NoStop wrote:

> dennis@home wrote:

>

> <snip>

>

>>> Really? Please explain.

>> Nearly all the open source software is available for windows as well as

>> Linux.

>> Windows software is only available for windows.

>> Therefore there is more software available for windows than linux.

>> Availablity of software in general is a reason to chose windows not linux

>> if you think about it.

>>

> You can't just use a blanket statement like that, because whether Linux is a

> good choice or not, should be based exclusively on the following factors:

>

> 1) If the software one requires IS available for Linux, then it doesn't

> matter what isn't available. In other words, if Linux can work for someone

> and fulfill his/her computing needs, then Linux is a sound choice.

>

> 2) After #1 has been met, the end-user should way the advantages of running

> Linux over running Windows. Linux has proven to be a more stable and secure

> operating system than Windows is. So if that is important to the end-user,

> Linux is the obvious choice.

>

> 3) If the licensing requirements of Windows is too restrictive - example:

> being able to run the OS on more than one computer in ones home or

> business, is an issue - then Linux, without those restrictions is a good

> choice.

>

> 4) If one has older hardware that can't run the latest and greatest from

> Microsoft is an issue, then Linux has that covered very well. Linux is much

> much less resource hungry than Windows. A 6 year old computer can run Linux

> faster and with all the 3d bells and whistles (even more) that Vista

> offers, then present hardware can run Vista. So if the user wants a really

> responsive desktop operating system and keep getting use-value out of the

> older hardware, Linux is the choice to make.

>

> 5) If one wants the additional power that Linux offers over Windows - such

> as the ability to share resources with other computers - across the LAN or

> the Internet - as if it was part of ones own desktop, then Linux is the

> answer. Linux simply has networking down pat, compared to Windows. Linux is

> also a true multi-user operating system, which Windows is not and that

> offers many advantages to those of us that understand this and know how to

> work with it.

>

> 6) If from an ideological point of view, one believes that corporate

> domination on the desktop is not ones cup of tea, then going with Linux and

> Open Source is the answer. Some of us are truly concerned about the

> monopolistic practises of the likes of Microsoft is a danger to society at

> large. We are opposed to the whole concept of things like DRM and IP

> (intellectual property) rights in the software world. Linux, frees us from

> all that.

>

> 7) Linux in recent years has moved from the world of geeks only, to easy for

> the ordinary user. Installing Linux now, is easier than installing Windows.

> Linux has been leading the way in terms of innovation. All this makes Linux

> on the desktop a viable alternative for those who want to move to an

> alternative FREE operating system.

>

> 8) For those users who can't live without #1 above and need to run Windows

> software where no Linux alternative exists, this is easy to do. Linux

> distros like Ubuntu make setting up dualboot with XP so easy, it's a no

> brainer. So the end-user can always boot into Windows to run the odd

> software package that one can't get access to in Linux. Free software like

> VMPlayer allows one to run XP in a window on the Linux desktop, again

> giving users access to software that won't run natively under Linux.

>

> So, if you really think about it ... running Linux (with or without

> Windows), is the perfect fit for many millions of users that do just that.

> Linux is all about choices and you should be glad that such an alternative

> is available for those of us that choose to use it, instead of making it

> only a Windows or Linux competition.

>

> Cheers.

>

 

Thanks for replying to this guy. I haven't the time for his nonsense.

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

In article <fb6qih$3ot$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@shoesgmail.com says...

> Most people don't need that and those that do will find that setting up

> a dual boot for XP and Ubuntu is child's play.

 

So, your argument comes down to, if you want to do everything on your

computer, and your kids want to do all things, they still need XP or

Vista...

 

LOL - the point you keep making is that Ubuntu is all that people need,

but then you keep showing that it's not true.

 

--

 

Leythos

- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a

drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"

spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

"NoStop" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:BPBBi.107137$fJ5.56298@pd7urf1no...

> dennis@home wrote:

>

> <snip>

>

>>>

>>> Really? Please explain.

>>

>> Nearly all the open source software is available for windows as well as

>> Linux.

>> Windows software is only available for windows.

>> Therefore there is more software available for windows than linux.

>> Availablity of software in general is a reason to chose windows not linux

>> if you think about it.

>>

> You can't just use a blanket statement like that, because whether Linux is

> a

> good choice or not, should be based exclusively on the following factors:

 

The choice of linux is secondary to the choice of application.

If all the applications can run on linux it is a contender.. if not it is

out.. the same goes for windows.

>

> 1) If the software one requires IS available for Linux, then it doesn't

> matter what isn't available. In other words, if Linux can work for someone

> and fulfill his/her computing needs, then Linux is a sound choice.

 

True but also true for Mac and windows as well as other opensource OSes.

>

> 2) After #1 has been met, the end-user should way the advantages of

> running

> Linux over running Windows. Linux has proven to be a more stable and

> secure

> operating system than Windows is. So if that is important to the end-user,

> Linux is the obvious choice.

 

This is where the bull starts.

>

> 3) If the licensing requirements of Windows is too restrictive - example:

> being able to run the OS on more than one computer in ones home or

> business, is an issue - then Linux, without those restrictions is a good

> choice.

 

You can run windows on as many machines as you like.. they don't stop you

buying them after the first one or two.

>

> 4) If one has older hardware that can't run the latest and greatest from

> Microsoft is an issue, then Linux has that covered very well. Linux is

> much

> much less resource hungry than Windows. A 6 year old computer can run

> Linux

> faster and with all the 3d bells and whistles (even more) that Vista

> offers, then present hardware can run Vista. So if the user wants a really

> responsive desktop operating system and keep getting use-value out of the

> older hardware, Linux is the choice to make.

 

There are other alternatives to linux that use less resources if the

application will run on them.

>

> 5) If one wants the additional power that Linux offers over Windows - such

> as the ability to share resources with other computers - across the LAN or

> the Internet - as if it was part of ones own desktop, then Linux is the

> answer. Linux simply has networking down pat, compared to Windows. Linux

> is

> also a true multi-user operating system, which Windows is not and that

> offers many advantages to those of us that understand this and know how to

> work with it.

 

I always found linux networking to be poor.

Maybe its changed but not from what I have seen.

>

> 6) If from an ideological point of view, one believes that corporate

> domination on the desktop is not ones cup of tea, then going with Linux

> and

> Open Source is the answer. Some of us are truly concerned about the

> monopolistic practises of the likes of Microsoft is a danger to society at

> large. We are opposed to the whole concept of things like DRM and IP

> (intellectual property) rights in the software world. Linux, frees us from

> all that.

 

Opensource frees you from that, linux is just a *tiny* bit of it.

>

> 7) Linux in recent years has moved from the world of geeks only, to easy

> for

> the ordinary user. Installing Linux now, is easier than installing

> Windows.

> Linux has been leading the way in terms of innovation. All this makes

> Linux

> on the desktop a viable alternative for those who want to move to an

> alternative FREE operating system.

 

Linux is still only a kernel that requires a ton of other opensource

software on it to do anything.. even to log in and get a prompt.

Most of that opensource software runs on other OSes.. sometimes better than

on Linux.

BTW *Linux* has had zero innovation that I know of. It still uses the same

Unix interfaces it copied in the year dot and has done nothing that hasn't

been done elswhere first. Some of the other opensource software has been

more innovative but that is not Linux.

FreeBSD is just as good and probably better but runs on less hardware, the

software you see (shells, windowing, etc. is the same as runs on linux BTW).

>

> 8) For those users who can't live without #1 above and need to run Windows

> software where no Linux alternative exists, this is easy to do. Linux

> distros like Ubuntu make setting up dualboot with XP so easy, it's a no

> brainer. So the end-user can always boot into Windows to run the odd

> software package that one can't get access to in Linux. Free software like

> VMPlayer allows one to run XP in a window on the Linux desktop, again

> giving users access to software that won't run natively under Linux.

 

Its a no brainer most of the time.. I have had Ubuntu corrupt a system so it

wouldn't boot in the past.. I expect its happened to others too.

>

> So, if you really think about it ... running Linux (with or without

> Windows), is the perfect fit for many millions of users that do just that.

> Linux is all about choices and you should be glad that such an alternative

> is available for those of us that choose to use it, instead of making it

> only a Windows or Linux competition.

 

There is no perfect fit for all users and if they have windows they probably

have zero use for Linux.. it doesn't add a huge amount of functionality that

you can't get by downloading the open source applications for windows.

 

The real question for most users is "can I get a free open source

application that does what I want and that I can use or am I better off

buying an application?", Linux is a red herring and irrelevant to most

people.

Alias wrote:

> NoStop wrote:

>> dennis@home wrote:

>>

>> <snip>

>>

>>>> Really? Please explain.

>>> Nearly all the open source software is available for windows as well as

>>> Linux.

>>> Windows software is only available for windows.

>>> Therefore there is more software available for windows than linux.

>>> Availablity of software in general is a reason to chose windows not

>>> linux

>>> if you think about it.

>>>

>> You can't just use a blanket statement like that, because whether

>> Linux is a

>> good choice or not, should be based exclusively on the following factors:

>>

>> 1) If the software one requires IS available for Linux, then it doesn't

>> matter what isn't available. In other words, if Linux can work for

>> someone

>> and fulfill his/her computing needs, then Linux is a sound choice.

>>

>> 2) After #1 has been met, the end-user should way the advantages of

>> running

>> Linux over running Windows. Linux has proven to be a more stable and

>> secure

>> operating system than Windows is. So if that is important to the

>> end-user,

>> Linux is the obvious choice.

>>

>> 3) If the licensing requirements of Windows is too restrictive - example:

>> being able to run the OS on more than one computer in ones home or

>> business, is an issue - then Linux, without those restrictions is a good

>> choice.

>>

>> 4) If one has older hardware that can't run the latest and greatest from

>> Microsoft is an issue, then Linux has that covered very well. Linux is

>> much

>> much less resource hungry than Windows. A 6 year old computer can run

>> Linux

>> faster and with all the 3d bells and whistles (even more) that Vista

>> offers, then present hardware can run Vista. So if the user wants a

>> really

>> responsive desktop operating system and keep getting use-value out of the

>> older hardware, Linux is the choice to make.

>>

>> 5) If one wants the additional power that Linux offers over Windows -

>> such

>> as the ability to share resources with other computers - across the

>> LAN or

>> the Internet - as if it was part of ones own desktop, then Linux is the

>> answer. Linux simply has networking down pat, compared to Windows.

>> Linux is

>> also a true multi-user operating system, which Windows is not and that

>> offers many advantages to those of us that understand this and know

>> how to

>> work with it.

>>

>> 6) If from an ideological point of view, one believes that corporate

>> domination on the desktop is not ones cup of tea, then going with

>> Linux and

>> Open Source is the answer. Some of us are truly concerned about the

>> monopolistic practises of the likes of Microsoft is a danger to

>> society at

>> large. We are opposed to the whole concept of things like DRM and IP

>> (intellectual property) rights in the software world. Linux, frees us

>> from

>> all that.

>>

>> 7) Linux in recent years has moved from the world of geeks only, to

>> easy for

>> the ordinary user. Installing Linux now, is easier than installing

>> Windows.

>> Linux has been leading the way in terms of innovation. All this makes

>> Linux

>> on the desktop a viable alternative for those who want to move to an

>> alternative FREE operating system.

>>

>> 8) For those users who can't live without #1 above and need to run

>> Windows

>> software where no Linux alternative exists, this is easy to do. Linux

>> distros like Ubuntu make setting up dualboot with XP so easy, it's a no

>> brainer. So the end-user can always boot into Windows to run the odd

>> software package that one can't get access to in Linux. Free software

>> like

>> VMPlayer allows one to run XP in a window on the Linux desktop, again

>> giving users access to software that won't run natively under Linux.

>>

>> So, if you really think about it ... running Linux (with or without

>> Windows), is the perfect fit for many millions of users that do just

>> that.

>> Linux is all about choices and you should be glad that such an

>> alternative

>> is available for those of us that choose to use it, instead of making it

>> only a Windows or Linux competition.

>>

>> Cheers.

>>

>

> Thanks for replying to this guy. I haven't the time for his nonsense.

>

 

<You couldn't counter it if your life depended upon it. <g>>

Leythos wrote:

> In article <fb63be$jad$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@shoesgmail.com says...

>> Show me a post of mine that is false

>

> Any post suggesting that Ubuntu can replace Windows XP or Vista for the

> same functions/uses, or that suggests that Open Office is a replacement

> for MS Office (2000, XP, 2003, 2007).....

>

 

IMO OO is better than all of those versions of MS office you list

because they all have buggy DRM that phones home!

 

--

Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:

http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

 

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on

free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the

creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer

rights in the digital age are not frivolous."

- Maura Corbett

Leythos wrote:

> In article <fb6qih$3ot$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@shoesgmail.com says...

>> Most people don't need that and those that do will find that setting up

>> a dual boot for XP and Ubuntu is child's play.

>

> So, your argument comes down to, if you want to do everything on your

> computer, and your kids want to do all things, they still need XP or

> Vista...

>

> LOL - the point you keep making is that Ubuntu is all that people need,

> but then you keep showing that it's not true.

>

 

I only use XP for games and use Ubuntu for everything else. Most people

won't have any more requirements than that. A lot of people aren't into

games and, if they are, they use a console so most people can do just

fine without Windows.

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:17:21 +0200, Alias wrote:

 

> Drivers are the responsibility of the hardware manufacturer, both for

> Windows and Linux. With a little research (very little), one can see

> that it's better to have an nVidia graphics card than an ATI because

> nVidia has decided to support Linux and ATI has not. One can only hope

> that AMD, now that it has acquired ATI, will move in that direction.

> Same thing holds true for Lexmark vs Epson and HP. Epson and HP support

> Linux and Lexmark only partially.

 

Huh? ATI always has always supported Linux...you can go on ATI's website

and download linux drivers absolutely no problem.

 

Only difference between ATI and nVidia is that ATI's drivers aren't as

good, and that is the case in both Linux and Windows. ATI has always had a

reputation for poor drivers, one of the reasons I have always used nVidia

on any OS.

 

--

Stephan

2003 Yamaha R6

 

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯

å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

Stephan Rose wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:17:21 +0200, Alias wrote:

>

>

>> Drivers are the responsibility of the hardware manufacturer, both for

>> Windows and Linux. With a little research (very little), one can see

>> that it's better to have an nVidia graphics card than an ATI because

>> nVidia has decided to support Linux and ATI has not. One can only hope

>> that AMD, now that it has acquired ATI, will move in that direction.

>> Same thing holds true for Lexmark vs Epson and HP. Epson and HP support

>> Linux and Lexmark only partially.

>

> Huh? ATI always has always supported Linux...you can go on ATI's website

> and download linux drivers absolutely no problem.

>

> Only difference between ATI and nVidia is that ATI's drivers aren't as

> good, and that is the case in both Linux and Windows. ATI has always had a

> reputation for poor drivers, one of the reasons I have always used nVidia

> on any OS.

>

 

Good to hear even though I don't own one single ATI card.

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

In article <fb6rl0$74j$1@aioe.org>, nono@none.not says...

> Leythos wrote:

> > In article <fb63be$jad$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@shoesgmail.com says...

> >> Show me a post of mine that is false

> >

> > Any post suggesting that Ubuntu can replace Windows XP or Vista for the

> > same functions/uses, or that suggests that Open Office is a replacement

> > for MS Office (2000, XP, 2003, 2007).....

> >

>

> IMO OO is better than all of those versions of MS office you list

> because they all have buggy DRM that phones home!

 

The problem is that there are more people using MS Office or Works that

you have to interact with, and the OO product does not properly convert

documents if they contain anything other than very basic formatting. I

know this for a fact as I use both Fedora Core with OO and Windows

XP/2003 systems with Office xp, 2003, 2007.... It's bad enough that

people are starting to send 2007 specific documents and that 2003 can't

read them without a utility.....

 

The "phone home" and "drm" doesn't mean much if you are not pirating

things.... If they are your works they don't create a problem.

 

--

 

Leythos

- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a

drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"

spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

In article <fb6rqo$7ql$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@shoesgmail.com says...

> Leythos wrote:

> > In article <fb6qih$3ot$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@shoesgmail.com says...

> >> Most people don't need that and those that do will find that setting up

> >> a dual boot for XP and Ubuntu is child's play.

> >

> > So, your argument comes down to, if you want to do everything on your

> > computer, and your kids want to do all things, they still need XP or

> > Vista...

> >

> > LOL - the point you keep making is that Ubuntu is all that people need,

> > but then you keep showing that it's not true.

> >

>

> I only use XP for games and use Ubuntu for everything else. Most people

> won't have any more requirements than that. A lot of people aren't into

> games and, if they are, they use a console so most people can do just

> fine without Windows.

 

So, you've proven again, and again, that you still need XP for your own

use, why tell people that Ubuntu meets all of their needs when it

doesn't.

 

Fact is that Windows meets all of their needs, no reason to install a

second OS to use part time....

 

Most people can't handle the first OS, they will have many more problems

when they have two to deal with, not to mention the complications of a

Dual Boot solution.

 

--

 

Leythos

- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a

drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"

spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Leythos wrote:

> In article <fb6rl0$74j$1@aioe.org>, nono@none.not says...

>> Leythos wrote:

>>> In article <fb63be$jad$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@shoesgmail.com says...

>>>> Show me a post of mine that is false

>>> Any post suggesting that Ubuntu can replace Windows XP or Vista for the

>>> same functions/uses, or that suggests that Open Office is a replacement

>>> for MS Office (2000, XP, 2003, 2007).....

>>>

>> IMO OO is better than all of those versions of MS office you list

>> because they all have buggy DRM that phones home!

>

> The problem is that there are more people using MS Office or Works that

> you have to interact with, and the OO product does not properly convert

> documents if they contain anything other than very basic formatting. I

> know this for a fact as I use both Fedora Core with OO and Windows

> XP/2003 systems with Office xp, 2003, 2007.... It's bad enough that

> people are starting to send 2007 specific documents and that 2003 can't

> read them without a utility.....

>

> The "phone home" and "drm" doesn't mean much if you are not pirating

> things.... If they are your works they don't create a problem.

>

 

Why don't you email me a fancy dancy Word document so I can see if

ABIWord can open it? I don't use or need OO.

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

Leythos wrote:

> In article <fb6dh3$kjl$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@shoesgmail.com says...

>> Call it what you want. If NoStop hadn't been "trolling" this newsgroup,

>> I would have never heard of Ubuntu. I am thankful to him for sharing the

>> great news.

>

> But Ubuntu is one of the worst distro's out, not supporting of nearly as

> much hardware, and it has less technical support from "friends" than

> Windows does. And there is also less program support than in Windows...

>

> How are you going to feel when some ignorant person loads Ubuntu and

> then can't work with people that have MS apps for documents?

>

 

PMSL! A self proclaimed poster with linux knowledge needs to ask this

question?

 

--

Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:

http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

 

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on

free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the

creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer

rights in the digital age are not frivolous."

- Maura Corbett

"Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

news:fb6qjb$3ot$2@aioe.org...

> NoStop wrote:

>> dennis@home wrote:

 

8<

>> Cheers.

>>

>

> Thanks for replying to this guy. I haven't the time for his nonsense.

 

You don't like the truth.

In article <fb6sjs$av6$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@shoesgmail.com says...

> Leythos wrote:

> > In article <fb6rl0$74j$1@aioe.org>, nono@none.not says...

> >> Leythos wrote:

> >>> In article <fb63be$jad$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@shoesgmail.com says...

> >>>> Show me a post of mine that is false

> >>> Any post suggesting that Ubuntu can replace Windows XP or Vista for the

> >>> same functions/uses, or that suggests that Open Office is a replacement

> >>> for MS Office (2000, XP, 2003, 2007).....

> >>>

> >> IMO OO is better than all of those versions of MS office you list

> >> because they all have buggy DRM that phones home!

> >

> > The problem is that there are more people using MS Office or Works that

> > you have to interact with, and the OO product does not properly convert

> > documents if they contain anything other than very basic formatting. I

> > know this for a fact as I use both Fedora Core with OO and Windows

> > XP/2003 systems with Office xp, 2003, 2007.... It's bad enough that

> > people are starting to send 2007 specific documents and that 2003 can't

> > read them without a utility.....

> >

> > The "phone home" and "drm" doesn't mean much if you are not pirating

> > things.... If they are your works they don't create a problem.

> >

>

> Why don't you email me a fancy dancy Word document so I can see if

> ABIWord can open it? I don't use or need OO.

 

How about you just boot your XP and Office that you claim you have and

create a document yourself and try it. I run into that problem with

documents all the time.

 

--

 

Leythos

- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a

drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"

spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

In article <fb6tvg$deu$3@aioe.org>, nono@none.not says...

> > Already did - Ubuntu has less support than Windows, less drivers, less

> > document compatibility, less applications that most home users will

> > run...

>

> Actually most flavors of linux have more hardware support, esp. for

> legacy devices.

 

Strangely enough, most people don't have LEGACY hardware, they are

buying NEW computers if they are visiting this group, or they have

reasonably newer hardware - only a fool would install Vista on older

hardware...

 

Kind of makes your point about "Legacy" meaningless.

 

Ubuntu didn't support WPA-PSK for my laptop.... Windows XP does as well

as Vista...

 

--

 

Leythos

- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a

drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"

spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Leythos wrote:

> In article <fb6rl0$74j$1@aioe.org>, nono@none.not says...

>> Leythos wrote:

>>> In article <fb63be$jad$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@shoesgmail.com says...

>>>> Show me a post of mine that is false

>>> Any post suggesting that Ubuntu can replace Windows XP or Vista for the

>>> same functions/uses, or that suggests that Open Office is a replacement

>>> for MS Office (2000, XP, 2003, 2007).....

>>>

>> IMO OO is better than all of those versions of MS office you list

>> because they all have buggy DRM that phones home!

>

> The problem is that there are more people using MS Office or Works that

> you have to interact with, and the OO product does not properly convert

> documents if they contain anything other than very basic formatting. I

> know this for a fact as I use both Fedora Core with OO and Windows

> XP/2003 systems with Office xp, 2003, 2007.... It's bad enough that

> people are starting to send 2007 specific documents and that 2003 can't

> read them without a utility.....

>

> The "phone home" and "drm" doesn't mean much if you are not pirating

> things.... If they are your works they don't create a problem.

>

 

It does if you value your privacy and fair use rights!

 

Interesting, I have never had a problem though converting most

documents/spreadsheets/presentations I get in email on my linux machine,

or my windows machine for that matter (I use OO as my office suite on

both machines). The format version of these files is MS office 97 -

2003. I have not tried with 2007 yet.

 

The only thing I can find that OO sucks at is printing labels. But

everything else I've used it for it's been great!

 

 

 

--

Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:

http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

 

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on

free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the

creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer

rights in the digital age are not frivolous."

- Maura Corbett

Leythos wrote:

> In article <fb6rl0$74j$1@aioe.org>, nono@none.not says...

>> Leythos wrote:

>>> In article <fb63be$jad$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@shoesgmail.com says...

>>>> Show me a post of mine that is false

>>> Any post suggesting that Ubuntu can replace Windows XP or Vista for the

>>> same functions/uses, or that suggests that Open Office is a replacement

>>> for MS Office (2000, XP, 2003, 2007).....

>>>

>> IMO OO is better than all of those versions of MS office you list

>> because they all have buggy DRM that phones home!

>

> The problem is that there are more people using MS Office or Works that

> you have to interact with, and the OO product does not properly convert

> documents if they contain anything other than very basic formatting. I

> know this for a fact as I use both Fedora Core with OO and Windows

> XP/2003 systems with Office xp, 2003, 2007.... It's bad enough that

> people are starting to send 2007 specific documents and that 2003 can't

> read them without a utility.....

>

> The "phone home" and "drm" doesn't mean much if you are not pirating

> things.... If they are your works they don't create a problem.

>

 

It does if you value your privacy and fair use rights!

 

Interesting, I have never had a problem though converting most

documents/spreadsheets/presentations I get in email on my linux machine,

or my windows machine for that matter (I use OO as my office suite on

both machines). The format version of these files is MS office 97 -

2003. I have not tried with 2007 yet.

 

The only thing I can find that OO sucks at is printing labels. But

everything else I've used it for it's been great!

 

--

Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:

http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

 

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on

free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the

creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer

rights in the digital age are not frivolous."

- Maura Corbett

Graphics drivers

 

"Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote >

>> Drivers are the responsibility of the hardware manufacturer, both for

>> Windows and Linux. With a little research (very little), one can see

>> that it's better to have an nVidia graphics card than an ATI because

>> nVidia has decided to support Linux and ATI has not. One can only hope

>> that AMD, now that it has acquired ATI, will move in that direction.

>> Same thing holds true for Lexmark vs Epson and HP. Epson and HP support

>> Linux and Lexmark only partially.

>

> Huh? ATI always has always supported Linux...you can go on ATI's website

> and download linux drivers absolutely no problem.

>

> Only difference between ATI and nVidia is that ATI's drivers aren't as

> good, and that is the case in both Linux and Windows. ATI has always had a

> reputation for poor drivers, one of the reasons I have always used nVidia

> on any OS.

 

I'm certainly underwhelmed by Catalyst Control Centre etc. that runs

my ATI Radeon X1300 thingy. Yes, I know it's not a particularly clever

device but that's not the point.

In article <fb6v3b$kvp$1@aioe.org>, nono@none.not says...

> Leythos wrote:

> > In article <fb6rl0$74j$1@aioe.org>, nono@none.not says...

> >> Leythos wrote:

> >>> In article <fb63be$jad$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@shoesgmail.com says...

> >>>> Show me a post of mine that is false

> >>> Any post suggesting that Ubuntu can replace Windows XP or Vista for the

> >>> same functions/uses, or that suggests that Open Office is a replacement

> >>> for MS Office (2000, XP, 2003, 2007).....

> >>>

> >> IMO OO is better than all of those versions of MS office you list

> >> because they all have buggy DRM that phones home!

> >

> > The problem is that there are more people using MS Office or Works that

> > you have to interact with, and the OO product does not properly convert

> > documents if they contain anything other than very basic formatting. I

> > know this for a fact as I use both Fedora Core with OO and Windows

> > XP/2003 systems with Office xp, 2003, 2007.... It's bad enough that

> > people are starting to send 2007 specific documents and that 2003 can't

> > read them without a utility.....

> >

> > The "phone home" and "drm" doesn't mean much if you are not pirating

> > things.... If they are your works they don't create a problem.

> >

>

> It does if you value your privacy and fair use rights!

 

And if you think that, why do you use Ubuntu at all, it phones home too?

> Interesting, I have never had a problem though converting most

> documents/spreadsheets/presentations I get in email on my linux machine,

> or my windows machine for that matter (I use OO as my office suite on

> both machines). The format version of these files is MS office 97 -

> 2003. I have not tried with 2007 yet.

>

> The only thing I can find that OO sucks at is printing labels. But

> everything else I've used it for it's been great!

 

I run a business, most documents I get work fine, most, except ones that

the user has some clue about Office and adds in formatting or other

options, other than simple formatting... OO works well when you are

working with other users that use OO or RTF format, but when working

with native DOC/XLS formats, or even PPT, there are often conversion

issues.

 

--

 

Leythos

- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a

drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"

spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:34:34 -0500, The poster formerly known as 'The

Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy' wrote:

> Leythos wrote:

>> In article <fb6rl0$74j$1@aioe.org>, nono@none.not says...

>>> Leythos wrote:

>>>> In article <fb63be$jad$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@shoesgmail.com says...

>>>>> Show me a post of mine that is false

>>>> Any post suggesting that Ubuntu can replace Windows XP or Vista for the

>>>> same functions/uses, or that suggests that Open Office is a replacement

>>>> for MS Office (2000, XP, 2003, 2007).....

>>>>

>>> IMO OO is better than all of those versions of MS office you list

>>> because they all have buggy DRM that phones home!

>>

>> The problem is that there are more people using MS Office or Works that

>> you have to interact with, and the OO product does not properly convert

>> documents if they contain anything other than very basic formatting. I

>> know this for a fact as I use both Fedora Core with OO and Windows

>> XP/2003 systems with Office xp, 2003, 2007.... It's bad enough that

>> people are starting to send 2007 specific documents and that 2003 can't

>> read them without a utility.....

>>

>> The "phone home" and "drm" doesn't mean much if you are not pirating

>> things.... If they are your works they don't create a problem.

>>

>

> It does if you value your privacy and fair use rights!

>

> Interesting, I have never had a problem though converting most

> documents/spreadsheets/presentations I get in email on my linux machine,

> or my windows machine for that matter (I use OO as my office suite on

> both machines). The format version of these files is MS office 97 -

> 2003. I have not tried with 2007 yet.

>

> The only thing I can find that OO sucks at is printing labels. But

> everything else I've used it for it's been great!

>

 

It is for most people...

 

Honestly, I've never encountered a word document that went beyond standard

formatting (font, size, bold/italic), some tables, and the occasional

embedded image.

 

I think the above accounts for about 99.99% of all word documents I've

seen which both MS Office and OO can handle with no problem.

 

The remaining 0.01% that maybe only MS Office can handle I honestly really

couldn't care less about.

 

Same goes for spreadsheets.

 

I find it funny that MS themselves are now introducing the very problem

people complain about with MS Office VS OO: incompatibility.

 

Now Office 2007 might be fully compatible with Office 2003 but not vice

versa. But who needs Office 2007? What does it do that 2003 can't? Fancy

new UI at the cost of document incompatibility with everyone else?

Personally I would need a much larger incentive than that before I'd fork

over a single penny for Office 2007.

 

--

Stephan

2003 Yamaha R6

 

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯

å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

In article <f-idnb718_SbmErbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@giganews.com>,

nospam@spammer.com says...

> Now Office 2007 might be fully compatible with Office 2003 but not vice

> versa. But who needs Office 2007? What does it do that 2003 can't? Fancy

> new UI at the cost of document incompatibility with everyone else?

> Personally I would need a much larger incentive than that before I'd fork

> over a single penny for Office 2007.

 

I can't really see a reason to go beyond office xp to be honest, but MS

is making it very hard to order office 2003 at this point.

 

--

 

Leythos

- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a

drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"

spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Leythos wrote:

> In article <fb6sjs$av6$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@shoesgmail.com says...

>> Leythos wrote:

>>> In article <fb6rl0$74j$1@aioe.org>, nono@none.not says...

>>>> Leythos wrote:

>>>>> In article <fb63be$jad$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@shoesgmail.com says...

>>>>>> Show me a post of mine that is false

>>>>> Any post suggesting that Ubuntu can replace Windows XP or Vista for the

>>>>> same functions/uses, or that suggests that Open Office is a replacement

>>>>> for MS Office (2000, XP, 2003, 2007).....

>>>>>

>>>> IMO OO is better than all of those versions of MS office you list

>>>> because they all have buggy DRM that phones home!

>>> The problem is that there are more people using MS Office or Works that

>>> you have to interact with, and the OO product does not properly convert

>>> documents if they contain anything other than very basic formatting. I

>>> know this for a fact as I use both Fedora Core with OO and Windows

>>> XP/2003 systems with Office xp, 2003, 2007.... It's bad enough that

>>> people are starting to send 2007 specific documents and that 2003 can't

>>> read them without a utility.....

>>>

>>> The "phone home" and "drm" doesn't mean much if you are not pirating

>>> things.... If they are your works they don't create a problem.

>>>

>> Why don't you email me a fancy dancy Word document so I can see if

>> ABIWord can open it? I don't use or need OO.

>

> How about you just boot your XP and Office that you claim you have and

> create a document yourself and try it. I run into that problem with

> documents all the time.

>

 

I did that ages ago. All open and display perfectly. I guess I just

don't now how to create the fancy dancy Word docs that you keep

referring to. Mine have text and images, usually just text like an

invoice. Admittedly, I have only had experience with pre Office 07 so I

don't know what would happen with that.

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 13:32:59 -0400, Leythos wrote:

> In article <fb6tvg$deu$3@aioe.org>, nono@none.not says...

>> > Already did - Ubuntu has less support than Windows, less drivers, less

>> > document compatibility, less applications that most home users will

>> > run...

>>

>> Actually most flavors of linux have more hardware support, esp. for

>> legacy devices.

>

> Strangely enough, most people don't have LEGACY hardware, they are

> buying NEW computers if they are visiting this group, or they have

> reasonably newer hardware - only a fool would install Vista on older

> hardware...

>

> Kind of makes your point about "Legacy" meaningless.

>

> Ubuntu didn't support WPA-PSK for my laptop.... Windows XP does as well

> as Vista...

>

 

Works beautifully on my laptop.

 

Though if you have a broadcom chipset in your laptop you *will* have

problems. Period. And the problem isn't really with Linux, developers

would absolutely love (and are trying hard to do so) to write a driver and

support every broadcom chipset in existence. Problem is that broadcom

doesn't give a crap.

 

They don't provide drivers.

They don't provide documentation.

They provide absolutely NOTHING.

 

If they'd at least provide documentation so that a proper driver could be

written then the problem wouldn't exist.

 

Many hardware problems that Linux does have, I'd never say there aren't

any problems, are ultimately due to hardware vendors not providing drivers

or documentation sufficient enough for others to write drivers.

 

Broadcom and Cannon are the 2 companies that I primarily know about that

are notorious for little to absolutely no linux support. So you know my

solution to the problem? I don't buy their products.

 

If I want wireless, I buy an Intel based card which works plug & play.

 

If I want a printer, I use HP which works plug & play. Brother printers

are also well supported. Ironically our brother MFC???? (forget the

number) works flawlessly with Ubuntu but won't work with the XP machine in

the Office as the driver won't install. Tech support is helpless and

useless too. So don't tell me Windows never has hardware problems.

 

If I want video I use nVidia which has better drive support, in any OS,

than ATI does.

 

See what I am trying to get at?

 

Instead of whining that Linux won't work with device X, I just buy device

Y that is supported and does the job equally well. Eventually companies

that produce device X might get the clue and provide support or

documentation so others can provide support and then I might be interested

in their products.

 

--

Stephan

2003 Yamaha R6

 

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯

å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

Leythos wrote:

> In article <f-idnb718_SbmErbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@giganews.com>,

> nospam@spammer.com says...

>> Now Office 2007 might be fully compatible with Office 2003 but not vice

>> versa. But who needs Office 2007? What does it do that 2003 can't? Fancy

>> new UI at the cost of document incompatibility with everyone else?

>> Personally I would need a much larger incentive than that before I'd fork

>> over a single penny for Office 2007.

>

> I can't really see a reason to go beyond office xp to be honest, but MS

> is making it very hard to order office 2003 at this point.

>

 

The difference in the storage capability of Outlook 2003's .pst file is

about the only reason to upgrade from Office 2000 or XP.

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

Stephan Rose wrote:

>

>

> Only difference between ATI and nVidia is that ATI's drivers aren't as

> good, and that is the case in both Linux and Windows.

 

Sorry, but that's simply not true! Look at all the people who've had

real problems with Nivida drivers for Vista.

It's been a real debacle.

 

ATI has always had a

> reputation for poor drivers, one of the reasons I have always used nVidia

> on any OS.

>

Couldn't disagree more with that statement.

Frank