Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distro for the general computer/device mark

October 8, 200717 yr

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 11:54:16 -0700, ultimauw@hotmail.com wrote

(in article <1191783256.814194.298860@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>):

> On Oct 6, 4:19 pm, "Randy Oaks" <ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> <bones4jo...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>

>> news:1191705624.157060.40790@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

>>

>>> On Oct 6, 3:47 pm, Gene Jones <ja...@janus.com> wrote:

>>>> Dean Plude <xenop...@charter.net> wrote:

>>>>> In my many years using linux I have come to know that to truly support

>>>>> and promote linux as I did with brunswick and many others is simply

>>>>> show

>>>>> large companies that there are choices in an OS and that they do not

>>>>> have to pay a fortune to get.I will never forget when I gave the head

>>>>> manufacturing engineer a Debian BO disk and simplly said check it out .

>>>>> that was all it took.

>>>>> Remember World Domination is our ultimate goal.

>>

>>>> Linux will never achieve anything close to world domination unless the

>>>> users unite and follow Apple's OSX direction. Now Linux has pretty much

>>>> become a footnote in history compared to what apple is doing with UNIX.

>>

>>>> So unless that changes, it's a slow fade to black for the Linux

>>>> community.

>>

>>>> You guys have a chance, but you must "unite" - it's that simple.

>>

>>>> OSX is now about 9 times as large in the world, 6 years ago you guys

>>>> were neck and neck. What happened? No leadership is the answer.

>>

>>>> Within the next few weeks, OSX is going to be a CERTIFIED UNIX.

>>

>>>> Why isn't Linux up to this certification level?

>>

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

>>

>>> Linux is far too fragmented to accomplish anything useful.

>>> It's two hundred thousand developers all trying to release their own

>>> version of Linux.

>>

>> Agreed. Linux is the classic case of "too many cooks in the kitchen."

>>

>> If Linux were going to succeed in the consumer market it would have done so

>> already. Now it's simply too-little, too-late as Linux has absolutely zero

>> mindset with the consumer. OSX and Vista will continue to dominate.

>>

>

> Maybe there is still hope yet, but it requires the developers to get

> together, set aside their egos, and all work on a single master

> distro. If they did that, Linux would beat the pants off of Vista and

> OSX guaranteed, and perhaps chart the course for the whole computer

> (and computer-device) industry away from the lockdown-drm-crippled

> dreck that it's been floating in for a while now.

>

I doubt if it would "beat the pants off" of either OSX or Vista. Even though

Linux is better than Windows "anything" MS is too entrenched in the computer

world, and OSX is simply too sophisticated to be displaced by an OS like

Linux.

But what a single distro would do would be to stimulate acceptance in the

"shrink-wrap" software world to the point where they could release

pre-compiled versions of their software for that one distro for one platform

(PC compatible) that would be relatively safe. Not wanting to open their

source-code to prying eyes is, IMHO, the single biggest reason why companies

like Adobe et al don't port their software to Linux is because of the need

for that software to be compiled by the user due to the non-standard

configurations of various distributions of Linux on a myriad of

platforms/processors.

Once this happened, the MS hegemony would truly start to fall apart as there

would be fewer and fewer reasons not to replace Windows with Linux.

Quote

Mark as Solution

October 8, 200717 yr

George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:

> > Maybe there is still hope yet, but it requires the developers to get

> > together, set aside their egos, and all work on a single master

> > distro. If they did that, Linux would beat the pants off of Vista and

> > OSX guaranteed, and perhaps chart the course for the whole computer

> > (and computer-device) industry away from the lockdown-drm-crippled

> > dreck that it's been floating in for a while now.

> >

>

> I doubt if it would "beat the pants off" of either OSX or Vista. Even though

> Linux is better than Windows "anything" MS is too entrenched in the computer

> world, and OSX is simply too sophisticated to be displaced by an OS like

> Linux.

>

> But what a single distro would do would be to stimulate acceptance in the

> "shrink-wrap" software world to the point where they could release

> pre-compiled versions of their software for that one distro for one platform

> (PC compatible) that would be relatively safe. Not wanting to open their

> source-code to prying eyes is, IMHO, the single biggest reason why companies

> like Adobe et al don't port their software to Linux is because of the need

> for that software to be compiled by the user due to the non-standard

> configurations of various distributions of Linux on a myriad of

> platforms/processors.

>

> Once this happened, the MS hegemony would truly start to fall apart as there

> would be fewer and fewer reasons not to replace Windows with Linux.

good post George!

i really don't think anyone is "against" Linux, its just their own

internal "perceived strength" is really their "greatest weakness" when

they come up against very well organized, funded UNIX distros like OSX.

they need to learn to focus on 1 or 2 distros, then let the others die

off, this diluted effort has killed Linux so far, but it doesn't have to

be.

Later this month they are going to get hit with another massive round of

a better UNIX that is incredibly "organized". I feel sorry for them in a

way, but if they can't match this, they can't compete:

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

-

Quote

Mark as Solution

October 8, 200717 yr

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 12:45:12 -0700, Stephan Rose wrote

(in article <n9adnYZAK7jVqpTanZ2dneKdnZzinZ2d@giganews.com>):

> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 13:16:30 -0600, Oxford wrote:

>

>> ultimauw@hotmail.com wrote:

>>

>>>> Agreed. Linux is the classic case of "too many cooks in the kitchen."

>>>>

>>>> If Linux were going to succeed in the consumer market it would have

>>>> done so already. Now it's simply too-little, too-late as Linux has

>>>> absolutely zero mindset with the consumer. OSX and Vista will

>>>> continue to dominate.

>>>>

>>> Maybe there is still hope yet, but it requires the developers to get

>>> together, set aside their egos, and all work on a single master distro.

>>> If they did that, Linux would beat the pants off of Vista and OSX

>>> guaranteed, and perhaps chart the course for the whole computer (and

>>> computer-device) industry away from the lockdown-drm-crippled dreck

>>> that it's been floating in for a while now.

>>

>> yes, and I've told them SEVERAL times they need to concentrate on just

>> one or two distros and let the others die off. they just can't compete

>> until they take this advice.

>>

>> chances are now zero that they can't rally around and heed this advice.

>> they are mostly young kids with no skills outside of playing games or

>> hacking.

>>

>> linux had a chance during the late 90's but blew it. now OSX is the main

>> UNIX distro by a 7 to 1 margin... all because Apple knew about design

>> and understood high quality computing.

>>

>> linux is a total mess now, and it's very sad. I thought at least they

>> would have 1% of the market, but it still hovers around .76 percent. Not

>> good when Apple has jumped to 6.4% in recent months.

>>

>

> I find it funny how everyone takes the statistic of one irrelevant web-

> server of any actual value.

>

> That said, what do you think is happening? The efforts *are* consolidated.

>

> All distributions use the same kernel.

> The same desktop managers.

> The same browers.

> The same software.

> The same e-mail software.

> The same newsreaders.

> The same everything.

>

> The only main significant difference between any distributions is what

> they come with out of the box. That's largely irrelevant.

>

> So how is this not consolidated?

>

> So redhat has different package management than ubuntu does. Big friggin

> deal....they still use the same software and kernel.

>

Could a company like, for instance, Adobe, release a single shrink-wrapped

fully compiled version of its applications marked "For Linux" and have it

install as easily on ALL modern Linux distributions as it now does on PCs or

Macs? If so, then you're right. But that begs another question. If all the

distros are that alike, why haven't any of the major software publishers

released any of their applications on Linux?.

Quote

Mark as Solution

October 8, 200717 yr

George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> did eloquently scribble:

> Could a company like, for instance, Adobe, release a single shrink-wrapped

> fully compiled version of its applications marked "For Linux" and have it

> install as easily on ALL modern Linux distributions as it now does on PCs or

> Macs?

Seems to work fine for google earth and opera.

> But that begs another question. If all the

> distros are that alike, why haven't any of the major software publishers

> released any of their applications on Linux?.

Oracle isn't a major software publisher now?

--

| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|

| spike1@freenet.co.uk |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|

| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |

|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|Consider how lucky you are that life has been |

| in |good to you so far... |

| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|

Quote

Mark as Solution

October 8, 200717 yr

George Graves wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 12:45:12 -0700, Stephan Rose wrote

> (in article <n9adnYZAK7jVqpTanZ2dneKdnZzinZ2d@giganews.com>):

>

>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 13:16:30 -0600, Oxford wrote:

>>

>>> ultimauw@hotmail.com wrote:

>>>

>>>>> Agreed. Linux is the classic case of "too many cooks in the kitchen."

>>>>>

>>>>> If Linux were going to succeed in the consumer market it would have

>>>>> done so already. Now it's simply too-little, too-late as Linux has

>>>>> absolutely zero mindset with the consumer. OSX and Vista will

>>>>> continue to dominate.

>>>>>

>>>> Maybe there is still hope yet, but it requires the developers to get

>>>> together, set aside their egos, and all work on a single master distro.

>>>> If they did that, Linux would beat the pants off of Vista and OSX

>>>> guaranteed, and perhaps chart the course for the whole computer (and

>>>> computer-device) industry away from the lockdown-drm-crippled dreck

>>>> that it's been floating in for a while now.

>>>

>>> yes, and I've told them SEVERAL times they need to concentrate on just

>>> one or two distros and let the others die off. they just can't compete

>>> until they take this advice.

>>>

>>> chances are now zero that they can't rally around and heed this advice.

>>> they are mostly young kids with no skills outside of playing games or

>>> hacking.

>>>

>>> linux had a chance during the late 90's but blew it. now OSX is the main

>>> UNIX distro by a 7 to 1 margin... all because Apple knew about design

>>> and understood high quality computing.

>>>

>>> linux is a total mess now, and it's very sad. I thought at least they

>>> would have 1% of the market, but it still hovers around .76 percent. Not

>>> good when Apple has jumped to 6.4% in recent months.

>>>

>>

>> I find it funny how everyone takes the statistic of one irrelevant web-

>> server of any actual value.

>>

>> That said, what do you think is happening? The efforts *are*

>> consolidated.

>>

>> All distributions use the same kernel.

>> The same desktop managers.

>> The same browers.

>> The same software.

>> The same e-mail software.

>> The same newsreaders.

>> The same everything.

>>

>> The only main significant difference between any distributions is what

>> they come with out of the box. That's largely irrelevant.

>>

>> So how is this not consolidated?

>>

>> So redhat has different package management than ubuntu does. Big friggin

>> deal....they still use the same software and kernel.

>>

>

> Could a company like, for instance, Adobe, release a single shrink-wrapped

> fully compiled version of its applications marked "For Linux" and have it

> install as easily on ALL modern Linux distributions as it now does on PCs

> or Macs?

Yes, provided the distros are for the same processor family

The libc and other supporting stuff are basically at the same level on

modern distros

> If so, then you're right. But that begs another question. If all

> the distros are that alike, why haven't any of the major software

> publishers released any of their applications on Linux?.

Because they have to port first?

--

Linux: Because rebooting is for adding new hardware

Quote

Mark as Solution

October 8, 200717 yr

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 13:01:04 -0700, Oxford wrote

(in article

<colalovesmacs-6157E7.14004908102007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net>):

> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:

>

>>> Maybe there is still hope yet, but it requires the developers to get

>>> together, set aside their egos, and all work on a single master

>>> distro. If they did that, Linux would beat the pants off of Vista and

>>> OSX guaranteed, and perhaps chart the course for the whole computer

>>> (and computer-device) industry away from the lockdown-drm-crippled

>>> dreck that it's been floating in for a while now.

>>>

>>

>> I doubt if it would "beat the pants off" of either OSX or Vista. Even

>> though

>> Linux is better than Windows "anything" MS is too entrenched in the

>> computer

>> world, and OSX is simply too sophisticated to be displaced by an OS like

>> Linux.

>>

>> But what a single distro would do would be to stimulate acceptance in the

>> "shrink-wrap" software world to the point where they could release

>> pre-compiled versions of their software for that one distro for one

>> platform

>> (PC compatible) that would be relatively safe. Not wanting to open their

>> source-code to prying eyes is, IMHO, the single biggest reason why

>> companies

>> like Adobe et al don't port their software to Linux is because of the need

>> for that software to be compiled by the user due to the non-standard

>> configurations of various distributions of Linux on a myriad of

>> platforms/processors.

>>

>> Once this happened, the MS hegemony would truly start to fall apart as

>> there

>> would be fewer and fewer reasons not to replace Windows with Linux.

>

> good post George!

>

> i really don't think anyone is "against" Linux, its just their own

> internal "perceived strength" is really their "greatest weakness" when

> they come up against very well organized, funded UNIX distros like OSX.

>

> they need to learn to focus on 1 or 2 distros, then let the others die

> off, this diluted effort has killed Linux so far, but it doesn't have to

> be.

>

> Later this month they are going to get hit with another massive round of

> a better UNIX that is incredibly "organized". I feel sorry for them in a

> way, but if they can't match this, they can't compete:

>

> http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/features/

>

> -

Well, platform gnostics are like any other true believers. They are blind to

their platform weaknesses and indeed assert that what others see as

weaknesses They see as strengths. I.E, "Sure, Linux doesn't have Photoshop

but we lave The GIMP and it's free while Photoshop costs six hundred bucks."

We've all done it, and the point is not to denigrate Linux or its

enthusiasts, but to show them that as true believers, they simply can't see

their platform as enthusiasts of other platforms see it. It's like an

Orthodox Jew waltzing into a Southern Baptist church and spouting off about

the weaknesses he sees in the Baptist faith. The people in the church are

simply not going to be very receptive to his comments.

Quote

Mark as Solution

October 8, 200717 yr

George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:

> Could a company like, for instance, Adobe, release a single shrink-wrapped

> fully compiled version of its applications marked "For Linux" and have it

> install as easily on ALL modern Linux distributions as it now does on PCs or

> Macs? If so, then you're right. But that begs another question. If all the

> distros are that alike, why haven't any of the major software publishers

> released any of their applications on Linux?.

from my understanding Linux simply doesn't have a modern enough

foundation to support high level apps like PhotoShop, InDesign, etc.

they'd have to do a lot of software kludges to make a Linux versions

work correctly and since the Linux market is so tiny compared to the Mac

one in the creative fields they simply can't afford do it.

Same for all other professional level apps, like Office, iLife, AutoCad,

etc. Their approach is too fractured and hard to support is the other

issue. Wish it was different, but unless they "focus", they will never

be a serious contender.

Quote

Mark as Solution

October 8, 200717 yr

spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:

> > Could a company like, for instance, Adobe, release a single shrink-wrapped

> > fully compiled version of its applications marked "For Linux" and have it

> > install as easily on ALL modern Linux distributions as it now does on PCs

> > or

> > Macs?

>

> Seems to work fine for google earth and opera.

java based apps and a few open source apps are fine. but when you get

into "professional" level code, Linux doesn't work without a LOT of

extra fine tuning.

> > But that begs another question. If all the

> > distros are that alike, why haven't any of the major software publishers

> > released any of their applications on Linux?.

>

> Oracle isn't a major software publisher now?

Oracle works on anything, linux is nothing special there.

Quote

Mark as Solution

October 8, 200717 yr

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:05:21 -0600, Oxtard wrote:

> java based apps and a few open source apps are fine. but when you get

> into "professional" level code, Linux doesn't work without a LOT of

> extra fine tuning.

OTOH, I don't have to wonder how long before Apple starts bricking

computers, too. :)

Quote

Mark as Solution

October 8, 200717 yr

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:01:04 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> i really don't think anyone is "against" Linux, its just their own

> internal "perceived strength" is really their "greatest weakness" when

> they come up against very well organized, funded UNIX distros like OSX.

>

> they need to learn to focus on 1 or 2 distros, then let the others die

Good luck with getting that to happen, moron.

> off, this diluted effort has killed Linux so far, but it doesn't have to

> be.

>

> Later this month they are going to get hit with another massive round of

> a better UNIX that is incredibly "organized". I feel sorry for them in a

> way, but if they can't match this, they can't compete:

>

> http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/features/

Yawn. Never learn, do you, Oxford>

--

Kier

Quote

Mark as Solution

October 8, 200717 yr

George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:

> Well, platform gnostics are like any other true believers. They are blind to

> their platform weaknesses and indeed assert that what others see as

> weaknesses They see as strengths. I.E, "Sure, Linux doesn't have Photoshop

> but we lave The GIMP and it's free while Photoshop costs six hundred bucks."

> We've all done it, and the point is not to denigrate Linux or its

> enthusiasts, but to show them that as true believers, they simply can't see

> their platform as enthusiasts of other platforms see it. It's like an

> Orthodox Jew waltzing into a Southern Baptist church and spouting off about

> the weaknesses he sees in the Baptist faith. The people in the church are

> simply not going to be very receptive to his comments.

yes, and while agree for the most part... linux users forget they are

mainly isolated to the poorer sections of northwest europe. and never

have been able to spread beyond that region. nobody in the states uses

linux, nobody in japan, canada, etc.

photoshop is technically free, you just need to learn where to look. so

the idea of gimp replacing it is just mythical thinking.

i've learned to have no bias regarding platforms, i just search for the

best and be done with it. i think if linux users will do the same

they'll switch on over to OSX since there really isn't a better OS at

this time.

it's not about "faith" it's about being practical and currently OSX owns

the unix market.

Quote

Mark as Solution

October 8, 200717 yr

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Oxford

<colalovesmacs@mac.com>

wrote

on Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:03:10 -0600

<colalovesmacs-591FE9.15031008102007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net>:

> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:

>

>> Could a company like, for instance, Adobe, release a single shrink-wrapped

>> fully compiled version of its applications marked "For Linux" and have it

>> install as easily on ALL modern Linux distributions as it now does on PCs or

>> Macs? If so, then you're right. But that begs another question. If all the

>> distros are that alike, why haven't any of the major software publishers

>> released any of their applications on Linux?.

>

> from my understanding Linux simply doesn't have a modern enough

> foundation to support high level apps like PhotoShop, InDesign, etc.

Does Windows? Windows has Photoshop, InDesign, etc.

I'd like to know what "modern" means in this context,

specifically what is in the foundation of a "modern OS".

For example, one of the selling points of the old Mac

OS was its Resource Fork the general idea was to use a

hierarchical typed container system, which could contain

code, pictures, audio, and stylized text. Windows also

has a Resource Fork, though it's not nearly as widely used

in its software Windows tends to like to put things in

its Registry, instead.

And of course most operating systems have a Graphical User

Interface Windows in particular has Win32 and Mac OSX has

something which I can't properly identify, apart from the

fact that the X Window System (X11) is part of its makeup.

(Mac OS had Quickdraw, but I'm not sure what layer that

was -- API or drivers?)

For its part Linux has none of a Resource Fork, a Registry,

nor a GUI [+]. Clearly, this makes Linux ancient in

design and philosophy -- except that Unix, which is more

or less Linux's precursor, was object-oriented before the

concept even *existed*, though later revs took out some of

the objectuivity (if that's a word) by disallowing open()

on a directory, for example. However, one can still open()

a symbolic link (which results, as it turns out, in opening

the file to which the link points). AFAIK, Mac OS did not

have this concept (not sure it really needed it, but it

does come in handy), and fortunately Mac OSX inherited it

from its Mach/Unix kernel. The Amiga, before it died, had

a concept very akin to a Unix "hard link", a concept rarely

used (though still available) in Unix or Linux today. [*]

Windows has a very befuddled implementation of shortcuts.

And of course X11 carefully implemented client versus

server communications, which effectively made abstract

tokens out of pretty much everything except an XImage,

which was a client-local datastructure. Windows tried

it has things such as a "device-independent bitmap",

or DIB, but that was somewhat later on, if memory serves.

>

> they'd have to do a lot of software kludges to make a Linux versions

> work correctly and since the Linux market is so tiny compared to the Mac

> one in the creative fields they simply can't afford do it.

Or test it. It is a problem until we mimic the entire

functionality list of both Windows and Mac OS/Mac OSX, we

probably won't be able to get good high-quality software

on Linux.

(Spot the flaw.)

>

> Same for all other professional level apps, like Office, iLife, AutoCad,

> etc. Their approach is too fractured and hard to support is the other

> issue. Wish it was different, but unless they "focus", they will never

> be a serious contender.

And what, precisely, should Linux (or a Linux distro, more

properly) focus on?

[+] the GUI in most distros is implemented using a mixture

of Linux for the very base support such as framebuffers

and KGI, the X server, and user-level libraries such

as Qt and Gtk. Utility programs are also available,

which gives one KDE and Gnome -- the entire enchilada,

as it were.

[*] in a soft link, an entry points to another entry by

name that entry can easily be changed. In a hard

link, an entry points to an *object* (identified by

inode), and once made, a hardlink is indistinguishable

from any other reference to that object. In effect,

one has two or more entries for the same object

-- a fact reflected in the link count of the

stat()/lstat()/fstat() call. (Since directories all

contain '.' and '..', the link count for a directory

can be any number greater than or equal to 2, and

depends on the number of directories immediately below.)

In other words:

(create file a)

ln a b

rm a

is indistinguishable from

(create file b)

as far as other tools are concerned, after this

sequence of instructions is done. In a symlink

(ln -s a b above) deleting a would result in a

broken symlink it is still possible to do a create

through that symlink under certain conditions, but

it points to no object prior to that creation.

For its part the Amiga implementation was asymmetrical,

unlike the Unix one, which presumably led to some

interesting quirks. Part of that asymmetry was because

the Amiga did not have inodes as such, and therefore

could not implement the symmetric variant.

--

#191, ewill3@earthlink.net

Windows. When it absolutely, positively, has to crash.

--

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Quote

Mark as Solution

October 8, 200717 yr

yakety yak <who.me@nospam.diespammers.invalid> wrote:

> > java based apps and a few open source apps are fine. but when you get

> > into "professional" level code, Linux doesn't work without a LOT of

> > extra fine tuning.

>

> OTOH, I don't have to wonder how long before Apple starts bricking

> computers, too. :)

they'd first have to start bricking anything. so far they haven't

bricked any of their products in 31 years.

sounds like you are reading false reports designed by Nokia to trick the

uneducated.

Quote

Mark as Solution

October 8, 200717 yr

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:07:14 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:

>

>> Well, platform gnostics are like any other true believers. They are blind to

>> their platform weaknesses and indeed assert that what others see as

>> weaknesses They see as strengths. I.E, "Sure, Linux doesn't have Photoshop

>> but we lave The GIMP and it's free while Photoshop costs six hundred bucks."

>> We've all done it, and the point is not to denigrate Linux or its

>> enthusiasts, but to show them that as true believers, they simply can't see

>> their platform as enthusiasts of other platforms see it. It's like an

>> Orthodox Jew waltzing into a Southern Baptist church and spouting off about

>> the weaknesses he sees in the Baptist faith. The people in the church are

>> simply not going to be very receptive to his comments.

>

> yes, and while agree for the most part... linux users forget they are

> mainly isolated to the poorer sections of northwest europe. and never

> have been able to spread beyond that region. nobody in the states uses

> linux, nobody in japan, canada, etc.

Where do you get *that* incredibly dumb idea? You must have pulled it out

of your arse.

>

> photoshop is technically free, you just need to learn where to look. so

'Technically free' - in other words, you recommend that people steal it.

We Linux users have no need to be thieves.

> the idea of gimp replacing it is just mythical thinking.

>

> i've learned to have no bias regarding platforms, i just search for the

> best and be done with it. i think if linux users will do the same

> they'll switch on over to OSX since there really isn't a better OS at

> this time.

Bullshit. You're incredibly biased against Linux.

>

> it's not about "faith" it's about being practical and currently OSX owns

> the unix market.

Bullshit.

--

Kier

Quote

Mark as Solution

October 8, 200717 yr

Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> did eloquently scribble:

> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:

>> Could a company like, for instance, Adobe, release a single shrink-wrapped

>> fully compiled version of its applications marked "For Linux" and have it

>> install as easily on ALL modern Linux distributions as it now does on PCs or

>> Macs? If so, then you're right. But that begs another question. If all the

>> distros are that alike, why haven't any of the major software publishers

>> released any of their applications on Linux?.

> from my understanding Linux simply doesn't have a modern enough

> foundation to support high level apps like PhotoShop, InDesign, etc.

Bullshit.

> they'd have to do a lot of software kludges to make a Linux versions

> work correctly and since the Linux market is so tiny compared to the Mac

> one in the creative fields they simply can't afford do it.

Bullshit

> Same for all other professional level apps, like Office, iLife, AutoCad,

> etc. Their approach is too fractured and hard to support is the other

> issue. Wish it was different, but unless they "focus", they will never

> be a serious contender.

Bullshit

I wonder when oxford will begin to talk about something he has knowledge

of... Obviously, in this newsgroup, the answer is "Never"

--

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

| 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(hons)| 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. |

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

Mark as Solution

October 8, 200717 yr

Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> > i really don't think anyone is "against" Linux, its just their own

> > internal "perceived strength" is really their "greatest weakness" when

> > they come up against very well organized, funded UNIX distros like OSX.

> >

> > they need to learn to focus on 1 or 2 distros, then let the others die

>

> Good luck with getting that to happen, moron.

so you are you talking to yourself, or admitting I'm correct with that

comment?

kier, you know I want the best for the linux movement, but I've clearly

seen that it has stalled, so just trying to help you and other linux

users see the clear light.

> > off, this diluted effort has killed Linux so far, but it doesn't have to

> > be.

> >

> > Later this month they are going to get hit with another massive round of

> > a better UNIX that is incredibly "organized". I feel sorry for them in a

> > way, but if they can't match this, they can't compete:

> >

> > http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/features/

>

> Yawn. Never learn, do you, Oxford>

Ah, OSX is now 7 times larger than Linux's installed base, so that means

I've learned quite a bit, while you have been sent back to school to

learn more.

The biggest event in the history of UNIX is about to happen, where will

you be when it does?

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=10951

Quote

Mark as Solution

October 8, 200717 yr

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Oxford

<colalovesmacs@mac.com>

wrote

on Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:07:14 -0600

<colalovesmacs-780812.16071408102007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net>: