Article: Why Linux is not (yet) Ready for the Desktop
Snit
<http://linuxfonts.narod.ru/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.desktop.html>
-----
Preface:
In this document we only discuss Linux deficiencies while
everyone should keep in mind that there are areas where Linux
has excelled other OSes.
A primary target of this comparison is Windows OS.
2.1 No good stable standardized API for developing GUI
applications (like Win32 API). Both GTK and Qt are very
unstable and often break backwards compatibility.
3.1 No unified configuration system for computer settings,
devices and system services. E.g. distro A sets up networking
using these utilities, outputting certain settings residing
in certain file system locations, distro B sets up everything
differently. This drives most users mad.
3.2 No unified installer across all distros. Consider RPM,
deb, portage, tar.gz, sources, etc. It adds a cost for
software development.
7. A galore of software bugs across all applications. Just
look into KDE or Gnome bugzilla's - some bugs are now ten
years old with over several dozens of duplicates and no one
is working on them.
-----
Above is just some highlights that jumped out at me... much more at the
link. Curious to what people think... and if there are any *reasoned*
counters.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
RonB
> Why Linux is not (yet) Ready for the Desktop
Funny, it's been my desktop OS for a year and a half now. I guess
"insanely difficult" means different things to different people.
But if the writer wants to wrangle viruses and malware, he's welcome to it.
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
Hadron
> Snit wrote:
>> Why Linux is not (yet) Ready for the Desktop
>
> Funny, it's been my desktop OS for a year and a half now. I guess
> "insanely difficult" means different things to different people.
>
> But if the writer wants to wrangle viruses and malware, he's welcome
> to it.
But you listed your "needs". They are very, very minimal. In the big world
"ready for the desktop" means able to do the job needed. Examples? See
the Munich migration to see how your Desktop is of no interest to
anyone.
--
In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading
lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to
another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that
computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller
Peter Köhlmann
> RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> Why Linux is not (yet) Ready for the Desktop
>>
>> Funny, it's been my desktop OS for a year and a half now. I guess
>> "insanely difficult" means different things to different people.
>>
>> But if the writer wants to wrangle viruses and malware, he's welcome
>> to it.
>
> But you listed your "needs". They are very, very minimal.
Says who?
> In the big
> world "ready for the desktop" means able to do the job needed.
Right. Strange how MS software so often fails to deliver, isn't it?
> Examples?
> See the Munich migration to see how your Desktop is of no interest to
> anyone.
>
You might try to actually point to how the (successful) Munich migration
has anything to do with the "desktop needs" of someone else
Short answer: It doesn't.
Long answer: It doesn't.
--
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>> Why Linux is not (yet) Ready for the Desktop
>
> Funny, it's been my desktop OS for a year and a half now. I guess
> "insanely difficult" means different things to different people.
>
> But if the writer wants to wrangle viruses and malware, he's welcome to it.
Nobody is saying it is not on some small number of desktops... the idea is
being ready for the general consumer - a mass market. And Linux desktop is
not yet there.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2:00 PM:
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> Why Linux is not (yet) Ready for the Desktop
>>>
>>> Funny, it's been my desktop OS for a year and a half now. I guess
>>> "insanely difficult" means different things to different people.
>>>
>>> But if the writer wants to wrangle viruses and malware, he's welcome
>>> to it.
>>
>> But you listed your "needs". They are very, very minimal.
>
> Says who?
>
>> In the big
>> world "ready for the desktop" means able to do the job needed.
>
> Right. Strange how MS software so often fails to deliver, isn't it?
It is not perfect... far, far from it. But clearly it is better suited to
the desktop than is Linux.
>> Examples?
>> See the Munich migration to see how your Desktop is of no interest to
>> anyone.
>>
>
> You might try to actually point to how the (successful) Munich migration
> has anything to do with the "desktop needs" of someone else
> Short answer: It doesn't.
> Long answer: It doesn't.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
RonB
> RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> Why Linux is not (yet) Ready for the Desktop
>> Funny, it's been my desktop OS for a year and a half now. I guess
>> "insanely difficult" means different things to different people.
>>
>> But if the writer wants to wrangle viruses and malware, he's welcome
>> to it.
>
> But you listed your "needs". They are very, very minimal. In the big world
> "ready for the desktop" means able to do the job needed. Examples? See
> the Munich migration to see how your Desktop is of no interest to
> anyone.
My "needs" (not quite sure why the quotes are necessary, but I'll
continue using them) are pretty much what any home Desktop user "needs"
-- (like them meaningless quotation marks).
RonB
> Peter K�hlmann stated in post gusi9o$p6p$02$1...@news.t-online.com on 5/18/09
> 2:00 PM:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>> Why Linux is not (yet) Ready for the Desktop
>>>> Funny, it's been my desktop OS for a year and a half now. I guess
>>>> "insanely difficult" means different things to different people.
>>>>
>>>> But if the writer wants to wrangle viruses and malware, he's welcome
>>>> to it.
>>> But you listed your "needs". They are very, very minimal.
>> Says who?
>>
>>> In the big
>>> world "ready for the desktop" means able to do the job needed.
>> Right. Strange how MS software so often fails to deliver, isn't it?
>
> It is not perfect... far, far from it. But clearly it is better suited to
> the desktop than is Linux.
Opinion (which is all it is) noted -- also noted is the lack of
requested examples.
>>> Examples?
>>> See the Munich migration to see how your Desktop is of no interest to
>>> anyone.
>>>
>> You might try to actually point to how the (successful) Munich migration
>> has anything to do with the "desktop needs" of someone else
>> Short answer: It doesn't.
>> Long answer: It doesn't.
--
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> Examples?
>> See the Munich migration to see how your Desktop is of no interest to
>> anyone.
>
> You might try to actually point to how the (successful) Munich migration
> has anything to do with the "desktop needs" of someone else
> Short answer: It doesn't.
> Long answer: It doesn't.
Hadron sure toes the MS Party line, don't he? Consistently. Constantly.
Incredibly.
--
You will live a long, healthy, happy life and make bags of money.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Hadron wrote:
Maybe Hadron has his own "needs", Ron. ;->
--
Stay away from Hadron today.
Hadron
If you take away things like MS Office, Direct X games, Quicken etc etc
etc etc.
So no. Your needs are not what "most home users" want.
Sorry, but thems the facts. Because otherwise Linux would have made a
bigger inroad.
Snit
Curious: what are those needs / wants on a desktop?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>> Peter K�hlmann stated in post gusi9o$p6p$02$1...@news.t-online.com on 5/18/09
>> 2:00 PM:
>>
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>> RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>> Why Linux is not (yet) Ready for the Desktop
>>>>> Funny, it's been my desktop OS for a year and a half now. I guess
>>>>> "insanely difficult" means different things to different people.
>>>>>
>>>>> But if the writer wants to wrangle viruses and malware, he's welcome
>>>>> to it.
>>>> But you listed your "needs". They are very, very minimal.
>>> Says who?
>>>
>>>> In the big
>>>> world "ready for the desktop" means able to do the job needed.
>>> Right. Strange how MS software so often fails to deliver, isn't it?
>>
>> It is not perfect... far, far from it. But clearly it is better suited to
>> the desktop than is Linux.
>
> Opinion (which is all it is) noted -- also noted is the lack of
> requested examples.
Requested examples? What are you talking about? You made a claim about
Windows often failing to deliver... and I *agreed* it is *far* from perfect.
Security and ease of use issues plague Windows... the former to a much, much
greater degree than on Linux and the latter to a much less degree.
>>>> Examples?
>>>> See the Munich migration to see how your Desktop is of no interest to
>>>> anyone.
>>>>
>>> You might try to actually point to how the (successful) Munich migration
>>> has anything to do with the "desktop needs" of someone else
>>> Short answer: It doesn't.
>>> Long answer: It doesn't.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2:41 PM:
> RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>> Why Linux is not (yet) Ready for the Desktop
>>>> Funny, it's been my desktop OS for a year and a half now. I guess
>>>> "insanely difficult" means different things to different people.
>>>>
>>>> But if the writer wants to wrangle viruses and malware, he's welcome
>>>> to it.
>>>
>>> But you listed your "needs". They are very, very minimal. In the big world
>>> "ready for the desktop" means able to do the job needed. Examples? See
>>> the Munich migration to see how your Desktop is of no interest to
>>> anyone.
>>
>> My "needs" (not quite sure why the quotes are necessary, but I'll
>> continue using them) are pretty much what any home Desktop user "needs"
>> -- (like them meaningless quotation marks).
>
> If you take away things like MS Office, Direct X games, Quicken etc etc
> etc etc.
>
> So no. Your needs are not what "most home users" want.
>
> Sorry, but thems the facts. Because otherwise Linux would have made a
> bigger inroad.
The fact that Linux can be had for *free* and yet has such a small share of
the desktop is very telling.
To those who listen. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
William Poaster
of the trolls RonB was heard to say:
> Snit wrote:
>> Why Linux is not (yet) Ready for the Desktop
>
> Funny, it's been my desktop OS for a year and a half now.
Mine for about 9 or10 years.
> I guess "insanely difficult" means different things to different people.
Yes, Hardon Quack for example. The troll claims to have had all *sorts* of
problems trying to install a Linux distro.
> But if the writer wants to wrangle viruses and malware, he's welcome to it.
--
It IS because of him and two other useless people in particular
(CBFalconer and Harold "old school" Stevens (probably both Willy nyms)
that I started to drift from the Ubuntu fan boy zone.
Hadron - Message-ID: <gdl55d$lc2$1...@registered.motzarella.org>
RonB
> If you take away things like MS Office, Direct X games, Quicken etc etc
> etc etc.
>
> So no. Your needs are not what "most home users" want.
Or so you claim. I don't, personally, have a friend who uses Microsoft
Office on a home computer. As for games, most folks I know don't play
them. More and more people use a computer as a tool to get on the
Internet. So, yeah, Linux does fine for most folks who don't play
Direct-X games. When someone asks me about Linux, my first question I
ask them is, "do you play games on your computer?" If they say, "yes,"
I suggest they stick with Windows -- otherwise I show them the benefits
of Desktop Linux.
> Sorry, but thems the facts. Because otherwise Linux would have made a
> bigger inroad.
Sorry, but your facts are bogus. People don't need Microsoft Office on a
home computer and most adults don't play Direct-X games on them.
Them's the real facts, chump.
Hadron
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> If you take away things like MS Office, Direct X games, Quicken etc etc
>> etc etc.
>>
>> So no. Your needs are not what "most home users" want.
>
> Or so you claim. I don't, personally, have a friend who uses Microsoft
> Office on a home computer. As for games, most folks I know don't play
Which clearly makes you a minority yet further.
> them. More and more people use a computer as a tool to get on the
> Internet. So, yeah, Linux does fine for most folks who don't play
> Direct-X games. When someone asks me about Linux, my first question I
> ask them is, "do you play games on your computer?" If they say, "yes,"
> I suggest they stick with Windows -- otherwise I show them the benefits
> of Desktop Linux.
Thats fine : we would agree.
You could also suggest they could try their games under Wine and /or
CEDEGA.
>
>> Sorry, but thems the facts. Because otherwise Linux would have made a
>> bigger inroad.
>
> Sorry, but your facts are bogus. People don't need Microsoft Office on a
> home computer and most adults don't play Direct-X games on them.
You#re clueless. Because YOU have no idea about games because you use
Linux dont assume others dont care about them. Many, many people DO play
games on their PCs. It's the biggest gaming market out there as I linked
to the other day.
>
> Them's the real facts, chump.
But clearly you are wrong as the desktop figures show. People do need ms
office or think they do - the end result is the same. And we have proven
that people dont want to use OO at home in case it corrupts their work
docuemtns. Why would they use two different producust?
The *facts* are that Linux is not popular on desktops. You can burble
all you like. But the *facts* are that people do not generally want it
because it does not run the SW that people want or think they want.
William Poaster
of the trolls RonB was heard to say:
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> If you take away things like MS Office, Direct X games, Quicken etc etc
>> etc etc.
>>
>> So no. Your needs are not what "most home users" want.
>
> Or so you claim. I don't, personally, have a friend who uses Microsoft
> Office on a home computer.
All the people I know use OpenOffice on their home computers, & *yes* that
includes two Windows users. So M$Office is *not* needed.
> As for games, most folks I know don't play them. More and more people
> use a computer as a tool to get on the Internet. So, yeah, Linux does
> fine for most folks who don't play Direct-X games. When someone asks me
> about Linux, my first question I ask them is, "do you play games on your
> computer?" If they say, "yes," I suggest they stick with Windows --
> otherwise I show them the benefits of Desktop Linux.
The people I know, their children play games on consoles.
>> Sorry, but thems the facts. Because otherwise Linux would have made a
>> bigger inroad.
>
> Sorry, but your facts are bogus. People don't need Microsoft Office on a
> home computer and most adults don't play Direct-X games on them.
Quite.
> Them's the real facts, chump.
Indeed.
Snit
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> If you take away things like MS Office, Direct X games, Quicken etc etc
>> etc etc.
>>
>> So no. Your needs are not what "most home users" want.
>
> Or so you claim. I don't, personally, have a friend who uses Microsoft
> Office on a home computer.
You know, that is just too easy to take advantage of... :)
Regardless of who you do or do not know, or what you know of them, *most*
people use MS Office. You might not like it. I know I do not - I wish
there was more competition. I wish OpenOffice and Pages and other options
were bigger.
They are not.
> As for games, most folks I know don't play them.
But many people do. Why do you keep thinking this is about you and your
circle of friends?
> More and more people use a computer as a tool to get on the Internet.
Where they need a host of codecs.
> So, yeah, Linux does fine for most folks who don't play Direct-X games. When
> someone asks me about Linux, my first question I ask them is, "do you play
> games on your computer?" If they say, "yes," I suggest they stick with Windows
> -- otherwise I show them the benefits of Desktop Linux.
Less chance of malware. By far. What else do you show them? Do you also
show them the downsides? I know I talk about *both*. I am an honest
advocate for Linux. How about you?
>> Sorry, but thems the facts. Because otherwise Linux would have made a
>> bigger inroad.
>
> Sorry, but your facts are bogus. People don't need Microsoft Office on a
> home computer and most adults don't play Direct-X games on them.
>
> Them's the real facts, chump.
Chump? Ah, your white flag is waving.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
4:28 PM:
> RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> If you take away things like MS Office, Direct X games, Quicken etc etc
>>> etc etc.
>>>
>>> So no. Your needs are not what "most home users" want.
>>
>> Or so you claim. I don't, personally, have a friend who uses Microsoft
>> Office on a home computer. As for games, most folks I know don't play
>
> Which clearly makes you a minority yet further.
He is using his small circle of friends - and what he knows of their
computing habits - as some sort of bench mark.
It is absurd.
And, of course, there is little reason to believe it is true even on his
circle of friends.
>> them. More and more people use a computer as a tool to get on the
>> Internet. So, yeah, Linux does fine for most folks who don't play
>> Direct-X games. When someone asks me about Linux, my first question I
>> ask them is, "do you play games on your computer?" If they say, "yes,"
>> I suggest they stick with Windows -- otherwise I show them the benefits
>> of Desktop Linux.
>
> Thats fine : we would agree.
>
> You could also suggest they could try their games under Wine and /or
> CEDEGA.
>
>
>>
>>> Sorry, but thems the facts. Because otherwise Linux would have made a
>>> bigger inroad.
>>
>> Sorry, but your facts are bogus. People don't need Microsoft Office on a
>> home computer and most adults don't play Direct-X games on them.
>
> You#re clueless. Because YOU have no idea about games because you use
> Linux dont assume others dont care about them. Many, many people DO play
> games on their PCs. It's the biggest gaming market out there as I linked
> to the other day.
>
>
>>
>> Them's the real facts, chump.
>
> But clearly you are wrong as the desktop figures show. People do need ms
> office or think they do - the end result is the same. And we have proven
> that people dont want to use OO at home in case it corrupts their work
> docuemtns. Why would they use two different producust?
And why use a product which is, for most users, clearly inferior. It is
cheaper... and that is a reason. But what, other than price, is the
advantage?
> The *facts* are that Linux is not popular on desktops. You can burble
> all you like. But the *facts* are that people do not generally want it
> because it does not run the SW that people want or think they want.
HP and Dell would love, I am sure, to not have to pay MS... they could make
*more* money with Linux systems. If people were willing to pay.
They, in general, are not.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
pan.2009.05.18...@jaunty904-64bit.org on 5/18/09 4:34 PM:
> On Mon, 18 May 2009 18:14:01 -0500, above the shrieking, FUDding & whining
> of the trolls RonB was heard to say:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> If you take away things like MS Office, Direct X games, Quicken etc etc
>>> etc etc.
>>>
>>> So no. Your needs are not what "most home users" want.
>>
>> Or so you claim. I don't, personally, have a friend who uses Microsoft
>> Office on a home computer.
>
> All the people I know use OpenOffice on their home computers, & *yes* that
> includes two Windows users. So M$Office is *not* needed.
It is not used by all... sure. If that is your standard, then you are
right.
But it is clearly used by far more users... and OpenOffice has little to
pull people in other than it is cheaper.
...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
RonB
> RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> If you take away things like MS Office, Direct X games, Quicken etc etc
>>> etc etc.
>>>
>>> So no. Your needs are not what "most home users" want.
>> Or so you claim. I don't, personally, have a friend who uses Microsoft
>> Office on a home computer. As for games, most folks I know don't play
>
> Which clearly makes you a minority yet further.
Or your "friends" are the minority. So many facts to bolster your
claims... oh, wait a minute... none.
>> them. More and more people use a computer as a tool to get on the
>> Internet. So, yeah, Linux does fine for most folks who don't play
>> Direct-X games. When someone asks me about Linux, my first question I
>> ask them is, "do you play games on your computer?" If they say, "yes,"
>> I suggest they stick with Windows -- otherwise I show them the benefits
>> of Desktop Linux.
>
> Thats fine : we would agree.
>
> You could also suggest they could try their games under Wine and /or
> CEDEGA.
I don't like kludges. If you want to play Windows games, use Windows.
>>> Sorry, but thems the facts. Because otherwise Linux would have made a
>>> bigger inroad.
>> Sorry, but your facts are bogus. People don't need Microsoft Office on a
>> home computer and most adults don't play Direct-X games on them.
>
> You#re clueless. Because YOU have no idea about games because you use
> Linux dont assume others dont care about them. Many, many people DO play
> games on their PCs. It's the biggest gaming market out there as I linked
> to the other day.
>
>
>> Them's the real facts, chump.
>
> But clearly you are wrong as the desktop figures show. People do need ms
> office or think they do - the end result is the same. And we have proven
> that people dont want to use OO at home in case it corrupts their work
> docuemtns. Why would they use two different producust?
I've seen a lot of people who use OpenOffice. How do you get "sales
figures" for something that is given away and can be loaded on a
thousand computers? (Hint, you don't.)
As for Microsoft Office. I've seen plenty of people use it on their work
computers -- and take it home and load on their home computers in
conjunction with work. But those who don't work in IT, or at a place
where they don't use a computer, and those who don't illegally load
Microsoft Office on top of their sometimes illegal copies of Windows,
often use something else. Before OpenOffice it was WordPerfect (which
sold much cheaper than MS Office) or one of several cheap (or free)
shareware Word processors and spreadsheets -- ever hear of Microsoft
Works, BTW?
Since you're good with sales figures, perhaps you can tell me how many
home Desktop users buy full-priced retail copies of Microsoft Office?
> The *facts* are that Linux is not popular on desktops. You can burble
> all you like. But the *facts* are that people do not generally want it
> because it does not run the SW that people want or think they want.
No shit Sherlock -- Linux is not popular on Desktops. What "facts" show
that people don't generally want Linux though? None, that's your
assumption. What the facts show is that Windows is pretty much
ubiquitous -- people get it when they buy their computers and, if they
even know about Linux they've heard so much FUD about that they are
afraid to try it. The natural tendency is for people to stick with what
they know. Says nothing at all about their preferences, because haven't
even tried Linux.
If both OSes started at ground zero, and people actually had to pay
retail price for Windows, I'm guessing the results would be quite a bit
different.
Meanwhile, figures don't lie, but liars figure.
Snit
PM:
> Hadron wrote:
>> RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you take away things like MS Office, Direct X games, Quicken etc etc
>>>> etc etc.
>>>>
>>>> So no. Your needs are not what "most home users" want.
>>> Or so you claim. I don't, personally, have a friend who uses Microsoft
>>> Office on a home computer. As for games, most folks I know don't play
>>
>> Which clearly makes you a minority yet further.
>
> Or your "friends" are the minority. So many facts to bolster your
> claims... oh, wait a minute... none.
Are you denying that MS Office is commonly used? Are you denying it often
comes with computers? Are you denying that it is generally what is taught
on high school and college campuses - because that is where the demand is?
Seriously, look at a few college catalogs. Find how often MS Office is
there and how often OpenOffice is. OpenOffice simply is not used much.
...
>> But clearly you are wrong as the desktop figures show. People do need ms
>> office or think they do - the end result is the same. And we have proven
>> that people dont want to use OO at home in case it corrupts their work
>> docuemtns. Why would they use two different producust?
>
> I've seen a lot of people who use OpenOffice. How do you get "sales
> figures" for something that is given away and can be loaded on a
> thousand computers? (Hint, you don't.)
You can get demand approximations by looking to see what colleges teach -
they teach what people ask for.
How many teach OpenOffice? Not many. How many teach MS Office.
Essentially all.
> As for Microsoft Office. I've seen plenty of people use it on their work
> computers -- and take it home and load on their home computers in
> conjunction with work. But those who don't work in IT, or at a place
> where they don't use a computer, and those who don't illegally load
> Microsoft Office on top of their sometimes illegal copies of Windows,
> often use something else. Before OpenOffice it was WordPerfect (which
> sold much cheaper than MS Office) or one of several cheap (or free)
> shareware Word processors and spreadsheets -- ever hear of Microsoft
> Works, BTW?
It is, sadly, still relatively common.
> Since you're good with sales figures, perhaps you can tell me how many
> home Desktop users buy full-priced retail copies of Microsoft Office?
>
>> The *facts* are that Linux is not popular on desktops. You can burble
>> all you like. But the *facts* are that people do not generally want it
>> because it does not run the SW that people want or think they want.
>
> No shit Sherlock -- Linux is not popular on Desktops. What "facts" show
> that people don't generally want Linux though?'
If they wanted it then there would be *no* reason for them not to have it.
Dell and HP would bundle it for them.
> None, that's your assumption. What the facts show is that Windows is pretty
> much ubiquitous -- people get it when they buy their computers and, if they
> even know about Linux they've heard so much FUD about that they are afraid to
> try it.
Yeah, all FUD. Everyone is against Linux for no reason. Give me a break.
> The natural tendency is for people to stick with what they know. Says
> nothing at all about their preferences, because haven't even tried Linux.
People are moving the Macs... and they tend to cost *more* than Windows
machines. That pretty much shows the effect of people just using what they
know is not nearly as strong as you would like.
> If both OSes started at ground zero, and people actually had to pay
> retail price for Windows, I'm guessing the results would be quite a bit
> different.
If people has to pay more for Windows, sure, it might lose users. Wow!
> Meanwhile, figures don't lie, but liars figure.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Don Zeigler
> Regardless of who you do or do not know, or what you know of them, *most*
> people use MS Office. You might not like it. I know I do not - I wish
> there was more competition. I wish OpenOffice and Pages and other options
> were bigger.
Most of the "casual" Windows users I know use Wordpad for composing documents,
unless they've landed a bootleg copy of Office from somewhere. Your average
home user isn't going to shell out big bucks for something to write letters
with.
Wait, some of them also useMS Works if their machine came bundled with it...
--
Smoking helps you lose weight -- one lung at a time.
Regards,
DZ (Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC)
Snit
on 5/18/09 7:03 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Regardless of who you do or do not know, or what you know of them, *most*
>> people use MS Office. You might not like it. I know I do not - I wish
>> there was more competition. I wish OpenOffice and Pages and other options
>> were bigger.
>
> Most of the "casual" Windows users I know use Wordpad for composing documents,
> unless they've landed a bootleg copy of Office from somewhere. Your average
> home user isn't going to shell out big bucks for something to write letters
> with.
>
> Wait, some of them also useMS Works if their machine came bundled with it...
MS Works and MS Word are both common. MS Works, however, is horrid. MS
Word is clearly the market leader... the most common word processor.
Seriously, this is pretty much common knowledge, isn't it?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> And we have proven
>> that people dont want to use OO at home in case it corrupts their work
>> docuemtns. Why would they use two different producust?
I wonder what Hadron used that corrupted his spellings :-D
In any case, it's pretty safe to tell people to use OpenOffice on their work
documents. If they want to play it save, open it on OOo and save it back in
Microsoft format to a different name, and see how it looks.
More likely than not, it will be fine.
And, if you're the only one editing the document (as opposed to just reading
it), you are golden.
> I've seen a lot of people who use OpenOffice. How do you get "sales
> figures" for something that is given away and can be loaded on a
> thousand computers? (Hint, you don't.)
The actual numbers for OpenOffice are pretty darn good, and much higher than
Funkenbusch, Flatfish, Hadron, or his buddy Snit bandy about.
> If both OSes started at ground zero, and people actually had to pay
> retail price for Windows, I'm guessing the results would be quite a bit
> different.
Exactly.
> Meanwhile, figures don't lie, but liars figure.
And promote Windows' dominance at every opportunity.
--
Rebellion lay in his way, and he found it.
-- William Shakespeare, "Henry IV"
DFS
> I've seen a lot of people who use OpenOffice.
You most definitely have not seen a lot of people who use OpenOffice.
Don Zeigler
> MS Works and MS Word are both common. MS Works, however, is horrid. MS
> Word is clearly the market leader... the most common word processor.
> Seriously, this is pretty much common knowledge, isn't it?
Yes, but you're saying "most" people use MS Office. In a corporate
environment, I would say yes. Home use - no.
--
Aim Low, Reach Your Goals, Avoid Disappointment.
RonB
> Snit wrote:
>
>> MS Works and MS Word are both common. MS Works, however, is horrid. MS
>> Word is clearly the market leader... the most common word processor.
>> Seriously, this is pretty much common knowledge, isn't it?
>
> Yes, but you're saying "most" people use MS Office. In a corporate
> environment, I would say yes. Home use - no.
And those who do use at home almost never pay full retail price for it.
Microsoft has corporate licensing agreements that allow those who use
their product at work to use it at home, or buy it cheaply. My brother
works for a big telecom company. He was offered Microsoft Office 2007
(full package) for $20 (all employees were given this offer). He didn't
buy it, but had he done so, the license required that it be surrendered
after a certain amount of time if he left the company.
Snit
5/18/09 7:33 PM:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, RonB belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> And we have proven
>>> that people dont want to use OO at home in case it corrupts their work
>>> docuemtns. Why would they use two different producust?
>
> I wonder what Hadron used that corrupted his spellings :-D
>
> In any case, it's pretty safe to tell people to use OpenOffice on their work
> documents. If they want to play it save, open it on OOo and save it back in
> Microsoft format to a different name, and see how it looks.
>
> More likely than not, it will be fine.
>
> And, if you're the only one editing the document (as opposed to just reading
> it), you are golden.
If you are working with DOC or DOCX files with OpenOffice, do not expect
them to look / work correctly:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/OfficeComp2/>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/OfficeComp/>
Same can be said of Apple's Pages and other solutions that "work" with MS
Word files - they only do so-so, at best.
>> I've seen a lot of people who use OpenOffice. How do you get "sales
>> figures" for something that is given away and can be loaded on a
>> thousand computers? (Hint, you don't.)
>
> The actual numbers for OpenOffice are pretty darn good, and much higher than
> Funkenbusch, Flatfish, Hadron, or his buddy Snit bandy about.
What numbers have I "bandied" about?
>> If both OSes started at ground zero, and people actually had to pay
>> retail price for Windows, I'm guessing the results would be quite a bit
>> different.
>
> Exactly.
And if the nickels were pickles people would eat more salt.
>> Meanwhile, figures don't lie, but liars figure.
>
> And promote Windows' dominance at every opportunity.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
RonB
I most definitely have. The place where I worked last converted nearly
all of our machines to OpenOffice (we used the Windows version).
I guess you're not a "seer" after all.
DFS
> DFS wrote:
>> RonB wrote:
>>
>>> I've seen a lot of people who use OpenOffice.
>>
>> You most definitely have not seen a lot of people who use OpenOffice.
>
> I most definitely have.
Impossible, since not a lot of people use OpenOffice. Of course, you know
that but you're a cola nut and exaggerating is all you wacks can do.
> The place where I worked last converted nearly
> all of our machines to OpenOffice (we used the Windows version).
What place was that?
RonB
> Impossible, since not a lot of people use OpenOffice. Of course, you know
> that but you're a cola nut and exaggerating is all you wacks can do.
This is all you've got? -- gainsaying whatever anyone says. A mechanical
parrot could be "taught" to do the same thing.
Get a life.
DFS
> DFS wrote:
>
>> Impossible, since not a lot of people use OpenOffice. Of course,
>> you know that but you're a cola nut and exaggerating is all you
>> wacks can do.
>
> This is all you've got? -- gainsaying whatever anyone says. A
> mechanical parrot could be "taught" to do the same thing.
>
> Get a life.
In other words, you're as full of shit ("Windows has to be rebooted 20x per
day") as ever.
Snit
on 5/18/09 7:46 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> MS Works and MS Word are both common. MS Works, however, is horrid. MS
>> Word is clearly the market leader... the most common word processor.
>> Seriously, this is pretty much common knowledge, isn't it?
>
> Yes, but you're saying "most" people use MS Office. In a corporate
> environment, I would say yes. Home use - no.
I have taught MS Office (and will be doing so again, soon). Many of the
users use it at home. If colleges even have OpenOffice classes, they are
much less populated than are MS Word classes... and the same can be said of
MS Works. There just is very little demand for teaching them. I know my MS
Office class (on Macs, for what that is worth) was going to be either iWork
or MS Office, depending on user surveys. Users overwhelmingly wanted MS
Office. Same thing on the Windows side (I have taught that class as well).
Just checked a couple of community colleges - *no* classes for OpenOffice...
*all* had classes for MS Office with multiple sections and also for
different programs with it (MS Word classes, for example).
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
PM:
> Don Zeigler wrote:
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> MS Works and MS Word are both common. MS Works, however, is horrid. MS
>>> Word is clearly the market leader... the most common word processor.
>>> Seriously, this is pretty much common knowledge, isn't it?
>>
>> Yes, but you're saying "most" people use MS Office. In a corporate
>> environment, I would say yes. Home use - no.
>
> And those who do use at home almost never pay full retail price for it.
Many pay EDU prices... $150 for 3 computers.
> Microsoft has corporate licensing agreements that allow those who use
> their product at work to use it at home, or buy it cheaply. My brother
> works for a big telecom company. He was offered Microsoft Office 2007
> (full package) for $20 (all employees were given this offer). He didn't
> buy it, but had he done so, the license required that it be surrendered
> after a certain amount of time if he left the company.
Yup, that is not uncommon at all.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
9:07 PM:
> RonB wrote:
>> DFS wrote:
>>> RonB wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've seen a lot of people who use OpenOffice.
>>>
>>> You most definitely have not seen a lot of people who use OpenOffice.
>>
>> I most definitely have.
>
> Impossible, since not a lot of people use OpenOffice. Of course, you know
> that but you're a cola nut and exaggerating is all you wacks can do.
This is easy: pick a couple community colleges. Check out their classes.
Very few will offer OpenOffice, very few will *not* offer MS Office
classes... and MS Word and more.
The idea this would even be debated in a tech group is silly - of course MS
Office is the norm. You might not like it... or you might. I do not. Oh
well... when I take over the universe things might be different, but for now
MS Office is the norm... with MS Works being the second most common.
Apple's Pages, Google's online programs, OpenOffice and others have a share,
of course, but not a big one.
This is not to say that the current version of OpenOffice is not pretty good
- it is. I have suggested it to customers. Some still use it - others have
moved to MS Office.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
DFS
> This is easy: pick a couple community colleges. Check out their
> classes. Very few will offer OpenOffice, very few will *not* offer MS
> Office classes... and MS Word and more.
>
> The idea this would even be debated in a tech group is silly
With the quality of Linux "advocacy" seen on cola, it's debatable whether
this is even a tech group at all.
> of course MS Office is the norm. You might not like it... or you might.
> I do not.
I don't like paying MS, but if you don't pay for software you end up with
junk like Linux and open source.
> This is not to say that the current version of OpenOffice is not
> pretty good - it is.
It's good for being free of cost, but that's the only thing it has going for
it.
Snit
9:41 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> This is easy: pick a couple community colleges. Check out their
>> classes. Very few will offer OpenOffice, very few will *not* offer MS
>> Office classes... and MS Word and more.
>>
>> The idea this would even be debated in a tech group is silly
>
> With the quality of Linux "advocacy" seen on cola, it's debatable whether
> this is even a tech group at all.
Well, there is that. :)
Seriously, I would expect most people in a Linux advocacy group to have some
idea of the computer ecosystem... though I have been shown to be wrong on
that time and time again
>> of course MS Office is the norm. You might not like it... or you might.
>> I do not.
>
> I don't like paying MS, but if you don't pay for software you end up with
> junk like Linux and open source.
Hey, on the server side Linux does very well... and I suspect it will become
a true contender on the desktop.
Some day.
>> This is not to say that the current version of OpenOffice is not
>> pretty good - it is.
>
> It's good for being free of cost, but that's the only thing it has going for
> it.
It is in the top 10... maybe even top 5... best Office suites I know of.
Part of the problem is it does little more than try to catch up to MS
Office..
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
RonB
> I have taught MS Office (and will be doing so again, soon). Many of the
> users use it at home.
Whoa! You're telling me that "many" of the people who sign up for MS
Office classes have the product? What a friggin' revelation! Only you
would find that an argument for the widespread home use of Microsoft Office.
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>
>> I have taught MS Office (and will be doing so again, soon). Many of the
>> users use it at home.
>
> Whoa! You're telling me that "many" of the people who sign up for MS
> Office classes have the product? What a friggin' revelation! Only you
> would find that an argument for the widespread home use of Microsoft Office.
You missed the "use it at home" part. But, yes, it is pretty clear that
there is a strong relation between what products are used by users and what
people want to learn about. Contrary to your straw man, above, the point
was that there are few requests for OpenOffice classes... and many for MS
Office classes. I anticipated that the big argument against that would be
that people use MS Office for work and that is why they take the class - not
for home use. Good to see you are no going to try to push that idea.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Hadron
> Hadron wrote:
>> RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you take away things like MS Office, Direct X games, Quicken etc etc
>>>> etc etc.
>>>>
>>>> So no. Your needs are not what "most home users" want.
>>> Or so you claim. I don't, personally, have a friend who uses Microsoft
>>> Office on a home computer. As for games, most folks I know don't play
>>
>> Which clearly makes you a minority yet further.
>
> Or your "friends" are the minority. So many facts to bolster your
> claims... oh, wait a minute... none.
This is what makes you such a laughing stock at times.
Are you REALLY trying to suggest that Windows users are not the majority
at home in general?!?!?
Stop being so silly.
Peter Köhlmann
What part of "most home users" was too difficult for you, MS shill Hadron
Snot Quark?
--
"Against stupidity, the very gods themselves contend in vain."
Friedrich Schiller
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> DFS wrote:
>
>> Impossible, since not a lot of people use OpenOffice. Of course, you know
>> that but you're a cola nut and exaggerating is all you wacks can do.
>
> This is all you've got? -- gainsaying whatever anyone says. A mechanical
> parrot could be "taught" to do the same thing.
The correct term is "naysaying".
> Get a life.
Well, DFS boasts of making six figures, but COLA is his life.
--
Q: What do you have when you have a lawyer buried up to his neck in sand?
A: Not enough sand.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> So no. Your needs are not what "most home users" want.
>>>>> Or so you claim. I don't, personally, have a friend who uses
>>>>> Microsoft Office on a home computer. As for games, most folks I know
>>>>> don't play
>>>>
>>>> Which clearly makes you a minority yet further.
>>>
>>> Or your "friends" are the minority. So many facts to bolster your
>>> claims... oh, wait a minute... none.
>>
>> This is what makes you such a laughing stock at times.
>>
>> Are you REALLY trying to suggest that Windows users are not the majority
>> at home in general?!?!?
>
> What part of "most home users" was too difficult for you, MS shill Hadron
> Snot Quark?
And RonB was talking about MS Office and game usage, not Windows usage.
Hadron's infamous misapprehension again, I fear.
--
Q: How do you stop an elephant from charging?
A: Take away his credit cards.
William Poaster
of the trolls Chris Ahlstrom was heard to say:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, RonB belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Impossible, since not a lot of people use OpenOffice. Of course, you know
>>> that but you're a cola nut and exaggerating is all you wacks can do.
>>
>> This is all you've got? -- gainsaying whatever anyone says. A mechanical
>> parrot could be "taught" to do the same thing.
>
> The correct term is "naysaying".
I suppose the DooFu$ troll would say that these are not a lot of people, &
that it's an exaggeration:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments
Oh, look, there are some in the US using it!
>> Get a life.
>
> Well, DFS boasts of making six figures, but COLA is his life.
His six figures are $1,000.00 handout a month. ;-)
--
It IS because of him and two other useless people in particular
(CBFalconer and Harold "old school" Stevens (probably both Willy nyms)
that I started to drift from the Ubuntu fan boy zone.
Hadron - Message-ID: <gdl55d$lc2$1...@registered.motzarella.org>
William Poaster
of the trolls Chris Ahlstrom was heard to say:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, RonB belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> And we have proven
>>> that people dont want to use OO at home in case it corrupts their work
>>> docuemtns. Why would they use two different producust?
>
> I wonder what Hadron used that corrupted his spellings :-D
Beer, schnapps, whiskey....who knows.
Lord Haw-Haw used to get drunk before broadcasting, when the Third Reich
was collapsing about him. :-D
> In any case, it's pretty safe to tell people to use OpenOffice on their work
> documents. If they want to play it save, open it on OOo and save it back in
> Microsoft format to a different name, and see how it looks.
>
> More likely than not, it will be fine.
>
> And, if you're the only one editing the document (as opposed to just reading
> it), you are golden.
>
>> I've seen a lot of people who use OpenOffice. How do you get "sales
>> figures" for something that is given away and can be loaded on a
>> thousand computers? (Hint, you don't.)
>
> The actual numbers for OpenOffice are pretty darn good, and much higher than
> Funkenbusch, Flatfish, Hadron, or his buddy Snit bandy about.
>
>> If both OSes started at ground zero, and people actually had to pay
>> retail price for Windows, I'm guessing the results would be quite a bit
>> different.
>
> Exactly.
>
>> Meanwhile, figures don't lie, but liars figure.
>
> And promote Windows' dominance at every opportunity.
Naturally, as Hadron Quack is a M$ fanboi.
DFS
> After takin' a swig o' grog, RonB belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Impossible, since not a lot of people use OpenOffice. Of course,
>>> you know that but you're a cola nut and exaggerating is all you
>>> wacks can do.
>>
>> This is all you've got? -- gainsaying whatever anyone says. A
>> mechanical parrot could be "taught" to do the same thing.
>
> The correct term is "naysaying".
>
>> Get a life.
>
> Well, DFS boasts of making six figures, but COLA is his life.
Get a grip, fool.
* you post about 50% more than me.
* you defraud your employer and sometimes post from work all day long
chrisv
>After takin' a swig o' grog, Peter K�hlmann belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> Examples?
>>> See the Munich migration to see how your Desktop is of no interest to
>>> anyone.
>>
>> You might try to actually point to how the (successful) Munich migration
>> has anything to do with the "desktop needs" of someone else
>> Short answer: It doesn't.
>> Long answer: It doesn't.
>
>Hadron sure toes the MS Party line, don't he? Consistently. Constantly.
>Incredibly.
Well, the POS claims that netbook (!) buyers should opt for Windows,
so they can run M$ Office!!!!!!!!
chrisv
>>
>> we have proven
>> that people dont want to use OO at home in case it corrupts their work
>> docuemtns.
Oh, have you Micro$oft shills really "proven" that, "true Linux
advocate" Hadron Quack?
>> Why would they use two different producust?
Because when it's their own money that needs to be spent, they might
choose the free product that works plenty well?
DUH!
chrisv
>Whoa! You're telling me that "many" of the people who sign up for MS
>Office classes have the product? What a friggin' revelation! Only you
>would find that an argument for the widespread home use of Microsoft Office.
Of course, if it can be stolen, it probably will be...
chrisv
> Chris Ahlstrom was heard to say:
>>
>> And promote Windows' dominance at every opportunity.
>
>Naturally, as Hadron Quack is a M$ fanboi.
Last week the trolling POS challenged me to provide links to examples
of him supporting Micro$oft. Laff. I also saw him request, yet
again, examples of him lying. Double Laff.
As if he doesn't do both, *constantly*.
Snit
on 5/19/09 6:10 AM:
> Snit said the following on 2009-05-18 21:57:
>> Why Linux is not (yet) Ready for the Desktop
>
> <cut a bunch of crap>
>
> Why are you discussing the X server?
> This group is for discussing linux.
Er?
> Shape up!
Hey, I have been working out! :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
12:57 PM:
> Why Linux is not (yet) Ready for the Desktop
>
> <http://linuxfonts.narod.ru/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.desktop.html>
> -----
> Preface:
> In this document we only discuss Linux deficiencies while
> everyone should keep in mind that there are areas where Linux
> has excelled other OSes.
> A primary target of this comparison is Windows OS.
>
> 2.1 No good stable standardized API for developing GUI
> applications (like Win32 API). Both GTK and Qt are very
> unstable and often break backwards compatibility.
>
> 3.1 No unified configuration system for computer settings,
> devices and system services. E.g. distro A sets up networking
> using these utilities, outputting certain settings residing
> in certain file system locations, distro B sets up everything
> differently. This drives most users mad.
>
> 3.2 No unified installer across all distros. Consider RPM,
> deb, portage, tar.gz, sources, etc. It adds a cost for
> software development.
>
> 7. A galore of software bugs across all applications. Just
> look into KDE or Gnome bugzilla's - some bugs are now ten
> years old with over several dozens of duplicates and no one
> is working on them.
> -----
>
> Above is just some highlights that jumped out at me... much more at the
> link. Curious to what people think... and if there are any *reasoned*
> counters.
>
The answer to my question, so far, is "no".
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Hadron
Freetards in COLA don't fix SW. They tell lies about it.
>> -----
>>
>> Above is just some highlights that jumped out at me... much more at the
>> link. Curious to what people think... and if there are any *reasoned*
>> counters.
>>
> The answer to my question, so far, is "no".
--
In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading
lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to
another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that
computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller
JEDIDIAH
> Snit said the following on 2009-05-18 21:57:
>
>
> Why are you discussing the X server?
X is the favorite whipping boy in some quarters.
It's held up as an example of something, some sort of
barrier. Of course most normal users are oblivious to
it's faults. They don't use systems in interesting
enough ways.
X is much like WinDOS, all of the really ugly stuff
is deep under the shiny veneer. You would have to
be a programmer to see most of it.
> This group is for discussing linux.
>
> Shape up!
--
...of course if you are forced against your will to use Windows in |||
the day time your bound to have a lot to vent about in the evening. / | \
Snit
AM:
> On 2009-05-19, General Patron <G...@invalid.tld> wrote:
>> Snit said the following on 2009-05-18 21:57:
>>> Why Linux is not (yet) Ready for the Desktop
>>
>> <cut a bunch of crap>
>>
>> Why are you discussing the X server?
>
> X is the favorite whipping boy in some quarters.
>
> It's held up as an example of something, some sort of
> barrier. Of course most normal users are oblivious to
> it's faults. They don't use systems in interesting
> enough ways.
>
> X is much like WinDOS, all of the really ugly stuff
> is deep under the shiny veneer. You would have to
> be a programmer to see most of it.
Still does not answer why you brought it up in this thread... but no big
deal.
>> This group is for discussing linux.
>>
>> Shape up!
>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]