It's the about the apps stupid
Larry Qualig
System they use. (Except for the zealots on either side of course.)
Most "computer users" spend their day using applications, not the OS.
Give them an OS that will run the apps they need (Quicken, TurboTax,
PhotoShop, etc.) and they could care less what OS is underneath the app
managing memory and writing to disk. Give them an OS that does things
well internally but doesn't run the application they want/need to run
and they could care less about the OS.
In the overwhelming majority of the cases It really is that simple. And
don't tell me about GnuCash being a replacement for Quicken. I've been
using Quicken since the mid-90's and GnuCash is nowhere near being
ready for the masses the way Quicken is. GIMP is a good graphics app
but it's too "different" for people to pickup and use.
Again, people want to use apps and get work done. They could care less
about the underlying OS and they don't want to re-learn what they
already know. MS-Office to Open-Office is fairly painless for most
people. Moving to Gimp not so painless.
odzangba
which they run. Which is why the guys who churn out Crossover Office
are in my good books. I mean, I run Photoshop, Quicken, SNES,
Dreamweaver, iTunes and a bunch of small apps (that used to keep me
tied to Windows) on Ubuntu... no emulators or any of that scary stuff,
just good old Crossover Office 5. And you know what, they actually run
faster on Ubuntu than on Windows.
Phil Da Lick!
> Exactly my thoughts. The real issue here is the apps, not the OS on
> which they run.
Which is precisely (a) why M$ spent most of the 80s and 90s making sure
application development by ISVs was on windows and (b) they are now
crapping in their pants at the thought of internet service driven apps
which could run on any platform.
Kier
> My contention is that people don't give a darn about the Operating
> System they use. (Except for the zealots on either side of course.)
> Most "computer users" spend their day using applications, not the OS.
>
> Give them an OS that will run the apps they need (Quicken, TurboTax,
> PhotoShop, etc.) and they could care less what OS is underneath the app
> managing memory and writing to disk. Give them an OS that does things
> well internally but doesn't run the application they want/need to run
> and they could care less about the OS.
I don't think this is necessarily untrue, but it isn't true for everyone.
>
> In the overwhelming majority of the cases It really is that simple. And
> don't tell me about GnuCash being a replacement for Quicken. I've been
> using Quicken since the mid-90's and GnuCash is nowhere near being
> ready for the masses the way Quicken is. GIMP is a good graphics app
> but it's too "different" for people to pickup and use.
Quicken works on Wine - I know, because my brother uses it, and he says
it's not hard to set up, either.
As for GIMP, I must say I disagree with you. Of course, there will always
be those for whom familiarity is the prime concern, but that isn't
everyone. Certainly wasn't the case for me. One of the reasons I liked
Linux so much at the beginning was that it wasn't like Windows. The
novelty more than makde up for any difficulty I might have had at first in
using unfamiliar apps.
>
> Again, people want to use apps and get work done. They could care less
> about the underlying OS and they don't want to re-learn what they
> already know. MS-Office to Open-Office is fairly painless for most
> people. Moving to Gimp not so painless.
The majority of ordinary users won't have been using Photoshop, but any
number of different apps provided by all kinds of companies, which often
don't resemble each other in the slightest. And the latest versions of the
GIMP are much better than the one I started with (something like 1.2, I
think). Once you grasp the basic concepts, it's not really that hard to
use or learn.
What tends to be overlooked is that no one is born knowing how to use
either Windows or Linux. Everything has to be learned.
--
Kier
ray
It sounds like you should stick with MS. You might also put a bug in
Intuit's ear about liking to have a Linux version of Quicken. I used
Quicken a long time. Transitioned to GnuCash a couple of years ago and I'm
quite satisfied. There are also other options: KmyMoney, MoneyDance. I've
always done my taxes the old fashioned way - I figure once you collect and
organize the information the battle is 90% over. The rest is just a matter
of filling in the data - doesn't seem to me that computerizing it really
adds much.
For the digital photo editing that I do, GIMP works quite satisfactorily
(along with pano tools). I could never justify the cost of PhotoShop even
if it ran on Linux.
For me, I've noticed two areas where I might be willing to explore: tax
prep we've already covered - this is not a real biggie, but I'd look at
it. The one thing I've looked for and not found is Linux greeting card
software - to print cards, not to make e-cards - my wife would be quite
delighted.
I've been running Linux on my computer for several years. The kicker on my
wife's machine was a couple of years ago when win98 became so unstable
that it was virtually unusable. It doesn't matter how many apps you have
for your system if the damned thing won't stay up long enough to use them.
Larry Qualig
Kier wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 05:43:39 -0700, Larry Qualig wrote:
>
> > My contention is that people don't give a darn about the Operating
> > System they use. (Except for the zealots on either side of course.)
> > Most "computer users" spend their day using applications, not the OS.
> >
> > Give them an OS that will run the apps they need (Quicken, TurboTax,
> > PhotoShop, etc.) and they could care less what OS is underneath the app
> > managing memory and writing to disk. Give them an OS that does things
> > well internally but doesn't run the application they want/need to run
> > and they could care less about the OS.
>
> I don't think this is necessarily untrue, but it isn't true for everyone.
>
> >
> > In the overwhelming majority of the cases It really is that simple. And
> > don't tell me about GnuCash being a replacement for Quicken. I've been
> > using Quicken since the mid-90's and GnuCash is nowhere near being
> > ready for the masses the way Quicken is. GIMP is a good graphics app
> > but it's too "different" for people to pickup and use.
>
> Quicken works on Wine - I know, because my brother uses it, and he says
> it's not hard to set up, either.
I haven't installed Wine on any of my machines. Trying not to. The
point not mentioned is that native/Linux versions of things like
Quicken and TurboTax would be more productive. I can't put my finger on
it but using Linux to simulate a Windows environment just seems less
ideal than having native apps.
> As for GIMP, I must say I disagree with you. Of course, there will always
> be those for whom familiarity is the prime concern, but that isn't
> everyone. Certainly wasn't the case for me. One of the reasons I liked
> Linux so much at the beginning was that it wasn't like Windows. The
> novelty more than makde up for any difficulty I might have had at first in
> using unfamiliar apps.
I think the "something new" (or novelty as you call it) is very
appealing to people. People do get bored after a while and are looking
for something fresh and new.
> > Again, people want to use apps and get work done. They could care less
> > about the underlying OS and they don't want to re-learn what they
> > already know. MS-Office to Open-Office is fairly painless for most
> > people. Moving to Gimp not so painless.
>
> The majority of ordinary users won't have been using Photoshop, but any
> number of different apps provided by all kinds of companies, which often
> don't resemble each other in the slightest. And the latest versions of the
> GIMP are much better than the one I started with (something like 1.2, I
> think). Once you grasp the basic concepts, it's not really that hard to
> use or learn.
For better or worse PhotoShop is considered to be the reference
standard for imaging. I got my (light) edition for free when I bought a
high-end video card. A couple of years later Adobe must have wanted to
get some last minute sales to make their profit target for the quarter
or something and I was able to upgrade to the newest full version for
some ridiculously low price.
For how seldom most people use graphics apps it's difficult to justify
re-learning a new app. By this I mean that if I used it every day/often
then perhaps it would be worthwhile to take the time and learn a new
package. But as a casual user I just want to touch-up some photos once
in a while and don't necessarily want to devote time to learning
something new for a once-in-a-while app.
> What tends to be overlooked is that no one is born knowing how to use
> either Windows or Linux. Everything has to be learned.
True. But people tend to learn what they're exposed to. It's that whole
momentum thing.
Have a good day.
- LQ
B Gruff
Could you just run that one again, please?
In particular,
Photoshop
Quicken
Dreamweaver
You reckon they run under Ubuntu/Crossover, with NO issues?
Have you used them fairly extensively? i.e. used them enough, and used
sufficient of their facilities, to make that an honest appraisal?
The reason I ask is because if that really is the case, you have blown one
of the biggest holes in the trolls' arguments since I joined this group!
Do RSVP!
Cyberwasteland
I agree with most of what you say here... except that I found GIMP to
be different in a good way - as did my wife, who doesn't use Linux at
all. She now creates almost all her Web graphics in GIMP - except for
certain times when she uses Fireworks for various reasons (hot spots,
customer criterion).
> Most "computer users" spend their day using applications, not the OS.
But, in using those apps, are they not using the OS?
Kier
> Hey there Kier....
Hi, Larry.
>
> Kier wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 05:43:39 -0700, Larry Qualig wrote:
>>
>> > My contention is that people don't give a darn about the Operating
>> > System they use. (Except for the zealots on either side of course.)
>> > Most "computer users" spend their day using applications, not the OS.
>> >
>> > Give them an OS that will run the apps they need (Quicken, TurboTax,
>> > PhotoShop, etc.) and they could care less what OS is underneath the app
>> > managing memory and writing to disk. Give them an OS that does things
>> > well internally but doesn't run the application they want/need to run
>> > and they could care less about the OS.
>>
>> I don't think this is necessarily untrue, but it isn't true for everyone.
>>
>> >
>> > In the overwhelming majority of the cases It really is that simple. And
>> > don't tell me about GnuCash being a replacement for Quicken. I've been
>> > using Quicken since the mid-90's and GnuCash is nowhere near being
>> > ready for the masses the way Quicken is. GIMP is a good graphics app
>> > but it's too "different" for people to pickup and use.
>>
>> Quicken works on Wine - I know, because my brother uses it, and he says
>> it's not hard to set up, either.
>
> I haven't installed Wine on any of my machines. Trying not to. The
> point not mentioned is that native/Linux versions of things like
> Quicken and TurboTax would be more productive. I can't put my finger on
> it but using Linux to simulate a Windows environment just seems less
> ideal than having native apps.
Well, of course, you wouldn't be doing it for *all* your apps, just thse
few you might feel didn't have a good enough replacement in Linux.
>
>> As for GIMP, I must say I disagree with you. Of course, there will
>> always be those for whom familiarity is the prime concern, but that
>> isn't everyone. Certainly wasn't the case for me. One of the reasons I
>> liked Linux so much at the beginning was that it wasn't like Windows.
>> The novelty more than makde up for any difficulty I might have had at
>> first in using unfamiliar apps.
>
> I think the "something new" (or novelty as you call it) is very
> appealing to people. People do get bored after a while and are looking
> for something fresh and new.
That's absolutely true. And of course it's one reason that people keep
buying the next version of Windows, or trying a different distro. People
like the familiar, but sometimes they do crave a change of scene.
>
>
>> > Again, people want to use apps and get work done. They could care
>> > less about the underlying OS and they don't want to re-learn what
>> > they already know. MS-Office to Open-Office is fairly painless for
>> > most people. Moving to Gimp not so painless.
>>
>> The majority of ordinary users won't have been using Photoshop, but any
>> number of different apps provided by all kinds of companies, which
>> often don't resemble each other in the slightest. And the latest
>> versions of the GIMP are much better than the one I started with
>> (something like 1.2, I think). Once you grasp the basic concepts, it's
>> not really that hard to use or learn.
>
> For better or worse PhotoShop is considered to be the reference standard
> for imaging. I got my (light) edition for free when I bought a high-end
> video card. A couple of years later Adobe must have wanted to get some
> last minute sales to make their profit target for the quarter or
> something and I was able to upgrade to the newest full version for some
> ridiculously low price.
That's nice :-). I've used a cut-down Photoshop, but I really preferred
Paint Shop Pro. I've always reckoned GIMP to be roughly comparable with
PSP in features and general usage.
But if you think GIMP is hard to learn, you should try Blender (great app,
BTW, and I really need to get into it more).
>
> For how seldom most people use graphics apps it's difficult to justify
> re-learning a new app. By this I mean that if I used it every day/often
> then perhaps it would be worthwhile to take the time and learn a new
> package. But as a casual user I just want to touch-up some photos once
> in a while and don't necessarily want to devote time to learning
> something new for a once-in-a-while app.
My brother tells me Wine is easy to get going now - I did express some
trepidation about installing it, as I'd heard it wasn't always a simple
matter. But like most Linux apps, it continues to improve. He used to use
CrossOver Office to run teh few Windows apps he felt he couldn't live
without, but that list has dwindled over time, till it was basically just
Quicken.
If you can get Winde to work, it seems to be a good way of maintaining the
apps you're used to while learning others, until a total switchover
becomes possible.
>
>> What tends to be overlooked is that no one is born knowing how to use
>> either Windows or Linux. Everything has to be learned.
>
> True. But people tend to learn what they're exposed to. It's that whole
> momentum thing.
That's true. A good reason for trying to expose them to Linux :-)
>
> Have a good day.
>
I am now - home from work, a nice roast dinner in half and hour, and then
a couple of glasses of Jack Daniels to mellow me out ready for the weekend
assault on the Spring cleaning.
Hope you have a pleasant weekend.
--
Kier
chrisv
>My contention is that people don't give a darn about the Operating
>System they use. (Except for the zealots on either side of course.)
>Most "computer users" spend their day using applications, not the OS.
That's very profound, Larry. We never would have guessed that
Windows' advantage in applications (in quantity and in people's
experience) is the main reason why they dominate the market. But
isn't this the wrong group for your Windows advocacy?
Larry Qualig
I wasn't advocating anything. Just pointing out that sometimes people
get so hung up about the OS specific issues that they forget what users
actually need from a computer. Sort of the "Can't see the forest
because of the trees" cliche.
Availability of applications + familiarity with the apps is a powerful
force. Linux has done great on the server front and much of that is
because of the availability of common apps like Oracle, DB2, etc. Get
native versions of Quicken, Photoshop, TurboTax etc. for the desktop
and a similar transition will happen.
Nothing to do with advocacy other than people shouldn't lose sight of
the fact that it's the apps that drive the platform and not the other
way around. DOS for example was lame even by the standards that existed
at the time. DOS became extremely powerful not because of DOS, but
because of apps like WordPerfect, dBase and Lotus123.
Ray Ingles
> Availability of applications + familiarity with the apps is a powerful
> force.
It's not an *insurmountable* force, though. Fortunately, for the most
common operations (web browsing, email) there are very good open source
programs that run on Windows. As I've noted, once I got my parents onto
Firefox and Thunderbird, moving them to Linux was almost effortless.
The strategy I like right now is moving people to apps that'll work
with Windows *or* Linux. Once you've done that, and Windows has to
compete on price and merit, well... :->
> Linux has done great on the server front and much of that is
> because of the availability of common apps like Oracle, DB2, etc. Get
> native versions of Quicken, Photoshop, TurboTax etc. for the desktop
> and a similar transition will happen.
Or, get the open-source apps to be compelling alternatives even on
Windows. The idea of web-based apps could contribute, too.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Remember when we had that war on drugs and now there aren't
any drugs anymore?" - dameron
JEDIDIAH
>> Larry Qualig wrote:
>>
>> >My contention is that people don't give a darn about the Operating
>> >System they use. (Except for the zealots on either side of course.)
>> >Most "computer users" spend their day using applications, not the OS.
>>
>> That's very profound, Larry. We never would have guessed that
>> Windows' advantage in applications (in quantity and in people's
>> experience) is the main reason why they dominate the market. But
>> isn't this the wrong group for your Windows advocacy?
>
>
> I wasn't advocating anything. Just pointing out that sometimes people
> get so hung up about the OS specific issues that they forget what users
> actually need from a computer. Sort of the "Can't see the forest
> because of the trees" cliche.
Obviously you've never experienced one of my "it's gotta be
DOS compatable" rants. Although I really can't see how that would be
possible.
[deletia]
--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu
OS, but they do care when their system is bogged down into uselessness
by worms and viruses. Ordinary users are not geeks, and just want the
system to work. They don't want to (and usually don't) upgrade their
antivirus software every week, etc. And they don't want to shell out a
lot of money to buy a new version of the OS, including the new hardware
needed to run it.
A lot of ordinary users do nothing with their computers except email,
web browsing, and writing letters. For them an old computer running
Linux gives them everything they want.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:slrne4i9u3....@localhost.localdomain...
>
> The strategy I like right now is moving people to apps that'll work
> with Windows *or* Linux. Once you've done that, and Windows has to
> compete on price and merit, well... :->
>
Take your premise "compete on price and merit" and see what happens when
you look at that through the eyes of a typical user. To start with, as
Larry has pointed out, the user's favorite apps will not run native on
linux. That is a showstopper, of course, but you guys don't seem to be
aware that is a problem since you hate MS so much! In any event it is a
minus in the merit column for linux.
When it comes to price, Windows shows up most often as just part of the
package and you have to find an equivalent linux machine with matching
features to determine what the price difference really is. Linux
doesn't seem to show up well here, either.
Your anecdotes are not so compelling since you have obviously spent a
number of hours or even days in some contrived plan to convert your own
parents to linux use. No one is going to put in that time and effort
for the average buyer at Best Buy, ray. The clerk sells the safe
package and that is going to be Windows. There isn't anything on the
upside for the channel and really nothing but hot air on the upside for
the user. There is a lot of downside, though, and until that reverses
and can overcome the natural inertia in the system, linux goes nowhere.
odzangba
>In particular,
> Photoshop
> Quicken
> Dreamweaver
>You reckon they run under Ubuntu/Crossover, with NO issues?
They run very well under Ubuntu/Crossover... with very trivial issues.
The biggest of which was Photoshop's insistence on using the Arial font
as its default font (don't know why). But once I installed the required
font nothing annoying has come up so for.
And yes I have used them extensively and I can say to you again that
they work fine under linux.
B Gruff
That's absolutely great - and thanks for your confirmation.
As I said, those three have been a real pain as far as the trolls around
here have been concerned. In fact, I'm now even tempted to cough up a few
bucks and give Crossover a try - not so much for my own use, but rather to
be in a position to reassure (or demonstrate to) would-be converts.
Many thanks:-)
rapskat
> Give them an OS that will run the apps they need (Quicken, TurboTax,
> PhotoShop, etc.) and they could care less what OS is underneath the app
> managing memory and writing to disk. Give them an OS that does things
> well internally but doesn't run the application they want/need to run
> and they could care less about the OS.
I agree. That's why I simply can't use Windows. Most the great
applications that I use just aren't available on that platform, and even
if they are they run like crap in comparison.
--
rapskat - 13:07:15 up 2 days, 17:29, 1 user, load average: 0.04, 0.20, 0.31
bash.org #100 -
<Kayem> Don't tell anyone, but... I'M the one who gave Stella her
groove back
Larry Qualig
rapskat wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 05:43:39 -0700, Larry Qualig wrote:
>
> > Give them an OS that will run the apps they need (Quicken, TurboTax,
> > PhotoShop, etc.) and they could care less what OS is underneath the app
> > managing memory and writing to disk. Give them an OS that does things
> > well internally but doesn't run the application they want/need to run
> > and they could care less about the OS.
>
> I agree. That's why I simply can't use Windows. Most the great
> applications that I use just aren't available on that platform, and even
> if they are they run like crap in comparison.
There are good apps available (for free) with Linux distros. Many of
these same apps (Audaciy, Open-Office, Gimp, etc.) can also be
downloaded for Windows. Yet the marketshare for these apps is
surprisingly low. Okay, okay... the writers don't care about
marketshare. Whatever. But given that these apps are more than adequate
for 90% or more of the users it's still surprising that more people
don't use the free alternative.
I think the point here is that there is a mindset out there and people
want to use a) What they are used to and b) What everyone else is
using. (Or what they "think" everyone else is using.)
If people "cut their teeth" on these Linux apps in the first place we
wouldn't be seeing this happening. But people continue to buy and use
what they are accustomed to using and that's a something that will take
time to change IMO.
Have a good night.
- Larry
Ray Ingles
>>
>> The strategy I like right now is moving people to apps that'll work
>> with Windows *or* Linux. Once you've done that, and Windows has to
>> compete on price and merit, well... :->
> Take your premise "compete on price and merit" and see what happens when
> you look at that through the eyes of a typical user. To start with, as
> Larry has pointed out, the user's favorite apps will not run native on
> linux.
Wow. I propose helping people move to cross-platform apps, and Bill
says, 'the apps they use now aren't cross-platform'. Profound as always!
> When it comes to price, Windows shows up most often as just part of the
> package
Even if the price of Windows (which does show up as a line item on the
invoice, at minimum) is 'masked' from the consumer, it surely is *not*
masked from the OEM. *They* have an incentive to reduce their costs, as
I've noted before:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/2a889bd2f99a269c
...Gee, and I was responding to you, too.
The point being that, once enough cross-platform apps are out there
(and there's more all the time - web and email are a done deal, office
stuff is progressing *very* rapidly, other things like Quicken
replacements are not that far behind) then it's in the *OEM's* interest
to sell higher-profit Linux machines.
Hey, microcomputers were toys, and ignored by IBM and the other
players... but they kept growing, and ate up the market from below. The
PC was *way* less functional and elegant than a Mac, but got the job
done and cost less. *Both* were less functional than minicomputers and
big iron, but the price was compelling.
> and you have to find an equivalent linux machine with matching
> features to determine what the price difference really is. Linux
> doesn't seem to show up well here, either.
Not that you, y'know, back that up or anything.
> Your anecdotes are not so compelling since you have obviously spent a
> number of hours or even days in some contrived plan to convert your own
> parents to linux use. No one is going to put in that time and effort
> for the average buyer at Best Buy, ray.
Not yet, sure. But I think that'll change. Economically, it makes too
much sense to get rid of the proprietary Windows infrastructure and use
common, open standards. I think Linux has the best shot at this, but at
some point something will.
The vast majority of software *isn't* written for sale anyway.
Businesses are starting to actually twig to this, and Linux desktops
make good sense there.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/magic-cauldron/magic-cauldron-3.html
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Technically, Windows is an operating system, which means that it
supplies your computer with the basic commands it needs to suddenly,
with no warning whatsoever, stop operating." - Dave Barry
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>
> The vast majority of software *isn't* written for sale anyway.
> Businesses are starting to actually twig to this, and Linux desktops
> make good sense there.
>
I don't disagree with that premise about software volume, although it
necessarily isn't written "in house" either. IBM, Perot, EDS, and many
others provide the specialized "work for hire" kind of software that
most companies use rather than have it produced by in-house staff. And
that is another source of stability for Windows and Microsoft much more
than any opportunity for OSS.
Huge amounts of this specialty code was implemented as VBA glue that
processed Excel, Word, and Access forms into company reports used as
control documents for production, finance, and personnel administration.
So when you talk about replacing MS Office with Open Office, you are
just whistling Dixie at many sites that need the rest of the Office
functionality that the copycats cannot replicate.
As more and more of this software moss adheres to the corporate
computing rock, the less likely it is that anyone would want to take the
risk of changing to the linux desktop and so require the immediate re-do
of these systems that have been around for over a decade of use.
Nothing, once implemented, ever seems to go away, just remember the Y2K
story. New systems are often created using Java or .Net and might lend
themselves to easier conversion, but no one does a wholesale replacement
of everything at once. So at any juncture, it is always safer and less
costly to extend the platform that supports it all, new and old, i.e.
Windows.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-04-21, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The strategy I like right now is moving people to apps that'll work
>>> with Windows *or* Linux. Once you've done that, and Windows has to
>>> compete on price and merit, well... :->
>
>> Take your premise "compete on price and merit" and see what happens
>> when
>> you look at that through the eyes of a typical user. To start with,
>> as
>> Larry has pointed out, the user's favorite apps will not run native
>> on
>> linux.
>
> Wow. I propose helping people move to cross-platform apps, and Bill
> says, 'the apps they use now aren't cross-platform'. Profound as
> always!
>
applications. That puts you out of the ballgame before it even begins.
>> When it comes to price, Windows shows up most often as just part of
>> the
>> package
>
> Even if the price of Windows (which does show up as a line item on the
> invoice, at minimum) is 'masked' from the consumer, it surely is *not*
> masked from the OEM. *They* have an incentive to reduce their costs,
> as
> I've noted before:
>
What line on my Dell invoice, ray? Certainly not on my wife's Compaq
either. You have been reading too many of rick's posts!
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/2a889bd2f99a269c
>
You create castles in the air, ray, and expect them to work? Silly.
You continue to put words in my mouth and then criticize them, but you
are exceedingly transparent at that and no one is fooled other than the
COLA regulars who are eager to be fooled anyway and hardly require such
an effort.
It is not an issue with the price of Windows or the price of linux at
all. It is with the fulfillment of the customers needs and expectations
in the eyes of the customer. When the customer doesn't give a damn
about the various things touted as linux virutes, the COLA bretheren
call them names and laugh. But that is the result of linux not having
any marketing sense at all and still looking at computers as they did 20
years ago. Times have changed, but unix/linux has not and that is sure
to be their fatal flaw.
> ...Gee, and I was responding to you, too.
>
> The point being that, once enough cross-platform apps are out there
> (and there's more all the time - web and email are a done deal, office
> stuff is progressing *very* rapidly, other things like Quicken
> replacements are not that far behind) then it's in the *OEM's*
> interest
> to sell higher-profit Linux machines.
>
No one wants a Quicken replacement either, ray. It would be easier to
sell them linux with some version of Wine that they trusted.
> Hey, microcomputers were toys, and ignored by IBM and the other
> players... but they kept growing, and ate up the market from below.
> The
> PC was *way* less functional and elegant than a Mac, but got the job
> done and cost less. *Both* were less functional than minicomputers and
> big iron, but the price was compelling.
>
That is where you make a huge mistake, ray. PC's did no such thing.
There was no "market from below". PC's invented their own market niche
as a sort of Swiss Army super calculator, word processor, game player,
and administrative side-kick. People were using other solutions for
those needs until the IBM PC came around and made it common to use a
computer. The joke at the time was that Macintosh users would have been
Unix users had they gone to a better university. That may still be true
and equally applicable to linux.
>> and you have to find an equivalent linux machine with matching
>> features to determine what the price difference really is. Linux
>> doesn't seem to show up well here, either.
>
> Not that you, y'know, back that up or anything.
>
>> Your anecdotes are not so compelling since you have obviously spent a
>> number of hours or even days in some contrived plan to convert your
>> own
>> parents to linux use. No one is going to put in that time and effort
>> for the average buyer at Best Buy, ray.
>
> Not yet, sure. But I think that'll change. Economically, it makes too
> much sense to get rid of the proprietary Windows infrastructure and
> use
> common, open standards. I think Linux has the best shot at this, but
> at
> some point something will.
>
Everyone has steak for sale and the successful vendors sell the sizzle
and aroma. People pay extra for that. Same, too, with the "shopping
goods" category that computers have migrated into within the overall
goods and products market. Notice where Mr. Softee has a claim to fame
ready for almost any current itch that a consumer may have. If the
consumer is riled about security and stability, Vista is on the horizon
and is claimed to satisfy that need. Timing is important and if you
have no one other than the likes of Torvalds and Stallman setting the
pace, you're screwed from the start! LOL!!!
Ray Ingles
>> Wow. I propose helping people move to cross-platform apps, and Bill
>> says, 'the apps they use now aren't cross-platform'. Profound as
>> always!
>>
> Which means your intial premise is that they have to use non-favorite
> applications. That puts you out of the ballgame before it even begins.
Of course, your (barely) unspoken assumption is that it's impossible to
get people to switch applications. This is demonstrably not true -
again, look at Firefox. 10% share worldwide, *much* more in many areas,
and no extensive ad campaign, just good quality software, and word of
mouth.
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/2a889bd2f99a269c
>>
> You create castles in the air, ray, and expect them to work? Silly.
I note you make no attempt to dispute the basic notions that (a) OEMs
want to minimize their costs and (b) Windows is a very significant
portion of their costs.
You've always potrayed that cost as a necessary one for doing business.
I've merely been pointing out that that's not an inevitable law of
nature but a condition that depends on circumstances... circumstances
that can change.
> You continue to put words in my mouth and then criticize them
Well, no one can say you don't have chutzpah. On the other hand, you
try to turn most things on their head, why not this too?
> It is not an issue with the price of Windows or the price of linux at
> all. It is with the fulfillment of the customers needs and expectations
> in the eyes of the customer.
Eh, sort of. Right now, Windows isn't really succeeding on features,
and *definitely* isn't succeeding on price. It's succeeding based on its
past success. As I've noted before, some of that was luck, and some of
that was unethical dealings, and some of that was marketing skill.
Now Windows has a niche for itself; it's costly to move away from it.
But this a *local* minimum, not a a *global* one. It's only a locally-
stable situation.
Conceptually:
^ ^
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
/ -- \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
------ -------
Windows is currently sitting in that notch in the middle. Relatively
steep edges to the potential, but the pressures of open standards are
eroding those edges. It'll still take effort and time to dislodge it,
but eventually, it'll either hop the barriers or else the barriers
themselves will dissolve.
Once Windows's share starts to decrease, it'll be self-accelerating.
Open standards make too much sense. I haven't been able to think of a
case where some industry switched *away* from open standards once they
were well-established. It took a while for the South to get rid of their
patchwork of rail gauges, for example (and the Civil War reconstruction
was part of that) but nobody's switched *away* from standard gauge. In
computer science, I don't see TCP/IP going away. Probably not even
Ethernet - heck, even wifi is based on Ethernet to a large degree.
You are implicitly trying to portray that notch as enormously wide,
with sheer steep walls. I don't see that, and neither does Microsoft -
witness their willingness to engage in "active control" measures to
fight, say, the ODF movement.
Of course, the real situation is far more than one-dimensional, but
that just means there are a lot of directions away from Windows's
current dominance, and a much larger "potential surface" that can
develop holes.
> When the customer doesn't give a damn
> about the various things touted as linux virutes
What's interesting is that people seem even *less* interested in
Vista's alleged virtues...
>> The point being that, once enough cross-platform apps are out there
[...]
>> then it's in the *OEM's* interest to sell higher-profit Linux machines.
>>
> No one wants a Quicken replacement either, ray.
"Results 1 - 10 of about 1,550,000 for alternative to quicken."
I didn't even say that there is recognized market pressure for such a
thing (though, clearly, there is some). Most users didn't really know
they wanted to get away from IE until Firefox came along.
> It would be easier to
> sell them linux with some version of Wine that they trusted.
Gordon Letwin pointed out that IBM made that mistake, ending up
basically selling OS/2 as a "Windows engine". It didn't work, and just
entrenched Windows more deeply.
I don't think too many people are going to make that mistake again.
>> Hey, microcomputers were toys, and ignored by IBM and the other
>> players... but they kept growing, and ate up the market from below.
>> The PC was *way* less functional and elegant than a Mac, but got the
>> job done and cost less. *Both* were less functional than minicomputers
>> and big iron, but the price was compelling.
>>
> That is where you make a huge mistake, ray. PC's did no such thing.
Reality and you aren't really on speaking terms, are you?
> There was no "market from below".
Mainframes and minicomputers have been a shrinking market for a *long*
time. Since not long after the PC took off, actually.
>> Not yet, sure. But I think that'll change. Economically, it makes too
>> much sense to get rid of the proprietary Windows infrastructure and use
>> common, open standards. I think Linux has the best shot at this, but at
>> some point something will.
>>
> Everyone has steak for sale and the successful vendors sell the sizzle
> and aroma. People pay extra for that.
That only applies to "parity products". When there is an actual
difference in quality, it doesn't work out quite like that. Oh, and even
when there's no major difference in quality, when you're dealing with a
middleman like an OEM, they work to shift the customer to the
higher-profit item.
(Not that, as I've state, I think the "manufactured good" model of
software will persist forever, anyway, especially in basic areas like
operating systems.)
> If the consumer is riled about security and stability, Vista is on the
> horizon and is claimed to satisfy that need.
Maybe by Microsoft. I really haven't seen anyone else claim that - just
the opposite, in fact, and these are Microsoft *partisans*. (See the
current thread "When Microsoft lovers bash Microsoft".)
> Timing is important and if you
> have no one other than the likes of Torvalds and Stallman setting the
> pace, you're screwed from the start! LOL!!!
Of course, whatever their talents, they're only two out of millions.
So never fear.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
[Patenting 'perpetual motion' devices requires that you
submit a working model and have it run for a whole year.]
"So why don't they do this with software patents?"
- Little Dogie
Ray Ingles
>> Businesses are starting to actually twig to this, and Linux desktops
>> make good sense there.
>
> processed Excel, Word, and Access forms into company reports used as
> control documents for production, finance, and personnel administration.
The *majority* though? Not that I've seen. And the web-based reporting
trend has really cut into that sort of solution.
> Nothing, once implemented, ever seems to go away, just remember the Y2K
> story. New systems are often created using Java or .Net and might lend
> themselves to easier conversion, but no one does a wholesale replacement
> of everything at once. So at any juncture, it is always safer and less
> costly to extend the platform that supports it all, new and old, i.e.
> Windows.
That's an exaggeration. Systems and solutions *do* wax and wane; many
times the "wane" is fast indeed. But of course, I haven't proposed
changing *everything* at once (and you'll have a hard time finding
people who have, despite what the trolls like to claim). As open
standards take over, Linux is a natural fit for new deployments. Linux
*can* coexist with Windows, you know, in the same IT department.
Window's desktop growth (and profit growth) has slowed noticeably in
the last couple years. Windows doesn't need to shrink, even, just stop
growing...
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Believe this, not because it's true, but for some other
reason..." - Screwtape, "The Screwtape Letters", C. S. Lewis
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>
> Eh, sort of. Right now, Windows isn't really succeeding on features,
> and *definitely* isn't succeeding on price. It's succeeding based on
> its
> past success. As I've noted before, some of that was luck, and some of
> that was unethical dealings, and some of that was marketing skill.
>
and do not have problems with it. They are not seeking any change
because they are satisfied. You say airily that Windows is inferior on
features and price to linux and OSS products, but that is pure hogwash.
No one really believes you, ray, and you cannot demonstrate where what
you say is true. You have an opinion and there are other like you, but
strangely, those others don't seem to be numerically sufficient to make
OSS and linux into a common occurrence.
You tout 10% for Firefox as if that were a winning number, but, even if
it were true, and there is little documented proof of that even, 10% is
a loser to the 70-80% share of IE. In a business where a market leader
may have 35% vs a loser's 20%, OSS and linux come up far short of the
mark continually. Compared to linux on the desktop, firefox browsers
are very much more successful, but it is being run on Windows, no linux.
>> No one wants a Quicken replacement either, ray.
>
> "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,550,000 for alternative to quicken."
>
Do you think that has any real meaning? If someone hates Quicken, they
will gen MS Money.
> I didn't even say that there is recognized market pressure for such a
> thing (though, clearly, there is some). Most users didn't really know
> they wanted to get away from IE until Firefox came along.
>
>> It would be easier to
>> sell them linux with some version of Wine that they trusted.
>
> Gordon Letwin pointed out that IBM made that mistake, ending up
> basically selling OS/2 as a "Windows engine". It didn't work, and just
> entrenched Windows more deeply.
>
> I don't think too many people are going to make that mistake again.
>
>>> Hey, microcomputers were toys, and ignored by IBM and the other
>>> players... but they kept growing, and ate up the market from below.
>>> The PC was *way* less functional and elegant than a Mac, but got the
>>> job done and cost less. *Both* were less functional than
>>> minicomputers
>>> and big iron, but the price was compelling.
>>>
>> That is where you make a huge mistake, ray. PC's did no such thing.
>
> Reality and you aren't really on speaking terms, are you?
>
>> There was no "market from below".
>
> Mainframes and minicomputers have been a shrinking market for a *long*
> time. Since not long after the PC took off, actually.
>
Are you saying that IBM's mainframe business has decreased over time?
They are the image makers for OSS and linux, ray. Like it or not!
Michael B. Trausch
24 2006 21:48:
[snip]
>
> You tout 10% for Firefox as if that were a winning number, but, even if
> it were true, and there is little documented proof of that even, 10% is
> a loser to the 70-80% share of IE. In a business where a market leader
> may have 35% vs a loser's 20%, OSS and linux come up far short of the
> mark continually. Compared to linux on the desktop, firefox browsers
> are very much more successful, but it is being run on Windows, no linux.
>
[snip]
http://www.safalra.com/website/browsermarket/index.html
IE's market share has been declining steadily. This is true of many other
stats gathering services around the web. (Do ensure, also, that the figure
for IE isn't inflated; many browsers, such as Opera and Konqueror, can
claim to be IE, yet still give their true identity away in the user agent
string.)
Example:
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; X11; Linux i686) Konqueror/3.4 (KHTML,
like Gecko)
For a stats gathering service using 'MSIE 6.0' or just 'MSIE' as their
string, the stats will be inflated quite a bit. Thus, they do not
represent true market share and are not reputable.
One can argue the validity of these systems in general, since they are not
regulated in a purely scientific fashion -- that is quite hard to do on the
Internet where an IP addess can change ownership at any point. However, in
general, the most of them seem to conclude that MSIE makes up somewhere
around 60 - 70% of the market share, compared to October 2003, where it was
somewhere between 80 - 90% of the market share.
- Mike
arachnid
>You tout 10% for Firefox as if that were a winning number, but, even if
>it were true, and there is little documented proof of that even, 10% is
>a loser to the 70-80% share of IE. In a business where a market leader
>may have 35% vs a loser's 20%, OSS and linux come up far short of the
>mark continually. Compared to linux on the desktop, firefox browsers
>are very much more successful, but it is being run on Windows, no linux.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Not so long ago we were being told how insignificant OSS's 0.5% of the
market was. Now Linux has half the server market, around 6% of the
desktop market, and billwg is harping told how "insignificant" 10% of
the browser market is. :o)
>Compared to linux on the desktop, firefox browsers are very much
>more successful, but it is being run on Windows, no linux.
Nevertheless it represents something no other software company has
been able to do - for all of Microsoft's domination of the OS and
browser market, and for all of the businesses they've ruthlessly
crushed in the process with their unbelievably-dirty tricks, an
open-source application has taken 10% (and still growing) of their
browser share away from them.
Rick
> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> news:slrne4q93t....@localhost.localdomain...
>
>>Eh, sort of. Right now, Windows isn't really succeeding on features,
>>and *definitely* isn't succeeding on price. It's succeeding based on
>>its
>>past success. As I've noted before, some of that was luck, and some of
>>that was unethical dealings, and some of that was marketing skill.
>>
>
> Baloney, ray. Windows is extremely successful and people use it widely
AHA HA HAhahha aHAHAH ahha HAHA h AHaHA ha
>
> You tout 10% for Firefox as if that were a winning number, but, even if
It is a winning number considering it is 'competing' against IE,
which is bundled with windows.
(snip)
>>>Timing is important and if you
>>>have no one other than the likes of Torvalds and Stallman setting the
>>>pace, you're screwed from the start! LOL!!!
More bigoted lies from bill.
>>
>>Of course, whatever their talents, they're only two out of millions.
>>So never fear.
>>
>
> They are the image makers for OSS and linux, ray. Like it or not!
>
It seems most of us like it.
--
Rick
JEDIDIAH
>
> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> news:slrne4q93t....@localhost.localdomain...
>>
>> Eh, sort of. Right now, Windows isn't really succeeding on features,
>> and *definitely* isn't succeeding on price. It's succeeding based on
>> its
>> past success. As I've noted before, some of that was luck, and some of
>> that was unethical dealings, and some of that was marketing skill.
>>
> Baloney, ray. Windows is extremely successful and people use it widely
> and do not have problems with it. They are not seeking any change
Yup... windows is so successful that the mother-in-law just
decided to get an entirely new PC because her old machine is breaking
under the strain of it's own cruft.
Now, bear in mind that this is someone that doesn't even
install software. She could litterally be using a system where all
of her apps are burned onto a big ROM commie or ST style.
> because they are satisfied. You say airily that Windows is inferior on
> features and price to linux and OSS products, but that is pure hogwash.
[deletia]
EVERYTHING is better than Microsoft in terms of ease of use
and system maintainability. This has been true ALWAYS. It doesn't
matter if the AltOS was MacOS, GEM, OS/2, BeOS, MacOSX or Linux.
I would tell her to get a Mac but she's far too much of a herd
animal and running something "different" would put her far outside her
comfort zone. Although I might just buy a minimac and sit it over at her
house and see what becomes of it.
--
Negligence will never equal intent, no matter how you
attempt to distort reality to do so. This is what separates |||
the real butchers from average Joes (or Fritzes) caught up in / | \
events not in their control.
Ray Ingles
>> and *definitely* isn't succeeding on price. It's succeeding based on
>> its past success. As I've noted before, some of that was luck, and some of
>> that was unethical dealings, and some of that was marketing skill.
>>
> Baloney, ray. Windows is extremely successful and people use it widely
> and do not have problems with it.
Baloney! Hogwash! LOL! (Ah, it's always so liberating to use billwg's
arguing style against him. It's just *easier* when you don't even *try*
to produce any evidence to back up your statements.)
> No one really believes you, ray, and you cannot demonstrate where what
> you say is true.
...says the guy who never produced a cite in his life.
> You tout 10% for Firefox as if that were a winning number, but, even if
> it were true, and there is little documented proof of that even, 10% is
> a loser to the 70-80% share of IE.
Um... no. As others have pointed out, 10% is the *absolute minimum*
possible figure that could be assigned to Firefox, and *all* the
complicating factors of the estimation skew the numbers toward IE.
The actual number is certainly higher than 10%, apparently closer to
30%, and the trend is *up*, and has been up for a couple of *years* now.
> In a business where a market leader
> may have 35% vs a loser's 20%, OSS and linux come up far short of the
> mark continually.
Apple, at its peak, was about 15% of the market. Cross-platform
software was extremely common then and Apple was a major player. The
computer business isn't *nearly* as "winner take all" as you portray.
The other thing to note is that Linux's numbers are *increasing*, not
decreasing.
> Compared to linux on the desktop, firefox browsers
> are very much more successful, but it is being run on Windows, no linux.
Wow. Even for you, that's a tight circle. I say, "The more
cross-platform apps people use, the easier it is for people to switch to
Linux. And people are using more cross-platform apps."
You reply, "They're using them on Windows."
Can you guess my reply? "Um, *duh*, that's what I *said*. My point is
that this is *not* a reassuring fact for MS. And they know it. Again,
witness their direct and determined opposition to the ODF initiative."
>>> No one wants a Quicken replacement either, ray.
>>
>> "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,550,000 for alternative to quicken."
>>
> Do you think that has any real meaning? If someone hates Quicken, they
> will gen MS Money.
He says, "Nobody wants something besides Quicken." I reply, "Sure they
do, here's evidence." He replies, "Oh, uh, well, so what! Nyahh! LOL!"
>> Mainframes and minicomputers have been a shrinking market for a *long*
>> time. Since not long after the PC took off, actually.
>>
> Are you saying that IBM's mainframe business has decreased over time?
It's been stable - not really increasing.
Now, name the *second place* mainframe maker...
>>> Everyone has steak for sale and the successful vendors sell the
>>> sizzle and aroma. People pay extra for that.
>>
>> That only applies to "parity products". When there is an actual
>> difference in quality, it doesn't work out quite like that. Oh, and
>> even when there's no major difference in quality, when you're dealing
>> with a middleman like an OEM, they work to shift the customer to the
>> higher-profit item.
No reply to this, Bill?
>> Maybe by Microsoft. I really haven't seen anyone else claim that -
>> just
>> the opposite, in fact, and these are Microsoft *partisans*. (See the
>> current thread "When Microsoft lovers bash Microsoft".)
>>
>>> Timing is important and if you
>>> have no one other than the likes of Torvalds and Stallman setting the
>>> pace, you're screwed from the start! LOL!!!
>>
>> Of course, whatever their talents, they're only two out of millions.
>> So never fear.
>>
> They are the image makers for OSS and linux, ray. Like it or not!
You mean, aside from the Microsoft partisans I pointed out, and all the
coporate sales types from IBM and Novell and...
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
With Linux, it 'just works'. With Windows, it 'just barely works.'
billwg
"arachnid" <donth...@goawayspammers.com> wrote in message
news:i81r4290u696iuj3m...@4ax.com...
billwg
"Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:124s7pt...@news.supernews.com...
>>
>> They are the image makers for OSS and linux, ray. Like it or not!
> It seems most of us like it.
>
billwg
"Michael B. Trausch" <michael.tra...@comcast.net> wrote in
message news:1uSdnc16gtM...@comcast.com...
In your dreams!
Rick
--
Rick
Rick
their loss of installed base and market share.
--
Rick
Ray Ingles
>>> They are the image makers for OSS and linux, ray. Like it or not!
>> It seems most of us like it.
>>
> Well you and yours would, rick! LOL!!!
Even granting billwg's premise (which is far from true), they've done
better for Linux than, say, Steve Jobs has for Macs...
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
The "if you're innocent, you have nothing to hide" argument is a
strawman I tire of. It's not about hiding. When I'm in the bathroom,
I am not hiding. That doesn't mean I want everyone looking.
- Tom Vogt
Ray Ingles
> message news:1uSdnc16gtM...@comcast.com...
>> However, in general, the most of them seem to conclude that MSIE makes
>> up somewhere around 60 - 70% of the market share, compared to October
>> 2003, where it was somewhere between 80 - 90% of the market share.
> In your dreams!
Well, he produced an actual cite, and details of methodology. You, on
the other hand... well, let's quote the notable billwg:
"No one really believes you... and you cannot demonstrate where what
you say is true."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/39b33c2268b33af0
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"When C++ is your hammer, everything looks like a thumb."
- Anonymous
billwg
"JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:8jm1i3-...@nomad.mishnet...
> On 2006-04-25, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>> news:slrne4q93t....@localhost.localdomain...
>>>
>>> Eh, sort of. Right now, Windows isn't really succeeding on features,
>>> and *definitely* isn't succeeding on price. It's succeeding based on
>>> its
>>> past success. As I've noted before, some of that was luck, and some
>>> of
>>> that was unethical dealings, and some of that was marketing skill.
>>>
>> Baloney, ray. Windows is extremely successful and people use it
>> widely
>> and do not have problems with it. They are not seeking any change
>
> Yup... windows is so successful that the mother-in-law just
> decided to get an entirely new PC because her old machine is breaking
> under the strain of it's own cruft.
>
> Now, bear in mind that this is someone that doesn't even
> install software. She could litterally be using a system where all
> of her apps are burned onto a big ROM commie or ST style.
>
finally been able to convince a family member to take a chance on your
advice, ray. That's a pretty lousy method to try to convince a half
billion or so people to do the same. It doesn't register on the meter.
>> because they are satisfied. You say airily that Windows is inferior
>> on
>> features and price to linux and OSS products, but that is pure
>> hogwash.
> [deletia]
>
> EVERYTHING is better than Microsoft in terms of ease of use
> and system maintainability. This has been true ALWAYS. It doesn't
> matter if the AltOS was MacOS, GEM, OS/2, BeOS, MacOSX or Linux.
>
So YOU say, ray, but you are only saying words and the bulk of the
evidence is that those who use computers for a living disagree with you
in the vast majority of purchase incidences. People vote with their
wallets and you are way, way behind in the count, ray.
> I would tell her to get a Mac but she's far too much of a herd
> animal and running something "different" would put her far outside her
> comfort zone. Although I might just buy a minimac and sit it over at
> her
> house and see what becomes of it.
>
> --
> Negligence will never equal intent, no matter how you
> attempt to distort reality to do so. This is what separates
> |||
> the real butchers from average Joes (or Fritzes) caught up in / |
> \
> events not in their control.
>
Consumer education is part of the product, ray. Where's linux?
Mark Kent
B Gruff <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> espoused:
How much does crossover cost? As you say, I don't really want it for
myself, but it would be good to know how much it is, and how useful it
is.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Kaufman's First Law of Party Physics:
Population density is inversely proportional
to the square of the distance from the keg.
Mark Kent
billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> espoused:
Apparently enough for Microsoft to spend Millions on attempting to
produce a new browser, which will copy many, probably most, Firefox
features. Personally, I do not believe that Microsoft, even with their
phenomenally deep pockets, will be able to keep up with Firefox. Aside
from anything else, one of the major reasons will be that IE7 will not
run on anything other than Windows NT5.2, so hardly anyone is going to
use it, so it won't get any nice little add-ons, or much market share.
Free software is the best - Firefox!
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>
> Well, he produced an actual cite, and details of methodology. You, on
> the other hand... well, let's quote the notable billwg:
>
of proof, then you are far from the detail focused analyst that you
style yourself as! LOL!!!
I could cite my own site's stats that show that Firefox has almost zero
usage. The only person in my community that ever uses it to access the
site is myself apparently. An I only use it for that purpose. A site
like the one cited is going to grossly overstate the frequency of the
minor browsers because the users of these browsers are, by and large,
the only people interested in that statistic. IE users aren't
constantly seeking vindication as are the others.
billwg
>>
> Go ask Ballmer and Gates. They are the ones freaking out about their
> loss of installed base and market share.
>
loser, desperate for some good news! LOL!!! Gates and Ballmer have
billions in the bank and could give a damn about such things. Gates is
off curing AIDS and Ballmer is working on new adventures in broadening
Microsoft product sales in home media and games.
You may wish to think of them as "freaking out", but you would just be
kidding yourself! As usual! LOL!!!
Rick
>
> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:124sgd8...@news.supernews.com...
>>>
>> Go ask Ballmer and Gates. They are the ones freaking out about their
>> loss of installed base and market share.
>>
> As a crusty old fart, rick, you are beginning to look like a hopeless
> loser, desperate for some good news!
As a lying jerk, we have no idea what you are looking for.
> LOL!!!
Look.. a lying, braying ass.
> Gates and Ballmer have
> billions in the bank and could give a damn about such things.
Then why are they doing their respective anti=Linux dances?
> Gates is off curing AIDS
You're a liar.
> and Ballmer is working on new adventures in broadening
> Microsoft product sales in home media and games.
... trying to leverage their illegally maintained monopoly.
>
> You may wish to think of them as "freaking out", but you would just be
> kidding yourself! As usual! LOL!!!
Look.. it's that lying, braying ass...
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-04-25, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote:
>>>> They are the image makers for OSS and linux, ray. Like it or not!
>>> It seems most of us like it.
>>>
>> Well you and yours would, rick! LOL!!!
>
> Even granting billwg's premise (which is far from true), they've done
> better for Linux than, say, Steve Jobs has for Macs...
>
is still much larger and certainly more profitable than the aggregate
collection of rag-tag companies comprising the linux space, ray! Of
course you may have some cites saying differently, but I doubt they are
from disinterested parties with any experience in the matter.
billwg
"Mark Kent" <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hp82i3-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
>
> Apparently enough for Microsoft to spend Millions on attempting to
> produce a new browser, which will copy many, probably most, Firefox
> features. Personally, I do not believe that Microsoft, even with
> their
> phenomenally deep pockets, will be able to keep up with Firefox.
> Aside
> from anything else, one of the major reasons will be that IE7 will not
> run on anything other than Windows NT5.2, so hardly anyone is going to
> use it, so it won't get any nice little add-ons, or much market share.
>
Well, clark, you are entitiled to your opinion, silly as it usually is!
IE7 seems to run just fine on XP (Win5.1) and will certainly run as well
on Vista (6.0). It is pathetically easy to "keep up with Firefox", too,
given their preoccupation with bug and security defect fixes and general
lack of resources. One question that I have is why should they bother
at all? What purpose does Firefox serve in the presence of IE?
Wouldn't that effort be better spent coming up with something truly new
rather than cloning an already free product?
Rick
>
> "Mark Kent" <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:hp82i3-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> Apparently enough for Microsoft to spend Millions on attempting to
>> produce a new browser, which will copy many, probably most, Firefox
>> features. Personally, I do not believe that Microsoft, even with their
>> phenomenally deep pockets, will be able to keep up with Firefox. Aside
>> from anything else, one of the major reasons will be that IE7 will not
>> run on anything other than Windows NT5.2, so hardly anyone is going to
>> use it, so it won't get any nice little add-ons, or much market share.
>>
>>
> Well, clark, you are entitiled to your opinion, silly as it usually is!
> IE7 seems to run just fine on XP (Win5.1) and will certainly run as well
> on Vista (6.0). It is pathetically easy to "keep up with Firefox", too,
Then why haven't they?
> given their preoccupation with bug and security defect fixes and general
> lack of resources. One question that I have is why should they bother
> at all?
Because FireFox is a better browser.
> What purpose does Firefox serve in the presence of IE?
FireFox is a better browser.
> Wouldn't
> that effort be better spent coming up with something truly new rather
> than cloning an already free product?
I don't know why MS is trying to clone FireFox.
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> So YOU say, ray, but you are only saying words and the bulk of the
> evidence is that those who use computers for a living disagree with you
> in the vast majority of purchase incidences. People vote with their
> wallets and you are way, way behind in the count, ray.
Nobody is denying that Windows currently dominates the desktop market,
but you seem to think the market is standing still. Linux is enjoying
better than 20 percent compound annual growth (despite the skepticism
of many pundits in its early days). It now commands a huge chunk of
the server market, and desktop Linux is now showing similar growth
reminiscent of the earlier server adoption curve.
When an avalanche breaks loose from the top of a mountain, do you
assume it will never make it to the bottom because it has most of
the distance to travel yet? I'm guessing you are one of those
people who thought server Linux would never catch on either.
Cheers,
Thad
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> Apple, at its peak, was about 15% of the market. Cross-platform
> software was extremely common then and Apple was a major player. The
> computer business isn't *nearly* as "winner take all" as you portray.
>
> The other thing to note is that Linux's numbers are *increasing*, not
> decreasing.
Yes, and increasing at an increasing rate, if firms like Gartner, IDG,
and Forrester can be believed.
Thad
billwg
"Rick" <trol...@trollfeed.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.04.25....@trollfeed.com...
>
>> and Ballmer is working on new adventures in broadening
>> Microsoft product sales in home media and games.
>
> ... trying to leverage their illegally maintained monopoly.
>
a wildly popular product like Windows and literally buy your way into
some other business such as console games! All perfectly legal. All
you need is some business sense, which leaves you out, but, hey, that's
the price you pay for being a crusty old fart! LOL!!!
billwg
>
>>
>> "Mark Kent" <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:hp82i3-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
>>>
>>> Apparently enough for Microsoft to spend Millions on attempting to
>>> produce a new browser, which will copy many, probably most, Firefox
>>> features. Personally, I do not believe that Microsoft, even with
>>> their
>>> phenomenally deep pockets, will be able to keep up with Firefox.
>>> Aside
>>> from anything else, one of the major reasons will be that IE7 will
>>> not
>>> run on anything other than Windows NT5.2, so hardly anyone is going
>>> to
>>> use it, so it won't get any nice little add-ons, or much market
>>> share.
>>>
>>>
>> Well, clark, you are entitiled to your opinion, silly as it usually
>> is!
>> IE7 seems to run just fine on XP (Win5.1) and will certainly run as
>> well
>> on Vista (6.0). It is pathetically easy to "keep up with Firefox",
>> too,
>
> Then why haven't they?
>
than Firefox! You smurfs are doomed!
billwg
<tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com> wrote in message
news:e2m4hf$9h5$1...@tux.glaci.com...
> billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> So YOU say, ray, but you are only saying words and the bulk of the
>> evidence is that those who use computers for a living disagree with
>> you
>> in the vast majority of purchase incidences. People vote with their
>> wallets and you are way, way behind in the count, ray.
>
> Nobody is denying that Windows currently dominates the desktop market,
> but you seem to think the market is standing still. Linux is enjoying
> better than 20 percent compound annual growth (despite the skepticism
> of many pundits in its early days). It now commands a huge chunk of
> the server market, and desktop Linux is now showing similar growth
> reminiscent of the earlier server adoption curve.
>
server adoption curve" where it had zero usage!
> When an avalanche breaks loose from the top of a mountain, do you
> assume it will never make it to the bottom because it has most of
> the distance to travel yet? I'm guessing you are one of those
> people who thought server Linux would never catch on either.
>
Red Hat linux and Novell linux have been approved by the server OEMs,
thad, but they are hardly the Stallman/Torvalds idea of linux. They are
much more like a poor man's unix and are licensed and sold on terms and
prices akin to conventional unix and Windows. Call that a victory for
linux or call that a victory for cheap unix, but it is not a victory for
the free software idea. I would rather call it a stop-gap measure for
the traditional unix suppliers who are using the generic variety with
Intel hardware to offset the continuing erosion of their market to the
Wintel servers that have become performance equivalents and so
alternatives to the classic big unix servers.
You have labeled the confusion caused by the partial collapse of the
unix price umbrella as an "avalanche" of support for linux, but I think
it is only the dust kicked up by such a catastrophic crash and will
eventually settle and show Windows as the customer's choice.
Rick
Leveraging an illegally maintained monopoly is not legal....
> LOL!!!
... you lying, braying ass.
Rick
Many don't.
> Already the IE7 beta has more users than Firefox!
So what?
> You smurfs are doomed!
Yada, yada, yada.
Sinister Midget
> begin oe_protect.scr
> B Gruff <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> espoused:
>> On Saturday 22 April 2006 17:06 odzangba wrote:
>>
>>>>Could you just run that one again, please?
>>>>In particular,
>>>> Photoshop
>>>> Quicken
>>>> Dreamweaver
>>>
>>>>You reckon they run under Ubuntu/Crossover, with NO issues?
>>>
>>> They run very well under Ubuntu/Crossover... with very trivial issues.
>>> The biggest of which was Photoshop's insistence on using the Arial font
>>> as its default font (don't know why). But once I installed the required
>>> font nothing annoying has come up so for.
>>>
>>> And yes I have used them extensively and I can say to you again that
>>> they work fine under linux.
>>
>> That's absolutely great - and thanks for your confirmation.
>> As I said, those three have been a real pain as far as the trolls around
>> here have been concerned. In fact, I'm now even tempted to cough up a few
>> bucks and give Crossover a try - not so much for my own use, but rather to
>> be in a position to reassure (or demonstrate to) would-be converts.
>>
>> Many thanks:-)
>>
>
> How much does crossover cost? As you say, I don't really want it for
> myself, but it would be good to know how much it is, and how useful it
> is.
I bought the $40 model. It claims to do all of what was mentioned, but
I haven't tried it.
I bought it for a very specific reason (gotta run IE, and want to keep
it linux-only) and have no desire to run any of the other stuff. But it
says it already knows about a number of programs that are supposed to
work.
I _did_ add another program that I needed for formatting SD media (a
goofy format that's different from the normal) for the mp3 player. It's
not listed as supported, but it works fine.
--
I came; I saw; I fucked up.
Ray Ingles
Hadn't heard that one. It doesn't show up in the stats that I've seen.
Can you substantiate it?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Linux: For those that want to know why it works.
MacOS: For those that don't want to know why it works.
Windows: For those that don't want to know why it doesn't work.
- Anonymous
Ray Ingles
> news:slrne4shmv....@localhost.localdomain...
>>
>> Well, he produced an actual cite, and details of methodology. You, on
>> the other hand... well, let's quote the notable billwg:
>>
> No he did not, ray. If you consider that sites straw poll as some kind
> of proof, then you are far from the detail focused analyst that you
> style yourself as! LOL!!!
You're ignoring the fact that he summed up the results of *many*
surveys, and what he cites jibes with what I've seen. And you *still*
haven't produced any evidence to contradict him.
> I could cite my own site's stats that show that Firefox has almost zero
> usage. The only person in my community...
Yeah, we know about your tiny sample. Not that you've posted a link to
the site or anything... Say, how many visits do *you* claim per month?
How many unique IPs?
But, of course, that's still misdirection. You say he doesn't have any
convincing evidence, but I note again you haven't produced *any*
evidence, by *any* standard.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Realistic physics in games will never catch on. Lara Croft
would keep falling over forwards." - Stephen Turner
Ray Ingles
> Of course you may have some cites saying differently, but I doubt they are
> from disinterested parties with any experience in the matter.
Exactly. "Don't bother me with facts, my mind's made up!" See my .sig;
seldom have I seen someone it applies to more than yourself.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which
is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man
in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to
investigation." - Herbert Spencer
JEDIDIAH
> news:hp82i3-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> Apparently enough for Microsoft to spend Millions on attempting to
>> produce a new browser, which will copy many, probably most, Firefox
>> features. Personally, I do not believe that Microsoft, even with
>> their
>> phenomenally deep pockets, will be able to keep up with Firefox.
>> Aside
>> from anything else, one of the major reasons will be that IE7 will not
>> run on anything other than Windows NT5.2, so hardly anyone is going to
>> use it, so it won't get any nice little add-ons, or much market share.
>>
>
> Well, clark, you are entitiled to your opinion, silly as it usually is!
> IE7 seems to run just fine on XP (Win5.1) and will certainly run as well
> on Vista (6.0). It is pathetically easy to "keep up with Firefox", too,
> given their preoccupation with bug and security defect fixes and general
> lack of resources. One question that I have is why should they bother
> at all? What purpose does Firefox serve in the presence of IE?
It runs on everything and is remarkably less buggy.
The far better question is why both with Firefox when Opera exits?
> Wouldn't that effort be better spent coming up with something truly new
> rather than cloning an already free product?
Where do I download my Linux x86 version? A solaris version? An
AIX version? HELL, they aren't even supporting a Mac version of IE any more.
Firefox: because the robber baron will abandon you sooner or later.
--
If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either. / | \
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Ray Ingles
>> Nobody is denying that Windows currently dominates the desktop market,
>> but you seem to think the market is standing still. Linux is enjoying
>> better than 20 percent compound annual growth (despite the skepticism
>> of many pundits in its early days). It now commands a huge chunk of
>> the server market, and desktop Linux is now showing similar growth
>> reminiscent of the earlier server adoption curve.
>>
> Bullshit, thad. Pure bullshit.
To be clear, do you just mean the last part about "desktop Linux is now
showing similar growth", or are you denying the numbers from multiple
independent firms that document Linux's growth in the server area, to
the point where it's already a third the size of Windows there?
> Unless you mean the pre-IBM "earlier server adoption curve" where it
> had zero usage!
Ah, Bill's standard calumny that Linux was making no progress at all
until IBM announced support. We already had this debate, and you gave
up:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/bc2282b6e1d690dc
> Red Hat linux and Novell linux have been approved by the server OEMs,
> thad, but they are hardly the Stallman/Torvalds idea of linux.
You (pretend that you don't) understand either Stallman or Torvalds. Or
ESR, any of the other canonical Linux advocates, much less the legions
of others.
> I would rather call it a stop-gap measure for
> the traditional unix suppliers who are using the generic variety with
> Intel hardware to offset the continuing erosion of their market to the
> Wintel servers that have become performance equivalents and so
> alternatives to the classic big unix servers.
Yawn. Another repeat:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/d3420bec922a2db0
Funny, you never respond to these.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Even if you understand something thoroughly, it can still be
marvelous, wonderful, and inspiring." - Me
The Ghost In The Machine
<trol...@trollfeed.com>
wrote
on Wed, 26 Apr 2006 01:47:00 GMT
<pan.2006.04.26....@trollfeed.com>:
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
indicates FireFox has a 24.5% compared to IE7's 0.6%. It
would appear, however, that somebody's stealing FireFox's
thunder, as it's dropped from 25.1% to 24.5% in the space
of a month.
Since every other browser except N and IE7 dropped as well
and the gains at N and IE7 were on the order of 1/10 of
1%, there's somebody missing. Is Lynx coming into the
picture as a dark horse, or is IE7 merely implementing
a masquerading feature (a la Opera) so as to avoid
embarrassment at web sites?
Hmm.
>
>> You smurfs are doomed!
>
> Yada, yada, yada.
>
More like "la la, la la la la, la la la la la..." :-) which
in this case is probably more accurately tagged to the
Wintrolls...
Of course, the Smurfs loved to "la la, la" all day long
until Dick Dastardly showed up in his rocket car... :-)
(Paul Winchell did both Dick Dastardly and Gargamel, as
well as Tigger and a whole slew of others. Apparently he
even did a voice or two on the Jetsons, and Fleegle of
The Banana Splits. [I don't know if he personally had to
wear the suit or what, there. Not nearly as strange as
Teletubbies but The Banana Splits were a little weird.]
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0934593/ )
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
Rick
Yeah, but only for that specific population. Still, it shows FF
growing overall.
> would appear, however, that somebody's stealing FireFox's
> thunder, as it's dropped from 25.1% to 24.5% in the space
> of a month.
I wonder if the .6% is a momentary blip while people look at IE&?
>
> Since every other browser except N and IE7 dropped as well
> and the gains at N and IE7 were on the order of 1/10 of
> 1%, there's somebody missing. Is Lynx coming into the
> picture as a dark horse, or is IE7 merely implementing
> a masquerading feature (a la Opera) so as to avoid
> embarrassment at web sites?
>
> Hmm.
Safari isn't listed, either.
(snip)
--
Rick
Sinister Midget
> On 2006-04-25, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>> Already the IE7 beta has more users than Firefox!
>
> Hadn't heard that one. It doesn't show up in the stats that I've seen.
> Can you substantiate it?
He should have the substantiation in his hand as soon as he pinches it
off. Any moment now.
--
Amateurs built the ark, professionals built the Titanic.
chrisv
>Proven liar billwg wrote:
>>
>> Already the IE7 beta has more users than Firefox!
>
> Hadn't heard that one. It doesn't show up in the stats that I've seen.
>Can you substantiate it?
I see the billwg troll is still lying through his teeth on a regular
basis. I'm glad I plonked the piece of garbage.
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> Bullshit, thad. Pure bullshit. Unless you mean the pre-IBM "earlier
> server adoption curve" where it had zero usage!
ocean for the last couple of decades and I know exactly where
Linux was when IBM jumped on-board. It was already growing
quickly and making a noticeable mark in the server space. IBM has
boosted the profile of Linux, no doubt about that, but they
jumped on an existing bandwagon; they are not the ones pulling
it. Did you know that HP actually sells more Linux servers than
IBM?
> Red Hat linux and Novell linux have been approved by the server OEMs,
> thad, but they are hardly the Stallman/Torvalds idea of linux. They are
> much more like a poor man's unix and are licensed and sold on terms and
> prices akin to conventional unix and Windows. Call that a victory for
> linux or call that a victory for cheap unix, but it is not a victory for
> the free software idea. I would rather call it a stop-gap measure for
> the traditional unix suppliers who are using the generic variety with
> Intel hardware to offset the continuing erosion of their market to the
> Wintel servers that have become performance equivalents and so
> alternatives to the classic big unix servers.
Have I ever been an an advocate for Stallman's dream of a Free
Software Utopia? I don't think so. I've observed that Linux is
steadily increasing in popularity and have prognosticated that
open source software will take over most 'commodity software'
niches. I also believe (and have stated) that closed source
software will continue to dominate various narrowly focused,
vertical markets, and most software development will continue to
be closed source on internal projects.
So yes, Linux can 'win' without Stallman's dreams coming true.
> You have labeled the confusion caused by the partial collapse of the
> unix price umbrella as an "avalanche" of support for linux, but I think
> it is only the dust kicked up by such a catastrophic crash and will
> eventually settle and show Windows as the customer's choice.
Linux is not just benefiting from the 'crash' of unix pricing... it
is the main force that shoved it over the cliff. That is just the
most visible evidence of the market forces in play, and don't think
Microsoft is completely immune; they have lost a huge amount of
potential business to Linux and other open source tools, and that
pressure is only increasing. They have lost out on potential unix
to windows migrations, and they have been forced to lower prices
in circumstances where they otherwise would not have.
What is it you expect when the dust settles? All those millions
of Linux users will suddenly decide to migrate to Windows? Cost
conscious executives will suddenly decide that license fees and
vendor lock-in is better than low cost and open standards? I don't
think so. The open source meme is out there and will not be killed.
By the time the 'low hanging fruit' of unix migration is all picked,
the install base of Linux will be so huge that it will be an
unstoppable juggernaut (it pretty much is now). From that position,
the steady erosion of the desktop can only accelerate.
That may just sound like wishful thinking of a Linux enthusiast to
you... but I am merely giving my dispassionate analysis of the market
forces I see in action. I was a Windows and Unix developer long
before I gravitated to Linux and did that only because that's where
the market led me.
Later,
Thad
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> As more and more of this software moss adheres to the corporate
> computing rock, the less likely it is that anyone would want to take the
> risk of changing to the linux desktop and so require the immediate re-do
> of these systems that have been around for over a decade of use.
> Nothing, once implemented, ever seems to go away, just remember the Y2K
> story. New systems are often created using Java or .Net and might lend
> themselves to easier conversion, but no one does a wholesale replacement
> of everything at once. So at any juncture, it is always safer and less
> costly to extend the platform that supports it all, new and old, i.e.
> Windows.
You neglect to factor in the whole SOA thing. The accepted wisdom
for years now has been to layer all your proprietary chunks of code
under a well defined service layer. Then it is easy to replace
individual chunks a bit at a time without disrupting anything. I've
been on a fair number of projects where VB code was replaced with
Java, fat client programs were replaced with web applications, and
legacy infrastructure was redeveloped into middle tier services using
open standards.
I liken it to how I built my new garage. Zoning laws would not
allow me to tear it down and start from scratch... it is too close
to the property line but is grandfathered in because of age. My
solution was to replace the entire structure a piece at a time,
add in a new support column next to the old one, then remove the
old one, take off the old rotting wood door, put up a fiberglass
one... etc. I've seen more than few computer infrastructures move
to newer, open standards the same way.
Cheers,
Thad
billwg
>
> Leveraging an illegally maintained monopoly is not legal....
>
this topic, rick. Your ignorance is showing.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-04-25, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>><tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com> wrote:
>
>>> Nobody is denying that Windows currently dominates the desktop
>>> market,
>>> but you seem to think the market is standing still. Linux is
>>> enjoying
>>> better than 20 percent compound annual growth (despite the
>>> skepticism
>>> of many pundits in its early days). It now commands a huge chunk of
>>> the server market, and desktop Linux is now showing similar growth
>>> reminiscent of the earlier server adoption curve.
>>>
>> Bullshit, thad. Pure bullshit.
>
> To be clear, do you just mean the last part about "desktop Linux is
> now
> showing similar growth", or are you denying the numbers from multiple
> independent firms that document Linux's growth in the server area, to
> the point where it's already a third the size of Windows there?
>
>> Unless you mean the pre-IBM "earlier server adoption curve" where it
>> had zero usage!
>
> Ah, Bill's standard calumny that Linux was making no progress at all
> until IBM announced support. We already had this debate, and you gave
> up:
>
See. You figured it out.
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/bc2282b6e1d690dc
>
>> Red Hat linux and Novell linux have been approved by the server OEMs,
>> thad, but they are hardly the Stallman/Torvalds idea of linux.
>
> You (pretend that you don't) understand either Stallman or Torvalds.
> Or
> ESR, any of the other canonical Linux advocates, much less the legions
> of others.
>
>> I would rather call it a stop-gap measure for
>> the traditional unix suppliers who are using the generic variety with
>> Intel hardware to offset the continuing erosion of their market to
>> the
>> Wintel servers that have become performance equivalents and so
>> alternatives to the classic big unix servers.
>
> Yawn. Another repeat:
>
But the truth nonetheless, ray.
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/d3420bec922a2db0
>
> Funny, you never respond to these.
>
It never seemed like it was necessary, ray. For example your last cite
only shows that you can wave your hands and SAY that the unix vendors
are strong, but in reality, Sun is heading for the last roundup along
with the unix revenues from HP and IBM. Unix is dying, ray, and that is
a combination of defeats at the hands of Microsoft and cannibalization
of once profitable businesses being moved to linux. Which is more
important is not so important as the fact that they are in demise and
ultimately, the stream that is feeding the linux garden will dry up.
The unix mavens who gleefully contribute to the open source effort will
soon enough disappear as their need to find other work to feed their
families overwhelms their need to feed their egos.
billwg
<tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com> wrote in message
news:e2ockq$mbp$1...@tux.glaci.com...
>
> Linux is not just benefiting from the 'crash' of unix pricing... it
> is the main force that shoved it over the cliff. That is just the
> most visible evidence of the market forces in play, and don't think
> Microsoft is completely immune; they have lost a huge amount of
> potential business to Linux and other open source tools, and that
> pressure is only increasing. They have lost out on potential unix
> to windows migrations, and they have been forced to lower prices
> in circumstances where they otherwise would not have.
>
business in the server market mostly from dominating the expansion. It
was seen to be gaining 80% or more of the "new" server areas while
slowly capturing some of the more traditional business, particularly
Novell's Netware. What the price erosion does to thwart Microsoft's low
cost supplier strategy is offset by the lack of money in the unix
coffers overall to keep the product from falling into the commodity
computing abyss. Certainly you can look at the market as a place where
the ho-hum will eventually dominate, but the price margings are set by
the sizzle that new developments bring. Linux has essentially zero
ability to be new in anything. They have long been in a tail chase with
conventional unix for new features and functions. They are more
recently chasing Windows and aping the UI layouts and overall screen
look and feel.
> What is it you expect when the dust settles? All those millions
> of Linux users will suddenly decide to migrate to Windows?
They will eventually join the hundreds of millions of Windows users,
yes. Unless they remain in some stasis like the Amiga fans!
> Cost
> conscious executives will suddenly decide that license fees and
> vendor lock-in is better than low cost and open standards? I don't
> think so. The open source meme is out there and will not be killed.
Well, I don't see that happening anywhere, thad. Periodically some
agency or other comes out for linux and makes claims of replacing
Windows everywhere, but there never seems to be much follow-up
reporting. I think we are still waiting for the first linux desktop to
be turned on in Munich, some 3 or so years after the great contest. Is
there anybody actually using linux on the desktop besides the jabbering
techno-dweebs around here?
> By the time the 'low hanging fruit' of unix migration is all picked,
> the install base of Linux will be so huge that it will be an
> unstoppable juggernaut (it pretty much is now). From that position,
> the steady erosion of the desktop can only accelerate.
>
I think that you are silly.
> That may just sound like wishful thinking of a Linux enthusiast to
> you... but I am merely giving my dispassionate analysis of the market
> forces I see in action. I was a Windows and Unix developer long
> before I gravitated to Linux and did that only because that's where
> the market led me.
>
So what does a "linux developer" do on a typical day?
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-04-25, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>> Already the IE7 beta has more users than Firefox!
>
> Hadn't heard that one. It doesn't show up in the stats that I've seen.
> Can you substantiate it?
>
increase! IE7 use has increased 300% in the last two months alone,
whereas Firefox has again declined in usage. I will predict that IE7
will be the most popular browser throughout the internet in less than a
year! What do you think, ray?
billwg
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message news:3v94i3-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
Rick
ahah ahahHAH hah AHha HAH ahhAHAH ahah HA...
That's funny, coming from you.
Jesse F. Hughes
I think that we should agree on a standard of evidence first. What
browser share site do you recommend we check in April, 2007 to see if
your prediction is correct?
And perhaps some Linux advocates could also suggest reasonable browser
share sites. Then we agree to select one or several of the selected
sites and see if IE7 has the plurality a year from now.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"[I]t's the damndest thing. There's something wrong with every last
one of you, and I *never* thought that was a possibility. But now I
feel it's the only reasonable conclusion." --JSH sees some sorta light
Linonut
> On 2006-04-26, Ray Ingles <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> posted something concerning:
>> On 2006-04-25, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Already the IE7 beta has more users than Firefox!
>>
>> Hadn't heard that one. It doesn't show up in the stats that I've seen.
>> Can you substantiate it?
>
> He should have the substantiation in his hand as soon as he pinches it
> off. Any moment now.
Better watch it. bilge is probably going for a "ground rule double".
--
Kreegah! Bundolo Microsoft bolgani!
billwg
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 18:28:19 +0000, billwg wrote:
>
>>
>> "Rick" <trol...@trollfeed.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2006.04.26....@trollfeed.com...
>>>
>>> Leveraging an illegally maintained monopoly is not legal....
>>>
>> You need to study up on "leveraging" and what that means in regard to
>> this
>> topic, rick. Your ignorance is showing.
>
> ahah ahahHAH hah AHha HAH ahhAHAH ahah HA...
>
> That's funny, coming from you.
>
>
billwg
"Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote in message
news:874q0fv...@phiwumbda.org...
>
> I think that we should agree on a standard of evidence first. What
> browser share site do you recommend we check in April, 2007 to see if
> your prediction is correct?
>
Rick
> "Rick" <trol...@trollfeed.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.04.27....@trollfeed.com...
>
>>On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 18:28:19 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Rick" <trol...@trollfeed.com> wrote in message
>>>news:pan.2006.04.26....@trollfeed.com...
>>>
>>>>Leveraging an illegally maintained monopoly is not legal....
>>>>
>>>
>>>You need to study up on "leveraging" and what that means in regard to
>>>this
>>>topic, rick. Your ignorance is showing.
>>
>>ahah ahahHAH hah AHha HAH ahhAHAH ahah HA...
>>
>>That's funny, coming from you.
>>
>>
>
> Your opinion, rick, but also your ignorance!
>
>
... what a maroon.
--
Rick
The Ghost In The Machine
<bi...@twcf.rr.com>
wrote
on Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:10:44 GMT
<U5T3g.2293$9o4....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>:
>
[massive snip]
> You're deliberately spoiling my fun, ghost. I'm taking note of that.
>
Just remember, brighter minds than mine will be watching. :-)
Ob:-P~: :-P~
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net -- insert random girl in a chair here
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> What Windows has lost is pure speculation, thad. Windows gained its
> business in the server market mostly from dominating the expansion. It
> was seen to be gaining 80% or more of the "new" server areas while
> slowly capturing some of the more traditional business, particularly
> Novell's Netware. What the price erosion does to thwart Microsoft's low
> cost supplier strategy is offset by the lack of money in the unix
> coffers overall to keep the product from falling into the commodity
> computing abyss. Certainly you can look at the market as a place where
> the ho-hum will eventually dominate, but the price margings are set by
> the sizzle that new developments bring. Linux has essentially zero
> ability to be new in anything. They have long been in a tail chase with
> conventional unix for new features and functions. They are more
> recently chasing Windows and aping the UI layouts and overall screen
> look and feel.
You are so completely wrong. Linux is where the really exciting
new development is occuring, and it is the open nature that makes
it possible. Why do you think Microsoft has been so slow to get
into the clustered computing market? Why does Linux dominate in
the Internet space? MS has a strong server market only because
they can leverage their desktop dominance and sell a more
integrated solution. Boring old tech like file and print and
directory services are what sell MS servers. The really new and
innovative tech like clustered computing, adaptive AI, etc, are
more often developed on Linux.
>> What is it you expect when the dust settles? All those millions
>> of Linux users will suddenly decide to migrate to Windows?
>
> They will eventually join the hundreds of millions of Windows users,
> yes. Unless they remain in some stasis like the Amiga fans!
Dream on. The people I know use Linux because they already
prefer it over Windows, or they made well reasoned business
decision to avoid vendor lock-in and upgrade fees. How does
any of that change after Linux has consolidated the Unix
space? If anything, absorbing all the unix application
providers and talent simply increases the appeal of Linux
and makes it less likely users will jump ship.
>> Cost
>> conscious executives will suddenly decide that license fees and
>> vendor lock-in is better than low cost and open standards? I don't
>> think so. The open source meme is out there and will not be killed.
>
> Well, I don't see that happening anywhere, thad. Periodically some
> agency or other comes out for linux and makes claims of replacing
> Windows everywhere, but there never seems to be much follow-up
> reporting. I think we are still waiting for the first linux desktop to
> be turned on in Munich, some 3 or so years after the great contest. Is
> there anybody actually using linux on the desktop besides the jabbering
> techno-dweebs around here?
I've stumbled across Linux in libraries and coffee shops. I've
spoken to people who deployed it in high-school and college
computer labs. I know people who run it at home. I've worked
in companies that use Linux desktops for their engineering and
networking groups. It is out there, and it is growing, and it
is much more than the few large scale migrations that
occasionally make the news. It is still small in terms of
the entire market, but it is definitely growing, and you are
ignoring the evidence if you think otherwise.
> So what does a "linux developer" do on a typical day?
Same as any other developer, just on the Linux platform. Some of
my projects have been very Linux specific... tweaking kernels and
writing low level code for embedded systems. Other projects have
were more application layer, often using cross platform tech like
Java, perl, or PHP; they just happened to be developed and deployed
on Linux.
Later,
Thad
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>>
>> Hadn't heard that one. It doesn't show up in the stats that I've seen.
>> Can you substantiate it?
>>
> Well, it's not so much the total at the moment, ray, it's the rate of
> increase! IE7 use has increased 300% in the last two months alone,
> whereas Firefox has again declined in usage. I will predict that IE7
> will be the most popular browser throughout the internet in less than a
> year! What do you think, ray?
As was often pointed out in the early days of Linux growth (or
Firefox for that matter), it is easy to have 300% growth when you
are starting out with an install base of zero. After the first
install, the next three constitute 300 percent growth.
That being said, you are probably correct that IE7 will be the
most used browser in the near future, if not with a year, then
within the next two or three for certain. Microsoft will push
it into the OEM channel on new PCs and will bundle it with
service packs. If it actually fixes some of the huge problems
with older versions, I'll consider that a good thing.
Of course I expect Firefox to continue to gain ground at the
same time. It will likely hit 20 percent within the next year
or two. At that point, all web site developers MUST develop
to open standards. This can only help the ease of Windows
to Linux migration. :)
Thad
billwg
<tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com> wrote in message
news:e2qq10$54c$1...@tux.glaci.com...
> Of course I expect Firefox to continue to gain ground at the
> same time. It will likely hit 20 percent within the next year
> or two. At that point, all web site developers MUST develop
> to open standards.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think the average user would see to
be better than what there is now should whatever you are talking about
come to pass?
billwg
<tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com> wrote in message
news:e2qprc$53e$1...@tux.glaci.com...
since like 1995? I know a lot of our customers have server clusters for
SQL Server and Exchange. I know we have a few hundred clustered systems
in the test labs, for about 10 years now. I think you are full of crap,
thad! Can you name something that linux does with servers that is not
done by Windows? Can you name anything that linux has ever done first?
>>> What is it you expect when the dust settles? All those millions
>>> of Linux users will suddenly decide to migrate to Windows?
>>
>> They will eventually join the hundreds of millions of Windows users,
>> yes. Unless they remain in some stasis like the Amiga fans!
>
> Dream on. The people I know use Linux because they already
> prefer it over Windows, or they made well reasoned business
> decision to avoid vendor lock-in and upgrade fees. How does
> any of that change after Linux has consolidated the Unix
> space? If anything, absorbing all the unix application
> providers and talent simply increases the appeal of Linux
> and makes it less likely users will jump ship.
>
Well, let us see if linux ever does do that, thad. The commercial world
was built on the idea that you could invent a better mousetrap and
people would come to you and make you rich. Unix was bleeding a lot on
people finding out that Intel hardware was a damn site cheaper than the
RISC stuff and could handle a lot of the jobs. Some people bought
Windows servers to take advantage of that price difference, pure and
simple. Others bought Windows because they felt familiar enough with it
to not need continual IT services to support a server or two.
Linux suffers from the inability to financially reward the OS
developers. When they were otherwise being paid by unix suppliers or
were doing the mundane cloning actitivities that are usually a part of
linux, that is not so bad, and linux got what talent it needed. Absent
Unix, though, and all the good people get jobs with Microsoft where they
can develop AND get rich.
>>> Cost
>>> conscious executives will suddenly decide that license fees and
>>> vendor lock-in is better than low cost and open standards? I don't
>>> think so. The open source meme is out there and will not be killed.
>>
>> Well, I don't see that happening anywhere, thad. Periodically some
>> agency or other comes out for linux and makes claims of replacing
>> Windows everywhere, but there never seems to be much follow-up
>> reporting. I think we are still waiting for the first linux desktop
>> to
>> be turned on in Munich, some 3 or so years after the great contest.
>> Is
>> there anybody actually using linux on the desktop besides the
>> jabbering
>> techno-dweebs around here?
>
> I've stumbled across Linux in libraries and coffee shops. I've
> spoken to people who deployed it in high-school and college
> computer labs. I know people who run it at home. I've worked
> in companies that use Linux desktops for their engineering and
> networking groups. It is out there, and it is growing, and it
> is much more than the few large scale migrations that
> occasionally make the news. It is still small in terms of
> the entire market, but it is definitely growing, and you are
> ignoring the evidence if you think otherwise.
>
It is a lot worse than small, thad, it is miniscule.
>> So what does a "linux developer" do on a typical day?
>
> Same as any other developer, just on the Linux platform. Some of
> my projects have been very Linux specific... tweaking kernels and
> writing low level code for embedded systems. Other projects have
> were more application layer, often using cross platform tech like
> Java, perl, or PHP; they just happened to be developed and deployed
> on Linux.
>
Seems kind of broad, thad! Sort of an Anything For A Buck Software, Inc.
Or should we call you Larry?
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> Just out of curiosity, what do you think the average user would see to
> be better than what there is now should whatever you are talking about
> come to pass?
Assuming all major browsers are adhering to standards, and web sites
are being developed to them, web surfers should not run into 'you must
change your browser' nag messages, busted formatting, and the like...
at least not as often.
Hey, I can dream can't I?
Thad
billwg
<tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com> wrote in message
news:e2ra0l$7u4$1...@tux.glaci.com...
about the same to me. I use IE the great majority of the time, since it
is always there, but even with Konqueror and Firefox, I can say that I
have NEVER seen any such "nag messages" and Konqueror is probably the
only thing that I have seen funny displays with and even then it wasn't
all that bad. Konqueror seemed to used up a lot of screen room with
tabs on the side, so a lot of web pages didn't fit without scrolling was
my only observation there.
The point being that there isn't much of a difference at all between and
among the browsers now and making everything even more standard only
seems to make it even more same. There doesn't seem to be an reason to
change no matter what you are using and what you are proposing is to
make that even more the case. Why bother?
Mark Kent
Sinister Midget <sini...@noidshack.com> espoused:
> On 2006-04-25, Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> posted something concerning:
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> B Gruff <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> espoused:
>>> On Saturday 22 April 2006 17:06 odzangba wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Could you just run that one again, please?
>>>>>In particular,
>>>>> Photoshop
>>>>> Quicken
>>>>> Dreamweaver
>>>>
>>>>>You reckon they run under Ubuntu/Crossover, with NO issues?
>>>>
>>>> They run very well under Ubuntu/Crossover... with very trivial issues.
>>>> The biggest of which was Photoshop's insistence on using the Arial font
>>>> as its default font (don't know why). But once I installed the required
>>>> font nothing annoying has come up so for.
>>>>
>>>> And yes I have used them extensively and I can say to you again that
>>>> they work fine under linux.
>>>
>>> That's absolutely great - and thanks for your confirmation.
>>> As I said, those three have been a real pain as far as the trolls around
>>> here have been concerned. In fact, I'm now even tempted to cough up a few
>>> bucks and give Crossover a try - not so much for my own use, but rather to
>>> be in a position to reassure (or demonstrate to) would-be converts.
>>>
>>> Many thanks:-)
>>>
>>
>> How much does crossover cost? As you say, I don't really want it for
>> myself, but it would be good to know how much it is, and how useful it
>> is.
>
> I bought the $40 model. It claims to do all of what was mentioned, but
> I haven't tried it.
Not expensive, then.
>
> I bought it for a very specific reason (gotta run IE, and want to keep
> it linux-only) and have no desire to run any of the other stuff. But it
> says it already knows about a number of programs that are supposed to
> work.
Presumably, if you have to run IE, at least using crossover will give
you a route to running it relatively safely.
>
> I _did_ add another program that I needed for formatting SD media (a
> goofy format that's different from the normal) for the mp3 player. It's
> not listed as supported, but it works fine.
>
Um, useful! Can't imagine why anyone would want to use a non-standard
filesystem, but there we go.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Sometimes, too long is too long.
-- Joe Crowe
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> Huh? I'm not a cluster user, but hasn't there been Windows clusters
> since like 1995? I know a lot of our customers have server clusters for
> SQL Server and Exchange. I know we have a few hundred clustered systems
> in the test labs, for about 10 years now. I think you are full of crap,
> thad! Can you name something that linux does with servers that is not
> done by Windows? Can you name anything that linux has ever done first?
clustering market. Yes, Windows can do fail-over clustering, but that
is hardly the same thing. I'm sure you could use Windows to make a
massive compute cluster, but why would you pay all those licensing fees
when Linux is free? It is no accident that much of the cutting edge
parallel computing research is being done on Linux.
> Linux suffers from the inability to financially reward the OS
> developers. When they were otherwise being paid by unix suppliers or
> were doing the mundane cloning activities that are usually a part of
> linux, that is not so bad, and linux got what talent it needed. Absent
> Unix, though, and all the good people get jobs with Microsoft where they
> can develop AND get rich.
The problem with that theory is that history is proving the opposite.
As Unix wanes, the demand for Linux expertise is only increasing.
That trend does not reverse itself when Unix completely disappears
(if ever), it more likely accelerates. You have yet to provide any
reason why Linux trends should reverse themselves if Unix exits the
market.
And that whole myth about Linux developers not being paid is getting
rather tired. Reality says otherwise. Try making the claim on the
kernel mailing list some time and see what the reaction is. Actually,
don't; they have better things to do than waste time with this sort
of non-development noise. >:)
>
> Seems kind of broad, thad! Sort of an Anything For A Buck Software, Inc.
> Or should we call you Larry?
What can I say, I'm a consultant... what some might call a 'technology
prostitute'. I don't get choosy about what technologies I jump in
bed with. Heck, I'll even work on a .Net project if the problem is
challenging and the money is good. :) Actually, working with a wide
variety of tech is exactly what I find cool about consulting.
Cheers,
Thad
M
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2006-04-27, billwg spake thusly:
> I love firefox and use it exclusively, verson 1.0.7 . There are two two
> things about it which are irritating.
>
> 1) I can't get it to run any kind of media player for such things as
> wmv files or realplayer. I got it to run the shockwave plugin. So what.
> I have totem and helix, which should be able to handle it. Totem
> is worse than useless in my experience, since I can't get it to actually
> *do* anything. I have tried to install plug ins from the firefox website
> and I always get an error message that my version wont work with them.
> This is frustranting in itself since Yum insists there are no updates.
>
What distro are you using?
My mplayer firefox plug-in works really well. I gave in and installed Real
Player as well so I could play some stuff on the BBC web site. But in order
to get everything to hang together (after doing some googling and forum
searching) I installed 'MediaPlayerConnectivity' plug-in.
The power of community :-).
> 2) I am used to the speed of safari. Maybe it's just that safari is
> so damn fast that I have been spoiled. But Firefox (on my system) is
> _S.L.O.W._ My other apps seem to run at a good speed so I must assume
> this is a firefox specific issue.
>
> Otherwise, I love firefox. It gives the user full control over their
> browsing experience, and can be set up to effectively filter out
> the bad guys.
>
Latest version Firefox v1.5.0.2 seems to me to be a lot quicker than v1.0.7
and doesn't seem to chew up quite so many resources.
--
Regards,
M
Linonut
> 1) I can't get it to run any kind of media player for such things as
> wmv files or realplayer. I got it to run the shockwave plugin. So what.
> I have totem and helix, which should be able to handle it. Totem
> is worse than useless in my experience, since I can't get it to actually
> *do* anything. I have tried to install plug ins from the firefox website
> and I always get an error message that my version wont work with them.
> This is frustranting in itself since Yum insists there are no updates.
mplayer plugin
Linonut
> Latest version Firefox v1.5.0.2 seems to me to be a lot quicker than v1.0.7
> and doesn't seem to chew up quite so many resources.
I use 1.5 for webmail and normal browsing.
I use 1.0.7 for my timesheet.
I use galeon for online training (galeon won't pop up extra windows --
they're tabs instead.) Also galeon has the cancel button on each tab.
Michael B. Trausch
2006 19:08:
Well, it would seem that IE7 use is increasing, though I can only see that
there may have been a slight decrease in Firefox uses for the month of
March:
Browser Statistics Month by Month
2006 IE7 IE6 IE5 Ffox Moz N O
March 0.6% 58.8% 5.3% 24.5% 2.4% 0.5% 1.5%
February 0.5% 59.5% 5.7% 25.1% 2.9% 0.4% 1.5%
January 0.2% 60.3% 5.5% 25.0% 3.1% 0.5% 1.6%
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
Note, though, that is the w3schools site. It's possible that the drop is
due to people testing IE7, since, well, it is a beta.
Now, I have no problem with people doing that, so long as they're all
bombarding Microsoft accordingly. *shrugs* Like that will ever happen.
http://www.webreference.com/stats/browser.html shows 49.51% MSIE users
total, 1.02% being IE 7, and 24.18% being users of some version of Firefox.
This differs from the first chart that shows that the total of MSIE users is
64.7%.
Since statistics on web browsers vary wherever you go, quoting them really
is quite silly. The best that can be inferred in them is trends, and only
if you compare from a great deal of different sources, and take the
average.
- Mike
Michael B. Trausch
2006 16:55:
>
> The point being that there isn't much of a difference at all between and
> among the browsers now and making everything even more standard only
> seems to make it even more same. There doesn't seem to be an reason to
> change no matter what you are using and what you are proposing is to
> make that even more the case. Why bother?
>
Some sites still don't work with anything but MSIE, though thankfully, those
are in the minority at this point. Though, the school I'm going to has
some pretty retarded pages that just don't render in KHTML or Gecko based
browsers... *shakes head*
- Mike
flatfish+++
Sadly it's a lot more common than most people will admit.
ATT Callvantage, their broadband phone service, will not work.
Verizon Wireless doesn't work either.
My daughters college sites do not work.
My banking sites will not work.
Many kiddie game sites (Disney) will not work.
However, if what Microsoft is claiming about IE 7 is true (it will conform
to industry standards) then, these same sites may actually come back to
bite them.
Who knows?
We shall see all in good time
P.S Some of the sites listed above will load fine, it's only when you go
to pay bills, log in as a user etc where things go down hill.
--
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
Jesse F. Hughes
You said IE7 would be the "most popular" browser. Did you mean most
used or most owned?
Anyway, do you believe that in 12 months, Vista will be on more
desktops than any other OS? That's certainly another claim we can
discuss, but again, let's decide on what counts as evidence
beforehand.
Not that you seem capable of that. Want to try again to suggest a
proper way to determine "most popular browser"?
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Yesterday was Judgment Day. How'd you do?"
-- The Flatlanders
Linonut
> Sadly it's a lot more common than most people will admit.
> ATT Callvantage, their broadband phone service, will not work.
> Verizon Wireless doesn't work either.
> My daughters college sites do not work.
> My banking sites will not work.
> Many kiddie game sites (Disney) will not work.
>
> However, if what Microsoft is claiming about IE 7 is true (it will conform
> to industry standards) then, these same sites may actually come back to
> bite them.
>
> Who knows?
> We shall see all in good time
>
> P.S Some of the sites listed above will load fine, it's only when you go
> to pay bills, log in as a user etc where things go down hill.
I've been having pretty good luck with Firefox lately, with Java and
"Javascript" turned on.
(Not saying your claims are false, just that I've been having luck
lately).
Tim Smith
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com wrote:
> is hardly the same thing. I'm sure you could use Windows to make a
> massive compute cluster, but why would you pay all those licensing fees
People have in fact made big clusters of Windows machines for scientific
computing.
--
--Tim Smith
Jim Moore
for example...?
--
When all else fails...
Use a hammer.
Tim Smith
Jim Moore <ja...@the-computer-shop.co.uk> wrote:
> > People have in fact made big clusters of Windows machines for scientific
> > computing.
> >
> >
>
> for example...?
Cornell.
--
--Tim Smith
Sinister Midget
There's a more expensive one. I don't remember the differences. Maybe
multi-machine licensing or something.
>> I bought it for a very specific reason (gotta run IE, and want to keep
>> it linux-only) and have no desire to run any of the other stuff. But it
>> says it already knows about a number of programs that are supposed to
>> work.
>
> Presumably, if you have to run IE, at least using crossover will give
> you a route to running it relatively safely.
That's the sole reason. Otherwise I'd not run IE at all.
>> I _did_ add another program that I needed for formatting SD media (a
>> goofy format that's different from the normal) for the mp3 player. It's
>> not listed as supported, but it works fine.
>>
>
> Um, useful! Can't imagine why anyone would want to use a non-standard
> filesystem, but there we go.
Perhaps to make sure they don't sell any more of their products in the
future. I know I'll look into another brand/type next time.
--
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
and did they pay the fees, or did MS give them free licences for the PR
value?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEUcFXd90bcYOAWPYRAl5QAJ0bh/BTphSy1QC9o+rZFpx6kZN6ZgCg1840
IeAAOJKyTK0wrMBdzMQTOqs=
=DHkO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Yesterday it worked.
Today it is not working.
Windows is like that.