaches the last column.

On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 10:02:33 -0500, Moshe <goldee_loxnbagels@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:45:26 -0600, AZ Nomad wrote:

>> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 23:14:33 -0800 (PST), Rex Ballard <rex.ballard@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>Neither Apple nor Microsoft paid royalties to Xerox.  They just
>>>pirated the code, converting smalltalk to other languages.  Xerox
>>>responded by filing for patents for the virtual desktop, and then
>>>giving it away to the X11/Unix and Linux communities, but witholding
>>>it from Microsoft.
>> 
>> Strange.  Microsoft offered a desktop switcher for XP as a power toy:
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/Downloads/powertoys/Xppowertoys.mspx
>>   Virtual Desktop Manager
>>     Manage up to four desktops from the Windows taskbar with this PowerToy.
>>     
>> I tried it and found it to be an unreliable piece of shit.  I figured
>> that was the reason they've no incorporated it in xp,vista or W7, that
>> their GUI was too damn flakey to support the idea of virtual desktops.

>I didn't like the XP variety either.
>I tried some shareware program that was equally awful.

>The utility that comes with Nvidia cards is pretty good though.
>N-Desktop I think it's called.

>With large LCD dual monitors I don't really need it but Linux has
>the best implementation from what I have seen.

I was using multiple desktops in the 90's on HP's CDE.  The worse thing I've
seen is that the desktop manager doesn't know that another software component,
the multiple desktop extension, is exposing/hiding windows.  For example, go
to desktop 1.  Work with an application there and do something that'l cause
a dialog to open but before it opens, switch to desktop 2.  The dialog will
be associated with desktop 2 even though the application is on desktop 1.
The application's interface to the GUI's API doesn't include the concept
of virtual desktops.

Most linux desktop managers don't have that problem.  Start an application,
switch desktops before it opens, and the new window will be on the old desktop
(at least that was the case when I just did that test on KDE4)

RonB wrote:
> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
> don't know how I would get along without them now.

Which Linux workspace runs all your "I switched to Linux - except for these 
Windows apps in a vm" software?




http://www.codeplex.com/vdm
http://virtuawin.sourceforge.net/

White Spirit wrote:
> On 05/03/2010 14:50, amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> It is often folly to treat anything that Rex posts as factual.
>> Regardless of the details of this myth, any patent issued to Xerox
>> would have expired more than a decade ago. IIRC, there never were
>> any patent issues with GUI developments. The legal issues surrounded
>> the notion of copyright of "look and feel" that was dismissed by the
>> courts almost 20 years ago and resulted in the dismissal of Apple's
>> actions against Microsoft.
>
> Is is untrue that M$ have patented using a selection box with the
> right mouse button to bring up the context menu?


I don't know, but wasn't that available in OS/2 in the early 90's?

amicus_curious pulled this Usenet boner:

> On 3/5/2010 6:45 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Rex Ballard pulled this Usenet boner:
>>
>>> Xerox patented the "Virtual Desktop" and the various forms of "desktop
>>> switcher" for X11.  They contributed to the X11 project as Open
>>> Source, but do not permit Microsoft to use it - until they settle up
>>> for some of the other technologies they took without paying.
>>
>> Did Apple "settle up", then?
>
> It is often folly to treat anything that Rex posts as factual. 

Same with you.

-- 
Condense soup, not books!

amicus_curious pulled this Usenet boner:

<second posting of same post snipped>

What a boner!

On Mar 5, 9:07=A0am, "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
> White Spirit wrote:
> > On 05/03/2010 14:50, amicus_curious wrote:
>
> >> It is often folly to treat anything that Rex posts as factual.
> >> Regardless of the details of this myth, any patent issued to Xerox
> >> would have expired more than a decade ago. IIRC, there never were
> >> any patent issues with GUI developments. The legal issues surrounded
> >> the notion of copyright of "look and feel" that was dismissed by the
> >> courts almost 20 years ago and resulted in the dismissal of Apple's
> >> actions against Microsoft.
>
> > Is is untrue that M$ have patented using a selection box with the
> > right mouse button to bring up the context menu?
>
> I don't know, but wasn't that available in OS/2 in the early 90's?

Microsoft was the primary developer of the original OS/2 :)

--
Tom Shelton

On Mar 4, 9:08=A0pm, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I don't
> know how I would get along without them now.
>
> --
> RonB
> Registered Linux User #498581
> CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0

Whether it's available or not in Windows or OS/X, most users don't
have it.  In my experience, they're always amazed when they come to
Linux and see how convenient the desktop switcher is (under Gnome or
KDE, anyway).

Tom Shelton wrote:

> On Mar 5, 9:07 am, "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>> White Spirit wrote:
>> > On 05/03/2010 14:50, amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>> >> It is often folly to treat anything that Rex posts as factual.
>> >> Regardless of the details of this myth, any patent issued to Xerox
>> >> would have expired more than a decade ago. IIRC, there never were
>> >> any patent issues with GUI developments. The legal issues surrounded
>> >> the notion of copyright of "look and feel" that was dismissed by the
>> >> courts almost 20 years ago and resulted in the dismissal of Apple's
>> >> actions against Microsoft.
>>
>> > Is is untrue that M$ have patented using a selection box with the
>> > right mouse button to bring up the context menu?
>>
>> I don't know, but wasn't that available in OS/2 in the early 90's?
> 
> Microsoft was the primary developer of the original OS/2 :)
> 

Which has nothing to do with OS/2 starting from version 2.0

MS ended its OS/2 endeavour with version 1.3

OS/2 2.x and up where *very* different beasts, and way ahead of anything 
MS has shown to this date
-- 
Windows: Because everyone needs a good laugh!

On 05/03/2010 17:02, Peter K�hlmann wrote:

> OS/2 2.x and up where *very* different beasts, and way ahead of anything
> MS has shown to this date

CP/M is still well ahead in terms of stability.

RonB stated in post hmq3jl$51j$1@news.eternal-september.org on 3/4/10 10:08
PM:

> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I don't
> know how I would get along without them now.

For most people they are more of a problem than a benefit... too much
configuration with too little benefit.

This is *not* to say that there are not a significant number of people who
do benefit from having the feature, and adding it would not be a mistake, as
long as it is not pushed on users.  And as long as it is done well - unlike
how Apple introduced it.  At least now their implementation is fairly good,
but it took them a while.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

RonB stated in post hmq7p6$qjr$1@news.eternal-september.org on 3/4/10 11:19
PM:

> On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 21:52:46 -0800, Vaughn Bode wrote:
> 
>> On Mar 4, 9:08�pm, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>> 
>> I understand the usefulness, but I hear there is a software patent issue
>> involved.
> 
> So that's why Windows doesn't use them? Who holds the patent -- surely
> someone who actually publishes an OS.

With so many people offering virtual desktop solutions, I find it hard to
believe MS could not add it if they wanted.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rex Ballard stated in post
968f9a32-e2d3-4bf9-a014-1e40aa91a2b0@z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com on 3/5/10
12:14 AM:

> On Mar 5, 12:52�am, Vaughn Bode <unionpe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 4, 9:08�pm, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I don't
>>> know how I would get along without them now.
> 
>> I understand the usefulness, but I hear there is a software patent
>> issue involved.
> 
> Xerox patented the "Virtual Desktop" and the various forms of "desktop
> switcher" for X11.  They contributed to the X11 project as Open
> Source, but do not permit Microsoft to use it - until they settle up
> for some of the other technologies they took without paying.
> 
> When Apple and Microsoft came to the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center
> to look at SmallTalk and the Xerox Alto, they were not forced to sign
> overly restrictive non-disclosure agreements.  The East Coast company
> had been used to dealing with companies like Kodak and Bausch and Lomb
> and other ethical companies who were more than willing to negotiate
> for patent and copyright exchanges and/or royalties.
> 
> Neither Apple nor Microsoft paid royalties to Xerox.  They just
> pirated the code, converting smalltalk to other languages.  Xerox
> responded by filing for patents for the virtual desktop, and then
> giving it away to the X11/Unix and Linux communities, but witholding
> it from Microsoft.
> 
> As I understand it, the latest releases of OS/X support X11 and
> therefore workspaces.  Microsoft has tried to implement workspaces
> that didn't violate the patent, for example the NT 4.0 extensions,
> that included posix, a butchered version of ksh, and a few other bsd
> type tools.  Unfortunately, the implementations didn't work out that
> well, and were dropped in later releases of Windows.
> 
OS X has had virtual desktop (Spaces) for a while - and not tied to X11. As
far as Apple acting in an unethical manner toward Xerox, I have not see
anything about that.  Do you have any evidence?


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:51:30 -0500, Moshe wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 05:08:06 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
> 
>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
> 
> No.
> 
> Instead we have Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, Nuendo etc and dual
> monitors working out of the box.
> 
> However if you would like workspaces under Windows 7, Google is your
> friend.
> 
> Then you can have workspaces and use all of those professional quality
> applications as well !
> 
> Something that *can't* be done under Linux.

1. Don't need quicken - use kmymoney, gnucash, or moneydance.
2. Don't have a need for anything like rosetta stone, but I imagine it 
would run via WINE.
3. Don't need photoshop - use GIMP, ufraw, etc.
4. Don't need nuendo - not much into music editing, but there are a 
plethora of replacements.
5. never had any trouble using dual monitors in Linux.

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:11:09 -0700, Snit wrote:

> RonB stated in post hmq3jl$51j$1@news.eternal-september.org on 3/4/10
> 10:08 PM:
> 
>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
> 
> For most people they are more of a problem than a benefit... too much
> configuration with too little benefit.

Configure what???? It's always worked 'out of the box' for me.

> 
> This is *not* to say that there are not a significant number of people
> who do benefit from having the feature, and adding it would not be a
> mistake, as long as it is not pushed on users.  And as long as it is
> done well - unlike how Apple introduced it.  At least now their
> implementation is fairly good, but it took them a while.

What 'push'?? Just because it's there, you don't have to use it. I've 
showed the multiple desktops to my wife on her system a few times - she's 
basically not interested, so she doesn't use them.

ray stated in post 7vct74Fe9sU20@mid.individual.net on 3/5/10 10:27 AM:

> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:11:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> RonB stated in post hmq3jl$51j$1@news.eternal-september.org on 3/4/10
>> 10:08 PM:
>> 
>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>> 
>> For most people they are more of a problem than a benefit... too much
>> configuration with too little benefit.
> 
> Configure what???? It's always worked 'out of the box' for me.

Sure, but you still have to configure, on the fly if nothing else, what
windows go to what virtual desktops.  Then you have to keep in mind what is
where and how things are grouped.  I am not suggesting this is hard for you
- but for the general user, once it is off screen it is pretty much gone.
And then when they select it, say in the task bar, other things "disappear".
Yes, I know they are still there and I trust you do to... but for the
general non-techie user, why add all that?

>> This is *not* to say that there are not a significant number of people
>> who do benefit from having the feature, and adding it would not be a
>> mistake, as long as it is not pushed on users.  And as long as it is
>> done well - unlike how Apple introduced it.  At least now their
>> implementation is fairly good, but it took them a while.
> 
> What 'push'?? Just because it's there, you don't have to use it.

Right.  And you do not have to even have the option visible.  Sure.

> I've showed the multiple desktops to my wife on her system a few times - she's
> basically not interested, so she doesn't use them.

Kind of like tabs... I think they are indispensible for browsing.  Others do
not like them.  No problem here.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

ray wrote:

> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:11:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> RonB stated in post hmq3jl$51j$1@news.eternal-september.org on 3/4/10
>> 10:08 PM:
>> 
>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>> 
>> For most people they are more of a problem than a benefit... too much
>> configuration with too little benefit.
> 
> Configure what???? It's always worked 'out of the box' for me.

Snot Michael Glasser in his infinite stupidity *still* thinks that there 
is any "setup" needed for virtual desktops.

He is simply too stupid to recognize that you just start apps. And if you 
want to start another group of apps, you simply switch do a different 
desktop

Now with KDE4 that paradigm has been changed for people who *want* it 
different, because you can set up desktops to be all different. You can 
configure "activities" which /can/ be different for each virtual desktop.

This is fine if you want to setup desktops for specific tasks which you do 
all day. It is not the default, though
And in the default, there is actually *zero* setup involved. 

You simply can't assume that bullshit warriors like Snit Michael Glasser 
have even the tiniest clue about that
 
>> This is *not* to say that there are not a significant number of people
>> who do benefit from having the feature, and adding it would not be a
>> mistake, as long as it is not pushed on users.  And as long as it is
>> done well - unlike how Apple introduced it.  At least now their
>> implementation is fairly good, but it took them a while.
> 
> What 'push'?? Just because it's there, you don't have to use it. I've
> showed the multiple desktops to my wife on her system a few times -
> she's basically not interested, so she doesn't use them.

Well, why do you think that retards like Snit Michael Glasser (after all, 
the most incompetent "IT teacher" of all time) would know that you simply 
can set the number of virtual desktops to 16. Or *one* if you don't need 
it

-- 
It's sweet to be remembered, but it's often cheaper to be forgotten.

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:52:06 -0700, Snit wrote:

> ray stated in post 7vct74Fe9sU20@mid.individual.net on 3/5/10 10:27 AM:
> 
>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:11:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> RonB stated in post hmq3jl$51j$1@news.eternal-september.org on 3/4/10
>>> 10:08 PM:
>>> 
>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>> 
>>> For most people they are more of a problem than a benefit... too much
>>> configuration with too little benefit.
>> 
>> Configure what???? It's always worked 'out of the box' for me.
> 
> Sure, but you still have to configure, on the fly if nothing else, what
> windows go to what virtual desktops.  Then you have to keep in mind what
> is where and how things are grouped.  I am not suggesting this is hard
> for you - but for the general user, once it is off screen it is pretty
> much gone. And then when they select it, say in the task bar, other
> things "disappear". Yes, I know they are still there and I trust you do
> to... but for the general non-techie user, why add all that?

It is true that you have to somehow or another indicate what app is to go 
to what desktop - what did you have in mind as an alternative? ESP? - 
That is not 'configuration' - at least as I understand it - it's running 
the app on the desktop where you want it. You don't have to 'keep in 
mind' anything - if you forget - GO LOOK. Again, the 'general non-techie 
user' doesn't have to use it if she doesn't want to.

> 
>>> This is *not* to say that there are not a significant number of people
>>> who do benefit from having the feature, and adding it would not be a
>>> mistake, as long as it is not pushed on users.  And as long as it is
>>> done well - unlike how Apple introduced it.  At least now their
>>> implementation is fairly good, but it took them a while.
>> 
>> What 'push'?? Just because it's there, you don't have to use it.
> 
> Right.  And you do not have to even have the option visible.  Sure.
> 
>> I've showed the multiple desktops to my wife on her system a few times
>> - she's basically not interested, so she doesn't use them.
> 
> Kind of like tabs... I think they are indispensible for browsing. 
> Others do not like them.  No problem here.

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:45:26 -0600, AZ Nomad wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 23:14:33 -0800 (PST), Rex Ballard <rex.ballard@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>Neither Apple nor Microsoft paid royalties to Xerox.  They just
>>pirated the code, converting smalltalk to other languages.  Xerox
>>responded by filing for patents for the virtual desktop, and then
>>giving it away to the X11/Unix and Linux communities, but witholding
>>it from Microsoft.
> 
> Strange.  Microsoft offered a desktop switcher for XP as a power toy:
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/Downloads/powertoys/Xppowertoys.mspx
>   Virtual Desktop Manager
>     Manage up to four desktops from the Windows taskbar with this PowerToy.
>     
> I tried it and found it to be an unreliable piece of shit.  I figured
> that was the reason they've no incorporated it in xp,vista or W7, that
> their GUI was too damn flakey to support the idea of virtual desktops.

It's not unreliable.  It works very well.  The problem with it is one of
functionality, not reliability.

It works by utilzing the built-in (since NT 3.1) Multi-desktop support of
NT based windows.  But, this feature was never designed to be used in this
way, so it has some limitations, such as not being able to move an app from
one desktop to another. Also, once started, it cannot be quit because any
apps open on other desktops would be killed if you did.

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:45:26 -0600, AZ Nomad wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 23:14:33 -0800 (PST), Rex Ballard <rex.ballard@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>Neither Apple nor Microsoft paid royalties to Xerox.  They just
>>pirated the code, converting smalltalk to other languages.  Xerox
>>responded by filing for patents for the virtual desktop, and then
>>giving it away to the X11/Unix and Linux communities, but witholding
>>it from Microsoft.
> 
> Strange.  Microsoft offered a desktop switcher for XP as a power toy:
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/Downloads/powertoys/Xppowertoys.mspx
>   Virtual Desktop Manager
>     Manage up to four desktops from the Windows taskbar with this PowerToy.
>     
> I tried it and found it to be an unreliable piece of shit.  I figured
> that was the reason they've no incorporated it in xp,vista or W7, that
> their GUI was too damn flakey to support the idea of virtual desktops.

Sorry, I thought you were referring to this:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/cc817881.aspx

You are correct that the old XP version was a piece of junk.  The
sysinternals version is much more reliable but lacks the features i
mentioned.

Peter K�hlmann stated in post hmrgoh$2qf$03$1@news.t-online.com on 3/5/10
10:58 AM:

> ray wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:11:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> RonB stated in post hmq3jl$51j$1@news.eternal-september.org on 3/4/10
>>> 10:08 PM:
>>> 
>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>> 
>>> For most people they are more of a problem than a benefit... too much
>>> configuration with too little benefit.
>> 
>> Configure what???? It's always worked 'out of the box' for me.
> 
> Snot Michael Glasser in his infinite stupidity *still* thinks that there
> is any "setup" needed for virtual desktops.

And the alternate view is the computer is psychic and can set up what
windows go to what virtual desktops all by itself.

> He is simply too stupid to recognize that you just start apps. And if you
> want to start another group of apps, you simply switch do a different
> desktop

Who said I did not know that you can do that?  You made that up.

> Now with KDE4 that paradigm has been changed for people who *want* it
> different, because you can set up desktops to be all different. You can
> configure "activities" which /can/ be different for each virtual desktop.

But you do not need to...

> This is fine if you want to setup desktops for specific tasks which you do
> all day. It is not the default, though
> And in the default, there is actually *zero* setup involved.

Well, not if you do not use virtual desktops.  Then there is not. If you use
them, though, they do not set themselves up without user interaction.

> You simply can't assume that bullshit warriors like Snit Michael Glasser
> have even the tiniest clue about that

Gee, then why not show an example of virtual desktops being configured in an
intelligent way with *no* user setup.

You, of course, will not.  You cannot.

>>> This is *not* to say that there are not a significant number of people
>>> who do benefit from having the feature, and adding it would not be a
>>> mistake, as long as it is not pushed on users.  And as long as it is
>>> done well - unlike how Apple introduced it.  At least now their
>>> implementation is fairly good, but it took them a while.
>> 
>> What 'push'?? Just because it's there, you don't have to use it. I've
>> showed the multiple desktops to my wife on her system a few times -
>> she's basically not interested, so she doesn't use them.
> 
> Well, why do you think that retards like Snit Michael Glasser (after all,
> the most incompetent "IT teacher" of all time) would know that you simply
> can set the number of virtual desktops to 16. Or *one* if you don't need
> it

Yawn.  Another Peter post where the whole goal is to make Peter feel better
about himself and his own well documented ignorance.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

ray stated in post 7vcvinFe9sU21@mid.individual.net on 3/5/10 11:07 AM:

> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:52:06 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> ray stated in post 7vct74Fe9sU20@mid.individual.net on 3/5/10 10:27 AM:
>> 
>>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:11:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> RonB stated in post hmq3jl$51j$1@news.eternal-september.org on 3/4/10
>>>> 10:08 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>>> 
>>>> For most people they are more of a problem than a benefit... too much
>>>> configuration with too little benefit.
>>> 
>>> Configure what???? It's always worked 'out of the box' for me.
>> 
>> Sure, but you still have to configure, on the fly if nothing else, what
>> windows go to what virtual desktops.  Then you have to keep in mind what
>> is where and how things are grouped.  I am not suggesting this is hard
>> for you - but for the general user, once it is off screen it is pretty
>> much gone. And then when they select it, say in the task bar, other
>> things "disappear". Yes, I know they are still there and I trust you do
>> to... but for the general non-techie user, why add all that?
> 
> It is true that you have to somehow or another indicate what app is to go
> to what desktop - what did you have in mind as an alternative? ESP? -

Right - there is no way to use it without configuring what windows you want
to go to what desktop. No doubt.  And this is an added level of abstraction.

> That is not 'configuration' - at least as I understand it - it's running
> the app on the desktop where you want it. You don't have to 'keep in
> mind' anything - if you forget - GO LOOK. Again, the 'general non-techie
> user' doesn't have to use it if she doesn't want to.

Most people will not use it.  Nobody is saying they have to.  Not sure why
you keep mentioning this.

>>>> This is *not* to say that there are not a significant number of people
>>>> who do benefit from having the feature, and adding it would not be a
>>>> mistake, as long as it is not pushed on users.  And as long as it is
>>>> done well - unlike how Apple introduced it.  At least now their
>>>> implementation is fairly good, but it took them a while.
>>> 
>>> What 'push'?? Just because it's there, you don't have to use it.
>> 
>> Right.  And you do not have to even have the option visible.  Sure.
>> 
>>> I've showed the multiple desktops to my wife on her system a few times
>>> - she's basically not interested, so she doesn't use them.
>> 
>> Kind of like tabs... I think they are indispensible for browsing.
>> Others do not like them.  No problem here.
> 



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rex Ballard wrote:
> On Mar 5, 12:52 am, Vaughn Bode <unionpe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 4, 9:08 pm, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I don't
>>> know how I would get along without them now.
> 
>> I understand the usefulness, but I hear there is a software patent
>> issue involved.
> 
> Xerox patented the "Virtual Desktop" and the various forms of "desktop
> switcher" for X11.  They contributed to the X11 project as Open
> Source, but do not permit Microsoft to use it - until they settle up
> for some of the other technologies they took without paying.
> 
> When Apple and Microsoft came to the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center
> to look at SmallTalk and the Xerox Alto, they were not forced to sign
> overly restrictive non-disclosure agreements.  The East Coast company
> had been used to dealing with companies like Kodak and Bausch and Lomb
> and other ethical companies who were more than willing to negotiate
> for patent and copyright exchanges and/or royalties.
> 
> Neither Apple nor Microsoft paid royalties to Xerox.  They just
> pirated the code, converting smalltalk to other languages.  Xerox
> responded by filing for patents for the virtual desktop, and then
> giving it away to the X11/Unix and Linux communities, but witholding
> it from Microsoft.
> 
> As I understand it, the latest releases of OS/X support X11 and
> therefore workspaces.  Microsoft has tried to implement workspaces
> that didn't violate the patent, for example the NT 4.0 extensions,
> that included posix, a butchered version of ksh, and a few other bsd
> type tools.  Unfortunately, the implementations didn't work out that
> well, and were dropped in later releases of Windows.
> 

Apples workspaces work a bit differently and is more flexible than the 
regular X11 implementation.  But the overall goal is the same.

"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> schreef in bericht 
news:C7B69AC0.67871%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com...
> Peter K�hlmann stated in post hmrgoh$2qf$03$1@news.t-online.com on 3/5/10
> 10:58 AM:
>
>> ray wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:11:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> RonB stated in post hmq3jl$51j$1@news.eternal-september.org on 3/4/10
>>>> 10:08 PM:
>>>>
>>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>>>
>>>> For most people they are more of a problem than a benefit... too much
>>>> configuration with too little benefit.
>>>
>>> Configure what???? It's always worked 'out of the box' for me.
>>
>> Snot Michael Glasser in his infinite stupidity *still* thinks that there
>> is any "setup" needed for virtual desktops.
>
> And the alternate view is the computer is psychic and can set up what
> windows go to what virtual desktops all by itself.
>
>> He is simply too stupid to recognize that you just start apps. And if you
>> want to start another group of apps, you simply switch do a different
>> desktop
>
> Who said I did not know that you can do that?  You made that up.
>
>> Now with KDE4 that paradigm has been changed for people who *want* it
>> different, because you can set up desktops to be all different. You can
>> configure "activities" which /can/ be different for each virtual desktop.
>
> But you do not need to...
>
>> This is fine if you want to setup desktops for specific tasks which you 
>> do
>> all day. It is not the default, though
>> And in the default, there is actually *zero* setup involved.
>
> Well, not if you do not use virtual desktops.  Then there is not. If you 
> use
> them, though, they do not set themselves up without user interaction.
>
>> You simply can't assume that bullshit warriors like Snit Michael Glasser
>> have even the tiniest clue about that
>
> Gee, then why not show an example of virtual desktops being configured in 
> an
> intelligent way with *no* user setup.
>
> You, of course, will not.  You cannot.
>
>>>> This is *not* to say that there are not a significant number of people
>>>> who do benefit from having the feature, and adding it would not be a
>>>> mistake, as long as it is not pushed on users.  And as long as it is
>>>> done well - unlike how Apple introduced it.  At least now their
>>>> implementation is fairly good, but it took them a while.
>>>
>>> What 'push'?? Just because it's there, you don't have to use it. I've
>>> showed the multiple desktops to my wife on her system a few times -
>>> she's basically not interested, so she doesn't use them.
>>
>> Well, why do you think that retards like Snit Michael Glasser (after all,
>> the most incompetent "IT teacher" of all time) would know that you simply
>> can set the number of virtual desktops to 16. Or *one* if you don't need
>> it
>
> Yawn.  Another Peter post where the whole goal is to make Peter feel 
> better
> about himself and his own well documented ignorance.
>

lol !, he makes a tit of himself, almost on a daily basis!
Today he got spanked about the Munich migration, by Erik!
<chuckle> 

Clogwog stated in post hmrkff$tdl$1@news.eternal-september.org on 3/5/10
12:02 PM:

> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> schreef in bericht
> news:C7B69AC0.67871%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> Peter K�hlmann stated in post hmrgoh$2qf$03$1@news.t-online.com on 3/5/10
>> 10:58 AM:
>> 
>>> ray wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:11:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> RonB stated in post hmq3jl$51j$1@news.eternal-september.org on 3/4/10
>>>>> 10:08 PM:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>>>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>>>> 
>>>>> For most people they are more of a problem than a benefit... too much
>>>>> configuration with too little benefit.
>>>> 
>>>> Configure what???? It's always worked 'out of the box' for me.
>>> 
>>> Snot Michael Glasser in his infinite stupidity *still* thinks that there is
>>> any "setup" needed for virtual desktops.
>>> 
>> And the alternate view is the computer is psychic and can set up what windows
>> go to what virtual desktops all by itself.
>> 
>>> He is simply too stupid to recognize that you just start apps. And if you
>>> want to start another group of apps, you simply switch do a different
>>> desktop
>>> 
>> Who said I did not know that you can do that?  You made that up.
>> 
>>> Now with KDE4 that paradigm has been changed for people who *want* it
>>> different, because you can set up desktops to be all different. You can
>>> configure "activities" which /can/ be different for each virtual desktop.
>>> 
>> But you do not need to...
>> 
>>> This is fine if you want to setup desktops for specific tasks which you do
>>> all day. It is not the default, though And in the default, there is actually
>>> *zero* setup involved.
>>> 
>> Well, not if you do not use virtual desktops.  Then there is not. If you use
>> them, though, they do not set themselves up without user interaction.
>> 
>>> You simply can't assume that bullshit warriors like Snit Michael Glasser
>>> have even the tiniest clue about that
>>> 
>> Gee, then why not show an example of virtual desktops being configured in an
>> intelligent way with *no* user setup.
>> 
>> You, of course, will not.  You cannot.
>> 
>>>>> This is *not* to say that there are not a significant number of people who
>>>>> do benefit from having the feature, and adding it would not be a mistake,
>>>>> as long as it is not pushed on users.  And as long as it is done well -
>>>>> unlike how Apple introduced it.  At least now their implementation is
>>>>> fairly good, but it took them a while.
>>>>> 
>>>> What 'push'?? Just because it's there, you don't have to use it. I've
>>>> showed the multiple desktops to my wife on her system a few times - she's
>>>> basically not interested, so she doesn't use them.
>>>> 
>>> Well, why do you think that retards like Snit Michael Glasser (after all,
>>> the most incompetent "IT teacher" of all time) would know that you simply
>>> can set the number of virtual desktops to 16. Or *one* if you don't need it
>>> 
>> Yawn.  Another Peter post where the whole goal is to make Peter feel better
>> about himself and his own well documented ignorance.
>> 
> 
> lol !, he makes a tit of himself, almost on a daily basis!
> Today he got spanked about the Munich migration, by Erik!
> <chuckle> 

Hey, maybe Peter will show the psychic implementation of virtual desktops
that takes *no* configuration as to what windows go to what windows... give
him a chance!

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

ray wrote:

>Configure what???? It's always worked 'out of the box' for me.

>What 'push'?? Just because it's there, you don't have to use it. I've 
>showed the multiple desktops to my wife on her system a few times - she's 
>basically not interested, so she doesn't use them.

That there is zero downside to the multiple desktops has already been
explained to the trolling POS.  Just KF him.

-- 
"'advocates' were already rushing to the conclusion how
(Android/ChromeOS) was going to be a 'Windows killer' before the first
beta was even released."  -  trolling fsckwit Ezekiel, lying
shamelessly

chrisv stated in post 20l2p5lg2mqipqherp1m59q6ms99iuojhe@4ax.com on 3/5/10
12:19 PM:

> ray wrote:
> 
>> Configure what???? It's always worked 'out of the box' for me.
> 
>> What 'push'?? Just because it's there, you don't have to use it. I've
>> showed the multiple desktops to my wife on her system a few times - she's
>> basically not interested, so she doesn't use them.
> 
> That there is zero downside to the multiple desktops has already been
> explained to the trolling POS.  Just KF him.

If the feature is not used and is not available in the basic GUI, then,
sure, there is no downside.  If the widget to use it is there, then of
course there are potential downsides.  This is obvious.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:20l2p5lg2mqipqherp1m59q6ms99iuojhe@4ax.com...

chrisv is a liar. chrisv is a worthless piece of shit. 

One Shot, One Kill stated in post hmrph0$8ae$1@speranza.aioe.org on 3/5/10
1:28 PM:

> 
> "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:20l2p5lg2mqipqherp1m59q6ms99iuojhe@4ax.com...
> 
> chrisv is a liar. chrisv is a worthless piece of shit.
> 
> 
His whole point was that he has explained something that is clearly not
true, so the debate should be over.  What silliness!


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:11:09 -0700, Snit wrote:

> RonB stated in post hmq3jl$51j$1@news.eternal-september.org on 3/4/10
> 10:08 PM:
> 
>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
> 
> For most people they are more of a problem than a benefit... too much
> configuration with too little benefit.

There is very little configuration, and it is up to the individual to say 
if there is too little benefit.

> 
> This is *not* to say that there are not a significant number of people
> who do benefit from having the feature, and adding it would not be a
> mistake, as long as it is not pushed on users.  And as long as it is
> done well - 

... as it is done well on every Linux distro I have seen.

> unlike how Apple introduced it.  At least now their
> implementation is fairly good, but it took them a while.


-- 
Rick

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:52:06 -0700, Snit wrote:

> ray stated in post 7vct74Fe9sU20@mid.individual.net on 3/5/10 10:27 AM:
> 
>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:11:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> RonB stated in post hmq3jl$51j$1@news.eternal-september.org on 3/4/10
>>> 10:08 PM:
>>> 
>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>> 
>>> For most people they are more of a problem than a benefit... too much
>>> configuration with too little benefit.
>> 
>> Configure what???? It's always worked 'out of the box' for me.
> 
> Sure, but you still have to configure, on the fly if nothing else, what
> windows go to what virtual desktops.  

What do you mean what windows go where? Go to the desktop. Open the app. 
Done.

> Then you have to keep in mind what
> is where and how things are grouped.  I am not suggesting this is hard
> for you - but for the general user, once it is off screen it is pretty
> much gone. And then when they select it, say in the task bar, other
> things "disappear". Yes, I know they are still there and I trust you do
> to... but for the general non-techie user, why add all that?

Why add "all that" to anything? Why do stereos, DVRs, cars, etc have "all 
that"?

> 
>>> This is *not* to say that there are not a significant number of people
>>> who do benefit from having the feature, and adding it would not be a
>>> mistake, as long as it is not pushed on users.  And as long as it is
>>> done well - unlike how Apple introduced it.  At least now their
>>> implementation is fairly good, but it took them a while.
>> 
>> What 'push'?? Just because it's there, you don't have to use it.
> 
> Right.  And you do not have to even have the option visible.  Sure.
> 
>> I've showed the multiple desktops to my wife on her system a few times
>> - she's basically not interested, so she doesn't use them.
> 
> Kind of like tabs... I think they are indispensible for browsing. 
> Others do not like them.  No problem here.


-- 
Rick

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:07:20 +0000, ray wrote:

> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:52:06 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> ray stated in post 7vct74Fe9sU20@mid.individual.net on 3/5/10 10:27 AM:
>> 
>>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:11:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> RonB stated in post hmq3jl$51j$1@news.eternal-september.org on 3/4/10
>>>> 10:08 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>>> 
>>>> For most people they are more of a problem than a benefit... too much
>>>> configuration with too little benefit.
>>> 
>>> Configure what???? It's always worked 'out of the box' for me.
>> 
>> Sure, but you still have to configure, on the fly if nothing else, what
>> windows go to what virtual desktops.  Then you have to keep in mind
>> what is where and how things are grouped.  I am not suggesting this is
>> hard for you - but for the general user, once it is off screen it is
>> pretty much gone. And then when they select it, say in the task bar,
>> other things "disappear". Yes, I know they are still there and I trust
>> you do to... but for the general non-techie user, why add all that?
> 
> It is true that you have to somehow or another indicate what app is to
> go to what desktop -

Not really. You do have to navigate to a particular desktop, but then you 
can just open your apps/documents when you get there. You CAN configure 
apps to open on a specific desktop, but you don't have to.

> what did you have in mind as an alternative? ESP? -
> That is not 'configuration' - at least as I understand it - it's running
> the app on the desktop where you want it. You don't have to 'keep in
> mind' anything - if you forget - GO LOOK. Again, the 'general non-techie
> user' doesn't have to use it if she doesn't want to.

Go look, or you a window list, a pager or mouse lick...

> 
> 
>>>> This is *not* to say that there are not a significant number of
>>>> people who do benefit from having the feature, and adding it would
>>>> not be a mistake, as long as it is not pushed on users.  And as long
>>>> as it is done well - unlike how Apple introduced it.  At least now
>>>> their implementation is fairly good, but it took them a while.
>>> 
>>> What 'push'?? Just because it's there, you don't have to use it.
>> 
>> Right.  And you do not have to even have the option visible.  Sure.
>> 
>>> I've showed the multiple desktops to my wife on her system a few times
>>> - she's basically not interested, so she doesn't use them.
>> 
>> Kind of like tabs... I think they are indispensible for browsing.
>> Others do not like them.  No problem here.

-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post DK-dnZLl3bSY5gzWnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@supernews.com on 3/5/10
2:43 PM:

> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:11:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> RonB stated in post hmq3jl$51j$1@news.eternal-september.org on 3/4/10
>> 10:08 PM:
>> 
>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>> 
>> For most people they are more of a problem than a benefit... too much
>> configuration with too little benefit.
> 
> There is very little configuration, and it is up to the individual to say
> if there is too little benefit.

Gee, Rick, you mean for some people it will be worth it... like I said.
Man, thanks for the response!  It shows you actually understand what you
read!

>> This is *not* to say that there are not a significant number of people
>> who do benefit from having the feature, and adding it would not be a
>> mistake, as long as it is not pushed on users.  And as long as it is
>> done well - 
> 
> .. as it is done well on every Linux distro I have seen.

Goodie!  Then again, you refuse to admit to anything done poorly, so really,
your opinion is of little value.  But thanks for sharing!

>> unlike how Apple introduced it.  At least now their
>> implementation is fairly good, but it took them a while.
> 



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:59:21 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:

> Rex Ballard wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 12:52 am, Vaughn Bode <unionpe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mar 4, 9:08 pm, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>> 
>>> I understand the usefulness, but I hear there is a software patent
>>> issue involved.
>> 
>> Xerox patented the "Virtual Desktop" and the various forms of "desktop
>> switcher" for X11.  They contributed to the X11 project as Open Source,
>> but do not permit Microsoft to use it - until they settle up for some
>> of the other technologies they took without paying.
>> 
>> When Apple and Microsoft came to the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center to
>> look at SmallTalk and the Xerox Alto, they were not forced to sign
>> overly restrictive non-disclosure agreements.  The East Coast company
>> had been used to dealing with companies like Kodak and Bausch and Lomb
>> and other ethical companies who were more than willing to negotiate for
>> patent and copyright exchanges and/or royalties.
>> 
>> Neither Apple nor Microsoft paid royalties to Xerox.  They just pirated
>> the code, converting smalltalk to other languages.  Xerox responded by
>> filing for patents for the virtual desktop, and then giving it away to
>> the X11/Unix and Linux communities, but witholding it from Microsoft.
>> 
>> As I understand it, the latest releases of OS/X support X11 and
>> therefore workspaces.  Microsoft has tried to implement workspaces that
>> didn't violate the patent, for example the NT 4.0 extensions, that
>> included posix, a butchered version of ksh, and a few other bsd type
>> tools.  Unfortunately, the implementations didn't work out that well,
>> and were dropped in later releases of Windows.
>> 
>> 
> Apples workspaces work a bit differently and is more flexible than the
> regular X11 implementation.  But the overall goal is the same.

How is spaces more flexible than X11?

-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post DK-dnYzl3bS14QzWnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@supernews.com on 3/5/10
2:48 PM:

....
>>> Sure, but you still have to configure, on the fly if nothing else, what
>>> windows go to what virtual desktops.  Then you have to keep in mind
>>> what is where and how things are grouped.  I am not suggesting this is
>>> hard for you - but for the general user, once it is off screen it is
>>> pretty much gone. And then when they select it, say in the task bar,
>>> other things "disappear". Yes, I know they are still there and I trust
>>> you do to... but for the general non-techie user, why add all that?
>> 
>> It is true that you have to somehow or another indicate what app is to
>> go to what desktop -
> 
> Not really. 

Yeah, you can get a physic computer that makes correct choices for you!

> You do have to navigate to a particular desktop, but then you can just open
> your apps/documents when you get there.

Ah, just wait to "get there" without navigating to "there".  Good plan!
LOL!

> You CAN configure apps to open on a specific desktop, but you don't have to.

Right!

>> what did you have in mind as an alternative? ESP? - That is not
>> 'configuration' - at least as I understand it - it's running the app on the
>> desktop where you want it. You don't have to 'keep in mind' anything - if you
>> forget - GO LOOK. Again, the 'general non-techie user' doesn't have to use it
>> if she doesn't want to.
>> 
> Go look, or you a window list, a pager or mouse lick...

Perhaps you have a different type of mouse than I do.  :)

....



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post DK-dnY3l3bQa5gzWnZ2dnUVZ_tAAAAAA@supernews.com on 3/5/10
2:45 PM:

> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:52:06 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> ray stated in post 7vct74Fe9sU20@mid.individual.net on 3/5/10 10:27 AM:
>> 
>>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:11:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> RonB stated in post hmq3jl$51j$1@news.eternal-september.org on 3/4/10
>>>> 10:08 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>>> 
>>>> For most people they are more of a problem than a benefit... too much
>>>> configuration with too little benefit.
>>> 
>>> Configure what???? It's always worked 'out of the box' for me.
>> 
>> Sure, but you still have to configure, on the fly if nothing else, what
>> windows go to what virtual desktops.
> 
> What do you mean what windows go where?

When your misunderstanding is at this level I am not sure how to help you.
Do you understand virtual desktops?  Different windows go to different
virtual desktops.

> Go to the desktop. Open the app. Done.

That is the most common method... so you *do* understand.  You were just
feigning ignorance.  Again.
 
>> Then you have to keep in mind what is where and how things are grouped.  I am
>> not suggesting this is hard for you - but for the general user, once it is
>> off screen it is pretty much gone. And then when they select it, say in the
>> task bar, other things "disappear". Yes, I know they are still there and I
>> trust you do to... but for the general non-techie user, why add all that?
>> 
> Why add "all that" to anything? Why do stereos, DVRs, cars, etc have "all
> that"?

Cars' windows are real... they are not put on virtual screens.  :)

.... 



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:48:52 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post DK-dnZLl3bSY5gzWnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@supernews.com on
> 3/5/10 2:43 PM:
> 
>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:11:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> RonB stated in post hmq3jl$51j$1@news.eternal-september.org on 3/4/10
>>> 10:08 PM:
>>> 
>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>> 
>>> For most people they are more of a problem than a benefit... too much
>>> configuration with too little benefit.
>> 
>> There is very little configuration, and it is up to the individual to
>> say if there is too little benefit.
> 
> Gee, Rick, you mean for some people it will be worth it... like I said.
> Man, thanks for the response!  It shows you actually understand what you
> read!

.... as opposed to you ...

> 
>>> This is *not* to say that there are not a significant number of people
>>> who do benefit from having the feature, and adding it would not be a
>>> mistake, as long as it is not pushed on users.  And as long as it is
>>> done well -
>> 
>> .. as it is done well on every Linux distro I have seen.
> 
> Goodie!  Then again, you refuse to admit to anything done poorly, so
> really, your opinion is of little value.  But thanks for sharing!

I wish you would stop sharing your lies.

> 
>>> unlike how Apple introduced it.  At least now their implementation is
>>> fairly good, but it took them a while.
>>


-- 
Rick

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:54:44 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post DK-dnY3l3bQa5gzWnZ2dnUVZ_tAAAAAA@supernews.com on
> 3/5/10 2:45 PM:
> 
>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:52:06 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> ray stated in post 7vct74Fe9sU20@mid.individual.net on 3/5/10 10:27
>>> AM:
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:11:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> RonB stated in post hmq3jl$51j$1@news.eternal-september.org on
>>>>> 3/4/10 10:08 PM:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>>>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>>>> 
>>>>> For most people they are more of a problem than a benefit... too
>>>>> much configuration with too little benefit.
>>>> 
>>>> Configure what???? It's always worked 'out of the box' for me.
>>> 
>>> Sure, but you still have to configure, on the fly if nothing else,
>>> what windows go to what virtual desktops.
>> 
>> What do you mean what windows go where?
> 
> When your misunderstanding is at this level I am not sure how to help
> you. Do you understand virtual desktops?  Different windows go to
> different virtual desktops.

You don't have to do any configuring of what windows go where. Navigate 
to the virtual desktop and open the app/document.

> 
>> Go to the desktop. Open the app. Done.
> 
> That is the most common method... so you *do* understand.  You were just
> feigning ignorance.  Again.

Why do you insist on your passive aggressive crap?

And yes, I do understand that a user does not have to configure "what 
windows go where". Too bad you don't.

>  
>>> Then you have to keep in mind what is where and how things are
>>> grouped.  I am not suggesting this is hard for you - but for the
>>> general user, once it is off screen it is pretty much gone. And then
>>> when they select it, say in the task bar, other things "disappear".
>>> Yes, I know they are still there and I trust you do to... but for the
>>> general non-techie user, why add all that?
>>> 
>> Why add "all that" to anything? Why do stereos, DVRs, cars, etc have
>> "all that"?
> 
> Cars' windows are real... they are not put on virtual screens.  :)
> 
-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post rfGdnUJXu839HAzWnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@supernews.com on 3/5/10
3:10 PM:

> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:48:52 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Rick stated in post DK-dnZLl3bSY5gzWnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@supernews.com on
>> 3/5/10 2:43 PM:
>> 
>>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:11:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> RonB stated in post hmq3jl$51j$1@news.eternal-september.org on 3/4/10
>>>> 10:08 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>>> 
>>>> For most people they are more of a problem than a benefit... too much
>>>> configuration with too little benefit.
>>> 
>>> There is very little configuration, and it is up to the individual to
>>> say if there is too little benefit.
>> 
>> Gee, Rick, you mean for some people it will be worth it... like I said.
>> Man, thanks for the response!  It shows you actually understand what you
>> read!
> 
> ... as opposed to you ...

Ah, it's another grade school put down day for Rick!

>>>> This is *not* to say that there are not a significant number of people
>>>> who do benefit from having the feature, and adding it would not be a
>>>> mistake, as long as it is not pushed on users.  And as long as it is
>>>> done well -
>>> 
>>> .. as it is done well on every Linux distro I have seen.
>> 
>> Goodie!  Then again, you refuse to admit to anything done poorly, so
>> really, your opinion is of little value.  But thanks for sharing!
> 
> I wish you would stop sharing your lies.

And more grade school BS from Rick.  Just another day for Rick... oh well.



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post rfGdnX1Xu81tHAzWnZ2dnUVZ_tAAAAAA@supernews.com on 3/5/10
3:13 PM:

.... 
>>>> Sure, but you still have to configure, on the fly if nothing else,
>>>> what windows go to what virtual desktops.
>>> 
>>> What do you mean what windows go where?
>> 
>> When your misunderstanding is at this level I am not sure how to help
>> you. Do you understand virtual desktops?  Different windows go to
>> different virtual desktops.
> 
> You don't have to do any configuring of what windows go where.

So you say... but then you describe the most common way to configure where
windows go:

> Navigate to the virtual desktop and open the app/document.

LOL!

You really do flip flop quickly!

Or, and this would be funny too, maybe you do not know what it means to
configure something.  In case that is the reason for your flip flopping:

    -----
    To design, arrange, set up, or shape with a view to specific
    applications or uses
    -----
    arrange parts for particular use: to set up, design, or
    arrange the parts of something for a specific purpose
    -----
    to set up for operation especially in a particular way
    -----
    to arrange something or change the controls on a computer
    or other device so that it can be used in a particular way
    -----

Does that help you to understand where you went astray and flip flopped?

>>> Go to the desktop. Open the app. Done.
>> 
>> That is the most common method... so you *do* understand.  You were just
>> feigning ignorance.  Again.
> 
> Why do you insist on your passive aggressive crap?

I note your actions.  You whine and call it "passive aggressive"

> And yes, I do understand that a user does not have to configure "what
> windows go where". Too bad you don't.

Above you describe the most common form of configuration.  Now you pretend
to think such configuration is not needed.  That is funny.



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:26:47 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post rfGdnX1Xu81tHAzWnZ2dnUVZ_tAAAAAA@supernews.com on
> 3/5/10 3:13 PM:
> 
> ...
>>>>> Sure, but you still have to configure, on the fly if nothing else,
>>>>> what windows go to what virtual desktops.
>>>> 
>>>> What do you mean what windows go where?
>>> 
>>> When your misunderstanding is at this level I am not sure how to help
>>> you. Do you understand virtual desktops?  Different windows go to
>>> different virtual desktops.
>> 
>> You don't have to do any configuring of what windows go where.
> 
> So you say... but then you describe the most common way to configure
> where windows go:
> 
>> Navigate to the virtual desktop and open the app/document.
> 
> LOL!
> 
> You really do flip flop quickly!

LOL, LOL LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL LOL LOL...

You show your clueless a lot.

> 
> Or, and this would be funny too, maybe you do not know what it means to
> configure something.  In case that is the reason for your flip flopping:
> 
>     -----
>     To design, arrange, set up, or shape with a view to specific
>     applications or uses
>     -----
>     arrange parts for particular use: to set up, design, or arrange the
>     parts of something for a specific purpose -----
>     to set up for operation especially in a particular way -----
>     to arrange something or change the controls on a computer or other
>     device so that it can be used in a particular way -----
> 
> Does that help you to understand where you went astray and flip flopped?

I didn't go astray. Your saying so doesn't make it so.

> 
>>>> Go to the desktop. Open the app. Done.
>>> 
>>> That is the most common method... so you *do* understand.  You were
>>> just feigning ignorance.  Again.
>> 
>> Why do you insist on your passive aggressive crap?
> 
> I note your actions.  You whine and call it "passive aggressive"

"Feigning ignorance" is passive aggressive crap. You try to attack with 
out overt attacking. The question "Are you feigning ignorance" cannot be 
answered, and you know it. If a person says not, that implies the person 
is ignorant. If they say yes, they are admitting to willingly looking 
ignorant when they are not. gt it through your pointy little head... I am 
not ignorant in relation to using Linux systems. I do not "feign 
ignorance". Maybe you should consider your might me the ignorant one.

> 
>> And yes, I do understand that a user does not have to configure "what
>> windows go where". Too bad you don't.
> 
> Above you describe the most common form of configuration.  Now you
> pretend to think such configuration is not needed.  That is funny.

Too bad you have no idea what you are talking about.

-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post c7idnbSPuIZWGgzWnZ2dnUVZ_j4AAAAA@supernews.com on 3/5/10
3:38 PM:

> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:26:47 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Rick stated in post rfGdnX1Xu81tHAzWnZ2dnUVZ_tAAAAAA@supernews.com on
>> 3/5/10 3:13 PM:
>> 
>> ...
>>>>>> Sure, but you still have to configure, on the fly if nothing else,
>>>>>> what windows go to what virtual desktops.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What do you mean what windows go where?
>>>> 
>>>> When your misunderstanding is at this level I am not sure how to help
>>>> you. Do you understand virtual desktops?  Different windows go to
>>>> different virtual desktops.
>>> 
>>> You don't have to do any configuring of what windows go where.
>> 
>> So you say... but then you describe the most common way to configure
>> where windows go:
>> 
>>> Navigate to the virtual desktop and open the app/document.
>> 
>> LOL!
>> 
>> You really do flip flop quickly!
> 
> LOL, LOL LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL LOL LOL...
> 
> You show your clueless a lot.

More of your grade school insults - as you ignore the fact you flip flopped.
Here:

  Rick: denying you have to configure virtual desktops
    -----
    You don't have to do any configuring of what windows go where.
    -----

  Rick: describing the most common method of configuring virtual desktops
    -----
    Navigate to the virtual desktop and open the app/document.
    -----

And the funny part is the second quote was written *directly* after the
first.  Same post.  Same paragraph.

>> Or, and this would be funny too, maybe you do not know what it means to
>> configure something.  In case that is the reason for your flip flopping:
>> 
>>     -----
>>     To design, arrange, set up, or shape with a view to specific
>>     applications or uses
>>     -----
>>     arrange parts for particular use: to set up, design, or arrange the
>>     parts of something for a specific purpose -----
>>     to set up for operation especially in a particular way -----
>>     to arrange something or change the controls on a computer or other
>>     device so that it can be used in a particular way -----
>> 
>> Does that help you to understand where you went astray and flip flopped?
> 
> I didn't go astray. Your saying so doesn't make it so.

I understand you can nay-say, but can you make a point and actually support
it?  

>>>>> Go to the desktop. Open the app. Done.
>>>> 
>>>> That is the most common method... so you *do* understand.  You were
>>>> just feigning ignorance.  Again.
>>> 
>>> Why do you insist on your passive aggressive crap?
>> 
>> I note your actions.  You whine and call it "passive aggressive"
> 
> "Feigning ignorance" is passive aggressive crap.

Ok, then you engage in "passive aggressive crap" a lot.

> You try to attack with out overt attacking.

I note your behavior and you whine.  Oh well.

> The question "Are you feigning ignorance" cannot be answered, and you know it.

Sure it can - you can admit you are doing so or acknowledge you really were
ignorant of something.

> If a person says not, that implies the person is ignorant. If they say yes,
> they are admitting to willingly looking ignorant when they are not.

And yet you do not want to admit to either, even in the many cases where you
make ignorant comments... even ones you contradict in your very next
sentence, as you did above.

> gt it through your pointy little head... I am not ignorant in relation to
> using Linux systems. I do not "feign ignorance". Maybe you should consider
> your might me the ignorant one.

Hey, there have been places where you have known things I have not.  Unlike
you I admit to them.

>>> And yes, I do understand that a user does not have to configure "what
>>> windows go where". Too bad you don't.
>> 
>> Above you describe the most common form of configuration.  Now you
>> pretend to think such configuration is not needed.  That is funny.
> 
> Too bad you have no idea what you are talking about.

  Rick: denying you have to configure virtual desktops
    -----
    You don't have to do any configuring of what windows go where.
    -----

  Rick: describing the most common method of configuring virtual desktops
    -----
    Navigate to the virtual desktop and open the app/document.
    -----


Why, then, do the facts support my view and not yours?  Seems odd, in the
face of that, for you to claim your contradictory statements show a greater
understanding than my consistent ones... ones you sometimes show agreement
with.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:58:19 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post c7idnbSPuIZWGgzWnZ2dnUVZ_j4AAAAA@supernews.com on
> 3/5/10 3:38 PM:
> 
>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:26:47 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Rick stated in post rfGdnX1Xu81tHAzWnZ2dnUVZ_tAAAAAA@supernews.com on
>>> 3/5/10 3:13 PM:
>>> 
>>> ...
>>>>>>> Sure, but you still have to configure, on the fly if nothing else,
>>>>>>> what windows go to what virtual desktops.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What do you mean what windows go where?
>>>>> 
>>>>> When your misunderstanding is at this level I am not sure how to
>>>>> help you. Do you understand virtual desktops?  Different windows go
>>>>> to different virtual desktops.
>>>> 
>>>> You don't have to do any configuring of what windows go where.
>>> 
>>> So you say... but then you describe the most common way to configure
>>> where windows go:
>>> 
>>>> Navigate to the virtual desktop and open the app/document.
>>> 
>>> LOL!
>>> 
>>> You really do flip flop quickly!
>> 
>> LOL, LOL LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL LOL LOL...
>> 
>> You show your clueless a lot.
> 
> More of your grade school insults - as you ignore the fact you flip
> flopped. Here:
> 
>   Rick: denying you have to configure virtual desktops
>     -----
>     You don't have to do any configuring of what windows go where. -----
> 
>   Rick: describing the most common method of configuring virtual
>   desktops
>     -----
>     Navigate to the virtual desktop and open the app/document. -----
> 
> And the funny part is the second quote was written *directly* after the
> first.  Same post.  Same paragraph.

So, by your reasoning, every desktop has to be configured. Interesting.

> 
>>> Or, and this would be funny too, maybe you do not know what it means
>>> to configure something.  In case that is the reason for your flip
>>> flopping:
>>> 
>>>     -----
>>>     To design, arrange, set up, or shape with a view to specific
>>>     applications or uses
>>>     -----
>>>     arrange parts for particular use: to set up, design, or arrange
>>>     the parts of something for a specific purpose ----- to set up for
>>>     operation especially in a particular way ----- to arrange
>>>     something or change the controls on a computer or other device so
>>>     that it can be used in a particular way -----
>>> 
>>> Does that help you to understand where you went astray and flip
>>> flopped?
>> 
>> I didn't go astray. Your saying so doesn't make it so.
> 
> I understand you can nay-say, but can you make a point and actually
> support it?

Yes, I can. But that doesn't mean you can comprehend the support.

> 
>>>>>> Go to the desktop. Open the app. Done.
>>>>> 
>>>>> That is the most common method... so you *do* understand.  You were
>>>>> just feigning ignorance.  Again.
>>>> 
>>>> Why do you insist on your passive aggressive crap?
>>> 
>>> I note your actions.  You whine and call it "passive aggressive"
>> 
>> "Feigning ignorance" is passive aggressive crap.
> 
> Ok, then you engage in "passive aggressive crap" a lot.
> 
>> You try to attack with out overt attacking.
> 
> I note your behavior and you whine.  Oh well.

You try to attack with out overt attacking.  Oh well.

> 
>> The question "Are you feigning ignorance" cannot be answered, and you
>> know it.
> 
> Sure it can - you can admit you are doing so or acknowledge you really
> were ignorant of something.

Neither is true.

> 
>> If a person says not, that implies the person is ignorant. If they say
>> yes, they are admitting to willingly looking ignorant when they are
>> not.
> 
> And yet you do not want to admit to either, even in the many cases where
> you make ignorant comments... even ones you contradict in your very next
> sentence, as you did above.
> 

I didn't contradict myself above. You seem to lack comprehension.

>> gt it through your pointy little head... I am not ignorant in relation
>> to using Linux systems. I do not "feign ignorance". Maybe you should
>> consider your might me the ignorant one.
> 
> Hey, there have been places where you have known things I have not. 

Yes there have.

> Unlike you I admit to them.

Few.


> 
>>>> And yes, I do understand that a user does not have to configure "what
>>>> windows go where". Too bad you don't.
>>> 
>>> Above you describe the most common form of configuration.  Now you
>>> pretend to think such configuration is not needed.  That is funny.
>> 
>> Too bad you have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
>   Rick: denying you have to configure virtual desktops
>     -----
>     You don't have to do any configuring of what windows go where. -----
> 
>   Rick: describing the most common method of configuring virtual
>   desktops
>     -----
>     Navigate to the virtual desktop and open the app/document. -----
> 
> 
> Why, then, do the facts support my view and not yours?

They don't.


>  Seems odd, in
> the face of that, for you to claim your contradictory statements show a
> greater understanding than my consistent ones... ones you sometimes show
> agreement with.

So, your position now is that opening apps or a document in a workspace 
is configuring it. And you expect to be taken seriously. Sheesh.

-- 
Rick

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:21:28 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post rfGdnUJXu839HAzWnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@supernews.com on
> 3/5/10 3:10 PM:
> 
>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:48:52 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Rick stated in post DK-dnZLl3bSY5gzWnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@supernews.com on
>>> 3/5/10 2:43 PM:
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:11:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> RonB stated in post hmq3jl$51j$1@news.eternal-september.org on
>>>>> 3/4/10 10:08 PM:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>>>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>>>> 
>>>>> For most people they are more of a problem than a benefit... too
>>>>> much configuration with too little benefit.
>>>> 
>>>> There is very little configuration, and it is up to the individual to
>>>> say if there is too little benefit.
>>> 
>>> Gee, Rick, you mean for some people it will be worth it... like I
>>> said. Man, thanks for the response!  It shows you actually understand
>>> what you read!
>> 
>> ... as opposed to you ...
> 
> Ah, it's another grade school put down day for Rick!
> 
>>>>> This is *not* to say that there are not a significant number of
>>>>> people who do benefit from having the feature, and adding it would
>>>>> not be a mistake, as long as it is not pushed on users.  And as long
>>>>> as it is done well -
>>>> 
>>>> .. as it is done well on every Linux distro I have seen.
>>> 
>>> Goodie!  Then again, you refuse to admit to anything done poorly, so
>>> really, your opinion is of little value.  But thanks for sharing!
>> 
>> I wish you would stop sharing your lies.
> 
> And more grade school BS from Rick.  Just another day for Rick... oh
> well.

You lie. A lot. It is tiresome.



-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post c7idnbePuIaUOQzWnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@supernews.com on 3/5/10
5:38 PM:

....
>> More of your grade school insults - as you ignore the fact you flip
>> flopped. Here:
>> 
>>   Rick: denying you have to configure virtual desktops
>>     -----
>>     You don't have to do any configuring of what windows go where. -----
>> 
>>   Rick: describing the most common method of configuring virtual
>>   desktops
>>     -----
>>     Navigate to the virtual desktop and open the app/document. -----
>> 
>> And the funny part is the second quote was written *directly* after the
>> first.  Same post.  Same paragraph.
> 
> So, by your reasoning, every desktop has to be configured. Interesting.

You have to set (configure) what programs open on what desktop.
 
.... 
>>> The question "Are you feigning ignorance" cannot be answered, and you
>>> know it.
>> 
>> Sure it can - you can admit you are doing so or acknowledge you really
>> were ignorant of something.
> 
> Neither is true.

Your denial does not change the fact you showed ignorance - real or feigned.
You claim it is an "attack" to note this fact.  So be it.

....
>> Hey, there have been places where you have known things I have not.
> 
> Yes there have.
> 
>> Unlike you I admit to them.
> 
> Few.

And I bet you cannot find a single counter example where I have refused to
admit something when I was shown to be wrong.

....
>>   Rick: denying you have to configure virtual desktops
>>     -----
>>     You don't have to do any configuring of what windows go where.
>>     -----
>> 
>>   Rick: describing the most common method of configuring virtual
>>   desktops
>>     -----
>>     Navigate to the virtual desktop and open the app/document.
>>     -----
>> 
>> 
>> Why, then, do the facts support my view and not yours?
> 
> They don't.

Note: you are not making a point, you are merely nay-saying.

>> Seems odd, in the face of that, for you to claim your contradictory
>> statements show a greater understanding than my consistent ones... ones you
>> sometimes show agreement with.
> 
> So, your position now is that opening apps or a document in a workspace
> is configuring it. And you expect to be taken seriously. Sheesh.

When you have to jump from space to space in order to set up what apps are
opening in each space, as you note you do, then, sure, that is setting it
up... configuring.  How could it not be?  Remember, I even quoted the
definition of the word to you.

Here, maybe this will help you: if you do not configure what windows are in
each virtual desktop, then who or what does?  Is it arbitrarily set by the
system?  I hope *not*!

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post c7idnbaPuIazOQzWnZ2dnUVZ_j4AAAAA@supernews.com on 3/5/10
5:39 PM:

> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:21:28 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Rick stated in post rfGdnUJXu839HAzWnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@supernews.com on
>> 3/5/10 3:10 PM:
>> 
>>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:48:52 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Rick stated in post DK-dnZLl3bSY5gzWnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@supernews.com on
>>>> 3/5/10 2:43 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:11:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> RonB stated in post hmq3jl$51j$1@news.eternal-september.org on
>>>>>> 3/4/10 10:08 PM:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>>>>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> For most people they are more of a problem than a benefit... too
>>>>>> much configuration with too little benefit.
>>>>> 
>>>>> There is very little configuration, and it is up to the individual to
>>>>> say if there is too little benefit.
>>>> 
>>>> Gee, Rick, you mean for some people it will be worth it... like I
>>>> said. Man, thanks for the response!  It shows you actually understand
>>>> what you read!
>>> 
>>> ... as opposed to you ...
>> 
>> Ah, it's another grade school put down day for Rick!
>> 
>>>>>> This is *not* to say that there are not a significant number of
>>>>>> people who do benefit from having the feature, and adding it would
>>>>>> not be a mistake, as long as it is not pushed on users.  And as long
>>>>>> as it is done well -
>>>>> 
>>>>> .. as it is done well on every Linux distro I have seen.
>>>> 
>>>> Goodie!  Then again, you refuse to admit to anything done poorly, so
>>>> really, your opinion is of little value.  But thanks for sharing!
>>> 
>>> I wish you would stop sharing your lies.
>> 
>> And more grade school BS from Rick.  Just another day for Rick... oh
>> well.
> 
> You lie. A lot. It is tiresome.
> 
> 
You keep making accusations you cannot support.  By all means, try to quote
some comment of mine which you think is a lie... and then show why you think
it is a lie.

We have played this game in the past - and you have failed *every* time.
And you will again, now.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:06:17 +0000, White Spirit wrote:

> On 05/03/2010 17:02, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> 
>> OS/2 2.x and up where *very* different beasts, and way ahead of
>> anything MS has shown to this date
> 
> CP/M is still well ahead in terms of stability.


I used to have a 16bit Zilog Z8000 CPU running CP/M and powering a 
Amistar surface mount 'pick and place machine' which placed 17,000 
components a hour, via its 'gattling gun' rotating head.

This was way back in 1987, but looking back, that machine never locked 
up, and never had any kind of software problems.

It ran and ran, day after day making us *tons* of money.

Microsoft will not be remembered for any innovation, but rather for the 
way it held the computing world back 20 years..




-- 
This machine running Gnu/Linux Mint 8 and posting via Pan.
Get your Free copy NOW!  http://linuxmint.com/

Vaughn Bode wrote:

> On Mar 4, 9:08�pm, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I don't
>> know how I would get along without them now.
>
> I understand the usefulness, but I hear there is a software patent
> issue involved.

Apple has it . . . Ubuntu has it . . . XP has it if you run tweekui.
-- 
Enkidu

Snit wrote:

>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I don't
>> know how I would get along without them now.
>
> For most people they are more of a problem than a benefit... too much
> configuration with too little benefit.

Right click, add to taskbar. Right click on the taskbar icon if you want
to alter the number of workspaces. What's to configure?
-- 
Enkidu

Snit wrote:

>> Snot Michael Glasser in his infinite stupidity *still* thinks that there
>> is any "setup" needed for virtual desktops.
>
> And the alternate view is the computer is psychic and can set up what
> windows go to what virtual desktops all by itself.

That's stupid. They go on the desktop you are viewing when you open the
application.
-- 
Enkidu

Snit wrote:

> I am not suggesting this is hard for you
> - but for the general user, once it is off screen it is pretty much gone.

You associate with some mighty stupid people if this is what they're
like.
-- 
Enkidu

Enkidu stated in post 20100306021814.4196.24481.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/5/10
7:18 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I don't
>>> know how I would get along without them now.
>> 
>> For most people they are more of a problem than a benefit... too much
>> configuration with too little benefit.
> 
> Right click, add to taskbar. Right click on the taskbar icon if you want
> to alter the number of workspaces. What's to configure?

Who other than the user configures what window goes to what space?

Nobody. 

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Snit wrote:

> Cars' windows are real... they are not put on virtual screens.  :)

And yet, even the stupidest user knows his car is still in the garage
when he walks into the house.
-- 
Enkidu

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:44:30 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post c7idnbePuIaUOQzWnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@supernews.com on
> 3/5/10 5:38 PM:
> 
> ...
>>> More of your grade school insults - as you ignore the fact you flip
>>> flopped. Here:
>>> 
>>>   Rick: denying you have to configure virtual desktops
>>>     -----
>>>     You don't have to do any configuring of what windows go where.
>>>     -----
>>> 
>>>   Rick: describing the most common method of configuring virtual
>>>   desktops
>>>     -----
>>>     Navigate to the virtual desktop and open the app/document. -----
>>> 
>>> And the funny part is the second quote was written *directly* after
>>> the first.  Same post.  Same paragraph.
>> 
>> So, by your reasoning, every desktop has to be configured. Interesting.
> 
> You have to set (configure) what programs open on what desktop.
>  
> ...
>>>> The question "Are you feigning ignorance" cannot be answered, and you
>>>> know it.
>>> 
>>> Sure it can - you can admit you are doing so or acknowledge you really
>>> were ignorant of something.
>> 
>> Neither is true.
> 
> Your denial does not change the fact you showed ignorance - real or
> feigned. You claim it is an "attack" to note this fact.  So be it.
> 
> ...
>>> Hey, there have been places where you have known things I have not.
>> 
>> Yes there have.
>> 
>>> Unlike you I admit to them.
>> 
>> Few.
> 
> And I bet you cannot find a single counter example where I have refused
> to admit something when I was shown to be wrong.
> 
> ...
>>>   Rick: denying you have to configure virtual desktops
>>>     -----
>>>     You don't have to do any configuring of what windows go where.
>>>     -----
>>> 
>>>   Rick: describing the most common method of configuring virtual
>>>   desktops
>>>     -----
>>>     Navigate to the virtual desktop and open the app/document. -----
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Why, then, do the facts support my view and not yours?
>> 
>> They don't.
> 
> Note: you are not making a point, you are merely nay-saying.
> 
>>> Seems odd, in the face of that, for you to claim your contradictory
>>> statements show a greater understanding than my consistent ones...
>>> ones you sometimes show agreement with.
>> 
>> So, your position now is that opening apps or a document in a workspace
>> is configuring it. And you expect to be taken seriously. Sheesh.
> 
> When you have to jump from space to space in order to set up what apps
> are opening in each space, as you note you do, then, sure, that is
> setting it up... configuring.  How could it not be?  Remember, I even
> quoted the definition of the word to you.
> 
> Here, maybe this will help you: if you do not configure what windows are
> in each virtual desktop, then who or what does?  Is it arbitrarily set
> by the system?  I hope *not*!

So what the hell is your point? According to your definitions, every 
workspace will always have to be 'configured'.

Snit wrote:

>> You do have to navigate to a particular desktop, but then you can just open
>> your apps/documents when you get there.
>
> Ah, just wait to "get there" without navigating to "there".  Good plan!
> LOL!

Yeah, it is. Click on the little icon thingy and the software flips you
to a different desktop. The default is two desktops. How can you lose
something on two desktops? If you don't see it, you have to be pretty
fucking dense to not know where it is.
-- 
Enkidu

Snit wrote:

>> It is true that you have to somehow or another indicate what app is to go
>> to what desktop - what did you have in mind as an alternative? ESP? -
>
> Right - there is no way to use it without configuring what windows you want
> to go to what desktop. No doubt.  And this is an added level of abstraction.

It's as abstract a a two-sided piece of paper! If what you wrote on it
isn't facing up, it doesn't take much to know it's on the other side.
-- 
Enkidu

Moshe wrote:

> Instead we have Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, Nuendo etc and
> dual monitors working out of the box.

I run Quicken under wine. Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass. Never tried
Rosetta Stone or Nuendo, dual monitors work out-of-the-box.
-- 
Enkidu

Enkidu stated in post 20100306022900.4196.68614.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/5/10
7:29 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>>> You do have to navigate to a particular desktop, but then you can just open
>>> your apps/documents when you get there.
>> 
>> Ah, just wait to "get there" without navigating to "there".  Good plan!
>> LOL!
> 
> Yeah, it is. 

Well, you might have to wait a while.  :)

> Click on the little icon thingy and the software flips you to a different
> desktop. 

Right... it is not automatic.  You, the user, have to decide.  Which is good
- I would not want the OS to auto-configure this!

> The default is two desktops.

Well, depends on the distro.

> How can you lose something on two desktops? If you don't see it, you have to
> be pretty fucking dense to not know where it is.

You clearly, like myself, are a techie.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Enkidu stated in post 20100306023039.4196.97409.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/5/10
7:30 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>>> It is true that you have to somehow or another indicate what app is to go
>>> to what desktop - what did you have in mind as an alternative? ESP? -
>> 
>> Right - there is no way to use it without configuring what windows you want
>> to go to what desktop. No doubt.  And this is an added level of abstraction.
> 
> It's as abstract a a two-sided piece of paper!

Well, a virtual two-sided paper.  With lots of windows on each side.

> If what you wrote on it
> isn't facing up, it doesn't take much to know it's on the other side.

You and I are techies.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

ray stated in post 7vdsoeF9mvU2@mid.individual.net on 3/5/10 7:25 PM:

>>>> Seems odd, in the face of that, for you to claim your contradictory
>>>> statements show a greater understanding than my consistent ones...
>>>> ones you sometimes show agreement with.
>>> 
>>> So, your position now is that opening apps or a document in a workspace
>>> is configuring it. And you expect to be taken seriously. Sheesh.
>> 
>> When you have to jump from space to space in order to set up what apps
>> are opening in each space, as you note you do, then, sure, that is
>> setting it up... configuring.  How could it not be?  Remember, I even
>> quoted the definition of the word to you.
>> 
>> Here, maybe this will help you: if you do not configure what windows are
>> in each virtual desktop, then who or what does?  Is it arbitrarily set
>> by the system?  I hope *not*!
> 
> So what the hell is your point? According to your definitions, every
> workspace will always have to be 'configured'.

If not by the user, by someone.  Of course.  As you seem to get, this is a
simple point that only an idiot would argue against.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Enkidu stated in post 20100306022518.4196.37930.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/5/10
7:25 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> Cars' windows are real... they are not put on virtual screens.  :)
> 
> And yet, even the stupidest user knows his car is still in the garage
> when he walks into the house.

Um, OK.  So?


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Enkidu stated in post 20100306022318.4196.57481.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/5/10
7:23 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> I am not suggesting this is hard for you
>> - but for the general user, once it is off screen it is pretty much gone.
> 
> You associate with some mighty stupid people if this is what they're
> like.

Ah, calling general users "mighty stupid"... yeah, that makes you look
clever.  LOL!


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Enkidu stated in post 20100306022142.4196.49188.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/5/10
7:21 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>>> Snot Michael Glasser in his infinite stupidity *still* thinks that there
>>> is any "setup" needed for virtual desktops.
>> 
>> And the alternate view is the computer is psychic and can set up what
>> windows go to what virtual desktops all by itself.
> 
> That's stupid. They go on the desktop you are viewing when you open the
> application.

That is how they are generally configured.  Good to see you get that (not
sure why you mention it though).


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Snit wrote:

> Enkidu stated in post 20100306021814.4196.24481.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/5/10
> 7:18 PM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>> 
>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I don't
>>>> know how I would get along without them now.
>>> 
>>> For most people they are more of a problem than a benefit... too much
>>> configuration with too little benefit.
>> 
>> Right click, add to taskbar. Right click on the taskbar icon if you want
>> to alter the number of workspaces. What's to configure?
>
> Who other than the user configures what window goes to what space?

How can anybody be so stupit? Either you *are* as dumb as a bag of
nails, or you simply can't leave an argument you lost.

Her's one for you: "Who other than the use configures what window goes
on the only workspace if there's only one workspace?"

It's the same thing, you drooling numbskull! Open a winow, and it opens
in the open workspace, no matter how many workspaces you have availible.

-- 
Enkidu

Snit wrote:

> Enkidu stated in post 20100306022318.4196.57481.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/5/10
> 7:23 PM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> I am not suggesting this is hard for you
>>> - but for the general user, once it is off screen it is pretty much gone.
>> 
>> You associate with some mighty stupid people if this is what they're
>> like.
>
> Ah, calling general users "mighty stupid"... yeah, that makes you look
> clever.  LOL!

The general users I know are not too stupid to understand workspaces. My
daugher grasped it at nine. It took me all of five seconds to show her.
-- 
Enkidu

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:45:34 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post c7idnbaPuIazOQzWnZ2dnUVZ_j4AAAAA@supernews.com on
> 3/5/10 5:39 PM:
> 
>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:21:28 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Rick stated in post rfGdnUJXu839HAzWnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@supernews.com on
>>> 3/5/10 3:10 PM:
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:48:52 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Rick stated in post DK-dnZLl3bSY5gzWnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@supernews.com
>>>>> on 3/5/10 2:43 PM:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:11:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> RonB stated in post hmq3jl$51j$1@news.eternal-september.org on
>>>>>>> 3/4/10 10:08 PM:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop.
>>>>>>>> I don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> For most people they are more of a problem than a benefit... too
>>>>>>> much configuration with too little benefit.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> There is very little configuration, and it is up to the individual
>>>>>> to say if there is too little benefit.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Gee, Rick, you mean for some people it will be worth it... like I
>>>>> said. Man, thanks for the response!  It shows you actually
>>>>> understand what you read!
>>>> 
>>>> ... as opposed to you ...
>>> 
>>> Ah, it's another grade school put down day for Rick!
>>> 
>>>>>>> This is *not* to say that there are not a significant number of
>>>>>>> people who do benefit from having the feature, and adding it would
>>>>>>> not be a mistake, as long as it is not pushed on users.  And as
>>>>>>> long as it is done well -
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> .. as it is done well on every Linux distro I have seen.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Goodie!  Then again, you refuse to admit to anything done poorly, so
>>>>> really, your opinion is of little value.  But thanks for sharing!
>>>> 
>>>> I wish you would stop sharing your lies.
>>> 
>>> And more grade school BS from Rick.  Just another day for Rick... oh
>>> well.
>> 
>> You lie. A lot. It is tiresome.
>> 
>> 
> You keep making accusations you cannot support.  By all means, try to
> quote some comment of mine which you think is a lie... and then show why
> you think it is a lie.
> 
> We have played this game in the past - and you have failed *every* time.
> And you will again, now.

Yes, we've played that game before. I point out your lies. You deny them. 
I'm not playing it now. Go ahead have your little game.



-- 
Rick

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:44:30 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post c7idnbePuIaUOQzWnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@supernews.com on
> 3/5/10 5:38 PM:
> 
> ...
>>> More of your grade school insults - as you ignore the fact you flip
>>> flopped. Here:
>>> 
>>>   Rick: denying you have to configure virtual desktops
>>>     -----
>>>     You don't have to do any configuring of what windows go where.
>>>     -----
>>> 
>>>   Rick: describing the most common method of configuring virtual
>>>   desktops
>>>     -----
>>>     Navigate to the virtual desktop and open the app/document. -----
>>> 
>>> And the funny part is the second quote was written *directly* after
>>> the first.  Same post.  Same paragraph.
>> 
>> So, by your reasoning, every desktop has to be configured. Interesting.
> 
> You have to set (configure) what programs open on what desktop.

No, you don't.

>  
> ...
>>>> The question "Are you feigning ignorance" cannot be answered, and you
>>>> know it.
>>> 
>>> Sure it can - you can admit you are doing so or acknowledge you really
>>> were ignorant of something.
>> 
>> Neither is true.
> 
> Your denial does not change the fact you showed ignorance - real or

No, I didn't.

> feigned. You claim it is an "attack" to note this fact.  So be it.
> 
> ...
>>> Hey, there have been places where you have known things I have not.
>> 
>> Yes there have.
>> 
>>> Unlike you I admit to them.
>> 
>> Few.
> 
> And I bet you cannot find a single counter example where I have refused
> to admit something when I was shown to be wrong.

You usually refuse to admit you are wrong.

> 
> ...
>>>   Rick: denying you have to configure virtual desktops
>>>     -----
>>>     You don't have to do any configuring of what windows go where.
>>>     -----
>>> 
>>>   Rick: describing the most common method of configuring virtual
>>>   desktops
>>>     -----
>>>     Navigate to the virtual desktop and open the app/document. -----
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Why, then, do the facts support my view and not yours?
>> 
>> They don't.
> 
> Note: you are not making a point, you are merely nay-saying.

I am disputing your statement.

> 
>>> Seems odd, in the face of that, for you to claim your contradictory
>>> statements show a greater understanding than my consistent ones...
>>> ones you sometimes show agreement with.
>> 
>> So, your position now is that opening apps or a document in a workspace
>> is configuring it. And you expect to be taken seriously. Sheesh.
> 
> When you have to jump from space to space in order to set up what apps
> are opening in each space, as you note you do, then, sure, that is
> setting it up... configuring.  How could it not be?  Remember, I even
> quoted the definition of the word to you.

Yo don't have set anything up. You merely open whatever application you 
want to use.


> 
> Here, maybe this will help you: if you do not configure what windows are
> in each virtual desktop, then who or what does?  Is it arbitrarily set
> by the system?  I hope *not*!

And, AGAIN, you can merely open whatever app or document you want. Any 
application can be opened from any virtual workspace.

-- 
Rick

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:44:55 -0700, Snit wrote:

> ray stated in post 7vdsoeF9mvU2@mid.individual.net on 3/5/10 7:25 PM:
> 
>>>>> Seems odd, in the face of that, for you to claim your contradictory
>>>>> statements show a greater understanding than my consistent ones...
>>>>> ones you sometimes show agreement with.
>>>> 
>>>> So, your position now is that opening apps or a document in a
>>>> workspace is configuring it. And you expect to be taken seriously.
>>>> Sheesh.
>>> 
>>> When you have to jump from space to space in order to set up what apps
>>> are opening in each space, as you note you do, then, sure, that is
>>> setting it up... configuring.  How could it not be?  Remember, I even
>>> quoted the definition of the word to you.
>>> 
>>> Here, maybe this will help you: if you do not configure what windows
>>> are in each virtual desktop, then who or what does?  Is it arbitrarily
>>> set by the system?  I hope *not*!
>> 
>> So what the hell is your point? According to your definitions, every
>> workspace will always have to be 'configured'.
> 
> If not by the user, by someone.  Of course.  As you seem to get, this is
> a simple point that only an idiot would argue against.

So, it is now your position that the workspace in OS X has to be 
configured.

-- 
Rick

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:43:54 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Enkidu stated in post 20100306023039.4196.97409.XPN@nogodhere.net on
> 3/5/10 7:30 PM:
> 
>> Snit wrote:
>> 
>>>> It is true that you have to somehow or another indicate what app is
>>>> to go to what desktop - what did you have in mind as an alternative?
>>>> ESP? -
>>> 
>>> Right - there is no way to use it without configuring what windows you
>>> want to go to what desktop. No doubt.  And this is an added level of
>>> abstraction.
>> 
>> It's as abstract a a two-sided piece of paper!
> 
> Well, a virtual two-sided paper.  With lots of windows on each side.
> 
>> If what you wrote on it
>> isn't facing up, it doesn't take much to know it's on the other side.
> 
> You and I are techies.

Enkidu might be. You? aha hah aHAh ahha HAha haha ha ...

-- 
Rick

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:10:34 -0600, Terry Porter <linux-2@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:06:17 +0000, White Spirit wrote:

>> On 05/03/2010 17:02, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> 
>>> OS/2 2.x and up where *very* different beasts, and way ahead of
>>> anything MS has shown to this date
>> 
>> CP/M is still well ahead in terms of stability.


>I used to have a 16bit Zilog Z8000 CPU running CP/M and powering a 
>Amistar surface mount 'pick and place machine' which placed 17,000 
>components a hour, via its 'gattling gun' rotating head.

>This was way back in 1987, but looking back, that machine never locked 
>up, and never had any kind of software problems.

>It ran and ran, day after day making us *tons* of money.

>Microsoft will not be remembered for any innovation, but rather for the 
>way it held the computing world back 20 years..


Gotta give them credit.  In 2001 they finally brought out a file system with
70's technology.  Granted micro's lag, but I had HPFS in '93.  
It's possible that this year microsoft has finally embraced 60's technology
and protected the OS from it's users.  Hard to say given how easy it is for
a process (and malware) to do privilege escalation.  We'll have to see if
vista and vista7 become the disease magnets of previous MS operating systems.

Meanwhile they have all the innovation of a 33mhz 128K mac but requiring 8G
of ram and 10Ghz of cpu.

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:29:01 +0000, Enkidu wrote:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>>> You do have to navigate to a particular desktop, but then you can just
>>> open your apps/documents when you get there.
>>
>> Ah, just wait to "get there" without navigating to "there".  Good plan!
>> LOL!
> 
> Yeah, it is. Click on the little icon thingy and the software flips you
> to a different desktop. The default is two desktops. How can you lose
> something on two desktops? If you don't see it, you have to be pretty
> fucking dense to not know where it is.

If you don't see it, it crashed.

Oh, wait, that's Windows. :)

[snips]

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:43:33 -0600, Rick wrote:

>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>> 
>> For most people they are more of a problem than a benefit... too much
>> configuration with too little benefit.
> 
> There is very little configuration, and it is up to the individual to
> say if there is too little benefit.

In most desktop distros, there is in fact _zero_ configuration to be 
done; every such distro I have encountered to date has at least two such 
workspaces set up by default.  Applications simply launch in whichever is 
active.

You _can_ configure things if you like, such as apps opening in specific 
workspaces, how many WS you have, whether each WS has its own "look and 
feel", etc, but to simply use WS involves no configuration whatsoever.

>> This is *not* to say that there are not a significant number of people
>> who do benefit from having the feature, and adding it would not be a
>> mistake, as long as it is not pushed on users.  And as long as it is
>> done well -
> 
> .. as it is done well on every Linux distro I have seen.

One wonders if he isn't used to some half-assed offering which kinda, 
sorta, almost works, such as has been the case, historically, for tools 
offering this sort of thing on XP.  There, you _did_ have to download an 
app, set it up, often jump through hoops to override an app's innate 
tendency to think it should control the desktop - and thus override 
whatever WS you sent it to - and so forth.

Rick stated in post IfadnU352ezaVAzWnZ2dnUVZ_t40AAAA@supernews.com on 3/5/10
8:17 PM:

> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:43:54 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Enkidu stated in post 20100306023039.4196.97409.XPN@nogodhere.net on
>> 3/5/10 7:30 PM:
>> 
>>> Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> It is true that you have to somehow or another indicate what app is
>>>>> to go to what desktop - what did you have in mind as an alternative?
>>>>> ESP? -
>>>> 
>>>> Right - there is no way to use it without configuring what windows you
>>>> want to go to what desktop. No doubt.  And this is an added level of
>>>> abstraction.
>>> 
>>> It's as abstract a a two-sided piece of paper!
>> 
>> Well, a virtual two-sided paper.  With lots of windows on each side.
>> 
>>> If what you wrote on it
>>> isn't facing up, it doesn't take much to know it's on the other side.
>> 
>> You and I are techies.
> 
> Enkidu might be. You? aha hah aHAh ahha HAha haha ha ...

Ah, another grade school comment by Rick.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post IfadnVL52eyNVAzWnZ2dnUVZ_t6pnZ2d@supernews.com on 3/5/10
8:16 PM:

> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:44:55 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> ray stated in post 7vdsoeF9mvU2@mid.individual.net on 3/5/10 7:25 PM:
>> 
>>>>>> Seems odd, in the face of that, for you to claim your contradictory
>>>>>> statements show a greater understanding than my consistent ones...
>>>>>> ones you sometimes show agreement with.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, your position now is that opening apps or a document in a
>>>>> workspace is configuring it. And you expect to be taken seriously.
>>>>> Sheesh.
>>>> 
>>>> When you have to jump from space to space in order to set up what apps
>>>> are opening in each space, as you note you do, then, sure, that is
>>>> setting it up... configuring.  How could it not be?  Remember, I even
>>>> quoted the definition of the word to you.
>>>> 
>>>> Here, maybe this will help you: if you do not configure what windows
>>>> are in each virtual desktop, then who or what does?  Is it arbitrarily
>>>> set by the system?  I hope *not*!
>>> 
>>> So what the hell is your point? According to your definitions, every
>>> workspace will always have to be 'configured'.
>> 
>> If not by the user, by someone.  Of course.  As you seem to get, this is
>> a simple point that only an idiot would argue against.
> 
> So, it is now your position that the workspace in OS X has to be
> configured.

Spaces does... if used.  Sure.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post IfadnVP52ex5VQzWnZ2dnUVZ_t40AAAA@supernews.com on 3/5/10
8:15 PM:

> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:44:30 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Rick stated in post c7idnbePuIaUOQzWnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@supernews.com on
>> 3/5/10 5:38 PM:
>> 
>> ...
>>>> More of your grade school insults - as you ignore the fact you flip
>>>> flopped. Here:
>>>> 
>>>>   Rick: denying you have to configure virtual desktops
>>>>     -----
>>>>     You don't have to do any configuring of what windows go where.
>>>>     -----
>>>> 
>>>>   Rick: describing the most common method of configuring virtual
>>>>   desktops
>>>>     -----
>>>>     Navigate to the virtual desktop and open the app/document. -----
>>>> 
>>>> And the funny part is the second quote was written *directly* after
>>>> the first.  Same post.  Same paragraph.
>>> 
>>> So, by your reasoning, every desktop has to be configured. Interesting.
>> 
>> You have to set (configure) what programs open on what desktop.
> 
> No, you don't.

Well, you can just not use the feature.  Sorry you missed that implication.

.... 
>> And I bet you cannot find a single counter example where I have refused
>> to admit something when I was shown to be wrong.
> 
> You usually refuse to admit you are wrong.

Yet you cannot find a single example.
> 
>> 
>> ...
>>>>   Rick: denying you have to configure virtual desktops
>>>>     -----
>>>>     You don't have to do any configuring of what windows go where.
>>>>     -----
>>>> 
>>>>   Rick: describing the most common method of configuring virtual
>>>>   desktops
>>>>     -----
>>>>     Navigate to the virtual desktop and open the app/document. -----
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Why, then, do the facts support my view and not yours?
>>> 
>>> They don't.
>> 
>> Note: you are not making a point, you are merely nay-saying.
> 
> I am disputing your statement.

You are nay-saying.  This is like a Monty Python skit.  :)

I paid for an argument and you are merely nay-saying!  LOL!

> 
>> 
>>>> Seems odd, in the face of that, for you to claim your contradictory
>>>> statements show a greater understanding than my consistent ones...
>>>> ones you sometimes show agreement with.
>>> 
>>> So, your position now is that opening apps or a document in a workspace
>>> is configuring it. And you expect to be taken seriously. Sheesh.
>> 
>> When you have to jump from space to space in order to set up what apps
>> are opening in each space, as you note you do, then, sure, that is
>> setting it up... configuring.  How could it not be?  Remember, I even
>> quoted the definition of the word to you.
> 
> Yo don't have set anything up. You merely open whatever application you
> want to use.
>
>> Here, maybe this will help you: if you do not configure what windows are
>> in each virtual desktop, then who or what does?  Is it arbitrarily set
>> by the system?  I hope *not*!
> 
> And, AGAIN, you can merely open whatever app or document you want. Any
> application can be opened from any virtual workspace.

Has anyone said otherwise?  You repeat things that are not in contention a
lot... because you cannot support your view.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post IfadnVD52eyKVQzWnZ2dnUVZ_t6pnZ2d@supernews.com on 3/5/10
8:12 PM:

> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:45:34 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Rick stated in post c7idnbaPuIazOQzWnZ2dnUVZ_j4AAAAA@supernews.com on
>> 3/5/10 5:39 PM:
>> 
>>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:21:28 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Rick stated in post rfGdnUJXu839HAzWnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@supernews.com on
>>>> 3/5/10 3:10 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:48:52 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rick stated in post DK-dnZLl3bSY5gzWnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@supernews.com
>>>>>> on 3/5/10 2:43 PM:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:11:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> RonB stated in post hmq3jl$51j$1@news.eternal-september.org on
>>>>>>>> 3/4/10 10:08 PM:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop.
>>>>>>>>> I don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> For most people they are more of a problem than a benefit... too
>>>>>>>> much configuration with too little benefit.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> There is very little configuration, and it is up to the individual
>>>>>>> to say if there is too little benefit.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Gee, Rick, you mean for some people it will be worth it... like I
>>>>>> said. Man, thanks for the response!  It shows you actually
>>>>>> understand what you read!
>>>>> 
>>>>> ... as opposed to you ...
>>>> 
>>>> Ah, it's another grade school put down day for Rick!
>>>> 
>>>>>>>> This is *not* to say that there are not a significant number of
>>>>>>>> people who do benefit from having the feature, and adding it would
>>>>>>>> not be a mistake, as long as it is not pushed on users.  And as
>>>>>>>> long as it is done well -
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> .. as it is done well on every Linux distro I have seen.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Goodie!  Then again, you refuse to admit to anything done poorly, so
>>>>>> really, your opinion is of little value.  But thanks for sharing!
>>>>> 
>>>>> I wish you would stop sharing your lies.
>>>> 
>>>> And more grade school BS from Rick.  Just another day for Rick... oh
>>>> well.
>>> 
>>> You lie. A lot. It is tiresome.
>>> 
>>> 
>> You keep making accusations you cannot support.  By all means, try to
>> quote some comment of mine which you think is a lie... and then show why
>> you think it is a lie.
>> 
>> We have played this game in the past - and you have failed *every* time.
>> And you will again, now.
> 
> Yes, we've played that game before. I point out your lies. You deny them.
> I'm not playing it now. Go ahead have your little game.

You cannot point to a single lie of mine... but you accuse me of lying
often.  Hence, you are a liar.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Enkidu stated in post 20100306025910.8540.43427.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/5/10
7:59 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> Enkidu stated in post 20100306022318.4196.57481.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/5/10
>> 7:23 PM:
>> 
>>> Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I am not suggesting this is hard for you
>>>> - but for the general user, once it is off screen it is pretty much gone.
>>> 
>>> You associate with some mighty stupid people if this is what they're
>>> like.
>> 
>> Ah, calling general users "mighty stupid"... yeah, that makes you look
>> clever.  LOL!
> 
> The general users I know are not too stupid to understand workspaces. My
> daugher grasped it at nine. It took me all of five seconds to show her.

Does not change the fact you called general users "mighty stupid" in your
argument.  This only makes you look silly.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Enkidu stated in post 20100306024704.4196.67423.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/5/10
7:47 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> Enkidu stated in post 20100306021814.4196.24481.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/5/10
>> 7:18 PM:
>> 
>>> Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I don't
>>>>> know how I would get along without them now.
>>>> 
>>>> For most people they are more of a problem than a benefit... too much
>>>> configuration with too little benefit.
>>> 
>>> Right click, add to taskbar. Right click on the taskbar icon if you want
>>> to alter the number of workspaces. What's to configure?
>> 
>> Who other than the user configures what window goes to what space?
> 
> How can anybody be so stupit? Either you *are* as dumb as a bag of
> nails, or you simply can't leave an argument you lost.

You are not answering my question.

> Her's one for you: "Who other than the use configures what window goes
> on the only workspace if there's only one workspace?"

Nobody!

> It's the same thing, you drooling numbskull!

It is *my* contention that it is nobody other than the user who makes such
choices. In the case of one workspace, of course there is no choice -
nothing to configure - in terms of what workspace that is.  You can set
where each window is.

>  Open a winow, and it opens
> in the open workspace, no matter how many workspaces you have availible.

Has anyone said otherwise?  If so, can you quote them?  I have made it very
clear I understand that common method of configuration... while you deny any
configuration is needed.  Odd how you now describe the configuration you
deny has to be done.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:51:30 -0500, Moshe wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 05:08:06 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
> 
>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
> 
> No.
> 
> Instead we have Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, Nuendo etc and dual
> monitors working out of the box.

I don't use (nor have I ever used) any of these programs and I only use 
one monitor (switched between two computers) so, no worries. But I do like 
my workspaces -- and they come working OUT OF BOX in Linux. Wonderful.
 
> However if you would like workspaces under Windows 7, Google is your
> friend.

Too much bother. Besides, Windows 7 bloatware wouldn't work on on my 
computer even if I got a lobotomy and wanted it to -- and that's just the 
Malware Magnet OS itself, *before* downloading and installing all the 
necessary anti-malware programs.

> Then you can have workspaces and use all of those professional quality
> applications as well !

Not on my computer. Not only can it *not* run Windows 7, it doesn't want 
to install that crippleware.
 
> Something that *can't* be done under Linux.

All that "quality" malware won't run on my computer either. Poor, poor me.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:18:16 +0000, Enkidu wrote:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>
>> For most people they are more of a problem than a benefit... too much
>> configuration with too little benefit.
> 
> Right click, add to taskbar. Right click on the taskbar icon if you want
> to alter the number of workspaces. What's to configure?

For most people workspaces are "more of a problem than a benefit?" What a 
load of horseshit. Most people don't even configure them. Their 
distributions come with four workspaces and they use four workspaces. I 
guess when the concept of "folders" is difficult, everything else must be 
also.

It's amazing how unnecessary useful features can be when Windows (and 
apparently Macs) don't have them.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:52:03 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:

> On 3/5/2010 6:45 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Rex Ballard pulled this Usenet boner:
>>
>>> Xerox patented the "Virtual Desktop" and the various forms of "desktop
>>> switcher" for X11.  They contributed to the X11 project as Open
>>> Source, but do not permit Microsoft to use it - until they settle up
>>> for some of the other technologies they took without paying.
>>
>> Did Apple "settle up", then?
>>
>>
> It is often folly to treat anything that Rex posts as factual.
> Regardless of the details of this myth, any patent issued to Xerox would
> have expired more than a decade ago.  IIRC, there never were any patent
> issues with GUI developments.  The legal issues surrounded the notion of
> copyright of "look and feel" that was dismissed by the courts almost 20
> years ago and resulted in the dismissal of Apple's actions against
> Microsoft.

So why doesn't Microsoft add workspaces to Windows? Or do you believe, 
like Snit, that they are "more trouble than they're worth?"

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:29:01 +0000, Enkidu wrote:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>>> You do have to navigate to a particular desktop, but then you can just
>>> open your apps/documents when you get there.
>>
>> Ah, just wait to "get there" without navigating to "there".  Good plan!
>> LOL!
> 
> Yeah, it is. Click on the little icon thingy and the software flips you
> to a different desktop. The default is two desktops. How can you lose
> something on two desktops? If you don't see it, you have to be pretty
> fucking dense to not know where it is.

Snit has trouble with the concept of "folders." He probably really, (and 
honestly) is this "challenged." 

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:30:41 +0000, Enkidu wrote:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>>> It is true that you have to somehow or another indicate what app is to
>>> go to what desktop - what did you have in mind as an alternative? ESP?
>>> -
>>
>> Right - there is no way to use it without configuring what windows you
>> want to go to what desktop. No doubt.  And this is an added level of
>> abstraction.
> 
> It's as abstract a a two-sided piece of paper! If what you wrote on it
> isn't facing up, it doesn't take much to know it's on the other side.

This is amusing. I almost wish I didn't have Snit killfiled right now. He 
really does find the concept of workspaces "challenging." I guess, in some 
abstract way, the concept of workspaces is a lot like folders -- and those 
are the universe's great mystery to Snit.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:13:04 -0600, Rick wrote:

> Why do you insist on your passive aggressive crap?

Snit is aggressively stupid! 

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0

RonB stated in post hmsq62$d4q$4@news.eternal-september.org on 3/5/10 10:45
PM:

> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:29:01 +0000, Enkidu wrote:
> 
>> Snit wrote:
>> 
>>>> You do have to navigate to a particular desktop, but then you can just
>>>> open your apps/documents when you get there.
>>> 
>>> Ah, just wait to "get there" without navigating to "there".  Good plan!
>>> LOL!
>> 
>> Yeah, it is. Click on the little icon thingy and the software flips you
>> to a different desktop. The default is two desktops. How can you lose
>> something on two desktops? If you don't see it, you have to be pretty
>> fucking dense to not know where it is.
> 
> Snit has trouble with the concept of "folders."

A claim you made up and will never support.

> He probably really, (and honestly) is this "challenged."

Ah, you call it "challenged" to understand that you have to actually set
things up on a computer... they are not psychic.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

RonB stated in post hmsppj$d4q$3@news.eternal-september.org on 3/5/10 10:38
PM:

> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:52:03 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
> 
>> On 3/5/2010 6:45 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> Rex Ballard pulled this Usenet boner:
>>> 
>>>> Xerox patented the "Virtual Desktop" and the various forms of "desktop
>>>> switcher" for X11.  They contributed to the X11 project as Open
>>>> Source, but do not permit Microsoft to use it - until they settle up
>>>> for some of the other technologies they took without paying.
>>> 
>>> Did Apple "settle up", then?
>>> 
>>> 
>> It is often folly to treat anything that Rex posts as factual.
>> Regardless of the details of this myth, any patent issued to Xerox would
>> have expired more than a decade ago.  IIRC, there never were any patent
>> issues with GUI developments.  The legal issues surrounded the notion of
>> copyright of "look and feel" that was dismissed by the courts almost 20
>> years ago and resulted in the dismissal of Apple's actions against
>> Microsoft.
> 
> So why doesn't Microsoft add workspaces to Windows? Or do you believe,
> like Snit, that they are "more trouble than they're worth?"

I would not be against MS adding them to Windows, if done well.

But do not let facts get in the way of your stories about me.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

RonB stated in post hmspm9$d4q$2@news.eternal-september.org on 3/5/10 10:37
PM:

> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:18:16 +0000, Enkidu wrote:
> 
>> Snit wrote:
>> 
>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>> 
>>> For most people they are more of a problem than a benefit... too much
>>> configuration with too little benefit.
>> 
>> Right click, add to taskbar. Right click on the taskbar icon if you want
>> to alter the number of workspaces. What's to configure?
> 
> For most people workspaces are "more of a problem than a benefit?" What a
> load of horseshit.

So you say.  Can you show any evidence?

> Most people don't even configure them. Their distributions come with four
> workspaces and they use four workspaces.

And who sets things up to have some windows on some workspaces and other
windows on other workspaces?  The computer by itself?  No... the user.

You act like this is a shock to you.

> I guess when the concept of "folders" is difficult, everything else must be
> also.

Many people who do not get computer folder are very bright... so your
comment is just silly, meant to bolster your own ego (and mine?) because we
know something not everyone does.

> It's amazing how unnecessary useful features can be when Windows (and
> apparently Macs) don't have them.

Macs have virtual desktops.  You really have no idea what you are talking
about.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

RonB stated in post hmsp8c$d4q$1@news.eternal-september.org on 3/5/10 10:29
PM:

> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:51:30 -0500, Moshe wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 05:08:06 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>> 
>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>> 
>> No.
>> 
>> Instead we have Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, Nuendo etc and dual
>> monitors working out of the box.
> 
> I don't use (nor have I ever used) any of these programs and I only use
> one monitor (switched between two computers) so, no worries. But I do like
> my workspaces -- and they come working OUT OF BOX in Linux. Wonderful.

The fact you have not used such software helps explain why you are satisfied
with OSS software.  You have no comparison basis.  By the way, workspaces
come out of the box on OS X, too.
 
>> However if you would like workspaces under Windows 7, Google is your
>> friend.
> 
> Too much bother. 

Google is not hard to use.  Really.

> Besides, Windows 7 bloatware wouldn't work on on my computer even if I got a
> lobotomy and wanted it to -- and that's just the Malware Magnet OS itself,
> *before* downloading and installing all the necessary anti-malware programs.

Sour grapes.  Clearly.

>> Then you can have workspaces and use all of those professional quality
>> applications as well !
> 
> Not on my computer. Not only can it *not* run Windows 7, it doesn't want
> to install that crippleware.

See: sour grapes.

>> Something that *can't* be done under Linux.
> 
> All that "quality" malware won't run on my computer either. Poor, poor me.



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

RonB stated in post hmsqb8$d4q$5@news.eternal-september.org on 3/5/10 10:48
PM:

> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:30:41 +0000, Enkidu wrote:
> 
>> Snit wrote:
>> 
>>>> It is true that you have to somehow or another indicate what app is to
>>>> go to what desktop - what did you have in mind as an alternative? ESP?
>>>> -
>>> 
>>> Right - there is no way to use it without configuring what windows you
>>> want to go to what desktop. No doubt.  And this is an added level of
>>> abstraction.
>> 
>> It's as abstract a a two-sided piece of paper! If what you wrote on it
>> isn't facing up, it doesn't take much to know it's on the other side.
> 
> This is amusing. I almost wish I didn't have Snit killfiled right now.

It is not hard on most software to add and remove kill filters.  Do you need
some help?

> He really does find the concept of workspaces "challenging."

Where have I ever said that?  I have said I do not really like them, but
where have I said I could not use them.  Maybe you are thinking of my noting
OS X, when it first added the feature, did so poorly and made the
implementation challenging?

More likely you are just lying - not even thinking you read me say that
anywhere.  

> I guess, in some abstract way, the concept of workspaces is a lot like folders
> -- and those are the universe's great mystery to Snit.

Ah, you are just lying.  Why do you lie so much?


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:23:20 +0000, Enkidu wrote:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> I am not suggesting this is hard for you - but for the general user,
>> once it is off screen it is pretty much gone.
> 
> You associate with some mighty stupid people if this is what they're
> like.

Man, Snit *really* does have trouble with this concept. I already knew 
that folders are confusing to him -- and now, I find, so are workspaces. 
For most people the concept of gathering "like" items in one place is no 
conceptual problem at all. I've got my web browser here, my word processor 
there, my terminal over there... Apparently not so with Snit. And I 
honestly think he honestly thinks that most people are as challenged by 
the concept of workspaces as he is.

For most people there is *no* issue, Snit. As a matter of fact, workspaces 
are a very convenient way to organize your desktop... as simple as the 
concept of using file folders... or organizing various types of clothes in 
chests of drawers. 

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0

RonB stated in post hmsqdp$d4q$6@news.eternal-september.org on 3/5/10 10:49
PM:

> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:13:04 -0600, Rick wrote:
> 
>> Why do you insist on your passive aggressive crap?
> 
> Snit is aggressively stupid!

You are the one who repeatedly lies about me... as I have called you on
several times just today.

And in response... silence.

You simply have no defense for you lies.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:23:20 +0000, Enkidu wrote:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> I am not suggesting this is hard for you - but for the general user,
>> once it is off screen it is pretty much gone.
> 
> You associate with some mighty stupid people if this is what they're
> like.

I think Snit really does have a problem here. Which might explain his 
issues with folders or directories.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0

RonB stated in post hmsqv9$d4q$7@news.eternal-september.org on 3/5/10 10:59
PM:

> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:23:20 +0000, Enkidu wrote:
> 
>> Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> I am not suggesting this is hard for you - but for the general user,
>>> once it is off screen it is pretty much gone.
>> 
>> You associate with some mighty stupid people if this is what they're
>> like.
> 
> Man, Snit *really* does have trouble with this concept.

Nope.

> I already knew that folders are confusing to him -- and now, I find, so are
> workspaces. 

You have repeated this same lie many times today.  You claim to have me kill
filed, yet repeatedly beg for my attention by telling such lies.

Hence, it is clear you are lying about having me kill filed - if you did,
you would not beg so much.

> For most people the concept of gathering "like" items in one place
> is no conceptual problem at all. I've got my web browser here, my word
> processor there, my terminal over there... Apparently not so with Snit.

I do not use virtual desktops... but I have in the past.

> And I honestly think he honestly thinks that most people are as challenged by
> the concept of workspaces as he is.
> 
> For most people there is *no* issue, Snit. As a matter of fact, workspaces are
> a very convenient way to organize your desktop... as simple as the concept of
> using file folders... or organizing various types of clothes in chests of
> drawers. 

If you really believed I was wrong about virtual desktops you would not
repeatedly change the topic to be lies about me.  Not even you believe your
drivel.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

RonB stated in post hmsr0t$d4q$8@news.eternal-september.org on 3/5/10 10:59
PM:

> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:23:20 +0000, Enkidu wrote:
> 
>> Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> I am not suggesting this is hard for you - but for the general user,
>>> once it is off screen it is pretty much gone.
>> 
>> You associate with some mighty stupid people if this is what they're
>> like.
> 
> I think Snit really does have a problem here. Which might explain his
> issues with folders or directories.

You are just begging for attention today.  Kinda sad.  Oh, and proves you
are lying about having me kill filed.

So, since we now know you are reading my posts, why not actually talk about
the topic and not just dodge with absurd accusations?

Oh. 

You are not secure enough in your own views for that.  Fair enough - you do
not believe yourself either.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:37:13 -0800, nessuno wrote:

> On Mar 4, 9:08 pm, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>
>> --
>> RonB
>> Registered Linux User #498581
>> CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
> 
> Whether it's available or not in Windows or OS/X, most users don't have
> it.  In my experience, they're always amazed when they come to Linux and
> see how convenient the desktop switcher is (under Gnome or KDE, anyway).

And Xfce -- which is what I mostly use now. It amazes me that other OSes 
don't have something this useful. The reason it hit me is that I had to do 
some clean-up work on my wife's computer (XP). In Linux, if I'm starting 
something not related to anything else that I'm doing -- I just 
automatically go to an empty workspace. It was kind of weird not having 
that option on XP. So I was honestly wondering if Microsoft had "seen the 
light" in Windows 7. I can't even imagine *not* using this feature.

Rex's explanation made sense to me, because a patent restriction is the 
*only* thing that would make sense in explaining their absence in Windows. 

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0

RonB stated in post hmsrd5$d4q$9@news.eternal-september.org on 3/5/10 11:06
PM:

> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:37:13 -0800, nessuno wrote:
> 
>> On Mar 4, 9:08�pm, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> RonB
>>> Registered Linux User #498581
>>> CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
>> 
>> Whether it's available or not in Windows or OS/X, most users don't have
>> it.  In my experience, they're always amazed when they come to Linux and
>> see how convenient the desktop switcher is (under Gnome or KDE, anyway).
> 
> And Xfce -- which is what I mostly use now. It amazes me that other OSes
> don't have something this useful. The reason it hit me is that I had to do
> some clean-up work on my wife's computer (XP). In Linux, if I'm starting
> something not related to anything else that I'm doing -- I just
> automatically go to an empty workspace. It was kind of weird not having
> that option on XP. So I was honestly wondering if Microsoft had "seen the
> light" in Windows 7. I can't even imagine *not* using this feature.
> 
> Rex's explanation made sense to me, because a patent restriction is the
> *only* thing that would make sense in explaining their absence in Windows.

Other than the fact that most people would find it more of a detriment than
a benefit... you did mean that, right?


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:53:57 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post IfadnVP52ex5VQzWnZ2dnUVZ_t40AAAA@supernews.com on
> 3/5/10 8:15 PM:
> 
>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:44:30 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Rick stated in post c7idnbePuIaUOQzWnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@supernews.com on
>>> 3/5/10 5:38 PM:
>>> 
>>> ...
>>>>> More of your grade school insults - as you ignore the fact you flip
>>>>> flopped. Here:
>>>>> 
>>>>>   Rick: denying you have to configure virtual desktops
>>>>>     -----
>>>>>     You don't have to do any configuring of what windows go where.
>>>>>     -----
>>>>> 
>>>>>   Rick: describing the most common method of configuring virtual
>>>>>   desktops
>>>>>     -----
>>>>>     Navigate to the virtual desktop and open the app/document. -----
>>>>> 
>>>>> And the funny part is the second quote was written *directly* after
>>>>> the first.  Same post.  Same paragraph.
>>>> 
>>>> So, by your reasoning, every desktop has to be configured.
>>>> Interesting.
>>> 
>>> You have to set (configure) what programs open on what desktop.
>> 
>> No, you don't.
> 
> Well, you can just not use the feature.  Sorry you missed that
> implication.

Yes, you can.

> 
> ...
>>> And I bet you cannot find a single counter example where I have
>>> refused to admit something when I was shown to be wrong.
>> 
>> You usually refuse to admit you are wrong.
> 
> Yet you cannot find a single example.

I have listed several in the past. I have identified several today. I amk 
not getting drawn into that Circus today.

>> 
>> 
>>> ...
>>>>>   Rick: denying you have to configure virtual desktops
>>>>>     -----
>>>>>     You don't have to do any configuring of what windows go where.
>>>>>     -----
>>>>> 
>>>>>   Rick: describing the most common method of configuring virtual
>>>>>   desktops
>>>>>     -----
>>>>>     Navigate to the virtual desktop and open the app/document. -----
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Why, then, do the facts support my view and not yours?
>>>> 
>>>> They don't.
>>> 
>>> Note: you are not making a point, you are merely nay-saying.
>> 
>> I am disputing your statement.
> 
> You are nay-saying.  This is like a Monty Python skit.  :)
> 
> I paid for an argument and you are merely nay-saying!  LOL!
> 
> 
>> 
>>>>> Seems odd, in the face of that, for you to claim your contradictory
>>>>> statements show a greater understanding than my consistent ones...
>>>>> ones you sometimes show agreement with.
>>>> 
>>>> So, your position now is that opening apps or a document in a
>>>> workspace is configuring it. And you expect to be taken seriously.
>>>> Sheesh.
>>> 
>>> When you have to jump from space to space in order to set up what apps
>>> are opening in each space, as you note you do, then, sure, that is
>>> setting it up... configuring.  How could it not be?  Remember, I even
>>> quoted the definition of the word to you.
>> 
>> Yo don't have set anything up. You merely open whatever application you
>> want to use.
>>
>>> Here, maybe this will help you: if you do not configure what windows
>>> are in each virtual desktop, then who or what does?  Is it arbitrarily
>>> set by the system?  I hope *not*!
>> 
>> And, AGAIN, you can merely open whatever app or document you want. Any
>> application can be opened from any virtual workspace.
> 
> Has anyone said otherwise?  You repeat things that are not in contention
> a lot... because you cannot support your view.

Thank for agreeing no configuration is necessary.

-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post etCdnWbJW9RSnQ_WnZ2dnUVZ_rCsnZ2d@supernews.com on 3/6/10
12:14 AM:

....
>>>> You have to set (configure) what programs open on what desktop.
>>> 
>>> No, you don't.
>> 
>> Well, you can just not use the feature.  Sorry you missed that
>> implication.
> 
> Yes, you can.

Ok, I will bite... how do you use virtual desktops without setting some
windows to use specific windows?  Hmmm... I will grant you can use it to
hide all windows... please tell me you are not being that silly.

As far as the rest of the post:

* You insist I have refused to admit I am wrong when it has been
  shown I am - but you cannot find a single example.

* You lied about my view: "Thank for agreeing no configuration
  is necessary."  Of note, I did no such thing... I was noting
  that configuration is needed, specifically in reference to being
  able to open any app or document in any virtual workspace you
  want (set by the user... not the system).
> 
>> 
>> ...
>>>> And I bet you cannot find a single counter example where I have
>>>> refused to admit something when I was shown to be wrong.
>>> 
>>> You usually refuse to admit you are wrong.
>> 
>> Yet you cannot find a single example.
> 
> I have listed several in the past. I have identified several today. I amk
> not getting drawn into that Circus today.
> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> ...
>>>>>>   Rick: denying you have to configure virtual desktops
>>>>>>     -----
>>>>>>     You don't have to do any configuring of what windows go where.
>>>>>>     -----
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   Rick: describing the most common method of configuring virtual
>>>>>>   desktops
>>>>>>     -----
>>>>>>     Navigate to the virtual desktop and open the app/document. -----
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Why, then, do the facts support my view and not yours?
>>>>> 
>>>>> They don't.
>>>> 
>>>> Note: you are not making a point, you are merely nay-saying.
>>> 
>>> I am disputing your statement.
>> 
>> You are nay-saying.  This is like a Monty Python skit.  :)
>> 
>> I paid for an argument and you are merely nay-saying!  LOL!
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>>>> Seems odd, in the face of that, for you to claim your contradictory
>>>>>> statements show a greater understanding than my consistent ones...
>>>>>> ones you sometimes show agreement with.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, your position now is that opening apps or a document in a
>>>>> workspace is configuring it. And you expect to be taken seriously.
>>>>> Sheesh.
>>>> 
>>>> When you have to jump from space to space in order to set up what apps
>>>> are opening in each space, as you note you do, then, sure, that is
>>>> setting it up... configuring.  How could it not be?  Remember, I even
>>>> quoted the definition of the word to you.
>>> 
>>> Yo don't have set anything up. You merely open whatever application you
>>> want to use.
>>> 
>>>> Here, maybe this will help you: if you do not configure what windows
>>>> are in each virtual desktop, then who or what does?  Is it arbitrarily
>>>> set by the system?  I hope *not*!
>>> 
>>> And, AGAIN, you can merely open whatever app or document you want. Any
>>> application can be opened from any virtual workspace.
>> 
>> Has anyone said otherwise?  You repeat things that are not in contention
>> a lot... because you cannot support your view.
> 
> Thank for agreeing no configuration is necessary.



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:22:28 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post etCdnWbJW9RSnQ_WnZ2dnUVZ_rCsnZ2d@supernews.com on
> 3/6/10 12:14 AM:
> 
> ...
>>>>> You have to set (configure) what programs open on what desktop.
>>>> 
>>>> No, you don't.
>>> 
>>> Well, you can just not use the feature.  Sorry you missed that
>>> implication.
>> 
>> Yes, you can.
> 
> Ok, I will bite... how do you use virtual desktops without setting some
> windows to use specific windows?  Hmmm... I will grant you can use it to
> hide all windows... please tell me you are not being that silly.

This has been explained to you before. navigate to a workspace.  Open 
your app or document. If you are using the first workspace, just open the 
app/document. No configuration needed..

> 
> As far as the rest of the post:

I am not interested in dealing with your lies.(snip)

-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post A5SdnVrSn4UhmA_WnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@supernews.com on 3/6/10
12:35 AM:

> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:22:28 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Rick stated in post etCdnWbJW9RSnQ_WnZ2dnUVZ_rCsnZ2d@supernews.com on
>> 3/6/10 12:14 AM:
>> 
>> ...
>>>>>> You have to set (configure) what programs open on what desktop.
>>>>> 
>>>>> No, you don't.
>>>> 
>>>> Well, you can just not use the feature.  Sorry you missed that
>>>> implication.
>>> 
>>> Yes, you can.
>> 
>> Ok, I will bite... how do you use virtual desktops without setting some
>> windows to use specific windows?  Hmmm... I will grant you can use it to
>> hide all windows... please tell me you are not being that silly.
> 
> This has been explained to you before. navigate to a workspace.  Open
> your app or document. If you are using the first workspace, just open the
> app/document. No configuration needed..

Other than what you just described.  Right.  Are you now saying you do not
consider such customized software arrangments as a configuration?

>> As far as the rest of the post:
> 
> I am not interested in dealing with your lies.(snip)

I discussed your lying.  And quoted it.  And you are not willing to admit to
your lie.  Here, again:

  Rick:
    Thank for agreeing no configuration is necessary.

I did no such thing.  Oh, and you still have not found a single example of
where I am wrong but will not admit to it, nor where I have been dishonest.

You just snip and run.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:40:34 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post A5SdnVrSn4UhmA_WnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@supernews.com on
> 3/6/10 12:35 AM:
> 
>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:22:28 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Rick stated in post etCdnWbJW9RSnQ_WnZ2dnUVZ_rCsnZ2d@supernews.com on
>>> 3/6/10 12:14 AM:
>>> 
>>> ...
>>>>>>> You have to set (configure) what programs open on what desktop.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> No, you don't.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Well, you can just not use the feature.  Sorry you missed that
>>>>> implication.
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, you can.
>>> 
>>> Ok, I will bite... how do you use virtual desktops without setting
>>> some windows to use specific windows?  Hmmm... I will grant you can
>>> use it to hide all windows... please tell me you are not being that
>>> silly.
>> 
>> This has been explained to you before. navigate to a workspace.  Open
>> your app or document. If you are using the first workspace, just open
>> the app/document. No configuration needed..
> 
> Other than what you just described.  Right.  Are you now saying you do
> not consider such customized software arrangments as a configuration?

I do not consider them customized software arrangements. Buttons or icons 
configured to open apps on specific workspaces are customized software 
arrangements.

> 
>>> As far as the rest of the post:
>> 
>> I am not interested in dealing with your lies.(snip)
> 
> I discussed your lying.  And quoted it.  And you are not willing to
> admit to your lie.  Here, again:
> 
>   Rick:
>     Thank for agreeing no configuration is necessary.
> 
> I did no such thing.

Thank for agreeing no configuration is necessary.

I am not interested in dealing with your lies.(snip)

-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post 5KydnUrLRcUslA_WnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@supernews.com on 3/6/10
12:52 AM:

.... 
>>> This has been explained to you before. navigate to a workspace.  Open
>>> your app or document. If you are using the first workspace, just open
>>> the app/document. No configuration needed..
>> 
>> Other than what you just described.  Right.  Are you now saying you do
>> not consider such customized software arrangments as a configuration?
> 
> I do not consider them customized software arrangements.

You are feigning ignorance again - there is no way you could not know you
can customize which windows are arranged on which virtual desktop.  I simply
do not believe you did not know that, given how you have repeatedly
described the process!

> Buttons or icons configured to open apps on specific workspaces are customized
> software arrangements.

Agreed.

> 
>> 
>>>> As far as the rest of the post:
>>> 
>>> I am not interested in dealing with your lies.(snip)
>> 
>> I discussed your lying.  And quoted it.  And you are not willing to
>> admit to your lie.  Here, again:
>> 
>>   Rick:
>>     Thank for agreeing no configuration is necessary.
>> 
>> I did no such thing.
> 
> Thank for agreeing no configuration is necessary.
> 
> I am not interested in dealing with your lies.(snip)

I have shown your lies... and you repeat them.  You are not even pretending
to do anything other than lie and run away now.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:55:38 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post 5KydnUrLRcUslA_WnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@supernews.com on
> 3/6/10 12:52 AM:
> 
> ...
>>>> This has been explained to you before. navigate to a workspace.  Open
>>>> your app or document. If you are using the first workspace, just open
>>>> the app/document. No configuration needed..
>>> 
>>> Other than what you just described.  Right.  Are you now saying you do
>>> not consider such customized software arrangments as a configuration?
>> 
>> I do not consider them customized software arrangements.
> 
> You are feigning ignorance again - 

"Feigning ignorance" is passive aggressive crap. You try to attack with 
out overt attacking. The question "Are you feigning ignorance" cannot be 
answered, and you know it. If a person says not, that implies the person 
is ignorant. If they say yes, they are admitting to willingly looking 
ignorant when they are not.

" there is no way you could not know
> you can customize which windows are arranged on which virtual desktop. 
> I simply do not believe you did not know that, given how you have
> repeatedly described the process!

See below for information on configuring buttons/icons to customize apps 
opening on specific desktops.
> 
>> Buttons or icons configured to open apps on specific workspaces are
>> customized software arrangements.
> 
> Agreed.

Buttons or icons configured to open apps on specific workspaces are 
customized software arrangements are not required to use virtual 
workspaces. I am surprised you do not know this.

> 
> 
>> 
>>>>> As far as the rest of the post:
>>>> 
>>>> I am not interested in dealing with your lies.(snip)
>>> 
>>> I discussed your lying.  And quoted it.  And you are not willing to
>>> admit to your lie.  Here, again:
>>> 
>>>   Rick:
>>>     Thank for agreeing no configuration is necessary.
>>> 
>>> I did no such thing.
>> 
>> Thank for agreeing no configuration is necessary.
>> 
>> I am not interested in dealing with your lies.(snip)
> 
> I have shown your lies... and you repeat them.  You are not even
> pretending to do anything other than lie and run away now.

I am not interested in dealing with your lies.

-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post 3dSdnfttVNYekA_WnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@supernews.com on 3/6/10
1:08 AM:

> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:55:38 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Rick stated in post 5KydnUrLRcUslA_WnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@supernews.com on
>> 3/6/10 12:52 AM:
>> 
>> ...
>>>>> This has been explained to you before. navigate to a workspace.  Open
>>>>> your app or document. If you are using the first workspace, just open
>>>>> the app/document. No configuration needed..
>>>> 
>>>> Other than what you just described.  Right.  Are you now saying you do
>>>> not consider such customized software arrangments as a configuration?
>>> 
>>> I do not consider them customized software arrangements.
>> 
>> You are feigning ignorance again - you can customize which windows are
>> arranged on which virtual desktop. I simply do not believe you did not know
>> that, given how you have repeatedly described the process!
> 
> See below for information on configuring buttons/icons to customize apps
> opening on specific desktops.

I would prefer to stick to the above... where you pretended to not know that
you can customize which windows are arranged on to what virtual desktops!
That is utterly BS... and being that you described how to do so, it is clear
you *know* it to be utter BS.

You, once again, are not even trying to stay consistent.

>>> Buttons or icons configured to open apps on specific workspaces are
>>> customized software arrangements.
>> 
>> Agreed.
> 
> Buttons or icons configured to open apps on specific workspaces are
> customized software arrangements are not required to use virtual
> workspaces. I am surprised you do not know this.

Huh?  When did I say that it was required?  You simply are making things up
now.

You just repeatedly make things up and attribute them to me.  You are
getting very boring... you are not even pretending to make a reasoned
argument.  All you want is attention.



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:08:35 -0600, Rick wrote:

> Buttons or icons configured to open apps on specific workspaces are
> customized software arrangements are not required to use virtual
> workspaces. I am surprised you do not know this.

You should never be surprised at what Snit doesn't know.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 10:17:03 +0000, RonB wrote:

> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:08:35 -0600, Rick wrote:
> 
>> Buttons or icons configured to open apps on specific workspaces are
>> customized software arrangements are not required to use virtual
>> workspaces. I am surprised you do not know this.
> 
> You should never be surprised at what Snit doesn't know.

I know. Ah, well.

-- 
Rick

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 01:16:37 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post 3dSdnfttVNYekA_WnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@supernews.com on
> 3/6/10 1:08 AM:
> 
>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:55:38 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Rick stated in post 5KydnUrLRcUslA_WnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@supernews.com on
>>> 3/6/10 12:52 AM:
>>> 
>>> ...
>>>>>> This has been explained to you before. navigate to a workspace. 
>>>>>> Open your app or document. If you are using the first workspace,
>>>>>> just open the app/document. No configuration needed..
>>>>> 
>>>>> Other than what you just described.  Right.  Are you now saying you
>>>>> do not consider such customized software arrangments as a
>>>>> configuration?
>>>> 
>>>> I do not consider them customized software arrangements.
>>> 
>>> You are feigning ignorance again - you can customize which windows are
>>> arranged on which virtual desktop. I simply do not believe you did not
>>> know that, given how you have repeatedly described the process!
>> 
>> See below for information on configuring buttons/icons to customize
>> apps opening on specific desktops.
> 
> I would prefer to stick to the above... where you pretended to not know
> that you can customize which windows are arranged on to what virtual

Snit lies detected, No use continuing. Have fun, Snit.

-- 
Rick

ray wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:51:30 -0500, Moshe wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 05:08:06 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>
>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Instead we have Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, Nuendo etc and
>> dual monitors working out of the box.
>>
>> However if you would like workspaces under Windows 7, Google is your
>> friend.
>>
>> Then you can have workspaces and use all of those professional
>> quality applications as well !
>>
>> Something that *can't* be done under Linux.
>
> 1. Don't need quicken - use kmymoney, gnucash, or moneydance.
> 2. Don't have a need for anything like rosetta stone, but I imagine it
> would run via WINE.
> 3. Don't need photoshop - use GIMP, ufraw, etc.
> 4. Don't need nuendo - not much into music editing, but there are a
> plethora of replacements.
> 5. never had any trouble using dual monitors in Linux.


What a wonderful sample of one, raytard.  Meanwhile, many tens of millions 
do need those professional apps.  And they can't get them - or anything 
approaching them - on the Linux crapware platform.

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 07:40:00 -0500, DFS wrote:

> ray wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:51:30 -0500, Moshe wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 05:08:06 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>>
>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> Instead we have Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, Nuendo etc and dual
>>> monitors working out of the box.
>>>
>>> However if you would like workspaces under Windows 7, Google is your
>>> friend.
>>>
>>> Then you can have workspaces and use all of those professional quality
>>> applications as well !
>>>
>>> Something that *can't* be done under Linux.
>>
>> 1. Don't need quicken - use kmymoney, gnucash, or moneydance. 2. Don't
>> have a need for anything like rosetta stone, but I imagine it would run
>> via WINE.
>> 3. Don't need photoshop - use GIMP, ufraw, etc. 4. Don't need nuendo -
>> not much into music editing, but there are a plethora of replacements.
>> 5. never had any trouble using dual monitors in Linux.
> 
> 
> What a wonderful sample of one, raytard.  Meanwhile, many tens of
> millions do need those professional apps.  And they can't get them - or
> anything approaching them - on the Linux crapware platform.

Since "the Linux crapware platform" doesn't exist, your point does not 
exist.

-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post 3dSdnfVtVNYN1A_WnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@supernews.com on 3/6/10
5:24 AM:

> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 01:16:37 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Rick stated in post 3dSdnfttVNYekA_WnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@supernews.com on
>> 3/6/10 1:08 AM:
>> 
>>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:55:38 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Rick stated in post 5KydnUrLRcUslA_WnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@supernews.com on
>>>> 3/6/10 12:52 AM:
>>>> 
>>>> ...
>>>>>>> This has been explained to you before. navigate to a workspace.
>>>>>>> Open your app or document. If you are using the first workspace,
>>>>>>> just open the app/document. No configuration needed..
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Other than what you just described.  Right.  Are you now saying you
>>>>>> do not consider such customized software arrangments as a
>>>>>> configuration?
>>>>> 
>>>>> I do not consider them customized software arrangements.
>>>> 
>>>> You are feigning ignorance again - you can customize which windows are
>>>> arranged on which virtual desktop. I simply do not believe you did not
>>>> know that, given how you have repeatedly described the process!
>>> 
>>> See below for information on configuring buttons/icons to customize
>>> apps opening on specific desktops.
>> 
>> I would prefer to stick to the above... where you pretended to not know
>> that you can customize which windows are arranged on to what virtual
> 
> Snit lies detected, No use continuing. Have fun, Snit.

Are you saying you now *do* know you can customize the arrangement of
windows on virtual desktops?  I hope so... being that doing so is the whole
point of the feature!

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

RonB stated in post hmta2v$ll5$1@news.eternal-september.org on 3/6/10 3:17
AM:

> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:08:35 -0600, Rick wrote:
> 
>> Buttons or icons configured to open apps on specific workspaces are
>> customized software arrangements are not required to use virtual
>> workspaces. I am surprised you do not know this.
> 
> You should never be surprised at what Snit doesn't know.

You should not be surprised that Rick made that up.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post 3dSdnfptVNbR1A_WnZ2dnUVZ_usAAAAA@supernews.com on 3/6/10
5:23 AM:

> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 10:17:03 +0000, RonB wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:08:35 -0600, Rick wrote:
>> 
>>> Buttons or icons configured to open apps on specific workspaces are
>>> customized software arrangements are not required to use virtual
>>> workspaces. I am surprised you do not know this.
>> 
>> You should never be surprised at what Snit doesn't know.
> 
> I know. Ah, well.

Except you merely made it up.

It is amazing how often this happens... the topic should be technology -
workspaces / virtual desktops in this case.  You know you have no point to
make (you keep contradicting yourself and saying there is no configuration
and then explaining how to configure them), so you change the topic to silly
insults and accusations and clearly dishonest stories about me.

When this is pointed out you accuse me of lying... but, look above, *your*
quote... *nothing* about the topic.... *nothing* about what I said... just a
silly story you made up to try to put me on the defensive and to move the
goal post away from actually talking about technology.

You know you have nothing of value to say about technology, hence your
attacks.

So... to pull the topic back to virtual desktops: the point of the feature
is to allow users to customize what windows go where.  Without the ability
to set that to the *users* desires the feature has little value... if any.
You cannot automate this.  To be of any value, the user must configure this.

Must.

There is no reasonable counter argument... unless you can point to an
implementation were the computer decides for the user.  Hmmm, maybe OS X's
"Dashboard"... it could be said to be a second "desktop" or workspace... one
where the general user does not get to decide what workspace widgets go on
(though it is not hard to pull widgets off of it for a more advances user).

Hey... I think that works... an example of a workspaces where the
configuration is pre-set and generally not configured by the user.  On OS X.
Not desktop Linux.  Does any distro have such a no-config-needed secondary
workspace?


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 3/5/2010 10:34 PM, AZ Nomad wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:10:34 -0600, Terry Porter<linux-2@netspace.net.au>  wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:06:17 +0000, White Spirit wrote:
>
>>> On 05/03/2010 17:02, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>
>>>> OS/2 2.x and up where *very* different beasts, and way ahead of
>>>> anything MS has shown to this date
>>>
>>> CP/M is still well ahead in terms of stability.
>
>
>> I used to have a 16bit Zilog Z8000 CPU running CP/M and powering a
>> Amistar surface mount 'pick and place machine' which placed 17,000
>> components a hour, via its 'gattling gun' rotating head.
>
>> This was way back in 1987, but looking back, that machine never locked
>> up, and never had any kind of software problems.
>
>> It ran and ran, day after day making us *tons* of money.
>
>> Microsoft will not be remembered for any innovation, but rather for the
>> way it held the computing world back 20 years..
>
>
> Gotta give them credit.  In 2001 they finally brought out a file system with
> 70's technology.  Granted micro's lag, but I had HPFS in '93.
> It's possible that this year microsoft has finally embraced 60's technology
> and protected the OS from it's users.  Hard to say given how easy it is for
> a process (and malware) to do privilege escalation.  We'll have to see if
> vista and vista7 become the disease magnets of previous MS operating systems.
>
> Meanwhile they have all the innovation of a 33mhz 128K mac but requiring 8G
> of ram and 10Ghz of cpu.
>

As they say, "You gotta know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em!" 
You pooh-pooh Microsoft for being late with some developments, and you 
point to various long-dead products as examples of how Microsoft, the 
most financially successful company in the history of the world and the 
provider of products used by more people on earth than any other company 
as evidence of Microsoft's lack of skills.

Have you any idea how silly that makes you look?

amicus_curious wrote:
> On 3/5/2010 10:34 PM, AZ Nomad wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:10:34 -0600, Terry
>> Porter<linux-2@netspace.net.au>  wrote:
>>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:06:17 +0000, White Spirit wrote:
>>
>>>> On 05/03/2010 17:02, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> OS/2 2.x and up where *very* different beasts, and way ahead of
>>>>> anything MS has shown to this date
>>>>
>>>> CP/M is still well ahead in terms of stability.
>>
>>
>>> I used to have a 16bit Zilog Z8000 CPU running CP/M and powering a
>>> Amistar surface mount 'pick and place machine' which placed 17,000
>>> components a hour, via its 'gattling gun' rotating head.
>>
>>> This was way back in 1987, but looking back, that machine never
>>> locked up, and never had any kind of software problems.
>>
>>> It ran and ran, day after day making us *tons* of money.
>>
>>> Microsoft will not be remembered for any innovation, but rather for
>>> the way it held the computing world back 20 years..
>>
>>
>> Gotta give them credit.  In 2001 they finally brought out a file
>> system with 70's technology.  Granted micro's lag, but I had HPFS in
>> '93. It's possible that this year microsoft has finally embraced 60's
>> technology and protected the OS from it's users.  Hard to say given how 
>> easy it
>> is for a process (and malware) to do privilege escalation.  We'll have to
>> see if vista and vista7 become the disease magnets of previous MS 
>> operating
>> systems. Meanwhile they have all the innovation of a 33mhz 128K mac but
>> requiring 8G of ram and 10Ghz of cpu.
>>
>
> As they say, "You gotta know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em!"
> You pooh-pooh Microsoft for being late with some developments, and you
> point to various long-dead products as examples of how Microsoft, the
> most financially successful company in the history of the world and
> the provider of products used by more people on earth than any other
> company as evidence of Microsoft's lack of skills.
>
> Have you any idea how silly that makes you look?


He really doesn't.

Nor does he have any idea how stupid it makes him look that he makes a 
living with Microsoft products but whines and lies about them at night.

Linux "advocates" rise below hypocrisy and embarrassment.

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 10:16:36 -0500, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net> wrote:
>As they say, "You gotta know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em!" 
>You pooh-pooh Microsoft for being late with some developments, and you 
>point to various long-dead products as examples of how Microsoft, the 
>most financially successful company in the history of the world and the 
>provider of products used by more people on earth than any other company 
>as evidence of Microsoft's lack of skills.

>Have you any idea how silly that makes you look?

Being only 30-40 years behind on technology is nothing to be proud of.

And do you have any idea how idiotic you sound when you drag out the 
argument of popularity?


By your logic, McDonalds is the finest restaurant ever.
You'd eat dogshit if McDonalds put it on a bun for you.

You gobble up the shit Microsoft servs.

RonB wrote:

> It's amazing how unnecessary useful features can be when Windows (and 
> apparently Macs) don't have them.

Macs have them as well.
-- 
Enkidu

AZ Nomad wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 10:16:36 -0500, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net>
> wrote:
>> As they say, "You gotta know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em!"
>> You pooh-pooh Microsoft for being late with some developments, and
>> you point to various long-dead products as examples of how
>> Microsoft, the most financially successful company in the history of
>> the world and the provider of products used by more people on earth
>> than any other company as evidence of Microsoft's lack of skills.
>
>> Have you any idea how silly that makes you look?
>
> Being only 30-40 years behind on technology is nothing to be proud of.


"Vista is introducing alot of new features and I'm pretty sure we can (or
will very shortly) replicate most of those features in Ubuntu."
http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-161670.html





> And do you have any idea how idiotic you sound when you drag out the
> argument of popularity?

Left side of idiots' mouths: Ubuntu is popular because it's good
Right side of idiots' mouths: Windows isn't popular because it's good




> By your logic, McDonalds is the finest restaurant ever.
> You'd eat dogshit if McDonalds put it on a bun for you.
>
> You gobble up the shit Microsoft servs.

You make a living your entire life with it, clown.

On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 06:06:29 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> And Xfce -- which is what I mostly use now. It amazes me that other OSes 
> don't have something this useful. The reason it hit me is that I had to do 
> some clean-up work on my wife's computer (XP).

It always amazes me how so many Linux advocates can't even seem to convince
their family members to use Linux, yet somehow they believe the rest of the
world is just about to make the jump.

On 6 Mar 2010 02:33:11 GMT, Enkidu wrote:

> Moshe wrote:
> 
>> Instead we have Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, Nuendo etc and
>> dual monitors working out of the box.
> 
> I run Quicken under wine. Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass. Never tried
> Rosetta Stone or Nuendo, dual monitors work out-of-the-box.

Not if you have two monitors of different resolution, and want to use
Compiz.

Erik Funkenbusch pulled this Usenet boner:

> On 6 Mar 2010 02:33:11 GMT, Enkidu wrote:
>
>> Moshe wrote:
>> 
>>> Instead we have Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, Nuendo etc and
>>> dual monitors working out of the box.
>> 
>> I run Quicken under wine. Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass. Never tried
>> Rosetta Stone or Nuendo, dual monitors work out-of-the-box.
>
> Not if you have two monitors of different resolution, and want to use
> Compiz.

Wrong.  Worked, without an xorg.conf, on this laptop and a 17" external
monitor, when I had Fedora/Gnome loaded.  Both the dual monitors and compiz.

This is a good time to note that, since my change from Fedora to Debian on
this laptop, I have noticed the following changes:

   1. The wired NIC is much more reliable now.  New kernel, I suppose.
      I haven't seen any issues with it in the small amount of time I spend
      in Win 7 lately, either, so updates there may have helped, too.

   2. I can now display full 1920x1080 movies with two monitors active.
      I found that the Theora and H.264 versions jerk a litle, but the MPEG
      version is just fine.

   3. When I used my programmed key, Win-n, in fluxbox, to move to the next
      window, the first keystroke is no longer lost.

   4. The closing of the lid no longer works to suspend the computer, and
      the "suspend" button is not configured, but Fn-F4 suspends it just
      fine.

   5. I can't get dual wireless to work consistently.  One day, I had the
      wired NIC, the internal wireless, and a wireless Ralink USB dongle all
      working, each on their own subnet, but now I can't get the Ralink
      to authenticate.

   6. The brightness button still causes X Windows to exhibit odd behavior
      affecting the keystrokes and the speed or mrxvt window updates.

Overall, I'm pretty happy switching back to Debian, and I love this laptop
as a Linux laptop.

-- 
You have an ambitious nature and may make a name for yourself.

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 15:30:03 +0000, Enkidu wrote:

> RonB wrote:
> 
>> It's amazing how unnecessary useful features can be when Windows (and
>> apparently Macs) don't have them.
> 
> Macs have them as well.

Okay. Good to hear.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0

Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> On 6 Mar 2010 02:33:11 GMT, Enkidu wrote:
>
>> Moshe wrote:
>> 
>>> Instead we have Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, Nuendo etc and
>>> dual monitors working out of the box.
>> 
>> I run Quicken under wine. Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass. Never tried
>> Rosetta Stone or Nuendo, dual monitors work out-of-the-box.
>
> Not if you have two monitors of different resolution, and want to use
> Compiz.

I can't speak to that, I don't run compiz. Does windows have anything
like compiz that runs on two monitors of different resolution with
multiple desktops?
-- 
Enkidu

Rick wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:59:21 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:
> 
>> Rex Ballard wrote:
>>> On Mar 5, 12:52 am, Vaughn Bode <unionpe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mar 4, 9:08 pm, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>>> I understand the usefulness, but I hear there is a software patent
>>>> issue involved.
>>> Xerox patented the "Virtual Desktop" and the various forms of "desktop
>>> switcher" for X11.  They contributed to the X11 project as Open Source,
>>> but do not permit Microsoft to use it - until they settle up for some
>>> of the other technologies they took without paying.
>>>
>>> When Apple and Microsoft came to the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center to
>>> look at SmallTalk and the Xerox Alto, they were not forced to sign
>>> overly restrictive non-disclosure agreements.  The East Coast company
>>> had been used to dealing with companies like Kodak and Bausch and Lomb
>>> and other ethical companies who were more than willing to negotiate for
>>> patent and copyright exchanges and/or royalties.
>>>
>>> Neither Apple nor Microsoft paid royalties to Xerox.  They just pirated
>>> the code, converting smalltalk to other languages.  Xerox responded by
>>> filing for patents for the virtual desktop, and then giving it away to
>>> the X11/Unix and Linux communities, but witholding it from Microsoft.
>>>
>>> As I understand it, the latest releases of OS/X support X11 and
>>> therefore workspaces.  Microsoft has tried to implement workspaces that
>>> didn't violate the patent, for example the NT 4.0 extensions, that
>>> included posix, a butchered version of ksh, and a few other bsd type
>>> tools.  Unfortunately, the implementations didn't work out that well,
>>> and were dropped in later releases of Windows.
>>>
>>>
>> Apples workspaces work a bit differently and is more flexible than the
>> regular X11 implementation.  But the overall goal is the same.
> 
> How is spaces more flexible than X11?
> 
If you have a several programs scattered into several spaces, you can 
click on the spaces icon and you get all the spaces shown at once where 
you can then drag and drop your programs into the spaces you want for 
better organization of your software.

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 07:40:00 -0500, DFS wrote:

> ray wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:51:30 -0500, Moshe wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 05:08:06 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>>
>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> Instead we have Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, Nuendo etc and dual
>>> monitors working out of the box.
>>>
>>> However if you would like workspaces under Windows 7, Google is your
>>> friend.
>>>
>>> Then you can have workspaces and use all of those professional quality
>>> applications as well !
>>>
>>> Something that *can't* be done under Linux.
>>
>> 1. Don't need quicken - use kmymoney, gnucash, or moneydance. 2. Don't
>> have a need for anything like rosetta stone, but I imagine it would run
>> via WINE.
>> 3. Don't need photoshop - use GIMP, ufraw, etc. 4. Don't need nuendo -
>> not much into music editing, but there are a plethora of replacements.
>> 5. never had any trouble using dual monitors in Linux.
> 
> 
> What a wonderful sample of one, raytard.  Meanwhile, many tens of
> millions do need those professional apps.  And they can't get them - or
> anything approaching them - on the Linux crapware platform.

No, 'many tens of millions' do not need those programs. They 'need' 
something like them. In some cases they need something compatible with 
them - equivalents like are available and often included with major Linux 
distributions.

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 21:07:00 +0000, ray wrote:

> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 07:40:00 -0500, DFS wrote:
> 
>> ray wrote:
>>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:51:30 -0500, Moshe wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 05:08:06 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> Instead we have Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, Nuendo etc and
>>>> dual monitors working out of the box.
>>>>
>>>> However if you would like workspaces under Windows 7, Google is your
>>>> friend.
>>>>
>>>> Then you can have workspaces and use all of those professional
>>>> quality applications as well !
>>>>
>>>> Something that *can't* be done under Linux.
>>>
>>> 1. Don't need quicken - use kmymoney, gnucash, or moneydance. 2. Don't
>>> have a need for anything like rosetta stone, but I imagine it would
>>> run via WINE.
>>> 3. Don't need photoshop - use GIMP, ufraw, etc. 4. Don't need nuendo -
>>> not much into music editing, but there are a plethora of replacements.
>>> 5. never had any trouble using dual monitors in Linux.
>> 
>> 
>> What a wonderful sample of one, raytard.  Meanwhile, many tens of
>> millions do need those professional apps.  And they can't get them - or
>> anything approaching them - on the Linux crapware platform.
> 
> No, 'many tens of millions' do not need those programs. They 'need'
> something like them. In some cases they need something compatible with
> them - equivalents like are available and often included with major
> Linux distributions.

Isn't it amazing? DuFuS tells us what he needs (or thinks he needs), and 
then projects that on all computer users. Then he has the gall to take you 
to task for being a "sample of one." Sorry, DuFuS, but I seriously doubt 
that you've been elected to speak for the whole world of computer users. 

And the "sample of one" is at the very least a sample of two -- because I 
don't use any of these "oh, so necessary" programs either. What, do you 
WinTards all join the same "Application of the Month Club?"

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:51:34 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:

> If you have a several programs scattered into several spaces, you can
> click on the spaces icon and you get all the spaces shown at once where
> you can then drag and drop your programs into the spaces you want for
> better organization of your software.

Kind of like Compiz? (I don't know, the only time I've tried Compiz is 
when booting to Knoppix. I don't really need it or particularly like it, 
but it was fun to play with.)

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0

On 3/6/2010 10:26 AM, AZ Nomad wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 10:16:36 -0500, amicus_curious<acdc@sti.net>  wrote:
>> As they say, "You gotta know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em!"
>> You pooh-pooh Microsoft for being late with some developments, and you
>> point to various long-dead products as examples of how Microsoft, the
>> most financially successful company in the history of the world and the
>> provider of products used by more people on earth than any other company
>> as evidence of Microsoft's lack of skills.
>
>> Have you any idea how silly that makes you look?
>
> Being only 30-40 years behind on technology is nothing to be proud of.
>
OTOH, being the most successful technology corporation in the history of 
the world is something to be proud of.  Now what do you think has been 
Microsoft's goal all along?  It may have been to impress you with its 
creativity, in which it has apparently failed, but it is more likely to 
have been, as Bill Gates himself foretold, to be the supplier of the 
computer technology used by vertually everyone in the whole world. 
There they have succeeded.

> And do you have any idea how idiotic you sound when you drag out the
> argument of popularity?
>
No, but you probably would not have any idea how childish you argument 
sounds when you suggest that McDonald's is a similar failure to Microsoft.

>
> By your logic, McDonalds is the finest restaurant ever.
> You'd eat dogshit if McDonalds put it on a bun for you.
>
> You gobble up the shit Microsoft servs.

My spell checker is flagging 4 errors in the above 3 lines.  What is 
wrong with yours?

ray wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 07:40:00 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>> ray wrote:
>>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:51:30 -0500, Moshe wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 05:08:06 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> Instead we have Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, Nuendo etc and
>>>> dual monitors working out of the box.
>>>>
>>>> However if you would like workspaces under Windows 7, Google is
>>>> your friend.
>>>>
>>>> Then you can have workspaces and use all of those professional
>>>> quality applications as well !
>>>>
>>>> Something that *can't* be done under Linux.
>>>
>>> 1. Don't need quicken - use kmymoney, gnucash, or moneydance. 2.
>>> Don't have a need for anything like rosetta stone, but I imagine it
>>> would run via WINE.
>>> 3. Don't need photoshop - use GIMP, ufraw, etc. 4. Don't need
>>> nuendo - not much into music editing, but there are a plethora of
>>> replacements.
>>> 5. never had any trouble using dual monitors in Linux.
>>
>>
>> What a wonderful sample of one, raytard.  Meanwhile, many tens of
>> millions do need those professional apps.  And they can't get them -
>> or anything approaching them - on the Linux crapware platform.
>
> No, 'many tens of millions' do not need those programs. They 'need'
> something like them. In some cases they need something compatible with
> them - equivalents like are available and often included with major
> Linux distributions.


Yes, many tens of millions all around the world need those exact Windows
programs.  That's what they've been using for years, that's what they know,
those are the industry standards that are expected, etc.

Linux doesn't fit, and never will.

Enkidu stated in post 20100306023310.4196.14166.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/5/10
7:33 PM:

> Moshe wrote:
> 
>> Instead we have Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, Nuendo etc and
>> dual monitors working out of the box.
> 
> I run Quicken under wine. Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass. Never tried
> Rosetta Stone or Nuendo, dual monitors work out-of-the-box.

How did you get the idea that Gimp is better than Photoshop?  Gimp lack a
*lot* of features I know I use in Photoshop.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 16:39:05 -0500, DFS wrote:

> ray wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 07:40:00 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> ray wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:51:30 -0500, Moshe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 05:08:06 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>>>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>>>>
>>>>> No.
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead we have Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, Nuendo etc and
>>>>> dual monitors working out of the box.
>>>>>
>>>>> However if you would like workspaces under Windows 7, Google is your
>>>>> friend.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you can have workspaces and use all of those professional
>>>>> quality applications as well !
>>>>>
>>>>> Something that *can't* be done under Linux.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Don't need quicken - use kmymoney, gnucash, or moneydance. 2.
>>>> Don't have a need for anything like rosetta stone, but I imagine it
>>>> would run via WINE.
>>>> 3. Don't need photoshop - use GIMP, ufraw, etc. 4. Don't need nuendo
>>>> - not much into music editing, but there are a plethora of
>>>> replacements.
>>>> 5. never had any trouble using dual monitors in Linux.
>>>
>>>
>>> What a wonderful sample of one, raytard.  Meanwhile, many tens of
>>> millions do need those professional apps.  And they can't get them -
>>> or anything approaching them - on the Linux crapware platform.
>>
>> No, 'many tens of millions' do not need those programs. They 'need'
>> something like them. In some cases they need something compatible with
>> them - equivalents like are available and often included with major
>> Linux distributions.
> 
> 
> Yes, many tens of millions all around the world need those exact Windows
> programs.  That's what they've been using for years, that's what they
> know, those are the industry standards that are expected, etc.
> 
> Linux doesn't fit, and never will.

Hey DooFuS, either you have not READ what I said or you've read it but 
can't UNDERSTAND it or you're a complete idiot.

On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 13:17:50 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Erik Funkenbusch pulled this Usenet boner:
> 
>> On 6 Mar 2010 02:33:11 GMT, Enkidu wrote:
>>
>>> Moshe wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Instead we have Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, Nuendo etc and
>>>> dual monitors working out of the box.
>>> 
>>> I run Quicken under wine. Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass. Never tried
>>> Rosetta Stone or Nuendo, dual monitors work out-of-the-box.
>>
>> Not if you have two monitors of different resolution, and want to use
>> Compiz.
> 
> Wrong.  Worked, without an xorg.conf, on this laptop and a 17" external
> monitor, when I had Fedora/Gnome loaded.  Both the dual monitors and compiz.

Fails with Ubuntu.
Fails with Fedora, last time I checked Fedora which was about 5
months ago.
This is with Nvidia.
Other adapters may have different results.

Snit wrote:
> Rick stated in post 3dSdnfVtVNYN1A_WnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@supernews.com on 3/6/10
> 5:24 AM:
> 
>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 01:16:37 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Rick stated in post 3dSdnfttVNYekA_WnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@supernews.com on
>>> 3/6/10 1:08 AM:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:55:38 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rick stated in post 5KydnUrLRcUslA_WnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@supernews.com on
>>>>> 3/6/10 12:52 AM:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> This has been explained to you before. navigate to a workspace.
>>>>>>>> Open your app or document. If you are using the first workspace,
>>>>>>>> just open the app/document. No configuration needed..
>>>>>>> Other than what you just described.  Right.  Are you now saying you
>>>>>>> do not consider such customized software arrangments as a
>>>>>>> configuration?
>>>>>> I do not consider them customized software arrangements.
>>>>> You are feigning ignorance again - you can customize which windows are
>>>>> arranged on which virtual desktop. I simply do not believe you did not
>>>>> know that, given how you have repeatedly described the process!
>>>> See below for information on configuring buttons/icons to customize
>>>> apps opening on specific desktops.
>>> I would prefer to stick to the above... where you pretended to not know
>>> that you can customize which windows are arranged on to what virtual
>> Snit lies detected, No use continuing. Have fun, Snit.
> 
> Are you saying you now *do* know you can customize the arrangement of
> windows on virtual desktops?  I hope so... being that doing so is the whole
> point of the feature!
> 
I have said previously, in last couple of days, that apps can set up to 
open on specific workspaces, but AGAIN, you don't have to.

On 2010-03-06, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 06:06:29 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> And Xfce -- which is what I mostly use now. It amazes me that other OSes 
>> don't have something this useful. The reason it hit me is that I had to do 
>> some clean-up work on my wife's computer (XP).
>
> It always amazes me how so many Linux advocates can't even seem to convince
> their family members to use Linux, yet somehow they believe the rest of the
> world is just about to make the jump.

Really? Who are these "advocates" that can't convince their family
members to use Linux, yet somehow believe the rest of the world is just
about to make the jump? Another empty set, no doubt.

-- 
Regards,

Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

DFS wrote:
> ray wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 07:40:00 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> ray wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:51:30 -0500, Moshe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 05:08:06 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>>>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>>>> No.
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead we have Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, Nuendo etc and
>>>>> dual monitors working out of the box.
>>>>>
>>>>> However if you would like workspaces under Windows 7, Google is
>>>>> your friend.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you can have workspaces and use all of those professional
>>>>> quality applications as well !
>>>>>
>>>>> Something that *can't* be done under Linux.
>>>> 1. Don't need quicken - use kmymoney, gnucash, or moneydance. 2.
>>>> Don't have a need for anything like rosetta stone, but I imagine it
>>>> would run via WINE.
>>>> 3. Don't need photoshop - use GIMP, ufraw, etc. 4. Don't need
>>>> nuendo - not much into music editing, but there are a plethora of
>>>> replacements.
>>>> 5. never had any trouble using dual monitors in Linux.
>>>
>>> What a wonderful sample of one, raytard.  Meanwhile, many tens of
>>> millions do need those professional apps.  And they can't get them -
>>> or anything approaching them - on the Linux crapware platform.
>> No, 'many tens of millions' do not need those programs. They 'need'
>> something like them. In some cases they need something compatible with
>> them - equivalents like are available and often included with major
>> Linux distributions.
> 
> 
> Yes, many tens of millions all around the world need those exact Windows
> programs.  That's what they've been using for years, that's what they know,
> those are the industry standards that are expected, etc.
> 
> Linux doesn't fit, and never will.
> 
<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments>

GreyCloud wrote:
> Rick wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:59:21 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:
>>
>>> Rex Ballard wrote:
>>>> On Mar 5, 12:52 am, Vaughn Bode <unionpe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 4, 9:08 pm, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>>>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>>>> I understand the usefulness, but I hear there is a software patent
>>>>> issue involved.
>>>> Xerox patented the "Virtual Desktop" and the various forms of "desktop
>>>> switcher" for X11.  They contributed to the X11 project as Open Source,
>>>> but do not permit Microsoft to use it - until they settle up for some
>>>> of the other technologies they took without paying.
>>>>
>>>> When Apple and Microsoft came to the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center to
>>>> look at SmallTalk and the Xerox Alto, they were not forced to sign
>>>> overly restrictive non-disclosure agreements.  The East Coast company
>>>> had been used to dealing with companies like Kodak and Bausch and Lomb
>>>> and other ethical companies who were more than willing to negotiate for
>>>> patent and copyright exchanges and/or royalties.
>>>>
>>>> Neither Apple nor Microsoft paid royalties to Xerox.  They just pirated
>>>> the code, converting smalltalk to other languages.  Xerox responded by
>>>> filing for patents for the virtual desktop, and then giving it away to
>>>> the X11/Unix and Linux communities, but witholding it from Microsoft.
>>>>
>>>> As I understand it, the latest releases of OS/X support X11 and
>>>> therefore workspaces.  Microsoft has tried to implement workspaces that
>>>> didn't violate the patent, for example the NT 4.0 extensions, that
>>>> included posix, a butchered version of ksh, and a few other bsd type
>>>> tools.  Unfortunately, the implementations didn't work out that well,
>>>> and were dropped in later releases of Windows.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Apples workspaces work a bit differently and is more flexible than the
>>> regular X11 implementation.  But the overall goal is the same.
>>
>> How is spaces more flexible than X11?
>>
> If you have a several programs scattered into several spaces, you can 
> click on the spaces icon and you get all the spaces shown at once where 
> you can then drag and drop your programs into the spaces you want for 
> better organization of your software.

middle-click. select app/document. send to desktop.

.... as well as dragging windows across a pager.

RonB wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:51:34 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:
> 
>> If you have a several programs scattered into several spaces, you can
>> click on the spaces icon and you get all the spaces shown at once where
>> you can then drag and drop your programs into the spaces you want for
>> better organization of your software.
> 
> Kind of like Compiz? (I don't know, the only time I've tried Compiz is 
> when booting to Knoppix. I don't really need it or particularly like it, 
> but it was fun to play with.)
> 
I'd like it a lot better if you could customize the mouse buttons more.

Snit wrote:

> Enkidu stated in post 20100306023310.4196.14166.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/5/10
> 7:33 PM:
>
>> Moshe wrote:
>> 
>>> Instead we have Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, Nuendo etc and
>>> dual monitors working out of the box.
>> 
>> I run Quicken under wine. Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass. Never tried
>> Rosetta Stone or Nuendo, dual monitors work out-of-the-box.
>
> How did you get the idea that Gimp is better than Photoshop?  Gimp lack a
> *lot* of features I know I use in Photoshop.

I've never run across a feature I needed but Gimp didn't have. Features
I don't use, don't need, don't count.  You like Photoshop? Good. Buy it
and use it.

-- 
Enkidu

Enkidu stated in post 20100307004828.13443.89919.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/6/10
5:48 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> Enkidu stated in post 20100306023310.4196.14166.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/5/10
>> 7:33 PM:
>> 
>>> Moshe wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Instead we have Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, Nuendo etc and
>>>> dual monitors working out of the box.
>>> 
>>> I run Quicken under wine. Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass. Never tried
>>> Rosetta Stone or Nuendo, dual monitors work out-of-the-box.
>> 
>> How did you get the idea that Gimp is better than Photoshop?  Gimp lack a
>> *lot* of features I know I use in Photoshop.
> 
> I've never run across a feature I needed but Gimp didn't have. Features
> I don't use, don't need, don't count.  You like Photoshop? Good. Buy it
> and use it.

Hey, if it works for you, fine.  Not trying to talk you out of it... but the
comment:

    Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass.

I would love to see you try to support it.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post zuKdnYrsYPeRdQ_WnZ2dnUVZ_ukAAAAA@supernews.com on 3/6/10
4:41 PM:

> Snit wrote:
>> Rick stated in post 3dSdnfVtVNYN1A_WnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@supernews.com on 3/6/10
>> 5:24 AM:
>> 
>>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 01:16:37 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Rick stated in post 3dSdnfttVNYekA_WnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@supernews.com on
>>>> 3/6/10 1:08 AM:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:55:38 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rick stated in post 5KydnUrLRcUslA_WnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@supernews.com on
>>>>>> 3/6/10 12:52 AM:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> This has been explained to you before. navigate to a workspace.
>>>>>>>>> Open your app or document. If you are using the first workspace,
>>>>>>>>> just open the app/document. No configuration needed..
>>>>>>>> Other than what you just described.  Right.  Are you now saying you
>>>>>>>> do not consider such customized software arrangments as a
>>>>>>>> configuration?
>>>>>>> I do not consider them customized software arrangements.
>>>>>> You are feigning ignorance again - you can customize which windows are
>>>>>> arranged on which virtual desktop. I simply do not believe you did not
>>>>>> know that, given how you have repeatedly described the process!
>>>>> See below for information on configuring buttons/icons to customize
>>>>> apps opening on specific desktops.
>>>> I would prefer to stick to the above... where you pretended to not know
>>>> that you can customize which windows are arranged on to what virtual
>>> Snit lies detected, No use continuing. Have fun, Snit.
>> 
>> Are you saying you now *do* know you can customize the arrangement of
>> windows on virtual desktops?  I hope so... being that doing so is the whole
>> point of the feature!
>> 
> I have said previously, in last couple of days, that apps can set up to
> open on specific workspaces, but AGAIN, you don't have to.

You say many things that are not in contention.  And then you repeat them
over and over and over.  My 2 year old does that, too...


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post zuKdnYXsYPfddA_WnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@supernews.com on 3/6/10
4:46 PM:

.... 
>> Yes, many tens of millions all around the world need those exact Windows
>> programs.  That's what they've been using for years, that's what they know,
>> those are the industry standards that are expected, etc.
>> 
>> Linux doesn't fit, and never will.
>> 
> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments>

You sure like that link.  TomB does not seem to have a problem with that,
even though he says to me when I point to *different* links:

    Don't you get sick and tired of making the same point over
    and over again?

You were looking for where you get tacit approval. There you go, a specific
example.  TomB will simply not complain about your making the same point
over and over... and your points are never ever supported well!

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

RonB pulled this Usenet boner:

> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:51:34 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:
>
>> If you have a several programs scattered into several spaces, you can
>> click on the spaces icon and you get all the spaces shown at once where
>> you can then drag and drop your programs into the spaces you want for
>> better organization of your software.
>
> Kind of like Compiz? (I don't know, the only time I've tried Compiz is 
> when booting to Knoppix. I don't really need it or particularly like it, 
> but it was fun to play with.)

At least some of the linux virtual screens will let you drag the icons from
one workspace to another.

-- 
The Least Perceptive Literary Critic
	The most important critic in our field of study is Lord Halifax.  A
most individual judge of poetry, he once invited Alexander Pope round to
give a public reading of his latest poem.
	Pope, the leading poet of his day, was greatly surprised when Lord
Halifax stopped him four or five times and said, "I beg your pardon, Mr.
Pope, but there is something in that passage that does not quite please me."
	Pope was rendered speechless, as this fine critic suggested sizeable
and unwise emendations to his latest masterpiece.  "Be so good as to mark
the place and consider at your leisure.  I'm sure you can give it a better
turn."
	After the reading, a good friend of Lord Halifax, a certain Dr.
Garth, took the stunned Pope to one side.  "There is no need to touch the
lines," he said.  "All you need do is leave them just as they are, call on
Lord Halifax two or three months hence, thank him for his kind observation
on those passages, and then read them to him as altered.  I have known him
much longer than you have, and will be answerable for the event."
	Pope took his advice, called on Lord Halifax and read the poem
exactly as it was before.  His unique critical faculties had lost none of
their edge.  "Ay", he commented, "now they are perfectly right.  Nothing can
be better."
		-- Stephen Pile, "The Book of Heroic Failures"

Rick stated in post zuKdnYTsYPdddA_WnZ2dnUVZ_ukAAAAA@supernews.com on 3/6/10
4:48 PM:

>>> How is spaces more flexible than X11?
>>> 
>> If you have a several programs scattered into several spaces, you can
>> click on the spaces icon and you get all the spaces shown at once where
>> you can then drag and drop your programs into the spaces you want for
>> better organization of your software.
> 
> middle-click. select app/document. send to desktop.
> ... as well as dragging windows across a pager.

What you described is not the same as what is done with Spaces and its "high
level" view.  


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post zuKdnYfsYPdqdA_WnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@supernews.com on 3/6/10
4:49 PM:

> RonB wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:51:34 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:
>> 
>>> If you have a several programs scattered into several spaces, you can
>>> click on the spaces icon and you get all the spaces shown at once where
>>> you can then drag and drop your programs into the spaces you want for
>>> better organization of your software.
>> 
>> Kind of like Compiz? (I don't know, the only time I've tried Compiz is
>> when booting to Knoppix. I don't really need it or particularly like it,
>> but it was fun to play with.)
>> 
> I'd like it a lot better if you could customize the mouse buttons more.

When I talked about wanting more control over my own system, RonB jumped up
and said that made me a "drooling control freak".  You can bet he will not
say the same about your desire to have more control.  This is another
example of tacit support by COLA folks that you get.

You asked for examples - I am offering them to you.  Wondering how you will
try to weasel out of it to continue to deny it.  Usually you are very
predictable, but in what tact you will take to deny, I am truly curious.
But it is pretty clear you will deny.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 16:31:12 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:

> My spell checker is flagging 4 errors in the above 3 lines.  What is
> wrong with yours?

Grammar flame. Looks like another lost argument.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 23:44:26 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:

> On 2010-03-06, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 06:06:29 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>
>>> And Xfce -- which is what I mostly use now. It amazes me that other
>>> OSes don't have something this useful. The reason it hit me is that I
>>> had to do some clean-up work on my wife's computer (XP).
>>
>> It always amazes me how so many Linux advocates can't even seem to
>> convince their family members to use Linux, yet somehow they believe
>> the rest of the world is just about to make the jump.
> 
> Really? Who are these "advocates" that can't convince their family
> members to use Linux, yet somehow believe the rest of the world is just
> about to make the jump? Another empty set, no doubt.

The "amazing" thing is how often WinTrolls have to put words into your 
mouth to try to argue their point. Damn those straw men are easy to knock 
down.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 00:48:29 +0000, Enkidu wrote:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> Enkidu stated in post 20100306023310.4196.14166.XPN@nogodhere.net on
>> 3/5/10 7:33 PM:
>>
>>> Moshe wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Instead we have Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, Nuendo etc and
>>>> dual monitors working out of the box.
>>> 
>>> I run Quicken under wine. Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass. Never tried
>>> Rosetta Stone or Nuendo, dual monitors work out-of-the-box.
>>
>> How did you get the idea that Gimp is better than Photoshop?  Gimp lack
>> a *lot* of features I know I use in Photoshop.
> 
> I've never run across a feature I needed but Gimp didn't have. Features
> I don't use, don't need, don't count.  You like Photoshop? Good. Buy it
> and use it.

And I don't use Photoshop... or Gimp (except to occasionally scale 
pictures). So "Windows runs Photoshop" is an absolute empty argument for 
the hundreds of millions who don't use it or want it.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0

Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 06:06:29 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> And Xfce -- which is what I mostly use now. It amazes me that other
>> OSes don't have something this useful. The reason it hit me is that
>> I had to do some clean-up work on my wife's computer (XP).
>
> It always amazes me how so many Linux advocates can't even seem to
> convince their family members to use Linux, yet somehow they believe
> the rest of the world is just about to make the jump.


The bozos have been telling me for years that Linux is about to take my job 
developing on/for Windows.

ho hum... 

RonB stated in post hmv2ts$i8v$1@news.eternal-september.org on 3/6/10 7:27
PM:

> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 16:31:12 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
> 
>> My spell checker is flagging 4 errors in the above 3 lines.  What is
>> wrong with yours?
> 
> Grammar flame. Looks like another lost argument.

Better than your repeated making up of stories about people - you flat our
lie.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 18:49:18 -0500, Rick wrote:

> RonB wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:51:34 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:
>> 
>>> If you have a several programs scattered into several spaces, you can
>>> click on the spaces icon and you get all the spaces shown at once
>>> where you can then drag and drop your programs into the spaces you
>>> want for better organization of your software.
>> 
>> Kind of like Compiz? (I don't know, the only time I've tried Compiz is
>> when booting to Knoppix. I don't really need it or particularly like
>> it, but it was fun to play with.)
>> 
> I'd like it a lot better if you could customize the mouse buttons more.

I'm kind of stuck in my ways and I already know where I store stuff on 
workspaces. I would just as soon not have Compiz's overhead. But again, 
it's a matter of taste. And *again* another reason to choose Linux -- you 
can have it however you want it.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0

RonB stated in post hmv352$i8v$3@news.eternal-september.org on 3/6/10 7:30
PM:

>>>> I run Quicken under wine. Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass. Never tried
>>>> Rosetta Stone or Nuendo, dual monitors work out-of-the-box.
>>> 
>>> How did you get the idea that Gimp is better than Photoshop?  Gimp lack
>>> a *lot* of features I know I use in Photoshop.
>> 
>> I've never run across a feature I needed but Gimp didn't have. Features
>> I don't use, don't need, don't count.  You like Photoshop? Good. Buy it
>> and use it.
> 
> And I don't use Photoshop... or Gimp (except to occasionally scale
> pictures). So "Windows runs Photoshop" is an absolute empty argument for
> the hundreds of millions who don't use it or want it.

Lovely.  But the topic is my asking for support for the claim:

    Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass.

And there is no support for this... none that has been posted yet anyway.

I bet there will not be.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 23:22:42 +0000, ray wrote:

> Hey DooFuS, either you have not READ what I said or you've read it but
> can't UNDERSTAND it or you're a complete idiot.

Do I only get *one* choice?

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 20:49:25 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> RonB pulled this Usenet boner:
> 
>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:51:34 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:
>>
>>> If you have a several programs scattered into several spaces, you can
>>> click on the spaces icon and you get all the spaces shown at once
>>> where you can then drag and drop your programs into the spaces you
>>> want for better organization of your software.
>>
>> Kind of like Compiz? (I don't know, the only time I've tried Compiz is
>> when booting to Knoppix. I don't really need it or particularly like
>> it, but it was fun to play with.)
> 
> At least some of the linux virtual screens will let you drag the icons
> from one workspace to another.

I misunderstood your point. Yes. True.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0

ray wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 16:39:05 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>> ray wrote:
>>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 07:40:00 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:51:30 -0500, Moshe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 05:08:06 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the
>>>>>>> desktop. I don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead we have Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, Nuendo etc and
>>>>>> dual monitors working out of the box.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However if you would like workspaces under Windows 7, Google is
>>>>>> your friend.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you can have workspaces and use all of those professional
>>>>>> quality applications as well !
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Something that *can't* be done under Linux.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Don't need quicken - use kmymoney, gnucash, or moneydance. 2.
>>>>> Don't have a need for anything like rosetta stone, but I imagine
>>>>> it would run via WINE.
>>>>> 3. Don't need photoshop - use GIMP, ufraw, etc. 4. Don't need
>>>>> nuendo - not much into music editing, but there are a plethora of
>>>>> replacements.
>>>>> 5. never had any trouble using dual monitors in Linux.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What a wonderful sample of one, raytard.  Meanwhile, many tens of
>>>> millions do need those professional apps.  And they can't get them
>>>> - or anything approaching them - on the Linux crapware platform.
>>>
>>> No, 'many tens of millions' do not need those programs. They 'need'
>>> something like them. In some cases they need something compatible
>>> with them - equivalents like are available and often included with
>>> major Linux distributions.
>>
>>
>> Yes, many tens of millions all around the world need those exact
>> Windows programs.  That's what they've been using for years, that's
>> what they know, those are the industry standards that are expected,
>> etc.
>>
>> Linux doesn't fit, and never will.
>
> Hey DooFuS, either you have not READ what I said or you've read it but
> can't UNDERSTAND it or you're a complete idiot.


I read what you said, raytard.  You're wrong.  Many tens of millions - but 
not everyone of course - flat-out require Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, 
Nuendo, Excel, Oracle, etc.   They do not want or need your "equivalents" 
(especially the pretender crapware distributed with Linux).

RonB stated in post hmv3ae$i8v$4@news.eternal-september.org on 3/6/10 7:33
PM:

> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 18:49:18 -0500, Rick wrote:
> 
>> RonB wrote:
>>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:51:34 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:
>>> 
>>>> If you have a several programs scattered into several spaces, you can
>>>> click on the spaces icon and you get all the spaces shown at once
>>>> where you can then drag and drop your programs into the spaces you
>>>> want for better organization of your software.
>>> 
>>> Kind of like Compiz? (I don't know, the only time I've tried Compiz is
>>> when booting to Knoppix. I don't really need it or particularly like
>>> it, but it was fun to play with.)
>>> 
>> I'd like it a lot better if you could customize the mouse buttons more.
> 
> I'm kind of stuck in my ways and I already know where I store stuff on
> workspaces. I would just as soon not have Compiz's overhead. But again,
> it's a matter of taste. And *again* another reason to choose Linux -- you
> can have it however you want it.

What happened to your claim that people who want it their own way are
"drooling control freaks"?


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Gregory Shearman wrote:
> On 2010-03-06, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 06:06:29 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>
>>> And Xfce -- which is what I mostly use now. It amazes me that other
>>> OSes don't have something this useful. The reason it hit me is that
>>> I had to do some clean-up work on my wife's computer (XP).
>>
>> It always amazes me how so many Linux advocates can't even seem to
>> convince their family members to use Linux, yet somehow they believe
>> the rest of the world is just about to make the jump.
>
> Really? Who are these "advocates" that can't convince their family
> members to use Linux, yet somehow believe the rest of the world is
> just about to make the jump? Another empty set, no doubt.


Basically every single one of you, up to and including Linus Torvalds who 
says "MS's destruction at the hands of Linux will be unintentional" but 
whose wife uses Macs (last I knew).

Gidget bullied his 10-year old son into using Linux crapware, but I bet the 
kid put up a hell of a fight.

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 02:27:08 +0000 (UTC), RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 16:31:12 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:

>> My spell checker is flagging 4 errors in the above 3 lines.  What is
>> wrong with yours?

>Grammar flame. Looks like another lost argument.

Flatty never has a valid argument.  All he has is insults and stupidity.

Snit wrote:

> RonB stated in post hmv352$i8v$3@news.eternal-september.org on 3/6/10 7:30
> PM:
>
>>>>> I run Quicken under wine. Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass. Never tried
>>>>> Rosetta Stone or Nuendo, dual monitors work out-of-the-box.
>>>> 
>>>> How did you get the idea that Gimp is better than Photoshop?  Gimp lack
>>>> a *lot* of features I know I use in Photoshop.
>>> 
>>> I've never run across a feature I needed but Gimp didn't have. Features
>>> I don't use, don't need, don't count.  You like Photoshop? Good. Buy it
>>> and use it.
>> 
>> And I don't use Photoshop... or Gimp (except to occasionally scale
>> pictures). So "Windows runs Photoshop" is an absolute empty argument for
>> the hundreds of millions who don't use it or want it.
>
> Lovely.  But the topic is my asking for support for the claim:
>
>     Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass.

Gimp does everything I've ever needed to do, it's not from Adobe, and
it's free. Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass.

Now you tell me: What does Photoshop do that Gimp doesn't?
-- 
Enkidu

Enkidu stated in post 20100307035105.17382.71669.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/6/10
8:51 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> RonB stated in post hmv352$i8v$3@news.eternal-september.org on 3/6/10 7:30
>> PM:
>> 
>>>>>> I run Quicken under wine. Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass. Never tried
>>>>>> Rosetta Stone or Nuendo, dual monitors work out-of-the-box.
>>>>> 
>>>>> How did you get the idea that Gimp is better than Photoshop?  Gimp lack
>>>>> a *lot* of features I know I use in Photoshop.
>>>> 
>>>> I've never run across a feature I needed but Gimp didn't have. Features
>>>> I don't use, don't need, don't count.  You like Photoshop? Good. Buy it
>>>> and use it.
>>> 
>>> And I don't use Photoshop... or Gimp (except to occasionally scale
>>> pictures). So "Windows runs Photoshop" is an absolute empty argument for
>>> the hundreds of millions who don't use it or want it.
>> 
>> Lovely.  But the topic is my asking for support for the claim:
>> 
>>     Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass.
> 
> Gimp does everything I've ever needed to do, it's not from Adobe, and
> it's free. Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass.

In what way?

> Now you tell me: What does Photoshop do that Gimp doesn't?

Off the top of my head: layer sets, adjustment layers, clipping layers,
smart objects, advanced selection techniques, type on a path, 3D tools,
Dreamweaver integration, content-aware scaling, working with groups of
layers, etc.

Some might have been added since I last played with it, but, really, that is
just off the top of my head.  Gimp is simply not in the same class as
Photoshop.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> Enkidu stated in post 20100307035105.17382.71669.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/6/10
> 8:51 PM:
>
>> Now you tell me: What does Photoshop do that Gimp doesn't?
>
> Off the top of my head: layer sets, adjustment layers, clipping layers,
> smart objects, advanced selection techniques, type on a path, 3D tools,
> Dreamweaver integration, content-aware scaling, working with groups of
> layers, etc.

Never missed any of those except having text following a path/curve.
I've been waiting for that a long time. I'm sure it will be
implemented eventually.

-- 
Son, a woman is like a beer. They smell good, they look good,
you'd step over your own mother just to get one! But you
can't stop at one. You wanna drink another woman!
	~ Homer J. Simpson

On 2010-03-07, Enkidu <enkidu@nogodhere.net> claimed:

> Now you tell me: What does Photoshop do that Gimp doesn't?
                                                           ^
                                                      that matters
-- 
Megabyte: A nine course dinner.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eee PC900 16G SSD 2G RAM Super OS 9.10
Friends don't let friends use Windows

On 2010-03-06, the following emerged from the brain of Rick:
> DFS wrote:
>> ray wrote:
>>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 07:40:00 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:51:30 -0500, Moshe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 05:08:06 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>>>>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead we have Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, Nuendo etc and
>>>>>> dual monitors working out of the box.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However if you would like workspaces under Windows 7, Google is
>>>>>> your friend.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you can have workspaces and use all of those professional
>>>>>> quality applications as well !
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Something that *can't* be done under Linux.
>>>>> 1. Don't need quicken - use kmymoney, gnucash, or moneydance. 2.
>>>>> Don't have a need for anything like rosetta stone, but I imagine it
>>>>> would run via WINE.
>>>>> 3. Don't need photoshop - use GIMP, ufraw, etc. 4. Don't need
>>>>> nuendo - not much into music editing, but there are a plethora of
>>>>> replacements.
>>>>> 5. never had any trouble using dual monitors in Linux.
>>>>
>>>> What a wonderful sample of one, raytard.  Meanwhile, many tens of
>>>> millions do need those professional apps.  And they can't get them -
>>>> or anything approaching them - on the Linux crapware platform.
>>> No, 'many tens of millions' do not need those programs. They 'need'
>>> something like them. In some cases they need something compatible with
>>> them - equivalents like are available and often included with major
>>> Linux distributions.
>> 
>> 
>> Yes, many tens of millions all around the world need those exact Windows
>> programs.  That's what they've been using for years, that's what they know,
>> those are the industry standards that are expected, etc.
>> 
>> Linux doesn't fit, and never will.
>> 
><http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments>

Don't you get sick and tired of posting that same link over and over
again?

:-p

-- 
We should start referring to processes which run in the background by
their correct technical name... paenguins.
	~ Kevin M. Bealer

On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> Rick stated in post zuKdnYTsYPdddA_WnZ2dnUVZ_ukAAAAA@supernews.com on 3/6/10
> 4:48 PM:
>
>>>> How is spaces more flexible than X11?
>>>> 
>>> If you have a several programs scattered into several spaces, you can
>>> click on the spaces icon and you get all the spaces shown at once where
>>> you can then drag and drop your programs into the spaces you want for
>>> better organization of your software.
>> 
>> middle-click. select app/document. send to desktop.
>> ... as well as dragging windows across a pager.
>
> What you described is not the same as what is done with Spaces and its "high
> level" view.  

The same functionality has been available in compiz for years. in kwin
since KDE4, and soon in metacity (or the window manager that will
replace metacity - forgot the name) in Gnome 3.

-- 
The pleasure we obtain from music comes from counting, but counting
unconsciously. Music is nothing but unconscious arithmetic.
	~ Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> Enkidu stated in post 20100307004828.13443.89919.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/6/10
> 5:48 PM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Enkidu stated in post 20100306023310.4196.14166.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/5/10
>>> 7:33 PM:
>>> 
>>>> Moshe wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Instead we have Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, Nuendo etc
>>>>> and dual monitors working out of the box.
>>>> 
>>>> I run Quicken under wine. Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass. Never tried
>>>> Rosetta Stone or Nuendo, dual monitors work out-of-the-box.
>>> 
>>> How did you get the idea that Gimp is better than Photoshop?  Gimp
>>> lack a *lot* of features I know I use in Photoshop.
>> 
>> I've never run across a feature I needed but Gimp didn't have.
>> Features I don't use, don't need, don't count.  You like Photoshop?
>> Good. Buy it and use it.
>
> Hey, if it works for you, fine.  Not trying to talk you out of it...
> but the comment:
>
>     Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass.
>
> I would love to see you try to support it.

I'd say the same as a very subjective and personal statement. Why?
Gimp works for me. I even like the interface (which slightly regressed
in 2.6 - I can't put my finger on it yet, but intermittently it acts
kind of odd). And obviously the value for money ratio is infinitively
higher than Photoshop's.

-- 
In this life, it's not what you hope for, it's not what
you deserve -- it's what you take.
	~ Frank T.J. Mackie

On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 22:16:58 -0500, DFS wrote:

> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>> On 2010-03-06, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 06:06:29 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>>
>>>> And Xfce -- which is what I mostly use now. It amazes me that other
>>>> OSes don't have something this useful. The reason it hit me is that
>>>> I had to do some clean-up work on my wife's computer (XP).
>>>
>>> It always amazes me how so many Linux advocates can't even seem to
>>> convince their family members to use Linux, yet somehow they believe
>>> the rest of the world is just about to make the jump.
>>
>> Really? Who are these "advocates" that can't convince their family
>> members to use Linux, yet somehow believe the rest of the world is
>> just about to make the jump? Another empty set, no doubt.
> 
> 
> Basically every single one of you, up to and including Linus Torvalds who 
> says "MS's destruction at the hands of Linux will be unintentional" but 
> whose wife uses Macs (last I knew).

One thing though, even Linux has no use for the vermin type of
Linux advocates in COLA.
 
> Gidget bullied his 10-year old son into using Linux crapware, but I bet the 
> kid put up a hell of a fight.

My kids managed with Linux reasonably well over the years.
The biggest problem was interfacing with the school systems and
the software they sent home, like SAT practice, college tour
information and most importantly gadgets like iPod, camera etc.

Camera's worked out reasonably well, but they were never happy
with iPod software under Linux.

Aim and it's plugins seemed to be another bone of contention.
I did keep a small Windows partition for school stuff that Linux
wouldn't run or had no equivalent for.

Overall, I would say it was a success. They are all on their own
now with Macbooks and a Gateway laptop with Vista which has been
flawless.

On 07 Mar 2010 10:01:25 GMT, TomB wrote:

> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> Enkidu stated in post 20100307004828.13443.89919.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/6/10
>> 5:48 PM:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Enkidu stated in post 20100306023310.4196.14166.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/5/10
>>>> 7:33 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> Moshe wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Instead we have Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, Nuendo etc
>>>>>> and dual monitors working out of the box.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I run Quicken under wine. Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass. Never tried
>>>>> Rosetta Stone or Nuendo, dual monitors work out-of-the-box.
>>>> 
>>>> How did you get the idea that Gimp is better than Photoshop?  Gimp
>>>> lack a *lot* of features I know I use in Photoshop.
>>> 
>>> I've never run across a feature I needed but Gimp didn't have.
>>> Features I don't use, don't need, don't count.  You like Photoshop?
>>> Good. Buy it and use it.
>>
>> Hey, if it works for you, fine.  Not trying to talk you out of it...
>> but the comment:
>>
>>     Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass.
>>
>> I would love to see you try to support it.
> 
> I'd say the same as a very subjective and personal statement. Why?
> Gimp works for me. I even like the interface (which slightly regressed
> in 2.6 - I can't put my finger on it yet, but intermittently it acts
> kind of odd). And obviously the value for money ratio is infinitively
> higher than Photoshop's.

You're a geek though TomB. No insult intended, in a nice way.

I'm a basic user, maybe even less than a basic user, but the one
way Photoshop beats the pants off Gimp is in the user interface.

I've never used the full blown Photoshop program as I have no need
for it, but the interface is the same as the light versions
included with camera's etc and it's simple and easy.

Gimp is just very confusing.

On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:40:34 -0500, DFS wrote:

> ray wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 16:39:05 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> ray wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 07:40:00 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:51:30 -0500, Moshe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 05:08:06 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the
>>>>>>>> desktop. I don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Instead we have Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, Nuendo etc and
>>>>>>> dual monitors working out of the box.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However if you would like workspaces under Windows 7, Google is
>>>>>>> your friend.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you can have workspaces and use all of those professional
>>>>>>> quality applications as well !
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Something that *can't* be done under Linux.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Don't need quicken - use kmymoney, gnucash, or moneydance. 2.
>>>>>> Don't have a need for anything like rosetta stone, but I imagine
>>>>>> it would run via WINE.
>>>>>> 3. Don't need photoshop - use GIMP, ufraw, etc. 4. Don't need
>>>>>> nuendo - not much into music editing, but there are a plethora of
>>>>>> replacements.
>>>>>> 5. never had any trouble using dual monitors in Linux.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What a wonderful sample of one, raytard.  Meanwhile, many tens of
>>>>> millions do need those professional apps.  And they can't get them
>>>>> - or anything approaching them - on the Linux crapware platform.
>>>>
>>>> No, 'many tens of millions' do not need those programs. They 'need'
>>>> something like them. In some cases they need something compatible
>>>> with them - equivalents like are available and often included with
>>>> major Linux distributions.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, many tens of millions all around the world need those exact
>>> Windows programs.  That's what they've been using for years, that's
>>> what they know, those are the industry standards that are expected,
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> Linux doesn't fit, and never will.
>>
>> Hey DooFuS, either you have not READ what I said or you've read it but
>> can't UNDERSTAND it or you're a complete idiot.
> 
> 
> I read what you said, raytard.  You're wrong.  Many tens of millions - but 
> not everyone of course - flat-out require Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, 
> Nuendo, Excel, Oracle, etc.   They do not want or need your "equivalents" 
> (especially the pretender crapware distributed with Linux).

This is very true, especially for musicians.

Reaper is a Windows DAW program and the Linux faithful have their
own forum on the Reaper site, where they help each other get
Reaper running under Wine, which it does quite well.

Why don't they run the native Linux programs like Ardour etc?

BTW these aren't Linux nuts, they just happen to like Linux for
other things, don't wish to dual boot and are musicians at the
same time.

They have found a good solution for their situation.

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 21:25:14 -0600, AZ Nomad wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 02:27:08 +0000 (UTC), RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 16:31:12 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
> 
>>> My spell checker is flagging 4 errors in the above 3 lines.  What is
>>> wrong with yours?
> 
>>Grammar flame. Looks like another lost argument.
> 
> Flatty never has a valid argument.  All he has is insults and stupidity.

I never post gammer flames etc.
You got the wrong person.

Moshe stated in post 1ftyhv5hn7l85$.mkbrrlv6z5s7$.dlg@40tude.net on 3/7/10
7:06 AM:

.... 
>>> Hey, if it works for you, fine.  Not trying to talk you out of it...
>>> but the comment:
>>> 
>>>     Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass.
>>> 
>>> I would love to see you try to support it.
>> 
>> I'd say the same as a very subjective and personal statement. Why?
>> Gimp works for me. I even like the interface (which slightly regressed
>> in 2.6 - I can't put my finger on it yet, but intermittently it acts
>> kind of odd). And obviously the value for money ratio is infinitively
>> higher than Photoshop's.
> 
> You're a geek though TomB. No insult intended, in a nice way.
> 
> I'm a basic user, maybe even less than a basic user, but the one
> way Photoshop beats the pants off Gimp is in the user interface.

Well, that is *one* way... it is not "the one way".

> I've never used the full blown Photoshop program as I have no need
> for it, but the interface is the same as the light versions
> included with camera's etc and it's simple and easy.
> 
> Gimp is just very confusing.

As someone who makes good use of Photoshop, I can say I would hate to have
to be limited to the Gimp feature set.  It is crippled in comparison.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

TomB stated in post 20100307083735.658@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/7/10 12:42
AM:

> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> Enkidu stated in post 20100307035105.17382.71669.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/6/10
>> 8:51 PM:
>> 
>>> Now you tell me: What does Photoshop do that Gimp doesn't?
>> 
>> Off the top of my head: layer sets, adjustment layers, clipping layers,
>> smart objects, advanced selection techniques, type on a path, 3D tools,
>> Dreamweaver integration, content-aware scaling, working with groups of
>> layers, etc.
> 
> Never missed any of those except having text following a path/curve.

I use them all on a regular basis... but of course you do not miss things
you have no experience with.

> I've been waiting for that a long time. I'm sure it will be
> implemented eventually.

It has been for a long time.  In Photoshop.

And it is fine that you make light use of an image editing tool... there is
no high end tool available for desktop Linux.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

TomB stated in post 20100307095905.174@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/7/10 2:02 AM:

> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> Rick stated in post zuKdnYTsYPdddA_WnZ2dnUVZ_ukAAAAA@supernews.com on 3/6/10
>> 4:48 PM:
>> 
>>>>> How is spaces more flexible than X11?
>>>>> 
>>>> If you have a several programs scattered into several spaces, you can
>>>> click on the spaces icon and you get all the spaces shown at once where
>>>> you can then drag and drop your programs into the spaces you want for
>>>> better organization of your software.
>>> 
>>> middle-click. select app/document. send to desktop.
>>> ... as well as dragging windows across a pager.
>> 
>> What you described is not the same as what is done with Spaces and its "high
>> level" view.  
> 
> The same functionality has been available in compiz for years. in kwin
> since KDE4, and soon in metacity (or the window manager that will
> replace metacity - forgot the name) in Gnome 3.

But what *Rick* described was not the same.  I have seen comparable features
with Compiz.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

"Enkidu" <enkidu@nogodhere.net> wrote in message 
news:20100307035105.17382.71669.XPN@nogodhere.net...
> Snit wrote:
>
>> RonB stated in post hmv352$i8v$3@news.eternal-september.org on 3/6/10 
>> 7:30
>> PM:
>>
>>>>>> I run Quicken under wine. Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass. Never tried
>>>>>> Rosetta Stone or Nuendo, dual monitors work out-of-the-box.
>>>>>
>>>>> How did you get the idea that Gimp is better than Photoshop?  Gimp 
>>>>> lack
>>>>> a *lot* of features I know I use in Photoshop.
>>>>
>>>> I've never run across a feature I needed but Gimp didn't have. Features
>>>> I don't use, don't need, don't count.  You like Photoshop? Good. Buy it
>>>> and use it.
>>>
>>> And I don't use Photoshop... or Gimp (except to occasionally scale
>>> pictures). So "Windows runs Photoshop" is an absolute empty argument for
>>> the hundreds of millions who don't use it or want it.
>>
>> Lovely.  But the topic is my asking for support for the claim:
>>
>>     Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass.
>
> Gimp does everything I've ever needed to do, it's not from Adobe, and
> it's free. Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass.

Perhaps you meant to say that Gimp can't even begin to kiss Photoshop's ass?


> Now you tell me: What does Photoshop do that Gimp doesn't?

Let's start with a UI that's actually usable. Then there's this performance 
thing... you know, being able to apply filters and see the result in a 
reasonable amount of time. Here Gimp is named aptly because it's as slow as 
a Gimp.

(Performance chart)
http://www.extremetech.com/image_popup/0,,iid=229986&aID=237897&sID=27875,00.asp

(Article)
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2342739,00.asp

<quote>
Compared to GIMP, Photoshop is basically running at NASCAR speeds compared 
to the bumper cars at Disneyworld: There is no comparison. I ran a few image 
re-sizing tests in Corel PaintShop Pro X2 and in Microsoft Expression Media 
2, and these tests all run in minutes rather than seconds for a very large 
10,000 pixel image. It was not worth doing the benchmarks compared to 
Photoshop.
</quote>

TomB stated in post 20100307105403.57@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/7/10 3:01 AM:

> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> Enkidu stated in post 20100307004828.13443.89919.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/6/10
>> 5:48 PM:
>> 
>>> Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Enkidu stated in post 20100306023310.4196.14166.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/5/10
>>>> 7:33 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> Moshe wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Instead we have Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, Nuendo etc
>>>>>> and dual monitors working out of the box.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I run Quicken under wine. Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass. Never tried
>>>>> Rosetta Stone or Nuendo, dual monitors work out-of-the-box.
>>>> 
>>>> How did you get the idea that Gimp is better than Photoshop?  Gimp
>>>> lack a *lot* of features I know I use in Photoshop.
>>> 
>>> I've never run across a feature I needed but Gimp didn't have.
>>> Features I don't use, don't need, don't count.  You like Photoshop?
>>> Good. Buy it and use it.
>> 
>> Hey, if it works for you, fine.  Not trying to talk you out of it...
>> but the comment:
>> 
>>     Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass.
>> 
>> I would love to see you try to support it.
> 
> I'd say the same as a very subjective and personal statement. Why?
> Gimp works for me. I even like the interface (which slightly regressed
> in 2.6 - I can't put my finger on it yet, but intermittently it acts
> kind of odd). And obviously the value for money ratio is infinitively
> higher than Photoshop's.

That is like saying Notepad kicks OpenOffice's ass because it serves my
needs.  Sure, it works for low end needs just fine... but OpenOffice is
clearly the far more capable program.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 09:10:29 -0500, Moshe <goldee_loxnbagels@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 21:25:14 -0600, AZ Nomad wrote:

>> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 02:27:08 +0000 (UTC), RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 16:31:12 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
>> 
>>>> My spell checker is flagging 4 errors in the above 3 lines.  What is
>>>> wrong with yours?
>> 
>>>Grammar flame. Looks like another lost argument.
>> 
>> Flatty never has a valid argument.  All he has is insults and stupidity.

>I never post gammer flames etc.
>You got the wrong person.

You've nymshifted through something like 70's nyms.  Amicus isn't one
of them? 

RonB pulled this Usenet boner:

> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 16:31:12 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> My spell checker is flagging 4 errors in the above 3 lines.  What is
>> wrong with yours?
>
> Grammar flame. Looks like another lost argument.

I got an exponential-notation flame the other day.  LOL.

-- 
You are only young once, but you can stay immature indefinitely.

Ezekiel stated in post hn0da4$c0j$1@news.eternal-september.org on 3/7/10
7:30 AM:

> 
> "Enkidu" <enkidu@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
> news:20100307035105.17382.71669.XPN@nogodhere.net...
>> Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> RonB stated in post hmv352$i8v$3@news.eternal-september.org on 3/6/10
>>> 7:30
>>> PM:
>>> 
>>>>>>> I run Quicken under wine. Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass. Never tried
>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone or Nuendo, dual monitors work out-of-the-box.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> How did you get the idea that Gimp is better than Photoshop?  Gimp
>>>>>> lack
>>>>>> a *lot* of features I know I use in Photoshop.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I've never run across a feature I needed but Gimp didn't have. Features
>>>>> I don't use, don't need, don't count.  You like Photoshop? Good. Buy it
>>>>> and use it.
>>>> 
>>>> And I don't use Photoshop... or Gimp (except to occasionally scale
>>>> pictures). So "Windows runs Photoshop" is an absolute empty argument for
>>>> the hundreds of millions who don't use it or want it.
>>> 
>>> Lovely.  But the topic is my asking for support for the claim:
>>> 
>>>     Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass.
>> 
>> Gimp does everything I've ever needed to do, it's not from Adobe, and
>> it's free. Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass.
> 
> Perhaps you meant to say that Gimp can't even begin to kiss Photoshop's ass?
> 
> 
>> Now you tell me: What does Photoshop do that Gimp doesn't?
> 
> Let's start with a UI that's actually usable. Then there's this performance
> thing... you know, being able to apply filters and see the result in a
> reasonable amount of time.

Though often not as fast as other products... for example, no setting of
gradients in real time.  Sort of a bummer.

> Here Gimp is named aptly because it's as slow as
> a Gimp.
> 
> (Performance chart)
> http://www.extremetech.com/image_popup/0,,iid=229986&aID=237897&sID=27875,00.a
> sp
> 
> (Article)
> http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2342739,00.asp
> 
> <quote>
> Compared to GIMP, Photoshop is basically running at NASCAR speeds compared
> to the bumper cars at Disneyworld: There is no comparison. I ran a few image
> re-sizing tests in Corel PaintShop Pro X2 and in Microsoft Expression Media
> 2, and these tests all run in minutes rather than seconds for a very large
> 10,000 pixel image. It was not worth doing the benchmarks compared to
> Photoshop.
> </quote>

Good info.  Thanks.



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

TomB stated in post 20100307095358.223@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/7/10 1:54 AM:

>>> Yes, many tens of millions all around the world need those exact Windows
>>> programs.  That's what they've been using for years, that's what they know,
>>> those are the industry standards that are expected, etc.
>>> 
>>> Linux doesn't fit, and never will.
>>> 
>> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments>
> 
> Don't you get sick and tired of posting that same link over and over
> again?
> 
> :-p

Well there you go... ripping Rick a new one.  :)


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message 
news:C7B909CA.67BF8%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com...
> Ezekiel stated in post hn0da4$c0j$1@news.eternal-september.org on 3/7/10
> 7:30 AM:
>
>> Here Gimp is named aptly because it's as slow as
>> a Gimp.
>>
>> (Performance chart)
>> http://www.extremetech.com/image_popup/0,,iid=229986&aID=237897&sID=27875,00.a
>> sp
>>
>> (Article)
>> http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2342739,00.asp
>>
>> <quote>
>> Compared to GIMP, Photoshop is basically running at NASCAR speeds 
>> compared
>> to the bumper cars at Disneyworld: There is no comparison. I ran a few 
>> image
>> re-sizing tests in Corel PaintShop Pro X2 and in Microsoft Expression 
>> Media
>> 2, and these tests all run in minutes rather than seconds for a very 
>> large
>> 10,000 pixel image. It was not worth doing the benchmarks compared to
>> Photoshop.
>> </quote>
>
> Good info.  Thanks.
>

For those who can't (or won't) read charts - on a variety of hardware 
(high-end, low-end, etc) GIMP takes more than 10x as long to perform common 
operations.

Another issue (not mentioned in this article) is the quality of the filters. 
Just because both GIMP and Photoshop have a "sharpen" or "enhance edges" 
filter doesn't mean they both work identically and produce the same quality 
results.

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 21:40:34 -0500, DFS wrote:

> ray wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 16:39:05 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> ray wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 07:40:00 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:51:30 -0500, Moshe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 05:08:06 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop.
>>>>>>>> I don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Instead we have Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, Nuendo etc and
>>>>>>> dual monitors working out of the box.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However if you would like workspaces under Windows 7, Google is
>>>>>>> your friend.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you can have workspaces and use all of those professional
>>>>>>> quality applications as well !
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Something that *can't* be done under Linux.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Don't need quicken - use kmymoney, gnucash, or moneydance. 2.
>>>>>> Don't have a need for anything like rosetta stone, but I imagine it
>>>>>> would run via WINE.
>>>>>> 3. Don't need photoshop - use GIMP, ufraw, etc. 4. Don't need
>>>>>> nuendo - not much into music editing, but there are a plethora of
>>>>>> replacements.
>>>>>> 5. never had any trouble using dual monitors in Linux.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What a wonderful sample of one, raytard.  Meanwhile, many tens of
>>>>> millions do need those professional apps.  And they can't get them -
>>>>> or anything approaching them - on the Linux crapware platform.
>>>>
>>>> No, 'many tens of millions' do not need those programs. They 'need'
>>>> something like them. In some cases they need something compatible
>>>> with them - equivalents like are available and often included with
>>>> major Linux distributions.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, many tens of millions all around the world need those exact
>>> Windows programs.  That's what they've been using for years, that's
>>> what they know, those are the industry standards that are expected,
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> Linux doesn't fit, and never will.
>>
>> Hey DooFuS, either you have not READ what I said or you've read it but
>> can't UNDERSTAND it or you're a complete idiot.
> 
> 
> I read what you said, raytard.  You're wrong.  Many tens of millions -
> but not everyone of course - flat-out require Quicken, Rosetta Stone,
> Photoshop, Nuendo, Excel, Oracle, etc.   They do not want or need your
> "equivalents" (especially the pretender crapware distributed with
> Linux).

One quick analysis: "many tens of millions need quicken" - FACT many tens 
of millions 'need' a checkbook balancing program. A few folks actually 
need compatibility with quicken (which can be achieved with, e.g., 
moneydance) because that's the only thing their accountant will accept.

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 08:36:55 -0600, AZ Nomad wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 09:10:29 -0500, Moshe <goldee_loxnbagels@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 21:25:14 -0600, AZ Nomad wrote:
> 
>>> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 02:27:08 +0000 (UTC), RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 16:31:12 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> My spell checker is flagging 4 errors in the above 3 lines.  What is
>>>>> wrong with yours?
>>> 
>>>>Grammar flame. Looks like another lost argument.
>>> 
>>> Flatty never has a valid argument.  All he has is insults and stupidity.
> 
>>I never post gammer flames etc.
>>You got the wrong person.
> 
> You've nymshifted through something like 70's nyms.  Amicus isn't one
> of them?

Nope.
70 nyms?
Doubtful.

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> RonB pulled this Usenet boner:
> 
>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 16:31:12 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>>> My spell checker is flagging 4 errors in the above 3 lines.  What is
>>> wrong with yours?
>> Grammar flame. Looks like another lost argument.
> 
> I got an exponential-notation flame the other day.  LOL.
> 


FYITAWAWB, Liarmutt.


Your claim of Linux and the BSDs taking the world by storm was based on 
your creative way of incorrectly manipulating any set of given numbers.



Message-ID: <hmrc7c$57h$1@news.eternal-september.org>

quote

Chris Ahlstrom pulled this Usenet boner:

 >    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Statistics#Who_uses_Fedora.3F
 >
 >    TOTAL UNIQUE IPs: 19,767,948

To follow up.  Go to http://www.distrowatch.com and copy the
100 distro counts into a spreadsheet.  Scale each entry against
Fedora's, then add them all up.

What kind of number do you get?

About 370 *million*.  3.7e09!

Now, certainly, that might not reflect unique users, and many people will
not only be running Windows as well, but other distros besides their main
one.  And certainly there are uncertainties in Fedora's count.

Nonetheless, I think this number really indicates that the usage of Linux
(and the BSDs and Solaris) is *far* more pervasive than Microsoft and its
dazed trollers would like us to believe.

/quote



To this day, Pan .133 still crashes like an Al-Qaida piloted 747, and 
Debian Squeeze still rules the roost, for a multi-roll distro.

TomB pulled this Usenet boner:

> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> Enkidu stated in post 20100307035105.17382.71669.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/6/10
>> 8:51 PM:
>>
>>> Now you tell me: What does Photoshop do that Gimp doesn't?
>>
>> Off the top of my head:
>>
>> layer sets
>> working with groups of layers, etc.

   http://old.nabble.com/Layer-Sets-(Layer-Grouping)--td15576505.html

   ...you can group layers:  In the Layer
   pallet, click the space between the eye and layer icons on each layer
   you want to group.  A chain link will appear show that layer is now
   linked. 

>> adjustment layers

   http://www.flickr.com/groups/gimpusers/discuss/72157609437810333/

   In the end, adjustment layers are convenient but you can use blending
   modes for layer to the same flexible effect in Gimp. 

   (2008)

>> clipping layers,

   http://arstechnica.com/features/2009/01/gimp-2-6-review.ars/11

   I'll likely get flamed for expecting too much of a free program, but I
   threw some demanding professional imaging tasks at it and GIMP handled
   most very well with a few misses and small bugs popping up here and
   there. I may seem to skew negative since I talk so much about what's
   missing, but it's hard to dwell on what a program does well and not sound
   like a fawning idiot. Most people who sit down to get image editing work
   done with GIMP will not be disappointed. There is a ton of room for
   advanced work here. 

Missing, but the author also things grouping of layers is missing.

>> smart objects,

   http://digg.com/software/Configuring_GIMP_2_6_to_Replace_Adobe_Photoshop

   I consider Smart Objects a high-end need that 90% of home users will
   NEVER have a reason to use.

   You know perfectly well that most people could do fine with Photoshop
   Elements, so why would you want them to spend hundreds of dollars on
   something they'll never use? No one is saying that professionals should
   give up Photoshop, just that it isn't necessary for the average user.

>> advanced selection techniques,

Check out the menu options for selection:

   rectangle; ellipse; free hand; fuzzy; by color; intelligent edge fitting;
   foreground select; invert selection; selection editing; selection
   distressing; round corners of selection; floating selection; selection
   sharpening; selection growing or shrinking; selection feathering; quick
   mask; save to channel; save to path

>> type on a path,

That exists now (I'm using 2.6.7).  Check it out.  I still have to learn how
to create paths, though, to try it out.

>> 3D tools,

Looks like Photoshop is indeed well-ahead of the GIMP on this one.

Probably want to use Blender, another free program, instead.

>> Dreamweaver integration,

Cool if you are locked into that product.

>> content-aware scaling,

Looks like an interesting distortion of an object.

> Never missed any of those except having text following a path/curve.
> I've been waiting for that a long time. I'm sure it will be
> implemented eventually.

Check it out, TomB, and perhaps provide your assessment here.

You seem to be the main voice against Snit's misrepresentations.

The GIMP stacks up pretty well against the very pricey Photoshop.
If you make your living using Photoshop, you won't budge.  But so what?

-- 
Knucklehead:	"Knock, knock"
Pee Wee:	"Who's there?"
Knucklehead:	"Little ol' lady."
Pee Wee:	"Liddle ol' lady who?"
Knucklehead:	"I didn't know you could yodel"

Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:

> Let's start with a UI that's actually usable.

Like the GIMP's?  I find it very usable.

> Then there's this performance 
> thing... you know, being able to apply filters and see the result in a 
> reasonable amount of time. Here Gimp is named aptly because it's as slow as 
> a Gimp.
>
> (Performance chart)
> http://www.extremetech.com/image_popup/0,,iid=229986&aID=237897&sID=27875,00.asp
>
> (Article)
> http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2342739,00.asp
>
> <quote>
> Compared to GIMP, Photoshop is basically running at NASCAR speeds compared 
> to the bumper cars at Disneyworld: There is no comparison. I ran a few image 
> re-sizing tests in Corel PaintShop Pro X2 and in Microsoft Expression Media 
> 2, and these tests all run in minutes rather than seconds for a very large 
> 10,000 pixel image. It was not worth doing the benchmarks compared to 
> Photoshop.
> </quote>

It would be nice if they'd posted dates and version numbers.

Sounds like the article is actually indicating whether the manipulations are
GPU-enhanced or not.  For example:

   http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2342738,00.asp  (page 3)

   Here's an example. Photoshop CS4 is a 64-bit application that uses
   something called Pixel Bender, which allows the image editor to tap into
   the GPU for a speed boost. Nvidia builds a graphics card specifically for
   Photoshop called the QUADRO CX. It's pretty obvious that Photoshop is
   going to rip through a speed benchmark, but that doesn't make it the
   ultimate performer in my book because, frankly, not everyone can afford a
   $2000 graphics card. 

GPU for GIMP?

   http://www.ohloh.net/p/gimp-gpu

   Gimp GPU-accelerated plug-in. Harnesses GPGPU graphics cards for
   hyper-speed Image Manipulation and Photo Editing. GPU-accelerated
   gimp-plugin for users, and Framework to simplify GPU-accelerated plug-in
   development, for developers, reasearch & educators

Also would be interesting to time those manipulations as done by
imagemagick.

-- 
Your fly might be open (but don't check it just now).

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 10:32:45 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:
> 
>> Let's start with a UI that's actually usable.
> 
> Like the GIMP's?  I find it very usable.

Of course you do Liarsuck.
Classic suck up.

If you admitted it sucks, which it does, you would be ostracized
from Roy's little club.

Just the fact another Linux lackey has to post an article like
this means that the truth is Gimp's UI sucks.

http://open-source.ecchi.ca/?voir=articles/gimp_ui

TomB wrote:
> On 2010-03-06, the following emerged from the brain of Rick:
>> DFS wrote:
>>> ray wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 07:40:00 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:51:30 -0500, Moshe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 05:08:06 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>>>>>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Instead we have Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, Nuendo etc and
>>>>>>> dual monitors working out of the box.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However if you would like workspaces under Windows 7, Google is
>>>>>>> your friend.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you can have workspaces and use all of those professional
>>>>>>> quality applications as well !
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Something that *can't* be done under Linux.
>>>>>> 1. Don't need quicken - use kmymoney, gnucash, or moneydance. 2.
>>>>>> Don't have a need for anything like rosetta stone, but I imagine it
>>>>>> would run via WINE.
>>>>>> 3. Don't need photoshop - use GIMP, ufraw, etc. 4. Don't need
>>>>>> nuendo - not much into music editing, but there are a plethora of
>>>>>> replacements.
>>>>>> 5. never had any trouble using dual monitors in Linux.
>>>>> What a wonderful sample of one, raytard.  Meanwhile, many tens of
>>>>> millions do need those professional apps.  And they can't get them -
>>>>> or anything approaching them - on the Linux crapware platform.
>>>> No, 'many tens of millions' do not need those programs. They 'need'
>>>> something like them. In some cases they need something compatible with
>>>> them - equivalents like are available and often included with major
>>>> Linux distributions.
>>>
>>> Yes, many tens of millions all around the world need those exact Windows
>>> programs.  That's what they've been using for years, that's what they know,
>>> those are the industry standards that are expected, etc.
>>>
>>> Linux doesn't fit, and never will.
>>>
>> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments>
> 
> Don't you get sick and tired of posting that same link over and over
> again?
> 
> :-p
> 
Nope :-)

-- 
Rick

Chris Ahlstrom stated in post hn0gcp$fsj$1@news.eternal-september.org on
3/7/10 8:23 AM:

> TomB pulled this Usenet boner:
> 
>> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> Enkidu stated in post 20100307035105.17382.71669.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/6/10
>>> 8:51 PM:
>>> 
>>>> Now you tell me: What does Photoshop do that Gimp doesn't?
>>> 
>>> Off the top of my head:
>>> 
>>> layer sets
>>> working with groups of layers, etc.
> 
>    http://old.nabble.com/Layer-Sets-(Layer-Grouping)--td15576505.html
> 
>    ...you can group layers:  In the Layer
>    pallet, click the space between the eye and layer icons on each layer
>    you want to group.  A chain link will appear show that layer is now
>    linked. 

That is not the same thing as on-the-fly selection, but it can often be used
to the same affect in a less efficient way.

>>> adjustment layers
> 
>    http://www.flickr.com/groups/gimpusers/discuss/72157609437810333/
> 
>    In the end, adjustment layers are convenient but you can use blending
>    modes for layer to the same flexible effect in Gimp.
> 
>    (2008)

In context, your same quote:

    -----
    The adjustment layers in Photoshop are very convenient,
    that's true, but you can obtain very similar results by
    duplicating and blending layers in different modes. Of
    course, you should then keep the image files in xcfbz2 or xcf
    format to keep the different layers and the possibility of
    going back to the original image. There is a major
    difference, however, between blended layers and adjustment
    layers - you can not go back using the same layer - in PS,
    for example, you can modify the levels with an adjustment
    layer and one week later come back and modify that layer
    again. In Gimp you would need to recreate the 'levels
    adjustment' layer.

    In the end, adjustment layers are convenient but you can use
    blending modes for layer to the same flexible effect in Gimp.
    -----

Adjustment layers are quite different and better... as noted by the very
person you quoted!

>>> clipping layers,
> 
>    http://arstechnica.com/features/2009/01/gimp-2-6-review.ars/11
> 
>    I'll likely get flamed for expecting too much of a free program, but I
>    threw some demanding professional imaging tasks at it and GIMP handled
>    most very well with a few misses and small bugs popping up here and
>    there. I may seem to skew negative since I talk so much about what's
>    missing, but it's hard to dwell on what a program does well and not sound
>    like a fawning idiot. Most people who sit down to get image editing work
>    done with GIMP will not be disappointed. There is a ton of room for
>    advanced work here.
> 
> Missing, but the author also things grouping of layers is missing.

Do you have any comment about clipping layers?  Hint, at least last I
looked, Gimp did not have these.  I know I use them often.

>>> smart objects,
> 
>    http://digg.com/software/Configuring_GIMP_2_6_to_Replace_Adobe_Photoshop
> 
>    I consider Smart Objects a high-end need that 90% of home users will
>    NEVER have a reason to use.
> 
>    You know perfectly well that most people could do fine with Photoshop
>    Elements, so why would you want them to spend hundreds of dollars on
>    something they'll never use? No one is saying that professionals should
>    give up Photoshop, just that it isn't necessary for the average user.

I know *I* use them a lot.  As do many people.  And I have repeatedly said
Gimp is closer to Photoshop Elements... not Photoshop.  Your quote supports
my position.

>>> advanced selection techniques,
> 
> Check out the menu options for selection:
> 
>    rectangle; ellipse; free hand; fuzzy; by color; intelligent edge fitting;
>    foreground select; invert selection; selection editing; selection
>    distressing; round corners of selection; floating selection; selection
>    sharpening; selection growing or shrinking; selection feathering; quick
>    mask; save to channel; save to path

Right.  It has those but not, for example, the Quick Selection or Refine
Edge tools.
 
>>> type on a path,
> 
> That exists now (I'm using 2.6.7).  Check it out.  I still have to learn how
> to create paths, though, to try it out.

I might... but just so we know we are talking about the same thing:

<http://www.webdesign.org/photoshop/text-effects/text-on-a-spiral-path-in-ph
otoshop-cs.5453.html>

I recall seeing somewhere the ability to type on a circular path in Gimp,
but it was oddly limited to just circles... or some such nonsense.  If Gimp
has grown in this area then that is a good thing.

>>> 3D tools,
> 
> Looks like Photoshop is indeed well-ahead of the GIMP on this one.
> 
> Probably want to use Blender, another free program, instead.

Fair enough... and I will admit I rarely use the 3D tools... though I do use
the video layers... and I left those off my list.  :)

>>> Dreamweaver integration,
> 
> Cool if you are locked into that product.

Locked?  I use it and other tools... so I am not "locked".

>>> content-aware scaling,
> 
> Looks like an interesting distortion of an object.

It is.  

>> Never missed any of those except having text following a path/curve.
>> I've been waiting for that a long time. I'm sure it will be
>> implemented eventually.
> 
> Check it out, TomB, and perhaps provide your assessment here.
> 
> You seem to be the main voice against Snit's misrepresentations.

You have not shown evidence of my being wrong... but you have made claims.
I would like to see evidence.  Type on a path, for example.
 
> The GIMP stacks up pretty well against the very pricey Photoshop.
> If you make your living using Photoshop, you won't budge.  But so what?

Gimp is close to Photoshop Elements.  It is not in the same class as
Photoshop.  

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Thomas Thordarsen pulled this Usenet boner:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> RonB pulled this Usenet boner:
>> 
>>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 16:31:12 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
>>>
>>>> My spell checker is flagging 4 errors in the above 3 lines.  What is
>>>> wrong with yours?
>>> Grammar flame. Looks like another lost argument.
>> 
>> I got an exponential-notation flame the other day.  LOL.
>
> Your claim of Linux and the BSDs taking the world by storm was based on 
> your creative way of incorrectly manipulating any set of given numbers.
>
> Message-ID: <hmrc7c$57h$1@news.eternal-september.org>
> quote
>
> >    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Statistics#Who_uses_Fedora.3F
> >
> >    TOTAL UNIQUE IPs: 19,767,948
>
> To follow up.  Go to http://www.distrowatch.com and copy the
> 100 distro counts into a spreadsheet.  Scale each entry against
> Fedora's, then add them all up.
>
> What kind of number do you get?
>
> About 370 *million*.  3.7e09!

Why didn't you note that the "3.7e09" should be "3.7e08", hmmm?

> Now, certainly, that might not reflect unique users, and many people will
> not only be running Windows as well, but other distros besides their main
> one.  And certainly there are uncertainties in Fedora's count.
>
> Nonetheless, I think this number really indicates that the usage of Linux
> (and the BSDs and Solaris) is *far* more pervasive than Microsoft and its
> dazed trollers would like us to believe.
> /quote

So where am I incorrect, "Thomas"?

> To this day, Pan .133 still crashes like an Al-Qaida piloted 747, and 
> Debian Squeeze still rules the roost, for a multi-roll distro.

"Thomas", when all you can do is allude mysteriously to "creative ways of
incorrectly manipulating any given set of numbers" when I have laid out
in full what I did, and also noted some weaknesses, and then follow it up
with aspersions, it is obvious that your sole purpose is distraction.

-- 
Knock, knock!
	Who's there?
Sam and Janet.
	Sam and Janet who?
Sam and Janet Evening...

RonB wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 18:49:18 -0500, Rick wrote:
> 
>> RonB wrote:
>>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:51:34 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you have a several programs scattered into several spaces, you can
>>>> click on the spaces icon and you get all the spaces shown at once
>>>> where you can then drag and drop your programs into the spaces you
>>>> want for better organization of your software.
>>> Kind of like Compiz? (I don't know, the only time I've tried Compiz is
>>> when booting to Knoppix. I don't really need it or particularly like
>>> it, but it was fun to play with.)
>>>
>> I'd like it a lot better if you could customize the mouse buttons more.
> 
> I'm kind of stuck in my ways and I already know where I store stuff on 
> workspaces. I would just as soon not have Compiz's overhead. But again, 
> it's a matter of taste. And *again* another reason to choose Linux -- you 
> can have it however you want it.
> 
If Compiz had added the mouse button configurability, I might have 
switched back to Gnome, after many years with KDE or WindowMaker. But, 
KDE4 now has the features back that I was missing, so it looks like I'll 
stick with KDE for the "big environment" and probably WindowMaker for 
the slimmer environment.

-- 
Rick

Moshe wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 08:36:55 -0600, AZ Nomad wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 09:10:29 -0500, Moshe <goldee_loxnbagels@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 21:25:14 -0600, AZ Nomad wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 02:27:08 +0000 (UTC), RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 16:31:12 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
>>>>>> My spell checker is flagging 4 errors in the above 3 lines.  What is
>>>>>> wrong with yours?
>>>>> Grammar flame. Looks like another lost argument.
>>>> Flatty never has a valid argument.  All he has is insults and stupidity.
>>> I never post gammer flames etc.
>>> You got the wrong person.
>> You've nymshifted through something like 70's nyms.  Amicus isn't one
>> of them?
> 
> Nope.
> 70 nyms?
> Doubtful.

Yeah, that is a rather low number.

-- 
Rick

TomB wrote:
> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> Enkidu stated in post 20100307035105.17382.71669.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/6/10
>> 8:51 PM:
>>
>>> Now you tell me: What does Photoshop do that Gimp doesn't?
>> Off the top of my head: layer sets, adjustment layers, clipping layers,
>> smart objects, advanced selection techniques, type on a path, 3D tools,
>> Dreamweaver integration, content-aware scaling, working with groups of
>> layers, etc.
> 
> Never missed any of those except having text following a path/curve.
> I've been waiting for that a long time. I'm sure it will be
> implemented eventually.
> 
Does this help:
<http://gimp-tutorials.net/gimp-text-to-path-tutorial>

-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post 6pqdnU6v1_XjVg7WnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@supernews.com on 3/7/10
8:51 AM:

> TomB wrote:
>> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> Enkidu stated in post 20100307035105.17382.71669.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/6/10
>>> 8:51 PM:
>>> 
>>>> Now you tell me: What does Photoshop do that Gimp doesn't?
>>> Off the top of my head: layer sets, adjustment layers, clipping layers,
>>> smart objects, advanced selection techniques, type on a path, 3D tools,
>>> Dreamweaver integration, content-aware scaling, working with groups of
>>> layers, etc.
>> 
>> Never missed any of those except having text following a path/curve.
>> I've been waiting for that a long time. I'm sure it will be
>> implemented eventually.
>> 
> Does this help:
> <http://gimp-tutorials.net/gimp-text-to-path-tutorial>

Thank you.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post 6pqdnU6v1_XjVg7WnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@supernews.com on 3/7/10
8:51 AM:

> TomB wrote:
>> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> Enkidu stated in post 20100307035105.17382.71669.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/6/10
>>> 8:51 PM:
>>> 
>>>> Now you tell me: What does Photoshop do that Gimp doesn't?
>>> Off the top of my head: layer sets, adjustment layers, clipping layers,
>>> smart objects, advanced selection techniques, type on a path, 3D tools,
>>> Dreamweaver integration, content-aware scaling, working with groups of
>>> layers, etc.
>> 
>> Never missed any of those except having text following a path/curve.
>> I've been waiting for that a long time. I'm sure it will be
>> implemented eventually.
>> 
> Does this help:
> <http://gimp-tutorials.net/gimp-text-to-path-tutorial>

Does it do path containers, too?  If so that would be cool.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:

> For those who can't (or won't) read charts - on a variety of hardware 
> (high-end, low-end, etc) GIMP takes more than 10x as long to perform common 
> operations.
>
> Another issue (not mentioned in this article) is the quality of the filters. 
> Just because both GIMP and Photoshop have a "sharpen" or "enhance edges" 
> filter doesn't mean they both work identically and produce the same quality 
> results.

And vice versa.

This bickering is moot to people who can't justify a $700 package.

-- 
You will reach the highest possible point in your business or profession.

TomB wrote:

> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> Rick stated in post zuKdnYTsYPdddA_WnZ2dnUVZ_ukAAAAA@supernews.com on
>> 3/6/10 4:48 PM:
>>
>>>>> How is spaces more flexible than X11?
>>>>> 
>>>> If you have a several programs scattered into several spaces, you can
>>>> click on the spaces icon and you get all the spaces shown at once
>>>> where you can then drag and drop your programs into the spaces you
>>>> want for better organization of your software.
>>> 
>>> middle-click. select app/document. send to desktop.
>>> ... as well as dragging windows across a pager.
>>
>> What you described is not the same as what is done with Spaces and its
>> "high level" view.
> 
> The same functionality has been available in compiz for years. in kwin
> since KDE4, and soon in metacity (or the window manager that will
> replace metacity - forgot the name) in Gnome 3.
> 

So Snot Michael Glasser is not even smart enough to recognize that a 
feature which is always present (I can move apps from one virtual desktop 
to another by simply dragging it in the always displayed pager) is better 
than his "high level view" of his spaces shite

But according to Snot Michael Glasser, having to do more to achieve the 
same result is somehow magically "high level"
-- 
It's sweet to be remembered, but it's often cheaper to be forgotten.

Rick pulled this Usenet boner:

> TomB wrote:
>> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> Enkidu stated in post 20100307035105.17382.71669.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/6/10
>>> 8:51 PM:
>>>
>>>> Now you tell me: What does Photoshop do that Gimp doesn't?
>>> Off the top of my head: layer sets, adjustment layers, clipping layers,
>>> smart objects, advanced selection techniques, type on a path, 3D tools,
>>> Dreamweaver integration, content-aware scaling, working with groups of
>>> layers, etc.
>> 
>> Never missed any of those except having text following a path/curve.
>> I've been waiting for that a long time. I'm sure it will be
>> implemented eventually.
>> 
> Does this help:
> <http://gimp-tutorials.net/gimp-text-to-path-tutorial>

The take-home lesson here is that software changes/advances like the
weather.  Beware of outdated claims.

Oh, and don't take anything a troll *or* and advocate says, unchallenged.
Check for yourself, if you really care about the statement.

-- 
He is now rising from affluence to poverty.
		-- Mark Twain

Chris Ahlstrom stated in post hn0jhv$u3v$4@news.eternal-september.org on
3/7/10 9:17 AM:

> Rick pulled this Usenet boner:
> 
>> TomB wrote:
>>> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>> Enkidu stated in post 20100307035105.17382.71669.XPN@nogodhere.net on
>>>> 3/6/10
>>>> 8:51 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> Now you tell me: What does Photoshop do that Gimp doesn't?
>>>> Off the top of my head: layer sets, adjustment layers, clipping layers,
>>>> smart objects, advanced selection techniques, type on a path, 3D tools,
>>>> Dreamweaver integration, content-aware scaling, working with groups of
>>>> layers, etc.
>>> 
>>> Never missed any of those except having text following a path/curve.
>>> I've been waiting for that a long time. I'm sure it will be
>>> implemented eventually.
>>> 
>> Does this help:
>> <http://gimp-tutorials.net/gimp-text-to-path-tutorial>
> 
> The take-home lesson here is that software changes/advances like the
> weather.  Beware of outdated claims.
> 
> Oh, and don't take anything a troll *or* and advocate says, unchallenged.
> Check for yourself, if you really care about the statement.

Oh, no doubt... some of my info might be outdated.  Question: are Gimp's
brushes resizable yet? That is such a basic feature I did not even think to
include it.  Just a brain-dead thing to leave out.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> wrote in message 
news:hn0guu$fsj$2@news.eternal-september.org...
> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> Let's start with a UI that's actually usable.
>
> Like the GIMP's?  I find it very usable.

That's nice, most people don't. And even many die-hard Linux supporters say 
the UI sucks.


>> Then there's this performance
>> thing... you know, being able to apply filters and see the result in a
>> reasonable amount of time. Here Gimp is named aptly because it's as slow 
>> as
>> a Gimp.
>>
>> (Performance chart)
>> http://www.extremetech.com/image_popup/0,,iid=229986&aID=237897&sID=27875,00.asp
>>
>> (Article)
>> http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2342739,00.asp
>>
>> <quote>
>> Compared to GIMP, Photoshop is basically running at NASCAR speeds 
>> compared
>> to the bumper cars at Disneyworld: There is no comparison. I ran a few 
>> image
>> re-sizing tests in Corel PaintShop Pro X2 and in Microsoft Expression 
>> Media
>> 2, and these tests all run in minutes rather than seconds for a very 
>> large
>> 10,000 pixel image. It was not worth doing the benchmarks compared to
>> Photoshop.
>> </quote>
>
> It would be nice if they'd posted dates and version numbers.

March 10, 2009 -By John Brandon and they give the version numbers (Photoshop 
CS4) they used.



> Sounds like the article is actually indicating whether the manipulations 
> are
> GPU-enhanced or not.  For example:
>
>   http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2342738,00.asp  (page 3)
>
>   Here's an example. Photoshop CS4 is a 64-bit application that uses
>   something called Pixel Bender, which allows the image editor to tap into
>   the GPU for a speed boost. Nvidia builds a graphics card specifically 
> for
>   Photoshop called the QUADRO CX. It's pretty obvious that Photoshop is
>   going to rip through a speed benchmark, but that doesn't make it the
>   ultimate performer in my book because, frankly, not everyone can afford 
> a
>   $2000 graphics card.

The $2k graphics card was used for the "high-end" test. The low-end 
benchmarks (Gateway laptop) without the expensive graphics card also showed 
Photoshop coming in well ahead of Gimp in performance.


> GPU for GIMP?
>
>   http://www.ohloh.net/p/gimp-gpu
>
>   Gimp GPU-accelerated plug-in. Harnesses GPGPU graphics cards for
>   hyper-speed Image Manipulation and Photo Editing. GPU-accelerated
>   gimp-plugin for users, and Framework to simplify GPU-accelerated plug-in
>   development, for developers, reasearch & educators

From this web page it looks like a dead project. 0 comments, 0 reviews, 0 
users, 0 ratings, 0 links. Are there any actual plug-ins that use this?


> Also would be interesting to time those manipulations as done by
> imagemagick.

Unless imagemagick uses the GPU there probably won't be all that much 
difference. I did a quick search and didn't find anything that indicates it 
does. This idea (using the CPU) is related to using a GPU to support H264 
video decoding - image/video manipulation can often be done a lot faster 
with a graphics processor.

"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> wrote in message 
news:hn0igr$u3v$2@news.eternal-september.org...
> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> For those who can't (or won't) read charts - on a variety of hardware
>> (high-end, low-end, etc) GIMP takes more than 10x as long to perform 
>> common
>> operations.
>>
>> Another issue (not mentioned in this article) is the quality of the 
>> filters.
>> Just because both GIMP and Photoshop have a "sharpen" or "enhance edges"
>> filter doesn't mean they both work identically and produce the same 
>> quality
>> results.
>
> And vice versa.

So are you claiming that the quality of the filters and various plug-ins for 
Gimp are better than Photoshop?  That's a claim that I'd love to see you 
attempt to backup with some sort of credible claim (from say a photography 
or digital editing site - not some Linux site).


> This bickering is moot to people who can't justify a $700 package.

I agree - it is moot. But to make an idiotic claim that "Gimp kicks 
Photoshop's ass"  is saying that Gimp, the software, is better than 
Photoshop software. He's talking about the products, not the price. There's 
a reason that professionals use Photoshop and not Gimp - and that reason is 
because it's BETTER.

Snit wrote:
> Oh, no doubt... some of my info might be outdated.  Question: are Gimp's
> brushes resizable yet? That is such a basic feature I did not even think to
> include it.  Just a brain-dead thing to leave out.
> 
Selectable size and pressure sensitive brushes, given supported 
hardware, as of version 2.2. HTH.

-- 
Tciao for Now!

John.

Peter K�hlmann stated in post hn0jha$4l6$02$1@news.t-online.com on 3/7/10
9:16 AM:

> TomB wrote:
> 
>> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> Rick stated in post zuKdnYTsYPdddA_WnZ2dnUVZ_ukAAAAA@supernews.com on
>>> 3/6/10 4:48 PM:
>>> 
>>>>>> How is spaces more flexible than X11?
>>>>>> 
>>>>> If you have a several programs scattered into several spaces, you can
>>>>> click on the spaces icon and you get all the spaces shown at once
>>>>> where you can then drag and drop your programs into the spaces you
>>>>> want for better organization of your software.
>>>> 
>>>> middle-click. select app/document. send to desktop.
>>>> ... as well as dragging windows across a pager.
>>> 
>>> What you described is not the same as what is done with Spaces and its
>>> "high level" view.
>> 
>> The same functionality has been available in compiz for years. in kwin
>> since KDE4, and soon in metacity (or the window manager that will
>> replace metacity - forgot the name) in Gnome 3.
>> 
> 
> So Snot Michael Glasser is not even smart enough to recognize that a
> feature which is always present (I can move apps from one virtual desktop
> to another by simply dragging it in the always displayed pager) is better
> than his "high level view" of his spaces shite

I said nothing of which features were better or worse, nor even noted that
there are Linux implementations with the high level view... I merely noted
Rick was not discussing the same feature.

By the way, Spaces has more than just the high level view, too.  Now you
know!

> But according to Snot Michael Glasser, having to do more to achieve the
> same result is somehow magically "high level"

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.  As is your norm.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Rick:
> TomB wrote:
>> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> Enkidu stated in post 20100307035105.17382.71669.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/6/10
>>> 8:51 PM:
>>>
>>>> Now you tell me: What does Photoshop do that Gimp doesn't?
>>> Off the top of my head: layer sets, adjustment layers, clipping layers,
>>> smart objects, advanced selection techniques, type on a path, 3D tools,
>>> Dreamweaver integration, content-aware scaling, working with groups of
>>> layers, etc.
>> 
>> Never missed any of those except having text following a path/curve.
>> I've been waiting for that a long time. I'm sure it will be
>> implemented eventually.
>> 
> Does this help:
><http://gimp-tutorials.net/gimp-text-to-path-tutorial>

Ha, brilliant. Thanks for that!

-- 
Life is the art of drawing without an eraser.
	~ John W. Gardner

John Williamson stated in post 7vi3boFnd7U1@mid.individual.net on 3/7/10
9:42 AM:

> Snit wrote:
>> Oh, no doubt... some of my info might be outdated.  Question: are Gimp's
>> brushes resizable yet? That is such a basic feature I did not even think to
>> include it.  Just a brain-dead thing to leave out.
>> 
> Selectable size and pressure sensitive brushes, given supported
> hardware, as of version 2.2. HTH.

Good.  Been a while since I have used it.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:

> March 10, 2009 -By John Brandon and they give the version numbers (Photoshop 
> CS4) they used.

Oh, so it is only a year out of date.

>> GPU for GIMP?
>>
>>   http://www.ohloh.net/p/gimp-gpu
>>
>>   Gimp GPU-accelerated plug-in. Harnesses GPGPU graphics cards for
>>   hyper-speed Image Manipulation and Photo Editing. GPU-accelerated
>>   gimp-plugin for users, and Framework to simplify GPU-accelerated plug-in
>>   development, for developers, reasearch & educators
>
> From this web page it looks like a dead project. 0 comments, 0 reviews, 0 
> users, 0 ratings, 0 links. Are there any actual plug-ins that use this?

Could be.

>> Also would be interesting to time those manipulations as done by
>> imagemagick.
>
> Unless imagemagick uses the GPU there probably won't be all that much 
> difference. I did a quick search and didn't find anything that indicates it 
> does. This idea (using the CPU) is related to using a GPU to support H264 
> video decoding - image/video manipulation can often be done a lot faster 
> with a graphics processor.

Sure.  And it matters a lot less in the editing of a graphic.

As for imagemagick, that is nice for setting up a batch job, and letting it
crank away while you do something else.

I've found it takes about 10-15 seconds for imagemagick's montage function
to take 36  1920x1200 PNGs and JPGs and convert them into a 1920x1200
6x6 montage.  Made a nice wallpaper showing a number of Linux distro
wallpapers that way.

I was quite pleased with the speed and the result.

Most people will be like myself.  Highly unlikely to pay for or pirate
Photoshop, just to get some extra speed and a few high-end features.
It's just another case of anti-OSS people dragging out these corner cases to
"prove" that Linux or OSS will "never replace <my CSS app>".

-- 
Your ignorance cramps my conversation.

Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:

> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> wrote in message 
> news:hn0igr$u3v$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:
>>
>>> For those who can't (or won't) read charts - on a variety of hardware
>>> (high-end, low-end, etc) GIMP takes more than 10x as long to perform 
>>> common
>>> operations.
>>>
>>> Another issue (not mentioned in this article) is the quality of the 
>>> filters.
>>> Just because both GIMP and Photoshop have a "sharpen" or "enhance edges"
>>> filter doesn't mean they both work identically and produce the same 
>>> quality
>>> results.
>>
>> And vice versa.
>
> So are you claiming that the quality of the filters and various plug-ins for 
> Gimp are better than Photoshop?  That's a claim that I'd love to see you 
> attempt to backup with some sort of credible claim (from say a photography 
> or digital editing site - not some Linux site).

Why should I back it up?  You threw out a conjecture, I'm throwing one back
at you.  And you're turning it into a claim.

What passes for logic in your mind?  Channelling Snit?  Channelling
"Hadron"?  Or is it just "Hadron Junior" (Tim Smith)?

>> This bickering is moot to people who can't justify a $700 package.
>
> I agree - it is moot. But to make an idiotic claim that "Gimp kicks 
> Photoshop's ass"  is saying that Gimp, the software, is better than 
> Photoshop software. He's talking about the products, not the price. There's 
> a reason that professionals use Photoshop and not Gimp - and that reason is 
> because it's BETTER.

And they NEED it.  The vast majority of people do NOT NEED Photoshop.

In a world of choice, it is up to the user to weight the costs and benefits
and make their choice.

Making the choice for them, by claiming GIMP will never replace Photoshop,
is simply a form of lying.

For me, GIMP kicks ass.   I will almost certainly NEVER use Photoshop.

-- 
Clothes make the man.  Naked people have little or no influence on society.
		-- Mark Twain

John Williamson pulled this Usenet boner:

> Snit wrote:
>> Oh, no doubt... some of my info might be outdated.  Question: are Gimp's
>> brushes resizable yet? That is such a basic feature I did not even think to
>> include it.  Just a brain-dead thing to leave out.
>> 
> Selectable size and pressure sensitive brushes, given supported 
> hardware, as of version 2.2. HTH.

That feature has been in the GIMP ever since I started using it.

Snit is an idiot.

-- 
Q:	What lies on the bottom of the ocean and twitches?
A:	A nervous wreck.

On 2010-03-05, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 21:52:46 -0800, Vaughn Bode wrote:
>
>> On Mar 4, 9:08 pm, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>> 
>> I understand the usefulness, but I hear there is a software patent issue
>> involved.
>
> So that's why Windows doesn't use them? Who holds the patent -- surely 
> someone who actually publishes an OS.

    That's a feature that was being "published" over 15 years ago.

    Who holds this mysterious patent?

-- 
      If you are going to judge Linux based on how easy 
it is to get onto a Macintosh. Let's try installing          |||
MacOS X on a DELL!                                          / | \

On 2010-03-05, Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:41:08 +0000, RonB wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:14:33 -0800, Rex Ballard wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mar 5, 12:52 am, Vaughn Bode <unionpe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mar 4, 9:08 pm, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> > If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>>> > don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>> 
>>>> I understand the usefulness, but I hear there is a software patent
>>>> issue involved.
>>> 
>>> Xerox patented the "Virtual Desktop" and the various forms of "desktop
>>> switcher" for X11.  They contributed to the X11 project as Open Source,
>>> but do not permit Microsoft to use it - until they settle up for some
>>> of the other technologies they took without paying.
>>> 
>>> When Apple and Microsoft came to the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center to
>>> look at SmallTalk and the Xerox Alto, they were not forced to sign
>>> overly restrictive non-disclosure agreements.  The East Coast company
>>> had been used to dealing with companies like Kodak and Bausch and Lomb
>>> and other ethical companies who were more than willing to negotiate for
>>> patent and copyright exchanges and/or royalties.
>>> 
>>> Neither Apple nor Microsoft paid royalties to Xerox.  They just pirated
>>> the code, converting smalltalk to other languages.  Xerox responded by
>>> filing for patents for the virtual desktop, and then giving it away to
>>> the X11/Unix and Linux communities, but witholding it from Microsoft.
>>> 
>>> As I understand it, the latest releases of OS/X support X11 and
>>> therefore workspaces. 
>
> What do you mean by "the latest releases of OS X" and support? There have 
> been X11 implementations available since Jaguar, at least. I installed 
> X11 and gtk apps in Jaguar. I don't remember if the x11 version I used 
> supported virtual workspaces, though.

    There is a form of workspaces in the latest versions of MacOS.

    Any Apple fanboy should happily gush over this fact for you...

[deletia]

    The Mac version of this feature is much better than any 3rd party
workspace extension I have ever tried for Windows.

-- 
      If you are going to judge Linux based on how easy 
it is to get onto a Macintosh. Let's try installing          |||
MacOS X on a DELL!                                          / | \

On 2010-03-06, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net> wrote:
>
>
> On 3/6/2010 10:26 AM, AZ Nomad wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 10:16:36 -0500, amicus_curious<acdc@sti.net>  wrote:
>>> As they say, "You gotta know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em!"
>>> You pooh-pooh Microsoft for being late with some developments, and you
>>> point to various long-dead products as examples of how Microsoft, the
>>> most financially successful company in the history of the world and the
>>> provider of products used by more people on earth than any other company
>>> as evidence of Microsoft's lack of skills.
>>
>>> Have you any idea how silly that makes you look?
>>
>> Being only 30-40 years behind on technology is nothing to be proud of.
>>
> OTOH, being the most successful technology corporation in the history of 
> the world is something to be proud of.  Now what do you think has been 

    It depends on whether or not you like the idea of being Ghengis Khan.

[deletia]

    Being good at selling crap is not a distinction that would give most
people very much pride. There is a very good reason that telemarketers 
have a very high washout rate.

-- 
      If you are going to judge Linux based on how easy 
it is to get onto a Macintosh. Let's try installing          |||
MacOS X on a DELL!                                          / | \

"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> wrote in message 
news:hn0m2e$h27$2@news.eternal-september.org...
> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> March 10, 2009 -By John Brandon and they give the version numbers 
>> (Photoshop
>> CS4) they used.
>
> Oh, so it is only a year out of date.

It's the most current comparison that I could find that was credible. I 
don't see anything that's changed in the past 12 months that would 
significantly change the outcome if the tests were run today.


>>> GPU for GIMP?
>>>
>>>   http://www.ohloh.net/p/gimp-gpu
>>>
>>>   Gimp GPU-accelerated plug-in. Harnesses GPGPU graphics cards for
>>>   hyper-speed Image Manipulation and Photo Editing. GPU-accelerated
>>>   gimp-plugin for users, and Framework to simplify GPU-accelerated 
>>> plug-in
>>>   development, for developers, reasearch & educators
>>
>> From this web page it looks like a dead project. 0 comments, 0 reviews, 0
>> users, 0 ratings, 0 links. Are there any actual plug-ins that use this?
>
> Could be.
>
>>> Also would be interesting to time those manipulations as done by
>>> imagemagick.
>>
>> Unless imagemagick uses the GPU there probably won't be all that much
>> difference. I did a quick search and didn't find anything that indicates 
>> it
>> does. This idea (using the CPU) is related to using a GPU to support H264
>> video decoding - image/video manipulation can often be done a lot faster
>> with a graphics processor.
>
> Sure.  And it matters a lot less in the editing of a graphic.

Unless someone does a lot of graphics editing in which case it matters to 
them. But for most people it isn't going to be an issue.


> As for imagemagick, that is nice for setting up a batch job, and letting 
> it
> crank away while you do something else.

I actually use IM on my server to pre-generate thumbnails for my 
home-intranet photo website. When I upload a bunch of new pictures to the 
server it will kick-off a shell script that see's if the image is a) New or 
b) Modified and will create a thumbnail if needed. I used to generate the 
thumbnails on the fly but the digital photos are so large that even on a 
fast server it takes a while.

> I've found it takes about 10-15 seconds for imagemagick's montage function
> to take 36  1920x1200 PNGs and JPGs and convert them into a 1920x1200
> 6x6 montage.  Made a nice wallpaper showing a number of Linux distro
> wallpapers that way.

I just use it to generate thumbnails. I haven't timed it in a while but IIRC 
it used to take about 400-600 mSec to generate a thumbnail. Slow if you're 
on a webpage waiting for 100's of thumbnails to appear but fast enough for a 
1-time batch job.


>
> I was quite pleased with the speed and the result.
>
> Most people will be like myself.  Highly unlikely to pay for or pirate
> Photoshop, just to get some extra speed and a few high-end features.
> It's just another case of anti-OSS people dragging out these corner cases 
> to
> "prove" that Linux or OSS will "never replace <my CSS app>".

I don't use Photoshop. I do have a current copy of Photoshop Elements that 
came with some hardware that I bought and I do use Adobe Lightroom for 
managing my digital photos. Something like PS-Elements is even overkill for 
my simple image manipulation needs.

On 2010-03-06, GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
>
>
> Rick wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:59:21 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:
>> 
>>> Rex Ballard wrote:
>>>> On Mar 5, 12:52 am, Vaughn Bode <unionpe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 4, 9:08 pm, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>>>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>>>> I understand the usefulness, but I hear there is a software patent
>>>>> issue involved.
>>>> Xerox patented the "Virtual Desktop" and the various forms of "desktop
>>>> switcher" for X11.  They contributed to the X11 project as Open Source,
>>>> but do not permit Microsoft to use it - until they settle up for some
>>>> of the other technologies they took without paying.
>>>>
>>>> When Apple and Microsoft came to the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center to
>>>> look at SmallTalk and the Xerox Alto, they were not forced to sign
>>>> overly restrictive non-disclosure agreements.  The East Coast company
>>>> had been used to dealing with companies like Kodak and Bausch and Lomb
>>>> and other ethical companies who were more than willing to negotiate for
>>>> patent and copyright exchanges and/or royalties.
>>>>
>>>> Neither Apple nor Microsoft paid royalties to Xerox.  They just pirated
>>>> the code, converting smalltalk to other languages.  Xerox responded by
>>>> filing for patents for the virtual desktop, and then giving it away to
>>>> the X11/Unix and Linux communities, but witholding it from Microsoft.
>>>>
>>>> As I understand it, the latest releases of OS/X support X11 and
>>>> therefore workspaces.  Microsoft has tried to implement workspaces that
>>>> didn't violate the patent, for example the NT 4.0 extensions, that
>>>> included posix, a butchered version of ksh, and a few other bsd type
>>>> tools.  Unfortunately, the implementations didn't work out that well,
>>>> and were dropped in later releases of Windows.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Apples workspaces work a bit differently and is more flexible than the
>>> regular X11 implementation.  But the overall goal is the same.
>> 
>> How is spaces more flexible than X11?
>> 
> If you have a several programs scattered into several spaces, you can 
> click on the spaces icon and you get all the spaces shown at once where 
> you can then drag and drop your programs into the spaces you want for 
> better organization of your software.

    ...kind of like the desktop switchers that have existed since 1994 
and earlier. Taking over the entire screen while doing that kind of 
takes away from the usefulness of Apple's implementation.

    Apple's version reminds me of some of the ancient Enlightment switchers.

-- 
      If you are going to judge Linux based on how easy 
it is to get onto a Macintosh. Let's try installing          |||
MacOS X on a DELL!                                          / | \

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 12:03:32 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:


> 
> For me, GIMP kicks ass.   I will almost certainly NEVER use Photoshop.

Your sample of one is irrelevant.

On 2010-03-05, Moshe <goldee_loxnbagels@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 05:08:06 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I don't 
>> know how I would get along without them now.
>
> No.
>
> Instead we have Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, Nuendo etc and
> dual monitors working out of the box.

    I really doubt you have ANY of that.

    Sure, Quicken is pretty cheap but the rest is all stuff that few
people would be interested in using and even less interested in paying
full price.

    You probably have no clue whatsoever what Rosetta costs. You've probably
never done so much as to educate yourself about more than just the name in
your entire life.

>
> However if you would like workspaces under Windows 7, Google is
> your friend.
>
> Then you can have workspaces and use all of those professional
> quality applications as well !
>
> Something that *can't* be done under Linux.

    So how much did your copies of Rosetta set you back?

-- 
      If you are going to judge Linux based on how easy 
it is to get onto a Macintosh. Let's try installing          |||
MacOS X on a DELL!                                          / | \

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 12:15:54 -0500, Ezekiel wrote:

> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> wrote in message 
> news:hn0m2e$h27$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:
>>
>>> March 10, 2009 -By John Brandon and they give the version numbers 
>>> (Photoshop
>>> CS4) they used.
>>
>> Oh, so it is only a year out of date.
> 
> It's the most current comparison that I could find that was credible. I 
> don't see anything that's changed in the past 12 months that would 
> significantly change the outcome if the tests were run today.

Ahlstrom posts a 4 year old "review" of Rosetta Stone under Wine
and he is complaining about a 1 year old review of gimp vs
Photoshop?

What a hypocrite.

On 2010-03-06, Moshe <goldee_loxnbagels@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 13:17:50 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Erik Funkenbusch pulled this Usenet boner:
>> 
>>> On 6 Mar 2010 02:33:11 GMT, Enkidu wrote:
>>>
>>>> Moshe wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Instead we have Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, Nuendo etc and
>>>>> dual monitors working out of the box.
>>>> 
>>>> I run Quicken under wine. Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass. Never tried
>>>> Rosetta Stone or Nuendo, dual monitors work out-of-the-box.
>>>
>>> Not if you have two monitors of different resolution, and want to use
>>> Compiz.
>> 
>> Wrong.  Worked, without an xorg.conf, on this laptop and a 17" external
>> monitor, when I had Fedora/Gnome loaded.  Both the dual monitors and compiz.
>
> Fails with Ubuntu.

    Perhaps some day, when I am really bored, I will play around with this
just for kicks. Until then, I really couldn't care less. I have a 2 foot
wide desktop already, apps that don't take over the whole screen and a very
nice means to organize all of my work.

    My minis don't even have a means to add an extra card...

-- 
      If you are going to judge Linux based on how easy 
it is to get onto a Macintosh. Let's try installing          |||
MacOS X on a DELL!                                          / | \

On 2010-03-07, Moshe <goldee_loxnbagels@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 07 Mar 2010 10:01:25 GMT, TomB wrote:
>
>> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> Enkidu stated in post 20100307004828.13443.89919.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/6/10
>>> 5:48 PM:
>>>
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Enkidu stated in post 20100306023310.4196.14166.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/5/10
>>>>> 7:33 PM:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Moshe wrote:
[deletia]
>>> Hey, if it works for you, fine.  Not trying to talk you out of it...
>>> but the comment:
>>>
>>>     Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass.
>>>
>>> I would love to see you try to support it.
>> 
>> I'd say the same as a very subjective and personal statement. Why?
>> Gimp works for me. I even like the interface (which slightly regressed
>> in 2.6 - I can't put my finger on it yet, but intermittently it acts
>> kind of odd). And obviously the value for money ratio is infinitively
>> higher than Photoshop's.
>
> You're a geek though TomB. No insult intended, in a nice way.
>
> I'm a basic user, maybe even less than a basic user, but the one
> way Photoshop beats the pants off Gimp is in the user interface.

    If you are "basic user" you have no business bothering with a $700
professional tool. 

    You must have a pirated copy.

[nonsense about what comes with cameras delete]

 

-- 
      If you are going to judge Linux based on how easy 
it is to get onto a Macintosh. Let's try installing          |||
MacOS X on a DELL!                                          / | \

On 2010-03-06, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 06:06:29 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> And Xfce -- which is what I mostly use now. It amazes me that other OSes 
>> don't have something this useful. The reason it hit me is that I had to do 
>> some clean-up work on my wife's computer (XP).
>
> It always amazes me how so many Linux advocates can't even seem to convince
> their family members to use Linux, yet somehow they believe the rest of the
> world is just about to make the jump.

    Mine are fine with Linux. The only issue is iphone support.

    Oddly enough, after using Linux for awhile they seemed less tolerant of
Windows and ended up using a Mac in the end. They can get their iphone support
that way and not be bothered with the annoying aspects of Windows.

    As far as what they do, the interfaces are interchangable (Win,Linux,Mac).

-- 
      If you are going to judge Linux based on how easy 
it is to get onto a Macintosh. Let's try installing          |||
MacOS X on a DELL!                                          / | \

Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:

>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> wrote in message 
> news:hn0m2e$h27$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:
>>
>>> March 10, 2009 -By John Brandon and they give the version numbers 
>>> (Photoshop
>>> CS4) they used.
>>
>> Oh, so it is only a year out of date.
>
> It's the most current comparison that I could find that was credible. I 
> don't see anything that's changed in the past 12 months that would 
> significantly change the outcome if the tests were run today.

I agree.  I haven't found any evidence of GIMP providing optimization for
a particular vendor's GPU in the same way the Photoshop has.

>> I've found it takes about 10-15 seconds for imagemagick's montage function
>> to take 36  1920x1200 PNGs and JPGs and convert them into a 1920x1200
>> 6x6 montage.  Made a nice wallpaper showing a number of Linux distro
>> wallpapers that way.
>
> I just use it to generate thumbnails. I haven't timed it in a while but IIRC 
> it used to take about 400-600 mSec to generate a thumbnail. Slow if you're 
> on a webpage waiting for 100's of thumbnails to appear but fast enough for a 
> 1-time batch job.

Is that number on Linux or Windows?

-- 
You are sick, twisted and perverted.  I like that in a person.

On 2010-03-07, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> claimed:

> In a world of choice, it is up to the user to weight the costs and benefits
> and make their choice.
>
> Making the choice for them, by claiming GIMP will never replace Photoshop,
> is simply a form of lying.
>
> For me, GIMP kicks ass.   I will almost certainly NEVER use Photoshop.

I've used Photoshop. What I needed it to do was the same thing I need
Gimp to do from time to time. Nothing more, nothing less. Why spend the
extra dough on something that isn't any better for my needs than the
free one?

The trolls are so far away from reality that I'd bet they don't even
remember what it looks like. But what do they have left? More
advocating of a dying "OS"? They've already worn that one all the way
down.

-- 
System halted. There is NOTHING you can do.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eee PC900 16G SSD 2G RAM Super OS 9.10
Friends don't let friends use Windows

Sinister Midget III wrote:

> The trolls are so far away from reality that I'd bet they don't even
> remember what it looks like. But what do they have left? More
> advocating of a dying "OS"? They've already worn that one all the way
> down.


Idiot.

"Windows 7 is the biggest grossing pre-order product of all-time at 
Amazon.co.uk, and demand is still going strong," says Brian McBride, Amazon 
UK MD.
http://www.tgdaily.com/software-features/44377-amazon-windows-7-is-the-biggest-pre-order-product-of-all-time


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems


http://getclicky.com/marketshare/global/operating-systems/

"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> wrote in message 
news:hn0ojv$40s$2@news.eternal-september.org...
> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>
>> I just use it to generate thumbnails. I haven't timed it in a while but 
>> IIRC
>> it used to take about 400-600 mSec to generate a thumbnail. Slow if 
>> you're
>> on a webpage waiting for 100's of thumbnails to appear but fast enough 
>> for a
>> 1-time batch job.
>
> Is that number on Linux or Windows?

Yes.

Both actually. The photos are stored on a Ubuntu machine but the web-pages 
are IIS/aspx that are served by the domain-controller. The "photos" 
directory is a Samba share that's read by IIS.

When I dump new photos (or edit an existing one) a script kicks off on the 
Linux box to scan all of the directories looking for changed/new photos. 
Traversing all of the directories only takes about 2-3 seconds but if it 
needs to generate a thumbnail it takes about 500 msec/image. Traversing is 
quick because each directory has a .thumbs subdir and it simply has to check 
if there's a thumbnail or not - or if the timestamp between the files is 
different. (When it generates a thumb it runs 'touch -r' to set the 
timestamp of the thumbnail to that of the source image.)

Chris Ahlstrom stated in post hn0mb5$h27$4@news.eternal-september.org on
3/7/10 10:04 AM:

> John Williamson pulled this Usenet boner:
> 
>> Snit wrote:
>>> Oh, no doubt... some of my info might be outdated.  Question: are Gimp's
>>> brushes resizable yet? That is such a basic feature I did not even think to
>>> include it.  Just a brain-dead thing to leave out.
>>> 
>> Selectable size and pressure sensitive brushes, given supported
>> hardware, as of version 2.2. HTH.
> 
> That feature has been in the GIMP ever since I started using it.
> 
> Snit is an idiot.

Are you denying this has been a common complaint about Gimp?


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> TomB stated in post 20100307105403.57@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/7/10 3:01 AM:
>
>> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>
>>> Hey, if it works for you, fine.  Not trying to talk you out of it...
>>> but the comment:
>>> 
>>>     Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass.
>>> 
>>> I would love to see you try to support it.
>> 
>> I'd say the same as a very subjective and personal statement. Why?
>> Gimp works for me. I even like the interface (which slightly regressed
>> in 2.6 - I can't put my finger on it yet, but intermittently it acts
>> kind of odd). And obviously the value for money ratio is infinitively
>> higher than Photoshop's.
>
> That is like saying Notepad kicks OpenOffice's ass because it serves my
> needs.  Sure, it works for low end needs just fine... but OpenOffice is
> clearly the far more capable program.

That's a very bad comparison. Notepad and OpenOffice aren't even the
same type of program. Gimp and Photoshop are.

But as I said: it is a very subjective and personal statement. I like
the interface, I like the functionality, and I like the license.

-- 
Precious is your taking for a little bit of faking
For a tiny slight deception for some insincere affection
	~ Helloween

Chris Ahlstrom stated in post hn0m94$h27$3@news.eternal-september.org on
3/7/10 10:03 AM:

> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:
> 
>> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
>> news:hn0igr$u3v$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:
>>> 
>>>> For those who can't (or won't) read charts - on a variety of hardware
>>>> (high-end, low-end, etc) GIMP takes more than 10x as long to perform
>>>> common
>>>> operations.
>>>> 
>>>> Another issue (not mentioned in this article) is the quality of the
>>>> filters.
>>>> Just because both GIMP and Photoshop have a "sharpen" or "enhance edges"
>>>> filter doesn't mean they both work identically and produce the same
>>>> quality
>>>> results.
>>> 
>>> And vice versa.
>> 
>> So are you claiming that the quality of the filters and various plug-ins for
>> Gimp are better than Photoshop?  That's a claim that I'd love to see you
>> attempt to backup with some sort of credible claim (from say a photography
>> or digital editing site - not some Linux site).
> 
> Why should I back it up?  You threw out a conjecture, I'm throwing one back
> at you.  And you're turning it into a claim.
> 
> What passes for logic in your mind?  Channelling Snit?  Channelling
> "Hadron"?  Or is it just "Hadron Junior" (Tim Smith)?
> 
>>> This bickering is moot to people who can't justify a $700 package.
>> 
>> I agree - it is moot. But to make an idiotic claim that "Gimp kicks
>> Photoshop's ass"  is saying that Gimp, the software, is better than
>> Photoshop software. He's talking about the products, not the price. There's
>> a reason that professionals use Photoshop and not Gimp - and that reason is
>> because it's BETTER.
> 
> And they NEED it.  The vast majority of people do NOT NEED Photoshop.
> 
> In a world of choice, it is up to the user to weight the costs and benefits
> and make their choice.
> 
> Making the choice for them, by claiming GIMP will never replace Photoshop,
> is simply a form of lying.
> 
> For me, GIMP kicks ass.   I will almost certainly NEVER use Photoshop.

The claim that started this:

    Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass

And that has in no way been supported.  It is free.  What other benefit does
it have over Photoshop?  Photoshop clearly has many benefits over Gimp.  As
far as I know, Gimp has not been shown to have any of the following (even if
I am wrong on some, it does not have most):

* Adjustment layers
* Smart Layers
* Smart Select
* Refine Edges
* 3D layers
* Video layers
* Brush Color Dynamics, Scattering, etc.
* Content Aware Scaling
* Dreamweaver Integration
* History Brush / Art History Brush
* Smart Filters
* Sponge Tool
* Vibrance Layer Effect
* Slices
* Layer Groups
* Topography Options

I know I use most of those on a fairly regular basis.  The idea that "Gimp
kicks Photoshop's ass" is a bit silly.  For most people, though, Picassa is
just fine.



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

TomB stated in post 20100307191531.652@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/7/10 11:40
AM:

> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> TomB stated in post 20100307105403.57@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/7/10 3:01 AM:
>> 
>>> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> 
>>>> Hey, if it works for you, fine.  Not trying to talk you out of it...
>>>> but the comment:
>>>> 
>>>>     Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass.
>>>> 
>>>> I would love to see you try to support it.
>>> 
>>> I'd say the same as a very subjective and personal statement. Why?
>>> Gimp works for me. I even like the interface (which slightly regressed
>>> in 2.6 - I can't put my finger on it yet, but intermittently it acts
>>> kind of odd). And obviously the value for money ratio is infinitively
>>> higher than Photoshop's.
>> 
>> That is like saying Notepad kicks OpenOffice's ass because it serves my
>> needs.  Sure, it works for low end needs just fine... but OpenOffice is
>> clearly the far more capable program.
> 
> That's a very bad comparison. Notepad and OpenOffice aren't even the
> same type of program. Gimp and Photoshop are.

Ok: Notepad and OpenOffice Writer.  If Notepad serves my needs fine, would
you say it was fair for me to make a general statement that Notepad kicks
Writer's ass?  Of course not - it is an absurd claim.  Now, to say Notepad
serves some needs better than OpenOffice... sure... but a general claim -
just silly.

> But as I said: it is a very subjective and personal statement. I like
> the interface, I like the functionality, and I like the license.

Good for you... but don't you think the claim that "Gimp kicks Photoshop's
ass" is, well, just silly?  Really, how could anyone make such a claim and
be expected to be taken seriously?

Hey, I like FileMaker Pro.  In many ways it *is* a better tool than higher
end databases, but to make a blanket statement that it "kicks the ass out
of" the "real" databases is just silly.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Sinister Midget III stated in post eh5d67-lpe.ln1@home.harry.net on 3/7/10
10:49 AM:

> On 2010-03-07, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> claimed:
> 
>> In a world of choice, it is up to the user to weight the costs and benefits
>> and make their choice.
>> 
>> Making the choice for them, by claiming GIMP will never replace Photoshop,
>> is simply a form of lying.
>> 
>> For me, GIMP kicks ass.   I will almost certainly NEVER use Photoshop.
> 
> I've used Photoshop. What I needed it to do was the same thing I need
> Gimp to do from time to time. Nothing more, nothing less. Why spend the
> extra dough on something that isn't any better for my needs than the
> free one?

Right... just as if Notepad works for me why use OpenOffice writer?

> The trolls are so far away from reality that I'd bet they don't even
> remember what it looks like. But what do they have left? More
> advocating of a dying "OS"? They've already worn that one all the way
> down.

What are you even talking about here?

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> TomB stated in post 20100307095905.174@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/7/10 2:02 AM:
>
>> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> Rick stated in post zuKdnYTsYPdddA_WnZ2dnUVZ_ukAAAAA@supernews.com on 3/6/10
>>> 4:48 PM:
>>> 
>>>>>> How is spaces more flexible than X11?
>>>>>> 
>>>>> If you have a several programs scattered into several spaces,
>>>>> you can click on the spaces icon and you get all the spaces
>>>>> shown at once where you can then drag and drop your programs
>>>>> into the spaces you want for better organization of your
>>>>> software.
>>>> 
>>>> middle-click. select app/document. send to desktop.  ... as well
>>>> as dragging windows across a pager.
>>> 
>>> What you described is not the same as what is done with Spaces and
>>> its "high level" view.  
>> 
>> The same functionality has been available in compiz for years. in
>> kwin since KDE4, and soon in metacity (or the window manager that
>> will replace metacity - forgot the name) in Gnome 3.
>
> But what *Rick* described was not the same.  I have seen comparable
> features with Compiz.

Hey, you brought up the spaces 'high level view' to show that it's
more flexible than the implementations on GNU/Linux. I just pointed
out that compiz, kwin and soon mutter provide the same functionality
and more.

Odd that you now say yourself you have seen comparable features in
compiz. If you did, why still claim spaces is more flexible?

Also not sure why X11 is referenced so much in this thread. What the
hell has X11 to do with virtual desktops?

-- 
Much will be your power by the essence of a flower
By seducement and cold rapture by abusing mother nature
	~ Helloween

JEDIDIAH stated in post slrnhp7ovc.n4o.jedi@nomad.mishnet on 3/7/10 10:35
AM:

> On 2010-03-06, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 06:06:29 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>> 
>>> And Xfce -- which is what I mostly use now. It amazes me that other OSes
>>> don't have something this useful. The reason it hit me is that I had to do
>>> some clean-up work on my wife's computer (XP).
>> 
>> It always amazes me how so many Linux advocates can't even seem to convince
>> their family members to use Linux, yet somehow they believe the rest of the
>> world is just about to make the jump.
> 
>     Mine are fine with Linux. The only issue is iphone support.
> 
>     Oddly enough, after using Linux for awhile they seemed less tolerant of
> Windows and ended up using a Mac in the end. They can get their iphone support
> that way and not be bothered with the annoying aspects of Windows.
> 
>     As far as what they do, the interfaces are interchangable (Win,Linux,Mac).

Interchangeable?  Um, no.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Moshe stated in post 13kqpt52fw79q.1nk0buwlzux6r.dlg@40tude.net on 3/7/10
10:20 AM:

> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 12:03:32 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> For me, GIMP kicks ass.   I will almost certainly NEVER use Photoshop.
> 
> Your sample of one is irrelevant.

Hey, if Gimp works for him, fine.  But to try to compare it to Photoshop as
though it was in the same class is just silly.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> John Williamson stated in post 7vi3boFnd7U1@mid.individual.net on 3/7/10
> 9:42 AM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> Oh, no doubt... some of my info might be outdated.  Question: are Gimp's
>>> brushes resizable yet? That is such a basic feature I did not even think to
>>> include it.  Just a brain-dead thing to leave out.
>>> 
>> Selectable size and pressure sensitive brushes, given supported
>> hardware, as of version 2.2. HTH.
>
> Good.  Been a while since I have used it.

So you haven't used gimp since *before* 2.2? What's that? Five years
ago? Basically you are commenting on an application you know *nothing*
about then.

-- 
Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead.
	~ Benjamin Franklin

"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message 
news:C7B9420C.67C85%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com...
> Chris Ahlstrom stated in post hn0m94$h27$3@news.eternal-september.org on
> 3/7/10 10:03 AM:
>

>
> The claim that started this:
>
>    Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass

Was this an actual "claim" or some ignorant trolling attempt?


> And that has in no way been supported.  It is free.  What other benefit 
> does
> it have over Photoshop?  Photoshop clearly has many benefits over Gimp. 
> As
> far as I know, Gimp has not been shown to have any of the following (even 
> if
> I am wrong on some, it does not have most):
>
> * Adjustment layers
> * Smart Layers
> * Smart Select
> * Refine Edges
> * 3D layers
> * Video layers
> * Brush Color Dynamics, Scattering, etc.
> * Content Aware Scaling
> * Dreamweaver Integration
> * History Brush / Art History Brush
> * Smart Filters
> * Sponge Tool
> * Vibrance Layer Effect
> * Slices
> * Layer Groups
> * Topography Options
>
> I know I use most of those on a fairly regular basis.  The idea that "Gimp
> kicks Photoshop's ass" is a bit silly.  For most people, though, Picassa 
> is
> just fine.

There is no Linux version of Picassa - so it's not an option for Linux users 
like Gimp.

Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:

> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> wrote in message 
> news:hn0ojv$40s$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:
>>
>>> I just use it to generate thumbnails. I haven't timed it in a while but
>>> IIRC it used to take about 400-600 mSec to generate a thumbnail. Slow if
>>> you're on a webpage waiting for 100's of thumbnails to appear but fast
>>> enough for a 1-time batch job.
>>
>> Is that number on Linux or Windows?
>
> Yes.
>
> Both actually. The photos are stored on a Ubuntu machine but the web-pages 
> are IIS/aspx that are served by the domain-controller. The "photos" 
> directory is a Samba share that's read by IIS.

How much different are the timings with a local directory?

> When I dump new photos (or edit an existing one) a script kicks off on the 
> Linux box to scan all of the directories looking for changed/new photos. 
> Traversing all of the directories only takes about 2-3 seconds but if it 
> needs to generate a thumbnail it takes about 500 msec/image. Traversing is 
> quick because each directory has a .thumbs subdir and it simply has to check 
> if there's a thumbnail or not - or if the timestamp between the files is 
> different. (When it generates a thumb it runs 'touch -r' to set the 
> timestamp of the thumbnail to that of the source image.)

Neat!

-- 
Sheriff Chameleotoptor sighed with an air of weary sadness, and then
turned to Doppelgutt and said 'The Senator must really have been on a
bender this time -- he left a party in Cleveland, Ohio, at 11:30 last
night, and they found his car this morning in the smokestack of a British
aircraft carrier in the Formosa Straits.'
		-- Grand Panjandrum's Special Award, 1985 Bulwer-Lytton
		   bad fiction contest.

JEDIDIAH stated in post slrnhp7o0o.n4o.jedi@nomad.mishnet on 3/7/10 10:19
AM:

.....
>>> How is spaces more flexible than X11?
>>> 
>> If you have a several programs scattered into several spaces, you can
>> click on the spaces icon and you get all the spaces shown at once where
>> you can then drag and drop your programs into the spaces you want for
>> better organization of your software.
> 
>     ...kind of like the desktop switchers that have existed since 1994
> and earlier. Taking over the entire screen while doing that kind of
> takes away from the usefulness of Apple's implementation.
> 
>     Apple's version reminds me of some of the ancient Enlightment switchers.

Sure wish I could just drag things where I wanted them on OS X... like this:

    <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/spaces.mov>

Well, maybe someday I will be able to.  :)


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Chris Ahlstrom:
> TomB pulled this Usenet boner:
>
> <snip extensive gimp features research by Chris>
>
>> Never missed any of those except having text following a path/curve.
>> I've been waiting for that a long time. I'm sure it will be
>> implemented eventually.
>
> Check it out, TomB, and perhaps provide your assessment here.

In the context of gimp I do recognize that functionality, and have
used most of it one way or another. The truth is that I don't really
care about Photoshop. Does it have more and better features than gimp?
Fine. I'm still not going to use it. First of all I'm very accustomed
to gimp (been using it since 1.3), and second I can't afford it.

> You seem to be the main voice against Snit's misrepresentations.
>
> The GIMP stacks up pretty well against the very pricey Photoshop.
> If you make your living using Photoshop, you won't budge.  But so what?

Exactly.

-- 
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education.
	~ Albert Einstein

Ezekiel stated in post hn0t26$884$1@news.eternal-september.org on 3/7/10
11:59 AM:

> 
> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C7B9420C.67C85%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> Chris Ahlstrom stated in post hn0m94$h27$3@news.eternal-september.org on
>> 3/7/10 10:03 AM:
>> 
> 
>> 
>> The claim that started this:
>> 
>>    Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass
> 
> Was this an actual "claim" or some ignorant trolling attempt?

Well, it was stated by Enkidu, so of course it is just trolling.

>> And that has in no way been supported.  It is free.  What other benefit does
>> it have over Photoshop?  Photoshop clearly has many benefits over Gimp. As
>> far as I know, Gimp has not been shown to have any of the following (even if
>> I am wrong on some, it does not have most):
>> 
>> * Adjustment layers
>> * Smart Layers
>> * Smart Select
>> * Refine Edges
>> * 3D layers
>> * Video layers
>> * Brush Color Dynamics, Scattering, etc.
>> * Content Aware Scaling
>> * Dreamweaver Integration
>> * History Brush / Art History Brush
>> * Smart Filters
>> * Sponge Tool
>> * Vibrance Layer Effect
>> * Slices
>> * Layer Groups
>> * Topography Options
>> 
>> I know I use most of those on a fairly regular basis.  The idea that "Gimp
>> kicks Photoshop's ass" is a bit silly.  For most people, though, Picassa is
>> just fine.
>> 
> There is no Linux version of Picassa - so it's not an option for Linux users
> like Gimp.

    <http://picasa.google.com/linux/>

There you go!

But I think you have hit on what this whole "Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass" BS
is about... sour grapes / ignorance by people using an OS where Photoshop is
not supported.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:

> There is no Linux version of Picassa - so it's not an option for Linux users 
> like Gimp.

You can use the Web interface in Linux.

I'm sure that, like Chrome, if enough people want it on Linux, it would be
ported.

By the way, I have found that Google Chrome is accepted by my company's
"expense report" site, and that it works well on that site.  I don't know if
Firefox now works well at that site, haven't tried it.  But that is just
about my last reason for having to use Internet Explorer (in a virtual
machine).

I've also found a case where Google Chrome dealt better with a web sites
GUI-ized interface than Firefox (on Linux).

I kind of like using Chrome.  The only downside is that the vim plugins for
it (e.g. Vrome) are quite a bit less capable than the Vimperator.

(And Vrome in the current version, 0.5.1, has some annoying bugs, at least
in Chrome-unstable).

Funny:

-- 
Q:	How many marketing people does it take to change a light bulb?
A:	I'll have to get back to you on that.

TomB stated in post 20100307200031.657@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/7/10 12:10
PM:

> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Chris Ahlstrom:
>> TomB pulled this Usenet boner:
>> 
>> <snip extensive gimp features research by Chris>
>> 
>>> Never missed any of those except having text following a path/curve.
>>> I've been waiting for that a long time. I'm sure it will be
>>> implemented eventually.
>> 
>> Check it out, TomB, and perhaps provide your assessment here.
> 
> In the context of gimp I do recognize that functionality, and have
> used most of it one way or another. The truth is that I don't really
> care about Photoshop. Does it have more and better features than gimp?
> Fine. I'm still not going to use it. First of all I'm very accustomed
> to gimp (been using it since 1.3), and second I can't afford it.

Has anyone tried talk you out of using it?

>> You seem to be the main voice against Snit's misrepresentations.
>> 
>> The GIMP stacks up pretty well against the very pricey Photoshop.
>> If you make your living using Photoshop, you won't budge.  But so what?
> 
> Exactly.

I merely have noted that Gimp is not in the same class as Photoshop.
Neither is Picassa, but it is a great program.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> TomB stated in post 20100307083735.658@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/7/10 12:42
> AM:
>
>> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> Enkidu stated in post 20100307035105.17382.71669.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/6/10
>>> 8:51 PM:
>>> 
>>>> Now you tell me: What does Photoshop do that Gimp doesn't?
>>> 
>>> Off the top of my head: layer sets, adjustment layers, clipping
>>> layers, smart objects, advanced selection techniques, type on a
>>> path, 3D tools, Dreamweaver integration, content-aware scaling,
>>> working with groups of layers, etc.
>> 
>> Never missed any of those except having text following a
>> path/curve.
>
> I use them all on a regular basis... but of course you do not miss
> things you have no experience with.

Well, from Chris' post I learned that gimp actually does most of what
you listed.

>> I've been waiting for that a long time. I'm sure it will be
>> implemented eventually.
>
> It has been for a long time.  In Photoshop.
>
> And it is fine that you make light use of an image editing tool...
> there is no high end tool available for desktop Linux.

Light use? I designed sever CD covers with gimp, and I used it
extensively to create commercial DVD menus. I wouldn't call that
'light use'.

-- 
There's this feeling I get when I look to the West.
	~ Robert Plant

TomB stated in post 20100307201117.208@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/7/10 12:14
PM:

> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> TomB stated in post 20100307083735.658@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/7/10 12:42
>> AM:
>> 
>>> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>> Enkidu stated in post 20100307035105.17382.71669.XPN@nogodhere.net on
>>>> 3/6/10
>>>> 8:51 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> Now you tell me: What does Photoshop do that Gimp doesn't?
>>>> 
>>>> Off the top of my head: layer sets, adjustment layers, clipping
>>>> layers, smart objects, advanced selection techniques, type on a
>>>> path, 3D tools, Dreamweaver integration, content-aware scaling,
>>>> working with groups of layers, etc.
>>> 
>>> Never missed any of those except having text following a
>>> path/curve.
>> 
>> I use them all on a regular basis... but of course you do not miss
>> things you have no experience with.
> 
> Well, from Chris' post I learned that gimp actually does most of what
> you listed.

Then you learned incorrectly.

>>> I've been waiting for that a long time. I'm sure it will be
>>> implemented eventually.
>> 
>> It has been for a long time.  In Photoshop.
>> 
>> And it is fine that you make light use of an image editing tool...
>> there is no high end tool available for desktop Linux.
> 
> Light use? I designed sever CD covers with gimp, and I used it
> extensively to create commercial DVD menus. I wouldn't call that
> 'light use'.

For Linux tools what you do is likely considered heavy use.  I have no
problem with that.  The idea that Gimp is in the same class as Photoshop,
though, is rather silly.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Chris Ahlstrom stated in post hn0ttk$86k$3@news.eternal-september.org on
3/7/10 12:13 PM:

> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:
> 
>> There is no Linux version of Picassa - so it's not an option for Linux users
>> like Gimp.
> 
> You can use the Web interface in Linux.

Is downloading it and installing it too hard?

    <http://picasa.google.com/linux/>

> I'm sure that, like Chrome, if enough people want it on Linux, it would be
> ported.

Been done.  

> By the way, I have found that Google Chrome is accepted by my company's
> "expense report" site, and that it works well on that site.

Well, it is based on WebKit which has become very standards compliant and
very well accepted.

> I don't know if Firefox now works well at that site, haven't tried it.  But
> that is just about my last reason for having to use Internet Explorer (in a
> virtual machine).
> 
> I've also found a case where Google Chrome dealt better with a web sites
> GUI-ized interface than Firefox (on Linux).

WebKit is excellent.

> I kind of like using Chrome.  The only downside is that the vim plugins for
> it (e.g. Vrome) are quite a bit less capable than the Vimperator.
> 
> (And Vrome in the current version, 0.5.1, has some annoying bugs, at least
> in Chrome-unstable).
> 
> Funny:



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 11:22:13 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:

> On 2010-03-05, Moshe <goldee_loxnbagels@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 05:08:06 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>
>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I don't 
>>> know how I would get along without them now.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Instead we have Quicken, Rosetta Stone, Photoshop, Nuendo etc and
>> dual monitors working out of the box.
> 
>     I really doubt you have ANY of that.

Already proved.

I have 2 out of the 4.
 
>     Sure, Quicken is pretty cheap but the rest is all stuff that few
> people would be interested in using and even less interested in paying
> full price.

Tell the boys over in rec.audio.pro, but be prepared to have your
tail feathers ruffled again.

They made minced meat out of you and your obtuse arguments Jedi...


>     You probably have no clue whatsoever what Rosetta costs. You've probably
> never done so much as to educate yourself about more than just the name in
> your entire life.

It doesn't matter what I do, that is a very hot product.
Too bad you can't steal it and use it under Linux.

Hey, maybe HPT will download it for you from his subscription to
that pirate site?


>>
>> However if you would like workspaces under Windows 7, Google is
>> your friend.
>>
>> Then you can have workspaces and use all of those professional
>> quality applications as well !
>>
>> Something that *can't* be done under Linux.
> 
>     So how much did your copies of Rosetta set you back?

Irrelevant.

Linux losers can't have it at *any price*, not that you cheap
bastards would consider paying for it anyway.

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 13:02:32 -0500, DFS wrote:

> Sinister Midget III wrote:
> 
>> The trolls are so far away from reality that I'd bet they don't even
>> remember what it looks like. But what do they have left? More
>> advocating of a dying "OS"? They've already worn that one all the way
>> down.
> 
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> "Windows 7 is the biggest grossing pre-order product of all-time at 
> Amazon.co.uk, and demand is still going strong," says Brian McBride, Amazon 
> UK MD.
> http://www.tgdaily.com/software-features/44377-amazon-windows-7-is-the-biggest-pre-order-product-of-all-time
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems
> 
> 
> http://getclicky.com/marketshare/global/operating-systems/

Facts always seem to bother Linux advocates for some reason.

I think it's because they prefer to make up their own.

On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> TomB stated in post 20100307191531.652@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/7/10 11:40
> AM:
>
>> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> TomB stated in post 20100307105403.57@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/7/10 3:01 AM:
>>> 
>>>> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hey, if it works for you, fine.  Not trying to talk you out of
>>>>> it...  but the comment:
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Gimp kicks Photoshop's ass.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would love to see you try to support it.
>>>> 
>>>> I'd say the same as a very subjective and personal statement.
>>>> Why?  Gimp works for me. I even like the interface (which
>>>> slightly regressed in 2.6 - I can't put my finger on it yet, but
>>>> intermittently it acts kind of odd). And obviously the value for
>>>> money ratio is infinitively higher than Photoshop's.
>>> 
>>> That is like saying Notepad kicks OpenOffice's ass because it
>>> serves my needs.  Sure, it works for low end needs just fine...
>>> but OpenOffice is clearly the far more capable program.
>> 
>> That's a very bad comparison. Notepad and OpenOffice aren't even
>> the same type of program. Gimp and Photoshop are.
>
> Ok: Notepad and OpenOffice Writer.

What? Do you honestly think Notepad and OpenOffice Writer are the same
type of program?

Clue: they're not. At all.

> If Notepad serves my needs fine, would you say it was fair for me to
> make a general statement that Notepad kicks Writer's ass?  Of course
> not - it is an absurd claim.  Now, to say Notepad serves some needs
> better than OpenOffice... sure... but a general claim - just silly.
>
>> But as I said: it is a very subjective and personal statement. I
>> like the interface, I like the functionality, and I like the
>> license.
>
> Good for you... but don't you think the claim that "Gimp kicks
> Photoshop's ass" is, well, just silly?  Really, how could anyone
> make such a claim and be expected to be taken seriously?

Don't take it seriously if you want. I really don't care. To me, gimp
kicks Photoshop's ass big time. I have given you my reasons.

> Hey, I like FileMaker Pro.  In many ways it *is* a better tool than
> higher end databases, but to make a blanket statement that it "kicks
> the ass out of" the "real" databases is just silly.

We are using Filemaker extensively at work. I actually created our
entire administration infrastructure in Filemaker 3 way back in 1999,
and most of those databases are still in use today, handling thousands
of records without a glitch. We're using FMP8 now (I have 8.5 Pro
running on my Vista desktop). I was very happy when they finally
supported real tables in version 7. The addition of built-in tabs and
'portals' was very nice too. It solved a lot of problems I had to work
around before.

Yes, I certainly can understand people stating that FMP kicks the ass
of real databases.

-- 
When Chuck Norris falls in water, Chuck Norris doesn't get wet. Water
gets Chuck Norris.

Rick wrote:
> GreyCloud wrote:
>> Rick wrote:
>>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:59:21 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rex Ballard wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 5, 12:52 am, Vaughn Bode <unionpe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 4, 9:08 pm, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> If not, why not? One of the most useful features on the desktop. I
>>>>>>> don't know how I would get along without them now.
>>>>>> I understand the usefulness, but I hear there is a software patent
>>>>>> issue involved.
>>>>> Xerox patented the "Virtual Desktop" and the various forms of "desktop
>>>>> switcher" for X11.  They contributed to the X11 project as Open 
>>>>> Source,
>>>>> but do not permit Microsoft to use it - until they settle up for some
>>>>> of the other technologies they took without paying.
>>>>>
>>>>> When Apple and Microsoft came to the Xerox Palo Alto Research 
>>>>> Center to
>>>>> look at SmallTalk and the Xerox Alto, they were not forced to sign
>>>>> overly restrictive non-disclosure agreements.  The East Coast company
>>>>> had been used to dealing with companies like Kodak and Bausch and Lomb
>>>>> and other ethical companies who were more than willing to negotiate 
>>>>> for
>>>>> patent and copyright exchanges and/or royalties.
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither Apple nor Microsoft paid royalties to Xerox.  They just 
>>>>> pirated
>>>>> the code, converting smalltalk to other languages.  Xerox responded by
>>>>> filing for patents for the virtual desktop, and then giving it away to
>>>>> the X11/Unix and Linux communities, but witholding it from Microsoft.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I understand it, the latest releases of OS/X support X11 and
>>>>> therefore workspaces.  Microsoft has tried to implement workspaces 
>>>>> that
>>>>> didn't violate the patent, for example the NT 4.0 extensions, that
>>>>> included posix, a butchered version of ksh, and a few other bsd type
>>>>> tools.  Unfortunately, the implementations didn't work out that well,
>>>>> and were dropped in later releases of Windows.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Apples workspaces work a bit differently and is more flexible than the
>>>> regular X11 implementation.  But the overall goal is the same.
>>>
>>> How is spaces more flexible than X11?
>>>
>> If you have a several programs scattered into several spaces, you can 
>> click on the spaces icon and you get all the spaces shown at once 
>> where you can then drag and drop your programs into the spaces you 
>> want for better organization of your software.
> 
> middle-click. select app/document. send to desktop.
> 
> ... as well as dragging windows across a pager.

Haven't tried that yet on Ubuntu.

TomB wrote:
> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> Rick stated in post zuKdnYTsYPdddA_WnZ2dnUVZ_ukAAAAA@supernews.com on 3/6/10
>> 4:48 PM:
>>
>>>>> How is spaces more flexible than X11?
>>>>>
>>>> If you have a several programs scattered into several spaces, you can
>>>> click on the spaces icon and you get all the spaces shown at once where
>>>> you can then drag and drop your programs into the spaces you want for
>>>> better organization of your software.
>>> middle-click. select app/document. send to desktop.
>>> ... as well as dragging windows across a pager.
>> What you described is not the same as what is done with Spaces and its "high
>> level" view.  
> 
> The same functionality has been available in compiz for years. in kwin
> since KDE4, and soon in metacity (or the window manager that will
> replace metacity - forgot the name) in Gnome 3.
> 

I can't use compiz yet with Fusion.
Someday VMWare will get that ability available.

"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message 
news:C7B94AB7.67CA7%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com...
> Chris Ahlstrom stated in post hn0ttk$86k$3@news.eternal-september.org on
> 3/7/10 12:13 PM:
>
>> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:
>>
>>> There is no Linux version of Picassa - so it's not an option for Linux 
>>> users
>>> like Gimp.
>>
>> You can use the Web interface in Linux.
>
> Is downloading it and installing it too hard?
>
>    <http://picasa.google.com/linux/>

It's not a Linux version. It's the native Windows version and it comes 
bundled with WINE in order to run it.


>> I'm sure that, like Chrome, if enough people want it on Linux, it would 
>> be
>> ported.
>
> Been done.

No it hasn't.

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 07:23:01 -0800, Thomas Thordarsen <t.thorda@example.org> wrote:
>Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> RonB pulled this Usenet boner:
>> 
>>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 16:31:12 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
>>>
>>>> My spell checker is flagging 4 errors in the above 3 lines.  What is
>>>> wrong with yours?
>>> Grammar flame. Looks like another lost argument.
>> 
>> I got an exponential-notation flame the other day.  LOL.
>> 


>FYITAWAWB, Liarmutt.


>Your claim of Linux and the BSDs taking the world by storm was based on 
>your creative way of incorrectly manipulating any set of given numbers.

get over yourself.  Nobody but you gives a shit.

Moshe wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 12:03:32 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>
>> 
>> For me, GIMP kicks ass.   I will almost certainly NEVER use Photoshop.
>
> Your sample of one is irrelevant.

Not if he's the one.

Do you have a point here? This is a Linux advocacy group. Nobody would
try to talk trash to you about Windows and its software if you didn't
come looking for a fight. That makes you a common troll, no more.

No need to reply. I won't see it, so save yourself some time and do
something useful.
-- 
Enkidu

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 19:36:07 +0000, TomB wrote:

> Yes, I certainly can understand people stating that FMP kicks the ass of
> real databases.

What matters is whether it does the job you need it to do. Since I'm not 
in the printing business, I definitely *don't* need the features the 
"Snits" of the world keep yammering on about in Photoshop. (As if 99% of 
them actually used those pre-press features anyhow.) 

dBASE is a "toy" compared to various SQL applications -- but it always did 
the job I needed it to do -- and it did it well. (I haven't used it 
regularly for several years, but if I needed it, I would still run it in 
my virtual Windows.)

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 11:27:50 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:

>  Perhaps some day, when I am really bored, I will play around with this
> just for kicks. Until then, I really couldn't care less. I have a 2 foot
> wide desktop already, apps that don't take over the whole screen and a
> very nice means to organize all of my work.

I got thinking about this. Maybe the reason Windows users are always 
yammering on about two monitors is because they don't have extra 
workspaces. So which "fix" makes more sense? More hardware or a better OS?

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0

On 7 Mar 2010 19:50:25 GMT, Enkidu wrote:

> Moshe wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 12:03:32 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 
>>> For me, GIMP kicks ass.   I will almost certainly NEVER use Photoshop.
>>
>> Your sample of one is irrelevant.
> 
> Not if he's the one.
Good.
I'll keep that in mind when a Linux distribution tanks on me.


> Do you have a point here? This is a Linux advocacy group. Nobody would
> try to talk trash to you about Windows and its software if you didn't
> come looking for a fight. That makes you a common troll, no more.

Really?

 I think you had better take a closer look at this group and see
how much of it is Microsoft paranoia, lies and untruths before
making up your mind " Enkidu"

> No need to reply. I won't see it, so save yourself some time and do
> something useful.

Whatever " Enkidu".

Enkidu wrote:
> Moshe wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 12:03:32 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> For me, GIMP kicks ass.   I will almost certainly NEVER use
>>> Photoshop.
>>
>> Your sample of one is irrelevant.
>
> Not if he's the one.
>
> Do you have a point here? This is a Linux advocacy group.

No, it's not.



> Nobody would
> try to talk trash to you about Windows and its software if you didn't
> come looking for a fight.

Instead, you would tell your silly lies to each other.



> That makes you a common troll, no more.

That makes you common liars, no more.



> No need to reply. I won't see it, so save yourself some time and do
> something useful.

Run!

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 11:49:02 -0600, Sinister Midget III wrote:

> I've used Photoshop. What I needed it to do was the same thing I need
> Gimp to do from time to time. Nothing more, nothing less. Why spend the
> extra dough on something that isn't any better for my needs than the
> free one?

If you were running a print shop (or one of the few other businesses that 
need Photoshop), then yeah, get Photoshop. But it's a fringe market. 
That's why Adobe charges so much for the package -- it's a specialty tool 
-- and specialized tools always cost more. The reason for this is that 
there are so few people sharing the costs of development (comparatively 
speaking). For my purposes Gimp is an overkill, but it's a really good 
tool for the 99.xx% who don't run print shops and need to manipulate 
images.

That's the way it always is with the WinTrolls. Mention a feature Windows 
doesn't include (like workspaces) and they immediately start yammering on 
about Photoshop and how you can't use it on Linux. As if the one has 
something to do with the other.   

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0

On 07 Mar 2010 19:36:07 GMT, TomB wrote:


> What? Do you honestly think Notepad and OpenOffice Writer are the same
> type of program?
 
> Clue: they're not. At all.

At the lowest level I suppose they are.

All these analogies are kind of lame anyway.
 
>> If Notepad serves my needs fine, would you say it was fair for me to
>> make a general statement that Notepad kicks Writer's ass?  Of course
>> not - it is an absurd claim.  Now, to say Notepad serves some needs
>> better than OpenOffice... sure... but a general claim - just silly.
>>
>>> But as I said: it is a very subjective and personal statement. I
>>> like the interface, I like the functionality, and I like the
>>> license.
>>
>> Good for you... but don't you think the claim that "Gimp kicks
>> Photoshop's ass" is, well, just silly?  Really, how could anyone
>> make such a claim and be expected to be taken seriously?
> 
> Don't take it seriously if you want. I really don't care. To me, gimp
> kicks Photoshop's ass big time. I have given you my reasons.

That's for you, and that's fine.
However, there is plenty of information all over the net from
people who say the opposite and if you filter out the fanbois,
even the gimp faithful are asking for UI improvements and were
pissed when they were not done in the last major version.

I like gimp too BTW.
I think it's a fine program.
However, like I said, I don't even scratch the surface.

Here is a weird gimp problem I encountered.

Have a jpeg photo on a Ubuntu desktop.
Edit the photo to cut out some background.
Save the photo, but not sure how it was saved as I didn't do this.
All fine and dandy.

Now, when looking at the icon on the Ubuntu desktop, the picture
reflects the edited photo.
However, when double clicking on the icon, the *un-edited* photo
is launched, no matter what application is used.

What's wrong?

P.S. This isn't my system and I am doing this from memory
 
It's this kind of obtuse behavior that drives Linux noobs crazy.

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:13:55 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> I'm sure that, like Chrome, if enough people want it on Linux, it would
> be ported.

Chrome is almost all I use now. It's faster and "cleaner." 

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:44:03 -0500, Ezekiel wrote:
> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
>>> I'm sure that, like Chrome, if enough people want it on Linux, it
>>> would be ported.
>>
>> Been done.
> 
> No it hasn't.

Oh, really? Could have fooled me, since I've been using Chrome in 
VectorLinux for about two months now.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0

Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:

> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message 
> news:C7B94AB7.67CA7%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> Chris Ahlstrom stated in post hn0ttk$86k$3@news.eternal-september.org on
>> 3/7/10 12:13 PM:
>>
>>> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:
>>>
>>>> There is no Linux version of Picassa - so it's not an option for Linux 
>>>> users
>>>> like Gimp.
>>>
>>> You can use the Web interface in Linux.
>>
>> Is downloading it and installing it too hard?
>>
>>    <http://picasa.google.com/linux/>
>
> It's not a Linux version. It's the native Windows version and it comes 
> bundled with WINE in order to run it.

Cool, I didn't even think about using wine, I've been using the (krufty) web
interface.

>>> I'm sure that, like Chrome, if enough people want it on Linux, it would 
>>> be ported.
>>
>> Been done.
>
> No it hasn't.


-- 
You are taking yourself far too seriously.

RonB pulled this Usenet boner:

> On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:44:03 -0500, Ezekiel wrote:
>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
>>>> I'm sure that, like Chrome, if enough people want it on Linux, it
>>>> would be ported.
>>>
>>> Been done.
>> 
>> No it hasn't.
>
> Oh, really? Could have fooled me, since I've been using Chrome in 
> VectorLinux for about two months now.

I think Zeke was referring to the Picasa app.

-- 
Q:	How do you stop an elephant from charging?
A:	Take away his credit cards.

RonB pulled this Usenet boner:

> On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:13:55 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> I'm sure that, like Chrome, if enough people want it on Linux, it would
>> be ported.
>
> Chrome is almost all I use now. It's faster and "cleaner." 

It needs some time to develope the "key-stroke" plugins, though.

-- 
It may or may not be worthwhile, but it still has to be done.

TomB pulled this Usenet boner:

> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> TomB stated in post 20100307083735.658@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/7/10 12:42
>> AM:
>>
>>> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>> Enkidu stated in post 20100307035105.17382.71669.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/6/10
>>>> 8:51 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> Now you tell me: What does Photoshop do that Gimp doesn't?
>>>> 
>>>> Off the top of my head: layer sets, adjustment layers, clipping
>>>> layers, smart objects, advanced selection techniques, type on a
>>>> path, 3D tools, Dreamweaver integration, content-aware scaling,
>>>> working with groups of layers, etc.
>>> 
>>> Never missed any of those except having text following a
>>> path/curve.
>>
>> I use them all on a regular basis... but of course you do not miss
>> things you have no experience with.
>
> Well, from Chris' post I learned that gimp actually does most of what
> you listed.
>
>>> I've been waiting for that a long time. I'm sure it will be
>>> implemented eventually.
>>
>> It has been for a long time.  In Photoshop.
>>
>> And it is fine that you make light use of an image editing tool...
>> there is no high end tool available for desktop Linux.
>
> Light use? I designed sever CD covers with gimp, and I used it
> extensively to create commercial DVD menus. I wouldn't call that
> 'light use'.

And there are other apps for even heavier usage on Linux.

-- 
Accent on helpful side of your nature.  Drain the moat.

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 20:10:53 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 11:27:50 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> 
>>  Perhaps some day, when I am really bored, I will play around with this
>> just for kicks. Until then, I really couldn't care less. I have a 2 foot
>> wide desktop already, apps that don't take over the whole screen and a
>> very nice means to organize all of my work.
> 
> I got thinking about this. Maybe the reason Windows users are always 
> yammering on about two monitors is because they don't have extra 
> workspaces. So which "fix" makes more sense? More hardware or a better OS?

I have both, dual monitors (different size and rez) and virtual
desktops under Windows 7.

They are both useful, but in different ways.

What we are saying is that under Windows 7, default, dual monitors
just work.

Under Ubuntu 9.10 with Nvidia?

Good luck, because they don't work out of the box.

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 20:10:53 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 11:27:50 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> 
>>  Perhaps some day, when I am really bored, I will play around with this
>> just for kicks. Until then, I really couldn't care less. I have a 2 foot
>> wide desktop already, apps that don't take over the whole screen and a
>> very nice means to organize all of my work.
> 
> I got thinking about this. Maybe the reason Windows users are always 
> yammering on about two monitors is because they don't have extra 
> workspaces. So which "fix" makes more sense? More hardware or a better OS?

No.  I have two monitors because I need to see a lot of things
simultaneously.  For example, I typically debug an application on one
monitor ad run the IDE on the other.  This is particularly important when
dealing with painting issues, becuase switching back and forth causes the
apps to repaint themselves.

But I also use two monitors because I have apps that i glance at all day,
such as stock market tickers and what not.. not something I want to switch
desktops for (In fact, I find the fact that you have to press a hot key to
see the gadgets in OSX's Dashboard to be idiotic for the same reason).

I also frequently run some apps (like remote desktop client) full screen,
leaving the other screen open to display information.

Virtual desktops do not in any way replace multiple monitors.  

On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Moshe:
> On 07 Mar 2010 19:36:07 GMT, TomB wrote:
>
>> What? Do you honestly think Notepad and OpenOffice Writer are the same
>> type of program?
>  
>> Clue: they're not. At all.
>
> At the lowest level I suppose they are.

Not at all. But as you note yourself:

> All these analogies are kind of lame anyway.

I couldn't agree more.

-- 
Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, and a dark side, and
it holds the universe together.
	~ Carl Zwanzig

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 14:37:14 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 20:10:53 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 11:27:50 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> 
>>>  Perhaps some day, when I am really bored, I will play around with this
>>> just for kicks. Until then, I really couldn't care less. I have a 2 foot
>>> wide desktop already, apps that don't take over the whole screen and a
>>> very nice means to organize all of my work.
>> 
>> I got thinking about this. Maybe the reason Windows users are always 
>> yammering on about two monitors is because they don't have extra 
>> workspaces. So which "fix" makes more sense? More hardware or a better OS?
> 
> No.  I have two monitors because I need to see a lot of things
> simultaneously.  For example, I typically debug an application on one
> monitor ad run the IDE on the other.  This is particularly important when
> dealing with painting issues, becuase switching back and forth causes the
> apps to repaint themselves.
> 
> But I also use two monitors because I have apps that i glance at all day,
> such as stock market tickers and what not.. not something I want to switch
> desktops for (In fact, I find the fact that you have to press a hot key to
> see the gadgets in OSX's Dashboard to be idiotic for the same reason).
> 
> I also frequently run some apps (like remote desktop client) full screen,
> leaving the other screen open to display information.
> 
> Virtual desktops do not in any way replace multiple monitors.

I run multiple monitors because when I run Nuendo, or Reaper for
that matter, I like to have my track view on the left monitor and
my mixer and effects rack on the right monitor.

Virtual desktops would be poor for this.

On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Chris Ahlstrom:
> TomB pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> TomB stated in post 20100307083735.658@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/7/10 12:42
>>> AM:
>>>
>>>> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>>> Enkidu stated in post 20100307035105.17382.71669.XPN@nogodhere.net on 3/6/10
>>>>> 8:51 PM:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Now you tell me: What does Photoshop do that Gimp doesn't?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Off the top of my head: layer sets, adjustment layers, clipping
>>>>> layers, smart objects, advanced selection techniques, type on a
>>>>> path, 3D tools, Dreamweaver integration, content-aware scaling,
>>>>> working with groups of layers, etc.
>>>> 
>>>> Never missed any of those except having text following a
>>>> path/curve.
>>>
>>> I use them all on a regular basis... but of course you do not miss
>>> things you have no experience with.
>>
>> Well, from Chris' post I learned that gimp actually does most of what
>> you listed.
>>
>>>> I've been waiting for that a long time. I'm sure it will be
>>>> implemented eventually.
>>>
>>> It has been for a long time.  In Photoshop.
>>>
>>> And it is fine that you make light use of an image editing tool...
>>> there is no high end tool available for desktop Linux.
>>
>> Light use? I designed sever CD covers with gimp, and I used it
>> extensively to create commercial DVD menus. I wouldn't call that
>> 'light use'.
>
> And there are other apps for even heavier usage on Linux.

For image editing you mean? Which ones?

-- 
In the beginning there was nothing. God said, 'Let there be light!' And 
there was light. There was still nothing, but you could see it a whole 
lot better.
	~ Ellen DeGeneres

TomB stated in post 20100307201903.603@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/7/10 12:36
PM:

.... 
>>> That's a very bad comparison. Notepad and OpenOffice aren't even
>>> the same type of program. Gimp and Photoshop are.
>> 
>> Ok: Notepad and OpenOffice Writer.
> 
> What? Do you honestly think Notepad and OpenOffice Writer are the same
> type of program?
> 
> Clue: they're not. At all.

Do you think Gimp is in the same class as Photoshop?  I guess I could have
picked WordPad... both it and Writer are word processors.

>> If Notepad serves my needs fine, would you say it was fair for me to
>> make a general statement that Notepad kicks Writer's ass?  Of course
>> not - it is an absurd claim.  Now, to say Notepad serves some needs
>> better than OpenOffice... sure... but a general claim - just silly.
>> 
>>> But as I said: it is a very subjective and personal statement. I
>>> like the interface, I like the functionality, and I like the
>>> license.
>> 
>> Good for you... but don't you think the claim that "Gimp kicks
>> Photoshop's ass" is, well, just silly?  Really, how could anyone
>> make such a claim and be expected to be taken seriously?
> 
> Don't take it seriously if you want. I really don't care. To me, gimp
> kicks Photoshop's ass big time. I have given you my reasons.

It makes as much sense to say WordPad kicks Writer's ass... but, sure, think
what you want.

>> Hey, I like FileMaker Pro.  In many ways it *is* a better tool than
>> higher end databases, but to make a blanket statement that it "kicks
>> the ass out of" the "real" databases is just silly.
> 
> We are using Filemaker extensively at work. I actually created our
> entire administration infrastructure in Filemaker 3 way back in 1999,
> and most of those databases are still in use today, handling thousands
> of records without a glitch. We're using FMP8 now (I have 8.5 Pro
> running on my Vista desktop). I was very happy when they finally
> supported real tables in version 7. The addition of built-in tabs and
> 'portals' was very nice too. It solved a lot of problems I had to work
> around before.

Yes, it is an excellent program - but its data model is not as robust as the
high end databases.  Nowhere near.

> Yes, I certainly can understand people stating that FMP kicks the ass
> of real databases.

For quick development and easy UI creation, sure... but its data model,
which is key to a database, is primitive in comparison.  It is not the same
class of software though - for what it is designed for, it is an excellent
tool.

Gimp is made to be a Photoshop competitor (I know, the Gimp site denies this
but it is clear it is).  And it is far, far from it.  The comparison that is
often given is silly.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

GreyCloud stated in post 6Z6dnfrgRYZ4nAnWnZ2dnUVZ_r4-AAAA@bresnan.com on
3/7/10 12:43 PM:

> TomB wrote:
>> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> Rick stated in post zuKdnYTsYPdddA_WnZ2dnUVZ_ukAAAAA@supernews.com on 3/6/10
>>> 4:48 PM:
>>> 
>>>>>> How is spaces more flexible than X11?
>>>>>> 
>>>>> If you have a several programs scattered into several spaces, you can
>>>>> click on the spaces icon and you get all the spaces shown at once where
>>>>> you can then drag and drop your programs into the spaces you want for
>>>>> better organization of your software.
>>>> middle-click. select app/document. send to desktop.
>>>> ... as well as dragging windows across a pager.
>>> What you described is not the same as what is done with Spaces and its "high
>>> level" view.  
>> 
>> The same functionality has been available in compiz for years. in kwin
>> since KDE4, and soon in metacity (or the window manager that will
>> replace metacity - forgot the name) in Gnome 3.
>> 
> 
> I can't use compiz yet with Fusion.
> Someday VMWare will get that ability available.

The newest VMWare I thought could... Parallels can.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:45:08 -0700, Snit wrote:

> TomB stated in post 20100307201903.603@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/7/10 12:36
> PM:
> 
> ... 
>>>> That's a very bad comparison. Notepad and OpenOffice aren't even
>>>> the same type of program. Gimp and Photoshop are.
>>> 
>>> Ok: Notepad and OpenOffice Writer.
>> 
>> What? Do you honestly think Notepad and OpenOffice Writer are the same
>> type of program?
>> 
>> Clue: they're not. At all.
> 
> Do you think Gimp is in the same class as Photoshop?  I guess I could have
> picked WordPad... both it and Writer are word processors.

That's why I said at the lowest level, IOW they are both
"text/word processors/editors", but that's about all they have in
common.

IOW it's better than comparing Notepad to Defrag...
Not much better though :)

Ezekiel stated in post hn0vlu$im4$1@news.eternal-september.org on 3/7/10
12:44 PM:

> 
> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C7B94AB7.67CA7%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> Chris Ahlstrom stated in post hn0ttk$86k$3@news.eternal-september.org on
>> 3/7/10 12:13 PM:
>> 
>>> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:
>>> 
>>>> There is no Linux version of Picassa - so it's not an option for Linux
>>>> users
>>>> like Gimp.
>>> 
>>> You can use the Web interface in Linux.
>> 
>> Is downloading it and installing it too hard?
>> 
>>    <http://picasa.google.com/linux/>
> 
> It's not a Linux version. It's the native Windows version and it comes
> bundled with WINE in order to run it.

Nobody said software on Linux was done well.

>>> I'm sure that, like Chrome, if enough people want it on Linux, it would
>>> be
>>> ported.
>> 
>> Been done.
> 
> No it hasn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Chris Ahlstrom stated in post hn12ht$cjh$5@news.eternal-september.org on
3/7/10 1:32 PM:

> TomB pulled this Usenet boner:
> 
>> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> TomB stated in post 20100307083735.658@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/7/10 12:42
>>> AM:
>>> 
>>>> On 2010-03-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>>> Enkidu stated in post 20100307035105.17382.71669.XPN@nogodhere.net on
>>>>> 3/6/10
>>>>> 8:51 PM:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Now you tell me: What does Photoshop do that Gimp doesn't?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Off the top of my head: layer sets, adjustment layers, clipping
>>>>> layers, smart objects, advanced selection techniques, type on a
>>>>> path, 3D tools, Dreamweaver integration, content-aware scaling,
>>>>> working with groups of layers, etc.
>>>> 
>>>> Never missed any of those except having text following a
>>>> path/curve.
>>> 
>>> I use them all on a regular basis... but of course you do not miss
>>> things you have no experience with.
>> 
>> Well, from Chris' post I learned that gimp actually does most of what
>> you listed.
>> 
>>>> I've been waiting for that a long time. I'm sure it will be
>>>> implemented eventually.
>>> 
>>> It has been for a long time.  In Photoshop.
>>> 
>>> And it is fine that you make light use of an image editing tool...
>>> there is no high end tool available for desktop Linux.
>> 
>> Light use? I designed sever CD covers with gimp, and I used it
>> extensively to create commercial DVD menus. I wouldn't call that
>> 'light use'.
> 
> And there are other apps for even heavier usage on Linux.

Such as?


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]