George Graves wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 23:00:18 -0700, spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote

> (in article <i0irt4-utb.ln1@ridcully.ntlworld.com>):

>

>> Adam Albright <AA@abc.net> did eloquently scribble:

>>> I'm just illustrating even major software vendors haven't been able to

>>> push Linux into wider acceptance.

>>

>> You DO realise that corel linux survived don't you?

>> It was forked and renamed Xandros.

>> You DO realise the reason Corel dropped linux (and the various linux apps

>> like wordperfect and draw, was because of pressure from microsoft rather

>> than any technical reason, don't you?

>>

>>

>> You don't?

>> Ahhhhh that explains the dormant look on your face.

>>

>

> Can you give us a URL that backs that assertion up? I'd like to read it

> for myself. I think they dropped it because they couldn't make any money

> out of it (the quickest way to kill a product known to man!).

 

Ah yes, another trait of a typical Mac user: Too damn stupid to start the

simplest of a google search.

 

Or, for that matter, simply going to the Xandros homepage

 

That puts the relative IQ of typical Mac users right where it belongs:

Somewhere slightly below a rotten sponge

--

Only two things are infinite,

the Universe and Stupidity.

And I'm not quite sure about the former.

- Albert Einstein

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:44:06 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> 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?

 

Neither. I'm telling *you* you're a moron. It ain't gonna happen, because

it's not the 'solution' to a non-existent 'problem'.

>

> 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.

 

You know nothing at all about the Linux movement, which you prove every

time you post in COLA.

>

>> > 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.

 

Wrong, and wrong.

>

> 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

 

Biggest event? You really are a moron, aren't you?

 

No one here cares about your silly 'event'. We're too busy using our Linux

PCs to do real work.

--

Kier

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:05:19 -0700, George Graves wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 18:57:41 -0700, Oxford wrote

> (in article

> <colalovesmacs-24B109.19574108102007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net>):

>

>> why so angry Jesus?

>>

>> I thought you loved everyone?

>>

>> It's sad that even you have turned on the human race.

>

> It's pointless trying to have a discussion with these linux fanatics. To them

> every comment is a challenge, a lie, or worse. You either follow the party

> line or you are damned. It's real simple. Linux has had years to achieve some

> sort of critical mass as a viable desktop system and it hasn't moved very far

> in spite of being so much better than Windows that it isn't even a contest.

 

So, you admit Linux is an excellent OS. Good. That's a start. Pity Oxford

doesn't have the brainds to do likewise.

> Yet if you tell these Linux fanatics that one little fact, they go

> ballistic. Basically, I think that they know its true, but the emperor's

> new suit of clothes.... well, you know.

 

YOu're contradicting yourself. Id Linux is an excellent OS, waaaay better

than Windows, then it's nothing to do with 'the emperor's now clothes'.

There are many factors keeping Linux from overtaking Windows, not least

inetia by the general public. It has little or nothing to do with how many

distros there are.

 

--

Kier

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 07:24:29 +0100, spike1 wrote:

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

<snip>

>> the fact you spelled "ass" incorrectly according to the wealthier

>> nations, proves you are living in a poor area.

>

> He doesn't talk about pulling things out of a donkey, so he's poor?

> He was TALKING about pulling things out of your ARSE, not ASS.

> Your RECTUM. Your ANUS.

>

> And god it must be sore by now, seems like you have your hand up there

> rummaging around for more crap to throw at this channel more than ever.

 

Splorff!!

 

Man, you owe me a new keyboard for that <collapses into hysterical

laughter>

 

--

Kier

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:54:30 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:

>

>> > I'm trying to help you understand the larger world kier, to help you

>> > understand Linux is unheard of here in the States, Canada, Japan, etc.

>>

>> Lesseee, IBM... Where's that based again?

>

> In new york somewhere, but they no longer sell PCs, they got out of the

> mainstream computer business several years ago. Apple sells more Unix

> based machines in 5 minutes than IBM sell linux machines in a month. IBM

> is totally off the radar now.

>

>> Novell? MICROSOFT? That's CERTAINLY based mainly in seatle isn't it?

>

> Novell based in Seattle? what? they mainly came from Provo Utah, and now

> headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts. They never had any connection

> to Seattle.

 

Last I heard, Utah was still in the United States.

 

--

Kier

Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote:

> 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.

 

The Maya developers will be fascinated to learn they aren't creating

"professional level code".

 

--

 

Immunity is better than innoculation.

 

Peter

Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote:

> linux users forget they are mainly isolated to the poorer sections of

> northwest europe.

 

Not sure what you mean here. Northwest Europe is probably the best part

of the world to live in, and it's getting better, unlike the US with its

imploding economy.

 

We also know who Adele Goldberg is, and the crucial role she played in

Steve Jobs's world. Unlike you...

 

--

 

Immunity is better than innoculation.

 

Peter

Re: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distrofor the general computer/device market.

 

George Graves wrote:

> Oxford wrote:

>

>> why so angry Jesus?

>>

>> I thought you loved everyone?

>>

>> It's sad that even you have turned on the human race.

>

> It's pointless trying to have a discussion with these linux

> fanatics. To them every comment is a challenge, a lie, or

> worse. You either follow the party line or you are damned.

> It's real simple. Linux has had years to achieve some sort of

> critical mass as a viable desktop system and it hasn't moved

> very far in spite of being so much better than Windows that it

> isn't even a contest. Yet if you tell these Linux fanatics

> that one little fact, they go ballistic. Basically, I think

> that they know its true, but the emperor's new suit of

> clothes.... well, you know.

 

Interesting .... full of generalisations, one size fits all.

However, it is education time. Not everyone agrees with your

senseless and baseless accusations. Let's take a look at what is

going on in the Far East:

 

http://www.bbj.hu/main/news_29721_microsoft+%25E2%2580%2598monopoly%25E2%2580%2599+comes+under+fire.html

 

or http://tinyurl.com/2j94cj

 

Microsoft ‘monopoly’ comes under fire

 

07 Aug 2007

bbj.hu

 

Chinese academics and software developers gathered in Beijing

yesterday to voice their opposition to Microsoft’s latest

standard document format Office Open XML (OOXML).

 

Major software developers, academics and industry associations

spoke out against Microsoft’s ‘monopoly’ on the format of digital

documents. Document format refers to how a digital file is coded.

Microsoft’s document formats - such as .doc, .xls and .ppt - have

been widely used all over the world since the company first began

its dominance in the 1990s.

 

Its document format has helped it to unprecedented success,

setting a formidable barrier for other software companies, who

must make Microsoft-compatible products and cannot access the

core code of the format. „Microsoft’s move to make its OOXML

format the international standard is an extension of its goal to

maintain its monopoly in the world’s software market,” said Ni

Guangnan, an academic from the Chinese Academy of Engineering.

 

"We are calling on the government to veto the OOXML format at the

International Organization for Standardization (ISO)." The OOXML

format is a file specification released by Microsoft in December

last year for its Microsoft Office 2007 suite. It is currently in

a fast track standardization process with the ISO and will be

subject to voting next month. Unlike the current ISO digital

document standard ODF (Open Document Format) and China’s national

standard UDF (Unified Office Document Format), Microsoft’s OOXML

format can only be run on a Windows platform.

 

It is also criticized for containing many proprietary

technologies that can only be fully supported by Microsoft’s

Office products. Over the past few months, Microsoft has been

campaigning to get the new format approved as an ISO standard. It

claims there are thousands of software companies in China that

can support the format.

 

Ni wrote a public letter to Chinese media on July 17 opposing the

new format. Microsoft did not respond to Ni’s letter until July

31, when Tim Chen, senior vice-president of Microsoft and

chairman and CEO of its China operation, said the accusation was

“unfair”. “We are promoting the new format in response to our

users’ needs,” he said. (english.people.com.cn)

Re: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distrofor the general computer/device market.

 

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:05:19 -0700, George Graves wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 18:57:41 -0700, Oxford wrote (in article

> <colalovesmacs-24B109.19574108102007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net>):

>

>> why so angry Jesus?

>>

>> I thought you loved everyone?

>>

>> It's sad that even you have turned on the human race.

>

> It's pointless trying to have a discussion with these linux fanatics. To

> them every comment is a challenge, a lie, or worse. You either follow

> the party line or you are damned. It's real simple. Linux has had years

> to achieve some sort of critical mass as a viable desktop system and it

> hasn't moved very far in spite of being so much better than Windows that

> it isn't even a contest. Yet if you tell these Linux fanatics that one

> little fact, they go ballistic. Basically, I think that they know its

> true, but the emperor's new suit of clothes.... well, you know.

 

Explain to use why the city of Largo uses OpenOffice if it is not a

professional level application.

 

 

 

--

Rick

Re: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distrofor the general computer/device market.

 

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:54:30 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:

>

>> > I'm trying to help you understand the larger world kier, to help you

>> > understand Linux is unheard of here in the States, Canada, Japan,

>> > etc.

>>

>> Lesseee, IBM... Where's that based again?

>

> In new york somewhere, but they no longer sell PCs, they got out of the

> mainstream computer business several years ago. Apple sells more Unix

> based machines in 5 minutes than IBM sell linux machines in a month. IBM

> is totally off the radar now.

 

aha HAH ahha HHA hahah HAHaha H Ahaha hhaha hah ...

 

You're arguing about Linux, meathead. And IBM developers write Linux and

OSS software. If linux is a fairly big deal at a company much larger than

Apple, how is it unheard of in the US?

 

>

>> Novell? MICROSOFT? That's CERTAINLY based mainly in seatle isn't it?

>

> Novell based in Seattle? what? they mainly came from Provo Utah, and now

> headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts. They never had any connection

> to Seattle.

 

 

 

 

 

--

Rick

Re: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distrofor the general computer/device market.

 

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:09:13 -0700, George Graves wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 18:42:30 -0700, TheLetterK wrote (in article

> .):

>

>> George Graves wrote:

>>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 16:29:26 -0700, Rick wrote (in article

>>> <13glfamgu0hrfb6@news.supernews.com>):

>>>

>>>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 12:32:59 -0700, George Graves wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> 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.

>>>> IMO you don't know what you are talking about. What makes you think

>>>> the software would HAVE to be recompiled for each distro?

>>>

>>> Then why is most open source software distributed that way?

>>

>> It's packaged for a particular distro, but that's because there are

>> several competing package managers out there. In many cases, you can

>> use packages from other distributions just fine, though sometimes that

>> can cause problems. There are also utilities out there that will

>> convert binary packages from one format to another. Alien is an example

>> of that, which lets dpkg users install binary rpm packages for their

>> architecture.

>

> Listen to yourself! You've just confirmed what I said earlier.

 

No, he didn't. You are just showing you don't know the difference between

a distribution and how a packaging system works.

 

>>

>> This is not really that big of a deal in practice, because all of the

>> major distros have very robust package repositories these days. I don't

>> generally need to download packages from the developer's site, unless

>> I'm wanting bleeding edge packages. Why, then, would I care what

>> they're releasing?

>>

>>>>> 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.

>>>

 

 

 

 

 

--

Rick

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:02:34 +0000, Rick wrote:

> Face it Oxford, you are a cluless, lying twit.

 

He's too dim to see his own short-comings, all too obviously.

 

--

Kier

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 00:05:19 -0700, George Graves

<gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:

>It's pointless trying to have a discussion with these linux fanatics.

 

You mean like it's pointless to try to have a discussion with Vista

fanboy zealots?

>To them every comment is a challenge, a lie, or worse. You either follow the party

>line or you are damned. It's real simple.

 

I guess you never read any of slop Frank or any of the other hot

headed MS apologists have posted. Do sometime.

>Linux has had years to achieve some

>sort of critical mass as a viable desktop system and it hasn't moved very far

>in spite of being so much better than Windows that it isn't even a contest.

>Yet if you tell these Linux fanatics that one little fact, they go ballistic.

>Basically, I think that they know its true, but the emperor's new suit of

>clothes.... well, you know.

 

Hmm... I'm not Linux fanatic, but I've noticed Microsoft in over 20

years of trying hasn't been able to release any version of Windows yet

that hasn't required a service pack and a boat load of patches and

fixes before it was stable. Tell that to a fanboy and they go

ballistic after denying it's true.

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 07:00:18 +0100, spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:

>Adam Albright <AA@abc.net> did eloquently scribble:

>> I'm just illustrating even major software vendors haven't been able to

>> push Linux into wider acceptance.

>

>You DO realise that corel linux survived don't you?

>It was forked and renamed Xandros.

 

So?

>You DO realise the reason Corel dropped linux (and the various linux apps

>like wordperfect and draw, was because of pressure from microsoft rather

>than any technical reason, don't you?

>

>

>You don't?

>Ahhhhh that explains the dormant look on your face.

 

Well Spike, here's something apparently you don't realize:

 

Seems a lot of blockheads come from the UK. Interesting, I observed

this FACT in just about every newsgroup I ever visited. Most of the

clowns either are from the UK (can tell from their spelling of certain

common words like ass or color) or they still are there judging form

their email address or posting header.

 

ROTFLMAO!

Re: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distrofor the general computer/device market.

 

Oxford wrote:

> 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.

 

But, Linux sure does a great job on Mars,on the Shuttle, in NASA space

programs, at the NSA, for Google, in the FBI, CIA, DOT/FAA, and DOE.

 

The majority of top 500 clustering computers run GNU/Linux.

 

Most ISPs offer webspace on GNU/Linux servers. Microsoft leases 15,000

Akamai Linux Servers to protect Microsoft.com, MSN.com.

 

Microsoft runs all firewall/routers on Aruba Linux boxes.

 

The National Weather Service uses Linux for forecasting, and to simulate

storm development.

 

For the much larger and very professional government and military

applications, simulators, weapons systems, GNU/Linux is the answer.

 

I would categorize that as very professional use of an OS!

 

Go ahead and compartmentalize the proprietary programs you are familiar

with, into the little pidgeon holes your brain envisions.

 

Others of us have no limits and no boundries. We use the proper tools

for the job, and most PR hype is not about competent achievement of

strategic goals, but is about selling snake oil to ignorant masses of

folks who want to be popular with their peer group.

 

CEOs, CTOs, who are competent have this awareness. Twelve Microsoft

servers, with record 'up times' of 12 days do not even compete with a

single GNU/Linux, or BSD, server, that replaces that Microsoft server,

and the GNU/Linux or BSD server runs maintenance free for a year or more.

 

There are some in the colleges, Universities, academies, and hospitals,

here.

 

As the Amish say: Trust in the Lord, but, tie up your horses!

 

 

 

Competent, reliable, secure are key words used with and about GNU/Linux.

notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:

> > linux users forget they are mainly isolated to the poorer sections of

> > northwest europe.

>

> Not sure what you mean here. Northwest Europe is probably the best part

> of the world to live in, and it's getting better, unlike the US with its

> imploding economy.

 

life in the states is far better than in western europe, it's like day

and night, osx to linux. have you ever traveled to the states peter?

nope! imploding economy? that's absurd. 4.6% unemployment, record stock

market, cheap housing, gas is $2.56 a gallon, on and on.

> We also know who Adele Goldberg is, and the crucial role she played in

> Steve Jobs's world. Unlike you...

 

I know what Adele did, and it was nothing concerning Steve or Apple.

In article

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

Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> 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.

 

You're reaching new levels of absurdity, Oxford.

 

--

"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming

out any other way."

--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

In article <feeos9$rms$1@news.albasani.net>,

Leonard Kai Schonitz <leonard.kai.schoenitz@gmail.com> wrote:

> X-No-Archive=Yes

> Linux does not want world domination. Linux means diversity. There is need

> for Distributions, and, by the way, Distributions aren't very important for

> the functionality of Linux. They aren't very different to each others,

> since they only use some more or some less programs and have a modified

> structure of config files.

 

Which is why they're so pointless. It's not as if they offer real

choice. They just make things much harder for software developers. (Even

if there are only minor differences, you still have to test on all the

popular ones.)

 

--

"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming

out any other way."

--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> > 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.

>

> You're reaching new levels of absurdity, Oxford.

 

nothing absurd, just observations that are rooted in fact.

 

i just tend to see reality more clearly than most.

 

sorry about that ZnU.

In article <470b8852$0$15384$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,

AHappyCamper <@thelandfill.com> wrote:

> Oxford wrote:

> > 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.

>

> But, Linux sure does a great job on Mars,on the Shuttle, in NASA space

> programs, at the NSA, for Google, in the FBI, CIA, DOT/FAA, and DOE.

>

> The majority of top 500 clustering computers run GNU/Linux.

>

> Most ISPs offer webspace on GNU/Linux servers. Microsoft leases 15,000

> Akamai Linux Servers to protect Microsoft.com, MSN.com.

>

> Microsoft runs all firewall/routers on Aruba Linux boxes.

>

> The National Weather Service uses Linux for forecasting, and to simulate

> storm development.

>

> For the much larger and very professional government and military

> applications, simulators, weapons systems, GNU/Linux is the answer.

>

> I would categorize that as very professional use of an OS!

 

Sure. And these kinds of examples always come up when Linux gets

criticized. But none of them have anything to do with regular desktop

use. Nor does the use of Linux in Hollywood (mostly as a platform for

in-house or specialty applications). The use of Linux in the enterprise

desktop market might be considered a subset of "regular desktop use", so

that's more relevant, but even there, the circumstances that exist with

enterprise desktops (central management by IT professionals, typically

used for a narrow range of tasks, etc.) don't apply to desktop machines

that live outside the cubicle.

 

I've got a small media production company. We absolutely couldn't do

what we do on Linux. The software just isn't there. Linux might be used

on render farms in Hollywood, but it has no reasonable replacement for

Final Cut Pro or Motion. Or Photoshop or InDesign or Aperture, for that

matter. It doesn't have system-wide color management. It generally

doesn't have official drivers for printers.

 

This is what people mean when they say Linux has no professional apps.

It has specialty apps (high-end 3D software, etc.), and it has a decent

selection of entry-level apps (web browsers, word processors, etc.). But

the entire mid-range of professional software is largely missing from

the platform.

 

Now, mix in Linux's usability problems, and you knock off most of the

low-end users. All of this leaves basically four types of desktop users

on the platform:

 

1) Users running specialty apps that are available on Linux.

2) Tech-savvy hobbyists.

3) People developing apps for non-desktop markets who find it convenient

for their desktop development boxes to run the same OS.

4) People using Linux in managed enterprise environments, as discussed

above.

 

[snip]

 

--

"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming

out any other way."

--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, AHappyCamper

<>

wrote

on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:55:26 -0400

<470b8852$0$15384$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>:

> Oxford wrote:

>> 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.

>

> But, Linux sure does a great job on Mars,

 

??

 

AFAIK not in use on Mars I'm having problems locating it but

it's probably a specialized affair. They might be on use

here on Earth for talking to the Martian rovers, though.

 

http://research.microsoft.com/~mbj/Mars_Pathfinder/Authoritative_Account.html

 

is an accounting of a problem with the Mars Pathfinder,

which is admittedly the best I can do at the moment.

The file system is probably a variant of FAT (with wire

reports suggesting it is "DOS" -- silly groundlings, they

can't get cyberspace quite right :-) ).

> on the Shuttle,

 

Ditto. The Shuttle computers would have been outpaced by

a 386, but are rad-hardened and very reliable (and check

each other's operations thousands of times a second).

One hopes they're whisker-free as well, in the future --

an issue that is beginning to surface with the elimination

of lead in the soldier. Bizarre.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solder#Lead-free_solder

 

Anyway, Google coughed up

 

http://klabs.org/DEI/Processor/shuttle/

 

which among other things specifies a high-level language

specification (HAL/S) for the GPC units, and pictures of

the boards therein (with chips clearly marked "SINGER" and

"TORWICO", along with some smaller chips with the Texas

Instruments logo). No doubt HAL/S could easily be adapted

to Linux, but it is not the most exciting of languages,

apart from its being used on actual space hardware.

The syntax reminds me of an odd mixture of BASIC and PASCAL

(or maybe BASIC and FORTH), but also has macros and can

do matrix algebra.

> in NASA space

> programs,

 

I'll admit to some curiosity as to the newer spacecraft,

at this point. If Linux can be used in ASUS, it certainly

could be adapted for use on various hardware launched

into space.

> at the NSA,

 

http://www.nsa.gov/selinux

> for Google,

 

Internally. Some Google offerings such as Sketch still

assume Windows. Mixed bag, to say the least.

> in the FBI, CIA, DOT/FAA, and DOE.

 

Probably mixed.

>

> The majority of top 500 clustering computers run GNU/Linux.

>

> Most ISPs offer webspace on GNU/Linux servers.

 

Dunno about that specifically Earthlink, however, does state

it's running Apache on Unix.

> Microsoft leases 15,000

> Akamai Linux Servers to protect Microsoft.com, MSN.com.

>

> Microsoft runs all firewall/routers on Aruba Linux boxes.

>

> The National Weather Service uses Linux for forecasting, and to simulate

> storm development.

>

> For the much larger and very professional government and military

> applications, simulators, weapons systems, GNU/Linux is the answer.

 

It is *an* answer...clearly a very good one, at this point.

FreeBSD might be a better answer for some applications,

though I can't specifically state precisely why. With

the buzz surrounding Linux, FreeBSD might very well go

invisible, which would be unfortunate (after all, Linux

needs competition too! :-) )

>

> I would categorize that as very professional use of an OS!

>

> Go ahead and compartmentalize the proprietary programs you are familiar

> with, into the little pidgeon holes your brain envisions.

>

> Others of us have no limits and no boundries. We use the proper tools

> for the job, and most PR hype is not about competent achievement of

> strategic goals, but is about selling snake oil to ignorant masses of

> folks who want to be popular with their peer group.

>

> CEOs, CTOs, who are competent have this awareness. Twelve Microsoft

> servers, with record 'up times' of 12 days do not even compete with a

> single GNU/Linux, or BSD, server, that replaces that Microsoft server,

> and the GNU/Linux or BSD server runs maintenance free for a year or more.

 

There are Windows servers with an uptime of several years.

fp002.crayfish.net is running Windows 2000, and apparently

has been up for more than 4 years. http://www.root102.co.uk

with Win2003 has been up for more than 4 years as well.

Granted, it is far from clear whether the system in this

case includes a load distributor, and there are systems

running FreeBSD and BSD/OS that have been running even

longer.

 

Linux, regrettably, does not make the cut.

 

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html

>

> There are some in the colleges, Universities, academies, and hospitals,

> here.

>

> As the Amish say: Trust in the Lord, but, tie up your horses!

>

>

>

> Competent, reliable, secure are key words used with and about GNU/Linux.

 

Certainly more than Windows, in general.

 

--

#191, ewill3@earthlink.net

Windows Vista. It'll Fix Everything.

 

--

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

In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,

Adam Albright <AA@abc.net> didnst hastily scribble thusly:

> Seems a lot of blockheads come from the UK. Interesting, I observed

> this FACT in just about every newsgroup I ever visited. Most of the

> clowns either are from the UK (can tell from their spelling of certain

> common words like ass or color) or they still are there judging form

> their email address or posting header.

 

Ahhhh good.

Not only a moron, but a racist moron.

Jolly good, I'm sure all us brits'll enjoy flattening all your arguments in

the future.

 

> ROTFLMAO!

 

Laugh away, moron boy.

--

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

| 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. |

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

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:31:51 -0600, Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com>

wrote:

>ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

>

>> > 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.

>>

>> You're reaching new levels of absurdity, Oxford.

>

>nothing absurd, just observations that are rooted in fact.

>

>i just tend to see reality more clearly than most.

>

>sorry about that ZnU.

 

Just like your 'factual observation' that Appalachia is anywhere that

had a coalyard in the days that coal was the main fuel in the world.

Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote:

> notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:

>

> > > linux users forget they are mainly isolated to the poorer sections of

> > > northwest europe.

> >

> > Not sure what you mean here. Northwest Europe is probably the best part

> > of the world to live in, and it's getting better, unlike the US with its

> > imploding economy.

>

> life in the states is far better than in western europe, it's like day

> and night, osx to linux. have you ever traveled to the states peter?

> nope! imploding economy? that's absurd. 4.6% unemployment,

 

And rising,

 

http://www.forecasts.org/unemploy.htm

> record stock market, cheap housing,

 

Just don't mention sub-primes...

> gas is $2.56 a gallon,

 

And it was under $1.00 a gallon not so long ago.

> on and on.

>

> > We also know who Adele Goldberg is, and the crucial role she played in

> > Steve Jobs's world. Unlike you...

>

> I know what Adele did, and it was nothing concerning Steve or Apple.

 

It certainly was so it looks like you're caught in a lie.

 

--

 

Immunity is better than innoculation.

 

Peter

Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> You're reaching new levels of absurdity, Oxford.

> >

> >nothing absurd, just observations that are rooted in fact.

> >

> >i just tend to see reality more clearly than most.

> >

> >sorry about that ZnU.

>

> Just like your 'factual observation' that Appalachia is anywhere that

> had a coalyard in the days that coal was the main fuel in the world.

 

yes, facts are a bitch. Indiana is very close to Appalachia, just as I

stated.

 

http://www.dental.pitt.edu/research/appalachia.jpg

 

poor Mayor, can't get anything right...