It's interesting that Apple is touting the 10.3 Version of OSX Server... 

As... "Open Source Made Easy"

http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/

How true, how true...

More info here:

http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/specs.html

http://www.apple.com/server/resources/

Oxford

-

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:25:33 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> It's interesting that Apple is touting the 10.3 Version of OSX Server... 
> 
> As... "Open Source Made Easy"
> 
> http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/
> 
> How true, how true...
> 

Seems appropriate to me. The services they are touting are the same that
OSS has provided (Samba, Apache, OpenLDAP, CUPS, NFS, NIS, MySQL BSD and
so on). Apple adds integration, nice looking hardware, a nice interface
to the mix. Apple also adds what looks like a nice looking AND functional
administrative interface for all those services.

The comprehensive and functional administrative interface is where I think
Apple can really differentiate itself from the other solutions that
provide the same services (the BSDs, Linuxes, and proprietary Unixes). If
they get that right... really right then they stand a chance of really
moving into the server space.

-DU-...etc...

Oxford wrote:

> It's interesting that Apple is touting the 10.3 Version of OSX Server... 
> 
> As... "Open Source Made Easy"
> 
> http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/
> 
> How true, how true...
> 
> More info here:
> 
> http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/specs.html
> 
> http://www.apple.com/server/resources/
> 
> Oxford
> 
> -

I searched Apple's web site relentlessly to find the source code to the 
"Server Admin" tool so highly touted as "open source" but never found 
it. Please provide us with a link to the "open source" source code.

Thanks
-- 
Bill

As Oxford so eloquently gibbered on Sat, 11 Oct 2003 at 03:25 GMT:

> It's interesting that Apple is touting the 10.3 Version of OSX Server... 
> 
> As... "Open Source Made Easy"
> 
> http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/
> 
> How true, how true...
> 
> More info here:
> 
> http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/specs.html
> 
> http://www.apple.com/server/resources/
> 
> Oxford

Wow! For $1,000 I can have unlimited clients connecting to my server?
(It only costs me $500 to /have/ server software from the same source!)
Well, I'd imagine I could't do something like that with any reliability
on a little ol' iMac. So what is the hardware to allow unlimited
clients going to run? $1500? $2500?

Wait......I can do that already, plus all of the other stuff they
mention, plus quite a few other things! How is this possible on a PC I
built myself for under $500 and a free download?

I don't dislike Mac. My wife has one. I want one. But I'm not going to
be fooled by a bunch of marketing pap. MICROS~1 is much better at using
the language of feeeeeeeeeechure-push, and they can't trick me either.

-- 
"Ironically, Microsoft's efforts to deny interoperability of Windows with
legitimate non-Microsoft applications have created an environment in which
Microsoft's program interoperate efficiently only with Internet viruses."
- Dan Geer.

In article <slrnbofj0n.ica.sinister@home.harry.net>, Sinister Midget
<sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote:

> Wait......I can do that already, plus all of the other stuff they
> mention, plus quite a few other things! How is this possible on a PC I
> built myself for under $500 and a free download?

As if it's not obvious enough, you are not their target market.

BTW, how much tech support you get with your $500 bargain PC? That,
btw, is a huge selling point for many of Apple's target market.

Blah blah blah... like you're really going to listen.

As zurg so eloquently gibbered on Sat, 11 Oct 2003 at 10:08 GMT:

> In article <slrnbofj0n.ica.sinister@home.harry.net>, Sinister Midget
><sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote:
> 
>> Wait......I can do that already, plus all of the other stuff they
>> mention, plus quite a few other things! How is this possible on a PC I
>> built myself for under $500 and a free download?
> 
> As if it's not obvious enough, you are not their target market.
> 
> BTW, how much tech support you get with your $500 bargain PC? That,
> btw, is a huge selling point for many of Apple's target market.

Hmmmm, I don't need much tech support. I built it, I installed the
software, I learned it.

My wife has sure needed all of the tech support. She's contacted them
about.....let's see......I think it......no, that was something....it
was......I know: exactly never! She got almost everything she needed
from a book I bought her for around $40.

> Blah blah blah... like you're really going to listen.

I just think it's overpriced, which is one of the keys to why the
market level is still so small despite having a head start and being a
better system than $CRAPWARE always has been.

I know I'm not their target. But I'd think they'd like to make a little
more money on the deal. They could do that if they lowered costs and
prices, directly widening their target market a little more.

Sure, they cut prices already. It's /still/ too high for most people
though.

I'll still buy one for myself eventually. But they won't have any
benefit from it because I'll buy it used or get one of the clones I see
sold on Ebay. Even the software will be last generation instead of
latest.

They /could/ have me and a lot of others in their market if they'd only
cut the prices a little and/or weren't so anal about licensing others
to make clones.

-- 
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.

Bill Gutz wrote:

> I searched Apple's web site relentlessly to find the source code to
> the "Server Admin" tool so highly touted as "open source" but never
> found it. Please provide us with a link to the "open source" source
> code.

Buy the software, and you get the source code (or at least you have a
legal claim to it).  Just having it be open source doesn't force them to
give it to you for free ...

-- 
PeKaJe

Carmel, New York, has an ordinance forbidding men to wear coats and
trousers that don't match.

zurg wrote:
> 
> In article <slrnbofj0n.ica.sinister@home.harry.net>, Sinister Midget
> <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote:
> 
> > Wait......I can do that already, plus all of the other stuff they
> > mention, plus quite a few other things! How is this possible on a PC I
> > built myself for under $500 and a free download?
> 
> As if it's not obvious enough, you are not their target market.
> 
> BTW, how much tech support you get with your $500 bargain PC? That,
> btw, is a huge selling point for many of Apple's target market.
> 
> Blah blah blah... like you're really going to listen.

And how many ISPs use Linux/Apache on the cheaper PCs?? 
Quite a few.  Who gives support to the ISPs??  They hire
people with brains.

In article <3F883646.959E6F78@mist.com>, GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com>
wrote:

> And how many ISPs use Linux/Apache on the cheaper PCs?? 
> Quite a few.  Who gives support to the ISPs??  They hire
> people with brains.

And hiring people with brains is free? It's not cheap to hire someone
and have them on-call 24/7. Thus, the $500 PC scenario is not cheap for
smaller businesseses that need that kind of power but can't afford to
hire someone to maintain it.

As I said, for the target market, this is a good deal.

In article <slrnbofn6n.p4t.sinister@home.harry.net>, Sinister Midget
<sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote:

> Hmmmm, I don't need much tech support. I built it, I installed the
> software, I learned it.

A lot of people running smaller businesses have no time to futz around
with that. 

> My wife has sure needed all of the tech support. She's contacted them
> about.....let's see......I think it......no, that was something....it

You and your wife are not the target market. Citing examples from your
and her personal experiences is supposed to prove what exactly?

In article Sinister Midget <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote:

> Wow! For $1,000 I can have unlimited clients connecting to my server?
> (It only costs me $500 to /have/ server software from the same source!)
> Well, I'd imagine I could't do something like that with any reliability
> on a little ol' iMac. So what is the hardware to allow unlimited
> clients going to run? $1500? $2500?
> 
> Wait......I can do that already, plus all of the other stuff they
> mention, plus quite a few other things! How is this possible on a PC I
> built myself for under $500 and a free download?
> 
> I don't dislike Mac. My wife has one. I want one. But I'm not going to
> be fooled by a bunch of marketing pap. MICROS~1 is much better at using
> the language of feeeeeeeeeechure-push, and they can't trick me either.

well if you don't value your time... you have a point... but $999 is 
exceedinly cheap compared to the alternatives... linux has never been 
free if you think to include the time learning/maintaining it... OSX 
server gets rid of the learning/maintaining portion... again, a good 
deal if you place "value" on your time...

any 233Mhz imac can handle this software... and those go for what? $200? 
if your that cheap, just order the full version for $499 through the 
education side of apple... http://www.apple.com/education/store

osx server is where things are heading... the days of "tinker toy" oses 
like linux, no longer make much sense... "IF YOU VALUE YOUR TIME" and I 
agree a lot of people in this world don't...

Oxford

-

Oxford wrote:

> In article Sinister Midget <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote:
> 
>> Wow! For $1,000 I can have unlimited clients connecting to my server?
>> (It only costs me $500 to /have/ server software from the same source!)
>> Well, I'd imagine I could't do something like that with any reliability
>> on a little ol' iMac. So what is the hardware to allow unlimited
>> clients going to run? $1500? $2500?
>> 
>> Wait......I can do that already, plus all of the other stuff they
>> mention, plus quite a few other things! How is this possible on a PC I
>> built myself for under $500 and a free download?
>> 
>> I don't dislike Mac. My wife has one. I want one. But I'm not going to
>> be fooled by a bunch of marketing pap. MICROS~1 is much better at using
>> the language of feeeeeeeeeechure-push, and they can't trick me either.
> 
> well if you don't value your time... you have a point... but $999 is
> exceedinly cheap compared to the alternatives... linux has never been
> free if you think to include the time learning/maintaining it... OSX
> server gets rid of the learning/maintaining portion... again, a good
> deal if you place "value" on your time...
> 
> any 233Mhz imac can handle this software... and those go for what? $200?
> if your that cheap, just order the full version for $499 through the
> education side of apple... http://www.apple.com/education/store
> 
> osx server is where things are heading... the days of "tinker toy" oses
> like linux, no longer make much sense... "IF YOU VALUE YOUR TIME" and I
> agree a lot of people in this world don't...
> 
> Oxford
> 
> -

Fine. Now go to any MS group and tell them your nonsense, since they spout
the same crap. You will have a lot of fun with those morons.
-- 
Who the fuck is General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?

In article Bill Gutz <billgutz@billgutz.com> wrote:

> I searched Apple's web site relentlessly to find the source code to the 
> "Server Admin" tool so highly touted as "open source" but never found 
> it. Please provide us with a link to the "open source" source code.

ah, why in the world would you go looking for the admin portion as "open 
source"? ... didn't you read the heading? "Open Source Made Easy"... the 
made easy part was difficult to build, that's why apple gets a few bucks 
for doing it... 

linux will never have this level of "made easy" since it's base is too 
fractured and inconsistent to be widely useful... check out more on osx 
server... it's where things are headed...

http://www.apple.com/server/documentation/

http://www.apple.com/server/

Oxford

-

zurg wrote:

> In article <3F883646.959E6F78@mist.com>, GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com>
>  wrote:

>> And how many ISPs use Linux/Apache on the cheaper PCs?? Quite a 
>> few.  Who gives support to the ISPs??  They hire people with 
>> brains.

> And hiring people with brains is free? It's not cheap to hire someone
>  and have them on-call 24/7. Thus, the $500 PC scenario is not cheap 
> for smaller businesseses that need that kind of power but can't 
> afford to hire someone to maintain it.

How much maintence does a diskless workstation booting from a file
server need. These diskless stations can be had for as little as
$200.00. Any problems and you just plug a new one in and boot a fresh
image. The're probabily not worth fixing at that price.
Any necessary server maintence can be done remotely through a Secure
Shell connection. There by cutting out the need for a permanent techie
on duty.
-

From: Daeron <daeron@demon.net>
Subject: Linare Linux based PCs from $199,  zwire.com
Message-ID: <bm767b$iec5t$1@ID-168140.news.uni-berlin.de>

New Linux-based PC available from Linare
anon Oct 10, 2003

Linare Corp, an integrator of software and hardware focused on the Linux
platform, has introduced a new PC priced at USD199.95.

The Linare PC uses a 1.3 GHz AMD processor and includes 128 MB of RAM,
30 GB of hard drive space and an Ethernet interface, together with
Linare Linux. The PC is also supplied with a keyboard, mouse and speaker.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10301218&BRD=1692&PAG=740&dept_id=226964&rfi=6
---

> As I said, for the target market, this is a good deal.

There was a whole City in the US that standardised on Linux saving big
bucks. It was covered here on COLA. The name escapes me for the moment.
There is an in dept web article on it.

ps: why are you cross posting to .mac.advocacy ?

As zurg so eloquently gibbered on Sat, 11 Oct 2003 at 19:49 GMT:

> In article <slrnbofn6n.p4t.sinister@home.harry.net>, Sinister Midget
><sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote:
> 
>> Hmmmm, I don't need much tech support. I built it, I installed the
>> software, I learned it.
> 
> A lot of people running smaller businesses have no time to futz around
> with that. 
> 
>> My wife has sure needed all of the tech support. She's contacted them
>> about.....let's see......I think it......no, that was something....it
> 
> You and your wife are not the target market. Citing examples from your
> and her personal experiences is supposed to prove what exactly?

Nothing. Nor did I say it was supposed to prove anything.

That said, there are more than ample numbers of people that /do/ fall
into a similar category. Not everybody wants to mortgage the house and
put the kids to work to own a few computers. Some are willing to put a
little effort into things.

The same with businesses. Why buy a farm of expensive machines that are
still going to need someone for maintenance and upkeep when cheaper
machines can be had with enough left over to handle the costs of
technical support? Add to the mix that many of the huge advantages Mac
used to have over the PC aren't so huge any more. Yes, they're still
better built and integrated. But when the price of purchase and
addtional costs for keeping it all going get added in, the additional
gain of a Mac quickly becomes no gain at all, or too small of a gain to
justify the effort.

Evidently you can't field the part about overpricing and small market
share, seeing as you snipped it and dropped it altogether. Let me know
if you'd like to see it again.

-- 
SirCam - Innovative Microsoft peer-to-peer software at its finest!

Oxford wrote:
> In article Sinister Midget <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Wow! For $1,000 I can have unlimited clients connecting to my server?
>>(It only costs me $500 to /have/ server software from the same source!)
>>Well, I'd imagine I could't do something like that with any reliability
>>on a little ol' iMac. So what is the hardware to allow unlimited
>>clients going to run? $1500? $2500?
>>
>>Wait......I can do that already, plus all of the other stuff they
>>mention, plus quite a few other things! How is this possible on a PC I
>>built myself for under $500 and a free download?
>>
>>I don't dislike Mac. My wife has one. I want one. But I'm not going to
>>be fooled by a bunch of marketing pap. MICROS~1 is much better at using
>>the language of feeeeeeeeeechure-push, and they can't trick me either.
> 
> 
> well if you don't value your time... you have a point... but $999 is 
> exceedinly cheap compared to the alternatives... linux has never been 
> free if you think to include the time learning/maintaining it... OSX 
> server gets rid of the learning/maintaining portion... again, a good 
> deal if you place "value" on your time...

No it does not, you still have to learn to use it. Just like any 
software you aren't used to. Especially if you are switching from 
something else.

> 
> any 233Mhz imac can handle this software... and those go for what? $200? 

I'm sorry, but what self respecting business wants to run it's server 
off something that looks like a turd that Fisher Price shat out. The 
iMac is for iYuppies and little girls who want a pretty computer.

> if your that cheap, just order the full version for $499 through the 
> education side of apple... http://www.apple.com/education/stor
> 
> osx server is where things are heading...

Pfft.

> the days of "tinker toy" oses 
> like linux 

Tell that to all the major companies switching to Linux. They like Linux 
just fine.

>, no longer make much sense... "IF YOU VALUE YOUR TIME" and I 
> agree a lot of people in this world don't...

If you value an Open Source OS under the control of no single source, 
with therefore no chance at monopoly control and abuse, you choose 
Linux. And if you value your time you also value Linux....because once a 
Linux system gets running it's damn stable.

Just like the Mac, it beats Mafiasoft stability all to hell. That means 
less time spent on tech support. That makes sense, and cents.

And Linux beats Mac on price, even if you run on lower end Mac hardware 
like the iCrap....because there are no expensive license charges with 
GPLd software.


And as for usability of the GUI....you guys aren't going to still claim 
you're all that superior are you? I mean, we do use the same basic GUI 
system, X11. And we had that before you did. You guys just use a 
different wm system with it. BTW, can you change the wm on a Mac? I 
don't think you can, but I'm not sure. You can in Linux, which adds 
flexability.


-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

As Oxford so eloquently gibbered on Sat, 11 Oct 2003 at 20:00 GMT:

> In article Sinister Midget <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote:
> 
>> Wow! For $1,000 I can have unlimited clients connecting to my server?
>> (It only costs me $500 to /have/ server software from the same source!)
>> Well, I'd imagine I could't do something like that with any reliability
>> on a little ol' iMac. So what is the hardware to allow unlimited
>> clients going to run? $1500? $2500?
>> 
>> Wait......I can do that already, plus all of the other stuff they
>> mention, plus quite a few other things! How is this possible on a PC I
>> built myself for under $500 and a free download?
>> 
>> I don't dislike Mac. My wife has one. I want one. But I'm not going to
>> be fooled by a bunch of marketing pap. MICROS~1 is much better at using
>> the language of feeeeeeeeeechure-push, and they can't trick me either.
> 
> well if you don't value your time... you have a point... but $999 is 
> exceedinly cheap compared to the alternatives... linux has never been 
> free if you think to include the time learning/maintaining it... OSX 
> server gets rid of the learning/maintaining portion... again, a good 
> deal if you place "value" on your time...

Learning was a pleasure, not a chore. Cost: $0.00

Maintaining is no different than anything else I've used except
Winders. Comparing to WinDoze I save an awful lot of time. But we're
comparing to Mac. Cost: $0.00

Maintenance. This will depend on use, so in both instances it would be
questionable until it's defined. I know on Linux my maintenance time is
minimal. I'm guessing it would be similar with Mac. This is the
discussion of server use only. Let's say $0.00.

I won't even calculate hardware maintenance. Mac is already at a
disadvantage because I can buy low-priced PCs that run fairly well. I
could also get low-end Macs, but the price differential is still
2-to-1. Maintaining the machines would be approximately a wash: PCs
break more, Mac parts are more expensive to acquire.

Paying $999 for Mac server software. Cost $999.00

Learning the Mac side of maintanence, probably a pleasure, though I
can't say for sure. So I'll err on the side of caution. Cost: $0.00

Let's see what we have:

                 MAC                LINUX

Learning        $  0.00               0.00
Software         999.00               0.00
Maintenance        0.00               0.00
                 -------            -------
TOTAL           $999.00               0.00

Which number would you say is bigger?

> any 233Mhz imac can handle this software... and those go for what? $200? 
> if your that cheap, just order the full version for $499 through the 
> education side of apple... http://www.apple.com/education/store

Using a 233MHz iMac would be as painful as using a P233. You mentioned
a business environment. How many are going to settle for 233MHz in you
scenario?

Why would I need to be cheap? I thought this was a cost comparison for
a small business (a situation you proclaimed above). That would seem to
call for desiding cost-effectiveness, not someone's personal spending
habits.

> osx server is where things are heading... the days of "tinker toy" oses 
> like linux, no longer make much sense... "IF YOU VALUE YOUR TIME" and I 
> agree a lot of people in this world don't...

I like Macs. But I would never, ever, ever make that sort of claim! Are
they providing cocaine with new machines or something?

They've been a small niche for around 20 years. The numbers have been
nearly stagnant for around 10 of those. Where's this sudden demand
you're claiming? I sure haven't even /seen/ such claims, much less any
that could be considered somewhat credible!

-- 
Support organized crime: Buy Microsoft products.

Oxford wrote:
> In article Bill Gutz <billgutz@billgutz.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>I searched Apple's web site relentlessly to find the source code to the 
>>"Server Admin" tool so highly touted as "open source" but never found 
>>it. Please provide us with a link to the "open source" source code.
> 
> 
> ah, why in the world would you go looking for the admin portion as "open 
> source"? ... didn't you read the heading? "Open Source Made Easy"... the 
> made easy part was difficult to build, that's why apple gets a few bucks 
> for doing it... 

Plus the fact that Open Source doesn't mean you can get the source off 
the web. It means if you buy the software you can get the source for no 
additional cost.

> 
> linux will never have this level of "made easy" since it's base is too 
> fractured and inconsistent to be widely useful...

That is simply not true.


-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

Liam Slider wrote:
<snip>
> And as for usability of the GUI....you guys aren't going to still claim 
> you're all that superior are you? I mean, we do use the same basic GUI 
> system, X11. And we had that before you did. You guys just use a 
> different wm system with it. BTW, can you change the wm on a Mac? I 
> don't think you can, but I'm not sure. You can in Linux, which adds 
> flexability.

Nevermind, got this answered.


-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

In article <bm9p8v$jvtih$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
 Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> Oxford wrote:
> > In article Sinister Midget <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Wow! For $1,000 I can have unlimited clients connecting to my server?
> >>(It only costs me $500 to /have/ server software from the same source!)
> >>Well, I'd imagine I could't do something like that with any reliability
> >>on a little ol' iMac. So what is the hardware to allow unlimited
> >>clients going to run? $1500? $2500?
> >>
> >>Wait......I can do that already, plus all of the other stuff they
> >>mention, plus quite a few other things! How is this possible on a PC I
> >>built myself for under $500 and a free download?
> >>
> >>I don't dislike Mac. My wife has one. I want one. But I'm not going to
> >>be fooled by a bunch of marketing pap. MICROS~1 is much better at using
> >>the language of feeeeeeeeeechure-push, and they can't trick me either.
> > 
> > 
> > well if you don't value your time... you have a point... but $999 is 
> > exceedinly cheap compared to the alternatives... linux has never been 
> > free if you think to include the time learning/maintaining it... OSX 
> > server gets rid of the learning/maintaining portion... again, a good 
> > deal if you place "value" on your time...
> 
> No it does not, you still have to learn to use it. Just like any 
> software you aren't used to. Especially if you are switching from 
> something else.

And there's no reason that it should be any easier to learn, right?

> 
> > 
> > any 233Mhz imac can handle this software... and those go for what? $200? 
> 
> I'm sorry, but what self respecting business wants to run it's server 
> off something that looks like a turd that Fisher Price shat out. The 
> iMac is for iYuppies and little girls who want a pretty computer.

Sorry for you, maybe. What practical business *cares* what its server 
*looks* like.


> 
> > if your that cheap, just order the full version for $499 through the 
> > education side of apple... http://www.apple.com/education/stor
> > 
> > osx server is where things are heading...
> 
> Pfft.
> 
> > the days of "tinker toy" oses 
> > like linux 
> 
> Tell that to all the major companies switching to Linux. They like Linux 
> just fine.
> 
> >, no longer make much sense... "IF YOU VALUE YOUR TIME" and I 
> > agree a lot of people in this world don't...
> 
> If you value an Open Source OS under the control of no single source, 
> with therefore no chance at monopoly control and abuse, you choose 
> Linux. And if you value your time you also value Linux....because once a 
> Linux system gets running it's damn stable.

Wow. Just like Mac OS X.

> 
> Just like the Mac, it beats Mafiasoft stability all to hell. That means 
> less time spent on tech support. That makes sense, and cents.

I thought you just said that Linux gave you something in stability you 
didn't get from Mac OS X. 


> 
> And Linux beats Mac on price, even if you run on lower end Mac hardware 
> like the iCrap....because there are no expensive license charges with 
> GPLd software.

And you spend more time adminstering it because you don't get the 
*tools* those license charges pay for....

> 
> 
> And as for usability of the GUI....you guys aren't going to still claim 
> you're all that superior are you? I mean, we do use the same basic GUI 
> system, X11.

Only if by "the same" you mean "completely different".

>  And we had that before you did. You guys just use a 
> different wm system with it. BTW, can you change the wm on a Mac? I 
> don't think you can, but I'm not sure. You can in Linux, which adds 
> flexability.

-- 
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:00:00 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> In article Sinister Midget <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote:
> 
>> Wow! For $1,000 I can have unlimited clients connecting to my server?
>> (It only costs me $500 to /have/ server software from the same source!)
>> Well, I'd imagine I could't do something like that with any reliability
>> on a little ol' iMac. So what is the hardware to allow unlimited clients
>> going to run? $1500? $2500?
>> 
>> Wait......I can do that already, plus all of the other stuff they
>> mention, plus quite a few other things! How is this possible on a PC I
>> built myself for under $500 and a free download?
>> 
>> I don't dislike Mac. My wife has one. I want one. But I'm not going to
>> be fooled by a bunch of marketing pap. MICROS~1 is much better at using
>> the language of feeeeeeeeeechure-push, and they can't trick me either.
> 
> well if you don't value your time... you have a point... but $999 is
> exceedinly cheap compared to the alternatives... linux has never been free
> if you think to include the time learning/maintaining it... OSX server
> gets rid of the learning/maintaining portion... again, a good deal if you
> place "value" on your time...

You may now tell us how many people are born with the knowledge it takes
to install and maintain OS X server. You can also tell us how many people
are born with the knowledge to run a Mac.

> 
> any 233Mhz imac can handle this software... and those go for what? $200?
> if your that cheap, just order the full version for $499 through the
> education side of apple... http://www.apple.com/education/store

Where are you finding iMacs for $200?

> 
> osx server is where things are heading... the days of "tinker toy" oses
> like linux, no longer make much sense... 

Tinker toy OS ?!?!?!??!
HHA haha AHAHAH ahaha HA HA hahahahhahah.

I guess they make major motion pictures with tinker toys now.

>"IF YOU VALUE YOUR TIME" and I
> agree a lot of people in this world don't...
> 
> Oxford

-- 
Rick

Sinister Midget <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> writes:

[...]

> Wait......I can do that already, plus all of the other stuff they
> mention, plus quite a few other things! How is this possible on a PC
> I built myself for under $500 and a free download?
>
> I don't dislike Mac. My wife has one. I want one. But I'm not going
> to be fooled by a bunch of marketing pap. MICROS~1 is much better at
> using the language of feeeeeeeeeechure-push, and they can't trick me
> either.

This is a common view among individual buyers scrounging for a nice
P.C.  But this ignores the kind of deep-pockets spending mid/large
corporations normally do.  In fact, many corporations will think the
Apple server price *cheap*, because these same people have already
spent that much (or sometimes many times more) on something like
specialized x86-based Linux *workstations*.

-- 
Edward Dodge

/Confabulation Consulting/

Sinister Midget <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> writes:

[...]

>  Add to the mix that many of the huge advantages Mac used to have
> over the PC aren't so huge any more. Yes, they're still better built
> and integrated. But when the price of purchase and addtional costs
> for keeping it all going get added in, the additional gain of a Mac
> quickly becomes no gain at all, or too small of a gain to justify
> the effort.

These costs you are referring to are known in the business as "Total
Cost of Ownership" (aka "TCO").  Every non-Microsoft-funded study I
have read show TCO to always be lower with Macs *and* Linux with
respect to Windows.

-- 
Edward Dodge

/Confabulation Consulting/

Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <bm9p8v$jvtih$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Oxford wrote:
>>
>>>In article Sinister Midget <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Wow! For $1,000 I can have unlimited clients connecting to my server?
>>>>(It only costs me $500 to /have/ server software from the same source!)
>>>>Well, I'd imagine I could't do something like that with any reliability
>>>>on a little ol' iMac. So what is the hardware to allow unlimited
>>>>clients going to run? $1500? $2500?
>>>>
>>>>Wait......I can do that already, plus all of the other stuff they
>>>>mention, plus quite a few other things! How is this possible on a PC I
>>>>built myself for under $500 and a free download?
>>>>
>>>>I don't dislike Mac. My wife has one. I want one. But I'm not going to
>>>>be fooled by a bunch of marketing pap. MICROS~1 is much better at using
>>>>the language of feeeeeeeeeechure-push, and they can't trick me either.
>>>
>>>
>>>well if you don't value your time... you have a point... but $999 is 
>>>exceedinly cheap compared to the alternatives... linux has never been 
>>>free if you think to include the time learning/maintaining it... OSX 
>>>server gets rid of the learning/maintaining portion... again, a good 
>>>deal if you place "value" on your time...
>>
>>No it does not, you still have to learn to use it. Just like any 
>>software you aren't used to. Especially if you are switching from 
>>something else.
> 
> 
> And there's no reason that it should be any easier to learn, right?

No, no real reason that I can see.

> 
> 
>>>any 233Mhz imac can handle this software... and those go for what? $200? 
>>
>>I'm sorry, but what self respecting business wants to run it's server 
>>off something that looks like a turd that Fisher Price shat out. The 
>>iMac is for iYuppies and little girls who want a pretty computer.
> 
> 
> Sorry for you, maybe. What practical business *cares* what its server 
> *looks* like.

Would *you* use an iMac for serious business? Honestly? Especially when 
you can get better hardware for the same price with a PC, and run Linux 
off it? And no, Linux *isn't* hard to use, it's got the same kind of 
easy to use GUI crap everything else has, and is just as stable and 
secure as the Mac. But most important...it's still cheaper, and doesn't 
look like a preschooler's toy.

> 
> 
> 
>>>if your that cheap, just order the full version for $499 through the 
>>>education side of apple... http://www.apple.com/education/stor
>>>
>>>osx server is where things are heading...
>>
>>Pfft.
>>
>>
>>>the days of "tinker toy" oses 
>>>like linux 
>>
>>Tell that to all the major companies switching to Linux. They like Linux 
>>just fine.
>>
>>
>>>, no longer make much sense... "IF YOU VALUE YOUR TIME" and I 
>>>agree a lot of people in this world don't...
>>
>>If you value an Open Source OS under the control of no single source, 
>>with therefore no chance at monopoly control and abuse, you choose 
>>Linux. And if you value your time you also value Linux....because once a 
>>Linux system gets running it's damn stable.
> 
> 
> Wow. Just like Mac OS X.

But without the price. Apple also controls Mac OS X, controls the Mac 
hardware specs, controls the Mac platform completely. It's a *bigger* 
monopoly for the Mac platform than Microsoft is for the PC platform! 
Well, except that Linux runs on Mac hardware too. However you literally 
can't get a new Mac preinstalled with Linux at all. Still you are right, 
OSX is stable, because they built on BSD...which isn't really any better 
than Linux.

> 
> 
>>Just like the Mac, it beats Mafiasoft stability all to hell. That means 
>>less time spent on tech support. That makes sense, and cents.
> 
> 
> I thought you just said that Linux gave you something in stability you 
> didn't get from Mac OS X. 

No, I was just trying to find where that "value your time" bit came 
from. It sure wasn't from tech support, since both are very stable. It 
can't be from learning software, since an unfamiliar OS and unfamiliar 
software will take time to learn no matter what the OS, and Linux basics 
aren't hard to learn... So where's the "less time" comming from? Maybe 
it's less time than a Mafiasoft solution, I can see a savings there, but 
against Linux? No way in hell.


> 
> 
> 
>>And Linux beats Mac on price, even if you run on lower end Mac hardware 
>>like the iCrap....because there are no expensive license charges with 
>>GPLd software.
> 
> 
> And you spend more time adminstering it because you don't get the 
> *tools* those license charges pay for....

There are plenty of FREE (in every sense) administration tools for 
Linux. And they even have eye candy click and drool interfaces!

> 
> 
>>
>>And as for usability of the GUI....you guys aren't going to still claim 
>>you're all that superior are you? I mean, we do use the same basic GUI 
>>system, X11.
> 
> 
> Only if by "the same" you mean "completely different".

Yes, read my reply to myself jackass. I was informed already. Still, 
yours is less flexable, and can consume more resources. Not a good thing 
in a high powered server environment.



-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

Rick wrote:
<snip>
> 
> Tinker toy OS ?!?!?!??!
> HHA haha AHAHAH ahaha HA HA hahahahhahah.
> 
> I guess they make major motion pictures with tinker toys now.


They sure don't make them with iTurds!


-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

As Edward Dodge so eloquently gibbered on Sat, 11 Oct 2003 at 21:14 GMT:

> Sinister Midget <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>  Add to the mix that many of the huge advantages Mac used to have
>> over the PC aren't so huge any more. Yes, they're still better built
>> and integrated. But when the price of purchase and addtional costs
>> for keeping it all going get added in, the additional gain of a Mac
>> quickly becomes no gain at all, or too small of a gain to justify
>> the effort.
> 
> These costs you are referring to are known in the business as "Total
> Cost of Ownership" (aka "TCO").  Every non-Microsoft-funded study I
> have read show TCO to always be lower with Macs *and* Linux with
> respect to Windows.

No argument on that point whatsoever. All non-MICROS~1-funded studies
I've seen show not just a difference, but a *huge* difference, owing to
the need fonr constant fiddling, patching, reinstalling, recovery, plus
extra hardware to take up the excessive load (excessive only on Winders
boxen) that the other two don't seem to have any problem with handling.

-- 
It's a shame Linux has such difficulty running some of the more popular
Windows applications: Nimda, CodeRed, Klez, ILOVEYOU, WPA, Swen, SoBig.

In article <pan.2003.10.11.20.55.31.396822@none.com>,
 Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:00:00 -0600, Oxford wrote:
> 
> > In article Sinister Midget <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote:
> > 
> >> Wow! For $1,000 I can have unlimited clients connecting to my server?
> >> (It only costs me $500 to /have/ server software from the same source!)
> >> Well, I'd imagine I could't do something like that with any reliability
> >> on a little ol' iMac. So what is the hardware to allow unlimited clients
> >> going to run? $1500? $2500?
> >> 
> >> Wait......I can do that already, plus all of the other stuff they
> >> mention, plus quite a few other things! How is this possible on a PC I
> >> built myself for under $500 and a free download?
> >> 
> >> I don't dislike Mac. My wife has one. I want one. But I'm not going to
> >> be fooled by a bunch of marketing pap. MICROS~1 is much better at using
> >> the language of feeeeeeeeeechure-push, and they can't trick me either.
> > 
> > well if you don't value your time... you have a point... but $999 is
> > exceedinly cheap compared to the alternatives... linux has never been free
> > if you think to include the time learning/maintaining it... OSX server
> > gets rid of the learning/maintaining portion... again, a good deal if you
> > place "value" on your time...
> 
> You may now tell us how many people are born with the knowledge it takes
> to install and maintain OS X server. You can also tell us how many people
> are born with the knowledge to run a Mac.

That's too simplistic a view.

To be a competent administrator, you need to understand things at two 
different levels. First, you have to have an understanding of the 
concepts involved -- you need to have a grasp of how TCP/IP networks are 
organized, you need to know what sort of things a web server does, you 
need to understand what user accounts are, etc.

Second, you need to know the *mechanics* of the specific system you're 
using. What steps do you take to install an application? How do you 
revoke a user's privileges?

OS X Server isn't going to do you much good if you don't understand the 
concepts. Its strength is that it largely eliminates the need to read 
the manual in order to learn the mechanics -- all of that is 
discoverable if you just poke around the GUI for a few minutes.

[snip]

-- 
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just 
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
                          -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

In article Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
 
> You may now tell us how many people are born with the knowledge it takes
> to install and maintain OS X server. You can also tell us how many people
> are born with the knowledge to run a Mac.

What? Installing OSX Server is no different than installing OSX... 1 
click and answer a few questions... it's not like it's running on X86 
hardware... and while I agree somewhat that running the Server takes 
more knowledge, but not much... this is pretty polished stuff...

> > any 233Mhz imac can handle this software... and those go for what? $200?
> > if your that cheap, just order the full version for $499 through the
> > education side of apple... http://www.apple.com/education/store
> 
> Where are you finding iMacs for $200?

There seems to be about 150 of them right here:

http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?MfcISAPICommand=GetResult&ht=1&S
ortProperty=MetaEndSort&from=R3&siteid=0&query=imac&category1=4599

as of that above link... there was a 333Mhz Blueberry for $205... with 2 
minutes left... not bad... all of these are plenty powerful enough to 
run Panther Server... 

> > osx server is where things are heading... the days of "tinker toy" oses
> > like linux, no longer make much sense... 
> 
> Tinker toy OS ?!?!?!??!
> HHA haha AHAHAH ahaha HA HA hahahahhahah.

Well, you get my drift... maybe i should of said the days of manually 
assembling disparate parts to build an os are pretty much gone...

> I guess they make major motion pictures with tinker toys now.

Where?

Oxford

-

Oxford wrote:
<snip>
>>Tinker toy OS ?!?!?!??!
>>HHA haha AHAHAH ahaha HA HA hahahahhahah.
> 
> 
> Well, you get my drift... maybe i should of said the days of manually 
> assembling disparate parts to build an os are pretty much gone...

Who does that. I didn't. I use Linux.

> 
> 
>>I guess they make major motion pictures with tinker toys now.
> 
> 
> Where?

How about The Lord of the Rings. Yes, most of the editing and effects 
work was done on Linux.


-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

Oxford wrote:

> In article Sinister Midget <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote:
> 
>> Why would I need to be cheap? I thought this was a cost comparison for
>> a small business (a situation you proclaimed above). That would seem to
>> call for desiding cost-effectiveness, not someone's personal spending
>> habits.
>> 
>> > osx server is where things are heading... the days of "tinker toy" oses
>> > like linux, no longer make much sense... "IF YOU VALUE YOUR TIME" and I
>> > agree a lot of people in this world don't...
>> 
>> I like Macs. But I would never, ever, ever make that sort of claim! Are
>> they providing cocaine with new machines or something?
>> 
>> They've been a small niche for around 20 years. The numbers have been
>> nearly stagnant for around 10 of those. Where's this sudden demand
>> you're claiming? I sure haven't even /seen/ such claims, much less any
>> that could be considered somewhat credible!
> 
> your confused... i said nothing about any "situation" above, you must be
> confused within the thread... did i ever mention "business"... no...
> 
> also your confused on what is actually happening inside the market...
> there is a major ground swell towards osx... it's not unlike what
> happened with the apple // in the late 70's... just because your not yet
> close enough does not mean it hasn't begun...
> 

Quit smoking that stuff.

> watch where apple is in 5 years... you'll be very, very surprised...
> there's an epic shift that's underway... just watch...
> 
> Oxford
> 

Watch what? Apple disappearing?
You know what? I simply shit on your apple. As on windows.
I am not interested in this silly advocating them telling nearly the same
lies.
Get lost
-- 
Who the fuck is General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?

In article Sinister Midget <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote:

> Why would I need to be cheap? I thought this was a cost comparison for
> a small business (a situation you proclaimed above). That would seem to
> call for desiding cost-effectiveness, not someone's personal spending
> habits.
> 
> > osx server is where things are heading... the days of "tinker toy" oses 
> > like linux, no longer make much sense... "IF YOU VALUE YOUR TIME" and I 
> > agree a lot of people in this world don't...
> 
> I like Macs. But I would never, ever, ever make that sort of claim! Are
> they providing cocaine with new machines or something?
> 
> They've been a small niche for around 20 years. The numbers have been
> nearly stagnant for around 10 of those. Where's this sudden demand
> you're claiming? I sure haven't even /seen/ such claims, much less any
> that could be considered somewhat credible!

your confused... i said nothing about any "situation" above, you must be 
confused within the thread... did i ever mention "business"... no...

also your confused on what is actually happening inside the market... 
there is a major ground swell towards osx... it's not unlike what 
happened with the apple // in the late 70's... just because your not yet 
close enough does not mean it hasn't begun... 

watch where apple is in 5 years... you'll be very, very surprised... 
there's an epic shift that's underway... just watch...

Oxford

-

In article Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> And as for usability of the GUI....you guys aren't going to still claim 
> you're all that superior are you? I mean, we do use the same basic GUI 
> system, X11.

again, apple does not use X for OSX, maybe your confused since apple 
does use X in it's title? maybe thats where your off??? OSX is based on 
quartz... X is just a sideshow you can run along side OSX if you would 
like... The UI of OSX is far more polished then X...

This is NOT OSX...

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/x11/

And I had to chuckle a bit about your ignorance on the iMac... What??? 
The iMac is no different than a full featured pc... If you didn't like 
the soft lines to it, that's fine... but it has little to do with whats 
under the hood...

Oxford

-

In article Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> Yes, read my reply to myself jackass. I was informed already. Still, 
> yours is less flexable, and can consume more resources. Not a good thing 
> in a high powered server environment.

Again, more confusion... consume more resources??? you don't have to use 
the GUI if you don't want... it has full terminal services if you feel 
more comfortable... I think you see OSX server as some highly candy 
coated, less powerful OS... that's not true at all... it's the same as 
Linux, it just can also appeal to a wider audience, which linux cannot.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/

Sounds like you need to read up more on OSX Server...

Oxford

-

Oxford wrote:
> In article Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>And as for usability of the GUI....you guys aren't going to still claim 
>>you're all that superior are you? I mean, we do use the same basic GUI 
>>system, X11.
> 
> 
> again, apple does not use X for OSX, maybe your confused since apple 
> does use X in it's title? maybe thats where your off??? OSX is based on 
> quartz... X is just a sideshow you can run along side OSX if you would 
> like... The UI of OSX is far more polished then X...
> 
> This is NOT OSX...
> 
> http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/x11/


If you would *read* before you post you'd notice that I *already* 
realised that!

> 
> And I had to chuckle a bit about your ignorance on the iMac... What??? 

Maybe because the things have always been too damn expensive in comparison!

> The iMac is no different than a full featured pc... 

Except for the price.

> If you didn't like 
> the soft lines to it, that's fine... but it has little to do with whats 
> under the hood...


Well, there are some other issues I've brought up...

-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

Oxford wrote:
> In article Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Yes, read my reply to myself jackass. I was informed already. Still, 
>>yours is less flexable, and can consume more resources. Not a good thing 
>>in a high powered server environment.
> 
> 
> Again, more confusion... consume more resources??? you don't have to use 
> the GUI if you don't want... it has full terminal services if you feel 
> more comfortable... I think you see OSX server as some highly candy 
> coated, less powerful OS... that's not true at all... it's the same as 
> Linux, it just can also appeal to a wider audience, which linux cannot.
> 
> http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/
> 
> Sounds like you need to read up more on OSX Server...

So you have two choices, massively overdone eye candy, or CLI. Wow, 
Linux has tons more options than that!


-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

As Oxford so eloquently gibbered on Sat, 11 Oct 2003 at 22:19 GMT:

> In article Sinister Midget <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote:
> 
>> Why would I need to be cheap? I thought this was a cost comparison for
>> a small business (a situation you proclaimed above). That would seem to
>> call for desiding cost-effectiveness, not someone's personal spending
>> habits.
>> 
>> > osx server is where things are heading... the days of "tinker toy" oses 
>> > like linux, no longer make much sense... "IF YOU VALUE YOUR TIME" and I 
>> > agree a lot of people in this world don't...
>> 
>> I like Macs. But I would never, ever, ever make that sort of claim! Are
>> they providing cocaine with new machines or something?
>> 
>> They've been a small niche for around 20 years. The numbers have been
>> nearly stagnant for around 10 of those. Where's this sudden demand
>> you're claiming? I sure haven't even /seen/ such claims, much less any
>> that could be considered somewhat credible!
> 
> your confused... i said nothing about any "situation" above, you must be 
> confused within the thread... did i ever mention "business"... no...

Yep, my mistake. It was mentioned, but not by you.

> also your confused on what is actually happening inside the market... 
> there is a major ground swell towards osx... it's not unlike what 
> happened with the apple // in the late 70's... just because your not yet 
> close enough does not mean it hasn't begun... 

I'm still waiting to see some reports. I'm not saying they don't exist.
I'm saying I haven't seen them. Where are they? Until I see them I only
have your word for it. Sorry, I don't know you well enough to take your
word for something I don't see anywhere else.

> watch where apple is in 5 years... you'll be very, very surprised... 
> there's an epic shift that's underway... just watch...

They may well be better off. I can't say for sure. I /can/ say they
haven't gone anywhere in the last 5 THAT I'VE SEEN or that anyone else
has shown to be more than talk.

But, there have been similar "epic shifts" towards other things in the
past. The only problem with those shifts is the word of such things
usually existed only in the world where the people using those things
saw any mention of them. Once you got away from those small circles,
the news was nearly impossible to find. That may or may not be the case
here. It appears it is that way to me, but I'm stating quite adamantly
that I'm not in a position to make claims in either direction.

I *do* see good news for linux nearly every day. I can produce links, I
can produce studies, I can produce news items written by reputable news
organizations that write and print them daily. I *do* see bad news for
MICROS~1. I can produce links, I can produce studies, I can produce
news items written by reputable news organizations that write and print
them daily.

I may have been missing the good news you're saying is going on. I
don't know. I can only say I haven't seen nearly the level you're
indicating. I *have* seen things put out by Apple themselves, but those
would hardly be anything that I'd consider to be sufficient to support
such claims. They may in fact be news, but they aren't independent and
they may also miss any less-than-stellar news going on. Offer more,
maybe CNN, Yahoo, some of the Tech magazines, etc. That would be a
better indication of a trend or shift.

For my own purposes, good news, bad news, great news, horrible news...
it all comes back to it being far too expensive for my tastes just to
have something to play around with (my sole interest). The cost was
justified in my wife's case. She's the artist and it wasn't an expense
so much as it was an investment. But I'm not going to invest a
substantial amount of cash into something that I'm going to use as a
learning platform and toy. Under these circumstances, I'm not going to
buy the server software for any numbers of users. I think I'd work to
get Apache or something else working in its stead.

-- 
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.

In article  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> How about The Lord of the Rings. Yes, most of the editing and effects 
> work was done on Linux.

well that's certainly interesting since Apple owns Shake which created 
much of the Lord of the Rings visual effects...

http://www.apple.com/shake/stories/lotr2/index.html

http://www.apple.com/shake/

I'm not saying it wasn't done on linux, it's just a bit odd that Apple 
owns the program they used to make it...

interesting...

Oxford

-

In article Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> If you would *read* before you post you'd notice that I *already* 
> realised that!

sorry about that, i didn't see that post until a bit later...

Oxford

-

In article <bm9p8v$jvtih$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
<liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> I'm sorry, but what self respecting business wants to run it's server 
> off something that looks like a turd that Fisher Price shat out. The 
> iMac is for iYuppies and little girls who want a pretty computer.

"Well, y'know... can't argue with that kind of fucking research."
--Bill Hicks

Oxford wrote:

> In article  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
>> How about The Lord of the Rings. Yes, most of the editing and effects
>> work was done on Linux.
> 
> well that's certainly interesting since Apple owns Shake which created
> much of the Lord of the Rings visual effects...
> 
> http://www.apple.com/shake/stories/lotr2/index.html
> 
> http://www.apple.com/shake/
> 
> I'm not saying it wasn't done on linux, it's just a bit odd that Apple
> owns the program they used to make it...
> 
> interesting...
> 
> Oxford
> 
> -

Just take a look at the supplimentary stuff they put on the DVDs.
There is no apple to be seen. None at all. But lots of editing video stuff.

Face it, apple hardware is simply a toy compared to what you can run under
linux. And for that matter, a toddlers toy
-- 
Klingon function calls do not have 'parameters' - 
they have 'arguments' - and they ALWAYS WIN THEM.

Oxford wrote:
> In article  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>How about The Lord of the Rings. Yes, most of the editing and effects 
>>work was done on Linux.
> 
> 
> well that's certainly interesting since Apple owns Shake which created 
> much of the Lord of the Rings visual effects...

Hmmm....

The work was done on Linux.

http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/698


 From the people themselves. All the *work* was done on Linux servers, 
and Linux/Unix workstations.

Also Shake is owned by Nothing Real. Apple may *have* a version that 
they sell, but they don't *own* it.


You can't always believe Apple, I guess they put out as much propaganda 
as Mafiasoft.

-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 16:26:47 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> In article Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
>> And as for usability of the GUI....you guys aren't going to still claim
>> you're all that superior are you? I mean, we do use the same basic GUI
>> system, X11.
> 
> again, apple does not use X for OSX, maybe your confused since apple does
> use X in it's title? maybe thats where your off??? OSX is based on
> quartz... X is just a sideshow you can run along side OSX if you would
> like... The UI of OSX is far more polished then X...

A sideshow?!?!?!? If it was just a sideshow, Jobs wouldn't have let Apple
use its resources to develop its own X11 implementation. X11 running on OS
X increased the number of apps running under OS X dramatically.

> 
> This is NOT OSX...
> 
> http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/x11/
> 
> And I had to chuckle a bit about your ignorance on the iMac... What??? The
> iMac is no different than a full featured pc... If you didn't like the
> soft lines to it, that's fine... but it has little to do with whats under
> the hood...
> 
> Oxford
> 
> -

-- 
Rick

Rick wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 16:26:47 -0600, Oxford wrote:
> 
>> In article Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> And as for usability of the GUI....you guys aren't going to still claim
>>> you're all that superior are you? I mean, we do use the same basic GUI
>>> system, X11.
>> 
>> again, apple does not use X for OSX, maybe your confused since apple does
>> use X in it's title? maybe thats where your off??? OSX is based on
>> quartz... X is just a sideshow you can run along side OSX if you would
>> like... The UI of OSX is far more polished then X...
> 
> A sideshow?!?!?!? If it was just a sideshow, Jobs wouldn't have let Apple
> use its resources to develop its own X11 implementation. X11 running on OS
> X increased the number of apps running under OS X dramatically.
> 

To what? 2 apps concurrently?
What do you try to impress us with? With X11? Networked apps?
Thanks, linux got them. All of them.

-- 
Ogden's Law:
 The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 17:55:30 -0400, ZnU wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.10.11.20.55.31.396822@none.com>,
>  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:00:00 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>> 
>> > In article Sinister Midget <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> Wow! For $1,000 I can have unlimited clients connecting to my server?
>> >> (It only costs me $500 to /have/ server software from the same
>> >> source!) Well, I'd imagine I could't do something like that with any
>> >> reliability on a little ol' iMac. So what is the hardware to allow
>> >> unlimited clients going to run? $1500? $2500?
>> >> 
>> >> Wait......I can do that already, plus all of the other stuff they
>> >> mention, plus quite a few other things! How is this possible on a PC
>> >> I built myself for under $500 and a free download?
>> >> 
>> >> I don't dislike Mac. My wife has one. I want one. But I'm not going
>> >> to be fooled by a bunch of marketing pap. MICROS~1 is much better at
>> >> using the language of feeeeeeeeeechure-push, and they can't trick me
>> >> either.
>> > 
>> > well if you don't value your time... you have a point... but $999 is
>> > exceedinly cheap compared to the alternatives... linux has never been
>> > free if you think to include the time learning/maintaining it... OSX
>> > server gets rid of the learning/maintaining portion... again, a good
>> > deal if you place "value" on your time...
>> 
>> You may now tell us how many people are born with the knowledge it takes
>> to install and maintain OS X server. You can also tell us how many
>> people are born with the knowledge to run a Mac.
> 
> That's too simplistic a view.

No, it isn't. It takes time to learn an OS. It takes time to learn
anything.

> 
> To be a competent administrator, you need to understand things at two
> different levels. First, you have to have an understanding of the concepts
> involved -- you need to have a grasp of how TCP/IP networks are organized,
> you need to know what sort of things a web server does, you need to
> understand what user accounts are, etc.
> 
> Second, you need to know the *mechanics* of the specific system you're
> using. What steps do you take to install an application? How do you revoke
> a user's privileges?

All of that has to be learned, first generally and second specifically for
the OS you are using.

> 
> OS X Server isn't going to do you much good if you don't understand the
> concepts. Its strength is that it largely eliminates the need to read the
> manual in order to learn the mechanics -- all of that is discoverable if
> you just poke around the GUI for a few minutes.
> 
> [snip]

And I suppose you can't learn anything by poking around and of the menu
systems in Linux?
-- 
Rick

In article <bma4a3$kbftp$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
 Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> Oxford wrote:
> > In article  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>How about The Lord of the Rings. Yes, most of the editing and effects 
> >>work was done on Linux.
> > 
> > 
> > well that's certainly interesting since Apple owns Shake which created 
> > much of the Lord of the Rings visual effects...
> 
> Hmmm....
> 
> The work was done on Linux.
> 
> http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/698
> 
> 
>  From the people themselves. All the *work* was done on Linux servers, 
> and Linux/Unix workstations.
> 
> Also Shake is owned by Nothing Real. Apple may *have* a version that 
> they sell, but they don't *own* it.

Just to add to the confusion..Apple bought Nothing Real 
apparently..windows version dead...:

http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2002/05/03/shake/index.php?redirect=1
065890883000
 
> You can't always believe Apple, I guess they put out as much propaganda 
> as Mafiasoft.

Oxford wrote:

> In article Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> 
>> A sideshow?!?!?!? If it was just a sideshow, Jobs wouldn't have let Apple
>> use its resources to develop its own X11 implementation. X11 running on
>> OS X increased the number of apps running under OS X dramatically.
> 
> Well a sideshow from prespective of the mass market... while powerful,
> X11 apps are a extemely small percentage of apps used by the general
> public, most of my comments correlate to HUGE markets... millions, not
> 1,000s...
> 
> Oxford
> 
> -

Why don't you tell us with less words that you have no idea what X11 is
about?
You sound to have as much clue about it like any typical wintendo luser,
that is, none at all. Does not really surprise me, since Apple has nothing
comparable also
-- 
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend: and inside a dog,
it's too dark to read."                -- Groucho Marx

In article Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:

> A sideshow?!?!?!? If it was just a sideshow, Jobs wouldn't have let Apple
> use its resources to develop its own X11 implementation. X11 running on OS
> X increased the number of apps running under OS X dramatically.

Well a sideshow from prespective of the mass market... while powerful, 
X11 apps are a extemely small percentage of apps used by the general 
public, most of my comments correlate to HUGE markets... millions, not 
1,000s...

Oxford

-

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 16:10:21 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> In article Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
>  
>> You may now tell us how many people are born with the knowledge it takes
>> to install and maintain OS X server. You can also tell us how many
>> people are born with the knowledge to run a Mac.
> 
> What? Installing OSX Server is no different than installing OSX... 1 click
> and answer a few questions... it's not like it's running on X86
> hardware... and while I agree somewhat that running the Server takes more
> knowledge, but not much... this is pretty polished stuff...

Installing Mandrake 8.something, and RedHat 9.0 were just as easy, if not
easier than installing OS X.

> 
>> > any 233Mhz imac can handle this software... and those go for what?
>> > $200? if your that cheap, just order the full version for $499 through
>> > the education side of apple... http://www.apple.com/education/store
>> 
>> Where are you finding iMacs for $200?
> 
> There seems to be about 150 of them right here:
> 
> http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?MfcISAPICommand=GetResult&ht=1&S
> ortProperty=MetaEndSort&from=R3&siteid=0&query=imac&category1=4599
> 
> as of that above link... there was a 333Mhz Blueberry for $205... with 2
> minutes left... not bad... all of these are plenty powerful enough to run
> Panther Server...

You had better start adding the other charges... shipping and stuff. And
are you really saying a 300mhz machine is good enough to act as a heavy
server today?

> 
>> > osx server is where things are heading... the days of "tinker toy"
>> > oses like linux, no longer make much sense...
>> 
>> Tinker toy OS ?!?!?!??!
>> HHA haha AHAHAH ahaha HA HA hahahahhahah.
> 
> Well, you get my drift... maybe i should of said the days of manually
> assembling disparate parts to build an os are pretty much gone...

Yes, they are. Whats your point?

> 
>> I guess they make major motion pictures with tinker toys now.
> 
> Where?

Are you serious? Do a search. Use Linux and Hollywood as key words. Then go
watch the Lord of the Rings movies.

> 
> Oxford
> 
> -

-- 
Rick

In article Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> Hmmm....
> 
> The work was done on Linux.
> 
> http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/698
> 
>  From the people themselves. All the *work* was done on Linux servers, 
> and Linux/Unix workstations.
> 
> Also Shake is owned by Nothing Real. Apple may *have* a version that 
> they sell, but they don't *own* it.

Ah, Apple bought Nothing Real almost two years ago...

http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2002/02/07/nothingreal/

Sounds like you have reading to do... may I suggest...

http://www.macsurfer.com

Oxford

-

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 17:06:25 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> In article  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
>> How about The Lord of the Rings. Yes, most of the editing and effects
>> work was done on Linux.
> 
> well that's certainly interesting since Apple owns Shake which created
> much of the Lord of the Rings visual effects...
> 
> http://www.apple.com/shake/stories/lotr2/index.html
> 
> http://www.apple.com/shake/
> 
> I'm not saying it wasn't done on linux, it's just a bit odd that Apple
> owns the program they used to make it...
> 
> interesting...
> 
> Oxford
> 
> -

.... and when did Apple buy Shake? And did Apple buying Shake suddenly kill
of the extant Linux versions? No, but Apple keeping the Linux version's
price so high, while slashing the Mac version's price may do some damage.

hmmm... that seems like just the sort of thing m$ does.
-- 
Rick

Oxford wrote:
> In article Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Hmmm....
>>
>>The work was done on Linux.
>>
>>http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/698
>>
>> From the people themselves. All the *work* was done on Linux servers, 
>>and Linux/Unix workstations.
>>
>>Also Shake is owned by Nothing Real. Apple may *have* a version that 
>>they sell, but they don't *own* it.
> 
> 
> Ah, Apple bought Nothing Real almost two years ago...
> 
> http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2002/02/07/nothingreal/

Ah ok, so big deal. Apple owns Nothing Real and Nothing Real owns 
Shake... Still, *none* of the work was done on a Mac. Not one frame, not 
one special effect. The *work* was done on Linux. Oh and we have GPLd 
software that does the same stuff that Shake does now, the movie 
iindustry doesn't need it any more. So if it disappears it's no big 
deal, they are moving to Cinelerra now.

Linux does all the work, Apple steps in to claim all the credit. 
Typical, typical.

-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

Rick wrote:
<snip>
> 
> 
> ... and when did Apple buy Shake? And did Apple buying Shake suddenly kill
> of the extant Linux versions? No, but Apple keeping the Linux version's
> price so high, while slashing the Mac version's price may do some damage.

To Apple, now that OSS software for this soft of thing exists.

> 
> hmmm... that seems like just the sort of thing m$ does.

Yep.


-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

StormDrain wrote:
> In article <bma4a3$kbftp$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Oxford wrote:
>>
>>>In article  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>How about The Lord of the Rings. Yes, most of the editing and effects 
>>>>work was done on Linux.
>>>
>>>
>>>well that's certainly interesting since Apple owns Shake which created 
>>>much of the Lord of the Rings visual effects...
>>
>>Hmmm....
>>
>>The work was done on Linux.
>>
>>http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/698
>>
>>
>> From the people themselves. All the *work* was done on Linux servers, 
>>and Linux/Unix workstations.
>>
>>Also Shake is owned by Nothing Real. Apple may *have* a version that 
>>they sell, but they don't *own* it.
> 
> 
> Just to add to the confusion..Apple bought Nothing Real 
> apparently..windows version dead...:

Who cares, who cares if they kill the Linux version too. We have OSS 
stuff to do the same job now, on Linux. It'll just kill Apple as 
competition in the movie industry.

-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

In article Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:

> Installing Mandrake 8.something, and RedHat 9.0 were just as easy, if not
> easier than installing OS X.

you are completely joking or completely clueless... installing osx is 
light years easier than installing mandrake version dot ANYTHING... only 
thing easier would be waving the osx dvd in front of the machine... 

what part of "one click install" is confusing you? you also seem to be 
forgetting apple's hardware is already set to run osx server... not so 
in the x86 world...

> > http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?MfcISAPICommand=GetResult&ht=1&S
> > ortProperty=MetaEndSort&from=R3&siteid=0&query=imac&category1=4599
> > 
> > as of that above link... there was a 333Mhz Blueberry for $205... with 2
> > minutes left... not bad... all of these are plenty powerful enough to run
> > Panther Server...
> 
> You had better start adding the other charges... shipping and stuff. And
> are you really saying a 300mhz machine is good enough to act as a heavy
> server today?

what a $40 shipping charge? what other fees are there? if you do a 
regional search, you don't pay anything for shipping, except driving 
over to pick it up... don't you understand how ebay works?

i said nothing of a "heavy use"  server... but it's plenty powerful 
enough for a small 10 user system, a couple websites, ftp, mail, etc... 
entire corporations where run off iron far slower than that 10 years 
ago...

> Are you serious? Do a search. Use Linux and Hollywood as key words. Then go
> watch the Lord of the Rings movies.

One movie, big whoop... how about 1000's like the mac helps produce 
every year? besides apple owns the software that helped make lord of the 
rings, why doesn't a linux company own it???

ho hum...

Oxford

-

In article Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:

> ... and when did Apple buy Shake? And did Apple buying Shake suddenly kill
> of the extant Linux versions? No, but Apple keeping the Linux version's
> price so high, while slashing the Mac version's price may do some damage.
> 
> hmmm... that seems like just the sort of thing m$ does.

well, i'd place bets the linux version is more robust... thus the higher 
price... it would be unlike apple to charge more for the same features, 
they don't do stuff like that...

Oxford

-

Oxford wrote:
> In article Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>... and when did Apple buy Shake? And did Apple buying Shake suddenly kill
>>of the extant Linux versions? No, but Apple keeping the Linux version's
>>price so high, while slashing the Mac version's price may do some damage.
>>
>>hmmm... that seems like just the sort of thing m$ does.
> 
> 
> well, i'd place bets the linux version is more robust...


I wouldn't be surprised. Linux is great like that. It may simply be in 
raw rendering capability. Linux programs use the processor to the fullest.

> thus the higher 
> price... it would be unlike apple to charge more for the same features, 
> they don't do stuff like that...

Still will be a problem, with the studios adopting OSS programs now.

-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

Oxford wrote:
> In article Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Installing Mandrake 8.something, and RedHat 9.0 were just as easy, if not
>>easier than installing OS X.
> 
> 
> you are completely joking or completely clueless... installing osx is 
> light years easier than installing mandrake version dot ANYTHING... only 
> thing easier would be waving the osx dvd in front of the machine... 
> 
> what part of "one click install" is confusing you? you also seem to be 
> forgetting apple's hardware is already set to run osx server... not so 
> in the x86 world...

A benefit of having a total and complete monopoly on the hardware I 
suppose...

> 
> 
>>>http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?MfcISAPICommand=GetResult&ht=1&S
>>>ortProperty=MetaEndSort&from=R3&siteid=0&query=imac&category1=4599
>>>
>>>as of that above link... there was a 333Mhz Blueberry for $205... with 2
>>>minutes left... not bad... all of these are plenty powerful enough to run
>>>Panther Server...
>>
>>You had better start adding the other charges... shipping and stuff. And
>>are you really saying a 300mhz machine is good enough to act as a heavy
>>server today?
> 
> 
> what a $40 shipping charge? what other fees are there? if you do a 
> regional search, you don't pay anything for shipping, except driving 
> over to pick it up... don't you understand how ebay works?
> 
> i said nothing of a "heavy use"  server... but it's plenty powerful 
> enough for a small 10 user system, a couple websites, ftp, mail, etc... 
> entire corporations where run off iron far slower than that 10 years 
> ago...

Meanwhile on a faster Linux PC bought for less money, you can have 
unlimited users, and far more services.

> 
> 
>>Are you serious? Do a search. Use Linux and Hollywood as key words. Then go
>>watch the Lord of the Rings movies.
> 
> 
> One movie, big whoop...


That's just the most well known to point to. Everyone knows The Lord of 
the Rings. It's an easy example to think of.

> how about 1000's like the mac helps produce 

Helped, past tense.

> every year? besides apple owns the software that helped make lord of the 
> rings, why doesn't a linux company own it???

Owns yes, runs...technically, ran and did *any* work at all? Nope.

Oh and all the big render farms are switching to Cinelerra.

> 
> ho hum...


Ho...


-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

In article <bma6uj$k19bc$3@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
 Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> StormDrain wrote:
> > In article <bma4a3$kbftp$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Oxford wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>How about The Lord of the Rings. Yes, most of the editing and effects 
> >>>>work was done on Linux.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>well that's certainly interesting since Apple owns Shake which created 
> >>>much of the Lord of the Rings visual effects...
> >>
> >>Hmmm....
> >>
> >>The work was done on Linux.
> >>
> >>http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/698
> >>
> >>
> >> From the people themselves. All the *work* was done on Linux servers, 
> >>and Linux/Unix workstations.
> >>
> >>Also Shake is owned by Nothing Real. Apple may *have* a version that 
> >>they sell, but they don't *own* it.
> > 
> > 
> > Just to add to the confusion..Apple bought Nothing Real 
> > apparently..windows version dead...:
> 
> Who cares, who cares if they kill the Linux version too. We have OSS 
> stuff to do the same job now, on Linux. It'll just kill Apple as 
> competition in the movie industry.

Just a question from someone in mac.advocacy to the Linux folks. I think 
OSS is a very good development process and there are several OSS apps I 
use: Apache/Tomcat, Amaya, GIMP & OpenOffice but my question is: has OSS 
killed anything yet?  Apache is pretty solid how about other software?

Not trying to start a fight either :)

In article <pan.2003.10.11.23.48.50.493305@none.com>,
 Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 17:55:30 -0400, ZnU wrote:
> 
> > In article <pan.2003.10.11.20.55.31.396822@none.com>,
> >  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:00:00 -0600, Oxford wrote:
> >> 
> >> > In article Sinister Midget <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> Wow! For $1,000 I can have unlimited clients connecting to my server?
> >> >> (It only costs me $500 to /have/ server software from the same
> >> >> source!) Well, I'd imagine I could't do something like that with any
> >> >> reliability on a little ol' iMac. So what is the hardware to allow
> >> >> unlimited clients going to run? $1500? $2500?
> >> >> 
> >> >> Wait......I can do that already, plus all of the other stuff they
> >> >> mention, plus quite a few other things! How is this possible on a PC
> >> >> I built myself for under $500 and a free download?
> >> >> 
> >> >> I don't dislike Mac. My wife has one. I want one. But I'm not going
> >> >> to be fooled by a bunch of marketing pap. MICROS~1 is much better at
> >> >> using the language of feeeeeeeeeechure-push, and they can't trick me
> >> >> either.
> >> > 
> >> > well if you don't value your time... you have a point... but $999 is
> >> > exceedinly cheap compared to the alternatives... linux has never been
> >> > free if you think to include the time learning/maintaining it... OSX
> >> > server gets rid of the learning/maintaining portion... again, a good
> >> > deal if you place "value" on your time...
> >> 
> >> You may now tell us how many people are born with the knowledge it takes
> >> to install and maintain OS X server. You can also tell us how many
> >> people are born with the knowledge to run a Mac.
> > 
> > That's too simplistic a view.
> 
> No, it isn't. It takes time to learn an OS. It takes time to learn
> anything.
> 
> > To be a competent administrator, you need to understand things at two
> > different levels. First, you have to have an understanding of the concepts
> > involved -- you need to have a grasp of how TCP/IP networks are organized,
> > you need to know what sort of things a web server does, you need to
> > understand what user accounts are, etc.
> > 
> > Second, you need to know the *mechanics* of the specific system you're
> > using. What steps do you take to install an application? How do you revoke
> > a user's privileges?
> 
> All of that has to be learned, first generally and second specifically for
> the OS you are using.
> 
> > OS X Server isn't going to do you much good if you don't understand the
> > concepts. Its strength is that it largely eliminates the need to read the
> > manual in order to learn the mechanics -- all of that is discoverable if
> > you just poke around the GUI for a few minutes.
> > 
> > [snip]
> 
> And I suppose you can't learn anything by poking around and of the menu
> systems in Linux?

In terms of server administration? Not really. I haven't yet seen a 
Linux server distro that provides a coherent, discoverable GUI which 
allows the user to configure and monitor a wide variety of services.

-- 
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just 
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
                          -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:38:41 -0500, Liam Slider wrote:

> Oxford wrote:
>> In article  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>How about The Lord of the Rings. Yes, most of the editing and effects
>>>work was done on Linux.
>> 
>> 
>> well that's certainly interesting since Apple owns Shake which created
>> much of the Lord of the Rings visual effects...
> 
> Hmmm....
> 
> The work was done on Linux.
> 
> http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/698
> 
> 
>  From the people themselves. All the *work* was done on Linux servers,
> and Linux/Unix workstations.
> 
> Also Shake is owned by Nothing Real. Apple may *have* a version that they
> sell, but they don't *own* it.

Apple bought Nothing Real.

> 
> 
> You can't always believe Apple, I guess they put out as much propaganda as
> Mafiasoft.


And Apple seems to be able to purchase and extinguish too.
-- 
Rick

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:49:29 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> In article Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> 
>> ... and when did Apple buy Shake? And did Apple buying Shake suddenly
>> kill of the extant Linux versions? No, but Apple keeping the Linux
>> version's price so high, while slashing the Mac version's price may do
>> some damage.
>> 
>> hmmm... that seems like just the sort of thing m$ does.
> 
> well, i'd place bets the linux version is more robust... thus the higher
> price... it would be unlike apple to charge more for the same features,
> they don't do stuff like that...
> 
> Oxford
> 
> -
ahah HAHA AHahah HAha HAHHAH AHahahahaha HAHAHAH.

Oh, you were serious? How sad.
-- 
Rick

Rick wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:38:41 -0500, Liam Slider wrote:
> 
> 
>>Oxford wrote:
>>
>>>In article  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>How about The Lord of the Rings. Yes, most of the editing and effects
>>>>work was done on Linux.
>>>
>>>
>>>well that's certainly interesting since Apple owns Shake which created
>>>much of the Lord of the Rings visual effects...
>>
>>Hmmm....
>>
>>The work was done on Linux.
>>
>>http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/698
>>
>>
>> From the people themselves. All the *work* was done on Linux servers,
>>and Linux/Unix workstations.
>>
>>Also Shake is owned by Nothing Real. Apple may *have* a version that they
>>sell, but they don't *own* it.
> 
> 
> Apple bought Nothing Real.

As I found out. So Linux does all the work, and Apple steals all the 
credit. Nothiing new...

> 
> 
>>
>>You can't always believe Apple, I guess they put out as much propaganda as
>>Mafiasoft.
> 
> 
> 
> And Apple seems to be able to purchase and extinguish too.

Pfft. We have OSS renderfarm apps now. Completely free. Being adopted by 
Hollyweird.

-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:47:10 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> In article Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> 
>> Installing Mandrake 8.something, and RedHat 9.0 were just as easy, if
>> not easier than installing OS X.
> 
> you are completely joking or completely clueless... installing osx is
> light years easier than installing mandrake version dot ANYTHING... only
> thing easier would be waving the osx dvd in front of the machine...

No, you are the clueless one. I have installed different versions of MacOS
X, Mandrake and Red Hat. Red Hat was the easiest. No you go trundle off
and do  a Red Hat install.

> 
> what part of "one click install" is confusing you? you also seem to be
> forgetting apple's hardware is already set to run osx server... not so in
> the x86 world...

Strange, I have all sorts of server software on my Red Hat CDs. All I had
to do was choose them during install, or I could up2date or apt-get them
now. Or I could even install from CD.

> 
>> > http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?MfcISAPICommand=GetResult&ht=1&S
>> > ortProperty=MetaEndSort&from=R3&siteid=0&query=imac&category1=4599
>> > 
>> > as of that above link... there was a 333Mhz Blueberry for $205... with
>> > 2 minutes left... not bad... all of these are plenty powerful enough
>> > to run Panther Server...
>> 
>> You had better start adding the other charges... shipping and stuff. And
>> are you really saying a 300mhz machine is good enough to act as a heavy
>> server today?
> 
> what a $40 shipping charge? what other fees are there? if you do a
> regional search, you don't pay anything for shipping, except driving over
> to pick it up... don't you understand how ebay works?
> 
> i said nothing of a "heavy use"  server... but it's plenty powerful enough
> for a small 10 user system, a couple websites, ftp, mail, etc... entire
> corporations where run off iron far slower than that 10 years ago...

This is nt 10 years ago.

> 
>> Are you serious? Do a search. Use Linux and Hollywood as key words. Then
>> go watch the Lord of the Rings movies.
> 
> One movie, big whoop... how about 1000's like the mac helps produce every
> year? besides apple owns the software that helped make lord of the rings,
> why doesn't a linux company own it???
> 

Do you enjoy looking like an idiot? Do the search. Be embarrassed. And
maybe you can tell us just when Apple purchased Nothing Real and when LoTR
was first filmed.

-- 
Rick

As ZnU so eloquently gibbered on Sun, 12 Oct 2003 at 01:29 GMT:

> In article <pan.2003.10.11.23.48.50.493305@none.com>,
>  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 17:55:30 -0400, ZnU wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <pan.2003.10.11.20.55.31.396822@none.com>,
>> >  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:00:00 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > In article Sinister Midget <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> >> Wow! For $1,000 I can have unlimited clients connecting to my server?
>> >> >> (It only costs me $500 to /have/ server software from the same
>> >> >> source!) Well, I'd imagine I could't do something like that with any
>> >> >> reliability on a little ol' iMac. So what is the hardware to allow
>> >> >> unlimited clients going to run? $1500? $2500?
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Wait......I can do that already, plus all of the other stuff they
>> >> >> mention, plus quite a few other things! How is this possible on a PC
>> >> >> I built myself for under $500 and a free download?
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> I don't dislike Mac. My wife has one. I want one. But I'm not going
>> >> >> to be fooled by a bunch of marketing pap. MICROS~1 is much better at
>> >> >> using the language of feeeeeeeeeechure-push, and they can't trick me
>> >> >> either.
>> >> > 
>> >> > well if you don't value your time... you have a point... but $999 is
>> >> > exceedinly cheap compared to the alternatives... linux has never been
>> >> > free if you think to include the time learning/maintaining it... OSX
>> >> > server gets rid of the learning/maintaining portion... again, a good
>> >> > deal if you place "value" on your time...
>> >> 
>> >> You may now tell us how many people are born with the knowledge it takes
>> >> to install and maintain OS X server. You can also tell us how many
>> >> people are born with the knowledge to run a Mac.
>> > 
>> > That's too simplistic a view.
>> 
>> No, it isn't. It takes time to learn an OS. It takes time to learn
>> anything.
>> 
>> > To be a competent administrator, you need to understand things at two
>> > different levels. First, you have to have an understanding of the concepts
>> > involved -- you need to have a grasp of how TCP/IP networks are organized,
>> > you need to know what sort of things a web server does, you need to
>> > understand what user accounts are, etc.
>> > 
>> > Second, you need to know the *mechanics* of the specific system you're
>> > using. What steps do you take to install an application? How do you revoke
>> > a user's privileges?
>> 
>> All of that has to be learned, first generally and second specifically for
>> the OS you are using.
>> 
>> > OS X Server isn't going to do you much good if you don't understand the
>> > concepts. Its strength is that it largely eliminates the need to read the
>> > manual in order to learn the mechanics -- all of that is discoverable if
>> > you just poke around the GUI for a few minutes.
>> > 
>> > [snip]
>> 
>> And I suppose you can't learn anything by poking around and of the menu
>> systems in Linux?
> 
> In terms of server administration? Not really. I haven't yet seen a 
> Linux server distro that provides a coherent, discoverable GUI which 
> allows the user to configure and monitor a wide variety of services.

At least you admit your problem. Try:

clarkconnect
smoothwall
astaro security linux
redhat enterprise server

to name but a few.

In addition, several others have the tools available. For example,
nearly all can run webmin, a /browser/ interface that configures all
sorts of system functions, servers, runs commandline instances, etc,
etc, etc. Most all come with GUI tools (assuming you want to
point'n'drool away) that cover nearly anything, though not necessarily
all in a single package. Several come with linuxconf, which runs from
either a point'n'slobber interface or within the console sans GUI
interface (both available from the same installation).

I think the real source of the problem is that you just haven't looked
closely at a linux server distro in a long, long while. Not that you
really should need to look at any. But if you're going to discuss them,
it helps to have dealt with them before pretending to know the subject
at hand.

-- 
"Welcome to Microsoft support. May I ask which version of Code Red
you're running?"

StormDrain wrote:
<snip>
> 
> Just a question from someone in mac.advocacy to the Linux folks. I think 
> OSS is a very good development process and there are several OSS apps I 
> use: Apache/Tomcat, Amaya, GIMP & OpenOffice but my question is: has OSS 
> killed anything yet?  Apache is pretty solid how about other software?
> 
> Not trying to start a fight either :)

Cinelerra is starting to kill Shake :-)


Seriously, major studios are grabbing the software and building all 
Linux render farms using it.

-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

In article Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> A benefit of having a total and complete monopoly on the hardware I 
> suppose...

well, i really don't think apple views it that way... it's more a goal 
connected with "consistancy"... apple has never been much into "making 
money"... but more to develop the end all be all "product"... the 
current mac is a pretty good example of extreme attention to detail, 
fairly low price and "consistancy" from machine to machine... no other 
company has this... it's a gem to use... and that's far different than 
trying to obtain any kind of "monopoly"...

> Meanwhile on a faster Linux PC bought for less money, you can have 
> unlimited users, and far more services.

yes, at the cost of less usablity, less overall hardware quality, less 
value year to year for your investment, etc... you get what you pay for, 
and that's no where truer than the pc market...

> That's just the most well known to point to. Everyone knows The Lord of 
> the Rings. It's an easy example to think of.
> 
> > how about 1000's like the mac helps produce 
> 
> Helped, past tense.

sorry for the tense... oopps!

> > every year? besides apple owns the software that helped make lord of the 
> > rings, why doesn't a linux company own it???
> 
> Owns yes, runs...technically, ran and did *any* work at all? Nope.
> 
> Oh and all the big render farms are switching to Cinelerra.

yeah, i guess Shake 3 was all packaging... no new code :)

http://www.apple.com/software/pro/film_tv/


Oxford

-

In article <bmab8d$kcpkc$4@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
<liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> Rick wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:38:41 -0500, Liam Slider wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Oxford wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>How about The Lord of the Rings. Yes, most of the editing and effects
> >>>>work was done on Linux.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>well that's certainly interesting since Apple owns Shake which created
> >>>much of the Lord of the Rings visual effects...
> >>
> >>Hmmm....
> >>
> >>The work was done on Linux.
> >>
> >>http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/698
> >>
> >>
> >> From the people themselves. All the *work* was done on Linux servers,
> >>and Linux/Unix workstations.
> >>
> >>Also Shake is owned by Nothing Real. Apple may *have* a version that they
> >>sell, but they don't *own* it.
> > 
> > 
> > Apple bought Nothing Real.
> 
> As I found out. So Linux does all the work, and Apple steals all the 
> credit. Nothiing new...
> 
> > 
> > 
> >>
> >>You can't always believe Apple, I guess they put out as much propaganda as
> >>Mafiasoft.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > And Apple seems to be able to purchase and extinguish too.
> 
> Pfft. We have OSS renderfarm apps now. Completely free. Being adopted by 
> Hollyweird.

I did a quick look on Google for Cinerella.  For something that is
being as widely adopted by Hollywood, there is surprisingly little that
came up.

How about some links to all this useage??

Lloyd Parsons wrote:
<snip>
>>>
>>>>You can't always believe Apple, I guess they put out as much propaganda as
>>>>Mafiasoft.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>And Apple seems to be able to purchase and extinguish too.
>>
>>Pfft. We have OSS renderfarm apps now. Completely free. Being adopted by 
>>Hollyweird.
> 
> 
> I did a quick look on Google for Cinerella.  For something that is
> being as widely adopted by Hollywood, there is surprisingly little that
> came up.
> 
> How about some links to all this useage??

Run a search on google groups in cola for Linux, Hollywood, and 
Renderfarms and you should find plenty of articles and links.

Oh and Cinerella used to be known as FilmGimp, so you might try looking 
that up too.

-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:17:34 -0700, StormDrain wrote:

> In article <bma6uj$k19bc$3@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
>> StormDrain wrote:
>> > In article <bma4a3$kbftp$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> > 
>> >>Oxford wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>In article  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>How about The Lord of the Rings. Yes, most of the editing and
>> >>>>effects work was done on Linux.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>well that's certainly interesting since Apple owns Shake which
>> >>>created much of the Lord of the Rings visual effects...
>> >>
>> >>Hmmm....
>> >>
>> >>The work was done on Linux.
>> >>
>> >>http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/698
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> From the people themselves. All the *work* was done on Linux servers,
>> >>and Linux/Unix workstations.
>> >>
>> >>Also Shake is owned by Nothing Real. Apple may *have* a version that
>> >>they sell, but they don't *own* it.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Just to add to the confusion..Apple bought Nothing Real
>> > apparently..windows version dead...:
>> 
>> Who cares, who cares if they kill the Linux version too. We have OSS
>> stuff to do the same job now, on Linux. It'll just kill Apple as
>> competition in the movie industry.
> 
> Just a question from someone in mac.advocacy to the Linux folks. I think
> OSS is a very good development process and there are several OSS apps I
> use: Apache/Tomcat, Amaya, GIMP & OpenOffice but my question is: has OSS
> killed anything yet?  Apache is pretty solid how about other software?
> 
> Not trying to start a fight either :)

No, OSS hasn't killed anything yet. FilmGimp is getting big in Hollywood.
OpenOffice is getting big in many places all over the world. Apache is
pretty much recognized as the leader in web servers. Unix-like OSes pretty
much run the Internet. .. stuff like that :-)

-- 
Rick

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:01:49 -0500, Liam Slider wrote:

> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> <snip>
(more snip)
>> 
>> 
>> I did a quick look on Google for Cinerella.  For something that is being
>> as widely adopted by Hollywood, there is surprisingly little that came
>> up.
>> 
>> How about some links to all this useage??
> 
> Run a search on google groups in cola for Linux, Hollywood, and
> Renderfarms and you should find plenty of articles and links.
> 
> Oh and Cinerella used to be known as FilmGimp, so you might try looking
> that up too.

Cinerrela was Broadcast 2000, and FilmGim forked from GIMP.
-- 
Rick

Oxford wrote:
> In article Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>A benefit of having a total and complete monopoly on the hardware I 
>>suppose...
> 
> 
> well, i really don't think apple views it that way... it's more a goal 
> connected with "consistancy"... apple has never been much into "making 
> money"... but more to develop the end all be all "product"... the 
> current mac is a pretty good example of extreme attention to detail, 
> fairly low price and "consistancy" from machine to machine... no other 
> company has this... it's a gem to use... and that's far different than 
> trying to obtain any kind of "monopoly"...

Oh I don't know, they certainly have used the same kinds of dirty tricks 
as that *other* monopoly... As for fairly low price, I disagree by a 
long shot.

> 
> 
>>Meanwhile on a faster Linux PC bought for less money, you can have 
>>unlimited users, and far more services.
> 
> 
> yes, at the cost of less usablity,

Not sure there. The GUI in Linux is very good, setup and configuration 
is easy.

> less overall hardware quality, 

Possibly. But the lower price means easier to replace if something goes 
wrong. Balances out.

> less 
> value year to year for your investment, 

That also is uncertain.

> etc... you get what you pay for, 
> and that's no where truer than the pc market...

Not always. Sometimes you pay more than what the product is worth, and 
sometimes the best things in life are Free.


<snip>
> 
>>>every year? besides apple owns the software that helped make lord of the 
>>>rings, why doesn't a linux company own it???
>>
>>Owns yes, runs...technically, ran and did *any* work at all? Nope.
>>
>>Oh and all the big render farms are switching to Cinelerra.
> 
> 
> yeah, i guess Shake 3 was all packaging... no new code :)
> 
> http://www.apple.com/software/pro/film_tv/

It doesn't matter if it does have new code or not. It's being replaced 
in the industry. Now I *may* be a bit off on it being Cinelerra that's 
replacing it, I *think* that's the OSS app that's being adopted though. 
it certainly has the power, capabilities, and usability.


-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

In article <slrnbohc9o.25s.sinister@home.harry.net>,
 Sinister Midget <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote:

> As ZnU so eloquently gibbered on Sun, 12 Oct 2003 at 01:29 GMT:
> 
> > In article <pan.2003.10.11.23.48.50.493305@none.com>,
> >  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 17:55:30 -0400, ZnU wrote:
> >> 
> >> > In article <pan.2003.10.11.20.55.31.396822@none.com>,
> >> >  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:00:00 -0600, Oxford wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > In article Sinister Midget <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote:
> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> Wow! For $1,000 I can have unlimited clients connecting to my 
> >> >> >> server?
> >> >> >> (It only costs me $500 to /have/ server software from the same
> >> >> >> source!) Well, I'd imagine I could't do something like that with any
> >> >> >> reliability on a little ol' iMac. So what is the hardware to allow
> >> >> >> unlimited clients going to run? $1500? $2500?
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> Wait......I can do that already, plus all of the other stuff they
> >> >> >> mention, plus quite a few other things! How is this possible on a PC
> >> >> >> I built myself for under $500 and a free download?
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> I don't dislike Mac. My wife has one. I want one. But I'm not going
> >> >> >> to be fooled by a bunch of marketing pap. MICROS~1 is much better at
> >> >> >> using the language of feeeeeeeeeechure-push, and they can't trick me
> >> >> >> either.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > well if you don't value your time... you have a point... but $999 is
> >> >> > exceedinly cheap compared to the alternatives... linux has never been
> >> >> > free if you think to include the time learning/maintaining it... OSX
> >> >> > server gets rid of the learning/maintaining portion... again, a good
> >> >> > deal if you place "value" on your time...
> >> >> 
> >> >> You may now tell us how many people are born with the knowledge it 
> >> >> takes
> >> >> to install and maintain OS X server. You can also tell us how many
> >> >> people are born with the knowledge to run a Mac.
> >> > 
> >> > That's too simplistic a view.
> >> 
> >> No, it isn't. It takes time to learn an OS. It takes time to learn
> >> anything.
> >> 
> >> > To be a competent administrator, you need to understand things at two
> >> > different levels. First, you have to have an understanding of the 
> >> > concepts
> >> > involved -- you need to have a grasp of how TCP/IP networks are 
> >> > organized,
> >> > you need to know what sort of things a web server does, you need to
> >> > understand what user accounts are, etc.
> >> > 
> >> > Second, you need to know the *mechanics* of the specific system you're
> >> > using. What steps do you take to install an application? How do you 
> >> > revoke
> >> > a user's privileges?
> >> 
> >> All of that has to be learned, first generally and second specifically for
> >> the OS you are using.
> >> 
> >> > OS X Server isn't going to do you much good if you don't understand the
> >> > concepts. Its strength is that it largely eliminates the need to read 
> >> > the
> >> > manual in order to learn the mechanics -- all of that is discoverable if
> >> > you just poke around the GUI for a few minutes.
> >> > 
> >> > [snip]
> >> 
> >> And I suppose you can't learn anything by poking around and of the menu
> >> systems in Linux?
> > 
> > In terms of server administration? Not really. I haven't yet seen a 
> > Linux server distro that provides a coherent, discoverable GUI which 
> > allows the user to configure and monitor a wide variety of services.
> 
> At least you admit your problem. Try:
> 
> clarkconnect
> smoothwall
> astaro security linux

These are products for turning computers into firewalls; they're not 
general purpose server operating systems with complete, coherent GUI 
configuration and monitoring tools.

> redhat enterprise server

Although I haven't used this, the impression I get from reading the docs 
is that it uses a bunch of different GUI configuration tools, not one 
coherent, discoverable interface that's ready to go out of the box. For 
instance, if you look in the section of the manual related to LDAP, it 
starts pointing you to third-party tools, for which you need to refer to 
other documentation. Contrast with OS X Server:
http://www.apple.com/server/pdfs/L31755A_OpenDirect2_TB_final.pdf

Look, I've administered *nix servers in the past, and while I'm sure 
there's been some progress, I think I still have a pretty good idea of 
what's required. Every time you need to do something new, you waste a 
few hours poking through HOWTOs and Usenet archives trying to figure it 
out. That just isn't necessary with OS X Server.

> to name but a few.
> 
> In addition, several others have the tools available. For example,
> nearly all can run webmin, a /browser/ interface that configures all
> sorts of system functions, servers, runs commandline instances, etc,
> etc, etc. Most all come with GUI tools (assuming you want to
> point'n'drool away) that cover nearly anything, though not necessarily
> all in a single package. Several come with linuxconf, which runs from
> either a point'n'slobber interface or within the console sans GUI
> interface (both available from the same installation).

Heh. I just knew someone was going to try to pass off webmin as 
equivalent to what OS X Server ships with. I don't know why I bother 
with these discussions.

> I think the real source of the problem is that you just haven't looked
> closely at a linux server distro in a long, long while. Not that you
> really should need to look at any. But if you're going to discuss them,
> it helps to have dealt with them before pretending to know the subject
> at hand.

-- 
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just 
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
                          -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

Rick wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:01:49 -0500, Liam Slider wrote:
> 
> 
>>Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>><snip>
> 
> (more snip)
> 
>>>
>>>I did a quick look on Google for Cinerella.  For something that is being
>>>as widely adopted by Hollywood, there is surprisingly little that came
>>>up.
>>>
>>>How about some links to all this useage??
>>
>>Run a search on google groups in cola for Linux, Hollywood, and
>>Renderfarms and you should find plenty of articles and links.
>>
>>Oh and Cinerella used to be known as FilmGimp, so you might try looking
>>that up too.
> 
> 
> Cinerrela was Broadcast 2000, and FilmGim forked from GIMP.


No, Broadcast 2000 (which was a home user app, *not* a commercial 
renderfarm app!)died comepletely due to legal trouble. Cinerrela *was* 
FilmGimp. FilmGimp forked from GIMP, them they changed their name to 
Cinerrela. Unless I'm thinking of a different app....I know FilmGimp 
*did* change their name, I'm pretty sure it was to Cinerrela anyway.

-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

In article <bmado8$kcesf$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
 Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> Rick wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:01:49 -0500, Liam Slider wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >><snip>
> > 
> > (more snip)
> > 
> >>>
> >>>I did a quick look on Google for Cinerella.  For something that is being
> >>>as widely adopted by Hollywood, there is surprisingly little that came
> >>>up.
> >>>
> >>>How about some links to all this useage??
> >>
> >>Run a search on google groups in cola for Linux, Hollywood, and
> >>Renderfarms and you should find plenty of articles and links.
> >>
> >>Oh and Cinerella used to be known as FilmGimp, so you might try looking
> >>that up too.
> > 
> > 
> > Cinerrela was Broadcast 2000, and FilmGim forked from GIMP.
> 
> 
> No, Broadcast 2000 (which was a home user app, *not* a commercial 
> renderfarm app!)died comepletely due to legal trouble. Cinerrela *was* 
> FilmGimp. FilmGimp forked from GIMP, them they changed their name to 
> Cinerrela. Unless I'm thinking of a different app....I know FilmGimp 
> *did* change their name, I'm pretty sure it was to Cinerrela anyway.

No, Cinelerra (the correct spelling; useful for anyone who wants to 
google on it) is the new name for Broadcast 2000. Cinelerra is a 
non-linear editing application, like Final Cut Pro (but not as good; let 
us know when it wins its first Emmy). Film Gimp was renamed CinePaint. 
CinePaint is *not* a general purpose editing app; it's for 
frame-by-frame retouching.

How come whenever the subject turns to video editing and the Linux 
advocates start going on about all the progress Linux is making in that 
field, it always turns out that they've got no idea what they're talking 
about?

-- 
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just 
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
                          -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

ZnU wrote:
> In article <bmado8$kcesf$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Rick wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:01:49 -0500, Liam Slider wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>><snip>
>>>
>>>(more snip)
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I did a quick look on Google for Cinerella.  For something that is being
>>>>>as widely adopted by Hollywood, there is surprisingly little that came
>>>>>up.
>>>>>
>>>>>How about some links to all this useage??
>>>>
>>>>Run a search on google groups in cola for Linux, Hollywood, and
>>>>Renderfarms and you should find plenty of articles and links.
>>>>
>>>>Oh and Cinerella used to be known as FilmGimp, so you might try looking
>>>>that up too.
>>>
>>>
>>>Cinerrela was Broadcast 2000, and FilmGim forked from GIMP.
>>
>>
>>No, Broadcast 2000 (which was a home user app, *not* a commercial 
>>renderfarm app!)died comepletely due to legal trouble. Cinerrela *was* 
>>FilmGimp. FilmGimp forked from GIMP, them they changed their name to 
>>Cinerrela. Unless I'm thinking of a different app....I know FilmGimp 
>>*did* change their name, I'm pretty sure it was to Cinerrela anyway.
> 
> 
> No, Cinelerra (the correct spelling; useful for anyone who wants to 
> google on it) is the new name for Broadcast 2000. Cinelerra is a 
> non-linear editing application, like Final Cut Pro (but not as good; let 
> us know when it wins its first Emmy). Film Gimp was renamed CinePaint. 
> CinePaint is *not* a general purpose editing app; it's for 
> frame-by-frame retouching.

Ah crap, I mixed the two up then. Sorry, it was the similar names. 
Still, both are storming Hollywood.

> 
> How come whenever the subject turns to video editing and the Linux 
> advocates start going on about all the progress Linux is making in that 
> field, it always turns out that they've got no idea what they're talking 
> about?


I'm not in the film industry.


-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

In article <znu-ECF20F.22340011102003@news.fu-berlin.de>, ZnU
<znu@acedsl.com> wrote:

> In article <bmado8$kcesf$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
> > Rick wrote:
> > > On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:01:49 -0500, Liam Slider wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > >>Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > >><snip>
> > > 
> > > (more snip)
> > > 
> > >>>
> > >>>I did a quick look on Google for Cinerella.  For something that is being
> > >>>as widely adopted by Hollywood, there is surprisingly little that came
> > >>>up.
> > >>>
> > >>>How about some links to all this useage??
> > >>
> > >>Run a search on google groups in cola for Linux, Hollywood, and
> > >>Renderfarms and you should find plenty of articles and links.
> > >>
> > >>Oh and Cinerella used to be known as FilmGimp, so you might try looking
> > >>that up too.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Cinerrela was Broadcast 2000, and FilmGim forked from GIMP.
> > 
> > 
> > No, Broadcast 2000 (which was a home user app, *not* a commercial 
> > renderfarm app!)died comepletely due to legal trouble. Cinerrela *was* 
> > FilmGimp. FilmGimp forked from GIMP, them they changed their name to 
> > Cinerrela. Unless I'm thinking of a different app....I know FilmGimp 
> > *did* change their name, I'm pretty sure it was to Cinerrela anyway.
> 
> No, Cinelerra (the correct spelling; useful for anyone who wants to 
> google on it) is the new name for Broadcast 2000. Cinelerra is a 
> non-linear editing application, like Final Cut Pro (but not as good; let 
> us know when it wins its first Emmy). Film Gimp was renamed CinePaint. 
> CinePaint is *not* a general purpose editing app; it's for 
> frame-by-frame retouching.
> 
> How come whenever the subject turns to video editing and the Linux 
> advocates start going on about all the progress Linux is making in that 
> field, it always turns out that they've got no idea what they're talking 
> about?

And here's a link to a review:

http://dfarq.homeip.net/index.php?p=1246&c=1

Not exactly glowing is it? 

There seem to be other reviews, but they are not English and I don't
know what they say.

But it really seems there is a dearth of reviews or anything else about
it in google web searches.  Makes me wonder how much it is really
taking Hollywood by storm.

Lloyd

In article <pan.2003.10.12.02.06.11.639055@none.com>, Rick
<rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:17:34 -0700, StormDrain wrote:
> 
> > In article <bma6uj$k19bc$3@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> StormDrain wrote:
> >> > In article <bma4a3$kbftp$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> >> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> >>Oxford wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>In article  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>How about The Lord of the Rings. Yes, most of the editing and
> >> >>>>effects work was done on Linux.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>well that's certainly interesting since Apple owns Shake which
> >> >>>created much of the Lord of the Rings visual effects...
> >> >>
> >> >>Hmmm....
> >> >>
> >> >>The work was done on Linux.
> >> >>
> >> >>http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/698
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> From the people themselves. All the *work* was done on Linux servers,
> >> >>and Linux/Unix workstations.
> >> >>
> >> >>Also Shake is owned by Nothing Real. Apple may *have* a version that
> >> >>they sell, but they don't *own* it.
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > Just to add to the confusion..Apple bought Nothing Real
> >> > apparently..windows version dead...:
> >> 
> >> Who cares, who cares if they kill the Linux version too. We have OSS
> >> stuff to do the same job now, on Linux. It'll just kill Apple as
> >> competition in the movie industry.
> > 
> > Just a question from someone in mac.advocacy to the Linux folks. I think
> > OSS is a very good development process and there are several OSS apps I
> > use: Apache/Tomcat, Amaya, GIMP & OpenOffice but my question is: has OSS
> > killed anything yet?  Apache is pretty solid how about other software?
> > 
> > Not trying to start a fight either :)
> 
> No, OSS hasn't killed anything yet. FilmGimp is getting big in Hollywood.
> OpenOffice is getting big in many places all over the world. Apache is
> pretty much recognized as the leader in web servers. Unix-like OSes pretty
> much run the Internet. .. stuff like that :-)

Hmm....  Doing a google on film gimp doesn't get much in the way of
reports, but the name seems to have changed, and not to Cineralla or
whatever....

> ilm Gimp has been renamed to CinePaint

Lloyd

In article <bmaeqv$k4p5o$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
 Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> ZnU wrote:
> > In article <bmado8$kcesf$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Rick wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:01:49 -0500, Liam Slider wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >>>><snip>
> >>>
> >>>(more snip)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>I did a quick look on Google for Cinerella.  For something that is being
> >>>>>as widely adopted by Hollywood, there is surprisingly little that came
> >>>>>up.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>How about some links to all this useage??
> >>>>
> >>>>Run a search on google groups in cola for Linux, Hollywood, and
> >>>>Renderfarms and you should find plenty of articles and links.
> >>>>
> >>>>Oh and Cinerella used to be known as FilmGimp, so you might try looking
> >>>>that up too.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Cinerrela was Broadcast 2000, and FilmGim forked from GIMP.
> >>
> >>
> >>No, Broadcast 2000 (which was a home user app, *not* a commercial 
> >>renderfarm app!)died comepletely due to legal trouble. Cinerrela *was* 
> >>FilmGimp. FilmGimp forked from GIMP, them they changed their name to 
> >>Cinerrela. Unless I'm thinking of a different app....I know FilmGimp 
> >>*did* change their name, I'm pretty sure it was to Cinerrela anyway.
> > 
> > 
> > No, Cinelerra (the correct spelling; useful for anyone who wants to 
> > google on it) is the new name for Broadcast 2000. Cinelerra is a 
> > non-linear editing application, like Final Cut Pro (but not as good; let 
> > us know when it wins its first Emmy). Film Gimp was renamed CinePaint. 
> > CinePaint is *not* a general purpose editing app; it's for 
> > frame-by-frame retouching.
> 
> Ah crap, I mixed the two up then. Sorry, it was the similar names. 
> Still, both are storming Hollywood.

Well, I think that needs to be put in perspective a bit. That market is 
very small, and Linux is only being adopted in some parts of it. What's 
basically happening is that some obscure Linux software is replacing 
some obscure IRIX software. That really isn't something to get hugely 
excited about. (Unless you're SGI, in which case you should be feeling 
quite a lot of excitement, in the form of desperate panic.)

In the wider video/film editing market, Linux isn't really getting very 
far at all. Final Cut Pro, on the other hand, has sparked something of a 
revolution there. When you think about the needs of these markets, this 
makes perfect sense. Hollywood wants specialized tools that can be 
customized extensively in-house to fit into complex workflows. Most 
other filmmakers haven't got the resources to do in-house development 
work on their tools; they want integrated, easy-to-use packages that 
provide them with complete solutions out of the box.

> > How come whenever the subject turns to video editing and the Linux 
> > advocates start going on about all the progress Linux is making in that 
> > field, it always turns out that they've got no idea what they're talking 
> > about?
> 
> 
> I'm not in the film industry.

-- 
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just 
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
                          -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

In article <111020032155574659%lloydparsons@nospammac.com>, Lloyd
Parsons <lloydparsons@nospammac.com> wrote:

> Broadcast 2000

Googling on this, I don't see any reviews either.  Some how-tos and
many foreign language sites.

ZnU wrote:
> In article <bmaeqv$k4p5o$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>ZnU wrote:
>>
>>>In article <bmado8$kcesf$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>>> Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Rick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:01:49 -0500, Liam Slider wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>(more snip)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I did a quick look on Google for Cinerella.  For something that is being
>>>>>>>as widely adopted by Hollywood, there is surprisingly little that came
>>>>>>>up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How about some links to all this useage??
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Run a search on google groups in cola for Linux, Hollywood, and
>>>>>>Renderfarms and you should find plenty of articles and links.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh and Cinerella used to be known as FilmGimp, so you might try looking
>>>>>>that up too.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Cinerrela was Broadcast 2000, and FilmGim forked from GIMP.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, Broadcast 2000 (which was a home user app, *not* a commercial 
>>>>renderfarm app!)died comepletely due to legal trouble. Cinerrela *was* 
>>>>FilmGimp. FilmGimp forked from GIMP, them they changed their name to 
>>>>Cinerrela. Unless I'm thinking of a different app....I know FilmGimp 
>>>>*did* change their name, I'm pretty sure it was to Cinerrela anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, Cinelerra (the correct spelling; useful for anyone who wants to 
>>>google on it) is the new name for Broadcast 2000. Cinelerra is a 
>>>non-linear editing application, like Final Cut Pro (but not as good; let 
>>>us know when it wins its first Emmy). Film Gimp was renamed CinePaint. 
>>>CinePaint is *not* a general purpose editing app; it's for 
>>>frame-by-frame retouching.
>>
>>Ah crap, I mixed the two up then. Sorry, it was the similar names. 
>>Still, both are storming Hollywood.
> 
> 
> Well, I think that needs to be put in perspective a bit. That market is 
> very small, and Linux is only being adopted in some parts of it. What's 
> basically happening is that some obscure Linux software is replacing 
> some obscure IRIX software. That really isn't something to get hugely 
> excited about. (Unless you're SGI, in which case you should be feeling 
> quite a lot of excitement, in the form of desperate panic.)
> 
> In the wider video/film editing market, Linux isn't really getting very 
> far at all. Final Cut Pro, on the other hand, has sparked something of a 
> revolution there. When you think about the needs of these markets, this 
> makes perfect sense. Hollywood wants specialized tools that can be 
> customized extensively in-house to fit into complex workflows. Most 
> other filmmakers haven't got the resources to do in-house development 
> work on their tools; they want integrated, easy-to-use packages that 
> provide them with complete solutions out of the box.


And the Linux solutions are sufficient there too.


-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:11:18 -0400, ZnU wrote:

> In article <slrnbohc9o.25s.sinister@home.harry.net>,
>  Sinister Midget <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote:
(snip)
>> In addition, several others have the tools available. For example,
>> nearly all can run webmin, a /browser/ interface that configures all
>> sorts of system functions, servers, runs commandline instances, etc,
>> etc, etc. Most all come with GUI tools (assuming you want to
>> point'n'drool away) that cover nearly anything, though not necessarily
>> all in a single package. Several come with linuxconf, which runs from
>> either a point'n'slobber interface or within the console sans GUI
>> interface (both available from the same installation).
> 
> Heh. I just knew someone was going to try to pass off webmin as equivalent
> to what OS X Server ships with.

Linuxconf?
And what is wrong with webmin?
Or just following the menu... RH->System Settings->Server Settings?


> I don't know why I bother with these
> discussions.

I don't either. In your mind you always right anyway.

> 
>> I think the real source of the problem is that you just haven't looked
>> closely at a linux server distro in a long, long while. Not that you
>> really should need to look at any. But if you're going to discuss them,
>> it helps to have dealt with them before pretending to know the subject
>> at hand.

-- 
Rick

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:58:01 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.10.12.02.06.11.639055@none.com>, Rick <rick@none.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:17:34 -0700, StormDrain wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <bma6uj$k19bc$3@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> StormDrain wrote:
>> >> > In article <bma4a3$kbftp$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> >> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> > 
>> >> >>Oxford wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>In article  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>How about The Lord of the Rings. Yes, most of the editing and
>> >> >>>>effects work was done on Linux.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>well that's certainly interesting since Apple owns Shake which
>> >> >>>created much of the Lord of the Rings visual effects...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Hmmm....
>> >> >>
>> >> >>The work was done on Linux.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/698
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> From the people themselves. All the *work* was done on Linux
>> >> >> servers,
>> >> >>and Linux/Unix workstations.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Also Shake is owned by Nothing Real. Apple may *have* a version
>> >> >>that they sell, but they don't *own* it.
>> >> > 
>> >> > 
>> >> > Just to add to the confusion..Apple bought Nothing Real
>> >> > apparently..windows version dead...:
>> >> 
>> >> Who cares, who cares if they kill the Linux version too. We have OSS
>> >> stuff to do the same job now, on Linux. It'll just kill Apple as
>> >> competition in the movie industry.
>> > 
>> > Just a question from someone in mac.advocacy to the Linux folks. I
>> > think OSS is a very good development process and there are several OSS
>> > apps I use: Apache/Tomcat, Amaya, GIMP & OpenOffice but my question
>> > is: has OSS killed anything yet?  Apache is pretty solid how about
>> > other software?
>> > 
>> > Not trying to start a fight either :)
>> 
>> No, OSS hasn't killed anything yet. FilmGimp is getting big in
>> Hollywood. OpenOffice is getting big in many places all over the world.
>> Apache is pretty much recognized as the leader in web servers. Unix-like
>> OSes pretty much run the Internet. .. stuff like that :-)
> 
> Hmm....  Doing a google on film gimp doesn't get much in the way of
> reports, but the name seems to have changed, and not to Cineralla or
> whatever....
> 
>> ilm Gimp has been renamed to CinePaint
> 

Cinerrela comes from Broadcast 2000. FilmGimp is (was?) a fork of GIMP
that has been renamed to CinePaint, which is apparently becoming quite
popular in Hollywood.

-- 
Rick

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 23:02:40 -0400, ZnU wrote:

> In article <bmaeqv$k4p5o$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
>> ZnU wrote:
>> > In article <bmado8$kcesf$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> > 
>> >>Rick wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:01:49 -0500, Liam Slider wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> >>>><snip>
>> >>>
>> >>>(more snip)
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>>I did a quick look on Google for Cinerella.  For something that is
>> >>>>>being as widely adopted by Hollywood, there is surprisingly little
>> >>>>>that came up.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>How about some links to all this useage??
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Run a search on google groups in cola for Linux, Hollywood, and
>> >>>>Renderfarms and you should find plenty of articles and links.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Oh and Cinerella used to be known as FilmGimp, so you might try
>> >>>>looking that up too.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Cinerrela was Broadcast 2000, and FilmGim forked from GIMP.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>No, Broadcast 2000 (which was a home user app, *not* a commercial
>> >>renderfarm app!)died comepletely due to legal trouble. Cinerrela *was*
>> >>FilmGimp. FilmGimp forked from GIMP, them they changed their name to
>> >>Cinerrela. Unless I'm thinking of a different app....I know FilmGimp
>> >>*did* change their name, I'm pretty sure it was to Cinerrela anyway.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > No, Cinelerra (the correct spelling; useful for anyone who wants to
>> > google on it) is the new name for Broadcast 2000. Cinelerra is a
>> > non-linear editing application, like Final Cut Pro (but not as good;
>> > let us know when it wins its first Emmy). Film Gimp was renamed
>> > CinePaint. CinePaint is *not* a general purpose editing app; it's for
>> > frame-by-frame retouching.
>> 
>> Ah crap, I mixed the two up then. Sorry, it was the similar names.
>> Still, both are storming Hollywood.
> 
> Well, I think that needs to be put in perspective a bit. That market is
> very small, and Linux is only being adopted in some parts of it. What's

Yes, Hollywood film editing, animation and retouching is a very small field.

> basically happening is that some obscure Linux software is replacing some
> obscure IRIX software. That really isn't something to get hugely excited
> about. (Unless you're SGI, in which case you should be feeling quite a lot
> of excitement, in the form of desperate panic.)

I guess that's why Apple bought Nothing Real, and then slashed the price
of the Mac version of Shake. You.. Shake... just an obscure app.

> 
> In the wider video/film editing market, Linux isn't really getting very
> far at all. Final Cut Pro, on the other hand, has sparked something of a
> revolution there. When you think about the needs of these markets, this
> makes perfect sense. Hollywood wants specialized tools that can be
> customized extensively in-house to fit into complex workflows. Most other
> filmmakers haven't got the resources to do in-house development work on
> their tools; they want integrated, easy-to-use packages that provide them
> with complete solutions out of the box.

Like Maya, Shake and Houdini not to mention CinePaint?

> 
>> > How come whenever the subject turns to video editing and the Linux
>> > advocates start going on about all the progress Linux is making in
>> > that field, it always turns out that they've got no idea what they're
>> > talking about?
>> 
>> 
>> I'm not in the film industry.

-- 
Rick

Rick wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:58:01 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
> 
>>In article <pan.2003.10.12.02.06.11.639055@none.com>, Rick <rick@none.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:17:34 -0700, StormDrain wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <bma6uj$k19bc$3@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>>>> Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>StormDrain wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <bma4a3$kbftp$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>>>>>> Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Oxford wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>How about The Lord of the Rings. Yes, most of the editing and
>>>>>>>>>effects work was done on Linux.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>well that's certainly interesting since Apple owns Shake which
>>>>>>>>created much of the Lord of the Rings visual effects...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hmmm....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The work was done on Linux.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/698
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>From the people themselves. All the *work* was done on Linux
>>>>>>>servers,
>>>>>>>and Linux/Unix workstations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Also Shake is owned by Nothing Real. Apple may *have* a version
>>>>>>>that they sell, but they don't *own* it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Just to add to the confusion..Apple bought Nothing Real
>>>>>>apparently..windows version dead...:
>>>>>
>>>>>Who cares, who cares if they kill the Linux version too. We have OSS
>>>>>stuff to do the same job now, on Linux. It'll just kill Apple as
>>>>>competition in the movie industry.
>>>>
>>>>Just a question from someone in mac.advocacy to the Linux folks. I
>>>>think OSS is a very good development process and there are several OSS
>>>>apps I use: Apache/Tomcat, Amaya, GIMP & OpenOffice but my question
>>>>is: has OSS killed anything yet?  Apache is pretty solid how about
>>>>other software?
>>>>
>>>>Not trying to start a fight either :)
>>>
>>>No, OSS hasn't killed anything yet. FilmGimp is getting big in
>>>Hollywood. OpenOffice is getting big in many places all over the world.
>>>Apache is pretty much recognized as the leader in web servers. Unix-like
>>>OSes pretty much run the Internet. .. stuff like that :-)
>>
>>Hmm....  Doing a google on film gimp doesn't get much in the way of
>>reports, but the name seems to have changed, and not to Cineralla or
>>whatever....
>>
>>
>>>ilm Gimp has been renamed to CinePaint
>>
> 
> Cinerrela comes from Broadcast 2000.

Is it a fork? I heard the Broadcast 2000 people got in some sort of 
legal trouble. I also understood it to be a somewhat lighter app.

> FilmGimp is (was?) a fork of GIMP
> that has been renamed to CinePaint, which is apparently becoming quite
> popular in Hollywood.
> 

According this this...

http://www.dtvprofessional.com/2003/08_aug/features/linuxmatures.htm

All the 3d special effects apps are now Lionux apps too.

And here's a good article that lists many movies where FilmGimp (now 
CinePaint, sorry for the name confusion) has taken over...

http://newsforge.com/newsforge/03/02/16/1355224.shtml?tid=6

-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:55:57 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> In article <znu-ECF20F.22340011102003@news.fu-berlin.de>, ZnU
> <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article <bmado8$kcesf$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>>  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > Rick wrote:
>> > > On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:01:49 -0500, Liam Slider wrote:
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > >>Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> > >><snip>
>> > > 
>> > > (more snip)
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > >>>I did a quick look on Google for Cinerella.  For something that is
>> > >>>being as widely adopted by Hollywood, there is surprisingly little
>> > >>>that came up.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>How about some links to all this useage??
>> > >>
>> > >>Run a search on google groups in cola for Linux, Hollywood, and
>> > >>Renderfarms and you should find plenty of articles and links.
>> > >>
>> > >>Oh and Cinerella used to be known as FilmGimp, so you might try
>> > >>looking that up too.
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > Cinerrela was Broadcast 2000, and FilmGim forked from GIMP.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > No, Broadcast 2000 (which was a home user app, *not* a commercial
>> > renderfarm app!)died comepletely due to legal trouble. Cinerrela *was*
>> > FilmGimp. FilmGimp forked from GIMP, them they changed their name to
>> > Cinerrela. Unless I'm thinking of a different app....I know FilmGimp
>> > *did* change their name, I'm pretty sure it was to Cinerrela anyway.
>> 
>> No, Cinelerra (the correct spelling; useful for anyone who wants to
>> google on it) is the new name for Broadcast 2000. Cinelerra is a
>> non-linear editing application, like Final Cut Pro (but not as good; let
>> us know when it wins its first Emmy). Film Gimp was renamed CinePaint.
>> CinePaint is *not* a general purpose editing app; it's for
>> frame-by-frame retouching.
>> 
>> How come whenever the subject turns to video editing and the Linux
>> advocates start going on about all the progress Linux is making in that
>> field, it always turns out that they've got no idea what they're talking
>> about?
> 
> And here's a link to a review:
> 
> http://dfarq.homeip.net/index.php?p=1246&c=1
> 
> Not exactly glowing is it?
> 
> There seem to be other reviews, but they are not English and I don't know
> what they say.
> 
> But it really seems there is a dearth of reviews or anything else about it
> in google web searches.  Makes me wonder how much it is really taking
> Hollywood by storm.
> 

 Film Gimp Continues Hollywood Takeover
<http://newsforge.com/newsforge/03/02/16/1355224.shtml?tid=6>


CinePaint, Linux Movies Group, Open Source Programmers, and SpectSoft at
NAB!
<http://cinepaint.sourceforge.net/press/cinepaint.2003.04.03.nab.html>

<http://www.fxguide.com/article112.html>
News: Is Photoshop's dominance to be challenged?

I guess when the OS X versions is finished you guys will start touting
CinePaint as a reason to use OS X.
-- 
Rick

Rick wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 23:02:40 -0400, ZnU wrote:
> 
> 
>>In article <bmaeqv$k4p5o$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>ZnU wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <bmado8$kcesf$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>>>> Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Rick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:01:49 -0500, Liam Slider wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(more snip)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I did a quick look on Google for Cinerella.  For something that is
>>>>>>>>being as widely adopted by Hollywood, there is surprisingly little
>>>>>>>>that came up.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>How about some links to all this useage??
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Run a search on google groups in cola for Linux, Hollywood, and
>>>>>>>Renderfarms and you should find plenty of articles and links.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Oh and Cinerella used to be known as FilmGimp, so you might try
>>>>>>>looking that up too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Cinerrela was Broadcast 2000, and FilmGim forked from GIMP.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No, Broadcast 2000 (which was a home user app, *not* a commercial
>>>>>renderfarm app!)died comepletely due to legal trouble. Cinerrela *was*
>>>>>FilmGimp. FilmGimp forked from GIMP, them they changed their name to
>>>>>Cinerrela. Unless I'm thinking of a different app....I know FilmGimp
>>>>>*did* change their name, I'm pretty sure it was to Cinerrela anyway.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, Cinelerra (the correct spelling; useful for anyone who wants to
>>>>google on it) is the new name for Broadcast 2000. Cinelerra is a
>>>>non-linear editing application, like Final Cut Pro (but not as good;
>>>>let us know when it wins its first Emmy). Film Gimp was renamed
>>>>CinePaint. CinePaint is *not* a general purpose editing app; it's for
>>>>frame-by-frame retouching.
>>>
>>>Ah crap, I mixed the two up then. Sorry, it was the similar names.
>>>Still, both are storming Hollywood.
>>
>>Well, I think that needs to be put in perspective a bit. That market is
>>very small, and Linux is only being adopted in some parts of it. What's
> 
> 
> Yes, Hollywood film editing, animation and retouching is a very small field.

Only an industry where billions of dollars are at stake after all, 
nothing important or anything.


-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 03:04:22 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> In article <111020032155574659%lloydparsons@nospammac.com>, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@nospammac.com> wrote:
> 
>> Broadcast 2000
> 
> Googling on this, I don't see any reviews either.  Some how-tos and many
> foreign language sites.

Using Broadcast 200 as keywords, you will find plenty of links to learn
what it was.

-- 
Rick

what a stupid thread.  i think oxford started with a little trollish spin,
but its gone downhill from there.  the sad thing is, there is something for
everybody in cola/csma to be happy about.  the campaign is all about
co-marketing apple and open source.  when apple puts the samba logo on
their page:

        http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/

they are sure as shit working with open source.  when they say "the JBoss
application server, Tomcat, Apache Axis, and MySQL 4" they are sure as shit
identifying and endorsing open source.  Not to mention the more prominent
placement of "BSD" in their product description, or mentions of "OpenLDAP,
Berkeley DB and MIT's Kerberos KDC"

so they want to say they do it "better" and charge a lot of money.  big
deal, red hat and suse try to do that with their enterprise products as
well.

and then everybody gets in a slap-happy mac-vs-linux argument, as ms
_continues_ to grow its share of client and server:

idc's market share numbers for 2002 have appeared in the last few days. 
leaving the server aside, they show windows share actually growing to 
"93.8 percent of the worldwide market in 2002, up from 93.2 percent in
2001."

  http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/10/08/HNmsdominance_1.html

so oxford, you troll, if you want to impress me ... take your mac and go get
some of that ms market share.

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:38:03 -0500, Liam Slider wrote:

> Rick wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:58:01 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>In article <pan.2003.10.12.02.06.11.639055@none.com>, Rick
>>><rick@none.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:17:34 -0700, StormDrain wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <bma6uj$k19bc$3@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>>>>> Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>StormDrain wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <bma4a3$kbftp$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>>>>>>> Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Oxford wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In article  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>How about The Lord of the Rings. Yes, most of the editing and
>>>>>>>>>>effects work was done on Linux.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>well that's certainly interesting since Apple owns Shake which
>>>>>>>>>created much of the Lord of the Rings visual effects...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hmmm....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The work was done on Linux.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/698
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>From the people themselves. All the *work* was done on Linux
>>>>>>>>servers,
>>>>>>>>and Linux/Unix workstations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Also Shake is owned by Nothing Real. Apple may *have* a version
>>>>>>>>that they sell, but they don't *own* it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Just to add to the confusion..Apple bought Nothing Real
>>>>>>>apparently..windows version dead...:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Who cares, who cares if they kill the Linux version too. We have OSS
>>>>>>stuff to do the same job now, on Linux. It'll just kill Apple as
>>>>>>competition in the movie industry.
>>>>>
>>>>>Just a question from someone in mac.advocacy to the Linux folks. I
>>>>>think OSS is a very good development process and there are several OSS
>>>>>apps I use: Apache/Tomcat, Amaya, GIMP & OpenOffice but my question
>>>>>is: has OSS killed anything yet?  Apache is pretty solid how about
>>>>>other software?
>>>>>
>>>>>Not trying to start a fight either :)
>>>>
>>>>No, OSS hasn't killed anything yet. FilmGimp is getting big in
>>>>Hollywood. OpenOffice is getting big in many places all over the world.
>>>>Apache is pretty much recognized as the leader in web servers.
>>>>Unix-like OSes pretty much run the Internet. .. stuff like that :-)
>>>
>>>Hmm....  Doing a google on film gimp doesn't get much in the way of
>>>reports, but the name seems to have changed, and not to Cineralla or
>>>whatever....
>>>
>>>
>>>>ilm Gimp has been renamed to CinePaint
>>>
>>>
>> Cinelerra comes from Broadcast 2000.
> 
> Is it a fork? I heard the Broadcast 2000 people got in some sort of legal
> trouble. I also understood it to be a somewhat lighter app.

Im not sure if how Heroine moved from Broadcast 2000 to Cinelerra

> 
>> FilmGimp is (was?) a fork of GIMP
>> that has been renamed to CinePaint, which is apparently becoming quite
>> popular in Hollywood.
>> 
>> 
> According this this...
> 
> http://www.dtvprofessional.com/2003/08_aug/features/linuxmatures.htm
> 
> All the 3d special effects apps are now Lionux apps too.
> 
> And here's a good article that lists many movies where FilmGimp (now
> CinePaint, sorry for the name confusion) has taken over...
> 
> http://newsforge.com/newsforge/03/02/16/1355224.shtml?tid=6

Yes, CinePaint is widely used. It has been ported to run under X11/MacOS
X, and there is work to port it and GTK+ to MacOS X/Aqua. I think the
GTK+/Aqua port will help tremendously in moving GTK and Gnome apps to
MacOS X.

-- 
Rick

Rick wrote:
<snip>
> I guess when the OS X versions is finished you guys will start touting
> CinePaint as a reason to use OS X.

Of course, everyone's copying Linux these days. Just look at why Apple 
added an X11 implimentation to Mac OS X. To port Linux X11 apps.

-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:51:38 -0500, Liam Slider wrote:

> Rick wrote:
> <snip>
>> I guess when the OS X versions is finished you guys will start touting
>> CinePaint as a reason to use OS X.
> 
> Of course, everyone's copying Linux these days. Just look at why Apple
> added an X11 implimentation to Mac OS X. To port Linux X11 apps.

Do not forget MacOS X is some Apple-proprietary layers on top of BSD.
Still, I did have success compiling some of my Linux apps under OS X/X11.
-- 
Rick

Rick wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:38:03 -0500, Liam Slider wrote:
> 
> 
>>Rick wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:58:01 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <pan.2003.10.12.02.06.11.639055@none.com>, Rick
>>>><rick@none.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:17:34 -0700, StormDrain wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <bma6uj$k19bc$3@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>>>>>>Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>StormDrain wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article <bma4a3$kbftp$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>>>>>>>>Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Oxford wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In article  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>How about The Lord of the Rings. Yes, most of the editing and
>>>>>>>>>>>effects work was done on Linux.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>well that's certainly interesting since Apple owns Shake which
>>>>>>>>>>created much of the Lord of the Rings visual effects...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Hmmm....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The work was done on Linux.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/698
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>From the people themselves. All the *work* was done on Linux
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>servers,
>>>>>>>>>and Linux/Unix workstations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Also Shake is owned by Nothing Real. Apple may *have* a version
>>>>>>>>>that they sell, but they don't *own* it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Just to add to the confusion..Apple bought Nothing Real
>>>>>>>>apparently..windows version dead...:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Who cares, who cares if they kill the Linux version too. We have OSS
>>>>>>>stuff to do the same job now, on Linux. It'll just kill Apple as
>>>>>>>competition in the movie industry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Just a question from someone in mac.advocacy to the Linux folks. I
>>>>>>think OSS is a very good development process and there are several OSS
>>>>>>apps I use: Apache/Tomcat, Amaya, GIMP & OpenOffice but my question
>>>>>>is: has OSS killed anything yet?  Apache is pretty solid how about
>>>>>>other software?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not trying to start a fight either :)
>>>>>
>>>>>No, OSS hasn't killed anything yet. FilmGimp is getting big in
>>>>>Hollywood. OpenOffice is getting big in many places all over the world.
>>>>>Apache is pretty much recognized as the leader in web servers.
>>>>>Unix-like OSes pretty much run the Internet. .. stuff like that :-)
>>>>
>>>>Hmm....  Doing a google on film gimp doesn't get much in the way of
>>>>reports, but the name seems to have changed, and not to Cineralla or
>>>>whatever....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>ilm Gimp has been renamed to CinePaint
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Cinelerra comes from Broadcast 2000.
>>
>>Is it a fork? I heard the Broadcast 2000 people got in some sort of legal
>>trouble. I also understood it to be a somewhat lighter app.
> 
> 
> Im not sure if how Heroine moved from Broadcast 2000 to Cinelerra
> 
> 
>>>FilmGimp is (was?) a fork of GIMP
>>>that has been renamed to CinePaint, which is apparently becoming quite
>>>popular in Hollywood.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>According this this...
>>
>>http://www.dtvprofessional.com/2003/08_aug/features/linuxmatures.htm
>>
>>All the 3d special effects apps are now Lionux apps too.
>>
>>And here's a good article that lists many movies where FilmGimp (now
>>CinePaint, sorry for the name confusion) has taken over...
>>
>>http://newsforge.com/newsforge/03/02/16/1355224.shtml?tid=6
> 
> 
> Yes, CinePaint is widely used. It has been ported to run under X11/MacOS
> X, and there is work to port it and GTK+ to MacOS X/Aqua. I think the
> GTK+/Aqua port will help tremendously in moving GTK and Gnome apps to
> MacOS X.
> 

Too bad it's going to an unFree OS, good thing it'll stay with a Free one.

-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

In article <pan.2003.10.12.03.40.58.72536@none.com>, Rick
<rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 03:04:22 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
> > In article <111020032155574659%lloydparsons@nospammac.com>, Lloyd Parsons
> > <lloydparsons@nospammac.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Broadcast 2000
> > 
> > Googling on this, I don't see any reviews either.  Some how-tos and many
> > foreign language sites.
> 
> Using Broadcast 200 as keywords, you will find plenty of links to learn
> what it was.

I didn't say I didn't find anything, I just didn't find reviews or
anything indicating that its taking Hollywood by storm.

No matter how I google, there just isn't anything popping up supporting
that statement.

Lloyd

In article <pan.2003.10.12.03.19.29.867402@none.com>, Rick
<rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:58:01 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
> > In article <pan.2003.10.12.02.06.11.639055@none.com>, Rick <rick@none.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:17:34 -0700, StormDrain wrote:
> >> 
> >> > In article <bma6uj$k19bc$3@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> >> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> StormDrain wrote:
> >> >> > In article <bma4a3$kbftp$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> >> >> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > 
> >> >> >>Oxford wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>In article  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>>How about The Lord of the Rings. Yes, most of the editing and
> >> >> >>>>effects work was done on Linux.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>well that's certainly interesting since Apple owns Shake which
> >> >> >>>created much of the Lord of the Rings visual effects...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Hmmm....
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>The work was done on Linux.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/698
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> From the people themselves. All the *work* was done on Linux
> >> >> >> servers,
> >> >> >>and Linux/Unix workstations.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Also Shake is owned by Nothing Real. Apple may *have* a version
> >> >> >>that they sell, but they don't *own* it.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Just to add to the confusion..Apple bought Nothing Real
> >> >> > apparently..windows version dead...:
> >> >> 
> >> >> Who cares, who cares if they kill the Linux version too. We have OSS
> >> >> stuff to do the same job now, on Linux. It'll just kill Apple as
> >> >> competition in the movie industry.
> >> > 
> >> > Just a question from someone in mac.advocacy to the Linux folks. I
> >> > think OSS is a very good development process and there are several OSS
> >> > apps I use: Apache/Tomcat, Amaya, GIMP & OpenOffice but my question
> >> > is: has OSS killed anything yet?  Apache is pretty solid how about
> >> > other software?
> >> > 
> >> > Not trying to start a fight either :)
> >> 
> >> No, OSS hasn't killed anything yet. FilmGimp is getting big in
> >> Hollywood. OpenOffice is getting big in many places all over the world.
> >> Apache is pretty much recognized as the leader in web servers. Unix-like
> >> OSes pretty much run the Internet. .. stuff like that :-)
> > 
> > Hmm....  Doing a google on film gimp doesn't get much in the way of
> > reports, but the name seems to have changed, and not to Cineralla or
> > whatever....
> > 
> >> ilm Gimp has been renamed to CinePaint
> > 
> 
> Cinerrela comes from Broadcast 2000. FilmGimp is (was?) a fork of GIMP
> that has been renamed to CinePaint, which is apparently becoming quite
> popular in Hollywood.

Now that is two people making that claim, I'm not disputing it, but a
link or two to something that indicates that it is in fact, taking
hollywood by storm, or even that is quite popular.

I found absolutely nothing that says that.

Lloyd

I suffered through the interminal drivel, that the Dynamic Dummies,
Rick-Man, and the Boy Blunder had to say,

> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:51:38 -0500, Liam Slider wrote:
> 
>> Rick wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> I guess when the OS X versions is finished you guys will start touting
>>> CinePaint as a reason to use OS X.
>> 
>> Of course, everyone's copying Linux these days. Just look at why Apple
>> added an X11 implimentation to Mac OS X. To port Linux X11 apps.
> 
> Do not forget MacOS X is some Apple-proprietary layers on top of BSD.
> Still, I did have success compiling some of my Linux apps under OS X/X11.

what's the point.

xfonts are better than mac fonts.

why pay more ?

In article <bmaiar$k5r0p$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
<liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> Rick wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:58:01 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>In article <pan.2003.10.12.02.06.11.639055@none.com>, Rick <rick@none.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:17:34 -0700, StormDrain wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>In article <bma6uj$k19bc$3@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> >>>> Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>StormDrain wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>In article <bma4a3$kbftp$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> >>>>>> Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Oxford wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>In article  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>How about The Lord of the Rings. Yes, most of the editing and
> >>>>>>>>>effects work was done on Linux.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>well that's certainly interesting since Apple owns Shake which
> >>>>>>>>created much of the Lord of the Rings visual effects...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Hmmm....
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>The work was done on Linux.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/698
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>From the people themselves. All the *work* was done on Linux
> >>>>>>>servers,
> >>>>>>>and Linux/Unix workstations.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Also Shake is owned by Nothing Real. Apple may *have* a version
> >>>>>>>that they sell, but they don't *own* it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Just to add to the confusion..Apple bought Nothing Real
> >>>>>>apparently..windows version dead...:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Who cares, who cares if they kill the Linux version too. We have OSS
> >>>>>stuff to do the same job now, on Linux. It'll just kill Apple as
> >>>>>competition in the movie industry.
> >>>>
> >>>>Just a question from someone in mac.advocacy to the Linux folks. I
> >>>>think OSS is a very good development process and there are several OSS
> >>>>apps I use: Apache/Tomcat, Amaya, GIMP & OpenOffice but my question
> >>>>is: has OSS killed anything yet?  Apache is pretty solid how about
> >>>>other software?
> >>>>
> >>>>Not trying to start a fight either :)
> >>>
> >>>No, OSS hasn't killed anything yet. FilmGimp is getting big in
> >>>Hollywood. OpenOffice is getting big in many places all over the world.
> >>>Apache is pretty much recognized as the leader in web servers. Unix-like
> >>>OSes pretty much run the Internet. .. stuff like that :-)
> >>
> >>Hmm....  Doing a google on film gimp doesn't get much in the way of
> >>reports, but the name seems to have changed, and not to Cineralla or
> >>whatever....
> >>
> >>
> >>>ilm Gimp has been renamed to CinePaint
> >>
> > 
> > Cinerrela comes from Broadcast 2000.
> 
> Is it a fork? I heard the Broadcast 2000 people got in some sort of 
> legal trouble. I also understood it to be a somewhat lighter app.
> 
> > FilmGimp is (was?) a fork of GIMP
> > that has been renamed to CinePaint, which is apparently becoming quite
> > popular in Hollywood.
> > 
> 
> According this this...
> 
> http://www.dtvprofessional.com/2003/08_aug/features/linuxmatures.htm
> 
> All the 3d special effects apps are now Lionux apps too.
> 
> And here's a good article that lists many movies where FilmGimp (now 
> CinePaint, sorry for the name confusion) has taken over...
> 
> http://newsforge.com/newsforge/03/02/16/1355224.shtml?tid=6

Finally some links!  Thanks, interesting reading.

Lloyd

In article <pan.2003.10.12.03.39.07.438434@none.com>, Rick
<rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:55:57 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
> > In article <znu-ECF20F.22340011102003@news.fu-berlin.de>, ZnU
> > <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> In article <bmado8$kcesf$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> >>  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Rick wrote:
> >> > > On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:01:49 -0500, Liam Slider wrote:
> >> > > 
> >> > > 
> >> > >>Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> > >><snip>
> >> > > 
> >> > > (more snip)
> >> > > 
> >> > > 
> >> > >>>I did a quick look on Google for Cinerella.  For something that is
> >> > >>>being as widely adopted by Hollywood, there is surprisingly little
> >> > >>>that came up.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>How about some links to all this useage??
> >> > >>
> >> > >>Run a search on google groups in cola for Linux, Hollywood, and
> >> > >>Renderfarms and you should find plenty of articles and links.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>Oh and Cinerella used to be known as FilmGimp, so you might try
> >> > >>looking that up too.
> >> > > 
> >> > > 
> >> > > Cinerrela was Broadcast 2000, and FilmGim forked from GIMP.
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > No, Broadcast 2000 (which was a home user app, *not* a commercial
> >> > renderfarm app!)died comepletely due to legal trouble. Cinerrela *was*
> >> > FilmGimp. FilmGimp forked from GIMP, them they changed their name to
> >> > Cinerrela. Unless I'm thinking of a different app....I know FilmGimp
> >> > *did* change their name, I'm pretty sure it was to Cinerrela anyway.
> >> 
> >> No, Cinelerra (the correct spelling; useful for anyone who wants to
> >> google on it) is the new name for Broadcast 2000. Cinelerra is a
> >> non-linear editing application, like Final Cut Pro (but not as good; let
> >> us know when it wins its first Emmy). Film Gimp was renamed CinePaint.
> >> CinePaint is *not* a general purpose editing app; it's for
> >> frame-by-frame retouching.
> >> 
> >> How come whenever the subject turns to video editing and the Linux
> >> advocates start going on about all the progress Linux is making in that
> >> field, it always turns out that they've got no idea what they're talking
> >> about?
> > 
> > And here's a link to a review:
> > 
> > http://dfarq.homeip.net/index.php?p=1246&c=1
> > 
> > Not exactly glowing is it?
> > 
> > There seem to be other reviews, but they are not English and I don't know
> > what they say.
> > 
> > But it really seems there is a dearth of reviews or anything else about it
> > in google web searches.  Makes me wonder how much it is really taking
> > Hollywood by storm.
> > 
> 
>  Film Gimp Continues Hollywood Takeover
> <http://newsforge.com/newsforge/03/02/16/1355224.shtml?tid=6>
> 
> 
> CinePaint, Linux Movies Group, Open Source Programmers, and SpectSoft at
> NAB!
> <http://cinepaint.sourceforge.net/press/cinepaint.2003.04.03.nab.html>
> 
> <http://www.fxguide.com/article112.html>
> News: Is Photoshop's dominance to be challenged?
> 
> I guess when the OS X versions is finished you guys will start touting
> CinePaint as a reason to use OS X.

thanks for the additional links, that was what I was looking for and
not finding.

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 04:03:54 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.10.12.03.19.29.867402@none.com>, Rick <rick@none.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:58:01 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <pan.2003.10.12.02.06.11.639055@none.com>, Rick
>> > <rick@none.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:17:34 -0700, StormDrain wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > In article <bma6uj$k19bc$3@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> >> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> >> StormDrain wrote:
>> >> >> > In article <bma4a3$kbftp$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> >> >> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >>Oxford wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>In article  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>>How about The Lord of the Rings. Yes, most of the editing and
>> >> >> >>>>effects work was done on Linux.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>well that's certainly interesting since Apple owns Shake which
>> >> >> >>>created much of the Lord of the Rings visual effects...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>Hmmm....
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>The work was done on Linux.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/698
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> From the people themselves. All the *work* was done on Linux
>> >> >> >> servers,
>> >> >> >>and Linux/Unix workstations.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>Also Shake is owned by Nothing Real. Apple may *have* a version
>> >> >> >>that they sell, but they don't *own* it.
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > Just to add to the confusion..Apple bought Nothing Real
>> >> >> > apparently..windows version dead...:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Who cares, who cares if they kill the Linux version too. We have
>> >> >> OSS stuff to do the same job now, on Linux. It'll just kill Apple
>> >> >> as competition in the movie industry.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Just a question from someone in mac.advocacy to the Linux folks. I
>> >> > think OSS is a very good development process and there are several
>> >> > OSS apps I use: Apache/Tomcat, Amaya, GIMP & OpenOffice but my
>> >> > question is: has OSS killed anything yet?  Apache is pretty solid
>> >> > how about other software?
>> >> > 
>> >> > Not trying to start a fight either :)
>> >> 
>> >> No, OSS hasn't killed anything yet. FilmGimp is getting big in
>> >> Hollywood. OpenOffice is getting big in many places all over the
>> >> world. Apache is pretty much recognized as the leader in web servers.
>> >> Unix-like OSes pretty much run the Internet. .. stuff like that :-)
>> > 
>> > Hmm....  Doing a google on film gimp doesn't get much in the way of
>> > reports, but the name seems to have changed, and not to Cineralla or
>> > whatever....
>> > 
>> >> ilm Gimp has been renamed to CinePaint
>> > 
>> > 
>> Cinerrela comes from Broadcast 2000. FilmGimp is (was?) a fork of GIMP
>> that has been renamed to CinePaint, which is apparently becoming quite
>> popular in Hollywood.
> 
> Now that is two people making that claim, I'm not disputing it, but a link
> or two to something that indicates that it is in fact, taking hollywood by
> storm, or even that is quite popular.
> 
> I found absolutely nothing that says that.
> 
> Lloyd

<http://www.fxguide.com/article112.html>

"CinePaint is now the most popular open source tool in the motion picture
industry,"

I am sure you will be crowing about its attributes when the Aqua port is
finished.
-- 
Rick

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 04:02:28 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.10.12.03.40.58.72536@none.com>, Rick <rick@none.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 03:04:22 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <111020032155574659%lloydparsons@nospammac.com>, Lloyd
>> > Parsons <lloydparsons@nospammac.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> Broadcast 2000
>> > 
>> > Googling on this, I don't see any reviews either.  Some how-tos and
>> > many foreign language sites.
>> 
>> Using Broadcast 200 as keywords, you will find plenty of links to learn
>> what it was.
> 
> I didn't say I didn't find anything, I just didn't find reviews or
> anything indicating that its taking Hollywood by storm.
> 
> No matter how I google, there just isn't anything popping up supporting
> that statement.
> 
Lloyd, tell us, how can a dead project take anything by storm. Broadcast
2000 has been replaced by Cinelerra. And, BTW, it is CinePaint that seems
to be the most popular OSS app in Hollywood.


-- 
Rick

In article <pan.2003.10.12.04.10.09.644947@none.com>, Rick
<rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 04:03:54 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
> > In article <pan.2003.10.12.03.19.29.867402@none.com>, Rick <rick@none.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:58:01 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> 
> >> > In article <pan.2003.10.12.02.06.11.639055@none.com>, Rick
> >> > <rick@none.com> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:17:34 -0700, StormDrain wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > In article <bma6uj$k19bc$3@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> >> >> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> StormDrain wrote:
> >> >> >> > In article <bma4a3$kbftp$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> >> >> >> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >>Oxford wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>In article  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>>How about The Lord of the Rings. Yes, most of the editing and
> >> >> >> >>>>effects work was done on Linux.
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>well that's certainly interesting since Apple owns Shake which
> >> >> >> >>>created much of the Lord of the Rings visual effects...
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>Hmmm....
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>The work was done on Linux.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/698
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> From the people themselves. All the *work* was done on Linux
> >> >> >> >> servers,
> >> >> >> >>and Linux/Unix workstations.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>Also Shake is owned by Nothing Real. Apple may *have* a version
> >> >> >> >>that they sell, but they don't *own* it.
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> > Just to add to the confusion..Apple bought Nothing Real
> >> >> >> > apparently..windows version dead...:
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> Who cares, who cares if they kill the Linux version too. We have
> >> >> >> OSS stuff to do the same job now, on Linux. It'll just kill Apple
> >> >> >> as competition in the movie industry.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Just a question from someone in mac.advocacy to the Linux folks. I
> >> >> > think OSS is a very good development process and there are several
> >> >> > OSS apps I use: Apache/Tomcat, Amaya, GIMP & OpenOffice but my
> >> >> > question is: has OSS killed anything yet?  Apache is pretty solid
> >> >> > how about other software?
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Not trying to start a fight either :)
> >> >> 
> >> >> No, OSS hasn't killed anything yet. FilmGimp is getting big in
> >> >> Hollywood. OpenOffice is getting big in many places all over the
> >> >> world. Apache is pretty much recognized as the leader in web servers.
> >> >> Unix-like OSes pretty much run the Internet. .. stuff like that :-)
> >> > 
> >> > Hmm....  Doing a google on film gimp doesn't get much in the way of
> >> > reports, but the name seems to have changed, and not to Cineralla or
> >> > whatever....
> >> > 
> >> >> ilm Gimp has been renamed to CinePaint
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> Cinerrela comes from Broadcast 2000. FilmGimp is (was?) a fork of GIMP
> >> that has been renamed to CinePaint, which is apparently becoming quite
> >> popular in Hollywood.
> > 
> > Now that is two people making that claim, I'm not disputing it, but a link
> > or two to something that indicates that it is in fact, taking hollywood by
> > storm, or even that is quite popular.
> > 
> > I found absolutely nothing that says that.
> > 
> > Lloyd
> 
> <http://www.fxguide.com/article112.html>
> 
> "CinePaint is now the most popular open source tool in the motion picture
> industry,"
> 
> I am sure you will be crowing about its attributes when the Aqua port is
> finished.

Since I wasn't bashing CinePaint or Cinerrela but asking questions, I
doubt it.  I use iMovie for any DV editing I need.  I looked at Final
Cut Express and decided that it was much more than I needed for the
little I do.

But I did notice that the quote you gave was that CinePaint was the
most popular 'open source' tool, which may not mean the same thing as
most popular tool....

Lloyd

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 04:05:32 +0000, Burgess Meredith wrote:

> I suffered through the interminal drivel, that the Dynamic Dummies,
> Rick-Man, and the Boy Blunder had to say,
> 
>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:51:38 -0500, Liam Slider wrote:
>> 
>>> Rick wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> I guess when the OS X versions is finished you guys will start touting
>>>> CinePaint as a reason to use OS X.
>>> 
>>> Of course, everyone's copying Linux these days. Just look at why Apple
>>> added an X11 implimentation to Mac OS X. To port Linux X11 apps.
>> 
>> Do not forget MacOS X is some Apple-proprietary layers on top of BSD.
>> Still, I did have success compiling some of my Linux apps under OS
>> X/X11.
> 
> what's the point.
> 
> xfonts are better than mac fonts.

Are they?

> 
> why pay more ?

Support? Warranty? Because you walk into a store and buy a Mac? Because
you think the (insert Mac model) is kewl?
-- 
Rick

In article lefty <lefty@halfwit.invalid> wrote:
 
> what a stupid thread.  i think oxford started with a little trollish spin,
> but its gone downhill from there.  the sad thing is, there is something for
> everybody in cola/csma to be happy about.  the campaign is all about
> co-marketing apple and open source.  when apple puts the samba logo on
> their page:
> 
>         http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/
> 
> they are sure as shit working with open source.  when they say "the JBoss
> application server, Tomcat, Apache Axis, and MySQL 4" they are sure as shit
> identifying and endorsing open source.  Not to mention the more prominent
> placement of "BSD" in their product description, or mentions of "OpenLDAP,
> Berkeley DB and MIT's Kerberos KDC"
> 
> so they want to say they do it "better" and charge a lot of money.  big
> deal, red hat and suse try to do that with their enterprise products as
> well.
> 
> and then everybody gets in a slap-happy mac-vs-linux argument, as ms
> _continues_ to grow its share of client and server:
> 
> idc's market share numbers for 2002 have appeared in the last few days. 
> leaving the server aside, they show windows share actually growing to 
> "93.8 percent of the worldwide market in 2002, up from 93.2 percent in
> 2001."
> 
>   http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/10/08/HNmsdominance_1.html
> 
> so oxford, you troll, if you want to impress me ... take your mac and go get
> some of that ms market share.

yeah, your right... i did post this in a trollish sort of way... mainly 
to stir the linux side... osx server is becoming quite interesting, it's 
exactly the polish that's long eluded the linux movement... many may 
gripe at the $499/$999 price, but many won't... it's good for both 
sides...

as for marketshare, i still firmly believe it's too early to go after 
it... osx, even with 10.3 has a few more years before it makes complete 
sense to go for MS's jugular... lots of yelping about macs being too 
expensive... while none of them understand... but that's exactly the 
plan... build up a huge belief macs are more expensive, then overnight 
release a $499 osx box that kills off all competition... apple did that 
with the apple //, and nearly killed off ibm in the process... doing 
that to MS would be even easier since MS isn't as entrenched...

BUT... all the parts aren't finished yet... the server is looking 
better, it's now the fastest for the buck... storage is there, raid is 
there, osx server is there... but apple needs a bit more time for it to 
mature... all the office apps are nearing completion... mail, web, 
photo, video, phone, music, wp, ss, db, etc, are coming along nicely...

so, while i did start this thread to josh the linux kids, the idea of 
"open source made easy" is very compelling... and only apple has the 
vision/resources to make it actually happen...

oxford

-

I suffered through the interminal drivel, that the Dynamic Dummies,
Rick-Man, and the Boy Blunder had to say,


>> what's the point.
>> 
>> xfonts are better than mac fonts.

I have a garbage 97 toshiba laptop
that I use as my home puter.  the
keyboard is broken so i tore it off
and hung the whole thing on the wall
and use an external mouse and keyboard.

you know what? I can read these fonts
from at least 6 or 8 feet away -- easily.

And I wear glasses ( 20/1000 both eyes).

> 
> Are they?
> 
>> 
>> why pay more ?
> 
> Support? Warranty? Because you walk into a store and buy a Mac? Because
> you think the (insert Mac model) is kewl?

You can do 1,2,3 with Linux.

Kewl?  What could be cooler than Linux?
And if you're talking hardware, those bulbous
plasticine Macs are hardly au current right now.

In article <pan.2003.10.12.04.12.25.976084@none.com>, Rick
<rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 04:02:28 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
> > In article <pan.2003.10.12.03.40.58.72536@none.com>, Rick <rick@none.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 03:04:22 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> 
> >> > In article <111020032155574659%lloydparsons@nospammac.com>, Lloyd
> >> > Parsons <lloydparsons@nospammac.com> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> Broadcast 2000
> >> > 
> >> > Googling on this, I don't see any reviews either.  Some how-tos and
> >> > many foreign language sites.
> >> 
> >> Using Broadcast 200 as keywords, you will find plenty of links to learn
> >> what it was.
> > 
> > I didn't say I didn't find anything, I just didn't find reviews or
> > anything indicating that its taking Hollywood by storm.
> > 
> > No matter how I google, there just isn't anything popping up supporting
> > that statement.
> > 
> Lloyd, tell us, how can a dead project take anything by storm. Broadcast
> 2000 has been replaced by Cinelerra. And, BTW, it is CinePaint that seems
> to be the most popular OSS app in Hollywood.

I didn't find anything on Cinelerra indicating that it was taking it by
storm, that's why I backed down to its original name.  That result was
the same.

And I saw in another posting about CinePaint.

Lloyd

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 04:14:27 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.10.12.04.10.09.644947@none.com>, Rick <rick@none.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 04:03:54 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <pan.2003.10.12.03.19.29.867402@none.com>, Rick
>> > <rick@none.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:58:01 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > In article <pan.2003.10.12.02.06.11.639055@none.com>, Rick
>> >> > <rick@none.com> wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:17:34 -0700, StormDrain wrote:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > In article <bma6uj$k19bc$3@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> >> >> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> StormDrain wrote:
>> >> >> >> > In article <bma4a3$kbftp$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> >> >> >> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> >>Oxford wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>>In article  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>How about The Lord of the Rings. Yes, most of the editing
>> >> >> >> >>>>and effects work was done on Linux.
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>well that's certainly interesting since Apple owns Shake
>> >> >> >> >>>which created much of the Lord of the Rings visual
>> >> >> >> >>>effects...
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>Hmmm....
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>The work was done on Linux.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/698
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> From the people themselves. All the *work* was done on Linux
>> >> >> >> >> servers,
>> >> >> >> >>and Linux/Unix workstations.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>Also Shake is owned by Nothing Real. Apple may *have* a
>> >> >> >> >>version that they sell, but they don't *own* it.
>> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> > Just to add to the confusion..Apple bought Nothing Real
>> >> >> >> > apparently..windows version dead...:
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> Who cares, who cares if they kill the Linux version too. We
>> >> >> >> have OSS stuff to do the same job now, on Linux. It'll just
>> >> >> >> kill Apple as competition in the movie industry.
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > Just a question from someone in mac.advocacy to the Linux folks.
>> >> >> > I think OSS is a very good development process and there are
>> >> >> > several OSS apps I use: Apache/Tomcat, Amaya, GIMP & OpenOffice
>> >> >> > but my question is: has OSS killed anything yet?  Apache is
>> >> >> > pretty solid how about other software?
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > Not trying to start a fight either :)
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> No, OSS hasn't killed anything yet. FilmGimp is getting big in
>> >> >> Hollywood. OpenOffice is getting big in many places all over the
>> >> >> world. Apache is pretty much recognized as the leader in web
>> >> >> servers. Unix-like OSes pretty much run the Internet. .. stuff
>> >> >> like that :-)
>> >> > 
>> >> > Hmm....  Doing a google on film gimp doesn't get much in the way of
>> >> > reports, but the name seems to have changed, and not to Cineralla
>> >> > or whatever....
>> >> > 
>> >> >> ilm Gimp has been renamed to CinePaint
>> >> > 
>> >> > 
>> >> Cinerrela comes from Broadcast 2000. FilmGimp is (was?) a fork of
>> >> GIMP that has been renamed to CinePaint, which is apparently becoming
>> >> quite popular in Hollywood.
>> > 
>> > Now that is two people making that claim, I'm not disputing it, but a
>> > link or two to something that indicates that it is in fact, taking
>> > hollywood by storm, or even that is quite popular.
>> > 
>> > I found absolutely nothing that says that.
>> > 
>> > Lloyd
>> 
>> <http://www.fxguide.com/article112.html>
>> 
>> "CinePaint is now the most popular open source tool in the motion
>> picture industry,"
>> 
>> I am sure you will be crowing about its attributes when the Aqua port is
>> finished.
> 
> Since I wasn't bashing CinePaint or Cinerrela but asking questions, I
> doubt it.  I use iMovie for any DV editing I need.  I looked at Final Cut
> Express and decided that it was much more than I needed for the little I
> do.

I wasn't able to use iMovie on my Beige G3. The term glacial comes to mind
:-)

> 
> But I did notice that the quote you gave was that CinePaint was the most
> popular 'open source' tool, which may not mean the same thing as most
> popular tool....

True.. not the same. But if you do some more Googling, you will find Linux
is becoming quite popular. I think that is why Apple is cutting the Mc
price of its 'Hollywood' software.

-- 
Rick

In article <pan.2003.10.12.04.15.28.104456@none.com>, Rick
<rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 04:05:32 +0000, Burgess Meredith wrote:
> 
> > I suffered through the interminal drivel, that the Dynamic Dummies,
> > Rick-Man, and the Boy Blunder had to say,
> > 
> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:51:38 -0500, Liam Slider wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Rick wrote:
> >>> <snip>
> >>>> I guess when the OS X versions is finished you guys will start touting
> >>>> CinePaint as a reason to use OS X.
> >>> 
> >>> Of course, everyone's copying Linux these days. Just look at why Apple
> >>> added an X11 implimentation to Mac OS X. To port Linux X11 apps.
> >> 
> >> Do not forget MacOS X is some Apple-proprietary layers on top of BSD.
> >> Still, I did have success compiling some of my Linux apps under OS
> >> X/X11.
> > 
> > what's the point.
> > 
> > xfonts are better than mac fonts.
> 
> Are they?
> 
> > 
> > why pay more ?
> 
> Support? Warranty? Because you walk into a store and buy a Mac? Because
> you think the (insert Mac model) is kewl?

All very good reasons, wouldn't you agree?

Add one more, 'it just works' -- I find the mac is closer to that
reality than any other platform I've used in the past.  Add to that, I
don't have to futz around with a command line, never have the need to
check which library I'm supposed to have to link to, and the #1 reason?

Never needing to use awk, sed or grep!!! <G>

Shit, I'm a salesman.  All I want my computer to do is proposals,
presentations, email and web surfing for work and newsgroups for
amusing entertainment.

In an earlier life my first linux was slackware.  Had to create the
floppies from the soundblaster cd I had at the time.  Thought I would
like it, even thought I should, but didn't.  Nothing has changed my
mind.

Lloyd

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:16:35 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> In article lefty <lefty@halfwit.invalid> wrote:
>  
>> what a stupid thread.  i think oxford started with a little trollish
>> spin, but its gone downhill from there.  the sad thing is, there is
>> something for everybody in cola/csma to be happy about.  the campaign is
>> all about co-marketing apple and open source.  when apple puts the samba
>> logo on their page:
>> 
>>         http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/
>> 
>> they are sure as shit working with open source.  when they say "the
>> JBoss application server, Tomcat, Apache Axis, and MySQL 4" they are
>> sure as shit identifying and endorsing open source.  Not to mention the
>> more prominent placement of "BSD" in their product description, or
>> mentions of "OpenLDAP, Berkeley DB and MIT's Kerberos KDC"
>> 
>> so they want to say they do it "better" and charge a lot of money.  big
>> deal, red hat and suse try to do that with their enterprise products as
>> well.
>> 
>> and then everybody gets in a slap-happy mac-vs-linux argument, as ms
>> _continues_ to grow its share of client and server:
>> 
>> idc's market share numbers for 2002 have appeared in the last few days.
>> leaving the server aside, they show windows share actually growing to
>> "93.8 percent of the worldwide market in 2002, up from 93.2 percent in
>> 2001."
>> 
>>   http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/10/08/HNmsdominance_1.html
>> 
>> so oxford, you troll, if you want to impress me ... take your mac and go
>> get some of that ms market share.
> 
> yeah, your right... i did post this in a trollish sort of way... mainly to
> stir the linux side... osx server is becoming quite interesting, it's
> exactly the polish that's long eluded the linux movement... 

webmin, linuxconf... or plain menus...
RH->SystemSettings->ServerSettings->

> many may gripe
> at the $499/$999 price, but many won't... it's good for both sides...

hmmm .. or $200 from Walmart.. hmmm...

> 
> as for marketshare, i still firmly believe it's too early to go after
> it... osx, even with 10.3 has a few more years before it makes complete
> sense to go for MS's jugular... lots of yelping about macs being too
> expensive... while none of them understand... but that's exactly the
> plan... build up a huge belief macs are more expensive, then overnight
> release a $499 osx box that kills off all competition... apple did that
> with the apple //, and nearly killed off ibm in the process...

AHAH ahahaha HAh HAHA AHahah HAhah. What Apple // nearly killed anything
from IBM?


> doing that
> to MS would be even easier since MS isn't as entrenched...
> 
> BUT... all the parts aren't finished yet... the server is looking better,
> it's now the fastest for the buck... storage is there, raid is there, osx
> server is there... but apple needs a bit more time for it to mature... all
> the office apps are nearing completion... mail, web, photo, video, phone,
> music, wp, ss, db, etc, are coming along nicely...

What wp, ss, db?

> 
> so, while i did start this thread to josh the linux kids, the idea of
> "open source made easy" is very compelling... and only apple has the
> vision/resources to make it actually happen...
> 
Yeah, right.

-- 
Rick

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 04:19:23 +0000, Burgess Meredith wrote:

> I suffered through the interminal drivel, that the Dynamic Dummies,
> Rick-Man, and the Boy Blunder had to say,
> 
> 
>>> what's the point.
>>> 
>>> xfonts are better than mac fonts.
> 
> I have a garbage 97 toshiba laptop
> that I use as my home puter.  the
> keyboard is broken so i tore it off
> and hung the whole thing on the wall
> and use an external mouse and keyboard.
> 
> you know what? I can read these fonts from at least 6 or 8 feet away --
> easily.

Yes? So?

> 
> And I wear glasses ( 20/1000 both eyes).
> 
> 
>> Are they?
>> 
>> 
>>> why pay more ?
>> 
>> Support? Warranty? Because you walk into a store and buy a Mac? Because
>> you think the (insert Mac model) is kewl?
> 
> You can do 1,2,3 with Linux.

What hardware support do you get? What warranty? How many places can you
walk into and buy a computer with Linux pre-installed?

> 
> Kewl?  What could be cooler than Linux? And if you're talking hardware,
> those bulbous plasticine Macs are hardly au current right now.

Understand this.... -*NO*- Mac looks like other computers, unless those
other computers have tried to copy Apple's styling. Also remember,
different people think different things are cool.

-- 
Rick

In article <111020031247311427%zurg@fakeaddress.com>, zurg
<zurg@fakeaddress.com> wrote:

> And hiring people with brains is free? It's not cheap to hire someone
> and have them on-call 24/7. Thus, the $500 PC scenario is not cheap for
> smaller businesseses that need that kind of power but can't afford to
> hire someone to maintain it.


I know several PC consultants that make a good living billing hours on
support for these "cheap" $500 Linux installations.

Wade

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 04:24:21 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.10.12.04.15.28.104456@none.com>, Rick <rick@none.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 04:05:32 +0000, Burgess Meredith wrote:
>> 
>> > I suffered through the interminal drivel, that the Dynamic Dummies,
>> > Rick-Man, and the Boy Blunder had to say,
>> > 
>> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:51:38 -0500, Liam Slider wrote:
>> >> 
>> >>> Rick wrote:
>> >>> <snip>
>> >>>> I guess when the OS X versions is finished you guys will start
>> >>>> touting CinePaint as a reason to use OS X.
>> >>> 
>> >>> Of course, everyone's copying Linux these days. Just look at why
>> >>> Apple added an X11 implimentation to Mac OS X. To port Linux X11
>> >>> apps.
>> >> 
>> >> Do not forget MacOS X is some Apple-proprietary layers on top of BSD.
>> >> Still, I did have success compiling some of my Linux apps under OS
>> >> X/X11.
>> > 
>> > what's the point.
>> > 
>> > xfonts are better than mac fonts.
>> 
>> Are they?
>> 
>> 
>> > why pay more ?
>> 
>> Support? Warranty? Because you walk into a store and buy a Mac? Because
>> you think the (insert Mac model) is kewl?
> 
> All very good reasons, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I do.. for many people, but not all.

> 
> Add one more, 'it just works' -- I find the mac is closer to that reality
> than any other platform I've used in the past.  Add to that, I don't have
> to futz around with a command line, never have the need to check which
> library I'm supposed to have to link to, and the #1 reason?
> 
> Never needing to use awk, sed or grep!!! <G>

I have never used awk or sed, and have used grep only rarely.

> 
> Shit, I'm a salesman.  All I want my computer to do is proposals,
> presentations, email and web surfing for work and newsgroups for amusing
> entertainment.

Linux does those things easily.

> 
> In an earlier life my first linux was slackware.  Had to create the
> floppies from the soundblaster cd I had at the time.  Thought I would like
> it, even thought I should, but didn't.  Nothing has changed my mind.
> 

I bought a Soundblaster Live 5.1, put it in the tower and booted. RH,
during the boot sequence, notified me it had found the new card, and asked
if I wanted it set up. I did, and it was.

I am finding surprising things. I have just found out Nautilus (gnome file
manager) as a drag and drop CD burner. I never use Nautilus, so I didn't
know. There are many things like that scattered through Gnome and KDE.

-- 
Rick

In article <bm9s3r$ka80v$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
<liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> Would *you* use an iMac for serious business? Honestly? Especially when 
> you can get better hardware for the same price with a PC, and run Linux 
> off it? And no, Linux *isn't* hard to use, it's got the same kind of 
> easy to use GUI crap everything else has, and is just as stable and 
> secure as the Mac. But most important...it's still cheaper, and doesn't 
> look like a preschooler's toy.

Wow.....you're really hung up on having the most "manly" computer,
aren't you?

Are you having some sort of identity crisis?

Wade

In article <pan.2003.10.12.04.21.29.648604@none.com>, Rick
<rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 04:14:27 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
> > In article <pan.2003.10.12.04.10.09.644947@none.com>, Rick <rick@none.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 04:03:54 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> 
> >> > In article <pan.2003.10.12.03.19.29.867402@none.com>, Rick
> >> > <rick@none.com> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:58:01 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > In article <pan.2003.10.12.02.06.11.639055@none.com>, Rick
> >> >> > <rick@none.com> wrote:
> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:17:34 -0700, StormDrain wrote:
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> > In article <bma6uj$k19bc$3@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> >> >> >> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> StormDrain wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > In article <bma4a3$kbftp$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> >> >> >> >> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> >>Oxford wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>>In article  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>How about The Lord of the Rings. Yes, most of the editing
> >> >> >> >> >>>>and effects work was done on Linux.
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >>>well that's certainly interesting since Apple owns Shake
> >> >> >> >> >>>which created much of the Lord of the Rings visual
> >> >> >> >> >>>effects...
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>Hmmm....
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>The work was done on Linux.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/698
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> From the people themselves. All the *work* was done on Linux
> >> >> >> >> >> servers,
> >> >> >> >> >>and Linux/Unix workstations.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>Also Shake is owned by Nothing Real. Apple may *have* a
> >> >> >> >> >>version that they sell, but they don't *own* it.
> >> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> > Just to add to the confusion..Apple bought Nothing Real
> >> >> >> >> > apparently..windows version dead...:
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> Who cares, who cares if they kill the Linux version too. We
> >> >> >> >> have OSS stuff to do the same job now, on Linux. It'll just
> >> >> >> >> kill Apple as competition in the movie industry.
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> > Just a question from someone in mac.advocacy to the Linux folks.
> >> >> >> > I think OSS is a very good development process and there are
> >> >> >> > several OSS apps I use: Apache/Tomcat, Amaya, GIMP & OpenOffice
> >> >> >> > but my question is: has OSS killed anything yet?  Apache is
> >> >> >> > pretty solid how about other software?
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> > Not trying to start a fight either :)
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> No, OSS hasn't killed anything yet. FilmGimp is getting big in
> >> >> >> Hollywood. OpenOffice is getting big in many places all over the
> >> >> >> world. Apache is pretty much recognized as the leader in web
> >> >> >> servers. Unix-like OSes pretty much run the Internet. .. stuff
> >> >> >> like that :-)
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Hmm....  Doing a google on film gimp doesn't get much in the way of
> >> >> > reports, but the name seems to have changed, and not to Cineralla
> >> >> > or whatever....
> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> ilm Gimp has been renamed to CinePaint
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > 
> >> >> Cinerrela comes from Broadcast 2000. FilmGimp is (was?) a fork of
> >> >> GIMP that has been renamed to CinePaint, which is apparently becoming
> >> >> quite popular in Hollywood.
> >> > 
> >> > Now that is two people making that claim, I'm not disputing it, but a
> >> > link or two to something that indicates that it is in fact, taking
> >> > hollywood by storm, or even that is quite popular.
> >> > 
> >> > I found absolutely nothing that says that.
> >> > 
> >> > Lloyd
> >> 
> >> <http://www.fxguide.com/article112.html>
> >> 
> >> "CinePaint is now the most popular open source tool in the motion
> >> picture industry,"
> >> 
> >> I am sure you will be crowing about its attributes when the Aqua port is
> >> finished.
> > 
> > Since I wasn't bashing CinePaint or Cinerrela but asking questions, I
> > doubt it.  I use iMovie for any DV editing I need.  I looked at Final Cut
> > Express and decided that it was much more than I needed for the little I
> > do.
> 
> I wasn't able to use iMovie on my Beige G3. The term glacial comes to mind
> :-)

I can believe that!  I have two G3's now.  A G3/233 All-in-one and a
Powerbook G3/333 Bronze that I just got.  I can't imagine using iMovie
on either of those.

> 
> > 
> > But I did notice that the quote you gave was that CinePaint was the most
> > popular 'open source' tool, which may not mean the same thing as most
> > popular tool....
> 
> True.. not the same. But if you do some more Googling, you will find Linux
> is becoming quite popular. I think that is why Apple is cutting the Mc
> price of its 'Hollywood' software.

I know Linux is becoming popular even though I don't personally like it
on the desktop.  And I don't have a problem believing that OSS can put
pricing pressure on commercial applications.

Lloyd

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 16:35:08 -0600,
 Oxford <csma@mac.com> wrote:
> In article Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, read my reply to myself jackass. I was informed already. Still, 
>> yours is less flexable, and can consume more resources. Not a good thing 
>> in a high powered server environment.
>
> Again, more confusion... consume more resources??? you don't have to use 
> the GUI if you don't want... it has full terminal services if you feel 
> more comfortable... I think you see OSX server as some highly candy 
> coated, less powerful OS... that's not true at all... it's the same as 
> Linux, it just can also appeal to a wider audience, which linux cannot.
>

An interesting claim, can you substantiate it? On the server side, it
would sure seem to me, that *Linux* is the one with the wider appeal.
Not OSX. 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/iNrad90bcYOAWPYRAgnxAKDTNMiLcP7fi861j9kbzPUjt0lI+ACfUItE
xXhyV7Tk6pr2/UOJIJhcWEs=
=9J1P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
There are entirely too many dumbasses in this world who don't know they
are dumbasses.  We have a duty to enlighten them.

Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> In article <pan.2003.10.12.03.19.29.867402@none.com>, Rick
> <rick@none.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:58:01 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <pan.2003.10.12.02.06.11.639055@none.com>, Rick <rick@none.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:17:34 -0700, StormDrain wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <bma6uj$k19bc$3@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>>>>> Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>StormDrain wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <bma4a3$kbftp$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>>>>>>> Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Oxford wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In article  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>How about The Lord of the Rings. Yes, most of the editing and
>>>>>>>>>>effects work was done on Linux.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>well that's certainly interesting since Apple owns Shake which
>>>>>>>>>created much of the Lord of the Rings visual effects...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hmmm....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The work was done on Linux.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/698
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>From the people themselves. All the *work* was done on Linux
>>>>>>>>servers,
>>>>>>>>and Linux/Unix workstations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Also Shake is owned by Nothing Real. Apple may *have* a version
>>>>>>>>that they sell, but they don't *own* it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Just to add to the confusion..Apple bought Nothing Real
>>>>>>>apparently..windows version dead...:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Who cares, who cares if they kill the Linux version too. We have OSS
>>>>>>stuff to do the same job now, on Linux. It'll just kill Apple as
>>>>>>competition in the movie industry.
>>>>>
>>>>>Just a question from someone in mac.advocacy to the Linux folks. I
>>>>>think OSS is a very good development process and there are several OSS
>>>>>apps I use: Apache/Tomcat, Amaya, GIMP & OpenOffice but my question
>>>>>is: has OSS killed anything yet?  Apache is pretty solid how about
>>>>>other software?
>>>>>
>>>>>Not trying to start a fight either :)
>>>>
>>>>No, OSS hasn't killed anything yet. FilmGimp is getting big in
>>>>Hollywood. OpenOffice is getting big in many places all over the world.
>>>>Apache is pretty much recognized as the leader in web servers. Unix-like
>>>>OSes pretty much run the Internet. .. stuff like that :-)
>>>
>>>Hmm....  Doing a google on film gimp doesn't get much in the way of
>>>reports, but the name seems to have changed, and not to Cineralla or
>>>whatever....
>>>
>>>
>>>>ilm Gimp has been renamed to CinePaint
>>>
>>Cinerrela comes from Broadcast 2000. FilmGimp is (was?) a fork of GIMP
>>that has been renamed to CinePaint, which is apparently becoming quite
>>popular in Hollywood.
> 
> 
> Now that is two people making that claim, I'm not disputing it, but a
> link or two to something that indicates that it is in fact, taking
> hollywood by storm, or even that is quite popular.
> 
> I found absolutely nothing that says that.

Yo, braindead....


http://newsforge.com/newsforge/03/02/16/1355224.shtml?tid=6

-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

In article <bma0vj$kbhhv$2@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
<liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> So you have two choices, massively overdone eye candy, or CLI. Wow, 
> Linux has tons more options than that!

Yeah, poorly integrated X11 GUI's, or the command-line.

Look, Linux is OK.  You can like it.  You don't need to defend it.

For those with a technical background, Linux can certainly be setup far
more cheaply than a Mac with OS X server.

But that's not the target market.  The target market is for example,
the "technical coordinator"  (which means they're the only person in
the school that knew ANYTHING about computers, so they got elected) in
a high school.  They don't want to have to spend time learning how to
configure Linux, or paying someone support hours to maintain Linux.

The fact that OS X server might be the right solution for some people
is not somehow an offense against your manhood.

Wade

Oxford <csma@mac.com> wrote in message news:<csma-70728B.14091811102003@typhoon3.uswest.net>...
> In article Bill Gutz <billgutz@billgutz.com> wrote:
> 
> > I searched Apple's web site relentlessly to find the source code to the 
> > "Server Admin" tool so highly touted as "open source" but never found 
> > it. Please provide us with a link to the "open source" source code.
> 
> ah, why in the world would you go looking for the admin portion as "open 
> source"? ... didn't you read the heading? "Open Source Made Easy"... the 
> made easy part was difficult to build, that's why apple gets a few bucks 
> for doing it... 
> 
> linux will never have this level of "made easy" since it's base is too 
> fractured and inconsistent to be widely useful... check out more on osx 
> server... it's where things are headed...
> 
> http://www.apple.com/server/documentation/
> 
> http://www.apple.com/server/
> 

Wow. Both sides of this discussion better slow down and start learning
from each other. The OS/X people are about to become Open Source
allies far more than they currently realize.

[Disclaimer: I am a full time Linux user and have taught the OS to
major corporations, including IBM. I have a long history in Macs as
well, and am currently doing Mac repairs and consulting/teaching on
PowerPC *nix systems.]

The next version of OS/X, Panther, brings a major set of Open Source
underpinnings, including XFree86, to the party. If you go to the Apple
website, you'll see that the list is enormous.

So, OS/X will soon, meaning in about two years, be hosting the
majority of Open source apps as well as the long-standing "Pay To
Play" programs that Apple users are used to.

The fact is that there are Closed Source apps that have no Open Source
peer. I don't enjoy saying so, but it is quite true. I see it every
day. However, I also see people paying thousands for apps that are
sloppy and overpriced crap compared to the FOSS programs in the same
category. There are two worlds here, and they shouldn't be confused.

However, the gap between the best Closed Source apps and the available
Open Source ones is closing at an extremely rapid rate. Let's just not
make the mistake of claiming that all FOSS stuff is best of breed.
It's not. Sometimes FOSS is better, sometimes it's not.

Anyway, It is easier to install OS/X than ANY Linux distro, and that's
just the flat fact. Apple has taken the Unix basics, and has done a
truly wretched transformation of them in order to get the system into
a shape where older Apple people will not trash it. However, they have
made it pretty simplified in the process.

[I wished they'd been able to keep the old NeXT styles, but it simply
was not possible. This has been hashed for years, and if it is news to
you, go to comp.sys.next.advocacy and read the archives.]

Anyhow, the OS'X machines ARE Unix, even if they don't look like it,
and they are about to be able to use the Open Source software library
as well.

As for their hardware, don't diss it until you understand it. Apple's
designs fluctuate wildly in performance and effectiveness, so if you
don't know the models intimately, don't generalize. If you do, you'll
sound as stupid and closed-minded as the WinTrolls claim.

It's time to welcome Apple people into the FOSS camp and show them
that they don't have to shell out money year after year all the time.
Show them a new way and don't treat them like the WinTrolls. Apple
folks have been beleagured minorities even longer than Linux people,
so they already know the MS drill.

Remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

TeXGuY

In article <pan.2003.10.12.04.35.02.31237@none.com>, Rick
<rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 04:24:21 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
> > In article <pan.2003.10.12.04.15.28.104456@none.com>, Rick <rick@none.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 04:05:32 +0000, Burgess Meredith wrote:
> >> 
> >> > I suffered through the interminal drivel, that the Dynamic Dummies,
> >> > Rick-Man, and the Boy Blunder had to say,
> >> > 
> >> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:51:38 -0500, Liam Slider wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >>> Rick wrote:
> >> >>> <snip>
> >> >>>> I guess when the OS X versions is finished you guys will start
> >> >>>> touting CinePaint as a reason to use OS X.
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> Of course, everyone's copying Linux these days. Just look at why
> >> >>> Apple added an X11 implimentation to Mac OS X. To port Linux X11
> >> >>> apps.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Do not forget MacOS X is some Apple-proprietary layers on top of BSD.
> >> >> Still, I did have success compiling some of my Linux apps under OS
> >> >> X/X11.
> >> > 
> >> > what's the point.
> >> > 
> >> > xfonts are better than mac fonts.
> >> 
> >> Are they?
> >> 
> >> 
> >> > why pay more ?
> >> 
> >> Support? Warranty? Because you walk into a store and buy a Mac? Because
> >> you think the (insert Mac model) is kewl?
> > 
> > All very good reasons, wouldn't you agree?
> 
> Yes, I do.. for many people, but not all.
> 
> > 
> > Add one more, 'it just works' -- I find the mac is closer to that reality
> > than any other platform I've used in the past.  Add to that, I don't have
> > to futz around with a command line, never have the need to check which
> > library I'm supposed to have to link to, and the #1 reason?
> > 
> > Never needing to use awk, sed or grep!!! <G>
> 
> I have never used awk or sed, and have used grep only rarely.
> 
> > 
> > Shit, I'm a salesman.  All I want my computer to do is proposals,
> > presentations, email and web surfing for work and newsgroups for amusing
> > entertainment.
> 
> Linux does those things easily.
> 
Sure, but I don't like Linux, remember??  <G>

Besides, I just got a Powerbook (used G3/333) and loaded Panther on it,
then proceeded to load the rest of the stuff I want on it.  It was
easier that any other load of software on any platform.

OfficeX -- copy the folder -- its ready to go.  Didn't even have to
re-enter my key code.

Appleworks -- same thing

Acrobat -- well had to install this one.  But I only use reader on the
laptop.  I use it for a demo of a solution for k-12 schools that I do.

I didn't move the newsreader over because I don't use the laptop for
it.  The only thing I haven't moved yet is Keynote.  I'm not sure I'll
need it.

Under Linux, I don't think you can do that as easily.  And of course,
Linux GUI is butt-ugly! <G>

> > 
> > In an earlier life my first linux was slackware.  Had to create the
> > floppies from the soundblaster cd I had at the time.  Thought I would like
> > it, even thought I should, but didn't.  Nothing has changed my mind.
> > 
> 
> I bought a Soundblaster Live 5.1, put it in the tower and booted. RH,
> during the boot sequence, notified me it had found the new card, and asked
> if I wanted it set up. I did, and it was.
> 
You must be a young feller!  ;-)

What seems like ages ago, there weren't any IDE anythings out there. 
There was MFM and RLL for hard drive and SCSI for CDROMS.  Then
Soundblaster took the market by storm with their new sound card that
also had a CDROM to go with it.  Linux, at that time couldn't deal with
it until AFTER you installed Linux and compiled the support into it. 
Hence, you created a huge stack of floppies for the installation.

I'm telling you it wasn't pretty!  

Lloyd

In article <bma4a3$kbftp$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
<liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> Also Shake is owned by Nothing Real. Apple may *have* a version that 
> they sell, but they don't *own* it.

Nice going there you film industry guru you.

Shake is most definitely owned by Apple.  

I believe they're still maintaining the Linux version for now, but the
writing is on the wall.  If you want to continue to be a Shake user,
you're going to need a Mac eventually.

> 
> 
> You can't always believe Apple, I guess they put out as much propaganda 
> as Mafiasoft.

I think we've just seen who's right and who's wrong.

Wade

In article <bmalsv$kdo08$2@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
<liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > In article <pan.2003.10.12.03.19.29.867402@none.com>, Rick
> > <rick@none.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:58:01 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article <pan.2003.10.12.02.06.11.639055@none.com>, Rick <rick@none.com>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:17:34 -0700, StormDrain wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article <bma6uj$k19bc$3@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> >>>>> Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>StormDrain wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>In article <bma4a3$kbftp$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> >>>>>>> Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Oxford wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>In article  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>How about The Lord of the Rings. Yes, most of the editing and
> >>>>>>>>>>effects work was done on Linux.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>well that's certainly interesting since Apple owns Shake which
> >>>>>>>>>created much of the Lord of the Rings visual effects...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Hmmm....
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>The work was done on Linux.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/698
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>From the people themselves. All the *work* was done on Linux
> >>>>>>>>servers,
> >>>>>>>>and Linux/Unix workstations.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Also Shake is owned by Nothing Real. Apple may *have* a version
> >>>>>>>>that they sell, but they don't *own* it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Just to add to the confusion..Apple bought Nothing Real
> >>>>>>>apparently..windows version dead...:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Who cares, who cares if they kill the Linux version too. We have OSS
> >>>>>>stuff to do the same job now, on Linux. It'll just kill Apple as
> >>>>>>competition in the movie industry.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Just a question from someone in mac.advocacy to the Linux folks. I
> >>>>>think OSS is a very good development process and there are several OSS
> >>>>>apps I use: Apache/Tomcat, Amaya, GIMP & OpenOffice but my question
> >>>>>is: has OSS killed anything yet?  Apache is pretty solid how about
> >>>>>other software?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Not trying to start a fight either :)
> >>>>
> >>>>No, OSS hasn't killed anything yet. FilmGimp is getting big in
> >>>>Hollywood. OpenOffice is getting big in many places all over the world.
> >>>>Apache is pretty much recognized as the leader in web servers. Unix-like
> >>>>OSes pretty much run the Internet. .. stuff like that :-)
> >>>
> >>>Hmm....  Doing a google on film gimp doesn't get much in the way of
> >>>reports, but the name seems to have changed, and not to Cineralla or
> >>>whatever....
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>ilm Gimp has been renamed to CinePaint
> >>>
> >>Cinerrela comes from Broadcast 2000. FilmGimp is (was?) a fork of GIMP
> >>that has been renamed to CinePaint, which is apparently becoming quite
> >>popular in Hollywood.
> > 
> > 
> > Now that is two people making that claim, I'm not disputing it, but a
> > link or two to something that indicates that it is in fact, taking
> > hollywood by storm, or even that is quite popular.
> > 
> > I found absolutely nothing that says that.
> 
> Yo, braindead....
> 
> 
> http://newsforge.com/newsforge/03/02/16/1355224.shtml?tid=6

Braindead?  Did I insult you?

I think not!

Lloyd

In article <bmabl0$k324r$2@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
<liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> Seriously, major studios are grabbing the software and building all 
> Linux render farms using it.

Mainly because that was their only choice in the past.  Pixar's
Renderman ran only on the PC too.

Whoops, guess what.....Renderman is coming to OS X and Shake runs on OS
X.

I don't think you'll see Linux-based production go away, but I think
you'll see a lot of OS X-based shops as well, because many studios will
appreciate the tighter integration of the operating system.

Wade

In article <bmaeqv$k4p5o$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
<liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> Ah crap, I mixed the two up then. Sorry, it was the similar names. 
> Still, both are storming Hollywood.


Bwaahaaaa.

> 
> > 
> > How come whenever the subject turns to video editing and the Linux 
> > advocates start going on about all the progress Linux is making in that 
> > field, it always turns out that they've got no idea what they're talking 
> > about?
> 
> 
> I'm not in the film industry.

That much is readily apparant.

Wade

In article <bmagr9$kn5li$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
<liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> And the Linux solutions are sufficient there too.


You're totally off your rocker.

There is NOTHING on Linux that can compare to Final Cut Pro, period. 
That's not to say that there couldn't be, but currently, there's not.

Final Cut Pro is a HUGE hit in the film industry.  Linux is
non-existant in the editing space.

Wade

Wade Williams wrote:
> In article <bma0vj$kbhhv$2@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
> <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>So you have two choices, massively overdone eye candy, or CLI. Wow, 
>>Linux has tons more options than that!
> 
> 
> Yeah, poorly integrated X11 GUI's, or the command-line.
> 
> Look, Linux is OK.  You can like it.  You don't need to defend it.

Actually, yes we do. Because people either knowingly or unknowingly 
spread untruths about the system. And if it is to thrive it needs all 
the support it can get.

> 
> For those with a technical background, Linux can certainly be setup far
> more cheaply than a Mac with OS X server.

Actually even with a non-technical background. install is easy and 
config is pretty easy for most things. We aren't living in the stone age 
you know. It's not all text files and vi anymore.

> 
> But that's not the target market.  The target market is for example,
> the "technical coordinator"  (which means they're the only person in
> the school that knew ANYTHING about computers, so they got elected) in
> a high school.  They don't want to have to spend time learning how to
> configure Linux, or paying someone support hours to maintain Linux.

What's to learn, even on a cheap PC you can still use a click and drool 
interface.

> 
> The fact that OS X server might be the right solution for some people
> is not somehow an offense against your manhood.

I never said it was, but you Mac people seem to think Linux hasn't 
changed since the days when there was little more than CLI. It's just as 
good as any other OS out there, if not better.

Can't you accept that Linux might be a better solution for a great many 
people than Mac OS X? Or is that too big of an offense to *your* manhood?

:-)


-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

Wade Williams wrote:
> In article <bm9s3r$ka80v$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
> <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Would *you* use an iMac for serious business? Honestly? Especially when 
>>you can get better hardware for the same price with a PC, and run Linux 
>>off it? And no, Linux *isn't* hard to use, it's got the same kind of 
>>easy to use GUI crap everything else has, and is just as stable and 
>>secure as the Mac. But most important...it's still cheaper, and doesn't 
>>look like a preschooler's toy.
> 
> 
> Wow.....you're really hung up on having the most "manly" computer,
> aren't you?
> 
> Are you having some sort of identity crisis?

Wow, you're really hung up on having a computer that looks the most like 
a preschool girl's toy aren't you?

Are you having some sort of identity crisis?


-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

zurg wrote:
> 
> In article <3F883646.959E6F78@mist.com>, GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > And how many ISPs use Linux/Apache on the cheaper PCs??
> > Quite a few.  Who gives support to the ISPs??  They hire
> > people with brains.
> 
> And hiring people with brains is free? It's not cheap to hire someone
> and have them on-call 24/7. Thus, the $500 PC scenario is not cheap for
> smaller businesseses that need that kind of power but can't afford to
> hire someone to maintain it.
> 
> As I said, for the target market, this is a good deal.

Most people that can afford $500 for a PC can also afford to
study the books a bit.  It really doesn't take much effort
to get things going.  Now SunOS is another matter, but still
on the same theme... some reading.

Oxford wrote:
> 
> In article Sinister Midget <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote:
> 
> > Wow! For $1,000 I can have unlimited clients connecting to my server?
> > (It only costs me $500 to /have/ server software from the same source!)
> > Well, I'd imagine I could't do something like that with any reliability
> > on a little ol' iMac. So what is the hardware to allow unlimited
> > clients going to run? $1500? $2500?
> >
> > Wait......I can do that already, plus all of the other stuff they
> > mention, plus quite a few other things! How is this possible on a PC I
> > built myself for under $500 and a free download?
> >
> > I don't dislike Mac. My wife has one. I want one. But I'm not going to
> > be fooled by a bunch of marketing pap. MICROS~1 is much better at using
> > the language of feeeeeeeeeechure-push, and they can't trick me either.
> 
> well if you don't value your time... you have a point... but $999 is
> exceedinly cheap compared to the alternatives... linux has never been
> free if you think to include the time learning/maintaining it... OSX
> server gets rid of the learning/maintaining portion... again, a good
> deal if you place "value" on your time...
> 

Lets look at the alternatives that windows has to offer. 
First, if your lucky, you hope you don't get a virus that
can be fixed.  In the Corporate world M$ products have
already cost them in the billions $$$ due to viruses and
worms.  Some people at home do get viruses that cause some
file damage and it isn't easy for some of them to reinstall
XP... depends on the brand of PC.

> any 233Mhz imac can handle this software... and those go for what? $200?
> if your that cheap, just order the full version for $499 through the
> education side of apple... http://www.apple.com/education/store
> 
> osx server is where things are heading... the days of "tinker toy" oses
> like linux, no longer make much sense... "IF YOU VALUE YOUR TIME" and I
> agree a lot of people in this world don't...

Well, NSA... you know the alphabet agency that the taxpayers
pay for, has SELinux for the download.  And they did make
linux secure.

In article <bman86$ko7r3$2@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
 Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> Wade Williams wrote:
> > In article <bm9s3r$ka80v$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
> > <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Would *you* use an iMac for serious business? Honestly? Especially when 
> >>you can get better hardware for the same price with a PC, and run Linux 
> >>off it? And no, Linux *isn't* hard to use, it's got the same kind of 
> >>easy to use GUI crap everything else has, and is just as stable and 
> >>secure as the Mac. But most important...it's still cheaper, and doesn't 
> >>look like a preschooler's toy.
> > 
> > 
> > Wow.....you're really hung up on having the most "manly" computer,
> > aren't you?
> > 
> > Are you having some sort of identity crisis?
> 
> Wow, you're really hung up on having a computer that looks the most like 
> a preschool girl's toy aren't you?

Neither Wade or I appear to care what a computer looks like.

The appropriate question is: can it do the job?

> 
> Are you having some sort of identity crisis?

-- 
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In article <pan.2003.10.12.03.26.42.149823@none.com>,
 Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 23:02:40 -0400, ZnU wrote:
> 
> > In article <bmaeqv$k4p5o$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> ZnU wrote:
> >> > In article <bmado8$kcesf$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> >> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> >>Rick wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:01:49 -0500, Liam Slider wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> >>>><snip>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>(more snip)
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>>I did a quick look on Google for Cinerella.  For something that is
> >> >>>>>being as widely adopted by Hollywood, there is surprisingly little
> >> >>>>>that came up.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>How about some links to all this useage??
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>Run a search on google groups in cola for Linux, Hollywood, and
> >> >>>>Renderfarms and you should find plenty of articles and links.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>Oh and Cinerella used to be known as FilmGimp, so you might try
> >> >>>>looking that up too.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Cinerrela was Broadcast 2000, and FilmGim forked from GIMP.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>No, Broadcast 2000 (which was a home user app, *not* a commercial
> >> >>renderfarm app!)died comepletely due to legal trouble. Cinerrela *was*
> >> >>FilmGimp. FilmGimp forked from GIMP, them they changed their name to
> >> >>Cinerrela. Unless I'm thinking of a different app....I know FilmGimp
> >> >>*did* change their name, I'm pretty sure it was to Cinerrela anyway.
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > No, Cinelerra (the correct spelling; useful for anyone who wants to
> >> > google on it) is the new name for Broadcast 2000. Cinelerra is a
> >> > non-linear editing application, like Final Cut Pro (but not as good;
> >> > let us know when it wins its first Emmy). Film Gimp was renamed
> >> > CinePaint. CinePaint is *not* a general purpose editing app; it's for
> >> > frame-by-frame retouching.
> >> 
> >> Ah crap, I mixed the two up then. Sorry, it was the similar names.
> >> Still, both are storming Hollywood.
> > 
> > Well, I think that needs to be put in perspective a bit. That market is
> > very small, and Linux is only being adopted in some parts of it. What's
> 
> Yes, Hollywood film editing, animation and retouching is a very small field.

Yes, compared with the entire video and film production market, it is.

> > basically happening is that some obscure Linux software is replacing some
> > obscure IRIX software. That really isn't something to get hugely excited
> > about. (Unless you're SGI, in which case you should be feeling quite a lot
> > of excitement, in the form of desperate panic.)
> 
> I guess that's why Apple bought Nothing Real, and then slashed the price
> of the Mac version of Shake. You.. Shake... just an obscure app.

That's right, Shake is a fairly obscure app. It has become somewhat less 
obscure now that Apple is offering it up at a reduced price to the Mac 
market, but it's still got much narrower appeal than, say, Final Cut Pro.

> > In the wider video/film editing market, Linux isn't really getting very
> > far at all. Final Cut Pro, on the other hand, has sparked something of a
> > revolution there. When you think about the needs of these markets, this
> > makes perfect sense. Hollywood wants specialized tools that can be
> > customized extensively in-house to fit into complex workflows. Most other
> > filmmakers haven't got the resources to do in-house development work on
> > their tools; they want integrated, easy-to-use packages that provide them
> > with complete solutions out of the box.
> 
> Like Maya, Shake and Houdini not to mention CinePaint?

CinePaint and Shake are specialized tools. Houdini and Maya are 3D 
modeling programs, not really in quite the same market as most of the 
stuff we've been talking about (though they're sometimes used by the 
same people).

-- 
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just 
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
                          -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 04:46:52 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.10.12.04.35.02.31237@none.com>, Rick <rick@none.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 04:24:21 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <pan.2003.10.12.04.15.28.104456@none.com>, Rick
>> > <rick@none.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 04:05:32 +0000, Burgess Meredith wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > I suffered through the interminal drivel, that the Dynamic Dummies,
>> >> > Rick-Man, and the Boy Blunder had to say,
>> >> > 
>> >> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:51:38 -0500, Liam Slider wrote:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >>> Rick wrote:
>> >> >>> <snip>
>> >> >>>> I guess when the OS X versions is finished you guys will start
>> >> >>>> touting CinePaint as a reason to use OS X.
>> >> >>> 
>> >> >>> Of course, everyone's copying Linux these days. Just look at why
>> >> >>> Apple added an X11 implimentation to Mac OS X. To port Linux X11
>> >> >>> apps.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Do not forget MacOS X is some Apple-proprietary layers on top of
>> >> >> BSD. Still, I did have success compiling some of my Linux apps
>> >> >> under OS X/X11.
>> >> > 
>> >> > what's the point.
>> >> > 
>> >> > xfonts are better than mac fonts.
>> >> 
>> >> Are they?
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> > why pay more ?
>> >> 
>> >> Support? Warranty? Because you walk into a store and buy a Mac?
>> >> Because you think the (insert Mac model) is kewl?
>> > 
>> > All very good reasons, wouldn't you agree?
>> 
>> Yes, I do.. for many people, but not all.
>> 
>> 
>> > Add one more, 'it just works' -- I find the mac is closer to that
>> > reality than any other platform I've used in the past.  Add to that, I
>> > don't have to futz around with a command line, never have the need to
>> > check which library I'm supposed to have to link to, and the #1
>> > reason?
>> > 
>> > Never needing to use awk, sed or grep!!! <G>
>> 
>> I have never used awk or sed, and have used grep only rarely.
>> 
>> 
>> > Shit, I'm a salesman.  All I want my computer to do is proposals,
>> > presentations, email and web surfing for work and newsgroups for
>> > amusing entertainment.
>> 
>> Linux does those things easily.
>> 
> Sure, but I don't like Linux, remember??  <G>
> 
> Besides, I just got a Powerbook (used G3/333) and loaded Panther on it,
> then proceeded to load the rest of the stuff I want on it.  It was easier
> that any other load of software on any platform.
> 
> OfficeX -- copy the folder -- its ready to go.  Didn't even have to
> re-enter my key code.
> 
> Appleworks -- same thing
> 
> Acrobat -- well had to install this one.  But I only use reader on the
> laptop.  I use it for a demo of a solution for k-12 schools that I do.
> 
> I didn't move the newsreader over because I don't use the laptop for it. 
> The only thing I haven't moved yet is Keynote.  I'm not sure I'll need it.

Apple's application storage is .. interesting.. these days.

> 
> Under Linux, I don't think you can do that as easily.  And of course,
> Linux GUI is butt-ugly! <G>

-Which- GUI would that be?

> 
> 
>> > In an earlier life my first linux was slackware.  Had to create the
>> > floppies from the soundblaster cd I had at the time.  Thought I would
>> > like it, even thought I should, but didn't.  Nothing has changed my
>> > mind.
>> > 
>> > 
>> I bought a Soundblaster Live 5.1, put it in the tower and booted. RH,
>> during the boot sequence, notified me it had found the new card, and
>> asked if I wanted it set up. I did, and it was.
>> 
> You must be a young feller!  ;-)

Uh, no. I started using Linux on Macs. Since there was as much hardware to
support, things were fairly smooth.

> 
> What seems like ages ago, there weren't any IDE anythings out there. There
> was MFM and RLL for hard drive and SCSI for CDROMS.  Then Soundblaster
> took the market by storm with their new sound card that also had a CDROM
> to go with it.  Linux, at that time couldn't deal with it until AFTER you
> installed Linux and compiled the support into it. Hence, you created a
> huge stack of floppies for the installation.
> 
> I'm telling you it wasn't pretty!
> 
I'm glad I stated Linux on PPC.

-- 
Rick

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:22:10 -0400, ZnU wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.10.12.03.26.42.149823@none.com>,
>  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 23:02:40 -0400, ZnU wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <bmaeqv$k4p5o$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> ZnU wrote:
>> >> > In article <bmado8$kcesf$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> >> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> > 
>> >> >>Rick wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:01:49 -0500, Liam Slider wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> >> >>>><snip>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>(more snip)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>>I did a quick look on Google for Cinerella.  For something that
>> >> >>>>>is being as widely adopted by Hollywood, there is surprisingly
>> >> >>>>>little that came up.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>How about some links to all this useage??
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>Run a search on google groups in cola for Linux, Hollywood, and
>> >> >>>>Renderfarms and you should find plenty of articles and links.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>Oh and Cinerella used to be known as FilmGimp, so you might try
>> >> >>>>looking that up too.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Cinerrela was Broadcast 2000, and FilmGim forked from GIMP.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>No, Broadcast 2000 (which was a home user app, *not* a commercial
>> >> >>renderfarm app!)died comepletely due to legal trouble. Cinerrela
>> >> >>*was* FilmGimp. FilmGimp forked from GIMP, them they changed their
>> >> >>name to Cinerrela. Unless I'm thinking of a different app....I know
>> >> >>FilmGimp *did* change their name, I'm pretty sure it was to
>> >> >>Cinerrela anyway.
>> >> > 
>> >> > 
>> >> > No, Cinelerra (the correct spelling; useful for anyone who wants to
>> >> > google on it) is the new name for Broadcast 2000. Cinelerra is a
>> >> > non-linear editing application, like Final Cut Pro (but not as
>> >> > good; let us know when it wins its first Emmy). Film Gimp was
>> >> > renamed CinePaint. CinePaint is *not* a general purpose editing
>> >> > app; it's for frame-by-frame retouching.
>> >> 
>> >> Ah crap, I mixed the two up then. Sorry, it was the similar names.
>> >> Still, both are storming Hollywood.
>> > 
>> > Well, I think that needs to be put in perspective a bit. That market
>> > is very small, and Linux is only being adopted in some parts of it.
>> > What's
>> 
>> Yes, Hollywood film editing, animation and retouching is a very small
>> field.
> 
> Yes, compared with the entire video and film production market, it is.

Sure. Sure. Whatever you say.

> 
>> > basically happening is that some obscure Linux software is replacing
>> > some obscure IRIX software. That really isn't something to get hugely
>> > excited about. (Unless you're SGI, in which case you should be feeling
>> > quite a lot of excitement, in the form of desperate panic.)
>> 
>> I guess that's why Apple bought Nothing Real, and then slashed the price
>> of the Mac version of Shake. You.. Shake... just an obscure app.
> 
> That's right, Shake is a fairly obscure app. It has become somewhat less
> obscure now that Apple is offering it up at a reduced price to the Mac
> market, but it's still got much narrower appeal than, say, Final Cut Pro.

HAha ahahaha HAha HAhahah ah... you are seriously trying to say Shake has
become less 'obscure' because Apple bought it????
HAhAHA ahahaha HAHA HAha HAHaH 

Why the hell do you think Apple bought Nothing Real?

> 
>> > In the wider video/film editing market, Linux isn't really getting
>> > very far at all. Final Cut Pro, on the other hand, has sparked
>> > something of a revolution there. When you think about the needs of
>> > these markets, this makes perfect sense. Hollywood wants specialized
>> > tools that can be customized extensively in-house to fit into complex
>> > workflows. Most other filmmakers haven't got the resources to do
>> > in-house development work on their tools; they want integrated,
>> > easy-to-use packages that provide them with complete solutions out of
>> > the box.
>> 
>> Like Maya, Shake and Houdini not to mention CinePaint?
> 
> CinePaint and Shake are specialized tools. Houdini and Maya are 3D
> modeling programs, not really in quite the same market as most of the
> stuff we've been talking about (though they're sometimes used by the same
> people).

All the above tools are used in movie production.
-- 
Rick

In article TeamLinux@yahoo.com (TeXGuY) wrote:

> Wow. Both sides of this discussion better slow down and start learning
> from each other. The OS/X people are about to become Open Source
> allies far more than they currently realize.
> 
> [Disclaimer: I am a full time Linux user and have taught the OS to
> major corporations, including IBM. I have a long history in Macs as
> well, and am currently doing Mac repairs and consulting/teaching on
> PowerPC *nix systems.]
> 
> The next version of OS/X, Panther, brings a major set of Open Source
> underpinnings, including XFree86, to the party. If you go to the Apple
> website, you'll see that the list is enormous.
> 
> So, OS/X will soon, meaning in about two years, be hosting the
> majority of Open source apps as well as the long-standing "Pay To
> Play" programs that Apple users are used to.
> 
> The fact is that there are Closed Source apps that have no Open Source
> peer. I don't enjoy saying so, but it is quite true. I see it every
> day. However, I also see people paying thousands for apps that are
> sloppy and overpriced crap compared to the FOSS programs in the same
> category. There are two worlds here, and they shouldn't be confused.
> 
> However, the gap between the best Closed Source apps and the available
> Open Source ones is closing at an extremely rapid rate. Let's just not
> make the mistake of claiming that all FOSS stuff is best of breed.
> It's not. Sometimes FOSS is better, sometimes it's not.
> 
> Anyway, It is easier to install OS/X than ANY Linux distro, and that's
> just the flat fact. Apple has taken the Unix basics, and has done a
> truly wretched transformation of them in order to get the system into
> a shape where older Apple people will not trash it. However, they have
> made it pretty simplified in the process.
> 
> [I wished they'd been able to keep the old NeXT styles, but it simply
> was not possible. This has been hashed for years, and if it is news to
> you, go to comp.sys.next.advocacy and read the archives.]
> 
> Anyhow, the OS'X machines ARE Unix, even if they don't look like it,
> and they are about to be able to use the Open Source software library
> as well.
> 
> As for their hardware, don't diss it until you understand it. Apple's
> designs fluctuate wildly in performance and effectiveness, so if you
> don't know the models intimately, don't generalize. If you do, you'll
> sound as stupid and closed-minded as the WinTrolls claim.
> 
> It's time to welcome Apple people into the FOSS camp and show them
> that they don't have to shell out money year after year all the time.
> Show them a new way and don't treat them like the WinTrolls. Apple
> folks have been beleagured minorities even longer than Linux people,
> so they already know the MS drill.
> 
> Remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

good post, agree there is more camaraderie than it may appear... but 
it's also smart to have healthy debates on where each camp currently 
stands... it makes "us" stronger against the evil in redmond... 

historically, i think it's fair to say the apple camp is the surviving 
root of the original "open" movement dating back to the homebrew days... 
linux is part of the same that's for sure, it just came later and has 
more of a bent towards toppling MS than "freedom to the people" like the 
apple mission has always been...

i guess if you want to place some element of blame, that would have to 
be the general movement of steve in the intergration of iApps into the 
os, cutting off outside development... i'm sure he'd say, there is no 
option since ms is so powerful, but it surely goes against the original 
idea...

all in all it's slowly getting exciting again... so no major concerns 
going forward... let's press on and get to a world where, Linux has a 
1/3, OSX has a 1/3 and MS has a 1/3... then things will really start to 
pop!

Oxford

-

-

In article <111020032314277266%lloydparsons@nospammac.com>,
 Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@nospammac.com> wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.10.12.04.10.09.644947@none.com>, Rick
> <rick@none.com> wrote:

[snip]

> > > Now that is two people making that claim, I'm not disputing it, but a link
> > > or two to something that indicates that it is in fact, taking hollywood by
> > > storm, or even that is quite popular.
> > > 
> > > I found absolutely nothing that says that.
> > > 
> > > Lloyd
> > 
> > <http://www.fxguide.com/article112.html>
> > 
> > "CinePaint is now the most popular open source tool in the motion picture
> > industry,"
> > 
> > I am sure you will be crowing about its attributes when the Aqua port is
> > finished.
> 
> Since I wasn't bashing CinePaint or Cinerrela but asking questions, I
> doubt it.  I use iMovie for any DV editing I need.  I looked at Final
> Cut Express and decided that it was much more than I needed for the
> little I do.
> 
> But I did notice that the quote you gave was that CinePaint was the
> most popular 'open source' tool, which may not mean the same thing as
> most popular tool....

Just to be absolutely clear on this issue, CinePaint is *not* a general 
purpose tool for video/film editing. It's a tool for frame-by-frame 
retouching. You see a lot of Linux advocates running around screaming 
about it as if it's the biggest thing to hit the industry since 
non-linear editing, but from the perspective of someone who actually 
knows a thing or two, this seems a bit like someone running around 
yelling about how some company is taking over the auto industry because 
several of the major automakers have chosen to use their windshield 
wiper motors.

-- 
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just 
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
                          -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

TeXGuY wrote:
<snip>
> It's time to welcome Apple people into the FOSS camp and show them
> that they don't have to shell out money year after year all the time.
> Show them a new way and don't treat them like the WinTrolls. Apple
> folks have been beleagured minorities even longer than Linux people,
> so they already know the MS drill.
> 
> Remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Yeah but these guys are bringing monopolist tactics to the OSS 
arena...and spreading untruths about Linux, intentionally or 
unintentionally.

Apple takes claim for work done on Linux (such as much of the editing 
and effects for Lord of the Rings) boxes, when not one Mac was being 
used as either workstation or renderfarm node. Why? Because they bought 
the software company after the movie came out. Most of the boxes were 
running Linux, some Irix, not one Mac.

  The Mac users are claiming total superiority in everything, as if they 
actually did have much superiority over Linux. Yeah the GUI is nice eye 
candy, but we have one too that's not too shabby either. They are, in 
essense, acting *exactly* like Windows users. We aren't still stuck in 
the CLI and vi era unless we *choose* to use those. They think we are, 
or at least the ones that've popped up in here seem to think so.

Mac users seem to also be forgetting one of the reasons Apple has 
started to work with OSS, the very applications that we Linux users are 
using. If they need our apps they can't be all that superior to us, yet 
that's exactly how they are acting, like a bunch of snobs. They'll use 
our software but at the same time put Linux down. That's not right.

If Apple integrated X11 because they want Linux apps easily ported, then 
the least the Mac users could do is respect where those apps are comming 
from.

-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <bman86$ko7r3$2@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Wade Williams wrote:
>>
>>>In article <bm9s3r$ka80v$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
>>><liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Would *you* use an iMac for serious business? Honestly? Especially when 
>>>>you can get better hardware for the same price with a PC, and run Linux 
>>>>off it? And no, Linux *isn't* hard to use, it's got the same kind of 
>>>>easy to use GUI crap everything else has, and is just as stable and 
>>>>secure as the Mac. But most important...it's still cheaper, and doesn't 
>>>>look like a preschooler's toy.
>>>
>>>
>>>Wow.....you're really hung up on having the most "manly" computer,
>>>aren't you?
>>>
>>>Are you having some sort of identity crisis?
>>
>>Wow, you're really hung up on having a computer that looks the most like 
>>a preschool girl's toy aren't you?
> 
> 
> Neither Wade or I appear to care what a computer looks like.
> 
> The appropriate question is: can it do the job?

The appropriate question is: can it do the job without being overpriced?


-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

In article Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:

> AHAH ahahaha HAh HAHA AHahah HAhah. What Apple // nearly killed anything
> from IBM?

guess you weren't around or awake in the early 80's... the apple // 
entirely changed the computer business... it made ibm make the mistake 
of the "pc"... which nearly killed them... don't you remember 300,000 
layoffs at IBM around 1992?? i sure do... 

> > doing that
> > to MS would be even easier since MS isn't as entrenched...
> > 
> > BUT... all the parts aren't finished yet... the server is looking better,
> > it's now the fastest for the buck... storage is there, raid is there, osx
> > server is there... but apple needs a bit more time for it to mature... all
> > the office apps are nearing completion... mail, web, photo, video, phone,
> > music, wp, ss, db, etc, are coming along nicely...
> 
> What wp, ss, db?

word processing, spreadsheets, databases


> > so, while i did start this thread to josh the linux kids, the idea of
> > "open source made easy" is very compelling... and only apple has the
> > vision/resources to make it actually happen...
> > 
> Yeah, right.

what?  who else has that level of power? Sun? maybe... but it doesn't 
sell to the masses... who else is there?

Oxford

-

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 23:32:57 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> In article TeamLinux@yahoo.com (TeXGuY) wrote:
> 
(snip)
>> 
>> Remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
> 
> good post, agree there is more camaraderie than it may appear... but it's
> also smart to have healthy debates on where each camp currently stands...
> it makes "us" stronger against the evil in redmond...
> 
> historically, i think it's fair to say the apple camp is the surviving
> root of the original "open" movement dating back to the homebrew days...

'open' software existed for many years before microcomputers.

> linux is part of the same that's for sure, it just came later and has more
> of a bent towards toppling MS than "freedom to the people" like the apple
> mission has always been...

'Linux' has no 'bent' for toppling micro$oft. Apple lost its 'freedom to
the people' mission when it started selling closed Macs.

> 
> i guess if you want to place some element of blame, that would have to be
> the general movement of steve in the intergration of iApps into the os,
> cutting off outside development... i'm sure he'd say, there is no option
> since ms is so powerful, but it surely goes against the original idea...

Does it? Maybe you should read about the early Mac days.

> 
> all in all it's slowly getting exciting again... so no major concerns
> going forward... let's press on and get to a world where, Linux has a 1/3,
> OSX has a 1/3 and MS has a 1/3... then things will really start to pop!
> 


-- 
Rick

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:35:27 -0400, ZnU wrote:

> In article <111020032314277266%lloydparsons@nospammac.com>,
>  Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@nospammac.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article <pan.2003.10.12.04.10.09.644947@none.com>, Rick
>> <rick@none.com> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> > > Now that is two people making that claim, I'm not disputing it, but
>> > > a link or two to something that indicates that it is in fact, taking
>> > > hollywood by storm, or even that is quite popular.
>> > > 
>> > > I found absolutely nothing that says that.
>> > > 
>> > > Lloyd
>> > 
>> > <http://www.fxguide.com/article112.html>
>> > 
>> > "CinePaint is now the most popular open source tool in the motion
>> > picture industry,"
>> > 
>> > I am sure you will be crowing about its attributes when the Aqua port
>> > is finished.
>> 
>> Since I wasn't bashing CinePaint or Cinerrela but asking questions, I
>> doubt it.  I use iMovie for any DV editing I need.  I looked at Final
>> Cut Express and decided that it was much more than I needed for the
>> little I do.
>> 
>> But I did notice that the quote you gave was that CinePaint was the most
>> popular 'open source' tool, which may not mean the same thing as most
>> popular tool....
> 
> Just to be absolutely clear on this issue, CinePaint is *not* a general
> purpose tool for video/film editing. It's a tool for frame-by-frame
> retouching. You see a lot of Linux advocates running around screaming
> about it as if it's the biggest thing to hit the industry since non-linear
> editing, but from the perspective of someone who actually knows a thing or
> two, this seems a bit like someone running around yelling about how some
> company is taking over the auto industry because several of the major
> automakers have chosen to use their windshield wiper motors.

you said nothing to refute the statement that CinePaint is the most
popular Open Source tool in Hollywood.

-- 
Rick

In article <3F88E2A6.3932ADE0@mist.com>, GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> 
wrote:

> Oxford wrote:
> > 
> > In article Sinister Midget <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote:
> > 
> > > Wow! For $1,000 I can have unlimited clients connecting to my server?
> > > (It only costs me $500 to /have/ server software from the same source!)
> > > Well, I'd imagine I could't do something like that with any reliability
> > > on a little ol' iMac. So what is the hardware to allow unlimited
> > > clients going to run? $1500? $2500?
> > >
> > > Wait......I can do that already, plus all of the other stuff they
> > > mention, plus quite a few other things! How is this possible on a PC I
> > > built myself for under $500 and a free download?
> > >
> > > I don't dislike Mac. My wife has one. I want one. But I'm not going to
> > > be fooled by a bunch of marketing pap. MICROS~1 is much better at using
> > > the language of feeeeeeeeeechure-push, and they can't trick me either.
> > 
> > well if you don't value your time... you have a point... but $999 is
> > exceedinly cheap compared to the alternatives... linux has never been
> > free if you think to include the time learning/maintaining it... OSX
> > server gets rid of the learning/maintaining portion... again, a good
> > deal if you place "value" on your time...
> > 
> 
> Lets look at the alternatives that windows has to offer. 
> First, if your lucky, you hope you don't get a virus that
> can be fixed.  In the Corporate world M$ products have
> already cost them in the billions $$$ due to viruses and
> worms.  Some people at home do get viruses that cause some
> file damage and it isn't easy for some of them to reinstall
> XP... depends on the brand of PC.

Apparently the movie industry watches their pocketbooks a little better. 
They seem to avoid MS machines, which is understandable.

> > any 233Mhz imac can handle this software... and those go for what? $200?
> > if your that cheap, just order the full version for $499 through the
> > education side of apple... http://www.apple.com/education/store
> > 
> > osx server is where things are heading... the days of "tinker toy" oses
> > like linux, no longer make much sense... "IF YOU VALUE YOUR TIME" and I
> > agree a lot of people in this world don't...
> 
> Well, NSA... you know the alphabet agency that the taxpayers
> pay for, has SELinux for the download.  And they did make
> linux secure.

Wade Williams wrote:
> In article <bmabl0$k324r$2@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
> <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Seriously, major studios are grabbing the software and building all 
>>Linux render farms using it.
> 
> 
> Mainly because that was their only choice in the past.  Pixar's
> Renderman ran only on the PC too.
> 
> Whoops, guess what.....Renderman is coming to OS X and Shake runs on OS
> X.

Big whoops. So you might gain one animation studio, we'll take all the 
rest of Hollywood. Good arrangement.

> 
> I don't think you'll see Linux-based production go away, but I think
> you'll see a lot of OS X-based shops as well, because many studios will
> appreciate the tighter integration of the operating system.

Again with the Mafiasoft-like sounding terms! Our apps work. Our apps 
work well. Our apps work well on cheap hardware. Cheap hardware scales 
much better than expensive hardware. Free licenses scale *way* less 
expensively than expensive software licenses that Apple likes to use for 
apps like this.

Advantage: Linux!


-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

Lloyd Parsons wrote:
<snip>
> 
> Sure, but I don't like Linux, remember??  <G>
> 
> Besides, I just got a Powerbook (used G3/333) and loaded Panther on it,
> then proceeded to load the rest of the stuff I want on it.  It was
> easier that any other load of software on any platform.
> 
> OfficeX -- copy the folder -- its ready to go.  Didn't even have to
> re-enter my key code.
> 
> Appleworks -- same thing
> 
> Acrobat -- well had to install this one.  But I only use reader on the
> laptop.  I use it for a demo of a solution for k-12 schools that I do.
> 
> I didn't move the newsreader over because I don't use the laptop for
> it.  The only thing I haven't moved yet is Keynote.  I'm not sure I'll
> need it.
> 
> Under Linux, I don't think you can do that as easily. 


Actually it should be. All that software (well, similar software anyway) 
can usually be installed at the same time the OS is installed. No muss 
no fuss.

> And of course,
> Linux GUI is butt-ugly! <G>

Then why does Apple want X11 apps? :-)

-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

In article "Burgess Meredith" <jabailo@earthlink.net> wrote:

> what's the point.
> 
> xfonts are better than mac fonts.

wow... when did that happen... was there a press release?

Oxford

-

Wade Williams wrote:
> In article <bma4a3$kbftp$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
> <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Also Shake is owned by Nothing Real. Apple may *have* a version that 
>>they sell, but they don't *own* it.
> 
> 
> Nice going there you film industry guru you
> 
> Shake is most definitely owned by Apple.  


Yeah yeah, I've been corrected. I also noted that Apple did not aquire 
Nothing Real tiill after the movie came out. So they had *nothing* to do 
with it, even though claims to the contrary. And not a single mac was 
used in the process, not one. All Linux boxes except a couple Irix boxes.

> 
> I believe they're still maintaining the Linux version for now, but the
> writing is on the wall.  If you want to continue to be a Shake user,
> you're going to need a Mac eventually.


Bah, the rest of the film industry is moving to Linux for 3d graphics, 
editing, and effects. Apple will be hard pressed to sell shake I think.


-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

In article <bmapf1$k6mop$2@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
 Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article <bman86$ko7r3$2@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Wade Williams wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <bm9s3r$ka80v$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
> >>><liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Would *you* use an iMac for serious business? Honestly? Especially when 
> >>>>you can get better hardware for the same price with a PC, and run Linux 
> >>>>off it? And no, Linux *isn't* hard to use, it's got the same kind of 
> >>>>easy to use GUI crap everything else has, and is just as stable and 
> >>>>secure as the Mac. But most important...it's still cheaper, and doesn't 
> >>>>look like a preschooler's toy.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Wow.....you're really hung up on having the most "manly" computer,
> >>>aren't you?
> >>>
> >>>Are you having some sort of identity crisis?
> >>
> >>Wow, you're really hung up on having a computer that looks the most like 
> >>a preschool girl's toy aren't you?
> > 
> > 
> > Neither Wade or I appear to care what a computer looks like.
> > 
> > The appropriate question is: can it do the job?
> 
> The appropriate question is: can it do the job without being overpriced?

Sorry, kid. That wasn't what was being discussed.

What was being discussed was your juvenile fixation on how a computer 
*looks*.

-- 
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In article <85e6a24a.0310112041.29f11501@posting.google.com>,
 TeamLinux@yahoo.com (TeXGuY) wrote:

> Oxford <csma@mac.com> wrote in message 
> news:<csma-70728B.14091811102003@typhoon3.uswest.net>...
> > In article Bill Gutz <billgutz@billgutz.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > I searched Apple's web site relentlessly to find the source code to the 
> > > "Server Admin" tool so highly touted as "open source" but never found 
> > > it. Please provide us with a link to the "open source" source code.
> > 
> > ah, why in the world would you go looking for the admin portion as "open 
> > source"? ... didn't you read the heading? "Open Source Made Easy"... the 
> > made easy part was difficult to build, that's why apple gets a few bucks 
> > for doing it... 
> > 
> > linux will never have this level of "made easy" since it's base is too 
> > fractured and inconsistent to be widely useful... check out more on osx 
> > server... it's where things are headed...
> > 
> > http://www.apple.com/server/documentation/
> > 
> > http://www.apple.com/server/
> > 
> 
> Wow. Both sides of this discussion better slow down and start learning
> from each other. The OS/X people are about to become Open Source
> allies far more than they currently realize.
> 
> [Disclaimer: I am a full time Linux user and have taught the OS to
> major corporations, including IBM. I have a long history in Macs as
> well, and am currently doing Mac repairs and consulting/teaching on
> PowerPC *nix systems.]
> 
> The next version of OS/X, Panther, brings a major set of Open Source
> underpinnings, including XFree86, to the party. If you go to the Apple
> website, you'll see that the list is enormous.
> 
> So, OS/X will soon, meaning in about two years, be hosting the
> majority of Open source apps as well as the long-standing "Pay To
> Play" programs that Apple users are used to.

You can already run X11 apps on OS X, after an optional download. You've 
been able to practically since the beginning. This has been of some 
interest to certain technical markets, which is probably why Apple will 
now be including X11 (though it's still not part of the default install 
in Panther), but X11 apps have made essentially no inroads in the wider 
Mac desktop market, and this is unlikely to change. Ever. X11 apps are 
never going to act like native apps, and this is something Mac users are 
very sensitive to.

Apple certainly has set up an alliance with the open source community, 
and it's one that will benefit people on both sides. But it isn't 
generally going to extend to sharing GUI apps in any really significant 
way. It looks like it will be confined to infrastructure code and 
format/protocol standardization.

[snip]

-- 
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just 
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
                          -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

In article <pan.2003.10.12.05.30.03.484388@none.com>,
 Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:22:10 -0400, ZnU wrote:
> 
> > In article <pan.2003.10.12.03.26.42.149823@none.com>,
> >  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 23:02:40 -0400, ZnU wrote:
> >> 
> >> > In article <bmaeqv$k4p5o$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> >> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> ZnU wrote:
> >> >> > In article <bmado8$kcesf$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> >> >> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > 
> >> >> >>Rick wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:01:49 -0500, Liam Slider wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>>Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> >> >>>><snip>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>(more snip)
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>>>I did a quick look on Google for Cinerella.  For something that
> >> >> >>>>>is being as widely adopted by Hollywood, there is surprisingly
> >> >> >>>>>little that came up.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>How about some links to all this useage??
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>Run a search on google groups in cola for Linux, Hollywood, and
> >> >> >>>>Renderfarms and you should find plenty of articles and links.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>Oh and Cinerella used to be known as FilmGimp, so you might try
> >> >> >>>>looking that up too.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>Cinerrela was Broadcast 2000, and FilmGim forked from GIMP.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>No, Broadcast 2000 (which was a home user app, *not* a commercial
> >> >> >>renderfarm app!)died comepletely due to legal trouble. Cinerrela
> >> >> >>*was* FilmGimp. FilmGimp forked from GIMP, them they changed their
> >> >> >>name to Cinerrela. Unless I'm thinking of a different app....I know
> >> >> >>FilmGimp *did* change their name, I'm pretty sure it was to
> >> >> >>Cinerrela anyway.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > No, Cinelerra (the correct spelling; useful for anyone who wants to
> >> >> > google on it) is the new name for Broadcast 2000. Cinelerra is a
> >> >> > non-linear editing application, like Final Cut Pro (but not as
> >> >> > good; let us know when it wins its first Emmy). Film Gimp was
> >> >> > renamed CinePaint. CinePaint is *not* a general purpose editing
> >> >> > app; it's for frame-by-frame retouching.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Ah crap, I mixed the two up then. Sorry, it was the similar names.
> >> >> Still, both are storming Hollywood.
> >> > 
> >> > Well, I think that needs to be put in perspective a bit. That market
> >> > is very small, and Linux is only being adopted in some parts of it.
> >> > What's
> >> 
> >> Yes, Hollywood film editing, animation and retouching is a very small
> >> field.
> > 
> > Yes, compared with the entire video and film production market, it is.
> 
> Sure. Sure. Whatever you say.
> 
> > 
> >> > basically happening is that some obscure Linux software is replacing
> >> > some obscure IRIX software. That really isn't something to get hugely
> >> > excited about. (Unless you're SGI, in which case you should be feeling
> >> > quite a lot of excitement, in the form of desperate panic.)
> >> 
> >> I guess that's why Apple bought Nothing Real, and then slashed the price
> >> of the Mac version of Shake. You.. Shake... just an obscure app.
> > 
> > That's right, Shake is a fairly obscure app. It has become somewhat less
> > obscure now that Apple is offering it up at a reduced price to the Mac
> > market, but it's still got much narrower appeal than, say, Final Cut Pro.
> 
> HAha ahahaha HAha HAhahah ah... you are seriously trying to say Shake has
> become less 'obscure' because Apple bought it????
> HAhAHA ahahaha HAHA HAha HAHaH 

Are you seriously saying it *hasn't*? I doubt you had even *heard* of 
Shake before Apple bought it.

> Why the hell do you think Apple bought Nothing Real?

Because their particular obscure market happened to be one that Apple 
thought could be a profitable niche, and possibly because Apple thought 
some of their intellectual property could be useful in its more 
mainstream products.

[snip]

-- 
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just 
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
                          -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

In article <pan.2003.10.12.05.43.48.691678@none.com>,
 Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:35:27 -0400, ZnU wrote:
> 
> > In article <111020032314277266%lloydparsons@nospammac.com>,
> >  Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@nospammac.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> In article <pan.2003.10.12.04.10.09.644947@none.com>, Rick
> >> <rick@none.com> wrote:
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> >> > > Now that is two people making that claim, I'm not disputing it, but
> >> > > a link or two to something that indicates that it is in fact, taking
> >> > > hollywood by storm, or even that is quite popular.
> >> > > 
> >> > > I found absolutely nothing that says that.
> >> > > 
> >> > > Lloyd
> >> > 
> >> > <http://www.fxguide.com/article112.html>
> >> > 
> >> > "CinePaint is now the most popular open source tool in the motion
> >> > picture industry,"
> >> > 
> >> > I am sure you will be crowing about its attributes when the Aqua port
> >> > is finished.
> >> 
> >> Since I wasn't bashing CinePaint or Cinerrela but asking questions, I
> >> doubt it.  I use iMovie for any DV editing I need.  I looked at Final
> >> Cut Express and decided that it was much more than I needed for the
> >> little I do.
> >> 
> >> But I did notice that the quote you gave was that CinePaint was the most
> >> popular 'open source' tool, which may not mean the same thing as most
> >> popular tool....
> > 
> > Just to be absolutely clear on this issue, CinePaint is *not* a general
> > purpose tool for video/film editing. It's a tool for frame-by-frame
> > retouching. You see a lot of Linux advocates running around screaming
> > about it as if it's the biggest thing to hit the industry since non-linear
> > editing, but from the perspective of someone who actually knows a thing or
> > two, this seems a bit like someone running around yelling about how some
> > company is taking over the auto industry because several of the major
> > automakers have chosen to use their windshield wiper motors.
> 
> you said nothing to refute the statement that CinePaint is the most
> popular Open Source tool in Hollywood.

Why would I? It's probably true.

-- 
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just 
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
                          -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

In article Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:

> > historically, i think it's fair to say the apple camp is the surviving
> > root of the original "open" movement dating back to the homebrew days...
> 
> 'open' software existed for many years before microcomputers.

no joke sherlock... but apple was the first to sucessfully bring this 
"open" software to the masses... apple/woz was able to bring the price 
if a computer WAY DOWN, and attractively package a product normal people 
could and WOULD use... that had never been done before, and is the very 
reason you are using a machine today...

> > linux is part of the same that's for sure, it just came later and has more
> > of a bent towards toppling MS than "freedom to the people" like the apple
> > mission has always been...
> 
> 'Linux' has no 'bent' for toppling micro$oft. Apple lost its 'freedom to
> the people' mission when it started selling closed Macs.

don't you mean closed apple //s? there were pineapples, bananas, 
bell&howell, franklin, etc... long before apple opened briefly and 
closed quickly the mac... looking back, it's a GOOD thing, since it 
provides consistant quality and a consistant user experience... i'd 
rather have this type of freedom, than a linux style anchary... there is 
a point where you just want to get something done...
 
> > i guess if you want to place some element of blame, that would have to be
> > the general movement of steve in the intergration of iApps into the os,
> > cutting off outside development... i'm sure he'd say, there is no option
> > since ms is so powerful, but it surely goes against the original idea...
> 
> Does it? Maybe you should read about the early Mac days.

Not sure what your driving at... but yes, steve is the problem to a 
truely open machine... that's not news... i do think he trys to get the 
perfect mix of controlled openess... the mac today is certainly very 
open, can't really think of anything that is proprietary... can you??? 
bet you can't outside maybe the processor...

Oxford

-

In article <bmaq8p$kn3mn$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
 Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> Lloyd Parsons wrote: <snip>
> > 
> > Sure, but I don't like Linux, remember??  <G>
> > 
> > Besides, I just got a Powerbook (used G3/333) and loaded Panther on 
> > it, then proceeded to load the rest of the stuff I want on it.  It 
> > was easier that any other load of software on any platform.
> > 
> > OfficeX -- copy the folder -- its ready to go.  Didn't even have to 
> > re-enter my key code.
> > 
> > Appleworks -- same thing
> > 
> > Acrobat -- well had to install this one.  But I only use reader on 
> > the laptop.  I use it for a demo of a solution for k-12 schools 
> > that I do.
> > 
> > I didn't move the newsreader over because I don't use the laptop 
> > for it.  The only thing I haven't moved yet is Keynote.  I'm not 
> > sure I'll need it.
> > 
> > Under Linux, I don't think you can do that as easily. 
> 
> 
> Actually it should be. All that software (well, similar software 
> anyway) can usually be installed at the same time the OS is 
> installed. No muss no fuss.
> 
> > And of course, Linux GUI is butt-ugly! <G>
> 
> Then why does Apple want X11 apps? :-)

Apple doesn't. Look at Safari. You'll notice Apple didn't port 
Konquerer. Apple ripped the HTML rendering code out of Konquerer, 
wrapped it in a new Objective-C interface, and wrote a new browser shell 
on top of that using native APIs.

Apple simply realizes that certain potential customers in technical 
markets have X11 apps that they'd like to be able to run.

-- 
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just 
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
                          -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 23:41:20 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> In article Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> 
>> AHAH ahahaha HAh HAHA AHahah HAhah. What Apple // nearly killed anything
>> from IBM?
> 
> guess you weren't around or awake in the early 80's... the apple //
> entirely changed the computer business... it made ibm make the mistake of
> the "pc"... which nearly killed them... don't you remember 300,000 layoffs
> at IBM around 1992?? i sure do...

HAahah AHHA AHAhahah HAHAH aHAHahah...
The Apple // was introduced in 1976 (1977?), and the Mac in 1984. Try
again. Hint... it wasn't Apple that killed IBM's 'PC' marketshare.

> 
>> > doing that
>> > to MS would be even easier since MS isn't as entrenched...
>> > 
>> > BUT... all the parts aren't finished yet... the server is looking
>> > better, it's now the fastest for the buck... storage is there, raid is
>> > there, osx server is there... but apple needs a bit more time for it
>> > to mature... all the office apps are nearing completion... mail, web,
>> > photo, video, phone, music, wp, ss, db, etc, are coming along
>> > nicely...
>> 
>> What wp, ss, db?
> 
> word processing, spreadsheets, databases

Sheesh...

What word processor, spreadsheet and database are you talking about?

> 
> 
>> > so, while i did start this thread to josh the linux kids, the idea of
>> > "open source made easy" is very compelling... and only apple has the
>> > vision/resources to make it actually happen...
>> > 
>> Yeah, right.
> 
> what?  who else has that level of power? Sun? maybe... but it doesn't sell
> to the masses... who else is there?

What level of power? I have a 2 Ghz tower that cost $400. The Red Hat 9
installation was the easiest OS install I have done in -years-. Almost
everything I do is via GUI, including network and server stuff.

-- 
Rick

In article <bmaqes$kbbbc$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
 Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> Wade Williams wrote:
> > In article <bma4a3$kbftp$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
> > <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Also Shake is owned by Nothing Real. Apple may *have* a version that 
> >>they sell, but they don't *own* it.
> > 
> > 
> > Nice going there you film industry guru you
> > 
> > Shake is most definitely owned by Apple.  
> 
> 
> Yeah yeah, I've been corrected. I also noted that Apple did not aquire 
> Nothing Real tiill after the movie came out. So they had *nothing* to do 
> with it, even though claims to the contrary. And not a single mac was 
> used in the process, not one. All Linux boxes except a couple Irix boxes.
> 
> > 
> > I believe they're still maintaining the Linux version for now, but the
> > writing is on the wall.  If you want to continue to be a Shake user,
> > you're going to need a Mac eventually.
> 
> 
> Bah, the rest of the film industry is moving to Linux for 3d graphics, 
> editing, and effects. Apple will be hard pressed to sell shake I think.

Some Hollywood studios are moving to Linux for certain tasks. In the 
larger editing market, Final Cut Pro has been a huge success, and Linux 
does not seem to be making inroads. In the 3D market, OS X accounts for 
more than 1/4 of all Maya sales, even though it's still quite new to the 
platform.

-- 
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just 
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
                          -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 00:13:56 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> In article Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> 
>> > historically, i think it's fair to say the apple camp is the surviving
>> > root of the original "open" movement dating back to the homebrew
>> > days...
>> 
>> 'open' software existed for many years before microcomputers.
> 
> no joke sherlock... but apple was the first to sucessfully bring this
> "open" software to the masses... apple/woz was able to bring the price if
> a computer WAY DOWN, and attractively package a product normal people
> could and WOULD use... that had never been done before, and is the very
> reason you are using a machine today...

Way down? Do you have any idea what an Apple // with a disk drive cost? It
was close to $2000.

> 
>> > linux is part of the same that's for sure, it just came later and has
>> > more of a bent towards toppling MS than "freedom to the people" like
>> > the apple mission has always been...
>> 
>> 'Linux' has no 'bent' for toppling micro$oft. Apple lost its 'freedom to
>> the people' mission when it started selling closed Macs.
> 
> don't you mean closed apple //s? 

No, I don't mean closed //s. The only closed //'s were the //c's. Jobs had
his way with the // after Woz left.

> there were pineapples, bananas,
> bell&howell, franklin, etc... long before apple opened briefly and closed
> quickly the mac... 

The Mac wasn't in any form 'open' until the Mac II, after Jobs left.

> looking back, it's a GOOD thing, since it provides
> consistant quality and a consistant user experience... i'd rather have
> this type of freedom, than a linux style anchary... there is a point where
> you just want to get something done...

I get lots of stuff done.

>  
>> > i guess if you want to place some element of blame, that would have to
>> > be the general movement of steve in the intergration of iApps into the
>> > os, cutting off outside development... i'm sure he'd say, there is no
>> > option since ms is so powerful, but it surely goes against the
>> > original idea...
>> 
>> Does it? Maybe you should read about the early Mac days.
> 
> Not sure what your driving at... but yes, steve is the problem to a truely
> open machine... that's not news... i do think he trys to get the perfect
> mix of controlled openess... the mac today is certainly very open, can't
> really think of anything that is proprietary... can you??? bet you can't
> outside maybe the processor...

Are you that ignorant? Aqua and Quartz are proprietary. 'MacOS X' is
proprietary. One of the most open things in Macs are the PPC processor.

-- 
Rick

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:12:23 -0400, ZnU wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.10.12.05.30.03.484388@none.com>,
>  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:22:10 -0400, ZnU wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <pan.2003.10.12.03.26.42.149823@none.com>,
>> >  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 23:02:40 -0400, ZnU wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > In article <bmaeqv$k4p5o$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> >> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> >> ZnU wrote:
>> >> >> > In article <bmado8$kcesf$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> >> >> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >>Rick wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:01:49 -0500, Liam Slider wrote:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>>Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> >> >> >>>><snip>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>(more snip)
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>>>I did a quick look on Google for Cinerella.  For something
>> >> >> >>>>>that is being as widely adopted by Hollywood, there is
>> >> >> >>>>>surprisingly little that came up.
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>How about some links to all this useage??
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>Run a search on google groups in cola for Linux, Hollywood,
>> >> >> >>>>and Renderfarms and you should find plenty of articles and
>> >> >> >>>>links.
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>Oh and Cinerella used to be known as FilmGimp, so you might
>> >> >> >>>>try looking that up too.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>Cinerrela was Broadcast 2000, and FilmGim forked from GIMP.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>No, Broadcast 2000 (which was a home user app, *not* a
>> >> >> >>commercial renderfarm app!)died comepletely due to legal
>> >> >> >>trouble. Cinerrela *was* FilmGimp. FilmGimp forked from GIMP,
>> >> >> >>them they changed their name to Cinerrela. Unless I'm thinking
>> >> >> >>of a different app....I know FilmGimp *did* change their name,
>> >> >> >>I'm pretty sure it was to Cinerrela anyway.
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > No, Cinelerra (the correct spelling; useful for anyone who wants
>> >> >> > to google on it) is the new name for Broadcast 2000. Cinelerra
>> >> >> > is a non-linear editing application, like Final Cut Pro (but not
>> >> >> > as good; let us know when it wins its first Emmy). Film Gimp was
>> >> >> > renamed CinePaint. CinePaint is *not* a general purpose editing
>> >> >> > app; it's for frame-by-frame retouching.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Ah crap, I mixed the two up then. Sorry, it was the similar names.
>> >> >> Still, both are storming Hollywood.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Well, I think that needs to be put in perspective a bit. That
>> >> > market is very small, and Linux is only being adopted in some parts
>> >> > of it. What's
>> >> 
>> >> Yes, Hollywood film editing, animation and retouching is a very small
>> >> field.
>> > 
>> > Yes, compared with the entire video and film production market, it is.
>> 
>> Sure. Sure. Whatever you say.
>> 
>> 
>> >> > basically happening is that some obscure Linux software is
>> >> > replacing some obscure IRIX software. That really isn't something
>> >> > to get hugely excited about. (Unless you're SGI, in which case you
>> >> > should be feeling quite a lot of excitement, in the form of
>> >> > desperate panic.)
>> >> 
>> >> I guess that's why Apple bought Nothing Real, and then slashed the
>> >> price of the Mac version of Shake. You.. Shake... just an obscure
>> >> app.
>> > 
>> > That's right, Shake is a fairly obscure app. It has become somewhat
>> > less obscure now that Apple is offering it up at a reduced price to
>> > the Mac market, but it's still got much narrower appeal than, say,
>> > Final Cut Pro.
>> 
>> HAha ahahaha HAha HAhahah ah... you are seriously trying to say Shake
>> has become less 'obscure' because Apple bought it???? HAhAHA ahahaha
>> HAHA HAha HAHaH
> 
> Are you seriously saying it *hasn't*? I doubt you had even *heard* of
> Shake before Apple bought it.

-I- am not in movie production. Judging by what I've read, industry people
were aware of it and used it before Apple bought Nothing Real.

> 
>> Why the hell do you think Apple bought Nothing Real?
> 
> Because their particular obscure market happened to be one that Apple
> thought could be a profitable niche, and possibly because Apple thought
> some of their intellectual property could be useful in its more mainstream
> products.

yeah. Right. Obtain. Extinguish.

> 
> [snip]

-- 
Rick

In article Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:

> > no joke sherlock... but apple was the first to sucessfully bring this
> > "open" software to the masses... apple/woz was able to bring the price if
> > a computer WAY DOWN, and attractively package a product normal people
> > could and WOULD use... that had never been done before, and is the very
> > reason you are using a machine today...
> 
> Way down? Do you have any idea what an Apple // with a disk drive cost? It
> was close to $2000.

Sounds like you weren't around during that era... Woz made some GENIUS 
level reductions in chip accounts that allowed for the $2,000 price 
point to be reached... a CP/M machine WITH a Floppy was $12,000 at the 
time, Apple was the FIRST to introduce an afforable floppy for just 
$495. Most users were using paper tape or cassette before that happened.

That and the apple motherboards were the breakthroughs that electrical 
engineers to this day are still in awe of... Take a look at the apple / 
or // boards... NOBODY had made such an cost efficient computer before...

> No, I don't mean closed //s. The only closed //'s were the //c's. Jobs had
> his way with the // after Woz left.

Oh, your talking about slots... but technically the later //s were all 
closed since only apple built them... I guess laser did make a //c for 
quite awhile... not sure of the story there... Yeah, the //c... it just 
didn't have internal slots, (except the //c plus) everything was on the 
outside... printer ports, disks, monitor, joy stick, etc... 

My feeling is that all apple products have been closed until the first 
iMac in 1998??? then everything went to the newworld architechure, using 
only open standards for ports, memory, ide drives, usb, firewire, 
bluetooth, etc..

> > there were pineapples, bananas,
> > bell&howell, franklin, etc... long before apple opened briefly and closed
> > quickly the mac... 
> 
> The Mac wasn't in any form 'open' until the Mac II, after Jobs left.

Ah, your talking about slots, not "open"... at least the way i'm talking 
about it... the mac // wasn't any more "open" than the 128K mac... sure 
you could put cards in, but you could do that with the SE on up... you 
still couldn't make mac clones until CHRP... which happened much later...

> Are you that ignorant? Aqua and Quartz are proprietary. 'MacOS X' is
> proprietary. One of the most open things in Macs are the PPC processor.

Yeah 2 elements are designed and controlled by apple, but everything 
below the UI is open... thus giving you all the power of the open source 
movement, without the inconsistancy... it's a smart strategy, and 
something nobody else has the depth to pull off... maybe sun? but they 
have no mass market experience... linux could but they have no central 
control, maybe hp, but they don't have a consumer os... maybe dell, but 
they have no engineering, maybe ms, but the second they'd try the courts 
(hopefully) would block it... etc, etc...

Oxford

-

In article Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:

> > guess you weren't around or awake in the early 80's... the apple //
> > entirely changed the computer business... it made ibm make the mistake of
> > the "pc"... which nearly killed them... don't you remember 300,000 layoffs
> > at IBM around 1992?? i sure do...
> 
> HAahah AHHA AHAhahah HAHAH aHAHahah...
> The Apple // was introduced in 1976 (1977?), and the Mac in 1984. Try
> again. Hint... it wasn't Apple that killed IBM's 'PC' marketshare.

It surely was Apple, it was the Apple // that ushered in the entire PC 
age... no Apple //, no PC market... Apple was the instigator that nearly 
killed off IBM... IBM was all powerful before 1978 when the Apple // 
started to move Mini and Mainframe control from the cleanroom to the 
desktop... The spreadsheet did a lot of the work, invented on the Apple 
//... only years later did IBM build a Apple // like system, which only 
hastened the effect...

> Sheesh...
> 
> What word processor, spreadsheet and database are you talking about?

AppleWorks... it's cocoa based now, which is a big step, but Apple still 
hasn't completed some elements to make MSOffice unneeded...

http://www.apple.com/appleworks/

> > what?  who else has that level of power? Sun? maybe... but it doesn't sell
> > to the masses... who else is there?
> 
> What level of power? I have a 2 Ghz tower that cost $400. The Red Hat 9
> installation was the easiest OS install I have done in -years-. Almost
> everything I do is via GUI, including network and server stuff.

Yeah, but that os doesn't have any power to change the overall direction 
of the market... nobody is guiding linux, it's sorta floundering 
around... IBM's interest is telling... maybe they can get things 
moving... but even they have a poor record in moving a market... OS/2, 
AIX, Etc, aren't exactly inspiring...

Oxford

-

I suffered through the interminal drivel, that the Dynamic Dummies,
Oxford-Man, and the Boy Blunder had to say,


> Yeah, but that os doesn't have any power to change the overall direction 
> of the market... nobody is guiding linux, it's sorta floundering 
> around... IBM's interest is telling... maybe they can get things 

I guess China, Japan, India and Korea don't
count in your Western hegemonic world.

1/4 to 1/2 of the worlds 6B population 
and their government's committed to
Linux.

The only people who see a need to argue
whether Linux is king or not are few
dying Western nations who can't make
the leap to the OSS paradigm.

In article "Burgess Meredith" <jabailo@earthlink.net> wrote:

> I guess China, Japan, India and Korea don't
> count in your Western hegemonic world.

don't you mean Munich? The countries you mentioned have no direct 
interest in linux outside of it being free... One city in Germany is the 
only "win" linux has in it's pocket at the current time...

> 1/4 to 1/2 of the worlds 6B population 
> and their government's committed to
> Linux.

That's tooootal BS... there is no commitment to "linux" from any of 
those people... you've got linux myopia in the worst way... 
 
> The only people who see a need to argue
> whether Linux is king or not are few
> dying Western nations who can't make
> the leap to the OSS paradigm.

Then why are you arguing on linux's behalf? It's just one of several 
unix based oses... it maybe time for your update...

http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html#16

OSS is nothing new... it's been around since fire was discovered... only 
since the advent of fast internet connections has it's rose again...

Oxford

-

Oxford wrote:

> In article "Burgess Meredith" <jabailo@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
>> I guess China, Japan, India and Korea don't
>> count in your Western hegemonic world.
> 
> don't you mean Munich? The countries you mentioned have no direct
> interest in linux outside of it being free... One city in Germany is the
> only "win" linux has in it's pocket at the current time...
> 

You should at least try to get your "facts" correct.

>> 1/4 to 1/2 of the worlds 6B population
>> and their government's committed to
>> Linux.
> 
> That's tooootal BS... there is no commitment to "linux" from any of
> those people... you've got linux myopia in the worst way...
>  

So China does not exist

>> The only people who see a need to argue
>> whether Linux is king or not are few
>> dying Western nations who can't make
>> the leap to the OSS paradigm.
> 
> Then why are you arguing on linux's behalf? It's just one of several
> unix based oses... it maybe time for your update...
> 
> http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html#16
> 
> OSS is nothing new... it's been around since fire was discovered... only
> since the advent of fast internet connections has it's rose again...
> 
> Oxford
> 
> -

Then why are you arguing against linux? Afraid your kindergarden OS will die
off? And, btw, what the hell are you doing here? You can advocate to your
hearts contend. In csma. I am not interested in your bullshit
-- 
Never put off till tomorrow what you can avoid all together.

In article <pan.2003.10.11.05.00.30.333916@nospamremarque.org>, David
Utidjian wrote:
> The comprehensive and functional administrative interface is where I think
> Apple can really differentiate itself from the other solutions that
> provide the same services (the BSDs, Linuxes, and proprietary Unixes). If
> they get that right... really right then they stand a chance of really
> moving into the server space.

I'm not sure how effective that will be.  Most of those programs are pretty
easy to configure already *if* you understand what the programs do.  For
example, take Apache.  The configuration file is a plain text file, in a
psuedo-XML format.  If you want to accomplish a given thing with Apache, and
understand that thing, then editing the configuration file to specify what
you want is pretty easy.  The hard part is understanding what you want.

Front ends that manage the configuration files for you, and perhaps provide
a task-oriented interface can be great, but I'd still want to have an
administrator who understands the underlying tools at a deep level, so that
when something goes wrong or an unusual need arises, it can be dealt with.

But if I've got an administrator who understands the tools deeply, that
administrator is probably almost as fast just editing configuration files in
vi or emacs as he would be using a front end tool.

I think a friendly admin interface might help move into a particular niche
of the server space...the single server serving a small group with simple
needs.  I don't know how big that niche is.

-- 
Evidence Eliminator is worthless.  See evidence-eliminator-sucks.com
--Tim Smith

In article <85e6a24a.0310112041.29f11501@posting.google.com>, TeXGuY wrote:
> Remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Historically, people that follow that often end up in one of two positions:
being stabbed in the back by a "friend", or stabbing a "friend" in the back.

A correct statement would be "the enemy of my enemy is someone who is known
to have one common goal with me out of thousands of other goals, and may or
may not agree with me on those other thousands of goals", but that isn't as
catchy a tag line.

For recent examples, consider all of the horrible governments the United
States support in the last half of the last century because they were
opposed to communism.

-- 
Evidence Eliminator is worthless.  See evidence-eliminator-sucks.com
--Tim Smith

As ZnU so eloquently gibbered on Sun, 12 Oct 2003 at 02:11 GMT:

> In article <slrnbohc9o.25s.sinister@home.harry.net>,
>  Sinister Midget <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote:
> 
>> As ZnU so eloquently gibbered on Sun, 12 Oct 2003 at 01:29 GMT:
>> 
>> > In article <pan.2003.10.11.23.48.50.493305@none.com>,
>> >  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 17:55:30 -0400, ZnU wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > In article <pan.2003.10.11.20.55.31.396822@none.com>,
>> >> >  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:00:00 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > In article Sinister Midget <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote:
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> Wow! For $1,000 I can have unlimited clients connecting to my 
>> >> >> >> server?
>> >> >> >> (It only costs me $500 to /have/ server software from the same
>> >> >> >> source!) Well, I'd imagine I could't do something like that with any
>> >> >> >> reliability on a little ol' iMac. So what is the hardware to allow
>> >> >> >> unlimited clients going to run? $1500? $2500?
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> Wait......I can do that already, plus all of the other stuff they
>> >> >> >> mention, plus quite a few other things! How is this possible on a PC
>> >> >> >> I built myself for under $500 and a free download?
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> I don't dislike Mac. My wife has one. I want one. But I'm not going
>> >> >> >> to be fooled by a bunch of marketing pap. MICROS~1 is much better at
>> >> >> >> using the language of feeeeeeeeeechure-push, and they can't trick me
>> >> >> >> either.
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > well if you don't value your time... you have a point... but $999 is
>> >> >> > exceedinly cheap compared to the alternatives... linux has never been
>> >> >> > free if you think to include the time learning/maintaining it... OSX
>> >> >> > server gets rid of the learning/maintaining portion... again, a good
>> >> >> > deal if you place "value" on your time...
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> You may now tell us how many people are born with the knowledge it 
>> >> >> takes
>> >> >> to install and maintain OS X server. You can also tell us how many
>> >> >> people are born with the knowledge to run a Mac.
>> >> > 
>> >> > That's too simplistic a view.
>> >> 
>> >> No, it isn't. It takes time to learn an OS. It takes time to learn
>> >> anything.
>> >> 
>> >> > To be a competent administrator, you need to understand things at two
>> >> > different levels. First, you have to have an understanding of the 
>> >> > concepts
>> >> > involved -- you need to have a grasp of how TCP/IP networks are 
>> >> > organized,
>> >> > you need to know what sort of things a web server does, you need to
>> >> > understand what user accounts are, etc.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Second, you need to know the *mechanics* of the specific system you're
>> >> > using. What steps do you take to install an application? How do you 
>> >> > revoke
>> >> > a user's privileges?
>> >> 
>> >> All of that has to be learned, first generally and second specifically for
>> >> the OS you are using.
>> >> 
>> >> > OS X Server isn't going to do you much good if you don't understand the
>> >> > concepts. Its strength is that it largely eliminates the need to read 
>> >> > the
>> >> > manual in order to learn the mechanics -- all of that is discoverable if
>> >> > you just poke around the GUI for a few minutes.
>> >> > 
>> >> > [snip]
>> >> 
>> >> And I suppose you can't learn anything by poking around and of the menu
>> >> systems in Linux?
>> > 
>> > In terms of server administration? Not really. I haven't yet seen a 
>> > Linux server distro that provides a coherent, discoverable GUI which 
>> > allows the user to configure and monitor a wide variety of services.
>> 
>> At least you admit your problem. Try:
>> 
>> clarkconnect
>> smoothwall
>> astaro security linux
> 
> These are products for turning computers into firewalls; they're not 
> general purpose server operating systems with complete, coherent GUI 
> configuration and monitoring tools.

ClarkConnect:

"ClarkConnect  transforms standard PC hardware into a dedicated
broadband gateway and easy-to-use server."

http://www.clarkconnect.org/info/index.html

I'll give you the other 2 for now. I don't feel like bothering with it
at the moment, and it appears you're right in the way they state
things. I can tell you they have server elements, though they don't
tout those since they aren't primary features.

>> redhat enterprise server
> 
> Although I haven't used this, the impression I get from reading the docs 
> is that it uses a bunch of different GUI configuration tools, not one 
> coherent, discoverable interface that's ready to go out of the box. For 
> instance, if you look in the section of the manual related to LDAP, it 
> starts pointing you to third-party tools, for which you need to refer to 
> other documentation. Contrast with OS X Server:
> http://www.apple.com/server/pdfs/L31755A_OpenDirect2_TB_final.pdf

I mention Webmin. I mention Linuxconf. Both give you a single thing to
point at if that's what you need. Both can be used remotely, so you can
have themachine on the other side of the world, or in the basement, or
a closet or wherever. They allow local access and configuration as
well. So, there's your one-size-fits-all tool if it makes you more
comfortable. 2 of them.

Who cares if the tools come integratd or are available on the CD when
you install? Some people hate those things altogether. Some people
prefer individual tools that do one or two things well, not something
that tries to do everything. Soem people don't even want a GUI to look
at on a server. Linux is about /choices/ as well as stability, low
cost, etc.

> Look, I've administered *nix servers in the past, and while I'm sure 
> there's been some progress, I think I still have a pretty good idea of 
> what's required. Every time you need to do something new, you waste a 
> few hours poking through HOWTOs and Usenet archives trying to figure it 
> out. That just isn't necessary with OS X Server.

See above. I repeat, it appears it /has/ been awhile.

I haven't had to look at documentation for anything in some time. Most
of the time I've used any docs, it's been for manually playing with
something because I wanted to manually play with it. I'm lazy when it
comes to reading how to do stuff. If I can do it without reading,
practically any non-windoze-using moron can pull it off. (Winders users
*can* be taught usually, but they require a lot of time getting rid of
bad habits first.)

>> to name but a few.
>> 
>> In addition, several others have the tools available. For example,
>> nearly all can run webmin, a /browser/ interface that configures all
>> sorts of system functions, servers, runs commandline instances, etc,
>> etc, etc. Most all come with GUI tools (assuming you want to
>> point'n'drool away) that cover nearly anything, though not necessarily
>> all in a single package. Several come with linuxconf, which runs from
>> either a point'n'slobber interface or within the console sans GUI
>> interface (both available from the same installation).
> 
> Heh. I just knew someone was going to try to pass off webmin as 
> equivalent to what OS X Server ships with. I don't know why I bother 
> with these discussions.

Who said equivalent? I said it does it. Did I use the word equivalent
somewhere?

These tools do the job. You might not like them. They might not put
things right where you want them or call them by names you like, but
they do the job.

That was what I was addressing.

>> I think the real source of the problem is that you just haven't looked
>> closely at a linux server distro in a long, long while. Not that you
>> really should need to look at any. But if you're going to discuss them,
>> it helps to have dealt with them before pretending to know the subject
>> at hand.

See above.

-- 
When you boil it down to the essentials, it's because Linux is
designed  to be *used* and Windows is designed to be *sold*.

In article <bmapbp$k6mop$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider wrote:
> Apple takes claim for work done on Linux (such as much of the editing and
> effects for Lord of the Rings) boxes, when not one Mac was being used as
> either workstation or renderfarm node. Why? Because they bought the
> software company after the movie came out. Most of the boxes were running
> Linux, some Irix, not one Mac.

It's even better....they bought the software company, and they changed the
prices so that the Linux version costs twice as much upfront as the OS X
version, and also has an annual license fee of something like $1500 per seat
as opposed to $0 for the OS X version, and I think they might have even
discontinued improvements to the Linux version, and still it is the Linux
version that people want to use.

Apple seems to think Shake is the only option, and so they can use
ridiculous pricing to force people to switch to Apple hardware.  They are
wrong.  First, there are commercial alternatives to Shake, such as Nuke from
Digital Domain.  Second, some studios have written their own in-house tools
and use those instead.  ILM, for example, has their own compositing tool,
which they use on Linux.

Worse for Apple...there are studios funding open source tool development
now, and having their own programmers work on those tools.  The studios have
realized that they are better paying to improve open source tools, even if
that means the competing studios also benefit--the old "a rising tide floats
all boats" theory.

Linux on x86 is the dominant platform in Hollywood now.  Hell, even for
Photoshop, Linux is the platform of choice now...running the Windows version
of Photoshop under Wine.  Development of this was funded by Disney and a
couple other studios.

This might all seem kind of surprising (Apple losing to Linux as the
platform for Photoshop...who would have expected *that* a few years ago?),
but when you think about it some, it is not that surprising at all.  Apple's
selling point is nice interfaces and easy to use hardware that doesn't have
a lot of configuration problems.  Do either of those really matter for most
film work?

Let's take hardware first.  These will be machines set up for the end users
by the IS department.  Users aren't adding and removing hardware.  There is
not much difference between a Mac, a Dell, an HP, and IBM, or the cheap
machine of the week down at Fry's in a case like this.  Spec out what you
want, buy them, configure them, and drop them on people's desks.

That's for the workstations.  For rendering, you want speed and you want
good price/performance.  Macs, with the G5, are now comparable in speed to
x86, at a much higher price.  What this means is that if you buy Macs, you
tend to have to use them longer...and that hurts.  That's what nailed Sun
and SGI for rendering...if you have to keep your render machines for, say, 6
years on average, you are, on average, using machines that are 3 years
old.  If you only have to keep your machines 2 years on average, your
average machine is 1 year old.  A 3 year old Sun or SGI *might* beat a 3
year old PC, but it gets smoked by a 1 year old PC.  Same for Macs.

How about Apple's interface advantage?  On the workstation, you have people
sitting in one or two applications all day.  Finder vs. the KDE desktop or
the GNOME desktop (or Explorer on Windows for that matter) doesn't matter.

For the most part, if an app is available for OS X and Linux and Windows, it
is going to be pretty much the same interface on all...the file dialogs will
be different, and the widgets look different, but those differences are all
trivial.

Apple's early slogan, "The computer for the rest of us", really is accurate.
Their strengths fit best in with people who are relatively inexperienced
computer users who want a computer as a general purpose machine to do a
bunch of different tasks (internet, email, manage personal information,
organize photos, manage music, etc.)...basically, the home user.  When you
are using the computer for a specialized task with just a couple of
applications, they don't really have an advantage, and they cost too much.

The fundamental long term problem Apple faces is that their strength is the
inexperienced user...and that user is becoming less and less common.  Kids
come out of school now familiar with Windows (and Linux in some cases!).  If
someone already knows Windows or KDE or GNOME, the Mac is a lot less
compelling.

-- 
Evidence Eliminator is worthless.  See evidence-eliminator-sucks.com
--Tim Smith

In article <111020030308318745%zurg@fakeaddress.com>, zurg wrote:
> BTW, how much tech support you get with your $500 bargain PC? That, btw,
> is a huge selling point for many of Apple's target market.

I read an article a year or two ago that talked about that.  One of the
major film companies was talking about how happy they were switching from
SGI or Sun to commodity PCs.  One of the things they lost in the switch was
support...so instead of calling the company and having someone come out the
next day or so to diagnose and fix the broken machine when one died, they
simply replaced it with one of the spares they kept around (when replacing
expensive machines with cheap machines, you can afford to have a few
spares), and then they'd drive down to Fry's and pick up another $500 PC
when convenient.

-- 
Evidence Eliminator is worthless.  See evidence-eliminator-sucks.com
--Tim Smith

Oxford wrote:

> as for marketshare, i still firmly believe it's too early to go after
> it... osx, even with 10.3 has a few more years before it makes complete
> sense to go for MS's jugular... lots of yelping about macs being too
> expensive... while none of them understand... but that's exactly the
> plan... build up a huge belief macs are more expensive, then overnight
> release a $499 osx box that kills off all competition... apple did that
> with the apple //, and nearly killed off ibm in the process... doing
> that to MS would be even easier since MS isn't as entrenched...

i find that really amazing, that "osx, even with 10.3 has a few more years
before it makes complete sense to go for MS's jugular"

don't trip over your own boots there, oxford.

Liam Slider wrote:

>   The Mac users are claiming total superiority in everything, as if they
> actually did have much superiority over Linux. Yeah the GUI is nice eye
> candy, but we have one too that's not too shabby either. They are, in
> essense, acting *exactly* like Windows users. We aren't still stuck in
> the CLI and vi era unless we *choose* to use those. They think we are,
> or at least the ones that've popped up in here seem to think so.

its not superiority, they're lashing out.  they've read things like this:

"The Mac OS, from Apple Corp., accounted for 2.2 percent of the COE market
in 2002, to take the second place position after Microsoft. By 2004, the
Mac OS will concede that place to Linux, IDC forecasted."

  http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/10/08/HNmsdominance_1.html

now, i think it would be more productive for them to stand up, take their
platform, and go get some market share from microsoft.

but you know human nature ... blame linux for growing, rather than get your
own ducks in a row.

Oxford wrote:

> historically, i think it's fair to say the apple camp is the surviving
> root of the original "open" movement dating back to the homebrew days...
> linux is part of the same that's for sure, it just came later and has
> more of a bent towards toppling MS than "freedom to the people" like the
> apple mission has always been...

now and then you say things that are out of left field (or from another side
of a cultural divide).

fwiw, people in the "open" movement don't sue each other for look and feel.

In article <m1ad871npv.fsf@g3.com>, Edward Dodge wrote:
> These costs you are referring to are known in the business as "Total Cost
> of Ownership" (aka "TCO").  Every non-Microsoft-funded study I have read
> show TCO to always be lower with Macs *and* Linux with respect to Windows.

The TCO studies funded by people offering Mac or Linux solutions find those
solutions are cheaper than Windows?  Wow!

-- 
Evidence Eliminator is worthless.  See evidence-eliminator-sucks.com
--Tim Smith

In article <bmaq8p$kn3mn$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
<liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> <snip>
> > 
> > Sure, but I don't like Linux, remember??  <G>
> > 
> > Besides, I just got a Powerbook (used G3/333) and loaded Panther on it,
> > then proceeded to load the rest of the stuff I want on it.  It was
> > easier that any other load of software on any platform.
> > 
> > OfficeX -- copy the folder -- its ready to go.  Didn't even have to
> > re-enter my key code.
> > 
> > Appleworks -- same thing
> > 
> > Acrobat -- well had to install this one.  But I only use reader on the
> > laptop.  I use it for a demo of a solution for k-12 schools that I do.
> > 
> > I didn't move the newsreader over because I don't use the laptop for
> > it.  The only thing I haven't moved yet is Keynote.  I'm not sure I'll
> > need it.
> > 
> > Under Linux, I don't think you can do that as easily. 
> 
> 
> Actually it should be. All that software (well, similar software anyway) 
> can usually be installed at the same time the OS is installed. No muss 
> no fuss.
> 
I'll admit its been awhile since I've done a Linux load, but I wasn't
aware that OpenOffice (is that the name?) was part of the load
sequence.  I thought it was still seperate.

> > And of course,
> > Linux GUI is butt-ugly! <G>
> 
> Then why does Apple want X11 apps? :-)

Probably to do 2 things.

1.  Fill some holes in available software
2.  Support OSS

Lloyd

In article <_B9ib.7477$av5.1025@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Tim
Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.10.11.05.00.30.333916@nospamremarque.org>, David
> Utidjian wrote:
> > The comprehensive and functional administrative interface is where I think
> > Apple can really differentiate itself from the other solutions that
> > provide the same services (the BSDs, Linuxes, and proprietary Unixes). If
> > they get that right... really right then they stand a chance of really
> > moving into the server space.
> 
> I'm not sure how effective that will be.  Most of those programs are pretty
> easy to configure already *if* you understand what the programs do.  For
> example, take Apache.  The configuration file is a plain text file, in a
> psuedo-XML format.  If you want to accomplish a given thing with Apache, and
> understand that thing, then editing the configuration file to specify what
> you want is pretty easy.  The hard part is understanding what you want.
> 
> Front ends that manage the configuration files for you, and perhaps provide
> a task-oriented interface can be great, but I'd still want to have an
> administrator who understands the underlying tools at a deep level, so that
> when something goes wrong or an unusual need arises, it can be dealt with.
> 
> But if I've got an administrator who understands the tools deeply, that
> administrator is probably almost as fast just editing configuration files in
> vi or emacs as he would be using a front end tool.
> 
> I think a friendly admin interface might help move into a particular niche
> of the server space...the single server serving a small group with simple
> needs.  I don't know how big that niche is.

Pretty damn big niche, if you ask me.  All those little companies with
25 or fewer employees need networks as much as the big guys.  Single
server is what they have or will get. (hopefully from ME! <G>)

Lloyd

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:14:37 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> In article Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> 
>> > no joke sherlock... but apple was the first to sucessfully bring this
>> > "open" software to the masses... apple/woz was able to bring the price
>> > if a computer WAY DOWN, and attractively package a product normal
>> > people could and WOULD use... that had never been done before, and is
>> > the very reason you are using a machine today...
>> 
>> Way down? Do you have any idea what an Apple // with a disk drive cost?
>> It was close to $2000.
> 
> Sounds like you weren't around during that era... Woz made some GENIUS
> level reductions in chip accounts that allowed for the $2,000 price point
> to be reached... a CP/M machine WITH a Floppy was $12,000 at the time,
> Apple was the FIRST to introduce an afforable floppy for just $495. Most
> users were using paper tape or cassette before that happened.

You may now tell us when you purchased your first Apple //. Here's some
clues. From 1977-1979 Apple //s did indeed cost around $1200. In 1979, the
disk drive was introduced which raised the price by $500. While Woz has
been justifiably called a genius for the design, the drive was also called
obscenely profitable. Compare Apple's prices to Commodore and Atari.

> 
> That and the apple motherboards were the breakthroughs that electrical
> engineers to this day are still in awe of... Take a look at the apple / or
> // boards... NOBODY had made such an cost efficient computer before...
> 
>> No, I don't mean closed //s. The only closed //'s were the //c's. Jobs
>> had his way with the // after Woz left.
> 
> Oh, your talking about slots... but technically the later //s were all
> closed since only apple built them...

You really do need to go learn what Open and Closed mean in various
situtions.

> I guess laser did make a //c for
> quite awhile... not sure of the story there... Yeah, the //c... it just
> didn't have internal slots, (except the //c plus) everything was on the
> outside... printer ports, disks, monitor, joy stick, etc...
> 
> My feeling is that all apple products have been closed until the first
> iMac in 1998??? then everything went to the newworld architechure, using
> only open standards for ports, memory, ide drives, usb, firewire,
> bluetooth, etc..

You really do need to go learn what Open and Closed mean in various
situations.

> 
>> > there were pineapples, bananas,
>> > bell&howell, franklin, etc... long before apple opened briefly and
>> > closed quickly the mac...
>> 
>> The Mac wasn't in any form 'open' until the Mac II, after Jobs left.
> 
> Ah, your talking about slots, not "open"...

Those slots is part of what makes an architecture 'open'. Another is
published specifications.

> at least the way i'm talking
> about it... the mac // wasn't any more "open" than the 128K mac... sure
> you could put cards in, but you could do that with the SE on up... you
> still couldn't make mac clones until CHRP... which happened much later...
> 
>> Are you that ignorant? Aqua and Quartz are proprietary. 'MacOS X' is
>> proprietary. One of the most open things in Macs are the PPC processor.
> 
> Yeah 2 elements are designed and controlled by apple, but everything below
> the UI is open... thus giving you all the power of the open source
> movement, without the inconsistancy... 
> it's a smart strategy, and
> something nobody else has the depth to pull off... maybe sun? but they
> have no mass market experience... linux could but they have no central
> control, maybe hp, but they don't have a consumer os... maybe dell, but
> they have no engineering, maybe ms, but the second they'd try the courts
> (hopefully) would block it... etc, etc...

There is more proprietary stuff than just the UI.

-- 
Rick

In article <bm9s3r$ka80v$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider wrote:
> No, I was just trying to find where that "value your time" bit came from.
> It sure wasn't from tech support, since both are very stable. It can't be
> from learning software, since an unfamiliar OS and unfamiliar software
> will take time to learn no matter what the OS, and Linux basics aren't
> hard to learn... So where's the "less time" comming from? Maybe it's less
> time than a Mafiasoft solution, I can see a savings there, but against
> Linux? No way in hell.

What they are talking about is the case where you want to administer certain
common things like Apache, Samba, and the like, without actually knowing
anything about how those work.  I believe OS X server has tools to do that
for you.

So, for cookie cutter server setups, it is probably faster for someone who
doesn't know anything about the software to set things up with OS X.  There
is probably a market for that.

-- 
Evidence Eliminator is worthless.  See evidence-eliminator-sucks.com
--Tim Smith

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:31:19 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> In article Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> 
>> > guess you weren't around or awake in the early 80's... the apple //
>> > entirely changed the computer business... it made ibm make the mistake
>> > of the "pc"... which nearly killed them... don't you remember 300,000
>> > layoffs at IBM around 1992?? i sure do...
>> 
>> HAahah AHHA AHAhahah HAHAH aHAHahah... The Apple // was introduced in
>> 1976 (1977?), and the Mac in 1984. Try again. Hint... it wasn't Apple
>> that killed IBM's 'PC' marketshare.
> 
> It surely was Apple, it was the Apple // that ushered in the entire PC
> age... no Apple //, no PC market... Apple was the instigator that nearly
> killed off IBM... IBM was all powerful before 1978 when the Apple //
> started to move Mini and Mainframe control from the cleanroom to the
> desktop... The spreadsheet did a lot of the work, invented on the Apple
> //... only years later did IBM build a Apple // like system, which only
> hastened the effect...

Uh, no. VisiCalc did indeed get 'personal computers' into companies, but
they mostly went in the back door. IBM legitimized he 'PC'. No one company
is responsible for personal computers.

> 
>> Sheesh...
>> 
>> What word processor, spreadsheet and database are you talking about?
> 
> AppleWorks... it's cocoa based now, which is a big step, but Apple still
> hasn't completed some elements to make MSOffice unneeded...

Appleworks going Cocoa... so what? And it has no where near the 'features'
of m$ Word, not that all those features are needed. You really should strt
watching the development of Open Office.

> 
> http://www.apple.com/appleworks/
> 
>> > what?  who else has that level of power? Sun? maybe... but it doesn't
>> > sell to the masses... who else is there?
>> 
>> What level of power? I have a 2 Ghz tower that cost $400. The Red Hat 9
>> installation was the easiest OS install I have done in -years-. Almost
>> everything I do is via GUI, including network and server stuff.
> 
> Yeah, but that os doesn't have any power to change the overall direction
> of the market... 

Tell that to Hollywood, Wall Street, China, Japan, India, Korea, Germany,
etc.

> nobody is guiding linux, it's sorta floundering around...
> IBM's interest is telling... maybe they can get things moving... but even
> they have a poor record in moving a market... OS/2, AIX, Etc, aren't
> exactly inspiring...

You show your ignorance. Go read some more. Try books.

-- 
Rick

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:40:11 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> In article "Burgess Meredith" <jabailo@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
>> I guess China, Japan, India and Korea don't count in your Western
>> hegemonic world.
> 
> don't you mean Munich? The countries you mentioned have no direct interest
> in linux outside of it being free... One city in Germany is the only "win"
> linux has in it's pocket at the current time...

Go read some more. There are more cities than Munich, and it has Balmr and
company frantic.

> 
>> 1/4 to 1/2 of the worlds 6B population and their government's committed
>> to
>> Linux.
> 
> That's tooootal BS... there is no commitment to "linux" from any of those
> people... you've got linux myopia in the worst way...

Go read some more.

>  
>> The only people who see a need to argue whether Linux is king or not are
>> few
>> dying Western nations who can't make
>> the leap to the OSS paradigm.
> 
> Then why are you arguing on linux's behalf? It's just one of several unix
> based oses... it maybe time for your update...
> 
> http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html#16
> 
> OSS is nothing new... it's been around since fire was discovered... only
> since the advent of fast internet connections has it's rose again...

That's risen. You might want to check out what type of OSes run the
Internet.

-- 
Rick

In article <slrnboici2.55a.sinister@home.harry.net>,
 Sinister Midget <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote:

> As ZnU so eloquently gibbered on Sun, 12 Oct 2003 at 02:11 GMT:
> 
> > In article <slrnbohc9o.25s.sinister@home.harry.net>,
> >  Sinister Midget <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote:
> > 
> >> As ZnU so eloquently gibbered on Sun, 12 Oct 2003 at 01:29 GMT:
> >> 
> >> > In article <pan.2003.10.11.23.48.50.493305@none.com>,
> >> >  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 17:55:30 -0400, ZnU wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > In article <pan.2003.10.11.20.55.31.396822@none.com>,
> >> >> >  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:00:00 -0600, Oxford wrote:
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> > In article Sinister Midget <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote:
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> Wow! For $1,000 I can have unlimited clients connecting to my 
> >> >> >> >> server?
> >> >> >> >> (It only costs me $500 to /have/ server software from the same
> >> >> >> >> source!) Well, I'd imagine I could't do something like that with 
> >> >> >> >> any
> >> >> >> >> reliability on a little ol' iMac. So what is the hardware to 
> >> >> >> >> allow
> >> >> >> >> unlimited clients going to run? $1500? $2500?
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> Wait......I can do that already, plus all of the other stuff they
> >> >> >> >> mention, plus quite a few other things! How is this possible on a 
> >> >> >> >> PC
> >> >> >> >> I built myself for under $500 and a free download?
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> I don't dislike Mac. My wife has one. I want one. But I'm not 
> >> >> >> >> going
> >> >> >> >> to be fooled by a bunch of marketing pap. MICROS~1 is much better 
> >> >> >> >> at
> >> >> >> >> using the language of feeeeeeeeeechure-push, and they can't trick 
> >> >> >> >> me
> >> >> >> >> either.
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> > well if you don't value your time... you have a point... but $999 
> >> >> >> > is
> >> >> >> > exceedinly cheap compared to the alternatives... linux has never 
> >> >> >> > been
> >> >> >> > free if you think to include the time learning/maintaining it... 
> >> >> >> > OSX
> >> >> >> > server gets rid of the learning/maintaining portion... again, a 
> >> >> >> > good
> >> >> >> > deal if you place "value" on your time...
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> You may now tell us how many people are born with the knowledge it 
> >> >> >> takes
> >> >> >> to install and maintain OS X server. You can also tell us how many
> >> >> >> people are born with the knowledge to run a Mac.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > That's too simplistic a view.
> >> >> 
> >> >> No, it isn't. It takes time to learn an OS. It takes time to learn
> >> >> anything.
> >> >> 
> >> >> > To be a competent administrator, you need to understand things at two
> >> >> > different levels. First, you have to have an understanding of the 
> >> >> > concepts
> >> >> > involved -- you need to have a grasp of how TCP/IP networks are 
> >> >> > organized,
> >> >> > you need to know what sort of things a web server does, you need to
> >> >> > understand what user accounts are, etc.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Second, you need to know the *mechanics* of the specific system 
> >> >> > you're
> >> >> > using. What steps do you take to install an application? How do you 
> >> >> > revoke
> >> >> > a user's privileges?
> >> >> 
> >> >> All of that has to be learned, first generally and second specifically 
> >> >> for
> >> >> the OS you are using.
> >> >> 
> >> >> > OS X Server isn't going to do you much good if you don't understand 
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > concepts. Its strength is that it largely eliminates the need to read 
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > manual in order to learn the mechanics -- all of that is discoverable 
> >> >> > if
> >> >> > you just poke around the GUI for a few minutes.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > [snip]
> >> >> 
> >> >> And I suppose you can't learn anything by poking around and of the menu
> >> >> systems in Linux?
> >> > 
> >> > In terms of server administration? Not really. I haven't yet seen a 
> >> > Linux server distro that provides a coherent, discoverable GUI which 
> >> > allows the user to configure and monitor a wide variety of services.
> >> 
> >> At least you admit your problem. Try:
> >> 
> >> clarkconnect
> >> smoothwall
> >> astaro security linux
> > 
> > These are products for turning computers into firewalls; they're not 
> > general purpose server operating systems with complete, coherent GUI 
> > configuration and monitoring tools.
> 
> ClarkConnect:
> 
> "ClarkConnect  transforms standard PC hardware into a dedicated
> broadband gateway and easy-to-use server."
> 
> http://www.clarkconnect.org/info/index.html
> 
> I'll give you the other 2 for now. I don't feel like bothering with it
> at the moment, and it appears you're right in the way they state
> things. I can tell you they have server elements, though they don't
> tout those since they aren't primary features.

Well, it's hard to tell from screenshots, but it doesn't look like 
ClarkConnect gives you nearly as much flexibility in terms of GUI 
configuration as OS X Server. I'd call it a server applience operating 
system, whereas OS X Server is a full-featured server OS that just 
happens to be easy to use.

For instance, compare the options you get for Apache configuration:

http://www.clarkconnect.org/info/screenshots/home_2-0_apache.html
http://www.apple.com/server/pdfs/L31749A_WebHost_TB_final.pdf

> >> redhat enterprise server
> > 
> > Although I haven't used this, the impression I get from reading the docs 
> > is that it uses a bunch of different GUI configuration tools, not one 
> > coherent, discoverable interface that's ready to go out of the box. For 
> > instance, if you look in the section of the manual related to LDAP, it 
> > starts pointing you to third-party tools, for which you need to refer to 
> > other documentation. Contrast with OS X Server:
> > http://www.apple.com/server/pdfs/L31755A_OpenDirect2_TB_final.pdf
> 
> I mention Webmin. I mention Linuxconf. Both give you a single thing to
> point at if that's what you need. Both can be used remotely, so you can
> have themachine on the other side of the world, or in the basement, or
> a closet or wherever. They allow local access and configuration as
> well. So, there's your one-size-fits-all tool if it makes you more
> comfortable. 2 of them.
> 
> Who cares if the tools come integratd or are available on the CD when
> you install?

People who don't want to waste time tracking down all the parts they 
need and reading HOWTOs to figure out how to make everything talk to 
everything else.

> Some people hate those things altogether. Some people prefer 
> individual tools that do one or two things well, not something that 
> tries to do everything. Soem people don't even want a GUI to look at 
> on a server. Linux is about /choices/ as well as stability, low cost, 
> etc.
> 
> > Look, I've administered *nix servers in the past, and while I'm 
> > sure there's been some progress, I think I still have a pretty good 
> > idea of what's required. Every time you need to do something new, 
> > you waste a few hours poking through HOWTOs and Usenet archives 
> > trying to figure it out. That just isn't necessary with OS X 
> > Server.
> 
> See above. I repeat, it appears it /has/ been awhile.
> 
> I haven't had to look at documentation for anything in some time. 
> Most of the time I've used any docs, it's been for manually playing 
> with something because I wanted to manually play with it. I'm lazy 
> when it comes to reading how to do stuff. If I can do it without 
> reading, practically any non-windoze-using moron can pull it off. 
> (Winders users *can* be taught usually, but they require a lot of 
> time getting rid of bad habits first.)
> 
> >> to name but a few.
> >> 
> >> In addition, several others have the tools available. For example,
> >> nearly all can run webmin, a /browser/ interface that configures all
> >> sorts of system functions, servers, runs commandline instances, etc,
> >> etc, etc. Most all come with GUI tools (assuming you want to
> >> point'n'drool away) that cover nearly anything, though not necessarily
> >> all in a single package. Several come with linuxconf, which runs from
> >> either a point'n'slobber interface or within the console sans GUI
> >> interface (both available from the same installation).
> > 
> > Heh. I just knew someone was going to try to pass off webmin as 
> > equivalent to what OS X Server ships with. I don't know why I bother 
> > with these discussions.
> 
> Who said equivalent? I said it does it. Did I use the word equivalent
> somewhere?
> 
> These tools do the job. You might not like them. They might not put
> things right where you want them or call them by names you like, but
> they do the job.
> 
> That was what I was addressing.

Heh. You can also just do the job by typing commands and editing config 
files. It's just less pleasant, and more time consuming. That's why 
people buy OS X Server.

> >> I think the real source of the problem is that you just haven't looked
> >> closely at a linux server distro in a long, long while. Not that you
> >> really should need to look at any. But if you're going to discuss them,
> >> it helps to have dealt with them before pretending to know the subject
> >> at hand.
> 
> See above.

-- 
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just 
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
                          -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

ZnU wrote:

> Heh. You can also just do the job by typing commands and editing config
> files. It's just less pleasant, and more time consuming. That's why
> people buy OS X Server.

i've noticed that you sometimes say "people" to imply some large group.  i
wonder how large a group this is ...

"Microsoft Corp.'s Windows grabbed a bigger share of the market for server
operating systems, despite the widely held perception that open source
Linux threatens its dominant position, according to a report released
Wednesday by market researcher IDC.

Nevertheless, Windows' share of new license shipments is not expected to go
up a "whole lot higher," than the 55.1 percent it held in 2002, compared to
50.5 percent the prior year, IDC analyst Al Gillen said. 

[...]

Linux's share of new paid license shipments in 2002 increased to 23.1
percent from 22.4 percent in 2001. Unix systems accounted for 11 percent of
the 5.7 million total shipments in 2002. Novell Inc.'s NetWare captured 9.9
percent and other products the remaining 1 percent."

http://www.internetwk.com/breakingNews/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=15201904

so i guess your "people" would be in "remaining 1 percent" somewhere?

fwiw, i can see apple trying for a bit of that declining traditional-unix
slice (currently 11 percent), but don't count your people before they're
hatched.

of course, if you really want to make me happy ... tell me how your are
going to take some of ms' 55.1 percent share.

In article <pan.2003.10.12.06.29.36.753077@none.com>,
 Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:12:23 -0400, ZnU wrote:

> >> > That's right, Shake is a fairly obscure app. It has become somewhat
> >> > less obscure now that Apple is offering it up at a reduced price to
> >> > the Mac market, but it's still got much narrower appeal than, say,
> >> > Final Cut Pro.
> >> 
> >> HAha ahahaha HAha HAhahah ah... you are seriously trying to say Shake
> >> has become less 'obscure' because Apple bought it???? HAhAHA ahahaha
> >> HAHA HAha HAHaH
> > 
> > Are you seriously saying it *hasn't*? I doubt you had even *heard* of
> > Shake before Apple bought it.
> 
> -I- am not in movie production. Judging by what I've read, industry people
> were aware of it and used it before Apple bought Nothing Real.

It was getting some use, obviously, but it was mostly confined to the 
larger studios. Look, the fact that it wasn't on the Mac tells you 
everything you need to know; practically all the little guys are using 
Macs now, so if something related to video production isn't on the Mac, 
it's probably not targeted at the general market.

> >> Why the hell do you think Apple bought Nothing Real?
> > 
> > Because their particular obscure market happened to be one that Apple
> > thought could be a profitable niche, and possibly because Apple thought
> > some of their intellectual property could be useful in its more mainstream
> > products.
> 
> yeah. Right. Obtain. Extinguish.

The only thing that Apple has extinguished is the Windows version. This 
is quite understandable; why should Apple be interested in making 
Microsoft's proprietary platform a better choice for this market? A lot 
of the Windows Shake users probably ended up on Linux, so I don't see 
what there is for a Linux advocate to complain about.

-- 
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just 
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
                          -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

In article <ylaib.7488$av5.6590@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
 Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> In article <bmapbp$k6mop$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider wrote:
> > Apple takes claim for work done on Linux (such as much of the editing and
> > effects for Lord of the Rings) boxes, when not one Mac was being used as
> > either workstation or renderfarm node. Why? Because they bought the
> > software company after the movie came out. Most of the boxes were running
> > Linux, some Irix, not one Mac.
> 
> It's even better....they bought the software company, and they changed the
> prices so that the Linux version costs twice as much upfront as the OS X
> version, and also has an annual license fee of something like $1500 per seat
> as opposed to $0 for the OS X version,

Your phrasing here is slightly misleading. It suggests (or at any rate, 
leaves open the possibility) that Apple raised the price of the Linux 
version. This is not the case. The price of the Linux version was kept 
the same. The new OS X version was priced more cheaply. Annual 
maintenance is $585 on OS X and (as it was before) $1485 on Linux. It 
probably really does cost Apple more to support Linux.

> and I think they might have even discontinued improvements to the 
> Linux version, and still it is the Linux version that people want to 
> use.

Apple has not yet announced what will eventually happen with the Linux 
version.

> Apple seems to think Shake is the only option, and so they can use
> ridiculous pricing to force people to switch to Apple hardware.  They are
> wrong.  First, there are commercial alternatives to Shake, such as Nuke from
> Digital Domain.  Second, some studios have written their own in-house tools
> and use those instead.  ILM, for example, has their own compositing tool,
> which they use on Linux.

I think it's possible you misunderstand the motivation behind Apple's 
pricing. It seems quite plausible to me that the OS X version of Shake 
is priced more cheaply simply because Apple is trying to sell it to a 
wider market -- the same market that uses Final Cut Pro -- rather than 
just to larger studios.

> Worse for Apple...there are studios funding open source tool development
> now, and having their own programmers work on those tools.  The studios have
> realized that they are better paying to improve open source tools, even if
> that means the competing studios also benefit--the old "a rising tide floats
> all boats" theory.

I think it's silly to try to paint Linux's success in certain segments 
of the editing market as a failure on Apple's part. First, it's not as 
if Linux is replacing the Mac in this market; it's mostly replacing IRIX 
and, in some cases, NT. Secondly, Apple has done very well for itself in 
another (much larger) segment of the editing market, with Final Cut Pro.

[snip]

-- 
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just 
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
                          -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:40:18 -0400, ZnU wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.10.12.06.29.36.753077@none.com>,
>  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:12:23 -0400, ZnU wrote:
> 
>> >> > That's right, Shake is a fairly obscure app. It has become somewhat
>> >> > less obscure now that Apple is offering it up at a reduced price to
>> >> > the Mac market, but it's still got much narrower appeal than, say,
>> >> > Final Cut Pro.
>> >> 
>> >> HAha ahahaha HAha HAhahah ah... you are seriously trying to say Shake
>> >> has become less 'obscure' because Apple bought it???? HAhAHA ahahaha
>> >> HAHA HAha HAHaH
>> > 
>> > Are you seriously saying it *hasn't*? I doubt you had even *heard* of
>> > Shake before Apple bought it.
>> 
>> -I- am not in movie production. Judging by what I've read, industry
>> people were aware of it and used it before Apple bought Nothing Real.
> 
> It was getting some use, obviously, but it was mostly confined to the
> larger studios. 

It was confined to the making heavy use of computers.

> Look, the fact that it wasn't on the Mac tells you
> everything you need to know; practically all the little guys are using
> Macs now, so if something related to video production isn't on the Mac,
> it's probably not targeted at the general market.

Yeah. Right. If it isn't written for the Mac, it isn't widely used in an
industry. Try to remember that 'Hollywood' is switching from forms of UNIx
to Linux.

> 
>> >> Why the hell do you think Apple bought Nothing Real?
>> > 
>> > Because their particular obscure market happened to be one that Apple
>> > thought could be a profitable niche, and possibly because Apple
>> > thought some of their intellectual property could be useful in its
>> > more mainstream products.
>> 
>> yeah. Right. Obtain. Extinguish.
> 
> The only thing that Apple has extinguished is the Windows version. 

Check the pricing of the Mac and Linux versions.

> This is
> quite understandable; why should Apple be interested in making Microsoft's
> proprietary platform a better choice for this market? A lot of the Windows
> Shake users probably ended up on Linux, so I don't see what there is for a
> Linux advocate to complain about.

Check the pricing of the Mac and Linux versions

-- 
Rick

ZnU wrote:

> I think it's possible you misunderstand the motivation behind Apple's
> pricing. It seems quite plausible to me that the OS X version of Shake
> is priced more cheaply simply because Apple is trying to sell it to a
> wider market -- the same market that uses Final Cut Pro -- rather than
> just to larger studios.


on 2003-10-11 you wrote:

"I guess that's why Apple bought Nothing Real, and then slashed the price
of the Mac version of Shake. You.. Shake... just an obscure app."

on 2003-01-26 you wrote:

"Apple's current approach with Shake (selling the Linux version for the 
same price Nothing Real sold it for, and selling the OS X version for 
half of that price) seems like a pretty good one. It encorages Mac sales 
without cutting off people who need to use x86 hardare."

In article <qkdib.12881$YO5.5785011@news3.news.adelphia.net>,
 lefty <lefty@halfwit.invalid> wrote:

> ZnU wrote:
> 
> > I think it's possible you misunderstand the motivation behind Apple's
> > pricing. It seems quite plausible to me that the OS X version of Shake
> > is priced more cheaply simply because Apple is trying to sell it to a
> > wider market -- the same market that uses Final Cut Pro -- rather than
> > just to larger studios.
> 
> 
> on 2003-10-11 you wrote:
> 
> "I guess that's why Apple bought Nothing Real, and then slashed the price
> of the Mac version of Shake. You.. Shake... just an obscure app."

Rick wrote that.

> on 2003-01-26 you wrote:
> 
> "Apple's current approach with Shake (selling the Linux version for the 
> same price Nothing Real sold it for, and selling the OS X version for 
> half of that price) seems like a pretty good one. It encorages Mac sales 
> without cutting off people who need to use x86 hardare."

I'm not sure what your point is.

-- 
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just 
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
                          -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

In article <pan.2003.10.12.14.03.59.516697@none.com>,
 Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:40:18 -0400, ZnU wrote:
> 
> > In article <pan.2003.10.12.06.29.36.753077@none.com>,
> >  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:12:23 -0400, ZnU wrote:
> > 
> >> >> > That's right, Shake is a fairly obscure app. It has become somewhat
> >> >> > less obscure now that Apple is offering it up at a reduced price to
> >> >> > the Mac market, but it's still got much narrower appeal than, say,
> >> >> > Final Cut Pro.
> >> >> 
> >> >> HAha ahahaha HAha HAhahah ah... you are seriously trying to say Shake
> >> >> has become less 'obscure' because Apple bought it???? HAhAHA ahahaha
> >> >> HAHA HAha HAHaH
> >> > 
> >> > Are you seriously saying it *hasn't*? I doubt you had even *heard* of
> >> > Shake before Apple bought it.
> >> 
> >> -I- am not in movie production. Judging by what I've read, industry
> >> people were aware of it and used it before Apple bought Nothing Real.
> > 
> > It was getting some use, obviously, but it was mostly confined to the
> > larger studios. 
> 
> It was confined to the making heavy use of computers.

Practically everyone working with video or film now makes extensive use 
of computers. I suppose there are still a few people doing artistic work 
who prefer an all-analog process, but they're not significant targets of 
current product development.

> > Look, the fact that it wasn't on the Mac tells you everything you 
> > need to know; practically all the little guys are using Macs now, 
> > so if something related to video production isn't on the Mac, it's 
> > probably not targeted at the general market.
> 
> Yeah. Right. If it isn't written for the Mac, it isn't widely used in 
> an industry. Try to remember that 'Hollywood' is switching from forms 
> of UNIx to Linux.

If it isn't written for the Mac, is isn't widely used by the majority of 
the film/video editing market. Just to reiterate, Hollywood does *not* 
account for the majority of the film and video editing done in the 
world, and, in fact, has very different needs from practically everyone 
else.

> >> >> Why the hell do you think Apple bought Nothing Real?
> >> > 
> >> > Because their particular obscure market happened to be one that Apple
> >> > thought could be a profitable niche, and possibly because Apple
> >> > thought some of their intellectual property could be useful in its
> >> > more mainstream products.
> >> 
> >> yeah. Right. Obtain. Extinguish.
> > 
> > The only thing that Apple has extinguished is the Windows version. 
> 
> Check the pricing of the Mac and Linux versions.

Apple has extinguished the Linux version by leaving its price untouched?

> > This is
> > quite understandable; why should Apple be interested in making Microsoft's
> > proprietary platform a better choice for this market? A lot of the Windows
> > Shake users probably ended up on Linux, so I don't see what there is for a
> > Linux advocate to complain about.
> 
> Check the pricing of the Mac and Linux versions

-- 
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just 
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
                          -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

In article <znu-5F0585.09523112102003@news.fu-berlin.de>, ZnU wrote:
> I think it's silly to try to paint Linux's success in certain segments of
> the editing market as a failure on Apple's part. First, it's not as if
> Linux is replacing the Mac in this market; it's mostly replacing IRIX and,
> in some cases, NT. Secondly, Apple has done very well for itself in
> another (much larger) segment of the editing market, with Final Cut Pro.

But how long will that hold?  When a studio looks around and sees cheap
Linux boxes being used for everything except editing, and expensive Macs
with FCP being used for editing...it's not going to be long before they
start having their in-house developers contribute to an open source editing
program, and in a few years, editing becomes yet another thing Apple *used*
to be the leader in.

-- 
Evidence Eliminator is worthless.  See evidence-eliminator-sucks.com
--Tim Smith

In article <pan.2003.10.12.13.12.50.182163@none.com>, Rick
<rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:14:37 -0600, Oxford wrote:
> 
> > In article Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> > no joke sherlock... but apple was the first to sucessfully bring this
> >> > "open" software to the masses... apple/woz was able to bring the price
> >> > if a computer WAY DOWN, and attractively package a product normal
> >> > people could and WOULD use... that had never been done before, and is
> >> > the very reason you are using a machine today...
> >> 
> >> Way down? Do you have any idea what an Apple // with a disk drive cost?
> >> It was close to $2000.
> > 
> > Sounds like you weren't around during that era... Woz made some GENIUS
> > level reductions in chip accounts that allowed for the $2,000 price point
> > to be reached... a CP/M machine WITH a Floppy was $12,000 at the time,
> > Apple was the FIRST to introduce an afforable floppy for just $495. Most
> > users were using paper tape or cassette before that happened.
> 
> You may now tell us when you purchased your first Apple //. Here's some
> clues. From 1977-1979 Apple //s did indeed cost around $1200. In 1979, the
> disk drive was introduced which raised the price by $500. While Woz has
> been justifiably called a genius for the design, the drive was also called
> obscenely profitable. Compare Apple's prices to Commodore and Atari.
> 
I remember those days well.  I wanted an Apple, but couldn't afford it. 
So I bought an Atari.

But I also remember that while Atari and Commodore were battling for
the bottom in pricing, Apple was still way up there.  As you may have
noticed, Apple is still here and making money, which is much more than
you can say for either of the other two.

BTW, the floppy for the Atari 400/800's was about $525 in those days.

Lloyd

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 10:32:53 -0400, ZnU wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.10.12.14.03.59.516697@none.com>,
>  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:40:18 -0400, ZnU wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <pan.2003.10.12.06.29.36.753077@none.com>,
>> >  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:12:23 -0400, ZnU wrote:
>> > 
>> >> >> > That's right, Shake is a fairly obscure app. It has become
>> >> >> > somewhat less obscure now that Apple is offering it up at a
>> >> >> > reduced price to the Mac market, but it's still got much
>> >> >> > narrower appeal than, say, Final Cut Pro.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> HAha ahahaha HAha HAhahah ah... you are seriously trying to say
>> >> >> Shake has become less 'obscure' because Apple bought it???? HAhAHA
>> >> >> ahahaha HAHA HAha HAHaH
>> >> > 
>> >> > Are you seriously saying it *hasn't*? I doubt you had even *heard*
>> >> > of Shake before Apple bought it.
>> >> 
>> >> -I- am not in movie production. Judging by what I've read, industry
>> >> people were aware of it and used it before Apple bought Nothing Real.
>> > 
>> > It was getting some use, obviously, but it was mostly confined to the
>> > larger studios.
>> 
>> It was confined to the making heavy use of computers.
> 
> Practically everyone working with video or film now makes extensive use of
> computers. I suppose there are still a few people doing artistic work who
> prefer an all-analog process, but they're not significant targets of
> current product development.

We are talking about the making of major motion pictures. Keep up.

> 
>> > Look, the fact that it wasn't on the Mac tells you everything you need
>> > to know; practically all the little guys are using Macs now, so if
>> > something related to video production isn't on the Mac, it's probably
>> > not targeted at the general market.
>> 
>> Yeah. Right. If it isn't written for the Mac, it isn't widely used in an
>> industry. Try to remember that 'Hollywood' is switching from forms of
>> UNIx to Linux.
> 
> If it isn't written for the Mac, is isn't widely used by the majority of
> the film/video editing market. Just to reiterate, Hollywood does *not*
> account for the majority of the film and video editing done in the world,
> and, in fact, has very different needs from practically everyone else.

We are talking about the making of major motion pictures.

> 
>> >> >> Why the hell do you think Apple bought Nothing Real?
>> >> > 
>> >> > Because their particular obscure market happened to be one that
>> >> > Apple thought could be a profitable niche, and possibly because
>> >> > Apple thought some of their intellectual property could be useful
>> >> > in its more mainstream products.
>> >> 
>> >> yeah. Right. Obtain. Extinguish.
>> > 
>> > The only thing that Apple has extinguished is the Windows version.
>> 
>> Check the pricing of the Mac and Linux versions.
> 
> Apple has extinguished the Linux version by leaving its price untouched?

Apple is trying to kill the Linux version while trying to look like a
'good guy' by slashing the Mac version prices.

> 
>> > This is
>> > quite understandable; why should Apple be interested in making
>> > Microsoft's proprietary platform a better choice for this market? A
>> > lot of the Windows Shake users probably ended up on Linux, so I don't
>> > see what there is for a Linux advocate to complain about.
>> 
>> Check the pricing of the Mac and Linux versions

-- 
Rick

As ZnU so eloquently gibbered on Sun, 12 Oct 2003 at 13:33 GMT:

> In article <slrnboici2.55a.sinister@home.harry.net>,
>  Sinister Midget <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote:
> 
>> As ZnU so eloquently gibbered on Sun, 12 Oct 2003 at 02:11 GMT:
>> 
>> > In article <slrnbohc9o.25s.sinister@home.harry.net>,
>> >  Sinister Midget <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> As ZnU so eloquently gibbered on Sun, 12 Oct 2003 at 01:29 GMT:
>> >> 
>> >> > In article <pan.2003.10.11.23.48.50.493305@none.com>,
>> >> >  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 17:55:30 -0400, ZnU wrote:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > In article <pan.2003.10.11.20.55.31.396822@none.com>,
>> >> >> >  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:00:00 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> > In article Sinister Midget <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> >> Wow! For $1,000 I can have unlimited clients connecting to my 
>> >> >> >> >> server?
>> >> >> >> >> (It only costs me $500 to /have/ server software from the same
>> >> >> >> >> source!) Well, I'd imagine I could't do something like that with 
>> >> >> >> >> any
>> >> >> >> >> reliability on a little ol' iMac. So what is the hardware to 
>> >> >> >> >> allow
>> >> >> >> >> unlimited clients going to run? $1500? $2500?
>> >> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> >> Wait......I can do that already, plus all of the other stuff they
>> >> >> >> >> mention, plus quite a few other things! How is this possible on a 
>> >> >> >> >> PC
>> >> >> >> >> I built myself for under $500 and a free download?
>> >> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> >> I don't dislike Mac. My wife has one. I want one. But I'm not 
>> >> >> >> >> going
>> >> >> >> >> to be fooled by a bunch of marketing pap. MICROS~1 is much better 
>> >> >> >> >> at
>> >> >> >> >> using the language of feeeeeeeeeechure-push, and they can't trick 
>> >> >> >> >> me
>> >> >> >> >> either.
>> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> > well if you don't value your time... you have a point... but $999 
>> >> >> >> > is
>> >> >> >> > exceedinly cheap compared to the alternatives... linux has never 
>> >> >> >> > been
>> >> >> >> > free if you think to include the time learning/maintaining it... 
>> >> >> >> > OSX
>> >> >> >> > server gets rid of the learning/maintaining portion... again, a 
>> >> >> >> > good
>> >> >> >> > deal if you place "value" on your time...
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> You may now tell us how many people are born with the knowledge it 
>> >> >> >> takes
>> >> >> >> to install and maintain OS X server. You can also tell us how many
>> >> >> >> people are born with the knowledge to run a Mac.
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > That's too simplistic a view.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> No, it isn't. It takes time to learn an OS. It takes time to learn
>> >> >> anything.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > To be a competent administrator, you need to understand things at two
>> >> >> > different levels. First, you have to have an understanding of the 
>> >> >> > concepts
>> >> >> > involved -- you need to have a grasp of how TCP/IP networks are 
>> >> >> > organized,
>> >> >> > you need to know what sort of things a web server does, you need to
>> >> >> > understand what user accounts are, etc.
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > Second, you need to know the *mechanics* of the specific system 
>> >> >> > you're
>> >> >> > using. What steps do you take to install an application? How do you 
>> >> >> > revoke
>> >> >> > a user's privileges?
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> All of that has to be learned, first generally and second specifically 
>> >> >> for
>> >> >> the OS you are using.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > OS X Server isn't going to do you much good if you don't understand 
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > concepts. Its strength is that it largely eliminates the need to read 
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > manual in order to learn the mechanics -- all of that is discoverable 
>> >> >> > if
>> >> >> > you just poke around the GUI for a few minutes.
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > [snip]
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> And I suppose you can't learn anything by poking around and of the menu
>> >> >> systems in Linux?
>> >> > 
>> >> > In terms of server administration? Not really. I haven't yet seen a 
>> >> > Linux server distro that provides a coherent, discoverable GUI which 
>> >> > allows the user to configure and monitor a wide variety of services.
>> >> 
>> >> At least you admit your problem. Try:
>> >> 
>> >> clarkconnect
>> >> smoothwall
>> >> astaro security linux
>> > 
>> > These are products for turning computers into firewalls; they're not 
>> > general purpose server operating systems with complete, coherent GUI 
>> > configuration and monitoring tools.
>> 
>> ClarkConnect:
>> 
>> "ClarkConnect  transforms standard PC hardware into a dedicated
>> broadband gateway and easy-to-use server."
>> 
>> http://www.clarkconnect.org/info/index.html
>> 
>> I'll give you the other 2 for now. I don't feel like bothering with it
>> at the moment, and it appears you're right in the way they state
>> things. I can tell you they have server elements, though they don't
>> tout those since they aren't primary features.
> 
> Well, it's hard to tell from screenshots, but it doesn't look like 
> ClarkConnect gives you nearly as much flexibility in terms of GUI 
> configuration as OS X Server. I'd call it a server applience operating 
> system, whereas OS X Server is a full-featured server OS that just 
> happens to be easy to use.
> 
> For instance, compare the options you get for Apache configuration:
> 
> http://www.clarkconnect.org/info/screenshots/home_2-0_apache.html
> http://www.apple.com/server/pdfs/L31749A_WebHost_TB_final.pdf

It's configured from an effin' browser. If you want MORE configuration
options, install and use Webmin (I did) or linuxconf.

>> >> redhat enterprise server
>> > 
>> > Although I haven't used this, the impression I get from reading the docs 
>> > is that it uses a bunch of different GUI configuration tools, not one 
>> > coherent, discoverable interface that's ready to go out of the box. For 
>> > instance, if you look in the section of the manual related to LDAP, it 
>> > starts pointing you to third-party tools, for which you need to refer to 
>> > other documentation. Contrast with OS X Server:
>> > http://www.apple.com/server/pdfs/L31755A_OpenDirect2_TB_final.pdf
>> 
>> I mention Webmin. I mention Linuxconf. Both give you a single thing to
>> point at if that's what you need. Both can be used remotely, so you can
>> have themachine on the other side of the world, or in the basement, or
>> a closet or wherever. They allow local access and configuration as
>> well. So, there's your one-size-fits-all tool if it makes you more
>> comfortable. 2 of them.
>> 
>> Who cares if the tools come integratd or are available on the CD when
>> you install?
> 
> People who don't want to waste time tracking down all the parts they 
> need and reading HOWTOs to figure out how to make everything talk to 
> everything else.

OK. At install time you choose to install Webmin. Now you have it if
you want it. Why is that supposed to be so hard? /AND/ it leaves it as
a choice for those not wanting it at all.

>> Some people hate those things altogether. Some people prefer 
>> individual tools that do one or two things well, not something that 
>> tries to do everything. Soem people don't even want a GUI to look at 
>> on a server. Linux is about /choices/ as well as stability, low cost, 
>> etc.
>> 
>> > Look, I've administered *nix servers in the past, and while I'm 
>> > sure there's been some progress, I think I still have a pretty good 
>> > idea of what's required. Every time you need to do something new, 
>> > you waste a few hours poking through HOWTOs and Usenet archives 
>> > trying to figure it out. That just isn't necessary with OS X 
>> > Server.
>> 
>> See above. I repeat, it appears it /has/ been awhile.
>> 
>> I haven't had to look at documentation for anything in some time. 
>> Most of the time I've used any docs, it's been for manually playing 
>> with something because I wanted to manually play with it. I'm lazy 
>> when it comes to reading how to do stuff. If I can do it without 
>> reading, practically any non-windoze-using moron can pull it off. 
>> (Winders users *can* be taught usually, but they require a lot of 
>> time getting rid of bad habits first.)
>> 
>> >> to name but a few.
>> >> 
>> >> In addition, several others have the tools available. For example,
>> >> nearly all can run webmin, a /browser/ interface that configures all
>> >> sorts of system functions, servers, runs commandline instances, etc,
>> >> etc, etc. Most all come with GUI tools (assuming you want to
>> >> point'n'drool away) that cover nearly anything, though not necessarily
>> >> all in a single package. Several come with linuxconf, which runs from
>> >> either a point'n'slobber interface or within the console sans GUI
>> >> interface (both available from the same installation).
>> > 
>> > Heh. I just knew someone was going to try to pass off webmin as 
>> > equivalent to what OS X Server ships with. I don't know why I bother 
>> > with these discussions.
>> 
>> Who said equivalent? I said it does it. Did I use the word equivalent
>> somewhere?
>> 
>> These tools do the job. You might not like them. They might not put
>> things right where you want them or call them by names you like, but
>> they do the job.
>> 
>> That was what I was addressing.
> 
> Heh. You can also just do the job by typing commands and editing config 
> files. It's just less pleasant, and more time consuming. That's why 
> people buy OS X Server.

You can do it manually on linux. You can do it graphically on linux.
You can use manual for some things and graphical for another. You can
use whichever one you happen to be in the mood to use at any given
time. Is this *that* hard to understand?

>> >> I think the real source of the problem is that you just haven't looked
>> >> closely at a linux server distro in a long, long while. Not that you
>> >> really should need to look at any. But if you're going to discuss them,
>> >> it helps to have dealt with them before pretending to know the subject
>> >> at hand.
>> 
>> See above.
> 


-- 
"One world, one web, one program"  -- Microsoft promotional ad
"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer"  -- Adolf Hitler

In article <wIdib.7590$av5.3653@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
 Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> In article <znu-5F0585.09523112102003@news.fu-berlin.de>, ZnU wrote:
> > I think it's silly to try to paint Linux's success in certain 
> > segments of the editing market as a failure on Apple's part. First, 
> > it's not as if Linux is replacing the Mac in this market; it's 
> > mostly replacing IRIX and, in some cases, NT. Secondly, Apple has 
> > done very well for itself in another (much larger) segment of the 
> > editing market, with Final Cut Pro.
> 
> But how long will that hold?  When a studio looks around and sees 
> cheap Linux boxes being used for everything except editing, and 
> expensive Macs with FCP being used for editing...it's not going to be 
> long before they start having their in-house developers contribute to 
> an open source editing program, and in a few years, editing becomes 
> yet another thing Apple *used* to be the leader in.

I think you're concentrating too much on the large studios. Large 
studios have always used a mix of tools on a mix of platforms. Macs can 
usually be found somewhere, but they're often not in the majority. This 
will probably always be the case, though OS X has lead to some new 
adoption.

Most of the world's editing is not done at large studios, and most of 
the copies of FCP being sold are not being sold to large studios. These 
smaller shops probably aren't using Linux for anything right now, and 
don't have the resources for in-house development.

Anyway, the up-front price difference between a Mac and a Linux box for 
pro-level editing is not all that large, and not all that significant 
as part of the entire cost of making a movie.

-- 
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just 
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
                          -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

In article <pan.2003.10.12.14.56.41.375908@none.com>,
 Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 10:32:53 -0400, ZnU wrote:
> 
> > In article <pan.2003.10.12.14.03.59.516697@none.com>,
> >  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:40:18 -0400, ZnU wrote:
> >> 
> >> > In article <pan.2003.10.12.06.29.36.753077@none.com>,
> >> >  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:12:23 -0400, ZnU wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> >> > That's right, Shake is a fairly obscure app. It has become
> >> >> >> > somewhat less obscure now that Apple is offering it up at a
> >> >> >> > reduced price to the Mac market, but it's still got much
> >> >> >> > narrower appeal than, say, Final Cut Pro.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> HAha ahahaha HAha HAhahah ah... you are seriously trying to say
> >> >> >> Shake has become less 'obscure' because Apple bought it???? HAhAHA
> >> >> >> ahahaha HAHA HAha HAHaH
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Are you seriously saying it *hasn't*? I doubt you had even *heard*
> >> >> > of Shake before Apple bought it.
> >> >> 
> >> >> -I- am not in movie production. Judging by what I've read, industry
> >> >> people were aware of it and used it before Apple bought Nothing Real.
> >> > 
> >> > It was getting some use, obviously, but it was mostly confined to the
> >> > larger studios.
> >> 
> >> It was confined to the making heavy use of computers.
> > 
> > Practically everyone working with video or film now makes extensive use of
> > computers. I suppose there are still a few people doing artistic work who
> > prefer an all-analog process, but they're not significant targets of
> > current product development.
> 
> We are talking about the making of major motion pictures. Keep up.

Well, you're trying to restrict the discussion only to major motion 
pictures, because you realize that Linux isn't really being used much by 
the wider video/film market.

[snip]

-- 
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just 
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
                          -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

Tim Smith wrote:
> In article <bmapbp$k6mop$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider wrote:
> 
>>Apple takes claim for work done on Linux (such as much of the editing and
>>effects for Lord of the Rings) boxes, when not one Mac was being used as
>>either workstation or renderfarm node. Why? Because they bought the
>>software company after the movie came out. Most of the boxes were running
>>Linux, some Irix, not one Mac.
> 
> 
> It's even better....they bought the software company, and they changed the
> prices so that the Linux version costs twice as much upfront as the OS X
> version, and also has an annual license fee of something like $1500 per seat
> as opposed to $0 for the OS X version, and I think they might have even
> discontinued improvements to the Linux version, and still it is the Linux
> version that people want to use.

Cheap hardware scales *much* better than expensive hardware. Can you 
imagine a renderfarm made up of Macs? Talk about expensive! Even fairly 
low end Macs (in the few hundred mhz range) would cost more than a cheap 
PC in the Ghz range like mine. They'd have to be insane to use that 
hardware if they wanted to get any work done, even if they pay more for 
the software! Cheap hardware is easy to replace if something goes wrong.

> 
> Apple seems to think Shake is the only option, and so they can use
> ridiculous pricing to force people to switch to Apple hardware.  They are
> wrong.  First, there are commercial alternatives to Shake, such as Nuke from
> Digital Domain.  Second, some studios have written their own in-house tools
> and use those instead.  ILM, for example, has their own compositing tool,
> which they use on Linux.

Yep, and not to mention that all the other computer tools the movie 
industry is using are being movied to Linux, those that aren't already 
there anyway.

> 
> Worse for Apple...there are studios funding open source tool development
> now, and having their own programmers work on those tools.  The studios have
> realized that they are better paying to improve open source tools, even if
> that means the competing studios also benefit--the old "a rising tide floats
> all boats" theory.

Yep, isn't it great!

> 
> Linux on x86 is the dominant platform in Hollywood now.  Hell, even for
> Photoshop, Linux is the platform of choice now...running the Windows version
> of Photoshop under Wine.  Development of this was funded by Disney and a
> couple other studios.

Yeah. I personally think it's funny how some people assume that we don't 
*have* Photoshop, just because we talk up GIMP. Of course the reason we 
promote GIMP over Photoshop isn't that we have it and not Photoshop, 
it's that it's OSS and Photoshop isn't. We'll always prefer OSS to CSS, 
but some people will never understand that. I hope the Mac guys are 
getting it though, they seem to be starting to get an idea that OSS 
might be a good concept anyway...

> 
> This might all seem kind of surprising (Apple losing to Linux as the
> platform for Photoshop...who would have expected *that* a few years ago?),
> but when you think about it some, it is not that surprising at all.  Apple's
> selling point is nice interfaces and easy to use hardware that doesn't have
> a lot of configuration problems.  Do either of those really matter for most
> film work?

Personally I don't think it matters period. If you think about it people 
don't really want "all the same, perfectly consistant" stuff. People 
like being able to pick and choose stuff, they like being able to choose 
how something looks, they like to customise, they like to personalise. 
Children like consistency....which explains why McDonalds, and bad 
cartoons with the same story over and over, are so popular...but they 
mostly grow out of that. People like variety and choice. And that's what 
Linux brings to the table and Apple snubs completely.

Besides, if you want a nice, super hyper eye candy, consistant 
interface....you can have it in Linux just as easily as on the Mac.

But anyway...back to Hollyweird...

> 
> Let's take hardware first.  These will be machines set up for the end users
> by the IS department.  Users aren't adding and removing hardware.  There is
> not much difference between a Mac, a Dell, an HP, and IBM, or the cheap
> machine of the week down at Fry's in a case like this.  Spec out what you
> want, buy them, configure them, and drop them on people's desks.
> 
> That's for the workstations.  For rendering, you want speed and you want
> good price/performance.  Macs, with the G5, are now comparable in speed to
> x86, at a much higher price.  What this means is that if you buy Macs, you
> tend to have to use them longer...and that hurts.  That's what nailed Sun
> and SGI for rendering...if you have to keep your render machines for, say, 6
> years on average, you are, on average, using machines that are 3 years
> old.  If you only have to keep your machines 2 years on average, your
> average machine is 1 year old.  A 3 year old Sun or SGI *might* beat a 3
> year old PC, but it gets smoked by a 1 year old PC.  Same for Macs.

Yep. As I said, cheap hardware scales, expensive hardware doesn't. It's 
nowhere near as bad with software actually, even with expensive software.

> 
> How about Apple's interface advantage?  On the workstation, you have people
> sitting in one or two applications all day.  Finder vs. the KDE desktop or
> the GNOME desktop (or Explorer on Windows for that matter) doesn't matter.
> 
> For the most part, if an app is available for OS X and Linux and Windows, it
> is going to be pretty much the same interface on all...the file dialogs will
> be different, and the widgets look different, but those differences are all
> trivial.
> 
> Apple's early slogan, "The computer for the rest of us", really is accurate.
> Their strengths fit best in with people who are relatively inexperienced
> computer users who want a computer as a general purpose machine to do a
> bunch of different tasks (internet, email, manage personal information,
> organize photos, manage music, etc.)...basically, the home user.  When you
> are using the computer for a specialized task with just a couple of
> applications, they don't really have an advantage, and they cost too much.

Though Linux can be just as good for home use too I've found. Even 
people with no, or little, computer experience can have no real trouble 
with KDE or GNOME.

> 
> The fundamental long term problem Apple faces is that their strength is the
> inexperienced user...and that user is becoming less and less common.  Kids
> come out of school now familiar with Windows (and Linux in some cases!).  If
> someone already knows Windows or KDE or GNOME, the Mac is a lot less
> compelling.


That's true too, computers and computerised technology used to be 
foreign things, but now you have adults who have grown up with such 
technology, and kids to whom it is just a normal part of life...

It's no more strange than working a light switch anymore. We don't need 
training wheel operating systems as much anymore.


-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

Tim Smith wrote:
> In article <85e6a24a.0310112041.29f11501@posting.google.com>, TeXGuY wrote:
> 
>>Remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
> 
> 
> Historically, people that follow that often end up in one of two positions:
> being stabbed in the back by a "friend", or stabbing a "friend" in the back.
> 
> A correct statement would be "the enemy of my enemy is someone who is known
> to have one common goal with me out of thousands of other goals, and may or
> may not agree with me on those other thousands of goals", but that isn't as
> catchy a tag line.

I prefer "the enemy of my enemy has temporarily similar interests."

> 
> For recent examples, consider all of the horrible governments the United
> States support in the last half of the last century because they were
> opposed to communism.
> 

Actually that was more of a case of "they are my ally, because if they 
weren't they'd be my enemy's ally." And the Cold War was no minor squabble.

-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

Tim Smith wrote:
> In article <m1ad871npv.fsf@g3.com>, Edward Dodge wrote:
> 
>>These costs you are referring to are known in the business as "Total Cost
>>of Ownership" (aka "TCO").  Every non-Microsoft-funded study I have read
>>show TCO to always be lower with Macs *and* Linux with respect to Windows.
> 
> 
> The TCO studies funded by people offering Mac or Linux solutions find those
> solutions are cheaper than Windows?  Wow!
> 

The TCO studies by independant parties also find Mac or Linux solutions 
to be cheaper than Windows...

-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

ZnU wrote:
<snip>
> 
> If it isn't written for the Mac, is isn't widely used by the majority
> of the film/video editing market. Just to reiterate, Hollywood does
> *not* account for the majority of the film and video editing done in
> the world, and, in fact, has very different needs from practically
> everyone else.

Right, these days most video editing done in the world is home movies....


-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica,
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> In article <bmaq8p$kn3mn$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
> <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>>Sure, but I don't like Linux, remember??  <G>
>>>
>>>Besides, I just got a Powerbook (used G3/333) and loaded Panther on it,
>>>then proceeded to load the rest of the stuff I want on it.  It was
>>>easier that any other load of software on any platform.
>>>
>>>OfficeX -- copy the folder -- its ready to go.  Didn't even have to
>>>re-enter my key code.
>>>
>>>Appleworks -- same thing
>>>
>>>Acrobat -- well had to install this one.  But I only use reader on the
>>>laptop.  I use it for a demo of a solution for k-12 schools that I do.
>>>
>>>I didn't move the newsreader over because I don't use the laptop for
>>>it.  The only thing I haven't moved yet is Keynote.  I'm not sure I'll
>>>need it.
>>>
>>>Under Linux, I don't think you can do that as easily. 
>>
>>
>>Actually it should be. All that software (well, similar software anyway) 
>>can usually be installed at the same time the OS is installed. No muss 
>>no fuss.
>>
> 
> I'll admit its been awhile since I've done a Linux load, but I wasn't
> aware that OpenOffice (is that the name?) was part of the load
> sequence.  I thought it was still seperate.

Didn't have to install seperate on my preload, or on my grandfather's 
computer when I installed SuSE on his machine. I suppose some distros do 
some don't. Many distributing at least give you an option during install 
of various "classes" of software, including office software. I know my 
old Mandrake box had KOffice on it from the start.

> 
> 
>>>And of course,
>>>Linux GUI is butt-ugly! <G>
>>
>>Then why does Apple want X11 apps? :-)
> 
> 
> Probably to do 2 things.
> 
> 1.  Fill some holes in available software

So you're saying that Linux has a wider selection of software...good to 
see *someone* admit that kind of thing around here!

> 2.  Support OSS

They wouldn't do it if there wasn't money in it for them.

-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

ZnU wrote:
> In article <bmaqes$kbbbc$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Wade Williams wrote:
>>
>>>In article <bma4a3$kbftp$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
>>><liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Also Shake is owned by Nothing Real. Apple may *have* a version that 
>>>>they sell, but they don't *own* it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nice going there you film industry guru you
>>>
>>>Shake is most definitely owned by Apple.  
>>
>>
>>Yeah yeah, I've been corrected. I also noted that Apple did not aquire 
>>Nothing Real tiill after the movie came out. So they had *nothing* to do 
>>with it, even though claims to the contrary. And not a single mac was 
>>used in the process, not one. All Linux boxes except a couple Irix boxes.
>>
>>
>>>I believe they're still maintaining the Linux version for now, but the
>>>writing is on the wall.  If you want to continue to be a Shake user,
>>>you're going to need a Mac eventually.
>>
>>
>>Bah, the rest of the film industry is moving to Linux for 3d graphics, 
>>editing, and effects. Apple will be hard pressed to sell shake I think.
> 
> 
> Some Hollywood studios are moving to Linux for certain tasks. 

Especially special effects editing and 3d work.

> In the 
> larger editing market, Final Cut Pro has been a huge success, and Linux 
> does not seem to be making inroads. 

That'll change. The big studios are moving more and more systems to Linux.


>In the 3D market, OS X accounts for 
> more than 1/4 of all Maya sales, even though it's still quite new to the 
> platform.

This isn't that impressive really.

-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

In article <bmc037$kotck$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
 Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> ZnU wrote:
> <snip>
> > 
> > If it isn't written for the Mac, is isn't widely used by the majority
> > of the film/video editing market. Just to reiterate, Hollywood does
> > *not* account for the majority of the film and video editing done in
> > the world, and, in fact, has very different needs from practically
> > everyone else.
> 
> Right, these days most video editing done in the world is home movies....

Well, probably, but we're ignoring that segment of the market; those 
people aren't using Linux *or* FCP. I was thinking more of these sorts 
of people: http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/stories/

-- 
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just 
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
                          -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

In article <bmc0es$l2ph3$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
<liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > In article <bmaq8p$kn3mn$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
> > <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>>Sure, but I don't like Linux, remember??  <G>
> >>>
> >>>Besides, I just got a Powerbook (used G3/333) and loaded Panther on it,
> >>>then proceeded to load the rest of the stuff I want on it.  It was
> >>>easier that any other load of software on any platform.
> >>>
> >>>OfficeX -- copy the folder -- its ready to go.  Didn't even have to
> >>>re-enter my key code.
> >>>
> >>>Appleworks -- same thing
> >>>
> >>>Acrobat -- well had to install this one.  But I only use reader on the
> >>>laptop.  I use it for a demo of a solution for k-12 schools that I do.
> >>>
> >>>I didn't move the newsreader over because I don't use the laptop for
> >>>it.  The only thing I haven't moved yet is Keynote.  I'm not sure I'll
> >>>need it.
> >>>
> >>>Under Linux, I don't think you can do that as easily. 
> >>
> >>
> >>Actually it should be. All that software (well, similar software anyway) 
> >>can usually be installed at the same time the OS is installed. No muss 
> >>no fuss.
> >>
> > 
> > I'll admit its been awhile since I've done a Linux load, but I wasn't
> > aware that OpenOffice (is that the name?) was part of the load
> > sequence.  I thought it was still seperate.
> 
> Didn't have to install seperate on my preload, or on my grandfather's 
> computer when I installed SuSE on his machine. I suppose some distros do 
> some don't. Many distributing at least give you an option during install 
> of various "classes" of software, including office software. I know my 
> old Mandrake box had KOffice on it from the start.
> 
> > 
> > 
> >>>And of course,
> >>>Linux GUI is butt-ugly! <G>
> >>
> >>Then why does Apple want X11 apps? :-)
> > 
> > 
> > Probably to do 2 things.
> > 
> > 1.  Fill some holes in available software
> 
> So you're saying that Linux has a wider selection of software...good to 
> see *someone* admit that kind of thing around here!
> 
I didn't say there was a wider selection of software, maybe there is. 
But, for some, there are X11 apps that they like better, or maybe fills
in a gap.  Kind of like using gimp because Photoshop is overkill for
what they want to do.

> > 2.  Support OSS
> 
> They wouldn't do it if there wasn't money in it for them.

Absolutely!  I don't have a problem with that, I like working and
making money too, why shouldn't Apple?

Lloyd

In article <bmc0ln$kdpmc$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
<liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> ZnU wrote:
> > In article <bmaqes$kbbbc$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Wade Williams wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <bma4a3$kbftp$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
> >>><liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Also Shake is owned by Nothing Real. Apple may *have* a version that 
> >>>>they sell, but they don't *own* it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Nice going there you film industry guru you
> >>>
> >>>Shake is most definitely owned by Apple.  
> >>
> >>
> >>Yeah yeah, I've been corrected. I also noted that Apple did not aquire 
> >>Nothing Real tiill after the movie came out. So they had *nothing* to do 
> >>with it, even though claims to the contrary. And not a single mac was 
> >>used in the process, not one. All Linux boxes except a couple Irix boxes.
> >>
> >>
> >>>I believe they're still maintaining the Linux version for now, but the
> >>>writing is on the wall.  If you want to continue to be a Shake user,
> >>>you're going to need a Mac eventually.
> >>
> >>
> >>Bah, the rest of the film industry is moving to Linux for 3d graphics, 
> >>editing, and effects. Apple will be hard pressed to sell shake I think.
> > 
> > 
> > Some Hollywood studios are moving to Linux for certain tasks. 
> 
> Especially special effects editing and 3d work.
> 
> > In the 
> > larger editing market, Final Cut Pro has been a huge success, and Linux 
> > does not seem to be making inroads. 
> 
> That'll change. The big studios are moving more and more systems to Linux.
>
The little ones may not move so quick though.  From the little reading
I've done, it doesn't appear that Cinerella (or whatever..  <G>) is all
that easy to learn and use, and stability was mentioned as an issue in
the review I read.

> 
> >In the 3D market, OS X accounts for 
> > more than 1/4 of all Maya sales, even though it's still quite new to the 
> > platform.
> 
> This isn't that impressive really.

For a system that only has 3% or so of market share?  It damn well IS
impressive!

Lloyd

In article <bmapbp$k6mop$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
 Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> TeXGuY wrote:
> <snip>
> > It's time to welcome Apple people into the FOSS camp and show them
> > that they don't have to shell out money year after year all the time.
> > Show them a new way and don't treat them like the WinTrolls. Apple
> > folks have been beleagured minorities even longer than Linux people,
> > so they already know the MS drill.
> > 
> > Remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
> 
> Yeah but these guys are bringing monopolist tactics to the OSS 
> arena... 

No, they are not. You can't seem to get your head around the fact that
OS X subsumes both OSS and proprietary components, and the two coexist 
without being greatly changed.

> and spreading untruths about Linux, intentionally or unintentionally.

Almost without exception, unintentionally.

The exceptions are no different to the same type frothing from the Linux 
camp.

Both ought to be ignored, but aren't.

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:24:57 -0400, ZnU wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.10.12.14.56.41.375908@none.com>,
>  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 10:32:53 -0400, ZnU wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <pan.2003.10.12.14.03.59.516697@none.com>,
>> >  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:40:18 -0400, ZnU wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > In article <pan.2003.10.12.06.29.36.753077@none.com>,
>> >> >  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:12:23 -0400, ZnU wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> >> >> > That's right, Shake is a fairly obscure app. It has become
>> >> >> >> > somewhat less obscure now that Apple is offering it up at a
>> >> >> >> > reduced price to the Mac market, but it's still got much
>> >> >> >> > narrower appeal than, say, Final Cut Pro.
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> HAha ahahaha HAha HAhahah ah... you are seriously trying to say
>> >> >> >> Shake has become less 'obscure' because Apple bought it????
>> >> >> >> HAhAHA ahahaha HAHA HAha HAHaH
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > Are you seriously saying it *hasn't*? I doubt you had even
>> >> >> > *heard* of Shake before Apple bought it.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> -I- am not in movie production. Judging by what I've read,
>> >> >> industry people were aware of it and used it before Apple bought
>> >> >> Nothing Real.
>> >> > 
>> >> > It was getting some use, obviously, but it was mostly confined to
>> >> > the larger studios.
>> >> 
>> >> It was confined to the making heavy use of computers.
>> > 
>> > Practically everyone working with video or film now makes extensive
>> > use of computers. I suppose there are still a few people doing
>> > artistic work who prefer an all-analog process, but they're not
>> > significant targets of current product development.
>> 
>> We are talking about the making of major motion pictures. Keep up.
> 
> Well, you're trying to restrict the discussion only to major motion
> pictures, because you realize that Linux isn't really being used much by
> the wider video/film market.
> 
> [snip]

Don't tell me what I'm trying to do. We were speaking of major motion
picture studios. That is what is meant when you say 'Hollywood' is doing
something.
-- 
Rick

In article <mN9ib.7478$av5.1410@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
 Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> In article <85e6a24a.0310112041.29f11501@posting.google.com>, TeXGuY wrote:
> > Remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
> 
> Historically, people that follow that often end up in one of two positions:
> being stabbed in the back by a "friend", or stabbing a "friend" in the back.
> 
> A correct statement would be "the enemy of my enemy is someone who is known
> to have one common goal with me out of thousands of other goals, and may or
> may not agree with me on those other thousands of goals", but that isn't as
> catchy a tag line.
> 
> For recent examples, consider all of the horrible governments the United
> States support in the last half of the last century because they were
> opposed to communism.

Or those supported by the Soviets because they weren't...

In article <wIdib.7590$av5.3653@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
 Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> In article <znu-5F0585.09523112102003@news.fu-berlin.de>, ZnU wrote:
> > I think it's silly to try to paint Linux's success in certain segments of
> > the editing market as a failure on Apple's part. First, it's not as if
> > Linux is replacing the Mac in this market; it's mostly replacing IRIX and,
> > in some cases, NT. Secondly, Apple has done very well for itself in
> > another (much larger) segment of the editing market, with Final Cut Pro.
> 
> But how long will that hold?  When a studio looks around and sees cheap
> Linux boxes being used for everything except editing, and expensive Macs
> with FCP being used for editing...it's not going to be long before they
> start having their in-house developers contribute to an open source editing
> program, and in a few years, editing becomes yet another thing Apple *used*
> to be the leader in.

Except that paying their in-house developers is a lot more expensive 
than the price differential between Mac and those linux boxes.

Everyone seems to forget that decent software people are expensive to 
feed.

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 17:00:31 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> In article <bmc0ln$kdpmc$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
> <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
>> ZnU wrote:
>> > In article <bmaqes$kbbbc$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> > 
>> >>Wade Williams wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>In article <bma4a3$kbftp$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
>> >>><liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>Also Shake is owned by Nothing Real. Apple may *have* a version that
>> >>>>they sell, but they don't *own* it.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Nice going there you film industry guru you
>> >>>
>> >>>Shake is most definitely owned by Apple.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Yeah yeah, I've been corrected. I also noted that Apple did not aquire
>> >>Nothing Real tiill after the movie came out. So they had *nothing* to
>> >>do with it, even though claims to the contrary. And not a single mac
>> >>was used in the process, not one. All Linux boxes except a couple Irix
>> >>boxes.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>I believe they're still maintaining the Linux version for now, but
>> >>>the writing is on the wall.  If you want to continue to be a Shake
>> >>>user, you're going to need a Mac eventually.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Bah, the rest of the film industry is moving to Linux for 3d graphics,
>> >>editing, and effects. Apple will be hard pressed to sell shake I
>> >>think.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Some Hollywood studios are moving to Linux for certain tasks.
>> 
>> Especially special effects editing and 3d work.
>> 
>> > In the
>> > larger editing market, Final Cut Pro has been a huge success, and
>> > Linux does not seem to be making inroads.
>> 
>> That'll change. The big studios are moving more and more systems to
>> Linux.
>>
> The little ones may not move so quick though.  From the little reading
> I've done, it doesn't appear that Cinerella (or whatever..  <G>) is all
> that easy to learn and use, and stability was mentioned as an issue in the
> review I read.

Cinelerra  :-)
Maybe some studios will start working on it like the did with
GIMP/FilmGIMP/CinePaint... only quicker.

> 
> 
>> >In the 3D market, OS X accounts for
>> > more than 1/4 of all Maya sales, even though it's still quite new to
>> > the platform.
>> 
>> This isn't that impressive really.
> 
> For a system that only has 3% or so of market share?  It damn well IS
> impressive!
> 

3% of the general 'PC' market. What is the Mac's share of the various
graphics markets?

-- 
Rick

In article <pan.2003.10.12.17.11.00.518132@none.com>, Rick
<rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 17:00:31 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
> > In article <bmc0ln$kdpmc$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
> > <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> ZnU wrote:
> >> > In article <bmaqes$kbbbc$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> >> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> >>Wade Williams wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>In article <bma4a3$kbftp$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
> >> >>><liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>Also Shake is owned by Nothing Real. Apple may *have* a version that
> >> >>>>they sell, but they don't *own* it.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Nice going there you film industry guru you
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Shake is most definitely owned by Apple.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>Yeah yeah, I've been corrected. I also noted that Apple did not aquire
> >> >>Nothing Real tiill after the movie came out. So they had *nothing* to
> >> >>do with it, even though claims to the contrary. And not a single mac
> >> >>was used in the process, not one. All Linux boxes except a couple Irix
> >> >>boxes.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>I believe they're still maintaining the Linux version for now, but
> >> >>>the writing is on the wall.  If you want to continue to be a Shake
> >> >>>user, you're going to need a Mac eventually.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>Bah, the rest of the film industry is moving to Linux for 3d graphics,
> >> >>editing, and effects. Apple will be hard pressed to sell shake I
> >> >>think.
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > Some Hollywood studios are moving to Linux for certain tasks.
> >> 
> >> Especially special effects editing and 3d work.
> >> 
> >> > In the
> >> > larger editing market, Final Cut Pro has been a huge success, and
> >> > Linux does not seem to be making inroads.
> >> 
> >> That'll change. The big studios are moving more and more systems to
> >> Linux.
> >>
> > The little ones may not move so quick though.  From the little reading
> > I've done, it doesn't appear that Cinerella (or whatever..  <G>) is all
> > that easy to learn and use, and stability was mentioned as an issue in the
> > review I read.
> 
> Cinelerra  :-)
> Maybe some studios will start working on it like the did with
> GIMP/FilmGIMP/CinePaint... only quicker.
> 
Maybe.....

I wonder if they can get the ease of use that is so prevalent in mac
apps?  It will be interesting to watch.

> > 
> > 
> >> >In the 3D market, OS X accounts for
> >> > more than 1/4 of all Maya sales, even though it's still quite new to
> >> > the platform.
> >> 
> >> This isn't that impressive really.
> > 
> > For a system that only has 3% or so of market share?  It damn well IS
> > impressive!
> > 
> 
> 3% of the general 'PC' market. What is the Mac's share of the various
> graphics markets?

I dunno, but I'm sure someone will be sure to post that info soon!  ;-)

Lloyd

Steve Hix wrote:
> In article <bmapbp$k6mop$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>TeXGuY wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>>It's time to welcome Apple people into the FOSS camp and show them
>>>that they don't have to shell out money year after year all the time.
>>>Show them a new way and don't treat them like the WinTrolls. Apple
>>>folks have been beleagured minorities even longer than Linux people,
>>>so they already know the MS drill.
>>>
>>>Remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
>>
>>Yeah but these guys are bringing monopolist tactics to the OSS 
>>arena... 
> 
> 
> No, they are not. You can't seem to get your head around the fact that
> OS X subsumes both OSS and proprietary components, and the two coexist 
> without being greatly changed.

*Maybe* but I don't like some things that Apple has pulled. Very 
Mafiasoft-esque at times.

> 
> 
>>and spreading untruths about Linux, intentionally or unintentionally.
> 
> 
> Almost without exception, unintentionally
> 
> The exceptions are no different to the same type frothing from the Linux 
> camp.
> 
> Both ought to be ignored, but aren't.


They should still be corrected even if unintentional.

-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

ZnU wrote:
> In article <bmc037$kotck$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>ZnU wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>>If it isn't written for the Mac, is isn't widely used by the majority
>>>of the film/video editing market. Just to reiterate, Hollywood does
>>>*not* account for the majority of the film and video editing done in
>>>the world, and, in fact, has very different needs from practically
>>>everyone else.
>>
>>Right, these days most video editing done in the world is home movies....
> 
> 
> Well, probably, but we're ignoring that segment of the market; those 
> people aren't using Linux *or* FCP.

Yeah but it's the only one where Mac has a real (for now) major quality 
lead. One can take your iCrap out of the box, hook a camera to it, 
download your movie, burn it to DVD, and pop it in the DVD player. With 
a PC you probably have to go hardware shopping first, and go hunting for 
drivers/software. And the Mac made version might look a little prettier.

> I was thinking more of these sorts 
> of people: http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/stories/

Yeah, we've got stuff that'll start cutting into that industry soon too, 
due to it being free and running on cheap hardware and a free and easy 
to use (stop snickering!) OS.


-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

Lloyd Parsons wrote:
<snip>
>>>
>>>>>And of course,
>>>>>Linux GUI is butt-ugly! <G>
>>>>
>>>>Then why does Apple want X11 apps? :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>Probably to do 2 things.
>>>
>>>1.  Fill some holes in available software
>>
>>So you're saying that Linux has a wider selection of software...good to 
>>see *someone* admit that kind of thing around here!
>>
> 
> I didn't say there was a wider selection of software, maybe there is. 
> But, for some, there are X11 apps that they like better, or maybe fills
> in a gap.  Kind of like using gimp because Photoshop is overkill for
> what they want to do.

Or underkill. For some thing GIMP is superior to Photoshop. It depends 
on what you're doing with it. They aren't for *exactly* identical work.

> 
> 
>>>2.  Support OSS
>>
>>They wouldn't do it if there wasn't money in it for them.
> 
> 
> Absolutely!  I don't have a problem with that, I like working and
> making money too, why shouldn't Apple?

No reason, I'm just saying that you shouldn't make it sound like they 
are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. They are doing it out 
of the goodness of their wallets.


-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

In article Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> > 2.  Support OSS
> 
> They wouldn't do it if there wasn't money in it for them.

Wrong! 

Apple is the computer company least after "money" there is... it's as 
counter culture as you can get and still have a stock symbol... I 
completely disagree that Apple ever even "thought of": "let's support 
oss, so we can make money!"

That's just not what Apple has ever been about...

Sounds like you need to read up on Apple's role in all of this... it's 
just not what you think it is...

Oxford

-

ZnU wrote:
> 
> In terms of server administration? Not really. I haven't yet seen a 
> Linux server distro that provides a coherent, discoverable GUI which 
> allows the user to configure and monitor a wide variety of services.
> 

Now the $1000 question:
Is a GUI worth $1000 per machine, all other costs being similar, 
functionality being identical?

I'd say no.

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:12:16 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> In article Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
>> > 2.  Support OSS
>> 
>> They wouldn't do it if there wasn't money in it for them.
> 
> Wrong!
> 
> Apple is the computer company least after "money" there is... it's as

AHAH Ahah ahah HAha ahah ha HAHHAHA ha AHA hahahaha
Oh, you were serious.. how sad.

> counter culture as you can get and still have a stock symbol... I
> completely disagree that Apple ever even "thought of": "let's support oss,
> so we can make money!"

That is exactly what they said.

> 
> That's just not what Apple has ever been about...
> 
> Sounds like you need to read up on Apple's role in all of this... it's
> just not what you think it is...

You are the one that needs to read. Apple has the highest margins of any
personal computer maker.

-- 
Rick

Oxford wrote:
> In article  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>How about The Lord of the Rings. Yes, most of the editing and effects 
>>work was done on Linux.
> 
> 
> well that's certainly interesting since Apple owns Shake which created 
> much of the Lord of the Rings visual effects...

Agreed, Shake, from what I've heard, is pretty amazing for VFX.
And teamed with Maya for Linux, Shake for linux created the components 
of these effects (IE: Gollum, the Balrog, etc)

> http://www.apple.com/shake/stories/lotr2/index.html
> 
> http://www.apple.com/shake/
> 
> I'm not saying it wasn't done on linux, it's just a bit odd that Apple 
> owns the program they used to make it...

AND it has a Linux version.

For good reason - most studios use Linux, running Maya, Shake, and the like.

And oddly enough, it's hardware requirements are much more modest on 
Intel hardware/x86 Linux. 550 Mhz to 800 Mhz.

Linux:
- 550MHz Pentium III, Pentium 4, or AMD Athlon processor
- Red Hat Linux 7.2
- 256MB of RAM or more

Mac OS:
- Power Mac G4 or PowerBook G4 with 800MHz or faster PowerPC G4 
processor; or Xserve with 1GHz or faster PowerPC G4 processor
- Mac OS X v10.2.5
- QuickTime 6.1 or later
- 256MB of RAM or more

Liam Slider wrote:

> Who cares, who cares if they kill the Linux version too. We have OSS 
> stuff to do the same job now, on Linux. It'll just kill Apple as 
> competition in the movie industry.
> 

They won't - the Linux version is where they make their money!

begin on Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:09:45 +0000, Tim Smith wrote:

> support...so instead of calling the company and having someone come out the
> next day or so to diagnose and fix the broken machine when one died, they
> simply replaced it with one of the spares they kept around (when replacing
> expensive machines with cheap machines, you can afford to have a few
> spares), and then they'd drive down to Fry's and pick up another $500 PC
> when convenient.

Ahh, disposable computing is back again.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 13:10:53 GMT,
 Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@nospammac.com> wrote:
> In article <_B9ib.7477$av5.1025@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Tim
> Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <pan.2003.10.11.05.00.30.333916@nospamremarque.org>, David
>> Utidjian wrote:
>> > The comprehensive and functional administrative interface is where
>> > I think Apple can really differentiate itself from the other
>> > solutions that provide the same services (the BSDs, Linuxes, and
>> > proprietary Unixes). If they get that right... really right then
>> > they stand a chance of really moving into the server space.
>> 
>> I'm not sure how effective that will be.  Most of those programs are
>> pretty easy to configure already *if* you understand what the
>> programs do.  For example, take Apache.  The configuration file is a
>> plain text file, in a psuedo-XML format.  If you want to accomplish a
>> given thing with Apache, and understand that thing, then editing the
>> configuration file to specify what you want is pretty easy.  The hard
>> part is understanding what you want.
>> 
>> Front ends that manage the configuration files for you, and perhaps
>> provide a task-oriented interface can be great, but I'd still want to
>> have an administrator who understands the underlying tools at a deep
>> level, so that when something goes wrong or an unusual need arises,
>> it can be dealt with.
>> 
>> But if I've got an administrator who understands the tools deeply,
>> that administrator is probably almost as fast just editing
>> configuration files in vi or emacs as he would be using a front end
>> tool.
>> 
>> I think a friendly admin interface might help move into a particular
>> niche of the server space...the single server serving a small group
>> with simple needs.  I don't know how big that niche is.
>
> Pretty damn big niche, if you ask me.  All those little companies with
> 25 or fewer employees need networks as much as the big guys.  Single
> server is what they have or will get. (hopefully from ME! <G>)
>

That's what webmin is for. 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/iZ/Ud90bcYOAWPYRAgqqAKCYR3pF1LhLXDAZql6clXsBJhhoTgCgoXaM
ekSXePtE0VfwA8U7P2/87hU=
=bxOW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Take responsibility for your actions, put a lawyer out of buisness.

Liam Slider wrote:

> 
> It doesn't matter if it does have new code or not. It's being replaced 
> in the industry. Now I *may* be a bit off on it being Cinelerra that's 
> replacing it, I *think* that's the OSS app that's being adopted though. 
> it certainly has the power, capabilities, and usability.
> 
> 

I think it's more being replace with Shake for Linux....

StormDrain wrote:

> 
> 
> Apparently the movie industry watches their pocketbooks a little better. 
> They seem to avoid MS machines, which is understandable.
> 

I can see why.

99% done rendering... Finally after a month!!!

SHIT!!!! (guess what happened? Hint: Linux comes with a BSOD screensaver)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 13:08:12 GMT,
 Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@nospammac.com> wrote:
> In article <bmaq8p$kn3mn$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
><liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>
>

<snip>
 
>> 
>> Actually it should be. All that software (well, similar software anyway) 
>> can usually be installed at the same time the OS is installed. No muss 
>> no fuss.
>> 
> I'll admit its been awhile since I've done a Linux load, but I wasn't
> aware that OpenOffice (is that the name?) was part of the load
> sequence.  I thought it was still seperate.
>

Not with Debian, Gentoo, or RH9 at the very least. I *think* it's part
of Mdk8/9 also, but haven't used that in a while and don't recall. With
Debian and Gentoo, it's a one line command, with RH, if you have rhn,
it's a one liner, or if you use YUM. If you just have the disks, then
you have to insert the disk before your one liner. Of course, there are
GUI frontends for all the above for those so inclined. 


>> > And of course,
>> > Linux GUI is butt-ugly! <G>
>> 
>> Then why does Apple want X11 apps? :-)
>
> Probably to do 2 things.
>
> 1.  Fill some holes in available software
> 2.  Support OSS
>
> Lloyd


laudable goals both. 

I came >this< close to buying a TiBook last year instead of my Dell
laptop. Frankly, the  two reasons I chose the Dell, were the damn 1
button trackpad on the Mac, and the better Linux support on the Dell.
(at the time anyway) 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/iaGxd90bcYOAWPYRAloFAKDSgYmIB0jrf1Bshg3SiVcu7//ClACfUT0o
abEuA7gmh8aMKuJeFD1o8GU=
=ODi/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"You have grown old in the fine art of bastardy.  My compliments."
-Suresh Ramasubramanian

In article Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:

> > Apple is the computer company least after "money" there is... it's as
> 
> AHAH Ahah ahah HAha ahah ha HAHHAHA ha AHA hahahaha
> Oh, you were serious.. how sad.

I'm serious because it's totally correct... you can't to point to one 
instance where Apple did something for "money"... it's just not the 
purpose of the company... never has been, probably never will be...

Looks like the joke is on you...

If Apple was after money, it would be modeled more like DeLL or MS... 
neither is the case... and for GOOD REASON...

> > counter culture as you can get and still have a stock symbol... I
> > completely disagree that Apple ever even "thought of": "let's support oss,
> > so we can make money!"
> 
> That is exactly what they said.

Who? Who is they? Hate to break the news to you, but steve makes all the 
directional decisions, and I really can't see him doing it for monetary  
reasons... if so, it would be huge shift in his goals for Apple...

Maybe your thinking about Bill Gates? That's different person, mirror 
opposite goals...

> > That's just not what Apple has ever been about...
> > 
> > Sounds like you need to read up on Apple's role in all of this... it's
> > just not what you think it is...
> 
> You are the one that needs to read. Apple has the highest margins of any
> personal computer maker.

But that has nothing to do with the goal of making money... that's just 
a side benefit... I think you are confused... it has ALL to do with 
building up the bank account to purchase key componets to build a great 
machine and for a protracted war in the future... 

I really think you have Apple confused with more common styles of 
business...

Oxford

-

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 04:46:52 GMT,
 Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@nospammac.com> wrote:
> In article <pan.2003.10.12.04.35.02.31237@none.com>, Rick
>

<snip>
 
>> Linux does those things easily.
>> 
> Sure, but I don't like Linux, remember??  <G>
>
> Besides, I just got a Powerbook (used G3/333) and loaded Panther on it,
> then proceeded to load the rest of the stuff I want on it.  It was
> easier that any other load of software on any platform.
>
> OfficeX -- copy the folder -- its ready to go.  Didn't even have to
> re-enter my key code.
>
> Appleworks -- same thing
>

apt-get install appfoo. Or if you prefer, rt click on the package in
konqueror's file browser, and select "kpackage" and install. There are
several other GUI front ends. Please note that kpackage, abstracts the
package management system, it's the same to the user on rpm systems, and
on deb systems. (To be honest, I haven't tried it installing .tgz files,
I usually do my stuff from the CLI. My servers usually don't even have a
GUI installed.)
 

> Acrobat -- well had to install this one.  But I only use reader on the
> laptop.  I use it for a demo of a solution for k-12 schools that I do.
>

apt-get install appfoo. See above. 

> I didn't move the newsreader over because I don't use the laptop for
> it.  The only thing I haven't moved yet is Keynote.  I'm not sure I'll
> need it.
>
> Under Linux, I don't think you can do that as easily.  And of course,
> Linux GUI is butt-ugly! <G>
>


Your experience is long out of date wrt Linux methinks. It sounds like
you are comparing OSX, to Linux ca. OS8. 

>> > 
>> > In an earlier life my first linux was slackware.  Had to create the
>> > floppies from the soundblaster cd I had at the time.  Thought I would like
>> > it, even thought I should, but didn't.  Nothing has changed my mind.
>> > 
>> 
>> I bought a Soundblaster Live 5.1, put it in the tower and booted. RH,
>> during the boot sequence, notified me it had found the new card, and asked
>> if I wanted it set up. I did, and it was.
>> 
> You must be a young feller!  ;-)
>
> What seems like ages ago, there weren't any IDE anythings out there. 
> There was MFM and RLL for hard drive and SCSI for CDROMS.  Then
> Soundblaster took the market by storm with their new sound card that
> also had a CDROM to go with it.  Linux, at that time couldn't deal with
> it until AFTER you installed Linux and compiled the support into it. 
> Hence, you created a huge stack of floppies for the installation.
>
> I'm telling you it wasn't pretty!  
>

BTDT. 
What I did, rather than deal with floppies, was an install over samba.
Stuck the CDs in a diff machine, copied all the files to a shared
directory, then booted the RH5.0 boot floppy, and installed over smb.
Worked like a champ, although to be fair, it took me a couple of tries
to set up the shared directory on the windows host right. I didn't use
windows, and it was not exactly intuitive. 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/iaSJd90bcYOAWPYRAtINAJ9Y98tibzrP9cgqUCDpZ6hPgeQP8QCeNnlO
HhnDfh870ftULxVoxv60NRM=
=4FsZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
There's more than one way to skin a cat:
        Way number 15 -- Krazy Glue and a toothbrush.

Rick wrote:

> you said nothing to refute the statement that CinePaint is the most
> popular Open Source tool in Hollywood.
> 

Well, if you count the OS as a tool, Linux is ;-)

In article Ori <oridean@rogers-dot.com> wrote:

> Now the $1000 question:
> Is a GUI worth $1000 per machine, all other costs being similar, 
> functionality being identical?
> 
> I'd say no.

If you pay your admins less than minimum wage, i'd say no also, but if 
you pay them more... yes is obvious...

do you really think a measly $1000 doesn't pay itself back in a few 
weeks in terms of time/frustration?

look.... the days of the tinker toy GUI's like gnome/kde are over... you 
just haven't gotten the "memo"...

osx server could put whole waves of linux admins out of work...

YEAH!!! Freedom to the PEOPLE!!!

Oxford

-

In article Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:

> 3% of the general 'PC' market. What is the Mac's share of the various
> graphics markets?

the numbers are around this... those should be close...

80% print / publishing
30% video
20% web
55% photo

Oxford

-

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 13:04:30 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> In article Ori <oridean@rogers-dot.com> wrote:
> 
>> Now the $1000 question:
>> Is a GUI worth $1000 per machine, all other costs being similar,
>> functionality being identical?
>> 
>> I'd say no.
> 
> If you pay your admins less than minimum wage, i'd say no also, but if you
> pay them more... yes is obvious...
> 
> do you really think a measly $1000 doesn't pay itself back in a few weeks
> in terms of time/frustration?
> 
> look.... the days of the tinker toy GUI's like gnome/kde are over... you
> just haven't gotten the "memo"...
> 
> osx server could put whole waves of linux admins out of work...
> 
> YEAH!!! Freedom to the PEOPLE!!!
> 
> Oxford

Lets us know when you have actually used a current Linux distro.

-- 
Rick

In article 
<EQgib.92563$ko%.18808@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
 Ori <oridean@rogers-dot.com> wrote:

> ZnU wrote:
> > 
> > In terms of server administration? Not really. I haven't yet seen a 
> > Linux server distro that provides a coherent, discoverable GUI which 
> > allows the user to configure and monitor a wide variety of services.
> > 
> 
> Now the $1000 question:
> Is a GUI worth $1000 per machine, all other costs being similar, 
> functionality being identical?
> 
> I'd say no.

I'd say it depends. If the GUI and all the nice out-of-the box 
configuration allows you to get away with hiring fewer support people, 
it probably ends up paying for itself many times over.

Of course, there are also other reasons to buy OS X Server. It includes 
a bunch of nice tools for managing Mac workstations, for instance, that 
you can't get anywhere else.

-- 
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just 
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
                          -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:58:37 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> In article Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> 
>> > Apple is the computer company least after "money" there is... it's as
>> 
>> AHAH Ahah ahah HAha ahah ha HAHHAHA ha AHA hahahaha Oh, you were
>> serious.. how sad.
> 
> I'm serious because it's totally correct... you can't to point to one
> instance where Apple did something for "money"... 

They introduced the Mac at a much higher price than what thge designers
wanted. They rescinded he cloner's contracts. They keep the price of Macs
high.

> it's just not the
> purpose of the company... never has been, probably never will be...

The purpose of EVERY publicly traded company is to make money for its
investors.

> 
> Looks like the joke is on you...

Look again.

> 
> If Apple was after money, it would be modeled more like DeLL or MS...
> neither is the case... and for GOOD REASON...

No? The why did Apple slash the price of the Mac version of Shake?

> 
>> > counter culture as you can get and still have a stock symbol... I
>> > completely disagree that Apple ever even "thought of": "let's support
>> > oss, so we can make money!"
>> 
>> That is exactly what they said.
> 
> Who? Who is they? Hate to break the news to you, but steve makes all the
> directional decisions, and I really can't see him doing it for monetary
> reasons... if so, it would be huge shift in his goals for Apple...

Let us know the next time you talk to him.

> 
> Maybe your thinking about Bill Gates? That's different person, mirror
> opposite goals...

Let us know the next time you talk to Gates.

> 
>> > That's just not what Apple has ever been about...
>> > 
>> > Sounds like you need to read up on Apple's role in all of this... it's
>> > just not what you think it is...
>> 
>> You are the one that needs to read. Apple has the highest margins of any
>> personal computer maker.
> 
> But that has nothing to do with the goal of making money...

Idiot. You can't make money without positive margins.

> that's just a
> side benefit... I think you are confused... it has ALL to do with building
> up the bank account to purchase key componets to build a great machine and
> for a protracted war in the future...
> 
> I really think you have Apple confused with more common styles of
> business...

It doesn't seem like you do any thinking at all.
-- 
Rick

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 13:08:31 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> In article Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> 
>> 3% of the general 'PC' market. What is the Mac's share of the various
>> graphics markets?
> 
> the numbers are around this... those should be close...
> 
> 80% print / publishing
> 30% video
> 20% web
> 55% photo
> 
Now show us your sources.

-- 
Rick

In article <bmc4qv$kph53$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
 Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> ZnU wrote:
> > In article <bmc037$kotck$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>ZnU wrote: <snip>
> >>
> >>>If it isn't written for the Mac, is isn't widely used by the 
> >>>majority of the film/video editing market. Just to reiterate, 
> >>>Hollywood does *not* account for the majority of the film and 
> >>>video editing done in the world, and, in fact, has very different 
> >>>needs from practically everyone else.
> >>
> >>Right, these days most video editing done in the world is home 
> >>movies....
> > 
> > 
> > Well, probably, but we're ignoring that segment of the market; 
> > those people aren't using Linux *or* FCP.
> 
> Yeah but it's the only one where Mac has a real (for now) major 
> quality lead.

You're not *really* claiming that Cinellera is as good as FCP, are you?

Actually, it's kind of funny; I can't make a good case for the 
superiority of FCP here, because Cinellera is so far off the industry's 
radar that it's impossible to even find any comparisons.

> One can take your iCrap out of the box, hook a camera to it, download 
> your movie, burn it to DVD, and pop it in the DVD player. With a PC 
> you probably have to go hardware shopping first, and go hunting for 
> drivers/software. And the Mac made version might look a little 
> prettier.
> 
> > I was thinking more of these sorts of people: 
> > http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/stories/
> 
> Yeah, we've got stuff that'll start cutting into that industry soon 
> too, due to it being free and running on cheap hardware and a free 
> and easy to use (stop snickering!) OS.

That's about as likely as a large-scale shift from Photoshop on Macs to 
GIMP on Linux in the DTP industry -- which is to say it's not very 
likely at all.

-- 
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just 
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
                          -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

In article <pan.2003.10.12.17.07.03.184973@none.com>,
 Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:24:57 -0400, ZnU wrote:

> >> > Practically everyone working with video or film now makes extensive
> >> > use of computers. I suppose there are still a few people doing
> >> > artistic work who prefer an all-analog process, but they're not
> >> > significant targets of current product development.
> >> 
> >> We are talking about the making of major motion pictures. Keep up.
> > 
> > Well, you're trying to restrict the discussion only to major motion
> > pictures, because you realize that Linux isn't really being used much by
> > the wider video/film market.
> > 
> > [snip]
> 
> Don't tell me what I'm trying to do. We were speaking of major motion
> picture studios. That is what is meant when you say 'Hollywood' is doing
> something.

Yes, that's right. And I've also been talking quite a bit about what 
everyone *else* is doing. You're trying to exclude everyone else from 
the discussion, which seems a little odd when the discussion involves 
Apple, because Apple sells a lot more to everyone else.

-- 
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just 
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
                          -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

Oxford wrote:
> In article Ori <oridean@rogers-dot.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Now the $1000 question:
>>Is a GUI worth $1000 per machine, all other costs being similar, 
>>functionality being identical?
>>
>>I'd say no.
> 
> 
> If you pay your admins less than minimum wage, i'd say no also, but if 
> you pay them more... yes is obvious...

You're hiring admins for both the Mac and the Linux box. Both require 
very little intervention.

Where do you save the money?

> do you really think a measly $1000 doesn't pay itself back in a few 
> weeks in terms of time/frustration?
> 

Honestly, no.
It's the same programs with some eye-candy. It makes no difference to an 
admin with half a brain HOW he sets up the programs.

In article <csma-BBD6F8.13083112102003@typhoon3.uswest.net>,
 Oxford <csma@mac.com> wrote:

> In article Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> 
> > 3% of the general 'PC' market. What is the Mac's share of the various
> > graphics markets?
> 
> the numbers are around this... those should be close...
> 
> 80% print / publishing
> 30% video
> 20% web
> 55% photo

Heh. I just went looking for FCP market share figures. I couldn't turn 
any up, but I did find the this:

"Apple is quickly loosing market share to Avid and vegas ,and this is a 
quickly produced solution. Final cut follows with the standard Apple 
policy of falling several years behind the competition and then jumping 
6 months ahead only to fall behind with no upgrades for years. After 
spending several weeks using this program I have gone back to Avid

My recommendation is to stay away from final cut and all apple products. 
For the same price as this you could buy a PC and Vegas 4.0"

posted at virtually every customer review site mentioning FCP. Someone 
is obviously scared <g>.

-- 
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just 
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
                          -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> 
> 
> I did a quick look on Google for Cinerella.

It helps if you do a search for the right thing...

"I did a search on google for wondowes - for an os on 95% of all 
computers, it came up with a surprisingly small number of results"

COME ON! It's mentioned enough times in this thread!!!

In article 
<9fhib.92956$ko%.47143@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
 Ori <oridean@rogers-dot.com> wrote:

> Liam Slider wrote:
> 
> > 
> > It doesn't matter if it does have new code or not. It's being replaced 
> > in the industry. Now I *may* be a bit off on it being Cinelerra that's 
> > replacing it, I *think* that's the OSS app that's being adopted though. 
> > it certainly has the power, capabilities, and usability.
> > 
> > 
> 
> I think it's more being replace with Shake for Linux....

How do you replace a non-linear editing application with a compositing 
application?

-- 
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just 
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
                          -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

Wade Williams wrote:
> In article <bmagr9$kn5li$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
> <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>And the Linux solutions are sufficient there too.
> 
> 
> 
> You're totally off your rocker.
> 
> There is NOTHING on Linux that can compare to Final Cut Pro, period. 
> That's not to say that there couldn't be, but currently, there's not.
> 
> Final Cut Pro is a HUGE hit in the film industry.  Linux is
> non-existant in the editing space.
> 
> Wade
This is true.

Video editing and 2d graphics are the only 2 areas that Linux is 
currently missing in.

All the compositing (Shake for Linux, Jashaka, although still in alpha, 
looks promising - sponsored nicely by HP *and* Intel) and 3d graphics 
(Maya, Softimage XSI, and others) has moved to Linux though, and I think 
it's just a matter of time before the editing follows suit.

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 19:04:17 +0000, Ori wrote:

> Rick wrote:
> 
>> you said nothing to refute the statement that CinePaint is the most
>> popular Open Source tool in Hollywood.
>> 
>> 
> Well, if you count the OS as a tool, Linux is ;-)

.... interesting...  :-)
-- 
Rick

In article 
<7%gib.92722$ko%.70219@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
 Ori <oridean@rogers-dot.com> wrote:

> Oxford wrote:
> > In article  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>How about The Lord of the Rings. Yes, most of the editing and effects 
> >>work was done on Linux.
> > 
> > 
> > well that's certainly interesting since Apple owns Shake which created 
> > much of the Lord of the Rings visual effects...
> 
> Agreed, Shake, from what I've heard, is pretty amazing for VFX.
> And teamed with Maya for Linux, Shake for linux created the components 
> of these effects (IE: Gollum, the Balrog, etc)

More accurately, the components of shots consisted of video footage and 
CGI created in Maya. Shake was used to *assemble* the components.

> > http://www.apple.com/shake/stories/lotr2/index.html
> > 
> > http://www.apple.com/shake/
> > 
> > I'm not saying it wasn't done on linux, it's just a bit odd that Apple 
> > owns the program they used to make it...
> 
> AND it has a Linux version.
> 
> For good reason - most studios use Linux, running Maya, Shake, and the like.
> 
> And oddly enough, it's hardware requirements are much more modest on 
> Intel hardware/x86 Linux. 550 Mhz to 800 Mhz.
> 
> Linux:
> - 550MHz Pentium III, Pentium 4, or AMD Athlon processor
> - Red Hat Linux 7.2
> - 256MB of RAM or more
> 
> Mac OS:
> - Power Mac G4 or PowerBook G4 with 800MHz or faster PowerPC G4 
> processor; or Xserve with 1GHz or faster PowerPC G4 processor
> - Mac OS X v10.2.5
> - QuickTime 6.1 or later
> - 256MB of RAM or more
> 

Its hardware requirements are probably more modest on x86 because Apple 
wants you to buy an expensive Mac, but doesn't care how much you spend 
on your x86 box <g>.

-- 
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just 
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
                          -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 15:45:34 -0400, ZnU wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.10.12.17.07.03.184973@none.com>,
>  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:24:57 -0400, ZnU wrote:
> 
>> >> > Practically everyone working with video or film now makes extensive
>> >> > use of computers. I suppose there are still a few people doing
>> >> > artistic work who prefer an all-analog process, but they're not
>> >> > significant targets of current product development.
>> >> 
>> >> We are talking about the making of major motion pictures. Keep up.
>> > 
>> > Well, you're trying to restrict the discussion only to major motion
>> > pictures, because you realize that Linux isn't really being used much
>> > by the wider video/film market.
>> > 
>> > [snip]
>> 
>> Don't tell me what I'm trying to do. We were speaking of major motion
>> picture studios. That is what is meant when you say 'Hollywood' is doing
>> something.
> 
> Yes, that's right. And I've also been talking quite a bit about what
> everyone *else* is doing. You're trying to exclude everyone else from the
> discussion, which seems a little odd when the discussion involves Apple,
> because Apple sells a lot more to everyone else.

The discussion is about major motion picture studios. You keep trying to
shift the focus.
-- 
Rick

In article <pan.2003.10.12.20.00.40.774324@none.com>,
 Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 15:45:34 -0400, ZnU wrote:
> 
> > In article <pan.2003.10.12.17.07.03.184973@none.com>,
> >  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:24:57 -0400, ZnU wrote:
> > 
> >> >> > Practically everyone working with video or film now makes extensive
> >> >> > use of computers. I suppose there are still a few people doing
> >> >> > artistic work who prefer an all-analog process, but they're not
> >> >> > significant targets of current product development.
> >> >> 
> >> >> We are talking about the making of major motion pictures. Keep up.
> >> > 
> >> > Well, you're trying to restrict the discussion only to major motion
> >> > pictures, because you realize that Linux isn't really being used much
> >> > by the wider video/film market.
> >> > 
> >> > [snip]
> >> 
> >> Don't tell me what I'm trying to do. We were speaking of major motion
> >> picture studios. That is what is meant when you say 'Hollywood' is doing
> >> something.
> > 
> > Yes, that's right. And I've also been talking quite a bit about what
> > everyone *else* is doing. You're trying to exclude everyone else from the
> > discussion, which seems a little odd when the discussion involves Apple,
> > because Apple sells a lot more to everyone else.
> 
> The discussion is about major motion picture studios. You keep trying to
> shift the focus.

I'm done with you, Rick.

-- 
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just 
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
                          -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

Rick wrote:

> 
> 
> Understand this.... -*NO*- Mac looks like other computers, unless those
> other computers have tried to copy Apple's styling. Also remember,
> different people think different things are cool.
> 

Yeah, but why do you need MacOS on a mac?

You like the Mac look/hardware, but want Linux?
Put Linux on your mac!

Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> Under Linux, I don't think you can do that as easily.  And of course,
> Linux GUI is butt-ugly! <G>
> 

Which one?

ZnU wrote:
> In article 
> <EQgib.92563$ko%.18808@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
>  Ori <oridean@rogers-dot.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>ZnU wrote:
>>
>>>In terms of server administration? Not really. I haven't yet seen a 
>>>Linux server distro that provides a coherent, discoverable GUI which 
>>>allows the user to configure and monitor a wide variety of services.
>>>
>>
>>Now the $1000 question:
>>Is a GUI worth $1000 per machine, all other costs being similar, 
>>functionality being identical?
>>
>>I'd say no.
> 
> 
> I'd say it depends. If the GUI and all the nice out-of-the box 
> configuration allows you to get away with hiring fewer support people, 
> it probably ends up paying for itself many times over.

But...we have that too.

> 
> Of course, there are also other reasons to buy OS X Server. It includes 
> a bunch of nice tools for managing Mac workstations, for instance, that 
> you can't get anywhere else.

Yeah but Mac workstations suffer the same high cost problems that other 
Apple products do.


-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

ZnU wrote:
> In article <bmc4qv$kph53$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>ZnU wrote:
>>
>>>In article <bmc037$kotck$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>>> Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>ZnU wrote: <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>If it isn't written for the Mac, is isn't widely used by the 
>>>>>majority of the film/video editing market. Just to reiterate, 
>>>>>Hollywood does *not* account for the majority of the film and 
>>>>>video editing done in the world, and, in fact, has very different 
>>>>>needs from practically everyone else.
>>>>
>>>>Right, these days most video editing done in the world is home 
>>>>movies....
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, probably, but we're ignoring that segment of the market; 
>>>those people aren't using Linux *or* FCP.
>>
>>Yeah but it's the only one where Mac has a real (for now) major 
>>quality lead.
> 
> 
> You're not *really* claiming that Cinellera is as good as FCP, are you?
> 
> Actually, it's kind of funny; I can't make a good case for the 
> superiority of FCP here, because Cinellera is so far off the industry's 
> radar that it's impossible to even find any comparisons.

What significant features (other than the GUI) does FCP have that it 
doesn't? What's the breakdown on what they can do. I'm not talking about 
how many use it, I mean can it do the same work. Well, can it? And if 
not, do you honestly think it'll be long before it will?

> 
> 
>>One can take your iCrap out of the box, hook a camera to it, download 
>>your movie, burn it to DVD, and pop it in the DVD player. With a PC 
>>you probably have to go hardware shopping first, and go hunting for 
>>drivers/software. And the Mac made version might look a little 
>>prettier.
>>
>>
>>>I was thinking more of these sorts of people: 
>>>http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/stories/
>>
>>Yeah, we've got stuff that'll start cutting into that industry soon 
>>too, due to it being free and running on cheap hardware and a free 
>>and easy to use (stop snickering!) OS.
> 
> 
> That's about as likely as a large-scale shift from Photoshop on Macs to 
> GIMP on Linux in the DTP industry -- which is to say it's not very 
> likely at all.
> 

Why should it be necessary, we can run Photoshop too you know. In fact, 
it's being done quite a bit in LA.

-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

In article  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:

> > > 3% of the general 'PC' market. What is the Mac's share of the various
> > > graphics markets?
> > 
> > the numbers are around this... those should be close...
> > 
> > 80% print / publishing
> > 30% video
> > 20% web
> > 55% photo
> 
> Heh. I just went looking for FCP market share figures. I couldn't turn 
> any up, but I did find the this:
> 
> "Apple is quickly loosing market share to Avid and vegas ,and this is a 
> quickly produced solution. Final cut follows with the standard Apple 
> policy of falling several years behind the competition and then jumping 
> 6 months ahead only to fall behind with no upgrades for years. After 
> spending several weeks using this program I have gone back to Avid
> 
> My recommendation is to stay away from final cut and all apple products. 
> For the same price as this you could buy a PC and Vegas 4.0"
> 
> posted at virtually every customer review site mentioning FCP. Someone 
> is obviously scared <g>.

Correct... FCP represents the same level of change that the LaserWriter 
and PageMaker posed to Print Shops in the Mid 80's...

There "was" an established group of firms dedicated to building  
proprietary video editing suites, now Final Cut threatens most all of 
them, with a quite capable video solution for under $10K, even $5K buys 
what a $30K solution did just a year or so ago...

FCP represents an epic change to this industry... It will never be the 
same, and lots of people are running scared...

Oxford

-

ZnU wrote:
> 
> 
> How do you replace a non-linear editing application with a compositing 
> application?
> 

Sorry, my mistake...
Not enough coffee.

Linux is a bit behind in the NLE category, but I think it will catch up.

In article Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:

> > 
> > 80% print / publishing
> > 30% video
> > 20% web
> > 55% photo
> > 
> Now show us your sources.

Why would I want to share my secret???

Oxford

-

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:12:16 -0600,
 Oxford <csma@mac.com> wrote:
> In article Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>
>> > 2.  Support OSS
>> 
>> They wouldn't do it if there wasn't money in it for them.
>
> Wrong! 
>
> Apple is the computer company least after "money" there is... it's as 
> counter culture as you can get and still have a stock symbol... I 
> completely disagree that Apple ever even "thought of": "let's support 
> oss, so we can make money!"
>

You really believe that? 

Apple has shareholders, like every other stock company. 

Like every other stock company, it's about keeping the shareholders
happy. Which when you boil it down, means money. 


It's ok to *talk* about being "counter culture" but don't interfere with
the money, or they'll dump you. 

Linux on the other hand, and OSS in general *is* "counter culture"
Nature of the beast. 

> That's just not what Apple has ever been about...
>

Sure itis, they just like to pretend otherwise. 

> Sounds like you need to read up on Apple's role in all of this... it's 
> just not what you think it is...


AAPL likes to *talk* about counter culture, but they file a 10Q like
every other publicly traded company. They're "one of the boys" there.
Just like MSFT and RHAT. 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/ibiPd90bcYOAWPYRAnyRAJ0fprvPOiYg8tyKAz+i5mgh5QRSMwCfdxoT
n7FtmT59w0OksFBYhi3LP1s=
=axGQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Weekends don't count unless you spend them doing something completely
pointless.	  -- Calvin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:58:37 -0600,
 Oxford <csma@mac.com> wrote:
> In article Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
>
>> > Apple is the computer company least after "money" there is... it's as
>> 
>> AHAH Ahah ahah HAha ahah ha HAHHAHA ha AHA hahahaha
>> Oh, you were serious.. how sad.
>
> I'm serious because it's totally correct... you can't to point to one 
> instance where Apple did something for "money"... it's just not the 
> purpose of the company... never has been, probably never will be...
>
> Looks like the joke is on you...
>
> If Apple was after money, it would be modeled more like DeLL or MS... 
> neither is the case... and for GOOD REASON...
>

Because they can make more money doing what they do. They have the
hardware locked down. After they killed the clones, the margins just
kept on rising. 

>> > counter culture as you can get and still have a stock symbol... I
>> > completely disagree that Apple ever even "thought of": "let's support oss,
>> > so we can make money!"
>> 
>> That is exactly what they said.
>
> Who? Who is they? Hate to break the news to you, but steve makes all the 
> directional decisions, and I really can't see him doing it for monetary  
> reasons... if so, it would be huge shift in his goals for Apple...
>

stockholders, AAPL, like every other stock company, has to dance to the
tunes of the stockholders when it's all said and done. 

> Maybe your thinking about Bill Gates? That's different person, mirror 
> opposite goals...
>
>> > That's just not what Apple has ever been about...
>> > 
>> > Sounds like you need to read up on Apple's role in all of this... it's
>> > just not what you think it is...
>> 
>> You are the one that needs to read. Apple has the highest margins of any
>> personal computer maker.
>
> But that has nothing to do with the goal of making money... that's just 
> a side benefit... I think you are confused... it has ALL to do with 
> building up the bank account to purchase key componets to build a great 
> machine and for a protracted war in the future... 
>
> I really think you have Apple confused with more common styles of 
> business...
>

No, he's just not looking at AAPL through rose coloured glasses. 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/ibkZd90bcYOAWPYRAv4dAJ94NUZ3dGAzlwopX3bWy6X3EFuTPwCg4B1o
wGxCpkyVAtyg4f3P3X8jkoU=
=8E+A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion.
	-- Lazarus Long.

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 15:50:19 -0400, ZnU wrote:

> In article <csma-BBD6F8.13083112102003@typhoon3.uswest.net>,
>  Oxford <csma@mac.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > 3% of the general 'PC' market. What is the Mac's share of the various
>> > graphics markets?
>> 
>> the numbers are around this... those should be close...
>> 
>> 80% print / publishing
>> 30% video
>> 20% web
>> 55% photo
> 
> Heh. I just went looking for FCP market share figures. I couldn't turn any
> up, but I did find the this:
> 
> "Apple is quickly loosing market share to Avid and vegas ,and this is a
> quickly produced solution. Final cut follows with the standard Apple
> policy of falling several years behind the competition and then jumping 6
> months ahead only to fall behind with no upgrades for years. After
> spending several weeks using this program I have gone back to Avid
> 
> My recommendation is to stay away from final cut and all apple products.
> For the same price as this you could buy a PC and Vegas 4.0"
> 
> posted at virtually every customer review site mentioning FCP. Someone is
> obviously scared <g>.

Yeah. Someone is obviously scared. After all, Apple does everything right
and never falters.
-- 
Rick

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 16:01:41 -0400, ZnU wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.10.12.20.00.40.774324@none.com>,
>  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 15:45:34 -0400, ZnU wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <pan.2003.10.12.17.07.03.184973@none.com>,
>> >  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:24:57 -0400, ZnU wrote:
>> > 
>> >> >> > Practically everyone working with video or film now makes
>> >> >> > extensive use of computers. I suppose there are still a few
>> >> >> > people doing artistic work who prefer an all-analog process, but
>> >> >> > they're not significant targets of current product development.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> We are talking about the making of major motion pictures. Keep up.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Well, you're trying to restrict the discussion only to major motion
>> >> > pictures, because you realize that Linux isn't really being used
>> >> > much by the wider video/film market.
>> >> > 
>> >> > [snip]
>> >> 
>> >> Don't tell me what I'm trying to do. We were speaking of major motion
>> >> picture studios. That is what is meant when you say 'Hollywood' is
>> >> doing something.
>> > 
>> > Yes, that's right. And I've also been talking quite a bit about what
>> > everyone *else* is doing. You're trying to exclude everyone else from
>> > the discussion, which seems a little odd when the discussion involves
>> > Apple, because Apple sells a lot more to everyone else.
>> 
>> The discussion is about major motion picture studios. You keep trying to
>> shift the focus.
> 
> I'm done with you, Rick.

And Znu runs way because he isn't allowed to shift focus.
-- 
Rick

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 14:17:48 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> In article Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> > 80% print / publishing
>> > 30% video
>> > 20% web
>> > 55% photo
>> > 
>> Now show us your sources.
> 
> Why would I want to share my secret???

Credibility?

-- 
Rick

In article Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:

> > I'm serious because it's totally correct... you can't to point to one
> > instance where Apple did something for "money"... 
> 
> They introduced the Mac at a much higher price than what thge designers
> wanted. They rescinded he cloner's contracts. They keep the price of Macs
> high.

Yes, but you've forgotten what Sculley said at the time haven't you...

"You can charge $1,495, but we can't afford blockbuster advertising at 
that level, how about $2,495?"

$2,495 it became... Even Steve wanted the $1,495 price and it was 
totally profitable to do so... (original goal was $999, just for 
reference)

The Clone Contracts where much, much later... and stopping them was 
steves doing when he first returned, since the contracts had an $$ error 
and were killing Apple's cpu sales, thus killing Apple...

> The purpose of EVERY publicly traded company is to make money for its
> investors.

Yes, and Apple has been sued over and over again on this... remember the 
eMac... it was supposed to be ONLY for education, but threat of a law 
suit forced them to sell to consumers also... interesting tidbit 
wouldn't you say...

> > Looks like the joke is on you...
> 
> Look again.

Nah, i'm right on the money on this...

> > If Apple was after money, it would be modeled more like DeLL or MS...
> > neither is the case... and for GOOD REASON...
> 
> No? The why did Apple slash the price of the Mac version of Shake?

Well, your proving my point... if they were after "money" wouldn't they 
of charge the same amount? I'm sure it's because of support issues, 
favoring it's own hardware, etc..

> >> > counter culture as you can get and still have a stock symbol... I
> >> > completely disagree that Apple ever even "thought of": "let's support
> >> > oss, so we can make money!"
> >> 
> >> That is exactly what they said.
> > 
> > Who? Who is they? Hate to break the news to you, but steve makes all the
> > directional decisions, and I really can't see him doing it for monetary
> > reasons... if so, it would be huge shift in his goals for Apple...
> 
> Let us know the next time you talk to him.

I've only talked to him once, and a couple emails, but I'm sure he'd 
remember me...
 
> > Maybe your thinking about Bill Gates? That's different person, mirror
> > opposite goals...
> 
> Let us know the next time you talk to Gates.

Nah, he's a looser in my opinion...

> >> You are the one that needs to read. Apple has the highest margins of any
> >> personal computer maker.
> > 
> > But that has nothing to do with the goal of making money...
> 
> Idiot. You can't make money without positive margins.

Wow, your brilliant! I'm referring to the out of balance margins apple 
makes... It's not to simply "make money" but to have money for future 
investments, etc... all I'm saying if apple was after cash, they would 
reduce margins, pump up volume, not unlike what dell does... building a 
mac or building a pc, they costs are virtually the same... 

> > I really think you have Apple confused with more common styles of
> > business...
> 
> It doesn't seem like you do any thinking at all.

Well, I think I'm just challenging you a bit more than your used to...

Oxford

-

Rick wrote:
<snip>
>>Yes, that's right. And I've also been talking quite a bit about what
>>everyone *else* is doing. You're trying to exclude everyone else from the
>>discussion, which seems a little odd when the discussion involves Apple,
>>because Apple sells a lot more to everyone else.
> 
> 
> The discussion is about major motion picture studios. You keep trying to
> shift the focus.

A lot of dancers in the Mac crowd. They really like to dance around the 
issues.

-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

In article Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 15:50:19 -0400, ZnU wrote:
> 
> > In article <csma-BBD6F8.13083112102003@typhoon3.uswest.net>,
> >  Oxford <csma@mac.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> In article Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > 3% of the general 'PC' market. What is the Mac's share of the various
> >> > graphics markets?
> >> 
> >> the numbers are around this... those should be close...
> >> 
> >> 80% print / publishing
> >> 30% video
> >> 20% web
> >> 55% photo
> > 
> > Heh. I just went looking for FCP market share figures. I couldn't turn any
> > up, but I did find the this:
> > 
> > "Apple is quickly loosing market share to Avid and vegas ,and this is a
> > quickly produced solution. Final cut follows with the standard Apple
> > policy of falling several years behind the competition and then jumping 6
> > months ahead only to fall behind with no upgrades for years. After
> > spending several weeks using this program I have gone back to Avid
> > 
> > My recommendation is to stay away from final cut and all apple products.
> > For the same price as this you could buy a PC and Vegas 4.0"
> > 
> > posted at virtually every customer review site mentioning FCP. Someone is
> > obviously scared <g>.
> 
> Yeah. Someone is obviously scared. After all, Apple does everything right
> and never falters.

I don't think anyone in the apple camp is saying that, but Final Cut has 
been a run away hit with video production people, but not companies like 
AVID, Media100, etc...

Final Cut is a very bright spot in Apple's product line up...

AppleWorks, not so much... :)

Oxford

-

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 14:39:46 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> In article Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> 
>> > I'm serious because it's totally correct... you can't to point to one
>> > instance where Apple did something for "money"...
>> 
>> They introduced the Mac at a much higher price than what thge designers
>> wanted. They rescinded he cloner's contracts. They keep the price of
>> Macs high.
> 
> Yes, but you've forgotten what Sculley said at the time haven't you...
> 
> "You can charge $1,495, but we can't afford blockbuster advertising at
> that level, how about $2,495?"
> 
> $2,495 it became... Even Steve wanted the $1,495 price and it was totally
> profitable to do so... (original goal was $999, just for reference)

.... but they charged the higher price instead.

> 
> The Clone Contracts where much, much later... and stopping them was steves
> doing when he first returned, since the contracts had an $$ error and were
> killing Apple's cpu sales, thus killing Apple...

That's right. Apple was -losing- money.

> 
>> The purpose of EVERY publicly traded company is to make money for its
>> investors.
> 
> Yes, and Apple has been sued over and over again on this... remember the
> eMac... it was supposed to be ONLY for education, but threat of a law suit
> forced them to sell to consumers also... interesting tidbit wouldn't you
> say...
> 
>> > Looks like the joke is on you...
>> 
>> Look again.
> 
> Nah, i'm right on the money on this...

Look again.

> 
>> > If Apple was after money, it would be modeled more like DeLL or MS...
>> > neither is the case... and for GOOD REASON...
>> 
>> No? The why did Apple slash the price of the Mac version of Shake?
> 
> Well, your proving my point... if they were after "money" wouldn't they of
> charge the same amount? I'm sure it's because of support issues, favoring
> it's own hardware, etc..

Geee.... it just couldn't be that Apple really wnts to sell Macs and
Shake, so they make the Linux version of Shake way too expensive... could
it?

> 
>> >> > counter culture as you can get and still have a stock symbol... I
>> >> > completely disagree that Apple ever even "thought of": "let's
>> >> > support oss, so we can make money!"
>> >> 
>> >> That is exactly what they said.
>> > 
>> > Who? Who is they? Hate to break the news to you, but steve makes all
>> > the directional decisions, and I really can't see him doing it for
>> > monetary reasons... if so, it would be huge shift in his goals for
>> > Apple...
>> 
>> Let us know the next time you talk to him.
> 
> I've only talked to him once, and a couple emails, but I'm sure he'd
> remember me...

Loons are easy to remember.

>  
>> > Maybe your thinking about Bill Gates? That's different person, mirror
>> > opposite goals...
>> 
>> Let us know the next time you talk to Gates.
> 
> Nah, he's a looser in my opinion...
> 
>> >> You are the one that needs to read. Apple has the highest margins of
>> >> any personal computer maker.
>> > 
>> > But that has nothing to do with the goal of making money...
>> 
>> Idiot. You can't make money without positive margins.
> 
> Wow, your brilliant! I'm referring to the out of balance margins apple
> makes... It's not to simply "make money" but to have money for future
> investments, etc... all I'm saying if apple was after cash, they would
> reduce margins, pump up volume, not unlike what dell does... building a
> mac or building a pc, they costs are virtually the same...

Apple did cut prices and increase volume undrerpindler. It almost killed
the company.

> 
>> > I really think you have Apple confused with more common styles of
>> > business...
>> 
>> It doesn't seem like you do any thinking at all.
> 
> Well, I think I'm just challenging you a bit more than your used to...

AHHA ahahah AHahahah AHAHHAHAH ahahahahahahah...

> 
> Oxford

Get a sig delimiter.

> 
> -

-- 
Rick

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 13:04:30 -0600,
 Oxford <csma@mac.com> wrote:
> In article Ori <oridean@rogers-dot.com> wrote:
>
>> Now the $1000 question:
>> Is a GUI worth $1000 per machine, all other costs being similar, 
>> functionality being identical?
>> 
>> I'd say no.
>
> If you pay your admins less than minimum wage, i'd say no also, but if 
> you pay them more... yes is obvious...
>
> do you really think a measly $1000 doesn't pay itself back in a few 
> weeks in terms of time/frustration?
>
> look.... the days of the tinker toy GUI's like gnome/kde are over... you 
> just haven't gotten the "memo"...
>
> osx server could put whole waves of linux admins out of work...
>
> YEAH!!! Freedom to the PEOPLE!!!
>

???

I admin servers, I admin desktops, it's not hard. If they were Apple
machines, running OSX, it wouldn't be any harder, or easier. Now, if you
don't understand anything about networking, about firewalls, about
troubleshooting, then you will start faster on a pretty GUI, and when
you come across something that isn't covered in the pretty manual, you
will be stuck, untill someone like me comes along, to figure it out. 

BTDTGTTS

When you speak of "weeks of frustration" I am not clear I undesrtand
you. What frustration? I push the changes out, via rsync, or similar
methods, I don't have to go to the users machine and adjust things.  I
do it remotely, from my laptop, whereever I have a net connection. In
some cases, the user machines, don't even have hard drives, they are
running everything from remote disks (this is new for me, although
others have been doing it for quite some time with Linux et al) I like
that very much. 

You really have do a very limited amount of knowledge of Linux and what is
capable of it.  

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/icBDd90bcYOAWPYRArarAJ9WAU02CKDYkiq1L8RybkWZvnad+gCgmhlB
2Bi1qQYa917GJ3oM1xZFMok=
=66js
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
If entropy is increasing, where is it coming from?

Liam Slider wrote:

> 
> Why should it be necessary, we can run Photoshop too you know. In fact, 
> it's being done quite a bit in LA.
> 

Could you point me to an article on how? I tried with wine - no luck.

Photoshop is the only piece of Windows software I truly miss.

Ori wrote:
> Liam Slider wrote:
> 
>>
>> Why should it be necessary, we can run Photoshop too you know. In 
>> fact, it's being done quite a bit in LA.
>>
> 
> Could you point me to an article on how? I tried with wine - no luck.
> 
> Photoshop is the only piece of Windows software I truly miss.
> 

Really, how recent a version of Wine, and what version of Photoshop? 
Those might be somewhat important. I don't know the specifics myself, I 
don't run Photoshop I just use GIMP for what little graphics work I 
need, but I heard about it just the other day here in c.o.l.a.

-- 
"Sure, the lion is king of the jungle - but airdrop him into Antarctica, 
and he's just a penguin's bitch." -- Dennis Miller

In article <bmc51k$l4s6c$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
<liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> <snip>
> >>>
> >>>>>And of course,
> >>>>>Linux GUI is butt-ugly! <G>
> >>>>
> >>>>Then why does Apple want X11 apps? :-)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Probably to do 2 things.
> >>>
> >>>1.  Fill some holes in available software
> >>
> >>So you're saying that Linux has a wider selection of software...good to 
> >>see *someone* admit that kind of thing around here!
> >>
> > 
> > I didn't say there was a wider selection of software, maybe there is. 
> > But, for some, there are X11 apps that they like better, or maybe fills
> > in a gap.  Kind of like using gimp because Photoshop is overkill for
> > what they want to do.
> 
> Or underkill. For some thing GIMP is superior to Photoshop. It depends 
> on what you're doing with it. They aren't for *exactly* identical work.
> 
Could be, I won't argue.  I use PhotoShop Elements, it has what I need
and it was cheap enough.

> > 
> > 
> >>>2.  Support OSS
> >>
> >>They wouldn't do it if there wasn't money in it for them.
> > 
> > 
> > Absolutely!  I don't have a problem with that, I like working and
> > making money too, why shouldn't Apple?
> 
> No reason, I'm just saying that you shouldn't make it sound like they 
> are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. They are doing it out 
> of the goodness of their wallets.

Absolutely!  That's what companies do, they make money.  Or at least
that is what their business plan says they are going to do.  ;-)

Lloyd

In article <pan.2003.10.12.18.16.59.948001@none.com>, Rick
<rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:12:16 -0600, Oxford wrote:
> 
> > In article Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> > 2.  Support OSS
> >> 
> >> They wouldn't do it if there wasn't money in it for them.
> > 
> > Wrong!
> > 
> > Apple is the computer company least after "money" there is... it's as
> 
> AHAH Ahah ahah HAha ahah ha HAHHAHA ha AHA hahahaha
> Oh, you were serious.. how sad.
> 
> > counter culture as you can get and still have a stock symbol... I
> > completely disagree that Apple ever even "thought of": "let's support oss,
> > so we can make money!"
> 
> That is exactly what they said.
> 
> > 
> > That's just not what Apple has ever been about...
> > 
> > Sounds like you need to read up on Apple's role in all of this... it's
> > just not what you think it is...
> 
> You are the one that needs to read. Apple has the highest margins of any
> personal computer maker.

At the manufacturer level, that is very true.  Sadly for dealers, it
doesn't carry through.  That's why I don't sell them.

Lloyd

In article <h6ko51-2b9.ln1@grendel.myth>, Jim Richardson
<warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 13:08:12 GMT,
>  Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@nospammac.com> wrote:
> > In article <bmaq8p$kn3mn$1@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de>, Liam Slider
> ><liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> 
> <snip>
>  
> >> 
> >> Actually it should be. All that software (well, similar software anyway) 
> >> can usually be installed at the same time the OS is installed. No muss 
> >> no fuss.
> >> 
> > I'll admit its been awhile since I've done a Linux load, but I wasn't
> > aware that OpenOffice (is that the name?) was part of the load
> > sequence.  I thought it was still seperate.
> >
> 
> Not with Debian, Gentoo, or RH9 at the very least. I *think* it's part
> of Mdk8/9 also, but haven't used that in a while and don't recall. With
> Debian and Gentoo, it's a one line command, with RH, if you have rhn,
> it's a one liner, or if you use YUM. If you just have the disks, then
> you have to insert the disk before your one liner. Of course, there are
> GUI frontends for all the above for those so inclined. 
> 
> 
> >> > And of course,
> >> > Linux GUI is butt-ugly! <G>
> >> 
> >> Then why does Apple want X11 apps? :-)
> >
> > Probably to do 2 things.
> >
> > 1.  Fill some holes in available software
> > 2.  Support OSS
> >
> > Lloyd
> 
> 
> laudable goals both. 
> 
> I came >this< close to buying a TiBook last year instead of my Dell
> laptop. Frankly, the  two reasons I chose the Dell, were the damn 1
> button trackpad on the Mac, and the better Linux support on the Dell.
> (at the time anyway) 
> 
I would think that in laptops, there is a much stronger case to be made
for Apple.  Pricewise they are in line with their wintel brethren and
they perform well.

And with OSX and X11, you've got nearly everything you could want.

Lloyd

In article <9tko51-2b9.ln1@grendel.myth>, Jim Richardson
<warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 04:46:52 GMT,
>  Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@nospammac.com> wrote:
> > In article <pan.2003.10.12.04.35.02.31237@none.com>, Rick
> >
> 
> <snip>
>  
> >> Linux does those things easily.
> >> 
> > Sure, but I don't like Linux, remember??  <G>
> >
> > Besides, I just got a Powerbook (used G3/333) and loaded Panther on it,
> > then proceeded to load the rest of the stuff I want on it.  It was
> > easier that any other load of software on any platform.
> >
> > OfficeX -- copy the folder -- its ready to go.  Didn't even have to
> > re-enter my key code.
> >
> > Appleworks -- same thing
> >
> 
> apt-get install appfoo. Or if you prefer, rt click on the package in
> konqueror's file browser, and select "kpackage" and install. There are
> several other GUI front ends. Please note that kpackage, abstracts the
> package management system, it's the same to the user on rpm systems, and
> on deb systems. (To be honest, I haven't tried it installing .tgz files,
> I usually do my stuff from the CLI. My servers usually don't even have a
> GUI installed.)
>
I t