Re: How unpopular is Ubuntu Linux, just take a look.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moshe Goldfarb
  • Start date Start date
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 14:00:08 -0400, nospam wrote:

> Stephan Rose wrote:
>
>> Actually Adobe and others are fairly irrelevant.
>>
>> Sticking with Adobe, let's look at Photoshop.
>>
>> Other than graphics artists and related people, who actually legally
>> and legitimately owns and uses Photoshop? What percentage of people is
>> there that actually can use Photoshop to it's fullest extend? I know I
>> sure can't. I'm lucky if I can manage to draw a straight line.
>
> ...Linux then is for you...

....and it does quite well for me. :)

--
Stephan
1986 Pontiac Fiero GT

å›ã®äº‹æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®äº‹å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰
 
Stephan Rose wrote:

>Hadron quacked:
>>
>> Because you have an agenda and makes things up. Most run just fine. And
>> frankly, I'm not sure about your obsession with Vist. I used XP and it
>> ran about 99.99% of games just fine from across the versions from the
>> past 10 years. Yes, I know Mark Kent announced (and I kid you not)
>> there is no binary compatibility across Windows versions but he is a
>> fool.
>
> WTF are you smoking?

I see "true Linux advocate" Hadron Quack is still advocating away...
What a POS.
 
"Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
news:-sadnaELa_FaaXLanZ2dnUVZ_uHinZ2d@giganews.com...


> And what is the "real price"? $20 from their local piracy download
> website?
>
> Personally, if I wanted office right now, I have a choice of going to a
> site like amazon.com and paying what MS wants retail or I suppose I could
> try to scrounge up a used copy on ebay and hope it isn't pirated.

So $120 then, not $400.
And that's for three PCs.

Not as cheap as OO but not exactly expensive.
Star office costs $90 on amazon BTW.

BTW you can get M$ office for less if you shop around.
 
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> writes:

> Stephan Rose wrote:
>
>>Hadron quacked:
>>>
>>> Because you have an agenda and makes things up. Most run just fine. And
>>> frankly, I'm not sure about your obsession with Vist. I used XP and it
>>> ran about 99.99% of games just fine from across the versions from the
>>> past 10 years. Yes, I know Mark Kent announced (and I kid you not)
>>> there is no binary compatibility across Windows versions but he is a
>>> fool.
>>
>> WTF are you smoking?

Which part of the text above do you disagree with?

>
> I see "true Linux advocate" Hadron Quack is still advocating away...
> What a POS.

You have no idea what we are talking about. Again.
 
"Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
news:-sadnaELa_FaaXLanZ2dnUVZ_uHinZ2d@giganews.com...

8<

> I have over 20 Japanese CD's and over 10 DVDs (which will not play under
> Vista due to region coding and there is no 3rd party solution currently
> to circumvent this for Vista and due to Vista's crap there may never be I
> suspect).
>
> So yes, I am extremely sure. XP doesn't have the problem with the DVDs,
> 3rd party solutions exist to circumvent the region coding. However, it
> also can't handle my music collection. YES I have tried under both vista
> *and* xp.

You haven't tried very hard.
I just loaded the same solution I was using on XP, no problems.
DVD43.
 
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 18:52:07 GMT, Canuck57 wrote:

> "Moshe Goldfarb" <brick.n.straw@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:r690jbpnqhdr.1bt1uyjci3i92.dlg@40tude.net...
>
>> It's all about standards.
>
> Yep, and that is why ODF is winning over MOOXML. Microsoft isn't standard
> in squat, all of Microsoft is proprietary, closed etc.
>
>> Do you think an accountant is going to take a chance using your Gnucash
>> files?
>
> Why not? He can even audit the code. It isn't like Excel libraries haven't
> had issues with math.
> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9039058

Notice the switch to Windows......
A classic Linux advocate technique.

As for the source code, that's nice...
Who cares?
Only a programmer can read it anyway.

>> Even if his program can read them, why would he put himself in a
>> potentially legally troubling situation like that?
>
> Doubtful and has never happened.

How do you know?
And why take a chance?
Why not use what everyone else is using?
Why be an oddball?
Why be the square peg when every hole is round?
For what?
The security of knowing it *might* work?

I don't think so.


>> Do you think a lawyer is going to take a chance with OpenOffice importing
>> Microsoft Word documents EXACTLY?
>
> That hasn't been much of a problem for 4 years or so.

Sure it is.
OpenOffice even has problems with simple documents.
And again why take the chance?


> Or do you mean like back doors and easter eggs?
>
> http://www.eeggs.com/tree/558.html

Who cares?

I don't care about weird comments and stuff in the kernel source either.


> OpenOffice is safer, as even saves in PDF without the need to purchase
> Adobe. More people have viewed and vetted the code too. More bucks in your
> pocket. )

Not when everyone else is using MS Office it isn't *safer*.

Can you guarantee me that my documents will transfer perfectly to
Openoffice and back again?
If not, don't bother asking me to use Open Office.


>> When every single comma, period and so forth can make a big difference in
>> the interpretation of the document do you think a law office would take a
>> chance on Open Office?
>
> More reason to use OpenOffice.

Not when everyone else using MSOffice.


>> They would have to be crazy...
>> For $300 or less they can have the real macoy, MS Office.
>> Why go with a copycat?
>
> MS Office isn't the real McCoy ether, others were long before it. We
> survived changing to Word, we will survive changing from word.

I've been hearing that one for at least 10 years.

Is this year, 2008 the year of Linux?


> In my area, I can get a discount, $329 for Office 2007 Pro OEM. They didn't
> list Visio but I hear it is pricy. So I use OpenOffice and Dia and spend
> the $329 on beer.

Good for you.

> Times evolve. But some sticks in the mud do not.

Tell me about it.

Linux has been sitting at 0.6 percent of the desktop market for years
despite being free.

Open Office hasn't even put a dent in MSOffice despite being free.

So what's wrong with these sticks in the mud that they can't gain market
share when they are free and the competition is expensive?



--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
"Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message
news:rjRHj.139623$pM4.132386@pd7urf1no...


> OpenOffice is safer, as even saves in PDF without the need to purchase
> Adobe. More people have viewed and vetted the code too. More bucks in
> your pocket. )

M$ office saves in pdf without having to buy Adobe.. where did you dream
that one up from?
 
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:04:10 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

> "Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message
> news:rjRHj.139623$pM4.132386@pd7urf1no...
>
>
>> OpenOffice is safer, as even saves in PDF without the need to purchase
>> Adobe. More people have viewed and vetted the code too. More bucks in
>> your pocket. )
>
> M$ office saves in pdf without having to buy Adobe.. where did you dream
> that one up from?
>

Canuck57 obviously has not earned his Linux advocates secret decoder ring
yet.
He will get better at FUD as he gains more experience.

--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:03:50 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 18:52:07 GMT, Canuck57 wrote:
>
>> "Moshe Goldfarb" <brick.n.straw@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:r690jbpnqhdr.1bt1uyjci3i92.dlg@40tude.net...
>>
>>> It's all about standards.
>>
>> Yep, and that is why ODF is winning over MOOXML. Microsoft isn't
>> standard in squat, all of Microsoft is proprietary, closed etc.
>>
>>> Do you think an accountant is going to take a chance using your
>>> Gnucash files?
>>
>> Why not? He can even audit the code. It isn't like Excel libraries
>> haven't had issues with math.
>> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?
command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9039058
>
> Notice the switch to Windows......
> A classic Linux advocate technique.

It's called, why is OK for Windows software to have bugs and not OSS?

>
> As for the source code, that's nice... Who cares?

I do.

> Only a programmer can read it anyway.

So what?

>
>>> Even if his program can read them, why would he put himself in a
>>> potentially legally troubling situation like that?
>>
>> Doubtful and has never happened.
>
> How do you know?
> And why take a chance?
> Why not use what everyone else is using?

Why use what everyone else is using?

> Why be an oddball?

Why not be different?

> Why be the square peg when every hole is round? For what?

Why not?

> The security of knowing it *might* work?
>
> I don't think so.
>
>
>>> Do you think a lawyer is going to take a chance with OpenOffice
>>> importing Microsoft Word documents EXACTLY?
>>
>> That hasn't been much of a problem for 4 years or so.
>
> Sure it is.
> OpenOffice even has problems with simple documents. And again why take
> the chance?

Do you think a lawyer is going to take a chance with different versions
of MS Word importing Microsoft Word documents EXACTLY?

>
>
>> Or do you mean like back doors and easter eggs?
>>
>> http://www.eeggs.com/tree/558.html
>
> Who cares?
>
> I don't care about weird comments and stuff in the kernel source either.
>
>
>> OpenOffice is safer, as even saves in PDF without the need to purchase
>> Adobe. More people have viewed and vetted the code too. More bucks in
>> your pocket. )
>
> Not when everyone else is using MS Office it isn't *safer*.

Yeah, it is.

>
> Can you guarantee me that my documents will transfer perfectly to
> Openoffice and back again?
> If not, don't bother asking me to use Open Office.

They will if you are using OO.o. Can you guarantee MS Office documents
will transfer between versions and back again?

>
>
>>> When every single comma, period and so forth can make a big difference
>>> in the interpretation of the document do you think a law office would
>>> take a chance on Open Office?
>>
>> More reason to use OpenOffice.
>
> Not when everyone else using MSOffice.

Why not?

>
>
>>> They would have to be crazy...
>>> For $300 or less they can have the real macoy, MS Office. Why go with
>>> a copycat?
>>
>> MS Office isn't the real McCoy ether, others were long before it. We
>> survived changing to Word, we will survive changing from word.
>
> I've been hearing that one for at least 10 years.
>
> Is this year, 2008 the year of Linux?

He didn't say ti was the year of Linux. He said we survived changing to
Word, we will survive changing from word.

>
>
>> In my area, I can get a discount, $329 for Office 2007 Pro OEM. They
>> didn't list Visio but I hear it is pricy. So I use OpenOffice and Dia
>> and spend the $329 on beer.
>
> Good for you.
>
>> Times evolve. But some sticks in the mud do not.
>
> Tell me about it.
>
> Linux has been sitting at 0.6 percent of the desktop market for years
> despite being free.

Herd mentality and network effects. Hard to crack.

>
> Open Office hasn't even put a dent in MSOffice despite being free.
>
> So what's wrong with these sticks in the mud that they can't gain market
> share when they are free and the competition is expensive?

Herd mentality and network effects. Hard to crack.

Still, WalMart and Dell have some Windows machines with OO.o bundled.

--
Rick
 
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:01:13 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
> news:-sadnaELa_FaaXLanZ2dnUVZ_uHinZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> 8<
>
>> I have over 20 Japanese CD's and over 10 DVDs (which will not play
>> under Vista due to region coding and there is no 3rd party solution
>> currently to circumvent this for Vista and due to Vista's crap there
>> may never be I suspect).
>>
>> So yes, I am extremely sure. XP doesn't have the problem with the DVDs,
>> 3rd party solutions exist to circumvent the region coding. However, it
>> also can't handle my music collection. YES I have tried under both
>> vista *and* xp.
>
> You haven't tried very hard.
> I just loaded the same solution I was using on XP, no problems. DVD43.

Haven't come across that one yet. Thanks for the info though...it's about
a year and 3 months too late. =)

--
Stephan
1986 Pontiac Fiero GT

å›ã®äº‹æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®äº‹å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰
 
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:04:10 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

> "Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message
> news:rjRHj.139623$pM4.132386@pd7urf1no...
>
>
>> OpenOffice is safer, as even saves in PDF without the need to purchase
>> Adobe. More people have viewed and vetted the code too. More bucks in
>> your pocket. )
>
> M$ office saves in pdf without having to buy Adobe.. where did you dream
> that one up from?


He said OpenOffice saves in PDF without having to buy Adobe, not MS
Office.

Which actually, is very correct.

"Export to PDF" is right here in my OO file menu.

Of course, I also do have global PDF printing support available to any
application.

So you see, I don't need to worry about compatibility issues when sending
documents to someone else. I send a PDF.

--
Stephan
1986 Pontiac Fiero GT

å›ã®äº‹æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®äº‹å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰
 
Stephan Rose <nospam@spammer.com> writes:

> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:04:10 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>
>> "Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message
>> news:rjRHj.139623$pM4.132386@pd7urf1no...
>>
>>
>>> OpenOffice is safer, as even saves in PDF without the need to purchase
>>> Adobe. More people have viewed and vetted the code too. More bucks in
>>> your pocket. )
>>
>> M$ office saves in pdf without having to buy Adobe.. where did you dream
>> that one up from?
>
>
> He said OpenOffice saves in PDF without having to buy Adobe, not MS
> Office.

Err, yes. Indicating what? Yes .... thats right. That its not possible
in Office. When it is.
>
> Which actually, is very correct.
>
> "Export to PDF" is right here in my OO file menu.
>
> Of course, I also do have global PDF printing support available to any
> application.
>
> So you see, I don't need to worry about compatibility issues when sending
> documents to someone else. I send a PDF.

All of which can be done from Office for free too.

Your point is?

--
XP can't be selling well, or we'd have the wintrolls crowing about it all
over the advocacy newsgroups.
comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy
 
Hadron wrote:
> Stephan Rose <nospam@spammer.com> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 10:35:30 -0400, nospam wrote:
>>
>>> Ignoramus10476 wrote:
>>>> I used fedora for years and switched to Ubuntu. It is very well put
>>>> together and works much more smoothly than Fedora. It does have some
>>>> real benefits that accrue to users like me.
>>> I, too, agree that Ubuntu is more polished than the rest of the Linux
>>> distributions, but until big application makers such as Adobe and others
>>> support it with their first class applications, Linux is nothing,
>>> unfortunately
>> Actually Adobe and others are fairly irrelevant.
>>
>> Sticking with Adobe, let's look at Photoshop.
>>
>> Other than graphics artists and related people, who actually legally and
>> legitimately owns and uses Photoshop? What percentage of people is there
>> that actually can use Photoshop to it's fullest extend? I know I sure
>> can't. I'm lucky if I can manage to draw a straight line.
>>
>> There is plenty of software in existence that can meet the needs of the
>> average person. The biggest thing that Photoshop simply has going for
>> itself is the name.
>
> What utter nonsense. There are hundreds of thousand professional artists
> who use it. Your, and mine, ignorance of its usage should not be used as
> a justified reason to dispute its importance.
>
>> Now how about accounting?
>>
>> Sure, there is Quickbooks and the people I know in Accounting love some
>> features about it. I also hear them curse and absolutely hate some other
>> things about it. So it's got it's good and bad parts.
>
> No news there.
>
>> But what about home users? Personally, I just use Gnucash and call it a
>> day. I can enter all my expenses and bills and categorize things the way
>> I want. And, it's got more graphs and reports to show with than I even
>> know what they all mean. About the only report I give a crap about is the
>> expense barchart so I can see where my expenses are and what may be worth
>> looking at for improvement....So even if this program doesn't have all
>> the features Quickbooks has, it already has more than I'll ever
>> need...
>
> For home use, maybe fine. Does you local tax office except it though?
> Mine doesn't.
>
>> Office?
>>
>> Sure, Ms Office has some neat features. But let's be realistic....who
>> needs a $300-$400 office package in order to write a letter to
>> grandma?
>
> Huh? What are you waffling on about? O paid significantly less than that
> and used word/excel for all sorts of things same as I now do with the
> inferior OO equivalents.
>
>> Point that I'm trying to get across is, while all these high end packages
>> may have some neat features that surely there are people out there,
>> especially in the business world and maybe even on occasion in the home
>> user world, who wouldn't want to or can't live without....for the masses
>> at home, in my opinion, they are beyond overkill.
>
> I tend to agree in some cases.
>
>> And so far, I've always been shown to be correct on that when introducing
>> average people with little to know technical knowledge of any kind to
>> Linux. It's those people, the people many windows advocates would claim
>> could never handle linux because it's too complicated, that I've seen to
>> best with it and none of them would want to return to windows.
>
> Unless they wanted proper connectivity with their PDA, their mobile or
> wanted to play the latest games. I agree.
>
>> In some cases, they've even come to me and told me how they've had
>> relatives switch away from windows based on their recommendation,
>> completely uninfluenced and unassisted by me. Gee, can't be that
>> complicated after all I suppose?
>
> I wouldn't say its necessarily complicated. I would say that not enough
> "new gadgets" have decent Linux support though. The wireless scene is
> still a mess IMO. And the video card support can still be hairy unless
> you use a "non conforming to ideology" release like Ubuntu.
>
> Who here syncs their phone on Linux? I worked out my own way and posted
> it here with ivman. (Oh I know I dont really use linux according to the
> COLA morons). But things like that screw up people thinking of moving.
>



You are both right to an extent. Yes there are quite a few good Windows
based products. Yes Linux has a ways to go. But Linux is trying where as
most windows based products with MS in the lead are now only trying to
protect their bottom line.
There are many things in Ubuntu that (to me) are easier to figure out
how to use and yes faster. I know Hadron you don't agree.
My second son now works for a credit reporting agency. One of the largest.
They use both Windows and Linux. Primarily Open Office as far as Linux.
They also have MS office 2003 and 2007 in use. Talk about problems. He
always complained about OO as he only used MS Office before. So we
talked. He admitted that he had the same interoperability between Office
2007 and 2003 as he had between 2007 and OO. So that office is stupid.
Run one or the other not both. But it is MS who is cutting their own
throat. They want the problems between 2003 and 2007 so more will pay
for update.
I gave him some pointers on speeding up OO. waiting to see what his
answer is.
Open source is trying to be more compatible with every one where as MS
and cronies is only tgr=ying to keep a moving target.
caver1
 
caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:

> Hadron wrote:
>> Stephan Rose <nospam@spammer.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 10:35:30 -0400, nospam wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ignoramus10476 wrote:
>>>>> I used fedora for years and switched to Ubuntu. It is very well put
>>>>> together and works much more smoothly than Fedora. It does have some
>>>>> real benefits that accrue to users like me.
>>>> I, too, agree that Ubuntu is more polished than the rest of the Linux
>>>> distributions, but until big application makers such as Adobe and others
>>>> support it with their first class applications, Linux is nothing,
>>>> unfortunately
>>> Actually Adobe and others are fairly irrelevant.
>>>
>>> Sticking with Adobe, let's look at Photoshop.
>>>
>>> Other than graphics artists and related people, who actually
>>> legally and legitimately owns and uses Photoshop? What percentage
>>> of people is there that actually can use Photoshop to it's fullest
>>> extend? I know I sure can't. I'm lucky if I can manage to draw a
>>> straight line.
>>>
>>> There is plenty of software in existence that can meet the needs of
>>> the average person. The biggest thing that Photoshop simply has
>>> going for itself is the name.
>>
>> What utter nonsense. There are hundreds of thousand professional artists
>> who use it. Your, and mine, ignorance of its usage should not be used as
>> a justified reason to dispute its importance.
>>
>>> Now how about accounting?
>>>
>>> Sure, there is Quickbooks and the people I know in Accounting love
>>> some features about it. I also hear them curse and absolutely hate
>>> some other things about it. So it's got it's good and bad parts.
>>
>> No news there.
>>
>>> But what about home users? Personally, I just use Gnucash and call
>>> it a day. I can enter all my expenses and bills and categorize
>>> things the way I want. And, it's got more graphs and reports to
>>> show with than I even know what they all mean. About the only
>>> report I give a crap about is the expense barchart so I can see
>>> where my expenses are and what may be worth looking at for
>>> improvement....So even if this program doesn't have all the
>>> features Quickbooks has, it already has more than I'll ever
>>> need...
>>
>> For home use, maybe fine. Does you local tax office except it though?
>> Mine doesn't.
>>
>>> Office?
>>>
>>> Sure, Ms Office has some neat features. But let's be
>>> realistic....who needs a $300-$400 office package in order to write
>>> a letter to
>>> grandma?
>>
>> Huh? What are you waffling on about? O paid significantly less than that
>> and used word/excel for all sorts of things same as I now do with the
>> inferior OO equivalents.
>>
>>> Point that I'm trying to get across is, while all these high end
>>> packages may have some neat features that surely there are people
>>> out there, especially in the business world and maybe even on
>>> occasion in the home user world, who wouldn't want to or can't live
>>> without....for the masses at home, in my opinion, they are beyond
>>> overkill.
>>
>> I tend to agree in some cases.
>>
>>> And so far, I've always been shown to be correct on that when
>>> introducing average people with little to know technical knowledge
>>> of any kind to Linux. It's those people, the people many windows
>>> advocates would claim could never handle linux because it's too
>>> complicated, that I've seen to best with it and none of them would
>>> want to return to windows.
>>
>> Unless they wanted proper connectivity with their PDA, their mobile or
>> wanted to play the latest games. I agree.
>>
>>> In some cases, they've even come to me and told me how they've had
>>> relatives switch away from windows based on their recommendation,
>>> completely uninfluenced and unassisted by me. Gee, can't be that
>>> complicated after all I suppose?
>>
>> I wouldn't say its necessarily complicated. I would say that not enough
>> "new gadgets" have decent Linux support though. The wireless scene is
>> still a mess IMO. And the video card support can still be hairy unless
>> you use a "non conforming to ideology" release like Ubuntu.
>>
>> Who here syncs their phone on Linux? I worked out my own way and posted
>> it here with ivman. (Oh I know I dont really use linux according to the
>> COLA morons). But things like that screw up people thinking of moving.
>>
>
>
>
> You are both right to an extent. Yes there are quite a few good
> Windows based products. Yes Linux has a ways to go. But Linux is
> trying where as most windows based products with MS in the lead are
> now only trying to protect their bottom line.
> There are many things in Ubuntu that (to me) are easier to figure out
> how to use and yes faster. I know Hadron you don't agree.

Incorrect. I do agree. There are many "pluses" for Linux. But not enough
to make it worthwhile for most people who already use Windows.

--
X-Manoj-Position-Advisory: Please note that Manoj Srivastava likely doubts
any facts posited and opposes any conclusions reached in this message.

-- Seen in the headers of a mail from Branden Robinson
 
Snit wrote:
> "Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> stated in post
> fsoca1$nt5$1@registered.motzarella.org on 3/30/08 8:40 AM:
>
>>> Other than graphics artists and related people, who actually legally and
>>> legitimately owns and uses Photoshop? What percentage of people is there
>>> that actually can use Photoshop to it's fullest extend? I know I sure
>>> can't. I'm lucky if I can manage to draw a straight line.
>>>
>>> There is plenty of software in existence that can meet the needs of the
>>> average person. The biggest thing that Photoshop simply has going for
>>> itself is the name.
>> What utter nonsense. There are hundreds of thousand professional artists
>> who use it. Your, and mine, ignorance of its usage should not be used as
>> a justified reason to dispute its importance.
>
> I certainly am not primarily an image editing professional but I know I use
> a number of features of Photoshop that are simply not available in Gimp or
> other OSS tools (that I know of). Just some of those features:
>
> * adjustment layers
> * smart layers
> * non-destructive "smart" filters
> * better selection tools, refinement of edges, etc.
> * Image warp
> * Layer alignment and blending tools
> * layer sets
> * vanishing point
> * vector based layers with effects
> * liquefy
> * clipping groups
> * web slices
> * text handling: kerning, baseline shift, etc.
> * snapshots in undo history
> * history brush
> * free transform
> * text blending (drop shadow, etc.)
> * simple automation recording
>
> I could be wrong on some of those (I have not used Gimp much)... but from
> what I recall Gimp lacks them all.
>
>>> Now how about accounting?
>>>
>>> Sure, there is Quickbooks and the people I know in Accounting love some
>>> features about it. I also hear them curse and absolutely hate some other
>>> things about it. So it's got it's good and bad parts.
>> No news there.
>
> I used to work for Intuit supporting Quickbooks little brother, Quicken. It
> is - or was - a mess of a program. If nothing else the UI was horrid and the
> file groups that it used were prone to corruption.
>
>
>


The accounts that we use don't like Quicken or Quikbooks after 2002.
They tell all their clients not to upgrade.
caver1
 
rick wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 10:31:16 -0500, Stephan Rose wrote:
>
>> But what about home users? Personally, I just use Gnucash and call it a
>> day. I can enter all my expenses and bills and categorize things the way
>> I want. And, it's got more graphs and reports to show with than I even
>> know what they all mean. About the only report I give a crap about is
>> the expense barchart so I can see where my expenses are and what may be
>> worth looking at for improvement....So even if this program doesn't have
>> all the features Quickbooks has, it already has more than I'll ever
>> need...
>
> A turbotax port would be nice, especially for us sole proprietors who are
> trying to run the biz as economically as possible.
>
>
>


If you like Linux run I run quicken 2003 Premier Home and Business
through wine.(Hardy Heron 64bit) Works great. Yes I bought it.
caver1
 
caver1 wrote:

> Hadron wrote:
>
>> Stephan Rose <nospam@spammer.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 10:35:30 -0400, nospam wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ignoramus10476 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I used fedora for years and switched to Ubuntu. It is very well put
>>>>> together and works much more smoothly than Fedora. It does have some
>>>>> real benefits that accrue to users like me.
>>>>
>>>> I, too, agree that Ubuntu is more polished than the rest of the Linux
>>>> distributions, but until big application makers such as Adobe and
>>>> others
>>>> support it with their first class applications, Linux is nothing,
>>>> unfortunately
>>>
>>> Actually Adobe and others are fairly irrelevant.
>>>
>>> Sticking with Adobe, let's look at Photoshop.
>>>
>>> Other than graphics artists and related people, who actually legally
>>> and legitimately owns and uses Photoshop? What percentage of people
>>> is there that actually can use Photoshop to it's fullest extend? I
>>> know I sure can't. I'm lucky if I can manage to draw a straight line.
>>>
>>> There is plenty of software in existence that can meet the needs of
>>> the average person. The biggest thing that Photoshop simply has going
>>> for itself is the name.
>>
>>
>> What utter nonsense. There are hundreds of thousand professional artists
>> who use it. Your, and mine, ignorance of its usage should not be used as
>> a justified reason to dispute its importance.
>>
>>> Now how about accounting?
>>> Sure, there is Quickbooks and the people I know in Accounting love
>>> some features about it. I also hear them curse and absolutely hate
>>> some other things about it. So it's got it's good and bad parts.
>>
>>
>> No news there.
>>
>>> But what about home users? Personally, I just use Gnucash and call it
>>> a day. I can enter all my expenses and bills and categorize things
>>> the way I want. And, it's got more graphs and reports to show with
>>> than I even know what they all mean. About the only report I give a
>>> crap about is the expense barchart so I can see where my expenses are
>>> and what may be worth looking at for improvement....So even if this
>>> program doesn't have all the features Quickbooks has, it already has
>>> more than I'll ever
>>> need...
>>
>>
>> For home use, maybe fine. Does you local tax office except it though?
>> Mine doesn't.
>>
>>> Office?
>>> Sure, Ms Office has some neat features. But let's be realistic....who
>>> needs a $300-$400 office package in order to write a letter to
>>> grandma?
>>
>>
>> Huh? What are you waffling on about? O paid significantly less than that
>> and used word/excel for all sorts of things same as I now do with the
>> inferior OO equivalents.
>>
>>> Point that I'm trying to get across is, while all these high end
>>> packages may have some neat features that surely there are people out
>>> there, especially in the business world and maybe even on occasion in
>>> the home user world, who wouldn't want to or can't live
>>> without....for the masses at home, in my opinion, they are beyond
>>> overkill.
>>
>>
>> I tend to agree in some cases.
>>
>>> And so far, I've always been shown to be correct on that when
>>> introducing average people with little to know technical knowledge of
>>> any kind to Linux. It's those people, the people many windows
>>> advocates would claim could never handle linux because it's too
>>> complicated, that I've seen to best with it and none of them would
>>> want to return to windows.
>>
>>
>> Unless they wanted proper connectivity with their PDA, their mobile or
>> wanted to play the latest games. I agree.
>>
>>> In some cases, they've even come to me and told me how they've had
>>> relatives switch away from windows based on their recommendation,
>>> completely uninfluenced and unassisted by me. Gee, can't be that
>>> complicated after all I suppose?
>>
>>
>> I wouldn't say its necessarily complicated. I would say that not enough
>> "new gadgets" have decent Linux support though. The wireless scene is
>> still a mess IMO. And the video card support can still be hairy unless
>> you use a "non conforming to ideology" release like Ubuntu.
>>
>> Who here syncs their phone on Linux? I worked out my own way and posted
>> it here with ivman. (Oh I know I dont really use linux according to the
>> COLA morons). But things like that screw up people thinking of moving.
>>
>
>
>
> You are both right to an extent. Yes there are quite a few good Windows
> based products. Yes Linux has a ways to go. But Linux is trying where as
> most windows based products with MS in the lead are now only trying to
> protect their bottom line.
> There are many things in Ubuntu that (to me) are easier to figure out
> how to use and yes faster. I know Hadron you don't agree.
> My second son now works for a credit reporting agency. One of the largest.
> They use both Windows and Linux. Primarily Open Office as far as Linux.
> They also have MS office 2003 and 2007 in use. Talk about problems. He
> always complained about OO as he only used MS Office before. So we
> talked. He admitted that he had the same interoperability between Office
> 2007 and 2003 as he had between 2007 and OO. So that office is stupid.
> Run one or the other not both. But it is MS who is cutting their own
> throat. They want the problems between 2003 and 2007 so more will pay
> for update.
> I gave him some pointers on speeding up OO. waiting to see what his
> answer is.
> Open source is trying to be more compatible with every one where as MS
> and cronies is only tgr=ying to keep a moving target.
> caver1

Hummm...no. MS fixed the compat problem between '07 & '03.
Look it up in office updates.
Sorry, but the FUD won't work this time.
Frank
 
Hadron wrote:
> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> Stephan Rose <nospam@spammer.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 10:35:30 -0400, nospam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ignoramus10476 wrote:
>>>>>> I used fedora for years and switched to Ubuntu. It is very well put
>>>>>> together and works much more smoothly than Fedora. It does have some
>>>>>> real benefits that accrue to users like me.
>>>>> I, too, agree that Ubuntu is more polished than the rest of the Linux
>>>>> distributions, but until big application makers such as Adobe and others
>>>>> support it with their first class applications, Linux is nothing,
>>>>> unfortunately
>>>> Actually Adobe and others are fairly irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>> Sticking with Adobe, let's look at Photoshop.
>>>>
>>>> Other than graphics artists and related people, who actually
>>>> legally and legitimately owns and uses Photoshop? What percentage
>>>> of people is there that actually can use Photoshop to it's fullest
>>>> extend? I know I sure can't. I'm lucky if I can manage to draw a
>>>> straight line.
>>>>
>>>> There is plenty of software in existence that can meet the needs of
>>>> the average person. The biggest thing that Photoshop simply has
>>>> going for itself is the name.
>>> What utter nonsense. There are hundreds of thousand professional artists
>>> who use it. Your, and mine, ignorance of its usage should not be used as
>>> a justified reason to dispute its importance.
>>>
>>>> Now how about accounting?
>>>>
>>>> Sure, there is Quickbooks and the people I know in Accounting love
>>>> some features about it. I also hear them curse and absolutely hate
>>>> some other things about it. So it's got it's good and bad parts.
>>> No news there.
>>>
>>>> But what about home users? Personally, I just use Gnucash and call
>>>> it a day. I can enter all my expenses and bills and categorize
>>>> things the way I want. And, it's got more graphs and reports to
>>>> show with than I even know what they all mean. About the only
>>>> report I give a crap about is the expense barchart so I can see
>>>> where my expenses are and what may be worth looking at for
>>>> improvement....So even if this program doesn't have all the
>>>> features Quickbooks has, it already has more than I'll ever
>>>> need...
>>> For home use, maybe fine. Does you local tax office except it though?
>>> Mine doesn't.
>>>
>>>> Office?
>>>>
>>>> Sure, Ms Office has some neat features. But let's be
>>>> realistic....who needs a $300-$400 office package in order to write
>>>> a letter to
>>>> grandma?
>>> Huh? What are you waffling on about? O paid significantly less than that
>>> and used word/excel for all sorts of things same as I now do with the
>>> inferior OO equivalents.
>>>
>>>> Point that I'm trying to get across is, while all these high end
>>>> packages may have some neat features that surely there are people
>>>> out there, especially in the business world and maybe even on
>>>> occasion in the home user world, who wouldn't want to or can't live
>>>> without....for the masses at home, in my opinion, they are beyond
>>>> overkill.
>>> I tend to agree in some cases.
>>>
>>>> And so far, I've always been shown to be correct on that when
>>>> introducing average people with little to know technical knowledge
>>>> of any kind to Linux. It's those people, the people many windows
>>>> advocates would claim could never handle linux because it's too
>>>> complicated, that I've seen to best with it and none of them would
>>>> want to return to windows.
>>> Unless they wanted proper connectivity with their PDA, their mobile or
>>> wanted to play the latest games. I agree.
>>>
>>>> In some cases, they've even come to me and told me how they've had
>>>> relatives switch away from windows based on their recommendation,
>>>> completely uninfluenced and unassisted by me. Gee, can't be that
>>>> complicated after all I suppose?
>>> I wouldn't say its necessarily complicated. I would say that not enough
>>> "new gadgets" have decent Linux support though. The wireless scene is
>>> still a mess IMO. And the video card support can still be hairy unless
>>> you use a "non conforming to ideology" release like Ubuntu.
>>>
>>> Who here syncs their phone on Linux? I worked out my own way and posted
>>> it here with ivman. (Oh I know I dont really use linux according to the
>>> COLA morons). But things like that screw up people thinking of moving.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You are both right to an extent. Yes there are quite a few good
>> Windows based products. Yes Linux has a ways to go. But Linux is
>> trying where as most windows based products with MS in the lead are
>> now only trying to protect their bottom line.
>> There are many things in Ubuntu that (to me) are easier to figure out
>> how to use and yes faster. I know Hadron you don't agree.
>
> Incorrect. I do agree. There are many "pluses" for Linux. But not enough
> to make it worthwhile for most people who already use Windows.
>



I thought that was the reason for ubuntu's 6 month turn around. To speed
up development to try to catch up. 3 maybe 4 years ago I tried Linux,
gave up. It has now progressed far enough for me to use full time, and
still going.
caver1
 
"caver1" <caver1@inthemud.org> stated in post
47f0231a$0$30585$4c368faf@roadrunner.com on 3/30/08 4:32 PM:

> Snit wrote:
>> "Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> stated in post
>> fsoca1$nt5$1@registered.motzarella.org on 3/30/08 8:40 AM:
>>
>>>> Other than graphics artists and related people, who actually legally and
>>>> legitimately owns and uses Photoshop? What percentage of people is there
>>>> that actually can use Photoshop to it's fullest extend? I know I sure
>>>> can't. I'm lucky if I can manage to draw a straight line.
>>>>
>>>> There is plenty of software in existence that can meet the needs of the
>>>> average person. The biggest thing that Photoshop simply has going for
>>>> itself is the name.
>>> What utter nonsense. There are hundreds of thousand professional artists
>>> who use it. Your, and mine, ignorance of its usage should not be used as
>>> a justified reason to dispute its importance.
>>
>> I certainly am not primarily an image editing professional but I know I use
>> a number of features of Photoshop that are simply not available in Gimp or
>> other OSS tools (that I know of). Just some of those features:
>>
>> * adjustment layers
>> * smart layers
>> * non-destructive "smart" filters
>> * better selection tools, refinement of edges, etc.
>> * Image warp
>> * Layer alignment and blending tools
>> * layer sets
>> * vanishing point
>> * vector based layers with effects
>> * liquefy
>> * clipping groups
>> * web slices
>> * text handling: kerning, baseline shift, etc.
>> * snapshots in undo history
>> * history brush
>> * free transform
>> * text blending (drop shadow, etc.)
>> * simple automation recording
>>
>> I could be wrong on some of those (I have not used Gimp much)... but from
>> what I recall Gimp lacks them all.
>>
>>>> Now how about accounting?
>>>>
>>>> Sure, there is Quickbooks and the people I know in Accounting love some
>>>> features about it. I also hear them curse and absolutely hate some other
>>>> things about it. So it's got it's good and bad parts.
>>> No news there.
>>
>> I used to work for Intuit supporting Quickbooks little brother, Quicken. It
>> is - or was - a mess of a program. If nothing else the UI was horrid and the
>> file groups that it used were prone to corruption.
>
> The accounts that we use don't like Quicken or Quikbooks after 2002.
> They tell all their clients not to upgrade.
> caver1

I left Intuit in 2000. Without me the place went to pieces. :)

Seriously, one of the reasons I left was that there was new management who
was horrid. The focus was no longer on doing the best thing for the
customer (without being silly and giving away the store, obviously) to do
what you can to squeeze every dime out of the customer and then offer no
support without fees. While the money was decent it simply was not
something I wanted to support.


--
Is Swiss cheese made out of hole milk?
 
chrisv wrote:

> Stephan Rose wrote:
>
>>Hadron quacked:
>>>
>>> Because you have an agenda and makes things up. Most run just fine. And
>>> frankly, I'm not sure about your obsession with Vist. I used XP and it
>>> ran about 99.99% of games just fine from across the versions from the
>>> past 10 years. Yes, I know Mark Kent announced (and I kid you not)
>>> there is no binary compatibility across Windows versions but he is a
>>> fool.
>>
>> WTF are you smoking?
>
> I see "true Linux advocate" Hadron Quack is still advocating away...
> What a POS.

No kidding!

Cheers.

--
The world can't afford the rich.

Q: What OS is built for lusers?
A: Which one requires running lusermgr.msc to create them?

Francis (Frank) adds a new "gadget" to his Vista box ...
Download it here: http://tinyurl.com/2hnof6
 
Back
Top