Not all Linux apps are *available* for Windows
Terry Porter
available from the package maintainer, or available for Free.
Kvm/Qemu :
WINE : Hahahah!
Koules :http://www.ucw.cz/~hubicka/koules/English/koules.html
Samba
FWbuilder (Windows $Payware$, Free for Linux only)
gEDA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEDA (no windows binaries avail from gEDA
homepage, you have to build your own or try and find some). Trivial note:
you can find one of my schematics in the gEDA 'examples' package. The poor
old COLA trolls will never see it.
Said a Windows User re gEDA: "I know that it's possible to compile it for
Windows. However, lots of us are more hardware guys, don't have compilers,
don't have much experience doing that, and would need something that
installs itself..."
Too bad Windows users ... if you want some amazing (up to date) Linux
applications like gEDA, you'll have to run Linux.
Amarok: A beta is available for windows, but it crashes all the time, and
needs the KDE installer to even install it, which is another 250 megabytes.
The Linux version is free, and 100% reliable.
.......
So why struggle with Windows, trying to install Linux apps ?
Do you have a decent Windows compiler, not some lobotomised, shareware of
free one ?
Do you have the software and IT skills to figure out what's wrong when it
doesn't run ?
No ? .....
Why not just install Linux, and have 20,000 Linux applications at the click
of a button, all automatically ?
It's really easy to install Linux, most distros just install themselves.
Try a Free GNU/Linux/Ubuntu LIVE CD at :-
http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download
For Linux alternatives to Windows apps you may be using now, see this handy
alternatives site:-
--
If we wish to reduce our ignorance, there are people we will
indeed listen to. Trolls are not among those people, as trolls, more or
less by definition, *promote* ignorance.
Kelsey Bjarnason, C.O.L.A. 2008
Doctor Smith
>
> Amarok: A beta is available for windows, but it crashes all the time, and
> needs the KDE installer to even install it, which is another 250 megabytes.
> The Linux version is free, and 100% reliable.
Sounds like the Linux version and Windows version have a lot in common.
Both suck and both crash.
The difference with Windows is that we have great programs like iTunes and
Media Monkey both of which blow the doors off of the Linux slopware clones.
Linux loses again.
> .......
>
> So why struggle with Windows, trying to install Linux apps ?
Good question.
> Do you have a decent Windows compiler, not some lobotomised, shareware of
> free one ?
Who cares?
The number of people who need compilers, free or otherwise, is miniscule
compared to the number who are using and enjoying the quality applications
the Windows platform has.
They have no interest in Linux slopware basement dweller crapware.
> Do you have the software and IT skills to figure out what's wrong when it
> doesn't run ?
Can you repair your lungs should they become diseased?
> No ? .....
>
> Why not just install Linux, and have 20,000 Linux applications at the click
> of a button, all automatically ?
Because most of those Linux applications suck, that's why.
> It's really easy to install Linux, most distros just install themselves.
And the user generally removes Linux just as quickly because Linux sucks.
> For Linux alternatives to Windows apps you may be using now, see this handy
> alternatives site:-
>
> http://www.linuxalt.com/
Yea, go and see the slopware for yourself.
amicus_curious
"Terry Porter" <lin...@netspace.net.au> wrote in message
news:tLadnaSRyrLVViDU...@netspace.net.au...
>
> Amarok: A beta is available for windows, but it crashes all the time, and
> needs the KDE installer to even install it, which is another 250
> megabytes.
> The Linux version is free, and 100% reliable.
>
very disciplined and publish a lot of unstable applications. It is best to
avoid them.
> .......
>
> Do you have a decent Windows compiler, not some lobotomised, shareware of
> free one ?
>
provide incredibly better compilation of C, C++ (managed and unmanaged), C#,
and Java language applications. They come complete with extensive function
libraries, obviating the need to search about for various library sets such
as pnglib and zlib and resulting concerns about version matching. There is
nothing in the Linux world that even comes close to these.
> Do you have the software and IT skills to figure out what's wrong when it
> doesn't run ?
>
Not needed with the extensive error analysis available in Visual Studio.
White Spirit
> The express editions of Visual Studio are free, as in beer,
I don't believe they allow the developer to use them for commercial
software.
> of course
> and provide incredibly better compilation of C, C++ (managed and
> unmanaged),
Not true.
> C#, and Java language applications.
I find the Mono interpreter and compiler is much faster than MS' with
smaller binary sizes to boot. MS does not provide assistance for Java
any more after they tried to hijack their standards and were sued for
breach of licensing agreement to the tune of several million.
> They come complete with
> extensive function libraries, obviating the need to search about for
> various library sets such as pnglib and zlib
The Win32 APIs are horrendous. MFC is okay but nothing special.
Windows Forms does not abstract out some of the low level aspects of
Win32 API, which is quite ugly. The only think MS has going for it is
C#/.Net, which is available as an open source solution. GTK and QT are
simply much better for building a GUI in C/C++.
> and resulting concerns
> about version matching. There is nothing in the Linux world that even
> comes close to these.
Crap.
>> Do you have the software and IT skills to figure out what's wrong when it
>> doesn't run ?
> Not needed with the extensive error analysis available in Visual Studio.
If you need an IDE, Linux has Eclipse with the CDT extensions that
perform the same functions. Visual Studio is underdeveloped as far as
C++ is concerned, however, requiring plugins like Visual Assist to be as
usable as it is for C#. These have existed for Java and C++ on other
platforms for ages.
amicus_curious
"White Spirit" <wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gpm2t3$85b$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> The express editions of Visual Studio are free, as in beer,
>
> I don't believe they allow the developer to use them for commercial
> software.
>
legitimate purpose. There are no limitations on what you can do with the
software you develop using them.
>> of course and provide incredibly better compilation of C, C++ (managed
>> and unmanaged),
>
> Not true.
>
>> C#, and Java language applications.
>
> I find the Mono interpreter and compiler is much faster than MS' with
> smaller binary sizes to boot. MS does not provide assistance for Java any
> more after they tried to hijack their standards and were sued for breach
> of licensing agreement to the tune of several million.
>
Well, they have a complete cross-license with Sun these days. Where have
you been hiding for the past few years? They call it J++ when it is used
with their own system classes.
>> They come complete with extensive function libraries, obviating the need
>> to search about for various library sets such as pnglib and zlib
>
> The Win32 APIs are horrendous. MFC is okay but nothing special. Windows
> Forms does not abstract out some of the low level aspects of Win32 API,
> which is quite ugly. The only think MS has going for it is C#/.Net, which
> is available as an open source solution. GTK and QT are simply much
> better for building a GUI in C/C++.
>
>> and resulting concerns about version matching. There is nothing in the
>> Linux world that even comes close to these.
>
> Crap.
>
Child.
>>> Do you have the software and IT skills to figure out what's wrong when
>>> it
>>> doesn't run ?
>
>> Not needed with the extensive error analysis available in Visual Studio.
>
> If you need an IDE, Linux has Eclipse with the CDT extensions that perform
> the same functions. Visual Studio is underdeveloped as far as C++ is
> concerned, however, requiring plugins like Visual Assist to be as usable
> as it is for C#. These have existed for Java and C++ on other platforms
> for ages.
>
Eclipse is crap.
>
Tony Manco
X-Chat for Windows exists, but you need to pay a one time fee, or you
can compile it yourself from source, which on Windows is a little hard
and frustrating.
--
Linux - You must break it | Windows - It breaks itself
7
wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Appil Department of Marketing:
>
> "Terry Porter" <lin...@netspace.net.au> wrote in message
> news:tLadnaSRyrLVViDU...@netspace.net.au...
>>
>> Amarok: A beta is available for windows, but it crashes all the time, and
>> needs the KDE installer to even install it, which is another 250
>> megabytes.
>> The Linux version is free, and 100% reliable.
>>
> This is a problem with a lot of OSS applications. The developers are not
> very disciplined and publish a lot of unstable applications. It is best
> to avoid them.
>> .......
>>
>> Do you have a decent Windows compiler, not some lobotomised, shareware of
>> free one ?
>>
> The express editions of Visual Studio are free,
But the source code of 'here today gone tomorrow' unsupportable proprietory
software is nothin compared to gcc. Gcc has all versions available from
year dot and can be maintained by any hired hand. Can't say that for h'ere
today gone tomorrow' proprietory software. Governments, banks and military
should use such software when best practice demands longevity.
> as in beer, of course and
> provide incredibly better compilation of C, C++ (managed and unmanaged),
> C#,
Not going to help you or your company or your long term support issues
if you use 'here today gone tomorrow' proprietory software.
> and Java language applications. They come complete with extensive
> function libraries, obviating the need to search about for various library
> sets such
> as pnglib and zlib and resulting concerns about version matching.
Not going to help you or your company or your long term support issues
if you use 'here today gone tomorrow' proprietory software. You MUST use
open source.
> There
> is nothing in the Linux world that even comes close to these.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!! You UTTER Fool!!
>> Do you have the software and IT skills to figure out what's wrong when it
>> doesn't run ?
How about talking up about the day it doesn't exist and takes your company
down the tube with it. Or how about when it revisions up and breaks
all you applications and takes your company down with it?
> Not needed with the extensive error analysis available in Visual Studio.
Not going to help you with 'here today gone tomorrow' proprietory software.
Ezekiel
"7" <website_...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote in message
news:S2yvl.7927$Lc7....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Micoshaft Appil asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock amicus_curious
> wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Appil Department of Marketing:
>
>
>>
>> "Terry Porter" <lin...@netspace.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:tLadnaSRyrLVViDU...@netspace.net.au...
>>>
>>> Amarok: A beta is available for windows, but it crashes all the time,
>>> and
>>> needs the KDE installer to even install it, which is another 250
>>> megabytes.
>>> The Linux version is free, and 100% reliable.
>>>
>> This is a problem with a lot of OSS applications. The developers are not
>> very disciplined and publish a lot of unstable applications. It is best
>> to avoid them.
>>> .......
>>>
>>> Do you have a decent Windows compiler, not some lobotomised, shareware
>>> of
>>> free one ?
>>>
>> The express editions of Visual Studio are free,
>
> But the source code of 'here today gone tomorrow' unsupportable
> proprietory software is nothin compared to
"Here today, gone tomorrow" - You mean like ReiserFS which is now defunc?
7
Nope. You should stick to fscking dead ducks - at least they don't talk
back!
Reiser FS will be available for as long as needed until something more
improved replace it. The source code for it will be available long
after Reiser FS stops being used.
By 'Here today gone tomorrow' I mean proprietory software like Appil crap
and Micoshaft crap OSen. Unlike GPL'd code, it won't be around
for long enough with full release of source code for mainters.
It will die just like all proprieotory software when their companies
die or they shift a version to force upgrades to part money from
customers.
Peter Köhlmann
It isn't. But then, you are just Scott Ezekiel Nudds. No facts will ever
be near you
--
Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats
you with experience...
Hadron
or one could ignore your bullshit completely and install x-chat 2
directly without paying anything.
http://www.silverex.org/download/
--
In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading
lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to
another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that
computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller
Ezekiel
"Peter Köhlmann" <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:gpmfr6$d7n$01$2...@news.t-online.com...
Yeah right. So when was the last update done to Reiser FS? When was the
last patch or bug fix made? When will the next version be released? The
answer to all of this is never because the filesystem is simply left for
dead to rot on the vine.
> But then, you are just Scott Ezekiel Nudds. No facts will ever
> be near you
I don't know who Scott Nudds is but he's certainly smarter than scum like
you.
Ezekiel
Another Linux using freak who's into strange perversions.
amicus_curious
"Ezekiel" <th...@here.com> wrote in message
news:gpmkrr$dvs$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
>
>> Nope. You should stick to fscking dead ducks -
>> at least they don't talk back!
>
> Another Linux using freak who's into strange perversions.
>
White Spirit
> "White Spirit" <wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:gpm2t3$85b$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>> I find the Mono interpreter and compiler is much faster than MS' with
>> smaller binary sizes to boot. MS does not provide assistance for Java
>> any more after they tried to hijack their standards and were sued for
>> breach of licensing agreement to the tune of several million.
> Well, they have a complete cross-license with Sun these days. Where
> have you been hiding for the past few years? They call it J++ when it
> is used with their own system classes.
J++ != Java. They are not compatible, hence Sun's successful litigation
against Microsoft. Where you have been hiding for the past ten years?
>>> and resulting concerns about version matching. There is nothing in
>>> the Linux world that even comes close to these.
>> Crap.
> Child.
Lack of content noted.
>>>> Do you have the software and IT skills to figure out what's wrong
>>>> when it
>>>> doesn't run ?
>>> Not needed with the extensive error analysis available in Visual Studio.
>> If you need an IDE, Linux has Eclipse with the CDT extensions that
>> perform the same functions. Visual Studio is underdeveloped as far as
>> C++ is concerned, however, requiring plugins like Visual Assist to be
>> as usable as it is for C#. These have existed for Java and C++ on
>> other platforms for ages.
> Eclipse is crap.
Child. Eclipse and KDevelop easily stand up to Visual Studio. These
days, I find Eclipse is more stable.
White Spirit
>>> "Here today, gone tomorrow" - You mean like ReiserFS which is now
>>> defunc?
>> It isn't.
> Yeah right. So when was the last update done to Reiser FS? When was the
> last patch or bug fix made? When will the next version be released? The
> answer to all of this is never because the filesystem is simply left for
> dead to rot on the vine.
You can always take over as maintainer if you think you have the skills...
chrisv
>>
>> Child.
Filthy rat.
Ezekiel
I'm more of an 'application level' developer than a kernel/file-system level
guy. Out of curiosity - How much does the position pay?
Matt
> Here are some examples of Linux apps, for which Windows binaries are not
> available from the package maintainer, or available for Free.
So it would seem that people are /locking themselves in/ to using Linux
when they invest in using the mentioned apps.
Are you bragging or complaining?
I thought free software was supposed to have something to do with freedom.
amicus_curious
"White Spirit" <wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gpoaoc$kk5$1...@news.motzarella.org...
Since there seems to be no money in it, you also have to want to do it for
the fun of it. Apparently no one has stepped up to the task. I think that
is a likely fate for almost all OSS projects when the founder departs for
one reason or another. The followers have no real sense of ownership and
without any other compensation, they choose to follow their own muses rather
than picking up someone else's child.
White Spirit
> "White Spirit" <wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:gpoaoc$kk5$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>>> Yeah right. So when was the last update done to Reiser FS? When was
>>> the last patch or bug fix made? When will the next version be
>>> released? The answer to all of this is never because the filesystem
>>> is simply left for dead to rot on the vine.
>> You can always take over as maintainer if you think you have the
>> skills...
> Since there seems to be no money in it, you also have to want to do it
> for the fun of it. Apparently no one has stepped up to the task. I
> think that is a likely fate for almost all OSS projects when the founder
> departs for one reason or another. The followers have no real sense of
> ownership and without any other compensation, they choose to follow
> their own muses rather than picking up someone else's child.
That doesn't necessarily happen. There are plenty of projects that have
been taken up by someone else. In this case, ext3 is simply a better
filesystem imo.
Matt
> Here are some examples of Linux apps, for which Windows binaries are not
> available from the package maintainer, or available for Free.
> Too bad Windows users ... if you want some amazing (up to date) Linux
> applications like gEDA, you'll have to run Linux.
>
> Amarok: A beta is available for windows, but it crashes all the time, and
> needs the KDE installer to even install it, which is another 250 megabytes.
> The Linux version is free, and 100% reliable.
http://amarok.kde.org/
(((((
> Amarok is a powerful music player for Linux and Unix, MacOS X and Windows with an intuitive interface. It makes playing the music you love and discovering new music easier than ever before - and it looks good doing it!
)))))
Maybe you would like to join the Amarok project and sabotage its Windows
and Mac and Unix versions, since you seem to think that it would be good
for Linux or would prove Linux superior if the app runs on Linux only.
While you're at it, maybe you would like to wreck KDE, since its goal is
to run on all OSes.
Amarok is by design cross-platform. Its Windows binaries will develop
perfectly well---and all versions will benefit---if it provides
something that is not available from other Windows FOSS. Its developers
have the vision and maturity to recognize that.
Ezekiel
Some are and some aren't. Often it seems that people are more interested in
creating their own new projects rather than picking up an existing one.
> In this case, ext3 is simply a better filesystem imo.
http://linuxgazette.net/102/piszcz.html
It depends on what you're looking for. The benchmarks above show that ext3
did rather poorly compared to other filesystems. Personally I use XFS but
that's because I'm using it as a media server and have relatively few files
that tend to be very large.
Peter Köhlmann
> Terry Porter wrote:
>> Here are some examples of Linux apps, for which Windows binaries are
>> not available from the package maintainer, or available for Free.
>
>
> So it would seem that people are /locking themselves in/ to using Linux
> when they invest in using the mentioned apps.
That has to be the dumbest claim this year so far
> Are you bragging or complaining?
>
> I thought free software was supposed to have something to do with
> freedom.
It has. Feel free to take the source and do the wintendo version
--
Microsoft software doesn't get released - it escapes, leaving
a trail of destruction behind it.
Doctor Smith
Bad choice of application.
Amarok has enough problems on it's own.
It doesn't need Porter's help.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> amicus_curious wrote:
>
>>> If you need an IDE, Linux has Eclipse with the CDT extensions that
>>> perform the same functions. Visual Studio is underdeveloped as far as
>>> C++ is concerned, however, requiring plugins like Visual Assist to be
>>> as usable as it is for C#. These have existed for Java and C++ on
>>> other platforms for ages.
>
>> Eclipse is crap.
>
> Child. Eclipse and KDevelop easily stand up to Visual Studio. These
> days, I find Eclipse is more stable.
Also check out NetBeans. Some people like that one a lot.
But an IDE is no substitute for knowing what you are doing.
http://www.charlespetzold.com/etc/DoesVisualStudioRotTheMind.html
--
Unfortunately, most programmers like to play with new toys. I have many
friends who, immediately upon buying a snakebite kit, would be tempted to
throw the first person they see to the ground, tie the tourniquet on him,
slash him with the knife, and apply suction to the wound.
-- Jon Bentley
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Terry Porter wrote:
Yes. The freedom to get away from Windows.
But dude, you don't have to change operating systems to have freedom.
You can stick with Linux and have /all/ the freedom you need.
Hint: You don't /need/ Windows -- you need functionality. If Linux doesn't
have the functionality ... but it does.
Besides, there are many people who, for moral or technical reasons, refuse
to use Windows.
--
Auribus teneo lupum.
[I hold a wolf by the ears.]
[Boy, it *sounds* good. But what does it *mean*?]
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Terry Porter wrote:
It's gravy, Matt. That is all.
It doesn't make up for all the functionality that Windows lacks: good
virtual desktops, wide range of window managers, faster network stack,
better security, more open and flexible dev tools....
--
Not from concentrate.
White Spirit
> But an IDE is no substitute for knowing what you are doing.
> http://www.charlespetzold.com/etc/DoesVisualStudioRotTheMind.html
Agreed. When applying for a job, having become accustomed to using an
IDE must be one of the worst possible things when asked to perform a
programming test in the selection process.
amicus_curious
If you look around, there are huge numbers of abandoned projects that even
the original developer lost interest in continuing. Major stull like Linux
itself has enough commercial interest from companies like Red Hat, Novell,
and others who profit from distributing Linux that they can pay developers
to work on various things in the same way that proprietary software
companies do. But unless a project or piece of a project comes under that
kind of use, it is likely to languish when raw enthusiasm wanes.
Hadron
Reasons?
Many would disagree - indeed its why Reiser existed.
But COLA "advocates" thinks a programmer == another
programmer. Abandonware and retrograde OSS projects prove otherwise.
Hadron
Which is when the bugs get reported, UIs need to be honed and
documentation written.
On that subject though, I used "picard" today - very, very nice.
Hadron
Total nonsense of course since using an IDE does not rot the brain or
hinder your programming ability. It does provide and integrate tools
that enable you to be more efficient in many cases. Personally I dont
prefer one over emacs but thats me. Emacs falls behind in many areas
that Eclipse, for example, shines in - but the overrall benefit of using
emacs means I continue to use it despite the frustrations.
If you were used to ONE tool set as opposed to an IDE you would as "at
sea" as if you only used one IDE.
No one judges a programmer on what tools he uses. No one of any worth
that is. They judge him on his abilities to use different tools and
adapt. Its why Telnet Porter would NOT get a job in any reputable SW
house.
White Spirit
> White Spirit <wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> writes:
>> That doesn't necessarily happen. There are plenty of projects that
>> have been taken up by someone else. In this case, ext3 is simply a
>> better filesystem imo.
> Reasons?
Just my personal experience, hence my mention of it being my personal
opinion.
> Many would disagree - indeed its why Reiser existed.
They're free to disagree. I won't claim to have tested Reiser in all
possible scenarios. To be honest, the best (i.e., fastest) filesystem I
have used so far is that provided by FreeBSD.
> But COLA "advocates" thinks a programmer == another
> programmer.
That's your interpretation.
White Spirit
> If you look around, there are huge numbers of abandoned projects that
> even the original developer lost interest in continuing. Major stull
> like Linux itself has enough commercial interest from companies like Red
> Hat, Novell, and others who profit from distributing Linux that they can
> pay developers to work on various things in the same way that
> proprietary software companies do. But unless a project or piece of a
> project comes under that kind of use, it is likely to languish when raw
> enthusiasm wanes.
That's the natural order for both closed and open source applications in
a level playing field.
Matt
> Matt wrote:
>
>> Terry Porter wrote:
>>> Here are some examples of Linux apps, for which Windows binaries are
>>> not available from the package maintainer, or available for Free.
>>
>> So it would seem that people are /locking themselves in/ to using Linux
>> when they invest in using the mentioned apps.
>
> That has to be the dumbest claim this year so far
all, every, ever, never, none, -est, can't, has to, must, impossible,
not at all, nothing, everything,
Almost everything you write is immoderate.
>> Are you bragging or complaining?
>>
>> I thought free software was supposed to have something to do with
>> freedom.
>
> It has. Feel free to take the source and do the wintendo version
Some people want to gloat over FOSS apps that don't give the option of
running on Windows. Those are apps of the dying kind.
JEDIDIAH
>
> "Terry Porter" <lin...@netspace.net.au> wrote in message
> news:tLadnaSRyrLVViDU...@netspace.net.au...
>>
>> needs the KDE installer to even install it, which is another 250
>> megabytes.
>> The Linux version is free, and 100% reliable.
>>
> very disciplined and publish a lot of unstable applications. It is best to
> avoid them.
...sounds rather a lot like Windows shareware actually.
Even Windows commercial apps do some obviously boneheaded things.
[deletia]
--
My macintosh runs Ubuntu. |||
/ | \
JEDIDIAH
> White Spirit <wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> writes:
>
>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>>> "White Spirit" <wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:gpoaoc$kk5$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>>
>> That doesn't necessarily happen. There are plenty of projects that
>> have been taken up by someone else. In this case, ext3 is simply a
>> better filesystem imo.
>
> Reasons?
>
> Many would disagree - indeed its why Reiser existed.
>
> But COLA "advocates" thinks a programmer == another
> programmer. Abandonware and retrograde OSS projects prove otherwise.
...you know, I read that and the first thing that jumped to mind was
not "freeware" projects but the manner in which work and projects are
managed within corporations.
What you're whining about and trying to lay at the feed of Linux is
not a "Linux problem" it's a problem for the industry in general.
chrisv
>Hadron wrote:
>>
>> But COLA "advocates" thinks a programmer == another
>> programmer.
>
>That's your interpretation.
No, that's yet another Quack bald-faced lie. Documented.
chrisv
>So it would seem that people are /locking themselves in/ to using Linux
>when they invest in using the mentioned apps.
Nope. As long as the data produced and used by the app is in a
open-standard format, there is no lock-in. Anyone is free to make an
app which will manipulate the data. If you're on the FOSS side of the
fence, code will do it be sitting there for the taking.
Having the freedom to switch applications and/or operating systems
does not mean that there is zero effort involved.
--
'Which "open standard" formats would these be? The ones that are still
non standard or the MS Office ones which are used in 95% or more of
businesses?' - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark
amicus_curious
closed source application that has developed a customer base will continue
to be serviced due to someone making a living at it, even if it is not a lot
of fun to work on. I find it hard to believe that anyone who doesn't like
to do something would work at it for the fun, though. That is the
difference that I see.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Some people want to gloat over FOSS apps that don't give the option of
> running on Windows. Those are apps of the dying kind.
Nope. All you can really say is that it is good (and most likely) to cherry
pick the most popular apps to port to Windows (or Linux).
Will we ever see valgrind, fluxbox, awesome, rat poison, sc, mrxvt, and
hundreds of other niche, but useful, applications ported to Windows?
Personally, I don't care. I'd far rather run them all on Linux in the first
place. Porting's good to ream out the code.
--
Now, you might ask, "How do I get one of those complete home tool
sets for under $4?" An excellent question.
Go to one of those really cheap discount stores where they sell
plastic furniture in colors visible from the planet Neptune and where they
have a food section specializing in cardboard cartons full of Raisinets and
malted milk balls manufactured during the Nixon administration. In either
the hardware or housewares department, you'll find an item imported from an
obscure Oriental country and described as "Nine Tools in One", consisting of
a little handle with interchangeable ends representing inscrutable Oriental
notions of tools that Americans might use around the home. Buy it.
This is the kind of tool set professionals use. Not only is it
inexpensive, but it also has a great safety feature not found in the
so-called quality tools sets: The handle will actually break right off if
you accidentally hit yourself or anything else, or expose it to direct
sunlight.
-- Dave Barry, "The Taming of the Screw"
Rex Ballard
wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:45:10 +1100, Terry Porter wrote:
> The difference with Windows is that we have great programs like iTunes and
> Media Monkey both of which blow the doors off of the Linux slopware clones.
LInux has some good media tools as well, and the music is cheaper.
RealMedia is one good example.
There are also some very good OSS mp3 and mpeg4 players as well.
> Linux loses again.
Showing your ignorance again?
> > .......
> > Do you have a decent Windows compiler, not some lobotomised, shareware of
> > free one ?
>
> Who cares?
> The number of people who need compilers, free or otherwise, is miniscule
> compared to the number who are using and enjoying the quality applications
> the Windows platform has.
Even Microsoft's applications aren't that great. Seems like the
"Windows Only" market
is drying up. Not many research dollars available for a single-
platform solution that
can't run on all of the major platforms (Windows, Mac, AND LInux).
Linux commercial applications are actually not that cheap, but they
are as good
as the UNIX versions.
> They have no interest in Linux slopware basement dweller crapware.
There's more to Linux than just "Pure GNU" software.
And even the "commercial OSS" is very good.
Eclipse, Web 2.0, Ajax, SecondLife, all pretty good for Open Source
based technologies.
> > Do you have the software and IT skills to figure out what's wrong when it
> > doesn't run ?
> Can you repair your lungs should they become diseased?
The problem with Windows software is that you can't even get a
"doctor".
When Windows starts crashing you have 5 main strategies.
1 - Restart the App
2 - Reboot the machine
3 - Reinstall the software
4 - Reinstall Windows
5 - Reformat the hard drive and start from scratch.
Microsoft had video driver race conditions that resulted in corrupted
systems, and knew it was a persistent problem. Even with Windows XP
they were still not getting many of these race conditions fixed.
There were even "Windows Advocates" who suggested "Disposable
Computers" because it was cheaper to buy a new computer than it was to
attempt to rebuild a corrupted Windows machine.
Microsoft still has security problems. Even with built-in firewalls,
anti-virus, and installation control, the ActiveX controls can bring
in uninvited guests. People still run their PCs as "Administrators"
because it's such a pain to try and go into "regular user" mode and
try to switch to Administrator only when absolutely necessary.
With Linux, you can get a core dump, pass it off to Bugzilla, and
someone will actually go through the core dump to find out WHY it
failed, and fix the problem. The patch is usually out within a few
days.
> > Why not just install Linux, and have 20,000 Linux applications at the click
> > of a button, all automatically ?
So do most Windows applications. Most Windows shareware applications
are riddled with viruses, spyware, and other malware. What doesn't
kill your system immediately watches for the information required to
drain your bank account, or bet against you in the stock market.
Modern hackers are also a more malicious crowd. Using their skills to
target political and economic targets, gathering information which it
can "leak" or "sell" to the opposition, even leaking information to
divorce lawyers, IRS auditors, and other regulatory and law
enforcement agencies. Even though the information is obtained
illegally, the hacker is functioning as an "un-paid informant" who
leaks information without disclosing how he obtained the information.
> Because most of those Linux applications suck, that's why.
20,000 applications, you're going to have some great ones, and some
"skunks". Many of those applications are pretty raw, with command
line interfaces. Of course, these "stdin/stdout" applications are
pretty simple by themselves, but it's very easy to combine a few
commands together to get some pretty outstanding results in a very
short period of time.
> > It's really easy to install Linux, most distros just install themselves.
> And the user generally removes Linux just as quickly because Linux sucks.
Apparently not, because they keep coming back for more. There are 8
Linux publications at the local Barnes and Noble or Borders, and each
has a circulation of about 1/2 million, including subscribers and
retail purchasers. And each of these magazines includes a DVD with 1
or more Linux distributions included. That's about 4 million units
shipped per MONTH, in addition to downloads, retail purchases,
distributions included in books, and corporate images offered from
corporate servers.
Then there are the Virtual Images, VMWare, VirtualBox, Parallels, and
various others all offer numerous Linux distributions through servers,
mirrors, and torrents.
> > For Linux alternatives to Windows apps you may be using now, see this handy
> > alternatives site:-
> Yea, go and see the slopware for yourself.
Absolutely!
You should look at all this software, and look up commercial software
for special interests, as well as commercial offerings from IBM,
Oracle, Novell, Red Hat, Corel, Adobe, and various others, and compare
them to similarly priced products available for Windows.
Then, after downloading and using 100 or so applications on your Linux
box or Linux VM, try pricing the "premium" products available for
Windows at "Premium" prices.
Photoshop is really nice, but it costs about $400. GIMP is free, and
does about 95% of the functionality, but with a less "natural"
interface. GIMP also has the ability to process batches of pictures
using scripts, not something you can easily do with Photoshop.
MS-Office Professional is also very nice, it has a Presentation tool,
Word Processor, Spreadsheet, and even a simple single-user database,
all for about $500. You can upgrade the database to SQL Server for
another $500. Open Office isn't near as "flashy", but it costs $0.
StarOffice has some nice wizards and themes that make it well worth
the $50 investment.
Visual Studio Professional - very nice IDE - for about $400. Eclipse
costs $0.
Visio - great package for $600 - Dia and Eclipse graphical editing
tools - $0
MS-Project - Never liked it, but most project managers love it - for
$700 per user. Planner and Project - $0
There are also some nice project management tools for Eclipse, and
many integrate with calenders, time sheet
databases, and accounting systems, for prices ranging from $0 to $200.
Quicken - Nice little package for tracking expenses and getting ready
for the tax man. OpenOffice comes with templates for BASE which
provide the same information, in a form that your accountant can
easily extract and summarize into the IRS forms. I haven't seen a
good commercial tax preparation package that will do it
automatically. Most of the commercial packages I've seen are actually
for accounting services - get the database configuraton, AND have your
taxes done professionally - for $100-$300. Maybe H&R block, or one of
the other big firms, should look into this.
World of WarCraft and other games.
Sorry, all we've got is SecondLife. It's OSS software running on
Linux servers with "viewers" that run on Windows, Mac, and Linux.
There are some pretty amazing places here, including battlefields and
adult clubs. Warning, it can be very addictive.
Notepad - we've got emacs, vi, pico, and nano. Nano is the simplest
of all of them, and at least it can deal with files that are line-feed
terminated.
Paint - Xfig generates Postscript art that is scalable and can be
printed on a variety of printers, directly or using ghostscript. Back
in the old days, processors were too slow for all the floating point
required to edit postscript interactively, but modern processors, even
1ghz celerons, have no problem.
HyperTerminal - Microsoft's lobotomized terminal software. Linux has
xterm, kterm, and several other very nicely enhanced terminal
interfaces that can also do things like Graphics.
Remote Access - Linux has a remote access client, but it also supports
GUI interactions directly with the applications using X11. The result
is that your "desktop" might be spread out over several Linux
"servers" which are providing graphical interfaces at the application
level. You might even think that you are running the application
locally. The good news is that it's very lightweight, which means you
don't have to keep waiting for the screen to refresh and "catch up".
Shortcuts - Nice little feature - when it works, which is only for
about 10% of the applications. On Linux/Unix, they are called links
or symbolic links, and special programming is required to NOT have the
application treat the symbolic link as if it were the actual file or
directory being accessed. This makes configuration and storage
management MUCH easier.
Disk deframenter - Linux doesn't have one - it's built into the
operating system and file system, which keeps contiguous storage
together automatically.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
Yeah, I've been meaning to figure out how to convert all my Quattro Pro
spreadsheets and Ami Pro documents. And all my Atari files.
http://windowssecrets.com/support-alert/2008/05/15/06-More-free-abandoned-software
In the April issue I mentioned a great site [1] which offered aging
commercial software that had been abandoned and was now free. This
prompted subscriber Mark Lynch to write "Hey, thanks for the link to the
abandonware site, but for games, this abandonware site [2] has a much
better offering with more games and no download limits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonwareo
So, if Borland gives away their C++ compiler for free now, and they call it
abandonware, does that mean Visual Studio Express is abandonware?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_games_released_as_freeware
. . .
SimCity (1989), a City-building game, was released under the GPLv3 for
the One Laptop per Child project, and as Micropolis to the general public
(the original title of the game).
. . .
Sounds to me like a certain amount of abandonware actually finds a safe
haven in "free software" land.
Hadron's toes are ticklin' his tonsils.
--
<SirDibos> Culus: are you awake?
<Culus> no
Terry Porter
> Terry Porter wrote:
>> Here are some examples of Linux apps, for which Windows binaries are not
>> available from the package maintainer, or available for Free.
>
>> Too bad Windows users ... if you want some amazing (up to date) Linux
>> applications like gEDA, you'll have to run Linux.
>>
>> Amarok: A beta is available for windows, but it crashes all the time, and
>> needs the KDE installer to even install it, which is another 250
>> megabytes. The Linux version is free, and 100% reliable.
>
>
> http://amarok.kde.org/
> (((((
>> Amarok is a powerful music player for Linux and Unix, MacOS X and Windows
>> with an intuitive interface. It makes playing the music you love and
>> discovering new music easier than ever before - and it looks good doing
>> it!
> )))))
>
> Maybe you would like to join the Amarok project and sabotage its Windows
> and Mac and Unix versions, since you seem to think that it would be good
> for Linux or would prove Linux superior if the app runs on Linux only.
Nonsense.
I made a list of Linux apps that don't run on Windows, that's all.
Conversely, if you're so upset about Amarok not currently running reliably
on Windows, feel free to help develop it for that platform. Sweaty Balmer
will no doubt send you hugs and kisses.
This will please a Wintroll like you greatly I imagine.
--
If we wish to reduce our ignorance, there are people we will
indeed listen to. Trolls are not among those people, as trolls, more or
less by definition, *promote* ignorance.
Kelsey Bjarnason, C.O.L.A. 2008
Terry Porter
> Terry Porter wrote:
>> Here are some examples of Linux apps, for which Windows binaries are not
>> available from the package maintainer, or available for Free.
>
>
> So it would seem that people are /locking themselves in/ to using Linux
> when they invest in using the mentioned apps.
Hahaha, yeah, all us Linux users are so locked in. Linux is doomed.
>
> Are you bragging or complaining?
Neither, Windows boy.
>
> I thought free software was supposed to have something to do with freedom.
And so it does.
How does Windows, the anthesis of Freeedom factor into this argument ?
Terry Porter
>
>
> Some people want to gloat over FOSS apps that don't give the option of
> running on Windows. Those are apps of the dying kind.
Unlike the Windows OS, which is of the dying kind.
Terry Porter
A excellent point.
I'm a electronics technician, not a programmer, but like many techs, taught
myself to program many years ago with Windows using Borland C (Around $180)
and it had a IDE.
So naturally, I thought IDEs were what everyone used. It's been a long
journey for me, but I arrived at GNU/Linux and VI with makefiles about 11
years ago, and haven't looked back.
The IDE journey was like a rocky road full of potholes, and VI was like
driving on a brand new, 10 lane superhighway.
Terry Porter
<snip another excellent RB reply>
> MS-Project - Never liked it, but most project managers love it - for
> $700 per user. Planner and Project - $0
> There are also some nice project management tools for Eclipse, and
> many integrate with calenders, time sheet
> databases, and accounting systems, for prices ranging from $0 to $200.
Dotproject is very nice, and rock solid, it uses a Mysql backend.
http://www.dotproject.net/
<snip another excellent RB reply>
Matt
> Matt wrote:
>
>> Terry Porter wrote:
>>> Here are some examples of Linux apps, for which Windows binaries are not
>>> available from the package maintainer, or available for Free.
>>
>> So it would seem that people are /locking themselves in/ to using Linux
>> when they invest in using the mentioned apps.
>
> Hahaha, yeah, all us Linux users are so locked in. Linux is doomed.
No, the Linux-only app is doomed to obscurity.
Maybe you could show some well-known product built using a Linux-only 3D
CAD package. If there is one, you wouldn't know, because, as you say,
you don't care, as long as Linux satisfies your little needs.
>> Are you bragging or complaining?
>
> Neither, Windows boy.
Now come on, sonny, don't act like an ass.
I've been using Linux since before kernel 1.00, and Unix way before that.
>> I thought free software was supposed to have something to do with freedom.
>
> And so it does.
>
> How does Windows, the anthesis of Freeedom factor into this argument ?
Simple. Practical freedom to choose an OS appropriate to a situation.
Really, who brags about limitations in the compatibilities of their
applications?
"Hey everybody, look at this great app! One really great thing about it
is that it only works with this one OS that only the cool guys use!"
Building an app Linux-only is a crippling design error. Linux-only apps
and other OS-specific apps will be shoved aside by cross-platform apps.
Terry Porter
> Terry Porter wrote:
>> Matt wrote:
>>
>>> Terry Porter wrote:
>>>> Here are some examples of Linux apps, for which Windows binaries are
>>>> not available from the package maintainer, or available for Free.
>>>
>>> So it would seem that people are /locking themselves in/ to using Linux
>>> when they invest in using the mentioned apps.
>>
>> Hahaha, yeah, all us Linux users are so locked in. Linux is doomed.
>
>
> No, the Linux-only app is doomed to obscurity.
We generally preface such sweeping generalizations with 'in my opinion' to
avoid looking like a total dickhead.
>
> Maybe you could show some well-known product built using a Linux-only 3D
> CAD package.
Do you have a 'faulty memory' like Erik Funkenbusch as I've already told
you, I dont need 3D cad.
> If there is one, you wouldn't know, because, as you say,
> you don't care, as long as Linux satisfies your little needs.
I'm only a small cog in a big world, so yes, my individual needs are small.
Windows doesn't satisfy them tho.
>
>
>>> Are you bragging or complaining?
>>
>> Neither, Windows boy.
>
>
> Now come on, sonny, don't act like an ass.
If I'm a 'sonny' at 54, you're a doddering old fool.
>
> I've been using Linux since before kernel 1.00, and Unix way before that.
My first Linux install was kernel 0.997, with Yggdrassil Linux, so kindly
piss off with your Windows mindset.
>
>
>>> I thought free software was supposed to have something to do with
>>> freedom.
>>
>> And so it does.
>>
>> How does Windows, the anthesis of Freeedom factor into this argument ?
>
>
> Simple. Practical freedom to choose an OS appropriate to a situation.
Simply avoided.
Windows has nothing to do with Freedom.
>
> Really, who brags about limitations in the compatibilities of their
> applications?
Windows users do that all the time here.
>
> "Hey everybody, look at this great app! One really great thing about it
> is that it only works with this one OS that only the cool guys use!"
Hahah, nice spin. Windows barely works, whatever applications you run.
>
> Building an app Linux-only is a crippling design error.
Spoken like a true Windows advocate, which, incidentally is backed up by
your posting history on COLA, imho.
> Linux-only apps
> and other OS-specific apps will be shoved aside by cross-platform apps.
What a load of cobblers. Do you actually know anything about software
design, or are you just another clueless troll ?
Doctor Smith
Unbelievable.
Terry Porter...
A legend in his own mind.
A jester in the minds of others.
Matt
> Matt wrote:
>
>> Terry Porter wrote:
>>> Here are some examples of Linux apps, for which Windows binaries are not
>>> available from the package maintainer, or available for Free.
>>> Too bad Windows users ... if you want some amazing (up to date) Linux
>>> applications like gEDA, you'll have to run Linux.
>>>
>>> Amarok: A beta is available for windows, but it crashes all the time, and
>>> needs the KDE installer to even install it, which is another 250
>>> megabytes. The Linux version is free, and 100% reliable.
>>
>> http://amarok.kde.org/
>> (((((
>>> Amarok is a powerful music player for Linux and Unix, MacOS X and Windows
>>> with an intuitive interface. It makes playing the music you love and
>>> discovering new music easier than ever before - and it looks good doing
>>> it!
>> )))))
>>
>> Maybe you would like to join the Amarok project and sabotage its Windows
>> and Mac and Unix versions, since you seem to think that it would be good
>> for Linux or would prove Linux superior if the app runs on Linux only.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> I made a list of Linux apps that don't run on Windows, that's all.
>
> Conversely, if you're so upset about Amarok not currently running reliably
> on Windows, feel free to help develop it for that platform.
In light of what chrisv explained on this thread regarding data formats,
I don't know that a music player is the best example, since there isn't
much mission-critical data involved. That said ...
I'm not a bit upset about it. The usefulness of running Amarok on
Windows will motivate development that will eventually carry it out of
obscurity, unless its design provides nothing new to Windows users. A
few Linux-oriented developers can do what's needed to make it run well
on Linux. If its design provides anything new to Linux users, they will
get a useful FOSS app, with much of the work done by people who didn't
need to know much about Linux.
Obviously a new useful app that runs on Linux is beneficial to Linux
acceptance. That increases the chance that someone who needs a
special-purpose app can be satisfied using Linux. That brings more
users to Linux and creates demand for more apps that run on Linux.
Since Linux already fulfills all your ten or so needs which you listed
elsewhere, and since you would let the rest of the world go hang, you
don't care about any of that.
> Sweaty Balmer
> will no doubt send you hugs and kisses.
No, if Ballmer understands the situation---and I can't believe he
doesn't---he is on your side, wanting Linux apps to be Linux-only. He
understands the effects of Firefox and OpenOffice on Linux adoption. He
knows the adoptions in Brazil, Russia, Germany, France, Indiana, San
Diego, and everywhere would be nearly impossible without cross-platform
apps. He knows that without adoptions like that, Linux is almost no
threat to Windows or Office.
> This will please a Wintroll like you greatly I imagine.
I think you threw those names at me to try to alienate me, and I think
that is because at bottom you don't want Linux to grow much beyond what
it is now, and you know that I and others here do want it to grow.
Matt
> Matt wrote:
>
>>
>> Some people want to gloat over FOSS apps that don't give the option of
>> running on Windows. Those are apps of the dying kind.
>
> Unlike the Windows OS, which is of the dying kind.
Huh?
Yes, a dying app is different from a dying OS, since one is an app and
one is an OS.
Doctor Smith
> I think you threw those names at me to try to alienate me, and I think
> that is because at bottom you don't want Linux to grow much beyond what
> it is now, and you know that I and others here do want it to grow.
With idiots like Terry Porter, Roy Schestowitz, Willy Poaster, Chris
Ahlstrom and others pretending to advocate Linux, they have nothing to
worry about.
Those guys are to Linux what Pat Robertson is to religion.
They scare away more people than they convert.
Real Linux advocates, IOW those who are actually contributing to the
community, wish COLA would disappear.
They really do.
Matt
Duh, amicus, it's called /open/ source. The open-source failures are
the failures we see. It doesn't mean there are more open-source
failures than closed-source failures.
Matt
Of course you Muschi were not one of the "others" I was referring to. :-)
Doctor Smith
I would like to see Linux grow(desktop), but after 17 years of not getting
anywhere on the desktop I have my doubts.
COLA is not by any stretch of the imagination, a place to advocate Linux.
Terry Porter
> Terry Porter wrote:
>> Matt wrote:
<snip>
> In light of what chrisv explained on this thread regarding data formats,
> I don't know that a music player is the best example, since there isn't
> much mission-critical data involved. That said ...
Fair enough.
>
> I'm not a bit upset about it. The usefulness of running Amarok on
> Windows will motivate development that will eventually carry it out of
> obscurity, unless its design provides nothing new to Windows users.
I have noticed you have a poor opinion of Linux apps, however believing them
to be obscure, is just uninformed imho.
> A
> few Linux-oriented developers can do what's needed to make it run well
> on Linux.
That's all it takes. Only the Microsoft 'way of thinking' believes that more
programmers equals better programs, but as everything they design is a
monolith, they may be right, for them.
> If its design provides anything new to Linux users, they will
> get a useful FOSS app, with much of the work done by people who didn't
> need to know much about Linux.
Amarok is a useful Linux app, like many Linux users, I have been running
Amarok for years. Only Windows users have been missing out on this very
cool app.
>
> Obviously a new useful app that runs on Linux is beneficial to Linux
> acceptance. That increases the chance that someone who needs a
> special-purpose app can be satisfied using Linux.
Such bias. Are you sure you're not "Megabyte" ?
You don't seem aware that Linux offers everything Windows does and much much
more. This is odd since you claim to have run Linux since version 1.0
My troll bullshit-O-meter is on 100% with you.
> That brings more
> users to Linux and creates demand for more apps that run on Linux.
Again, Windows thinking.
Linux users write Linux apps, and then share them, that's how it works,
mostly.
And such apps are of the highest quality, far higher than proprietary apps
pushed out under duress by burnt out coders at the behest of the PHB.
>
> Since Linux already fulfills all your ten or so needs which you listed
> elsewhere, and since you would let the rest of the world go hang, you
> don't care about any of that.
Such bias to minimise my Linux capabilities and show me as a a person who
doesnt care about the rest of the world.
I have written 3 apps and released them under the GPL, Free for anyone to
use.
Let's hear about your contribution to others (other than Bill Gates, by
wintrolling on COLA )?
Feel free to list the programs you have written under the GPL ?
>
>
>> Sweaty Balmer
>> will no doubt send you hugs and kisses.
>
>
> No, if Ballmer understands the situation---and I can't believe he
> doesn't---he is on your side, wanting Linux apps to be Linux-only.
Is that the same as his desire for netbooks to be Linux only ?
The new ARM netbooks will *only* run Linux apps, I guess Blammer will be
delighted ?
> He
> understands the effects of Firefox and OpenOffice on Linux adoption.
On Linux netbooks ?
> He
> knows the adoptions in Brazil, Russia, Germany, France, Indiana, San
> Diego, and everywhere would be nearly impossible without cross-platform
> apps.
Adoptions of what exactly ?
> He knows that without adoptions like that, Linux is almost no
> threat to Windows or Office.
Adoptions of what exactly ?
>
>
>> This will please a Wintroll like you greatly I imagine.
>
>
> I think you threw those names at me to try to alienate me,
Nah, trolls like you have thick skins. Besides, it wasn't *names* I only
called you a 'wintroll', that's only one name.
> and I think
> that is because at bottom you don't want Linux to grow much beyond what
> it is now,
Unlike you, I believe that Linux will continue to grow and expand
everywhere, with or without my help. I said this in 1997, and repeat it
here and now.
Linux is present on almost *everything* these days. What's in your cable or
ADSl modem ?
What's running your WiFi AP ?
How about your TomTom GPS, what OS is that running ?
What about your Nokia, or Smartphone ?
Got a decent HiDef Digital TV ? what does that run ?
How about a satellite STB, whats the os ?
You're already *surrounded* by Linux, and you have seem to have no idea.
> and you know that I and others here do want it to grow.
I think you're just a troll, nothing more.
In fact, I wouldnt be surprised if you're just another troll nym.
Terry Porter
> Unbelievable.
So, does Dr flatfish Smiths support of 'Matt' tell us anything ?
Gregory Shearman
Linux doesn't need to grow. It's not a corporation that requires growth
to survive. The users of Linux keep it alive.
Linux doesn't have CAD 3D? Boohoo! If someone needs it enough they'll
either port a windows program or build their own. Obviously current
linux users don't use it, most probably because it fills such a tiny
niche of use.
Do you support the ridiculous statements made by the flatfish troll?
Do you have any support for the ridiculous assertions promulgated by
this disgusting troll?
Linux works... linux is everywhere. You aren't a linux advocate. You're
simply another microsoft shill.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
Peter Köhlmann
> On 2009-03-18, Matt <ma...@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:
>> Doctor Smith wrote:
>>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:44:33 -0500, Matt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think you threw those names at me to try to alienate me, and I
>>>> think that is because at bottom you don't want Linux to grow much
>>>> beyond what it is now, and you know that I and others here do want it
>>>> to grow.
>>>
>>> With idiots like Terry Porter, Roy Schestowitz, Willy Poaster, Chris
>>> Ahlstrom and others pretending to advocate Linux, they have nothing to
>>> worry about.
>>>
>>> Those guys are to Linux what Pat Robertson is to religion.
>>> They scare away more people than they convert.
>>>
>>> Real Linux advocates, IOW those who are actually contributing to the
>>> community, wish COLA would disappear.
>>> They really do.
>>
>>
>> Of course you Muschi were not one of the "others" I was referring to.
>> :-)
>
> Linux doesn't need to grow. It's not a corporation that requires growth
> to survive. The users of Linux keep it alive.
>
> Linux doesn't have CAD 3D?
It has. Several
< snip >
--
Windows was created to keep stupid people away from UNIX."
-- Tom Christiansen
Matt
> Doctor Smith wrote:
>
>> Unbelievable.
>
> So, does Dr flatfish Smiths support of 'Matt' tell us anything ?
If your thinking is as simple and witless as that, it will tell you
things that are false.
Matt
> On Mar 16, 3:51 am, Doctor Smith <iaintgotnostinkinem...@ols.net>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:45:10 +1100, Terry Porter wrote:
>
>
>> The difference with Windows is that we have great programs like iTunes and
>> Media Monkey both of which blow the doors off of the Linux slopware clones.
>
> LInux has some good media tools as well, and the music is cheaper.
> RealMedia is one good example.
>
> There are also some very good OSS mp3 and mpeg4 players as well.
>
>> Linux loses again.
>
> Showing your ignorance again?
>
>>> .......
>>> Do you have a decent Windows compiler, not some lobotomised, shareware of
>>> free one ?
>> Who cares?
>> The number of people who need compilers, free or otherwise, is miniscule
>> compared to the number who are using and enjoying the quality applications
>> the Windows platform has.
>
> Even Microsoft's applications aren't that great. Seems like the
> "Windows Only" market
> is drying up. Not many research dollars available for a single-
> platform solution that
> can't run on all of the major platforms (Windows, Mac, AND LInux).
There is hardly a more important key to understanding how the monopoly
will be broken.
> Linux commercial applications are actually not that cheap, but they
> are as good
> as the UNIX versions.
Linux apps aren't cheap because they have to spread the development cost
over more licensees. That will change as Linux gains usage share.
White Spirit
> "White Spirit" <wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:gpokiv$ist$2...@news.motzarella.org...
>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>> If you look around, there are huge numbers of abandoned projects that
>>> even the original developer lost interest in continuing. Major stull
>>> like Linux itself has enough commercial interest from companies like
>>> Red Hat, Novell, and others who profit from distributing Linux that
>>> they can pay developers to work on various things in the same way
>>> that proprietary software companies do. But unless a project or
>>> piece of a project comes under that kind of use, it is likely to
>>> languish when raw enthusiasm wanes.
>> That's the natural order for both closed and open source applications
>> in a level playing field.
> I don't know what you mean by "level playing field" here,
I'm talking about the absence of monopolies, orchestrated vendor lock-in
and FUD. If there is a sufficient user-base, the software will
generally continue to be maintained. If there isn't, it depends on the
developer doing it simply because he wants to.
Matt
> On 2009-03-18, Matt <ma...@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:
>> Doctor Smith wrote:
>>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:44:33 -0500, Matt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think you threw those names at me to try to alienate me, and I think
>>>> that is because at bottom you don't want Linux to grow much beyond what
>>>> it is now, and you know that I and others here do want it to grow.
>>> With idiots like Terry Porter, Roy Schestowitz, Willy Poaster, Chris
>>> Ahlstrom and others pretending to advocate Linux, they have nothing to
>>> worry about.
>>>
>>> Those guys are to Linux what Pat Robertson is to religion.
>>> They scare away more people than they convert.
>>>
>>> Real Linux advocates, IOW those who are actually contributing to the
>>> community, wish COLA would disappear.
>>> They really do.
>>
>> Of course you Muschi were not one of the "others" I was referring to. :-)
>
> Linux doesn't need to grow. It's not a corporation that requires growth
> to survive. The users of Linux keep it alive.
>
> Linux doesn't have CAD 3D? Boohoo! If someone needs it enough they'll
> either port a windows program or build their own. Obviously current
> linux users don't use it, most probably because it fills such a tiny
> niche of use.
So you don't care whether anybody is ever able to design products
without using Windows and its proprietary 3D CAD apps. I don't think I
need to say much more.
> Do you support the ridiculous statements made by the flatfish troll?
>
> Do you have any support for the ridiculous assertions promulgated by
> this disgusting troll?
You are supposed to be able to read before you join in Usenet
discussions. But exactly which of his statements do you want me to
evaluate?
> Linux works... linux is everywhere. You aren't a linux advocate. You're
> simply another microsoft shill.
This is really appalling.
You call me an MS shill, and in the same post you say you are fine with
unending MS domination of the desktop.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Terry Porter wrote:
>> Matt wrote:
>>
>>> Terry Porter wrote:
>>>> Here are some examples of Linux apps, for which Windows binaries are not
>>>> available from the package maintainer, or available for Free.
>>>
>>> So it would seem that people are /locking themselves in/ to using Linux
>>> when they invest in using the mentioned apps.
>>
>> Hahaha, yeah, all us Linux users are so locked in. Linux is doomed.
>
> No, the Linux-only app is doomed to obscurity.
What, like Linux itself, Matt? Gimme a break.
> Maybe you could show some well-known product built using a Linux-only 3D
> CAD package. If there is one, you wouldn't know, because, as you say,
> you don't care, as long as Linux satisfies your little needs.
Actually, isn't it true that a lot of big-time software (CAD, typesetting)
found its origin on UNIX systems?
> Building an app Linux-only is a crippling design error. Linux-only apps
> and other OS-specific apps will be shoved aside by cross-platform apps.
Bullshit. You greatly overstate your case.
The only cross-platform software on my boxes are OpenOffice, Firefox,
the GIMP, and, at work only, Evolution. And three of those originated in
UNIX/Linux. And that's why I prefer to use 'em.
Frankly, I suspect most cross-platform apps are of the Mac/Windows variety,
anyway. Also, it seems obvious that, if you go by titles alone, Windows
by far tops the list, due to its dominance. You aren't by chance a stealth
advocate for Windows-only apps, are you Matt?
--
"Mind if I smoke?"
"Yes, I'd like to see that, does it come out of your ears or what?"
Matt
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Matt belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Terry Porter wrote:
>>> Matt wrote:
>>>
>>>> Terry Porter wrote:
>>>>> Here are some examples of Linux apps, for which Windows binaries are not
>>>>> available from the package maintainer, or available for Free.
>>>> So it would seem that people are /locking themselves in/ to using Linux
>>>> when they invest in using the mentioned apps.
>>> Hahaha, yeah, all us Linux users are so locked in. Linux is doomed.
>> No, the Linux-only app is doomed to obscurity.
>
> What, like Linux itself, Matt?
What kind of stupid question is that?
Peter Köhlmann
Except there are several 3D CAD apps for linux
So you really should say nothing anymore
>
>> Do you support the ridiculous statements made by the flatfish troll?
>>
>> Do you have any support for the ridiculous assertions promulgated by
>> this disgusting troll?
>
>
> You are supposed to be able to read before you join in Usenet
> discussions. But exactly which of his statements do you want me to
> evaluate?
Start with his homophobic and racist rants
>> Linux works... linux is everywhere. You aren't a linux advocate. You're
>> simply another microsoft shill.
>
>
> This is really appalling.
Right, it is.
> You call me an MS shill, and in the same post you say you are fine with
> unending MS domination of the desktop.
The fact that you are a MS shill has what exactly to do with someone
wanting to have choice on the desktop?
--
Don't steal. Microsoft hates competition.
Matt
Linux has several of almost everything. I found a list of CAD packages
for Linux, and some of them were FOSS and some were cross-platform. I
expect something to come out of those eventually, but I wonder whether
any are practical to use now. Maybe you could name one that people have
used to build successful products. Not trying to be a smartass.
Really, do you have any experience with them?
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> No, if Ballmer understands the situation---and I can't believe he
> doesn't---he is on your side, wanting Linux apps to be Linux-only. He
> understands the effects of Firefox and OpenOffice on Linux adoption. He
> knows the adoptions in Brazil, Russia, Germany, France, Indiana, San
> Diego, and everywhere would be nearly impossible without cross-platform
> apps. He knows that without adoptions like that, Linux is almost no
> threat to Windows or Office.
That's a far cry from "Linux-only apps are doomed to obscurity".
All you've demonstrated is that apps with a certain type of functionality
get cherry-picked, whatever the platform.
By the same token, cross-platform support is no guarantee of popularity,
either. Ever hear of this one?
http://sheet.zoho.com/login.jsp?serviceurl=%2Fhome.do
>> This will please a Wintroll like you greatly I imagine.
>
> I think you threw those names at me to try to alienate me, and I think
> that is because at bottom you don't want Linux to grow much beyond what
> it is now, and you know that I and others here do want it to grow.
You don't grow Linux by providing applications that also work on the
currently-dominant platform, Matt. Such applications in no way will
motivate a user to switch to Linux.
Hardly any user is going to switch to Linux because it runs Firefox and
OpenOffice. They're going to switch for other reasons, and then find that
it supports these apps.
The only way Linux will get major market share on the desktop is in vendor
preloads.
As for your claim that countries won't switch unless the app is
cross-platform... bullshit. All they want is work-alike functionality and
/portable formats/.
Cross-platform is a nice thing, even nicer for developers, as it shakes out
hidden architecture assumptions. But it is a convenience, not a necessity.
However, for me, already committed to Linux, cross-platform code gives me
one /big/ benefit -- I can test 98% of the functionality of my Windows
applications with valgrind, which is unavailable on Windows.
--
Q: What do little WASPs want to be when they grow up?
A: The very best person they can possibly be.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Doctor Smith wrote:
Doctor Smith is simply a needling bullshit artist, probably not quite sane.
He is not worthy to lick your shoes clean, Matt.
--
A Smith & Wesson beats four aces.
Matt
You lack honesty.
Matt
Well, I appreciate that, Lino.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Matt wrote:
>
>> I'm not a bit upset about it. The usefulness of running Amarok on
>> Windows will motivate development that will eventually carry it out of
>> obscurity, unless its design provides nothing new to Windows users.
>
> I have noticed you have a poor opinion of Linux apps, however believing them
> to be obscure, is just uninformed imho.
Linux still is obscure to the typical consumer, who, when they think about
it at all, think all computers are Microsoft products.
Hence, any application that is Linux-only is automatically obscure.
However, once a person tries Linux, they find most of all that 99% of
all the "Windows" functionality they'd ever want is present, much of it in
obscure apps.
It's a gold-mine to people who want to explore.
But few people do. The ones that try Linux are a self-selected sample of
explorers.
Matt's claim about cross-platform applications will hold no water /until/
Linux is preloaded on a significant proportion of systems. Then, people who
find themselves with a Linux system will find these "old friends" from
Windows.
That is, if they used these applications in the first place.
At present, most people still use IE and MS Office.
/Those/ are the /main/ applications for which Matt's cross-platform claims
would be valid.
> You don't seem aware that Linux offers everything Windows does and much much
> more. This is odd since you claim to have run Linux since version 1.0
>
> My troll bullshit-O-meter is on 100% with you.
Once a cool application is ported to Windows, all it does, in my opinion, is
provide motivation to /stay/ on Windows.
Porting the other way, to Linux, does not move people to Linux. Except for
Microsoft apps, and Microsoft won't lift a finger to help that migration.
>> No, if Ballmer understands the situation---and I can't believe he
>> doesn't---he is on your side, wanting Linux apps to be Linux-only.
>
> Is that the same as his desire for netbooks to be Linux only ?
>
> The new ARM netbooks will *only* run Linux apps, I guess Blammer will be
> delighted ?
Good point.
> Linux is present on almost *everything* these days. What's in your cable or
> ADSl modem ?
> What's running your WiFi AP ?
> How about your TomTom GPS, what OS is that running ?
> What about your Nokia, or Smartphone ?
> Got a decent HiDef Digital TV ? what does that run ?
> How about a satellite STB, whats the os ?
>
> You're already *surrounded* by Linux, and you have seem to have no idea.
It's dark matter to consumers, though.
--
Those who have had no share in the good fortunes of the mighty
Often have a share in their misfortunes.
-- Bertolt Brecht, "The Caucasian Chalk Circle"
Terry Porter
Varcon, SAAB, fighter aircraft wings.
William Poaster
trolls, Chris Ahlstrom was heard to say:
With idiots like Doctor Flatfish Smith/DFS/Hadron Quack etc, the *real
Linux advocates* IOW those who are actually contributing to the community
& promoting Linux, wish that those stupid trolls would disappear.
DFS
> The only way Linux will get major market share on the desktop is in
> vendor preloads.
First the developers have to work out the kualitee issues. That'll take
about 25 years.
> However, for me, already committed to Linux,
ha! You're committed to *talking about* Linux, and that's it.
Matt
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Terry Porter belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Matt wrote:
>>> No, if Ballmer understands the situation---and I can't believe he
>>> doesn't---he is on your side, wanting Linux apps to be Linux-only.
>> Is that the same as his desire for netbooks to be Linux only ?
>>
>> The new ARM netbooks will *only* run Linux apps, I guess Blammer will be
>> delighted ?
>
> Good point.
How is that a good point? It just looked like some kind of broken
analogy to me.
chrisv
>Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>> Matt belched:
>>>
>>> No, the Linux-only app is doomed to obscurity.
>>
>> What, like Linux itself, Matt?
>
>What kind of stupid question is that?
It's not a stupid question, "Matt". Ironic, since in this thread
you've been showing how stupid you are, with ridiculous claims of
anyone being "locked in" to Linux.
His point was that Linux itself is "obscure", by the definition of
people like you. That doesn't stop it from being a valuable tool,
that does its job well, for many.
While cross-platform to Windows can be, I suppose, a "nice thing", it
is FAR from necessary for success. It is FAR from "crippling" to be
Linux-only.
Idiot.
chrisv
>Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>
>> Linux works... linux is everywhere. You aren't a linux advocate. You're
>> simply another microsoft shill.
>
>This is really appalling.
Nope. You are simply too Wintarded to understand how the superior
mind of a FOSS advocate works.
>You call me an MS shill, and in the same post you say you are fine with
>unending MS domination of the desktop.
As long as the people have a viable alternative to Windows, the people
win. With Linux, we have that viable alternative. Get it?
While reducing or eliminating Windows "domination" would be "good", it
is not necessary for success.
Matt
> Matt wrote:
>> and I think
>> that is because at bottom you don't want Linux to grow much beyond what
>> it is now,
>
> Unlike you, I believe that Linux will continue to grow and expand
> everywhere, with or without my help. I said this in 1997, and repeat it
> here and now.
So you advocate no change.
> Linux is present on almost *everything* these days. What's in your cable or
> ADSl modem ?
> What's running your WiFi AP ?
> How about your TomTom GPS, what OS is that running ?
> What about your Nokia, or Smartphone ?
> Got a decent HiDef Digital TV ? what does that run ?
> How about a satellite STB, whats the os ?
>
> You're already *surrounded* by Linux, and you have seem to have no idea.
Linux dominance on microwave ovens and modems is rather boring, don't
you think? Those kinds of battles are already won. Smartphones are
important. I am only interested in systems that try to approximate a
desktop environment---in the sense that the user can potentially select
from a very broad range of applications.
You don't value maximal software selection on such a general-purpose
computing platforms, as you've revealed more than once by saying that
your could give a hoot about anything beyond your ten or so apps, and by
your specific examples above showing that the Linux situation is just fine.
>> and you know that I and others here do want it to grow.
>
> I think you're just a troll, nothing more.
>
> In fact, I wouldnt be surprised if you're just another troll nym.
In my experience, invoking 'troll' six times in one post is a pretty
good sign of a brownshirt. It indicates a failure to deal with the
arguments.
You might find some help beating me with that word, from a few
like-minded regulars. I think that if you look at those who would call
me a troll, you will find people who are pretty much okay with the
status quo---namely Microsoft dominance of general-purpose computing
platforms.
Terry Porter
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Terry Porter belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
<snip>
>
>> The new ARM netbooks will *only* run Linux apps, I guess Blammer will be
>> delighted ?
>
> Good point.
>
>> Linux is present on almost *everything* these days. What's in your cable
>> or ADSl modem ?
>> What's running your WiFi AP ?
>> How about your TomTom GPS, what OS is that running ?
>> What about your Nokia, or Smartphone ?
>> Got a decent HiDef Digital TV ? what does that run ?
>> How about a satellite STB, whats the os ?
>>
>> You're already *surrounded* by Linux, and you have seem to have no idea.
>
> It's dark matter to consumers, though.
All good points Chris.
I have noticed that joe sixpack, i.e. people who just want a computer to get
on the net or maybe do a little wp now and again, don't give a rats about
Windows, they just want a cheap reliable 'computer'.
At lest that's what I have observed at the local superstore.
Windows and the public love of it is a myth and a Microsoft perpetuated myth
at that, most people just want a *computer*.
The fact that Linux is already so comoditized already, I think is proof that
it will end up powering mobile computers, and no one will care apart from
Microsoft.
Most users won't probably even know.
Imagine saying to the average Nokia user, "hey that's the Symbian OS isn't'
it ?", what response do you think you'd get ?
I think you'd just get a confused look.
It's just a phone, dude!
Matt
Okay, then with some regret I'll mark you down as one who is basically
okay with MS dominating the desktop from here on out.
amicus_curious
"Matt" <ma...@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote in message
news:zc0wl.96082$rb1....@newsfe02.iad...
> White Spirit wrote:
>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>>> If you look around, there are huge numbers of abandoned projects that
>>> even the original developer lost interest in continuing. Major stull
>>> like Linux itself has enough commercial interest from companies like Red
>>> Hat, Novell, and others who profit from distributing Linux that they can
>>> pay developers to work on various things in the same way that
>>> proprietary software companies do. But unless a project or piece of a
>>> project comes under that kind of use, it is likely to languish when raw
>>> enthusiasm wanes.
>>
>> That's the natural order for both closed and open source applications in
>> a level playing field.
>
>
> failures we see. It doesn't mean there are more open-source failures than
> closed-source failures.
I think you have me confused with someone else here. Even so, it would seem
to me that an open-source failure is no more visible than a closed source
product failure in that it is not the source being observed as failing,
rather the ongoing development of the product and the continued promotion of
it. It is even more likely that the failure of a closed source, proprietary
product would be noted since people lose money and are put out of work, both
of which are sure fodder for the popular press to report.
chrisv
>chrisv wrote:
>>
>> As long as the people have a viable alternative to Windows, the people
>> win. With Linux, we have that viable alternative. Get it?
>>
>> While reducing or eliminating Windows "domination" would be "good", it
>> is not necessary for success.
>
>Okay, then with some regret I'll mark you down as one who is basically
>okay with MS dominating the desktop from here on out.
Idiot.
Terry Porter
> Terry Porter wrote:
>> Matt wrote:
>
>>> and I think
>>> that is because at bottom you don't want Linux to grow much beyond what
>>> it is now,
>>
>> Unlike you, I believe that Linux will continue to grow and expand
>> everywhere, with or without my help. I said this in 1997, and repeat it
>> here and now.
>
>
> So you advocate no change.
No, I advocate that you seem to have no idea about Linux, and harbor some
very pro Windows sentiments.
This makes you seem like a troll to me.
>
>
>> Linux is present on almost *everything* these days. What's in your cable
>> or ADSl modem ?
>> What's running your WiFi AP ?
>> How about your TomTom GPS, what OS is that running ?
>> What about your Nokia, or Smartphone ?
>> Got a decent HiDef Digital TV ? what does that run ?
>> How about a satellite STB, whats the os ?
>>
>> You're already *surrounded* by Linux, and you have seem to have no idea.
>
>
> Linux dominance on microwave ovens and modems is rather boring, don't
> you think?
Not at all. I think it's as exciting as anything!
Ever connected to one ?
> Those kinds of battles are already won. Smartphones are
> important.
I think Linux will win that battle also.
> I am only interested in systems that try to approximate a
> desktop environment---in the sense that the user can potentially select
> from a very broad range of applications.
I understand that your world consists only of desktops, probably Windows
ones, from what I understand of your low regard for Linux desktop
applications.
A while ago you inferred that Linux had no decent EDA apps, and I let it
lay, what the hell, it's just your *opinion*.
I know that Linux has kick-arse EDA apps, as I use them all the time, so
your post set my troll meter flickering.
>
> You don't value maximal software selection on such a general-purpose
> computing platforms,
What in the seven hells of Zorgon does that mean ?
"maximal software selection"
Web
Information No results found for "maximal software selection".
> as you've revealed more than once by saying that
> your could give a hoot about anything beyond your ten or so apps,
Every Linux user uses hundreds of apps, I would have thought that you'd know
it, as you claim to have used Linux since "version 1".
> and by
> your specific examples above showing that the Linux situation is just
> fine.
"the Linux situation" ?
What one would that be ?
>
>
>>> and you know that I and others here do want it to grow.
>>
>> I think you're just a troll, nothing more.
>>
>> In fact, I wouldnt be surprised if you're just another troll nym.
>
>
> In my experience, invoking 'troll' six times in one post is a pretty
> good sign of a brownshirt.
Yeah, Adolph Hitler is here peering over my shoulder, sadly he doesn't
understand English well, but loves the bright colors anyway.
> It indicates a failure to deal with the
> arguments.
I think what we we have here is a failure to communicate.
>
> You might find some help beating me with that word, from a few
> like-minded regulars.
Whilst it's a cheap trick, your comment may backfire, as some Linux
Advocates here are probably much more intelligent than you, and they won't
take too kindly to your suggestion that they are mindless robots who do my
bidding so easily as you infer.
> I think that if you look at those who would call
> me a troll, you will find people who are pretty much okay with the
> status quo---namely Microsoft dominance of general-purpose computing
> platforms.
Well Matt, wether they do or not, doesn't change the fact that "Not all
Linux apps are *available* for Windows" and it's the Windows only users who
miss out.
Too bad for them.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Terry Porter belched out
>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> Matt wrote:
>
>>>> No, if Ballmer understands the situation---and I can't believe he
>>>> doesn't---he is on your side, wanting Linux apps to be Linux-only.
>>> Is that the same as his desire for netbooks to be Linux only ?
>>>
>>> The new ARM netbooks will *only* run Linux apps, I guess Blammer will be
>>> delighted ?
>>
>> Good point.
>
> How is that a good point? It just looked like some kind of broken
> analogy to me.
Well, I interpret it as saying the Blammer is deathly afraid of Linux-only
netbooks.
--
Gravity brings me down.
Matt
I said that the only one I found usable for me (BTW an electronics
amateur/newbie) was a free hobbled version of Eagle, which is commercial
and cross-platform. It was a couple years ago, and I had nobody to
teach me.
> and I let it
> lay, what the hell, it's just your *opinion*.
Yes, well, I want to ask you about that, since you say you are some kind
of circuit pro. I think I tried pcb and couldn't easily figure out how
to fit it with gEDA. So I tried Eagle and was able to actually enjoy it
and get some work done with it. Using Eagle, I was able to move forward
at maybe ten times the rate. So I was surprised to read that you use
the others all the time. Have you tried Eagle?
Terry Porter
>> A while ago you inferred that Linux had no decent EDA apps,
>
>
> I said that the only one I found usable for me (BTW an electronics
> amateur/newbie) was a free hobbled version of Eagle, which is commercial
> and cross-platform.
All commercial and cross-platform EDA stuff I have seen suck bigtime.
> It was a couple years ago, and I had nobody to
> teach me.
Yeah that's what you get with that stuff. Commercial software is just hard
nosed all the way and you must pay for every single thing.
>
>
>> and I let it
>> lay, what the hell, it's just your *opinion*.
>
>
> Yes, well, I want to ask you about that, since you say you are some kind
> of circuit pro.
I know my way around Gschem and Pcb, but that's because they are just
brilliant, and make a dope like me look good :)
> I think I tried pcb and couldn't easily figure out how
> to fit it with gEDA.
Oh, oh, there is the old 'easy' word. Nothing good is easy. I look at it
this way, "hard start, easy finish' as opposed to the Windows way of 'easy
start, hard finish' :)
Gschem and Pcb are separate aps, just like the old favorites of ORCAD and
PADS used to be. The worked together by reading each others files and
backannotating them. They were kick ass, and everybody who was anybody used
them. Of course they ran under DOS and were *fast*.
Windows pretty much turned them into dead dogs.
Gschem looks a lot like ORCAD and is *fast*. Pcb is just awesome and heaps
easier than PADS imho.
They work together in the same way. The gEDA listserver is friendly and the
gEDA doc is outstanding, everything you need is there. Install Gschem and
load my 'Lightning Detector' from the examples package.
The Geda community is just the best, like all Free software projects the
people are the key to it's success. And the gEDA guys are *legends* in my
book.
I have never in my entire life experienced anything like the Free Software
community, and I believe that it is so different, Windows people can't even
begin to imagine how special it is.
> So I tried Eagle and was able to actually enjoy it
> and get some work done with it. Using Eagle, I was able to move forward
> at maybe ten times the rate.
Yeah, easy start ...
> So I was surprised to read that you use
> the others all the time.
Not *all* the time. I went thru a nasty stage for about a year where Gschem
was unstable on my machine, so I switched to Eagle for schematic capture.
> Have you tried Eagle?
Only the schematic capture, but it's xplatform design gives me the shits,
for lots of reasons. I find the free version unfinished and clunky.
That said, it's still pretty good, I just think Geda/PCB is much, much
better.
Ales Hvezda, Thomas Nau, Harry Eaton, DJ Delorie, and the rest of the gEDA
designers you guys TOTALLY rock!
Terry Porter
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Matt belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Terry Porter belched out
>>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>>
>>>> Matt wrote:
>>
>>>>> No, if Ballmer understands the situation---and I can't believe he
>>>>> doesn't---he is on your side, wanting Linux apps to be Linux-only.
>>>> Is that the same as his desire for netbooks to be Linux only ?
>>>>
>>>> The new ARM netbooks will *only* run Linux apps, I guess Blammer will
>>>> be delighted ?
>>>
>>> Good point.
>>
>> How is that a good point? It just looked like some kind of broken
>> analogy to me.
>
> Well, I interpret it as saying the Blammer is deathly afraid of Linux-only
> netbooks.
>
Exactly my meaning :)
Terry Porter
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:45:10 +1100, Terry Porter wrote:
>
>>
>> Amarok: A beta is available for windows, but it crashes all the time, and
>> needs the KDE installer to even install it, which is another 250
>> megabytes. The Linux version is free, and 100% reliable.
>
> Sounds like the Linux version and Windows version have a lot in common.
> Both suck and both crash.
Uninformed troll.
I have been using Amarok every day for at least 1.5 years on my Linux box,
and it has *NEVER* crashed once.
Ever.
What you mean is thats it's unstable on your Windows crap.
Matt
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Matt belched out
>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Terry Porter belched out
>>>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>>>
>>>>> Matt wrote:
>>>>>> No, if Ballmer understands the situation---and I can't believe he
>>>>>> doesn't---he is on your side, wanting Linux apps to be Linux-only.
>>>>> Is that the same as his desire for netbooks to be Linux only ?
>>>>>
>>>>> The new ARM netbooks will *only* run Linux apps, I guess Blammer will
>>>>> be delighted ?
>>>> Good point.
>>> How is that a good point? It just looked like some kind of broken
>>> analogy to me.
>> Well, I interpret it as saying the Blammer is deathly afraid of Linux-only
>> netbooks.
>>
>
> Exactly my meaning :)
I don't see the relevance to the present discussion. Of course he is
afraid of cheap hardware that doesn't run Windows. You presented it as
some kind of clever analogy or contradiction or irony. It doesn't fit.
We were talking about Linux-only Linux apps, not Linux-only hardware.
Anyway you never dealt with the reality that Linux usage would be way
less than it is without FF and OO. Show me a school or government Linux
migration where those are not the centerpiece apps.
Matt
> Matt wrote:
>
>
>>> A while ago you inferred that Linux had no decent EDA apps,
>>
>> I said that the only one I found usable for me (BTW an electronics
>> amateur/newbie) was a free hobbled version of Eagle, which is commercial
>> and cross-platform.
>
> All commercial and cross-platform EDA stuff I have seen suck bigtime.
>
>> It was a couple years ago, and I had nobody to
>> teach me.
>
> Yeah that's what you get with that stuff. Commercial software is just hard
> nosed all the way and you must pay for every single thing.
Oh no, I mean I picked up Eagle easily from the free tutorial and pcb et
al almost not at all.
Doctor Smith
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Terry Porter belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Matt wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not a bit upset about it. The usefulness of running Amarok on
>>> Windows will motivate development that will eventually carry it out of
>>> obscurity, unless its design provides nothing new to Windows users.
>>
>> I have noticed you have a poor opinion of Linux apps, however believing them
>> to be obscure, is just uninformed imho.
>
> Linux still is obscure to the typical consumer, who, when they think about
> it at all, think all computers are Microsoft products.
True.
> Hence, any application that is Linux-only is automatically obscure.
Cross platform ones in some cases are obscure as well, Openoffice for one.
> However, once a person tries Linux, they find most of all that 99% of
> all the "Windows" functionality they'd ever want is present, much of it in
> obscure apps.
Assuming surfing the net, doing email and listening to their music is all
they want to do.
If they have to interact with the modern world, Windows is where it's at.
> It's a gold-mine to people who want to explore.
That's for sure.
They will get to know how to Google search like they have never done in the
past.
> But few people do. The ones that try Linux are a self-selected sample of
> explorers.
Many do.
Few stay with Linux though.
Why?
Windows is so much better and they get tired of trying to make Linux work
for them.
> Matt's claim about cross-platform applications will hold no water /until/
> Linux is preloaded on a significant proportion of systems. Then, people who
> find themselves with a Linux system will find these "old friends" from
> Windows.
If they were truly cross platform and not some aborted wine wannabe.
> That is, if they used these applications in the first place.
>
> At present, most people still use IE and MS Office.
There are a lot more than that.
> /Those/ are the /main/ applications for which Matt's cross-platform claims
> would be valid.
If Microsoft, Quicken, Autocad, iTunes etc were truly cross platform and
had Linux versions,maybe people might look at Linux.
For now, they take a peek and run like hell.
I've seen it happen dozens of times and so have you but you won't admit it.
>> You don't seem aware that Linux offers everything Windows does and much much
>> more. This is odd since you claim to have run Linux since version 1.0
>>
>> My troll bullshit-O-meter is on 100% with you.
>
> Once a cool application is ported to Windows, all it does, in my opinion, is
> provide motivation to /stay/ on Windows.
People don't care about operating systems.
They care about applications.
> Porting the other way, to Linux, does not move people to Linux. Except for
> Microsoft apps, and Microsoft won't lift a finger to help that migration.
Would you if you were them?
Freetards are cheap...
Ask Loki.
>>> No, if Ballmer understands the situation---and I can't believe he
>>> doesn't---he is on your side, wanting Linux apps to be Linux-only.
>>
>> Is that the same as his desire for netbooks to be Linux only ?
>>
>> The new ARM netbooks will *only* run Linux apps, I guess Blammer will be
>> delighted ?
>
> Good point.
>
>> Linux is present on almost *everything* these days. What's in your cable or
>> ADSl modem ?
>> What's running your WiFi AP ?
>> How about your TomTom GPS, what OS is that running ?
>> What about your Nokia, or Smartphone ?
>> Got a decent HiDef Digital TV ? what does that run ?
>> How about a satellite STB, whats the os ?
>>
>> You're already *surrounded* by Linux, and you have seem to have no idea.
>
> It's dark matter to consumers, though.
Look at the rise and fall of the Linux netbook for a good example of how
people react to Linux vs Windows.
Sure when Linux was the only game in town people bought the books because
they were small, cute, cheap and functional.
When Windows versions appeared, Linux netbook sales dropped like a rock
because when Linux was compared to Windows, Windows won.
And that's the way it is and until Linux can offer a superior desktop
environment, it's not going to change anytime soon.
Evidently with Joe consumer, being free is not enough to propel Linux
forward.
Doctor Smith
> Doctor Smith wrote:
>
>> Unbelievable.
>
> So, does Dr flatfish Smiths support of 'Matt' tell us anything ?
I don't support anyone.
Unlike you, Terry Porter, I address the topic.
Most unlike you Terry Porter, I don't use telnet to administer clients and
families machines without their knowledge.
I also don't charge my friends and family $100.00 to install Linux for
them.
Doctor Smith
> Linux doesn't need to grow. It's not a corporation that requires growth
> to survive. The users of Linux keep it alive.
And you guys are doing a bang up job!
Have you hit 1 percent of the desktop market share yet?
After 17 years of being free.
Great job guys!
> Linux doesn't have CAD 3D? Boohoo! If someone needs it enough they'll
> either port a windows program or build their own. Obviously current
> linux users don't use it, most probably because it fills such a tiny
> niche of use.
Wrong.
They will use AIX, real Unix or Windows.
> Do you support the ridiculous statements made by the flatfish troll?
You mean like Linux isn't going anywhere on the desktop?
That's a fact.
> Do you have any support for the ridiculous assertions promulgated by
> this disgusting troll?
Who cares?
> Linux works... linux is everywhere. You aren't a linux advocate. You're
> simply another microsoft shill.
The truth hurts fossils like you Shearman.
People who feel the NNTP spec should be read by us mere mortals before
posting to USENET.
You guys are a dying breed.
And it's about time.
Maybe without the "high priests of *nix" around, Linux might get someplace
on average Joe's desktop.
Doctor Smith
> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>> On 2009-03-18, Matt <ma...@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:
>>> Doctor Smith wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:44:33 -0500, Matt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I think you threw those names at me to try to alienate me, and I think
>>>>> that is because at bottom you don't want Linux to grow much beyond what
>>>>> it is now, and you know that I and others here do want it to grow.
>>>> With idiots like Terry Porter, Roy Schestowitz, Willy Poaster, Chris
>>>> Ahlstrom and others pretending to advocate Linux, they have nothing to
>>>> worry about.
>>>>
>>>> Those guys are to Linux what Pat Robertson is to religion.
>>>> They scare away more people than they convert.
>>>>
>>>> Real Linux advocates, IOW those who are actually contributing to the
>>>> community, wish COLA would disappear.
>>>> They really do.
>>>
>>> Of course you Muschi were not one of the "others" I was referring to. :-)
>>
>> Linux doesn't need to grow. It's not a corporation that requires growth
>> to survive. The users of Linux keep it alive.
>>
>> Linux doesn't have CAD 3D? Boohoo! If someone needs it enough they'll
>> either port a windows program or build their own. Obviously current
>> linux users don't use it, most probably because it fills such a tiny
>> niche of use.
>
>
> So you don't care whether anybody is ever able to design products
> without using Windows and its proprietary 3D CAD apps. I don't think I
> need to say much more.
Terry Porter probably has no idea what you are talking about.
He is a simpleton.
Discuss facts, like the total lack of professional quality 3D CAD
applications for Linux, and he falls apart.
The best he can come up with is that he doesn't need them.
Neither do I, but that doesn't change the facts.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Anyway you never dealt with the reality that Linux usage would be way
> less than it is without FF and OO.
How can you say that? There are other, lesser-know browsers and office apps
that would work just as well.
You have yet to prove that "Linux usage would be way less than it is without
FF and OO".
Or even make a good argument for it.
> Show me a school or government Linux migration where those are not the
> centerpiece apps.
Even if they all use FF and OO, that proves nothing about the influence of
those apps in a Linux migration.
Why?
Very useful web browsers and office suites besides those exist in
Linux-land.
At best, you're arguing circularly.
--
All my friends and I are crazy. That's the only thing that keeps us sane.
Doctor Smith
> I'm talking about the absence of monopolies, orchestrated vendor lock-in
> and FUD.
Wow!
For someone who appeared out of nowhere, you sure have the COLA freetard
lingo down pat!