"Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30.   Not that you
provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
anyway.

That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce.   Not
3000%
more expensive. "

In article 
<c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
 KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30.   Not that you
> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
> anyway.
> 
> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce.   Not
> 3000%
> more expensive. "

Yes, most trolls are this bad at math :)


-- 
Sandman[.net]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:39:29 +0100, Sandman chinwagged:

> In article
> <c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>  KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30.   Not that you
>> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
>> anyway.
>> 
>> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce.   Not
>> 3000%
>> more expensive. "
> 
> Yes, most trolls are this bad at math :)

They also (from their logic) seem to have such severe hardware problems 
that every time they download an .iso and burn a CD, they have to buy a 
brand new computer and order a new broadband internet connection. 
(Additionally it was Clavicus Vile that said those things, not KDT.)

"An Old Friend" <an.old@friend.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:4ced20dc$1@news.x-privat.org...
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:39:29 +0100, Sandman chinwagged:
>
>> In article
>> <c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>>  KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30.   Not that you
>>> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce.   Not
>>> 3000%
>>> more expensive. "
>>
>> Yes, most trolls are this bad at math :)
>
> They also (from their logic)

Why don't you explain the "logic" that causes you to express a $29 
difference as a "3000%" difference.

> seem to have such severe hardware problems
> that every time they download an .iso and burn a CD, they have to buy a
> brand new computer and order a new broadband internet connection.

Only seems that way to people like you.

> (Additionally it was Clavicus Vile that said those things, not KDT.)

I never said those things. 

"KDT" <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com...

> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30.   Not that you
> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
> anyway.
>
> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce.   Not
> 3000%
> more expensive. "

I'm bad at math?   LOLLERCOASTER

I'll educate you, dunce:

Linux is 1/30 the price of Windows, if we accept your figures.   In 
percentages that's 3% of the price of Windows.

The difference between 3% and 100% is.... KDT is sweating with 
anticipation.... 97%, not 3000%.

Aren't you surprised?   LOLLERCOASTER 

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 04:36:36 -0800 (PST), KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>"Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30.   Not that you
>provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
>anyway.
>
>That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce.   Not
>3000%
>more expensive. "

You can give me Linux at 0 cost, making it infinitely more expensive
than Windows at any non-zero positive cost (even
$0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001),
and it would still be useless to me.

Of course, Linux would have a significant cost - installing and a
steep learning curve - even if the OS itself was "free".

Not all trolls don't understand math.

"Tommy the Troll" <tom_elamatearthlinkdotnet> wrote in message 
news:dn8qe6977l667fopfmpcqaqhadrpdmjldr@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 04:36:36 -0800 (PST), KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30.   Not that you
>>provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
>>anyway.
>>
>>That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce.   Not
>>3000%
>>more expensive. "
>
> You can give me Linux at 0 cost, making it infinitely more expensive
> than Windows at any non-zero positive cost (even
> $0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001),
> and it would still be useless to me.
>
> Of course, Linux would have a significant cost - installing and a
> steep learning curve - even if the OS itself was "free".
>
> Not all trolls don't understand math.

The idiots that tell  you Linux is cheaper than Windows don't run Linux 
themselves, they've got Macs that cost triple the price of a Windows PC. 
LOLLERCOASTER 

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:45:14 -0600, "Clavicus Vile"
<clavicus.vile@oblivion.org> wrote:

>
>"KDT" <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
>news:c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
>> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30.   Not that you
>> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
>> anyway.
>>
>> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce.   Not
>> 3000%
>> more expensive. "
>
>I'm bad at math?   LOLLERCOASTER
>
>I'll educate you, dunce:
>
>Linux is 1/30 the price of Windows, if we accept your figures.   In 
>percentages that's 3% of the price of Windows.
>
>The difference between 3% and 100% is.... KDT is sweating with 
>anticipation.... 97%, not 3000%.
>
>Aren't you surprised?   LOLLERCOASTER 
>

$30 is 3000% more than $1

$1 is 3.333...% of $30 (not 3.0%)

$30 is $29 more than $1

So what, either number is immaterial to all but the poorest person on
the planet.

And verily, didst Clavicus Vile <clavicus.vile@oblivion.org> hastily babble thusly:
> 
> "KDT" <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> 
>> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30.   Not that you
>> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
>> anyway.
>>
>> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce.   Not
>> 3000%
>> more expensive. "
> 
> I'm bad at math?   LOLLERCOASTER
> 
> I'll educate you, dunce:
> 
> Linux is 1/30 the price of Windows, if we accept your figures.   In 
> percentages that's 3% of the price of Windows.
> 
> The difference between 3% and 100% is.... KDT is sweating with 
> anticipation.... 97%, not 3000%.

And you accuse them of being bad at maths? 
I suggest you look up the term "commutitive".
It's a fairly simple concept. They teach it in primary schools.
division does not work both ways. 5/1 does not equal 1/5.
So what makes you think the percentage difference between 1 and 30 and 30
and 1 are the same?


 
> Aren't you surprised?   LOLLERCOASTER 
> 
> 

-- 
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |                                                 |
|   Andrew Halliwell BSc   | "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
|            in            |  suck is probably the day they start making     |
|     Computer science     |  vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge            |

On Nov 24, 9:58=A0am, Tommy the Troll <tom_elamatearthlinkdotnet> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:45:14 -0600, "Clavicus Vile"
>
>
>
> <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org> wrote:
>
> >"KDT" <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30. =A0 Not that yo=
u
> >> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
> >> anyway.
>
> >> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce. =A0 Not
> >> 3000%
> >> more expensive. "
>
> >I'm bad at math? =A0 LOLLERCOASTER
>
> >I'll educate you, dunce:
>
> >Linux is 1/30 the price of Windows, if we accept your figures. =A0 In
> >percentages that's 3% of the price of Windows.
>
> >The difference between 3% and 100% is.... KDT is sweating with
> >anticipation.... 97%, not 3000%.
>
> >Aren't you surprised? =A0 LOLLERCOASTER
>
> $30 is 3000% more than $1
>
> $1 is 3.333...% of $30 (not 3.0%)
>
> $30 is $29 more than $1
>
> So what, either number is immaterial to all but the poorest person on
> the planet.

The trolls must be starving....they are not eating their own.

Well $29 is insignificant to me also (so is $100) but I'm not the one
complaining about "outsized profits" by one company but defending even
larger margins for another.

On Nov 24, 10:28=A0am, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> And verily, didst Clavicus Vile <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org> hastily babb=
le thusly:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "KDT" <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30. =A0 Not that yo=
u
> >> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
> >> anyway.
>
> >> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce. =A0 Not
> >> 3000%
> >> more expensive. "
>
> > I'm bad at math? =A0 LOLLERCOASTER
>
> > I'll educate you, dunce:
>
> > Linux is 1/30 the price of Windows, if we accept your figures. =A0 In
> > percentages that's 3% of the price of Windows.
>
> > The difference between 3% and 100% is.... KDT is sweating with
> > anticipation.... 97%, not 3000%.
>
> And you accuse them of being bad at maths?
> I suggest you look up the term "commutitive".
> It's a fairly simple concept. They teach it in primary schools.
> division does not work both ways. 5/1 does not equal 1/5.
> So what makes you think the percentage difference between 1 and 30 and 30
> and 1 are the same?
>

You do know you're insulting your fellow troll who made that claim --
not me.

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:38:44 -0600, Clavicus Vile chinwagged:

> "An Old Friend" <an.old@friend.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4ced20dc$1@news.x-privat.org...
>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:39:29 +0100, Sandman chinwagged:
>>
>>> In article
>>> <c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>>>  KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30.   Not that you
>>>> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
>>>> anyway.
>>>>
>>>> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce.   Not
>>>> 3000%
>>>> more expensive. "
>>>
>>> Yes, most trolls are this bad at math :)
>>
>> They also (from their logic)
> 
> Why don't you explain the "logic" that causes you to express a $29
> difference as a "3000%" difference.

It's already been explained. I don't offer math tutoring services for 
free.

>> seem to have such severe hardware problems that every time they
>> download an .iso and burn a CD, they have to buy a brand new computer
>> and order a new broadband internet connection.
> 
> Only seems that way to people like you.
> 

You're the one who claimed that the cost of burning Linux CDs was the 
cost of the computer, the cost of the internet connection, and the cost 
of the electricity on top of the cost of the CD Media.

Given that you believe the cost of burning each Linux CD is roughly 
$1000, then, one can assume that you must have very bad luck with your 
hardware, since your logic claims that one must purchase a new computer 
and new internet connection (and sign up for new electric service and 
purchasing a brand new multi-pack of CD media).

>> (Additionally it was Clavicus Vile that said those things, not KDT.)
> 
> I never said those things.

It was your "evil twin," then?

On Nov 24, 9:48=A0am, Tommy the Troll <tom_elamatearthlinkdotnet> wrote:

> Not all trolls don't understand math.

What type of convoluted English is that?

On Nov 24, 9:57=A0am, "Clavicus Vile" <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org>
wrote:
> "Tommy the Troll" <tom_elamatearthlinkdotnet> wrote in messagenews:dn8qe6=
977l667fopfmpcqaqhadrpdmjldr@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 04:36:36 -0800 (PST), KDT <scarface...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>"Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30. =A0 Not that you
> >>provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
> >>anyway.
>
> >>That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce. =A0 Not
> >>3000%
> >>more expensive. "
>
> > You can give me Linux at 0 cost, making it infinitely more expensive
> > than Windows at any non-zero positive cost (even
> > $0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000=
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000=
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000=
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000=
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000=
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000=
01),
> > and it would still be useless to me.
>
> > Of course, Linux would have a significant cost - installing and a
> > steep learning curve - even if the OS itself was "free".
>
> > Not all trolls don't understand math.
>
> The idiots that tell =A0you Linux is cheaper than Windows don't run Linux
> themselves, they've got Macs that cost triple the price of a Windows PC.
> LOLLERCOASTER

So now Macs are triple the price....your math is getting worse and
worse by the day....

KDT stated in post 
c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com on 11/24/10
5:36 AM:

> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30.   Not that you provided
> any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over anyway.
> 
> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce.   Not 3000% more
> expensive. "

These type of math errors are common with the trolls...

  Survey: <http://nitobi.com/survey/>
  241 of 571 said they use Dreamweaver (42%)
  Tim Adams:
    -----
    _80% DO NOT USE Dreamweaver AT ALL_!
    -----

And then there is Wally:
    -----
    I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0 elements
    would not actually be empty as you claimed that it would!
    -----    
    But zero items does not necessarily translate to being empty
    as you have said it would!
    -----
    whether it is written {} or {0} has no significance wrt what
    the answer actually is
    -----

And then there is Carroll, who rarely actually tries to do any type of math
directly, but has repeatedly shown he does not know the difference between
absolute proof (as in a mathematical proof) and the concept of proof beyond
a reasonable doubt.  And he has some interesting quotes which show his
ignorance about math:
    -----
    Where is the mathematical representation of your burden of
    proof?
    -----
    > If A = B then B = A.
    > If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A
    Dragging out your faulty math again, Snit;)
    -----

And for a long time Steve argued:

 Lack of proof   equals or necessarily leads to      Doubt
 Doubt           equals or necessarily leads to      a Valid Refutation
 Lack of proof   neither = nor necessarily lead to   a Valid Refutation

Just amazing how ignorant the trolls are.

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:45:14 -0600, Clavicus Vile chinwagged:

> "KDT" <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> 
>> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30.   Not that you
>> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
>> anyway.
>>
>> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce.   Not
>> 3000%
>> more expensive. "
> 
> I'm bad at math?   LOLLERCOASTER
> 
> I'll educate you, dunce:
> 
> Linux is 1/30 the price of Windows, if we accept your figures.   In
> percentages that's 3% of the price of Windows.
> 
> The difference between 3% and 100% is.... KDT is sweating with
> anticipation.... 97%, not 3000%.
> 
> Aren't you surprised?   LOLLERCOASTER

If you raise the price of a $1 CD by 100%, the cost is $2.

You're claiming that $1 increased by 97% is $30.

In your world, $30 < $2.

On Nov 24, 7:58=A0am, Tommy the Troll <tom_elamatearthlinkdotnet> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:45:14 -0600, "Clavicus Vile"
>
>
>
>
>
> <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org> wrote:
>
> >"KDT" <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30. =A0 Not that yo=
u
> >> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
> >> anyway.
>
> >> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce. =A0 Not
> >> 3000%
> >> more expensive. "
>
> >I'm bad at math? =A0 LOLLERCOASTER
>
> >I'll educate you, dunce:
>
> >Linux is 1/30 the price of Windows, if we accept your figures. =A0 In
> >percentages that's 3% of the price of Windows.
>
> >The difference between 3% and 100% is.... KDT is sweating with
> >anticipation.... 97%, not 3000%.
>
> >Aren't you surprised? =A0 LOLLERCOASTER
>
> $30 is 3000% more than $1
>
> $1 is 3.333...% of $30 (not 3.0%)
>
> $30 is $29 more than $1
>
> So what, either number is immaterial to all but the poorest person on
> the planet.

Not according to Clavicus, who hypocritically wouldn't argue in favor
of people who make next to nothing switching to Linux over Windows
despite their wasting TONS of time (time =3D money) futzing with viruses.

KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Nov 24, 10:28 am, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>> And verily, didst Clavicus Vile <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org> hastily babble thusly:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "KDT" <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30.   Not that you
>> >> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
>> >> anyway.
>>
>> >> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce.   Not
>> >> 3000%
>> >> more expensive. "
>>
>> > I'm bad at math?   LOLLERCOASTER
>>
>> > I'll educate you, dunce:
>>
>> > Linux is 1/30 the price of Windows, if we accept your figures.   In
>> > percentages that's 3% of the price of Windows.
>>
>> > The difference between 3% and 100% is.... KDT is sweating with
>> > anticipation.... 97%, not 3000%.
>>
>> And you accuse them of being bad at maths?
>> I suggest you look up the term "commutitive".
>> It's a fairly simple concept. They teach it in primary schools.
>> division does not work both ways. 5/1 does not equal 1/5.
>> So what makes you think the percentage difference between 1 and 30 and 30
>> and 1 are the same?
>>
>
> You do know you're insulting your fellow troll who made that claim --
> not me.

Anything that rings of academia and our Andrew will be in with his
degree proudly fluttering in the siggy flag .... His Mom was so proud ;)

*chuckle*

"Tommy the Troll" <tom_elamatearthlinkdotnet> wrote in message 
news:gn9qe69qinrlo7059agiqf4q0orgl2b0km@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:45:14 -0600, "Clavicus Vile"
> <clavicus.vile@oblivion.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>"KDT" <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30.   Not that you
>>> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce.   Not
>>> 3000%
>>> more expensive. "
>>
>>I'm bad at math?   LOLLERCOASTER
>>
>>I'll educate you, dunce:
>>
>>Linux is 1/30 the price of Windows, if we accept your figures.   In
>>percentages that's 3% of the price of Windows.
>>
>>The difference between 3% and 100% is.... KDT is sweating with
>>anticipation.... 97%, not 3000%.
>>
>>Aren't you surprised?   LOLLERCOASTER
>>
>
> $30 is 3000% more than $1

Yes, but what sane person put it in those terms?

> $1 is 3.333...% of $30 (not 3.0%)

It rounds off to 3%.

> $30 is $29 more than $1

Yes.

> So what, either number is immaterial to all but the poorest person on
> the planet.

Yes!    LOL

Even funnier when you realize how much more Macs cost than Windows PCs. 
LOL 

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 09:47:54 -0600, Clavicus Vile chinwagged:

>>>The difference between 3% and 100% is.... KDT is sweating with
>>>anticipation.... 97%, not 3000%.
>>>
>>>Aren't you surprised?   LOLLERCOASTER
>>>
>>>
>> $30 is 3000% more than $1
> 
> Yes, but what sane person put it in those terms?

It's better to put it in those true terms than tell a lie and say that 
it's 97% more than $1.

"An Old Friend" <an.old@friend.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:4ced2ffd@news.x-privat.org...
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:38:44 -0600, Clavicus Vile chinwagged:
>
>> "An Old Friend" <an.old@friend.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:4ced20dc$1@news.x-privat.org...
>>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:39:29 +0100, Sandman chinwagged:
>>>
>>>> In article
>>>> <c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>  KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30.   Not that you
>>>>> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce.   Not
>>>>> 3000%
>>>>> more expensive. "
>>>>
>>>> Yes, most trolls are this bad at math :)
>>>
>>> They also (from their logic)
>>
>> Why don't you explain the "logic" that causes you to express a $29
>> difference as a "3000%" difference.
>
> It's already been explained.

LOLLERCOASTER

> I don't offer math tutoring services for free.

You expect people to pay you to teach them to do math the wrong way?   LOL

>>> seem to have such severe hardware problems that every time they
>>> download an .iso and burn a CD, they have to buy a brand new computer
>>> and order a new broadband internet connection.
>>
>> Only seems that way to people like you.
>>
>
> You're the one who claimed that the cost of burning Linux CDs was the
> cost of the computer, the cost of the internet connection, and the cost
> of the electricity on top of the cost of the CD Media.

Yes, that's all true, dunce.

> Given that you believe the cost of burning each Linux CD is roughly
> $1000, then,

That's not given, except to somebody like you.

> one can assume that you must have very bad luck with your
> hardware,

If "one" is a freak like you.   LOL

> since your logic claims that one must purchase a new computer
> and new internet connection (and sign up for new electric service and
> purchasing a brand new multi-pack of CD media).

Not by my logic, dunce.   Don't hang your stupidity on me.

>>> (Additionally it was Clavicus Vile that said those things, not KDT.)
>>
>> I never said those things.
>
> It was your "evil twin," then?

LOL

fucking dunce 

"KDT" <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:82bfb54b-1f71-443f-99a9-771ef4a2f031@s16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 24, 9:58 am, Tommy the Troll <tom_elamatearthlinkdotnet> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:45:14 -0600, "Clavicus Vile"
>
>
>
> <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org> wrote:
>
> >"KDT" <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30. Not that you
> >> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
> >> anyway.
>
> >> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce. Not
> >> 3000%
> >> more expensive. "
>
> >I'm bad at math? LOLLERCOASTER
>
> >I'll educate you, dunce:
>
> >Linux is 1/30 the price of Windows, if we accept your figures. In
> >percentages that's 3% of the price of Windows.
>
> >The difference between 3% and 100% is.... KDT is sweating with
> >anticipation.... 97%, not 3000%.
>
> >Aren't you surprised? LOLLERCOASTER
>
> $30 is 3000% more than $1
>
> $1 is 3.333...% of $30 (not 3.0%)
>
> $30 is $29 more than $1
>
> So what, either number is immaterial to all but the poorest person on
> the planet.

KDT: The trolls must be starving....they are not eating their own.

Did anybody need that much proof of your stupidity?   LOL

KDT: Well $29 is insignificant to me also (so is $100) but I'm not the one
complaining about "outsized profits" by one company but defending even
larger margins for another.

You invented a $29 difference for Windows over Linux to justify paying Apple 
three times the price for half the hardware in a Windows PC.

WTF is wrong with you, dunce?    LOLLERCOASTER 

"Steve Carroll" <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:28bd59e5-d307-4433-a520-72b2a187a799@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 24, 7:58 am, Tommy the Troll <tom_elamatearthlinkdotnet> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:45:14 -0600, "Clavicus Vile"
>
>
>
>
>
> <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org> wrote:
>
> >"KDT" <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30. Not that you
> >> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
> >> anyway.
>
> >> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce. Not
> >> 3000%
> >> more expensive. "
>
> >I'm bad at math? LOLLERCOASTER
>
> >I'll educate you, dunce:
>
> >Linux is 1/30 the price of Windows, if we accept your figures. In
> >percentages that's 3% of the price of Windows.
>
> >The difference between 3% and 100% is.... KDT is sweating with
> >anticipation.... 97%, not 3000%.
>
> >Aren't you surprised? LOLLERCOASTER
>
> $30 is 3000% more than $1
>
> $1 is 3.333...% of $30 (not 3.0%)
>
> $30 is $29 more than $1
>
> So what, either number is immaterial to all but the poorest person on
> the planet.

SC: Not according to Clavicus, who hypocritically wouldn't argue in favor
of people who make next to nothing switching to Linux over Windows
despite their wasting TONS of time (time = money) futzing with viruses.

The dunces know Apple will never beat Microsoft so they want Linux to do the 
dirty work for Apple!

Why are the fucking idiot Mac users telling Windows users to switch to Linux 
when they won't use Linux themselves? 

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 07:33:13 -0800 (PST), KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Nov 24, 9:57�am, "Clavicus Vile" <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org>
>wrote:
>> "Tommy the Troll" <tom_elamatearthlinkdotnet> wrote in messagenews:dn8qe6977l667fopfmpcqaqhadrpdmjldr@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 04:36:36 -0800 (PST), KDT <scarface...@yahoo.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>"Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30. � Not that you
>> >>provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
>> >>anyway.
>>
>> >>That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce. � Not
>> >>3000%
>> >>more expensive. "
>>
>> > You can give me Linux at 0 cost, making it infinitely more expensive
>> > than Windows at any non-zero positive cost (even
>> > $0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001),
>> > and it would still be useless to me.
>>
>> > Of course, Linux would have a significant cost - installing and a
>> > steep learning curve - even if the OS itself was "free".
>>
>> > Not all trolls don't understand math.
>>
>> The idiots that tell �you Linux is cheaper than Windows don't run Linux
>> themselves, they've got Macs that cost triple the price of a Windows PC.
>> LOLLERCOASTER
>
>So now Macs are triple the price....your math is getting worse and
>worse by the day....

For most people, those who don't need the performance of a MacBook or
iMac, that 3x factor is about right these days.

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 07:32:19 -0800 (PST), KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Nov 24, 9:48�am, Tommy the Troll <tom_elamatearthlinkdotnet> wrote:
>
>> Not all trolls don't understand math.
>
>What type of convoluted English is that?

A simple double negative, put there as a test to see if some Maccie
would complain. 

<spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:8hnvr7-r1v.ln1@librarian.sky.com...
> And verily, didst Clavicus Vile <clavicus.vile@oblivion.org> hastily 
> babble thusly:
>>
>> "KDT" <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30.   Not that you
>>> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce.   Not
>>> 3000%
>>> more expensive. "
>>
>> I'm bad at math?   LOLLERCOASTER
>>
>> I'll educate you, dunce:
>>
>> Linux is 1/30 the price of Windows, if we accept your figures.   In
>> percentages that's 3% of the price of Windows.
>>
>> The difference between 3% and 100% is.... KDT is sweating with
>> anticipation.... 97%, not 3000%.
>
> And you accuse them of being bad at maths?
> I suggest you look up the term "commutitive".
> It's a fairly simple concept. They teach it in primary schools.
> division does not work both ways. 5/1 does not equal 1/5.
> So what makes you think the percentage difference between 1 and 30 and 30
> and 1 are the same?

Here's a little lesson to help you better fake being a normal person:

Normal people work their figures so that 100% represents the whole thing, 
and diffences are fractions of 100%.    They don't call a $29 difference a 
3000% diffence.    They say $1 is 3% of $30.   $29 is a 97% difference from 
$30.

See, it's not that hard to be normal.   Now you give it a try.

>
>> Aren't you surprised?   LOLLERCOASTER
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> |   spike1@freenet.co.uk   | 
> |
> |   Andrew Halliwell BSc   | "The day Microsoft makes something that 
> doesn't |
> |            in            |  suck is probably the day they start making 
> |
> |     Computer science     |  vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge 
> | 

"Hadron" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:icjbmv$fjj$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> On Nov 24, 10:28 am, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>> And verily, didst Clavicus Vile <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org> hastily 
>>> babble thusly:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > "KDT" <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> >news:c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> >> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30. Not that you
>>> >> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
>>> >> anyway.
>>>
>>> >> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce. Not
>>> >> 3000%
>>> >> more expensive. "
>>>
>>> > I'm bad at math? LOLLERCOASTER
>>>
>>> > I'll educate you, dunce:
>>>
>>> > Linux is 1/30 the price of Windows, if we accept your figures. In
>>> > percentages that's 3% of the price of Windows.
>>>
>>> > The difference between 3% and 100% is.... KDT is sweating with
>>> > anticipation.... 97%, not 3000%.
>>>
>>> And you accuse them of being bad at maths?
>>> I suggest you look up the term "commutitive".
>>> It's a fairly simple concept. They teach it in primary schools.
>>> division does not work both ways. 5/1 does not equal 1/5.
>>> So what makes you think the percentage difference between 1 and 30 and 
>>> 30
>>> and 1 are the same?
>>>
>>
>> You do know you're insulting your fellow troll who made that claim --
>> not me.
>
> Anything that rings of academia and our Andrew will be in with his
> degree proudly fluttering in the siggy flag .... His Mom was so proud ;)
>
> *chuckle*

Can you believe these guys actually believe they're right to call a $29 
difference a 3000% difference?    LOLLERCOASTER 

"An Old Friend" <an.old@friend.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:4ced3113$1@news.x-privat.org...
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:45:14 -0600, Clavicus Vile chinwagged:
>
>> "KDT" <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30.   Not that you
>>> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce.   Not
>>> 3000%
>>> more expensive. "
>>
>> I'm bad at math?   LOLLERCOASTER
>>
>> I'll educate you, dunce:
>>
>> Linux is 1/30 the price of Windows, if we accept your figures.   In
>> percentages that's 3% of the price of Windows.
>>
>> The difference between 3% and 100% is.... KDT is sweating with
>> anticipation.... 97%, not 3000%.
>>
>> Aren't you surprised?   LOLLERCOASTER
>
> If you raise the price of a $1 CD by 100%, the cost is $2.

It must have taken you all day to come up with that one.   LOL

> You're claiming that $1 increased by 97% is $30.

No dunce, I'm telling you $29 is 97% of $30.   The difference between paying 
$1 and $30 is $29.

> In your world, $30 < $2.

Not in my world.  Visit it sometimes.  It's called "reality." 

On Nov 24, 11:11=A0am, Tommy the Troll <tom_elamatearthlinkdotnet>
wrote:

> >So now Macs are triple the price....your math is getting worse and
> >worse by the day....
>
> For most people, those who don't need the performance of a MacBook or
> iMac, that 3x factor is about right these days.


And for most people who don't need a car, a car is about 500x more
expensive than a bicycle.....

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 09:57:39 -0600, Clavicus Vile chinwagged:

> "An Old Friend" <an.old@friend.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4ced2ffd@news.x-privat.org...
>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:38:44 -0600, Clavicus Vile chinwagged:
>>
>>> "An Old Friend" <an.old@friend.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:4ced20dc$1@news.x-privat.org...
>>>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:39:29 +0100, Sandman chinwagged:
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>  KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30.   Not that
>>>>>> you provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and
>>>>>> over anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce.   Not
>>>>>> 3000%
>>>>>> more expensive. "
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, most trolls are this bad at math :)
>>>>
>>>> They also (from their logic)
>>>
>>> Why don't you explain the "logic" that causes you to express a $29
>>> difference as a "3000%" difference.
>>
>> It's already been explained.
> 
> LOLLERCOASTER
> 
>> I don't offer math tutoring services for free.
> 
> You expect people to pay you to teach them to do math the wrong way?  
> LOL
> 
>>>> seem to have such severe hardware problems that every time they
>>>> download an .iso and burn a CD, they have to buy a brand new computer
>>>> and order a new broadband internet connection.
>>>
>>> Only seems that way to people like you.
>>>
>>>
>> You're the one who claimed that the cost of burning Linux CDs was the
>> cost of the computer, the cost of the internet connection, and the cost
>> of the electricity on top of the cost of the CD Media.
> 
> Yes, that's all true, dunce.
> 
>> Given that you believe the cost of burning each Linux CD is roughly
>> $1000, then,
> 
> That's not given, except to somebody like you.

Why are you disagreeing with yourself? 

If the cost of burning a CD each time you burn a CD is the full cost of 
the computer, the monthly cost of the internet connection, the monthly 
cost of the electricity, and the cost of the package of CD media, as you 
have pointedly restated many times, then you must have horrible hardware 
and media problems every time you burn a CD, since it appears that you 
have to replace your computer, order a new internet connection, and buy a 
new 100 pack of CDs every time you burn one CD.

If you don't have to replace your computer, electrical service, and 
internet service every time, then the cost of burning each CD is NOT the 
total cost of the computer, connection, electricity and media, but the 
pro-rated cost of each, which is less than $1. If you choose to believe 
otherwise, then that is your choice. I choose to believe the truth.

I can burn a Linux CD for no cost at my local library. They provide the 
computers, internet connection, electricity, and one blank CD-R each 
month for registered library patrons (which is also free for the county I 
live in.)

On Nov 24, 6:00=A0am, "Clavicus Vile" <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org>
wrote:
> "KDT" <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:82bfb54b-1f71-443f-99a9-771ef4a2f031@s16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 24, 9:58 am, Tommy the Troll <tom_elamatearthlinkdotnet> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:45:14 -0600, "Clavicus Vile"
>
> > <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org> wrote:
>
> > >"KDT" <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >news:c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com.=
...
>
> > >> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30. Not that you
> > >> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
> > >> anyway.
>
> > >> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce. Not
> > >> 3000%
> > >> more expensive. "
>
> > >I'm bad at math? LOLLERCOASTER
>
> > >I'll educate you, dunce:
>
> > >Linux is 1/30 the price of Windows, if we accept your figures. In
> > >percentages that's 3% of the price of Windows.
>
> > >The difference between 3% and 100% is.... KDT is sweating with
> > >anticipation.... 97%, not 3000%.
>
> > >Aren't you surprised? LOLLERCOASTER
>
> > $30 is 3000% more than $1
>
> > $1 is 3.333...% of $30 (not 3.0%)
>
> > $30 is $29 more than $1
>
> > So what, either number is immaterial to all but the poorest person on
> > the planet.
>
> KDT: The trolls must be starving....they are not eating their own.
>
> Did anybody need that much proof of your stupidity? =A0 LOL
>
> KDT: Well $29 is insignificant to me also (so is $100) but I'm not the on=
e
> complaining about "outsized profits" by one company but defending even
> larger margins for another.
>
> You invented a $29 difference for Windows over Linux to justify paying Ap=
ple
> three times the price for half the hardware in a Windows PC.
>
> WTF is wrong with you, dunce? =A0 =A0LOLLERCOASTER

Having been caught in his stupidity, CV is now trying to move the
goalposts...

On Nov 24, 8:36=A0am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> KDT stated in post
> c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68...@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com on 11/24=
/10
> 5:36 AM:
>
> > "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30. =A0 Not that you=
 provided
> > any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over anyway.
>
> > That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce. =A0 Not 3=
000% more
> > expensive. "
>
> These type of math errors are common with the trolls...
>
> =A0 Survey: <http://nitobi.com/survey/>
> =A0 241 of 571 said they use Dreamweaver (42%)
> =A0 Tim Adams:
> =A0 =A0 -----
> =A0 =A0 _80% DO NOT USE Dreamweaver AT ALL_!
> =A0 =A0 -----
>
> And then there is Wally:
> =A0 =A0 -----
> =A0 =A0 I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0 elements
> =A0 =A0 would not actually be empty as you claimed that it would!
> =A0 =A0 ----- =A0 =A0
> =A0 =A0 But zero items does not necessarily translate to being empty
> =A0 =A0 as you have said it would!
> =A0 =A0 -----
> =A0 =A0 whether it is written {} or {0} has no significance wrt what
> =A0 =A0 the answer actually is
> =A0 =A0 -----
>
> And then there is Carroll, who rarely actually tries to do any type of ma=
th
> directly, but has repeatedly shown he does not know the difference betwee=
n
> absolute proof (as in a mathematical proof) and the concept of proof beyo=
nd
> a reasonable doubt. =A0And he has some interesting quotes which show his
> ignorance about math:
> =A0 =A0 -----
> =A0 =A0 Where is the mathematical representation of your burden of
> =A0 =A0 proof?
> =A0 =A0 -----
> =A0 =A0 > If A =3D B then B =3D A.
> =A0 =A0 > If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A
> =A0 =A0 Dragging out your faulty math again, Snit;)
> =A0 =A0 -----
>
> And for a long time Steve argued:
>
> =A0Lack of proof =A0 equals or necessarily leads to =A0 =A0 =A0Doubt
> =A0Doubt =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 equals or necessarily leads to =A0 =A0 =A0a =
Valid Refutation
> =A0Lack of proof =A0 neither =3D nor necessarily lead to =A0 a Valid Refu=
tation

Where an allegation of guilt is involved (the context I made the
statements in), these are absolutely true for all sane, honest and
honorable people.

> Just amazing how ignorant the trolls are.

You just tried to sell the idea that I'm the person who doesn't know
the difference between "absolute proof (as in a mathematical proof)
and the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt", yet, in
attempting it you provided statements made by me that were all from
discussions that had nothing to do with math? Of course, it's all
irrelevant anyway (which is why you keep bringing it up) because you
also admitted:

Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
to
the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a
logical sense, proof"." - Snit

That's you admitting that you not only had *no* proof but you didn't
have *one single* true statement from which something else could
necessarily follow.

So why do you keep conflating math with this topic, Snit? Is there no
truth in your world other than math? Yes, that must be it., oh great
truth seeker. LOL!

On Nov 24, 6:14=A0am, "Clavicus Vile" <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org>
wrote:
> <spi...@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:8hnvr7-r1v.ln1@librarian.sky.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > And verily, didst Clavicus Vile <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org> hastily
> > babble thusly:
>
> >> "KDT" <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com..=
..
>
> >>> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30. =A0 Not that y=
ou
> >>> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
> >>> anyway.
>
> >>> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce. =A0 Not
> >>> 3000%
> >>> more expensive. "
>
> >> I'm bad at math? =A0 LOLLERCOASTER
>
> >> I'll educate you, dunce:
>
> >> Linux is 1/30 the price of Windows, if we accept your figures. =A0 In
> >> percentages that's 3% of the price of Windows.
>
> >> The difference between 3% and 100% is.... KDT is sweating with
> >> anticipation.... 97%, not 3000%.
>
> > And you accuse them of being bad at maths?
> > I suggest you look up the term "commutitive".
> > It's a fairly simple concept. They teach it in primary schools.
> > division does not work both ways. 5/1 does not equal 1/5.
> > So what makes you think the percentage difference between 1 and 30 and =
30
> > and 1 are the same?
>
> Here's a little lesson to help you better fake being a normal person:
>
> Normal people work their figures so that 100% represents the whole thing,
> and diffences are fractions of 100%. =A0 =A0They don't call a $29 differe=
nce a
> 3000% diffence. =A0 =A0They say $1 is 3% of $30. =A0 $29 is a 97% differe=
nce from
> $30.

CV, you just aren't very good at math. Even Tommy explained it to you.
$1 is 3.33% of $30. However, $30 is *not* 197% of $1. The correct
answer would be (drum roll) $1.97. $30 is 30x more than $1, meaning
that it is 3000% of $1, or a 2900% increase in price (thanks for the
correction, Alan).
>
> See, it's not that hard to be normal. =A0 Now you give it a try.
>
As if you would ever know anything about being normal.

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 10:14:39 -0600, Clavicus Vile chinwagged:

> <spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:8hnvr7-r1v.ln1@librarian.sky.com...
>> And verily, didst Clavicus Vile <clavicus.vile@oblivion.org> hastily
>> babble thusly:
>>>
>>> "KDT" <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-
f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30.   Not that you
>>>> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
>>>> anyway.
>>>>
>>>> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce.   Not
>>>> 3000%
>>>> more expensive. "
>>>
>>> I'm bad at math?   LOLLERCOASTER
>>>
>>> I'll educate you, dunce:
>>>
>>> Linux is 1/30 the price of Windows, if we accept your figures.   In
>>> percentages that's 3% of the price of Windows.
>>>
>>> The difference between 3% and 100% is.... KDT is sweating with
>>> anticipation.... 97%, not 3000%.
>>
>> And you accuse them of being bad at maths? I suggest you look up the
>> term "commutitive". It's a fairly simple concept. They teach it in
>> primary schools. division does not work both ways. 5/1 does not equal
>> 1/5. So what makes you think the percentage difference between 1 and 30
>> and 30 and 1 are the same?
> 
> Here's a little lesson to help you better fake being a normal person:
> 
> Normal people work their figures so that 100% represents the whole
> thing, and diffences [sic] are fractions of 100%.

100% represents the original entity. If the original entity is the $1 
Linux CD, then the percentages will be different than if the original 
entity is the Windows CD.

Since the topic was originally about Linux CDs, the $1 Linux CD is the 
original entity that is represented by 100%.

> They don't call a $29
> difference a 3000% diffence. [sic]
> They say $1 is 3% of $30.   $29 is a 97%
> difference from $30.

If you subtract 97% from $30, you don't get $29. If you subtract 3% from 
$30 you do get $29. (approximately).

$29 is 97% of $30. (This is where you get your 97% from.)

But the original entity (the 100%) was the cost of the Linux CD, which is 
$1.

$30 is 3000% of $1

$30 is thirty times the cost of $1.

"An Old Friend" <an.old@friend.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:4ced3c05@news.x-privat.org...
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 09:57:39 -0600, Clavicus Vile chinwagged:
>
>> "An Old Friend" <an.old@friend.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:4ced2ffd@news.x-privat.org...
>>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:38:44 -0600, Clavicus Vile chinwagged:
>>>
>>>> "An Old Friend" <an.old@friend.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:4ced20dc$1@news.x-privat.org...
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:39:29 +0100, Sandman chinwagged:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>  KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30.   Not that
>>>>>>> you provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and
>>>>>>> over anyway.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce.   Not
>>>>>>> 3000%
>>>>>>> more expensive. "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, most trolls are this bad at math :)
>>>>>
>>>>> They also (from their logic)
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you explain the "logic" that causes you to express a $29
>>>> difference as a "3000%" difference.
>>>
>>> It's already been explained.
>>
>> LOLLERCOASTER
>>
>>> I don't offer math tutoring services for free.
>>
>> You expect people to pay you to teach them to do math the wrong way?
>> LOL
>>
>>>>> seem to have such severe hardware problems that every time they
>>>>> download an .iso and burn a CD, they have to buy a brand new computer
>>>>> and order a new broadband internet connection.
>>>>
>>>> Only seems that way to people like you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You're the one who claimed that the cost of burning Linux CDs was the
>>> cost of the computer, the cost of the internet connection, and the cost
>>> of the electricity on top of the cost of the CD Media.
>>
>> Yes, that's all true, dunce.
>>
>>> Given that you believe the cost of burning each Linux CD is roughly
>>> $1000, then,
>>
>> That's not given, except to somebody like you.
>
> Why are you disagreeing with yourself?

I'm not, dunce.

> If the cost of burning a CD each time you burn a CD is the full cost of
> the computer, the monthly cost of the internet connection, the monthly
> cost of the electricity, and the cost of the package of CD media, as you
> have pointedly restated many times,

I never said anything like that even once, dunce.

 > then you must have horrible hardware
> and media problems every time you burn a CD, since it appears that you
> have to replace your computer, order a new internet connection, and buy a
> new 100 pack of CDs every time you burn one CD.

If we accept the premises created by your freakish stupidity.

> If you don't have to replace your computer, electrical service, and
> internet service every time, then the cost of burning each CD is NOT the
> total cost of the computer, connection, electricity and media, but the
> pro-rated cost of each, which is less than $1.

Who said anything about replacing the computer every time you want to burn a 
PC?

Don't you need to have a computer and some CDs and internet service before 
you can even burn one CD?    Do you get all of those things for a dollar, 
dunce?


> If you choose to believe
> otherwise, then that is your choice. I choose to believe the truth.

LOLLERCOASTER


> I can burn a Linux CD for no cost at my local library. They provide the
> computers, internet connection, electricity, and one blank CD-R each
> month for registered library patrons (which is also free for the county I
> live in.)

You just transferred the cost of making the CD from yourself to the 
taxpayers.    Now we have to add in the cost of the library staff salary and 
the cost of the library building to the cost of the computer, the price of 
the pack of CDs and the price of a month of Internet service.

That is one fucking expensive CD, dunce!   LOL 

"Dave Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:91ffd1bd-8f86-45e6-be24-beab717f27d8@22g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 24, 6:00 am, "Clavicus Vile" <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org>
wrote:
> "KDT" <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:82bfb54b-1f71-443f-99a9-771ef4a2f031@s16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 24, 9:58 am, Tommy the Troll <tom_elamatearthlinkdotnet> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:45:14 -0600, "Clavicus Vile"
>
> > <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org> wrote:
>
> > >"KDT" <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >news:c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30. Not that you
> > >> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
> > >> anyway.
>
> > >> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce. Not
> > >> 3000%
> > >> more expensive. "
>
> > >I'm bad at math? LOLLERCOASTER
>
> > >I'll educate you, dunce:
>
> > >Linux is 1/30 the price of Windows, if we accept your figures. In
> > >percentages that's 3% of the price of Windows.
>
> > >The difference between 3% and 100% is.... KDT is sweating with
> > >anticipation.... 97%, not 3000%.
>
> > >Aren't you surprised? LOLLERCOASTER
>
> > $30 is 3000% more than $1
>
> > $1 is 3.333...% of $30 (not 3.0%)
>
> > $30 is $29 more than $1
>
> > So what, either number is immaterial to all but the poorest person on
> > the planet.
>
> KDT: The trolls must be starving....they are not eating their own.
>
> Did anybody need that much proof of your stupidity? LOL
>
> KDT: Well $29 is insignificant to me also (so is $100) but I'm not the one
> complaining about "outsized profits" by one company but defending even
> larger margins for another.
>
> You invented a $29 difference for Windows over Linux to justify paying 
> Apple
> three times the price for half the hardware in a Windows PC.
>
> WTF is wrong with you, dunce? LOLLERCOASTER

DF: Having been caught in his stupidity, CV is now trying to move the
goalposts...

LOLLERCOASTER

fucking dunce 

"An Old Friend" <an.old@friend.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:4ced3472$1@news.x-privat.org...
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 09:47:54 -0600, Clavicus Vile chinwagged:
>
>>>>The difference between 3% and 100% is.... KDT is sweating with
>>>>anticipation.... 97%, not 3000%.
>>>>
>>>>Aren't you surprised?   LOLLERCOASTER
>>>>
>>>>
>>> $30 is 3000% more than $1
>>
>> Yes, but what sane person put it in those terms?
>
> It's better to put it in those true terms than tell a lie and say that
> it's 97% more than $1.

LOLLERCOASTER 

And verily, didst KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> hastily babble thusly:
> On Nov 24, 10:28�am, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>> And verily, didst Clavicus Vile <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org> hastily babble thusly:
> You do know you're insulting your fellow troll who made that claim --
> not me.

Fellow troll? 
Of course I was insulting "clavicus", he's a fucking moron.

For what reason have you designated me with the label "troll"?  
Is it now trollish to agree with you?
-- 
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |   Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a    |
|                          | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|   Andrew Halliwell BSc   | operating system originally  coded for a 4 bit |
|            in            |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|     Computer Science     |        can't stand 1 bit of competition.       |

"Clavicus Vile" <clavicus.vile@oblivion.org> writes:

> "Hadron" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:icjbmv$fjj$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Nov 24, 10:28 am, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>>> And verily, didst Clavicus Vile <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org> hastily 
>>>> babble thusly:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > "KDT" <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> >news:c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> >> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30. Not that you
>>>> >> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
>>>> >> anyway.
>>>>
>>>> >> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce. Not
>>>> >> 3000%
>>>> >> more expensive. "
>>>>
>>>> > I'm bad at math? LOLLERCOASTER
>>>>
>>>> > I'll educate you, dunce:
>>>>
>>>> > Linux is 1/30 the price of Windows, if we accept your figures. In
>>>> > percentages that's 3% of the price of Windows.
>>>>
>>>> > The difference between 3% and 100% is.... KDT is sweating with
>>>> > anticipation.... 97%, not 3000%.
>>>>
>>>> And you accuse them of being bad at maths?
>>>> I suggest you look up the term "commutitive".
>>>> It's a fairly simple concept. They teach it in primary schools.
>>>> division does not work both ways. 5/1 does not equal 1/5.
>>>> So what makes you think the percentage difference between 1 and 30 and 
>>>> 30
>>>> and 1 are the same?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You do know you're insulting your fellow troll who made that claim --
>>> not me.
>>
>> Anything that rings of academia and our Andrew will be in with his
>> degree proudly fluttering in the siggy flag .... His Mom was so proud ;)
>>
>> *chuckle*
>
> Can you believe these guys actually believe they're right to call a $29 
> difference a 3000% difference?    LOLLERCOASTER 

Well, if one is one dollar and the other is 30 ...

3 dollars is a 200% more expensive than 1 dollar.

29 dollars more is 2900% more expensive ...

spike1@freenet.co.uk writes:

> And verily, didst KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> hastily babble thusly:
>> On Nov 24, 10:28 am, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>> And verily, didst Clavicus Vile <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org> hastily babble thusly:
>> You do know you're insulting your fellow troll who made that claim --
>> not me.
>
> Fellow troll? 
> Of course I was insulting "clavicus", he's a fucking moron.
>
> For what reason have you designated me with the label "troll"?  
> Is it now trollish to agree with you?

That you condone SW piracy and think downloading SW and music is not
stealing since nothing physical was actually stolen` Thats why you're a
troll. That and showing off your degree all the time and stinking up the
group with your foul language as above ...

"Dave Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:ecad7866-ce4d-4c59-b945-44704387d353@r31g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 24, 6:14 am, "Clavicus Vile" <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org>
wrote:
> <spi...@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:8hnvr7-r1v.ln1@librarian.sky.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > And verily, didst Clavicus Vile <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org> hastily
> > babble thusly:
>
> >> "KDT" <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30. Not that you
> >>> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
> >>> anyway.
>
> >>> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce. Not
> >>> 3000%
> >>> more expensive. "
>
> >> I'm bad at math? LOLLERCOASTER
>
> >> I'll educate you, dunce:
>
> >> Linux is 1/30 the price of Windows, if we accept your figures. In
> >> percentages that's 3% of the price of Windows.
>
> >> The difference between 3% and 100% is.... KDT is sweating with
> >> anticipation.... 97%, not 3000%.
>
> > And you accuse them of being bad at maths?
> > I suggest you look up the term "commutitive".
> > It's a fairly simple concept. They teach it in primary schools.
> > division does not work both ways. 5/1 does not equal 1/5.
> > So what makes you think the percentage difference between 1 and 30 and 
> > 30
> > and 1 are the same?
>
> Here's a little lesson to help you better fake being a normal person:
>
> Normal people work their figures so that 100% represents the whole thing,
> and diffences are fractions of 100%. They don't call a $29 difference a
> 3000% diffence. They say $1 is 3% of $30. $29 is a 97% difference from
> $30.

DF: CV, you just aren't very good at math.

According to freaks.

 CF: Even Tommy explained it to you.
$1 is 3.33% of $30.

Rounded off that's 3%.

CF: However, $30 is *not* 197% of $1.

Who said it is, dunce?


CF: The correct
answer would be (drum roll) $1.97. $30 is 30x more than $1, meaning
that it is 3000% of $1, or a 2900% increase in price (thanks for the
correction, Alan).

No, dunce, $29 is 97% of $30.    You pay 97% more if you pay $30 instead of 
$1.   That's how normal people see it.

> See, it's not that hard to be normal. Now you give it a try.
>
CF: As if you would ever know anything about being normal.

Yes, I would, dunce.   Not you though. 

"An Old Friend" <an.old@friend.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:4ced3eb2@news.x-privat.org...
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 10:14:39 -0600, Clavicus Vile chinwagged:
>
>> <spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:8hnvr7-r1v.ln1@librarian.sky.com...
>>> And verily, didst Clavicus Vile <clavicus.vile@oblivion.org> hastily
>>> babble thusly:
>>>>
>>>> "KDT" <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-
> f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30.   Not that you
>>>>> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce.   Not
>>>>> 3000%
>>>>> more expensive. "
>>>>
>>>> I'm bad at math?   LOLLERCOASTER
>>>>
>>>> I'll educate you, dunce:
>>>>
>>>> Linux is 1/30 the price of Windows, if we accept your figures.   In
>>>> percentages that's 3% of the price of Windows.
>>>>
>>>> The difference between 3% and 100% is.... KDT is sweating with
>>>> anticipation.... 97%, not 3000%.
>>>
>>> And you accuse them of being bad at maths? I suggest you look up the
>>> term "commutitive". It's a fairly simple concept. They teach it in
>>> primary schools. division does not work both ways. 5/1 does not equal
>>> 1/5. So what makes you think the percentage difference between 1 and 30
>>> and 30 and 1 are the same?
>>
>> Here's a little lesson to help you better fake being a normal person:
>>
>> Normal people work their figures so that 100% represents the whole
>> thing, and diffences [sic] are fractions of 100%.
>
> 100% represents the original entity.

The $30 price of Windows.

> If the original entity is the $1
> Linux CD, then the percentages will be different than if the original
> entity is the Windows CD.

Which would be the idiot's way of calculating the difference.   It would 
make you go around doing stupid things like quoting percentages in the 
thousands instead of comparing the two things as fractions of 100%.

> Since the topic was originally about Linux CDs, the $1 Linux CD is the
> original entity that is represented by 100%.

The topic was also about Windows for $30.    To be a normal person, we take 
the higher of the two numbers, $30, to be 100%.    That keeps us from being 
freaks who express a $29 difference as 3000%.

>> They don't call a $29
>> difference a 3000% difference.
>> They say $1 is 3% of $30.   $29 is a 97%
>> difference from $30.
>
> If you subtract 97% from $30, you don't get $29.

You get $1.  $30 - $29 = $1

> If you subtract 3% from
> $30 you do get $29. (approximately).
>
Of course.

> $29 is 97% of $30. (This is where you get your 97% from.)

Thanks for repeating what I wrote several times.

> But the original entity (the 100%) was the cost of the Linux CD, which is
> $1.

No, the $30 for Windows is what represents 100%, to normal people.

> $30 is 3000% of $1
>
> $30 is thirty times the cost of $1.

LOLLERCOASTER

fucking dunce 

"KDT" <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:aaeae833-c7b6-4b7f-9f01-5c1bef94600e@f20g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 24, 11:11 am, Tommy the Troll <tom_elamatearthlinkdotnet>
wrote:

> >So now Macs are triple the price....your math is getting worse and
> >worse by the day....
>
> For most people, those who don't need the performance of a MacBook or
> iMac, that 3x factor is about right these days.


KDT: And for most people who don't need a car, a car is about 500x more
expensive than a bicycle.....

Apple computers are bikes sold for the price of a car. 

And verily, didst Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> hastily babble thusly:
> That you condone SW piracy 

You're lying AGAIN?
It's ray lopez who condones software piracy, not me.
I've NEVER said anything like that.
And I challenge you to find a single quote from me saying otherwise.

> and think downloading SW and music is not stealing 

It isn't theft.
IT'S COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
And since when does refusing redefine terms equate to "condoning" software
piracy?

Where have I EVER said it's ok?



-- 
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |   Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a    |
|                          | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|   Andrew Halliwell BSc   | operating system originally  coded for a 4 bit |
|            in            |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|     Computer Science     |        can't stand 1 bit of competition.       |

On Wednesday 24 November 2010 17:04 Hadron wrote:

> "Clavicus Vile" <clavicus.vile@oblivion.org> writes:

>> Can you believe these guys actually believe they're right to call a $29 
>> difference a 3000% difference?    LOLLERCOASTER 
> 
> Well, if one is one dollar and the other is 30 ...
> 
> 3 dollars is a 200% more expensive than 1 dollar.
> 
> 29 dollars more is 2900% more expensive ...

Dear God - the End of the World must be close - I'm agreeing with hadron!

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 10:36:39 -0600, Clavicus Vile chinwagged:

> "An Old Friend" <an.old@friend.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4ced3c05@news.x-privat.org...
>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 09:57:39 -0600, Clavicus Vile chinwagged:
>>
>>> "An Old Friend" <an.old@friend.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:4ced2ffd@news.x-privat.org...
>>>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:38:44 -0600, Clavicus Vile chinwagged:
>>>>
>>>>> "An Old Friend" <an.old@friend.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4ced20dc$1@news.x-privat.org...
>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:39:29 +0100, Sandman chinwagged:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> <c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-
f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>>  KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30.   Not that
>>>>>>>> you provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over
>>>>>>>> and over anyway.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce.  
>>>>>>>> Not 3000%
>>>>>>>> more expensive. "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, most trolls are this bad at math :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They also (from their logic)
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't you explain the "logic" that causes you to express a $29
>>>>> difference as a "3000%" difference.
>>>>
>>>> It's already been explained.
>>>
>>> LOLLERCOASTER
>>>
>>>> I don't offer math tutoring services for free.
>>>
>>> You expect people to pay you to teach them to do math the wrong way?
>>> LOL
>>>
>>>>>> seem to have such severe hardware problems that every time they
>>>>>> download an .iso and burn a CD, they have to buy a brand new
>>>>>> computer and order a new broadband internet connection.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only seems that way to people like you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You're the one who claimed that the cost of burning Linux CDs was the
>>>> cost of the computer, the cost of the internet connection, and the
>>>> cost of the electricity on top of the cost of the CD Media.
>>>
>>> Yes, that's all true, dunce.
>>>
>>>> Given that you believe the cost of burning each Linux CD is roughly
>>>> $1000, then,
>>>
>>> That's not given, except to somebody like you.
>>
>> Why are you disagreeing with yourself?
> 
> I'm not, dunce.
> 
>> If the cost of burning a CD each time you burn a CD is the full cost of
>> the computer, the monthly cost of the internet connection, the monthly
>> cost of the electricity, and the cost of the package of CD media, as
>> you have pointedly restated many times,
> 
> I never said anything like that even once, dunce.

I know, you said that the cost of burning one CD is the full cost of the 
computer, the monthly cost of the internet connection, the monthly cost 
of the electricity, and the cost of the package of CD-media.

And you've defended that statement multiple times. 

>  > then you must have horrible hardware
>> and media problems every time you burn a CD, since it appears that you
>> have to replace your computer, order a new internet connection, and buy
>> a new 100 pack of CDs every time you burn one CD.
> 
> If we accept the premises created by your freakish stupidity.
> 
>> If you don't have to replace your computer, electrical service, and
>> internet service every time, then the cost of burning each CD is NOT
>> the total cost of the computer, connection, electricity and media, but
>> the pro-rated cost of each, which is less than $1.
> 
> Who said anything about replacing the computer every time you want to
> burn a PC?
> 
> Don't you need to have a computer and some CDs and internet service
> before you can even burn one CD?    Do you get all of those things for a
> dollar, dunce?

I'll answer that question in a moment. But first, a serious question:

Is your firm belief then, that the /first/ CD is approximately $1000 (the 
total cost of computer, internet connection, electrical bill, and CD 
media), but all subsequent CDs you burn are *free* until you have to pay 
for your internet service bill, purchase more media, pay for repairs to 
your computer, or pay the electric bill (whichever comes first)?

Now, to answer your question. I have found a local discount store where I 
can get single blank CD-Rs for 25 cents each. Total cost to me: $.27 
including tax.

A couple of months ago I obtained a Toshiba laptop for free from 
craigslist. It looked like a 1999 or 2000 year model, and had a "g" 
wireless PCMCIA card and an external CD-Burner. Total cost to me: $0. 
(The previous owner was driving by where I worked and dropped it off so I 
didn't even incur any transportation costs.) The owner had removed 
Windows 2000 from the machine and installed Ubuntu 10.04 on it, so I 
didn't break any of Microsoft's EULA laws. (I could just end it there 
since I have Ubuntu on the laptop, but I want 10.10 on it and a boot CD 
for emergencies, so I'll continue.)

I walk to a McDonald's a block away from my teaching studio and get a cup 
of coffee for $1. I use their free wi-fi to download and burn the CD. 
Total cost to me: $1.07 (including tax)

So I got the CD, computer, and internet connection (and a cup of coffee) 
for $1.34.

On top of that, I got a nice functional office suite, a servicable 
graphics manipulation program, a best-in-class web browser, desktop 
publishing software, audio playback and organization software, among 
other software goodies. I have a Rescue CD I can use in case there are 
problems either with my computer or other computers.

Pretty good for $1.34 TOTAL COST (*not* pro-rated), don't you think?

I donated the computer to the college where I work to either give or lend 
to a student who could use it, since I already have a wonderful netbook 
for my college classes and a good laptop at my private teaching studio.

>> I can burn a Linux CD for no cost at my local library. They provide the
>> computers, internet connection, electricity, and one blank CD-R each
>> month for registered library patrons (which is also free for the county
>> I live in.)
> 
> You just transferred the cost of making the CD from yourself to the
> taxpayers.

Now, where did those goalposts go? *MY* total cost is zero, as I 
currently do not directly pay property taxes. But the county offers 
library resources and services for free to all residents of the county 
(non-residents can browse the library for free, cannot check out books, 
and can use the computers for a $5/hour fee). If you do not like the  
arrangement, then you are free to move here and run for office to change 
the laws. I didn't ask for the local government to provide this (it was 
here when I moved to my current location), but as long as they are 
providing this for its citizens, I'll use it when I need to.

>  Now we have to add in the cost of the library staff salary
> and the cost of the library building to the cost of the computer, the
> price of the pack of CDs and the price of a month of Internet service.

> That is one fucking expensive CD, dunce!   LOL

Luckily the taxpayer's money wasn't 100% spent on *only* me making my CD, 
as you imply with your statement.

For you, the cost of your $30 OEM Windows disk also has to include the 
cost of your computer, unless you want to break the EULA.

On Nov 24, 11:14=A0am, "Clavicus Vile" <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org>
wrote:
> <spi...@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:8hnvr7-r1v.ln1@librarian.sky.com...
>
>
>
> > And verily, didst Clavicus Vile <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org> hastily
> > babble thusly:
>
> >> "KDT" <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com..=
..
>
> >>> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30. =A0 Not that y=
ou
> >>> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
> >>> anyway.
>
> >>> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce. =A0 Not
> >>> 3000%
> >>> more expensive. "
>
> >> I'm bad at math? =A0 LOLLERCOASTER
>
> >> I'll educate you, dunce:
>
> >> Linux is 1/30 the price of Windows, if we accept your figures. =A0 In
> >> percentages that's 3% of the price of Windows.
>
> >> The difference between 3% and 100% is.... KDT is sweating with
> >> anticipation.... 97%, not 3000%.
>
> > And you accuse them of being bad at maths?
> > I suggest you look up the term "commutitive".
> > It's a fairly simple concept. They teach it in primary schools.
> > division does not work both ways. 5/1 does not equal 1/5.
> > So what makes you think the percentage difference between 1 and 30 and =
30
> > and 1 are the same?
>
> Here's a little lesson to help you better fake being a normal person:
>
> Normal people work their figures so that 100% represents the whole thing,
> and diffences are fractions of 100%. =A0 =A0They don't call a $29 differe=
nce a
> 3000% diffence. =A0 =A0They say $1 is 3% of $30. =A0 $29 is a 97% differe=
nce from
> $30.
>
> See, it's not that hard to be normal. =A0 Now you give it a try.

So now are we Wikipedifying Mathematics?

In article <icjj0i$laq$1@news.albasani.net>,
 "Clavicus Vile" <clavicus.vile@oblivion.org> wrote:

> "Dave Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:ecad7866-ce4d-4c59-b945-44704387d353@r31g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 24, 6:14 am, "Clavicus Vile" <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org>
> wrote:
> > <spi...@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
> >
> > news:8hnvr7-r1v.ln1@librarian.sky.com...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > And verily, didst Clavicus Vile <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org> hastily
> > > babble thusly:
> >
> > >> "KDT" <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > >>> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30. Not that you
> > >>> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
> > >>> anyway.
> >
> > >>> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce. Not
> > >>> 3000%
> > >>> more expensive. "
> >
> > >> I'm bad at math? LOLLERCOASTER
> >
> > >> I'll educate you, dunce:
> >
> > >> Linux is 1/30 the price of Windows, if we accept your figures. In
> > >> percentages that's 3% of the price of Windows.
> >
> > >> The difference between 3% and 100% is.... KDT is sweating with
> > >> anticipation.... 97%, not 3000%.
> >
> > > And you accuse them of being bad at maths?
> > > I suggest you look up the term "commutitive".
> > > It's a fairly simple concept. They teach it in primary schools.
> > > division does not work both ways. 5/1 does not equal 1/5.
> > > So what makes you think the percentage difference between 1 and 30 and 
> > > 30
> > > and 1 are the same?
> >
> > Here's a little lesson to help you better fake being a normal person:
> >
> > Normal people work their figures so that 100% represents the whole thing,
> > and diffences are fractions of 100%. They don't call a $29 difference a
> > 3000% diffence. They say $1 is 3% of $30. $29 is a 97% difference from
> > $30.
> 
> DF: CV, you just aren't very good at math.
> 
> According to freaks.
> 
>  CF: Even Tommy explained it to you.
> $1 is 3.33% of $30.
> 
> Rounded off that's 3%.
> 
> CF: However, $30 is *not* 197% of $1.
> 
> Who said it is, dunce?

You did when you said that it was "97% more" than $1.

> 
> 
> CF: The correct
> answer would be (drum roll) $1.97. $30 is 30x more than $1, meaning
> that it is 3000% of $1, or a 2900% increase in price (thanks for the
> correction, Alan).
> 
> No, dunce, $29 is 97% of $30.    You pay 97% more if you pay $30 instead of 
> $1.   That's how normal people see it.

No. You pay 2900% more when you pay $30 instead of $1.

You pay 96.666% LESS when you pay $1 instead of $30.

And since you claim (erroneously, but let's put that aside for now) that 
you pay only 66.666% less for a Windows system as you do for a Mac, your 
hypocrisy is pretty obvious.

-- 
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- 
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone 
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) 
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the 
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included 
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) 

On Nov 24, 7:45=A0am, "Clavicus Vile" <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org>
wrote:
> "Dave Fritzinger" <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ecad7866-ce4d-4c59-b945-44704387d353@r31g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 24, 6:14 am, "Clavicus Vile" <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <spi...@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> >news:8hnvr7-r1v.ln1@librarian.sky.com...
>
> > > And verily, didst Clavicus Vile <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org> hastily
> > > babble thusly:
>
> > >> "KDT" <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com=
....
>
> > >>> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30. Not that you
> > >>> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and ove=
r
> > >>> anyway.
>
> > >>> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce. Not
> > >>> 3000%
> > >>> more expensive. "
>
> > >> I'm bad at math? LOLLERCOASTER
>
> > >> I'll educate you, dunce:
>
> > >> Linux is 1/30 the price of Windows, if we accept your figures. In
> > >> percentages that's 3% of the price of Windows.
>
> > >> The difference between 3% and 100% is.... KDT is sweating with
> > >> anticipation.... 97%, not 3000%.
>
> > > And you accuse them of being bad at maths?
> > > I suggest you look up the term "commutitive".
> > > It's a fairly simple concept. They teach it in primary schools.
> > > division does not work both ways. 5/1 does not equal 1/5.
> > > So what makes you think the percentage difference between 1 and 30 an=
d
> > > 30
> > > and 1 are the same?
>
> > Here's a little lesson to help you better fake being a normal person:
>
> > Normal people work their figures so that 100% represents the whole thin=
g,
> > and diffences are fractions of 100%. They don't call a $29 difference a
> > 3000% diffence. They say $1 is 3% of $30. $29 is a 97% difference from
> > $30.
>
> DF: CV, you just aren't very good at math.
>
> According to freaks.

Only if you call people who know how to do math "freaks".
>
> =A0CF: Even Tommy explained it to you.
> $1 is 3.33% of $30.
>
> Rounded off that's 3%.

Very good.
>
> CF: However, $30 is *not* 197% of $1.
>
> Who said it is, dunce?

You did.
>
> CF: The correct
> answer would be (drum roll) $1.97. $30 is 30x more than $1, meaning
> that it is 3000% of $1, or a 2900% increase in price (thanks for the
> correction, Alan).
>
> No, dunce, $29 is 97% of $30. =A0 =A0You pay 97% more if you pay $30 inst=
ead of
> $1. =A0 That's how normal people see it.

You see, this is where your "logic" (note the quotation marks around
the word) goes awry. If you pay 97% more than $1.00, you pay $1.97. If
you pay $30, you pay 2900% more, as we have been trying to tell you
for a while now.

You really need to contact whatever school it was that taught you
math, because they failed, miserably.
>
> > See, it's not that hard to be normal. Now you give it a try.
>
> CF: As if you would ever know anything about being normal.

Hey, stupid, the initials are DF, not CF.
>
> Yes, I would, dunce. =A0 Not you though.

Obviously, in your strange world, normal means something different
than it does to most people. I guess in your world, peace is war as
well, right?

"Dave Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:b5ad79c2-1481-4ee0-b401-26547fb65e67@u25g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 24, 7:45 am, "Clavicus Vile" <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org>
wrote:
> "Dave Fritzinger" <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ecad7866-ce4d-4c59-b945-44704387d353@r31g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 24, 6:14 am, "Clavicus Vile" <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <spi...@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> >news:8hnvr7-r1v.ln1@librarian.sky.com...
>
> > > And verily, didst Clavicus Vile <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org> hastily
> > > babble thusly:
>
> > >> "KDT" <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >>> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30. Not that you
> > >>> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
> > >>> anyway.
>
> > >>> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce. Not
> > >>> 3000%
> > >>> more expensive. "
>
> > >> I'm bad at math? LOLLERCOASTER
>
> > >> I'll educate you, dunce:
>
> > >> Linux is 1/30 the price of Windows, if we accept your figures. In
> > >> percentages that's 3% of the price of Windows.
>
> > >> The difference between 3% and 100% is.... KDT is sweating with
> > >> anticipation.... 97%, not 3000%.
>
> > > And you accuse them of being bad at maths?
> > > I suggest you look up the term "commutitive".
> > > It's a fairly simple concept. They teach it in primary schools.
> > > division does not work both ways. 5/1 does not equal 1/5.
> > > So what makes you think the percentage difference between 1 and 30 and
> > > 30
> > > and 1 are the same?
>
> > Here's a little lesson to help you better fake being a normal person:
>
> > Normal people work their figures so that 100% represents the whole 
> > thing,
> > and diffences are fractions of 100%. They don't call a $29 difference a
> > 3000% diffence. They say $1 is 3% of $30. $29 is a 97% difference from
> > $30.
>
> DF: CV, you just aren't very good at math.
>
> According to freaks.

AH: Only if you call people who know how to do math "freaks".

No, I just call freaks like you freaks.

> CF: Even Tommy explained it to you.
> $1 is 3.33% of $30.
>
> Rounded off that's 3%.

AH: Very good.

Of course.

> CF: However, $30 is *not* 197% of $1.
>
> Who said it is, dunce?

AH: You did.

No I didn't, dunce.

> CF: The correct
> answer would be (drum roll) $1.97. $30 is 30x more than $1, meaning
> that it is 3000% of $1, or a 2900% increase in price (thanks for the
> correction, Alan).
>
> No, dunce, $29 is 97% of $30. You pay 97% more if you pay $30 instead of
> $1. That's how normal people see it.

AH: You see, this is where your "logic" (note the quotation marks around
the word) goes awry.

This is what makes you a freak.

AH: If you pay 97% more than $1.00, you pay $1.97

No, you pay $30.   97% ($29)  + 3% ($1) = 100% ($30)

> If
you pay $30, you pay 2900% more, as we have been trying to tell you
for a while now.

How freakish of you.

AH: You really need to contact whatever school it was that taught you
math, because they failed, miserably.

I contacted them.   They said to call you a stupid asshole.

> > See, it's not that hard to be normal. Now you give it a try.
>
> CF: As if you would ever know anything about being normal.

AH: Hey, stupid, the initials are DF, not CF.

Your intitials are AH.

> Yes, I would, dunce. Not you though.

AH: Obviously, in your strange world, normal means something different
than it does to most people. I guess in your world, peace is war as
well, right?

LOLLERCOASTER

fucking dunce 

And verily, didst Clavicus Vile <clavicus.vile@oblivion.org> hastily babble thusly:
>> CF: The correct
>> answer would be (drum roll) $1.97. $30 is 30x more than $1, meaning
>> that it is 3000% of $1, or a 2900% increase in price (thanks for the
>> correction, Alan).
>>
>> No, dunce, $29 is 97% of $30. You pay 97% more if you pay $30 instead of
>> $1. That's how normal people see it.
> 
> AH: You see, this is where your "logic" (note the quotation marks around
> the word) goes awry.
> 
> This is what makes you a freak.
> 
> AH: If you pay 97% more than $1.00, you pay $1.97
> 
> No, you pay $30.   97% ($29)  + 3% ($1) = 100% ($30)

Your stupitity is astounding.
 
-- 
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste!         |
|   Andrew Halliwell BSc   |  I can SMELL!!!  KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and    |
|            in            |  get out the puncture repair kit!"              |
|     Computer Science     |     Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf              |

On Nov 24, 11:03=A0am, "Clavicus Vile" <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org>
wrote:
> "Dave Fritzinger" <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b5ad79c2-1481-4ee0-b401-26547fb65e67@u25g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 24, 7:45 am, "Clavicus Vile" <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Dave Fritzinger" <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:ecad7866-ce4d-4c59-b945-44704387d353@r31g2000prg.googlegroups.com..=
..
> > On Nov 24, 6:14 am, "Clavicus Vile" <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org>
> > wrote:
>
> > > <spi...@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> > >news:8hnvr7-r1v.ln1@librarian.sky.com...
>
> > > > And verily, didst Clavicus Vile <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org> hastil=
y
> > > > babble thusly:
>
> > > >> "KDT" <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > >>news:c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.c=
om...
>
> > > >>> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30. Not that y=
ou
> > > >>> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and o=
ver
> > > >>> anyway.
>
> > > >>> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce. Not
> > > >>> 3000%
> > > >>> more expensive. "
>
> > > >> I'm bad at math? LOLLERCOASTER
>
> > > >> I'll educate you, dunce:
>
> > > >> Linux is 1/30 the price of Windows, if we accept your figures. In
> > > >> percentages that's 3% of the price of Windows.
>
> > > >> The difference between 3% and 100% is.... KDT is sweating with
> > > >> anticipation.... 97%, not 3000%.
>
> > > > And you accuse them of being bad at maths?
> > > > I suggest you look up the term "commutitive".
> > > > It's a fairly simple concept. They teach it in primary schools.
> > > > division does not work both ways. 5/1 does not equal 1/5.
> > > > So what makes you think the percentage difference between 1 and 30 =
and
> > > > 30
> > > > and 1 are the same?
>
> > > Here's a little lesson to help you better fake being a normal person:
>
> > > Normal people work their figures so that 100% represents the whole
> > > thing,
> > > and diffences are fractions of 100%. They don't call a $29 difference=
 a
> > > 3000% diffence. They say $1 is 3% of $30. $29 is a 97% difference fro=
m
> > > $30.
>
> > DF: CV, you just aren't very good at math.
>
> > According to freaks.
>
> AH: Only if you call people who know how to do math "freaks".
>
> No, I just call freaks like you freaks.
>
> > CF: Even Tommy explained it to you.
> > $1 is 3.33% of $30.
>
> > Rounded off that's 3%.
>
> AH: Very good.
>
> Of course.
>
> > CF: However, $30 is *not* 197% of $1.
>
> > Who said it is, dunce?
>
> AH: You did.
>
> No I didn't, dunce.
Yes, CV the stupid, you did.
>
> > CF: The correct
> > answer would be (drum roll) $1.97. $30 is 30x more than $1, meaning
> > that it is 3000% of $1, or a 2900% increase in price (thanks for the
> > correction, Alan).
>
> > No, dunce, $29 is 97% of $30. You pay 97% more if you pay $30 instead o=
f
> > $1. That's how normal people see it.
>
> AH: You see, this is where your "logic" (note the quotation marks around
> the word) goes awry.
>
> This is what makes you a freak.

Lack of math skills make you an idiot. But, we already knew that.
>
> AH: If you pay 97% more than $1.00, you pay $1.97
>
> No, you pay $30. =A0 97% ($29) =A0+ 3% ($1) =3D 100% ($30)

A couple of questions for you.

If an item, priced at $10 has a price increase of 10%, what is the new
cost?
If an item, again priced at $10 has a price increase of 50%, what is
the new cost?
If an item, again priced at $10, has a 97% price increase, what is the
new cost?

This ought to be good...
>
> > If
>
> you pay $30, you pay 2900% more, as we have been trying to tell you
> for a while now.
>
> How freakish of you.

No, how stupid of you.
>
> AH: You really need to contact whatever school it was that taught you
> math, because they failed, miserably.
>
> I contacted them. =A0 They said to call you a stupid asshole.

You should sue them, since you left not knowing basic math.
>
> > > See, it's not that hard to be normal. Now you give it a try.
>
> > CF: As if you would ever know anything about being normal.
>
> AH: Hey, stupid, the initials are DF, not CF.
>
> Your intitials are AH.

I guess reading isn't one of the things you learned at school either.
>
> > Yes, I would, dunce. Not you though.
>
> AH: Obviously, in your strange world, normal means something different
> than it does to most people. I guess in your world, peace is war as
> well, right?
>
> LOLLERCOASTER

I don't know what that is, but if it came from CV, it has to be
stupid.
>
> fucking dunce
Yes, you are.

On Nov 24, 4:22=A0pm, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> And verily, didst Clavicus Vile <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org> hastily babb=
le thusly:
>
>
>
> >> CF: The correct
> >> answer would be (drum roll) $1.97. $30 is 30x more than $1, meaning
> >> that it is 3000% of $1, or a 2900% increase in price (thanks for the
> >> correction, Alan).
>
> >> No, dunce, $29 is 97% of $30. You pay 97% more if you pay $30 instead =
of
> >> $1. That's how normal people see it.
>
> > AH: You see, this is where your "logic" (note the quotation marks aroun=
d
> > the word) goes awry.
>
> > This is what makes you a freak.
>
> > AH: If you pay 97% more than $1.00, you pay $1.97
>
> > No, you pay $30. =A0 97% ($29) =A0+ 3% ($1) =3D 100% ($30)
>
> Your stupitity is astounding.

You get use to it. After awhile -- it ceases to become astounding and
then it's just really amusing........

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:22:13 +0000, spike1 chinwagged:

> And verily, didst Clavicus Vile <clavicus.vile@oblivion.org> hastily
> babble thusly:
>>> CF: The correct
>>> answer would be (drum roll) $1.97. $30 is 30x more than $1, meaning
>>> that it is 3000% of $1, or a 2900% increase in price (thanks for the
>>> correction, Alan).
>>>
>>> No, dunce, $29 is 97% of $30. You pay 97% more if you pay $30 instead
>>> of $1. That's how normal people see it.
>> 
>> AH: You see, this is where your "logic" (note the quotation marks
>> around the word) goes awry.
>> 
>> This is what makes you a freak.
>> 
>> AH: If you pay 97% more than $1.00, you pay $1.97
>> 
>> No, you pay $30.   97% ($29)  + 3% ($1) = 100% ($30)
> 
> Your stupitity is astounding.

If I go to the calculator and enter 1 + 97 % = ... I get 1.97.

Remember Clavicus' original statement: "That would make Windows 97% more 
expensive than Linux"

Substitute x for Windows and y for Linux

That would make x 97% more expensive than y.

Mathematically this is written

x = y + (y*.97)

x = y * 1.97

x / 1.97 = y

Solving for x=30, we get y=~15.23

Solving for y=1, we get x=1.97

There is no way to make the equation valid with values of x=30 and y=1

Therefore, Clavicus' statement is false.

In article <4ced9a10$2@news.x-privat.org>,
 An Old Friend <an.old@friend.com.invalid> wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:22:13 +0000, spike1 chinwagged:
> 
> > And verily, didst Clavicus Vile <clavicus.vile@oblivion.org> hastily
> > babble thusly:
> >>> CF: The correct
> >>> answer would be (drum roll) $1.97. $30 is 30x more than $1, meaning
> >>> that it is 3000% of $1, or a 2900% increase in price (thanks for the
> >>> correction, Alan).
> >>>
> >>> No, dunce, $29 is 97% of $30. You pay 97% more if you pay $30 instead
> >>> of $1. That's how normal people see it.
> >> 
> >> AH: You see, this is where your "logic" (note the quotation marks
> >> around the word) goes awry.
> >> 
> >> This is what makes you a freak.
> >> 
> >> AH: If you pay 97% more than $1.00, you pay $1.97
> >> 
> >> No, you pay $30.   97% ($29)  + 3% ($1) = 100% ($30)
> > 
> > Your stupitity is astounding.
> 
> If I go to the calculator and enter 1 + 97 % = ... I get 1.97.
> 
> Remember Clavicus' original statement: "That would make Windows 97% more 
> expensive than Linux"
> 
> Substitute x for Windows and y for Linux
> 
> That would make x 97% more expensive than y.
> 
> Mathematically this is written
> 
> x = y + (y*.97)
> 
> x = y * 1.97
> 
> x / 1.97 = y
> 
> Solving for x=30, we get y=~15.23
> 
> Solving for y=1, we get x=1.97
> 
> There is no way to make the equation valid with values of x=30 and y=1
> 
> Therefore, Clavicus' statement is false.

Nice: a mathematical proof that CV is an idiot!

-- 
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- 
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone 
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) 
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the 
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included 
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) 

In message <mr-DA96A1.14392924112010@News.Individual.NET> 
  Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article 
> <c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>  KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30.   Not that you
>> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
>> anyway.
>> 
>> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce.   Not
>> 3000%
>> more expensive. "

> Yes, most trolls are this bad at math :)

I laughed.


-- 
Fairy Tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons
exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.

Clavicus Vile wrote:
> Can you believe these guys actually believe they're right to call a $29 
> difference a 3000% difference?    LOLLERCOASTER 

Jeez, you are a moron. Too much diesel fuel smelled on the boat?

"Clavicus Vile" <clavicus.vile@oblivion.org> wrote in message 
news:icjuje$7ri$1@news.albasani.net...
>

>
> LOLLERCOASTER

Is that why everybody is laughint AT you?  Stupid, uneducated and lacking 
even basic math skills is no way to go through life. Seeing how ignorant you 
really are (and adverse to understanding your mistake) you would be lucky to 
ever get a basic manual labor job.


> fucking dunce

You've done a remarkable job proving that you are one.

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 10:20:23 -0600, "Clavicus Vile"
<clavicus.vile@oblivion.org> wrote:

>
>"An Old Friend" <an.old@friend.com.invalid> wrote in message 
>news:4ced3113$1@news.x-privat.org...
>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:45:14 -0600, Clavicus Vile chinwagged:
>>
>>> "KDT" <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68821@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30.   Not that you
>>>> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
>>>> anyway.
>>>>
>>>> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce.   Not
>>>> 3000%
>>>> more expensive. "
>>>
>>> I'm bad at math?   LOLLERCOASTER
>>>
>>> I'll educate you, dunce:
>>>
>>> Linux is 1/30 the price of Windows, if we accept your figures.   In
>>> percentages that's 3% of the price of Windows.
>>>
>>> The difference between 3% and 100% is.... KDT is sweating with
>>> anticipation.... 97%, not 3000%.
>>>
>>> Aren't you surprised?   LOLLERCOASTER
>>
>> If you raise the price of a $1 CD by 100%, the cost is $2.
>
>It must have taken you all day to come up with that one.   LOL
>
>> You're claiming that $1 increased by 97% is $30.
>
>No dunce, I'm telling you $29 is 97% of $30.   The difference between paying 
>$1 and $30 is $29.
>
>> In your world, $30 < $2.
>
>Not in my world.  Visit it sometimes.  It's called "reality." 
>

Give it up. You are simply wrong.

Clavicus Vile stated in post icjd0g$bjt$1@news.albasani.net on 11/24/10 9:03
AM:

> SC: Not according to Clavicus, who hypocritically wouldn't argue in favor
> of people who make next to nothing switching to Linux over Windows
> despite their wasting TONS of time (time = money) futzing with viruses.
> 
> The dunces know Apple will never beat Microsoft so they want Linux to do the
> dirty work for Apple!
> 
> Why are the fucking idiot Mac users telling Windows users to switch to Linux
> when they won't use Linux themselves?

Carroll tried to talk me *out* of getting a Mac... saying a Windows machine
would serve my needs as well.

  Steve Carroll, comparing Intel iMacs compared to a G4 800:
    -----
    If speed is "central" to your "NEEDS" you shouldn't be buying
    an iMac at all.
    -----
    You "need" for a Mac doesn't look like a "need" at all.
    -----
    Teaching, web design and tech work are performed on non-Mac
    PCs all the time.
    -----
    What things are you "teaching" or do you plan to "teach" on
    OSX that can *not* be taught on a PC?
    ----- 
    As to other types of showstoppers... v.1 is always a bit of
    a crap shoot.
    -----

Steve also spent some time making up claims about Mac problems - some just
completely fabricated and some based on problems he found others talking
about:

  * A keyboard that generated characters it was not supposed to

  * A weird exclamation point in a login field that has been
    reported nowhere else

  * Problems with the caps lock indicator

  * Problems with Time Machine

  * Problems with an OS somehow killing a battery

  * An OS forcing him to nym-shift when he used his news reader

  * Bad tech support from Apple

  * Inability to burn CDs where he got an error message he could
    neither quote not paraphrase

On and on.  Then he saw the light, decided I (and others) were right, and
not speaks highly of Macs.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Tommy the Troll wrote:
> KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> Tommy the Troll <tom_elamatearthlinkdotnet> wrote:
>> 
>>> Not all trolls don't understand math.
>> 
>> What type of convoluted English is that?
> 
> A simple double negative, put there as a test to see if some Maccie
> would complain. 
> 

Sure it was....

On Nov 24, 9:06=A0pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article <4ced9a1...@news.x-privat.org>,
> =A0An Old Friend <an....@friend.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:22:13 +0000, spike1 chinwagged:
>
> > > And verily, didst Clavicus Vile <clavicus.v...@oblivion.org> hastily
> > > babble thusly:
> > >>> CF: The correct
> > >>> answer would be (drum roll) $1.97. $30 is 30x more than $1, meaning
> > >>> that it is 3000% of $1, or a 2900% increase in price (thanks for th=
e
> > >>> correction, Alan).
>
> > >>> No, dunce, $29 is 97% of $30. You pay 97% more if you pay $30 inste=
ad
> > >>> of $1. That's how normal people see it.
>
> > >> AH: You see, this is where your "logic" (note the quotation marks
> > >> around the word) goes awry.
>
> > >> This is what makes you a freak.
>
> > >> AH: If you pay 97% more than $1.00, you pay $1.97
>
> > >> No, you pay $30. =A0 97% ($29) =A0+ 3% ($1) =3D 100% ($30)
>
> > > Your stupitity is astounding.
>
> > If I go to the calculator and enter 1 + 97 % =3D ... I get 1.97.
>
> > Remember Clavicus' original statement: "That would make Windows 97% mor=
e
> > expensive than Linux"
>
> > Substitute x for Windows and y for Linux
>
> > That would make x 97% more expensive than y.
>
> > Mathematically this is written
>
> > x =3D y + (y*.97)
>
> > x =3D y * 1.97
>
> > x / 1.97 =3D y
>
> > Solving for x=3D30, we get y=3D~15.23
>
> > Solving for y=3D1, we get x=3D1.97
>
> > There is no way to make the equation valid with values of x=3D30 and y=
=3D1
>
> > Therefore, Clavicus' statement is false.
>
> Nice: a mathematical proof that CV is an idiot!

The math becomes a bit more obvious ... including where CV made his
mistake ... if we alter the notional price of Linux from $1.00 to
$0.99:


($30 - $0.99)/($0.99) =3D 29.03
29.03 * 100% =3D 2903%

Thus, "$30 is "2900% more expensive than $1" is correct.


Similarly, the percentage of $30 represented by $0.99 is:

($0.99)/($30) =3D 0.033
0.033 * 100% =3D 3.3%

And the savings, relative to $30 benchmark, would notionally be:

($30 - $0.99)/($30) =3D 0.967
0.967 * 100% =3D 96.7%

The key difference is who is in the denominator, for then how the
statement is phrased.  Thus, for this $1 vs $30 example, not only is
it correct to say "Windows costs 2900% more than Linux", it is also
correct to say "Linux costs 97% less than Windows", as well as "Linux
is 3% the cost of Windows".

However, even this has to be taken into context:  conventionally, the
OS is only part of the total product purchase cost, so if we're
notionally comparing a $500 computer with a $29 difference, such huge
percentage values disappear, since the math is more along the lines
of:

{ ($500+$1) - ($500+$30) } / ($500+$30) * 100% =3D -5.47%

"On a $500 PC, choosing Linux OS saves 5.5% over Windows."


-hh

On Nov 25, 6:09=A0pm, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> However, even this has to be taken into context: =A0conventionally, the
> OS is only part of the total product purchase cost, so if we're
> notionally comparing a $500 computer with a $29 difference, such huge
> percentage values disappear, since the math is more along the lines
> of:
>
> { ($500+$1) - ($500+$30) } / ($500+$30) * 100% =3D -5.47%
>
> "On a $500 PC, choosing Linux OS saves 5.5% over Windows."

The only "context" that matters here is that the trolls claim that
Apple charges an outsized "premium" for the Mac over a Windows PC.  My
argument is simple, if Apple charges an outsized premium over
"competing PC's", then Microsoft charges an even more outrageous
premium for an OEM install of Windows over competing OS's -- of at
least 2900% based on the reported cost of Windows to major PC vendors
or upwards to 8800% of a single OEM cost of Windows since all trolls
claim they build their own systems.

Using the entire cost is how car dealers get over on customers. An OEM
install of, for instance a "premium sound system" can cost 50% more
than an after market equivalent but since it's such a small percentage
of the entire costs, they can get away with it.

Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:

> "On a $500 PC, choosing Linux OS saves 5.5% over Windows."

I have a PC here that's been upgraded with 13 successive versions of
Fedora, for free. It should also be noted that Fedora, or any GNU/Linux
distro, is more than just an OS, it's an entire suite of all the most
useful applications demanded by its users and developers, which are also
free of cost (as well as being Free Software).

How much would a $500 PC + 13 theoretical successive Windows retail
licenses cost?

And how much would it cost to buy then upgrade all the commercial
applications needed to run on those 13 successive versions of Windows,
assuming you didn't want Free Software (which is why you'd be using
Windows in the first place)?

Adobe Photoshop, which nearly every Windows user I've ever talked to
claims to need and use, costs between £600 and £1000, depending on the
version and retailer.

That's just one application.

-- 
K.                           | [ubuntu]
http://slated.org            | 
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   | 1. Ancient African word meaning
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 42 days  |    'I can't configure Debian'

On Nov 25, 7:15=A0pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
>
> > "On a $500 PC, choosing Linux OS saves 5.5% over Windows."
>
> I have a PC here that's been upgraded with 13 successive versions of
> Fedora, for free. It should also be noted that Fedora, or any GNU/Linux
> distro, is more than just an OS, it's an entire suite of all the most
> useful applications demanded by its users and developers, which are also
> free of cost (as well as being Free Software).
>
> How much would a $500 PC + 13 theoretical successive Windows retail
> licenses cost?

It depends on several factors.

First, how many of these 13 'versions' of Fedora (for example) would --
> really <-- be considered major updates, versus minor ones?

Afterall, the commercial practice is that major updates are  subject
to a retail charge, whereas minor updates are provided for free.  To
illustrate, on my current desktop (OS X 10.5.8), of the last 13 OS
"versions", I've only had to pay for one of them.

Similarly, if we only count majors on a single product platform, well,
that probably takes me back into the 1970s...what values do you want
to use for doing present value calculations due to roughly 30 years of
inflation?  This brings up the second point of what contextual
timeframe we are dealing with, so as to examine lifecycle costs.

Plus this doesn't even consider all of those (cough) freebees that one
gets in the Windows world, with the establishment of "Patch
Tuesday" ... which are just like the Linux world in that they're all
"free" ... including whatever impact they have on your legacy
applications which just happen to get broken.


> And how much would it cost to buy then upgrade all the commercial
> applications needed to run on those 13 successive versions of Windows,
> assuming you didn't want Free Software (which is why you'd be using
> Windows in the first place)?

But this assumes that one always upgrades, regardless of need.

Sure, this can often be the case when your barrier to entry (cost) is
extremely low, but it represents a "Technology Push", not a
"Requirements Pull" and particularly if you haven't done a good risk/
benefit (or value) assessment before choosing to upgrade.


> Adobe Photoshop, which nearly every Windows user I've ever talked to
> claims to need and use, costs between =A3600 and =A31000, depending on th=
e
> version and retailer.
>
> That's just one application.

Apparently, "nearly every Windows user" has also neglected to educate
you about the concept of buying upgrades to existing licenses, rather
than throwing it away and paying full freight for a brand new full
license each time.   For your edification, at current US retail &
conversion rates to GBP, an upgrade to Photoshop CS5 is $200, or
roughly =A3120.

Of course, if you don't need the most recent product features, no one
is forcing to you do anything:  just continue with what you have and
avoid the pitfall of "Technology Push".  Similarly, if you don't find
it to be sufficient value-added, you can also choose to skip-upgrade
to lower the effective cost.  This is why  Photoshop versions as old
as CS2 (released April 2005) are eligible for the current CS5 upgrade
within the USA, and not just CS4.

And that's just one example of a software company that sells license
upgrades.


-hh

On Nov 25, 6:38=A0pm, KDT <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 6:09=A0pm, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
> > However, even this has to be taken into context: =A0conventionally, the
> > OS is only part of the total product purchase cost, so if we're
> > notionally comparing a $500 computer with a $29 difference, such huge
> > percentage values disappear, since the math is more along the lines
> > of:
>
> > { ($500+$1) - ($500+$30) } / ($500+$30) * 100% =3D -5.47%
>
> > "On a $500 PC, choosing Linux OS saves 5.5% over Windows."
>
> The only "context" that matters here is that the trolls claim that
> Apple charges an outsized "premium" for the Mac over a Windows PC.

AFAIC, they do charge a premium, because they have been successful in
their product differentiation.   However, this observation makes no
judgement on if this premium is "outsized" or simply appropriate:
ultimately, this is voted on by the "vote" of the wallet of the
consumer, and current aggregate market growth/change trends there are
indicating that Apple is out-growing the mainstream, so the
implications are that the marketplace (not me) is judging Apple to be
a superior value.


> Using the entire cost is how car dealers get over on customers. An OEM
> install of, for instance a "premium sound system" can cost 50% more
> than an after market equivalent but since it's such a small percentage
> of the entire costs, they can get away with it.

It is not just the sticker price, since that's just one part of the
total lifecycle cost for the end user.  On the tangential subject of
automobiles, I find it interesting to read various manufacturer's
"Options" sheets, to see who has a good handle on lifecycle costs - -
both that which they will incur directly, and those that they
*believe* that they'll be able to pass along to captive consumers (ie,
post-warranty repairs)...and overlook the fact that they have to pay
for the stocking and logistical management for all of these extra
spare parts for years upon years merely in anticipation of recovering
that lifecycle expense in a repair.   IMO, Porsche is seriously
hurting themselves in this way, and VW's plans for future growth is
significantly jeopardized by this dimension to their culture.


-hh

Homer stated in post uqa3s7-eth.ln1@sky.matrix on 11/25/10 5:15 PM:

> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
> 
>> "On a $500 PC, choosing Linux OS saves 5.5% over Windows."
> 
> I have a PC here that's been upgraded with 13 successive versions of
> Fedora, for free. It should also be noted that Fedora, or any GNU/Linux
> distro, is more than just an OS, it's an entire suite of all the most
> useful applications demanded by its users and developers, which are also
> free of cost (as well as being Free Software).
> 
> How much would a $500 PC + 13 theoretical successive Windows retail
> licenses cost?

Which of the Linux programs are not available for Windows?

> And how much would it cost to buy then upgrade all the commercial
> applications needed to run on those 13 successive versions of Windows,
> assuming you didn't want Free Software (which is why you'd be using
> Windows in the first place)?

Huh?  Why would you assume a Windows user is using because they do not want
Free software?  That is just bizarre.

> Adobe Photoshop, which nearly every Windows user I've ever talked to
> claims to need and use, costs between �600 and �1000, depending on the
> version and retailer.
> 
> That's just one application.

And there is nothing comparable to it on Linux.  Nothing.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
> On Nov 25, 7:15 pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
>>
>>> "On a $500 PC, choosing Linux OS saves 5.5% over Windows."
>>
>> I have a PC here that's been upgraded with 13 successive versions of
>> Fedora, for free. It should also be noted that Fedora, or any
>> GNU/Linux distro, is more than just an OS, it's an entire suite of
>> all the most useful applications demanded by its users and
>> developers, which are also free of cost (as well as being Free
>> Software).
>>
>> How much would a $500 PC + 13 theoretical successive Windows retail
>> licenses cost?
>
> It depends on several factors.
>
> First, how many of these 13 'versions' of Fedora (for example) would
> --> really <-- be considered major updates, versus minor ones?

All of them, since the primary reason for creating new release versions
of a distro is to accommodate major upgrades in its upstream components,
which have changed so radically as to introduce incompatibilities with
the current release. Anything minor is provided in interim updates.

This is no different to any other OS, including Windows and Mac OS X,
except that commercial software publishers are more pressured, and thus
more motivated, to release upgrades for the purpose of generating
revenue, rather than necessarily for purely technical reasons.

This often results in commercial products being released in an
unfinished state (e.g. Phone 7), or "upgrades" that really aren't - in
any sense that actually benefits the customer (e.g. Sony's PS3 "update"
that destroys their customers' GNU/Linux partition, and prevents them
from reinstalling and using GNU/Linux ever again on that PS3).

> Afterall, the commercial practice is that major updates are  subject
> to a retail charge, whereas minor updates are provided for free.  To
> illustrate, on my current desktop (OS X 10.5.8), of the last 13 OS
> "versions", I've only had to pay for one of them.

GNU/Linux distros also release minor updates for free but, unlike
commercial software, the major upgrades are also free, unless one
chooses to pay for a support contract from the likes of Red Hat.

Support contracts usually appeal more to enterprises than domestic
customers, who (like most Windows and Mac OS X users) are more than
content to use peer-level support for free.

The difference is though, peer-level support for Free Software tends to
be more knowledgeable and productive, as many of those "peers" are
inevitably also the developers, or at least experienced programmers, all
of whom have access to the sources, making the process of diagnosing and
fixing software issues much easier and quicker.

With proprietary software (of either a commercial or freeware nature),
the best any user can hope for is the vendor finally gets around to
fixing an issue, or providing additional functionality, at some point
when it best suits the vendor, which might be months or even years away,
and is usually dependent on whether or not it serves that vendor's
financial interests.

Free Software, OTOH, always seeks to serve the users' interests, if for
no better reason than the fact that many of those users are also its
developers.

> Similarly, if we only count majors on a single product platform, well,
> that probably takes me back into the 1970s.

Yes, commercial software vendors do release upgrades far slower than
their Free Software counterparts, mainly because their customers would
be unwilling to spend money upgrading to the latest release on a
frequent basis, particularly enterprise customers with hundreds;
thousands; or even tens of thousands of seats. That is where the TCO of
Free Software vs proprietary software really makes a difference.

> ..what values do you want to use for doing present value calculations
> due to roughly 30 years of inflation?

It doesn't really matter, since whatever the value it's bound to be
greater than zero, which is the licensing cost for all Free Software.

> This brings up the second point of what contextual timeframe we are
> dealing with, so as to examine lifecycle costs.

Again, the life-cycle costs of a Free Software license is zero, so it's
a moot point.

> Plus this doesn't even consider all of those (cough) freebees that one
> gets in the Windows world

Certainly it's possible to break the law, and use proprietary software
for free by infringing its copyright, but that's not really relevant,
since you might as well claim a Bugatti Veyron is cheaper than a Ford
Focus, if you steal one. This might address the issue from the
perspective of criminals, but it doesn't really help law-abiding
citizens, or the vendors.

> with the establishment of "Patch Tuesday" ... which are just like the
> Linux world in that they're all "free" ... including whatever impact
> they have on your legacy applications which just happen to get broken.

Except GNU/Linux distros rarely issue legacy-breaking interim updates,
unless there's a severe security issue that makes it necessary, and such
things are extremely rare AFAICT. This is precisely why they prefer to
delay those sorts of (legacy-breaking, non-security) updates for major
releases.

>> And how much would it cost to buy then upgrade all the commercial
>> applications needed to run on those 13 successive versions of
>> Windows, assuming you didn't want Free Software (which is why you'd
>> be using Windows in the first place)?
>
> But this assumes that one always upgrades, regardless of need.

There may or may not be a "need", but the fact is if one /were/ to
upgrade Windows as often as I had upgraded the aforementioned Fedora
system, it would cost a great deal more than the initial $500
investment, whereas the Fedora upgrades did not. 

And if we take the example of Windows users who do not upgrade, such as
the estimated 60% who are still using XP, consider the security
enhancements, additional functionality, and support for newer technology
that they're missing. As a GNU/Linux user, I may also choose to not
upgrade, but if I do then I can do so for free, and furthermore I can
also be assured that all the applications I use will be upgraded in a
corresponding fashion (and still be functional) - again, for free.
Meanwhile, cost and compatibility issues seems to have deterred many XP
users from upgrading. They're missing out - I'm not. 

> Sure, this can often be the case when your barrier to entry (cost) is
> extremely low, but it represents a "Technology Push", not a
> "Requirements Pull" and particularly if you haven't done a good risk/
> benefit (or value) assessment before choosing to upgrade.

It's simpler than that. It may be that a new game requires an updated
version of DirectX, and that update is only available for Windows 7, but
the customer's system is incompatible with Windows 7, due to a lack of
drivers. That's just one example.

I've never faced that dilemma with Free Software, including any of the
Free Software games that I play. Now one can argue that proprietary
games are "better", subjectively speaking, but if I had to make a choice
between always being able to play a game, because it will always be (or
I can modify it to be) compatible with my system, or being unable to
play another (supposedly better, but proprietary) game because it's
incompatible, and the only one who can make it compatible (the vendor)
has no (financial) interest in doing so, then I'd much rather play the
Free Software game. I've yet to be disappointed.

>> Adobe Photoshop, which nearly every Windows user I've ever talked to
>> claims to need and use, costs between £600 and £1000, depending on
>> the version and retailer.
>>
>> That's just one application.
>
> Apparently, "nearly every Windows user" has also neglected to educate
> you about the concept of buying upgrades to existing licenses

License upgrades first require one to have purchased a full copy at some
point, so the initial cost of the PC + Windows + just this one
application is now between $1000 and $1500 (based on Amazon.com prices
for CS5 and CS5 Extended), on a $500 PC. Then add $200 + inflation for
each Photoshop upgrade thereafter, and similarly for the other
applications and the OS itself. Suddenly that $500 PC doesn't seem like
such a bargain after all.

Now certainly one can reuse existing software, but the fact is you still
have to pay for a full license at some point, you still have to pay for
upgrades (if you're going to upgrade at all), and you can only install
one copy of each application or OS on each machine, so if this is an
/additional/ PC, rather than a replacement, then you need to buy another
full license (legally).

Alternatively, one can download an ISO containing a full GNU/Linux
distribution, including the OS and applications, and install and upgrade
it on as many machines as one wants, legally and for free.

The only time this doesn't apply, is where one has purchased a support
contract for commercial Free Software like RHEL, and one is only
/supported/ for each license on a limited number of machines
(technically per CPU). However, that would not prohibit one from
installing RHEL on additional machines for which one does /not/ require
support. The "license" in this case is for a support contract only, not
for the actual software.

> rather than throwing it away and paying full freight for a brand new
> full license each time.   For your edification, at current US retail &
> conversion rates to GBP, an upgrade to Photoshop CS5 is $200, or
> roughly £120.

That's still $200 more than I'd have to pay with Free Software, and
that's still just one application.

> Of course, if you don't need the most recent product features, no one
> is forcing to you do anything:  just continue with what you have and
> avoid the pitfall of "Technology Push".

That also has its disadvantages (see above).

> Similarly, if you don't find it to be sufficient value-added, you can
> also choose to skip-upgrade to lower the effective cost.  This is why
> Photoshop versions as old as CS2 (released April 2005) are eligible
> for the current CS5 upgrade within the USA, and not just CS4.

But they're still not free, and are still only licensed for one PC.

> And that's just one example of a software company that sells license
> upgrades.

Yes, there are quite a few. I don't need any of them.

-- 
K.                           | [ubuntu]
http://slated.org            | 
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   | 1. Ancient African word meaning
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 42 days  |    'I can't configure Debian'

Homer stated in post bql3s7-7aa.ln1@sky.matrix on 11/25/10 8:23 PM:

> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
>> On Nov 25, 7:15�pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
>>> 
>>>> "On a $500 PC, choosing Linux OS saves 5.5% over Windows."
>>> 
>>> I have a PC here that's been upgraded with 13 successive versions of
>>> Fedora, for free. It should also be noted that Fedora, or any
>>> GNU/Linux distro, is more than just an OS, it's an entire suite of
>>> all the most useful applications demanded by its users and
>>> developers, which are also free of cost (as well as being Free
>>> Software).
>>> 
>>> How much would a $500 PC + 13 theoretical successive Windows retail
>>> licenses cost?
>> 
>> It depends on several factors.
>> 
>> First, how many of these 13 'versions' of Fedora (for example) would
>> --> really <-- be considered major updates, versus minor ones?
> 
> All of them, since the primary reason for creating new release versions
> of a distro is to accommodate major upgrades in its upstream components,
> which have changed so radically as to introduce incompatibilities with
> the current release. Anything minor is provided in interim updates.
> 
> This is no different to any other OS, including Windows and Mac OS X,
> except that commercial software publishers are more pressured, and thus
> more motivated, to release upgrades for the purpose of generating
> revenue, rather than necessarily for purely technical reasons.
> 
> This often results in commercial products being released in an
> unfinished state (e.g. Phone 7), or "upgrades" that really aren't - in
> any sense that actually benefits the customer (e.g. Sony's PS3 "update"
> that destroys their customers' GNU/Linux partition, and prevents them
> from reinstalling and using GNU/Linux ever again on that PS3).

What about scheduled Ubuntu updates?  Do they not feel pressure, too?

>> Afterall, the commercial practice is that major updates are  subject
>> to a retail charge, whereas minor updates are provided for free.  To
>> illustrate, on my current desktop (OS X 10.5.8), of the last 13 OS
>> "versions", I've only had to pay for one of them.
> 
> GNU/Linux distros also release minor updates for free but, unlike
> commercial software, the major upgrades are also free, unless one
> chooses to pay for a support contract from the likes of Red Hat.
> 
> Support contracts usually appeal more to enterprises than domestic
> customers, who (like most Windows and Mac OS X users) are more than
> content to use peer-level support for free.

Apple offers home user free support at their stores.

> The difference is though, peer-level support for Free Software tends to
> be more knowledgeable and productive, as many of those "peers" are
> inevitably also the developers, or at least experienced programmers, all
> of whom have access to the sources, making the process of diagnosing and
> fixing software issues much easier and quicker.

I would love to see support of the idea that Linux users get better support.
First, there are fewer of them, so this in itself makes it harder to find
people with similar problems.  To make things more confusing, the level of
choice on Linux, with all of its benefits, also leads to more variables.
Also, the ease of use of the OS makes a difference here, and few would argue
that Linux is the top here.

> With proprietary software (of either a commercial or freeware nature),
> the best any user can hope for is the vendor finally gets around to
> fixing an issue, or providing additional functionality, at some point
> when it best suits the vendor, which might be months or even years away,
> and is usually dependent on whether or not it serves that vendor's
> financial interests.

Completely false.  This might be true for altering the code of a program but
*not* for getting support, which is what he topic was.

> Free Software, OTOH, always seeks to serve the users' interests, if for
> no better reason than the fact that many of those users are also its
> developers.

Software does not "seek" anything... and if OSS software did what you said,
then why is it not capable of producing equivalents to MS Office, Photoshop,
Dreamweaver, etc?

>> Similarly, if we only count majors on a single product platform, well,
>> that probably takes me back into the 1970s.
> 
> Yes, commercial software vendors do release upgrades far slower than
> their Free Software counterparts, mainly because their customers would
> be unwilling to spend money upgrading to the latest release on a
> frequent basis, particularly enterprise customers with hundreds;
> thousands; or even tens of thousands of seats. That is where the TCO of
> Free Software vs proprietary software really makes a difference.

I would love to see an unbiased study showing that this is a general rule.
Purchase price, and even upgrade prices, are not the full story on TCO!

>> ..what values do you want to use for doing present value calculations
>> due to roughly 30 years of inflation?
> 
> It doesn't really matter, since whatever the value it's bound to be
> greater than zero, which is the licensing cost for all Free Software.

But not all the software in question here is free.

>> This brings up the second point of what contextual timeframe we are
>> dealing with, so as to examine lifecycle costs.
> 
> Again, the life-cycle costs of a Free Software license is zero, so it's
> a moot point.

You are confusing costs of using software with costs of licenses.

>> Plus this doesn't even consider all of those (cough) freebees that one
>> gets in the Windows world
> 
> Certainly it's possible to break the law, and use proprietary software
> for free by infringing its copyright, but that's not really relevant,
> since you might as well claim a Bugatti Veyron is cheaper than a Ford
> Focus, if you steal one. This might address the issue from the
> perspective of criminals, but it doesn't really help law-abiding
> citizens, or the vendors.
> 
>> with the establishment of "Patch Tuesday" ... which are just like the
>> Linux world in that they're all "free" ... including whatever impact
>> they have on your legacy applications which just happen to get broken.
> 
> Except GNU/Linux distros rarely issue legacy-breaking interim updates,
> unless there's a severe security issue that makes it necessary, and such
> things are extremely rare AFAICT. This is precisely why they prefer to
> delay those sorts of (legacy-breaking, non-security) updates for major
> releases.

And this is true of Windows and OS X, too - major updates are tied to major
releases.

>>> And how much would it cost to buy then upgrade all the commercial
>>> applications needed to run on those 13 successive versions of
>>> Windows, assuming you didn't want Free Software (which is why you'd
>>> be using Windows in the first place)?
>> 
>> But this assumes that one always upgrades, regardless of need.
> 
> There may or may not be a "need", but the fact is if one /were/ to
> upgrade Windows as often as I had upgraded the aforementioned Fedora
> system, it would cost a great deal more than the initial $500
> investment, whereas the Fedora upgrades did not.
> 
> And if we take the example of Windows users who do not upgrade, such as
> the estimated 60% who are still using XP, consider the security
> enhancements, additional functionality, and support for newer technology
> that they're missing. As a GNU/Linux user, I may also choose to not
> upgrade, but if I do then I can do so for free, and furthermore I can
> also be assured that all the applications I use will be upgraded in a
> corresponding fashion (and still be functional) - again, for free.

How do you know all apps will be updated.  Heck, since you did not pay for
them you cannot even say the developers owe you any such support.  If I get
an app and it ceases to work for an update that happens shortly after, I
have reason to push the developer and they have reason to want to serve
their customers.  If they do not they risk going out of business.

> Meanwhile, cost and compatibility issues seems to have deterred many XP
> users from upgrading. They're missing out - I'm not.

Most users upgrade OSs only when they upgrade their computers.  Vista was a
bit of an anomaly in that people actively avoided it.

>> Sure, this can often be the case when your barrier to entry (cost) is
>> extremely low, but it represents a "Technology Push", not a
>> "Requirements Pull" and particularly if you haven't done a good risk/
>> benefit (or value) assessment before choosing to upgrade.
> 
> It's simpler than that. It may be that a new game requires an updated
> version of DirectX, and that update is only available for Windows 7, but
> the customer's system is incompatible with Windows 7, due to a lack of
> drivers. That's just one example.

And in that case Linux is simply not going to work - no matter what version.

> I've never faced that dilemma with Free Software, including any of the
> Free Software games that I play. Now one can argue that proprietary
> games are "better", subjectively speaking, but if I had to make a choice
> between always being able to play a game, because it will always be (or
> I can modify it to be) compatible with my system, or being unable to
> play another (supposedly better, but proprietary) game because it's
> incompatible, and the only one who can make it compatible (the vendor)
> has no (financial) interest in doing so, then I'd much rather play the
> Free Software game. I've yet to be disappointed.

So you chose the lesser experience to live up to your moral views.  I
commend that... but do not pretend that just because you are happy with the
lesser experience that others should be... esp. those that do not share your
biases against IP.

>>> Adobe Photoshop, which nearly every Windows user I've ever talked to
>>> claims to need and use, costs between �600 and �1000, depending on
>>> the version and retailer.
>>> 
>>> That's just one application.
>> 
>> Apparently, "nearly every Windows user" has also neglected to educate
>> you about the concept of buying upgrades to existing licenses
> 
> License upgrades first require one to have purchased a full copy at some
> point, so the initial cost of the PC + Windows + just this one
> application is now between $1000 and $1500 (based on Amazon.com prices
> for CS5 and CS5 Extended), on a $500 PC. Then add $200 + inflation for
> each Photoshop upgrade thereafter, and similarly for the other
> applications and the OS itself. Suddenly that $500 PC doesn't seem like
> such a bargain after all.

Keep in mind, you can run GIMP or other software if you want.  Or Photoshop.
You get more choice.

> Now certainly one can reuse existing software, but the fact is you still
> have to pay for a full license at some point, you still have to pay for
> upgrades (if you're going to upgrade at all), and you can only install
> one copy of each application or OS on each machine, so if this is an
> /additional/ PC, rather than a replacement, then you need to buy another
> full license (legally).

Depends on the license.

> Alternatively, one can download an ISO containing a full GNU/Linux
> distribution, including the OS and applications, and install and upgrade
> it on as many machines as one wants, legally and for free.

And then not be able to run Photoshop, the very app you talk about!

> The only time this doesn't apply, is where one has purchased a support
> contract for commercial Free Software like RHEL, and one is only
> /supported/ for each license on a limited number of machines
> (technically per CPU). However, that would not prohibit one from
> installing RHEL on additional machines for which one does /not/ require
> support. The "license" in this case is for a support contract only, not
> for the actual software.
> 
>> rather than throwing it away and paying full freight for a brand new
>> full license each time.   For your edification, at current US retail &
>> conversion rates to GBP, an upgrade to Photoshop CS5 is $200, or
>> roughly �120.
> 
> That's still $200 more than I'd have to pay with Free Software, and
> that's still just one application.

An application that does not run on Linux.

>> Of course, if you don't need the most recent product features, no one
>> is forcing to you do anything:  just continue with what you have and
>> avoid the pitfall of "Technology Push".
> 
> That also has its disadvantages (see above).
> 
>> Similarly, if you don't find it to be sufficient value-added, you can
>> also choose to skip-upgrade to lower the effective cost.  This is why
>> Photoshop versions as old as CS2 (released April 2005) are eligible
>> for the current CS5 upgrade within the USA, and not just CS4.
> 
> But they're still not free, and are still only licensed for one PC.

Depends on the license.

>> And that's just one example of a software company that sells license
>> upgrades.
> 
> Yes, there are quite a few. I don't need any of them.

Right: you opt for a lesser experience to back your morals.  I have no
problem with that.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Nov 25, 10:23=A0pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
>
> > [extensive editing]
> >> How much would a $500 PC + 13 theoretical successive Windows retail
> >> licenses cost?
>
> > It depends on several factors.
>
> > First, how many of these 13 'versions' of Fedora (for example) would
> > --> really <-- be considered major updates, versus minor ones?
>
> All of them, since the primary reason for creating new release versions
> of a distro is to accommodate major upgrades in its upstream components,
> which have changed so radically as to introduce incompatibilities with
> the current release. Anything minor is provided in interim updates.

The dilemma here is that the definition of major/minor has to include
some criteria, with it classically being incorporated around
fundimental philisophical changes in technical implimentation, which
by definition have to break legacy stuff.  And regardless of if the OS
is "free" or not, everything that gets broken represents a loss in
capability and thus, productivity, and as such, very much has a real
"cost" imposed upon the end user.

The key point here isn't that the OS license upgrade was "free" - - it
is that it is merely only one small part of the total lifecycle costs
that can be considered.  FWIW, the general pattern  and key
shortcoming that I've seen in the OSS movement is a myopia which
focuses on only one factor of the total lifecycle (the OS price) at
the expense of the rest.

As such, it is like looking at a sinking ship with a hole in its hull
and claiming "But there's no water coming in from rainfall from the
sky, so we can't be sinking!"

(my apologies for a pretty lousy analogy.  The point is that the OSS
viewpoint generally isn't sufficiently holistic).

[snip]
>
> The difference is though, peer-level support for Free Software tends to
> be more knowledgeable and productive, as many of those "peers" are
> inevitably also the developers, or at least experienced programmers, all
> of whom have access to the sources, making the process of diagnosing and
> fixing software issues much easier and quicker.

This paradigm only applies in "small" projects.  Functionally, its why
bigger (and more integrated & bloaty) Apps tend to become more banal
over time, regardless of if they're free or paid for:  no one
individual can possibly know, intimately, every single line of code in
a million line source ... nor even half or one quarter of that size.


> With proprietary software (of either a commercial or freeware nature),
> the best any user can hope for is the vendor finally gets around to
> fixing an issue, or providing additional functionality, at some point
> when it best suits the vendor, which might be months or even years away,
> and is usually dependent on whether or not it serves that vendor's
> financial interests.
>
> Free Software, OTOH, always seeks to serve the users' interests, if for
> no better reason than the fact that many of those users are also its
> developers.

That's the idealistic fantasy.  Unfortunately, reality is that at
least within the commercial world, there's the profit incentive to
motivate updates & patches, whereas freeware is predominatly
altruistic.   Thus, it has more extensive examples of abandonment,
even though it is (by definition) capable of being more easily adopted
by another benevolent volunteer to work on.

For example, there's something like 500+ distinct implimentations of
Linux OS ... choosing the milestone of a major update as a metric for
ongoing active support, how many of this ~500 have "passed" this
metric within 2010?   Truthfully, I have no idea, but my wild-ass
guess is that it is probably less than 25 of those 500, which would
suggest a pragmatic abandonment rate of 95%.   Anyone who feels up to
it can go research the specifics and report back.



> > Similarly, if we only count majors on a single product platform, well,
> > that probably takes me back into the 1970s.
>
> Yes, commercial software vendors do release upgrades far slower than
> their Free Software counterparts, mainly because their customers would
> be unwilling to spend money upgrading to the latest release on a
> frequent basis, particularly enterprise customers with hundreds;
> thousands; or even tens of thousands of seats. That is where the TCO of
> Free Software vs proprietary software really makes a difference.

That's one attempt at an explanation.  Another is that COTS went
through their maturation process long ago and since they are no longer
relatively immature, the technical basis (and need) for issuing major
updates has dramatically slowed.

For example, the continued high adoption rate of Windows XP IMO serves
to illustrate that that OS has reached a state of reasonable overall
maturity, such that additional updates are no longer as compelling as
they had been in the past.


> > ..what values do you want to use for doing present value calculations
> > due to roughly 30 years of inflation?
>
> It doesn't really matter, since whatever the value it's bound to be
> greater than zero, which is the licensing cost for all Free Software.

Correct, for just the tiny slice of lifecycle costs that are incurred
in just software licensing :-)


> > This brings up the second point of what contextual timeframe we are
> > dealing with, so as to examine lifecycle costs.
>
> Again, the life-cycle costs of a Free Software license is zero, so it's
> a moot point.

Incorrect, since the lifecycle costs of any software - - regardless of
its *license* cost - - are not capable of being zero.   Even if
everything were to somehow go perfectly and without anything breaking
(despite this being a basic requirement of 'major' updates), there's
still the non-zero downtime of the user's computer to download,
install & reboot.


> > Plus this doesn't even consider all of those (cough) freebees that one
> > gets in the Windows world
>
> Certainly it's possible to break the law, and use proprietary software
> for free by infringing its copyright, but that's not really relevant,

Correct, since my statement wasn't referring to piracy.   Tangent
terminated.


> > with the establishment of "Patch Tuesday" ... which are just like the
> > Linux world in that they're all "free" ... including whatever impact
> > they have on your legacy applications which just happen to get broken.
>
> Except GNU/Linux distros rarely issue legacy-breaking interim updates..
> unless there's a severe security issue that makes it necessary, and such
> things are extremely rare AFAICT. This is precisely why they prefer to
> delay those sorts of (legacy-breaking, non-security) updates for major
> releases.

And these legacy-breaking factors invariably have a lifecycle
cost...not only in literal money ($$), but also as measured as
time.

We need to keep in mind that the general paradigm is that the
"costs" (money, time, etc) of all upgrades are motivated because it is
presumed that they'll have a positive ROI through system improvements
which result in higher productivity.


> >> And how much would it cost to buy then upgrade all the commercial
> >> applications needed to run on those 13 successive versions of
> >> Windows, assuming you didn't want Free Software (which is why you'd
> >> be using Windows in the first place)?
>
> > But this assumes that one always upgrades, regardless of need.
>
> There may or may not be a "need", but the fact is if one /were/ to
> upgrade Windows as often as I had upgraded the aforementioned Fedora
> system, it would cost a great deal more than the initial $500
> investment, whereas the Fedora upgrades did not.

No argument, except that you're still not taking a holistic view.  We
don't buy PCs merely to burn electricity so that we can stare at its
OS, but rather we invest in many dimensions of it so as to accomplish
certain value-added activities, and at higher productivity rates than
other alternatives.  For example, consider how much money you would
have had to have spent last month if every email you sent had used the
technological alternative of a conventional "snail mail" letter:
within the USA, it would have cost you roughly 50 cents (44 cents
postage + 6 cents paper & envelope).

> And if we take the example of Windows users who do not upgrade, such as
> the estimated 60% who are still using XP, consider the security
> enhancements, additional functionality, and support for newer technology
> that they're missing.

Agreed, but this share of the marketplace has voted with their wallet
that these technological improvements are not *compelling* enough for
them to incur the costs (including time) to upgrade.  Since their
options do include the "free" OS of Linux, there's obviously more to
this consumer decision than merely the cost (or lack thereof) of the
OS - - and please don't try to explain it all away through consumer
ignorance - - that's clearly not the reason why.

> As a GNU/Linux user, I may also choose to not
> upgrade, but if I do then I can do so for free, and furthermore I can
> also be assured that all the applications I use will be upgraded in a
> corresponding fashion (and still be functional) - again, for free.

"Free" only in the non-holistic perspective of examining only the
licensing expenses.

> Meanwhile, cost and compatibility issues seems to have deterred many XP
> users from upgrading. They're missing out - I'm not.

They're using Photoshop ... so perhaps you're the one missing out :-)


> > Sure, this can often be the case when your barrier to entry (cost) is
> > extremely low, but it represents a "Technology Push", not a
> > "Requirements Pull" and particularly if you haven't done a good risk/
> > benefit (or value) assessment before choosing to upgrade.
>
> It's simpler than that. It may be that a new game requires an updated
> version of DirectX, and that update is only available for Windows 7, but
> the customer's system is incompatible with Windows 7, due to a lack of
> drivers. That's just one example.

An example which has nothing to do with { Tech Push -vs- Requirements
Pull }, unfortunately.

> I've never faced that dilemma with Free Software, including any of the
> Free Software games that I play.

That's entirely possible if one has paid to upgrade to newer hardware
before the software required it.    Of course, having paid for a
higher level of hardware than you currently need (Requirements source)
is merely an example of a "Tech Push" implimentation at work.

> Now one can argue that proprietary
> games are "better", subjectively speaking, but if I had to make a choice
> between always being able to play a game, because it will always be (or
> I can modify it to be) compatible with my system, or being unable to
> play another (supposedly better, but proprietary) game because it's
> incompatible, and the only one who can make it compatible (the vendor)
> has no (financial) interest in doing so, then I'd much rather play the
> Free Software game. I've yet to be disappointed.

Logical disconnect here.  Try recalibrating your expectations on
commercial games to not be the latest releases, but those that are 2-3
years old.  You'll invariably find that they're less reliant on having
nothing less than the newest hardware.  Plus you can find them cheaply
in the discount bin :-)


> >> Adobe Photoshop, which nearly every Windows user I've ever talked to
> >> claims to need and use, costs between =A3600 and =A31000, depending on
> >> the version and retailer.
>
> >> That's just one application.
>
> > Apparently, "nearly every Windows user" has also neglected to educate
> > you about the concept of buying upgrades to existing licenses
>
> License upgrades first require one to have purchased a full copy at some
> point, so the initial cost of the PC + Windows + just this one
> application is now between $1000 and $1500 (based on Amazon.com prices
> for CS5 and CS5 Extended), on a $500 PC.

Try shopping around more.   Photoshop is a good example in that Adobe
promotes its adoption through an .EDU version that's highly
discounted, yet it qualifies at the standard upgrade price.  There's
similarly Photoshop Elements which isn't quite as good, but it is
quite appropriate for the learning curve.

>  Then add $200 + inflation for
> each Photoshop upgrade thereafter, and similarly for the other
> applications and the OS itself.

But this ignores my comment about value assessment and the option of
skip-upgrading.   For example, I'm still running Photoshop CS (CS1) on
one of my machines, because it doesn't need anything more than that.
Thus, it has avoided $800 in license upgrades.

> Suddenly that $500 PC doesn't seem like
> such a bargain after all.

Actually, it just goes to illustrate that the hardware cost of a PC
isn't necessarily a big deal either.   For one of my activities, the
PC could cost $1000 and it still would be considered to be a "minor
peripheral" for the overall system whose capability it supports.



> Now certainly one can reuse existing software, but the fact is you still
> have to pay for a full license at some point, you still have to pay for
> upgrades (if you're going to upgrade at all), and you can only install
> one copy of each application or OS on each machine, so if this is an
> /additional/ PC, rather than a replacement, then you need to buy another
> full license (legally).

It depends on the license, obviously.  Photoshop happens to be a good
example here, as its terms permit a **single user** (emphasis added)
to install a single license on both a desktop and a laptop.


> That's still $200 more than I'd have to pay with Free Software, and
> that's still just one application.

Again, that's a non-holistic view of the lifecycle costs.   If having
Photoshop permits one to be 10% more productive than GIMP (for
example), then the ROI calculation that justifies (or perhaps not)
having Photoshop is very straightforward.

For a notional example, assuming $1000 for Photoshop and a burdened
labor rate of $100/hr, a 10% gain in productivity will pay for itself
in roughly 100 man-hours (2.5 weeks).

> > And that's just one example of a software company that sells license
> > upgrades.
>
> Yes, there are quite a few. I don't need any of them.

Then you're probably not accounting for your time as being valuable or
worth anything.

Since you don't seem to value your time as being worth anything, why
not drop me a line to schedule to come by my house - - I have plenty
of yardwork that I'd like you to do for me for free :-)


-hh

Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Nov 24, 8:36 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> KDT stated in post
>> c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68...@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com on
>> 11/24/10 5:36 AM:
>>
>>> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30. Not that you
>>> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and
>>> over anyway.
>>
>>> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce. Not
>>> 3000% more expensive. "
>>
>> These type of math errors are common with the trolls...
>>
>> Survey: <http://nitobi.com/survey/>
>> 241 of 571 said they use Dreamweaver (42%)
>> Tim Adams:
>> -----
>> _80% DO NOT USE Dreamweaver AT ALL_!
>> -----
>>
>> And then there is Wally:
>> -----
>> I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0 elements
>> would not actually be empty as you claimed that it would!
>> -----
>> But zero items does not necessarily translate to being empty
>> as you have said it would!
>> -----
>> whether it is written {} or {0} has no significance wrt what
>> the answer actually is
>> -----
>>
>> And then there is Carroll, who rarely actually tries to do any type
>> of math directly, but has repeatedly shown he does not know the
>> difference between absolute proof (as in a mathematical proof) and
>> the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And he has some
>> interesting quotes which show his ignorance about math:
>> -----
>> Where is the mathematical representation of your burden of
>> proof?
>> -----
>>> If A = B then B = A.
>>> If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A
>> Dragging out your faulty math again, Snit;)
>> -----
>>
>> And for a long time Steve argued:
>>
>> Lack of proof equals or necessarily leads to Doubt
>> Doubt equals or necessarily leads to a Valid Refutation
>> Lack of proof neither = nor necessarily lead to a Valid Refutation
>
> Where an allegation of guilt is involved (the context I made the
> statements in), these are absolutely true for all sane, honest and
> honorable people.
>
>> Just amazing how ignorant the trolls are.
>
> You just tried to sell the idea that I'm the person who doesn't know
> the difference between "absolute proof (as in a mathematical proof)
> and the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt", yet, in
> attempting it you provided statements made by me that were all from
> discussions that had nothing to do with math? Of course, it's all
> irrelevant anyway (which is why you keep bringing it up) because you
> also admitted:
>
> Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
> series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
> necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
> to
> the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a
> logical sense, proof"." - Snit
>
> That's you admitting that you not only had *no* proof but you didn't
> have *one single* true statement from which something else could
> necessarily follow.
>
> So why do you keep conflating math with this topic, Snit? Is there no
> truth in your world other than math? Yes, that must be it., oh great
> truth seeker. LOL!

LOL!

-- 
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch 

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf05270$1@news.x-privat.org on
11/26/10 5:36 PM:

> Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 8:36 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> KDT stated in post
>>> c8a42ede-4f4b-45f4-95ff-f7a2d3f68...@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com on
>>> 11/24/10 5:36 AM:
>>> 
>>>> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30. Not that you
>>>> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and
>>>> over anyway.
>>> 
>>>> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce. Not
>>>> 3000% more expensive. "
>>> 
>>> These type of math errors are common with the trolls...
>>> 
>>> Survey: <http://nitobi.com/survey/>
>>> 241 of 571 said they use Dreamweaver (42%)
>>> Tim Adams:
>>> -----
>>> _80% DO NOT USE Dreamweaver AT ALL_!
>>> -----
>>> 
>>> And then there is Wally:
>>> -----
>>> I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0 elements
>>> would not actually be empty as you claimed that it would!
>>> -----
>>> But zero items does not necessarily translate to being empty
>>> as you have said it would!
>>> -----
>>> whether it is written {} or {0} has no significance wrt what
>>> the answer actually is
>>> -----
>>> 
>>> And then there is Carroll, who rarely actually tries to do any type
>>> of math directly, but has repeatedly shown he does not know the
>>> difference between absolute proof (as in a mathematical proof) and
>>> the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And he has some
>>> interesting quotes which show his ignorance about math:
>>> -----
>>> Where is the mathematical representation of your burden of
>>> proof?
>>> -----
>>>> If A = B then B = A.
>>>> If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A
>>> Dragging out your faulty math again, Snit;)
>>> -----
>>> 
>>> And for a long time Steve argued:
>>> 
>>> Lack of proof equals or necessarily leads to Doubt
>>> Doubt equals or necessarily leads to a Valid Refutation
>>> Lack of proof neither = nor necessarily lead to a Valid Refutation
>> 
>> Where an allegation of guilt is involved (the context I made the
>> statements in), these are absolutely true for all sane, honest and
>> honorable people.

No, Steve: it is utter rubbish.  But thank you for proving my point.  :)

Where you are getting confused, I suspect, is thinking "doubt" is the same
as "reasonable" doubt... and thinking that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
is the same as "proof".

    A =  B
    B =  C
    A <> C

There is no way that is "absolutely true for all sane, honest and honorable
people".  It is false.  Period.

>>> Just amazing how ignorant the trolls are.
>> 
>> You just tried to sell the idea that I'm the person who doesn't know
>> the difference between "absolute proof (as in a mathematical proof)
>> and the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt",

Which is true.  You continually confuse the two.  It is likely it is your
confusion of the two which lead to your confusion, above.

>> yet, in
>> attempting it you provided statements made by me that were all from
>> discussions that had nothing to do with math? Of course, it's all
>> irrelevant anyway (which is why you keep bringing it up) because you
>> also admitted:

The concept of "proof", in the above comments, was absolute proof.  You got
confused and did not understand that.

>> Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
>> series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
>> necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
>> to
>> the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a
>> logical sense, proof"." - Snit

A formal proof - logic and math.  But that confused you.  Got it.

>> That's you admitting that you not only had *no* proof but you didn't
>> have *one single* true statement from which something else could
>> necessarily follow.

I had strong evidence but not absolute proof.  The idea that lack of proof
leads to a valid refutation is an "argument from ignorance".  And it is a
fitting term - your ignorance is what has lead you to be lost with this
topic.  For years.  I have little hope you will ever understand the concept.

>> So why do you keep conflating math with this topic, Snit? Is there no
>> truth in your world other than math? Yes, that must be it., oh great
>> truth seeker. LOL!

You clearly are confusing ideas.  Oh well.  You have been doing so for
years.  

> LOL!



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Nov 26, 5:56=A0pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

(snip)

> >>> Lack of proof equals or necessarily leads to Doubt
> >>> Doubt equals or necessarily leads to a Valid Refutation
> >>> Lack of proof neither =3D nor necessarily lead to a Valid Refutation
>
> >> Where an allegation of guilt is involved (the context I made the
> >> statements in), these are absolutely true for all sane, honest and
> >> honorable people.
>
> No, Steve: it is utter rubbish. =A0But thank you for proving my point. =
=A0:)

In context your first point pushes this idea:

'An allegation of guilt should not be doubted based on the fact that
there is no proof of the allegation.

All sane, honest and honorable people internalize the concept of guilt
the same way a modern court does:  A person is presumed innocent until
proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (or, in certain cases,
according to law). Having no proof doesn't fit this criteria in any
way. Here was one of my favorites by you:

"Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute any
argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit

Extremely funny stuff;)

Fact: In court or out,  having no proof does not prove a guilt
allegation. That idea is absurd, which is why you were the only one
ever found pushing it.

(Snit will now talk about his belief that the right to a presumption
of innocence has no place outside of a courtroom. LOL!)

Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Nov 26, 5:56 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>>>>> Lack of proof equals or necessarily leads to Doubt
>>>>> Doubt equals or necessarily leads to a Valid Refutation
>>>>> Lack of proof neither = nor necessarily lead to a Valid Refutation
>>
>>>> Where an allegation of guilt is involved (the context I made the
>>>> statements in), these are absolutely true for all sane, honest and
>>>> honorable people.
>>
>> No, Steve: it is utter rubbish. But thank you for proving my point.
>> :)
>
> In context your first point pushes this idea:
>
> 'An allegation of guilt should not be doubted based on the fact that
> there is no proof of the allegation.
>
> All sane, honest and honorable people internalize the concept of guilt
> the same way a modern court does:  A person is presumed innocent until
> proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (or, in certain cases,
> according to law). Having no proof doesn't fit this criteria in any
> way. Here was one of my favorites by you:
>
> "Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute any
> argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit
>
> Extremely funny stuff;)
>
> Fact: In court or out,  having no proof does not prove a guilt
> allegation. That idea is absurd, which is why you were the only one
> ever found pushing it.
>
> (Snit will now talk about his belief that the right to a presumption
> of innocence has no place outside of a courtroom. LOL!)

LOL!

-- 
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch 

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf07bae$1@news.x-privat.org on
11/26/10 8:31 PM:

> Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On Nov 26, 5:56 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> 
>> (snip)
>> 
>>>>>> Lack of proof equals or necessarily leads to Doubt
>>>>>> Doubt equals or necessarily leads to a Valid Refutation
>>>>>> Lack of proof neither = nor necessarily lead to a Valid Refutation
>>> 
>>>>> Where an allegation of guilt is involved (the context I made the
>>>>> statements in), these are absolutely true for all sane, honest and
>>>>> honorable people.
>>> 
>>> No, Steve: it is utter rubbish. But thank you for proving my point.
>>> :)
>> 
>> In context your first point pushes this idea:
>> 
>> 'An allegation of guilt should not be doubted based on the fact that
>> there is no proof of the allegation.
>> 
>> All sane, honest and honorable people internalize the concept of guilt
>> the same way a modern court does:  A person is presumed innocent until
>> proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (or, in certain cases,
>> according to law). Having no proof doesn't fit this criteria in any
>> way. Here was one of my favorites by you:
>> 
>> "Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute any
>> argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit
>> 
>> Extremely funny stuff;)
>> 
>> Fact: In court or out,  having no proof does not prove a guilt
>> allegation. That idea is absurd, which is why you were the only one
>> ever found pushing it.
>> 
>> (Snit will now talk about his belief that the right to a presumption
>> of innocence has no place outside of a courtroom. LOL!)
> 
> LOL!

As I have noted, Steve, you get confused between the concepts of absolute
proof and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  You cannot help but prove it.

In a court there is almost never proof... hence the standard of proof
*beyond a reasonable doubt*.  Really, Steve, it has been years of my telling
you this.. and years of you not getting it.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
> On Nov 25, 10:23 pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:

>>> First, how many of these 13 'versions' of Fedora (for example) would
>>> --> really <-- be considered major updates, versus minor ones?
>>
>> All of them, since the primary reason for creating new release
>> versions of a distro is to accommodate major upgrades in its upstream
>> components, which have changed so radically as to introduce
>> incompatibilities with the current release. Anything minor is
>> provided in interim updates.
>
> The dilemma here is that the definition of major/minor has to include
> some criteria, with it classically being incorporated around
> fundimental philisophical changes in technical implimentation

You can apply any subjective criteria you want. At the end of the day I
get more and/or better software than I had previously. Anyone who
disagrees with that, will obviously not feel compelled to upgrade.

But the main issue, as it pertains to this thread of argument (cost), is
that regardless of whether it's a major or minor update, and regardless
of how subjectively compelling it is (or not), it's all nonetheless
free, so any argument about the differences between major and minor
updates becomes moot (from the perspective of costs).

> The key point here isn't that the OS license upgrade was "free" - - it
> is that it is merely only one small part of the total lifecycle costs
> that can be considered.

Yes, but then /all/ platforms have costs beyond licensing, so you can't
apply this argument exclusively to Free Software. /My/ costs, for the
given example system, would be the cost of the hardware, running costs
(electricity, etc.), and my time. A Windows user's costs would be the
same as mine, plus the cost of OS licensing, plus the cost of
applications licensing, plus the cost of anti-virus subscriptions, etc.

Having considerable experience using Windows systems, I'd also add the
cost of /more/ time for system maintenance, as a result of bugs,
malware, lack of speed and responsiveness, and a general lack of
facilities for automation (in a largely GUI dependent system).

> shortcoming that I've seen in the OSS movement is a myopia which
> focuses on only one factor of the total lifecycle (the OS price) at
> the expense of the rest.

Not at all. I'm acutely aware of the peripheral costs of maintaining a
Windows system.

Of course, I don't have anywhere near that level of problems with
GNU/Linux, and thus incur significantly fewer financial overheads.

> As such, it is like looking at a sinking ship with a hole in its hull
> and claiming "But there's no water coming in from rainfall from the
> sky, so we can't be sinking!"

I've yet to see any GNU/Linux system "sink". I certainly can't say the
same of any Windows system I've ever used.

> (my apologies for a pretty lousy analogy.  The point is that the OSS
> viewpoint generally isn't sufficiently holistic).

I find most of these cost analyses arguments to be vague gibberish, that
have no bearing on my real world experiences.

>> The difference is though, peer-level support for Free Software tends
>> to be more knowledgeable and productive, as many of those "peers" are
>> inevitably also the developers, or at least experienced programmers,
>> all of whom have access to the sources, making the process of
>> diagnosing and fixing software issues much easier and quicker.
>
> This paradigm only applies in "small" projects.  Functionally, its why
> bigger (and more integrated & bloaty) Apps tend to become more banal
> over time, regardless of if they're free or paid for:  no one
> individual can possibly know, intimately, every single line of code in
> a million line source ... nor even half or one quarter of that size.

No one individual needs to, since he/she is allotted his/her small part
of the whole to work on, whilst others coordinate efforts between these
disparate contributors, and yet others perform testing and maintenance.

The Linux kernel itself is one of the best examples of this. The size,
complexity, and volume of contributions to this project is vast, and yet
it is all tightly and sanely coordinated, and produces very frequent
releases, and still manages to provide extensive peer-level support for
users and other developers (e.g. distro maintainers).

>> With proprietary software (of either a commercial or freeware
>> nature), the best any user can hope for is the vendor finally gets
>> around to fixing an issue, or providing additional functionality, at
>> some point when it best suits the vendor, which might be months or
>> even years away, and is usually dependent on whether or not it serves
>> that vendor's financial interests.
>>
>> Free Software, OTOH, always seeks to serve the users' interests, if
>> for no better reason than the fact that many of those users are also
>> its developers.
>
> That's the idealistic fantasy.

No, that's the practical reality as I've personally experienced it.

> Unfortunately, reality is that at least within the commercial world

But that's changing the subject. I'm specifically /comparing/ Free
Software to "the commercial world" (in your words), or more specifically
I'm comparing Free Software (commercial or otherwise) to the licensing
model of proprietary software.

> there's the profit incentive to motivate updates & patches

Correct. And that incentive has no bearing on Free Software.

> whereas freeware is predominatly altruistic.

But not Free (license), and thus provides no long term assurances.

And just to be clear, the long term assurance of Free Software, is me,
the user, since I have access to the source. Even if, in the event of
"abandonment", I couldn't maintain that software single-handedly, I'd be
able to get others to assist me, even if I needed to pay them. There
have been instances where businesses have found themselves (and their
valuable data) stranded by a vendor (e.g. because of planned
obsolescence or bankruptcy), where that might actually have been a
necessary option. Allowing oneself, or especially one's business, to
become too dependant on another, is a potentially dangerous thing.

> Thus, it has more extensive examples of abandonment,

Freeware is abandoned because of lack of access to the sources, combined
with a lack of revenue (the worst combination), not simplistically
because it's altruistic.

Proprietary software depends exclusively on financial revenue for
survival, either though licensing; ad-funding; sponsorship; or other
means.

Free Software depends on access and contribution to its sources, for
/relevance/, although not necessarily "survival", since even long
"abandoned" Free Software projects can be picked up by /anyone/ who's
interested, even if only to learn from and adapt into something new.

And yes, some Free Software developers are also paid, and some aren't.
Some Free Software projects are financially sponsored, and some aren't.
But regardless of who pays for what, the end result is Free Software
that /anyone/ can access for free, with or without a support contract.

That is always in the best interest of the users, unlike proprietary
software (freeware or otherwise).

> even though it is (by definition) capable of being more easily adopted
> by another benevolent volunteer to work on.

Freeware cannot be adopted by volunteers, unless those volunteers are
granted access to the source and a license. My experience of Freeware
suggests most Freeware developers would rather abandon it than give it
away, if they can't find another developer to sell it to. This is
precisely why it's foolish to depend on such software. If these
developers were genuinely altruistic, they're release the source, not
just the binaries.

> For example, there's something like 500+ distinct implimentations of
> Linux OS

No, actually there's just one: the current stable release.

Assuming you're actually referring to GNU/Linux distros, rather than the
kernel, there's more like 300 current and active distros, although it's
difficult to keep tabs on something as pervasive as Free Software.

> ... choosing the milestone of a major update as a metric for
> ongoing active support, how many of this ~500 have "passed" this
> metric within 2010?

More than the total number of currently supported versions of Windows,
at least. Beyond that, I'd be guessing.

But then it only takes one active GNU/Linux distro to provide a viable
alternative to Windows.

How many currently supported versions of Apple's operating systems are
there?

And what bearing does this have on the point you were responding to,
that the primary motive of proprietary software vendors is profit,
whereas the primary motive of Free Software is delivering results to its
users, and that therefore bug fixes and enhancements are more readily
forthcoming from Free Software?

The total number of currently supported distros has no bearing on that,
provided it's more than zero.

> Truthfully, I have no idea, but my wild-ass guess is that it is
> probably less than 25 of those 500, which would suggest a pragmatic
> abandonment rate of 95%.   Anyone who feels up to it can go research
> the specifics and report back.

Except software cannot possibly be "abandoned" if it's Free (license),
because it will always be there for anyone who actually needs it. Unlike
proprietary software, it can't be locked away to rot once the licensor
has lost interest (or gone bankrupt). And if no one has any interest in
any given piece of Free Software, then the problem is moot, since nobody
wants it, and thus nobody needs it. It's still there though, should
anyone ever change their mind (or want to reuse it for another purpose).

>>> Similarly, if we only count majors on a single product platform, well,
>>> that probably takes me back into the 1970s.
>>
>> Yes, commercial software vendors do release upgrades far slower than
>> their Free Software counterparts, mainly because their customers would
>> be unwilling to spend money upgrading to the latest release on a
>> frequent basis, particularly enterprise customers with hundreds;
>> thousands; or even tens of thousands of seats. That is where the TCO of
>> Free Software vs proprietary software really makes a difference.
>
> That's one attempt at an explanation.  Another is that COTS went
> through their maturation process long ago and since they are no longer
> relatively immature, the technical basis (and need) for issuing major
> updates has dramatically slowed.

The ongoing issues people continue to have with Windows would suggest
otherwise, as well as comments by Intel and HP regarding poor adoption
of Windows 7.

> For example, the continued high adoption rate of Windows XP IMO serves
> to illustrate that that OS has reached a state of reasonable overall
> maturity, such that additional updates are no longer as compelling as
> they had been in the past.

Even by Microsoft's own admission, XP is a grossly insecure and unstable
product, that also lacks support for newer technologies introduced with
Vista and 7, and yet users need support for their existing hardware and
applications that don't work under later releases. They also seem to be
complaining about Vista/7 performance issues.

It's quite a dilemma: a buggy, insecure, archaic, but faster and more
compatible operating system, vs. a slightly more stable, slightly more
secure, updated, but much slower and incompatible operating system.

Like I said, I don't have that dilemma.

>>> ..what values do you want to use for doing present value
>>> calculations due to roughly 30 years of inflation?
>>
>> It doesn't really matter, since whatever the value it's bound to be
>> greater than zero, which is the licensing cost for all Free Software.
>
> Correct, for just the tiny slice of lifecycle costs that are incurred
> in just software licensing :-)

For me, that "tiny slice" equates to the entirety of my TCO, except
factors common to all platforms.

>>> This brings up the second point of what contextual timeframe we are
>>> dealing with, so as to examine lifecycle costs.
>>
>> Again, the life-cycle costs of a Free Software license is zero, so
>> it's a moot point.
>
> Incorrect, since the lifecycle costs of any software - - regardless of
> its *license* cost - - are not capable of being zero.

They are for me.

> Even if everything were to somehow go perfectly and without anything
> breaking (despite this being a basic requirement of 'major' updates),
> there's still the non-zero downtime of the user's computer to
> download, install & reboot.

What's a "reboot"?

The only downtime I ever experience, is when I need to physically move
equipment, and thus necessarily disconnect it from the power supply.

There have been a couple of occasions when the duration of a power cut
exceeded the capacity of my UPS, though. Does that count?

>>> Plus this doesn't even consider all of those (cough) freebees that
>>> one gets in the Windows world
>>
>> Certainly it's possible to break the law, and use proprietary
>> software for free by infringing its copyright, but that's not really
>> relevant,
>
> Correct, since my statement wasn't referring to piracy.   Tangent
> terminated.

If it's a tangent, then it's one you created by failing to explain
what you meant by "(cough) freebees".

So what exactly is a "(cough) freebee", if not "pirate" software?

>>> with the establishment of "Patch Tuesday" ... which are just like
>>> the Linux world in that they're all "free" ... including whatever
>>> impact they have on your legacy applications which just happen to
>>> get broken.
>>
>> Except GNU/Linux distros rarely issue legacy-breaking interim
>> updates..  unless there's a severe security issue that makes it
>> necessary, and such things are extremely rare AFAICT. This is
>> precisely why they prefer to delay those sorts of (legacy-breaking,
>> non-security) updates for major releases.
>
> And these legacy-breaking factors invariably have a lifecycle
> cost...not only in literal money ($$), but also as measured as time.

Just as it factors with other platforms, except less so, as it
invariably consumes less of my time. Even other peripheral costs, such
as hardware, are considerably lower with GNU/Linux. Consider the Fedora
system I began this discussion with, for example. One PC, 13 OS
upgrades. How many PCs would survive 13 consecutive Windows upgrades,
and still be hardware-compatible?

> We need to keep in mind that the general paradigm is that the "costs"
> (money, time, etc) of all upgrades are motivated because it is
> presumed that they'll have a positive ROI through system improvements
> which result in higher productivity.

Well since my financial investment in Free Software is zero (barring
costs common to all platforms), then /any/ return on that investment is
bound to be profitable.

As for productivity, that depends on my skills, not my tools, given a
baseline of tools that actually function correctly. Since I only use
tools that work, then my productivity isn't impacted either way by
updates, unless those updates cause those tools to cease functioning
correctly.

As and when new tools (or technologies in general) become available, I
consider using them, and occasionally adopt them. Beyond that, and
access to new drivers for new hardware, I have no compelling reason to
upgrade. But then given the zero-cost of that upgrade, I have no
compelling reason to /not/ do so either.

>> There may or may not be a "need", but the fact is if one /were/ to
>> upgrade Windows as often as I had upgraded the aforementioned Fedora
>> system, it would cost a great deal more than the initial $500
>> investment, whereas the Fedora upgrades did not.
>
> No argument, except that you're still not taking a holistic view.

No, you're assuming I have costs that I don't.

I know exactly what I spend money on, how much and how often.

> don't buy PCs merely to burn electricity so that we can stare at its
> OS, but rather we invest in many dimensions of it so as to accomplish
> certain value-added activities

Sorry, but that's just meaningless managerial gobbledegook.

> and at higher productivity rates than other alternatives.

I spent years using those alternatives, and it was precisely because of
those alternatives' lack of productivity that I switched to GNU/Linux. 

> For example, consider how much money you would have had to have spent
> last month if every email you sent had used the technological
> alternative of a conventional "snail mail" letter: within the USA, it
> would have cost you roughly 50 cents (44 cents postage + 6 cents paper
> & envelope).

That theoretical argument has no bearing on GNU/Linux or Free Software
in general, since I /am/ obviously able to send E-mails.

The fact is I used Windows for years, and it cost me far too much time,
trouble and expense to be a viable solution. Moreover, the system worked
against me more often than it worked for my benefit. It was slow,
unstable, insecure, unmanageable, unpredictable, and (ironically)
incompatible with much of its own applications.

Proprietary applications were continually being abandoned or subjected
to planned obsolescence, leaving me and my data stranded. The simplest
tasks were obscenely over-engineered and made unnecessarily difficult
(or even impossible on occasions), and any serious degree of automation
required non-trivial programming (unlike the simplicity of Bash, perl or
python).

Microsoft's attempts at building a self-maintaining system only resulted
in something that broke itself without warning, more often than not,
leading to unexpected down time and endless frustration - with no
answers or even vague clues forthcoming. I could never be sure if the
tools I needed would work from one minute to the next, and even on a
good day my productivity was severely compromised by extremely poor
system performance. It didn't seem to matter if those tools were free or
cost hundreds, none of them were especially reliable, functional, or
efficient.

In short, switching to GNU/Linux was an absolute necessity, even if it
had cost me thousands to do so. As it turns out, it cost me nothing, and
the savings I've made as a result are incalculable.

>> And if we take the example of Windows users who do not upgrade, such
>> as the estimated 60% who are still using XP, consider the security
>> enhancements, additional functionality, and support for newer
>> technology that they're missing.
>
> Agreed, but this share of the marketplace has voted with their wallet
> that these technological improvements are not *compelling* enough for
> them to incur the costs

That's a rather euphemistic spin on the fact that people cannot upgrade
to something that's incompatible with their applications and hardware,
and don't want to upgrade to something that's more bloated and slow than
their existing system, no matter what other improvements it might bring.

> (including time) to upgrade.

I'm sure that's a factor for Windows, but it isn't necessarily a factor
for GNU/Linux. I can upgrade most GNU/Linux systems to the next major
release without even interrupting my work - I just let it install in the
background. The same goes for interim updates, in fact I don't even need
to reboot, unless one of those updates was the kernel, and even then I
can just continue with my current session indefinitely, until I
actually want to use that new kernel.

> Since their options do include the "free" OS of Linux, there's
> obviously more to this consumer decision than merely the cost (or lack
> thereof) of the OS - - and please don't try to explain it all away
> through consumer ignorance - - that's clearly not the reason why.

Where have I ever indicated that people fail to upgrade because of
ignorance?

Their reasons have already been discussed here in some detail. Mostly
it's a case of cost, compatibility, and features of the "update" that
might actually be more detrimental than beneficial (e.g. bloat). 

But again, none of those issues pertain to any GNU/Linux distro I've
ever used.

>> As a GNU/Linux user, I may also choose to not upgrade, but if I do
>> then I can do so for free, and furthermore I can also be assured that
>> all the applications I use will be upgraded in a corresponding
>> fashion (and still be functional) - again, for free.
>
> "Free" only in the non-holistic perspective of examining only the
> licensing expenses.

Which as I've already said, is in fact my only "expense" (i.e. zero).
All peripheral expenses are equally applicable to other platforms, and
so cannot be used as a cost differentiator - certainly not in favour of
Windows, anyway, since (as I explained) I was far less productive using
Windows.

>> Meanwhile, cost and compatibility issues seems to have deterred many XP
>> users from upgrading. They're missing out - I'm not.
>
> They're using Photoshop ... so perhaps you're the one missing out :-)

A grossly overrated and overpriced product, that is undeservedly used as
a benchmark by people who mostly don't even use it. I have, and I was
largely unimpressed, except by the price. 

>>> Sure, this can often be the case when your barrier to entry (cost)
>>> is extremely low, but it represents a "Technology Push", not a
>>> "Requirements Pull" and particularly if you haven't done a good
>>> risk/ benefit (or value) assessment before choosing to upgrade.
>>
>> It's simpler than that. It may be that a new game requires an updated
>> version of DirectX, and that update is only available for Windows 7,
>> but the customer's system is incompatible with Windows 7, due to a
>> lack of drivers. That's just one example.
>
> An example which has nothing to do with { Tech Push -vs- Requirements
> Pull }, unfortunately.

Your managerial gibberish notwithstanding, if a game needs a particular
version of DirectX, then that is a "requirement", which in this case
cannot be fulfilled because of other incompatibilities. It's also the
case (as was subsequently proved with the "Crysis" débâcle), that
Microsoft had deliberately withheld this update from XP users for non
technical reasons - IOW it was a "technology push" (as you put it) to
try to force people to pay for an upgrade. That wasn't the first time
Microsoft had pulled a trick like that, and it won't be the last.

GNU/Linux users are typically not subjected to that sort of
manipulation, because distro vendors have no motive to do so (and
apparently have better scruples than Microsoft).

>> I've never faced that dilemma with Free Software, including any of
>> the Free Software games that I play.
>
> That's entirely possible if one has paid to upgrade to newer hardware
> before the software required it.

But as I've just explained, not all "upgrades" require new hardware.
Case in point, the PC that's had 13 Fedora upgrades.

> Of course, having paid for a higher level of hardware than you
> currently need (Requirements source) is merely an example of a "Tech
> Push" implimentation at work.

I upgrade my hardware when it dies with a puff of blue smoke, and not
before. And even then, I'm more inclined to pull out my soldering iron
than my wallet.

But still, there are new advances in hardware that are actually worth
investing in. Take Android smartphones for example. I'd long wished for
a Free Software based pocket convergence device, and Android ticks all
the boxes. My main server (the one that processed, posted and signed
this message) has only half the processing power, and almost none of the
GPU power, of the Android phone that sits in my pocket. I find that
amazing.  Mostly I'm amazed by how much can be accomplished with a
533MHz server running GNU/Linux, and feel proud to be part of a
community that could squeeze all that (and more) into a tiny phone. 

>> Now one can argue that proprietary games are "better", subjectively
>> speaking, but if I had to make a choice between always being able to
>> play a game, because it will always be (or I can modify it to be)
>> compatible with my system, or being unable to play another
>> (supposedly better, but proprietary) game because it's incompatible,
>> and the only one who can make it compatible (the vendor) has no
>> (financial) interest in doing so, then I'd much rather play the Free
>> Software game. I've yet to be disappointed.
>
> Logical disconnect here.  Try recalibrating your expectations on
> commercial games to not be the latest releases, but those that are 2-3
> years old.

But why should I only consider old Windows games, when I have access to
new and currently supported Free Software games?

> You'll invariably find that they're less reliant on having nothing
> less than the newest hardware.

And are also invariably incompatible with the currently supported
release of Windows.

> Plus you can find them cheaply in the discount bin :-)

The price is moot if they don't work.

Ironically, I'd probably have more success getting them to work on
GNU/Linux under Wine. That's true of various games I bought during my
Windows period, such as "Blood 2: The Chosen" for example (excellent
game BTW). I never did manage to get it to work under XP (something to
do with 16 bit audio drivers). Works fine under Wine though. I dread to
think what I'd need to do to get it to work under Vista or 7.

>> License upgrades first require one to have purchased a full copy at
>> some point, so the initial cost of the PC + Windows + just this one
>> application is now between $1000 and $1500 (based on Amazon.com
>> prices for CS5 and CS5 Extended), on a $500 PC.
>
> Try shopping around more.

Is there a shop that sells Photoshop for zero dollars, because if not
then it's always going to be more expensive than the Free Software
alternatives?

>> Then add $200 + inflation for each Photoshop upgrade thereafter, and
>> similarly for the other applications and the OS itself.
>
> But this ignores my comment about value assessment

More gibberish.

The "value" of the software I use is that it works, without crashing or
becoming infected by viruses, without slowing the system down to a
crawl, without getting in my way with pointless distractions, and
without ridiculous over-engineering that nonetheless offers little in
the way of automation. If it doesn't work, then I move on to something
that does, and then stick with it. I learn how to use those tools, then
I spend the rest of my time productively using them. The combination of
those tools and my skills then produces a result which has some value.

Given the amount of time I wasted trying (and failing) to get results
using Windows software, everything I use, from the simplest component
like Bash, has an order of magnitude more value to me than anything I
ever used under Windows, despite the fact that it's all available for
free, and Windows applications can cost hundreds or thousands.   

> and the option of skip-upgrading.

No it doesn't ignore skip upgrading, because no matter how many
commercial upgrades you skip, you're still always paying more than zero
(unless you skip /all/ the upgrades indefinitely). Even then, you still
have the original full license cost at some point.

> For example, I'm still running Photoshop CS (CS1) on one of my
> machines, because it doesn't need anything more than that.  Thus, it
> has avoided $800 in license upgrades.

Whereas I'm running the latest versions of Krita, Gimp and ImageMagick
for free, on a ten year old PC. I didn't need to consider whether I
could afford that upgrade, or whether the hardware was capable. I didn't
need to do anything beyond issue a single command, then run the
programs.

>> Suddenly that $500 PC doesn't seem like such a bargain after all.
>
> Actually, it just goes to illustrate that the hardware cost of a PC
> isn't necessarily a big deal either.

For me, the hardware cost is pretty much the only cost. Running costs
are in the region of pennies per month, and my time actually /makes/ me
money, since this is the tool I use to run my business (or one of them,
at least).

> For one of my activities, the PC could cost $1000 and it still would
> be considered to be a "minor peripheral" for the overall system whose
> capability it supports.

Certainly, if you're wasting thousands on software licenses.

>> Now certainly one can reuse existing software, but the fact is you
>> still have to pay for a full license at some point, you still have to
>> pay for upgrades (if you're going to upgrade at all), and you can
>> only install one copy of each application or OS on each machine, so
>> if this is an /additional/ PC, rather than a replacement, then you
>> need to buy another full license (legally).
>
> It depends on the license, obviously.  Photoshop happens to be a good
> example here, as its terms permit a **single user** (emphasis added)
> to install a single license on both a desktop and a laptop.

Provided you don't use both at the same time (e.g. two members of the
same family can't both be running Photoshop on two separate machines at
the same time with the same license):

[quote]
2.5 Portable or Home Computer Use. Subject to the important restrictions
set forth in Section 2.6, the primary user of the Computer on which the
Software is installed under Section 2.2 (“Primary User”) may install a
second copy of the Software for his or her exclusive use on either a
portable Computer or a Computer located at his or her home, provided
that the Software on the portable or home Computer is not used at the
same time as the Software on the primary Computer.
[/quote]

http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/pdfs/gen_wwcombined_20091001_1604.pdf

By comparison, here's the license "restrictions" for the Gimp:

[quote]
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to
share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is
intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to
make sure the software is free for all its users.  This General Public
License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and
to any other program whose authors commit to using it.
[/quote]

http://www.gimp.org/about/COPYING

See if you can guess which of the above two licenses I prefer.

>> That's still $200 more than I'd have to pay with Free Software, and
>> that's still just one application.
>
> Again, that's a non-holistic view of the lifecycle costs.

But one that accurately reflect my actual costs, regardless of how
"holistic" you perceive them to be.

> If having Photoshop permits one to be 10% more productive than GIMP

That's a big "if", and one that simply isn't true in my actual
experience. Of course, by far the biggest productivity drain was the
platform Photoshop was running on, but then whatever benefits the
program itself offers (assuming a platform that actually works without
slowing me down), they mean very little to me. There's nothing that I've
ever needed to do with images that I couldn't do with Free Software
running on GNU/Linux. So you can make your sales pitch until the cows
come home, it won't change my needs, and it won't change the fact that
those needs have already been met.

> (for example), then the ROI calculation that justifies (or perhaps
> not) having Photoshop is very straightforward.

Yes it's very straightforward. I don't need it.

> For a notional example, assuming $1000 for Photoshop and a burdened
> labor rate of $100/hr, a 10% gain in productivity will pay for itself
> in roughly 100 man-hours (2.5 weeks).

What's the productivity gain for using a software platform that doesn't
crash, get infected by viruses, require constant reboots, gradually slow
down more and more with each passing day, and finally gives up with a
BSOD, then require reinstalling from scratch, because no clear cause for
the problem can be determined by anyone, only to repeat that cycle again
and again for the entire lifespan of that platform?

What's the productivity gain for using a system that easily facilitates
the complete automation of every task, such that nearly everything in a
given project can be accomplished with a single command (or even without
any intervention, using schedules)?

What's the productivity gain of always having free access to the latest
developments in a Free Software application, regardless of how much one
can afford, and regardless of the type or age of one's computer system?

What's the productivity gain of being able to customise my working
environment down to the smallest detail, to the extent of essentially
creating my own unique work "tool" that exactly fits my working methods? 

>>> And that's just one example of a software company that sells license
>>> upgrades.
>>
>> Yes, there are quite a few. I don't need any of them.
>
> Then you're probably not accounting for your time as being valuable or
> worth anything.

It's because my time /is/ valuable that I refuse to use anything but
GNU/Linux.

> Since you don't seem to value your time as being worth anything, why
> not drop me a line to schedule to come by my house - - I have plenty
> of yardwork that I'd like you to do for me for free :-)

The efficiency and productivity of GNU/Linux certainly affords me plenty
of free time, but I think you need more help understanding the benefits
of Free Software, than help with your yard.

-- 
K.                           | [ubuntu]
http://slated.org            | 
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   | 1. Ancient African word meaning
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 43 days  |    'I can't configure Debian'

Homer stated in post fgj6s7-odo.ln1@sky.matrix on 11/26/10 11:02 PM:

.... 
>> The key point here isn't that the OS license upgrade was "free" - - it
>> is that it is merely only one small part of the total lifecycle costs
>> that can be considered.
> 
> Yes, but then /all/ platforms have costs beyond licensing, so you can't
> apply this argument exclusively to Free Software.

Nobody said there was a lack of costs beyond licensing.  That is a straw
man.  The point is that the cost of the license is usually not a very large
part of the overall cost.

> /My/ costs, for the given example system, would be the cost of the hardware,
> running costs (electricity, etc.), and my time. A Windows user's costs would
> be the same as mine, plus the cost of OS licensing, plus the cost of
> applications licensing, plus the cost of anti-virus subscriptions, etc.

Anti-virus is free.  And what software are you talking about on Linux that
the Windows user cannot use if it serves him better?  The Windows user has
the choice of *most* of the same apps as the Linux user plus a *lot* more
(including many free ones).  Same thing can be said of OS X users.  Choice
is good.

> Having considerable experience using Windows systems, I'd also add the cost of
> /more/ time for system maintenance, as a result of bugs, malware, lack of
> speed and responsiveness, and a general lack of facilities for automation (in
> a largely GUI dependent system).

I would love to see support for this.

>> shortcoming that I've seen in the OSS movement is a myopia which
>> focuses on only one factor of the total lifecycle (the OS price) at
>> the expense of the rest.
> 
> Not at all. I'm acutely aware of the peripheral costs of maintaining a
> Windows system.
> 
> Of course, I don't have anywhere near that level of problems with
> GNU/Linux, and thus incur significantly fewer financial overheads.

I am, sincerely, happy you have a solution that works well for you.  But do
you have any evidence, even anecdotal, that supports your experience is the
common one?

>> As such, it is like looking at a sinking ship with a hole in its hull
>> and claiming "But there's no water coming in from rainfall from the
>> sky, so we can't be sinking!"
> 
> I've yet to see any GNU/Linux system "sink". I certainly can't say the
> same of any Windows system I've ever used.

I have seen many areas where desktop Linux systems lack features, programs
and benefits of OS X.  This is not to say that Linux does not also offer
benefits... 

>> (my apologies for a pretty lousy analogy.  The point is that the OSS
>> viewpoint generally isn't sufficiently holistic).
> 
> I find most of these cost analyses arguments to be vague gibberish, that
> have no bearing on my real world experiences.

How much of your income comes from your use of your computer?

.... 
>>> With proprietary software (of either a commercial or freeware
>>> nature), the best any user can hope for is the vendor finally gets
>>> around to fixing an issue, or providing additional functionality, at
>>> some point when it best suits the vendor, which might be months or
>>> even years away, and is usually dependent on whether or not it serves
>>> that vendor's financial interests.
>>> 
>>> Free Software, OTOH, always seeks to serve the users' interests, if
>>> for no better reason than the fact that many of those users are also
>>> its developers.
>> 
>> That's the idealistic fantasy.
> 
> No, that's the practical reality as I've personally experienced it.

OSS seems to be very good at "back end" stuff and rather poor - in general -
with user interfaces.

>> Unfortunately, reality is that at least within the commercial world
> 
> But that's changing the subject. I'm specifically /comparing/ Free
> Software to "the commercial world" (in your words), or more specifically
> I'm comparing Free Software (commercial or otherwise) to the licensing
> model of proprietary software.
> 
>> there's the profit incentive to motivate updates & patches
> 
> Correct. And that incentive has no bearing on Free Software.

And with no financial incentive there is the risk of less work and
development... or haphazard development.

>> whereas freeware is predominatly altruistic.
> 
> But not Free (license), and thus provides no long term assurances.
> 
> And just to be clear, the long term assurance of Free Software, is me,
> the user, since I have access to the source. Even if, in the event of
> "abandonment", I couldn't maintain that software single-handedly, I'd be
> able to get others to assist me, even if I needed to pay them. There
> have been instances where businesses have found themselves (and their
> valuable data) stranded by a vendor (e.g. because of planned
> obsolescence or bankruptcy), where that might actually have been a
> necessary option. Allowing oneself, or especially one's business, to
> become too dependant on another, is a potentially dangerous thing.

You sound like Steve Jobs talking about Flash.

>> Thus, it has more extensive examples of abandonment,
> 
> Freeware is abandoned because of lack of access to the sources, combined
> with a lack of revenue (the worst combination), not simplistically
> because it's altruistic.
> 
> Proprietary software depends exclusively on financial revenue for
> survival, either though licensing; ad-funding; sponsorship; or other
> means.
> 
> Free Software depends on access and contribution to its sources, for
> /relevance/, although not necessarily "survival", since even long
> "abandoned" Free Software projects can be picked up by /anyone/ who's
> interested, even if only to learn from and adapt into something new.
> 
> And yes, some Free Software developers are also paid, and some aren't.
> Some Free Software projects are financially sponsored, and some aren't.
> But regardless of who pays for what, the end result is Free Software
> that /anyone/ can access for free, with or without a support contract.
> 
> That is always in the best interest of the users, unlike proprietary
> software (freeware or otherwise).

What is in the best interest of the users is the best system.  There is no
evidence that, on the desktop, OSS has been able to produce this (which is
not to say that what it has produced is not the best solution for some small
number or that it would not work if needed for others).

>> even though it is (by definition) capable of being more easily adopted
>> by another benevolent volunteer to work on.
> 
> Freeware cannot be adopted by volunteers, unless those volunteers are
> granted access to the source and a license. My experience of Freeware
> suggests most Freeware developers would rather abandon it than give it
> away, if they can't find another developer to sell it to. This is
> precisely why it's foolish to depend on such software. If these
> developers were genuinely altruistic, they're release the source, not
> just the binaries.
> 
>> For example, there's something like 500+ distinct implimentations of
>> Linux OS
> 
> No, actually there's just one: the current stable release.

He is, clearly, talking about Linux based OSs.

> Assuming you're actually referring to GNU/Linux distros, rather than the
> kernel, there's more like 300 current and active distros, although it's
> difficult to keep tabs on something as pervasive as Free Software.
> 
>> ... choosing the milestone of a major update as a metric for
>> ongoing active support, how many of this ~500 have "passed" this
>> metric within 2010?
> 
> More than the total number of currently supported versions of Windows,
> at least. Beyond that, I'd be guessing.
> 
> But then it only takes one active GNU/Linux distro to provide a viable
> alternative to Windows.

Sure, in theory there *could* be just one and that one could be a viable
alternative.  But as it stands there are many... and yet for most (not all)
people it is not that viable of an alternative.
....

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On 2010-11-27, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> Homer stated in post fgj6s7-odo.ln1@sky.matrix on 11/26/10 11:02 PM:
>
> ... 
>>> The key point here isn't that the OS license upgrade was "free" -
>>> - it is that it is merely only one small part of the total
>>> lifecycle costs that can be considered.
>> 
>> Yes, but then /all/ platforms have costs beyond licensing, so you
>> can't apply this argument exclusively to Free Software.
>
> Nobody said there was a lack of costs beyond licensing.  That is a
> straw man.  The point is that the cost of the license is usually not
> a very large part of the overall cost.

That's nonsense. The licensing cost is usually a very substantial part
of the total cost.

Let's look at the last Windows server I bought:

The total cost for the hardware (an HP Proliant) was about 1400 EUR.
That is including three years of warranty with full coverage.

The total cost for the software was about 2800 EUR (Windows Server
2008 SE OEM and MS-SQL Standard). This includes 5 CALs (which is
enough for my purposes). I will not include the cost of additional
software required for the server's daily operation, such as antivirus
(which is /not/ free).

Running cost is about 1.5 EUR per day for electricity, or 550 EUR /
year. Running the server for 3 years 24/7 will cost 1650 EUR.

Software and hardware maintenance costs will be about 1000 EUR / year,
so 3000 EUR for 3 years.

Total cost = 1400 + 2800 + 1650 + 1000 = 6850 EUR. But let's be
pessimistic, and set this to 9000 EUR.

Percentage of the software cost = 31%.

>>>> With proprietary software (of either a commercial or freeware
>>>> nature), the best any user can hope for is the vendor finally
>>>> gets around to fixing an issue, or providing additional
>>>> functionality, at some point when it best suits the vendor, which
>>>> might be months or even years away, and is usually dependent on
>>>> whether or not it serves that vendor's financial interests.
>>>> 
>>>> Free Software, OTOH, always seeks to serve the users' interests,
>>>> if for no better reason than the fact that many of those users
>>>> are also its developers.
>>> 
>>> That's the idealistic fantasy.
>> 
>> No, that's the practical reality as I've personally experienced it.
>
> OSS seems to be very good at "back end" stuff and rather poor - in
> general - with user interfaces.

Just like Homer, that's not my experience. I have yet to come accross
an interface that serves me better than the one I'm using on
GNU/Linux.

-- 
Every now and then you simply have to knock over the anthill,
and redesign.
	~ Tuomo Valkonen

On Nov 27, 1:02=A0am, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
>
> > On Nov 25, 10:23=A0pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
> >> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
> >>> First, how many of these 13 'versions' of Fedora (for example) would
> >>> --> really <-- be considered major updates, versus minor ones?
>
> >> All of them, since the primary reason for creating new release
> >> versions of a distro is to accommodate major upgrades in its upstream
> >> components, which have changed so radically as to introduce
> >> incompatibilities with the current release. Anything minor is
> >> provided in interim updates.
>
> > The dilemma here is that the definition of major/minor has to include
> > some criteria, with it classically being incorporated around
> > fundimental philisophical changes in technical implimentation
>
> You can apply any subjective criteria you want. At the end of the day I
> get more and/or better software than I had previously. Anyone who
> disagrees with that, will obviously not feel compelled to upgrade.

"Better"...except for whatever legacy capabilities it broke (which you
did agree happens).  Granted, this is why some won't upgrade, but it
is also why some "hold their nose and upgrade", often due to other
Risk:Benefit factors which carry different weightings.


> But the main issue, as it pertains to this thread of argument (cost), is
> that regardless of whether it's a major or minor update, and regardless
> of how subjectively compelling it is (or not), it's all nonetheless
> free, so any argument about the differences between major and minor
> updates becomes moot (from the perspective of costs).

We'll apparently have to agree to disagree.  My intention of trying to
pin down some definition of major/minor that we could agree to was
merely to reveal the *costs* that are thus invariably associated with
legacy capabilities that get broken.  It is naive to assume that there
will always be a free patch available to fix some App's broken
capability, nor that it will be so promptly available such that the
User's downtime is reliably zero (and thus, has no productivity loss
cost).



> > The key point here isn't that the OS license upgrade was "free" - - it
> > is that it is merely only one small part of the total lifecycle costs
> > that can be considered.
>
> Yes, but then /all/ platforms have costs beyond licensing, so you can't
> apply this argument exclusively to Free Software.

I'm not applying this argument exclusively to Free Software.

> /My/ costs, for the
> given example system, would be the cost of the hardware, running costs
> (electricity, etc.), and my time. A Windows user's costs would be the
> same as mine, plus the cost of OS licensing, plus the cost of
> applications licensing, plus the cost of anti-virus subscriptions, etc.

And yet this list of 'costs' remains grossly incomplete, even if we
accommodate the intention to keep it simple.


> Having considerable experience using Windows systems, I'd also add the
> cost of /more/ time for system maintenance, as a result of bugs,
> malware, lack of speed and responsiveness, and a general lack of
> facilities for automation (in a largely GUI dependent system).

Sure (and no argument), but that's still an incomplete accounting.


> > shortcoming that I've seen in the OSS movement is a myopia which
> > focuses on only one factor of the total lifecycle (the OS price) at
> > the expense of the rest.
>
> Not at all. I'm acutely aware of the peripheral costs of maintaining a
> Windows system.

Unfortunately, by you missing key factors, it is increasingly evident
that you have a highly simplified view on factors such as TCO (Total
Cost of Ownership) & ROI (Return on Investment).   Skipping ahead,
you've tried to label (very incorrectly, I might add) some concepts as
"meaningless managerial gobbledegook", so I also believe
(unfortunately) that you're not inclined to listen or learn about
them, either.

Granted, as a technologist, it is often more in our comfort zone to
talk just about Tech Stuff and pretend that the "Biz Ads" numbers
don't exist.   However, without such resources, no technology ever
gets built.


> Of course, I don't have anywhere near that level of problems with
> GNU/Linux, and thus incur significantly fewer financial overheads.

I don't doubt it, but it wasn't the point:  the point is that when
you've only looked at (figuratively) only half the applicable numbers,
it hasn't yet been objectively proven as such.


> > (my apologies for a pretty lousy analogy. =A0The point is that the OSS
> > viewpoint generally isn't sufficiently holistic).
>
> I find most of these cost analyses arguments to be vague gibberish, that
> have no bearing on my real world experiences.

Driving a Porsche yet?   If not, then perhaps you should pay better
attention to that so-called 'gibberish' :-)



> >> The difference is though, peer-level support for Free Software tends
> >> to be more knowledgeable and productive, as many of those "peers" are
> >> inevitably also the developers, or at least experienced programmers,
> >> all of whom have access to the sources, making the process of
> >> diagnosing and fixing software issues much easier and quicker.
>
> > This paradigm only applies in "small" projects. =A0Functionally, its wh=
y
> > bigger (and more integrated & bloaty) Apps tend to become more banal
> > over time, regardless of if they're free or paid for: =A0no one
> > individual can possibly know, intimately, every single line of code in
> > a million line source ... nor even half or one quarter of that size.
>
> No one individual needs to, since he/she is allotted his/her small part
> of the whole to work on, whilst others coordinate efforts between these
> disparate contributors, and yet others perform testing and maintenance.
>
> The Linux kernel itself is one of the best examples of this. The size,
> complexity, and volume of contributions to this project is vast, and yet
> it is all tightly and sanely coordinated, and produces very frequent
> releases, and still manages to provide extensive peer-level support for
> users and other developers (e.g. distro maintainers).

Very Frequent Releases =3D HIgher Risk =3D Higher Costs.


> >> With proprietary software (of either a commercial or freeware
> >> nature), the best any user can hope for is the vendor finally gets
> >> around to fixing an issue, or providing additional functionality, at
> >> some point when it best suits the vendor, which might be months or
> >> even years away, and is usually dependent on whether or not it serves
> >> that vendor's financial interests.
>
> >> Free Software, OTOH, always seeks to serve the users' interests, if
> >> for no better reason than the fact that many of those users are also
> >> its developers.
>
> > That's the idealistic fantasy.
>
> No, that's the practical reality as I've personally experienced it.
>
> > Unfortunately, reality is that at least within the commercial world
>
> But that's changing the subject. I'm specifically /comparing/ Free
> Software to "the commercial world"...

In an "A vs B" comparison, talking about "B" is HARDLY changing the
subject.



> > there's the profit incentive to motivate updates & patches
>
> Correct. And that incentive has no bearing on Free Software.

Except that the lack of this incentive source is one of Free
Software's disadvantages.



> > whereas freeware is predominatly altruistic.
>
> But not Free (license), and thus provides no long term assurances.

My apologies - you've chosen to differentiate between freeware and
Free (license), which I did not intend to do with that shorthand
reference.

To clarify, both Free and freeware operate predominantly on an
altruistic basis.

> And just to be clear, the long term assurance of Free Software, is me,
> the user, since I have access to the source. Even if, in the event of
> "abandonment", I couldn't maintain that software single-handedly, I'd be
> able to get others to assist me, even if I needed to pay them.

True, and the recognition that you might have to go hire/pay
programmers is clearly a risk factor.   However, what you've not
recognized is that this isn't necessarily limited to only being a /
long/ term risk factor.


>  There
> have been instances where businesses have found themselves (and their
> valuable data) stranded by a vendor (e.g. because of planned
> obsolescence or bankruptcy), where that might actually have been a
> necessary option. Allowing oneself, or especially one's business, to
> become too dependant on another, is a potentially dangerous thing.

Irrelevant, unless you can prove that this problem has never, ever,
ever happened with any Free software, particularly to include those
small businesses who lacks the fiscal resources to go hire his own
programmers.  At present, you've failed to demonstrate that this risk
is unique to proprietary software only.


> > ...
> Free Software depends on access and contribution to its sources, for
> /relevance/, although not necessarily "survival", since even long
> "abandoned" Free Software projects can be picked up by /anyone/ who's
> interested, even if only to learn from and adapt into something new.

"Can" merely indicates that it isn't impossible.   As such, we can
similarly point out that Microsoft "can" release the full source code
for Windows 98 tomorrow, for free, if they wanted to.


> And yes, some Free Software developers are also paid, and some aren't.
> Some Free Software projects are financially sponsored, and some aren't.
> But regardless of who pays for what, the end result is Free Software
> that /anyone/ can access for free, with or without a support contract.
>
> That is always in the best interest of the users, unlike proprietary
> software (freeware or otherwise).

Always avoid absolute claims :-)  I don't dispute that the long term
perspective of data retention _tends_ to favor Free Software, but this
isn't because said Software is free, but because they use published or
Open standards for their data storage.   AFAIC, there's no
technological impediment to Commercial software following the same
strategy...perhaps you can point it out?



> > For example, there's something like 500+ distinct implimentations of
> > Linux OS
>
> No, actually there's just one: the current stable release.
>
> Assuming you're actually referring to GNU/Linux distros, rather than the
> kernel, there's more like 300 current and active distros, although it's
> difficult to keep tabs on something as pervasive as Free Software.

I was mostly referring to all of these different flavors, although
Linux isn't the sole FOSS for an OS, let alone even just a Unix-like
OS, since there's also FreeBSD, GNU (if it ever really works), etc.


> > ... choosing the milestone of a major update as a metric for
> > ongoing active support, how many of this ~500 have "passed" this
> > metric within 2010?
>
> More than the total number of currently supported versions of Windows,
> at least. Beyond that, I'd be guessing.
>
> But then it only takes one active GNU/Linux distro to provide a viable
> alternative to Windows.

True, but not particularly relevant to the discussion point of
abandonment rates.


> How many currently supported versions of Apple's operating systems are
> there?

Depending on how you want to count, either 2 or 4.   And FWIW, OS X is
also a viable alternative to Windows OS, although it does come with
its own caveats (such as a hardware reliance).


> And what bearing does this have on the point you were responding to,
> that the primary motive of proprietary software vendors is profit,
> whereas the primary motive of Free Software is delivering results to its
> users, and that therefore bug fixes and enhancements are more readily
> forthcoming from Free Software?

The point was that the support motivations are different, and just
because you claim that the one model is superior does not magically
make it so.   Testing of this claim was done by using Abandonment
rates as a convenient metric to test your claim, and AFAIC, it hasn't
yet passed muster.


> > Truthfully, I have no idea, but my wild-ass guess is that it is
> > probably less than 25 of those 500, which would suggest a pragmatic
> > abandonment rate of 95%. =A0 Anyone who feels up to it can go research
> > the specifics and report back.
>
> Except software cannot possibly be "abandoned" if it's Free (license),
> because it will always be there for anyone who actually needs it.

Except - - and as you've already pointed out - - this aspect of "be
there" can very much include necessitating that the user who needs it
has to go set up his own programming shop, on his own nickel.   FWIW,
one can observe Apple's actions of developing OS X and conclude that
this was precisely what they did ... and yet, because they kept
proprietary that which they spent their own money on, they get reamed
by the Free Software movement.  Precisely why is that?   If  I spent
my own money, why shouldn't I have the right to decide if I share or
not?


> >>> Similarly, if we only count majors on a single product platform, well=
,
> >>> that probably takes me back into the 1970s.
>
> >> Yes, commercial software vendors do release upgrades far slower than
> >> their Free Software counterparts, mainly because their customers would
> >> be unwilling to spend money upgrading to the latest release on a
> >> frequent basis, particularly enterprise customers with hundreds;
> >> thousands; or even tens of thousands of seats. That is where the TCO o=
f
> >> Free Software vs proprietary software really makes a difference.
>
> > That's one attempt at an explanation. =A0Another is that COTS went
> > through their maturation process long ago and since they are no longer
> > relatively immature, the technical basis (and need) for issuing major
> > updates has dramatically slowed.
>
> The ongoing issues people continue to have with Windows would suggest
> otherwise, as well as comments by Intel and HP regarding poor adoption
> of Windows 7.

Which doesn't have bearing on the rate of change, as measured by
'major' OS updates.


> > For example, the continued high adoption rate of Windows XP IMO serves
> > to illustrate that that OS has reached a state of reasonable overall
> > maturity, such that additional updates are no longer as compelling as
> > they had been in the past.
>
> Even by Microsoft's own admission, XP is a grossly insecure and unstable
> product, that also lacks support for newer technologies introduced with
> Vista and 7, and yet users need support for their existing hardware and
> applications that don't work under later releases. They also seem to be
> complaining about Vista/7 performance issues.

Yet 60% of the base sticks with XP nevertheless.   Reconcile.

> It's quite a dilemma: a buggy, insecure, archaic, but faster and more
> compatible operating system, vs. a slightly more stable, slightly more
> secure, updated, but much slower and incompatible operating system.
>
> Like I said, I don't have that dilemma.

Are you sure about that?   Please start by at least clarify which
trade-off decision you made within your above description:  did you
choose security, or did you opt for speed?


> >>> ..what values do you want to use for doing present value
> >>> calculations due to roughly 30 years of inflation?
>
> >> It doesn't really matter, since whatever the value it's bound to be
> >> greater than zero, which is the licensing cost for all Free Software.
>
> > Correct, for just the tiny slice of lifecycle costs that are incurred
> > in just software licensing :-)
>
> For me, that "tiny slice" equates to the entirety of my TCO, except
> factors common to all platforms.

All factors which you try to ignore.

Thus, despite 30,000 gallons/minute flooding the ship's hold, you're
standing topside with a rain gage.


> >>> This brings up the second point of what contextual timeframe we are
> >>> dealing with, so as to examine lifecycle costs.
>
> >> Again, the life-cycle costs of a Free Software license is zero, so
> >> it's a moot point.
>
> > Incorrect, since the lifecycle costs of any software - - regardless of
> > its *license* cost - - are not capable of being zero.
>
> They are for me.

"...except factors common to all platforms."


> There have been a couple of occasions when the duration of a power cut
> exceeded the capacity of my UPS, though. Does that count?

Everything counts.

> >>> Plus this doesn't even consider all of those (cough) freebees that
> >>> one gets in the Windows world
>
> >> Certainly it's possible to break the law, and use proprietary
> >> software for free by infringing its copyright, but that's not really
> >> relevant,
>
> > Correct, since my statement wasn't referring to piracy. =A0 Tangent
> > terminated.
>
> If it's a tangent, then it's one you created by failing to explain
> what you meant by "(cough) freebees".
>
> So what exactly is a "(cough) freebee", if not "pirate" software?

Patches and other fixes to the product.  I'm not aware of any vendor
yet who has had the audacity to try to charge for them, since they
generally only exist because of errors & flaws in the original
product.  Apparently, you missed the sarcasm - it is hard to believe
that anyone who has vast experience with Windows doesn't know what
Patch Tuesday is.

> >>> with the establishment of "Patch Tuesday" ... which are just like
> >>> the Linux world in that they're all "free" ... including whatever
> >>> impact they have on your legacy applications which just happen to
> >>> get broken.


> Consider the Fedora
> system I began this discussion with, for example. One PC, 13 OS
> upgrades. How many PCs would survive 13 consecutive Windows upgrades,
> and still be hardware-compatible?

This continues to assume that a "major" Fedora is really equal to
other OS "majors", and that Windows is the only possible alternative
OS.  The first assumption is weak, and the second is indisputably
wrong.


> > We need to keep in mind that the general paradigm is that the "costs"
> > (money, time, etc) of all upgrades are motivated because it is
> > presumed that they'll have a positive ROI through system improvements
> > which result in higher productivity.
>
> Well since my financial investment in Free Software is zero (barring
> costs common to all platforms), then /any/ return on that investment is
> bound to be profitable.

And I'm immortal ... (barring any factors that contribute to my future
death).


> As for productivity, that depends on my skills, not my tools, given a
> baseline of tools that actually function correctly...

And my PC's copy of Photoshop is free ... given a baseline of existing
software licenses which includes Photoshop.


> Since I only use
> tools that work, then my productivity isn't impacted either way by
> updates, unless those updates cause those tools to cease functioning
> correctly.

And this includes using a hammer to open a can of paint ... afterall
it can be MADE to work, eventually.   Thus, there's never any need for
us ever to be concerned about possible differences in productivity
between different tools, because we can simply assume it all away by
claiming that there's never any difference!   Golly, that makes
everything in life so much simpler for me.


> As and when new tools (or technologies in general) become available, I
> consider using them...

Research Time =3D cost.

Yeah, I know your non-Holistic viewpoint answer.  It is:  "IGNORE!"



> >> There may or may not be a "need", but the fact is if one /were/ to
> >> upgrade Windows as often as I had upgraded the aforementioned Fedora
> >> system, it would cost a great deal more than the initial $500
> >> investment, whereas the Fedora upgrades did not.
>
> > No argument, except that you're still not taking a holistic view.
>
> No, you're assuming I have costs that I don't.
>
> I know exactly what I spend money on, how much and how often.



> > [We] don't buy PCs merely to burn electricity so that we can stare at i=
ts
> > OS, but rather we invest in many dimensions of it so as to accomplish
> > certain value-added activities
>
> Sorry, but that's just meaningless managerial gobbledegook.

Translation:  we use PCs in order to do something.


> > and at higher productivity rates than other alternatives.
>
> I spent years using those alternatives, and it was precisely because of
> those alternatives' lack of productivity that I switched to GNU/Linux.

Even those older alternatives replaced less productive tasks, or else
you would have never adopted them in the first place.


> > For example, consider how much money you would have had to have spent
> > last month if every email you sent had used the technological
> > alternative of a conventional "snail mail" letter: within the USA, it
> > would have cost you roughly 50 cents (44 cents postage + 6 cents paper
> > & envelope).
>
> That theoretical argument has no bearing on GNU/Linux or Free Software
> in general, since I /am/ obviously able to send E-mails.

Its not theoretical at all:  you're simply failing to recognize where
technologies exist.  The example here was that the Postal System is a
technology.  So too is the telephone.  Both simply happen to be
examples of pre-digital technologies.



> The fact is I used Windows for years, and it cost me far too much time,
> trouble and expense to be a viable solution. Moreover, the system worked
> against me more often than it worked for my benefit. It was slow,
> unstable, insecure, unmanageable, unpredictable, and (ironically)
> incompatible with much of its own applications.

Oh, please don't assume that I'm defending Windows.


> In short, switching to GNU/Linux was an absolute necessity, even if it
> had cost me thousands to do so. As it turns out, it cost me nothing, and
> the savings I've made as a result are incalculable.

Actually, your savings can be calculated :-)


> >> And if we take the example of Windows users who do not upgrade, such
> >> as the estimated 60% who are still using XP, consider the security
> >> enhancements, additional functionality, and support for newer
> >> technology that they're missing.
>
> > Agreed, but this share of the marketplace has voted with their wallet
> > that these technological improvements are not *compelling* enough for
> > them to incur the costs
>
> That's a rather euphemistic spin on the fact that people cannot upgrade
> to something that's incompatible with their applications and hardware,
> and don't want to upgrade to something that's more bloated and slow than
> their existing system, no matter what other improvements it might bring.

Sorry, but its not a "cannot" impossible task:  it is very much
doable, but merely incurs a transition cost.


> > (including time) to upgrade.
>
> I'm sure that's a factor for Windows, but it isn't necessarily a factor
> for GNU/Linux. I can upgrade most GNU/Linux systems to the next major
> release without even interrupting my work - I just let it install in the
> background. The same goes for interim updates, in fact I don't even need
> to reboot, unless one of those updates was the kernel, and even then I
> can just continue with my current session indefinitely, until I
> actually want to use that new kernel.

The computational resources of all PCs are finite, so if you're
installing in the background, then your foreground work gets fewer
clock cycles and slows down ... lower productivity.   The other common
alternative is that your system gives you more horsepower than you
need, which means you over-bought your hardware (capital expense) as
well as perhaps are burning more electricity than you really need to
(another cost).   Bottom line is that there's no such thing as a free
lunch, ever.


> > Since their options do include the "free" OS of Linux, there's
> > obviously more to this consumer decision than merely the cost (or lack
> > thereof) of the OS - - and please don't try to explain it all away
> > through consumer ignorance - - that's clearly not the reason why.
>
> Where have I ever indicated that people fail to upgrade because of
> ignorance?

You didn't; my comment was anticipatorily preemptive in nature.


> >> Meanwhile, cost and compatibility issues seems to have deterred many X=
P
> >> users from upgrading. They're missing out - I'm not.
>
> > They're using Photoshop ... so perhaps you're the one missing out :-)
>
> A grossly overrated and overpriced product, that is undeservedly used as
> a benchmark by people who mostly don't even use it. I have, and I was
> largely unimpressed, except by the price.

Yet it has capabilities that GIMP lacks.   As such, when one's work
requires these capabilities, if one tries to substitute with GIMP, not
only does  your productivity drop, but so too the quality of your
output.


> >>> Sure, this can often be the case when your barrier to entry (cost)
> >>> is extremely low, but it represents a "Technology Push", not a
> >>> "Requirements Pull" and particularly if you haven't done a good
> >>> risk/ benefit (or value) assessment before choosing to upgrade.
>
> >> It's simpler than that. It may be that a new game requires an updated
> >> version of DirectX, and that update is only available for Windows 7,
> >> but the customer's system is incompatible with Windows 7, due to a
> >> lack of drivers. That's just one example.
>
> > An example which has nothing to do with { Tech Push -vs- Requirements
> > Pull }, unfortunately.
>
> Your managerial gibberish notwithstanding..

This isn't "managerial".  It is (briefly), "Technologist Talk".


> ... if a game needs a particular
> version of DirectX, then that is a "requirement", which in this case
> cannot be fulfilled because of other incompatibilities. It's also the
> case (as was subsequently proved with the "Crysis" d=E9b=E2cle), that
> Microsoft had deliberately withheld this update from XP users for non
> technical reasons - IOW it was a "technology push" (as you put it) to
> try to force people to pay for an upgrade. That wasn't the first time
> Microsoft had pulled a trick like that, and it won't be the last.
>
> GNU/Linux users are typically not subjected to that sort of
> manipulation, because distro vendors have no motive to do so (and
> apparently have better scruples than Microsoft).

Sorry, but I'm not familiar with PC games ... they're not really a
"productivity enhancement" feature AFAIC.


> But as I've just explained, not all "upgrades" require new hardware.
> Case in point, the PC that's had 13 Fedora upgrades.

And my PC has had somewhere around ... 37?   Its just an arbitrary
number which doesn't necessarily have any bearing on how the system
affords value-added, nor how productive it has been.


> > Of course, having paid for a higher level of hardware than you
> > currently need (Requirements source) is merely an example of a "Tech
> > Push" implimentation at work.
>
> I upgrade my hardware when it dies with a puff of blue smoke, and not
> before. And even then, I'm more inclined to pull out my soldering iron
> than my wallet.

If so, then you're ignoring ROI here too.


> But still, there are new advances in hardware that are actually worth
> investing in. Take Android smartphones for example. I'd long wished for
> a Free Software based pocket convergence device, and Android ticks all
> the boxes. My main server (the one that processed, posted and signed
> this message) has only half the processing power, and almost none of the
> GPU power, of the Android phone that sits in my pocket. I find that
> amazing. =A0Mostly I'm amazed by how much can be accomplished with a
> 533MHz server running GNU/Linux, and feel proud to be part of a
> community that could squeeze all that (and more) into a tiny phone.

I recall a somewhat similar "amazement" from a Palm PDA which
outclassed a desktop PC.   Needless to say, that was quite awhile
ago...


> But why should I only consider old Windows games, when I have access
> to new and currently supported Free Software games?

Never said "only".   If the constraint is due to older hardware, then
either buy new hardware, or consider older games within that OS.

> > You'll invariably find that they're less reliant on having nothing
> > less than the newest hardware.
>
> And are also invariably incompatible with the currently supported
> release of Windows.

So simply run the older & unsupported OS.  Afterall, a game is merely
for _entertainment_, which isn't particularly a mission-critical
element.



> > Try shopping around more.
>
> Is there a shop that sells Photoshop for zero dollars, because if not
> then it's always going to be more expensive than the Free Software
> alternatives?

"Free" isn't a feature when the trade-off is that it doesn't do what
you need.


> >> Then add $200 + inflation for each Photoshop upgrade thereafter, and
> >> similarly for the other applications and the OS itself.
>
> > But this ignores my comment about value assessment
>
> More gibberish.

Translation:  more that you don't understand, and choose not to even
try to understand.


> The "value" of the software I use is that it works, without crashing or
> becoming infected by viruses, without slowing the system down to a
> crawl, without getting in my way with pointless distractions, and
> without ridiculous over-engineering that nonetheless offers little in
> the way of automation. If it doesn't work, then I move on to something
> that does, and then stick with it.

But does this "something that does" criteria include stuff that isn't
free?

I suspect not, and that's where you're cutting your nose off to spite
your face.

> ... I learn how to use those tools, then
> I spend the rest of my time productively using them. The combination of
> those tools and my skills then produces a result which has some value.

And again, if a commercial tool provides MORE value - - but at a
fiscal ($$) cost, is it out of consideration?


> Given the amount of time I wasted trying (and failing) to get results
> using Windows software, everything I use, from the simplest component
> like Bash, has an order of magnitude more value to me than anything I
> ever used under Windows, despite the fact that it's all available for
> free, and Windows applications can cost hundreds or thousands. =A0

Linux wasn't your sole alternative to Windows.

> > and the option of skip-upgrading.
>
> No it doesn't ignore skip upgrading, because no matter how many
> commercial upgrades you skip, you're still always paying more than zero
> (unless you skip /all/ the upgrades indefinitely). Even then, you still
> have the original full license cost at some point.

Keep on holding on to your wallet!  Someday, you might actually have
to pay for something.

> > For example, I'm still running Photoshop CS (CS1) on one of my
> > machines, because it doesn't need anything more than that. =A0Thus, it
> > has avoided $800 in license upgrades.
>
> Whereas I'm running the latest versions of Krita, Gimp and ImageMagick
> for free, on a ten year old PC. I didn't need to consider whether I
> could afford that upgrade, or whether the hardware was capable. I didn't
> need to do anything beyond issue a single command, then run the
> programs.

That's right:  you simply did without certain capabilities.   As such,
your productivity on certain tasks was -- and remains -- ZERO, because
those tools simply lack certain capabilities.



> > For one of my activities, the PC could cost $1000 and it still would
> > be considered to be a "minor peripheral" for the overall system whose
> > capability it supports.
>
> Certainly, if you're wasting thousands on software licenses.

My apologies: I neglected software licenses; please allow me to
clarify:

"For one of my activities, the PC could cost $1000 --> and even
another $1000 for Photoshop <--, and yet that still would be
considered to be a "minor peripheral" for the overall system whose
capability it supports."


>
> > It depends on the license, obviously. =A0Photoshop happens to be a good
> > example here, as its terms permit a **single user** (emphasis added)
> > to install a single license on both a desktop and a laptop.
>
> Provided you don't use both at the same time (e.g. two members of the
> same family can't both be running Photoshop on two separate machines at
> the same time with the same license):

Which is why I explicitly stated:  "...a **single user** (emphasis
added)..."


> See if you can guess which of the above two licenses I prefer.

Oh, the answer is obvious:  you'll take the one that you think is
better, and the only criteria that you seem to have is that its
capital purchase price must be "Free", even if it doesn't offer
capabilities that could allow you to be more productive, etc, etc.
This is merely a perpetuation of your non-holistic view on TCO and
ROI.



> > If having Photoshop permits one to be 10% more productive than GIMP
>
> That's a big "if"...

It was explicitly a notional example.   Change the 10% to 1% and the
ROI simply becomes 1000 man-hours (6 months)...in some business cases,
it's still worth spending the money.


>
> > (for example), then the ROI calculation that justifies (or perhaps
> > not) having Photoshop is very straightforward.
>
> Yes it's very straightforward. I don't need it.

Feel free to keep believing that ... it is to my competitive
advantage :-)


> > For a notional example, assuming $1000 for Photoshop and a burdened
> > labor rate of $100/hr, a 10% gain in productivity will pay for itself
> > in roughly 100 man-hours (2.5 weeks).
>
> What's the productivity gain for using a software platform that doesn't
> crash, get infected by viruses, require constant reboots, gradually slow
> down more and more with each passing day, and finally gives up with a
> BSOD, then require reinstalling from scratch, because no clear cause for
> the problem can be determined by anyone, only to repeat that cycle again
> and again for the entire lifespan of that platform?
>
> What's the productivity gain for using a system that easily facilitates
> the complete automation of every task, such that nearly everything in a
> given project can be accomplished with a single command (or even without
> any intervention, using schedules)?
>
> What's the productivity gain of always having free access to the latest
> developments in a Free Software application, regardless of how much one
> can afford, and regardless of the type or age of one's computer system?
>
> What's the productivity gain of being able to customise my working
> environment down to the smallest detail, to the extent of essentially
> creating my own unique work "tool" that exactly fits my working methods?

Sorry, but you've already claimed that you "don't need" any of that,
nor to spend any time figuring out if you're actually saving money.
As far as you're concerned you are, and that's what makes you happy.
From that perspective, then do feel free to remain ensconced within
your personal comfort zone and resist all temptation to venture out.


-hh

TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> writes:

> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
> On 2010-11-27, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> Homer stated in post fgj6s7-odo.ln1@sky.matrix on 11/26/10 11:02 PM:
>>
>> ... 
>>>> The key point here isn't that the OS license upgrade was "free" -
>>>> - it is that it is merely only one small part of the total
>>>> lifecycle costs that can be considered.
>>> 
>>> Yes, but then /all/ platforms have costs beyond licensing, so you
>>> can't apply this argument exclusively to Free Software.
>>
>> Nobody said there was a lack of costs beyond licensing.  That is a
>> straw man.  The point is that the cost of the license is usually not
>> a very large part of the overall cost.
>
> That's nonsense. The licensing cost is usually a very substantial part
> of the total cost.
>
> Let's look at the last Windows server I bought:
>

"Last Windows Server"

You're becoming more and more unhinged.

 TomB <tommy.bongae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
> On 2010-11-27, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>
> > Homer stated in post fgj6s7-odo....@sky.matrix on 11/26/10 11:02 PM:
>
> > ...
> >>> The key point here isn't that the OS license upgrade was "free" -
> >>> - it is that it is merely only one small part of the total
> >>> lifecycle costs that can be considered.
>
> >> Yes, but then /all/ platforms have costs beyond licensing, so you
> >> can't apply this argument exclusively to Free Software.
>
> > Nobody said there was a lack of costs beyond licensing. =A0That is a
> > straw man. =A0The point is that the cost of the license is usually not
> > a very large part of the overall cost.
>
> That's nonsense. The licensing cost is usually a very substantial part
> of the total cost.
>
> Let's look at the last Windows server I bought:

(example of nightmare of Microsoft prices follows; deleted)

> Percentage of the software cost =3D 31%.


Fair enough for a server, but how about for a "personal desktop" use
case?


-hh

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On 2010-11-27, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
> TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Let's look at the last Windows server I bought:
>>
>
> "Last Windows Server"
>
> You're becoming more and more unhinged.

Say what? I'm dying to here the reasoning behind that!

-- 
If you have five dollars and Chuck Norris has five dollars, Chuck
Norris has more money than you. 

On 2010-11-27, the following emerged from the brain of -hh:
>  TomB <tommy.bongae...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
>> On 2010-11-27, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> ...
>> >>> The key point here isn't that the OS license upgrade was "free"
>> >>> - - it is that it is merely only one small part of the total
>> >>> lifecycle costs that can be considered.
>>
>> >> Yes, but then /all/ platforms have costs beyond licensing, so
>> >> you can't apply this argument exclusively to Free Software.
>>
>> > Nobody said there was a lack of costs beyond licensing.  That is
>> > a straw man.  The point is that the cost of the license is
>> > usually not a very large part of the overall cost.
>>
>> That's nonsense. The licensing cost is usually a very substantial
>> part of the total cost.
>>
>> Let's look at the last Windows server I bought:
>
> (example of nightmare of Microsoft prices follows; deleted)
>
>> Percentage of the software cost = 31%.
>
> Fair enough for a server, but how about for a "personal desktop" use
> case?

Hardware: 750 EUR.

Software:
	Windows license: 125 EUR
	MSO license:     200 EUR
	Total:           325 EUR

Percentage of software cost: 43%. With an absolute minimum of
installed software.

I've not included cost for electricity and maintenance as this is a
personal desktop scenario.

-- 
Een vrouw in haren blote, dat is een monument.
Maar ne vent in zijne pure is en bleft nen blote vent.
	~ Katastroof

On Nov 27, 8:03=A0am, TomB <tommy.bongae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2010-11-27, the following emerged from the brain of -hh:
>
>
>
>
>
> > =A0TomB <tommy.bongae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
> >> On 2010-11-27, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> > ...
> >> >>> The key point here isn't that the OS license upgrade was "free"
> >> >>> - - it is that it is merely only one small part of the total
> >> >>> lifecycle costs that can be considered.
>
> >> >> Yes, but then /all/ platforms have costs beyond licensing, so
> >> >> you can't apply this argument exclusively to Free Software.
>
> >> > Nobody said there was a lack of costs beyond licensing. =A0That is
> >> > a straw man. =A0The point is that the cost of the license is
> >> > usually not a very large part of the overall cost.
>
> >> That's nonsense. The licensing cost is usually a very substantial
> >> part of the total cost.
>
> >> Let's look at the last Windows server I bought:
>
> > (example of nightmare of Microsoft prices follows; deleted)
>
> >> Percentage of the software cost =3D 31%.
>
> > Fair enough for a server, but how about for a "personal desktop" use
> > case?
>
> Hardware: 750 EUR.
>
> Software:
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Windows license: 125 EUR
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 MSO license: =A0 =A0 200 EUR
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Total: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 325 EUR
>
> Percentage of software cost: 43%. With an absolute minimum of
> installed software.
>
> I've not included cost for electricity and maintenance as this is a
> personal desktop scenario.

Why not?  Because these costs somehow magically become free?

You previously said:
"Running cost is about 1.5 EUR per day for electricity, or 550 EUR /
year. Running the server for 3 years 24/7 will cost 1650 EUR."

Simplistically assuming that a personal PC consumes 1/3rd as much
power, that's 550 EUR for 3 years.

Similarly, assuming 4 hours/year at a 25 EUR/hr "worth of my time"
rate works out to 100 EUR per year; 300 EUR for 3 years of DIY
maintenance.


Summing,

750 Hardware
325 Software
550 Power
300 Maintenance
---------
1925 EUR

Of which software is (325/1925) =3D 17%.


-hh

>
> --
> Een vrouw in haren blote, dat is een monument.
> Maar ne vent in zijne pure is en bleft nen blote vent.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 ~ Katastroof

TomB stated in post 20101127110634.81@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/27/10 3:38
AM:

> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
> On 2010-11-27, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> Homer stated in post fgj6s7-odo.ln1@sky.matrix on 11/26/10 11:02 PM:
>> 
>> ... 
>>>> The key point here isn't that the OS license upgrade was "free" -
>>>> - it is that it is merely only one small part of the total
>>>> lifecycle costs that can be considered.
>>> 
>>> Yes, but then /all/ platforms have costs beyond licensing, so you
>>> can't apply this argument exclusively to Free Software.
>> 
>> Nobody said there was a lack of costs beyond licensing.  That is a
>> straw man.  The point is that the cost of the license is usually not
>> a very large part of the overall cost.
> 
> That's nonsense. The licensing cost is usually a very substantial part
> of the total cost.
> 
> Let's look at the last Windows server I bought:
> 
> The total cost for the hardware (an HP Proliant) was about 1400 EUR.
> That is including three years of warranty with full coverage.
> 
> The total cost for the software was about 2800 EUR (Windows Server
> 2008 SE OEM and MS-SQL Standard). This includes 5 CALs (which is
> enough for my purposes). I will not include the cost of additional
> software required for the server's daily operation, such as antivirus
> (which is /not/ free).
> 
> Running cost is about 1.5 EUR per day for electricity, or 550 EUR /
> year. Running the server for 3 years 24/7 will cost 1650 EUR.
> 
> Software and hardware maintenance costs will be about 1000 EUR / year,
> so 3000 EUR for 3 years.
> 
> Total cost = 1400 + 2800 + 1650 + 1000 = 6850 EUR. But let's be
> pessimistic, and set this to 9000 EUR.
> 
> Percentage of the software cost = 31%.

Might I suggest you read this:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_cost_of_ownership>

You left out *all* infrastructure costs (other than electricity)

>>>>> With proprietary software (of either a commercial or freeware
>>>>> nature), the best any user can hope for is the vendor finally
>>>>> gets around to fixing an issue, or providing additional
>>>>> functionality, at some point when it best suits the vendor, which
>>>>> might be months or even years away, and is usually dependent on
>>>>> whether or not it serves that vendor's financial interests.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Free Software, OTOH, always seeks to serve the users' interests,
>>>>> if for no better reason than the fact that many of those users
>>>>> are also its developers.
>>>> 
>>>> That's the idealistic fantasy.
>>> 
>>> No, that's the practical reality as I've personally experienced it.
>> 
>> OSS seems to be very good at "back end" stuff and rather poor - in
>> general - with user interfaces.
> 
> Just like Homer, that's not my experience. I have yet to come accross
> an interface that serves me better than the one I'm using on
> GNU/Linux.

Compare VLC with QuickTime.  Compare OpenOffice with MS Office.  Compare
GIMP with Photoshop.  Where do you think OSS makes a good showing?


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

-hh stated in post 
8e5ec0ff-c96a-4a86-9fa6-3f06fce92acb@i41g2000vbn.googlegroups.com on
11/27/10 5:19 AM:

>  TomB <tommy.bongae...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
>> On 2010-11-27, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> 
>>> Homer stated in post fgj6s7-odo....@sky.matrix on 11/26/10 11:02 PM:
>> 
>>> ...
>>>>> The key point here isn't that the OS license upgrade was "free" -
>>>>> - it is that it is merely only one small part of the total
>>>>> lifecycle costs that can be considered.
>> 
>>>> Yes, but then /all/ platforms have costs beyond licensing, so you
>>>> can't apply this argument exclusively to Free Software.
>> 
>>> Nobody said there was a lack of costs beyond licensing. �That is a
>>> straw man. �The point is that the cost of the license is usually not
>>> a very large part of the overall cost.
>> 
>> That's nonsense. The licensing cost is usually a very substantial part
>> of the total cost.
>> 
>> Let's look at the last Windows server I bought:
> 
> (example of nightmare of Microsoft prices follows; deleted)
> 
>> Percentage of the software cost = 31%.
> 
> 
> Fair enough for a server, but how about for a "personal desktop" use
> case?
> 
> 
> -hh

Then you are talking daily face-to-face use (or near daily).  The cost of
the license, if you split it over the time it will be used, is generally
very little per day... and, for most people, the cost of the licenses is
worth it.  If there were good OSS alternatives that would serve people well
then many would use them - as we see with Firefox and Chrome (though Chrome
had the advantage of Google advertising, for much of the time Firefox was
growing it did not... yet it still grew).  There is a reason GIMP has not
taken the world by storm.  And desktop Linux.   People value a better
experience.  Heck, look at how many people are buying Macs - and there is no
doubt the average purchase price of a Mac is a lot higher than the average
for a Windows machine.  People value the better experience it offers...
enough to pay for it.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

TomB wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
> On 2010-11-27, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>> TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Let's look at the last Windows server I bought:
>>>
>>
>> "Last Windows Server"
>>
>> You're becoming more and more unhinged.
>
> Say what? I'm dying to here the reasoning behind that!

LOL!

-- 
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch 

TomB wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
> On 2010-11-27, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> Homer stated in post fgj6s7-odo.ln1@sky.matrix on 11/26/10 11:02 PM:
>>
>> ...
>>>> The key point here isn't that the OS license upgrade was "free" -
>>>> - it is that it is merely only one small part of the total
>>>> lifecycle costs that can be considered.
>>>
>>> Yes, but then /all/ platforms have costs beyond licensing, so you
>>> can't apply this argument exclusively to Free Software.
>>
>> Nobody said there was a lack of costs beyond licensing.  That is a
>> straw man.  The point is that the cost of the license is usually not
>> a very large part of the overall cost.
>
> That's nonsense. The licensing cost is usually a very substantial part
> of the total cost.
>
> Let's look at the last Windows server I bought:
>
> The total cost for the hardware (an HP Proliant) was about 1400 EUR.
> That is including three years of warranty with full coverage.
>
> The total cost for the software was about 2800 EUR (Windows Server
> 2008 SE OEM and MS-SQL Standard). This includes 5 CALs (which is
> enough for my purposes). I will not include the cost of additional
> software required for the server's daily operation, such as antivirus
> (which is /not/ free).
>
> Running cost is about 1.5 EUR per day for electricity, or 550 EUR /
> year. Running the server for 3 years 24/7 will cost 1650 EUR.
>
> Software and hardware maintenance costs will be about 1000 EUR / year,
> so 3000 EUR for 3 years.
>
> Total cost = 1400 + 2800 + 1650 + 1000 = 6850 EUR. But let's be
> pessimistic, and set this to 9000 EUR.
>
> Percentage of the software cost = 31%.
>
>>>>> With proprietary software (of either a commercial or freeware
>>>>> nature), the best any user can hope for is the vendor finally
>>>>> gets around to fixing an issue, or providing additional
>>>>> functionality, at some point when it best suits the vendor, which
>>>>> might be months or even years away, and is usually dependent on
>>>>> whether or not it serves that vendor's financial interests.
>>>>>
>>>>> Free Software, OTOH, always seeks to serve the users' interests,
>>>>> if for no better reason than the fact that many of those users
>>>>> are also its developers.
>>>>
>>>> That's the idealistic fantasy.
>>>
>>> No, that's the practical reality as I've personally experienced it.
>>
>> OSS seems to be very good at "back end" stuff and rather poor - in
>> general - with user interfaces.
>
> Just like Homer, that's not my experience. I have yet to come accross
> an interface that serves me better than the one I'm using on
> GNU/Linux.

LOL!

-- 
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch 

On 2010-11-27, the following emerged from the brain of -hh:
> On Nov 27, 8:03 am, TomB <tommy.bongae...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2010-11-27, the following emerged from the brain of -hh:
>>
>> >> >>> The key point here isn't that the OS license upgrade was
>> >> >>> "free" - - it is that it is merely only one small part of
>> >> >>> the total lifecycle costs that can be considered.
>>
>> >> >> Yes, but then /all/ platforms have costs beyond licensing, so
>> >> >> you can't apply this argument exclusively to Free Software.
>>
>> >> > Nobody said there was a lack of costs beyond licensing.  That
>> >> > is a straw man.  The point is that the cost of the license is
>> >> > usually not a very large part of the overall cost.
>>
>> >> That's nonsense. The licensing cost is usually a very
>> >> substantial part of the total cost.
>>
>> >> Let's look at the last Windows server I bought:
>>
>> > (example of nightmare of Microsoft prices follows; deleted)
>>
>> >> Percentage of the software cost = 31%.
>>
>> > Fair enough for a server, but how about for a "personal desktop"
>> > use case?
>>
>> Hardware: 750 EUR.
>>
>> Software:
>>         Windows license: 125 EUR
>>         MSO license:     200 EUR
>>         Total:           325 EUR
>>
>> Percentage of software cost: 43%. With an absolute minimum of
>> installed software.
>>
>> I've not included cost for electricity and maintenance as this is a
>> personal desktop scenario.
>
> Why not?  Because these costs somehow magically become free?
>
> You previously said: "Running cost is about 1.5 EUR per day for
> electricity, or 550 EUR / year. Running the server for 3 years 24/7
> will cost 1650 EUR."
>
> Simplistically assuming that a personal PC consumes 1/3rd as much
> power, that's 550 EUR for 3 years.
>
> Similarly, assuming 4 hours/year at a 25 EUR/hr "worth of my time"
> rate works out to 100 EUR per year; 300 EUR for 3 years of DIY
> maintenance.
>
>
> Summing,
>
> 750 Hardware
> 325 Software
> 550 Power
> 300 Maintenance
> ---------
> 1925 EUR
>
> Of which software is (325/1925) = 17%.

Fine. That's still 17% of the total cost when you bought just the OS
and the Office suite. I wouldn't call that a small percentage. Hell,
to run just that you'd do fine with a machine costing just 400 EUR,
raising the percentage significantly.

-- 
When Chuck Norris falls in water, Chuck Norris doesn't get wet. Water
gets Chuck Norris.

On Nov 27, 2:32=A0pm, TomB <tommy.bongae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2010-11-27, the following emerged from the brain of -hh:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 27, 8:03=A0am, TomB <tommy.bongae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 2010-11-27, the following emerged from the brain of -hh:
>
> >> >> >>> The key point here isn't that the OS license upgrade was
> >> >> >>> "free" - - it is that it is merely only one small part of
> >> >> >>> the total lifecycle costs that can be considered.
>
> >> >> >> Yes, but then /all/ platforms have costs beyond licensing, so
> >> >> >> you can't apply this argument exclusively to Free Software.
>
> >> >> > Nobody said there was a lack of costs beyond licensing. =A0That
> >> >> > is a straw man. =A0The point is that the cost of the license is
> >> >> > usually not a very large part of the overall cost.
>
> >> >> That's nonsense. The licensing cost is usually a very
> >> >> substantial part of the total cost.
>
> >> >> Let's look at the last Windows server I bought:
>
> >> > (example of nightmare of Microsoft prices follows; deleted)
>
> >> >> Percentage of the software cost =3D 31%.
>
> >> > Fair enough for a server, but how about for a "personal desktop"
> >> > use case?
>
> >> Hardware: 750 EUR.
>
> >> Software:
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Windows license: 125 EUR
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 MSO license: =A0 =A0 200 EUR
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Total: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 325 EUR
>
> >> Percentage of software cost: 43%. With an absolute minimum of
> >> installed software.
>
> >> I've not included cost for electricity and maintenance as this is a
> >> personal desktop scenario.
>
> > Why not? =A0Because these costs somehow magically become free?
>
> > You previously said: "Running cost is about 1.5 EUR per day for
> > electricity, or 550 EUR / year. Running the server for 3 years 24/7
> > will cost 1650 EUR."
>
> > Simplistically assuming that a personal PC consumes 1/3rd as much
> > power, that's 550 EUR for 3 years.
>
> > Similarly, assuming 4 hours/year at a 25 EUR/hr "worth of my time"
> > rate works out to 100 EUR per year; 300 EUR for 3 years of DIY
> > maintenance.
>
> > Summing,
>
> > 750 Hardware
> > 325 Software
> > 550 Power
> > 300 Maintenance
> > ---------
> > 1925 EUR
>
> > Of which software is (325/1925) =3D 17%.
>
> Fine. That's still 17% of the total cost when you bought just the OS
> and the Office suite. I wouldn't call that a small percentage.

YMMV, but to put it in another perspective, this software-only portion
also works out to roughly 0.50 EUR (US$0.75) per workday (200 days/
year).

Putting that cost into perspective by using a generic burdened rate of
$100/hr for a typical creative professional and a 7.5 hour workday (to
make the math easier), the implications are that the software's
expense is justified if it results in any productivity gain that's
better than 0.1%

FYI, this break-even point example is calculated by:  $0.75 /($100/
hr*7.5hrs) =3D 0.001  =3D 0.1%

....and the other way to look at such a change in productivity is to
convert it back into time.   0.1% of a 7.5 hour day is 27 seconds.


> Hell, to run just that you'd do fine with a machine costing just 400 EUR,
> raising the percentage significantly.

But that merely changes the percentage, and not much else:  the
software cost is still $0.75/workday.

And FWIW, it is interesting to note that for your suggestion of saving
350 EUR with cheaper hardware, this is roughly the same magnitude as
the 325 EUR software cost we're looking at, so the implications are
that if the cheaper machine results in roughly 29 seconds worth of
lower productivity per workday ... such as taking longer to boot each
morning, or any other slowing of task completions ... you're not
actually saving any money in the long run.


-hh

TomB stated in post 20101127202609.362@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/27/10 12:32
PM:

.... 
>> Summing,
>> 
>> 750 Hardware
>> 325 Software
>> 550 Power
>> 300 Maintenance
>> ---------
>> 1925 EUR
>> 
>> Of which software is (325/1925) = 17%.
> 
> Fine. That's still 17% of the total cost when you bought just the OS
> and the Office suite. I wouldn't call that a small percentage. Hell,
> to run just that you'd do fine with a machine costing just 400 EUR,
> raising the percentage significantly.

But if the software also saves you time and frustration that percentage
drops (if you can make more money or get more work done or get the same
things done in less time that offers a value).  You have stated you would be
willing to pay for the experience you get from OSS - and I have no problem
with that.  The reason you would pay, presumably, is you get *value* from
the experience it offers.

For most people, a non-free OS offers them better value than a free one,
even with the difference in cost of the software licenses.  If nothing else,
it offers them the choice of Free or non-Free software to a much larger
degree than does Linux (they can natively run Photoshop or GIMP, MS Office
or OpenOffice, QuickTime or VLC, etc.)   I know I value choice... and Linux
just does not offer as much choice (in those areas!)


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 2010-11-27, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> TomB stated in post 20101127110634.81@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/27/10 3:38
> AM:
>
>>> OSS seems to be very good at "back end" stuff and rather poor - in
>>> general - with user interfaces.
>> 
>> Just like Homer, that's not my experience. I have yet to come accross
>> an interface that serves me better than the one I'm using on
>> GNU/Linux.
>
> Compare VLC with QuickTime.

I'm interested in neither. I use mplayer. I have used VLC in the past
though, and I strongly doubt if QuickTime has as much to offer as VLC.

> Compare OpenOffice with MS Office.

I'm sure OO is weaker in same areas than MSO, but to me it is /more/
than adequate. And I actually work faster in OO than in MSO (perhaps
because I know the program better).

> Compare GIMP with Photoshop.

I never found myself in a situation where I got stuck using The Gimp,
and I've been doing fairy advanced stuff with it. Here are some things
I could find right away:

http://www.drumscum.be/cola/gimp/dusk_banner.jpg
(a banner for my band)

http://www.drumscum.be/cola/gimp/dusk01.jpg
http://www.drumscum.be/cola/gimp/dusk02.jpg
http://www.drumscum.be/cola/gimp/dusk03.jpg
(cover art for the last CDemo from my band)


http://www.drumscum.be/cola/gimp/yakke04.jpg
http://www.drumscum.be/cola/gimp/yakke05.jpg
http://www.drumscum.be/cola/gimp/yakke06.jpg
(picture of a mate pasted into different places)
(yeah, I should've put more effort in the Mona Lisa)

http://www.drumscum.be/cola/gimp/nude.jpg
(picture of lady friend combined with dragon)
(cropped to protect the innocent)

http://www.drumscum.be/cola/gimp/angel_hunter.jpg
(illustration for one of my ex-band's songs)

> Where do you think OSS makes a good showing?

In particular with the stuff I cannot get on other operating systems
(see many past posts for examples).

-- 
I find television very educating. Every time somebody turns
on the set, I go into the other room and read a book.
	~ Groucho Marx

TomB stated in post 20101128004503.792@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/27/10 5:00
PM:

> On 2010-11-27, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> TomB stated in post 20101127110634.81@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/27/10 3:38
>> AM:
>> 
>>>> OSS seems to be very good at "back end" stuff and rather poor - in
>>>> general - with user interfaces.
>>> 
>>> Just like Homer, that's not my experience. I have yet to come accross
>>> an interface that serves me better than the one I'm using on
>>> GNU/Linux.
>> 
>> Compare VLC with QuickTime.
> 
> I'm interested in neither. I use mplayer. I have used VLC in the past
> though, and I strongly doubt if QuickTime has as much to offer as VLC.

If nothing else it is better integrated.  VLC does not work well with a
remote, for example.

>> Compare OpenOffice with MS Office.
> 
> I'm sure OO is weaker in same areas than MSO, but to me it is /more/
> than adequate. And I actually work faster in OO than in MSO (perhaps
> because I know the program better).

Which does not mean that overall OO has a UI as good as the one of MSO
(which has become quite good in the last few versions).
 
>> Compare GIMP with Photoshop.
> 
> I never found myself in a situation where I got stuck using The Gimp,
> and I've been doing fairy advanced stuff with it. Here are some things
> I could find right away:
> 
> http://www.drumscum.be/cola/gimp/dusk_banner.jpg
> (a banner for my band)
> 
> http://www.drumscum.be/cola/gimp/dusk01.jpg
> http://www.drumscum.be/cola/gimp/dusk02.jpg
> http://www.drumscum.be/cola/gimp/dusk03.jpg
> (cover art for the last CDemo from my band)
> 
> 
> http://www.drumscum.be/cola/gimp/yakke04.jpg
> http://www.drumscum.be/cola/gimp/yakke05.jpg
> http://www.drumscum.be/cola/gimp/yakke06.jpg
> (picture of a mate pasted into different places)
> (yeah, I should've put more effort in the Mona Lisa)
> 
> http://www.drumscum.be/cola/gimp/nude.jpg
> (picture of lady friend combined with dragon)
> (cropped to protect the innocent)
> 
> http://www.drumscum.be/cola/gimp/angel_hunter.jpg
> (illustration for one of my ex-band's songs)

Cool stuff... keep in mind, though, nobody said good work could not be done
with GIMP (it can).  I have all sorts of photoshopped pics of my family, but
do not think it is wise to share in here (too many whacho people).  I do
have a Mona Lisa and a Mt. Rushmore - similar to the idea of yours.

>> Where do you think OSS makes a good showing?
> 
> In particular with the stuff I cannot get on other operating systems
> (see many past posts for examples).

Right... for you it does very well... but how about for the general user?  I
can think of some areas... mentioned some before: Firefox for example.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 2010-11-27, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> TomB stated in post 20101127110634.81@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/27/10 3:38
> AM:
>
>> Percentage of the software cost = 31%.
>
> Might I suggest you read this:
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_cost_of_ownership>
>
> You left out *all* infrastructure costs (other than electricity)

Not all those costs are generally accepted as TCO. Floor space is one
of them.

-- 
I find television very educating. Every time somebody turns
on the set, I go into the other room and read a book.
	~ Groucho Marx

TomB stated in post 20101128010924.899@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/27/10 5:18
PM:

> On 2010-11-27, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> TomB stated in post 20101127110634.81@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/27/10 3:38
>> AM:
>> 
>>> Percentage of the software cost = 31%.
>> 
>> Might I suggest you read this:
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_cost_of_ownership>
>> 
>> You left out *all* infrastructure costs (other than electricity)
> 
> Not all those costs are generally accepted as TCO. Floor space is one
> of them.

Ah, even though we were talking about ROI I admit I was thinking in terms of
TCO.  Still, TCO includes the total gain from the item - and I think ... I
*hope* most people gain a lot more than what they spend when it comes to
computer systems.  I look forward to when desktop Linux truly competes with
the alternatives in terms of ease of use, error reduction, etc.  Right now,
for most people, this does not seem to be the case (as even Shuttleworth has
noted).


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Nov 27, 7:00=A0pm, TomB <tommy.bongae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2010-11-27, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> >
> > Compare GIMP with Photoshop.
>
> I never found myself in a situation where I got stuck using The Gimp,
> and I've been doing fairy advanced stuff with it. Here are some things
> I could find right away:

[list of .jpgs]

BTW, I expect to be in Brussels in late January...let me know if you
want to meet at the Delirium for a free beer :-)

Probably the most commonly heard complaint with Gimp is its
shortcomings in supporting the CMYK color model, specifically in not
really being able to easily/quickly separate channels ... and then
edit ... a work destined for print.   The color management workflow
choice of CMYK generally applies to printed media, as it relies on
light subtraction principles, which is how pigments/paints/dies/inks
work.


-hh

-hh stated in post 
f5248d35-235e-45f4-b8c3-1d8b9cfe4b37@k30g2000vbn.googlegroups.com on
11/27/10 7:00 PM:

> On Nov 27, 7:00�pm, TomB <tommy.bongae...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2010-11-27, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> 
>>> Compare GIMP with Photoshop.
>> 
>> I never found myself in a situation where I got stuck using The Gimp,
>> and I've been doing fairy advanced stuff with it. Here are some things
>> I could find right away:
> 
> [list of .jpgs]
> 
> BTW, I expect to be in Brussels in late January...let me know if you
> want to meet at the Delirium for a free beer :-)
> 
> Probably the most commonly heard complaint with Gimp is its
> shortcomings in supporting the CMYK color model, specifically in not
> really being able to easily/quickly separate channels ... and then
> edit ... a work destined for print.   The color management workflow
> choice of CMYK generally applies to printed media, as it relies on
> light subtraction principles, which is how pigments/paints/dies/inks
> work.

While adding better CMYK to my workflow might benefit me at time, it is not
really a big thing on my list.  Here are things I know of or have found
online which GIMP lacks:

    Adjustment layers
    Weak hue/saturation adjustments (no feather, for example)
    Smart Layers
    Smart Filters
    Slices
    Layer groups
    Saturation Brush
    Batch Processing
    Clipping Groups
    Limited text handling
    Simple Macro system
    No free transform
    No red-eye fix

I know many of those are true... even if there are a few false positives,
that list contains a number of pretty important things.  Heck, while smart
layers and filters are fairly new to Photoshop, they are a huge benefit and
offer a great value.  The lack of a simple (recordable) macro system is also
a pretty big downer.



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:

> -hh stated in post 
> f5248d35-235e-45f4-b8c3-1d8b9cfe4b37@k30g2000vbn.googlegroups.com on
> 11/27/10 7:00 PM:
>
>> On Nov 27, 7:00 pm, TomB <tommy.bongae...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2010-11-27, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>> 
>>>> Compare GIMP with Photoshop.
>>> 
>>> I never found myself in a situation where I got stuck using The Gimp,
>>> and I've been doing fairy advanced stuff with it. Here are some things
>>> I could find right away:
>> 
>> [list of .jpgs]
>> 
>> BTW, I expect to be in Brussels in late January...let me know if you
>> want to meet at the Delirium for a free beer :-)
>> 
>> Probably the most commonly heard complaint with Gimp is its
>> shortcomings in supporting the CMYK color model, specifically in not
>> really being able to easily/quickly separate channels ... and then
>> edit ... a work destined for print.   The color management workflow
>> choice of CMYK generally applies to printed media, as it relies on
>> light subtraction principles, which is how pigments/paints/dies/inks
>> work.
>
> While adding better CMYK to my workflow might benefit me at time, it is not
> really a big thing on my list.  Here are things I know of or have found
> online which GIMP lacks:
>
>     Adjustment layers

Had I been an normal "advocate" I would have wading in here claiming you
are lying and that there ARE adjustment layers. It turns out there arent
and what I thought of as adjustment layers are actually not.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread1259.htm

That withstanding, Gimp is a great tool considering its free.

And you have the time to master its awful UI that is.

Hadron stated in post icsf6o$chj$3@news.eternal-september.org on 11/27/10
7:36 PM:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
> 
>> -hh stated in post
>> f5248d35-235e-45f4-b8c3-1d8b9cfe4b37@k30g2000vbn.googlegroups.com on
>> 11/27/10 7:00 PM:
>> 
>>> On Nov 27, 7:00�pm, TomB <tommy.bongae...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2010-11-27, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Compare GIMP with Photoshop.
>>>> 
>>>> I never found myself in a situation where I got stuck using The Gimp,
>>>> and I've been doing fairy advanced stuff with it. Here are some things
>>>> I could find right away:
>>> 
>>> [list of .jpgs]
>>> 
>>> BTW, I expect to be in Brussels in late January...let me know if you
>>> want to meet at the Delirium for a free beer :-)
>>> 
>>> Probably the most commonly heard complaint with Gimp is its
>>> shortcomings in supporting the CMYK color model, specifically in not
>>> really being able to easily/quickly separate channels ... and then
>>> edit ... a work destined for print.   The color management workflow
>>> choice of CMYK generally applies to printed media, as it relies on
>>> light subtraction principles, which is how pigments/paints/dies/inks
>>> work.
>> 
>> While adding better CMYK to my workflow might benefit me at time, it is not
>> really a big thing on my list.  Here are things I know of or have found
>> online which GIMP lacks:
>> 
>>     Adjustment layers
> 
> Had I been an normal "advocate" I would have wading in here claiming you
> are lying and that there ARE adjustment layers. It turns out there arent
> and what I thought of as adjustment layers are actually not.

Yes, even with my disclaimers I likely will be called a liar if I am wrong
with any of them.
 
> http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread1259.htm
> 
> That withstanding, Gimp is a great tool considering its free.

No doubt... no argument at all.  Just a VLC is an amazing tool... it was
also on my "list". 
 
> And you have the time to master its awful UI that is.

Agreed.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
> On Nov 27, 1:02 am, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
>>
>>> On Nov 25, 10:23 pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:

>> You can apply any subjective criteria you want. At the end of the day
>> I get more and/or better software than I had previously. Anyone who
>> disagrees with that, will obviously not feel compelled to upgrade.
>
> "Better"...except for whatever legacy capabilities it broke (which you
> did agree happens).

But that means something rather different in the context of Free
Software, compared to a Windows update, because the "breakage" only
occurs if there's a mixture of old and new components, and if you've
/upgraded/ then that won't be the case. This is why such things are not
provided as interim updates, because it requires a substantial change to
the whole system to accommodate it without breakage. With Free Software,
this upgrade will encompass /everything/, including all applications and
games, but with something like Windows it only covers Microsoft's OS,
and you're still stuck with (potentially) incompatible third-party
applications and games (unless and until those third-parties provide
their own updates, which they may or may not do). Any software that's no
longer supported by the vendor, will eventually no longer work, and you
will have no recourse to do anything about it. Had it been Free
Software, then you would.

In terms of "capabilities", nothing in a GNU/Linux distro should be
"broken" as a /normal/ condition of upgrading, and any losses (typically
referred to as "depreciated packages") only occur because something
better has been found as a replacement (or it simply isn't necessary any
more, e.g. a workaround is dropped, because a bug was fixed).

You need to understand that when the software is Free (license) then
every distributor can be the publisher for /every/ available
application, not just their own, and as such they are then free to build
all those applications together on the same system (a buildsystem), thus
ensuring dependencies are consistent. What you download from Debian or
Fedora is not a collection binary bits, harvested from disparate sources
then shovelled into a CD, it's something that's all been built together
organically on one system. The potential for incompatibilities is
therefore virtually eliminated, barring accidents or bugs.

In order for Microsoft to achieve the same thing with Windows, they'd
need to buy every third-party proprietary Windows software publisher in
the world, then build all that software together on one system, every
time they made any changes to the OS. Of course, not every single
component would necessarily have to be rebuilt every time (mass
rebuild), but Microsoft would at least need this "repo" in place, to
allow for the necessary rebuild of components as and when their
dependencies changed.

For obvious reasons that simply isn't possible in the proprietary
software world. This is why Windows will never have a proper system-wide
package management system. The best it can do is record the location of
application install locations in the Registry, but it can't get anywhere
close to the dependency tracking and sanity checking of APT and RPM, and
they'll never be able to offer a single point of access for all
available Windows software (repo).

>> But the main issue, as it pertains to this thread of argument (cost),
>> is that regardless of whether it's a major or minor update, and
>> regardless of how subjectively compelling it is (or not), it's all
>> nonetheless free, so any argument about the differences between major
>> and minor updates becomes moot (from the perspective of costs).
>
> We'll apparently have to agree to disagree.  My intention of trying to
> pin down some definition of major/minor that we could agree to was
> merely to reveal the *costs* that are thus invariably associated with
> legacy capabilities that get broken.

I see, except this breakage is considered to be an unacceptable
abnormality by GNU/Linux distros (i.e. a bug that needs fixing), and as
such is only ever transitory, on the rare occasions it happens at all.
So it seem the basis for this particular cost analysis is without merit.

>> Yes, but then /all/ platforms have costs beyond licensing, so you
>> can't apply this argument exclusively to Free Software.
>
> I'm not applying this argument exclusively to Free Software.

Then it can't be used as a differentiator, unless you're actually
claiming that the peripheral costs of using GNU/Linux are somehow
greater than those incurred using Windows. IME the opposite is the
case.

>> /My/ costs, for the given example system, would be the cost of the
>> hardware, running costs (electricity, etc.), and my time. A Windows
>> user's costs would be the same as mine, plus the cost of OS
>> licensing, plus the cost of applications licensing, plus the cost of
>> anti-virus subscriptions, etc.
>
> And yet this list of 'costs' remains grossly incomplete, even if we
> accommodate the intention to keep it simple.

Well as I said before, I know what I spend, and I don't spend more than
I've already indicated.

What else do you think I ought to be spending money on, WRT my use of a
PC running GNU/Linux?

>> Having considerable experience using Windows systems, I'd also add
>> the cost of /more/ time for system maintenance, as a result of bugs,
>> malware, lack of speed and responsiveness, and a general lack of
>> facilities for automation (in a largely GUI dependent system).
>
> Sure (and no argument), but that's still an incomplete accounting.

Then please explain what you believe my other costs are.

>>> shortcoming that I've seen in the OSS movement is a myopia which
>>> focuses on only one factor of the total lifecycle (the OS price) at
>>> the expense of the rest.
>>
>> Not at all. I'm acutely aware of the peripheral costs of maintaining
>> a Windows system.
>
> Unfortunately, by you missing key factors, it is increasingly evident
> that you have a highly simplified view on factors such as TCO

But your vague generalities have yet to identify any actual costs that I
supposedly incur running this GNU/Linux system, beyond that which I've
already indicated. You can theorise endlessly on the subject, but it's
entirely meaningless when I'm sitting here looking right at my own
financial statements, and I can clearly see where my own money is going.

> (Total Cost of Ownership) & ROI (Return on Investment). Skipping
> ahead, you've tried to label (very incorrectly, I might add) some
> concepts as "meaningless managerial gobbledegook", so I also believe
> (unfortunately) that you're not inclined to listen or learn about
> them, either.

Because they have no relevance to my position, and in my considerable
experience have little relevance to any real world conditions, because
they're nothing but vague hypotheses that don't accurately articulate
specific conditions that exist in reality.

I spent years enduring departmental meetings in which some college
graduate, who swallowed a buzzword dictionary, sat lecturing the room
about how to energise this or synergise that, and at the end of the day
his meaningless gibberish did nothing whatsoever to change any outcomes,
other than lose the company 50 grand per annum on his salary. And before
you say anything, no this is not sour grapes, as I was on a higher pay
grade. Seriously, it's just meaningless nonsense. Talk straight and be
specific, don't waffle on about hypothetical conditions.

> Granted, as a technologist, it is often more in our comfort zone to
> talk just about Tech Stuff and pretend that the "Biz Ads" numbers
> don't exist.   However, without such resources, no technology ever
> gets built.

I understand finances perfectly well, and I understand the need for
marketing, but the fact is that most of it is (perhaps necessarily)
bullshit. Or IOW, save it for the rubes for whom it's intended to
indoctrinate.

>> Of course, I don't have anywhere near that level of problems with
>> GNU/Linux, and thus incur significantly fewer financial overheads.
>
> I don't doubt it, but it wasn't the point:  the point is that when
> you've only looked at (figuratively) only half the applicable numbers,
> it hasn't yet been objectively proven as such.

I'm looking right at those numbers now. I know what I can plainly see in
front of me.

>> I find most of these cost analyses arguments to be vague gibberish,
>> that have no bearing on my real world experiences.
>
> Driving a Porsche yet?   If not, then perhaps you should pay better
> attention to that so-called 'gibberish' :-)

I could certainly afford a better car than a Porsche, but the fact is I
have no interest in (or need for) a car of any sort, and would rather
spend my money on other things, like improvements to my home and
business.

I don't need to play buzzword bingo, or subjugate others with licensing
restrictions, in order to be financially successful, and indeed I take
great exception to the suggestion that it should be necessary.

>> The Linux kernel itself is one of the best examples of this. The
>> size, complexity, and volume of contributions to this project is
>> vast, and yet it is all tightly and sanely coordinated, and produces
>> very frequent releases, and still manages to provide extensive
>> peer-level support for users and other developers (e.g. distro
>> maintainers).
>
> Very Frequent Releases = HIgher Risk = Higher Costs.

Not for me though. I don't bear the burden of those costs, and the
proven reliability of this software demonstrates it's also a low risk
proposition. The worst case scenario would be that a particular release
simply didn't work on my hardware, at which point I'd simply switch back
to the previous release (all of 60 seconds down time). Also bear in mind
that, despite the frequent releases of Linux, I don't actually upgrade
my kernel very often. I might need a newer kernel if I bought new and
previously unsupported hardware, but that doesn't happen very often
either. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

>>> there's the profit incentive to motivate updates & patches
>>
>> Correct. And that incentive has no bearing on Free Software.
>
> Except that the lack of this incentive source is one of Free
> Software's disadvantages.

If it's a disadvantage, then it's a purely hypothetical one that has yet
to manifest itself as an actual problem.

This is the problem with your entire line of reasoning, on this and
nearly everything else in this discussion ... it's all just theorising,
without any concrete examples. Certainly you'll be hard pressed to find
any concrete examples that affect /me/ in any way.

>>> whereas freeware is predominatly altruistic.
>>
>> But not Free (license), and thus provides no long term assurances.
>
> My apologies - you've chosen to differentiate between freeware and
> Free (license), which I did not intend to do with that shorthand
> reference.

It's a common mistake. For the record, when I mean freedom I write
"Free" (or specify "free license"), when I mean zero cost I write
"free", and when I mean free proprietary software I write "freeware".

It's been suggested that people should call it Libre Software to avoid
duplicity, but frankly I'd rather promote the idea that "Free" should
not be demonised as a "bad word". It happens all too often, as you may
have noticed in another thread.

And while I'm on the subject of clarification: when I use the word
"Linux" I usually mean the kernel. If I'm talking about a Free Software
distro, I use the term GNU/Linux. Sometimes I get sloppy and just use
"Linux" to mean GNU/Linux, but the context usually makes it clear what I
really mean.

There also seems to be some confusion about what is meant by
"commercial". Commercial is simply anything that's sold, which includes
both proprietary and Free software, and has no direct correlation to
licensing.

> To clarify, both Free and freeware operate predominantly on an
> altruistic basis.

I'd argue that freeware is not really altruistic, as the author is
reserving his "IP" for some unspecified purpose (presumably for profit
at some later stage, if he manages to sell it to a company). AFAIAC this
is no more altruistic than ad-ware or trial payware. For Free Software
advocates, the only altruistic gesture they care about is universal
access to the source (equal rights), and the right to do whatever they
want with it thereafter, even if they have to pay for the privilege. 

>> And just to be clear, the long term assurance of Free Software, is
>> me, the user, since I have access to the source. Even if, in the
>> event of "abandonment", I couldn't maintain that software
>> single-handedly, I'd be able to get others to assist me, even if I
>> needed to pay them.
>
> True, and the recognition that you might have to go hire/pay
> programmers is clearly a risk factor.   However, what you've not
> recognized is that this isn't necessarily limited to only being a /
> long/ term risk factor.

Well if you mean the entire GNU/Linux ecosystem might disappear
overnight in a puff of smoke, I sincerely doubt that's likely, given the
number of companies with a vested interest in ensuring its survival
(think beyond the desktop, to routers and household appliances). I
couldn't give you exact figures, but I've heard it postulated that it's
in the tens of billions of devices, and thousands of companies,
including many in the blue-chip list. Some of those (e.g. Intel) make
heavy financial and technical contributions to Linux (and other Free
Software, e.g. Xorg), and even have full time staff employed to work on
Linux. Although I should point out that I'm not exactly a fan of Intel,
for other (political) reasons.

>> There have been instances where businesses have found themselves (and
>> their valuable data) stranded by a vendor (e.g. because of planned
>> obsolescence or bankruptcy), where that might actually have been a
>> necessary option. Allowing oneself, or especially one's business, to
>> become too dependant on another, is a potentially dangerous thing.
>
> Irrelevant, unless you can prove that this problem has never, ever,
> ever happened with any Free software

The only proof necessary is in the Free Software license.

> particularly to include those small businesses who lacks the fiscal
> resources to go hire his own programmers.

A person's or company's financial limitations in no way changes the
possibility, a possibility that simply doesn't exist with proprietary
software. The nearest thing to this assurance proprietary software can
offer, is an arbitration service, which isn't free, is not universally
implemented, and still leaves the recipient in the same predicament as
if it had been Free Software, only worse - as there is also no
possibility of enlisting support and contributions from the community,
unless they re-license that software under OSI compatible terms. 

> At present, you've failed to demonstrate that this risk is unique to
> proprietary software only.

What makes it unique is that Free Software gives you access to something
proprietary software does not. Freedom is not meant to guarantee
specific ability, it's only meant to guarantee continued opportunity.

>> Free Software depends on access and contribution to its sources, for
>> /relevance/, although not necessarily "survival", since even long
>> "abandoned" Free Software projects can be picked up by /anyone/ who's
>> interested, even if only to learn from and adapt into something new.
>
> "Can" merely indicates that it isn't impossible.

By "can" I mean it's permitted, I don't mean to imply there's a
condition that might prevent this from happening.

> As such, we can similarly point out that Microsoft "can" release the
> full source code for Windows 98 tomorrow, for free, if they wanted to.

Yes but they haven't, and until they do then that software will not
benefit from the opportunities granted by Free Software. Moreover, once
granted, those opportunities cannot be rescinded (published works can
not be retroactively re-licensed, they can only be re-released in a new
form with a new license, and only by the copyright holder). Therefore
software that is Free today, will always be Free, and unless every last
copy of the source mysteriously vanishes (including my own personal
copies), that means it will always be available to use, learn from,
modify, publish and distribute to others for the same benefit.

I can only speculate about future access to any given proprietary
software. With Free Software, I don't need to guess, I know.

>> And yes, some Free Software developers are also paid, and some
>> aren't.  Some Free Software projects are financially sponsored, and
>> some aren't.  But regardless of who pays for what, the end result is
>> Free Software that /anyone/ can access for free, with or without a
>> support contract.
>>
>> That is always in the best interest of the users, unlike proprietary
>> software (freeware or otherwise).
>
> Always avoid absolute claims :-)  I don't dispute that the long term
> perspective of data retention _tends_ to favor Free Software, but this
> isn't because said Software is free

No, WRT /data/ it'd be because the data /standards/ are Free.

But that's a different issue to software licensing.

> but because they use published or Open standards

I prefer Free Standards to Open Standards. The problem with things that
are ostensibly "open" is that they often impose secondary restrictions
that effectively render their freedom impotent, e.g. patents.

> for their data storage. AFAIC, there's no technological impediment to
> Commercial software following the same strategy...perhaps you can
> point it out?

I think you mean proprietary, otherwise you'd have to include software
like RHEL in that question. Both Free and proprietary software can use
Free (or even "Open") Standards, and of course there are actual examples
of both, however it's far more prevalent for proprietary software to use
closed standards, because it's specifically in the proprietary software
vendor's best interests to lock you into their software through
dependency, because such companies live by licensing, not services. 

And even in some cases where proprietary software vendors use supposedly
"Open" standards, those standards may be encumbered by other licensing
restrictions (patents), in an attempt to cause the same lock-in effect
through anti-competitive practises (e.g. ensure the competition must pay
royalties for their implementation of your patented technology, and thus
be at an immediate competitive disadvantage).

>>> For example, there's something like 500+ distinct implimentations of
>>> Linux OS
>>
>> No, actually there's just one: the current stable release.
>>
>> Assuming you're actually referring to GNU/Linux distros, rather than
>> the kernel, there's more like 300 current and active distros,
>> although it's difficult to keep tabs on something as pervasive as
>> Free Software.
>
> I was mostly referring to all of these different flavors, although
> Linux isn't the sole FOSS for an OS

Linux is just a kernel, a single component, nothing more. It happens to
be a fairly important component, but it's a component nonetheless.

> let alone even just a Unix-like OS, since there's also FreeBSD, GNU
> (if it ever really works), etc.

I think you mean the Hurd, not GNU. The Hurd is a kernel, GNU is an
operating system comprising all the most basic tools necessary to
operate computer hardware, (currently) minus the kernel, and is a
standard part of every GNU/Linux distribution, hence the name
"GNU/Linux". Examples of GNU/Linux distributions include Debian, Ubuntu,
Fedora, Slackware, Gentoo, and over 300 others. Since the Hurd is part
of the GNU project (along with many other programs), it's called the GNU
Hurd. IOW Hurd is a component of GNU, but one that's still incomplete
(and thus rarely used). Instead we use Linux, which is far more
complete, and indeed may be the most comprehensively complete kernel
available today on any platform, in terms of built-in support for
hardware and protocols.

>>> ... choosing the milestone of a major update as a metric for ongoing
>>> active support, how many of this ~500 have "passed" this metric
>>> within 2010?
>>
>> More than the total number of currently supported versions of
>> Windows, at least. Beyond that, I'd be guessing.
>>
>> But then it only takes one active GNU/Linux distro to provide a
>> viable alternative to Windows.
>
> True, but not particularly relevant to the discussion point of
> abandonment rates.

Well again this brings us back to your idea that GNU/Linux is likely to
disappear overnight in a puff of smoke. The license, and the
considerable vested interest in this software, means that it highly
unlikely.

I could ask the same question of Microsoft or Apple: what if they went
bankrupt? At least with Free Software, there's no dependency on any one
single vendor, especially given that one could actually become one's
/own/ "vendor". The Slackware project, for example, is largely a one man
operation run by Patrick Volkerding.

How would you, as a wannabe Patrick Volkerding, do that with Windows or
Mac OS X?

Your first problem would be the license: you'd be infringing Apple's or
Microsoft's copyright. Your second problem would be lack of sources to
actually do anything with (updates, new releases, bug fixes, security
patches). You could distribute Microsoft's stagnated binaries, in
violation of copyright, but that's it.

>> How many currently supported versions of Apple's operating systems
>> are there?
>
> Depending on how you want to count, either 2 or 4.   And FWIW, OS X is
> also a viable alternative to Windows OS, although it does come with
> its own caveats (such as a hardware reliance).

I assume OS X and OS X Server are the first two, and iOS is the third.
What's the fourth?

>> And what bearing does this have on the point you were responding to,
>> that the primary motive of proprietary software vendors is profit,
>> whereas the primary motive of Free Software is delivering results to its
>> users, and that therefore bug fixes and enhancements are more readily
>> forthcoming from Free Software?
>
> The point was that the support motivations are different, and just
> because you claim that the one model is superior does not magically
> make it so.   Testing of this claim was done by using Abandonment
> rates as a convenient metric to test your claim, and AFAIC, it hasn't
> yet passed muster.

But you haven't yet demonstrated any concrete evidence of any Free
Software actually being abandoned, or that this abandonment has
subsequently caused any person or company financial losses (or any other
significant difficulties). Again, you're just theorising.

I could theorise that the Earth will destroyed by a meteor, does that
mean that Earth is not a viable residence for humanity?  

>>> Truthfully, I have no idea, but my wild-ass guess is that it is
>>> probably less than 25 of those 500, which would suggest a pragmatic
>>> abandonment rate of 95%.   Anyone who feels up to it can go research
>>> the specifics and report back.
>>
>> Except software cannot possibly be "abandoned" if it's Free
>> (license), because it will always be there for anyone who actually
>> needs it.
>
> Except - - and as you've already pointed out - - this aspect of "be
> there" can very much include necessitating that the user who needs it
> has to go set up his own programming shop, on his own nickel.

This is still better than the alternative of having nothing. And I think
you're also grossly overstating the difficulties involved. For a start,
the Free Software, as inherited from its previous maintainer, will
already be complete and functioning (otherwise this company would not be
using it in the first place), therefore they'll initially have very
little to do. Software that worked yesterday, will still work tomorrow.

Even I could preserve the use of even a large software project in
maintenance mode, for an indefinite period of time, without too much
difficulty. "Setting up a programming shop" would only be necessary to
drive the software forward, for the purpose of maintaining compatibility
with updated dependencies, adding functionality, fixing bugs, etc.

If this were Free Software, and in particular if this were software
that's useful beyond the scope of just that one company, then there's a
very high probability that the company would receive help and
contributions from the community.

Put it this way: show me an example of even /one/ company-owned Free
Software project that receives no help from the community.

How much money and effort do you suppose it takes Apple to maintain
CUPS, for example?

> FWIW, one can observe Apple's actions of developing OS X and conclude
> that this was precisely what they did ... and yet, because they kept
> proprietary that which they spent their own money on, they get reamed
> by the Free Software movement.

The problem with Apple is not uniquely because they use proprietary
software licensing, which is no different to what any other proprietary
software company does. I can't speak for the whole Free Software
movement on this matter, but here are my personal reasons for disliking
Apple:

1. I dislike proprietary software for all the reasons I've made clear
   here (and many more beyond the scope of this discussion), regardless
   of which vendor produces that software

2. I dislike those who exploit the patent system, and particularly those
   who do so aggressively. Fundamentally, I dislike patents, but
   moreover I dislike the mentality that causes people to use them, and
   the sort of people such a system invariably attracts (vultures)

3. I dislike companies that behave aggressively in general, such as
   those who misuse law enforcement officers as private security
   contractors, to break into people's homes to look for missing
   property, or those who invoke DMCA takedown notices to silence
   reporters. In general, I dislike companies that behave more like
   gangsters than businesses

4. I dislike Steve Jobs for making vicious threats against altruistic
   projects, such as the non-profit Xiph organisation, to "come after" them
   with unfounded legal threats. There have been other instances where I
   felt repulsed by Jobs' attitude, but that one is by far the most
   prominent

5. I dislike OS X's aesthetic and engineering design, and Apple's
   Draconian control of the software. I need software to look and work the
   way I want it to, not the way Apple wants it to

6. I find Apple supporters rather blinkered and condescending, but then
   objectively I suppose that criticism could be levelled at anyone
   committed to a particular system, including me


Of course most of the above criticisms also apply to Microsoft, only an
order of megnitude more so.

> Precisely why is that? If I spent my own money, why shouldn't I have
> the right to decide if I share or not?

Well again, the answer is not specific to Apple, and indeed everyone's
answer will be different. My full answer to that question would occupy
several pages, and this thread is already growing exponentially, so I
prefer to stay on topic. A quick Google (Groups) for any Usenet article
I've written containing the phrase "Intellectual Monopoly" should yield
the answer.

>> The ongoing issues people continue to have with Windows would suggest
>> otherwise, as well as comments by Intel and HP regarding poor
>> adoption of Windows 7.
>
> Which doesn't have bearing on the rate of change, as measured by
> 'major' OS updates.

I'm not sure what pertinent point you're trying to establish, given that
the whole point of this thread is the difference in costs between
GNU/Linux and proprietary operating systems.

Whatever the "rate of change" WRT GNU/Linux upgrades, they're free, so
it really doesn't make any difference either way, either to the users or
the Free Software developers (and vendors).

>> Even by Microsoft's own admission, XP is a grossly insecure and
>> unstable product, that also lacks support for newer technologies
>> introduced with Vista and 7, and yet users need support for their
>> existing hardware and applications that don't work under later
>> releases. They also seem to be complaining about Vista/7 performance
>> issues.
>
> Yet 60% of the base sticks with XP nevertheless.   Reconcile.

Yes, for the reasons I stated.

>> It's quite a dilemma: a buggy, insecure, archaic, but faster and more
>> compatible operating system, vs. a slightly more stable, slightly
>> more secure, updated, but much slower and incompatible operating
>> system.
>>
>> Like I said, I don't have that dilemma.
>
> Are you sure about that?   Please start by at least clarify which
> trade-off decision you made within your above description:  did you
> choose security, or did you opt for speed?

I don't have that dilemma either. I get both.

>> For me, that "tiny slice" equates to the entirety of my TCO, except
>> factors common to all platforms.
>
> All factors which you try to ignore.

No, the factors that relate to my actual experience.

You cannot possibly know what /I/ spend.

If you have a specific example, then let's hear it.

>>> Incorrect, since the lifecycle costs of any software - - regardless
>>> of its *license* cost - - are not capable of being zero.
>>
>> They are for me.
>
> "...except factors common to all platforms."

Correct. Which in my case is a matter of pennies per month in running
costs (electricity), and my time (which as I said, actually makes me
money using these tools).

Again, if you have any specific examples of something you think I've
missed, let's see them.

>> There have been a couple of occasions when the duration of a power
>> cut exceeded the capacity of my UPS, though. Does that count?
>
> Everything counts.

But that's not a software related expense, and thus cannot be used as a
differentiator. Would a power cut cost me any less if I was running
Windows?

>> So what exactly is a "(cough) freebee", if not "pirate" software?
>
> Patches and other fixes to the product.

Well I would certainly /hope/ they'd be free, just as they are with
GNU/Linux.

> Apparently, you missed the sarcasm - it is hard to believe
> that anyone who has vast experience with Windows doesn't know what
> Patch Tuesday is.

I've just never heard of it referred to as a "(cough) freebee" before.
But then I'm used to all my software, including updates, being free, so
I naturally don't see anything contentious about it. I might have got
the quip had it been '(cough) "updates"', since many of Microsoft's
updates cause more problems than they're supposed to solve, but I'd
never really thought about the fact that they're free.

>> Consider the Fedora system I began this discussion with, for example.
>> One PC, 13 OS upgrades. How many PCs would survive 13 consecutive
>> Windows upgrades, and still be hardware-compatible?
>
> This continues to assume that a "major" Fedora is really equal to
> other OS "majors"

And you assume that it's not.

The difference is, I've used both, so I don't need to make assumptions.

Have you used all 13 (now 14) versions of Fedora, and tracked its
changes?

> and that Windows is the only possible alternative OS.

Well I can ask the same question of Mac OS X if you like, but the answer
might be hampered by the fact that not every version of OS X was
architecturally compatible with i386 hardware, so it wouldn't really be
a fair comparison. But If we use Mac hardware for the comparison, cira
2000 (the same age as this PC), then how many versions of Mac OS X
upgrades would that machine have remained compatible with?

> The first assumption is weak

My personal experience is not an assumption.

> and the second is indisputably wrong.

Except I didn't make any assumption, I simply didn't discuss the Mac at
all.

>> Well since my financial investment in Free Software is zero (barring
>> costs common to all platforms), then /any/ return on that investment is
>> bound to be profitable.
>
> And I'm immortal ... (barring any factors that contribute to my future
> death).

But again, you're trying to include common factors, which therefore have
no bearing as differentiators. It's like claiming 1+2+3 != 1+5 because
I'm "ignoring" the common factor of "1". It's the same on both sides of
the equations, and therefore has no relevance to differentiation. So why
included common factors in a cost /comparison/?

Certainly I'm aware there are costs, but what relevance has the cost of
a teapot or water cooler have to the difference between the cost of
Windows vs. GNU/Linux?

>> As for productivity, that depends on my skills, not my tools, given a
>> baseline of tools that actually function correctly...
>
> And my PC's copy of Photoshop is free ... given a baseline of existing
> software licenses which includes Photoshop.

Sorry, but that's complete logical fallacy. I can choose Free Software
tools that function correctly, you cannot choose to get Photoshop for
free, unless your "choice" is to break the law.

>> Since I only use tools that work, then my productivity isn't impacted
>> either way by updates, unless those updates cause those tools to
>> cease functioning correctly.
>
> And this includes using a hammer to open a can of paint ... afterall
> it can be MADE to work, eventually.

Well that rather arrogantly presumes that the tools I use are not
suitable for my tasks, which they certainly are.

> Thus, there's never any need for us ever to be concerned about
> possible differences in productivity between different tools

I'm concerned to the extent that proprietary tools, and the Windows
platform in general, have not helped my productivity, but my assertion
above was WRT updates, not different tools. I've already chosen the most
productive tools, what happens thereafter is purely down to my skills.

> because we can simply assume it all away by claiming that there's
> never any difference

There is a difference, but that difference was settled the moment I made
my choice. And that choice was made based on long-term experience.

> Golly, that makes everything in life so much simpler for me.

GNU/Linux has made everything in /my/ life so much simpler for /me/, at
least those things related to computing.

>> As and when new tools (or technologies in general) become available,
>> I consider using them...
>
> Research Time = cost.

Which again is a common factor to all platforms, and thus cannot be used
as any sort of differentiator.

If I spend a day testing a new GNU/Linux application, and I spend the
next day testing a new Windows application, which one of those two days
cost me more money?

> Yeah, I know your non-Holistic viewpoint answer.  It is:  "IGNORE!"

You seem to think that every expense in life can be used as a cost
differentiator for unrelated expenses. It's quite bizarre.

>>> [We] don't buy PCs merely to burn electricity so that we can stare
>>> at its OS, but rather we invest in many dimensions of it so as to
>>> accomplish certain value-added activities
>>
>> Sorry, but that's just meaningless managerial gobbledegook.
>
> Translation:  we use PCs in order to do something.

Yes, and so do I. So what was your point?

>>> and at higher productivity rates than other alternatives.
>>
>> I spent years using those alternatives, and it was precisely because
>> of those alternatives' lack of productivity that I switched to
>> GNU/Linux.
>
> Even those older alternatives replaced less productive tasks, or else
> you would have never adopted them in the first place.

Actually those "older alternatives" (i.e. Windows) replaced far /more/
productive tools that I used to accomplish on DEC Workstations running
UNIX. It's just that, at that later time, Windows PC's were somewhat
easier to come by.

>>> For example, consider how much money you would have had to have
>>> spent last month if every email you sent had used the technological
>>> alternative of a conventional "snail mail" letter: within the USA,
>>> it would have cost you roughly 50 cents (44 cents postage + 6 cents
>>> paper & envelope).
>>
>> That theoretical argument has no bearing on GNU/Linux or Free
>> Software in general, since I /am/ obviously able to send E-mails.
>
> Its not theoretical at all:  you're simply failing to recognize where
> technologies exist.  The example here was that the Postal System is a
> technology.  So too is the telephone.  Both simply happen to be
> examples of pre-digital technologies.

Talking about conditions that don't exist, is clearly theoretical. There
is E-Mail, I am able to send E-Mail, and I'm able to do so using the
Free Software tools available, which are free.

Here's another hypothesis: what would you do if Apple didn't exist?

Is there in fact any pertinent point to such questions?

>> The fact is I used Windows for years, and it cost me far too much
>> time, trouble and expense to be a viable solution. Moreover, the
>> system worked against me more often than it worked for my benefit. It
>> was slow, unstable, insecure, unmanageable, unpredictable, and
>> (ironically) incompatible with much of its own applications.
>
> Oh, please don't assume that I'm defending Windows.

I'm not, I'm merely detailing my experiences of the "alternatives" you
think I ought to consider. I have far less experience using Mac OS X,
therefore I have very little to say on that subject, beyond the fact
that it isn't Free Software, and is therefore of no interest to me.

>> In short, switching to GNU/Linux was an absolute necessity, even if
>> it had cost me thousands to do so. As it turns out, it cost me
>> nothing, and the savings I've made as a result are incalculable.
>
> Actually, your savings can be calculated :-)

It's a figure of speech. I'm sure I could make the effort of making that
calculation, but the fact is it would serve no useful purpose. The
figure is bound to be greater than zero, and therefore I've profited,
but then I've profited in ways that far exceed mere finances too. I have
a more pleasant working environment, that affords me better security and
privacy, and I get to be part of a community that expounds the virtues
of Freedom, which is very rewarding in itself.

>> That's a rather euphemistic spin on the fact that people cannot
>> upgrade to something that's incompatible with their applications and
>> hardware, and don't want to upgrade to something that's more bloated
>> and slow than their existing system, no matter what other
>> improvements it might bring.
>
> Sorry, but its not a "cannot" impossible task:  it is very much
> doable, but merely incurs a transition cost.

But who would actually /want/ to "upgrade" to something that's bloated,
slow and incompatible with their existing applications, at /any/ cost?
 
>> I'm sure that's a factor for Windows, but it isn't necessarily a
>> factor for GNU/Linux. I can upgrade most GNU/Linux systems to the
>> next major release without even interrupting my work - I just let it
>> install in the background. The same goes for interim updates, in fact
>> I don't even need to reboot, unless one of those updates was the
>> kernel, and even then I can just continue with my current session
>> indefinitely, until I actually want to use that new kernel.
>
> The computational resources of all PCs are finite

But I actually get to /use/ at least some of those "finite" resources
during the upgrade process, Windows users do not. So again, if you're
going to use this as a differentiator, it's one that favours GNU/Linux.

And just so you don't feel left out, let me ask: how does the Mac OS X
upgrade process work? Are you able to continue using the Mac while the
OS is being upgraded to the next major release?

> Bottom line is that there's no such thing as a free lunch, ever.

You're looking at costs in isolation, I'm looking at them as
differentiators, to determine which is /more/ expensive. So far you've
yet to demonstrate anything that's more expensive about Free Software.

>>> They're using Photoshop ... so perhaps you're the one missing out :-)
>>
>> A grossly overrated and overpriced product, that is undeservedly used
>> as a benchmark by people who mostly don't even use it. I have, and I
>> was largely unimpressed, except by the price.
>
> Yet it has capabilities that GIMP lacks.

Capabilities for which I have no need or interest. As I said, I've
already chosen the best tools for what I need to accomplish.

> As such, when one's work requires these capabilities

But they don't, so it's a moot point.

> if one tries to substitute with GIMP, not only does  your productivity
> drop, but so too the quality of your output.

Except my productivity didn't drop, in fact it increased, because the
tools I now use facilitate a degree of automation that I couldn't
accomplish with Photoshop, but can be accomplished using ImageMagick.

>> But as I've just explained, not all "upgrades" require new hardware.
>> Case in point, the PC that's had 13 Fedora upgrades.
>
> And my PC has had somewhere around ... 37?   Its just an arbitrary
> number which doesn't necessarily have any bearing on how the system
> affords value-added, nor how productive it has been.

Except 13 upgrades is not an arbitrary number, it is in fact the actual
number of upgrades the PC has had, and the "value added" to that is at
least comparable to the value of whatever time and money I would have
wasted trying to use Windows productively over the same period of time.

>> I upgrade my hardware when it dies with a puff of blue smoke, and not
>> before. And even then, I'm more inclined to pull out my soldering
>> iron than my wallet.
>
> If so, then you're ignoring ROI here too.

A PC that remains productive for 10 years (and counting) represents a
pretty damned good ROI.

>>> You'll invariably find that they're less reliant on having nothing
>>> less than the newest hardware.
>>
>> And are also invariably incompatible with the currently supported
>> release of Windows.
>
> So simply run the older & unsupported OS.  Afterall, a game is merely
> for _entertainment_, which isn't particularly a mission-critical
> element.

But regardless of the type of software, the point is that it's
incompatible with the current OS, which means one needs to make a choice
between upgrading but losing compatibility, or keeping compatibility but
missing out on access to new technology present in the upgraded OS. Or
to put even more simply: run needed applications, or run new OS, but not
both.

What I'm saying is, I don't have that dilemma with Free Software,
because every application and game is rebuilt right along with the OS,
then packaged and distributed for me to install or update.

>> Is there a shop that sells Photoshop for zero dollars, because if not
>> then it's always going to be more expensive than the Free Software
>> alternatives?
>
> "Free" isn't a feature when the trade-off is that it doesn't do what
> you need.

But the free software I use /does/ do what I need, so I'm not making a
trade-off.

>>>> Then add $200 + inflation for each Photoshop upgrade thereafter,
>>>> and similarly for the other applications and the OS itself.
>>
>>> But this ignores my comment about value assessment
>>
>> More gibberish.
>
> Translation:  more that you don't understand, and choose not to even
> try to understand.

No, translation: some vague reference to "value" means nothing to me,
when I already have what I need, and it cost me nothing. I've done my
"assessment", and I've made my choice.

>> The "value" of the software I use is that it works, without crashing or
>> becoming infected by viruses, without slowing the system down to a
>> crawl, without getting in my way with pointless distractions, and
>> without ridiculous over-engineering that nonetheless offers little in
>> the way of automation. If it doesn't work, then I move on to something
>> that does, and then stick with it.
>
> But does this "something that does" criteria include stuff that isn't
> free?

Well since the next likely candidate will be whatever I find next in my
distro's repo, unlikely, since I've yet to have a problem finding Free
Software that fits my needs. But this is, once again, all theoretical,
since my needs are already met.

> I suspect not, and that's where you're cutting your nose off to spite
> your face.

You seem to think I have no experience of the alternatives. As I've said
before, it's precisely because of that experience that I switched to
GNU/Linux. 

Anyway, what do you care what OS I use?

>> ... I learn how to use those tools, then I spend the rest of my time
>> productively using them. The combination of those tools and my skills
>> then produces a result which has some value.
>
> And again, if a commercial tool provides MORE value - - but at a
> fiscal ($$) cost, is it out of consideration?

But they don't, so it's a moot point.

>> Given the amount of time I wasted trying (and failing) to get results
>> using Windows software, everything I use, from the simplest component
>> like Bash, has an order of magnitude more value to me than anything I
>> ever used under Windows, despite the fact that it's all available for
>> free, and Windows applications can cost hundreds or thousands.  
>
> Linux wasn't your sole alternative to Windows.

It was the only alternative compatible with my hardware. I'm disinclined
to buy a new computer just to switch operating systems. Not only did I
save money on a new computer, and on a new OS, but I also ended up with
something that suited both my technical and ideological needs.

>> No it doesn't ignore skip upgrading, because no matter how many
>> commercial upgrades you skip, you're still always paying more than zero
>> (unless you skip /all/ the upgrades indefinitely). Even then, you still
>> have the original full license cost at some point.
>
> Keep on holding on to your wallet!

I think it slipped down the side of my six grand leather sofa.

I just don't see the point of spending more to get less, and I don't see
the point of throwing something away that still works. I guess I just
don't fit the profile of an archetypal consumer.

Why is it so important to you that I spend money on software?

> Someday, you might actually have to pay for something.

Sure, but I can guarantee it won't be Windows or a Mac.

>>> For example, I'm still running Photoshop CS (CS1) on one of my
>>> machines, because it doesn't need anything more than that.  Thus, it
>>> has avoided $800 in license upgrades.
>>
>> Whereas I'm running the latest versions of Krita, Gimp and
>> ImageMagick for free, on a ten year old PC. I didn't need to consider
>> whether I could afford that upgrade, or whether the hardware was
>> capable. I didn't need to do anything beyond issue a single command,
>> then run the programs.
>
> That's right:  you simply did without certain capabilities.

No, I got exactly what I needed. How do you know what capabilities /I/
need?

> As such, your productivity on certain tasks was -- and remains --
> ZERO, because those tools simply lack certain capabilities.

Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. The tools I use
provide me with exactly what I need for my work and recreation. I simply
don't want or need anything else, especially when the alternatives are
both technically and ideologically inferior.

> "For one of my activities, the PC could cost $1000 --> and even
> another $1000 for Photoshop <--, and yet that still would be
> considered to be a "minor peripheral" for the overall system whose
> capability it supports."

As fascinating as your shopping list is, what relevance does it have to
me accomplishing my goals using old hardware and Free Software, other
than to prove the point that your solution cost more than mine?

>> See if you can guess which of the above two licenses I prefer.
>
> Oh, the answer is obvious:  you'll take the one that you think is
> better, and the only criteria that you seem to have is that its
> capital purchase price must be "Free"

No, my criteria is that it must be technologically and ideologically
superior to the alternatives, which in my experience so far means that
it must be a GNU/Linux solution and Free (license), but at any
reasonable cost. It turns out that the most reasonable cost for which I
can accomplish that goal - is zero. All other factors are common to all
platforms, and are therefore not differentiators.

> even if it doesn't offer capabilities

But it does, so case closed.

> that could allow you to be more productive, etc, etc.

It does that too.

> This is merely a perpetuation of your non-holistic view on TCO and
> ROI.

Where are these "holistics" that you keep referring to? I don't use
holistics, I use Free Software.

>>> If having Photoshop permits one to be 10% more productive than GIMP
>>
>> That's a big "if"...
>
> It was explicitly a notional example.   Change the 10% to 1% and the
> ROI simply becomes 1000 man-hours (6 months)...in some business cases,
> it's still worth spending the money.

The "if" I was referring to was in reference to the phrase "more
productive", not the specific value.

The fact is Photoshop is of no value to me. Get over it.

>>> (for example), then the ROI calculation that justifies (or perhaps
>>> not) having Photoshop is very straightforward.
>>
>> Yes it's very straightforward. I don't need it.
>
> Feel free to keep believing that

How can you claim to know what I need better than I do?

> ... it is to my competitive advantage :-)

Really? So what sort of horticultural supplies do /you/ sell then?

>>> For a notional example, assuming $1000 for Photoshop and a burdened
>>> labor rate of $100/hr, a 10% gain in productivity will pay for itself
>>> in roughly 100 man-hours (2.5 weeks).
>>
>> What's the productivity gain for using a software platform that
>> doesn't crash, get infected by viruses, require constant reboots,
>> gradually slow down more and more with each passing day, and finally
>> gives up with a BSOD, then require reinstalling from scratch, because
>> no clear cause for the problem can be determined by anyone, only to
>> repeat that cycle again and again for the entire lifespan of that
>> platform?
>>
>> What's the productivity gain for using a system that easily
>> facilitates the complete automation of every task, such that nearly
>> everything in a given project can be accomplished with a single
>> command (or even without any intervention, using schedules)?
>>
>> What's the productivity gain of always having free access to the
>> latest developments in a Free Software application, regardless of how
>> much one can afford, and regardless of the type or age of one's
>> computer system?
>>
>> What's the productivity gain of being able to customise my working
>> environment down to the smallest detail, to the extent of essentially
>> creating my own unique work "tool" that exactly fits my working
>> methods?
>
> Sorry, but you've already claimed that you "don't need" any of that,

But that is exactly what I do now using Free Software.

> nor to spend any time figuring out if you're actually saving money.

I spend the same (or less) on the peripheral costs as those on other
platforms, and zero on software. X > 0 is a pretty easy calculation to
make. But if you have any actual examples of how I could cut that cost
down below zero, I'd be happy to hear them. 

> As far as you're concerned you are, and that's what makes you happy.

Thanks, I am.

> From that perspective, then do feel free to remain ensconced within
> your personal comfort zone and resist all temptation to venture out.

You mean that technically and ideologically superior "comfort zone" that
costs me nothing, makes me lots of money, and keeps me so happy?

OK.

-- 
K.                           | [ubuntu]
http://slated.org            | 
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   | 1. Ancient African word meaning
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 44 days  |    'I can't configure Debian'

Homer stated in post ch99s7-cet.ln1@sky.matrix on 11/27/10 11:30 PM:

> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
>> On Nov 27, 1:02�am, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
>>> 
>>>> On Nov 25, 10:23�pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
> 
>>> You can apply any subjective criteria you want. At the end of the day
>>> I get more and/or better software than I had previously. Anyone who
>>> disagrees with that, will obviously not feel compelled to upgrade.
>> 
>> "Better"...except for whatever legacy capabilities it broke (which you
>> did agree happens).
> 
> But that means something rather different in the context of Free
> Software, compared to a Windows update, because the "breakage" only
> occurs if there's a mixture of old and new components, and if you've
> /upgraded/ then that won't be the case. This is why such things are not
> provided as interim updates, because it requires a substantial change to
> the whole system to accommodate it without breakage. With Free Software,
> this upgrade will encompass /everything/, including all applications and
> games, but with something like Windows it only covers Microsoft's OS,
> and you're still stuck with (potentially) incompatible third-party
> applications and games (unless and until those third-parties provide
> their own updates, which they may or may not do). Any software that's no
> longer supported by the vendor, will eventually no longer work, and you
> will have no recourse to do anything about it. Had it been Free
> Software, then you would.

You are assuming the user restricts his choice to the software available in
the repository.  And you are assuming all of the software in the
repositories is compatable - which it is not fully.  If nothing else, there
is almost always (always?) a mix of native and non-native software (a mix of
KDE, Gnome and other.  As even folks such as Peter have noted, it is not
suggested you mix these unless you have to.

> In terms of "capabilities", nothing in a GNU/Linux distro should be
> "broken" as a /normal/ condition of upgrading, and any losses (typically
> referred to as "depreciated packages") only occur because something
> better has been found as a replacement (or it simply isn't necessary any
> more, e.g. a workaround is dropped, because a bug was fixed).
> 
> You need to understand that when the software is Free (license) then
> every distributor can be the publisher for /every/ available
> application, not just their own, and as such they are then free to build
> all those applications together on the same system (a buildsystem), thus
> ensuring dependencies are consistent. What you download from Debian or
> Fedora is not a collection binary bits, harvested from disparate sources
> then shovelled into a CD, it's something that's all been built together
> organically on one system. The potential for incompatibilities is
> therefore virtually eliminated, barring accidents or bugs.

Utter BS: no desktop distro manager makes all of the software that goes into
their distro.  None.

> In order for Microsoft to achieve the same thing with Windows, they'd
> need to buy every third-party proprietary Windows software publisher in
> the world, then build all that software together on one system, every
> time they made any changes to the OS. Of course, not every single
> component would necessarily have to be rebuilt every time (mass
> rebuild), but Microsoft would at least need this "repo" in place, to
> allow for the necessary rebuild of components as and when their
> dependencies changed.

Nope.  No more than Ubuntu needs to take over all packages it ships with.
....
>> FWIW, one can observe Apple's actions of developing OS X and conclude
>> that this was precisely what they did ... and yet, because they kept
>> proprietary that which they spent their own money on, they get reamed
>> by the Free Software movement.
> 
> The problem with Apple is not uniquely because they use proprietary
> software licensing, which is no different to what any other proprietary
> software company does. I can't speak for the whole Free Software
> movement on this matter, but here are my personal reasons for disliking
> Apple:

Keep in mind as we read this list that Apple tops satisfaction surveys on
desktop computers, notebooks, pads, smart phones and, I believe, MP3
players.  In other words, their products are very much liked - more than the
products of any of their competitors in any major market they are in.

> 1. I dislike proprietary software for all the reasons I've made clear
>    here (and many more beyond the scope of this discussion), regardless
>    of which vendor produces that software

You think some property should be communal for reasons you cannot support.
Got it.

> 2. I dislike those who exploit the patent system, and particularly those
>    who do so aggressively. Fundamentally, I dislike patents, but
>    moreover I dislike the mentality that causes people to use them, and
>    the sort of people such a system invariably attracts (vultures)

Apple does do this from time to time... as do its competitors.  I do think
the system is very broken.

> 3. I dislike companies that behave aggressively in general, such as
>    those who misuse law enforcement officers as private security
>    contractors, to break into people's homes to look for missing
>    property, or those who invoke DMCA takedown notices to silence
>    reporters. In general, I dislike companies that behave more like
>    gangsters than businesses

I am sure you can show where Apple has done as you accuse?  What?  No?  Esp.
the first is just silly.  Apple did no such thing.

> 4. I dislike Steve Jobs for making vicious threats against altruistic
>    projects, such as the non-profit Xiph organisation, to "come after" them
>    with unfounded legal threats. There have been other instances where I
>    felt repulsed by Jobs' attitude, but that one is by far the most
>    prominent

What threats did he make?

> 5. I dislike OS X's aesthetic and engineering design, and Apple's
>    Draconian control of the software. I need software to look and work the
>    way I want it to, not the way Apple wants it to

There are benefits to both consistency and to the more chaotic system of
Linux.  No problem there.

> 6. I find Apple supporters rather blinkered and condescending, but then
>    objectively I suppose that criticism could be levelled at anyone
>    committed to a particular system, including me

At least you include yourself.  But, sure, I prefer my "take" - use what
works best for you / for the job and, if you consider yourself a techie,
learn each of the systems at least somewhat.
....


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Verily I say unto thee, that TomB spake thusly:
> On 2010-11-27, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> TomB stated in post 20101127110634.81@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/27/10 3:38
>> AM:
>>>
>>>> OSS seems to be very good at "back end" stuff and rather poor - in
>>>> general - with user interfaces.

But the best "user interfaces" are not necessarily graphical.

>>> Just like Homer, that's not my experience. I have yet to come
>>> accross an interface that serves me better than the one I'm using on
>>> GNU/Linux.
>>
>> Compare VLC with QuickTime.
>
> I'm interested in neither. I use mplayer.

Ditto.

WRT QuickTime, WMP, or any other multimedia software I used under
Windows, one of the first things I miss is proper keyboard controls.

>> Compare OpenOffice with MS Office.
>
> I'm sure OO is weaker in same areas than MSO

I use a superior solution to both: TeX. Nothing else even comes close to
the fine-grained level of control and quality of output.

>> Compare GIMP with Photoshop.
>
> I never found myself in a situation where I got stuck using The Gimp,

Again, I use neither (although Gimp is actually installed here). I
prefer ImageMagick, since it allows me to work on vast batches of files
automatically.

>> Where do you think OSS makes a good showing?

Automation, fine-granularity of control, quality of results, speed,
interoperability, customisable integration with my workflow, absence of
useless distractions, responsiveness, multi-tasking, simplicity,
efficiency, security, stability, price, and ideology.

But apart from that, hardly anything at all.

> In particular with the stuff I cannot get on other operating systems
> (see many past posts for examples).

I filled in the blanks. :)

-- 
K.                           | [ubuntu]
http://slated.org            | 
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   | 1. Ancient African word meaning
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 44 days  |    'I can't configure Debian'

Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:

> Probably the most commonly heard complaint with Gimp is its
> shortcomings in supporting the CMYK color model

OTOH, Krita has supported CMYK since version 1.5:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krita#Version_1.5_release

-- 
K.                           | [ubuntu]
http://slated.org            | 
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   | 1. Ancient African word meaning
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 44 days  |    'I can't configure Debian'

On 2010-11-28, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> TomB stated in post 20101128010924.899@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/27/10 5:18
> PM:
>
>> On 2010-11-27, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> TomB stated in post 20101127110634.81@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/27/10 3:38
>>> AM:
>>> 
>>>> Percentage of the software cost = 31%.
>>> 
>>> Might I suggest you read this:
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_cost_of_ownership>
>>> 
>>> You left out *all* infrastructure costs (other than electricity)
>> 
>> Not all those costs are generally accepted as TCO. Floor space is one
>> of them.
>
> Ah, even though we were talking about ROI I admit I was thinking in terms of
> TCO.  Still, TCO includes the total gain from the item - and I think ... I
> *hope* most people gain a lot more than what they spend when it comes to
> computer systems.

This may be true in situations where there's a strong dependence on
'de facto' industry standards such as MSO or Photoshop (regardless of
the capabilities of the software itself), but there are a lot of
situations where GNU/Linux (or another free alternative) would be as
viable as the proprietary solution. I literally use hair over the fact
that my IT manager tends to propose Windows as the solution to every
situation without looking at it on a case by case basis. It's
basically company policy to use Windows and other MS products, even in
siituation where free software would be the better option, at least
wrt cost and licensing.

Some examples:

The users in one of our divisions only use their computers for
accessing a number of web-based applications and do very simple
spreadsheets. Since one of those web-based applications do not work
well with IE (!) they use Fx accross the board. Yet they all get a PC
with Win7 and the full standard MSO suite. There's however no reason
why GNU/Linux wouldn't serve them equally well, saving us a lot of
money. I've tried to push at least OO over MSO for this group of
users, but failed (reason: MSO is company policy).

That same division has a dedicated machine for FTP access. The *only*
application used on this machine is Filezilla, which works equally
well on GNU/Linux. They also need access to CIFS shares on the company
network from this PC, which also isn't a problem with GNU/Linux (I'm
even inclined to say to GNU/Linux offers *more* flexibility in this
regard).

Then there's the server I talked about earlier, having for near to
3000 EUR of MS software on it, yet everything the MS-SQL server is
used for could easily be done with MySQL too (it's basically just a
couple of simple CMS databases with a PHP front-end). The programmer
responsible for this software even prefers working with MySQL, but the
pointy-haired IT manager made MS-SQL 'company policy'. At least I
managed to convince him to use Debian for the http server part of the
set-up, instead of going for IIS (saved the company 500 EUR there).
And the funny thing of this entire joke is that we have a MySQL server
running anyway (two actually, one master for production and one slave
for back-ups) because we're using Mantis and Bugzilla).

You'd be surprised how many pointy-haired IT managers rely on MS just
because it is the big household name. Thinking that MS is generally
selected because it gains more than it costs, because it is /really/
needed, is very naive.

> I look forward to when desktop Linux truly competes with
> the alternatives in terms of ease of use, error reduction, etc.  Right now,
> for most people, this does not seem to be the case (as even Shuttleworth has
> noted).

-- 
Military justice is to justice what military music is to music.
	~ Groucho Marx

Homer pulled this Usenet face plant:

> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
>
>> Probably the most commonly heard complaint with Gimp is its
>> shortcomings in supporting the CMYK color model
>
> OTOH, Krita has supported CMYK since version 1.5:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krita#Version_1.5_release

Fairly easy to install both and hop between them, I would imagine.

Anyway, this is probably a thorough story about CMYK in the GIMP:

   https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/CMYK_support_in_The_GIMP

   Gimp still lacks full CMYK color model support. The ability to separate
   and then edit an image in CMYK mode is still a long way down the list of
   features to be added (if on the list at all). However, there is a plug-in
   called Separate that offers a partial solution to the problem. 

By the way, check out the gimp-plugin-registry package (Debian).  It
contains a couple of CMYK plugins, including Separate+.

-- 
As to house maintenance, does it involve problem solfing?  If so,
your hacker can safely be left to deall with the panning (for the
musement value, if nothering ese).
		-- Telsa Gwynne

TomB pulled this Usenet face plant:

> This may be true in situations where there's a strong dependence on 'de
> facto' industry standards such as MSO or Photoshop (regardless of the
> capabilities of the software itself), but there are a lot of
> situations where GNU/Linux (or another free alternative) would be as
> viable as the proprietary solution. I literally use  [lose] hair over the
> fact that my IT manager tends to propose Windows as the solution to every
> situation without looking at it on a case by case basis. It's basically
> company policy to use Windows and other MS products, even in siituation
> where free software would be the better option, at least wrt cost and
> licensing.

Nuts, ain't it?

> (reason: MSO is company policy).

Nuts, ain't it?

> Then there's the server I talked about earlier, having for near to
> 3000 EUR of MS software on it, yet everything the MS-SQL server is
> used for could easily be done with MySQL too (it's basically just a
> couple of simple CMS databases with a PHP front-end). The programmer
> responsible for this software even prefers working with MySQL, but the
> pointy-haired IT manager made MS-SQL 'company policy'.

Nuts, ain't it?

> At least I managed to convince him to use Debian for the http server part
> of the set-up, instead of going for IIS (saved the company 500 EUR there).
> And the funny thing of this entire joke is that we have a MySQL server
> running anyway (two actually, one master for production and one slave for
> back-ups) because we're using Mantis and Bugzilla).

Nuts, ain't it?

> You'd be surprised how many pointy-haired IT managers rely on MS just
> because it is the big household name. Thinking that MS is generally
> selected because it gains more than it costs, because it is /really/
> needed, is very naive.

It's nuts.

-- 
Mate, this parrot wouldn't VOOM if you put four million volts through it!
		-- Monty Python

On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 07:13:01 +0000, Homer chinwagged:

> Verily I say unto thee, that TomB spake thusly:
>> On 2010-11-27, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> TomB stated in post 20101127110634.81@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/27/10
>>> 3:38 AM:

>>
>> I'm sure OO is weaker in same areas than MSO
> 
> I use a superior solution to both: TeX. Nothing else even comes close to
> the fine-grained level of control and quality of output.

I've been experimenting with LyX as a possibility for typesetting my 
music appreciation textbook. I wasn't impressed with the OpenOffice 
import for it, but once I cleaned up the file, I liked everything except 
that I couldn't get pictures with wrapped text. Pictures were always 
centered by themselves with captions. I'm sure there's a solution to 
that, but I decided I'm going to finish the content before tweaking that.

>>> Compare GIMP with Photoshop.
>>
>> I never found myself in a situation where I got stuck using The Gimp,
> 
> Again, I use neither (although Gimp is actually installed here). I
> prefer ImageMagick, since it allows me to work on vast batches of files
> automatically.

GIMP's done what I needed, even though it's more complex than 
GraphicConverter for Mac.

>>> Where do you think OSS makes a good showing?
> 
> Automation, fine-granularity of control, quality of results, speed,
> interoperability, customisable integration with my workflow, absence of
> useless distractions, responsiveness, multi-tasking, simplicity,
> efficiency, security, stability, price, and ideology.
> 
> But apart from that, hardly anything at all.

I have really been impressed with Lilypond's music engraving output. 
Music publishers have asked me several times how I got those results with 
Finale so they could reproduce it. (It's not as simple as just using the 
Feta font instead of Maestro or Petrucci, since Lilypond uses a different 
paradigm for engraving than Finale--something the Lilypond developers 
explain on their website.)

Homer stated in post t0c9s7-m83.ln1@sky.matrix on 11/28/10 12:13 AM:

> Verily I say unto thee, that TomB spake thusly:
>> On 2010-11-27, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> TomB stated in post 20101127110634.81@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/27/10 3:38
>>> AM:
>>>> 
>>>>> OSS seems to be very good at "back end" stuff and rather poor - in
>>>>> general - with user interfaces.
> 
> But the best "user interfaces" are not necessarily graphical.

Is this an admission that the graphical user interfaces in OSS tend to not
be as good as others?

.... 
>>> Where do you think OSS makes a good showing?
> 
> Automation, 

GIMP does not handle that as well as Photoshop - Photoshop has recordable
macros.

> fine-granularity of control,

Which of the OSS programs I list give you better control than the
proprietary ones?

> quality of results,

While you can get good results from OO and GIMP, MSO and PS offer more tools
and the tools they have are *generally* done better - thus allowing for
better results (though with both programs a lot depends on the user... of
course!)

> speed,

Do you think OO is faster than MSO?  GIMP faster than PS?  I would love to
see support for this.

> interoperability,

With what?  PS and MSO both work very well with the de facto standards, and
PS with the "real" standards.

> customisable integration with my workflow,

Neither Windows nor Linux have anything like AppleScript / Automator which
allow for amazing workflow integration.

> absence of useless distractions,

Not sure what you are in reference to.

> responsiveness, 

I would like to see how the OSS programs listed are more responsive than MSO
/ PS

> multi-tasking, simplicity,
> efficiency, security, stability, price, and ideology.

You get points for "price"... as far as ideology, most people do not share
your view (most people do not think private property should be made
communal) 

> But apart from that, hardly anything at all.

The only one you can really support there, I bet, is "price".  Maybe
security... esp. with MSO.
 
>> In particular with the stuff I cannot get on other operating systems
>> (see many past posts for examples).
> 
> I filled in the blanks. :)



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

TomB stated in post 20101128121440.440@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/28/10 4:40
AM:

> On 2010-11-28, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> TomB stated in post 20101128010924.899@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/27/10 5:18
>> PM:
>> 
>>> On 2010-11-27, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>> TomB stated in post 20101127110634.81@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/27/10 3:38
>>>> AM:
>>>> 
>>>>> Percentage of the software cost = 31%.
>>>> 
>>>> Might I suggest you read this:
>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_cost_of_ownership>
>>>> 
>>>> You left out *all* infrastructure costs (other than electricity)
>>> 
>>> Not all those costs are generally accepted as TCO. Floor space is one
>>> of them.
>> 
>> Ah, even though we were talking about ROI I admit I was thinking in terms of
>> TCO.  Still, TCO includes the total gain from the item - and I think ... I
>> *hope* most people gain a lot more than what they spend when it comes to
>> computer systems.
> 
> This may be true in situations where there's a strong dependence on
> 'de facto' industry standards such as MSO or Photoshop (regardless of
> the capabilities of the software itself), but there are a lot of
> situations where GNU/Linux (or another free alternative) would be as
> viable as the proprietary solution.

I was not even thinking in terms of de facto standards - I was thinking in
terms of the capabilities of the software itself.  OpenOffice, for example,
handles number styles and cropping poorly in its word processor, handles
accounting notation poorly in its spreadsheet, etc.  GIMP lacks many
features which are important for an efficient workflow and sometimes even to
get excellent results (I posted a list recently).  This does not even
include UI issues - GIMP is pretty much known for its lousy UI (even though
some claim to like it).  OpenOffice has a lot of problems in that area, too.
Part of its problem is its attempt to copy MS Office.

> I literally use hair over the fact that my IT manager tends to propose Windows
> as the solution to every situation without looking at it on a case by case
> basis. It's basically company policy to use Windows and other MS products,
> even in siituation where free software would be the better option, at least
> wrt cost and licensing.

I have seen that too - and I think it is wrong.  There are many areas where
Linux (or OS X) offer better solutions.

> Some examples:
> 
> The users in one of our divisions only use their computers for
> accessing a number of web-based applications and do very simple
> spreadsheets. Since one of those web-based applications do not work
> well with IE (!) they use Fx accross the board. Yet they all get a PC
> with Win7 and the full standard MSO suite. There's however no reason
> why GNU/Linux wouldn't serve them equally well, saving us a lot of
> money. I've tried to push at least OO over MSO for this group of
> users, but failed (reason: MSO is company policy).

MSO is likely company policy for compatibility reasons.  Even if the
spreadsheets are simple, having to train people on the two products and
having people share files will lead to trouble.  So you pick a product that
works not just for a small group but that will work best for the majority of
people - and I have no problem believing MSO does that better.  Also, with a
site license they likely paid little if anything extra to have MSO on those
machines.
 
> That same division has a dedicated machine for FTP access. The *only*
> application used on this machine is Filezilla, which works equally
> well on GNU/Linux. They also need access to CIFS shares on the company
> network from this PC, which also isn't a problem with GNU/Linux (I'm
> even inclined to say to GNU/Linux offers *more* flexibility in this
> regard).

For such a server there is little good reason to use Windows - unless they
have their admins trained it in and do not have people who know Linux.  Even
then, it seems that Linux should be easy enough to learn.  I tend to side
with you here (though, of course, in both areas I do not know as many
details as you do).

> Then there's the server I talked about earlier, having for near to
> 3000 EUR of MS software on it, yet everything the MS-SQL server is
> used for could easily be done with MySQL too (it's basically just a
> couple of simple CMS databases with a PHP front-end). The programmer
> responsible for this software even prefers working with MySQL, but the
> pointy-haired IT manager made MS-SQL 'company policy'. At least I
> managed to convince him to use Debian for the http server part of the
> set-up, instead of going for IIS (saved the company 500 EUR there).
> And the funny thing of this entire joke is that we have a MySQL server
> running anyway (two actually, one master for production and one slave
> for back-ups) because we're using Mantis and Bugzilla).
> 
> You'd be surprised how many pointy-haired IT managers rely on MS just
> because it is the big household name. Thinking that MS is generally
> selected because it gains more than it costs, because it is /really/
> needed, is very naive.

No, I used to work for a big corporation (Intuit).  No surprise here.  I got
lucky when I became a trainer and had a manager who would tell me what he
wanted me to accomplish and then give me a couple days to research it... and
then he would always support my view of what software and hardware would
work best to do what I wanted.  I ended up running the FirstClass server I
wanted to (not cheap, but the best tool for the job we were doing and it
worked very well for many years - for all I know they are still using it a
decade later)... I had two machines on my desk (a rarity at the time at
Intuit) - one a Mac and one a PC.  Since I was the OS trainer, though, that
made sense and was an easy sell (hard to deny me access to both OSs when I
was making the training material for them!).  He got me a license for
FileMaker Pro so I could make some DB based apps and the like (the rest of
the company used Access)... it made me much more efficient to be able to use
the tools I wanted to use.   I did not use Linux much, but for the tasks I
was doing I do not think it would have served me particularly well (esp. at
the time - Linux has come a long way).  I did manage to get an older
computer and install Linux on it just to play and see what it could do.  Set
it up in a break area for others to play with - at the time very few had
even heard of Linux ('95 - 2000 or so).

>> I look forward to when desktop Linux truly competes with
>> the alternatives in terms of ease of use, error reduction, etc.  Right now,
>> for most people, this does not seem to be the case (as even Shuttleworth has
>> noted).



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 2010-11-28, the following emerged from the brain of An Old Friend:
>
> I have really been impressed with Lilypond's music engraving output. 
> Music publishers have asked me several times how I got those results with 
> Finale so they could reproduce it. (It's not as simple as just using the 
> Feta font instead of Maestro or Petrucci, since Lilypond uses a different 
> paradigm for engraving than Finale--something the Lilypond developers 
> explain on their website.)

Lilypond is a great score typesetter. It's to Finale what Tex is to
Microsoft Office.

Are you using a front-end or do you create the score files by hand?

-- 
Converting PDF to grayscale is gonna kill micoshaft crocporation.
	~ 7

On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 17:22:59 +0100, TomB chinwagged:

> On 2010-11-28, the following emerged from the brain of An Old Friend:
>>
>> I have really been impressed with Lilypond's music engraving output.
>> Music publishers have asked me several times how I got those results
>> with Finale so they could reproduce it. (It's not as simple as just
>> using the Feta font instead of Maestro or Petrucci, since Lilypond uses
>> a different paradigm for engraving than Finale--something the Lilypond
>> developers explain on their website.)
> 
> Lilypond is a great score typesetter. It's to Finale what Tex is to
> Microsoft Office.
> 
> Are you using a front-end or do you create the score files by hand?

I use jEdit as my front end. It has wonderful Lilypond tools, especially 
the setup wizard. 

On 2010-11-28, the following emerged from the brain of An Old Friend:
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 17:22:59 +0100, TomB chinwagged:
>> On 2010-11-28, the following emerged from the brain of An Old Friend:
>>>
>>> I have really been impressed with Lilypond's music engraving
>>> output.  Music publishers have asked me several times how I got
>>> those results with Finale so they could reproduce it. (It's not as
>>> simple as just using the Feta font instead of Maestro or Petrucci,
>>> since Lilypond uses a different paradigm for engraving than
>>> Finale--something the Lilypond developers explain on their
>>> website.)
>> 
>> Lilypond is a great score typesetter. It's to Finale what Tex is to
>> Microsoft Office.
>> 
>> Are you using a front-end or do you create the score files by hand?
>
> I use jEdit as my front end. It has wonderful Lilypond tools,
> especially the setup wizard. 

I did not know that. Thanks for pointing that out.

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

Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstr...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
> Homer pulled this Usenet face plant:
>
> > Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
>
> >> Probably the most commonly heard complaint with Gimp is its
> >> shortcomings in supporting the CMYK color model
>
> > OTOH, Krita has supported CMYK since version 1.5:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krita#Version_1.5_release
>
> Fairly easy to install both and hop between them, I would imagine.

It may be, but doing so invariably incurs some time delay, which can
translate into a productivity hit.  Considering that time hit against
yesterday's notional example which only required a 0.1% productivity
difference to justify the commercial software's cost, the free
solution isn't automatically cheaper.


> Anyway, this is probably a thorough story about CMYK in the GIMP:
>
> =A0 =A0https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/CMYK_support_in_The_GIMP
>
> =A0 =A0Gimp still lacks full CMYK color model support. The ability to sep=
arate
> =A0 =A0and then edit an image in CMYK mode is still a long way down the l=
ist of
> =A0 =A0features to be added (if on the list at all). However, there is a =
plug-in
> =A0 =A0called Separate that offers a partial solution to the problem.
>
> By the way, check out the gimp-plugin-registry package (Debian). =A0It
> contains a couple of CMYK plugins, including Separate+.

Might apply to complete virgins in image management, but another
important factor to consider is that changing major applications (ie,
Photoshop to Gimp) also means that the user is going to have to throw
away much of their learning curve and as such, there's a productivity
loss present until such time that they "catch up" on the new App.
However, the implications of this are that the new App can't be merely
"as good" (equality) to the existing, but actually has to offer better
productivity, so that the losses incurred during transition are "paid
back".

What this means in a nutshell is that the burden that is placed on the
new product is that he has to be able to prove that he is measurably
better than the industry standard.  And no, merely being free doesn't
automatically make Gimp a winner - - its about user productivity over
time, not merely the initial capital investment.

FWIW, please don't think that I'm picking on Gimp, or even all Free
Software:  this is the basic reality that is a factor for *all*
change, and as such, it transcends all digital technologies.


-hh

On Nov 28, 1:30=A0am, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
>
> > On Nov 27, 1:02=A0am, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
> >> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
>
> >>> On Nov 25, 10:23=A0pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
> >> You can apply any subjective criteria you want. At the end of the day
> >> I get more and/or better software than I had previously. Anyone who
> >> disagrees with that, will obviously not feel compelled to upgrade.
>
> > "Better"...except for whatever legacy capabilities it broke (which you
> > did agree happens).
>
> But that means something rather different in the context of Free
> Software, compared to a Windows update, because the "breakage" only
> occurs if there's a mixture of old and new components, and if you've
> /upgraded/ then that won't be the case.

Your "if" also applies to commercial software too, so this argument
doesn't differentiate Free Software.   When MS released Win7, all the
consumer had to do was to simply wait until all of his relevant
productivity tools (eg, Office, Photoshop, Firefox, etc) receive their
appropriate compatibility updates from their respective providers, and
then his update is "pain free" too.

> ... With Free Software,
> this upgrade will encompass /everything/, including all applications and
> games, but ...

And how is this "upgrade will" enforced?   Free Software is like
herding cats - they're not ever *compelled* to do anything.

I agree that it *can* encompass everything, but there is no
"positively assured" at present.  And this is a recurring shortcoming
in your argument, since just because meaningful product
differentiation doesn't happen until this "can" potential has actually
been accomplished (an becomes an "is").


> ...with something like Windows it only covers Microsoft's OS,
> and you're still stuck with (potentially) incompatible third-party
> applications and games (unless and until those third-parties provide
> their own updates, which they may or may not do). Any software that's no
> longer supported by the vendor, will eventually no longer work, and you
> will have no recourse to do anything about it. Had it been Free
> Software, then you would.

Not quite.  Free Software is also subject to abandonment, at which
point the user similarly has to "do without" (eventually), unless he
has the resources to take over the project to continue it (which takes
personal resources).  The argument that this cannot happen with
commercial software is a false one, since a motivated user can
similarly apply his personal resources to the current owner to
motivate support.   For example, if Apple were to announce tomorrow
that OS X is dead, there's nothing stopping anyone from approaching
Steve Jobs and offering a Trillion dollars for the source code &
rights.  It differs only in the potential magnitude of resources that
are required.

> In terms of "capabilities", nothing in a GNU/Linux distro should be
> "broken" as a /normal/ condition of upgrading, and any losses (typically
> referred to as "depreciated packages") only occur because something
> better has been found as a replacement (or it simply isn't necessary any
> more, e.g. a workaround is dropped, because a bug was fixed).

Yet this is now trying to avoid the prior "Definition of Major =3D
breaks stuff" admission.

> You need to understand that when the software is Free (license) then
> every distributor can be the publisher for /every/ available
> application, not just their own, and as such they are then free to build
> all those applications together on the same system (a buildsystem), thus
> ensuring dependencies are consistent.

"Can be" theoretical argument again.   Fails to demonstrate that a
real differentiation currently exists.


> In order for Microsoft to achieve the same thing with Windows, they'd
> need to buy every third-party proprietary Windows software publisher in
> the world...

Except that (a) there's more than one way to skin a cat, and (b) the
feature that you're comparing against is merely a "can", not an "is"
realization.


> >> Yes, but then /all/ platforms have costs beyond licensing, so you
> >> can't apply this argument exclusively to Free Software.
>
> > I'm not applying this argument exclusively to Free Software.
>
> Then it can't be used as a differentiator, unless you're actually
> claiming that the peripheral costs of using GNU/Linux are somehow
> greater than those incurred using Windows. IME the opposite is the
> case.

Except that I never made such a claim.  You've made the claim that GNU/
Linux is lower and you're (still) trying to prove it.  Please
understand that I'm not trying to make you "lose", since I'd like it
to be true too  - - I'm merely seeking if you can actually prove that
which you claim.  Unfortunately, you've not yet passed.



> >> /My/ costs, for the given example system, would be the cost of the
> >> hardware, running costs (electricity, etc.), and my time. A Windows
> >> user's costs would be the same as mine, plus the cost of OS
> >> licensing, plus the cost of applications licensing, plus the cost of
> >> anti-virus subscriptions, etc.
>
> > And yet this list of 'costs' remains grossly incomplete, even if we
> > accommodate the intention to keep it simple.
>
> Well as I said before, I know what I spend, and I don't spend more than
> I've already indicated.
>
> What else do you think I ought to be spending money on, WRT my use of a
> PC running GNU/Linux?

You're still thinking too small.  How many more times do I need to say
"Productivity" and "ROI" before you stop looking at just the
"Investment" side and start considering the "Return" and the wee
possibility that productivity isn't a never-changing constant?



> >> Having considerable experience using Windows systems, I'd also add
> >> the cost of /more/ time for system maintenance, as a result of bugs,
> >> malware, lack of speed and responsiveness, and a general lack of
> >> facilities for automation (in a largely GUI dependent system).
>
> > Sure (and no argument), but that's still an incomplete accounting.
>
> Then please explain what you believe my other costs are.

See above:  ROI & Productivity.


> >>> shortcoming that I've seen in the OSS movement is a myopia which
> >>> focuses on only one factor of the total lifecycle (the OS price) at
> >>> the expense of the rest.
>
> >> Not at all. I'm acutely aware of the peripheral costs of maintaining
> >> a Windows system.
>
> > Unfortunately, by you missing key factors, it is increasingly evident
> > that you have a highly simplified view on factors such as TCO
>
> But your vague generalities have yet to identify any actual costs...

I've been very specific, at the _Strategic_ level.   We could get down
into the weeds and quantify specifics, but you've already admitted
that you don't have the performance measures.

> ... You can theorise endlessly on the subject, but it's
> entirely meaningless when I'm sitting here looking right at my own
> financial statements, and I can clearly see where my own money is going.

If true, then you can promptly tell us what would be the financial
implications to your businesses bottom line if you replaced an old PC
that's on your critical path with a new one that performs its required
task(s) faster, which results in a subtask 5% productivity gain, and
what the ROI of that change would be.



> > (Total Cost of Ownership) & ROI (Return on Investment). Skipping
> > ahead, you've tried to label (very incorrectly, I might add) some
> > concepts as "meaningless managerial gobbledegook", so I also believe
> > (unfortunately) that you're not inclined to listen or learn about
> > them, either.
>
> Because they have no relevance to my position, and in my considerable
> experience have little relevance to any real world conditions, because
> they're nothing but vague hypotheses that don't accurately articulate
> specific conditions that exist in reality.

If true, then you're letting profits leak out of your business
model.   This is to your competitors' advantage.


> I spent years enduring departmental meetings in which some college
> graduate, who swallowed a buzzword dictionary, sat lecturing the room
> about how to energise this or synergise that, and at the end of the day
> his meaningless gibberish did nothing whatsoever to change any outcomes,
> other than lose the company 50 grand per annum on his salary. And before
> you say anything, no this is not sour grapes, as I was on a higher pay
> grade. Seriously, it's just meaningless nonsense. Talk straight and be
> specific, don't waffle on about hypothetical conditions.

I've seen that too ... particularly as they avoid committing to
anything that would be a metric that measures if they were successful
or not.  FWIW, I was asked last month if I was willing to volunteer my
project to be a guinea pig on a new management tool; my response was
"Plus up my budget by $200K to support the extra man-year that your
"new tool" will probably take and I'll agree to volunteer my
project."  You can easily guess what the response to that was :-)


> > Granted, as a technologist, it is often more in our comfort zone to
> > talk just about Tech Stuff and pretend that the "Biz Ads" numbers
> > don't exist. =A0 However, without such resources, no technology ever
> > gets built.
>
> I understand finances perfectly well, and I understand the need for
> marketing, but the fact is that most of it is (perhaps necessarily)
> bullshit. Or IOW, save it for the rubes for whom it's intended to
> indoctrinate.

{ Tech Push / Requirements Pull } isn't marketing, either.


> >> Of course, I don't have anywhere near that level of problems with
> >> GNU/Linux, and thus incur significantly fewer financial overheads.
>
> > I don't doubt it, but it wasn't the point: =A0the point is that when
> > you've only looked at (figuratively) only half the applicable numbers,
> > it hasn't yet been objectively proven as such.
>
> I'm looking right at those numbers now. I know what I can plainly see in
> front of me.

Then simply post a concrete example.


> >> I find most of these cost analyses arguments to be vague gibberish,
> >> that have no bearing on my real world experiences.
>
> > Driving a Porsche yet? =A0 If not, then perhaps you should pay better
> > attention to that so-called 'gibberish' :-)
>
> I could certainly afford a better car than a Porsche, but the fact is I
> have no interest in (or need for) a car of any sort, and would rather
> spend my money on other things, like improvements to my home and
> business.

Then how about a nice vacation?  Tomorrow will be my first day at work
for November.


> I don't need to play buzzword bingo, or subjugate others with licensing
> restrictions, in order to be financially successful, and indeed I take
> great exception to the suggestion that it should be necessary.

Fair enough.  However, I was seeking to be _more_ successful than I
already am, which only happens when one actually has relevant
measurement tools.   Otherwise, you're stumbling around in the dark
and relying on intuition and your gut, instead of hard data.


> >> The Linux kernel itself is one of the best examples of this. The
> >> size, complexity, and volume of contributions to this project is
> >> vast, and yet it is all tightly and sanely coordinated, and produces
> >> very frequent releases, and still manages to provide extensive
> >> peer-level support for users and other developers (e.g. distro
> >> maintainers).
>
> > Very Frequent Releases =3D HIgher Risk =3D Higher Costs.
>
> Not for me though. I don't bear the burden of those costs, and the
> proven reliability of this software demonstrates it's also a low risk
> proposition.

Ooooookay, you can keep on believing that.   I think we're pretty much
done here:  AFAIC, you have zero metrics with which to measure
anything.


[big snip]


> >> How many currently supported versions of Apple's operating systems
> >> are there?
>
> > Depending on how you want to count, either 2 or 4. =A0 And FWIW, OS X i=
s
> > also a viable alternative to Windows OS, although it does come with
> > its own caveats (such as a hardware reliance).
>
> I assume OS X and OS X Server are the first two, and iOS is the third.
> What's the fourth?

Ah, I had forgotten iOS.   That would make it more than four.

The four I was alluding to was OS X 10.5, OS X 10.5 Server, OS X 10.6,
and OS X 10.6 Server.  I'm not sure how many different versions of iOS
that Apple is officially supporting, but it is at least 3.x and 4.x,
possibly more.



> >>> Truthfully, I have no idea, but my wild-ass guess is that it is
> >>> probably less than 25 of those 500, which would suggest a pragmatic
> >>> abandonment rate of 95%. =A0 Anyone who feels up to it can go researc=
h
> >>> the specifics and report back.
>
> >> Except software cannot possibly be "abandoned" if it's Free
> >> (license), because it will always be there for anyone who actually
> >> needs it.
>
> > Except - - and as you've already pointed out - - this aspect of "be
> > there" can very much include necessitating that the user who needs it
> > has to go set up his own programming shop, on his own nickel.
>
> This is still better than the alternative of having nothing.

But one never has nothing:  there is always the Status Quo of not
upgrading.


> 1. I dislike proprietary software for all the reasons I've made clear
> =A0 =A0here (and many more beyond the scope of this discussion), regardle=
ss
> =A0 =A0of which vendor produces that software

And from what I've seen, your dislike is so strong that you'll choose
to use Free Software even when it objectively costs you more.

And while you might not dispute this statement, you'll also claim that
it doesn't cost you more ... but you can't prove that claim, because
you're also avoiding doing the relevant objective measuring.   The
paradigm is that you've chosen to stick your head in the ground, to
prevent the outside world from existing.   This is classical denial
through avoidance.

> > Precisely why is that? If I spent my own money, why shouldn't I have
> > the right to decide if I share or not?
>
> Well again, the answer is not specific to Apple, and indeed everyone's
> answer will be different. My full answer to that question would occupy
> several pages, and this thread is already growing exponentially, so I
> prefer to stay on topic. A quick Google (Groups) for any Usenet article
> I've written containing the phrase "Intellectual Monopoly" should yield
> the answer.

FWIW, I don't like the current IP system either, but not because it
has the concept of protecting IP, but rather, how the protection
system has been hijacked and IP protections such as Copyrights are no
longer 14 years, but are now 100+ years.  That's where there's been an
anti-competitive monopoly that has become institutionalized...and yes,
mostly due to interests of large business interests (eg, Walt Disney's
1928 publication of Mickey Mouse would now be in public domain).

YMMV, but if I "make" something, I have rights over it.   This
includes having rights when that creation is IP instead of a physical
object.  In the case of IP, however, I also agree that my invention
rights should not be forever (which is effectively what our current
system is becoming, at least for certain (interestingly, not all ...
which is a logical discontinuity) forms of IP).  Insofar as to what
the "correct" term of IP protection is, I'm mostly undecided, except
that the different forms of IP should be treated similarly, which is
not the case today and which IMO is part of the current injustice.


-hh

-hh stated in post 
7d1dabab-a4ee-487b-9a4f-b2f876abc209@v19g2000yqa.googlegroups.com on
11/28/10 4:04 PM:

> On Nov 28, 1:30�am, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
>> 
>>> On Nov 27, 1:02�am, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
>> 
>>>>> On Nov 25, 10:23�pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>>>> You can apply any subjective criteria you want. At the end of the day
>>>> I get more and/or better software than I had previously. Anyone who
>>>> disagrees with that, will obviously not feel compelled to upgrade.
>> 
>>> "Better"...except for whatever legacy capabilities it broke (which you
>>> did agree happens).
>> 
>> But that means something rather different in the context of Free
>> Software, compared to a Windows update, because the "breakage" only
>> occurs if there's a mixture of old and new components, and if you've
>> /upgraded/ then that won't be the case.
> 
> Your "if" also applies to commercial software too, so this argument
> doesn't differentiate Free Software.   When MS released Win7, all the
> consumer had to do was to simply wait until all of his relevant
> productivity tools (eg, Office, Photoshop, Firefox, etc) receive their
> appropriate compatibility updates from their respective providers, and
> then his update is "pain free" too.

In both cases older software might not be updated.  It really is not
complex.

>> ... With Free Software,
>> this upgrade will encompass /everything/, including all applications and
>> games, but ...
> 
> And how is this "upgrade will" enforced?   Free Software is like
> herding cats - they're not ever *compelled* to do anything.

And Homer only includes software in the repositories - as if that is the
only software.  And he ignores that the repositories are filled with
non-native software (KDE distros do not have only KDE software in their
repositories).

With this said, repositories are a cool idea and I am glad Apple is bringing
one to OS X.  And software management tools - about time, frankly.
....



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

-hh pulled this Usenet face plant:

> Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstr...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
>> Homer pulled this Usenet face plant:
>>
>> > Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
>>
>> >> Probably the most commonly heard complaint with Gimp is its
>> >> shortcomings in supporting the CMYK color model
>>
>> > OTOH, Krita has supported CMYK since version 1.5:
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krita#Version_1.5_release
>>
>> Fairly easy to install both and hop between them, I would imagine.
>
> It may be, but doing so invariably incurs some time delay, which can
> translate into a productivity hit.  Considering that time hit against
> yesterday's notional example which only required a 0.1% productivity
> difference to justify the commercial software's cost, the free
> solution isn't automatically cheaper.
>
>
>> Anyway, this is probably a thorough story about CMYK in the GIMP:
>>
>> ? ?https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/CMYK_support_in_The_GIMP
>>
>> ? ?Gimp still lacks full CMYK color model support. The ability to separate
>> ? ?and then edit an image in CMYK mode is still a long way down the list of
>> ? ?features to be added (if on the list at all). However, there is a plug-in
>> ? ?called Separate that offers a partial solution to the problem.
>>
>> By the way, check out the gimp-plugin-registry package (Debian). ?It
>> contains a couple of CMYK plugins, including Separate+.
>
> Might apply to complete virgins in image management, but another
> important factor to consider is that changing major applications (ie,
> Photoshop to Gimp) also means that the user is going to have to throw
> away much of their learning curve and as such, there's a productivity
> loss present until such time that they "catch up" on the new App.
> However, the implications of this are that the new App can't be merely
> "as good" (equality) to the existing, but actually has to offer better
> productivity, so that the losses incurred during transition are "paid
> back".

Not sure I quite agree.  Not enough to argue about, though.

> What this means in a nutshell is that the burden that is placed on the
> new product is that he has to be able to prove that he is measurably
> better than the industry standard.  And no, merely being free doesn't
> automatically make Gimp a winner - - its about user productivity over
> time, not merely the initial capital investment.

Or the, uh, ongoing updates investment.

> FWIW, please don't think that I'm picking on Gimp, or even all Free
> Software:  this is the basic reality that is a factor for *all*
> change, and as such, it transcends all digital technologies.

Sounds okay.  However, there may be some GIMP users who want to go into some
minor publishing, and the plugins might be enough.  Don't know that, though.

-- 
But you have to allow a little for the desire to evangelize when you
think you have good news.
		-- Larry Wall in <1992Aug26.184221.29627@netlabs.com>

Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
> On Nov 28, 1:30 am, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
>>> On Nov 27, 1:02 am, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
>>>>> On Nov 25, 10:23 pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:

>>> "Better"...except for whatever legacy capabilities it broke (which
>>> you did agree happens).
>>
>> But that means something rather different in the context of Free
>> Software, compared to a Windows update, because the "breakage" only
>> occurs if there's a mixture of old and new components, and if you've
>> /upgraded/ then that won't be the case.
>
> Your "if" also applies to commercial software too

No it doesn't. An upgrade to Windows does not automatically give you a
compatible upgrade to all your applications. With Free Software, it
does.

> so this argument doesn't differentiate Free Software.

Nonsense, it's one of the core differentiators.

> When MS released Win7, all the consumer had to do was to simply wait

Meanwhile, I didn't need to wait. The moment the new distro was upgraded
and released, compatible upgrades for all my applications were also
released, distributed on the same medium, and installed at the same time
as the upgraded OS.

> until all of his relevant productivity tools (eg, Office, Photoshop,
> Firefox, etc) receive their appropriate compatibility updates from
> their respective providers

Whilst other software is not updated at all, and remains incompatible
with the upgraded OS, essentially abandoning it. That simply isn't
possible with Free Software, since my access (and rights) to the sources
guarantees I will always have the opportunity to keep using that
software.

> and then his update is "pain free" too.

My experience of proprietary software was rather different. Not only did
I lose compatibility with my applications, whenever I upgraded the OS,
but I even lost compatibility with much of my hardware. WRT that latter
point in particular, I'm sure you, as a Mac user, know exactly what I'm
talking about, given the transition Apple went through from PPC to Intel
binaries. I would hardly describe that process as "pain free".

>> ... With Free Software, this upgrade will encompass /everything/,
>> including all applications and games, but ...
>
> And how is this "upgrade will" enforced?

Why would it need to be enforced? Free Software is about Freedom, not
enforcement. The fact is Free Software users can do something that
proprietary software users cannot.

> Free Software is like herding cats - they're not ever *compelled* to
> do anything.

But it isn't for you, or /anyone/, to "compel" others to do anything.
What makes you think you have that right?

> I agree that it *can* encompass everything, but there is no
> "positively assured" at present.  And this is a recurring shortcoming
> in your argument, since just because meaningful product
> differentiation doesn't happen until this "can" potential has actually
> been accomplished (an becomes an "is").

Someone can choose to throw themselves in front of a moving train too,
does that mean they didn't have the opportunity to choose to live?

Free Software offers people choices and opportunities that proprietary
software does not.

>> ...with something like Windows it only covers Microsoft's OS, and
>> you're still stuck with (potentially) incompatible third-party
>> applications and games (unless and until those third-parties provide
>> their own updates, which they may or may not do). Any software that's
>> no longer supported by the vendor, will eventually no longer work,
>> and you will have no recourse to do anything about it. Had it been
>> Free Software, then you would.
>
> Not quite.  Free Software is also subject to abandonment

That's patently false. You cannot possibly "abandon" something for which
everyone has full access. It may never be used, but that does not mean
it never /can/ be used by /anyone/ - without licensing restriction. When
proprietary software is abandoned, it's done so either without any
recourse, or with the single alternative of paying vast sums for the
exclusive "rights", at which point it invariably becomes just another
proprietary product, subject to the same conditions that caused it to
become abandoned in the first place.

> at which point the user similarly has to "do without" (eventually),
> unless he has the resources

You're still confusing Freedom with cost. Freedom isn't supposed to
guarantee that people will be rich, or that they'll have everything they
need, it's supposed to guarantee the /opportunity/ to accomplish things
without oppression, such as the /opportunity/ to become rich. "IP" is a
restriction that diminishes that opportunity, by allowing "rights"
holders to either extort money from their competitors (thus placing them
at a competitive disadvantage), or prevent them from competing at all.
Free Software removes that one restriction, but it doesn't remove /all/
restrictions. You can't reasonably be expected to run a business with no
money.

> For example, if Apple were to announce tomorrow that OS X is dead,
> there's nothing stopping anyone from approaching Steve Jobs and
> offering a Trillion dollars for the source code & rights.  It differs
> only in the potential magnitude of resources that are required.

But there's no guarantee Apple would sell it, at any price, because it
might be tactically disadvantageous for them to do so. With Free
Software, there's no question that you'll be able to acquire it, and it
won't cost you a trillion dollars to do so either. As a business, you'll
still incur costs, just as you would if you'd acquired proprietary
software, but you'll incur considerably /fewer/ costs (no "rights"
fees), and can actually guarantee the /opportunity/ to acquire the
software, without being rejected for reasons beyond money. In fact, in
your example, you'd probably need to buy the entire company, given how
central OS X is to Apple's business, at which point this proposal might
be subjected to an investigation (and even blocked) by competition
regulators, no matter how much money you put on the table.  

We all need money to conduct business, but without the /right of access/
to the tools we need to undertake that business, we can't guarantee the
opportunity to continue using those tools. This is why we need Free
Software.

>> In terms of "capabilities", nothing in a GNU/Linux distro should be
>> "broken" as a /normal/ condition of upgrading, and any losses
>> (typically referred to as "depreciated packages") only occur because
>> something better has been found as a replacement (or it simply isn't
>> necessary any more, e.g. a workaround is dropped, because a bug was
>> fixed).
>
> Yet this is now trying to avoid the prior "Definition of Major =
> breaks stuff" admission.

By "upgrading" I specifically mean moving to the next major release.
I'm not talking about interim updates.

>> You need to understand that when the software is Free (license) then
>> every distributor can be the publisher for /every/ available
>> application, not just their own, and as such they are then free to build
>> all those applications together on the same system (a buildsystem), thus
>> ensuring dependencies are consistent.
>
> "Can be" theoretical argument again.   Fails to demonstrate that a
> real differentiation currently exists.

But that is in fact what every GNU/Linux distribution does, so this is
more than just "theory".

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

>> In order for Microsoft to achieve the same thing with Windows, they'd
>> need to buy every third-party proprietary Windows software publisher in
>> the world...
>
> Except that (a) there's more than one way to skin a cat, and (b) the
> feature that you're comparing against is merely a "can", not an "is"
> realization.

No, it is the actual present condition, whereas your vague hypothesis
provides no concrete examples.

So where is this software repository that enables me to upgrade Windows
and every third-party Windows application, all of which has been built
together on the same buildsystem to ensure compatibility? 

I can show you hundreds for GNU/Linux distros.

Where's the one for the Windows platform?

Where's the one for the Mac OS X platform?

>>>> Yes, but then /all/ platforms have costs beyond licensing, so you
>>>> can't apply this argument exclusively to Free Software.
>>
>>> I'm not applying this argument exclusively to Free Software.
>>
>> Then it can't be used as a differentiator, unless you're actually
>> claiming that the peripheral costs of using GNU/Linux are somehow
>> greater than those incurred using Windows. IME the opposite is the
>> case.
>
> Except that I never made such a claim.

That's why I used the word "unless".

So are you in fact claiming the peripheral costs of running GNU/Linux
are higher than other platforms?

> You've made the claim that GNU/ Linux is lower and you're (still)
> trying to prove it.

Trying? No, in fact I've demonstrated it quite clearly. The licensing
costs for Free Software are in fact zero. All other costs are peripheral
costs common to other platforms, and therefore cannot be used as a
differentiator between Free and proprietary software.

If you can actually think of any costs that are neither common to all
platforms nor related to the cost of software, then please tell me.
You've yet to give any examples.

> Please understand that I'm not trying to make you "lose", since I'd
> like it to be true too

Well your wish is granted, since the licensing cost of Free Software is
in fact zero, and all other factors are common to other platforms,
therefore the cost of GNU/Linux is in fact "lower". Unless you can
somehow demonstrate otherwise, I fail to see how I can possibly "lose".

>> What else do you think I ought to be spending money on, WRT my use of
>> a PC running GNU/Linux?
>
> You're still thinking too small.

I'm not "thinking too small", I'm thinking about the only thing that's
actually relevant to me, and in the context of my personal and business
use of my computers, that's the only thing that matters. In that context
I know exactly what I spend, and on what. You don't. How could you?

> How many more times do I need to say "Productivity" and "ROI" before
> you stop looking at just the "Investment" side and start considering
> the "Return" and the wee possibility that productivity isn't a
> never-changing constant?

Say it a billion times if you like, that won't actually alter the fact
that I have all the software I need to pursue my business and personal
interests, and that software is both more productive and less expensive
than the alternatives, as I know from my long-term experience. All your
theorising will never actually change that fact.

>> Then please explain what you believe my other costs are.
>
> See above:  ROI & Productivity.

Except I've never needed to buy any product called "ROI & Productivity",
and there's no such expense listed in my inventory of assets. I have
hardware, which I buy at certain intervals, and which I use far beyond
the point where it's supported by proprietary software, using Free
Software that provides me with everything I need to pursue my business
and leisure interests. I have peripheral costs, which are common to all
software platforms. Since the sum total of these costs is lower than if
I'd used proprietary software, and since I am now more productive and
profitable than when I was using proprietary software, my RIO is
therefore higher, and my TCO is lower.

But if you feel strongly about this, perhaps you could provide a link to
this mythical "ROI & Productivity" product, including an exact price,
and an exact breakdown of how much more money /my/ business would make
by using it.

>> But your vague generalities have yet to identify any actual costs...
>
> I've been very specific, at the _Strategic_ level.

But "at the _Strategic_ level" is not a tangible asset with a price tag,
and provides no sales projection, so I can't calculate its supposed
benefits. It's not a "specific" example of anything.

So where is the specific example of something you know for a fact would
reduce my costs, increase my productivity, increase my sales, and
therefore provide a better ROI than my current solution.

Either you know what it is or not. So what is it?

> We could get down into the weeds and quantify specifics, but you've
> already admitted that you don't have the performance measures.

My "performance measures" are that I'm more productive and profitable
than I was using proprietary software. What other performance measures
would you like?

>> ... You can theorise endlessly on the subject, but it's entirely
>> meaningless when I'm sitting here looking right at my own financial
>> statements, and I can clearly see where my own money is going.
>
> If true

There's no "if" about it.

Are you calling me a liar?

> then you can promptly tell us what would be the financial implications
> to your businesses bottom line if you replaced an old PC that's on
> your critical path with a new one that performs its required task(s)
> faster, which results in a subtask 5% productivity gain, and what the
> ROI of that change would be.

The financial implications would be the same regardless of what OS was
running on that hardware, since in any event I'd still have the cost of
that hardware. If the software running on it were proprietary, I'd also
have licensing costs, poorer productivity (from my experience), more
downtime, and additional maintenance costs (e.g. antivirus). Also, in
order to accommodate e.g. a Windows machine in my network, I'd probably
need to make fairly significant changes to my infrastructure, since it
presently uses technologies like NFS, SSH, MySQL, Bash scripts, and
various other things that Windows doesn't easily integrate with. That'd
lose me time and money without any actual benefit.

So in terms of licensing, GNU/Linux is less expensive. In terms of
productivity, I work more productively with my present Free Software
tools than I did previously using proprietary software. In terms of
peripheral costs, those factors are common to all platforms, and
therefore cannot be used as differentiators, except in the sense that I
might actually need to spend /more/ on proprietary solutions (e.g. buy
new hardware that I wouldn't otherwise need). The new hardware itself
might provide a gain in productivity, but the proprietary software
running on it would (IME) reduce that productivity.

So yes, I'm certainly all for buying new hardware, provided I then get
to run GNU/Linux and Free Software applications on it, and provided I do
actually have a compelling reason to get that new hardware.

>>> (Total Cost of Ownership) & ROI (Return on Investment). Skipping
>>> ahead, you've tried to label (very incorrectly, I might add) some
>>> concepts as "meaningless managerial gobbledegook", so I also believe
>>> (unfortunately) that you're not inclined to listen or learn about
>>> them, either.
>>
>> Because they have no relevance to my position, and in my considerable
>> experience have little relevance to any real world conditions,
>> because they're nothing but vague hypotheses that don't accurately
>> articulate specific conditions that exist in reality.
>
> If true

Stop calling me a liar.

> then you're letting profits leak out of your business model.

But you have absolutely no way of knowing how well my business model is
functioning, or how profitable it is. I've told you repeatedly that I am
now more productive and profitable than I was previously when I used
proprietary software.

>> I spent years enduring departmental meetings in which some college
>> graduate, who swallowed a buzzword dictionary, sat lecturing the room
>> about how to energise this or synergise that, and at the end of the
>> day his meaningless gibberish did nothing whatsoever to change any
>> outcomes, other than lose the company 50 grand per annum on his
>> salary. And before you say anything, no this is not sour grapes, as I
>> was on a higher pay grade. Seriously, it's just meaningless nonsense.
>> Talk straight and be specific, don't waffle on about hypothetical
>> conditions.
>
> I've seen that too

You haven't just seen it, you've written it continuously in this thread. 

> ... particularly as they avoid committing to
> anything that would be a metric that measures if they were successful
> or not.

The bottom line is a big clue. I don't need the services of some
financial philosopher expounding fictional theories to tell me Y-X > X,
which is the result of switching from X to Y. I could waste my entire
life experimenting with every letter in the alphabet, to see if I can
find something even greater than Y, but of course each time I do that I
waste valuable time and money (perhaps even on licensing) just to get
that answer, with no particular guarantee that I wasn't just wasting my
time and money.

Is that what you're suggesting I should do?

Are you going to financially compensate me for all this experimentation?

>>> Granted, as a technologist, it is often more in our comfort zone to
>>> talk just about Tech Stuff and pretend that the "Biz Ads" numbers
>>> don't exist.   However, without such resources, no technology ever
>>> gets built.
>>
>> I understand finances perfectly well, and I understand the need for
>> marketing, but the fact is that most of it is (perhaps necessarily)
>> bullshit. Or IOW, save it for the rubes for whom it's intended to
>> indoctrinate.
>
> { Tech Push / Requirements Pull } isn't marketing, either.

Bullshit. Tell that to the rubes forced to "upgrade" to Vista, just to
play a game.

>>>> Of course, I don't have anywhere near that level of problems with
>>>> GNU/Linux, and thus incur significantly fewer financial overheads.
>>
>>> I don't doubt it, but it wasn't the point:  the point is that when
>>> you've only looked at (figuratively) only half the applicable
>>> numbers, it hasn't yet been objectively proven as such.
>>
>> I'm looking right at those numbers now. I know what I can plainly see
>> in front of me.
>
> Then simply post a concrete example.

You want me to post the private details of my business on Usenet?

You first.

I don't need to substantiate myself to you, especially when the facts
are so obvious, that Free Software costs nothing, unless you actually
want it to (support contracts), and beyond that all factors are common
to other platforms, in some cases actually favouring Free Software
(e.g. lower hardware costs). You can accept the fact that my costs are
lower, and my productivity and profits are higher, or you can call me a
liar.

Which is it?

Incidentally, if this is how you conduct yourself with all your clients,
I'm surprised you get any work at all. How do they react when you accuse
them of lying?

>>>> I find most of these cost analyses arguments to be vague gibberish,
>>>> that have no bearing on my real world experiences.
>>
>>> Driving a Porsche yet?   If not, then perhaps you should pay better
>>> attention to that so-called 'gibberish' :-)
>>
>> I could certainly afford a better car than a Porsche, but the fact is I
>> have no interest in (or need for) a car of any sort, and would rather
>> spend my money on other things, like improvements to my home and
>> business.
>
> Then how about a nice vacation?  Tomorrow will be my first day at work
> for November.

I've been on "vacation" for four years, during which time I bought a new
house in cash, and eventually started a business entirely with my own
money, all of which I made back within the first two months.

If you're going to have a dick-swinging competition, I suggest you find
someone with a smaller wiener. 

>> I don't need to play buzzword bingo, or subjugate others with
>> licensing restrictions, in order to be financially successful, and
>> indeed I take great exception to the suggestion that it should be
>> necessary.
>
> Fair enough.  However, I was seeking to be _more_ successful than I
> already am

Then I suggest you switch to Free Software. It certainly worked for me.

> which only happens when one actually has relevant measurement tools.

Those "measurement tools" being the vague gobbledegook you justify your
salary with. And I'm sure it's a very healthy salary too, after all, the
world is full of suckers.

> Otherwise, you're stumbling around in the dark and relying on
> intuition and your gut, instead of hard data.

The hard data is currently sitting in my bank account gaining lots of
interest. Did you have another sort of "hard data" in mind?

>>> Very Frequent Releases = HIgher Risk = Higher Costs.
>>
>> Not for me though. I don't bear the burden of those costs, and the
>> proven reliability of this software demonstrates it's also a low risk
>> proposition.
>
> Ooooookay, you can keep on believing that.

Yes, I will keep believing it, because it happens to be true.

> I think we're pretty much done here

You were done the moment you accused me of being a liar, for knowing
more about my own business than you do.

> AFAIC, you have zero metrics with which to measure anything.

I have precise metrics, but I'm disinclined to publish them to some
complete stranger on Usenet, any more than you would, so you're just
being hypocritical.

But if you actually want to publish your accounts, go right ahead, I
won't stop you.

>>>> How many currently supported versions of Apple's operating systems
>>>> are there?
>>
>>> Depending on how you want to count, either 2 or 4.   And FWIW, OS X
>>> is also a viable alternative to Windows OS, although it does come
>>> with its own caveats (such as a hardware reliance).
>>
>> I assume OS X and OS X Server are the first two, and iOS is the
>> third.  What's the fourth?
>
> Ah, I had forgotten iOS.   That would make it more than four.
>
> The four I was alluding to was OS X 10.5, OS X 10.5 Server, OS X 10.6,
> and OS X 10.6 Server.  I'm not sure how many different versions of iOS
> that Apple is officially supporting, but it is at least 3.x and 4.x,
> possibly more.

So that's about 314 fewer than the number of currently supported
GNU/Linux distributions then.

>>>>> Truthfully, I have no idea, but my wild-ass guess is that it is
>>>>> probably less than 25 of those 500, which would suggest a
>>>>> pragmatic abandonment rate of 95%.   Anyone who feels up to it can
>>>>> go research the specifics and report back.
>>>> 
>>>> Except software cannot possibly be "abandoned" if it's Free
>>>> (license), because it will always be there for anyone who actually
>>>> needs it.
>>> 
>>> Except - - and as you've already pointed out - - this aspect of "be
>>> there" can very much include necessitating that the user who needs
>>> it has to go set up his own programming shop, on his own nickel.
>>
>> This is still better than the alternative of having nothing.
>
> But one never has nothing:  there is always the Status Quo of not
> upgrading.

A status quo I don't need to endure, if I have the choices afforded me
by Free Software.

>> 1. I dislike proprietary software for all the reasons I've made clear
>>    here (and many more beyond the scope of this discussion),
>>    regardless of which vendor produces that software
>
> And from what I've seen, your dislike is so strong that you'll choose
> to use Free Software even when it objectively costs you more.

No, it's only in your wholly unsubstantiated opinion that it costs more,
just as it's your unsubstantiated opinion that I'm less productive
because of this software. I, OTOH, know exactly what my costs are, what
my profits are, and how productive I am. You cannot possibly know that.

The fact that I /could/ spend money on Free Software does not mean that
I /must/, and equally it doesn't mean that I must do so in order to be
more profitable and more productive. That's just your assumption.

> And while you might not dispute this statement, you'll also claim that
> it doesn't cost you more ... but you can't prove that claim

Of course I can. The licensing cost of Free Software is zero. That's a
matter of public record.

Everything beyond that is optional, and so far I haven't needed any
"options" that weren't common to all other platforms, except in the
sense that the options pertaining to proprietary software cost more,
resulted in lower productivity and profits, and thus represent a higher
TCO and lower ROI.

> because you're also avoiding doing the relevant objective measuring.

Just because you don't get to see those measurements, that doesn't mean
I haven't performed them. It's arrogance to assume otherwise.

> The paradigm is that you've chosen to stick your head in the ground,
> to prevent the outside world from existing.   This is classical denial
> through avoidance.

I can just imagine a potential customer's reaction, if an Apple Store
clerk gave that little speech.

So in your opinion, my choice to use better software that costs me
nothing, which makes me more productive and more profitable, is
"sticking my head in the ground", and "classical denial through
avoidance", simply because ... you don't get the privilege of seeing my
private data, to satisfy yourself that I'm telling the truth?

In that case let me respond with: Your choice to use inferior software
at extortionate prices, which makes you less productive and less
profitable, is "sticking your head in the ground", and "classical denial
through avoidance", because you haven't published your private data that
proves otherwise.

Over to you.

> FWIW, I don't like the current IP system either, but not because it
> has the concept of protecting IP, but rather, how the protection
> system has been hijacked and IP protections such as Copyrights are no
> longer 14 years, but are now 100+ years.

A single day would be one day too many.

> YMMV, but if I "make" something, I have rights over it.

To which I'd ask the questions:

.. Given that all people are born ignorant, where does their knowledge 
  subsequently come from?

.. Did /you/ actually "make" this "something", or is this a collaborative
  effort involving many people whom you've "forgotten" to attribute,
  including all those who taught you everything you needed to be able to
  "make" this thing, bearing in mind that the "thing" itself is actually
  knowledge, rather than the tangible manifestation of that knowledge?

.. What rights do you presume to have over knowledge you acquired from
  others, and should those "rights", if any, be /exclusively/ yours?

.. If you "make" something, and coincidentally someone else makes exactly
  the same thing elsewhere, at exactly the same time, without either one
  of you being aware of the other, then which one of you has the
  /exclusive/ "right" to make this something? And what if this "thing"
  was first made many years ago, without anyone being aware of that
  fact? Can you still honestly lay claim to being its first and sole
  creator? How would you prove it?

.. Does the absence of proof of prior art, prove there is no prior art?

.. Should your ignorance of something's provenance grant you the right to
  claim ownership of it? If you see a car parked on the street, and you
  don't know who owns it, does that grant you the right to take it, keep
  it, and claim you're the exclusive owner?

.. Does the mere fact that you can create something, mean you should have
  the "right" to prevent others from doing so, even if they learned to
  do so independently, using the same knowledge you also acquired from
  others?

In fact the claim to the exclusive rights to knowledge raises many such
questions.

> This includes having rights when that creation is IP instead of a
> physical object.

Physical objects have a verifiable provenance, "IP" does not, and
moreover /cannot/, because the establishment of evidence would require
auditing all mankind, living and dead.

Two people cannot both build the same physical object in isolation. The
objects may have similar properties, but in quantum terms they are not
the same object, and as such have unique and verifiable provenance. You
cannot say the same about "IP", since exactly the same knowledge may
exist in many different places at the same time, and therefore a sole
creator (and therefore "owner") cannot possibly be established.

> In the case of IP, however, I also agree that my invention rights
> should not be forever (which is effectively what our current system is
> becoming, at least for certain (interestingly, not all ...  which is a
> logical discontinuity) forms of IP).

The discontinuity, indeed blatant contradiction, is that any one person
can possibly have the /exclusive/ "right" to knowledge he acquired from
the common pool of all knowledge, unless that person is claiming to be
the source of his predecessors' knowledge (which itself is a paradox).

> Insofar as to what the "correct" term of IP protection is, I'm mostly
> undecided, except that the different forms of IP should be treated
> similarly, which is not the case today and which IMO is part of the
> current injustice.

Yes, all "IP" should be treated the same: as being in the Public Domain,
where it belongs. But this is not currently the case, and therefore we
need a mechanism to undermine the exclusion of "IP", to convert it into
a form of inclusion instead. This is why we have copyleft licenses like
the GPL, which specifically grant "exclusive" rights to ...  everyone,
thus turning the copyright system into a farce that acts contrary to its
original sinister intentions.

-- 
K.                           | [ubuntu]
http://slated.org            | 
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   | 1. Ancient African word meaning
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 45 days  |    'I can't configure Debian'

On Nov 28, 7:35=A0pm, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstr...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
> -hh pulled this Usenet face plant:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstr...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
> >> Homer pulled this Usenet face plant:
>
> >> > Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
>
> >> >> Probably the most commonly heard complaint with Gimp is its
> >> >> shortcomings in supporting the CMYK color model
>
> >> > OTOH, Krita has supported CMYK since version 1.5:
>
> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krita#Version_1.5_release
>
> >> Fairly easy to install both and hop between them, I would imagine.
>
> > It may be, but doing so invariably incurs some time delay, which can
> > translate into a productivity hit. =A0Considering that time hit against
> > yesterday's notional example which only required a 0.1% productivity
> > difference to justify the commercial software's cost, the free
> > solution isn't automatically cheaper.
>
> >> Anyway, this is probably a thorough story about CMYK in the GIMP:
>
> >> ? ?https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/CMYK_support_in_The_GIMP
>
> >> ? ?Gimp still lacks full CMYK color model support. The ability to sepa=
rate
> >> ? ?and then edit an image in CMYK mode is still a long way down the li=
st of
> >> ? ?features to be added (if on the list at all). However, there is a p=
lug-in
> >> ? ?called Separate that offers a partial solution to the problem.
>
> >> By the way, check out the gimp-plugin-registry package (Debian). ?It
> >> contains a couple of CMYK plugins, including Separate+.
>
> > Might apply to complete virgins in image management, but another
> > important factor to consider is that changing major applications (ie,
> > Photoshop to Gimp) also means that the user is going to have to throw
> > away much of their learning curve and as such, there's a productivity
> > loss present until such time that they "catch up" on the new App.
> > However, the implications of this are that the new App can't be merely
> > "as good" (equality) to the existing, but actually has to offer better
> > productivity, so that the losses incurred during transition are "paid
> > back".
>
> Not sure I quite agree. =A0Not enough to argue about, though.

Understood.   Think about two runners who can each run at the pace of
a 5:00 minute mile.  If "A" stops to tie his shoe, since he can't run
at faster than 5:00, he'll never catch up with "B", who never had to
stop.   Of course, what this also reveals is that as time increases,
the loss difference becomes an increasingly smaller percentage of the
whole.


> > What this means in a nutshell is that the burden that is placed on the
> > new product is that he has to be able to prove that he is measurably
> > better than the industry standard. =A0And no, merely being free doesn't
> > automatically make Gimp a winner - - its about user productivity over
> > time, not merely the initial capital investment.
>
> Or the, uh, ongoing updates investment.

Sure:  upgrade costs similarly should to be justified through what
benefits to provide in terms of actualized productivity and/or
capability gains.  I'm not trying to single out Free Software as the
only product that has to justify itself...they all do, or at least
they all _should_ be held to that same standard.


> > FWIW, please don't think that I'm picking on Gimp, or even all Free
> > Software: =A0this is the basic reality that is a factor for *all*
> > change, and as such, it transcends all digital technologies.
>
> Sounds okay. =A0However, there may be some GIMP users who want to go into=
 some
> minor publishing, and the plugins might be enough. =A0Don't know that, th=
ough.

But of course.  There's a lot of room for "savings" when one is
willing to trade-off quality, but that's a topic for another
discussion, as it also involves issues such as trying to examine what
is "Good Enough", which is invariably a YMMV.  Humorously speaking, if
we set our standards low enough, then no one here "needs" anything
more than a 1MHZ PC with a 300 baud modem, because that level of
technology is literally "Good Enough" to replace snail mail with
email.


-hh

On Nov 29, 12:04=A0am, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
>
> > On Nov 28, 1:30=A0am, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
> >> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
> >>> On Nov 27, 1:02=A0am, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
> >>>> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
> >>>>> On Nov 25, 10:23=A0pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
> >>> "Better"...except for whatever legacy capabilities it broke (which
> >>> you did agree happens).
>
> >> But that means something rather different in the context of Free
> >> Software, compared to a Windows update, because the "breakage" only
> >> occurs if there's a mixture of old and new components, and if you've
> >> /upgraded/ then that won't be the case.
>
> > Your "if" also applies to commercial software too
>
> No it doesn't. An upgrade to Windows does not automatically give you a
> compatible upgrade to all your applications. With Free Software, it
> does.

While you're correct in that MS can't update what it breaks in Adobe
(because Adobe owns that IP), is there a law that stops MS & Adobe
from collaborating pre-MS-release?  If so, "CITE PLEASE!"

Similarly, is there any law that mandates that all MS customers
immediately update his MS product (thereby breaking the Adobe)?  If
so, "CITE PLEASE!"

The user is simply free to wait until Adobe performs their update.
This wait can be zero, or infinity...just like on Free Software
(potential for abandonment), since on the Free Software side, there is
a "Can", which is not an assurance.


Thus, there is no difference ...


> My experience of proprietary software was rather different. Not only did
> I lose compatibility with my applications, whenever I upgraded the OS,
> but I even lost compatibility with much of my hardware.

Classical "Early Adopter" syndrome of leaping before looking.

> WRT that latter
> point in particular, I'm sure you, as a Mac user, know exactly what I'm
> talking about, given the transition Apple went through from PPC to Intel
> binaries. I would hardly describe that process as "pain free".

YMMV, but I have found the PPC/Intel transition to be less painful
than the years that I used Linux.



> >> ... With Free Software, this upgrade will encompass /everything/,
> >> including all applications and games, but ...
>
> > And how is this "upgrade will" enforced?
>
> Why would it need to be enforced? Free Software is about Freedom, not
> enforcement. The fact is Free Software users can do something that
> proprietary software users cannot.

Because if there isn't an enforcement process, then Apps can get
broken and go unaddressed, simply because the volunteer who is working
on "X" doesn't care, or even have to care.


> > Free Software is like herding cats - they're not ever *compelled* to
> > do anything.
>
> But it isn't for you, or /anyone/, to "compel" others to do anything.
> What makes you think you have that right?

I don't.  You've simply misunderstood the statement.




> Free Software offers people choices and opportunities that proprietary
> software does not.

True.


> >> ...with something like Windows it only covers Microsoft's OS, and
> >> you're still stuck with (potentially) incompatible third-party
> >> applications and games (unless and until those third-parties provide
> >> their own updates, which they may or may not do). Any software that's
> >> no longer supported by the vendor, will eventually no longer work,
> >> and you will have no recourse to do anything about it. Had it been
> >> Free Software, then you would.
>
> > Not quite. =A0Free Software is also subject to abandonment
>
> That's patently false. You cannot possibly "abandon" something for which
> everyone has full access.

Except that there are always "barriers to entry" for someone else
picking up the task.  For example, programming knowledge.

>  It may never be used...

Yes, that was precisely the point being made.  If no talented
programmer gives a damn about some obscure whatever, the mundane end
users of that piece of software are screwed no differently than if it
has been a commercial software product, because they lack the tools to
go rescue themselves.


>
> > at which point the user similarly has to "do without" (eventually),
> > unless he has the resources
>
> You're still confusing Freedom with cost.

Freedom isn't free.



> > For example, if Apple were to announce tomorrow that OS X is dead,
> > there's nothing stopping anyone from approaching Steve Jobs and
> > offering a Trillion dollars for the source code & rights. =A0It differs
> > only in the potential magnitude of resources that are required.
>
> But there's no guarantee Apple would sell it, at any price...In fact, in
> your example, you'd probably need to buy the entire company....

Everyone has their price, and you just identified Apple's upper limit.


> We all need money to conduct business, but without the /right of access/
> to the tools we need to undertake that business, we can't guarantee the
> opportunity to continue using those tools. This is why we need Free
> Software.

Perhaps, but AFAIC, you've still not even come close to proving that
claim.



>
> >> You need to understand that when the software is Free (license) then
> >> every distributor can be the publisher for /every/ available
> >> application, not just their own, and as such they are then free to bui=
ld
> >> all those applications together on the same system (a buildsystem), th=
us
> >> ensuring dependencies are consistent.
>
> > "Can be" theoretical argument again. =A0 Fails to demonstrate that a
> > real differentiation currently exists.
>
> But that is in fact what every GNU/Linux distribution does, so this is
> more than just "theory".

If true (which I doubt), it can only be due to luck, not process.
YMMV, but having my business & personal interests purposefully relying
on mere "Luck" isn't good enough for me.



> Are you being deliberately obtuse?

No, I'm being critical of unsubstantiated claims.



> >> In order for Microsoft to achieve the same thing with Windows, they'd
> >> need to buy every third-party proprietary Windows software publisher i=
n
> >> the world...
>
> > Except that (a) there's more than one way to skin a cat, and (b) the
> > feature that you're comparing against is merely a "can", not an "is"
> > realization.
>
> No, it is the actual present condition, whereas your vague hypothesis
> provides no concrete examples.

The concrete historical reality is that MS has pre-released betas,
published standards - - even literally paid developers of software
that MS did not have IP rights to - -  in order to try to minimize
breakage.   MS didn't have to buy anyone out.


> So where is this software repository that enables me to upgrade Windows
> and every third-party Windows application, all of which has been built
> together on the same buildsystem to ensure compatibility?
>
> I can show you hundreds for GNU/Linux distros.

Why are there hundreds of them?  Shouldn't there be only one?


> Where's the one for the Windows platform?
>
> Where's the one for the Mac OS X platform?

If you still recall what was being claimed, there doesn't need to be
any.


> >>>> Yes, but then /all/ platforms have costs beyond licensing, so you
> >>>> can't apply this argument exclusively to Free Software.
>
> >>> I'm not applying this argument exclusively to Free Software.
>
> >> Then it can't be used as a differentiator, unless you're actually
> >> claiming that the peripheral costs of using GNU/Linux are somehow
> >> greater than those incurred using Windows. IME the opposite is the
> >> case.
>
> > Except that I never made such a claim.
>
> That's why I used the word "unless".

And yet you accuse others of being vague.   Hypocrite :-)



> So are you in fact claiming the peripheral costs of running GNU/Linux
> are higher than other platforms?

Nope.   The claim was that GNU/Linux was lower, which is what I
challenged.


> > You've made the claim that GNU/ Linux is lower and you're (still)
> > trying to prove it.
>
> Trying? No, in fact I've demonstrated it quite clearly. The licensing
> costs for Free Software are in fact zero. All other costs are peripheral
> costs common to other platforms, and therefore cannot be used as a
> differentiator between Free and proprietary software.
>
> If you can actually think of any costs that are neither common to all
> platforms nor related to the cost of software, then please tell me.
> You've yet to give any examples.

And yet still, you're only looking at "Cost", not the entire formula,
and you believe that you've proven anything.



> > Please understand that I'm not trying to make you "lose", since I'd
> > like it to be true too
>
> Well your wish is granted...

Only in my dreams and not reality.


> I'm not "thinking too small"...

Sorry, but I disagree.


> >> Then please explain what you believe my other costs are.
>
> > See above: =A0ROI & Productivity.
>
> Except I've never needed to buy any product called "ROI & Productivity",
> and there's no such expense listed in my inventory of assets. I have
> hardware, which I buy at certain intervals, and...

So you're not tracking ROI or Productivity.


> My "performance measures" are that I'm more productive and profitable
> than I was using proprietary software.

But you just said that ROI and Productivity aren't on your books.

So which claim is the truthful one?


> >> ... You can theorise endlessly on the subject, but it's entirely
> >> meaningless when I'm sitting here looking right at my own financial
> >> statements, and I can clearly see where my own money is going.
>
> > If true
>
> There's no "if" about it.
>
> Are you calling me a liar?

I may as well be.

> > then you can promptly tell us what would be the financial implications
> > to your businesses bottom line if you replaced an old PC that's on
> > your critical path with a new one that performs its required task(s)
> > faster, which results in a subtask 5% productivity gain, and what the
> > ROI of that change would be.
>
> The financial implications would be the same regardless...

A streamlining of your business's value-added processes - - in the
critical path, no less - - and a productivity gain has ZERO effect?

I think that we are done with this discussion.

[balanced deleted without being read]



-hh

Homer <usenet@slated.org> writes:

> Verily I say unto thee, that TomB spake thusly:
>> On 2010-11-27, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> TomB stated in post 20101127110634.81@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/27/10 3:38
>>> AM:
>>>>
>>>>> OSS seems to be very good at "back end" stuff and rather poor - in
>>>>> general - with user interfaces.
>
> But the best "user interfaces" are not necessarily graphical.
>
>>>> Just like Homer, that's not my experience. I have yet to come
>>>> accross an interface that serves me better than the one I'm using on
>>>> GNU/Linux.
>>>
>>> Compare VLC with QuickTime.
>>
>> I'm interested in neither. I use mplayer.
>
> Ditto.
>
> WRT QuickTime, WMP, or any other multimedia software I used under
> Windows, one of the first things I miss is proper keyboard controls.
>
>>> Compare OpenOffice with MS Office.
>>
>> I'm sure OO is weaker in same areas than MSO
>
> I use a superior solution to both: TeX. Nothing else even comes close to
> the fine-grained level of control and quality of output.

Even with a decent frontend TeX is cumbersome and complex. You are
correct however that nothing comes close for quality however.

>
>>> Compare GIMP with Photoshop.
>>
>> I never found myself in a situation where I got stuck using The Gimp,
>
> Again, I use neither (although Gimp is actually installed here). I
> prefer ImageMagick, since it allows me to work on vast batches of files
> automatically.

Which you don't do. Gimp also allows batch processing. PS I dont know.

>
>>> Where do you think OSS makes a good showing?
>
> Automation, fine-granularity of control, quality of results, speed,
> interoperability, customisable integration with my workflow, absence of
> useless distractions, responsiveness, multi-tasking, simplicity,
> efficiency, security, stability, price, and ideology.

nearly all of those are better in the closed source programs. MSO for
example is much faster than OO. price is a no brainer. ideology is
probably you being a nutter. Most people dont mind paying for good
sw. speed, interoperability, workflow integration, simplicity are nearly
all better in the pay to play models - they have to be.

>
> But apart from that, hardly anything at all.

You just plucked a bunch of buzz words and haven't got a clue about the
reality.

On Nov 26, 9:15=A0pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf07ba...@news.x-privat.org on
> 11/26/10 8:31 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Steve Carroll wrote:
> >> On Nov 26, 5:56 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> (snip)
>
> >>>>>> Lack of proof equals or necessarily leads to Doubt
> >>>>>> Doubt equals or necessarily leads to a Valid Refutation
> >>>>>> Lack of proof neither =3D nor necessarily lead to a Valid Refutati=
on
>
> >>>>> Where an allegation of guilt is involved (the context I made the
> >>>>> statements in), these are absolutely true for all sane, honest and
> >>>>> honorable people.
>
> >>> No, Steve: it is utter rubbish. But thank you for proving my point.
> >>> :)
>
> >> In context your first point pushes this idea:
>
> >> 'An allegation of guilt should not be doubted based on the fact that
> >> there is no proof of the allegation.
>
> >> All sane, honest and honorable people internalize the concept of guilt
> >> the same way a modern court does: =A0A person is presumed innocent unt=
il
> >> proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (or, in certain cases,
> >> according to law). Having no proof doesn't fit this criteria in any
> >> way. Here was one of my favorites by you:
>
> >> "Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute any
> >> argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit
>
> >> Extremely funny stuff;)
>
> >> Fact: In court or out, =A0having no proof does not prove a guilt
> >> allegation. That idea is absurd, which is why you were the only one
> >> ever found pushing it.
>
> >> (Snit will now talk about his belief that the right to a presumption
> >> of innocence has no place outside of a courtroom. LOL!)
>
> > LOL!
>
> As I have noted, Steve, you get confused between the concepts of absolute
> proof and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Your definition of proof,which relies upon the existence of a true
statement so that something else could neccesarily follow from it,
works just fine in this context.  Math need not apply. You're now
trying to convince readers that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
doesn't need to contain anything for which a true statement can be
made about it... you know, so some deduction can necessarily follow
from the statement. Good luck with your idea that people are as stupid
as you need them to be;)

 > In a court there is almost never proof...

In court proof there certainly is evidence sufficient to establish a
thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth to observers. It's
nothing more than the effect of evidence in convincing the mind that
something is true. Notably, you didn't say anything about 'absolute
proof', you said you had NO proof. This means you didn't have absoute
proof, you didn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt... or any other
kind of proof. You ready to change your position on your statement
YET?

LOL!

Hadron stated in post id09us$ann$4@news.eternal-september.org on 11/29/10
6:31 AM:

....
>>>> Compare GIMP with Photoshop.
>>> 
>>> I never found myself in a situation where I got stuck using The Gimp,
>> 
>> Again, I use neither (although Gimp is actually installed here). I
>> prefer ImageMagick, since it allows me to work on vast batches of files
>> automatically.
> 
> Which you don't do. Gimp also allows batch processing. PS I dont know.

PS does as well... and has macro recording which, I believe, GIMP does not.
On OS X, Photoshop also has AppleScript and Automator support.
 
....


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Nov 26, 9:15 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
>> 4cf07ba...@news.x-privat.org on 11/26/10 8:31 PM:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> On Nov 26, 5:56 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> (snip)
>>
>>>>>>>> Lack of proof equals or necessarily leads to Doubt
>>>>>>>> Doubt equals or necessarily leads to a Valid Refutation
>>>>>>>> Lack of proof neither = nor necessarily lead to a Valid
>>>>>>>> Refutation
>>
>>>>>>> Where an allegation of guilt is involved (the context I made the
>>>>>>> statements in), these are absolutely true for all sane, honest
>>>>>>> and honorable people.
>>
>>>>> No, Steve: it is utter rubbish. But thank you for proving my
>>>>> point. :)
>>
>>>> In context your first point pushes this idea:
>>
>>>> 'An allegation of guilt should not be doubted based on the fact
>>>> that there is no proof of the allegation.
>>
>>>> All sane, honest and honorable people internalize the concept of
>>>> guilt the same way a modern court does: A person is presumed
>>>> innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (or, in
>>>> certain cases, according to law). Having no proof doesn't fit this
>>>> criteria in any way. Here was one of my favorites by you:
>>
>>>> "Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute
>>>> any argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit
>>
>>>> Extremely funny stuff;)
>>
>>>> Fact: In court or out, having no proof does not prove a guilt
>>>> allegation. That idea is absurd, which is why you were the only one
>>>> ever found pushing it.
>>
>>>> (Snit will now talk about his belief that the right to a
>>>> presumption of innocence has no place outside of a courtroom. LOL!)
>>
>>> LOL!
>>
>> As I have noted, Steve, you get confused between the concepts of
>> absolute proof and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
> Your definition of proof,which relies upon the existence of a true
> statement so that something else could neccesarily follow from it,
> works just fine in this context.  Math need not apply. You're now
> trying to convince readers that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
> doesn't need to contain anything for which a true statement can be
> made about it... you know, so some deduction can necessarily follow
> from the statement. Good luck with your idea that people are as stupid
> as you need them to be;)
>
>  > In a court there is almost never proof...
>
> In court proof there certainly is evidence sufficient to establish a
> thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth to observers. It's
> nothing more than the effect of evidence in convincing the mind that
> something is true. Notably, you didn't say anything about 'absolute
> proof', you said you had NO proof. This means you didn't have absoute
> proof, you didn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt... or any other
> kind of proof. You ready to change your position on your statement
> YET?
>
> LOL!

LOL!

-- 
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch 

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf3bd7c@news.x-privat.org on
11/29/10 7:49 AM:

> Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On Nov 26, 9:15 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
>>> 4cf07ba...@news.x-privat.org on 11/26/10 8:31 PM:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 26, 5:56 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> (snip)
>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Lack of proof equals or necessarily leads to Doubt
>>>>>>>>> Doubt equals or necessarily leads to a Valid Refutation
>>>>>>>>> Lack of proof neither = nor necessarily lead to a Valid
>>>>>>>>> Refutation
>>> 
>>>>>>>> Where an allegation of guilt is involved (the context I made the
>>>>>>>> statements in), these are absolutely true for all sane, honest
>>>>>>>> and honorable people.
>>> 
>>>>>> No, Steve: it is utter rubbish. But thank you for proving my
>>>>>> point. :)
>>> 
>>>>> In context your first point pushes this idea:
>>> 
>>>>> 'An allegation of guilt should not be doubted based on the fact
>>>>> that there is no proof of the allegation.
>>> 
>>>>> All sane, honest and honorable people internalize the concept of
>>>>> guilt the same way a modern court does: A person is presumed
>>>>> innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (or, in
>>>>> certain cases, according to law). Having no proof doesn't fit this
>>>>> criteria in any way. Here was one of my favorites by you:
>>> 
>>>>> "Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute
>>>>> any argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit
>>> 
>>>>> Extremely funny stuff;)
>>> 
>>>>> Fact: In court or out, having no proof does not prove a guilt
>>>>> allegation. That idea is absurd, which is why you were the only one
>>>>> ever found pushing it.
>>> 
>>>>> (Snit will now talk about his belief that the right to a
>>>>> presumption of innocence has no place outside of a courtroom. LOL!)
>>> 
>>>> LOL!
>>> 
>>> As I have noted, Steve, you get confused between the concepts of
>>> absolute proof and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
>> 
>> Your definition of proof,which relies upon the existence of a true
>> statement so that something else could neccesarily follow from it,
>> works just fine in this context.  Math need not apply. You're now
>> trying to convince readers that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
>> doesn't need to contain anything for which a true statement can be
>> made about it... you know, so some deduction can necessarily follow
>> from the statement. Good luck with your idea that people are as stupid
>> as you need them to be;)
>> 
>>> In a court there is almost never proof...
>> 
>> In court proof there certainly is evidence sufficient to establish a
>> thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth to observers. It's
>> nothing more than the effect of evidence in convincing the mind that
>> something is true. Notably, you didn't say anything about 'absolute
>> proof', you said you had NO proof. This means you didn't have absoute
>> proof, you didn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt... or any other
>> kind of proof. You ready to change your position on your statement
>> YET?
>> 
>> LOL!
> 
> LOL!

You *still* are confusing the ideas of absolute proof, as in a mathematical
proof, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as is required in a US court of
law.

Here, maybe this will help you: try to describe the two.  I *know* you will
fail.  You simply do not understand the difference.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Snit wrote:
> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf3bd7c@news.x-privat.org
> on 11/29/10 7:49 AM:
>
>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On Nov 26, 9:15 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
>>>> 4cf07ba...@news.x-privat.org on 11/26/10 8:31 PM:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 26, 5:56 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> (snip)
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lack of proof equals or necessarily leads to Doubt
>>>>>>>>>> Doubt equals or necessarily leads to a Valid Refutation
>>>>>>>>>> Lack of proof neither = nor necessarily lead to a Valid
>>>>>>>>>> Refutation
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Where an allegation of guilt is involved (the context I made
>>>>>>>>> the statements in), these are absolutely true for all sane,
>>>>>>>>> honest and honorable people.
>>>>
>>>>>>> No, Steve: it is utter rubbish. But thank you for proving my
>>>>>>> point. :)
>>>>
>>>>>> In context your first point pushes this idea:
>>>>
>>>>>> 'An allegation of guilt should not be doubted based on the fact
>>>>>> that there is no proof of the allegation.
>>>>
>>>>>> All sane, honest and honorable people internalize the concept of
>>>>>> guilt the same way a modern court does: A person is presumed
>>>>>> innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (or, in
>>>>>> certain cases, according to law). Having no proof doesn't fit
>>>>>> this criteria in any way. Here was one of my favorites by you:
>>>>
>>>>>> "Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute
>>>>>> any argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit
>>>>
>>>>>> Extremely funny stuff;)
>>>>
>>>>>> Fact: In court or out, having no proof does not prove a guilt
>>>>>> allegation. That idea is absurd, which is why you were the only
>>>>>> one ever found pushing it.
>>>>
>>>>>> (Snit will now talk about his belief that the right to a
>>>>>> presumption of innocence has no place outside of a courtroom.
>>>>>> LOL!)
>>>>
>>>>> LOL!
>>>>
>>>> As I have noted, Steve, you get confused between the concepts of
>>>> absolute proof and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
>>>
>>> Your definition of proof,which relies upon the existence of a true
>>> statement so that something else could neccesarily follow from it,
>>> works just fine in this context.  Math need not apply. You're now
>>> trying to convince readers that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
>>> doesn't need to contain anything for which a true statement can be
>>> made about it... you know, so some deduction can necessarily follow
>>> from the statement. Good luck with your idea that people are as
>>> stupid as you need them to be;)
>>>
>>>> In a court there is almost never proof...
>>>
>>> In court proof there certainly is evidence sufficient to establish a
>>> thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth to observers. It's
>>> nothing more than the effect of evidence in convincing the mind that
>>> something is true. Notably, you didn't say anything about 'absolute
>>> proof', you said you had NO proof. This means you didn't have
>>> absoute proof, you didn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt...
>>> or any other kind of proof. You ready to change your position on
>>> your statement YET?
>>>
>>> LOL!
>>
>> LOL!
>
> You *still* are confusing the ideas of absolute proof, as in a
> mathematical proof, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as is
> required in a US court of law.
>
> Here, maybe this will help you: try to describe the two.  I *know*
> you will fail.  You simply do not understand the difference.

Fuck you.  Why don't you answer his questions first.

-- 
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch 

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf3c272$1@news.x-privat.org on
11/29/10 8:10 AM:

.... 
>>>>> As I have noted, Steve, you get confused between the concepts of
>>>>> absolute proof and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
>>>> 
>>>> Your definition of proof,which relies upon the existence of a true
>>>> statement so that something else could neccesarily follow from it,
>>>> works just fine in this context.  Math need not apply. You're now
>>>> trying to convince readers that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
>>>> doesn't need to contain anything for which a true statement can be
>>>> made about it... you know, so some deduction can necessarily follow
>>>> from the statement. Good luck with your idea that people are as
>>>> stupid as you need them to be;)
>>>> 
>>>>> In a court there is almost never proof...
>>>> 
>>>> In court proof there certainly is evidence sufficient to establish a
>>>> thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth to observers. It's
>>>> nothing more than the effect of evidence in convincing the mind that
>>>> something is true. Notably, you didn't say anything about 'absolute
>>>> proof', you said you had NO proof. This means you didn't have
>>>> absoute proof, you didn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt...
>>>> or any other kind of proof. You ready to change your position on
>>>> your statement YET?
>>>> 
>>>> LOL!
>>> 
>>> LOL!
>> 
>> You *still* are confusing the ideas of absolute proof, as in a
>> mathematical proof, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as is
>> required in a US court of law.
>> 
>> Here, maybe this will help you: try to describe the two.  I *know*
>> you will fail.  You simply do not understand the difference.
> 
> Fuck you.  Why don't you answer his questions first.

I did answer your questions, Steve: they are all answered by the fact you
are still confused between the two concepts I ask you about, above.

And, predictably, you will not even try to describe the differences.  It has
baffled you for years - and, as you prove above, it baffles you still.

[Oh no!  I used the word "prove"... Steve's head will now explode!]


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Nov 29, 7:56=A0am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf3b...@news.x-privat.org on
> 11/29/10 7:49 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Steve Carroll wrote:
> >> On Nov 26, 9:15 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
> >>> 4cf07ba...@news.x-privat.org on 11/26/10 8:31 PM:
>
> >>>> Steve Carroll wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 26, 5:56 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> (snip)
>
> >>>>>>>>> Lack of proof equals or necessarily leads to Doubt
> >>>>>>>>> Doubt equals or necessarily leads to a Valid Refutation
> >>>>>>>>> Lack of proof neither =3D nor necessarily lead to a Valid
> >>>>>>>>> Refutation
>
> >>>>>>>> Where an allegation of guilt is involved (the context I made the
> >>>>>>>> statements in), these are absolutely true for all sane, honest
> >>>>>>>> and honorable people.
>
> >>>>>> No, Steve: it is utter rubbish. But thank you for proving my
> >>>>>> point. :)
>
> >>>>> In context your first point pushes this idea:
>
> >>>>> 'An allegation of guilt should not be doubted based on the fact
> >>>>> that there is no proof of the allegation.
>
> >>>>> All sane, honest and honorable people internalize the concept of
> >>>>> guilt the same way a modern court does: A person is presumed
> >>>>> innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (or, in
> >>>>> certain cases, according to law). Having no proof doesn't fit this
> >>>>> criteria in any way. Here was one of my favorites by you:
>
> >>>>> "Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute
> >>>>> any argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit
>
> >>>>> Extremely funny stuff;)
>
> >>>>> Fact: In court or out, having no proof does not prove a guilt
> >>>>> allegation. That idea is absurd, which is why you were the only one
> >>>>> ever found pushing it.
>
> >>>>> (Snit will now talk about his belief that the right to a
> >>>>> presumption of innocence has no place outside of a courtroom. LOL!)
>
> >>>> LOL!
>
> >>> As I have noted, Steve, you get confused between the concepts of
> >>> absolute proof and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
> >> Your definition of proof,which relies upon the existence of a true
> >> statement so that something else could neccesarily follow from it,
> >> works just fine in this context. =A0Math need not apply. You're now
> >> trying to convince readers that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
> >> doesn't need to contain anything for which a true statement can be
> >> made about it... you know, so some deduction can necessarily follow
> >> from the statement. Good luck with your idea that people are as stupid
> >> as you need them to be;)
>
> >>> In a court there is almost never proof...
>
> >> In court proof there certainly is evidence sufficient to establish a
> >> thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth to observers. It's
> >> nothing more than the effect of evidence in convincing the mind that
> >> something is true. Notably, you didn't say anything about 'absolute
> >> proof', you said you had NO proof. This means you didn't have absoute
> >> proof, you didn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt... or any other
> >> kind of proof. You ready to change your position on your statement
> >> YET?
>
> >> LOL!
>
> > LOL!
>
> You

Yes, me... and I've pointed to the fact that you said you had *no*
proof (of any kind) for years. What about it?

Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Nov 29, 7:56 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf3b...@news.x-privat.org
>> on 11/29/10 7:49 AM:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> On Nov 26, 9:15 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
>>>>> 4cf07ba...@news.x-privat.org on 11/26/10 8:31 PM:
>>
>>>>>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 26, 5:56 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> (snip)
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Lack of proof equals or necessarily leads to Doubt
>>>>>>>>>>> Doubt equals or necessarily leads to a Valid Refutation
>>>>>>>>>>> Lack of proof neither = nor necessarily lead to a Valid
>>>>>>>>>>> Refutation
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Where an allegation of guilt is involved (the context I made
>>>>>>>>>> the statements in), these are absolutely true for all sane,
>>>>>>>>>> honest and honorable people.
>>
>>>>>>>> No, Steve: it is utter rubbish. But thank you for proving my
>>>>>>>> point. :)
>>
>>>>>>> In context your first point pushes this idea:
>>
>>>>>>> 'An allegation of guilt should not be doubted based on the fact
>>>>>>> that there is no proof of the allegation.
>>
>>>>>>> All sane, honest and honorable people internalize the concept of
>>>>>>> guilt the same way a modern court does: A person is presumed
>>>>>>> innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (or, in
>>>>>>> certain cases, according to law). Having no proof doesn't fit
>>>>>>> this criteria in any way. Here was one of my favorites by you:
>>
>>>>>>> "Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute
>>>>>>> any argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit
>>
>>>>>>> Extremely funny stuff;)
>>
>>>>>>> Fact: In court or out, having no proof does not prove a guilt
>>>>>>> allegation. That idea is absurd, which is why you were the only
>>>>>>> one ever found pushing it.
>>
>>>>>>> (Snit will now talk about his belief that the right to a
>>>>>>> presumption of innocence has no place outside of a courtroom.
>>>>>>> LOL!)
>>
>>>>>> LOL!
>>
>>>>> As I have noted, Steve, you get confused between the concepts of
>>>>> absolute proof and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
>>
>>>> Your definition of proof,which relies upon the existence of a true
>>>> statement so that something else could neccesarily follow from it,
>>>> works just fine in this context. Math need not apply. You're now
>>>> trying to convince readers that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
>>>> doesn't need to contain anything for which a true statement can be
>>>> made about it... you know, so some deduction can necessarily follow
>>>> from the statement. Good luck with your idea that people are as
>>>> stupid as you need them to be;)
>>
>>>>> In a court there is almost never proof...
>>
>>>> In court proof there certainly is evidence sufficient to establish
>>>> a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth to observers.
>>>> It's nothing more than the effect of evidence in convincing the
>>>> mind that something is true. Notably, you didn't say anything
>>>> about 'absolute proof', you said you had NO proof. This means you
>>>> didn't have absoute proof, you didn't have proof beyond a
>>>> reasonable doubt... or any other kind of proof. You ready to
>>>> change your position on your statement YET?
>>
>>>> LOL!
>>
>>> LOL!
>>
>> You
>
> Yes, me... and I've pointed to the fact that you said you had *no*
> proof (of any kind) for years. What about it?

LOL!

-- 
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch 

On Nov 29, 8:13=A0am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf3c27...@news.x-privat.org on
> 11/29/10 8:10 AM:
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> As I have noted, Steve, you get confused between the concepts of
> >>>>> absolute proof and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
> >>>> Your definition of proof,which relies upon the existence of a true
> >>>> statement so that something else could neccesarily follow from it,
> >>>> works just fine in this context. =A0Math need not apply. You're now
> >>>> trying to convince readers that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
> >>>> doesn't need to contain anything for which a true statement can be
> >>>> made about it... you know, so some deduction can necessarily follow
> >>>> from the statement. Good luck with your idea that people are as
> >>>> stupid as you need them to be;)
>
> >>>>> In a court there is almost never proof...
>
> >>>> In court proof there certainly is evidence sufficient to establish a
> >>>> thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth to observers. It's
> >>>> nothing more than the effect of evidence in convincing the mind that
> >>>> something is true. Notably, you didn't say anything about 'absolute
> >>>> proof', you said you had NO proof. This means you didn't have
> >>>> absoute proof, you didn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt...
> >>>> or any other kind of proof. You ready to change your position on
> >>>> your statement YET?
>
> >>>> LOL!
>
> >>> LOL!
>
> >> You *still* are confusing the ideas of absolute proof, as in a
> >> mathematical proof, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as is
> >> required in a US court of law.
>
> >> Here, maybe this will help you: try to describe the two. =A0I *know*
> >> you will fail. =A0You simply do not understand the difference.
>
> > Fuck you. =A0Why don't you answer his questions first.
>
> I did answer your questions

There aren't any "questions" regarding the fact that you said you had
*no* proof (of any kind). What about it? Lemme guess... you're finally
ready to retract the statement?

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf3c610$1@news.x-privat.org on
11/29/10 8:26 AM:

>>> You *still* are confusing the ideas of absolute proof, as in a mathematical
>>> proof, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as is required in a US court of
>>> law.
>>> 
>>> Here, maybe this will help you: try to describe the two.  I *know* you will
>>> fail.  You simply do not understand the difference.
>> 
>> Yes, me... and I've pointed to the fact that you said you had *no*
>> proof (of any kind) for years. What about it?
> 
> LOL!

* Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
* Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

Even after years of having this explained to you, you still confused these
concepts and are unable to show understanding of the two concepts.  How
pathetic.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Nov 29, 8:33=A0am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf3c61...@news.x-privat.org on
> 11/29/10 8:26 AM:
>
> >>> You *still* are confusing the ideas of absolute proof, as in a mathem=
atical
> >>> proof, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as is required in a US co=
urt of
> >>> law.
>
> >>> Here, maybe this will help you: try to describe the two. =A0I *know* =
you will
> >>> fail. =A0You simply do not understand the difference.
>
> >> Yes, me... and I've pointed to the fact that you said you had *no*
> >> proof (of any kind) for years. What about it?
>
> > LOL!
>
> * Proof

Exactly... you said you had none at all (that means of any kind). What
about it? You're now ready to sing a different tune? So sing it
already.

Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Nov 29, 8:33 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
>> 4cf3c61...@news.x-privat.org on 11/29/10 8:26 AM:
>>
>>>>> You *still* are confusing the ideas of absolute proof, as in a
>>>>> mathematical proof, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as is
>>>>> required in a US court of law.
>>
>>>>> Here, maybe this will help you: try to describe the two. I *know*
>>>>> you will fail. You simply do not understand the difference.
>>
>>>> Yes, me... and I've pointed to the fact that you said you had *no*
>>>> proof (of any kind) for years. What about it?
>>
>>> LOL!
>>
>> * Proof
>
> Exactly... you said you had none at all (that means of any kind). What
> about it? You're now ready to sing a different tune? So sing it
> already.

LOL!

-- 
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch 

Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Nov 29, 8:13 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
>> 4cf3c27...@news.x-privat.org on 11/29/10 8:10 AM:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> As I have noted, Steve, you get confused between the concepts of
>>>>>>> absolute proof and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
>>
>>>>>> Your definition of proof,which relies upon the existence of a
>>>>>> true statement so that something else could neccesarily follow
>>>>>> from it, works just fine in this context. Math need not apply.
>>>>>> You're now trying to convince readers that "proof beyond a
>>>>>> reasonable doubt" doesn't need to contain anything for which a
>>>>>> true statement can be made about it... you know, so some
>>>>>> deduction can necessarily follow from the statement. Good luck
>>>>>> with your idea that people are as stupid as you need them to be;)
>>
>>>>>>> In a court there is almost never proof...
>>
>>>>>> In court proof there certainly is evidence sufficient to
>>>>>> establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth to
>>>>>> observers. It's nothing more than the effect of evidence in
>>>>>> convincing the mind that something is true. Notably, you didn't
>>>>>> say anything about 'absolute proof', you said you had NO proof.
>>>>>> This means you didn't have absoute proof, you didn't have proof
>>>>>> beyond a reasonable doubt... or any other kind of proof. You
>>>>>> ready to change your position on your statement YET?
>>
>>>>>> LOL!
>>
>>>>> LOL!
>>
>>>> You *still* are confusing the ideas of absolute proof, as in a
>>>> mathematical proof, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as is
>>>> required in a US court of law.
>>
>>>> Here, maybe this will help you: try to describe the two. I *know*
>>>> you will fail. You simply do not understand the difference.
>>
>>> Fuck you. Why don't you answer his questions first.
>>
>> I did answer your questions
>
> There aren't any "questions" regarding the fact that you said you had
> *no* proof (of any kind). What about it? Lemme guess... you're finally
> ready to retract the statement?

LOL!

-- 
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch 

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf3c963@news.x-privat.org on
11/29/10 8:40 AM:

>>> I did answer your questions
>> 
>> There aren't any "questions" regarding the fact that you said you had
>> *no* proof (of any kind). What about it? Lemme guess... you're finally
>> ready to retract the statement?
> 
> LOL!

* Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
* Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

Even after years of having this explained to you, you still confused these
concepts and are unable to show understanding.  How pathetic... and the very
reason you snip, run and make things up.  Even you know I am right.



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf3c94f$1@news.x-privat.org on
11/29/10 8:40 AM:

>>> * Proof
>> 
>> Exactly... you said you had none at all (that means of any kind). What
>> about it? You're now ready to sing a different tune? So sing it
>> already.
> 
> LOL!

* Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
* Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

Even after years of having this explained to you, you still confused these
concepts and are unable to show understanding.  How pathetic... and the very
reason you snip, run and make things up.  Even you know I am right.

Face it, if you could you would explain the difference between the two just
to "prove" me wrong.  But you cannot.  You have *no* idea.  None.  You are
clueless.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Nov 29, 8:45=A0am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf3c94...@news.x-privat.org on
> 11/29/10 8:40 AM:
>
> >>> * Proof
>
> >> Exactly... you said you had none at all (that means of any kind). What
> >> about it? You're now ready to sing a different tune? So sing it
> >> already.
>
> > LOL!
>
> * Proof: as

.... per your definition, read:

"a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true
something else necessarily follows from it".

Being that you said you didn't have any proof at all you are obviously
admitting that you didn't have one true statement from which something
else could necessarily follow (math need not apply). You wrote this,
yet, you don't seem to agree with it.

> n that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
> * Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

If you state (as you did)  that your "evidence" doesn't contain a
single true statement from which something else could necessarily
follow...  that'd create "a reasonable doubt" in the mind of any sane,
honest and honorable person.

Are you still trying to sell your other goofy argument that conflicts
with the western model of justice?

 "Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute any
argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit

--
refute  -	to deny (a claim, charge, allegation, etc)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/refute
--

Is your new argument going to be that an "argument" in a "court room"
isn't the same thing as "a claim, charge, allegation, etc" ? Or that
when a case involving a guilt allegation is dismissed for lack of any
proof that the "claim, charge, allegation, etc" it hasn't been
'denied' by the court? How do these things work in your mind, Snit?

Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Nov 29, 8:45 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
>> 4cf3c94...@news.x-privat.org on 11/29/10 8:40 AM:
>>
>>>>> * Proof
>>
>>>> Exactly... you said you had none at all (that means of any kind).
>>>> What about it? You're now ready to sing a different tune? So sing
>>>> it already.
>>
>>> LOL!
>>
>> * Proof: as
>
> ... per your definition, read:
>
> "a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true
> something else necessarily follows from it".
>
> Being that you said you didn't have any proof at all you are obviously
> admitting that you didn't have one true statement from which something
> else could necessarily follow (math need not apply). You wrote this,
> yet, you don't seem to agree with it.
>
>> n that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
>> * Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
>
> If you state (as you did)  that your "evidence" doesn't contain a
> single true statement from which something else could necessarily
> follow...  that'd create "a reasonable doubt" in the mind of any sane,
> honest and honorable person.
>
> Are you still trying to sell your other goofy argument that conflicts
> with the western model of justice?
>
>  "Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute any
> argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit
>
> --
> refute  - to deny (a claim, charge, allegation, etc)
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/refute

LOL!

-- 
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch 

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf3d504$1@news.x-privat.org on
11/29/10 9:30 AM:

> Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 8:45 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
>>> 4cf3c94...@news.x-privat.org on 11/29/10 8:40 AM:
>>> 
>>>>>> * Proof
>>> 
>>>>> Exactly... you said you had none at all (that means of any kind).
>>>>> What about it? You're now ready to sing a different tune? So sing
>>>>> it already.
>>> 
>>>> LOL!
>>> 
>>> * Proof: as
>> 
>> ... per your definition, read:
>> 
>> "a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true
>> something else necessarily follows from it".
>> 
>> Being that you said you didn't have any proof at all you are obviously
>> admitting that you didn't have one true statement from which something
>> else could necessarily follow (math need not apply). You wrote this,
>> yet, you don't seem to agree with it.
>> 
>>> n that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
>>> * Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
>> 
>> If you state (as you did)  that your "evidence" doesn't contain a
>> single true statement from which something else could necessarily
>> follow...  that'd create "a reasonable doubt" in the mind of any sane,
>> honest and honorable person.
>> 
>> Are you still trying to sell your other goofy argument that conflicts
>> with the western model of justice?
>> 
>>  "Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute any
>> argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit
>> 
>> --
>> refute  - to deny (a claim, charge, allegation, etc)
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/refute
> 
> LOL!

You *still* are confusing two concepts as you snip and run in fear... and
then repost your drivel with your sock as you desperately seek to gain my
attention.  Poor Steve: years of having two simple concepts explained to him
and he just cannot understand.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Nov 29, 9:34=A0am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf3d50...@news.x-privat.org on
> 11/29/10 9:30 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Steve Carroll wrote:
> >> On Nov 29, 8:45 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
> >>> 4cf3c94...@news.x-privat.org on 11/29/10 8:40 AM:
>
> >>>>>> * Proof
>
> >>>>> Exactly... you said you had none at all (that means of any kind).
> >>>>> What about it? You're now ready to sing a different tune? So sing
> >>>>> it already.
>
> >>>> LOL!
>
> >>> * Proof: as
>
> >> ... per your definition, read:
>
> >> "a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true
> >> something else necessarily follows from it".
>
> >> Being that you said you didn't have any proof at all you are obviously
> >> admitting that you didn't have one true statement from which something
> >> else could necessarily follow (math need not apply). You wrote this,
> >> yet, you don't seem to agree with it.
>
> >>> n that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
> >>> * Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
>
> >> If you state (as you did) =A0that your "evidence" doesn't contain a
> >> single true statement from which something else could necessarily
> >> follow... =A0that'd create "a reasonable doubt" in the mind of any san=
e,
> >> honest and honorable person.
>
> >> Are you still trying to sell your other goofy argument that conflicts
> >> with the western model of justice?
>
> >> =A0"Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute an=
y
> >> argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit
>
> >> --
> >> refute =A0- to deny (a claim, charge, allegation, etc)
> >>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/refute
>
> > LOL!
>
> You *still* are confusing two concepts

So explain how you believe that your "evidence" contains  "proof
beyond a reasonable doubt", yet.  you have simultaneously admitted
that you don't have a single true statement from which something else
can necessarily follow. How's that work?

If that one is too difficult for you then put it on hold while you
explain your other position:

"Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute any
argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit

Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Nov 29, 9:34 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
>> 4cf3d50...@news.x-privat.org on 11/29/10 9:30 AM:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> On Nov 29, 8:45 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
>>>>> 4cf3c94...@news.x-privat.org on 11/29/10 8:40 AM:
>>
>>>>>>>> * Proof
>>
>>>>>>> Exactly... you said you had none at all (that means of any
>>>>>>> kind). What about it? You're now ready to sing a different
>>>>>>> tune? So sing it already.
>>
>>>>>> LOL!
>>
>>>>> * Proof: as
>>
>>>> ... per your definition, read:
>>
>>>> "a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true
>>>> something else necessarily follows from it".
>>
>>>> Being that you said you didn't have any proof at all you are
>>>> obviously admitting that you didn't have one true statement from
>>>> which something else could necessarily follow (math need not
>>>> apply). You wrote this, yet, you don't seem to agree with it.
>>
>>>>> n that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
>>>>> * Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
>>
>>>> If you state (as you did) that your "evidence" doesn't contain a
>>>> single true statement from which something else could necessarily
>>>> follow... that'd create "a reasonable doubt" in the mind of any
>>>> sane, honest and honorable person.
>>
>>>> Are you still trying to sell your other goofy argument that
>>>> conflicts with the western model of justice?
>>
>>>> "Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute
>>>> any argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit
>>
>>>> --
>>>> refute - to deny (a claim, charge, allegation, etc)
>>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/refute
>>
>>> LOL!
>>
>> You *still* are confusing two concepts
>
> So explain how you believe that your "evidence" contains  "proof
> beyond a reasonable doubt", yet.  you have simultaneously admitted
> that you don't have a single true statement from which something else
> can necessarily follow. How's that work?
>
> If that one is too difficult for you then put it on hold while you
> explain your other position:
>
> "Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute any
> argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit

LOL!

-- 
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch 

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf3db65$1@news.x-privat.org on
11/29/10 9:57 AM:

.... 
>>> You *still* are confusing two concepts
>> 
>> So explain how you believe that your "evidence" contains  "proof
>> beyond a reasonable doubt", yet.  you have simultaneously admitted
>> that you don't have a single true statement from which something else
>> can necessarily follow. How's that work?
>> 
>> If that one is too difficult for you then put it on hold while you
>> explain your other position:
>> 
>> "Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute any
>> argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit
> 
> LOL!

You want me to explain, again, concepts to you that you have shown you
simply do not have the capacity to understand:

* Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
* Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

The fact is the difference between those two is completely baffling to you.
Oh well.



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Nov 29, 10:00=A0am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf3db6...@news.x-privat.org on
> 11/29/10 9:57 AM:
>
> ...
>
> >>> You *still* are confusing two concepts
>
> >> So explain how you believe that your "evidence" contains =A0"proof
> >> beyond a reasonable doubt", yet. =A0you have simultaneously admitted
> >> that you don't have a single true statement from which something else
> >> can necessarily follow. How's that work?
>
> >> If that one is too difficult for you then put it on hold while you
> >> explain your other position:
>
> >> "Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute any
> >> argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit
>
> > LOL!
>
> You want me to explain

.... this:

How you believe that your "evidence" contains  "proof beyond a
reasonable doubt", yet.  you've simultaneously admitted you don't have
a single true thing from which something else can necessarily follow.

You *are* arguing that you have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" ,
right? If so, unless you retract your "proof" statement about your
"evidence", then your argument can only be about why "proof beyond a
reasonable doubt" should even be considered to  BE  "proof beyond a
reasonable doubt"  when there has not been a one true thing
established from which something else can necessarily follow. I'm
interested in seeing you present such an argument. I'm sure I'm not
alone when I say that I feel it's about time you have moved past your
position from 2003 so you can begin to address the inconsistencies
you've left in your wake regarding your "argument'.

Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Nov 29, 10:00 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
>> 4cf3db6...@news.x-privat.org on 11/29/10 9:57 AM:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>>> You *still* are confusing two concepts
>>
>>>> So explain how you believe that your "evidence" contains "proof
>>>> beyond a reasonable doubt", yet. you have simultaneously admitted
>>>> that you don't have a single true statement from which something
>>>> else can necessarily follow. How's that work?
>>
>>>> If that one is too difficult for you then put it on hold while you
>>>> explain your other position:
>>
>>>> "Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute
>>>> any argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit
>>
>>> LOL!
>>
>> You want me to explain
>
> ... this:
>
> How you believe that your "evidence" contains  "proof beyond a
> reasonable doubt", yet.  you've simultaneously admitted you don't have
> a single true thing from which something else can necessarily follow.
>
> You *are* arguing that you have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" ,
> right? If so, unless you retract your "proof" statement about your
> "evidence", then your argument can only be about why "proof beyond a
> reasonable doubt" should even be considered to  BE  "proof beyond a
> reasonable doubt"  when there has not been a one true thing
> established from which something else can necessarily follow. I'm
> interested in seeing you present such an argument. I'm sure I'm not
> alone when I say that I feel it's about time you have moved past your
> position from 2003 so you can begin to address the inconsistencies
> you've left in your wake regarding your "argument'.

LOL!

-- 
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch 

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf3e092@news.x-privat.org on
11/29/10 10:19 AM:

> Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 10:00 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
>>> 4cf3db6...@news.x-privat.org on 11/29/10 9:57 AM:
>>> 
>>> ...
>>> 
>>>>>> You *still* are confusing two concepts
>>> 
>>>>> So explain how you believe that your "evidence" contains "proof
>>>>> beyond a reasonable doubt", yet. you have simultaneously admitted
>>>>> that you don't have a single true statement from which something
>>>>> else can necessarily follow. How's that work?
>>> 
>>>>> If that one is too difficult for you then put it on hold while you
>>>>> explain your other position:
>>> 
>>>>> "Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute
>>>>> any argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit
>>> 
>>>> LOL!
>>> 
>>> You want me to explain, again, concepts to you that you have shown you
>>> simply do not have the capacity to understand:
>>> 
>>> * Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
>>> * Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
>>> 
>>> The fact is the difference between those two is completely baffling to you.
>>> Oh well.
>> 
>> ... this:

Your below comments just serve to prove me right - you *still* do not
understand the difference between the two concepts.

>> How you believe that your "evidence" contains  "proof beyond a
>> reasonable doubt", yet.  you've simultaneously admitted you don't have
>> a single true thing from which something else can necessarily follow.
>> 
>> You *are* arguing that you have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" ,
>> right? If so, unless you retract your "proof" statement about your
>> "evidence", then your argument can only be about why "proof beyond a
>> reasonable doubt" should even be considered to  BE  "proof beyond a
>> reasonable doubt"  when there has not been a one true thing
>> established from which something else can necessarily follow. I'm
>> interested in seeing you present such an argument. I'm sure I'm not
>> alone when I say that I feel it's about time you have moved past your
>> position from 2003 so you can begin to address the inconsistencies
>> you've left in your wake regarding your "argument'.
> 
> LOL!



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Nov 29, 10:22=A0am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> >> How you believe that your "evidence" contains =A0"proof beyond a
> >> reasonable doubt", yet. =A0you've simultaneously admitted you don't ha=
ve
> >> a single true thing from which something else can necessarily follow.
>
> >> You *are* arguing that you have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" ,
> >> right? If so, unless you retract your "proof" statement about your
> >> "evidence", then your argument can only be about why "proof beyond a
> >> reasonable doubt" should even be considered to =A0BE =A0"proof beyond =
a
> >> reasonable doubt" =A0when there has not been a one true thing
> >> established from which something else can necessarily follow. I'm
> >> interested in seeing you present such an argument. I'm sure I'm not
> >> alone when I say that I feel it's about time you have moved past your
> >> position from 2003 so you can begin to address the inconsistencies
> >> you've left in your wake regarding your "argument'.
>
> > LOL!

No one can make you move past 2003.

On Nov 29, 10:19=A0am, "Big Crotch on a Small Fish"
<BigCrotch@SmallFish> wrote:
> Steve Carroll wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 10:00 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
> >> 4cf3db6...@news.x-privat.org on 11/29/10 9:57 AM:
>
> >> ...
>
> >>>>> You *still* are confusing two concepts
>
> >>>> So explain how you believe that your "evidence" contains "proof
> >>>> beyond a reasonable doubt", yet. you have simultaneously admitted
> >>>> that you don't have a single true statement from which something
> >>>> else can necessarily follow. How's that work?
>
> >>>> If that one is too difficult for you then put it on hold while you
> >>>> explain your other position:
>
> >>>> "Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute
> >>>> any argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit
>
> >>> LOL!
>
> >> You want me to explain
>
> > ... this:
>
> > How you believe that your "evidence" contains =A0"proof beyond a
> > reasonable doubt", yet. =A0you've simultaneously admitted you don't hav=
e
> > a single true thing from which something else can necessarily follow.
>
> > You *are* arguing that you have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" ,
> > right? If so, unless you retract your "proof" statement about your
> > "evidence", then your argument can only be about why "proof beyond a
> > reasonable doubt" should even be considered to =A0BE =A0"proof beyond a
> > reasonable doubt" =A0when there has not been a one true thing
> > established from which something else can necessarily follow. I'm
> > interested in seeing you present such an argument. I'm sure I'm not
> > alone when I say that I feel it's about time you have moved past your
> > position from 2003 so you can begin to address the inconsistencies
> > you've left in your wake regarding your "argument'.
>
> LOL!

Funny 'ha ha' or.... ?


"... he is morally and criminally guilty, but not legally guilty" -
Snit

"He has lied about the war on Iraq. An illegal war. One that makes him
a war criminal." - Snit

"I can not unequivocally state that Bush is a war criminal." - Snit

"Ed has provided a faith-based-defense that I just don't think counts"
- Snit

Snit will now explain how his looking at his own "evidence" and coming
to a conclusion (in any direction) is *not* "based" on his "faith"
that his "evidence" shows him what he claims it shows him.

Poor Snit;)

Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Nov 29, 10:22 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>>> How you believe that your "evidence" contains "proof beyond a
>>>> reasonable doubt", yet. you've simultaneously admitted you don't
>>>> have a single true thing from which something else can necessarily
>>>> follow.
>>
>>>> You *are* arguing that you have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" ,
>>>> right? If so, unless you retract your "proof" statement about your
>>>> "evidence", then your argument can only be about why "proof beyond
>>>> a reasonable doubt" should even be considered to BE "proof beyond a
>>>> reasonable doubt" when there has not been a one true thing
>>>> established from which something else can necessarily follow. I'm
>>>> interested in seeing you present such an argument. I'm sure I'm not
>>>> alone when I say that I feel it's about time you have moved past
>>>> your position from 2003 so you can begin to address the
>>>> inconsistencies you've left in your wake regarding your "argument'.
>>
>>> LOL!
>
> No one can make you move past 2003.

LOL!

-- 
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch 

Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Nov 29, 10:19 am, "Big Crotch on a Small Fish"
> <BigCrotch@SmallFish> wrote:
>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On Nov 29, 10:00 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
>>>> 4cf3db6...@news.x-privat.org on 11/29/10 9:57 AM:
>>
>>>> ...
>>
>>>>>>> You *still* are confusing two concepts
>>
>>>>>> So explain how you believe that your "evidence" contains "proof
>>>>>> beyond a reasonable doubt", yet. you have simultaneously admitted
>>>>>> that you don't have a single true statement from which something
>>>>>> else can necessarily follow. How's that work?
>>
>>>>>> If that one is too difficult for you then put it on hold while
>>>>>> you explain your other position:
>>
>>>>>> "Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute
>>>>>> any argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit
>>
>>>>> LOL!
>>
>>>> You want me to explain
>>
>>> ... this:
>>
>>> How you believe that your "evidence" contains "proof beyond a
>>> reasonable doubt", yet. you've simultaneously admitted you don't
>>> have a single true thing from which something else can necessarily
>>> follow.
>>
>>> You *are* arguing that you have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" ,
>>> right? If so, unless you retract your "proof" statement about your
>>> "evidence", then your argument can only be about why "proof beyond a
>>> reasonable doubt" should even be considered to BE "proof beyond a
>>> reasonable doubt" when there has not been a one true thing
>>> established from which something else can necessarily follow. I'm
>>> interested in seeing you present such an argument. I'm sure I'm not
>>> alone when I say that I feel it's about time you have moved past
>>> your position from 2003 so you can begin to address the
>>> inconsistencies you've left in your wake regarding your "argument'.
>>
>> LOL!
>
> Funny 'ha ha' or.... ?
>
>
> "... he is morally and criminally guilty, but not legally guilty" -
> Snit
>
> "He has lied about the war on Iraq. An illegal war. One that makes him
> a war criminal." - Snit
>
> "I can not unequivocally state that Bush is a war criminal." - Snit
>
> "Ed has provided a faith-based-defense that I just don't think counts"
> - Snit
>
> Snit will now explain how his looking at his own "evidence" and coming
> to a conclusion (in any direction) is *not* "based" on his "faith"
> that his "evidence" shows him what he claims it shows him.
>
> Poor Snit;)

LOL!

-- 
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch 

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf3f76a$1@news.x-privat.org on
11/29/10 11:56 AM:

.... 
>> Funny 'ha ha' or.... ?
>> 
>> 
>> "... he is morally and criminally guilty, but not legally guilty" -
>> Snit

In response to you confusing the concepts of guilt in the terms of

* actual guilt
* adjudication

You repeatedly confused those concepts as well.  You have done so for years.
 
>> "He has lied about the war on Iraq. An illegal war. One that makes him
>> a war criminal." - Snit
>>
>> "I can not unequivocally state that Bush is a war criminal." - Snit

There is always a chance for error... noted in response to your confusion
about the two concepts:

* Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
* Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
 
>> "Ed has provided a faith-based-defense that I just don't think counts"
>> - Snit

I do not even recall what this was in relation to.  Nor do I care.

>> Snit will now explain how his looking at his own "evidence" and coming
>> to a conclusion (in any direction) is *not* "based" on his "faith"
>> that his "evidence" shows him what he claims it shows him.
>> 
>> Poor Snit;)
> 
> LOL!

* Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
* Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

Even after years of having this explained to you, you still confused these
and other concepts and are unable to show understanding.  How pathetic...
and the very reason you snip, run and make things up.  Even you know I am
right.

And funny, Big Crotch, how Steve Carroll always responds as if he was you.
LOL!  How stupid do you think people are, Steve, to actually not know you
are using yet another sock.  And when I stop responding to this one you will
make another... and another... and another.  The following is, I am sure,
just a partial list of your aliases (you goofed again recently and pointed
other resources of yours where you use the name "Fretwiz" - not like anyone
does not know that was one of your socks, but can't you are least pretend to
keep up the charade a bit better?):

    "Evil" John *
    "Evil" Snit *
    Big Crotch on a Small Fish
    Cornelius Munshower
    CSMA Moderator
    Edward Stanfield
    Fretwiz *
    Hitman Hero
    Measles
    Petruzzellis Kids
    Sigmond
    Slaveen
    Smit
    Steve C *
    Steve Camoll *
    Steve Carroll <noone@nowhere.net> *
    Steve Carroll <stevecarroll@nowhere.com> *
    Steve Carroll <trollkiller@TK.com> *
    Steve Carroll's Dog *
    Steve Carrolll *
    Steve Carrroll *
    Yevette Owens
    Yobo_Obyo



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf3f757@news.x-privat.org on
11/29/10 11:56 AM:

>> No one can make you move past 2003.
> 
> LOL!

You did this mean as irony, right?  As you sit here begging me... even using
socks... to explain to you *again* the concepts you have failed to
understand since 2003:

* Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
* Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

You have been begging me to explain the difference to you for over half a
decade... and I have explained it.  Many times.  You just cannot understand.
Oh well.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Snit wrote:
> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf3f757@news.x-privat.org
> on 11/29/10 11:56 AM:
>
>>> No one can make you move past 2003.
>>
>> LOL!
>
> You did this mean as irony, right?  As you sit here begging me...
> even using socks... to explain to you *again* the concepts you have
> failed to understand since 2003:
>
> * Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
> * Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
>
> You have been begging me to explain the difference to you for over
> half a decade... and I have explained it.  Many times.  You just
> cannot understand. Oh well.

Fuck you.  I have never been confused over the two.  You *are* the one who 
has been arguing that you have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Unless you 
retract your "proof" statement about your "evidence", then your argument can 
only be about why "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" should even be 
considered to  BE  "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"  when there has not 
been a one true thing established from which something else can necessarily 
follow. I'm interested in seeing you present such an argument. I'm sure I'm 
not alone when I say that I feel it's about time you have moved past your 
position from 2003 so you can begin to address the inconsistencies you've 
left in your wake regarding your "argument'.

-- 
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch 

Snit wrote:
> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
> 4cf3f76a$1@news.x-privat.org on 11/29/10 11:56 AM:
>
> ...
>>> Funny 'ha ha' or.... ?
>>>
>>>
>>> "... he is morally and criminally guilty, but not legally guilty" -
>>> Snit
>
> In response to you confusing the concepts of guilt in the terms of
>
> * actual guilt
> * adjudication

What happened to actual guilt vs. legal guilt?  Changing your goal posts 
again.

> You repeatedly confused those concepts as well.  You have done so for
> years.
>
>>> "He has lied about the war on Iraq. An illegal war. One that makes
>>> him a war criminal." - Snit
>>>
>>> "I can not unequivocally state that Bush is a war criminal." - Snit
>
> There is always a chance for error... noted in response to your
> confusion about the two concepts:

When you are involved there is more than a chance for error.

> * Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
> * Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
>
>>> "Ed has provided a faith-based-defense that I just don't think
>>> counts" - Snit
>
> I do not even recall what this was in relation to.  Nor do I care.

Stop huffing and you will remember.

>>> Snit will now explain how his looking at his own "evidence" and
>>> coming to a conclusion (in any direction) is *not* "based" on his
>>> "faith" that his "evidence" shows him what he claims it shows him.
>>>
>>> Poor Snit;)
>>
>> LOL!
>
> * Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
> * Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
>
> Even after years of having this explained to you, you still confused
> these and other concepts and are unable to show understanding.  How
> pathetic... and the very reason you snip, run and make things up.
> Even you know I am right.
>
> And funny, Big Crotch, how Steve Carroll always responds as if he was
> you. LOL!  How stupid do you think people are, Steve, to actually not
> know you are using yet another sock.  And when I stop responding to
> this one you will make another... and another... and another.  The
> following is, I am sure, just a partial list of your aliases (you
> goofed again recently and pointed other resources of yours where you
> use the name "Fretwiz" - not like anyone does not know that was one
> of your socks, but can't you are least pretend to keep up the charade
> a bit better?):
>
>    "Evil" John *
>    "Evil" Snit *
>    Big Crotch on a Small Fish
>    Cornelius Munshower
>    CSMA Moderator
>    Edward Stanfield
>    Fretwiz *
>    Hitman Hero
>    Measles
>    Petruzzellis Kids
>    Sigmond
>    Slaveen
>    Smit
>    Steve C *
>    Steve Camoll *
>    Steve Carroll <noone@nowhere.net> *
>    Steve Carroll <stevecarroll@nowhere.com> *
>    Steve Carroll <trollkiller@TK.com> *
>    Steve Carroll's Dog *
>    Steve Carrolll *
>    Steve Carrroll *
>    Yevette Owens
>    Yobo_Obyo

Those are all you ASSHOLE.

-- 
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch 

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf3fb43$1@news.x-privat.org on
11/29/10 12:13 PM:

.... 
>> * actual guilt
>> * adjudication
> 
> What happened to actual guilt vs. legal guilt?  Changing your goal posts
> again.

Nice dodge.  You have no idea what the concepts mean.  None.


....
>> * Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
>> * Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
>> 
>> Even after years of having this explained to you, you still confused
>> these and other concepts and are unable to show understanding.  How
>> pathetic... and the very reason you snip, run and make things up.
>> Even you know I am right.
>> 
>> And funny, Big Crotch, how Steve Carroll always responds as if he was
>> you. LOL!  How stupid do you think people are, Steve, to actually not
>> know you are using yet another sock.  And when I stop responding to
>> this one you will make another... and another... and another.  The
>> following is, I am sure, just a partial list of your aliases (you
>> goofed again recently and pointed other resources of yours where you
>> use the name "Fretwiz" - not like anyone does not know that was one
>> of your socks, but can't you are least pretend to keep up the charade
>> a bit better?):
>> 
>>    "Evil" John *
>>    "Evil" Snit *
>>    Big Crotch on a Small Fish
>>    Cornelius Munshower
>>    CSMA Moderator
>>    Edward Stanfield
>>    Fretwiz *
>>    Hitman Hero
>>    Measles
>>    Petruzzellis Kids
>>    Sigmond
>>    Slaveen
>>    Smit
>>    Steve C *
>>    Steve Camoll *
>>    Steve Carroll <noone@nowhere.net> *
>>    Steve Carroll <stevecarroll@nowhere.com> *
>>    Steve Carroll <trollkiller@TK.com> *
>>    Steve Carroll's Dog *
>>    Steve Carrolll *
>>    Steve Carrroll *
>>    Yevette Owens
>>    Yobo_Obyo
> 
> Those are all you ASSHOLE.

All?  Perhaps you should re-think that, Steve.  LOL!  Keep in mind, the ones
with asterisks you have admitted to.  And you have posted with at least two
of those *today*.  

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf3fae1$1@news.x-privat.org on
11/29/10 12:11 PM:

> Snit wrote:
>> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf3f757@news.x-privat.org
>> on 11/29/10 11:56 AM:
>> 
>>>> No one can make you move past 2003.
>>> 
>>> LOL!
>> 
>> You did this mean as irony, right?  As you sit here begging me...
>> even using socks... to explain to you *again* the concepts you have
>> failed to understand since 2003:
>> 
>> * Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
>> * Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
>> 
>> You have been begging me to explain the difference to you for over
>> half a decade... and I have explained it.  Many times.  You just
>> cannot understand. Oh well.
> 
> Fuck you.  I have never been confused over the two.

Ah, you claim that below you just pretend to be confused.  Whatever.  You
are boring... with whatever name you post with.

> You *are* the one who
> has been arguing that you have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Unless you
> retract your "proof" statement about your "evidence", then your argument can
> only be about why "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" should even be
> considered to  BE  "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"  when there has not
> been a one true thing established from which something else can necessarily
> follow. I'm interested in seeing you present such an argument. I'm sure I'm
> not alone when I say that I feel it's about time you have moved past your
> position from 2003 so you can begin to address the inconsistencies you've
> left in your wake regarding your "argument'.



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Nov 29, 12:16=A0pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf3fb4...@news.x-privat.org on
> 11/29/10 12:13 PM:
>
> ...
>
> >> * actual guilt
> >> * adjudication
>
> > What happened to actual guilt vs. legal guilt? =A0Changing your goal po=
sts
> > again.
>
> Nice dodge.

He missed the larger point anyway... gee, the same one you always miss
it, funny that. Point to "guilt" of another person as seen by a third
party where the guilt hasn't been established via a finding.  That
finding requires looking... at "evidence". The job of evidence is to
make something evident to those doing the looking. You looked at what
you labeled as your evidence (it was really just stuff you parroted
from around the net) and said it didn't contain a single true thing
from which something else could necessarily follow. It doesn't matter
what word you use to describe an absence of truth, all your word games
aside...   if truth isn't there.... it isn't there.  Are you ready to
sing a different tune on this YET?

Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Nov 29, 12:16 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
>> 4cf3fb4...@news.x-privat.org on 11/29/10 12:13 PM:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> * actual guilt
>>>> * adjudication
>>
>>> What happened to actual guilt vs. legal guilt? Changing your goal
>>> posts again.
>>
>> Nice dodge.
>
> He missed the larger point anyway... gee, the same one you always miss
> it, funny that. Point to "guilt" of another person as seen by a third
> party where the guilt hasn't been established via a finding.  That
> finding requires looking... at "evidence". The job of evidence is to
> make something evident to those doing the looking. You looked at what
> you labeled as your evidence (it was really just stuff you parroted
> from around the net) and said it didn't contain a single true thing
> from which something else could necessarily follow. It doesn't matter
> what word you use to describe an absence of truth, all your word games
> aside...   if truth isn't there.... it isn't there.  Are you ready to
> sing a different tune on this YET?

LOL!

-- 
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch 

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf404ef@news.x-privat.org on
11/29/10 12:54 PM:

> Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 12:16 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
>>> 4cf3fb4...@news.x-privat.org on 11/29/10 12:13 PM:
>>> 
>>> ...
>>> 
>>>>> * actual guilt
>>>>> * adjudication
>>> 
>>>> What happened to actual guilt vs. legal guilt? Changing your goal
>>>> posts again.
>>> 
>>> Nice dodge.
>> 
>> He missed the larger point anyway... gee, the same one you always miss
>> it, funny that. Point to "guilt" of another person as seen by a third
>> party where the guilt hasn't been established via a finding.  That
>> finding requires looking... at "evidence". The job of evidence is to
>> make something evident to those doing the looking. You looked at what
>> you labeled as your evidence (it was really just stuff you parroted
>> from around the net) and said it didn't contain a single true thing
>> from which something else could necessarily follow. It doesn't matter
>> what word you use to describe an absence of truth, all your word games
>> aside...   if truth isn't there.... it isn't there.  Are you ready to
>> sing a different tune on this YET?
> 
> LOL!

* Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
* Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

Based on your ignorance, since 2003 you have wanted me to "sing a different
tune" when you *should* have been working to understand those concepts.  The
concepts are not hard - yet it is nearing a *decade* of you obsessing over
this!


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Nov 29, 12:08=A0pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf3f...@news.x-privat.org on
> 11/29/10 11:56 AM:
>
> >> No one can make you move past 2003.
>
> > LOL!
>
> You did this mean as irony, right?

Asked the guy who stated his evidence didn't contain a single true
statement from which something else could necessarily follow,yet,
wants people to believe that evidence convinced him of someone's
guilt.

Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Nov 29, 12:08 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf3f...@news.x-privat.org
>> on 11/29/10 11:56 AM:
>>
>>>> No one can make you move past 2003.
>>
>>> LOL!
>>
>> You did this mean as irony, right?
>
> Asked the guy who stated his evidence didn't contain a single true
> statement from which something else could necessarily follow,yet,
> wants people to believe that evidence convinced him of someone's
> guilt.

LOL!

-- 
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch 

Steve Carroll stated in post
7c8e026c-eea7-411d-bcfa-eba92a1ddbe0@n32g2000pre.googlegroups.com on
11/29/10 12:59 PM:

> On Nov 29, 12:08�pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf3f...@news.x-privat.org on
>> 11/29/10 11:56 AM:
>> 
>>>> No one can make you move past 2003.
>> 
>>> LOL!
>> 
>> You did this mean as irony, right?
> 
> Asked the guy who stated his evidence didn't contain a single true
> statement from which something else could necessarily follow,yet,
> wants people to believe that evidence convinced him of someone's
> guilt.

* Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
* Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

Based on your ignorance, since 2003 you have wanted me to "sing a different
tune" when you *should* have been working to understand those concepts.  The
concepts are not hard - yet it is nearing a *decade* of you obsessing over
this!


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Nov 29, 1:09=A0pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Steve Carroll stated in post
> 7c8e026c-eea7-411d-bcfa-eba92a1dd...@n32g2000pre.googlegroups.com on
> 11/29/10 12:59 PM:
>
> > On Nov 29, 12:08 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf3f...@news.x-privat.org o=
n
> >> 11/29/10 11:56 AM:
>
> >>>> No one can make you move past 2003.
>
> >>> LOL!
>
> >> You did this mean as irony, right?
>
> > Asked the guy who stated his evidence didn't contain a single true
> > statement from which something else could necessarily follow,yet,
> > wants people to believe that evidence convinced him of someone's
> > guilt.
>
> * Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
> * Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

Are you trying to argue that the former contains truth and the latter
needn't?

(be careful. Snit... this path is fraught with pitfalls;)

Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Nov 29, 1:09 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Steve Carroll stated in post
>> 7c8e026c-eea7-411d-bcfa-eba92a1dd...@n32g2000pre.googlegroups.com on
>> 11/29/10 12:59 PM:
>>
>>> On Nov 29, 12:08 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
>>>> 4cf3f...@news.x-privat.org on 11/29/10 11:56 AM:
>>
>>>>>> No one can make you move past 2003.
>>
>>>>> LOL!
>>
>>>> You did this mean as irony, right?
>>
>>> Asked the guy who stated his evidence didn't contain a single true
>>> statement from which something else could necessarily follow,yet,
>>> wants people to believe that evidence convinced him of someone's
>>> guilt.
>>
>> * Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute
>> concept
>> * Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
>
> Are you trying to argue that the former contains truth and the latter
> needn't?
>
> (be careful. Snit... this path is fraught with pitfalls;)

LOL!

-- 
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch 

On 2010-11-28, the following emerged from the brain of Homer:
> Verily I say unto thee, that TomB spake thusly:
>> On 2010-11-27, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>
>>>>> OSS seems to be very good at "back end" stuff and rather poor -
>>>>> in general - with user interfaces.
>
> But the best "user interfaces" are not necessarily graphical.

That's my opinion too. I absolutely love programs such as slrn, mutt,
vim, ncmpc... No buttons, toolbars or menus; just keybindings.

Granted, the learning curve is a little higher, but once you're
through that, those programs become a real joy to use.

>>>> Just like Homer, that's not my experience. I have yet to come
>>>> accross an interface that serves me better than the one I'm using
>>>> on GNU/Linux.
>>>
>>> Compare VLC with QuickTime.
>>
>> I'm interested in neither. I use mplayer.
>
> Ditto.
>
> WRT QuickTime, WMP, or any other multimedia software I used under
> Windows, one of the first things I miss is proper keyboard controls.

I absolutely detest media players with on-screen controls. I have a
big board with knobs right in front of me. Why would I need even more
knobs on the screen? The great thing about mplayer is that the GUI is
optional. One more bit of unnecessary ballast I can leave out.

>>> Compare OpenOffice with MS Office.
>>
>> I'm sure OO is weaker in same areas than MSO
>
> I use a superior solution to both: TeX. Nothing else even comes
> close to the fine-grained level of control and quality of output.

Absolutely. And again: the learning curve may be a little steep, but
once you know how it hangs together, you have a lot of power at the
tips of your fingers.

I'm not very good with TeX, but I know some guys who create very nice
slideshows with it, export them to PDF and display them full screen
with a PDF viewer. No silly wipes, fades and other useless
frivolities. Just nicely layed out content. I've always found the
'presentation' component of Office suites pretty useless.

>>> Compare GIMP with Photoshop.
>>
>> I never found myself in a situation where I got stuck using The
>> Gimp,
>
> Again, I use neither (although Gimp is actually installed here). I
> prefer ImageMagick, since it allows me to work on vast batches of
> files automatically.

I have a bunch of trivial imagemagick 'convenience' scripts in my
~/bin directory for tasks I commonly perform on image files. It makes
life so much nicer ;-)

>>> Where do you think OSS makes a good showing?
>
> Automation, fine-granularity of control, quality of results, speed,
> interoperability, customisable integration with my workflow, absence
> of useless distractions, responsiveness, multi-tasking, simplicity,
> efficiency, security, stability, price, and ideology.

Yeah, that's about it :-)

> But apart from that, hardly anything at all.
>
>> In particular with the stuff I cannot get on other operating
>> systems (see many past posts for examples).
>
> I filled in the blanks. :)

I figured I stated my reasons to use GNU/Linux more than enough
already ;-)

I guess it takes that particular type of user to appreciate its power.

-- 
I asked myself, what is the most mind-numbing, pedestrian job conceivable and
three answers came to mind: Toll booth attendant, Apple Store Genius and what
Penny does. Now, since I don’t like touching other people’s coins, and I refuse
to contribute to the devaluation of the word Genius – here I am.
	~ Sheldon Cooper

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf4177f$1@news.x-privat.org on
11/29/10 2:13 PM:

.... 
>> Are you trying to argue that the former contains truth and the latter
>> needn't?
>> 
>> (be careful. Snit... this path is fraught with pitfalls;)
> 
> LOL!

I am noting, Steve, that you have struggled and confused two concepts for
years (since 2003):

* Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
* Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

And from this you jump to asking what I am "arguing".  Nothing - I am noting
a fact.  You have confused the two concepts *today* with your rants.  Today.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

TomB stated in post 20101129220100.194@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/29/10 2:17
PM:

> On 2010-11-28, the following emerged from the brain of Homer:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that TomB spake thusly:
>>> On 2010-11-27, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> 
>>>>>> OSS seems to be very good at "back end" stuff and rather poor -
>>>>>> in general - with user interfaces.
>> 
>> But the best "user interfaces" are not necessarily graphical.
> 
> That's my opinion too. I absolutely love programs such as slrn, mutt,
> vim, ncmpc... No buttons, toolbars or menus; just keybindings.
> 
> Granted, the learning curve is a little higher, but once you're
> through that, those programs become a real joy to use.

I used to use tin for Usenet reading.  A good UI does not mean a GUI, though
in modern usage it is generally implied.

.... 
> I'm not very good with TeX, but I know some guys who create very nice
> slideshows with it, export them to PDF and display them full screen
> with a PDF viewer. No silly wipes, fades and other useless
> frivolities. Just nicely layed out content. I've always found the
> 'presentation' component of Office suites pretty useless.

Perhaps the best presentation software - in terms of doing more than showing
slides - is Keynote on OS X.  Nothing like it on Windows... or, as far as I
know, Linux.  It is what Steve Jobs uses for his presentations.
....


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Nov 29, 2:17=A0pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf4177...@news.x-privat.org on
> 11/29/10 2:13 PM:
>
> ...
>
> >> Are you trying to argue that the former contains truth and the latter
> >> needn't?
>
> >> (be careful. Snit... this path is fraught with pitfalls;)
>
> > LOL!
>
> I am noting

You forgot the 'h' ;)


Poor Snit... now he's trying to argue that "proof beyond a reasonable
doubt"  doesn't need to contain any true statements from which a
deduction can be made.

Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2:17 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
>> 4cf4177...@news.x-privat.org on 11/29/10 2:13 PM:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> Are you trying to argue that the former contains truth and the
>>>> latter needn't?
>>
>>>> (be careful. Snit... this path is fraught with pitfalls;)
>>
>>> LOL!
>>
>> I am noting
>
> You forgot the 'h' ;)
>
>
> Poor Snit... now he's trying to argue that "proof beyond a reasonable
> doubt"  doesn't need to contain any true statements from which a
> deduction can be made.

LOL!

-- 
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch 

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf41bc5@news.x-privat.org on
11/29/10 2:32 PM:

.... 
>>>>> Are you trying to argue that the former contains truth and the
>>>>> latter needn't?
>>> 
>>>>> (be careful. Snit... this path is fraught with pitfalls;)
>>> 
>>>> LOL!
>>> 
>>> I am noting, Steve, that you have struggled and confused two concepts for
>>> years (since 2003):
>>> 
>>> * Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
>>> * Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
>>> 
>>> And from this you jump to asking what I am "arguing".  Nothing - I am noting
>>> a fact.  You have confused the two concepts *today* with your rants.  Today.
>> 
>> You forgot the 'h' ;)
>> 
>> Poor Snit... now he's trying to argue that "proof beyond a reasonable
>> doubt"  doesn't need to contain any true statements from which a
>> deduction can be made.

You have struggled and confused two concepts for years (since 2003):

* Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
* Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

And from this you jump to asking what I am "arguing"... and then insisting
you know what I am "arguing" (once again you are telling people what they
think).  To the contrary, I am merely noting a fact.  You have confused the
two concepts *today* with your rants as you have done repeatedly since 2003.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Nov 29, 2:34=A0pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf41...@news.x-privat.org on
> 11/29/10 2:32 PM:
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> Are you trying to argue that the former contains truth and the
> >>>>> latter needn't?
>
> >>>>> (be careful. Snit... this path is fraught with pitfalls;)
>
> >>>> LOL!
>
> >>> I am noting, Steve, that you have struggled and confused two concepts=
 for
> >>> years (since 2003):
>
> >>> * Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concep=
t
> >>> * Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
>
> >>> And from this you jump to asking what I am "arguing". =A0Nothing - I =
am noting
> >>> a fact. =A0You have confused the two concepts *today* with your rants=
.. =A0Today.
>
> >> You forgot the 'h' ;)
>
> >> Poor Snit... now he's trying to argue that "proof beyond a reasonable
> >> doubt" =A0doesn't need to contain any true statements from which a
> >> deduction can be made.
>
> You have

No, you have... and it's more than bizarre that you convinced yourself
of this guilt while you admit you had no proof. Political agendas are
funny like that, though...

Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2:34 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf41...@news.x-privat.org
>> on 11/29/10 2:32 PM:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> Are you trying to argue that the former contains truth and the
>>>>>>> latter needn't?
>>
>>>>>>> (be careful. Snit... this path is fraught with pitfalls;)
>>
>>>>>> LOL!
>>
>>>>> I am noting, Steve, that you have struggled and confused two
>>>>> concepts for years (since 2003):
>>
>>>>> * Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute
>>>>> concept
>>>>> * Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
>>
>>>>> And from this you jump to asking what I am "arguing". Nothing - I
>>>>> am noting a fact. You have confused the two concepts *today* with
>>>>> your rants. Today.
>>
>>>> You forgot the 'h' ;)
>>
>>>> Poor Snit... now he's trying to argue that "proof beyond a
>>>> reasonable doubt" doesn't need to contain any true statements from
>>>> which a deduction can be made.
>>
>> You have
>
> No, you have... and it's more than bizarre that you convinced yourself
> of this guilt while you admit you had no proof. Political agendas are
> funny like that, though...

LOL!

-- 
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch 

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf42165$1@news.x-privat.org on
11/29/10 2:56 PM:

.... 
>>> You have struggled and confused two concepts for years (since 2003):
>>> 
>>> * Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
>>> * Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
>>> 
>>> And from this you jump to asking what I am "arguing"... and then insisting
>>> you know what I am "arguing" (once again you are telling people what they
>>> think).  To the contrary, I am merely noting a fact.  You have confused the
>>> two concepts *today* with your rants as you have done repeatedly since 2003.
>> 
>> No, you have... 

Ah, the ol' grade school "I'm rubber and you are glue" defense.  Just
brilliant... LOL!  But then you immediately prove me right *again* by
misrepresenting my comments in a way that proves you are confusing the two
concepts.  Again.  And since 2003.  Really, Steve, that is *pathetic*.

>> and it's more than bizarre that you convinced yourself
>> of this guilt while you admit you had no proof. Political agendas are
>> funny like that, though...
> 
> LOL!



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Nov 29, 3:02=A0pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf4216...@news.x-privat.org on
> 11/29/10 2:56 PM:
>
> ...
>
> >>> You have struggled and confused two concepts for years (since 2003):
>
> >>> * Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concep=
t
> >>> * Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
>
> >>> And from this you jump to asking what I am "arguing"... and then insi=
sting
> >>> you know what I am "arguing" (once again you are telling people what =
they
> >>> think). =A0To the contrary, I am merely noting a fact. =A0You have co=
nfused the
> >>> two concepts *today* with your rants as you have done repeatedly sinc=
e 2003.
>
> >> No, you have... . and it's more than bizarre that you convinced yourse=
lf
> >> of this guilt while you admit you had no proof. Political agendas are
> >> funny like that, though...
>
> Ah

OK, glad to see we agree on this.

Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Nov 29, 3:02 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
>> 4cf4216...@news.x-privat.org on 11/29/10 2:56 PM:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>>> You have struggled and confused two concepts for years (since
>>>>> 2003):
>>
>>>>> * Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute
>>>>> concept
>>>>> * Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
>>
>>>>> And from this you jump to asking what I am "arguing"... and then
>>>>> insisting you know what I am "arguing" (once again you are
>>>>> telling people what they think). To the contrary, I am merely
>>>>> noting a fact. You have confused the two concepts *today* with
>>>>> your rants as you have done repeatedly since 2003.
>>
>>>> No, you have... . and it's more than bizarre that you convinced
>>>> yourself of this guilt while you admit you had no proof. Political
>>>> agendas are funny like that, though...
>>
>> Ah
>
> OK, glad to see we agree on this.

LOL!

-- 
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch 

On 2010-11-28, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> TomB stated in post 20101128004503.792@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/27/10 5:00
> PM:
>
>> in particular with the stuff i cannot get on other operating
>> systems (see many past posts for examples).
>
> Right... for you it does very well... but how about for the general
> user?  I can think of some areas... mentioned some before: Firefox
> for example.

This exposes one of the biggest differences between you and me. You
care about and identify with this mythological 'general user', while I
couldn't care less about what works and doesn't work for that poor
fellow. I know what works for me, and that's where my interest stops.
Even your example of Fx in this context is meaningless to me: although
I am a Fx user, I have a very different way of interacting with that
program because I am using the vimperator plugin.

-- 
A bicycle can't stand on its own because it's two-tired.

TomB stated in post 20101129232343.372@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/29/10 3:33
PM:

> On 2010-11-28, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> TomB stated in post 20101128004503.792@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/27/10 5:00
>> PM:
>> 
>>> in particular with the stuff i cannot get on other operating
>>> systems (see many past posts for examples).
>> 
>> Right... for you it does very well... but how about for the general
>> user?  I can think of some areas... mentioned some before: Firefox
>> for example.
> 
> This exposes one of the biggest differences between you and me. You
> care about and identify with this mythological 'general user',

I work with *many* users.  I teach and do tech work.  I also work at
businesses with users of many levels.

> while I couldn't care less about what works and doesn't work for that poor
> fellow. I know what works for me, and that's where my interest stops. Even
> your example of Fx in this context is meaningless to me: although I am a Fx
> user, I have a very different way of interacting with that program because I
> am using the vimperator plugin.

Yeah, that does change the experience just a little.  :)

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:33:01 +0100, TomB wrote:

> This exposes one of the biggest differences between you and me. You care
> about and identify with this mythological 'general user',

Snit thinks he's the "general user's" spokesman. As if he had a clue.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

On Nov 24, 7:36=A0am, KDT <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30. =A0 Not that you
> provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and over
> anyway.
>
> That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce. =A0 Not
> 3000%
> more expensive. "

It gets worse than that.

What about the infinite number of repeating decimals and irrational
numbers that exist between each pair of whole integers that occur
between 1 and 30?

Seems to me this would increase the percentage gap exponentially.

:-)

--
Erich K.

Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
> On Nov 29, 12:04 am, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
>>> On Nov 28, 1:30 am, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:

>> No it doesn't. An upgrade to Windows does not automatically give you
>> a compatible upgrade to all your applications. With Free Software, it
>> does.
>
> While you're correct in that MS can't update what it breaks in Adobe
> (because Adobe owns that IP), is there a law that stops MS & Adobe
> from collaborating pre-MS-release?  If so, "CITE PLEASE!"

Your ridiculous obtuseness (not to mention your childish all-caps
exclamations) is becoming tiresome.

The theoretical possibility that every proprietary Windows software
vendor (not just Adobe) could collaborate on a single buildsystem and
update repository, does not magically make that even remotely likely to
actually happen, nor does it reflect the present (and long-standing)
condition.

If and when that myth ever actually becomes a reality, then you might
have a point, but until then you're just engaging in meaningless
theorising. As usual.

If this is typical of the sort of advice you give your "clients", I'd be
surprised if they haven't all gone bankrupt. All you seem to be selling
is fictional theories, which neither you nor your "clients" have the
power to influence one way or the other, rather than actual solutions.

Meanwhile, it is the present and long-standing /reality/ that Free
Software users /do/ use such repos, whilst Windows and Mac users don't -
because there aren't any for them to use, and it's unlikely in the
/extreme/ that there ever will be.

But let's pretend that in some far off distant utopian fantasy, Windows
and Mac users somehow get this facility. What would you recommend your
clients do /today/, while they're waiting for this fantasy to come true?

If a client says that he needs to upgrade to gain access to some newer
technology (e.g. exFAT), but if he does then he'll lose compatibility
with his existing applications (representing a heavy dollar investment),
would you just sit there waffling on about ROIs and TCOs based on the
/future/ projection of some /possible/ (if unlikely) change of
conditions, or would you present an actual /solution/ ... that can be
used /now/?

Do you in fact provide any service that is actually useful to anyone, or
is your entire raison d'être purely academic gobbledegook?

>>>> ... You can theorise endlessly on the subject, but it's entirely
>>>> meaningless when I'm sitting here looking right at my own financial
>>>> statements, and I can clearly see where my own money is going.
>>> 
>>> If true
>>
>> There's no "if" about it.
>>
>> Are you calling me a liar?
>
> I may as well be.

Whereas your vague, meaningless, irrelevant and unsubstantiated theory
is "truth"?

Uh-huh.

-- 
K.                           | [ubuntu]
http://slated.org            | 
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   | 1. Ancient African word meaning
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 46 days  |    'I can't configure Debian'

RonB stated in post id1i6p$se4$2@news.eternal-september.org on 11/29/10 5:58
PM:

> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:33:01 +0100, TomB wrote:
> 
>> This exposes one of the biggest differences between you and me. You care
>> about and identify with this mythological 'general user',
> 
> Snit thinks he's the "general user's" spokesman. As if he had a clue.

I certainly work with many users at many levels - likely more than any
others in COLA. Or close to it.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Homer stated in post arvds7-vb8.ln1@sky.matrix on 11/29/10 6:15 PM:

> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
>> On Nov 29, 12:04�am, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
>>>> On Nov 28, 1:30�am, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
> 
>>> No it doesn't. An upgrade to Windows does not automatically give you
>>> a compatible upgrade to all your applications. With Free Software, it
>>> does.
>> 
>> While you're correct in that MS can't update what it breaks in Adobe
>> (because Adobe owns that IP), is there a law that stops MS & Adobe
>> from collaborating pre-MS-release?  If so, "CITE PLEASE!"
> 
> Your ridiculous obtuseness (not to mention your childish all-caps
> exclamations) is becoming tiresome.
> 
> The theoretical possibility that every proprietary Windows software
> vendor (not just Adobe) could collaborate on a single buildsystem and
> update repository, does not magically make that even remotely likely to
> actually happen, nor does it reflect the present (and long-standing)
> condition.

Nor does every OSS developer coordinate with *every* distro.  The chances of
this happening on Linux is less than than on Windows.  Windows developers
have *one* target... Linux developers have many, many more.

....
> Meanwhile, it is the present and long-standing /reality/ that Free
> Software users /do/ use such repos, whilst Windows and Mac users don't -
> because there aren't any for them to use, and it's unlikely in the
> /extreme/ that there ever will be.

Um, Apple has already announced an OS X "application store" that is a
repository.  As with Linux repositories, the system will handle
installation, uninstallation, tracking, updating all software, etc.  I am
sure it will have some pros and cons compared to, say, Ubuntu, but the
concept is much the same.  And, yes, it is a benefit for OS X - but it is
not a *huge* deal... at least I do not think so.  Maybe I will change my
mine when I see it.

As OS X works now, most software is trivial to install - there is no real
installation.  Drag and drop.  But having lots of apps can be cumbersome and
this will likely help to alleviate that.
 
> But let's pretend that in some far off distant utopian fantasy, Windows
> and Mac users somehow get this facility. What would you recommend your
> clients do /today/, while they're waiting for this fantasy to come true?

At least with OS X the system is very usable, even if the store will offer
benefits.  Rumer has it Win 8 will be tied to a store as well.

> If a client says that he needs to upgrade to gain access to some newer
> technology (e.g. exFAT), but if he does then he'll lose compatibility
> with his existing applications (representing a heavy dollar investment),
> would you just sit there waffling on about ROIs and TCOs based on the
> /future/ projection of some /possible/ (if unlikely) change of
> conditions, or would you present an actual /solution/ ... that can be
> used /now/?

As with any OS, there may be tradeoffs for an update to the OS.

> Do you in fact provide any service that is actually useful to anyone, or
> is your entire raison d'�tre purely academic gobbledegook?
....



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Nov 29, 8:15=A0pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
>
> > On Nov 29, 12:04=A0am, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
> >> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
> >>> On Nov 28, 1:30=A0am, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
> >> No it doesn't. An upgrade to Windows does not automatically give you
> >> a compatible upgrade to all your applications. With Free Software, it
> >> does.
>
> > While you're correct in that MS can't update what it breaks in Adobe
> > (because Adobe owns that IP), is there a law that stops MS & Adobe
> > from collaborating pre-MS-release? =A0If so, "CITE PLEASE!"
>
> Your ridiculous obtuseness (not to mention your childish all-caps
> exclamations) is becoming tiresome.

So you couldn't actually back up your claim with a reality-based
citation.


> The theoretical possibility that every proprietary Windows software
> vendor (not just Adobe) could collaborate on a single buildsystem and
> update repository, does not magically make that even remotely likely to
> actually happen, nor does it reflect the present (and long-standing)
> condition.

And yet you want us all to believe that it is significantly more
plausible to believe that *every* possible Linux software author will
_always_ have unlimited free time and resources with which to test
every other Linux application, and fixing every last thing that his
changes broke, without fail, yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Sorry, but I don't buy it.   As I said before, "herding cats" ...


> If and when that myth ever actually becomes a reality, then you might
> have a point, but until then you're just engaging in meaningless
> theorising. As usual.

I wasn't the one who made the claim that Linux is superior.
I merely asked for proof.  Still waiting for it, unfortunately.

> If this is typical of the sort of advice you give your "clients", I'd be
> surprised if they haven't all gone bankrupt. All you seem to be selling
> is fictional theories, which neither you nor your "clients" have the
> power to influence one way or the other, rather than actual solutions.

More insults, instead of substantiating your claims.   Utterly
predictable, unfortunately.


> Meanwhile, it is the present and long-standing /reality/ that Free
> Software users /do/ use such repos, whilst Windows and Mac users don't -
> because there aren't any for them to use, and it's unlikely in the
> /extreme/ that there ever will be.
>
> But let's pretend that in some far off distant utopian fantasy, Windows
> and Mac users somehow get this facility. What would you recommend your
> clients do /today/, while they're waiting for this fantasy to come true?

Yes, we will simply try ignore the brutal fact that the mainstream IT
community has survived (well, maybe prospered & grown...just a tiny
bit :-) for 30+ years without this "miracle tool de jour" that you're
trying to claim as a profound product differentiator.


> If a client says that he needs to upgrade to gain access to some newer
> technology (e.g. exFAT), but if he does then he'll lose compatibility
> with his existing applications (representing a heavy dollar investment),
> would you just sit there waffling on about ROIs and TCOs based on the
> /future/ projection of some /possible/ (if unlikely) change of
> conditions, or would you present an actual /solution/ ... that can be
> used /now/?

Can you put a strainer out your "gobbledegook" there bub?  Doing the
very thing that you complained to others about is a sign of
hypocrisy :--)

The bottom line is that the evaluative process doesn't fundamentally
change:  Data; Risks; Decision.  What does change is the level of
vetting as the stakes get higher.

For your simplistic example, the key question is understanding why
this client 'needs' this upgrade, and if it is a "Tech Push" or a
contemporary requirement.  And if it is real, is it a (sub-Threshold)
Threshold requirement, or an Objective requirement.   If you don't
understand the basis of the requirement, you can't make the right
decision.


> Do you in fact provide any service that is actually useful to anyone, or
> is your entire raison d'=EAtre purely academic gobbledegook?

Ad hominem attack =3D admission that you've lost the debate on its
merits.



-hh

Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
> On Nov 29, 8:15 pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:

>> The theoretical possibility that every proprietary Windows software
>> vendor (not just Adobe) could collaborate on a single buildsystem and
>> update repository, does not magically make that even remotely likely
>> to actually happen, nor does it reflect the present (and
>> long-standing) condition.
>
> And yet you want us all to believe that it is significantly more
> plausible to believe that *every* possible Linux software author will
> _always_ have unlimited free time and resources with which to test
> every other Linux application, and fixing every last thing that his
> changes broke, without fail, yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Except I never wrote that, so you're just making it up.

Where do you get this "test every other Linux application" from? Where
have I ever suggested that "every possible Linux software author" should
waste their time testing "every other Linux application", and what
exactly has that got to do with repos?

Do you even have the faintest idea how buildsystems and repos work? It
doesn't take "every possible Linux software author" to operate a
buildsystem and repo, it takes a handful of maintainers and an automated
process for building and testing. It's only in the (again rare) event
that something actually goes wrong, that a package maintainer needs to
intervene. Neither the "authors" nor the users need do anything, and
indeed never get involved in the process, unless they set out to do so
voluntarily for their own reasons of interest.

In the event that all ~320 GNU/Linux distributions mysteriously
disappeared overnight in a puff of smoke, maybe /then/ the users would
have a problem, and need to become their own distro maintainers. And
again, at least with Free Software they'd have the opportunity to do so.
But your doomsday scenario is just fictional hypothesis, like your myth
about Windows and the Mac getting repos. I'm talking about present
realities, you're talking about hypothetical scenarios.

> Sorry, but I don't buy it.

You don't "buy it" because apparently you're completely ignorant of how
a GNU/Linux system is created and maintained. If want to speak
intelligently about something, I suggest you learn about it first.

>> If and when that myth ever actually becomes a reality, then you might
>> have a point, but until then you're just engaging in meaningless
>> theorising. As usual.
>
> I wasn't the one who made the claim that Linux is superior.

"Linux is superior" is an opinion, reflecting my personal experience,
and as such is neither right nor wrong, it's simply right for /me/.

Proprietary software vendors "collaborating" on buildsystems and repos
is just hypothesis based on nothing but conjecture, and does not reflect
any existing condition, either in fact or opinion.

So I'm not sure how you can use my opinion of the superiority of Linux
in support of your speculation about the future of Windows and the Mac.

> I merely asked for proof.  Still waiting for it, unfortunately.

How does one "prove" a /preference/?

If you're talking about proof of my accounts, and therefore the metrics
that show an increase in my profitability as a result of me using Free
Software, well like I said: you first.

Or are you being hypocritical?

>> If this is typical of the sort of advice you give your "clients", I'd
>> be surprised if they haven't all gone bankrupt. All you seem to be
>> selling is fictional theories, which neither you nor your "clients"
>> have the power to influence one way or the other, rather than actual
>> solutions.
>
> More insults, instead of substantiating your claims. Utterly
> predictable, unfortunately.

It was more than just a casual insult, it's a very serious observation.
If your claims are to be believed, apparently people are expected to pay
you a lot of money for the "advice" you offer, and yet I've seen nothing
you've written here that suggests you have anything to offer but vague
hypotheses and speculation, indeed you demonstrated a profound level of
ignorance. Count yourself lucky that I'm not your boss, or you'd be out
on the street quicker than you could blink.

>> Meanwhile, it is the present and long-standing /reality/ that Free
>> Software users /do/ use such repos, whilst Windows and Mac users
>> don't - because there aren't any for them to use, and it's unlikely
>> in the /extreme/ that there ever will be.
>>
>> But let's pretend that in some far off distant utopian fantasy,
>> Windows and Mac users somehow get this facility. What would you
>> recommend your clients do /today/, while they're waiting for this
>> fantasy to come true?
>
> Yes, we will simply try ignore the brutal fact that the mainstream IT
> community has survived (well, maybe prospered & grown...just a tiny
> bit :-) for 30+ years without this "miracle tool de jour" that you're
> trying to claim as a profound product differentiator.

Is that why Steve Ballmer describes Linux as Microsoft's number one
competitor?

[quote]
For a man who just got fined more than a billion dollars for antitrust
violations, Steve Ballmer is feeling plenty of competitive heat.

....

A couple of years ago you reiterated that IBM was Microsoft's biggest
competitor and you said not just on the business side, but overall. If I
ask you who is Microsoft's biggest competitor now, who would it be?

Ballmer: Open...Linux. I don't want to say open source. Linux, certainly
have to go with that. Perhaps Google on that layer
[/quote]

http://news.cnet.com/Feeling-the-heat-at-Microsoft---page-2/2008-1012_3-6232458-2.html

Why would Free Software like Linux be "Microsoft's biggest competitor",
rather than, say, a "mainstream IT" proprietary software company like
Apple?

Hows that for a brutal fact?

Here's another: How many consumer devices does Apple's software run,
compared to Linux? Think carefully about the answer.

Have another: Ever hear of a little company called Google? You know,
that company whose entire infrastructure in built upon Linux, and whose
Linux-based Android platform is currently kicking the iPhone's butt?
Have you heard they're about to released a desktop operating system
based on Linux too?

It seems the industry is changing, and Linux (and Free Software in
general) is a big part of that change. Even Steve Ballmer recognises
that fact, so why don't you? What do you know that the CEO of one the
world's biggest software company doesn't?

Make that two, including Google.

In fact, make that three, including Apple. Please explain why Apple is
using a Free Software product like CUPS, instead of developing their own
proprietary system? Come to think of it, isn't the core of Mac OS X,
Darwin, Free Software too?

Hmm.

>> If a client says that he needs to upgrade to gain access to some newer
>> technology (e.g. exFAT), but if he does then he'll lose compatibility
>> with his existing applications (representing a heavy dollar investment),
>> would you just sit there waffling on about ROIs and TCOs based on the
>> /future/ projection of some /possible/ (if unlikely) change of
>> conditions, or would you present an actual /solution/ ... that can be
>> used /now/?
>
> Can you put a strainer out your "gobbledegook" there bub?  Doing the
> very thing that you complained to others about is a sign of
> hypocrisy :--)

It's a simple enough question: what actual solution could you provide
to a company trapped in the dilemma of needing to both upgrade yet
maintain backwards compatibility?

> The bottom line is that the evaluative process doesn't fundamentally
> change:  Data; Risks; Decision.  What does change is the level of
> vetting as the stakes get higher.

But your "evaluative process" doesn't solve any actual problems, it's
all just irrelevant and hypothetical gibberish.

> For your simplistic example, the key question is understanding why
> this client 'needs' this upgrade, and if it is a "Tech Push" or a
> contemporary requirement.  And if it is real, is it a (sub-Threshold)
> Threshold requirement, or an Objective requirement.   If you don't
> understand the basis of the requirement, you can't make the right
> decision.

But that just more theory. What's the solution?

>> Do you in fact provide any service that is actually useful to anyone,
>> or is your entire raison d'être purely academic gobbledegook?
>
> Ad hominem attack = admission that you've lost the debate on its
> merits.

No, it's a very simple and highly pertinent question: what useful
purpose do you and your entire "industry" of vague theorists actually
serve?

-- 
K.                           | [ubuntu]
http://slated.org            | 
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   | 1. Ancient African word meaning
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 46 days  |    'I can't configure Debian'

Homer stated in post 8hees7-90a.ln1@sky.matrix on 11/29/10 10:26 PM:

> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
>> On Nov 29, 8:15�pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
> 
>>> The theoretical possibility that every proprietary Windows software
>>> vendor (not just Adobe) could collaborate on a single buildsystem and
>>> update repository, does not magically make that even remotely likely
>>> to actually happen, nor does it reflect the present (and
>>> long-standing) condition.
>> 
>> And yet you want us all to believe that it is significantly more
>> plausible to believe that *every* possible Linux software author will
>> _always_ have unlimited free time and resources with which to test
>> every other Linux application, and fixing every last thing that his
>> changes broke, without fail, yesterday, today and tomorrow.
> 
> Except I never wrote that, so you're just making it up.
> 
> Where do you get this "test every other Linux application" from? Where
> have I ever suggested that "every possible Linux software author" should
> waste their time testing "every other Linux application", and what
> exactly has that got to do with repos?

When, say, Ubuntu is updated, it was your contention that all of the
software was tested to make sure it ran well on the new system (with some
possible room for exceptions which would be quickly corrected).  You did
not, however, provide any mechanism for this to happen... and given the
different schedules of different distros, it is essentially impossible to
test all programs against all updates of every distro (even just the major
ones).

> Do you even have the faintest idea how buildsystems and repos work? It
> doesn't take "every possible Linux software author" to operate a
> buildsystem and repo, it takes a handful of maintainers and an automated
> process for building and testing. It's only in the (again rare) event
> that something actually goes wrong, that a package maintainer needs to
> intervene. Neither the "authors" nor the users need do anything, and
> indeed never get involved in the process, unless they set out to do so
> voluntarily for their own reasons of interest.

Automated testing is great - but it does not substitute for hands-on
testing.

> In the event that all ~320 GNU/Linux distributions mysteriously
> disappeared overnight in a puff of smoke, maybe /then/ the users would
> have a problem, and need to become their own distro maintainers. And
> again, at least with Free Software they'd have the opportunity to do so.
> But your doomsday scenario is just fictional hypothesis, like your myth
> about Windows and the Mac getting repos. I'm talking about present
> realities, you're talking about hypothetical scenarios.

Apple already has a rudimentary repo for OS X and has promised a much more
robust one for the next version of OS X.

.... 
> "Linux is superior" is an opinion, reflecting my personal experience,
> and as such is neither right nor wrong, it's simply right for /me/.

Fair enough.

.... 
>> Yes, we will simply try ignore the brutal fact that the mainstream IT
>> community has survived (well, maybe prospered & grown...just a tiny
>> bit :-) for 30+ years without this "miracle tool de jour" that you're
>> trying to claim as a profound product differentiator.
> 
> Is that why Steve Ballmer describes Linux as Microsoft's number one
> competitor?
> 
> [quote]
> For a man who just got fined more than a billion dollars for antitrust
> violations, Steve Ballmer is feeling plenty of competitive heat.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> A couple of years ago you reiterated that IBM was Microsoft's biggest
> competitor and you said not just on the business side, but overall. If I
> ask you who is Microsoft's biggest competitor now, who would it be?
> 
> Ballmer: Open...Linux. I don't want to say open source. Linux, certainly
> have to go with that. Perhaps Google on that layer
> [/quote]

Wonder if he was thinking in terms of servers, desktop, phones... or what?



> http://news.cnet.com/Feeling-the-heat-at-Microsoft---page-2/2008-1012_3-623245
> 8-2.html
> 
> Why would Free Software like Linux be "Microsoft's biggest competitor",
> rather than, say, a "mainstream IT" proprietary software company like
> Apple?
> 
> Hows that for a brutal fact?

MS makes money from Apple customers... the two big cash cows for MS are
Windows and MS Office, and they make MS Office for OS X.

> Here's another: How many consumer devices does Apple's software run,
> compared to Linux? Think carefully about the answer.

Not sure a count of devices is that important in terms of competition.

> Have another: Ever hear of a little company called Google? You know,
> that company whose entire infrastructure in built upon Linux, and whose
> Linux-based Android platform is currently kicking the iPhone's butt?

Huh? The iPhone still makes Apple a *lot* more money than Android makes for
Google while also maintaining a higher user satisfaction rating.  For now,
at least, Apple is still doing better than anyone else in the Phone business
- both in terms of user *and* corporate benefits.

> Have you heard they're about to released a desktop operating system
> based on Linux too?

Yes: one that will not be based on either KDE or Gnome... nor run "standard"
Linux software.   

> It seems the industry is changing, and Linux (and Free Software in
> general) is a big part of that change. Even Steve Ballmer recognises
> that fact, so why don't you? What do you know that the CEO of one the
> world's biggest software company doesn't?
> 
> Make that two, including Google.
>
> In fact, make that three, including Apple. Please explain why Apple is
> using a Free Software product like CUPS, instead of developing their own
> proprietary system? Come to think of it, isn't the core of Mac OS X,
> Darwin, Free Software too?
> 
> Hmm.

Yes, it is... and WebKit and a *lot* more.  Apple does things wisely - they
use OSS where it works best, on the back end "engines" and then they add
their own user interface expertise to the front end.  They do not do this
perfectly - not even close - but they do it better than any other company in
the world.  OS X and iOS demonstrate this well.
....


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> writes:

> On 2010-11-28, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> TomB stated in post 20101128004503.792@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/27/10 5:00
>> PM:
>>
>>> in particular with the stuff i cannot get on other operating
>>> systems (see many past posts for examples).
>>
>> Right... for you it does very well... but how about for the general
>> user?  I can think of some areas... mentioned some before: Firefox
>> for example.
>
> This exposes one of the biggest differences between you and me. You
> care about and identify with this mythological 'general user'

No, what is shows is that you change your tune every time facts are put
your way. You have zero clue about the "average user" who you term the
"mythological user". Your contributions to the consistency debate proved
that.

On 2010-11-30, the following emerged from the brain of RonB:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:33:01 +0100, TomB wrote:
>
>> This exposes one of the biggest differences between you and me. You
>> care about and identify with this mythological 'general user',
>
> Snit thinks he's the "general user's" spokesman. As if he had a
> clue.

I don't think it's about having a clue or not. I think this 'general
user' is merely a deus ex machina in discussions about GNU/Linux vs.
other operating systems. In particular Windows isn't this
one-size-fits-all solution for which it is often mistaken. I interact
with a lot of non-technical computer users on a daily bases, and I
simply don't see a trend that makes me think 'this is a typical
example of the general user', other than complete lack of knowledge
about what makes a computer tick. I have noticed not a single usage
pattern that makes me thing that the Windows way, the OSX way or even
the GNU/Linux way (which generally really boils down to the KDE or
Gnome way) is the 'best' solution for the majority of users. From our
company laptops (personal use at home allowed) I have also learned
that people generally go with the programs suggested (and often even
installed) by the 'family techie', without considering (or even
knowing) about alternatives.

In short, what I'm trying to say is that this 'general user' simply
doesn't exist, and cannot be used as a reference to define which
system is better.


What perhaps could be talked about is general use cases, for instance
an Office worker depending on MSO, graphical artists depending on
Photoshop or sound engineers depending on protools and other industry
favorites. Obviously in those situations Windows or Mac or the only
options, and thus automatically 'the best'.

-- 
There are only 10 types of people in this world: those who understand
binary, and those who don't...

TomB pulled this Usenet face plant:

> On 2010-11-28, the following emerged from the brain of Homer:
>
>> But the best "user interfaces" are not necessarily graphical.
>
> That's my opinion too. I absolutely love programs such as slrn, mutt,
> vim, ncmpc... No buttons, toolbars or menus; just keybindings.
>
> Granted, the learning curve is a little higher, but once you're
> through that, those programs become a real joy to use.

Many GUI apps do provide keybindings.  But the apps themselves take longer
to come to the screen, and maybe not be as responsive.

> I'm not very good with TeX, but I know some guys who create very nice
> slideshows with it, export them to PDF and display them full screen
> with a PDF viewer. No silly wipes, fades and other useless
> frivolities. Just nicely layed out content. I've always found the
> 'presentation' component of Office suites pretty useless.

Is there any diagramming package that does a decent auto-layout of complex
diagrams?

TeX, GIMP, Imagemagick, mutt, slrn, it's all good.

> I guess it takes that particular type of user to appreciate its power.

It does seem that way.

-- 
Chemistry is applied theology.
		-- Augustus Stanley Owsley III

On 2010-11-30, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> wrote:
> TomB pulled this Usenet face plant:
>
>> On 2010-11-28, the following emerged from the brain of Homer:
>>
>>> But the best "user interfaces" are not necessarily graphical.
>>
>> That's my opinion too. I absolutely love programs such as slrn, mutt,
>> vim, ncmpc... No buttons, toolbars or menus; just keybindings.
>>
>> Granted, the learning curve is a little higher, but once you're
>> through that, those programs become a real joy to use.
>
> Many GUI apps do provide keybindings.  But the apps themselves take longer
> to come to the screen, and maybe not be as responsive.
>
>> I'm not very good with TeX, but I know some guys who create very nice
>> slideshows with it, export them to PDF and display them full screen
>> with a PDF viewer. No silly wipes, fades and other useless
>> frivolities. Just nicely layed out content. I've always found the
>> 'presentation' component of Office suites pretty useless.

Sorry for missing this, Tom, but the TeX slideshow package is called
latex beamer. It is rather easy to produce excellent looking
presentations without the guff, as you said.

gentoo package:

dev-tex/latex-beamer

-- 
Regards,

Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

TomB pulled this Usenet face plant:

> On 2010-11-28, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>
>> Right... for you it does very well... but how about for the general
>> user?  I can think of some areas... mentioned some before: Firefox
>> for example.
>
> This exposes one of the biggest differences between you and me. You
> care about and identify with this mythological 'general user', while I
> couldn't care less about what works and doesn't work for that poor
> fellow. I know what works for me, and that's where my interest stops.
> Even your example of Fx in this context is meaningless to me: although
> I am a Fx user, I have a very different way of interacting with that
> program because I am using the vimperator plugin.

One of the reasons I don't use Google Chrome all that much is that the
vi-ish plugins for it [vrome, vimlike-smoozie, vimium] are fairly limited,
and a bit flaky, compared to vimperator.

Anyway, regarding the "general user".  There's only so much functionality you
can tee up for the "general user", before the complexity begins to put off
the "general user".

-- 
Now I lay me down to sleep,
I pray the Lord my soul to keep,
If I should die before I wake,
I'll cry in anguish, "Mistake!!  Mistake!!"

On Nov 30, 12:52=A0am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Homer stated in post 8hees7-90a....@sky.matrix on 11/29/10 10:26 PM:
> > Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
> >> On Nov 29, 8:15=A0pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
> >>> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
>
> >>> The theoretical possibility that every proprietary Windows software
> >>> vendor (not just Adobe) could collaborate on a single buildsystem and
> >>> update repository, does not magically make that even remotely likely
> >>> to actually happen, nor does it reflect the present (and
> >>> long-standing) condition.
>
> >> And yet you want us all to believe that it is significantly more
> >> plausible to believe that *every* possible Linux software author will
> >> _always_ have unlimited free time and resources with which to test
> >> every other Linux application, and fixing every last thing that his
> >> changes broke, without fail, yesterday, today and tomorrow.
>
> > Except I never wrote that, so you're just making it up.
>
> > Where do you get this "test every other Linux application" from? Where
> > have I ever suggested that "every possible Linux software author" shoul=
d
> > waste their time testing "every other Linux application", and what
> > exactly has that got to do with repos?
>
> When, say, Ubuntu is updated, it was your contention that all of the
> software was tested to make sure it ran well on the new system (with some
> possible room for exceptions which would be quickly corrected). =A0You di=
d
> not, however, provide any mechanism for this to happen... and given the
> different schedules of different distros, it is essentially impossible to
> test all programs against all updates of every distro (even just the majo=
r
> ones).

The claimed mechanism was merely altruistic good intentions.

However, that's precisely what the road to Hell is paved with.



> > Do you even have the faintest idea how buildsystems and repos work? It
> > doesn't take "every possible Linux software author" to operate a
> > buildsystem and repo, it takes a handful of maintainers and an automate=
d
> > process for building and testing. It's only in the (again rare) event
> > that something actually goes wrong, that a package maintainer needs to
> > intervene. Neither the "authors" nor the users need do anything, and
> > indeed never get involved in the process, unless they set out to do so
> > voluntarily for their own reasons of interest.
>
> Automated testing is great - but it does not substitute for hands-on
> testing.
>
> > In the event that all ~320 GNU/Linux distributions mysteriously
> > disappeared overnight in a puff of smoke, maybe /then/ the users would
> > have a problem, and need to become their own distro maintainers. And
> > again, at least with Free Software they'd have the opportunity to do so=
..
> > But your doomsday scenario is just fictional hypothesis, like your myth
> > about Windows and the Mac getting repos. I'm talking about present
> > realities, you're talking about hypothetical scenarios.
>
> Apple already has a rudimentary repo for OS X and has promised a much mor=
e
> robust one for the next version of OS X.

Perhaps it is a good enough idea for Apple to copy, but Homer still
hasn't addressed the other issue this raises:  "Which one of these
~320 distros is the *correct* one?".   Amongst other things, it is
shades of Schwartz's "Paradox of Choice" all over again.

> ...
>
> > "Linux is superior" is an opinion, reflecting my personal experience,
> > and as such is neither right nor wrong, it's simply right for /me/.
>
> Fair enough.

Sure, if it had been presented that clearly originally, but
unfortunately, that was not how Homer originally spoke up:

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/
e78102ceacdcf1b9?hl=3Den>



> ...
>
> > Is that why Steve Ballmer describes Linux as Microsoft's number one
> > competitor?

Ballmer has made a lot of kooky claims, such as this one from 2007:

<http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1014400/ballmer-predicts-
iphone-failure>

> > Why would Free Software like Linux be "Microsoft's biggest competitor",
> > rather than, say, a "mainstream IT" proprietary software company like
> > Apple?
>
> > Hows that for a brutal fact?
>
> MS makes money from Apple customers... the two big cash cows for MS are
> Windows and MS Office, and they make MS Office for OS

MS is (and IMO rightfully so) facing serious competition from OSS in
the Server marketplace.  Invariably, that competition is because their
customers believe that they're not receiving adequate value-added from
MS (ie, they're motivated to seek change because they believe that
they're being ripped off).  The SQL Server that someone posted (TomB?)
was a good case study example.

However, even if we accept this concern as valid in the Server space -
- what bearing does it have on Desktops?   Very little (if any), since
the two are different market segments.


> > Here's another: How many consumer devices does Apple's software run,
> > compared to Linux? Think carefully about the answer.
>
> Not sure a count of devices is that important in terms of competition.

It doesn't.   Once again, even if we accept this concern as valid - -
what bearing does it have on Desktops?

At best, it is an attempt at Ballot-Box Stuffing  with ubiquitous yet
irrelevant products (such as 5 port routers) by Homer as merely a
gambit to try to suggest that quantity "Wins".   The fallacy of this
approach is that Linux is only ~0.8% of the Desktop, which by his own
logic means that Linux can only be a "Loser".  Fortunately, Homer's
premise is flawed.


Perhaps Homer overlooked where I mentioned that I used Linux for
awhile, then went back to commercial software.  Or perhaps Homer
didn't miss this and that's why he's slinging insults.

Granted, that was a few years back for me personally and Linux has
gotten better, but the problem is that its competition hasn't been
standing still either:  MS & Apple's products have gotten better
too.   Today, I still do not see any compelling reason to consider
changing back to Linux, unfortunately.    And while some people may
get excited about a cost avoidance on initial capital investment
savings via 'Free' software, that's merely the starting line of a
lifecycle cost assessment and not the forgone conclusion.


-hh

> 
> Perhaps it is a good enough idea for Apple to copy, but Homer still
> hasn't addressed the other issue this raises:  "Which one of these
> ~320 distros is the *correct* one?".   Amongst other things, it is
> shades of Schwartz's "Paradox of Choice" all over again.
> 

Again this "too much choice" idiocy. Naturally coming from someone unable to 
handle any choice.

Oh, and just for the record: The vast majority of those many distros is for 
specuial purposes.
For "classic desktop" usage there are maybe 10 different ones.
Less than there are versions for MS win

But I guess you guys are simply not smart enough to see those simple facts
-- 
Machine-Independent, adj.:
        Does not run on any existing machine.

TomB stated in post 20101130073838.209@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/30/10 2:34
AM:

> On 2010-11-30, the following emerged from the brain of RonB:
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:33:01 +0100, TomB wrote:
>> 
>>> This exposes one of the biggest differences between you and me. You
>>> care about and identify with this mythological 'general user',
>> 
>> Snit thinks he's the "general user's" spokesman. As if he had a
>> clue.
> 
> I don't think it's about having a clue or not. I think this 'general
> user' is merely a deus ex machina in discussions about GNU/Linux vs.
> other operating systems. In particular Windows isn't this
> one-size-fits-all solution for which it is often mistaken. I interact
> with a lot of non-technical computer users on a daily bases, and I
> simply don't see a trend that makes me think 'this is a typical
> example of the general user', other than complete lack of knowledge
> about what makes a computer tick. I have noticed not a single usage
> pattern that makes me thing that the Windows way, the OSX way or even
> the GNU/Linux way (which generally really boils down to the KDE or
> Gnome way) is the 'best' solution for the majority of users. From our
> company laptops (personal use at home allowed) I have also learned
> that people generally go with the programs suggested (and often even
> installed) by the 'family techie', without considering (or even
> knowing) about alternatives.
> 
> In short, what I'm trying to say is that this 'general user' simply
> doesn't exist, and cannot be used as a reference to define which
> system is better.

First, let's keep in mind that this cuts both ways.  When I note that GIMP
lacks a number of important tools for image manipulation, such as smart
layers and filters, I am told that this is not important because the general
user does not use such things.

Even you I believe, TomB, have told me that the features in MSO I have
talked about are not important to the general user - as if wanting custom
numbered paragraphs or cropped images is such an odd thing.

Even features of OSs - with OS X there are proxy icons and saved status
indicators and PDF Services and AppleScript and Automator- these things are
important to me and to many other users and do not exist on Linux (or
Windows).  But, I am told, they would not benefit the general user.

When I talk about the general user and what they do, I talk from a place of
more experience than, I suspect, anyone else in COLA.  I have worked for
years with users of every level - from novices just learning to use a mouse
to aeronautical engineers who need additional training - from toddlers to
octogenarians - etc.  I also have been a part of a number of usability
studies and have looked into others... and have some formal training in the
area.  I reference studies and standards and UI guidelines.  For example,
when I talk about how having dialogs which are substantially the same but
have swapped "save" and "cancel" buttons is likely to lead to greater loss
of data, I think this is easy to support.  Or when I talk about how buttons
that say "Save" and "Cancel" are likely to lead to less error than buttons
that say "Yes" and "No", again, this is supportable by research (and common
sense).  Same idea with the topic RonB keeps bringing up these days -
consistency - not only does the research support it, but it is talked about
in the KDE, Gnome, Apple and MS docs as being one of the top priorities in
UI design.  This is not coincidence.  It is important.  RonB and sometimes
others jump up and down and say that this cannot be true because there are
UI transitions which, of course, break consistency and there are times when
a break in consistency is a good thing - but that is based on his glomming
on to one word and not showing any understanding of the concept.

To say that such things are good for the general user is completely fair and
well supported.  Can it be shown it is good for *you*... well, statistically
it almost surely is - and many people who were demonstrably shown to be hurt
by poor UIs showed no knowledge of it.  Can there be exceptions - sure... it
is theoretically possible... I do not recall any studies showing these
things were *universally* true with *no* exceptions (in the sample tested).

> What perhaps could be talked about is general use cases, for instance
> an Office worker depending on MSO, graphical artists depending on
> Photoshop or sound engineers depending on protools and other industry
> favorites. Obviously in those situations Windows or Mac or the only
> options, and thus automatically 'the best'.

And keep in mind there are many such cases - *many* people benefit from
being able to use features in MSO which either do not exist in OO or are
done better in MSO, for example.

There are not many examples where desktop Linux offers features which are
not as good or better on alternatives - though there are some (such as what
you have described for yourself).  This is a challenge for desktop Linux -
where are the killer apps?  With the OSS model can they really even exist...
if they are really good won't they be ported?  Seems so - so the answer is
to have system wide features... such as what Apple has with the features I
list above.  The "feature" I have suggested is to keep the flexibility but
also to gain usability / error reduction - which can be done, in part, by
making things more consistent.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:

> TomB stated in post 20101130073838.209@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/30/10 2:34
> AM:
>
>> On 2010-11-30, the following emerged from the brain of RonB:
>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:33:01 +0100, TomB wrote:
>>> 
>>>> This exposes one of the biggest differences between you and me. You
>>>> care about and identify with this mythological 'general user',
>>> 
>>> Snit thinks he's the "general user's" spokesman. As if he had a
>>> clue.
>> 
>> I don't think it's about having a clue or not. I think this 'general
>> user' is merely a deus ex machina in discussions about GNU/Linux vs.
>> other operating systems. In particular Windows isn't this
>> one-size-fits-all solution for which it is often mistaken. I interact
>> with a lot of non-technical computer users on a daily bases, and I
>> simply don't see a trend that makes me think 'this is a typical
>> example of the general user', other than complete lack of knowledge
>> about what makes a computer tick. I have noticed not a single usage
>> pattern that makes me thing that the Windows way, the OSX way or even
>> the GNU/Linux way (which generally really boils down to the KDE or
>> Gnome way) is the 'best' solution for the majority of users. From our
>> company laptops (personal use at home allowed) I have also learned
>> that people generally go with the programs suggested (and often even
>> installed) by the 'family techie', without considering (or even
>> knowing) about alternatives.
>> 
>> In short, what I'm trying to say is that this 'general user' simply
>> doesn't exist, and cannot be used as a reference to define which
>> system is better.
>
> First, let's keep in mind that this cuts both ways.  When I note that GIMP
> lacks a number of important tools for image manipulation, such as smart
> layers and filters, I am told that this is not important because the general
> user does not use such things.
>
> Even you I believe, TomB, have told me that the features in MSO I have
> talked about are not important to the general user - as if wanting custom
> numbered paragraphs or cropped images is such an odd thing.
>
> Even features of OSs - with OS X there are proxy icons and saved status
> indicators and PDF Services and AppleScript and Automator- these things are
> important to me and to many other users and do not exist on Linux (or
> Windows).  But, I am told, they would not benefit the general user.
>
> When I talk about the general user and what they do, I talk from a place of
> more experience than, I suspect, anyone else in COLA.  I have worked for
> years with users of every level - from novices just learning to use a mouse
> to aeronautical engineers who need additional training - from toddlers to
> octogenarians - etc.  I also have been a part of a number of usability
> studies and have looked into others... and have some formal training in the
> area.  I reference studies and standards and UI guidelines.  For example,
> when I talk about how having dialogs which are substantially the same but
> have swapped "save" and "cancel" buttons is likely to lead to greater loss
> of data, I think this is easy to support.  Or when I talk about how buttons
> that say "Save" and "Cancel" are likely to lead to less error than buttons
> that say "Yes" and "No", again, this is supportable by research (and common
> sense).  Same idea with the topic RonB keeps bringing up these days -
> consistency - not only does the research support it, but it is talked about
> in the KDE, Gnome, Apple and MS docs as being one of the top priorities in
> UI design.  This is not coincidence.  It is important.  RonB and sometimes
> others jump up and down and say that this cannot be true because there are
> UI transitions which, of course, break consistency and there are times when
> a break in consistency is a good thing - but that is based on his glomming
> on to one word and not showing any understanding of the concept.
>
> To say that such things are good for the general user is completely fair and
> well supported.  Can it be shown it is good for *you*... well, statistically
> it almost surely is - and many people who were demonstrably shown to be hurt
> by poor UIs showed no knowledge of it.  Can there be exceptions - sure... it
> is theoretically possible... I do not recall any studies showing these
> things were *universally* true with *no* exceptions (in the sample tested).
>
>> What perhaps could be talked about is general use cases, for instance
>> an Office worker depending on MSO, graphical artists depending on
>> Photoshop or sound engineers depending on protools and other industry
>> favorites. Obviously in those situations Windows or Mac or the only
>> options, and thus automatically 'the best'.
>
> And keep in mind there are many such cases - *many* people benefit from
> being able to use features in MSO which either do not exist in OO or are
> done better in MSO, for example.
>
> There are not many examples where desktop Linux offers features which are
> not as good or better on alternatives - though there are some (such as what
> you have described for yourself).  This is a challenge for desktop Linux -
> where are the killer apps?  With the OSS model can they really even exist...
> if they are really good won't they be ported?  Seems so - so the answer is
> to have system wide features... such as what Apple has with the features I
> list above.  The "feature" I have suggested is to keep the flexibility but
> also to gain usability / error reduction - which can be done, in part, by
> making things more consistent.


Don't you get tied repeating all that? You have explained it to TomB a
thousand times. Face it, he doesn't get it. And, more importantly, he
doesn't want to get it because if he does he'll have to disagree with
WronG and Creepy and co who all declare this consistency issue to be
"nonsense" and "wintroll nonsense" - even though none of us have said
Windows is that much better than most of the homebrew FOSS.

You must remember that this is the man who cant see a problem with
making and building as root despite it breaking all common sense
guidelines for application development and goes against the entire
raison d'etre for multigroup access levels.

Give up.

-hh stated in post 
7149aef4-e58f-4b08-aeea-03f3c15d2a4f@y19g2000prb.googlegroups.com on
11/30/10 5:35 AM:

> On Nov 30, 12:52�am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Homer stated in post 8hees7-90a....@sky.matrix on 11/29/10 10:26 PM:
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
>>>> On Nov 29, 8:15�pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
>> 
>>>>> The theoretical possibility that every proprietary Windows software
>>>>> vendor (not just Adobe) could collaborate on a single buildsystem and
>>>>> update repository, does not magically make that even remotely likely
>>>>> to actually happen, nor does it reflect the present (and
>>>>> long-standing) condition.
>> 
>>>> And yet you want us all to believe that it is significantly more
>>>> plausible to believe that *every* possible Linux software author will
>>>> _always_ have unlimited free time and resources with which to test
>>>> every other Linux application, and fixing every last thing that his
>>>> changes broke, without fail, yesterday, today and tomorrow.
>> 
>>> Except I never wrote that, so you're just making it up.
>> 
>>> Where do you get this "test every other Linux application" from? Where
>>> have I ever suggested that "every possible Linux software author" should
>>> waste their time testing "every other Linux application", and what
>>> exactly has that got to do with repos?
>> 
>> When, say, Ubuntu is updated, it was your contention that all of the
>> software was tested to make sure it ran well on the new system (with some
>> possible room for exceptions which would be quickly corrected). �You did
>> not, however, provide any mechanism for this to happen... and given the
>> different schedules of different distros, it is essentially impossible to
>> test all programs against all updates of every distro (even just the major
>> ones).
> 
> The claimed mechanism was merely altruistic good intentions.
> 
> However, that's precisely what the road to Hell is paved with.

And, if so, assumes that people who work with proprietary solutions have
intentions which are not as good.  Which is unsupported.

.... 
>>> But your doomsday scenario is just fictional hypothesis, like your myth
>>> about Windows and the Mac getting repos. I'm talking about present
>>> realities, you're talking about hypothetical scenarios.
>> 
>> Apple already has a rudimentary repo for OS X and has promised a much more
>> robust one for the next version of OS X.
> 
> Perhaps it is a good enough idea for Apple to copy, but Homer still
> hasn't addressed the other issue this raises:  "Which one of these
> ~320 distros is the *correct* one?".   Amongst other things, it is
> shades of Schwartz's "Paradox of Choice" all over again.

It is not possible for the developers of, say, OO to test against the
release schedule of every distro.  Just not realistic to expect this.

For OS X, though, they *can* test against every major OS update.  They
generally happen every 18-24 months, and there is *one* target.

.... 
>>> "Linux is superior" is an opinion, reflecting my personal experience,
>>> and as such is neither right nor wrong, it's simply right for /me/.
>> 
>> Fair enough.
> 
> Sure, if it had been presented that clearly originally, but
> unfortunately, that was not how Homer originally spoke up:
> 
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/
> e78102ceacdcf1b9?hl=en>

That is very much a general statement.  The goalposts have moved.

....
>>> Is that why Steve Ballmer describes Linux as Microsoft's number one
>>> competitor?
> 
> Ballmer has made a lot of kooky claims, such as this one from 2007:
> 
> <http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1014400/ballmer-predicts-
> iphone-failure>

And that is just between his rampages where he is throwing chairs.  :)

>>> Why would Free Software like Linux be "Microsoft's biggest competitor",
>>> rather than, say, a "mainstream IT" proprietary software company like
>>> Apple?
>> 
>>> Hows that for a brutal fact?
>> 
>> MS makes money from Apple customers... the two big cash cows for MS are
>> Windows and MS Office, and they make MS Office for OS
> 
> MS is (and IMO rightfully so) facing serious competition from OSS in
> the Server marketplace.  Invariably, that competition is because their
> customers believe that they're not receiving adequate value-added from
> MS (ie, they're motivated to seek change because they believe that
> they're being ripped off).  The SQL Server that someone posted (TomB?)
> was a good case study example.
> 
> However, even if we accept this concern as valid in the Server space -
> - what bearing does it have on Desktops?   Very little (if any), since
> the two are different market segments.

Agreed.
> 
> 
>>> Here's another: How many consumer devices does Apple's software run,
>>> compared to Linux? Think carefully about the answer.
>> 
>> Not sure a count of devices is that important in terms of competition.
> 
> It doesn't.   Once again, even if we accept this concern as valid - -
> what bearing does it have on Desktops?
> 
> At best, it is an attempt at Ballot-Box Stuffing  with ubiquitous yet
> irrelevant products (such as 5 port routers) by Homer as merely a
> gambit to try to suggest that quantity "Wins".   The fallacy of this
> approach is that Linux is only ~0.8% of the Desktop, which by his own
> logic means that Linux can only be a "Loser".  Fortunately, Homer's
> premise is flawed.

Good point: if Android is "winning" based on having such spectacular growth
compared to the subset of iOS products represented by the iPhone, then
desktop Linux *clearly* is a horrible loser on the desktop.

> Perhaps Homer overlooked where I mentioned that I used Linux for
> awhile, then went back to commercial software.  Or perhaps Homer
> didn't miss this and that's why he's slinging insults.
> 
> Granted, that was a few years back for me personally and Linux has
> gotten better, but the problem is that its competition hasn't been
> standing still either:  MS & Apple's products have gotten better
> too.   Today, I still do not see any compelling reason to consider
> changing back to Linux, unfortunately.    And while some people may
> get excited about a cost avoidance on initial capital investment
> savings via 'Free' software, that's merely the starting line of a
> lifecycle cost assessment and not the forgone conclusion.

Even Shuttleworth has noted that if freedom and cost are not big issue then
desktop Linux does not offer much.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Peter K�hlmann stated in post id2s9v$1d1$00$1@news.t-online.com on 11/30/10
5:56 AM:

>> 
>> Perhaps it is a good enough idea for Apple to copy, but Homer still
>> hasn't addressed the other issue this raises:  "Which one of these
>> ~320 distros is the *correct* one?".   Amongst other things, it is
>> shades of Schwartz's "Paradox of Choice" all over again.
>> 
> 
> Again this "too much choice" idiocy. Naturally coming from someone unable to
> handle any choice.

The comment had nothing to do with choice.  Nothing.

As is your norm, Peter, you cannot understand what you read.

> Oh, and just for the record: The vast majority of those many distros is for
> specuial purposes.
> For "classic desktop" usage there are maybe 10 different ones.
> Less than there are versions for MS win
> 
> But I guess you guys are simply not smart enough to see those simple facts



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Hadron stated in post id33t4$s58$2@news.eternal-september.org on 11/30/10
8:06 AM:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
> 
>> TomB stated in post 20101130073838.209@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/30/10 2:34
>> AM:
>> 
>>> On 2010-11-30, the following emerged from the brain of RonB:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:33:01 +0100, TomB wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> This exposes one of the biggest differences between you and me. You care
>>>>> about and identify with this mythological 'general user',
>>>>> 
>>>> Snit thinks he's the "general user's" spokesman. As if he had a clue.
>>>> 
>>> I don't think it's about having a clue or not. I think this 'general user'
>>> is merely a deus ex machina in discussions about GNU/Linux vs. other
>>> operating systems. In particular Windows isn't this one-size-fits-all
>>> solution for which it is often mistaken. I interact with a lot of
>>> non-technical computer users on a daily bases, and I simply don't see a
>>> trend that makes me think 'this is a typical example of the general user',
>>> other than complete lack of knowledge about what makes a computer tick. I
>>> have noticed not a single usage pattern that makes me thing that the Windows
>>> way, the OSX way or even the GNU/Linux way (which generally really boils
>>> down to the KDE or Gnome way) is the 'best' solution for the majority of
>>> users. From our company laptops (personal use at home allowed) I have also
>>> learned that people generally go with the programs suggested (and often even
>>> installed) by the 'family techie', without considering (or even knowing)
>>> about alternatives.
>>> 
>>> In short, what I'm trying to say is that this 'general user' simply doesn't
>>> exist, and cannot be used as a reference to define which system is better.
>>> 
>> First, let's keep in mind that this cuts both ways.  When I note that GIMP
>> lacks a number of important tools for image manipulation, such as smart
>> layers and filters, I am told that this is not important because the general
>> user does not use such things.
>> 
>> Even you I believe, TomB, have told me that the features in MSO I have talked
>> about are not important to the general user - as if wanting custom numbered
>> paragraphs or cropped images is such an odd thing.
>> 
>> Even features of OSs - with OS X there are proxy icons and saved status
>> indicators and PDF Services and AppleScript and Automator- these things are
>> important to me and to many other users and do not exist on Linux (or
>> Windows).  But, I am told, they would not benefit the general user.
>> 
>> When I talk about the general user and what they do, I talk from a place of
>> more experience than, I suspect, anyone else in COLA.  I have worked for
>> years with users of every level - from novices just learning to use a mouse
>> to aeronautical engineers who need additional training - from toddlers to
>> octogenarians - etc.  I also have been a part of a number of usability
>> studies and have looked into others... and have some formal training in the
>> area.  I reference studies and standards and UI guidelines.  For example,
>> when I talk about how having dialogs which are substantially the same but
>> have swapped "save" and "cancel" buttons is likely to lead to greater loss of
>> data, I think this is easy to support.  Or when I talk about how buttons that
>> say "Save" and "Cancel" are likely to lead to less error than buttons that
>> say "Yes" and "No", again, this is supportable by research (and common
>> sense).  Same idea with the topic RonB keeps bringing up these days -
>> consistency - not only does the research support it, but it is talked about
>> in the KDE, Gnome, Apple and MS docs as being one of the top priorities in UI
>> design.  This is not coincidence.  It is important.  RonB and sometimes
>> others jump up and down and say that this cannot be true because there are UI
>> transitions which, of course, break consistency and there are times when a
>> break in consistency is a good thing - but that is based on his glomming on
>> to one word and not showing any understanding of the concept.
>> 
>> To say that such things are good for the general user is completely fair and
>> well supported.  Can it be shown it is good for *you*... well, statistically
>> it almost surely is - and many people who were demonstrably shown to be hurt
>> by poor UIs showed no knowledge of it.  Can there be exceptions - sure... it
>> is theoretically possible... I do not recall any studies showing these things
>> were *universally* true with *no* exceptions (in the sample tested).
>> 
>>> What perhaps could be talked about is general use cases, for instance an
>>> Office worker depending on MSO, graphical artists depending on Photoshop or
>>> sound engineers depending on protools and other industry favorites.
>>> Obviously in those situations Windows or Mac or the only options, and thus
>>> automatically 'the best'.
>>> 
>> And keep in mind there are many such cases - *many* people benefit from being
>> able to use features in MSO which either do not exist in OO or are done
>> better in MSO, for example.
>> 
>> There are not many examples where desktop Linux offers features which are not
>> as good or better on alternatives - though there are some (such as what you
>> have described for yourself).  This is a challenge for desktop Linux - where
>> are the killer apps?  With the OSS model can they really even exist... if
>> they are really good won't they be ported?  Seems so - so the answer is to
>> have system wide features... such as what Apple has with the features I list
>> above.  The "feature" I have suggested is to keep the flexibility but also to
>> gain usability / error reduction - which can be done, in part, by making
>> things more consistent.
> 
> 
> Don't you get tied repeating all that?

Yes... though in this case it was explained a bit differently - in terms of
"general users". I do not know if I have talked about that and how this
concept works both ways... Linux "advocates" clearly use the concept, if not
the term, quite often.

> You have explained it to TomB a thousand times. Face it, he doesn't get it.
> And, more importantly, he doesn't want to get it because if he does he'll have
> to disagree with WronG and Creepy and co who all declare this consistency
> issue to be "nonsense" and "wintroll nonsense" - even though none of us have
> said Windows is that much better than most of the homebrew FOSS.
> 
> You must remember that this is the man who cant see a problem with making and
> building as root despite it breaking all common sense guidelines for
> application development and goes against the entire raison d'etre for
> multigroup access levels.
> 
> Give up.
> 
> 



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
> On Nov 30, 12:52 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Homer stated in post 8hees7-90a....@sky.matrix on 11/29/10 10:26 PM:
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that -hh spake thusly:
>>>> On Nov 29, 8:15 pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:

>>>>> The theoretical possibility that every proprietary Windows
>>>>> software vendor (not just Adobe) could collaborate on a single
>>>>> buildsystem and update repository, does not magically make that
>>>>> even remotely likely to actually happen, nor does it reflect the
>>>>> present (and long-standing) condition.
>>>> 
>>>> And yet you want us all to believe that it is significantly more
>>>> plausible to believe that *every* possible Linux software author
>>>> will _always_ have unlimited free time and resources with which to
>>>> test every other Linux application, and fixing every last thing
>>>> that his changes broke, without fail, yesterday, today and
>>>> tomorrow.
>>> 
>>> Except I never wrote that, so you're just making it up.
>>
>>> Where do you get this "test every other Linux application" from?
>>> Where have I ever suggested that "every possible Linux software
>>> author" should waste their time testing "every other Linux
>>> application", and what exactly has that got to do with repos?
>>
>> When, say, Ubuntu is updated, it was your contention that all of the
>> software was tested to make sure it ran well on the new system (with
>> some possible room for exceptions which would be quickly corrected).
>> You did not, however, provide any mechanism for this to happen...

The mechanism is documented in great detail here:

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment

>> and given the different schedules of different distros, it is
>> essentially impossible to test all programs against all updates of
>> every distro (even just the major ones).

But why would Ubuntu developers need to test Fedora packages, or vice
versa? They each maintain their own sets of packages. That is the whole
point of a "distro"?

> The claimed mechanism was merely altruistic good intentions.
>
> However, that's precisely what the road to Hell is paved with.

The road to Hell is paved with ignorant twits who know nothing about
GNU/Linux.

>>> Do you even have the faintest idea how buildsystems and repos work?
>>> It doesn't take "every possible Linux software author" to operate a
>>> buildsystem and repo, it takes a handful of maintainers and an
>>> automated process for building and testing. It's only in the (again
>>> rare) event that something actually goes wrong, that a package
>>> maintainer needs to intervene. Neither the "authors" nor the users
>>> need do anything, and indeed never get involved in the process,
>>> unless they set out to do so voluntarily for their own reasons of
>>> interest.
>>
>> Automated testing is great - but it does not substitute for hands-on
>> testing.

Of course not. Do you suppose package maintainers don't also /use/ the
packages they maintain? That is in fact precisely /why/ they maintain
them.

And whatever the testing mechanism, it seems to be working a hell of a
lot better than Microsoft's. Their crap is a ticking time-bomb.

>>> In the event that all ~320 GNU/Linux distributions mysteriously
>>> disappeared overnight in a puff of smoke, maybe /then/ the users
>>> would have a problem, and need to become their own distro
>>> maintainers. And again, at least with Free Software they'd have the
>>> opportunity to do so.  But your doomsday scenario is just fictional
>>> hypothesis, like your myth about Windows and the Mac getting repos.
>>> I'm talking about present realities, you're talking about
>>> hypothetical scenarios.
>>
>> Apple already has a rudimentary repo for OS X and has promised a much
>> more robust one for the next version of OS X.

That's not a "repo". Where's all the third-party applications?

GNU/Linux distros comprise the OS /and/ the "third-party" applications,
all of which are built together in the same buildsystem, then downloaded
from the same repo.

You might as well claim Windows Update is a "repo". It's not quite the
same thing as being able to update/upgrade *everything* in one shot from
one location, with dependency tracking and compatibility. Oh, and for
free.

> Perhaps it is a good enough idea for Apple to copy

Except neither Apple nor Microsoft could possibly copy this idea,
without either infringing every third-party application's copyright, or
essentially buying the rights to those products.

> but Homer still hasn't addressed the other issue this raises:  "Which
> one of these ~320 distros is the *correct* one?".

"Correct" for whom, you or me?

> Amongst other things, it is shades of Schwartz's "Paradox of Choice"
> all over again.

Oh, here we go. I might have known you were a follower of that Schwartz
nut.

So tell me this: what laws would you enact to prohibit people from being
individuals with unique preferences, and thus prevent people from having
choice (and making choices for others)?

Obviously there are too many models of car in the world too. Therefore
as the dictator of Planet America, I hereby decree that all citizens
shall forthwith drive only Reliant Robins, and no other, upon penalty of
death.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=130OVZcMEcA

I hope you're satisfied with my unilateral decision, not that you have
any choice, of course. 

You do realise that "unification" is a fascist doctrine, don't you?

>>> "Linux is superior" is an opinion, reflecting my personal
>>> experience, and as such is neither right nor wrong, it's simply
>>> right for /me/.
>>
>> Fair enough.
>
> Sure, if it had been presented that clearly originally, but
> unfortunately, that was not how Homer originally spoke up:
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e78102ceacdcf1b9?hl=en>

The phrase "Linux is superior" doesn't actually appear in that message.
It does appear later though, but then anyone with even a modicum of
intelligence implicitly understands that "x is better" is an opinion.

Of course, WRT to the software /I/ use, my opinion is the only one that
really matters, so I'm not sure why you seem so surprised about this.

Sorry if that undermines your position as a professional software
dictator?

>>> Is that why Steve Ballmer describes Linux as Microsoft's number one
>>> competitor?
>
> Ballmer has made a lot of kooky claims, such as this one from 2007:
>
> <http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1014400/ballmer-predicts-iphone-failure>

"Linux is Microsoft's biggest competitor" is not a prediction though,
it's the present tense. Anyone can theorise about hypothetical outcomes
(you apparently do so for a living), but that's rather different to a
CEO discussing the present impact a competitor is having on his company.

>>> Why would Free Software like Linux be "Microsoft's biggest
>>> competitor", rather than, say, a "mainstream IT" proprietary
>>> software company like Apple?
>>
>>> Hows that for a brutal fact?
>>
>> MS makes money from Apple customers... the two big cash cows for MS
>> are Windows and MS Office, and they make MS Office for OS
> 
> MS is (and IMO rightfully so) facing serious competition from OSS in
> the Server marketplace.

And smartphones, and ad-funded search services (in both cases, Google).
The latter in particular seems to be very important to Microsoft, after
the extraordinary effort and vast sums they've poured into desperately
trying to establish themselves in that market.

> Invariably, that competition is because their customers believe that
> they're not receiving adequate value-added from

Please, speak English.

"Value-added" is not a noun, it just looks ridiculous when you use it as
one. In fact the premise itself is mostly bullshit, regardless of how it
is written.

"Added-value" is invariably a euphemism for shovelware, or hiking-up
the price without any real justification. I don't want anyone to "add
value" to the tools I use, I just need them to work. Period. I'll add my
own "value", thank you very much.

> However, even if we accept this concern as valid in the Server space -
> - what bearing does it have on Desktops? Very little (if any), since
> the two are different market segments.

Well since in all cases the software is free, then it really doesn't
matter if you're talking about Desktops or routers, does it? That is the
whole point: Free Software is pervasive, flexible, scalable, and free of
licensing costs too. Therefore it represents a very low barrier to
entering the market, and the freedom to use it to produce any product
you want.

Why do you suppose nearly every router in the world runs Linux instead
of, say, Windows CE?

The only thing that keeps Linux from attaining this same level of
ubiquity on the desktop, is Microsoft's exclusion contracts:

[quote]
Gateway also faulted another provision of the new licensing agreement,
which requires PC makers to pay a Windows royalty on every PC shipped,
even if it didn't include Windows.
[/quote]

http://news.cnet.com/Gateway-exec-Microsoft-too-powerful/2100-1016_3-868413.html

It's kinda hard to push the adoption of Desktop Linux, when it's being
oppressed by a racketeering operation. Given a more balanced market
(i.e. one free of gangsters), things might be very different.

>>> Here's another: How many consumer devices does Apple's software run,
>>> compared to Linux? Think carefully about the answer.
>>
>> Not sure a count of devices is that important in terms of
>> competition.

Eh?

More devices = more sales. More sales = more powerful competitors.

Next you'll be claiming Microsoft doesn't consider Google a competitor,
because Google doesn't sell a Desktop OS (yet).

And you had the gall to accuse /me/ of "thinking small". Try looking up
from Apple's toy gizmos long enough to see how the real world actually
works.

> It doesn't.   Once again, even if we accept this concern as valid - -
> what bearing does it have on Desktops?

The same bearing that it has on anything else Microsoft and Apple makes:
Free Software balances the market, allowing greater competition (where
it isn't being oppressed by racketeering).

> At best, it is an attempt at Ballot-Box Stuffing  with ubiquitous yet
> irrelevant products (such as 5 port routers) by Homer as merely a
> gambit to try to suggest that quantity "Wins".

What I'm suggesting is that Free Software "wins" for those using it in
their devices. They have lower costs and thus can enter the market at a
lower price point, making more sales. Do you really suppose any of those
device manufacturers really care that they're not selling desktop PCs,
when they're making money hand over fist?

But the substantive point is that neither Microsoft nor Apple are in
that (non-smartphone) market, so they're not making those sales, because
their proprietary solutions are too expensive and restrictive to be
useful to those device manufacturers. Even in the smartphone segment of
that market, Linux-powered Android is crushing the competition.

> The fallacy of this approach is that Linux is only ~0.8% of the
> Desktop

Given this software is free, and thus there are no POS figures to count
its adoption, there is in fact no way to know what percentage of
desktop users run GNU/Linux, unless you believe some "hits stats" from
cherry-picked and undisclosed sources.

But even if it were 100%, would it make any difference, since GNU/Linux
is free anyway, and thus the /sales/ comparison will always demonstrate
it as having a 0% "market share". What's important is that it's freely
/available/ (in terms of both license and cost), and so is a facilitator
to many other things, including both business and personal use.

IOW gains for Free Software only ever mean losses for its proprietary
competition, (and as a side issue, technical and ideological gains for
everyone), but not financial gains for "Linux", since there is no
/company/ called "Linux". It benefits those who use it, not some central
tax collector.

> which by his own logic means that Linux can only be a "Loser".

Only if your idea of "loss" is something that doesn't set out to
actually gain money for itself, but instead empowers others to do so
(and many other things besides).

> Fortunately, Homer's premise is flawed.

Fortunately your comprehension of the benefits of Free Software is so
limited, that none of your meaningless gibberish is relevant.

> Perhaps Homer overlooked where I mentioned that I used Linux for
> awhile, then went back to commercial software.

Perhaps you overlooked where I mentioned that I used proprietary
software for a while, then switched to Free Software.

> Or perhaps Homer didn't miss this and that's why he's slinging
> insults.

I really don't care what you do, as long as it doesn't get in my way.

> Granted, that was a few years back

So you admit to being completely ignorant of GNU/Linux then?

Then why are you debating something you know nothing about?

> for me personally and Linux has gotten better

But you just said you hadn't used it in years, so how do you know?

> but the problem is that its competition hasn't been standing still
> either:  MS & Apple's products have gotten better too.

Yeah, Microsoft's last two operating systems are so much "better", that
60% pf their customers are still using an archaic; insecure; unstable;
pile of junk from ten years ago, called Windows XP.

Not exactly a glowing endorsement, is it?

As for Apple things...

Meh.

I had an iPod once, back in the day when every other PMP was shit. Of
course these days I have a Linux-based Android, which makes that old
iPod look rather pathetic by comparison.

The Apple machines at work left me stone cold. All looks and no
substance. I kept thinking to myself "what am I supposed to do now?" and
"where are the apps?". Turns out you have to go to a shop and buy them.

How quaint.

Yeah, I remember buying boxed software ... all those years ago. In
/shops/, no less. Remember shops?

It brings a tear to my glass eye.

> Today, I still do not see any compelling reason to consider changing
> back to Linux, unfortunately.

Yes, that is very unfortunate. You're condemned to buying Apple's toy
gizmos from shops for the rest of your life. Sort of like having a kid
who never grows past the age of 3.

> And while some people may get excited about a cost avoidance on
> initial capital investment savings via 'Free' software, that's merely
> the starting line of a lifecycle cost assessment and not the forgone
> conclusion.

For me it starts and ends with Freedom. Saving money is simply a bonus.

-- 
K.                           | [ubuntu]
http://slated.org            | 
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   | 1. Ancient African word meaning
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 46 days  |    'I can't configure Debian'

Homer stated in post 1emfs7-db2.ln1@sky.matrix on 11/30/10 9:47 AM:

.... 
>>> When, say, Ubuntu is updated, it was your contention that all of the
>>> software was tested to make sure it ran well on the new system (with
>>> some possible room for exceptions which would be quickly corrected).
>>> �You did not, however, provide any mechanism for this to happen...
> 
> The mechanism is documented in great detail here:
> 
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment
> 
>>> and given the different schedules of different distros, it is
>>> essentially impossible to test all programs against all updates of
>>> every distro (even just the major ones).
> 
> But why would Ubuntu developers need to test Fedora packages, or vice
> versa? They each maintain their own sets of packages. That is the whole
> point of a "distro"?

But the Ubuntu folks are not the same ones who make OpenOffice and GIMP and
all of the other software in their repository.  Do you think that each
distro manager checks their update against all of the software in their
repositories for all possible conflicts and then, when some are found, they
are willing to update the software if needed?

And if Ubuntu developers and Fedora developers and developers from many
other distros all *did* modify their copy of each of these software packages
things would become even a bigger mess.

But with Windows or OS X, there is one target (each).  Sure, there are
different versions of Windows - and, yes, that leads to problems, just not
in this area - they all run pretty much the same software and in pretty much
the same way.  So as Apple gets closer to releasing Lion, the OpenOffice
folks can test against the beta and, when it comes out, they can test
against the actual release.  They do not have to do this for dozens of
distros... or even two (well, maybe if you count the server version as a
different OS, but there are few differences between the two in terms of how
it should affect OpenOffice).

.... 
>>> Automated testing is great - but it does not substitute for hands-on
>>> testing.
> 
> Of course not. Do you suppose package maintainers don't also /use/ the
> packages they maintain? That is in fact precisely /why/ they maintain
> them.

Ah, the only reason Ubuntu has the software it does in its repositories is
because some developer is using each package.

No, that is just silly.

> And whatever the testing mechanism, it seems to be working a hell of a
> lot better than Microsoft's. Their crap is a ticking time-bomb.

I would love to see where OpenOffice, for example, has fewer problems on
Linux than it does on Windows or OS X.

>>>> In the event that all ~320 GNU/Linux distributions mysteriously
>>>> disappeared overnight in a puff of smoke, maybe /then/ the users
>>>> would have a problem, and need to become their own distro
>>>> maintainers. And again, at least with Free Software they'd have the
>>>> opportunity to do so.  But your doomsday scenario is just fictional
>>>> hypothesis, like your myth about Windows and the Mac getting repos.
>>>> I'm talking about present realities, you're talking about
>>>> hypothetical scenarios.
>>> 
>>> Apple already has a rudimentary repo for OS X and has promised a much
>>> more robust one for the next version of OS X.
> 
> That's not a "repo". Where's all the third-party applications?

In the repository.  Apple Menu > Mac OS X Software...

Takes you here: <http://www.apple.com/downloads/>

I assure you that not all of that software is made by Apple!

> GNU/Linux distros comprise the OS /and/ the "third-party" applications,
> all of which are built together in the same buildsystem, then downloaded
> from the same repo.

They are not built together.  Ubuntu does not control OpenOffice and GIMP,
for example.  
 
> You might as well claim Windows Update is a "repo". It's not quite the
> same thing as being able to update/upgrade *everything* in one shot from
> one location, with dependency tracking and compatibility.

The current Apple store does not do that, though there are third party tools
that do (I use one for a class of software - Widgets).  The soon-to-be
opened Apple store does allow you to upgrade and update all software (or at
least all software available in the repository).  Which, by the way, when
you install software not in the Ubuntu repository it does not automatically
get included and updated for you.

> Oh, and for free.

Irrelevant to the topic.

>> Perhaps it is a good enough idea for Apple to copy
> 
> Except neither Apple nor Microsoft could possibly copy this idea,
> without either infringing every third-party application's copyright, or
> essentially buying the rights to those products.

What do you think the Mac App Store will be lacking?  Here, so you can look
at info about it: <http://www.apple.com/mac/app-store/>

>> but Homer still hasn't addressed the other issue this raises:  "Which
>> one of these ~320 distros is the *correct* one?".
> 
> "Correct" for whom, you or me?

Exactly - there is *no* way the OpenOffice developers can know.

>> Amongst other things, it is shades of Schwartz's "Paradox of Choice"
>> all over again.
> 
> Oh, here we go. I might have known you were a follower of that Schwartz
> nut.

Do you have contrary evidence - research that shows he is wrong?

> So tell me this: what laws would you enact to prohibit people from being
> individuals with unique preferences, and thus prevent people from having
> choice