f



The future of Linux

The barrier to Linux becoming mainstream is its ease of use.
Installation has overcome this by being as easy to intall as Windows
(with some distributions)
The remaining obtacale is installing new apps.  In Windows, you
download to your desktop, double click on the icon, and follow the
instructions.   When it becomes as easy to install a new application
on Linux, it will become mainsteam.  Just as the PC and Windows did.
0
none10 (4038)
3/29/2005 1:31:29 AM
comp.os.linux 3406 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

87 Replies
741 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 32

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:31:29 -0600, Dave Persik wrote:
> The barrier to Linux becoming mainstream is its ease of use.
> Installation has overcome this by being as easy to intall as Windows
> (with some distributions)

Guess you have not installed an off the shelf Windows os in awhile.
Let alone looked. Here just hit next to see if it is too hard for you
http://doc.mandrakelinux.com/MandrakeLinux/100/en/Starter.html/drakxid-selectLanguage.html

> The remaining obtacale is installing new apps.

Yes it has been awhile for you.
I click Software install, enter name, and donot have instructions
except to insert cd X and click OK.
0
BitTwister2 (1376)
3/29/2005 1:36:32 AM
Dave Persik wrote:
> The barrier to Linux becoming mainstream is its ease of use.
> Installation has overcome this by being as easy to intall as Windows
> (with some distributions)
> The remaining obtacale is installing new apps.  In Windows, you
> download to your desktop, double click on the icon, and follow the
> instructions.   When it becomes as easy to install a new application
> on Linux, it will become mainsteam.  Just as the PC and Windows did.

Not sure that you are correct, but why should Linux become mainstream 
anyhouw? I like it the way it is. Sure, it could have state-of-the-art 
printer drivers and sound,and it could play Thief III and MS Flight 
Simulator to make me REALLY happy, but it is OK for the money, and I can 
do 95% of my work on Linux.
0
3/29/2005 3:22:51 AM
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:31:29 -0600, Dave Persik wrote:

> The barrier to Linux becoming mainstream is its ease of use.
> Installation has overcome this by being as easy to intall as Windows
> (with some distributions)
> The remaining obtacale is installing new apps.  In Windows, you
> download to your desktop, double click on the icon, and follow the
> instructions.   When it becomes as easy to install a new application
> on Linux, it will become mainsteam.  Just as the PC and Windows did.

rpm -Uvh <package>

That's real fucking hard troll boy.

-- 
Life is short, but wide. -KV

0
annoyed (456)
3/29/2005 4:07:35 PM
Ivan Marsh wrote:

> rpm -Uvh <package>
> 
> That's real fucking hard troll boy.

I see you're at it again. Typically useful response from the 
goober-in-chief.
0
3/29/2005 4:33:23 PM
Dave Persik wrote:
> The barrier to Linux becoming mainstream is its ease of use.
> Installation has overcome this by being as easy to intall as Windows
> (with some distributions)
> The remaining obtacale is installing new apps.  In Windows, you
> download to your desktop, double click on the icon, and follow the
> instructions.   When it becomes as easy to install a new application
> on Linux, it will become mainsteam.  Just as the PC and Windows did.

in this, your "point-and-click" preferred method of install, there 
exists a VERY large, and often overlooked problem... it was not BUILT 
for YOUR COMPUTER. it was BUILT for a GENERIC MODEL. MEANING it does not 
have the ability to take full advantage of the capabilities of your 
processor. Linux was not BUILT to be simple, it was BUILT to be STABLE. 
Windows is unstable because in order to maintain usability on all these 
different architectures, they have to have back-support, 
reverse-compatibility, if you will for OLD architectures. in other 
words, your "state of the art" software is not built for your state of 
the art hardware. there are those of us who have given ease of 
installation the middle finger... or two fingers, if you're British.

all arguments aside, please only post stuff like this in COLA, COL is 
already littered enough with "what distro should i pick" questions and 
the like.

Thank You
--Xero
0
3/29/2005 5:08:00 PM
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:33:23 +0100, Frem wrote:

> Ivan Marsh wrote:
> 
>> rpm -Uvh <package>
>> 
>> That's real fucking hard troll boy.
> 
> I see you're at it again. Typically useful response from the 
> goober-in-chief.

Ah, your third post... and you're still useless.

-- 
Life is short, but wide. -KV

0
annoyed (456)
3/29/2005 5:13:14 PM
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:24:28 +0000, Frem wrote:

> Ivan Marsh wrote:
> 
>> Ah, your third post... and you're still useless.  
> 
> Yes, and you are still at it with your goober responses. Swearing and up 
> there on your high horse with nothing useful to say. So why don't you 
> shut your cake hole?

Yes, yes... and we're all glad to see you back doing what you do best (not
to mention the only thing you do) defending trolls.

-- 
Life is short, but wide. -KV

0
annoyed (456)
3/29/2005 6:24:07 PM
Ivan Marsh wrote:

> Ah, your third post... and you're still useless.  

Yes, and you are still at it with your goober responses. Swearing and up 
there on your high horse with nothing useful to say. So why don't you 
shut your cake hole?
0
freminlins (43)
3/29/2005 6:24:28 PM
Ivan Marsh wrote:

> Yes, yes... and we're all glad to see you back doing what you do best (not
> to mention the only thing you do) defending trolls.

I wasn't defending a troll in this case, as is evident to any reader 
except yourself.

I was pointing out that you are at your goober tricks yet again. You are 
a big time loser with nothing useful to say.

So do us all a favour - if your dullard brain can't think of anything 
useful to say, put a sock in your gob.
0
freminlins (43)
3/29/2005 6:38:43 PM
> Dave Persik  said in post '#1 ' (http://tinyurl.com/576od):
> *The barrier to Linux becoming mainstream is its ease of use.
> Installation has overcome this by being as easy to intall as Windows
> (with some distributions)
> The remaining obtacale is installing new apps.  In Windows, you
> download to your desktop, double click on the icon, and follow the
> instructions.   When it becomes as easy to install a new application
> on Linux, it will become mainsteam.  Just as the PC and Windows did.
> * 

What is your point on posting this? I don't see a result in anythin
besides bashing each other

-
Doc - Nextel Web Develope

Get out of the Gates of hell and bow to Linux, he is your God now!

Windows = *Doesn't Open
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc's Profile: http:/linuxcult.com/forum/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=709
View this thread: http://linuxcult.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=888

0
3/29/2005 6:47:32 PM
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:38:43 +0000, Frem wrote:

> Ivan Marsh wrote:
> 
>> Yes, yes... and we're all glad to see you back doing what you do best (not
>> to mention the only thing you do) defending trolls.
> 
> I wasn't defending a troll in this case, as is evident to any reader 
> except yourself.
> 
> I was pointing out that you are at your goober tricks yet again. You are 
> a big time loser with nothing useful to say.
> 
> So do us all a favour - if your dullard brain can't think of anything 
> useful to say, put a sock in your gob.

I'll do myself a favor fem. *plonk*

-- 
Life is short, but wide. -KV

0
annoyed (456)
3/29/2005 7:09:16 PM
Ivan Marsh wrote:

> I'll do myself a favor fem. *plonk*

Yes, that's what you said the last time you lost an argument with me. 
Too bad you don't just shut up.
0
freminlins (43)
3/29/2005 7:13:14 PM
Dave Persik writes:

> The barrier to Linux becoming mainstream is its ease of use.

That, and a lack of useful applications.

> Installation has overcome this by being as easy to intall as Windows
> (with some distributions)
> The remaining obtacale is installing new apps.  In Windows, you
> download to your desktop, double click on the icon, and follow the
> instructions.   When it becomes as easy to install a new application
> on Linux, it will become mainsteam.  Just as the PC and Windows did.

It's not ease of installation, it's the availability of applications in
the first place.

In any case, not only would Linux have to overcome these obstacles, but
it would also have to present some sort of _advantage_ over Windows in
order to persuade people to switch.  Currently none of these is the
case.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
3/29/2005 8:39:01 PM
Pandora Xero writes:

> in this, your "point-and-click" preferred method of install, there 
> exists a VERY large, and often overlooked problem... it was not BUILT 
> for YOUR COMPUTER. it was BUILT for a GENERIC MODEL. MEANING it does not 
> have the ability to take full advantage of the capabilities of your 
> processor. Linux was not BUILT to be simple, it was BUILT to be STABLE. 

A system built for a generic hardware platform is less stable than a
system built for a specific platform.

> Windows is unstable because in order to maintain usability on all these 
> different architectures, they have to have back-support, 
> reverse-compatibility, if you will for OLD architectures.

Current NT-based versions of Windows are extremely stable, just as
stable as Linux.

Instabilities in Windows (and in many other operating systems) are
usually the result of poorly-written, overprivileged applications,
and/or poorly written device drivers.  There is no way to fix this in
the OS.

> there are those of us who have given ease of 
> installation the middle finger ...

Perhaps, but the mainstream requires ease of installation.  Without it,
an OS is dead in the water.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
3/29/2005 8:42:06 PM
Mxsmanic wrote:
> Pandora Xero writes:
> 
> 
>>in this, your "point-and-click" preferred method of install, there 
>>exists a VERY large, and often overlooked problem... it was not BUILT 
>>for YOUR COMPUTER. it was BUILT for a GENERIC MODEL. MEANING it does not 
>>have the ability to take full advantage of the capabilities of your 
>>processor. Linux was not BUILT to be simple, it was BUILT to be STABLE. 
> 
> 
> A system built for a generic hardware platform is less stable than a
> system built for a specific platform.
> 

Therein lies my POINT... Windows is pre-built. does it build up 
everything during installation? NO it does not. if it did, it'd take 
between 2 days and 2 weeks to install. Windows is built for x86... by 
linux terms, that is a GENERIC platform. ever used Gentoo? if so, you'd 
KNOW all this already.

> 
>>Windows is unstable because in order to maintain usability on all these 
>>different architectures, they have to have back-support, 
>>reverse-compatibility, if you will for OLD architectures.
> 
> 
> Current NT-based versions of Windows are extremely stable, just as
> stable as Linux.

cite sources, please. give me evidence, UPTIMES and the like

> 
> Instabilities in Windows (and in many other operating systems) are
> usually the result of poorly-written, overprivileged applications,
> and/or poorly written device drivers.  There is no way to fix this in
> the OS.
> 

only if the OS is open source can this be fixed. Is Windows open source? 
umm... hmm... lemme check... ahh... NO!

> 
>>there are those of us who have given ease of 
>>installation the middle finger ...
> 
> 
> Perhaps, but the mainstream requires ease of installation.  Without it,
> an OS is dead in the water.
> 

Not so. as it stands, Microsoft is practically dead in the server 
industry. now... how many websites do you go to... and how often do you 
use USENET? and think how many online servers are NOT running windows. 
there is a good reason for this, you understand that, right?

-- 
--Xero
.... the lone Linotaku
0
3/29/2005 9:09:18 PM
Pandora Xero wrote:

> only if the OS is open source can this be fixed. 

Bullshit. Solaris, amongst other Unices, are closed source, and they do 
this do this perfectly well.

> Not so. as it stands, Microsoft is practically dead in the server 
> industry.

Again, bullshit. What do you think Dell and HP sell with all their 
server boxen? Linux for sure, but also plenty of Windows. You shouldn't 
spread this nonsense. It makes you look stupid.

> now... how many websites do you go to... and how often do you 
> use USENET? and think how many online servers are NOT running windows. 
> there is a good reason for this, you understand that, right?

Online web sites and the like are actually a relatively small percentage 
of server installations. There are a huge amount of departmental-type 
servers running Windows.
0
freminlins (43)
3/29/2005 9:15:18 PM
Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dave Persik writes:
> 
> 
>>The barrier to Linux becoming mainstream is its ease of use.
> 
> 
> That, and a lack of useful applications.
> 

USEFUL? hmm... last I checked, the only advantage Windows had was 
games... name ONE piece of software in Windows, and i guarantee there is 
a Linux equivalent. but, just so we stay on target, keep it limited to 
USEFUL applications, not games, please

> 
> 
> It's not ease of installation, it's the availability of applications in
> the first place.

availability!? you're talking AVAILABILITY!? can i go out to the 
internet and LEGALLY download a piece of software for a Microsoft system 
for free? well... i can get them ILLEGALLY if i wanted to, but legally, 
no. rethink that response and come back when you have a better one.

> 
> In any case, not only would Linux have to overcome these obstacles, but
> it would also have to present some sort of _advantage_ over Windows in
> order to persuade people to switch.  Currently none of these is the
> case.
> 

and what puts you in a position to say that anyways? you're OBVIOUSLY 
not a server or network administrator, or else you'd know better.

Audit this:
1. security: as in having security updates only DAYS after a flaw is 
discovered, not weeks or months
2. Flexibility: Linux can be custom-tailored to work on almost any 
computer device you can think of, Including Playstation 2, Sony PSP, 
Nintendo DS, and yes, even Xbox (although thats not much of a stretch, 
Xbox has a Pentium III class processor)
3. Uptime: how many times do you update Windows and get that message 
that says something to the effect of "You must restart Windows for 
changes to take effect"? that doesn't happen in Linux

*sigh* thats it... i'm cross-posting this to its proper location

-- 
--Xero
.... the lone Linotaku
0
3/29/2005 9:25:17 PM
Frem wrote:

well, you seem to like to cause trouble with the other users... i'll not 
give you what you want.

-- 
--Xero
.... the lone Linotaku
0
3/29/2005 9:29:12 PM
Pandora Xero writes:

> Therein lies my POINT... Windows is pre-built. does it build up 
> everything during installation? NO it does not. if it did, it'd take 
> between 2 days and 2 weeks to install.

There's no advantage to rebuilding everything during installation.

> Windows is built for x86... by linux terms, that is a GENERIC platform.

I don't find that reassuring.

> cite sources, please. give me evidence, UPTIMES and the like

I've seen Windows NT servers run for years without a boot, and my own
machines generally run until I reboot them.  I can't remember the last
time I saw a crash of the NT or XP machine.

> only if the OS is open source can this be fixed.

It's not a problem with the OS.  It's a problem with applications and
third-party drivers.

> Not so. as it stands, Microsoft is practically dead in the server 
> industry.

Hardly dead, but not a dominant player, either.  The problem is that you
cannot build an OS that will simultaneously be the best desktop _and_
the best server.  It's one or the other.

> now... how many websites do you go to... and how often do you 
> use USENET?

A lot.

> and think how many online servers are NOT running windows. 
> there is a good reason for this, you understand that, right?

Yes.  Most are running UNIX, or Linux.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
3/30/2005 5:45:47 AM
Pandora Xero writes:

> USEFUL? hmm... last I checked, the only advantage Windows had was 
> games...

There are easily a quarter million applications available for Windows.
No other OS even comes close.  UNIX does have a pretty good selection of
applications available, but virtually none of them are desktop
applications (whereas virtually all Windows applications _are_ desktop
applications).

> name ONE piece of software in Windows, and i guarantee there is 
> a Linux equivalent.

Equivalents are a matter of opinion.  The fact is, there are more
individual applications for Windows than for any other.  And if you want
a specific application, chances are that it will be a Windows-only
application.

> availability!? you're talking AVAILABILITY!?

Yes.

> can i go out to the 
> internet and LEGALLY download a piece of software for a Microsoft system 
> for free?

Yes, depending on the application.  A tremendous amount of Windows
software is freeware or shareware.

> and what puts you in a position to say that anyways?

A couple of decades of experience.

> you're OBVIOUSLY not a server or network administrator, or else
> you'd know better.

I'm both.

> 1. security: as in having security updates only DAYS after a flaw is 
> discovered, not weeks or months

The best security is not to have flaws in the first place.

> 2. Flexibility: Linux can be custom-tailored to work on almost any 
> computer device you can think of, Including Playstation 2, Sony PSP, 
> Nintendo DS, and yes, even Xbox (although thats not much of a stretch, 
> Xbox has a Pentium III class processor)

Not very useful if you have a PC.

> 3. Uptime: how many times do you update Windows and get that message 
> that says something to the effect of "You must restart Windows for 
> changes to take effect"?

That is increasingly rare today.  It depends on the environment for
which the application was written.  Some things still require a reboot.
This is more common on Windows than on UNIX, but both operating systems
occasionally require reboots.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
3/30/2005 5:51:38 AM
Mxsmanic wrote:
 
> A system built for a generic hardware platform is less stable than a
> system built for a specific platform.

No.  You cannot justify your sweeping generalisation.  If you want the
ultimate in stability, you'd go for an application-specific, single task
hardware-based solution.  

If you are using any kind of server, desktop or laptop computer, stability
can only be achieved by employing an operating system with a proper,
consistent structure and with a consistent security model.  Only Unix and
its' derivatives provide these consistencies.
 
> Current NT-based versions of Windows are extremely stable, just as
> stable as Linux.

No they're not, and they *can't* be - the structural flaws and fundamental
design choice errors inherent in the Windows "operating system" (of *any*
type) mean that is unstable, and can *never* be stable.
 
> Instabilities in Windows (and in many other operating systems) are
> usually the result of poorly-written, overprivileged applications,
> and/or poorly written device drivers.  There is no way to fix this in
> the OS.

There is: write an OS with a structure that doesnt allow runaway permissions
and dosn't collapse if a device driver misbehaves - it isn't difficult, but
MS seem to find it impossible.
 
> Perhaps, but the mainstream requires ease of installation.  Without it,
> an OS is dead in the water.

It's now much easier to install software on most versions of Linux than it
is on any of the versions of Windoze.  There is proper compatability
checking at the time of install (something that MS either refuse to or
can't do), and modern packaging methods ensure that files are installed to
the right locations, dependancies are automatically handled, symlinks are
correct, and menu files are updated.

There is no longer any competition - MS lost the race a while ago, and the
"mainstream" users are waking up to the fact.  The last blow to MS'
credibility was the end of support for NT and its' associated software.  NT
had a very large install base, and now that users are *forced* to
"upgrade", most are finding that it simply isn't cost-effective.  It is
quicker, cheaper and more reliable to install a proper OS (usually Suse),
so Novell is going to become a *very* wealthy company in the next little
while.

C.

-- 
Everything gets easier with practice, except getting up in the morning!
0
chrisehunter (208)
3/30/2005 6:11:28 AM
Frem wrote:

>  What do you think Dell and HP sell with all their
> server boxen? Linux for sure, but also plenty of Windows. 

Perhaps you should do a little research, before you make yourself look
silly.  The big manufacturers are shipping an ever-smaller proportion of
Windows "servers".  MS can't get their 64-bit OS working (it's *still*
vapourware), and it's cheaper, more secure and more reliable to have a
server running Suse or Red Hat.
 
> Online web sites and the like are actually a relatively small percentage
> of server installations.

Nonsense!

> There are a huge amount of departmental-type servers running Windows.

There may be in the USA, but the rest of the world has woken up to the fact
that "if the solution is Windows, you're asking the wrong question".

C.


-- 
Everything gets easier with practice, except getting up in the morning!
0
chrisehunter (208)
3/30/2005 6:17:18 AM
Mxsmanic wrote:

> Dave Persik writes:
> 
>> The barrier to Linux becoming mainstream is its ease of use.
> 
> That, and a lack of useful applications.

Such as...?  There are now *no* Windows applications that aren't covered by
an OS option.
 
> It's not ease of installation, it's the availability of applications in
> the first place.

Wrong!

> In any case, not only would Linux have to overcome these obstacles, but
> it would also have to present some sort of _advantage_ over Windows in
> order to persuade people to switch.  

The Linux advantages: reliability, scalability, security.  Windows offers
*none* of these fundamentals.

C.
-- 
Everything gets easier with practice, except getting up in the morning!
0
chrisehunter (208)
3/30/2005 6:20:36 AM
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.]
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:51:38 +0200, Mxsmanic 
  <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. security: as in having security updates only DAYS after a flaw is 
>> discovered, not weeks or months
>
> The best security is not to have flaws in the first place.
>
And yet you support Microsoft?



-- 
"I deleted a file from my PC last week and I have just realized that I
need it. If I turn my system clock back two weeks will I have my file
back again?"
0
bmarcum2 (928)
3/30/2005 7:15:10 AM
chris wrote:
> Frem wrote:

> Perhaps you should do a little research, before you make yourself look
> silly.

Um, perhaps you should do some research at all before making yourself 
look very silly indeed. Ask Dell or HP what they are seliing.

> The big manufacturers are shipping an ever-smaller proportion of
> Windows "servers".

Not true.

> MS can't get their 64-bit OS working (it's *still*
> vapourware), and it's cheaper, more secure and more reliable to have a
> server running Suse or Red Hat.

The fact that MS doesn't have a 64 bit working OS does not mean they 
aren't selling bindles of the 32 bit stuff. Also, the last time I looked 
Redhat was more expensive than Windows.

> Nonsense!

True, actually.

> There may be in the USA, but the rest of the world has woken up to the fact
> that "if the solution is Windows, you're asking the wrong question".

No, the rest of the world hasn't woken up to "the fact". The fact is 
Linux has made good inroads in the server market, and is making even 
further inroads. But there are still far more Windows servers out there 
than Linux. Anything you state to the contrary is as bad as the FUD that 
MS comes out with.

> C.

Frem.
0
3/30/2005 7:55:12 AM
Ivan Marsh wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:31:29 -0600, Dave Persik wrote:
> 
> 
>>The barrier to Linux becoming mainstream is its ease of use.
>>Installation has overcome this by being as easy to intall as Windows
>>(with some distributions)
>>The remaining obtacale is installing new apps.  In Windows, you
>>download to your desktop, double click on the icon, and follow the
>>instructions.   When it becomes as easy to install a new application
>>on Linux, it will become mainsteam.  Just as the PC and Windows did.
> 
> 
> rpm -Uvh <package>
> 
> That's real fucking hard troll boy.
> 

Yea that's a helpful reply.
Why don't you keep your fucked up attitude to yourself.
This post is not very troll like and even if it were WHY REPLY REJECT?

There is no need for this.
If you think it's a troll don't reply, other people may wish to start an 
interesting descussion.

I hate fuckups like you, how are noobs going to get better with twats 
like you around.

Rage
-- 
***********************************
  *                               *
  *      EuropeSwPatentFree       *
  *                               *
***********************************
0
rage (14)
3/30/2005 8:16:01 AM
Mxsmanic wrote:

> Pandora Xero writes:
> 
>> USEFUL? hmm... last I checked, the only advantage Windows had was
>> games...
> 
> There are easily a quarter million applications available for Windows.
> No other OS even comes close. 

More than 90% of the "applications" for Windows are duplicates of existing
ones.  If you strip those out, there are a similar number of applications
for each OS.

> UNIX does have a pretty good selection of 
> applications available, but virtually none of them are desktop
> applications (whereas virtually all Windows applications _are_ desktop
> applications).

The applications I have on my desktop Linux machine *are* designed for
desktop use.  These include Open Office (not really a server application),
Kontact (also not really applicable to a server), web browsers (which I
wouldn't install on to a server) and many more....
 
>> name ONE piece of software in Windows, and i guarantee there is
>> a Linux equivalent.
> 
> Equivalents are a matter of opinion.

No - they are a matter of fact.

> The fact is, there are more 
> individual applications for Windows than for any other.  And if you want
> a specific application, chances are that it will be a Windows-only
> application.

Not these days - I can't find anything useful that's Windows-only, except
for games which I'm not even slightly interested in.


>> can i go out to the
>> internet and LEGALLY download a piece of software for a Microsoft system
>> for free?
> 
> Yes, depending on the application.  A tremendous amount of Windows
> software is freeware or shareware.

Shareware is just another way of paying for software.  Windows "freeware" is
usually so bad that it couldn't be sold!

>> 1. security: as in having security updates only DAYS after a flaw is
>> discovered, not weeks or months
> 
> The best security is not to have flaws in the first place.

Like Windows?  MS have *never* released properly working software (and never
will - it's not in their interest).  It's *always* broken in some way, and
the worst part of it is that their "updates" usually break it further!  The
security holes and instabilities inherent in Windows make it unusable for
any serious purpose.  
 
>> 2. Flexibility: Linux can be custom-tailored to work on almost any
>> computer device you can think of, Including Playstation 2, Sony PSP,
>> Nintendo DS, and yes, even Xbox (although thats not much of a stretch,
>> Xbox has a Pentium III class processor)
> 
> Not very useful if you have a PC.

You're missing the point - you can't "run" Windows on the majority of
hardware, though Linux can be tailored for *any* application or appliance!
 
>> 3. Uptime: how many times do you update Windows and get that message
>> that says something to the effect of "You must restart Windows for
>> changes to take effect"?
> 
> That is increasingly rare today.

Nonsense. *Anything* that needs to be changed on a Windoze box requires a
reboot.

> It depends on the environment for 
> which the application was written.  Some things still require a reboot.

*Anything* requires a reboot in Windows!

> This is more common on Windows than on UNIX, but both operating systems
> occasionally require reboots.

No.  We have Linux, BSD and Unix machines here that have *never* been
rebooted despite major configuration changes.

C.

-- 
Everything gets easier with practice, except getting up in the morning!
0
chrisehunter (208)
3/30/2005 4:34:13 PM
chris writes:

> Perhaps you should do a little research, before you make yourself look
> silly.  The big manufacturers are shipping an ever-smaller proportion of
> Windows "servers".

Many large users of Windows servers do not depend on preinstalled
software.  They license and install the OS separately from the hardware.

> Nonsense!

Actually it's true.  Most servers are not web servers.  And many web
servers are not on the Web.

Additionally, much of the success of UNIX and Linux servers on the Web
is driven by the huge success of the Apache web server (yes, it runs on
Windows, but it's a lot happier on UNIX).

> There may be in the USA, but the rest of the world has woken up to the fact
> that "if the solution is Windows, you're asking the wrong question".

It's true everywhere, not just in the USA.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
3/30/2005 6:21:32 PM
chris writes:

> If you are using any kind of server, desktop or laptop computer, stability
> can only be achieved by employing an operating system with a proper,
> consistent structure and with a consistent security model.  Only Unix and
> its' derivatives provide these consistencies.

There are many operating systems that provide this, and UNIX is not the
best of them.

> No they're not, and they *can't* be - the structural flaws and fundamental
> design choice errors inherent in the Windows "operating system" (of *any*
> type) mean that is unstable, and can *never* be stable.

I've seen the uptime statistics.  They are stable systems.

I get the impression that a lot of Microsoft-bashers haven't actually
used Windows since Windows 3.1, or at least since Windows 95.  Things
have changed a lot since then.

> There is: write an OS with a structure that doesnt allow runaway permissions
> and dosn't collapse if a device driver misbehaves - it isn't difficult, but
> MS seem to find it impossible.

It can't be done.  Drivers require the highest levels of privilege by
their very nature; they must be trusted components.  If they contain
bugs, the entire system is destabilized.

Applications can be restrained.  But many desktop applications today are
not designed to run with restraints.

> It's now much easier to install software on most versions of Linux than it
> is on any of the versions of Windoze.

Nothing can be easier than clicking on a button, and that's all that
many Windows installations require.

> There is no longer any competition - MS lost the race a while ago, and the
> "mainstream" users are waking up to the fact.

The mainstream users haven't moved.

> The last blow to MS' credibility was the end of support for NT
> and its' associated software.  NT had a very large install base, and
> now that users are *forced* to "upgrade", most are finding that it
> simply isn't cost-effective. 

First of all, MS will still support NT, if the price is right.  Second,
NT is so stable today that it typically requires no support.  Third, the
successors to NT are all still using the NT code base; they are just
more recent releases of the OS--so migration isn't that difficult.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
3/30/2005 6:26:51 PM
Bill Marcum writes:

> And yet you support Microsoft?

I use Microsoft software, as well as software from other sources.  I
haven't encountered any software from anywhere that is free of flaws.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
3/30/2005 6:27:25 PM
chris writes:

> More than 90% of the "applications" for Windows are duplicates of existing
> ones.

No, a great many of these applications are one-of-a-kind, in domains
where there simply isn't enough of a market for more than one
application.

> The applications I have on my desktop Linux machine *are* designed for
> desktop use.

Sure, but only a handful of such applications exist.

> No - they are a matter of fact.

No, they are not, because there is on single objective criterion of
equivalency.

> Not these days - I can't find anything useful that's Windows-only, except
> for games which I'm not even slightly interested in.

The fact that something isn't useful to you doesn't mean that it isn't
useful to anyone else.

> Shareware is just another way of paying for software.  Windows "freeware" is
> usually so bad that it couldn't be sold!

It's no worse than other freeware on other platforms.  A lot of freeware
is given away in the public interest.

> Like Windows?

No operating system is free of flaws, but it's better to have few flaws
and wait for fixes than to have many flaws and get fixes instantly.

> MS have *never* released properly working software (and never
> will - it's not in their interest). 

Here again, there is no objectively unique definition of "working
software," so this comment is of little utility.

> You're missing the point - you can't "run" Windows on the majority of
> hardware, though Linux can be tailored for *any* application or appliance!

Almost all the microcomputer hardware in the world is Intel-compatible,
and Windows will run on that.

> Nonsense. *Anything* that needs to be changed on a Windoze box requires a
> reboot.

Not true.  Most applications I've installed in recent years did not
require a reboot.

> No.  We have Linux, BSD and Unix machines here that have *never* been
> rebooted despite major configuration changes.

Trying changing drivers for your system devices.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
3/30/2005 6:32:10 PM
chris writes:

> Such as...?

The list is very long.  I have about a hundred applications on my
Windows PC, and only a handful of them exist for any other platform
besides Windows.

> There are now *no* Windows applications that aren't covered by
> an OS option.

?

> The Linux advantages: reliability, scalability, security.  Windows offers
> *none* of these fundamentals.

Windows offers all of them today.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
3/30/2005 6:33:18 PM
chris wrote:

....
>>>1. security: as in having security updates only DAYS after a flaw is
>>>discovered, not weeks or months
>>>
>>The best security is not to have flaws in the first place.
> 
> Like Windows?  MS have *never* released properly working software (and never
> will - it's not in their interest).  It's *always* broken in some way, and
> the worst part of it is that their "updates" usually break it further!  The
> security holes and instabilities inherent in Windows make it unusable for
> any serious purpose.

 From "Tomorrow Never Dies":

Elliot Carver: Mr Jones, are we ready to release our new software?

Mr Jones: Yes sir.  As requested it's full of bugs; which means people will 
be forced to upgrade for years.

Carver: Outstanding.

Can't imagine whom they could possibly mean...

  


0
ReapNewsB (1408)
3/30/2005 11:08:41 PM
Mxsmanic wrote:
 
>> The Linux advantages: reliability, scalability, security.  Windows offers
>> *none* of these fundamentals.
> 
> Windows offers all of them today.

It's *plonk* time - you really are a troll.  Windows has the poorest
reliability of *any* "operating system" ever - later versions are slightly
better, but even Server 2003 and XP SP2 are seriously broken.  Windows does
not and cannot scale.  It has too many security flaws to make it useful for
anything other than playing games - and it's *not* good at that. 

Windows is a toy "operating system" and has had its' time.  Game over.

C.

-- 
Everything gets easier with practice, except getting up in the morning!
0
chrisehunter (208)
3/31/2005 4:49:00 AM
chris wrote:

> It's *plonk* time - you really are a troll.  Windows has the poorest
> reliability of *any* "operating system" ever - later versions are slightly
> better, but even Server 2003 and XP SP2 are seriously broken.

Actually, I've never had a problem with Win2K. I had loads of problems 
with NT4.

>  Windows does
> not and cannot scale. 

You really are missing the point with your scalability arguments. For 
more than 90% of people, they are of absolutely no concern. On the 
desktop, Windows is perfectly good. It's only in > quad processor 
machines where it loses its usefulness. And that market is much smaller 
than the "Windows doesn't scale" lobby makes out.

> It has too many security flaws to make it useful for
> anything other than playing games - and it's *not* good at that. 

You really are talking rubbish. These mindless comments don't do 
anything to put Linux in a good light. The fact is many people do run 
Windows without having security problems. The fact is many people who 
run Windows also have security problems. Those same people would likely 
have problem running Linux securely as well. It's because they don't 
know how to administer a machine properly. It's a bit like driving.

> Windows is a toy "operating system" and has had its' time.  Game over.

Again, more rubbish. The market disagrees with you, so does Bill's bank 
manager.

> C.

Frem.
0
3/31/2005 8:45:37 AM
Spake Pandora Xero:
> Windows is unstable because in order to maintain usability on all these 
> different architectures

You seem to be misinformed.  To my knowledge current Microsoft operating
systems only support the IA-32, IA-64 and AMD64 architectures.

The last release of Debian officially supported eleven architectures,
although they're now considering reducing support for the less popular
architectures so as to be able to deliver a stable release more
frequently.

-- 
Trent Buck, Student Errant
On a T-shirt: I am a bomb technician. If you see me running, try to keep up.
0
trentbuck (60)
3/31/2005 9:49:59 AM
Spake Mxsmanic:
> Perhaps, but the mainstream requires ease of installation.  Without it,
> an OS is dead in the water.

IME users from a Windows or MacOS background do the following:

	- Google for $task

	- Go to website of $package that does $task

	- Download a tarball and try to install it, invariably without success.

It has to be explained to them that their system (probably) already
knows about $package, and it can be installed by simply typing 

	apt-get install $package

at the command line (or yum, urpmi, whatever).  They can't believe that
the 10,000 or so most popular programs are already integrated into their
distribution.

-- 
Trent Buck, Student Errant
SCSI is *not* magic.  There are fundamental technical reasons why it is
necessary to sacrifice a young goat to your SCSI chain now and then.
0
trentbuck (60)
3/31/2005 9:55:18 AM
Spake Pandora Xero:
> Windows is built for x86...

I rather suspect that current IA-32 builds are compiled for i686, or
i586 at best.

> > Instabilities in Windows (and in many other operating systems) are
> > usually the result of poorly-written, overprivileged applications,
> > and/or poorly written device drivers.  There is no way to fix this in
> > the OS.
> 
> only if the OS is open source can this be fixed. Is Windows open source? 

I do not understand this remark.  If a there is a bug in an application,
how can it be fixed by open-sourcing the operating system?  For example,
how can bugs in skype, vmware, citrix or oracle products be fixed under
Linux?  Surely you need the application or device driver to be open.

-- 
Trent Buck, Student Errant
Lisp is... executable pseudo-code.
 -- Joe Marshall
0
trentbuck (60)
3/31/2005 10:01:39 AM
Spake Mxsmanic:
>> Cite sources, please.  Give me evidence, uptimes and the like.
> 
> I've seen Windows NT servers run for years without a boot, and my own
> machines generally run until I reboot them.  I can't remember the last
> time I saw a crash of the NT or XP machine.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

> Hardly dead, but not a dominant player, either.  The problem is that you
> cannot build an OS that will simultaneously be the best desktop _and_
> the best server.  It's one or the other.

I disagree.  The only difference between desktop and server requirements
FOR THE OPERATING SYSTEM ITSELF is scale.  Service and application
requirements certainly differ; that is why there is more than one
distro.

-- 
Trent Buck, Student Errant
Unix is great.  The Unix culture is magnificent.  Life in a Unix without
the GNU utilities is the kind of hell I'd not wish on my worst enemy.
 -- Robert Uhl
0
trentbuck (60)
3/31/2005 10:13:03 AM
Spake Mxsmanic:
> I have about a hundred applications on my Windows PC, and only a handful of
> them exist for any other platform besides Windows.

Would you care to name names?

-- 
Trent Buck, Student Errant
I degaussed my girlfriend and I'm just not attracted to her anymore.
0
trentbuck (60)
3/31/2005 10:22:53 AM
Trent Buck writes:

> The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

> I disagree.  The only difference between desktop and server requirements
> FOR THE OPERATING SYSTEM ITSELF is scale.

No, there are many differences that are largely incompatible with each
other.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
3/31/2005 6:27:59 PM
chris writes:

> Windows has the poorest reliability of *any* "operating
> system" ever ...

I have seen no evidence of this.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
3/31/2005 6:29:45 PM
Frem writes:

> Actually, I've never had a problem with Win2K. I had loads of problems 
> with NT4.

I've rarely had problems with NT4, and all of the problems I had were
bad drivers.  No problems with Windows XP.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
3/31/2005 6:30:39 PM
Trent Buck writes:

> Spake Mxsmanic:
> > I have about a hundred applications on my Windows PC, and only a handful of
> > them exist for any other platform besides Windows.
> 
> Would you care to name names?

A partial list:

Access
Acrobat
Audio MP3 Editor
Bar Code Pro
BlitzIn
EarTest
Easy CD
Excel
Finale
Firefox
Flight Check
Flight Simulator
Fort� Agent
Fritz
FrontPage
GeoClock
Illustrator
Internet Explorer
Kai Power Tools
Knock Out
Lynx
Mask Pro
Math Type
Money
Motherboard Monitor
Movie Maker
NetMeeting
Nikon Scan
Opera
Outlook
Outlook Express
PageMaker
Paint Shop Pro
Palm Desktop
Perl
PGP Desktop
Photoshop
Pov-Ray
Power DVD
PowerPoint
Quark XPress
Quite Imposing
Real Player
Rebel Tiger
SecureCRT
SecureFX
SimCity
Spectrogram
Speech Filing System
Streamline
The Bat!
The Sims 2
UltraEdit 32
Visual C++
Visual InterDev
Visual Route
WebTV Viewer
Word
Works
ZoneAlarm

+ 1800 T1 and TT fonts

Everything on the machine is legal.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
3/31/2005 6:47:34 PM
Ivan...as you can tell...you ARE the REJECT HERE!  Hello!!!!  Knock 
knock...were you one of the boys molested by MJ?  You sure seem uptight and 
anal...ooppsss...that's your biz and MJ.  But seriously, you are an 
ass...your parents must of neglected your sorry ass or have been butt reamed 
by someone bad enough.

That's my analysis of you...nice analysis.

"Ivan Marsh" <annoyed@you.now> wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.03.29.18.24.07.923262@you.now...
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:24:28 +0000, Frem wrote:
>
>> Ivan Marsh wrote:
>>
>>> Ah, your third post... and you're still useless.
>>
>> Yes, and you are still at it with your goober responses. Swearing and up
>> there on your high horse with nothing useful to say. So why don't you
>> shut your cake hole?
>
> Yes, yes... and we're all glad to see you back doing what you do best (not
> to mention the only thing you do) defending trolls.
>
> -- 
> Life is short, but wide. -KV
>
> 


0
home772 (6)
4/1/2005 4:49:00 AM
Spake Mxsmanic:
>> I disagree.  The only difference between desktop and server requirements
>> FOR THE OPERATING SYSTEM ITSELF is scale.
> 
> No, there are many differences that are largely incompatible with each
> other.

Please, what are these differences?

-- 
Trent Buck, Student Errant
I always buy white autos only.  That way, the cops call in a speeding
red car once I've gone by, but the ones at the roadblocks see a blue one
coming their way.
 -- J.D. Baldwin
0
trentbuck (60)
4/1/2005 5:28:52 AM
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 20:32:10 +0200, a posting issued forth from Mxsmanic...
> chris writes:
>
> No operating system is free of flaws, but it's better to have few flaws
> and wait for fixes than to have many flaws and get fixes instantly.
>

Are you suggesting that Windows has "few flaws", and Linux/UNIX "have
many"? The mind boggles.

-- 
Jacob
mailto:`echo wnpbo@urvqre.ubzryvahk.arg | tr [a-z] [n-za-m]`
0
Jacob364 (53)
4/1/2005 6:41:45 AM
Mxsmanic wrote:

> Access

Kid stuff.

> Acrobat

Got that

> Audio MP3 Editor

How many do you want?

> Bar Code Pro

barcode.

> BlitzIn

Huh?

> EarTest

WHAT?!

> Easy CD

k3b, xcdroast, to mention a few.

> Excel

kspread, OpenOffice, gnumeric among others

> Finale

rosegarden, noteedit, musixtex

> Firefox

Got that

> Flight Check

What's that?

> Flight Simulator

FS

> Fort� Agent

Don't make me laugh! Probably twenty of them. knode, slrn, rn, xrn, etc etc

> Fritz

???

> FrontPage

That silly excuse for a HTML editor? Don't make me laugh! I've never seen
such a piece of crap. Quanta, Coffeecup, others

> GeoClock

Got them in droves

> Illustrator

Gimp

> Internet Explorer

HAHAHAHAHA! Mozilla, FF, Konqueror, Opera, Netscape

> Kai Power Tools

Huh?

> Knock Out

WAH?

> Lynx

Got that.

> Mask Pro

Huh?

> Math Type

Scores.

> Money

Got that.

> Motherboard Monitor

More than one

> Movie Maker

blender I think

> NetMeeting

GnoMeeting

> Nikon Scan

What's that?

> Opera

Got that?

> Outlook
> Outlook Express

Hahaha. Email was invented on a UNIX machine. HELLOO!!!

> PageMaker

Scribus among others, TeX and a score of TeX IDE's

> Paint Shop Pro

Gimp

> Palm Desktop

JPilot, kpilot

> Perl

HELLOOOOO!

> PGP Desktop

kpgp

> Photoshop

Ten million of them

> Pov-Ray

Got that.

> Power DVD

Xine,  kaffeine

> PowerPoint

OpenOffice again, kpresenter

> Quark XPress

Scribus again

> Quite Imposing

???

> Real Player

Got that.

> Rebel Tiger

Game?

> SecureCRT
> SecureFX

What's that?

> SimCity

Game!

> Spectrogram
> Speech Filing System
> Streamline

Huh?

> The Bat!

That's a newsreader, is it?

> The Sims 2

Game again...

> UltraEdit 32

What do you want? emacs, kate, kwrite, gedit, xedit, and a load of others.

> Visual C++

You can hardly call that a compiler. And we have IDE's galore. kdevelop,
anjuta, etc, etc, etc

> Visual InterDev

Pfff.

> Visual Route

xtraceroute

> WebTV Viewer

Got that.

> Word

OpenOffice, kword, abiword, others

> Works

Hah. Come on, be serious, that's kid stuff. OpenOffice, other office suite.
W

> ZoneAlarm

Pfff. iptables.

> + 1800 T1 and TT fonts

How many are you using? Can be used on Linux too, no problem.

Seems to me that we've got you covered minus a few games.

-- 
Ruurd
..o.
...o
ooo
0
spamtrap5370 (210)
4/1/2005 6:45:46 AM
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:47:34 +0200, a posting issued forth from Mxsmanic...
> Trent Buck writes:
>
>> Spake Mxsmanic:
>> > I have about a hundred applications on my Windows PC, and only a handful of
>> > them exist for any other platform besides Windows.
>> 
>> Would you care to name names?
>
> A partial list:
>

Ooh, fun! Let's see...

> Access

MySQL

> Acrobat

Acrobat

> Audio MP3 Editor

Dunno what you're doing with it, but probably audacity

> Bar Code Pro
> BlitzIn
> EarTest
> Easy CD

Seriously? K3b is best (IMO), but *MANY* exist.

> Excel

oowriter

> Finale
> Firefox

firefox

> Flight Check
> Flight Simulator
> Fort� Agent

pan

> Fritz
> FrontPage

quanta+

> GeoClock
> Illustrator
> Internet Explorer

ROTLFMAO! 

> Kai Power Tools
> Knock Out
> Lynx

lynx?

> Mask Pro
> Math Type
> Money
> Motherboard Monitor

gkrellm

> Movie Maker
> NetMeeting

gnomemeeting

> Nikon Scan
> Opera

opera

> Outlook
> Outlook Express

evolution

> PageMaker
> Paint Shop Pro
> Palm Desktop
> Perl

perl

> PGP Desktop
> Photoshop

The GIMP

> Pov-Ray
> Power DVD

xine

> PowerPoint

ooimpress

> Quark XPress
> Quite Imposing
> Real Player

real player

> Rebel Tiger
> SecureCRT
> SecureFX
> SimCity
> Spectrogram
> Speech Filing System
> Streamline
> The Bat!
> The Sims 2
> UltraEdit 32

Umm, if this is an editor, then you've got MANY.

> Visual C++
> Visual InterDev

quanta+

> Visual Route
> WebTV Viewer
> Word

oowriter

> Works
> ZoneAlarm
>

iptables

> + 1800 T1 and TT fonts
>

Um, these all work on linux...

> Everything on the machine is legal.
>

Possibly. If so, then it cost you at least $1200 in software alone. I
can do everything you do, and it doesn't cost anything for the software.

-- 
Jacob
mailto:`echo wnpbo@urvqre.ubzryvahk.arg | tr [a-z] [n-za-m]`
0
Jacob364 (53)
4/1/2005 6:49:38 AM
Spake Mxsmanic:
>>> I have about a hundred applications on my Windows PC, and only a handful of
>>> them exist for any other platform besides Windows.
>> Would you care to name names?
> A partial list:

OK, I'll list some substitutes.  Bear in mind that some of these are
incomplete substitutes (e.g. Gimp is not on par with Photoshop).

> Access

OpenOffice 2.0[1] has an Access-type interface (to MySQL[2] /
Postgres[3] I assume).

> Acrobat

Also available[4] on Linux.  Alternately, ghostview[5], xpdf[6],
evince[7], gpdf[8].

> Audio MP3 Editor

I like easytag[9].

> Bar Code Pro

Also available[10] on OS X.  Freshmeat[11] lists a bunch of
alternatives[12], but I can't vouch for them.

> BlitzIn

If you're talking about chess[13], there are other ICC chess programs
for Linux, most notably xboard[14].  There are more flashy implementations,
but I don't know if they speak ICC.

> EarTest

I've no idea.  Sorry.

> Easy CD

The most popular is surely k3b[15].  Nautilus[16] also has a data CD
burning interface.  I like xcdroast[17], or simply using mkisofs and
cdrecord[18] from a terminal.

> Excel

Openoffice[1] or Gnumeric[19].

> Finale

I don't know.  Lilypond[20] is often suggested.

> Firefox

I surely don't need to explain this one :-)

> Flight Check

No idea what this is.

> Flight Simulator

Openoffice[1].  Or do you mean an *actual* flight sim?  As a game,
Search and Rescue[21] ain't bad.  X-Plane looks good[22].  Freshmeat[23]
has a large list.

> Forte Agent

I like sylpheed[24][25].  Evolution[26] is also popular.  Freshmeat[27] has a large list.

> Fritz

AFAICT it's a chess program.  See Freshmeat[28].

> FrontPage

I just use Emacs[29], which supports structural editing of HTML.
Bluefish[30] is often mentioned, but I haven't tried it.

> GeoClock

XPlanet[31].  It even looks good.

> Illustrator

Inkscape[32].

> Internet Explorer

Firefox (actually I prefer Galeon and Kazehakase).  Some pages need
ActiveX or whatever; I don't have a solution to that.

> Kai Power Tools

I don't really understand what this is.  Gimp?

> Knock Out

Is this a breakout game?  Search freshmeat.

> Lynx

Like Firefox, this was borne from UNIX' womb.

> Mask Pro

Is this a Photoshop plugin?  I'm not familiar with it.

> Math Type

LaTeX[33], I guess.  There are frontends like Lyx[34], TeXmacs[35] and Auctex[36], but I'm not familiar with them.

> Money

I use gnucash[37] for my simple needs.  There is (AFAIK) a dearth of
financial software for Linux, although Freshmeat[38] has a list.

> Motherboard Monitor

Gkrellm[39] does fan speed, mobo voltages, cpu temperature and suchlike.
I believe it uses lmsensors[40] internally.

> Movie Maker

Sorry, I've no idea.

> NetMeeting

Gnomemeeting[41] does H.323.

> Nikon Scan

I don't know.  All current-gen cameras I've seen use USB and usb-storage
or IEEE1394 and SBP-2.  In plain terms, the look just like removable
hard disks to the OS.  You then use GIMP or whatever takes your fancy.

Or are you talking about a scanner?  I think you want SANE[42] for that;
I've never used it.

> Opera

Also available for Linux.

> Outlook
> Outlook Express

Freshmeat lists a phenomenal number of news and mail readers.

> PageMaker

Scribus[43].

> Paint Shop Pro

The GIMP[44].

> Palm Desktop

Uh, Qtopia[45] or Opie[46]?  I've no experience with PDAs.  Search Freshmeat for
Palm sync programs; I can't name any off the top of my head.

> Perl

Also available on Linux.

> PGP Desktop

I don't know.  GnuPG[47] does the mail-encryption component.  There are
technologies to encrypt whole filesystems, but I haven't investigated
them.

> Photoshop

GIMP[44], of course.

> Pov-Ray

Also available[48] on Linux.

> Power DVD

Mplayer[49], I guess.  Totem has a friendlier interface, but I don't know if it plays protected DVDs.

> PowerPoint

OpenOffice

> Quark XPress

Scribus

> Real Player

Also available on Linux.

> Speech Filing System

Festival?

> Quite Imposing
> Rebel Tiger
> SecureCRT
> SecureFX
> SimCity
> Spectrogram
> Streamline
> The Bat!
> The Sims 2
> UltraEdit 32
> Visual C++
> Visual InterDev
> Visual Route
> WebTV Viewer
> Word
> Works
> ZoneAlarm

I have a bunch of work and can't finish this now.  Hopefully what I *have*
written will be of some help.

Footnotes: 

[1]  http://www.openoffice.org/
[2]  http://mysql.com
[3]  http://www.postgresql.org
[4]  http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/alternate.html
[5]  http://wino.physik.uni-mainz.de/~plass/gv/
[6]  http://www.foolabs.com/xpdf/
[7]  http://www.gnome.org/projects/evince/
[8]  http://www.inf.tu-dresden.de/~mk793652/gpdf/
[9]  http://easytag.sf.net
[10]  http://www.snx.com/products/product.php?id=15
[11]  http://freshmeat.net/search/?q=barcode
[12]  http://www.kbarcode.net/
      http://ar.linux.it/software/#barcode
      http://www.terryburton.co.uk/barcodewriter/index.html
      http://barbecue.sourceforge.net/
[13]  http://www.chessclub.com/helpcenter/interface/blitzin_download.php
[14]  http://www.tim-mann.org/xboard.html
[15]  http://www.k3b.org
[16]  http://www.gnome.org/projects/nautilus/
      http://gnomejournal.org/article/6/cddvd-creation-with-nautilus
[17]  http://xcdroast.org/
[18]  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/cdrecord.html
      http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/mkisofs.html
[19]  http://www.gnome.org/projects/gnumeric/
[20]  http://lilypond.org/web/
[21]  http://wolfpack.twu.net/SearchAndRescue/
[22]  http://www.x-plane.com/
[23]  http://freshmeat.net/browse/85/
[24]  http://sylpheed.good-day.net/
[25]  http://sylpheed-claws.sourceforge.net/
[26]  http://www.novell.com/products/desktop/features/evolution.html
[27]  http://freshmeat.net/browse/31/
[28]  http://freshmeat.net/search/?q=chess&trove_cat_id=83&section=trove_cat&Go.x=0&Go.y=0
[29]  http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/
[30]  http://bluefish.openoffice.nl/
[31]  http://xplanet.sourceforge.net/
[32]  http://www.inkscape.org/
[33]  http://tug.org/teTeX/
[34]  http://www.lyx.org/
[35]  http://www.texmacs.org
[36]  http://www.gnu.org/software/auctex/
[37]  http://www.gnucash.org/
[38]  http://freshmeat.net/browse/75/
[39]  http://members.dslextreme.com/users/billw/gkrellm/gkrellm.html
[40]  http://www2.lm-sensors.nu/~lm78/
[41]  http://www.gnomemeeting.org/
[42]  http://www.sane-project.org/
[43]  http://www.scribus.org.uk/
[44]  http://gimp.org/
[45]  http://www.trolltech.com/products/qtopia/
[46]  http://opie.handhelds.org/cgi-bin/moin.cgi/
[47]  http://gnupg.org/
[48]  http://www.povray.org/
[49]  http://www.mplayerhq.hu/homepage/index.html

-- 
Trent Buck, Student Errant
Do you like ANYTHING?
I enjoy clinging to old wounds and bitterness.
 -- Diesel Sweeties #1175
0
trentbuck (60)
4/1/2005 2:18:19 PM
Trent Buck writes:

> Please, what are these differences?

For example, the heavy emphasis on a GUI in a desktop, whereas GUIs are
an unnecessary liability in a server.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
4/1/2005 2:33:12 PM
Jacob writes:

> Are you suggesting that Windows has "few flaws", and Linux/UNIX "have
> many"?

No, they both have flaws, but it's hard to assess how many.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
4/1/2005 2:33:36 PM
R.F. Pels writes:

> How many are you using?

All of them.

> Seems to me that we've got you covered minus a few games.

Seems to me that you dismiss anything you don't use or like.  But I use
all these applications, and I like them.  And virtually all of them run
only on Windows.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
4/1/2005 2:34:40 PM
Jacob writes:

> If so, then it cost you at least $1200 in software alone.

Closer to $20,000.

> I can do everything you do, and it doesn't cost anything
> for the software.

No, you cannot.  And in any case, the fact remains that the applications
I use run only on Windows (with rare exceptions).

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
4/1/2005 2:35:51 PM
Trent Buck writes:

> OK, I'll list some substitutes.

I don't want substitutes.  I want to run the applications on the list,
period.  That's why I use Windows.

> I have a bunch of work and can't finish this now.  Hopefully what I *have*
> written will be of some help.

I don't need help.  I already have a Windows machine, and all these
applications run on it without any problems.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
4/1/2005 2:37:17 PM
On 2005-04-01, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Trent Buck writes:
>
>> OK, I'll list some substitutes.
>
> I don't want substitutes.  I want to run the applications on the list,
> period.  That's why I use Windows.
>
>> I have a bunch of work and can't finish this now.  Hopefully what I *have*
>> written will be of some help.
>
> I don't need help.  I already have a Windows machine, and all these
> applications run on it without any problems.

There are certainly some people in this thread who are too much biased
towards Linux and make unreasonable claims on Linux virtues and Windows
flaws. After you published your list I had a good laugh. Some programs
started their live on Unix (where they generally run better), some have
native Linux versions provided by the vendor and the (still large) group
left has replacements with varying quality, but quite a few pretty good
ones.

Your defence: "I want _this_ application and I do not care whether there
is an equaly good (or even better) one on Linux".

Two years ago you had a point regarding software compatibility and as
one of the few Linux users at my work I always had to defend myself that
I couldn't (easily) to XYZ.  I could do the things I needed most perfectly
on Linux, so I didn't care too much.  Nowadays problems of this kind are
rare.  Ok, I can't see a website using ActiveX, but even if I had explorer
I'd disable ActiveX for security reasons.

And yes, you're right that Windows since later NT4 versions running on
well supported hardware (good idea for Linux too) runs reasonably stable.
The requirement to run viruscheckers slows it down signfificantly though.
I never do, but at least upto Windows 2k it performance degrades both the
longer you keep it up and the more it is used in general.

To me, Linux is a good OS.  It provides 99% of what I need and is way
quicker to install (windows itself is fine, but than you need to get
and install everything else you want).  Most important: it is free.
It is highly dubious to have one compagny in control of the complete
IT infrastructure.  It is simply too important for that!  

	Cheers --- Jan
0
jan169 (28)
4/1/2005 3:40:08 PM
Jan Wielemaker writes:

> And yes, you're right that Windows since later NT4 versions running on
> well supported hardware (good idea for Linux too) runs reasonably stable.
> The requirement to run viruscheckers slows it down signfificantly though.

I don't run viruscheckers.

> To me, Linux is a good OS.  It provides 99% of what I need and is way
> quicker to install (windows itself is fine, but than you need to get
> and install everything else you want).  Most important: it is free.
> It is highly dubious to have one compagny in control of the complete
> IT infrastructure.  It is simply too important for that!  

You still leave one question unanswered: If a person has all the
applications he requires running smoothly on Windows, why should he care
about Linux?

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
4/1/2005 6:46:51 PM
What I'm missing on Linux is a good user-friendly powerful video editing 
software, something comparable to Adobe Premiere Pro. Actually, ADobe 
Video Collection Pro - as it includes DVD authoring (Encore DVD), good 
audio editing (Audition) and very-very good After Effects. Not to 
mention that there are several 3rd-party plug-ins for these applications 
(e.g. 2d3 plug-in that reduces video shakiness in a clip shot with a 
hand-held).

So for now my video gets edited on Win XP Sp2, and my work is done on 
Linux (and things compile sooo fast!).

Jan Wielemaker wrote:

>On 2005-04-01, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Trent Buck writes:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>OK, I'll list some substitutes.
>>>      
>>>
>>I don't want substitutes.  I want to run the applications on the list,
>>period.  That's why I use Windows.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I have a bunch of work and can't finish this now.  Hopefully what I *have*
>>>written will be of some help.
>>>      
>>>
>>I don't need help.  I already have a Windows machine, and all these
>>applications run on it without any problems.
>>    
>>
>
>There are certainly some people in this thread who are too much biased
>towards Linux and make unreasonable claims on Linux virtues and Windows
>flaws. After you published your list I had a good laugh. Some programs
>started their live on Unix (where they generally run better), some have
>native Linux versions provided by the vendor and the (still large) group
>left has replacements with varying quality, but quite a few pretty good
>ones.
>
>Your defence: "I want _this_ application and I do not care whether there
>is an equaly good (or even better) one on Linux".
>
>Two years ago you had a point regarding software compatibility and as
>one of the few Linux users at my work I always had to defend myself that
>I couldn't (easily) to XYZ.  I could do the things I needed most perfectly
>on Linux, so I didn't care too much.  Nowadays problems of this kind are
>rare.  Ok, I can't see a website using ActiveX, but even if I had explorer
>I'd disable ActiveX for security reasons.
>
>And yes, you're right that Windows since later NT4 versions running on
>well supported hardware (good idea for Linux too) runs reasonably stable.
>The requirement to run viruscheckers slows it down signfificantly though.
>I never do, but at least upto Windows 2k it performance degrades both the
>longer you keep it up and the more it is used in general.
>
>To me, Linux is a good OS.  It provides 99% of what I need and is way
>quicker to install (windows itself is fine, but than you need to get
>and install everything else you want).  Most important: it is free.
>It is highly dubious to have one compagny in control of the complete
>IT infrastructure.  It is simply too important for that!  
>
>	Cheers --- Jan
>  
>
0
urimobile (7)
4/1/2005 7:51:20 PM
On 2005-04-01, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Jan Wielemaker writes:
>
>> And yes, you're right that Windows since later NT4 versions running on
>> well supported hardware (good idea for Linux too) runs reasonably stable.
>> The requirement to run viruscheckers slows it down signfificantly though.
>
> I don't run viruscheckers.
>
>> To me, Linux is a good OS.  It provides 99% of what I need and is way
>> quicker to install (windows itself is fine, but than you need to get
>> and install everything else you want).  Most important: it is free.
>> It is highly dubious to have one compagny in control of the complete
>> IT infrastructure.  It is simply too important for that!  
>
> You still leave one question unanswered: If a person has all the
> applications he requires running smoothly on Windows, why should he care
> about Linux?

I do not have $20,000 for my software. Maybe even more important, I like
to be able to study, modify and/or interact at a low level with the
software. I admit this isn't the case for most people. They must stick
with Windows if they wish and thank Linux and OS/2 for forcing MS to
develop a sensible OS. I think it is necessary there is a credible
alternative to MS. It forces MS to innovate and provides at least some
basic freedom for those who want something else.

	Cheers --- Jan
0
jan169 (28)
4/1/2005 8:14:06 PM
Laurence Darby wrote:
> Jan Wielemaker writes:
> 
> 
>>And yes, you're right that Windows since later NT4 versions running on
>>well supported hardware (good idea for Linux too) runs reasonably stable.
>>The requirement to run viruscheckers slows it down signfificantly though.
> 
> 
> I don't run viruscheckers.
> 
> 
>>To me, Linux is a good OS.  It provides 99% of what I need and is way
>>quicker to install (windows itself is fine, but than you need to get
>>and install everything else you want).  Most important: it is free.
>>It is highly dubious to have one compagny in control of the complete
>>IT infrastructure.  It is simply too important for that!  
> 
> 
> You still leave one question unanswered: If a person has all the
> applications he requires running smoothly on Windows, why should he care
> about Linux?
> 

Have you updated your MicroSoft Cobol, Fortran, Pascal, or Bob recently?
Updated to the latest version of MicroSoft Flight Simulator?

MicroSoft has the habit of abandoning software once they have killed
off the competition. What do you do when you need a fix for one of
your favorites, and MicroSoft isn't interested in it any more?

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
0
kth (174)
4/1/2005 9:28:53 PM
Jan Wielemaker writes:

> I do not have $20,000 for my software.

Then you'll have to find software that is cheaper, or free.  But it may
not do the same things.

> Maybe even more important, I like to be able to study, modify
> and/or interact at a low level with the software.

Then you aren't actually using it, you're just playing with your
computer.  People who actually use applications like these have no time
or desire to study, modify, or interact with them at low levels.

> I think it is necessary there is a credible
> alternative to MS. It forces MS to innovate and provides at least some
> basic freedom for those who want something else.

Unfortunately, there are technical constraints in the IT industry that
exactly oppose this notion.  One reason Windows is so successful is that
there are tremendous advantages to standardization, even when the
standardization targets less-than-ideal solutions.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
4/2/2005 3:56:48 AM
Mouse writes:

> So for now my video gets edited on Win XP Sp2, and my work is done on 
> Linux (and things compile sooo fast!).

Why do you need to compile anything?

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
4/2/2005 3:57:24 AM
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 16:37:17 +0200, a posting issued forth from Mxsmanic...
> Trent Buck writes:
>
>> OK, I'll list some substitutes.
>
> I don't want substitutes.  I want to run the applications on the list,
> period.  That's why I use Windows.
>
>> I have a bunch of work and can't finish this now.  Hopefully what I *have*
>> written will be of some help.
>
> I don't need help.  I already have a Windows machine, and all these
> applications run on it without any problems.
>

Then why are you here? What is your interest in this thread? I believe
the listing effort started because you said something like "I have 100+
applications that don't have alternatives under linux". If you like what
you have, use it. Just don't say that it can't be done on linux...

-- 
Jacob
mailto:`echo wnpbo@urvqre.ubzryvahk.arg | tr [a-z] [n-za-m]`
0
Jacob364 (53)
4/2/2005 7:49:09 AM
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 16:35:51 +0200, a posting issued forth from Mxsmanic...
> Jacob writes:
>
>> If so, then it cost you at least $1200 in software alone.
>
> Closer to $20,000.
>

Well, I'd rather get a new car...

>> I can do everything you do, and it doesn't cost anything
>> for the software.
>
> No, you cannot.  And in any case, the fact remains that the applications
> I use run only on Windows (with rare exceptions).
>

Then run windows. I *CAN* do anything I want to under linux. Just
because I can't (won't) run MSWord doesn't mean I can't edit MSWord
documents.

BTW, what is it you think I can't do, other than run a windows
executable?

-- 
Jacob
mailto:`echo wnpbo@urvqre.ubzryvahk.arg | tr [a-z] [n-za-m]`
0
Jacob364 (53)
4/2/2005 7:53:58 AM
On 2005-04-02, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Jan Wielemaker writes:
>
>> I do not have $20,000 for my software.
>
> Then you'll have to find software that is cheaper, or free.  But it may
> not do the same things.

Price/quality ratio is very strange in the sotfware business.

>> Maybe even more important, I like to be able to study, modify
>> and/or interact at a low level with the software.
>
> Then you aren't actually using it, you're just playing with your
> computer.  People who actually use applications like these have no time
> or desire to study, modify, or interact with them at low levels.

:-) Its my work.  Besides that I need to do all the things people do
with their computer.  And yes, sometimes I like to play and adjust 
things to my or my friends needs.

>> I think it is necessary there is a credible
>> alternative to MS. It forces MS to innovate and provides at least some
>> basic freedom for those who want something else.
>
> Unfortunately, there are technical constraints in the IT industry that
> exactly oppose this notion.  One reason Windows is so successful is that
> there are tremendous advantages to standardization, even when the
> standardization targets less-than-ideal solutions.

I tend to agree.  I just very much dislike the idea that this one united
platform is fully in the hands of a commercial compagny.  Linux proves it
is possible to work on one platform (the different distros are about as
much the same as all the Windows-XYZs) in a more democratic way.  
Eventually that model is cheaper and more democratic.

	Cheers --- Jan
0
jan169 (28)
4/2/2005 8:21:36 AM
Mxsmanic wrote:

>>Why do you need to compile anything?
>>
Mostly because usually when you need modelling results for new networks (and just waving your hands won't do), you need to write or port the low-level device-simulating code, intgerate it into a good strong simulator software package, write the network configuration and modelling setup for that sim, perform plenty of sim runs, collect the data, statistically process it - and finally write a scientific paper, research report, present - that's the drill. 

As somebdy said before - some of us do real work with/on computers.
0
urimobile (7)
4/2/2005 8:48:03 PM
Jacob writes:

> Well, I'd rather get a new car...

A car would not be useful to me.

> Then run windows.

Done.

> BTW, what is it you think I can't do, other than run a windows
> executable?

That alone is enough.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
4/2/2005 10:21:59 PM
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:07:35 -0600, Ivan Marsh wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:31:29 -0600, Dave Persik wrote:
> 
>> The barrier to Linux becoming mainstream is its ease of use.
>> Installation has overcome this by being as easy to intall as Windows
>> (with some distributions)
>> The remaining obtacale is installing new apps.  In Windows, you download
>> to your desktop, double click on the icon, and follow the instructions. 
>>  When it becomes as easy to install a new application on Linux, it will
>> become mainsteam.  Just as the PC and Windows did.
> 
> rpm -Uvh <package>

Synaptic http://www.nongnu.org/synaptic/ with apt-get if you want
everything on GUI.


0
s8279 (15)
4/3/2005 12:39:16 AM
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 00:21:59 +0200, a posting issued forth from Mxsmanic...
> Jacob writes:
>
>> BTW, what is it you think I can't do, other than run a windows
>> executable?
>
> That alone is enough.
>

I don't know what that means. I don't use my computer just for the sake
of executing a specific binary. I use it to accomplish some task, for
which the binary is designed. My statement was that I can accomplish the
same task, as long as the task isn't the meaningless one of executing
the specific binary.

"Today I think I'll run MSWord 5 times, Notepad 6 times, and ScanDisk
twice. Try that with Linux!!"

-- 
Jacob
mailto:`echo wnpbo@urvqre.ubzryvahk.arg | tr [a-z] [n-za-m]`
0
Jacob364 (53)
4/3/2005 5:32:11 AM
Spake Mxsmanic:
>> To me, Linux is a good OS.  It provides 99% of what I need and is way
>> quicker to install (windows itself is fine, but than you need to get
>> and install everything else you want).  Most important: it is free.
>> It is highly dubious to have one compagny in control of the complete
>> IT infrastructure.  It is simply too important for that!  
> 
> You still leave one question unanswered: If a person has all the
> applications he requires running smoothly on Windows, why should he care
> about Linux?

Well, I use Linux for the converse reason.  Neither Windows nor OS X
run the applications I need most (about 80% Emacs and 20% miscellaneous
utilities).  True, you can get Windows or OS X versions of most of
those applications, but they are ``second-rate'' whencompared to
the Linux version.

The fact that I can leverage Open Source and the community that
surrounds it to get fixes and extensions that are important to ME is a
significant factor, but not a decisive one.

This is my own view, I'm not saying it's right for everyone.
-- 
Trent Buck, Student Errant
0
trentbuck (60)
4/3/2005 11:06:41 PM
The main source of Linux is *"Open Source*, but to what? open source t
a variety of development? open source to all new distro updates o
possibly a better security breech?

Well the answer is in your hands really, linux provides open sourc
more than Windows does. Why? because Linux has been made b
so-many-developers who hand at time puts together a platform for yo
end users to enjoy a good OS that will allow you to fully develop 
desktop in which is more suitable to not just your viewing needs but t
your open source needs.

Windows will NEVER meet the requirements that Linux has, to be hones
everyone who has wondered *"Is Windows Better?"* the answer is *NO*
why? because windows rules your desktop, it controls every move i
makes to keep your desktop running, it verifies the files runnin
through your backend resources, and also runs the registry keys tha
you will not know about until you really dig inside to see what's bein
installed.

Windows doesn't give you an opportunity to actually enjoy a goo
backend developing to really feel what it's like to control a computer
front and backend development.

So in all answers to Windows and Linux, the reality lies within wha
flavor you choose that makes you feel at most comfortable to using a
OS.

If you want to control your desktop and computer front and back the
linux is the way, if you want to just go with the flow and not want t
deal with the technical back side of the OS, then windows is for you.

I ran windows at the age of 12 to the age of 21, long time? hell yea i
was, and when I discovered linuxcult.com I really wanted to know, *"Wha
is it like to actually control and design a desktop and OS that runs th
way "I" want it to run"*.  And so I took a good adventure with Mandrak
10.2 beta2 my very first distro.

Mandrake was not a very successful distro and probably won't be unles
they get really good dev's in there to do the job right without an
crashes and errors that are there for no reason really.

I took it upon myself to run this distro and see what Linux has tha
Windows doesn't, well I discovered a really clean desktop, manual wor
and a better way to enjoy digging through my backend to really contro
my own OS.

Of course it took weeks and weeks of learning how mandrake works, bu
then as I advanced, I said, *"This isn't enough, I want more"*, and s
I did, I got Ubuntu hoarty 5.04, a kick ass distro that tops all th
others out.

Ubuntu is VERY user friendly easy to modify "If you know what you'r
doing" and also let's you control it. Well Ubuntu chooses it's friend
and if you're not friendly to it, it will destroy your access and fun.

As I began to use Ubuntu, it became a bigger deal to me that no othe
distro out there could do the things that Ubuntu can do for me, an
allow me to treat it the way any other distro would. HA sounds like 
relationship? well maybe it is if you have what it takes to really wor
with the distro and treat it right.

For those of you running Ubuntu Hoarty 5.04 or Warty 4.10, and havin
problems with backend works or frontend dev, then it's all user error.

Well enough said for this post, hope what I said really sinks in an
gives you an idea of what really works for most, and what doesn't a
well

-
Doc - Ubuntu Bug Reporte

*< fadumpt>* windows is "oh who the fuck are we kidding...it's gonna
crash and lose your info, just use it cuz it'
mainstream
dammit!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc's Profile: http:/linuxcult.com/forum/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=709
View this thread: http://linuxcult.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=888

0
4/4/2005 12:32:16 AM
Spake Mxsmanic:
>> So for now my video gets edited on Win XP Sp2, and my work is done on 
>> Linux (and things compile sooo fast!).
> Why do you need to compile anything?

Perhaps he writes code.  Perhaps he wants to recompile his kernel.
Perhaps he found and fixed a bug in his favorite application and wants
to run the corrected version.  Perhaps his favorite application is not
officially supported by the vendor for his architecture or operating
system, and he has to build it himself.

-- 
Trent Buck, Student Errant
0
trentbuck (60)
4/4/2005 1:34:18 AM
Spake Mxsmanic:
>> I can do everything you do, and it doesn't cost anything
>> for the software.
> 
> No, you cannot.  And in any case, the fact remains that the applications
> I use run only on Windows (with rare exceptions).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the applications you cited were
either Macintosh or UNIX applications that had subsequently been ported
to Windows.

-- 
Trent Buck, Student Errant
0
trentbuck (60)
4/4/2005 1:38:42 AM
Spake Doc:
> And so I took a good adventure with Mandrake 10.2 beta2, my very first distro.
> 
> Mandrake was not a very successful distro and probably won't be unless
> they get really good dev's in there to do the job right without any
> crashes and errors that are there for no reason really.

In my personal opinion, Mandrake is dead.  When Mandrake first
appeared, it was the only distro that really aimed for ease-of-use.
Now Ubuntu, Knoppix and even Fedora Core have followed their lead, and
Mandrake doesn't really have a selling point any more.  The only people
I see using Mandrake these days are the people who started with it way
back around version eight.

-- 
Trent Buck, Student Errant
0
trentbuck (60)
4/4/2005 2:15:19 AM
Trent Buck writes:

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the applications you cited were
> either Macintosh or UNIX applications that had subsequently been ported
> to Windows.

If that were true, there would be UNIX or Mac versions of the
applications available, and with a handful of exceptions, there aren't
any such versions.  It's true that some applications, such as Photoshop,
exist on the Mac, but today even those applications are developed for
Windows, and are then ported back to the Mac, because Windows is the
larger market.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
4/4/2005 4:42:49 AM
Trent Buck wrote:

> In my personal opinion, Mandrake is dead.  When Mandrake first
> appeared, it was the only distro that really aimed for ease-of-use.

I'd like to think you're wrong - and the tie-up with Connectiva should give
them a new lease of life.  Mandrake still retains the ease of installation
and configuration that makes it a good choice for the beginner.  The
current contents of the distro are also fairly cutting-edge, and they *do*
rapidly respond to bug reports.  In my experience, it's the desktop distro
that I keep returning to, despite flirtations with several others.

Chris

-- 
Everything gets easier with practice, except getting up in the morning!
0
chrisehunter (208)
4/5/2005 10:26:08 PM
Jan Wielemaker wrote:

> I think it is necessary there is a credible alternative to MS.

Right!

> It forces MS to innovate and provides at least some 
> basic freedom for those who want something else.

MS have never, and can never "innovate".  They just steal or buy what they
need, and then sell it as their own product.  MS has held back the
development of computing for many years, by a combination of illegal
trading practice and deception.  Their stranglehold on smaller scale
computing has now been broken, and it's just a matter of time before they
are relegated to their rightful position, as another "also-ran".

C.


-- 
Everything gets easier with practice, except getting up in the morning!
0
chrisehunter (208)
4/5/2005 10:38:35 PM
Mxsmanic wrote:

> Jacob writes:
> 
>> If so, then it cost you at least $1200 in software alone.
> 
> Closer to $20,000.

You've been seriously ripped off, then.
 
>> I can do everything you do, and it doesn't cost anything
>> for the software.
> 
> No, you cannot.

Show me *any* Windows-only application that's any good, and doesn't have an
open-source alternative.

Bzzt!  Time up!  You can't, because there aren't any.

> And in any case, the fact remains that the applications 
> I use run only on Windows (with rare exceptions).

You're crippling your poor computer with broken software.

C. 

-- 
Linux.  Because Windoze is a terrible waste of a good computer.
0
chrisehunter (208)
4/5/2005 10:58:50 PM
chris writes:

> You've been seriously ripped off, then.

A lot of commercial software is overpriced, but you need what you need.

> Show me *any* Windows-only application that's any good, and doesn't have an
> open-source alternative.

I don't want _alternatives_, I want the actual application that I need
to use.

> You're crippling your poor computer with broken software.

All of the software I have currently runs perfectly, except for The Bat,
which has occasional address violations.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
4/6/2005 5:06:27 AM
Mxsmanic wrote:

> chris writes:
> 
>> You've been seriously ripped off, then.
> 
> A lot of commercial software is overpriced, but you need what you need.

No you don't.  You have been fooled into believing that you "need" that crap
brokenware.  You really *are* gullible.

>> Show me *any* Windows-only application that's any good, and doesn't have
>> an open-source alternative.
> 
> I don't want _alternatives_, I want the actual application that I need
> to use.

No you don't.  I can absolutely guarantee that you buy each new version of
this software that you *think* you need.  You get ripped off multiple
times.
 
>> You're crippling your poor computer with broken software.
> 
> All of the software I have currently runs perfectly, except for The Bat,
> which has occasional address violations.

Sounds like a really poor "operating system" if it allows itself to fall
over with badly written software.

C.


-- 
Everything gets easier with practice, except getting up in the morning!
0
chrisehunter (208)
4/6/2005 6:07:07 AM
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 07:06:27 +0200, a posting issued forth from Mxsmanic...
> chris writes:
>
>> Show me *any* Windows-only application that's any good, and doesn't have an
>> open-source alternative.
>
> I don't want _alternatives_, I want the actual application that I need
> to use.
>

The point you seem to be willfully ignoring is that *NO ONE* needs to
use a specific application. You need to accomplish some task. You want
to run windows, so you should. But that doesn't mean your computing
tasks can't be accomplished under Linux. In all fairness, the following
tasks tend to be more difficult under Linux:

- Playing high-end (popular) games
- Video editing (this is the one I hear most often)
- Getting certain classes of hardware to run (but this is improving all
  the time)

>> You're crippling your poor computer with broken software.
>
> All of the software I have currently runs perfectly, except for The Bat,
> which has occasional address violations.
>

If that's the case then, again, what is your interest in this
discussion? All you keep saying is, "I like how Windows works for me,
therefore Linux would be worse. I can't run my Win32 binaries under
Linux, therefore I can't use it." This has nothing to with the
usability, and everything to do with your preconceived notions. If you
wish to illustrate some *computing*task* you can't do under Linux,
please do, but if you merely want to say that you want to run a specific
application, please stop saying, run your windows apps under windows,
and let this thread die.

-- 
Jacob
mailto:`echo wnpbo@urvqre.ubzryvahk.arg | tr [a-z] [n-za-m]`
0
Jacob364 (53)
4/6/2005 6:14:27 AM
chris wrote:

> MS have never, and can never "innovate".  They just steal or buy what they
> need, and then sell it as their own product. 

That's true enough, but it hasn't stopped people buying MS products. 
Quite the opposite, it seems.


> C.

Frem.
0
4/6/2005 8:14:26 AM
On 2005-04-05, chris <chrisehunter@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Jan Wielemaker wrote:
>
>> I think it is necessary there is a credible alternative to MS.
>
> Right!
>
>> It forces MS to innovate and provides at least some 
>> basic freedom for those who want something else.
>
> MS have never, and can never "innovate".  They just steal or buy what they
> need, and then sell it as their own product.  MS has held back the
> development of computing for many years, by a combination of illegal
> trading practice and deception.  Their stranglehold on smaller scale
> computing has now been broken, and it's just a matter of time before they
> are relegated to their rightful position, as another "also-ran".

That isn't really the point.  They *did* bring a better product over the years.
Ok, maybe (likely) they didn't do most of that themselves, but that isn't really
the point.  Most software before reaching a stage where it is ready for the
public has had a number of iterations with ideas that created the basis, but
weren't `just right'.  The Open Source community claims we're all learning from
one another and advocates no legal barriers to do so.  That keeps it innovative.
In the commercial world this is the terrain of legal and commercial experts
(thieves if you like :-).

	Cheers --- Jan
0
jan169 (28)
4/6/2005 8:20:27 AM
> Mxsmanic  said in post '#88 ' (http://tinyurl.com/4ynyz):
> *
> 
> Another reason why Linux is no competitor to Windows.
> 
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach m
> directly.
> * 



You don't seem to understand a very important concept: Linux is, an
will probably continue to be for a very long time (for desktop us
anyway,) an enthusiast OS.  It is modified, updated, and maintained b
the same people who use it... and nobody pays them to do it. 

Comparing Linux to Windows for the desktop is apples and oranges.
Comparing them in server environments, though, is different

-
cry0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
cry0x's Profile: http:/linuxcult.com/forum/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=1640
View this thread: http://linuxcult.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=888

0
4/7/2005 3:20:05 AM
Jan Wielemaker wrote:
> On 2005-04-01, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Trent Buck writes:
> 
> To me, Linux is a good OS.  It provides 99% of what I need and is way

99.99% of what Linux provides I don't need.
99 % of what Linux provides I've never even heard of.
99.99% of what Windows provides I don't need
33 % of what I need can be provided by Windows plus a host of
applications running on Windows.
0.001 % of that I could actually afford.

Kind regards,



Daniel von Asmuth






0
Daniel
4/9/2005 7:54:01 PM
Mxsmanic wrote:
> Unfortunately, there are technical constraints in the IT industry that
> exactly oppose this notion.  One reason Windows is so successful is that
> there are tremendous advantages to standardization, even when the
> standardization targets less-than-ideal solutions.

There are both advantages and disadvantages to standardisation.

In fact, Microsoft Inc. does support a few standards, but nothing like
the Unix family. (maybe you mean 'monopoly' when you say 'standardization')

Kind regards,



Daniel von Asmuth




0
Daniel
4/9/2005 7:59:25 PM
Jan Wielemaker wrote:
> On 2005-04-05, chris <chrisehunter@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: 
>>
>>>It forces MS to innovate and provides at least some 
>>>basic freedom for those who want something else.
>>
>>MS have never, and can never "innovate".  They just steal or buy what they
....
> 
> That isn't really the point.  They *did* bring a better product over the years.

That's so true! they have been innovating at a truely breathtaking pace 
for the last 25 years, such that I expect Windows 2025 to be as techni-
cally advanced as IBM OS/360 (released in 1964).

Kind regards,


Daniel von Asmuth


0
Daniel
4/9/2005 8:22:55 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Linux, Linux, Linux
Hi, Interested in trying Linux? Well you came to comp.os.linux.advocacy for some reason, and you probably won't stay long. Here's a list of Linux distributions to choose from. Ubuntu http://www.ubuntu.com Newbie friendly and good support forums. SuSE http://www.novell.com/linux Pay for some support if you're not opposed to spending a little money. Fedora Core http://fedoraproject.org If you're more comfortable with your computer, try this one out. If you get frustrated, don't give up so easy. There is a wealth of information online for whichever distro you choose....

Linux!! Linux!!
From http://groups.google.ca/group/comp.os.linux.misc/about This month 16 t...@invalid.invalid 15 ahlstr...@launchmodem.com 14 goldee_loxnbag...@gmail.com 10 jhas...@newsguy.com 9 mil...@yoyo.org 9 hel...@deepsoft.com 9 hadronqu...@gmail.com 8 ronb02nos...@gmail.com 7 secret...@lxny.org 7 ignoramus8...@nospam.8345.invalid All time 5421 p...@oboe.it.uc3m.es 4508 michael+use...@www.heiming.de 3530 j...@dhh.gt.org 3066 hel...@deepsoft.com 2991 nike_jordan_...@yahoo.com.cn 2651 jdbe...@exit109.com 2474 gra...@visi.com 2216 nikejordangoo...@hotmail.com 1890 rkiesl...@mainmatter.com 1869 unruh-s...@physics.ubc.ca FRom http://groups.google.ca/group/comp.os.linux.setup/about Top posters This month 35 art...@sj.speakeasy.net 25 t...@invalid.invalid 21 a...@zimage.comant 15 Nico Kadel-Garcia 13 n...@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid 8 dwhodg...@nomail.afraid.org 8 jhas...@newsguy.com 7 jul...@tampabay.rr.com 6 karthikbalagur...@gmail.com 5 Doug Freyburger All time 2999 p...@oboe.it.uc3m.es 1752 nka...@comcast.net 1510 scare.c...@oz.land 1458 michael+use...@www.heiming.de 1262 mjtob...@removethis_consultant.com 1132 nka...@bellatlantic.net 1128 kim...@lightlink.com 1106 nos...@nosite.zzz 1047 effla...@xnet.com 1007 m...@scrum.muc.de -- Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@nl2k.ab.ca God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising! http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.faceboo...

I have Linux! I have Linux!
Ok, after two days of trying to get Windos 1900 installed and working , I sat down an hour ago and installed Linux. In an hour. Smirk. Ok, I will be honest. I did have some problems, but I believe they were of my own ignorance. 0) I started with trying to install Suse. However, I couldn't get it to install. Why? Because I didn't read the menu. There is a startup menu and the first entry is boot to harddisk. I thought that was the thing to do so I did it about 4 times. Then I gave up. However, I went back to it and subsequently realized that I should have chosen the 2nd men...

My Linux is not your Linux
To the denizens of comp.os.linux.advocacy! So many people demonstrate in this newsgroup that they know only a Linux of Hatred and Greed, of paranoia, and of a selfish sense of entitlement. They seem always to be behaving like monkeys in reaction to human dissenters, throwing feces at one another and beating their chests pretending to know something. My Linux is not that Linux. My Linux is the Linux of Love, of sharing, friendship, community. It is a uniquely human Linux and not one for monkeys. When I speak with fellow Linux users in real life (i.e. not in the monkeyhouse of COLA) they remind me of myself: practical, freedom-loving, anti-corporate. Here in COLA however they remind me of monkeys or spoiled brats or worse, corporate sysadmins. My Linux is not your Linux. It is the human Linux that acknowledges that Linux involves human work to create, that although it is free you are not entitled to it, that although it is created in large part by volunteers, they deserve to be paid for their gifts with at least gratitude. And that monkeys and self-entitled brats and sysadmins never thank anyone. yarmfelder@yahoo.com writes: > To the denizens of comp.os.linux.advocacy! You crossposted to gnu.misc.discuss. > My Linux is not your Linux. It is the human Linux > that acknowledges that Linux involves human work > to create, that although it is free you are not > entitled to it, that although it is created in large part > by volunteers, they deserve to be pa...

Why linux is linux
We don't destroy, we create. We don't imitate, we build. We are not a network, we are a personal OS. -- http://www.texeme.com Hi John, Attempting to Speak for Linux, You wrote: << We don't destroy, we create. We don't imitate, we build. We are not a network, we are a personal OS. >> Linux is more like this: << Like everything else, we consume and are consumed. We exchange ideas with everyone, to the point where it's almost impossible to track. We are artisans, not mass producers. >> Jeff Relf wrote: > Linux is mo...

[News] Making Linux More Like OS X and OS X More Like Linux
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mac OS X - Highly Customized Linux ,----[ Quote ] | Few players in the Linux arena creates their Linux distro to look like Mac OS | X or Windows.... | | Here I'm going to list some distro which looks like Mac OS. `---- http://linuxtreat.blogspot.com/2008/07/mac-os-x-highly-customized-linux.html A Linux User's Guide to Mac ,----[ Quote ] | Take a deep breath and repeat after me: A computer is just a tool. It is only | so good as it serves to make life better for users. A "better" life is | obviously not the same thing fo...

The Linux March to a future Linux Nation
Konqueror Mozilla Gnome KDE Linux FreeBSD Games GNU Debian XFree86 Security Internet MySQL Apache freshmeat Samba Window Managers Gimp PHP Fonts StarOffice Libraries Utilities Terminals CVS PERL Python CPAN RealTime Battle Linux org Perl Resources ZIALOT Emacs MRTG OpenBSD Zope PostgreSQL XML Tcl Tk Java Lintastic wrote: > Konqueror > Mozilla > Gnome > KDE > Linux > FreeBSD > Games > GNU > Debian > XFree86 > Security > Internet > MySQL > Apache > freshmeat > Samba > Window Managers > Gimp > PHP > Fonts > StarOffice > Libraries...

[News] Mobile Linux Runs Palm OS Applications; New 3G Linux Phones; Open Linux Phone Made More Attractive
Mobile Linux running Palm OS apps demoed ,----[ Quote ] | Access hopes ALP and its Eclipse-based Developer Suite will | provide a long-awaited forward migration path for the many | thousands of "Garnet OS" (recently renamed from "Palm OS") | applications developed throughout the decades since "Palm-Pilot" | first became a household word, in the 1980s. `---- http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS2968683379.html Linux powers pair of 3G dual-mode phones ,----[ Quote ] | MontaVista says its device-oriented Linux operating system was | used in two new 3G business smartphones from Italian handset | designer Enteos. `---- http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS9710475530.html Open Linux developer phone opens up more ,----[ Quote ] | Trolltech has loosened key licensing restrictions on its | user-modifiable Linux-based mobile phone for open source software | developers. Users of the Greenphone will no longer be restricted to | running Qtopia software on the device, nor to using the device only | in its supplied hardware/software configuration. `---- http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS4872069549.html Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> espoused: > Mobile Linux running Palm OS apps demoed > > ,----[ Quote ] >| Access hopes ALP and its Eclipse-based Developer Suite will >| provide a long-awaited forward migration path for the many >| thousands of "Garnet OS" (recently renamed from "Palm OS") >| a...

[News] The Weather is Linux, Linux is the Forecast (Future)
Linux is the road to success ,----[ Quote ] | Linux is the way of the future and we need to accept it. Linux runs all of | the big atmospheric computer models, it is so much easier and cheaper to run | multiple processors on. It runs the bigger programs and databases better and | faster, and the best reason for me to learn it is: if I want a better job I | need to know how to use it. `---- http://www.upperweather.com/bblog/archives/22 Related: OSS is a clear winner at The Weather Channel ,----[ Quote ] | TWC is continuously moving more toward open source software, Shield | says...

[News] Linux Foundation Talks About the Future of Linux
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Linux Foundation talks on next-gen kernel plans ,----[ Quote ] | Like a fervent preacher appearing before his flock, Linux Foundation Executive | Director Jim Zemlin emphasised benefits and potential for the Linux platform | Thursday during an industry conference that also featured an update on mobile | Linux efforts. | | At the Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit in San Francisco, Zemlin cited | advances by Linux into multiple spaces, including supercomputing and embedded | systems. "It is the fastest growing platform in every aspect...

[News] [Linux] Inexpensive Linux Laptops Could Be the Future
Is the desktop dead? ,----[ Quote ] | The One Laptop Per Child program, which will be a free software flagship, | is ample evidence of this trend. It is self-contained. Imagine trying | to set up a One Tower Case, plus One Monitor, and also, One Keyboard, | Mouse and Assorted Cables, Per Child program. Just trying to write it | all down would be bad enough, but the delivery logistics would | suddenly become horrific. `---- http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/is_the_desktop_is_dead Laptops at half the price of mobiles ,----[ Quote ] | The laptop will have an operating system (most pro...

Linux should disown elementary OS Linux for the Scam that it is.
No Problem'o, DooFuS. I can blame it all on the Linux Mint TEXT size being = too small on my 19 inch monitor. As Moi was saying... I tried two more additional downloads of elementary OS Linux. Both of them= likewise failed. While they could have been discriminating against Moi for his ZERO contribu= tion, I will be damned if I am going to PAY GOOD money for something when t= here is no guarantee that the stupid DOWNLOAD wont fail, JUST TO FIND OUT t= hat it WONT work at all on my computer hardware, let alone whether OR NOT i= t will actually do what is being claimed. Moi has NEVER experienced a download problem with Linux Mint. From what I have seen, elementary OS Linux is a scam, much like those Windo= ws come ons that claim that they can fix your computer problems merely by m= ucking with the Windows Registry. The Linux World should disown elementary OS Linux for being the Scam that i= t is. Or, can any phony distro claim to be Linux? Yeah, where are the Linu= x police? On 7/8/2015 8:22 AM, John Gohde wrote: > No Problem'o, DooFuS. I can blame it all on the Linux Mint TEXT size > being too small on my 19 inch monitor. I blame it on your small cerebrum. > The Linux World should disown elementary OS Linux for being the Scam > that it is. Or, can any phony distro claim to be Linux? Yeah, where > are the Linux police? The Linux police are outside your door right now. I'm not kidding. Look out...

Palm OS (Renamed "Garnet OS") and a Linux Future
IT Sstandrads Hijack Threatens European Economix Competitiveness ,----[ Quote ] | To stop Europe being rail-roaded into an inadequate standard, the | ODF Alliance urges national supporters who have issues to raise | contradictions of ECMA's standard with existing standards to | encourage their national ISO representatives to raise formal | contradictions as quickly as possible, certainly | before 5th February 2007. `---- http://sourcewire.com/releases/rel_dis ...

[News] Palm OS (Renamed "Garnet OS") and a Linux Future
Palm OS Clings To Life ,----[ Quote ] | Access, a mobile software company in Japan that acquired PalmSource, | the maker of the Palm OS, plans to introduce in the first half of | this year its Access Linux Platform, which will include an emulation | layer for running Palm OS-based applications. The company this week | announced it's renaming all products that originally had Palm-based | names. The first product to be renamed is Palm OS, which will be | known as Garnet OS. `---- http://www.crn.com/sections/infrastructure/infrastructure.jhtml?articleId=197000527 -- List of candidate M...

Linux Could NOT Have Invented Linux
The current view in Western technology is that Linus Torvalds invented Linux. Nothing could be further from the truth. The technical complexity and useability of Linux make it beyond the capability of what man could produce using the tools available in 1992. My theory is that Ancient Astronauts descended from the sky on 'Chariots of the Gods' and showed Linus *how* to write an Operating System. These alien visitors must have appeared as strange to the young Torvalds, and so he may have mistaken them for carpet vendors. -- w:04 On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 14:28:27 GMT, Erich Von ...

[News] Linux, Linux, Linux at Acer (Phones and Tablets)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Acer CEO whips out iPad rival ,----[ Quote ] | Acer has shown off an Android-based iPad | alternative. `---- http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2010/05/27/acer_shows_ipad_tablet/ Acer Gets Official with ‘Stream’ ,----[ Quote ] | Acer has created a new 3D user interface that | features animations and a 'peeling' gesture to | unlock the phone. The lock screen lets users | read information without having to open | applications and a History panel provides quick | access to often-used apps. `---- http://www.androidg...

ROX Linux and ROX on OS X and arm linux
Hi I've just just done some searches on Google for ROX linux, and ROX on other platforms. I've not managed to find anything. Is ROX available for OS X? Is ROX available for Acorn\Iyonix Arm linux? Did ROX Linux ever come to anything? I was a member of the mailing list a while ago, it started off interesting and then seemed to go off on a tangent then it all went quiet. It seemed like an excellent idea, a linux distro structured like RISC OS. It would have been an ideal compliment to a RISC OS system, same UI but different set of applications (probably not quite so consiste...

[News] [Linux] New Versions of Engarde Secure Linux, Core Linux, OpenTLE (Thai Linux)
EnGarde Secure Linux 3.0.14 Released ,----[ Quote ] | A fully functional secure Linux platform distribution, this release | features a vastly improved intrusion detection Attack Monitor. `---- http://www.linuxlookup.com/2007/may/04/engarde_secure_linux_3_0_14_released Core GNU/Linux 2.0 Released! ,----[ Quote ] | Core contains nothing beyond what is required to perform these tasks. | Core is primarily designed for experienced Linux users, though it has | found an audience with those looking to learn about the internals | and operation of a Linux system. `---- http://www.coredistro.org/news-20070501 http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=linuxtle ...

[News] Everything in Mobile Devices is Linux, Linux, Linux....
Better Than Kindle? ,----[ Quote ] | While I'm thinking about all the things I'd do with it, this is what comes to | my mind: this thing cost around $400. There are few other devices that cost | that much these days: | | * Nokia N810 | * Asus eeePC 701 | * OLPC `---- http://justanystuff.blogspot.com/2007/12/better-than-kindle.html Here's a good early look at Android: Hands on with Android: XML Parsing ,----[ Quote ] | Here is an XML parser that I created to showcase Android’s UI. It retrieves | NBA, MLB and NFL scores off of my web server. The true beauty is ...

[News] [Linux] Walkthroughs of Sidux (Linux) and Nexenta OS
Nexenta OS Alpha 7 Screenshot Tour ,----[ Quote ] | Nexenta OS (elatte) Alpha 7 is now available. Release Highlights: | OpenSolaris & NWS build 61 (non-debug); installer - new | partitioning wizard, installer log (via F3), usabilityf | ixes, built-in driver availability detection... `---- http://osdir.com/Article9845.phtml sidux 2007-02 Preview 1 Screenshot Tour ,----[ Quote ] | What's on the menu: Debian sid, up to date as of 2007-05-13; kernel | 2.6.21.1 (SMP, voluntary preemption, mac80211); minimal, but fully | functional KDE 3.5.6 (en + de); completely overhauled early boot | sequence; largely adapted installer and graphical installer | front-end; enhanced installer for meta tasks; new artwork;o | ffline manual... `---- http://osdir.com/Article9846.phtml Related: Sidux: A live CD for Debian unstable ,----[ Quote ] | It's a rare distribution that impresses me before I've even tried it, | but sidux did just that when, a few hours after I'd downloaded and | burned a two-day-old preview release, the project announced that the | next release was available for download. `---- http://distrocenter.linux.com/distrocenter/07/02/28/1017239.shtml?tid=127 SIDUX 2007-01 Linux LiveCD ,----[ Quote ] | Screenshots gallery `---- http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=655&num=1 Testdriving Sidux 2007 ,----[ Quote ] | Sidux ships with a 2.6.20 kernel, Xorg 7.1.1, gcc 4.1.2, and KDE | 3.5.5. Iceweasel 2.0.0.1 appears to be the default...

[News] [Linux] Linux Has Advantage in the Mobile OS World
How Linux morphed from a server to a mobile OS ,----[ Quote ] | When evaluating Linux as a possible OS candidate, it is important to | remember that the Linux "model" for mobile devices is horizontal. That | is, Linux is not presented as a vertically integrated top to bottom | solution for a mobile device supplied by one vendor. | | It's a sharp contrast to the other OS suppliers such as Microsoft | with Windows Mobile, Symbian and PalmSource. These suppliers | support a highly integrated software stack, incorporating not | only an OS but also extensive middleware and applicati...

The non-Linux Linux
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd http://www.archhurd.org/ The Hurd aims to surpass the Unix kernel in functionality, security, and stability, while remaining largely compatible with it. Can this compete with the now Google-backed Linux kernel? taka0038@gmail.com wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd > > http://www.archhurd.org/ > > The Hurd aims to surpass the Unix kernel in functionality, security, and > stability, while remaining largely compatible with it. > > Can this compete with the now Google-backed Linux kernel? Yes. In a...

OT: linux, FC5 (having trouble with alt.os.linux)
I apologize profusely for posting this topic to this newsgroup but either I'm having trouble with alt.os.linux (going on a few days now) or it's having trouble and I don't know which it is (maybe some one else knows). I figured someone here would be knowledgeable enough to help me and/or let me know if my posting problems are mine or the newsgroups (BTW, I've posted from my work and home without luck but they may both use the same ISP). Well, if you've read this far...here's my (attempted?) post to the other group: Topic: shutdown broadcast not showing up for us...

Linux, linux, you mutter...
Vagrants, scaliwags and bums. That's what you advocates are. Drunk old men, wearing jute pants in the alley. LeeLee Sobiesky looks elegant in this picture: http://www.leeleesobieski.com/pics/lld/lld12.jpg -- Kent East Hill for Bush '04 Death to Kent West Hillians !!! DEATH TO KENT WEST HILL wrote: > > Vagrants, scaliwags and bums. > > That's what you advocates are. > > Drunk old men, wearing jute pants in the alley. > > LeeLee Sobiesky looks elegant in this picture: > > http://www.leeleesobieski.com/pics/lld/lld12.jpg > What is sh...

[News] [Linux] The Linux Foundation Improves Linux Printing
Linux Foundation Improves Printing Functionality in Linux With LSB Driver Development Kit ,----[ Quote ] | "The LSB DDK is a direct result of our workgroup efforts and will | make it easier to create distribution-independent printer driver | packages," said Till Kamppeter, OpenPrinting.org manager, The | Linux Foundation. `---- http://new.marketwire.com/2.0/rel.jsp?id=741867&sourceType=1 Related: Real-time Linux simulates toner motion for printer design ,----[ Quote ] | Concurrent reports that its commercial, real-time Linux | implementation for multi-processor AMD Opter...

Web resources about - The future of Linux - comp.os.linux

Digital Marketing And Social Media Blog - The Future Buzz
The Future Buzz is the digital marketing and social media blog of Adam Singer, covering everything media, marketing and PR.

Legal Futures - Market intelligence for firms of the future
The number of personal injury claims management companies (CMCs) has fallen below 1,000, it has emerged, down from 2,300 at the start of 2013. ...

Talk:The Future - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation , an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If ...

Future of Monash University's Berwick campus in doubt
Staff at Monash University's Berwick campus are meeting with senior management on Monday morning to discuss the potential closure of the 20-year-old ...

Future of Monash University's Berwick campus in doubt
Staff at Monash University's Berwick campus are meeting with senior management on Monday morning to discuss the potential closure of the 20-year-old ...

Apple shares details & photos of Campus 2 ‘Theatre’ where it will hold future product launches
... shots and most of the new details surround the on-site auditorium separate from the main building, where the company will indeed hold future ...

Brands Making Packages the Media of the Future - CMO Strategy - AdAge
2016 Edition Marketing Fact Pack, an annual guide to marketers, media and agencies. Brought to you by Neustar. Learn more Consumers may keep ...

This could be the food of the future—if you can handle it
This is the same feeling all those Blue Apron customers get, right? (credit: Jason Plautz) The boxes at my door were plastered with red drawings ...

Subaru Global Platform shows us the bones of future models
... , Electric , Hybrid The Subaru Global Platform boasts greater rigidity and a lower center of gravity to improve the driving experience on future ...

SAVAK releasing debut LP 'Best of Luck in Future Endeavors' in May (listen to "Reaction"), playing SXSW ...
The band, featuring members of Obits, Holy Fuck, The Make-Up, also play three NYC shows this spring.

Resources last updated: 3/8/2016 12:54:18 AM