Linux is Limited, but
Bo Grimes
Windows user who's considering Linux. The core of this post is that Linux
is limited, but it's mostly limited by me, and that's something I can do
something about.
I think, rather than being stupid drones, as some seem to think, John Q.
User has just gotten lazy. There are all kinds of things in life we learn,
and then after some up front effort we get the reward.
I am not car mechanic, but I know how an internal combustion engine works
in general, and I have, out of financial need, taught myself how to do
tune-ups, rebuild a carburetor, change belts, etc. Still I am no more a
mechanic in relation to a car than I am a developer in relation to Linux.
I could learn more, but don't, but again, I am only limited by me. In this
case my interest and desire.
In everyday life I use a calculator, but I learned why I get the results I
get. I understand the basic foundations within my abilities. I enjoy
math, but I am limited in that area. I can still do, and enjoy, all the
math in a good college prep high school program, but I could never do
non-Newtonian physics. Again, I am limited by me. In this case by my lack
of natural abilities.
When I first used a computer with my DOS disk in A and my WordStar in B, I
had to learn WordStar, DOS commands, etc, and there are a lot of people who
did, and then we had to learn DOS installation and Windows, etc, and I have
had to spend *a lot* of time "outsmarting" my former OS (Windows). (Thanks
to Erik for that way of saying it).
But now that it's as easy as insert CD and close the door, people who used
to have to learn because they wanted the reward no longer bother. Once,
the learning curve was forced on us, but it had a pay-off.
Don't fool yourself, though, there's a learning curve in Windows everytime
you get a virus, have to reinstall, can't get you CD-RW to work without
changing your config.sys, have software conflicts, etc, but Windows has
tried to eliminate a learning curve with a pay-off. Instead they want a
learning curve that creates inertia by getting the user saying "Damn! I've
wasted so much time, energy and money getting my system working I have to
stay with it."
It's sunk cost, folks.
What I'm saying is don't sweat the learning curve. It's there like
it is everywhere in life. You don't have to be a computer hobbyist to want
to learn a different OS just so that your computer just works and you no
longer have to worry about it. The time invested can then be made up in
productivity or spent pursuing your actual hobbies.
You don't have to learn how to code if you don't want to. You don't have
to learn TCP/IP if you don't want to. You don't have to use anything but
wordprocessors, multimedia players, browsers, and email, if that's all you
need, but they will work. Your OS will be stable. You will have real up
time, and after you've reached the level of the learning curve you need,
just like we used to have to when we first started using computers, you can
then spend your time doing what you want.
Linux is limited, but it's limited by you and me, not by the OS.
Well, it won't walk my dog or wash my laundry. Can't one of you developers
fix that bug?
wjbell
The problem is that it IS limited by the OS. There's a learning curve,
and once you can get through that you get the reward of slower desktop
response (if using KDE), limited applications and poor hardware support.
I hope linux does get better, if anything it might force MS into makeing
their products better. But for now all it's good for is a hobby box.
If all you do is surf the net and check email it might work out for
you. But if you want to run any real programs, or plug in any modern
hardware gadgets you'd better stick with windows.
BTW, there is a way to make windows more secure, it's just a learning
curve you need to get over..
Bo Grimes
> But for now all it's good for is a hobby box.
Since you make that a blanket statement and my single experience alone
denies it (I make money selling the products (words) I create with it) and
do not consider research on the web, emailing my family or burning a CD a
hobby, your statement can honestly be said to be a lie.
Linonut
> The problem is that it IS limited by the OS. There's a learning curve,
> and once you can get through that you get the reward of slower desktop
> response (if using KDE), limited applications and poor hardware support.
What planet do you live on?
> I hope linux does get better
Me too.
> , if anything it might force MS into makeing their products better.
Or at least cancelling that activation crapola.
> But for now all it's good for is a hobby box.
Bullshit. I use it for graphics, web development, audio work,
burning CD, and a number of other tasks that keep me busy
all night on a Linux box.
> If all you do is surf the net and check email it might work out for
> you. But if you want to run any real programs, or plug in any modern
> hardware gadgets you'd better stick with windows.
Define a real program. If you say "a Microsoft program", sorry,
you're wrong.
What modern hardware gadgets (apart from some esoteric
audio or D/A cards) can't you plug into Linux.?
> BTW, there is a way to make windows more secure, it's just a learning
> curve you need to get over..
Actually, with Windows it's more like a brick wall.
An opaque barrier.
Chris
--
A day without some form of UNIX sucks
wjbell
>
> After takin' a swig o' grog, wjbell belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
> > The problem is that it IS limited by the OS. There's a learning curve,
> > and once you can get through that you get the reward of slower desktop
> > response (if using KDE), limited applications and poor hardware support.
>
> What planet do you live on?
Sorry, not PlanetLino.
>
> > I hope linux does get better
>
> Me too.
>
> > , if anything it might force MS into makeing their products better.
>
> Or at least cancelling that activation crapola.
>
> > But for now all it's good for is a hobby box.
>
> Bullshit. I use it for graphics
Ok, gimp is good.
> web development
Everybody has a simple text editor.
>audio work
Tell me, what audio "work" do you do? And with what program?
> burning CD
I've seen the CDR applications for linux, they're eith incomplete or
buggy.
> and a number of other tasks that keep me busy
> all night on a Linux box.
Newsgroups and code debugging?
> > If all you do is surf the net and check email it might work out for
> > you. But if you want to run any real programs, or plug in any modern
> > hardware gadgets you'd better stick with windows.
>
> Define a real program. If you say "a Microsoft program", sorry,
> you're wrong.
How about just in audio:
Wavelab
Cool Edit Pro
Cakewalk
Finale
Cubase
Logic Audio
...
> What modern hardware gadgets (apart from some esoteric
> audio or D/A cards) can't you plug into Linux.?
I'm not up on the newest hardware, sorry can't be more spacific. But
I'm constanly seeing complaints about linux won't see this or recognise
that.
>
> > BTW, there is a way to make windows more secure, it's just a learning
> > curve you need to get over..
>
> Actually, with Windows it's more like a brick wall.
> An opaque barrier.
That's only a barrier in your own mind, the rest of the world has found
solutions long ago.
Jeff Smith
"Bo Grimes" <vgr...@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ELC68.35958$A51.15...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
It's not a "lie". At best, he's just wrong. We're talking semantics here,
but
just the same, to say it's a "lie", you have to be sure he knew what he was
saying was false.
lasernet
"wjbell" <wj...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3C5AFCA7...@pacbell.net...
> Linonut wrote:
> >
> > After takin' a swig o' grog, wjbell belched out this bit o' wisdom:
> >
> > > The problem is that it IS limited by the OS. There's a learning
curve,
> > > and once you can get through that you get the reward of slower desktop
> > > response (if using KDE), limited applications and poor hardware
support.
> >
> > What planet do you live on?
>
> Sorry, not PlanetLino.
LOL....
Bo Grimes
You're right. But try this:
1) He knew it was false and said it because he had an agenda.
2) He didn't know that Linux is being used all over the world for
productivity, and he's therefore an idiot.
I choose the less insulting option.
wjbell
Or 3) the difference between _can use it_ and _can use it efficiently_
makes it neither a lie or an ignorant statement.
Just because Grecord exists doen't mean I can run a studio with linux...
Bo Grimes
> Bo Grimes wrote:
>>
>> Jeff Smith wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "Bo Grimes" <vgr...@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
>> > news:ELC68.35958$A51.15...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
>> >> wjbell wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > But for now all it's good for is a hobby box.
>> >>
>> >> Since you make that a blanket statement and my single experience alone
>> >> denies it (I make money selling the products (words) I create with it)
>> >> and do not consider research on the web, emailing my family or burning
>> >> a CD a hobby, your statement can honestly be said to be a lie.
>> >>
>> >
>> > It's not a "lie". At best, he's just wrong. We're talking semantics
>> > here, but
>> > just the same, to say it's a "lie", you have to be sure he knew what he
>> > was saying was false.
>>
>> You're right. But try this:
>>
>> 1) He knew it was false and said it because he had an agenda.
>> 2) He didn't know that Linux is being used all over the world for
>> productivity, and he's therefore an idiot.
>> and your third option
>> I choose the less insulting option.
>
> Or 3) the difference between _can use it_ and _can use it efficiently_
> makes it neither a lie or an ignorant statement.
>
> Just because Grecord exists doesn't mean I can run a studio with linux...
That is a complete non sequiter. Because I can't use Grecord doesn't mean
my Linux box is only good for hobbies. Example 3 isn't an option given the
premise.
Premise: All Linux is good for is a hobby box.
Fact: Many people use Linux for productivity.
Therefore the premise is false.
Saying he meant that it's a hobby box because people can't use it
efficiently doesn't change that. It only rephrases the false premise in an
equally false way.
Now, the person who asserted the premise either knew it to be false or
didn't. This is axiomatic. If he knew it to be false and yet asserted it
he lied, unless you want to claim his fingers slipped on a banana peel and
accidentally hit those keys in that sequence. If he didn't know it was
false, he's ignorant and had no business asserting it.
Those are the only two possibilities. Using Occam's Razor, knowing that he
has the competence to get on a computer and come to cola, I assume he was
lying. It was the most likely and least insulting option.
wjbell
Hold on hotrod. Where's the fact? I don't see any facts. Just because
you and your cronies say it's a fact doesn't make it one. I can sit
here all day throwing around your kind of "facts"...
> Therefore the premise is false.
Wrong.
[cut rest of unsubstantiated nonsense]
Bo Grimes
I addressed that in my first reply. He made a blanket statement. "All..."
*One* and only one instance of it being untrue disproves it. I say all
ravens are black. If you can find one raven that isn't, it's untrue, but
good luck.
It is a fact that I use Linux as more than a hobby box. I need no
"cronies," warped ideas of what constitutes a fact, or anything else to
disprove it.
Try again. This time without all the hip po-mo posturing about what
constitutes a fact.
wjbell
Ok, I can see your taking it way too litarally. More linux dodging
tactics. Let me rephrase it:
For the most part, all linux is good for is a hobby box. There are some
exceptions, but for most of the windows programs out there, you'll be
hard pressed to find somthing in linux that has the same level of
functionality and speed, if you can find it at all. In addition, the
KDE GUI isn't as mature as windows. It will be more sluggish on the same
hardware as compared to win98, w2k, XP.
Bo Grimes
> Ok, I can see your taking it way too litarally. More linux dodging
> tactics. Let me rephrase it:
In other words you realize you didn't have a leg to stand on and you are
dodging.
>
> For the most part, all linux is good for is a hobby box.
Again, this is demonstrably false unless you want to play games with the
word hobby and call all Linux admins, all employees who use Linux and all
coders who develop with it hobbiest.
>There are some exceptions,
Like nearly every use.
> but for most of the windows programs out there, you'll be
> hard pressed to find somthing in linux that has the same level of
> functionality and speed, if you can find it at all.
We are talking about OSes, right? To begin with this statement also isn't
true, but what's more, it's irrelavant, but I won't hold my breath while
you try to work out why.
>KDE [...] will be more sluggish on the same hardware as compared to win98,
w2k, XP.
Again, my experience alone shows this to be false.
I won't go so far as to say that you represent the typical Windows user
because I know too many bright, reasonable, articulate and logical people
who use Windows. I will venture to say that as you've presented yourself
in this thread, you represent the typical ideologue.
rapskat
- dump details are as follows...
<snip>
> The problem is that it IS limited by the OS. There's a learning curve,
> and once you can get through that you get the reward of slower desktop
> response (if using KDE), limited applications and poor hardware support.
>
> I hope linux does get better, if anything it might force MS into makeing
> their products better. But for now all it's good for is a hobby box. If
> all you do is surf the net and check email it might work out for you.
> But if you want to run any real programs, or plug in any modern hardware
> gadgets you'd better stick with windows.
>
> BTW, there is a way to make windows more secure, it's just a learning
> curve you need to get over..
Truthfully the learning curve with any form of 'nix is irrelevant. I
realized that once I learn Linux, I can pretty much sit down ay any AIX
system and commence to being productive with very minor adjustments for
file structure and peculiarities. This to me defines the term "standard".
Whereas, each time good ole M$ put out a major revision, I had to re-learn
the entire OS practically from scratch. Set up a multi-tier superdomain
with various sub-domains with Windows NT...done? Good, now do the same
thing with Windows 2000. What was that? You say everything has changed?
No kidding...If I do this with Redhat 6.2 and then want to do the same
thing using SysV or HP-UX, guess what...the same commands and procedures
apply. I don't have to go back to boot camp for another three weeks just
to re-learn how to do something at $5 Grand.
When talking with people, when asked why they wouldn't switch from
winblows to Linux, the number two reason is "...because I can't play my
favorite games on it." Now that there's some major productivity for ya.
Just browsing around the web, I noticed that NASA has been using some form
of 'nix (most recently Linux) to calculate some of the universe's
imponderables. That's some "hobby", huh? Or how about the clusters of
standard systems running linux that outperform a Cray? Nice "hobby", too.
And of course one cannot forget those great hobbyist organizations like
the NCSA, Egenera, IBM, Dell, Royal, Sharp, Compaq, Dodge, Sony, Fijitsu,
Erricson, Citizen, Motorola, Nokia, TIVO, Gateway, Linksys, and Hewlett
Packard. All of these have products that use some form of Linux, no doubt
intended for the serious hobbyists.
And when you get a chance, why don't you go on over to www.netcraft.com to
find out some other ISP "hobbyists" that use Linux to provide Internet
services to some of their hobbyist clients, and just how long they have
been up?
--
rapskat - 6:10pm up 2 days, 2:26, 6 users, load average: 0.47, 0.35, 0.32
Every story has three sides: Yours, mine and the facts. -- Rene Fumoleau.
Linonut
> Or 3) the difference between _can use it_ and _can use it efficiently_
> makes it neither a lie or an ignorant statement.
>
> Just because Grecord exists doen't mean I can run a studio with linux...
Not you! These guys:
http://www.aliaswavefront.com/en/WhoWeAre/press_releases/maya/maya_linux/index.shtml
Hope that helps ya!
wjbell
>
> wjbell wrote:
>
> > Ok, I can see your taking it way too litarally. More linux dodging
> > tactics. Let me rephrase it:
>
> In other words you realize you didn't have a leg to stand on and you are
> dodging.
No, in other words I thought you could figure it out.
> >
> > For the most part, all linux is good for is a hobby box.
>
> Again, this is demonstrably false unless you want to play games with the
> word hobby and call all Linux admins, all employees who use Linux and all
> coders who develop with it hobbiest.
>
Just because people _can_ use it that doesn't mean it functions well or
could function better. It's the difference between driving a model T to
work or my BMW. The model T will get me there, it just takes more work.
> >There are some exceptions,
>
> Like nearly every use.
>
> > but for most of the windows programs out there, you'll be
> > hard pressed to find somthing in linux that has the same level of
> > functionality and speed, if you can find it at all.
>
> We are talking about OSes, right? To begin with this statement also isn't
> true,
Yes it is true, prove me wrong if it isn't.
> but what's more, it's irrelavant, but I won't hold my breath while
> you try to work out why.
If we are talking about linux only being a hobby box we have to
automatically consider the apps that run on it, right. Without apps an
OS is useless... hence linux.
>
> >KDE [...] will be more sluggish on the same hardware as compared to win98,
> w2k, XP.
>
> Again, my experience alone shows this to be false.
I did some benchmarking on this. My experience shows it to be true.
> I won't go so far as to say that you represent the typical Windows user
> because I know too many bright, reasonable, articulate and logical people
> who use Windows. I will venture to say that as you've presented yourself
> in this thread, you represent the typical ideologue.
That joke's getting old. If you're going to use insults to try and make
yourself look more intellegent and sway the perception of the argument,
at least try a new one.
Mark Kent
KDE is slower than what, measured how?
Windows comes with practically no usable application, Linux comes
with thousands. Linux has better supports far more hardware than
windows. Or can I get windows for a sparc now?
--
Mark Kent
Take out the ham to mail me.
Mark Kent
Mark Kent
wjbell
Yes, but it went over your head.
wjbell
win95, win98, win2k, winXP.
> , measured how?
different OS's run on the same system and tining different aspects of
it.
> Windows comes with practically no usable application, Linux comes
> with thousands.
How about real-world, usable ones?
>Linux has better supports far more hardware than
> windows.
That's false.
> Or can I get windows for a sparc now?
Would you want to? You can get an Intel system cheaper.
wjbell
More Lino FUD with no proof again I see... When you're ready to provide
facts to you statments then come talk to me.
Bo Grimes
>>
>>The problem is that it IS limited by the OS. There's a learning curve,
>>and once you can get through that you get the reward of slower desktop
>>response (if using KDE), limited applications and poor hardware support.
>
> KDE is slower than what, measured how?
>
> Windows comes with practically no usable application, Linux comes
> with thousands. Linux has better supports far more hardware than
> windows. Or can I get windows for a sparc now?
I've tried to get answers to those questions about 4 times now, but he
keeps telling me I dodge. Must be why I can't seem to hit him with the
question. He's standing still, the universe is moving.
Bo Grimes
> Bo Grimes wrote:
>>
>> wjbell wrote:
>>
>> > Ok, I can see your taking it way too litarally. More linux dodging
>> > tactics. Let me rephrase it:
>>
>> In other words you realize you didn't have a leg to stand on and you are
>> dodging.
>
> No, in other words I thought you could figure it out.
How could I figure out something I know to be false? Do you ever listen to
yourself.
>
>> >
>> > For the most part, all linux is good for is a hobby box.
>>
>> Again, this is demonstrably false unless you want to play games with the
>> word hobby and call all Linux admins, all employees who use Linux and all
>> coders who develop with it hobbiest.
>>
>
> Just because people _can_ use it that doesn't mean it functions well or
> could function better. It's the difference between driving a model T to
> work or my BMW. The model T will get me there, it just takes more work.
Don't you get dizzy talking in circles? First, I assume you mean "couldn't
function better." Second, again this is all abstract. Sure this is a true
statement, just not as it applies to a Windows v. Linux comparison in the
actual work-a-day world. There you will have to use evidence, which you
have yet to do. Third, a Model-T does not take more work; it just has
less comfort and bells and whistles, and repairing or modifying it in its
day was much less work.
>
>> >There are some exceptions,
>>
>> Like nearly every use.
>>
>> > but for most of the windows programs out there, you'll be
>> > hard pressed to find somthing in linux that has the same level of
>> > functionality and speed, if you can find it at all.
>>
>> We are talking about OSes, right? To begin with this statement also isn't
>> true,
>
> Yes it is true, prove me wrong if it isn't.
I have, over and over, you just keep denying it. What can you do when a
person insist that "red is grey and yellow, white"? That he "decides which
is real and which an illusion"?
>
>> but what's more, it's irrelevant, but I won't hold my breath while
>> you try to work out why.
>
> If we are talking about linux only being a hobby box we have to
> automatically consider the apps that run on it, right. Without apps an
> OS is useless... hence linux.
"There you go again." You didn't mean it when you said I was being too
literal or you wouldn't make the same false statement again. You are
trying to be inflammatory.
>
>>
>> >KDE [...] will be more sluggish on the s
>> Again, my experience alone shows this to be false.
>
> I did some benchmarking on this. My experience shows it to be true.
Riddle me this? If you love MS why did you ever use Linux to get the
knowledge and experience you say you have with it? You suggest your
experience trumps my experience and any one else who's experience
contradicts your blanket statement about KDE. (You really like those.)
But everything you post reads like bullet points off a Microsoft Memo, and
you equivocate, dodge, prevaricate, backtrack and play word games when you
get called on it. Then you say:
> If you're going to use insults to try and make
> yourself look more intellegent and sway the perception of the argument,
> at least try a new one.
I have tried to be reasonable. I have yet to insult you, but if you read
your posts you throw them out like Windows does GPFs. Each and every time
some one presents a position that anyone can research and/or try out for
himself, you try to alter perception with blanket statements, false
statements and rhetoric.
You are the one trying to alter perceptual reality for anyone considering
Linux. Tell a big lie loud enough and people will believe you. I say, try
Linux and see.
Jim Richardson
Well, unless you wish to claim that the city of Largo is lying, when thy
claim to use linux for their desktop *productivity* or the various
animation studios who use it for their *productivity* Maybe you claim
tha the millions in Z900 and S390 series mainframes sold by IBM, running
linux, are "hobbies" for big corporations.
You made a blanket statement. That statement is demonstrably false.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
Jim Richardson
wjbell <wj...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Bo Grimes wrote:
>>
>> wjbell wrote:
>>
>> > Ok, I can see your taking it way too litarally. More linux dodging
>> > tactics. Let me rephrase it:
>>
>> In other words you realize you didn't have a leg to stand on and you are
>> dodging.
>
> No, in other words I thought you could figure it out.
>
>> >
>> > For the most part, all linux is good for is a hobby box.
>>
>> Again, this is demonstrably false unless you want to play games with the
>> word hobby and call all Linux admins, all employees who use Linux and all
>> coders who develop with it hobbiest.
>>
>
> Just because people _can_ use it that doesn't mean it functions well or
> could function better. It's the difference between driving a model T to
> work or my BMW. The model T will get me there, it just takes more work.
True, but we were discussing linux, not windows. So your Model T analogy
is irrelevent. We know windows is clunky and unreliable. That is not
the issue.
>
>> >There are some exceptions,
>>
>> Like nearly every use.
>>
>> > but for most of the windows programs out there, you'll be
>> > hard pressed to find somthing in linux that has the same level of
>> > functionality and speed, if you can find it at all.
>>
>> We are talking about OSes, right? To begin with this statement also isn't
>> true,
>
> Yes it is true, prove me wrong if it isn't.
>
IBM ships it on multimillion dollar mainframes, is that a hobbiest
platofrm? Oracle is switching their internal systems over to linux from
HP-UX, Is that a hobbiest company?
>> but what's more, it's irrelavant, but I won't hold my breath while
>> you try to work out why.
>
> If we are talking about linux only being a hobby box we have to
> automatically consider the apps that run on it, right. Without apps an
> OS is useless... hence linux.
>
Apache seems to be pretty popular on linux, google has 10,000+ linux
boxes running their search engine. NASA uses it for clustered super
computers, IBM has sold millions of $$$ in mainframes to run it. Some
hobbiests, hih...
Kenneth Downs
Bo: Damn fine post. Expresses well the experiences of many.
Now, sigh, we must attend to a few matters of fact for those who may be
reading at home:
>
> The problem is that it IS limited by the OS.
FUD TACTIC: WJ has nothing to say about the post, so he will start an
argument with a simple assertion. If you examine this statement and then
go back and read Bo's post, you find it is completely meaningless. As Bo's
post is more of an expression of his own experience, WJ does not offer
anything of his own experience. WJ could not possibly match Bo's sincerity
and clarity because he is lying, read on:
> There's a learning curve,
> and once you can get through that you get the reward of slower desktop
> response (if using KDE),
??? Measurements please? Numbers? Running how many apps? I am typing on
a K6-2/500, a "slow" machine by today's standards. I've got a five
year-old S3 video card in here, am running KDE with all eye candy turned
on, and have response that is indistinguishable from the Win2k machine
running on identical hardware 3 feet away. And far more beautiful to look
at, I might add. Go to www.kde.org to see.
If I want faster response, I turn off some eye-candy, as I have done on the
P166 running upstairs.
This on a machine that is mail server, web server.
Notice that wj's statement is meant to scare you, but he QUOTES NO FACTS.
> limited applications
FUD TACTIC: Sweeping statement meant to scare you off. What apps do you
need? Have you found out if *they* are available? If not sure, ask!
> and poor hardware support.
FUD TACTIC: lie outright and hope the casual reader doesn't check up to
find out.
If you are interested in your Pentium system, check out these two links:
Hardware database: http://lhd.zdnet.com/
Projects in progress:
http://dmoz.org/Computers/Software/Operating_Systems/Linux/Hardware_Support/
Another site:
Now, if you *really* want to check out hardware support, get a load of this:
mainframes:
http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/os/linux/
AS/400:
http://users.snip.net/~gbooker/as400.htm
SPARC:
http://www.ultralinux.org/
Itanium/IA-64:
http://www.linuxia64.org/
VAX (early stages as of this writing):
http://linux-vax.sourceforge.net/
Mac (PowerPC):
http://www.yellowdoglinux.com/
Mac (68x series, site suggests early stage as of Jan 2002):
http://www.mac.linux-m68k.org/
>
> I hope linux does get better,
FUD TACTIC: He really wants to help, see? Somebody ask him what
contribution HE HAS MADE, short of these BS posts and his trespassing where
he is not wanted.
> if anything it might force MS into makeing
> their products better.
FUD TACTIC: Meaningless statement. Fills space. Might be true, might
not, but we've already established he's not exactly coming clean, so why
spend any more time on it.
> But for now all it's good for is a hobby box.
FUD TACTIC: Make a generalization that belittles the enemy with no facts.
I just got back from LinuxWorld Expo and let me tell you the big iron is
running Linux. You name it, they're running it: Enterprise servers,
jukeboxes the size of a refrigerator, enough NAS to kill a professional
wrestler if it dropped on him. Oracle is deploying their own
line-of-business software on Linux boxes (see thread from yesterday, search
on Oracle). Just take a look at the news posts that Darren tends to
provide to see what is being done with this "hobby box."
Fact, please, facts.
Then, there are all of the Linux advocates who post here everyday. Ask
Terry Porter about his "hobbies" with Linux.
Oh, and then there are those "hobby boxes" like the S/390 and the AS/400.
I don't think with what my employer paid for an AS/400 the AS/400 I work
with that he wants anybody doing hobby work on it.
> If all you do is surf the net and check email it might work out for
> you.
FUD TACTIC: Belittle again. The idea in the last few sentences is to
discourage you from even *trying* Linux, while never providing any facts.
As a matter of fact, I use Linux to surf the net and check email.
> But if you want to run any real programs,
FUD TACTIC: OK, now even I'm getting tired of pointing this out. What
real programs? Email? Word Processing? 125-node clustered cray-pounding
weather simulations? News Server? Web Server? Terabyte-scale always-on
enterprise storage? Google.com? Graphics? Games? (I happen to love the
KDE games), Home network? Every single one of these is running today
around the world on Linux.
WJBELL DOES NOT WANT YOU TO FIND OUT IF *YOUR* APPLICATION WORKS. He would
much rather you read his post and say to yourself, "Oh geez, I guess I
better not bother." That is why we call them "trespassers", they are
coming here deliberately, to a Linux Advocacy group, to steer you *away*
from Linux.
> or plug in any modern
> hardware gadgets
FUD TACTIC: Sweeping generalization. Need I repeat myself, no facts? OK,
I'm starting to feel sorry for the guy, so I will point out that I had a
hard time getting my digital camera plugged in, and have not really tried
that hard. Because it can make itself look like a file system, I simply
haven't bothered to worry about it, I'm sure I'll get it when I really want
to.
And, of course, I *always* make my OS decisions based on the digitial
camera ;)
> you'd better stick with windows.
*****************************
AHA! THE CLINCHER!
*****************************
STAY WITH WINDOWS! Notice he is not recommending Macintosh. He is not
recommending you stick with your previous version of Unix.
Now why on Earth would someone come here and tell you how bad linux is and
tell you to use Windows. Why is he not at:
comp.os.windows.advocacy
comp.os.windows.nt.advocacy
Why is he not spending all of the time he seems to have over on the help
groups helping out the folks having trouble?
>
> BTW, there is a way to make windows more secure, it's just a learning
> curve you need to get over..
FUD TACTIC: Provides no help. How would we do this? What do we do about
the fact that Microsoft is actively clamping down on people who warn us
about its vulnerabilities? When have you *ever* heard of Microsoft being
first to press with news of one of their problems? When has it not been a
third party blowing the whistle?
And now, my own opinion, which is why on Earth would I ever trust a company
to provide me with a secure OS who allows *executable* *content* to be
delivered and opened in my email?
If you want to see how honest people work, hop over to www.apache.org and
check out the news of an exploit they suffered a week or so back, and check
out the report they give.
If you are reading casually at home, just be aware that this is how these
guys work. It is impossible for the advocates to answer each and every
post, but once or twice a day we try to provide some facts.
CONCLUSION: Bo shared some of his experience with us. His post was more
on the expressive side than the factual side (which posts I enjoy very much
myself). It may be, and I don't want to put words in Bo's mouth, but it
may be that he has some inkling, or perhaps a very thorough knowledge of
the facts presented here, and that is why he feels the way he does.
Am I even close, bo?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken
After 13,000+ hours of tube-time in front of Win, I have opened
a new source for my OS and app needs.
wjbell
I've already posted my benchmarks here before. Search the group.
> I've got a five
> year-old S3 video card in here, am running KDE with all eye candy turned
> on, and have response that is indistinguishable from the Win2k machine
> running on identical hardware 3 feet away. And far more beautiful to look
> at, I might add. Go to www.kde.org to see.
I did all my test on the SAME machine, not one running 3 feet away. I
think my test would be less prone to error.
>
> If I want faster response, I turn off some eye-candy, as I have done on the
> P166 running upstairs.
I had turned everything off.
> This on a machine that is mail server, web server.
Mine had no servers running to try and make the test more equil. (the
windows machines weren't running any servers)
> Notice that wj's statement is meant to scare you, but he QUOTES NO FACTS.
>
Because I've posted them here before.
> > limited applications
>
> FUD TACTIC: Sweeping statement meant to scare you off. What apps do you
> need? Have you found out if *they* are available?
Yes. They're not.
> If not sure, ask!
>
> > and poor hardware support.
>
> FUD TACTIC: lie outright and hope the casual reader doesn't check up to
> find out.
Uh huh.
> If you are interested in your Pentium system, check out these two links:
>
> Hardware database: http://lhd.zdnet.com/
>
> Projects in progress:
> http://dmoz.org/Computers/Software/Operating_Systems/Linux/Hardware_Support/
>
> Another site:
>
> www.linuxhardware.org
>
> Now, if you *really* want to check out hardware support, get a load of this:
>
> mainframes:
> http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/os/linux/
>
> AS/400:
> http://users.snip.net/~gbooker/as400.htm
>
> SPARC:
> http://www.ultralinux.org/
>
> Itanium/IA-64:
> http://www.linuxia64.org/
>
> VAX (early stages as of this writing):
> http://linux-vax.sourceforge.net/
>
> Mac (PowerPC):
> http://www.yellowdoglinux.com/
>
> Mac (68x series, site suggests early stage as of Jan 2002):
> http://www.mac.linux-m68k.org/
>
What's on paper is one thing, running it's another..
> >
> > I hope linux does get better,
>
> FUD TACTIC: He really wants to help, see? Somebody ask him what
> contribution HE HAS MADE, short of these BS posts and his trespassing where
> he is not wanted.
>
I wish it does better, that's right. If nothing else it might force the
company that makes the OS I use to change some of their more restrictive
ways. Like I said originally.
> > if anything it might force MS into makeing
> > their products better.
>
> FUD TACTIC: Meaningless statement. Fills space. Might be true, might
> not, but we've already established he's not exactly coming clean, so why
> spend any more time on it.
You haven't established anything. You've established that you have a
good imagination, that's about it.
> > But for now all it's good for is a hobby box.
>
> FUD TACTIC: Make a generalization that belittles the enemy with no facts.
The "enemy"? It's just an OS. You don't own a riffle do you?
[cut]
> > If all you do is surf the net and check email it might work out for
> > you.
>
> FUD TACTIC: Belittle again. The idea in the last few sentences is to
> discourage you from even *trying* Linux, while never providing any facts.
>
> As a matter of fact, I use Linux to surf the net and check email.
>
So did I when I used it. That's about all I could do though..
> > But if you want to run any real programs,
>
> FUD TACTIC: OK, now even I'm getting tired of pointing this out. What
> real programs? Email? Word Processing? 125-node clustered cray-pounding
> weather simulations? News Server? Web Server? Terabyte-scale always-on
> enterprise storage? Google.com? Graphics? Games? (I happen to love the
> KDE games), Home network? Every single one of these is running today
> around the world on Linux.
No, not web servers and scientific number generating programs. REAL
APPS.
I do audio work. So how about:
Cubase
Logic Audio
Steinburg VST
Wavelab
Finale
Cakewalk
and the list goes on
Can you get _anything_ comparable in linux? No. And this extends into
all other areas of apps that aren't web servers or C debugging programs.
>
> WJBELL DOES NOT WANT YOU TO FIND OUT IF *YOUR* APPLICATION WORKS. He would
> much rather you read his post and say to yourself, "Oh geez, I guess I
> better not bother." That is why we call them "trespassers", they are
> coming here deliberately, to a Linux Advocacy group, to steer you *away*
> from Linux.
I'm coming here to clear up some of the misinformation that get's thrown
around here like gospel.
>
> > or plug in any modern
> > hardware gadgets
>
> FUD TACTIC: Sweeping generalization. Need I repeat myself, no facts? OK,
> I'm starting to feel sorry for the guy, so I will point out that I had a
> hard time getting my digital camera plugged in, and have not really tried
> that hard. Because it can make itself look like a file system, I simply
> haven't bothered to worry about it, I'm sure I'll get it when I really want
> to.
>
> And, of course, I *always* make my OS decisions based on the digitial
> camera ;)
>
> > you'd better stick with windows.
>
> *****************************
> AHA! THE CLINCHER!
> *****************************
>
> STAY WITH WINDOWS! Notice he is not recommending Macintosh. He is not
> recommending you stick with your previous version of Unix.
>
> Now why on Earth would someone come here and tell you how bad linux is and
> tell you to use Windows.
Pay attention, I know it might be hard but...:
BECAUSE THAT WHAT THE FIRST LINE OF THE ORIGINAL POST WAS COMPARING.
And I quote:
"Up front, let me say, I chose this subject line to maybe draw in a
lurking
Windows user who's considering Linux."
Note the word _Windows_.
[cut more paranoid accusations]
I can see you're thinking in the MS vs linux war midset so I won't
bother to respond to any more of the nonsense you're posting.
HTH
wjbell
Thanks for making my point. I'm talking about the average consumers
point of view. As was the original poster:
"Up front, let me say, I chose this subject line to maybe draw in a
lurking
Windows user who's considering Linux. The core of this post is that
Linux
is limited, but it's mostly limited by me, and that's something I can do
something about."
>
> >> but what's more, it's irrelavant, but I won't hold my breath while
> >> you try to work out why.
> >
> > If we are talking about linux only being a hobby box we have to
> > automatically consider the apps that run on it, right. Without apps an
> > OS is useless... hence linux.
> >
>
> Apache seems to be pretty popular on linux, google has 10,000+ linux
> boxes running their search engine. NASA uses it for clustered super
> computers, IBM has sold millions of $$$ in mainframes to run it. Some
> hobbiests, hih...
Again, heavy duty server apps, I rest my case.
Linonut
> Did you happen to catch the price tag?
Yeah, only big movie studios can afford that stuff!
Charlie Ebert
>
> The problem is that it IS limited by the OS. There's a learning curve,
> and once you can get through that you get the reward of slower desktop
> response (if using KDE), limited applications and poor hardware support.
>
Whoops! A LIE! KDE is slower than Windows XP or 2000?
This blew that paragraph out of the water as it's not.
Not by a long shot bubba.
> I hope linux does get better, if anything it might force MS into makeing
> their products better. But for now all it's good for is a hobby box.
> If all you do is surf the net and check email it might work out for
> you. But if you want to run any real programs, or plug in any modern
> hardware gadgets you'd better stick with windows.
>
As of now, Linux has better hardware support than XP does or 2000.
And that's a fact.
> BTW, there is a way to make windows more secure, it's just a learning
> curve you need to get over..
Yeah, you LEARN to get AWAY from Windows as it's a security
nightmare. But you'd only know this if you actually worked
in IT.
--
Charlie
http://24.94.230.113/Linux/intro.html
By 2005 Linux will be Dominate!
Charlie Ebert
> "Bo Grimes" <vgr...@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:ELC68.35958$A51.15...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
> > wjbell wrote:
> >
> > > But for now all it's good for is a hobby box.
> >
> > Since you make that a blanket statement and my single experience alone
> > denies it (I make money selling the products (words) I create with it) and
> > do not consider research on the web, emailing my family or burning a CD a
> > hobby, your statement can honestly be said to be a lie.
> >
>
> It's not a "lie". At best, he's just wrong. We're talking semantics here,
> but
> just the same, to say it's a "lie", you have to be sure he knew what he was
> saying was false.
NO no! What your really trying to say here is he's never
run Linux (A) and (B) he's totally full of shit.
Which he is.
wjbell
[cut stuff going in circles]
> Riddle me this? If you love MS why did you ever use Linux to get the
> knowledge and experience you say you have with it?
I started using linux in '97. I started using it as a hobbie to and to
learn about it. I've been using it steadily since then to run servers
and try out desktop systems on. After 5 years I just got tired of all
the time and effort I had to devote to it daily.
After an online update (up2date redhat) rendered my system useless, and
other things like kernel panics from production kernels, I just got fed
up. If I decide I want to run unix again I'll just try BSD. Linux
can't even keep a system from going tits up on a simple update. I can't
have much faith in it after that.
Charlie Ebert
Charlie Ebert
> Ok, I can see your taking it way too litarally. More linux dodging
> tactics. Let me rephrase it:
>
> For the most part, all linux is good for is a hobby box. There are some
> exceptions, but for most of the windows programs out there, you'll be
> hard pressed to find somthing in linux that has the same level of
> functionality and speed, if you can find it at all. In addition, the
> KDE GUI isn't as mature as windows. It will be more sluggish on the same
> hardware as compared to win98, w2k, XP.
That's just total bullshit. Utter bullshit.
I couldn't open 136 .gif files simulateously on any Windows product
without the fucking peice of shit crashing.
You can easily do that with Linux and Gimp. It's a breeze.
You really have to wonder why anybody would make the assinine
statements you've made considering that Oracle is now a Linux
only shop for the exact same reason.
Windows is a sluggish/unstable PIG! End of Subject! - FACT!
Jim Richardson
I think he was pointing out, that google runs on linux, which sort of
blows away your claim that linux is only good for a hobby box.
Osugi Sakae
> Linonut wrote:
> >
> > burning CD
>
> I've seen the CDR applications for linux, they're eith incomplete or
> buggy.
Specifics please. I've been using gcombust for over a year now (if
memory serves), and it does everything I need it to do and then
some. But I mentioned gcombust, not you. So please provide some
details on what applications you've seen and how they are incomplete
or buggy.
I have made one coaster in linux and that wasn't a real coaster. I
accidently tried to put more than 650 meg on a 650 meg cdr disk. The
first 640+ meg of the data was actually readable, so it wasn't a
complete coaster.
> > > If all you do is surf the net and check email it might work out for
> > > you. But if you want to run any real programs, or plug in any modern
> > > hardware gadgets you'd better stick with windows.
> >
> > Define a real program. If you say "a Microsoft program", sorry,
> > you're wrong.
>
> How about just in audio:
>
> Wavelab
> Cool Edit Pro
> Cakewalk
> Finale
> Cubase
> Logic Audio
> ...
How many of those is anyone not seriously into audio development (or
whatever it should be called) going to use? How much do they cost? Do
they come as part of the software bundle you get with a new windows
computer?
Granted, for serious audio development one or two of the programs you
mention may be considered essential. And there _may_ not be a suitable
program available for Linux. However it is a huge jump from ``no
professional level audio tools'' to ``no real programs'' or to ``linux
is only good for hobby boxes''.
Would you count the c/c++, perl, python, and other software
development tools as `real programs'. How about TeX and all the
associated programs? Surely those are `real programs'? Sure, ma and pa
computer user may not care about them, but then they wouldn't care
about or need the ones you mention either.
> > What modern hardware gadgets (apart from some esoteric
> > audio or D/A cards) can't you plug into Linux.?
>
> I'm not up on the newest hardware, sorry can't be more spacific. But
> I'm constanly seeing complaints about linux won't see this or recognise
> that.
So you made a comment that you should have known you could not back
up? Now you want us to accept vague references to some complaints
you've seen.
Well, I've heard that the windows.xp newsgroups are filled to
overflowing with people having problems with hardware and winxp. So
by your reasoning, ``windows xp does not support newer hardware'' is a
legitimate conclusion?
--
Osugi Sakae
I am not a number, I am a free man
wjbell
>
> wjbell <wj...@pacbell.net> writes:
>
> >
> > The problem is that it IS limited by the OS. There's a learning curve,
> > and once you can get through that you get the reward of slower desktop
> > response (if using KDE), limited applications and poor hardware support.
> >
>
> Whoops! A LIE! KDE is slower than Windows XP or 2000?
>
> This blew that paragraph out of the water as it's not.
> Not by a long shot bubba.
Wrong.
>
>
> > I hope linux does get better, if anything it might force MS into makeing
> > their products better. But for now all it's good for is a hobby box.
> > If all you do is surf the net and check email it might work out for
> > you. But if you want to run any real programs, or plug in any modern
> > hardware gadgets you'd better stick with windows.
> >
>
> As of now, Linux has better hardware support than XP does or 2000.
> And that's a fact.
HAHAHAHA
>
> > BTW, there is a way to make windows more secure, it's just a learning
> > curve you need to get over..
>
> Yeah, you LEARN to get AWAY from Windows as it's a security
> nightmare. But you'd only know this if you actually worked
> in IT.
*yawn*
wjbell
I'm talking about the average user, not a server stack. Coincidentally,
so was the original poster, of which my reply was based.
wjbell
And just because you say so!
wjbell
*yawn*
Charlie Ebert
> > Now why on Earth would someone come here and tell you how bad linux is and
> > tell you to use Windows.
>
> Pay attention, I know it might be hard but...:
>
> BECAUSE THAT WHAT THE FIRST LINE OF THE ORIGINAL POST WAS COMPARING.
>
> And I quote:
>
> "Up front, let me say, I chose this subject line to maybe draw in a
> lurking
> Windows user who's considering Linux."
>
> Note the word _Windows_.
>
> [cut more paranoid accusations]
>
> I can see you're thinking in the MS vs linux war midset so I won't
> bother to respond to any more of the nonsense you're posting.
>
> HTH
I've done tests with Linux, 98, NT, 2000 and even XP and there's
none of them faster than Linux with ANY DESKTOP you CHOOSE.
These tests were done on identical factory machines, side by side!
To make the absurd notion that any Windows product is more
efficient in ANY catagory other than BLUESCREENING is ASSININE!
JUST COMPLETELY AND HORRIBLY - TOTALLY ASSININE!
It's like comming in here and telling us you find a trash trucks
performance to a Pontiac Firebird to be - EQUIVALENT - 'In your opinion'
Well FUCK OFF and DON'T RESPOND BACK THEN!
Charlie Ebert
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >
> > wjbell <wj...@pacbell.net> writes:
> >
> > >
> > > The problem is that it IS limited by the OS. There's a learning curve,
> > > and once you can get through that you get the reward of slower desktop
> > > response (if using KDE), limited applications and poor hardware support.
> > >
> >
> > Whoops! A LIE! KDE is slower than Windows XP or 2000?
> >
> > This blew that paragraph out of the water as it's not.
> > Not by a long shot bubba.
>
> Wrong.
>
Nope! You've NEVER run it have you.
You have NEVER run the desktop and set two equivalent computers
down side by side have you....
You wouldn't have made the assertion if you had just
checked your facts first.
> >
> >
> > > I hope linux does get better, if anything it might force MS into makeing
> > > their products better. But for now all it's good for is a hobby box.
> > > If all you do is surf the net and check email it might work out for
> > > you. But if you want to run any real programs, or plug in any modern
> > > hardware gadgets you'd better stick with windows.
> > >
> >
> > As of now, Linux has better hardware support than XP does or 2000.
> > And that's a fact.
>
> HAHAHAHA
>
There was no Windows support before Linux when it came
to Ultra 66 DME or Ultra 100 DME.
Windows didn't have a working USB system before Linux did.
Windows still doesn't mount up on an HP BLADE SERVER.
Windows still doesn't have IA-64 support!
Windows CAN'T BE USED ON SPARCS, MAC'S, AMIGA'S, RS-6000'S,
NOR A WHOLE SLEW OF OTHER FUCKING MACHINES!!!
> >
> > > BTW, there is a way to make windows more secure, it's just a learning
> > > curve you need to get over..
> >
> > Yeah, you LEARN to get AWAY from Windows as it's a security
> > nightmare. But you'd only know this if you actually worked
> > in IT.
>
> *yawn*
WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE IN COLA BUDDY IF ALL YOUR GOING TO DO
IS FUCKING YAWN!
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU ANYWAY!
wjbell
>
> wjbell <wj...@pacbell.net> writes:
>
> > > Now why on Earth would someone come here and tell you how bad linux is and
> > > tell you to use Windows.
> >
> > Pay attention, I know it might be hard but...:
> >
> > BECAUSE THAT WHAT THE FIRST LINE OF THE ORIGINAL POST WAS COMPARING.
> >
> > And I quote:
> >
> > "Up front, let me say, I chose this subject line to maybe draw in a
> > lurking
> > Windows user who's considering Linux."
> >
> > Note the word _Windows_.
> >
> > [cut more paranoid accusations]
> >
> > I can see you're thinking in the MS vs linux war midset so I won't
> > bother to respond to any more of the nonsense you're posting.
> >
> > HTH
>
> I've done tests with Linux, 98, NT, 2000 and even XP and there's
> none of them faster than Linux with ANY DESKTOP you CHOOSE.
>
> These tests were done on identical factory machines, side by side!
Hmm, you've lined up 5 identical machines and tested them side by side
for the purpose of test the speed? You expect us to buy this?
> To make the absurd notion that any Windows product is more
> efficient in ANY catagory other than BLUESCREENING is ASSININE!
>
> JUST COMPLETELY AND HORRIBLY - TOTALLY ASSININE!
>
> It's like comming in here and telling us you find a trash trucks
> performance to a Pontiac Firebird to be - EQUIVALENT - 'In your opinion'
>
> Well FUCK OFF and DON'T RESPOND BACK THEN!
Hmm, you wouldn't happen to have made up your mind already on this one,
have you?
wjbell
>
> wjbell <wj...@pacbell.net> writes:
>
> > Charlie Ebert wrote:
> > >
> > > wjbell <wj...@pacbell.net> writes:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The problem is that it IS limited by the OS. There's a learning curve,
> > > > and once you can get through that you get the reward of slower desktop
> > > > response (if using KDE), limited applications and poor hardware support.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Whoops! A LIE! KDE is slower than Windows XP or 2000?
> > >
> > > This blew that paragraph out of the water as it's not.
> > > Not by a long shot bubba.
> >
> > Wrong.
> >
>
> Nope! You've NEVER run it have you.
>
> You have NEVER run the desktop and set two equivalent computers
> down side by side have you....
>
> You wouldn't have made the assertion if you had just
> checked your facts first.
Haha, you guys and you consericy theories. Yes I have run KDE, from 1.x
(somthing or other) to 2.2.2.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > I hope linux does get better, if anything it might force MS into makeing
> > > > their products better. But for now all it's good for is a hobby box.
> > > > If all you do is surf the net and check email it might work out for
> > > > you. But if you want to run any real programs, or plug in any modern
> > > > hardware gadgets you'd better stick with windows.
> > > >
> > >
> > > As of now, Linux has better hardware support than XP does or 2000.
> > > And that's a fact.
> >
> > HAHAHAHA
> >
>
> There was no Windows support before Linux when it came
> to Ultra 66 DME or Ultra 100 DME.
>
> Windows didn't have a working USB system before Linux did.
>
> Windows still doesn't mount up on an HP BLADE SERVER.
> Windows still doesn't have IA-64 support!
>
> Windows CAN'T BE USED ON SPARCS, MAC'S, AMIGA'S, RS-6000'S,
> NOR A WHOLE SLEW OF OTHER FUCKING MACHINES!!!
Bummer. It runs fine on my Intel based system though, which, BTW, is
cheaper.
>
> > >
> > > > BTW, there is a way to make windows more secure, it's just a learning
> > > > curve you need to get over..
> > >
> > > Yeah, you LEARN to get AWAY from Windows as it's a security
> > > nightmare. But you'd only know this if you actually worked
> > > in IT.
> >
> > *yawn*
>
> WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE IN COLA BUDDY IF ALL YOUR GOING TO DO
> IS FUCKING YAWN!
>
> WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU ANYWAY!
Huy, bud, relax. It's just a newsgroup, I'm not offending your
religious beliefs... at least I don't think I am..
Bo Grimes
Kenneth Downs wrote:
> CONCLUSION: Bo shared some of his experience with us. His post was more
> on the expressive side than the factual side (which posts I enjoy very
> much
> myself). It may be, and I don't want to put words in Bo's mouth, but it
> may be that he has some inkling, or perhaps a very thorough knowledge of
> the facts presented here, and that is why he feels the way he does.
>
> Am I even close, bo?
I'll have to go with inkling, and *yes*, the possibilities of Linux for me
is one reason I feel the way I do. The experience of good things and the
promise of more.
I *was* being more expressive than hard factual. I have read a lot about
what people use Linux for, but as that's not my experience I can't speak to
it with any credibility. Thank you for such a comprehensive post of other
experiences.
I can't begin to express my gratitude and respect for all the people who
have made Linux possible, for what I use it for. But if I'm going to help
advocate it, I can't talk about the things I don't do or can't do *yet*,
and that yet is a big plus for me.
Of all the issues I could have addressed in my experience, I could have
picked hardware support. Elsewhere recently I posted my first install was
RedHat 5.0 on one disk I got from "Teach Yourself Linux in 24 hours."
After I got it installed, my modem wouldn't work, but it was a winmodem.
Why is it Linux's fault they don't support a modem that uses a crappy OS to
emulate hardware? It cost me less than 70 dollars total for my new modem
(which was better anyway, even under Windows) and my new soundcard, which
was better anyway even under Windows. How is that a drawback?
I could have addressed other more substanial facts in my post like that
one, but I picked one point to try and make: Don't sweat the learning
curve. You've forgotten all the learning you now take forgranted and
anything good in life is worth it anyway.
What I have now is an OS that has been up for almost exactly 48 hours,
which was the last time I worked on taxes with my tax software and let the
kids play some games, with 4 desktops full with 12 programs which haven't
been closed even though I have also opened other.
I haven't had a single loss of preformance, blue screen of death, GPF, lag,
memory leak, crash, reboot. I could not go one day in Windows without
rebooting for some reason, even if it was just to get the preformance back
from having left IE open too long.
I can say what others use Linux for, even though I might not be able to do
it, but I am, for now (who knows what I'll be after a few years of Linux?)
a regular home desktop user, so that is how I can best advocate. I am
tremendously grateful to the people who made this possible for me.
Frankly I feel guilty. I feel like some stranger saw my car disabled
beside the road while I was off calling the tow truck and fixed it for me
at great expense and effort, and then left before I could get back and
never said a word.
I know that some people will choose Windows, that the needs of some
people's jobs demand it and they will stay with it at home too, and that's
OK.
I wasn't addressing that person. I was addressing the person who might
want to give Linux a test drive and find out for himself if it work for
him. I was suggesting that if he does, be patient and don't give up too
soon. Really take it for a test drive. (Like Kramer did that time he ran
the car out of gas.)
I can't imagine why anyone would tell that same person, "don't bother." I
can't imagine why anyone without a vested interest, even if it's just a
shareholder and not an employee, in Microsoft would try to talk anyone out
of trying Linux if that person is obviously curious enough to come to cola.
I don't even have an inkling as to what makes *that* kind of person tick.
Jim Richardson
Not so fast.
You made no such qualifications when you made the statement. Now that we
have blown your foolish claim you wish to change the parameters. OK, so
you lost then, lets try the new parameters on for size.
Here on my table at home. Lays a laptop, with linux, which I use, daily.
For "Average end user type tasks" Like email, browsing, games, these
might be considered "hobbies" I guess. But I also perform work on this
laptop. I write a little software. I develop hardware, keep my invoices
and print or email them for my clients. I read documents that relate to
my work. Exchange documents that relate to my work. Run custom apps that
are at the heart of my work. I may enjoy my work, but it is no hobby.
Additionally, my wife works with linux. She is a writer, all her work is
done on linux. It is not a hobby for her.
Furthermore, Largo Fl, uses linux on the desktops of "average users"
like secretaries and receptionists. Again, not a hobby.
Even with the changed parameters, your premise is still false.
Thanks. You may feel an urge to fling insults now, this is normal for
you. If you accede to that urge, that would also be normal for you. At least
going by your behaviour here in cola. Don't let fears about your
reputation prevent you, it's allready shot in that respect.
(you see! insults can be creative and stylish. Flinging comparisons to
Nazis, and calling people "morons" is so, simplistic. Lacking any shred
of creativity.)
wjbell
> >> Apache seems to be pretty popular on linux, google has 10,000+ linux
> >> boxes running their search engine. NASA uses it for clustered super
> >> computers, IBM has sold millions of $$$ in mainframes to run it. Some
> >> hobbiests, hih...
> >
> > Again, heavy duty server apps, I rest my case.
>
> Not so fast.
> You made no such qualifications when you made the statement. Now that we
> have blown your foolish claim you wish to change the parameters. OK, so
> you lost then, lets try the new parameters on for size.
No, I made the statement based on the original statement:
"Up front, let me say, I chose this subject line to maybe draw in a
lurking
Windows user who's considering Linux. The core of this post is that
Linux
is limited, but it's mostly limited by me, and that's something I can do
something about."
So what I was saying was consitent with the original post.
>
> Here on my table at home. Lays a laptop, with linux, which I use, daily.
> For "Average end user type tasks" Like email, browsing, games, these
> might be considered "hobbies" I guess. But I also perform work on this
> laptop. I write a little software. I develop hardware, keep my invoices
> and print or email them for my clients. I read documents that relate to
> my work. Exchange documents that relate to my work. Run custom apps that
> are at the heart of my work. I may enjoy my work, but it is no hobby.
> Additionally, my wife works with linux. She is a writer, all her work is
> done on linux. It is not a hobby for her.
>
> Furthermore, Largo Fl, uses linux on the desktops of "average users"
> like secretaries and receptionists. Again, not a hobby.
>
> Even with the changed parameters, your premise is still false.
> Thanks. You may feel an urge to fling insults now, this is normal for
> you. If you accede to that urge, that would also be normal for you. At least
> going by your behaviour here in cola. Don't let fears about your
> reputation prevent you, it's allready shot in that respect.
>
> (you see! insults can be creative and stylish. Flinging comparisons to
> Nazis, and calling people "morons" is so, simplistic. Lacking any shred
> of creativity.)
Naa, you seem like a resonable person that doesn't throw around insults
loosly. No need to throw around insults, you've got enough work ahead
of you getting the facts of my posts straight.
Jim Richardson
You made a blanket statement, and now try to redefine the terms.
I use linux daily, I use it for work related uses. Ergo it is not "only
for hobbies" My wife also uses linux daily for work. She is about as
average as you can get wrt computer usage. She prefers using linux to
using windows, by far. The city of Largo runs on linux. The desktops,
linux, the secretaries, run linux, the receptionist, runs linux. Your
assertion was false.
Jim Richardson
wjbell <wj...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Jim Richardson wrote:
>> >> Apache seems to be pretty popular on linux, google has 10,000+ linux
>> >> boxes running their search engine. NASA uses it for clustered super
>> >> computers, IBM has sold millions of $$$ in mainframes to run it. Some
>> >> hobbiests, hih...
>> >
>> > Again, heavy duty server apps, I rest my case.
>>
>> Not so fast.
>> You made no such qualifications when you made the statement. Now that we
>> have blown your foolish claim you wish to change the parameters. OK, so
>> you lost then, lets try the new parameters on for size.
>
> No, I made the statement based on the original statement:
>
> "Up front, let me say, I chose this subject line to maybe draw in a
> lurking Windows user who's considering Linux. The core of this post
> is that Linux is limited, but it's mostly limited by me, and that's
> something I can do something about."
>
> So what I was saying was consitent with the original post.
>
Amusingly enough. You yourself said you used linux for servers, Was that
a hobby?
>>
>> Here on my table at home. Lays a laptop, with linux, which I use, daily.
>> For "Average end user type tasks" Like email, browsing, games, these
>> might be considered "hobbies" I guess. But I also perform work on this
>> laptop. I write a little software. I develop hardware, keep my invoices
>> and print or email them for my clients. I read documents that relate to
>> my work. Exchange documents that relate to my work. Run custom apps that
>> are at the heart of my work. I may enjoy my work, but it is no hobby.
>> Additionally, my wife works with linux. She is a writer, all her work is
>> done on linux. It is not a hobby for her.
>>
>> Furthermore, Largo Fl, uses linux on the desktops of "average users"
>> like secretaries and receptionists. Again, not a hobby.
>>
>> Even with the changed parameters, your premise is still false.
>> Thanks. You may feel an urge to fling insults now, this is normal for
>> you. If you accede to that urge, that would also be normal for you. At least
>> going by your behaviour here in cola. Don't let fears about your
>> reputation prevent you, it's allready shot in that respect.
>>
>> (you see! insults can be creative and stylish. Flinging comparisons to
>> Nazis, and calling people "morons" is so, simplistic. Lacking any shred
>> of creativity.)
>
> Naa, you seem like a resonable person that doesn't throw around insults
> loosly. No need to throw around insults, you've got enough work ahead
> of you getting the facts of my posts straight.
Funnily enough, you failed to respond to my examples of average users,
using linux for non-hobbiest stuff. Care to try again?
wjbell
Was it? Or are you just taking your biased opinion along with a few
rare cases to try and refute it?
Charlie Ebert
The fucking guy has been living for the last 30 years face down
in a MOON CRATER!
Linux runs GOOGLE. It runs ORACLE. It's running Amazon.
IBM is running Mainframes with it.
It's being used to make major Motion pictures.
It's competing with CISCO.
How many fucking examples do you need here?
> --
> Jim Richardson
> Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
> www.eskimo.com/~warlock
> Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
--
wjbell
How about some that are on topic for starters...
Charlie Ebert
It isn't merely a matter of opinion.
It is a matter of fact, nothing more.
Charlie Ebert
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >
> > wjbell <wj...@pacbell.net> writes:
> >
> > > Charlie Ebert wrote:
> > > >
> > > > wjbell <wj...@pacbell.net> writes:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem is that it IS limited by the OS. There's a learning curve,
> > > > > and once you can get through that you get the reward of slower desktop
> > > > > response (if using KDE), limited applications and poor hardware support.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Whoops! A LIE! KDE is slower than Windows XP or 2000?
> > > >
> > > > This blew that paragraph out of the water as it's not.
> > > > Not by a long shot bubba.
> > >
> > > Wrong.
> > >
> >
> > Nope! You've NEVER run it have you.
> >
> > You have NEVER run the desktop and set two equivalent computers
> > down side by side have you....
> >
> > You wouldn't have made the assertion if you had just
> > checked your facts first.
>
>
> Haha, you guys and you consericy theories. Yes I have run KDE, from 1.x
> (somthing or other) to 2.2.2.
>
Ah hugh.
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I hope linux does get better, if anything it might force MS into makeing
> > > > > their products better. But for now all it's good for is a hobby box.
> > > > > If all you do is surf the net and check email it might work out for
> > > > > you. But if you want to run any real programs, or plug in any modern
> > > > > hardware gadgets you'd better stick with windows.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > As of now, Linux has better hardware support than XP does or 2000.
> > > > And that's a fact.
> > >
> > > HAHAHAHA
> > >
> >
> > There was no Windows support before Linux when it came
> > to Ultra 66 DME or Ultra 100 DME.
> >
> > Windows didn't have a working USB system before Linux did.
> >
> > Windows still doesn't mount up on an HP BLADE SERVER.
> > Windows still doesn't have IA-64 support!
> >
> > Windows CAN'T BE USED ON SPARCS, MAC'S, AMIGA'S, RS-6000'S,
> > NOR A WHOLE SLEW OF OTHER FUCKING MACHINES!!!
>
> Bummer. It runs fine on my Intel based system though, which, BTW, is
> cheaper.
>
Well, thanks for admitting you were wrong.
I don't think we could take this line any other way here
as your refuting nothing.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > BTW, there is a way to make windows more secure, it's just a learning
> > > > > curve you need to get over..
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, you LEARN to get AWAY from Windows as it's a security
> > > > nightmare. But you'd only know this if you actually worked
> > > > in IT.
> > >
> > > *yawn*
> >
> > WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE IN COLA BUDDY IF ALL YOUR GOING TO DO
> > IS FUCKING YAWN!
> >
> > WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU ANYWAY!
>
> Huy, bud, relax. It's just a newsgroup, I'm not offending your
> religious beliefs... at least I don't think I am..
Well, at least your not asleep behind the wheel anymore.
Charlie Ebert
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >
> > wjbell <wj...@pacbell.net> writes:
> >
> > > > Now why on Earth would someone come here and tell you how bad linux is and
> > > > tell you to use Windows.
> > >
> > > Pay attention, I know it might be hard but...:
> > >
> > > BECAUSE THAT WHAT THE FIRST LINE OF THE ORIGINAL POST WAS COMPARING.
> > >
> > > And I quote:
> > >
> > > "Up front, let me say, I chose this subject line to maybe draw in a
> > > lurking
> > > Windows user who's considering Linux."
> > >
> > > Note the word _Windows_.
> > >
> > > [cut more paranoid accusations]
> > >
> > > I can see you're thinking in the MS vs linux war midset so I won't
> > > bother to respond to any more of the nonsense you're posting.
> > >
> > > HTH
> >
> > I've done tests with Linux, 98, NT, 2000 and even XP and there's
> > none of them faster than Linux with ANY DESKTOP you CHOOSE.
> >
> > These tests were done on identical factory machines, side by side!
>
> Hmm, you've lined up 5 identical machines and tested them side by side
> for the purpose of test the speed? You expect us to buy this?
>
No just 2. Linux VS 98, NT, 2000 and XP one at a time.
> > To make the absurd notion that any Windows product is more
> > efficient in ANY catagory other than BLUESCREENING is ASSININE!
> >
> > JUST COMPLETELY AND HORRIBLY - TOTALLY ASSININE!
> >
> > It's like comming in here and telling us you find a trash trucks
> > performance to a Pontiac Firebird to be - EQUIVALENT - 'In your opinion'
> >
> > Well FUCK OFF and DON'T RESPOND BACK THEN!
>
> Hmm, you wouldn't happen to have made up your mind already on this one,
> have you?
Certainly I have. I've made up my mind that your a total
fucking liar.
If you want to get into a butt picking contest over performance,
just what have *YOU* done to prove your theories.
You've said nothing but your opinion.
Darren
wrote:
No.. because it is a consistent and repeatable demonstration - that's
what it means to be a 'fact'.
wjbell
It's just getting the facts right that's important.
wjbell
Previous thread. Read it, don't read it, I can care less.
Darren
wrote:
You mean average users like non-techie, non-geek secretaries? ... I think
you get where this thread is going if you continue to insist average ppl
don't use Linux ..
TiVo
Playstation2
Google
Just to name a few ways 'Average' users put Linux to use .. everyday ..
***********BEEEP************
We're sorry.. your time is up.. we have no consolation prize for you so
you'll just have to leave empty-handed. Don't let the door hit you in the
ass on your way OUT.
wjbell
I don't think so. I've ran the tests. Windows is faster. Period.
Darren
wrote:
>
> Huy, bud, relax. It's just a newsgroup, I'm not offending your
> religious beliefs... at least I don't think I am..
One of the tenets of my religion is that everything I have is a gift from
God. As such, I should make the best use of what is given to me. Spend
money and time wisely, be charitable to all, etc.
MS products are over-priced crap. Using them and endorsing them IS a
offense to my religious beliefs.
wjbell
*yawn*
Darren
wrote:
I've also run the tests - Linux is faster. Period.
Kenneth Downs
>> CONCLUSION: Bo shared some of his experience with us. His post was more
>> on the expressive side than the factual side (which posts I enjoy very
>> much
>> myself). It may be, and I don't want to put words in Bo's mouth, but it
>> may be that he has some inkling, or perhaps a very thorough knowledge of
>> the facts presented here, and that is why he feels the way he does.
>>
>> Am I even close, bo?
Just to clarify, I did not intend to imply that your post was devoid of
facts, merely that you were offering an impression of an experience. I
think that came across, but I wanted to be clear just in case.
>
> I'll have to go with inkling, and *yes*, the possibilities of Linux for me
> is one reason I feel the way I do. The experience of good things and the
> promise of more.
You and I are in the same boat. I sounds like am a mere days or weeks
ahead of you on the calendar. I caught Linux fever just before Christmas,
and know already that I can never go back. "Promise of more," there is
much hidden on those three words.
>
> I *was* being more expressive than hard factual. I have read a lot about
> what people use Linux for, but as that's not my experience I can't speak
> to
> it with any credibility. Thank you for such a comprehensive post of other
> experiences.
I learned all of that stuff by listening to the Advocates, so the thanks
goes to them. Before you know it you'll be offering some success stories
as well.
>
> I can't begin to express my gratitude and respect for all the people who
> have made Linux possible, for what I use it for. But if I'm going to help
> advocate it, I can't talk about the things I don't do or can't do *yet*,
> and that yet is a big plus for me.
It is kind of astounding. I was at the Free Software Foundation booth at
Linuxworld today, and had to stop myself from just saying to the guy,
"thank you, thank you!"
>
> Of all the issues I could have addressed in my experience, I could have
> picked hardware support. Elsewhere recently I posted my first install was
> RedHat 5.0 on one disk I got from "Teach Yourself Linux in 24 hours."
> After I got it installed, my modem wouldn't work, but it was a winmodem.
>
> Why is it Linux's fault they don't support a modem that uses a crappy OS
> to
> emulate hardware? It cost me less than 70 dollars total for my new modem
> (which was better anyway, even under Windows) and my new soundcard, which
> was better anyway even under Windows. How is that a drawback?
I also went out and spent about $220 all told for RAM and other goodies.
This was the money left over after purchasing SuSE.
>
> I could have addressed other more substanial facts in my post like that
> one, but I picked one point to try and make: Don't sweat the learning
> curve. You've forgotten all the learning you now take forgranted and
> anything good in life is worth it anyway.
This is so true, cannot be said enough, and you said it well.
>
> What I have now is an OS that has been up for almost exactly 48 hours,
> which was the last time I worked on taxes with my tax software and let the
> kids play some games, with 4 desktops full with 12 programs which haven't
> been closed even though I have also opened other.
>
> I haven't had a single loss of preformance, blue screen of death, GPF,
> lag,
> memory leak, crash, reboot. I could not go one day in Windows without
> rebooting for some reason, even if it was just to get the preformance back
> from having left IE open too long.
I'm really bumming, my Linux box simply does not crash, but I do seem to
have a power problem. Sometimes the UPS's scream and then it blinks off.
I was up to 16 days uptime (last time I installed HW), and now I'm at 1/2.
I'm going to buy a brand new UPS tommorrow and start the stopwatch.
>
> I can say what others use Linux for, even though I might not be able to do
> it, but I am, for now (who knows what I'll be after a few years of Linux?)
> a regular home desktop user, so that is how I can best advocate. I am
> tremendously grateful to the people who made this possible for me.
>
> Frankly I feel guilty. I feel like some stranger saw my car disabled
> beside the road while I was off calling the tow truck and fixed it for me
> at great expense and effort, and then left before I could get back and
> never said a word.
>
> I know that some people will choose Windows, that the needs of some
> people's jobs demand it and they will stay with it at home too, and that's
> OK.
>
> I wasn't addressing that person. I was addressing the person who might
> want to give Linux a test drive and find out for himself if it work for
> him. I was suggesting that if he does, be patient and don't give up too
> soon. Really take it for a test drive. (Like Kramer did that time he ran
> the car out of gas.)
>
All in all a pleasant conversation. I hope you stick around and we can
talk some more :)
> I can't imagine why anyone would tell that same person, "don't bother."
> I can't imagine why anyone without a vested interest, even if it's just a
> shareholder and not an employee, in Microsoft would try to talk anyone out
> of trying Linux if that person is obviously curious enough to come to
> cola.
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken
After 13,000+ hours of tube-time in front of Win, I have opened
a new source for my OS and app needs.
Kenneth Downs
> Error Log for Fri, 01 Feb 2002 14:31:45 -0500: segfault in module "wjbell"
> - dump details are as follows...
>
>
> Whereas, each time good ole M$ put out a major revision, I had to re-learn
> the entire OS practically from scratch. Set up a multi-tier superdomain
> with various sub-domains with Windows NT...done? Good, now do the same
> thing with Windows 2000. What was that? You say everything has changed?
> No kidding...If I do this with Redhat 6.2 and then want to do the same
> thing using SysV or HP-UX, guess what...the same commands and procedures
> apply. I don't have to go back to boot camp for another three weeks just
> to re-learn how to do something at $5 Grand.
>
I have been told by those who know better than I that Win2k's complete
domain system has a definite role to play in very large organizations.
But for I work in < 200 machines, NT domain security was one of the best
things they ever did, I really liked it. So what do I get? NT is
discontinued and Win2k cannot provide NT domains. Before the trolls jump
in with their nonsense, NO IT CANNOT. A Win2k server can JOIN an NT
domain, but it cannot be a simple, clean, elegant, PDC. You've got to go
the whole 9 yards to get domains in Win2k, and you cannot have the simple
elegance of NT domains.
Geez, even when M$ gets something right they throw it away.
Oh, excuse me, I've made a mistake. Yes, you can get simple elegant NT
domains for your network. Install an operating system called Linux and put
in Samba. It's a beautiful thing.
Jim Richardson
All it takes is one case to disprove a blanket claim.
Jim Richardson
No, I find linux faster than XP on my hardware. It's faster to display
menus, it's smoother to play DVDs, it opens windows faster.
Jim Lascola
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >
> > wjbell <wj...@pacbell.net> writes:
> >
> > > > Now why on Earth would someone come here and tell you how bad linux is and
> > > > tell you to use Windows.
> > >
> > > Pay attention, I know it might be hard but...:
> > >
> > > BECAUSE THAT WHAT THE FIRST LINE OF THE ORIGINAL POST WAS COMPARING.
> > >
> > > And I quote:
> > >
> > > "Up front, let me say, I chose this subject line to maybe draw in a
> > > lurking
> > > Windows user who's considering Linux."
> > >
> > > Note the word _Windows_.
> > >
> > > [cut more paranoid accusations]
> > >
> > > I can see you're thinking in the MS vs linux war midset so I won't
> > > bother to respond to any more of the nonsense you're posting.
> > >
> > > HTH
> >
> > I've done tests with Linux, 98, NT, 2000 and even XP and there's
> > none of them faster than Linux with ANY DESKTOP you CHOOSE.
> >
> > These tests were done on identical factory machines, side by side!
>
> Hmm, you've lined up 5 identical machines and tested them side by side
> for the purpose of test the speed? You expect us to buy this?
Why not Microsoft tried it.........
Bo Grimes
> Jim Richardson wrote:
>> >> Apache seems to be pretty popular on linux, google has 10,000+ linux
>> >> boxes running their search engine. NASA uses it for clustered super
>> >> computers, IBM has sold millions of $$$ in mainframes to run it. Some
>> >> hobbiests, hih...
>> >
>> > Again, heavy duty server apps, I rest my case.
>>
>> Not so fast.
>> You made no such qualifications when you made the statement. Now that we
>> have blown your foolish claim you wish to change the parameters. OK, so
>> you lost then, lets try the new parameters on for size.
>
> No, I made the statement based on the original statement:
>
> "Up front, let me say, I chose this subject line to maybe draw in a
> lurking
> Windows user who's considering Linux. The core of this post is that
> Linux
> is limited, but it's mostly limited by me, and that's something I can do
> something about."
>
> So what I was saying was consitent with the original post.
Good Heavens, man! Reboot your brain. It's got BSoD all over it. Jim
Richardson, whom you made this reply to, just made the same case I made in
my original post--that Linux is for the average user, but it's so much more.
Stop trying to use my first post to support your contention that my first
post was wrong. Don't you see what you're saying? I seen just about
everything, but I sure thought I'd see an elephant fly before I saw someone
say "He's right, and that proves he's wrong."
Bo Grimes
> I started using linux in '97. I started using it as a hobbie to and to
> learn about it. I've been using it steadily since then to run servers
> and try out desktop systems on. After 5 years I just got tired of all
> the time and effort I had to devote to it daily.
Thanks for making me feel so smart. I tend to feel a bit inadequate around
real programmers. I can hold my own in a lot of areas, but I can't talk
about why Python improves on Perl of if LISP is for real men or how to
patch bug z, but it took me much less than a half- year to get through the
learning curve to the point where I was no longer expending time and effort
on it daily.
Sure I have reems to learn, but about things I want to learn. My box is
sailing so smooth you can play marbles on her deck.
And BTW, since today makes 5 years from Feb 97' you just went back to
Windows as a desktop like, what, yesterday?
Bo Grimes
> I'm talking about the average user, not a server stack. Coincidentally,
> so was the original poster, of which my reply was based.
Yes, and this average user told you he doesn't use it for a hobby! Pay
attention! Don't try to suggest I support your position. This whole
thread refutes your point.
You think that if you can just deny, deny, deny, some people will, in this
post-modern infected world, just shrug and say, "His word against the other
guy's word."
The problem with that can easily be demonstrated. Why would Linux Advocate
lie? Let's say, Linux Advocate makes a false post about the ability of
Linux because he wants to fool someone into trying it. (Which must be the
case if it sucks.) If that person is fooled, what does Linux Advocate gain?
Certaintly not money. If the person is fooled and Linux is as inaqequate
and crappy as you say, fooled person goes back to Microsoft? How is he
hurt? It's all just a big practical joke?
Windows Advocate makes blanket assertions and denies, denies, denies every
statement made by Linux Advocate. Tries to create FUD (where is the fear,
uncertainty or doubt in my post?) and make it sound like a question of his
word against theirs to keep the person from even taking a look for himself
and seeing who's right.
In the one case Linux Advocate is saying find out. In the other Windows
Advocate is saying trust me. In the one case Linux Advocate is saying "try
this OS." In the other case Windows Advocate is saying "Don't leave". In
the one case Linux Advocate has nothing to gain. In the other case Windows
Advocate probably has a lot to lose.
Let the readers decide who has a better claim to honesty.
Jim Richardson
Thanks Bo, I had missed that aspect :)
Edward Rosten
>> Premise: All Linux is good for is a hobby box.
>> Fact: Many people use Linux for productivity.
>
> Hold on hotrod. Where's the fact? I don't see any facts. Just because
> you and your cronies say it's a fact doesn't make it one. I can sit
> here all day throwing around your kind of "facts"...
Ok, fool, try this:
http://www.google.com/jobs/internship.html
google claims to use a 10,000 box linux cluster. Google isn't a hobby.
Your premise is false.
Oh wait. Everyone is lying/stupid, except you, of course.
-Ed
>> Therefore the premise is false.
>
> Wrong.
>
> [cut rest of unsubstantiated nonsense]
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5/m
{moveto}d -1 r 230 350 m 0 1 179{1 index show 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}
for /s 15 d f pop 240 420 m 0 1 3 { 4 2 1 r sub -1 r show } for showpage
Edward Rosten
> Bo Grimes wrote:
>>
>> wjbell wrote:
>>
>> > Ok, I can see your taking it way too litarally. More linux dodging
>> > tactics. Let me rephrase it:
>>
>> In other words you realize you didn't have a leg to stand on and you are
>> dodging.
>
> No, in other words I thought you could figure it out.
You made a blanket statement. It was false. rather than admit it, you'll
squirm and try to shift the blame. It's almost as fun watching you as it
is watching T. Max. I'm enjoying this thread.
>> > For the most part, all linux is good for is a hobby box.
>>
>> Again, this is demonstrably false unless you want to play games with the
>> word hobby and call all Linux admins, all employees who use Linux and all
>> coders who develop with it hobbiest.
>>
>
> Just because people _can_ use it that doesn't mean it functions well or
> could function better. It's the difference between driving a model T to
> work or my BMW. The model T will get me there, it just takes more work.
You have no evidence that most people who use
linux use it as a hobby box. The above statement is irrenevent.
>> >There are some exceptions,
>>
>> Like nearly every use.
>>
>> > but for most of the windows programs out there, you'll be
>> > hard pressed to find somthing in linux that has the same level of
>> > functionality and speed, if you can find it at all.
>>
>> We are talking about OSes, right? To begin with this statement also isn't
>> true,
>
> Yes it is true, prove me wrong if it isn't.
The whole OS. I can run the latest OS, with the latest versions of all
the programs I use on my computer. I can't do that with windows. Looks
like Linux is faster. WindozeXP would be a real dog on a P133.
>> but what's more, it's irrelavant, but I won't hold my breath while
>> you try to work out why.
>
> If we are talking about linux only being a hobby box we have to
> automatically consider the apps that run on it, right. Without apps an
> OS is useless... hence linux.
...?
Linux has apps. I use Linux only at home. I use apps on Linux. I can't
see any missing apps.
>>
>> >KDE [...] will be more sluggish on the same hardware as compared to win98,
>> w2k, XP.
>>
>> Again, my experience alone shows this to be false.
>
> I did some benchmarking on this. My experience shows it to be true.
Put up or shut up. Publish the benchmarks and the benchmarking
programs/tools, or no one will take you seriously.
>> I won't go so far as to say that you represent the typical Windows user
>> because I know too many bright, reasonable, articulate and logical people
>> who use Windows. I will venture to say that as you've presented yourself
>> in this thread, you represent the typical ideologue.
>
> That joke's getting old. If you're going to use insults to try and make
> yourself look more intellegent and sway the perception of the argument,
> at least try a new one.
No need to use insults to make you look stupid, but it's irresistable.
-Ed
Edward Rosten
> Thanks for making my point. I'm talking about the average consumers
> point of view. As was the original poster:
Squire, squier. Are you T.Max?
BTW, you weren't talking about average consumers, you were talking about
all linux.
Darren
Grimes" <vgr...@sc.rr.com> wrote:
As a software contract developer, I have the flexibility to bring in my
own laptop to my assignments. I run an old Thinkpad 560e with RH7.1 and
Ximian GNOME 1.4. When I tell people I don't like MS-Windows, they
invariably ask 'What do you use then?' Sometimes, if the person has heard
of it, they'll ask 'What do you use? Linux?' I will then simply show them
my laptop, and say 'This is Linux.' And invariably, the ones who had
heard of Linux will say, 'That's Linux?!?' What really gets them is when
I have the current Excel spreadsheet on the screen - because we all know
that you *have* to have MS-Office to work with MS formatted files.
In my experience with such 'mini-demos', I've personally observed two
consistent facts:
1. Linux is only hard for the average user who hasn't tried using it.
2. If MS-Windows didn't come pre-installed on their computers, most
people would NOT use it.
Kenneth Downs
BO: Devastating. Doesn't take long to figure out the trespassers, does it?
wjbell
>
> wjbell wrote:
>
> > I started using linux in '97. I started using it as a hobbie to and to
> > learn about it. I've been using it steadily since then to run servers
> > and try out desktop systems on. After 5 years I just got tired of all
> > the time and effort I had to devote to it daily.
>
> Thanks for making me feel so smart. I tend to feel a bit inadequate around
> real programmers. I can hold my own in a lot of areas, but I can't talk
> about why Python improves on Perl of if LISP is for real men or how to
> patch bug z, but it took me much less than a half- year to get through the
> learning curve to the point where I was no longer expending time and effort
> on it daily.
Well then you weren't learning all you can. Do you mean to tell us that
in a half a year you've mastered linux? Please. I've probably
forgotton more than you know.
>
> Sure I have reems to learn, but about things I want to learn. My box is
> sailing so smooth you can play marbles on her deck.
My boxes where sailing smooth also. It was the parts of linux that I
have no control over that screwed up.
wjbell
>
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 00:17:34 +0000, wjbell wrote:
>
> > Bo Grimes wrote:
> >>
> >> wjbell wrote:
> >>
> >> > Ok, I can see your taking it way too litarally. More linux dodging
> >> > tactics. Let me rephrase it:
> >>
> >> In other words you realize you didn't have a leg to stand on and you are
> >> dodging.
> >
> > No, in other words I thought you could figure it out.
>
> You made a blanket statement. It was false. rather than admit it, you'll
> squirm and try to shift the blame. It's almost as fun watching you as it
> is watching T. Max. I'm enjoying this thread.
>
> >> > For the most part, all linux is good for is a hobby box.
> >>
> >> Again, this is demonstrably false unless you want to play games with the
> >> word hobby and call all Linux admins, all employees who use Linux and all
> >> coders who develop with it hobbiest.
> >>
> >
> > Just because people _can_ use it that doesn't mean it functions well or
> > could function better. It's the difference between driving a model T to
> > work or my BMW. The model T will get me there, it just takes more work.
>
> You have no evidence that most people who use
> linux use it as a hobby box. The above statement is irrenevent.
That's all it's good for for the average consumer. Maybe that's why
hardly anyones using it.
>
>
> >> >There are some exceptions,
> >>
> >> Like nearly every use.
> >>
> >> > but for most of the windows programs out there, you'll be
> >> > hard pressed to find somthing in linux that has the same level of
> >> > functionality and speed, if you can find it at all.
> >>
> >> We are talking about OSes, right? To begin with this statement also isn't
> >> true,
> >
> > Yes it is true, prove me wrong if it isn't.
>
> The whole OS. I can run the latest OS, with the latest versions of all
> the programs I use on my computer. I can't do that with windows. Looks
> like Linux is faster. WindozeXP would be a real dog on a P133.
>
Ever try KDE on a 133?
>
> >> but what's more, it's irrelavant, but I won't hold my breath while
> >> you try to work out why.
> >
> > If we are talking about linux only being a hobby box we have to
> > automatically consider the apps that run on it, right. Without apps an
> > OS is useless... hence linux.
>
> ...?
>
> Linux has apps. I use Linux only at home. I use apps on Linux. I can't
> see any missing apps.
Oh shit, can you point to to the download site for cubase32, logic audio
and cakewalk then?
>
> >>
> >> >KDE [...] will be more sluggish on the same hardware as compared to win98,
> >> w2k, XP.
> >>
> >> Again, my experience alone shows this to be false.
> >
> > I did some benchmarking on this. My experience shows it to be true.
>
> Put up or shut up. Publish the benchmarks and the benchmarking
> programs/tools, or no one will take you seriously.
You mean noone in cola will take me seriously?! How unfortunate that I
won't get the respect of my opinion in a group full of critical thinkers
like yourselves...
>
>
> >> I won't go so far as to say that you represent the typical Windows user
> >> because I know too many bright, reasonable, articulate and logical people
> >> who use Windows. I will venture to say that as you've presented yourself
> >> in this thread, you represent the typical ideologue.
> >
> > That joke's getting old. If you're going to use insults to try and make
> > yourself look more intellegent and sway the perception of the argument,
> > at least try a new one.
>
> No need to use insults to make you look stupid, but it's irresistable.
It makes a person look ignorant, like most cola posters with no sense of
reason. I'm sure if anyone comes in here looking to try linux they'll
make up their minds just looking at the way you people can't look at
somthing rationally. Keep up the good work!
wjbell
I noticed the windows in KDE opened a lot slower.
wjbell
As usual you're taking it way too litarally. Go ahead, keep thinking
that. Yes there are two instances in the world where linux is ok for
more than a hobby box. The resto of the world thinks otherwise.
wjbell
>
> wjbell wrote:
>
> > I'm talking about the average user, not a server stack. Coincidentally,
> > so was the original poster, of which my reply was based.
>
> Yes, and this average user told you he doesn't use it for a hobby! Pay
> attention! Don't try to suggest I support your position. This whole
> thread refutes your point.
>
> You think that if you can just deny, deny, deny, some people will, in this
> post-modern infected world, just shrug and say, "His word against the other
> guy's word."
>
> The problem with that can easily be demonstrated. Why would Linux Advocate
> lie? Let's say, Linux Advocate makes a false post about the ability of
> Linux because he wants to fool someone into trying it. (Which must be the
> case if it sucks.) If that person is fooled, what does Linux Advocate gain?
> Certaintly not money. If the person is fooled and Linux is as inaqequate
> and crappy as you say, fooled person goes back to Microsoft? How is he
> hurt? It's all just a big practical joke?
Try this on for size:
a linux advocate is so wrapped up in his little linux world that he
forgets about the good parts of windows. He's so worried about what
windows is doing wrong that he forgets about the nice parts of windows.
Therefor his standards are lowered. He dismisses that windows takes
milliseconds to open a program and accepts the 3 or 4 seconds linux
takes to do the same thing, and that is now the norm to him. So when he
recommend linux he actually thinks people will accept it. Unfortunatly,
they aren't wrapped up in linux and do notice that linux is prehistoric.
>
> Windows Advocate makes blanket assertions and denies, denies, denies every
> statement made by Linux Advocate. Tries to create FUD (where is the fear,
> uncertainty or doubt in my post?) and make it sound like a question of his
> word against theirs to keep the person from even taking a look for himself
> and seeing who's right.
>
> In the one case Linux Advocate is saying find out. In the other Windows
> Advocate is saying trust me. In the one case Linux Advocate is saying "try
> this OS." In the other case Windows Advocate is saying "Don't leave". In
> the one case Linux Advocate has nothing to gain. In the other case Windows
> Advocate probably has a lot to lose.
>
> Let the readers decide who has a better claim to honesty.
*yawn*
wjbell
Let them borrow your laptop for a day and see what their response is
when they bring it back. Looking at somthing is never a true test, all
it is is linux FUD your trying to pass off as proof that linux is
acceptable. It isn't.
wjbell
>
> On Fri, 01 Feb 2002 22:22:55 +0000, wjbell wrote:
>
> >> Premise: All Linux is good for is a hobby box.
> >> Fact: Many people use Linux for productivity.
> >
> > Hold on hotrod. Where's the fact? I don't see any facts. Just because
> > you and your cronies say it's a fact doesn't make it one. I can sit
> > here all day throwing around your kind of "facts"...
>
> Ok, fool, try this:
>
> http://www.google.com/jobs/internship.html
>
> google claims to use a 10,000 box linux cluster. Google isn't a hobby.
>
> Your premise is false.
>
> Oh wait. Everyone is lying/stupid, except you, of course.
>
> -Ed
>
> >> Therefore the premise is false.
> >
> > Wrong.
> >
> > [cut rest of unsubstantiated nonsense]
>
You missed the point again. Not server stacks, home users.
Darren
wrote:
>
> My boxes where sailing smooth also. It was the parts of linux that I
> have no control over that screwed up.
>
And what part of Linux do you '... have no control over...' ??
>> And BTW, since today makes 5 years from Feb 97' you just went back to
>> Windows as a desktop like, what, yesterday?
Care to answer the question or simply *yawn* as per your usual retreat?
Darren
wrote:
> That's all it's good for for the average consumer. Maybe that's why
> hardly anyones using it.
>
>
Lot's of google, TiVo, and Playstation2 consumers out there .. hardly
fits the concept of 'hardly anyone'.
> Ever try KDE on a 133?
>
>
Yes. Works fine. I prefer GNOME though .. I used a 133 w/ 32M RAM for my
first Mandrake installation .. and haven't used MS-Windows at home since
then.
>
> You mean noone in cola will take me seriously?! How unfortunate that I
> won't get the respect of my opinion in a group full of critical thinkers
> like yourselves...
>
>
I'm a very critical thinker - but I perceive that your implication was that
criticism is negative .. it's not necessarily so.
>
> It makes a person look ignorant, like most cola posters with no sense of
> reason. I'm sure if anyone comes in here looking to try linux they'll
> make up their minds just looking at the way you people can't look at
> somthing rationally. Keep up the good work!
Well, considering that most of the irrational posts in COLA are put forth
by Wintrolls such as yourself, I think the lurkers may indeed get a very
positive impression of Linux users compared to Winvocates.
Isn't this the part where you respond with '*yawn*'?
--
The reason the rock is there is because it isn't here.
Darren
wrote:
Publish your test plan with results so that we can conduct the same tests
ourselves.
Otherwise it's just one opinion vs. another. Considering that you have
previously posted some pretty ignorant posts most recently, take a wild guess
as to whose opinion carrys more weight.
I think this is the point where you respond with *yawn* ...
--
The problem with probability is that it's only predictable some of the
time.
Darren
wrote:
Millions of instances - one for each TiVo and Playstation2 used. One for
each time someone uses Google. One for each secretary, clerk, or other
'average' worker using it at their desk.
You do know the meaning of the word 'instance' don't you?
This is where you post with a single *yawn* .. as per your usual response
to reasoned replies that don't resort to the ad hominem.
Darren
wrote:
The taxpayers of Largo, Florida, are probably glad you're mistaken. Having
the 'average' user in their city offices has saved them MILLIONS in tax
dollars.
Then there are the millions of users of Amazon who are able to pay lower
prices because Amazon is saving MILLIONS using Linux to provide the
'average' user with their service.
Then there are also the millions of TiVo customers who probably don't
even realize there's a full blown Linux computer providing their TV
programming.
And how many millions of Playstation2's are being used by 'average'
users?
I'll stop here and wait for your usual *yawn* response.
Darren
wrote:
>
> Try this on for size:
>
> a linux advocate is so wrapped up in his little linux world that he
> forgets about the good parts of windows. He's so worried about what
> windows is doing wrong that he forgets about the nice parts of windows.
> Therefor his standards are lowered. He dismisses that windows takes
> milliseconds to open a program and accepts the 3 or 4 seconds linux
> takes to do the same thing, and that is now the norm to him. So when he
> recommend linux he actually thinks people will accept it. Unfortunatly,
> they aren't wrapped up in linux and do notice that linux is prehistoric.
>
>
Try this on for size - I haven't seen any 'good parts' of MS-Windows
(the word 'Windows' is a common use term that does NOT belong to
Microsoft).
As for taking longer time to open up applications - It takes longer for
MS-Word to start on the brand new Dell workstation assigned to me at work than it does
to start AbiWord on my 5-year-old Thinkpad 560e. It's also a longer wait
to open Excel compared to Gnumeric. Galeon at home opens google as quickly
as IE on the workstation at work (I don't connect my Thinkpad to the
network at work.)
>> Windows Advocate makes blanket assertions and denies, denies, denies
>> every statement made by Linux Advocate. Tries to create FUD (where is
>> the fear, uncertainty or doubt in my post?) and make it sound like a
>> question of his word against theirs to keep the person from even taking
>> a look for himself and seeing who's right.
>>
>> In the one case Linux Advocate is saying find out. In the other
>> Windows Advocate is saying trust me. In the one case Linux Advocate is
>> saying "try this OS." In the other case Windows Advocate is saying
>> "Don't leave". In the one case Linux Advocate has nothing to gain. In
>> the other case Windows Advocate probably has a lot to lose.
>>
>> Let the readers decide who has a better claim to honesty.
>
> *yawn*
^^^^^^^
Retreating a little early in this thread, aren't you?
Darren
wrote:
And you are being purposely dense ..
Home users are *using* Google. Google is running on Linux - ergo, Home
users are *using* Linux. With no difficulty.
Home users are *using* TiVo. TiVo is running on Linux - ergo, Home users
are *using* Linux. With no difficulty.
Sun sponsored a 'usability' survey for GNOME some months back - one of the most
memorable final conclusions was that for basic usability, these enigmatic
home users that you keep referring to would have no real difficulty
*using* GNOME or Linux.
(This is the point where you respond with your one word surrender -
*yawn*)
--
The point of believing something is that not believing takes more work.
Edward Rosten
>> > Just because people _can_ use it that doesn't mean it functions well or
>> > could function better. It's the difference between driving a model T to
>> > work or my BMW. The model T will get me there, it just takes more work.
>>
>> You have no evidence that most people who use
>> linux use it as a hobby box. The above statement is irrenevent.
>
> That's all it's good for for the average consumer. Maybe that's why
> hardly anyones using it.
Eh? That statement makes no sense in context. You have no evdence...
that's all its good for.
>> >> > but for most of the windows programs out there, you'll be
>> >> > hard pressed to find somthing in linux that has the same level of
>> >> > functionality and speed, if you can find it at all.
>> >>
>> >> We are talking about OSes, right? To begin with this statement also isn't
>> >> true,
>> >
>> > Yes it is true, prove me wrong if it isn't.
>>
>> The whole OS. I can run the latest OS, with the latest versions of all
>> the programs I use on my computer. I can't do that with windows. Looks
>> like Linux is faster. WindozeXP would be a real dog on a P133.
>>
>
> Ever try KDE on a 133?
Nope. I haven't got KDE installed. I do use Gnome apps, though. I have
proof if you check my headers. I use fvwm2, though.
>> > If we are talking about linux only being a hobby box we have to
>> > automatically consider the apps that run on it, right. Without apps an
>> > OS is useless... hence linux.
>>
>> ...?
>>
>> Linux has apps. I use Linux only at home. I use apps on Linux. I can't
>> see any missing apps.
>
> Oh shit, can you point to to the download site for cubase32, logic audio
> and cakewalk then?
Oh, no! Linux can't do professional audio! Therefore it can't be good for
_anything_. Tell me, wjbell, why are so many of the wintroll
`professional' misicians? Is that because this is one of the only class
of apps where Linux has a poor showing?
T|o restate my point: I, like most of the rest of the world, do not use
professional audio apps. Everything I need exists on Linux. Everything
that many people need exists on Linux.
>> >> >KDE [...] will be more sluggish on the same hardware as compared to win98,
>> >> w2k, XP.
>> >>
>> >> Again, my experience alone shows this to be false.
>> >
>> > I did some benchmarking on this. My experience shows it to be true.
>>
>> Put up or shut up. Publish the benchmarks and the benchmarking
>> programs/tools, or no one will take you seriously.
>
> You mean noone in cola will take me seriously?! How unfortunate that I
> won't get the respect of my opinion in a group full of critical thinkers
> like yourselves...
I see, more dodging tactics.
wjbell: Winows rox, linux sux coz I said so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
cola_poster: any reason?
wjbell: like I gove a shit what you think. Your all stupid wankers who
use a crap OS. I'm going to go away and look at the adverts for cubase in
a music magazine, now.
Edward Rosten
>> All it takes is one case to disprove a blanket claim.
>
> As usual you're taking it way too litarally. Go ahead, keep thinking
> that. Yes there are two instances in the world where linux is ok for
> more than a hobby box. The resto of the world thinks otherwise.
Yeah, fool. You've got to read what he said in an open enough fasion to
be able to altre the meaning if it turns out that whay he said is
rubbish.
Edward Rosten
Oh I see.
"All its good for is a hobby box."
Translates to: despite being used in the in clusters of thousands in the
real world, used in consumer devices such as Tivo, used as many, many
corporate servers, used for render farms by the top animation studios and
used by many municipal organisations, not to mention millions of users,
its still only good for a hobby box.
You have a really wierd world view, wjbell.
-Ed
Charlie Ebert
> Previous thread. Read it, don't read it, I can care less.
And this sum's it up in a nutshell.
You really COULD CARE LESS what the actual facts of the
matter are.
You would prefer to live in your dream world and ignore
the facts at hand.
--
Charlie
http://24.94.230.113/Linux/intro.html
By 2005 Linux will be Dominate!
Charlie Ebert
> > >
> > > And just because you say so!
> > No.. because it is a consistent and repeatable demonstration - that's
> > what it means to be a 'fact'.
>
> I don't think so. I've ran the tests. Windows is faster. Period.
Well, you'll never see MS going for another side by side
test with Linux today!
XP is a slow-bloated wallowing PIG of an operating system
and Linux with the 2.4 kernel is a moon rocket of an operating
system.
Working of .jpg and .gif files make me believe I'm on a fucking
MAC it's so damn fast!
Quake2 just fly's on this thing!
Ian Pegel
Like anyone would trust an automatic update....
And what was your fallback plan if it failed?
You did have one, didn't you?
Or were you unprepared?
That's more like it, you portray yourself as a computer savvy
dude when in reality your words and descriptions of your actions show you
to be nothing more than a half-brained toad with less idea of how to
admin a system than a discarded cigarette end.
To fail to prepare is to perpare to fail. Something that was taught to me
by a Windows NT admin...
--
Ian - looking through a glass onion
wjbell
Whether or not I chose to go back to windows is irrelevent.