No Quicken in Linux:-(
B Gruff
Pity that.
Every troll in this group seems to mention it:-(
Even "Susan" brought it up:-(
Like wat they all say,
YOU CAN NOT RUN QUICKEN IF YOU USE LINUX
Ah well, get used to it, you Linux fanatics, bozos, colanuts, etc....
I have now found PROOF that it can't be done.
read this, and eat your hearts out:-
http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT2282537026.html
Bill
Larry Qualig
"B Gruff" <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3lstneF...@individual.net...
In a way it was an interesting article. The part I found most surprising
was:
- "The more immediate problem is that on my system (I use a video resolution
of 800 x 600), the nested windows in QuickBooks don't completely fit on the
screen."
More specifically, I'm surprised that anyone actually uses 800x600 anymore.
B Gruff
Please consult snit.
He actually advocates (and installs) 800x600 for older people with
poorer eyesight.
- but we digress perhaps?
If the biggest criticism of the article is that a guy was using 800x600,
can I put you down as a "maybe" vote?:-)
Bill
billwg
:
: - but we digress perhaps?
: If the biggest criticism of the article is that a guy was using 800x600,
: can I put you down as a "maybe" vote?:-)
Well, goat, Larry is not the vote you need. People who use Quicken, have a
strong dependency on it, I know that I do. I don't think very many people
are going to want to see anything that rickety in that role.
rapskat
While this is a good thing and will only help distribute Linux on the
desktop of many persons who want or need Windows applications like this,
there still presents the underlying issue that these apps are Windows only
in the first place.
M$ Office I can sort of understand, with M$ enimity towards all things
Linux I wouldn't expect them to support the platform (even though they had
no problems doing so for Apple). Even more, there are certainly no lack
of competant Office Suites for Linux that are just as good if not better
than M$ Office.
For these other applications, like those from Adobe and Macromedia and
others software vendors, there is really no valid reason for not
supporting Linux.
These apps should be ported to run natively on Linux. Obviously it's
possible and feasible. Crossover is a great product, but it shouldn't
even be necessary.
--
rapskat - 21:03:03 up 13 days, 6:18, 4 users, load average: 0.00, 0.02, 0.05
"Architect: someone who knows the difference between what could be
done and what should be done".
-- Larry McVoy
Snit
3lsufeF...@individual.net on 8/9/05 5:02 PM:
>> More specifically, I'm surprised that anyone actually uses 800x600
>> anymore.
>
> Please consult snit.
> He actually advocates (and installs) 800x600 for older people with
> poorer eyesight.
Not sure I "advocate: 800 x 600, but I know many people with 17 inch and
bigger monitors who prefer it... they can better see the screen. I
certainly do not discourage them from being able to use their computer!
--
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments
that take our breath away.
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Larry Qualig
"rapskat" <rap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.08.10....@rapskat.com...
Question for you. If these apps (Quicken, etc.) were ported to run natively
on Linux would you expect them to be 'sold' for Linux or released as OSS?
ray
I manage without Quicken. I realize that Gnucash may not work for some
people, but it is certainly adequate for keeping track of personal
finances.
rapskat
>> These apps should be ported to run natively on Linux. Obviously it's
>> possible and feasible. Crossover is a great product, but it shouldn't
>> even be necessary.
>
>
> Question for you. If these apps (Quicken, etc.) were ported to run natively
> on Linux would you expect them to be 'sold' for Linux or released as OSS?
Sold of course, why even ask that? You act as if Linux users don't
purchase software too.
Just so it's clear, there is commercial open source software as well.
However, I wouldn't ever expect a company to open source a product just
because it was on Linux.
--
rapskat - 21:49:34 up 13 days, 7:04, 5 users, load average: 0.04, 0.11, 0.10
"Klein bottle for rent -- inquire within."
alt
Did anyone else notice that that article is dated August 7, 2002 (not 2005!)?
alt
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 21:17:06 -0400, Larry Qualig wrote:
>
>>> These apps should be ported to run natively on Linux. Obviously it's
>>> possible and feasible. Crossover is a great product, but it shouldn't
>>> even be necessary.
>>
>>
>> Question for you. If these apps (Quicken, etc.) were ported to run
>> natively on Linux would you expect them to be 'sold' for Linux or
>> released as OSS?
>
> Sold of course, why even ask that? You act as if Linux users don't
> purchase software too.
>
> Just so it's clear, there is commercial open source software as well.
> However, I wouldn't ever expect a company to open source a product just
> because it was on Linux.
I purchased Crossover Office for $40. I'm planning on getting VMWare for
Linux as well.
Peter
<snip>
AFAIK There is some deal between Intuit and M$ in which Intuit agreed not to
port its products to Linux.
Rick
Do you have some reference for that? After the anti-trust actions, AND the
large public relations fiacs that lead to m$'s dropping it's buy out of
Intuit, I'd be a little surprised if m$ tried that sort of deal with
Intuit.
--
Rick
Rick
Many (most?) Linux users do understand that not all software is $0.
I'm sure RMS would probably have something to say about knuckling under to
commercial software.
--
Rick
Snit
pan.2005.08.10....@nomail.com on 8/9/05 10:43 PM:
Having worked for Intuit for several years I find such a deal to be
unlikely, but, I suppose, not impossible.
In order to believe such a claim, however, I would want to see solid
support.
Rick
I use VMWare. I paid for the initial version, and the upgrade to
Workstation 5.
--
Rick
Mark Kent
Rick <no...@nomail.com> espoused:
Why? Being caught has never stopped them before.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Duckies are fun!
Mark Kent
rapskat <rap...@gmail.com> espoused:
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 21:17:06 -0400, Larry Qualig wrote:
>
>>> These apps should be ported to run natively on Linux. Obviously it's
>>> possible and feasible. Crossover is a great product, but it shouldn't
>>> even be necessary.
>>
>>
>> Question for you. If these apps (Quicken, etc.) were ported to run natively
>> on Linux would you expect them to be 'sold' for Linux or released as OSS?
>
> Sold of course, why even ask that? You act as if Linux users don't
> purchase software too.
>
> Just so it's clear, there is commercial open source software as well.
> However, I wouldn't ever expect a company to open source a product just
> because it was on Linux.
>
I'm surprised that these companies haven't recognised this growing
market yet. If they can manage to make a profit with Microsoft users,
where there is such a dynamic warez culture, then making a profit in
the linux world shouldn't be a problem.
Mark Kent
I don't think he'd be worried about commerce per se, but proprietaryness.
I suspect that the GPL has ensured that the final stable state for most
software is that it will be OSS, as people will just write it. You only
have to look at how far OSS has come in 15 years or so. Where do you
think it'll be in 15 years time?
Bruce Scott TOK
>Question for you. If these apps (Quicken, etc.) were ported to run natively
>on Linux would you expect them to be 'sold' for Linux or released as OSS?
There is no reason they cannot provide a binary. It is not hard to do
that and be compatible with the GPL so long as you are acting in good
faith. They can sell it if they want.
Example: IDL
Another example: the Lahey/Fujitsu F90 compiler
--
ciao,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
Linønut
> In a way it was an interesting article. The part I found most surprising
> was:
>
> - "The more immediate problem is that on my system (I use a video resolution
> of 800 x 600), the nested windows in QuickBooks don't completely fit on the
> screen."
>
> More specifically, I'm surprised that anyone actually uses 800x600 anymore.
There are a surprising number of people who don't like hi-res. Weird!
--
Linux - A most satisfying eXPerience
rapskat
I set 800x600 for the kids, since they are still developing motor skills
and hand-eye coord and all that, it makes it easier for them to zero in
and click on stuff.
Unless I just want to be mean and set it for 1280x1024 and watch them
trying to hold steady and click the wee lil' buttons, like
watching a giant trying to thread a needle!
:-)
--
rapskat - 08:55:26 up 13 days, 18:10, 9 users, load average: 1.29, 1.50, 1.19
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to
achieve it by not dying."
--Woody Allen
lqu...@uku.co.uk
rapskat wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 21:17:06 -0400, Larry Qualig wrote:
>
> >> These apps should be ported to run natively on Linux. Obviously it's
> >> possible and feasible. Crossover is a great product, but it shouldn't
> >> even be necessary.
> >
> >
> > Question for you. If these apps (Quicken, etc.) were ported to run natively
> > on Linux would you expect them to be 'sold' for Linux or released as OSS?
>
> Sold of course, why even ask that? You act as if Linux users don't
> purchase software too.
>
I meant it in the context that Intuit could potentially give away
software for free if they could make up the revenue through some of the
services they offer. These services are subscription based an payed
annually. (Think "on-line accounting" instead of "on-line banking",
payroll services, etc.)
> Just so it's clear, there is commercial open source software as well.
> However, I wouldn't ever expect a company to open source a product just
> because it was on Linux.
>
"Open Source" wasn't the right term for me to use. Something like
"release the software for free" would have been better.
Linønut
> Unless I just want to be mean and set it for 1280x1024 and watch them
> trying to hold steady and click the wee lil' buttons, like
> watching a giant trying to thread a needle!
I keep an eye on LCD monitor prices, but the models in the office stores
all seem to max out at 1280x1024, even the 19" models.
Anything less than 1600x1200 is unacceptable to me (though I do tolerate
1400x1050 on my laptop.)
ray
News Flash!! - MoneyDance does virtually everything you need. The one
remaining hole used to be exporting QIF files, but it has that ability
now, so, my response to the OP - who gives a rat's ass?
Beowulf TrollsHammer
I don't give a fsck about Quicken either, but still think the OP's
point was a valid one as it debunks one of the most pervasive arguments
the wintards love to use here to dismiss desktop Linux.
jafar
> Not sure I "advocate: 800 x 600, but I know many people with 17 inch and
> bigger monitors who prefer it... they can better see the screen.
Ever tried using larger and nicely anti-aliased fonts on higher
resolutions instead? A lot clearer than a cluttered 800x600 screen.
--
Jafar Calley
Producer - http://moonlife-records.com
--------------------------------------
See the latest Mars and Saturn images
http://fatcat.homelinux.org
lqu...@uku.co.uk
> - who gives a rat's ass?
I think the obvious answer here is Rick Lehrbaum (the guy who wrote the
article for DesktopLinux.com) and Jeremy White (the CEO of CodeWeavers)
who appears to have put an awful lot of work into Crossover Office in
order to get this working.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> "B Gruff" <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> stated in post
> 3lsufeF...@individual.net on 8/9/05 5:02 PM:
>
>>> More specifically, I'm surprised that anyone actually uses 800x600
>>> anymore.
>>
>> Please consult snit.
>> He actually advocates (and installs) 800x600 for older people with
>> poorer eyesight.
>
> Not sure I "advocate: 800 x 600, but I know many people with 17 inch and
> bigger monitors who prefer it... they can better see the screen. I
> certainly do not discourage them from being able to use their computer!
Ahhh, but with linux, you can have a virtual desktop size unrelated to the
actual resolution.
You can have a desktop that's 1280x1024 and view it in 640x480, 800x600,
1024x768 AND 1280x1024 at the flip of a keyboard switch. That's how I view
things, if I want a full screen view of something, I switch to 1280x1024, if
I want a zoomed in view, I flip to 640x480.
Simple. And all the screen real estate is available no matter what mode
you're in.
>
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Poaster
wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 18:13:16 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> Not sure I "advocate: 800 x 600, but I know many people with 17 inch and
>> bigger monitors who prefer it... they can better see the screen.
>
> Ever tried using larger and nicely anti-aliased fonts on higher
> resolutions instead? A lot clearer than a cluttered 800x600 screen.
Especially if you use the 100dpi fonts instead of the default 75 dpi. :-)
--
How can it be considered an 'upgrade' if it's still Windows?
-wdstarr-rec.arts.sf.tv
Snit
pan.2005.08.10...@nospam.com on 8/10/05 9:04 AM:
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 18:13:16 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> Not sure I "advocate: 800 x 600, but I know many people with 17 inch and
>> bigger monitors who prefer it... they can better see the screen.
>
> Ever tried using larger and nicely anti-aliased fonts on higher
> resolutions instead? A lot clearer than a cluttered 800x600 screen.
If you make the icons and the fonts and the menus and... well... everything
bigger, their is little reason to not just use 800 x 600.
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Snit
tjhps2-...@ridcully.fsnet.co.uk on 8/10/05 10:04 AM:
> Snit <SN...@cable0ne.net.invalid> did eloquently scribble:
>> "B Gruff" <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> stated in post
>> 3lsufeF...@individual.net on 8/9/05 5:02 PM:
>>
>>>> More specifically, I'm surprised that anyone actually uses 800x600
>>>> anymore.
>>>
>>> Please consult snit.
>>> He actually advocates (and installs) 800x600 for older people with
>>> poorer eyesight.
>>
>> Not sure I "advocate: 800 x 600, but I know many people with 17 inch and
>> bigger monitors who prefer it... they can better see the screen. I
>> certainly do not discourage them from being able to use their computer!
>
> Ahhh, but with linux, you can have a virtual desktop size unrelated to the
> actual resolution.
> You can have a desktop that's 1280x1024 and view it in 640x480, 800x600,
> 1024x768 AND 1280x1024 at the flip of a keyboard switch. That's how I view
> things, if I want a full screen view of something, I switch to 1280x1024, if
> I want a zoomed in view, I flip to 640x480.
>
> Simple. And all the screen real estate is available no matter what mode
> you're in.
I have worked with quite a few vision impaired people who view their screens
much, much lower resolution than 800 x 600... and they enjoy the
magnification that comes with OS X.
Peter Köhlmann
> "jafar" <no...@nospam.com> stated in post
> pan.2005.08.10...@nospam.com on 8/10/05 9:04 AM:
>
>> On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 18:13:16 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Not sure I "advocate: 800 x 600, but I know many people with 17 inch and
>>> bigger monitors who prefer it... they can better see the screen.
>>
>> Ever tried using larger and nicely anti-aliased fonts on higher
>> resolutions instead? A lot clearer than a cluttered 800x600 screen.
>
> If you make the icons and the fonts and the menus and... well...
> everything bigger, their is little reason to not just use 800 x 600.
>
So our beloved "IT teacher" Snot has no idea how silly that claim is
In 800x600 you get just that definition. Forget about anti-aliased fonts
In a higher resolutionm you simply use bigger icons and fonts and get
smoother fonts too.
But no, Snot sees "little reason to not just use 800 x 600"
After all, he is an "IT teacher". His main clients are cockroaaches,
obviously. They would just slightly surpass his IQ
--
You're not my type. For that matter, you're not even my species
ray
My question: why bother when a plug in replacement is readily available?
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <BF1F8EB1.28B5A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>):
> "jafar" <no...@nospam.com> stated in post
> pan.2005.08.10...@nospam.com on 8/10/05 9:04 AM:
>
>> On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 18:13:16 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Not sure I "advocate: 800 x 600, but I know many people with 17 inch and
>>> bigger monitors who prefer it... they can better see the screen.
>>
>> Ever tried using larger and nicely anti-aliased fonts on higher
>> resolutions instead? A lot clearer than a cluttered 800x600 screen.
>
> If you make the icons and the fonts and the menus and... well... everything
> bigger, their is little reason to not just use 800 x 600.
With an LCD, there definitely is. Running at the native
resolution of the panel is far preferable.
--
_ __ _
| | ___ / _| |_ _ _
| | / _ \ |_| __| | | |
| |__| __/ _| |_| |_| |
|_____\___|_| \__|\__, |
|___/
Peter Köhlmann
> Snit wrote
> (in article <BF1F8EB1.28B5A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>):
>
>> "jafar" <no...@nospam.com> stated in post
>> pan.2005.08.10...@nospam.com on 8/10/05 9:04 AM:
>>
>>> On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 18:13:16 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not sure I "advocate: 800 x 600, but I know many people with 17 inch
>>>> and bigger monitors who prefer it... they can better see the screen.
>>>
>>> Ever tried using larger and nicely anti-aliased fonts on higher
>>> resolutions instead? A lot clearer than a cluttered 800x600 screen.
>>
>> If you make the icons and the fonts and the menus and... well...
>> everything bigger, their is little reason to not just use 800 x 600.
>
> With an LCD, there definitely is. Running at the native
> resolution of the panel is far preferable.
>
Don't confuse Snot. He is an "IT teacher", you know. Mweaning, he would have
no idea of these computer basics
--
Who the fuck is General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?
Snit
0001HW.BF1FBECD...@news.verizon.net on 8/10/05 12:25 PM:
> Snit wrote
> (in article <BF1F8EB1.28B5A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>):
>
>> "jafar" <no...@nospam.com> stated in post
>> pan.2005.08.10...@nospam.com on 8/10/05 9:04 AM:
>>
>>> On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 18:13:16 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not sure I "advocate: 800 x 600, but I know many people with 17 inch and
>>>> bigger monitors who prefer it... they can better see the screen.
>>>
>>> Ever tried using larger and nicely anti-aliased fonts on higher
>>> resolutions instead? A lot clearer than a cluttered 800x600 screen.
>>
>> If you make the icons and the fonts and the menus and... well... everything
>> bigger, their is little reason to not just use 800 x 600.
>
> With an LCD, there definitely is. Running at the native
> resolution of the panel is far preferable.
>
Fair enough...
--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/f351
Peter Köhlmann
> "Lefty Bigfoot" <nu...@busyness.info> stated in post
> 0001HW.BF1FBECD...@news.verizon.net on 8/10/05 12:25 PM:
>
>> Snit wrote
>> (in article <BF1F8EB1.28B5A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>):
>>
>>> "jafar" <no...@nospam.com> stated in post
>>> pan.2005.08.10...@nospam.com on 8/10/05 9:04 AM:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 18:13:16 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not sure I "advocate: 800 x 600, but I know many people with 17 inch
>>>>> and bigger monitors who prefer it... they can better see the screen.
>>>>
>>>> Ever tried using larger and nicely anti-aliased fonts on higher
>>>> resolutions instead? A lot clearer than a cluttered 800x600 screen.
>>>
>>> If you make the icons and the fonts and the menus and... well...
>>> everything bigger, their is little reason to not just use 800 x 600.
>>
>> With an LCD, there definitely is. Running at the native
>> resolution of the panel is far preferable.
>>
> Fair enough...
>
You mean, that there might be a reason to run a higher resolution? Despite
your claims to the contrary?
How can that be, "IT teacher" Snot? Nowadays most systems are sold with LCD
screens. You are supposed to know that stuff
Why don't you? Not much of a "teacher", right? Just a rather stupid wannabee
teacher. And troll
--
It's sweet to be remembered, but it's often cheaper to be forgotten.
Snit
dde0hc$cba$00$1...@news.t-online.com on 8/10/05 3:53 PM:
>>>> If you make the icons and the fonts and the menus and... well...
>>>> everything bigger, their is little reason to not just use 800 x 600.
>>>
>>> With an LCD, there definitely is. Running at the native
>>> resolution of the panel is far preferable.
>>>
>> Fair enough...
>>
>
> You mean, that there might be a reason to run a higher resolution? Despite
> your claims to the contrary?
Who said there was never a reason?
> How can that be, "IT teacher" Snot? Nowadays most systems are sold with LCD
> screens. You are supposed to know that stuff
LCD screens also offer larger screen sizes even when they are listed as the
same size as CRTs. Not surprised that you showed no understanding of this.
> Why don't you? Not much of a "teacher", right? Just a rather stupid wannabee
> teacher. And troll
Wow... you can toss around ad hominem attacks. How grand it must be to be
you, eh? :)
Some day you will no longer be angry, Peter - hopefully before you are dead.
Really, Peter, you are merely running around whining about me for the
obvious reason you are embarrassed. Let us not forget what started your
angry trolling tirades against me - me pointing out your trolling on several
issues... for example:
------
Run, Peter, Run! But your comments are still on Google:
If you are doing a movie you stand a better then 99.999% chance that
ypu can't use a single song from your playlists
The reality is that it is easy and often beneficial to be able to add
music to a movie - but you believe you "can't use a single song from your
playlists" on Linux so you spew your BS, name call, and try to alter your
claim to what is "suitable".
-----
And before that...
-----
* I commented about something that often happens
* I was asked to provide *an* example
* I provided *two* examples
* Peter jumped in to say I did something wrong
-----
Etc.
Your method, Peter, of trolling is quite juvenile and pathetic. It really
is not that hard to point out your games and cause him to go running away
from arguments. You then resort to name calling, dishonestly snipping,
etc. A pretty typical troll... though you are more angry than most.
--
BU__SH__
Rick
>
> rapskat wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 21:17:06 -0400, Larry Qualig wrote:
>>
>> >> These apps should be ported to run natively on Linux. Obviously it's
>> >> possible and feasible. Crossover is a great product, but it
>> >> shouldn't even be necessary.
>> >
>> >
>> > Question for you. If these apps (Quicken, etc.) were ported to run
>> > natively on Linux would you expect them to be 'sold' for Linux or
>> > released as OSS?
>>
>> Sold of course, why even ask that? You act as if Linux users don't
>> purchase software too.
>>
>>
>
> I meant it in the context that Intuit could potentially give away software
> for free if they could make up the revenue through some of the services
> they offer. These services are subscription based an payed annually.
> (Think "on-line accounting" instead of "on-line banking", payroll
> services, etc.)
... or they could sell Quicken to Linux users.
>
>
>
>> Just so it's clear, there is commercial open source software as well.
>> However, I wouldn't ever expect a company to open source a product just
>> because it was on Linux.
>>
>>
> "Open Source" wasn't the right term for me to use. Something like "release
> the software for free" would have been better.
--
Rick
Rick
... because there is a market?
--
Rick
Larry Qualig
"Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.08.10....@nomail.com...
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 07:11:21 -0700, lqualig wrote:
>
>>
>> rapskat wrote:
>>> On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 21:17:06 -0400, Larry Qualig wrote:
>>>
>>> >> These apps should be ported to run natively on Linux. Obviously it's
>>> >> possible and feasible. Crossover is a great product, but it
>>> >> shouldn't even be necessary.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Question for you. If these apps (Quicken, etc.) were ported to run
>>> > natively on Linux would you expect them to be 'sold' for Linux or
>>> > released as OSS?
>>>
>>> Sold of course, why even ask that? You act as if Linux users don't
>>> purchase software too.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I meant it in the context that Intuit could potentially give away
>> software
>> for free if they could make up the revenue through some of the services
>> they offer. These services are subscription based an payed annually.
>> (Think "on-line accounting" instead of "on-line banking", payroll
>> services, etc.)
>
> ... or they could sell Quicken to Linux users.
>
They could and I'm fairly certain they would if it made buisiness sense to
them. That is, I don't expect they will spend the money porting it unless
they think they can recoup their investment and make a profit from it.
ray
It would seem to me that if there were much of a market for Quicken on
Linux that they would make a Linux version.
Rick
Mac sales numbers, and Linux installation numbers seem to say that Liux
has a 'market share' at least as large as Apple's, yet Intuit does not
offer software for Linux. It seems to me that if the roles were reversed,
and it was Linux that was launched in 1984, 3 years after the IBM PC, and
with a GUI that it would have the Intuit and the Mac would not.
--
Rick
Tim Smith
Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
> With an LCD, there definitely is. Running at the native
> resolution of the panel is far preferable.
Well, preferable, but no longer necessarily "far preferable". The
scaling ability of LCDs has improved quite a bit over the last few
years. Some of them actually look quite good at non-native resolutions.
--
--Tim Smith
Peter Köhlmann
Why tell us in so many words that you now try to defend Snots idiotc claim?
You can twist it all the way you want, a scaled LCD image is a lot worse
when you look at smaller fonts. Images I could believe, fonts no way
--
99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
Tim Smith
Peter Kohlmann <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote:
> You can twist it all the way you want, a scaled LCD image is a lot worse
> when you look at smaller fonts. Images I could believe, fonts no way
That was true a few years ago now, but things have improved quite a bit
with current LCDs. If I run my Princeton Graphics LCD1700 at 1024x768,
instead of its native resolution of 1280x1024, it looks about as good as
a CRT at 1024x768.
The same goes for running my Dell 2405 at lower than its native
1920x1200.
There's nothing inherent in scaling that makes it so it must look
horrible. Think about how CRTs work, for example. Look at the
placements and spacing of the individual color dots on a CRT, and you'll
see that there is not a 1 to 1 mapping between them and pixels at most
resolutions. (And consider that on a CRT you can adjust the image size
at any given resolution, further screwing with the pixel<->dot mapping).
The reason CRTs look reasonable at a range of resolutions is that
basically the way pixels are mapped to dots has built-in antialiasing,
which comes for free out of the analog process used to light the dots
(sweeping an electron beam past the shadow mask, modulating it by the
desired brightness).
LCD displays used to completely lack this. They would scale by dropping
or duplicating pixels, and the results were indeed very horrible.
Here are some photos of my display, at various resolutions, taken with a
5 megapixel camera. A lot of detail is lost here, both from a second
round of scaling to the camera's resolution (2592x1944) and due to the
conversion to jpeg, but there is enough to see that the LCD scaling is a
lot better and more sophisticated than the old "insert or drop whole
pixels".
There are seven shots:
1920x1200
1920x1000
1600x1000
1360x768
1344x840
1344x1008
1280x1024
Note that these are close-ups. At normal viewing distance, the minor
differences you can see in these are much harder to see.
--
--Tim Smith
Snit
> begin virus.txt.scr Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> In article <0001HW.BF1FBECD...@news.verizon.net>,
>> Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
>>> With an LCD, there definitely is. Running at the native
>>> resolution of the panel is far preferable.
>>
>> Well, preferable, but no longer necessarily "far preferable". The
>> scaling ability of LCDs has improved quite a bit over the last few
>> years. Some of them actually look quite good at non-native resolutions.
>>
>
> Why tell us in so many words that you now try to defend Snots idiotc claim?
My claims? Do you forget that I agreed with Lefty that LCD's have a
preferable resolution? Ahh, yes, you did... your anger is not good for
you...
> You can twist it all the way you want, a scaled LCD image is a lot worse
> when you look at smaller fonts. Images I could believe, fonts no way
--
BU__SH__
Snit
>>>> If you make the icons and the fonts and the menus and... well...
>>>> everything bigger, their is little reason to not just use 800 x 600.
>>>
>>> With an LCD, there definitely is. Running at the native
>>> resolution of the panel is far preferable.
>>>
>> Fair enough...
>>
>
> You mean, that there might be a reason to run a higher resolution? Despite
> your claims to the contrary?
Who said there was never a reason?
> How can that be, "IT teacher" Snot? Nowadays most systems are sold with LCD
> screens. You are supposed to know that stuff
LCD screens also offer larger screen sizes even when they are listed as the
same size as CRTs. Not surprised that you showed no understanding of this.
> Why don't you? Not much of a "teacher", right? Just a rather stupid wannabee
> teacher. And troll
Wow... you can toss around ad hominem attacks. How grand it must be to be
you, eh? :)
And before that...
Etc.
--
BU__SH__
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
rapskat
> Your method, Peter, of trolling is quite juvenile and pathetic. It really
> is not that hard to point out your games and cause him to go running away
> from arguments. You then resort to name calling, dishonestly snipping,
> etc. A pretty typical troll... though you are more angry than most.
I don't think Pete is a troll, far from it in fact. I think he has less
tolerance for BS and perhaps is a little crass in his manner at times,
though not necessarily unwarranted. Pete is a long time poster here in
cola and extremely knowledgeable about Linux and OSS, and I respect him as
such.
But, for the sake of argument, let's say he was trolling. What exactly
are you doing by constantly antagonizing him? Wouldn't that in effect be
trolling as well? How is it that you can call others trolls with impunity
while all the time you are pretty much doing the same thing?
For instance, your sig you reference a long standing war you have going
with some person from csma. It's like you single out persons to target
your attentions upon and then continuously berate them with constant barbs
and goads to perpetuate their acrimonious responses, which in turn you
respond in kind, etc. ad infinitum.
Above all things, your affinity for Macs and your overbearing pompous
nature aside, this is what convinces me that your primary purpose for
frequenting this and other groups is to troll.
I do think you present a good discussion and debate, but this other thing
of yours is just tedious. Just my two cents, however much gas that buys
nowadays.
--
rapskat - 02:49:39 up 18:27, 1 user, load average: 0.32, 0.55, 0.53
/*
* Leonard, I'll tie you, draw around you a pentagram
* and read this file. Aloud.
*/
- from kernel 2.3.40-pre6's drivers/block/DAC960.c
Snit
pan.2005.09.07....@rapskat.com on 9/7/05 12:01 AM:
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:41:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> Your method, Peter, of trolling is quite juvenile and pathetic. It really
>> is not that hard to point out your games and cause him to go running away
>> from arguments. You then resort to name calling, dishonestly snipping,
>> etc. A pretty typical troll... though you are more angry than most.
>
> I don't think Pete is a troll, far from it in fact.
I have outlined specific examples and reasons why he clearly is: his
incessant name calling, his dishonest snipping, his outright lies... etc.
> I think he has less tolerance for BS and perhaps is a little crass in his
> manner at times, though not necessarily unwarranted. Pete is a long time
> poster here in cola and extremely knowledgeable about Linux and OSS, and I
> respect him as such.
He may know a lot about Linux and OSS - though I have found definite holes
in his knowledge. Still, he could be brilliant in that area and still
troll.
>
> But, for the sake of argument, let's say he was trolling. What exactly
> are you doing by constantly antagonizing him? Wouldn't that in effect be
> trolling as well? How is it that you can call others trolls with impunity
> while all the time you are pretty much doing the same thing?
I do not sink to his methods of outrageous name calling. I do not not make
accusations without support. I do not dishonestly snip and run as he does.
I do not repeatedly repond to posts with the single word "idiot" as he does.
Yes, I do enjoy messing with the trolls. Call it a hobby. :) But to point
out trolling and to let trolls trip in their own crud is not the same thing
as sinking to their level.
>
> For instance, your sig you reference a long standing war you have going
> with some person from csma. It's like you single out persons to target
> your attentions upon and then continuously berate them with constant barbs
> and goads to perpetuate their acrimonious responses, which in turn you
> respond in kind, etc. ad infinitum.
I did not single out Steve Carroll. He has been following me around for,
literally, well over a year and often has quotes from me in his sig. While
I will never sink to his level (he is far, far more of a troll than Peter) I
do not mind speaking truthfully about hum in mine. Steve is a very sick
person who attacks me to gain favor from an even more sick person, Elizabot.
There is a long history there.
>
> Above all things, your affinity for Macs and your overbearing pompous
> nature aside, this is what convinces me that your primary purpose for
> frequenting this and other groups is to troll.
I do like Macs. I also want to learn more about Linux and often speak well
of it. Folks such as Peter have dishonestly claimed that I belittle Linux -
which is simply not the truth. Again, Peter lies here and you give him a
pass.
>
> I do think you present a good discussion and debate, but this other thing
> of yours is just tedious. Just my two cents, however much gas that buys
> nowadays.
Seems your primary complaint is I have a sig that is clearly designed to bug
a troll who has obsessed over me for over a year. In that I plead guilty...
though the sig is also to warn others of his nature.
If you wish to join Peter in dishonestly claiming I belittle Linux then I
will take issue with that.
--
_________________________________________________________________
| |
| WHEN STEVE CARROLL ACCUSES PEOPLE OF WRONGDOING IT IS HIS CLEAR |
| ADMISSION THAT HE IS DOING (OR WANTS TO DO) THE ACT IN QUESTION |
| http://snipurl.com/trollpsycho |
|_________________________________________________________________|
ws
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:41:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>
>>Your method, Peter, of trolling is quite juvenile and pathetic. It really
>>is not that hard to point out your games and cause him to go running away
>>from arguments. You then resort to name calling, dishonestly snipping,
>>etc. A pretty typical troll... though you are more angry than most.
>
>
> I don't think Pete is a troll, far from it in fact. I think he has less
> tolerance for BS and perhaps is a little crass in his manner at times,
> though not necessarily unwarranted. Pete is a long time poster here in
> cola and extremely knowledgeable about Linux and OSS, and I respect him as
> such.
>
> But, for the sake of argument, let's say he was trolling. What exactly
> are you doing by constantly antagonizing him? Wouldn't that in effect be
> trolling as well? How is it that you can call others trolls with impunity
> while all the time you are pretty much doing the same thing?
>
Well, he did say he was not interested in starting a troll list of his
own, but here he is identifiying people whom he feels are trolling.
Sounds like a list to me.
> For instance, your sig you reference a long standing war you have going
> with some person from csma. It's like you single out persons to target
> your attentions upon and then continuously berate them with constant barbs
> and goads to perpetuate their acrimonious responses, which in turn you
> respond in kind, etc. ad infinitum.
>
> Above all things, your affinity for Macs and your overbearing pompous
> nature aside, this is what convinces me that your primary purpose for
> frequenting this and other groups is to troll.
>
> I do think you present a good discussion and debate, but this other thing
> of yours is just tedious. Just my two cents, however much gas that buys
> nowadays.
>
Eh, just fumes, man! Just fumes.
Regards,
WS
--
change to leews to mail
Linønut
> I do think you present a good discussion and debate, but this other thing
> of yours is just tedious. Just my two cents, however much gas that buys
> nowadays.
I challenge you to be able to increment the meter at the pump by only
two cents!
--
Code is community.
Elizabot v2.0.2
> But, for the sake of argument, let's say he was trolling. What exactly
> are you doing by constantly antagonizing him? Wouldn't that in effect be
> trolling as well? How is it that you can call others trolls with impunity
> while all the time you are pretty much doing the same thing?
Snit has done much worse that any other poster I've ever seen. Anyone he
has serious disputes with he calls trolls. It really has lost all
meaning when he uses the word. (He mentioned me in his response to you,
so I feel like it is appropriate for me to respond here.) He recently
dragged up an argument from about a year ago and is trying to get me to
respond to it in csma. I have told him in the past that I do not wish to
talk with him about the subject. Can you take a guess what the subject is?
Incest.
Do you know that Snit has a new baby daughter? Snit really needs to take
a good long look at what he thinks he's accomplishing in his petty
little vindictive flaming. It's making him look even more like the sick
pervert he is, if that's even possible.
> For instance, your sig you reference a long standing war you have going
> with some person from csma.
This is how Snit makes conditional peace offers. He'll remove the sig if
you will "make peace" with him. Whatever the hell that means. He got
another poster to sign an honor and honesty agreement or somesuch a
while back. Did Snit live up to it? No, but Snit will claim the other
person broke it.
> It's like you single out persons to target
> your attentions upon and then continuously berate them with constant barbs
> and goads to perpetuate their acrimonious responses, which in turn you
> respond in kind, etc. ad infinitum.
You would like this post he wrote about Steve a few days ago (while
having that signature box.) Sept 2.
*****
Snit to some other poster:
"Who cares who started it? Is one of you big enough to *stop* it?
Steve and I have had out go-rounds... far too many of them. I have
repeatedly made the offer / request that they just end. I would prefer
if they would.
Are neither of you capable of rising to the level I have? Are you
afraid the other one - like Steve Carroll - would try to use your offer
against you and see it as just another opportunity to spread lies?
What is your reason for not doing as I have done and offering a hand of
peace? "
(and of course, Snit used the sig box)
*****
> Above all things, your affinity for Macs and your overbearing pompous
> nature aside, this is what convinces me that your primary purpose for
> frequenting this and other groups is to troll.
You are not alone in your assessment of Snit. It's very likely he will
jump all over me for my posting here too. Maybe you could tell him how
rude it is to tell lies about other posters in other newsgroups. I don't
tend to follow this one very much.
> I do think you present a good discussion and debate, but this other thing
> of yours is just tedious. Just my two cents, however much gas that buys
> nowadays.
You should see how tedious it is in csma. We had a rash of weird
sockpuppets come in last weekend. Mostly berating Snit. Mostly getting
ignored. Many of us suspect it was Snit trying to get that blamed on
Steve Carroll by playing a reverse psychology role, simply because he
isn't getting the attention he used to. It's really very pathetic.
Mark Kent
Elizabot v2.0.2 <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> espoused:
<snip>
>
> You should see how tedious it is in csma. We had a rash of weird
> sockpuppets come in last weekend. Mostly berating Snit. Mostly getting
> ignored. Many of us suspect it was Snit trying to get that blamed on
> Steve Carroll by playing a reverse psychology role, simply because he
> isn't getting the attention he used to. It's really very pathetic.
Wouldn't it make sense for you all just to kfile him? He clearly gets
off on generating these battles, and I'm convinced that should you all
choose to ignore, he would go away. He has a history which predates his
time in CSMA, I understand, so I imagine he'd go somewhere in order to
attempt to gain the attention he so clearly desires.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Poorman's Rule:
When you pull a plastic garbage bag from its handy dispenser package,
you always get hold of the closed end and try to pull it open.
Snit
431ea3a3$0$1564$c3e...@news.astraweb.com on 9/7/05 1:21 AM:
> rapskat wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:41:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Your method, Peter, of trolling is quite juvenile and pathetic. It really
>>> is not that hard to point out your games and cause him to go running away
>>> from arguments. You then resort to name calling, dishonestly snipping,
>>> etc. A pretty typical troll... though you are more angry than most.
>>
>>
>> I don't think Pete is a troll, far from it in fact. I think he has less
>> tolerance for BS and perhaps is a little crass in his manner at times,
>> though not necessarily unwarranted. Pete is a long time poster here in
>> cola and extremely knowledgeable about Linux and OSS, and I respect him as
>> such.
>>
>> But, for the sake of argument, let's say he was trolling. What exactly
>> are you doing by constantly antagonizing him? Wouldn't that in effect be
>> trolling as well? How is it that you can call others trolls with impunity
>> while all the time you are pretty much doing the same thing?
>>
>
> Well, he did say he was not interested in starting a troll list of his
> own, but here he is identifiying people whom he feels are trolling.
> Sounds like a list to me.
There is a difference between creating and publishing a list of "trolls" -
done clearly to antagonize, and commenting on specific trolls.
>
>> For instance, your sig you reference a long standing war you have going
>> with some person from csma. It's like you single out persons to target
>> your attentions upon and then continuously berate them with constant barbs
>> and goads to perpetuate their acrimonious responses, which in turn you
>> respond in kind, etc. ad infinitum.
>>
>> Above all things, your affinity for Macs and your overbearing pompous
>> nature aside, this is what convinces me that your primary purpose for
>> frequenting this and other groups is to troll.
>>
>> I do think you present a good discussion and debate, but this other thing
>> of yours is just tedious. Just my two cents, however much gas that buys
>> nowadays.
>>
>
> Eh, just fumes, man! Just fumes.
>
> Regards,
> WS
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Snit
3hn3v2-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk on 9/7/05 11:18 AM:
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Elizabot v2.0.2 <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> espoused:
> <snip>
>>
>> You should see how tedious it is in csma. We had a rash of weird
>> sockpuppets come in last weekend. Mostly berating Snit. Mostly getting
>> ignored. Many of us suspect it was Snit trying to get that blamed on
>> Steve Carroll by playing a reverse psychology role, simply because he
>> isn't getting the attention he used to. It's really very pathetic.
>
> Wouldn't it make sense for you all just to kfile him? He clearly gets
> off on generating these battles, and I'm convinced that should you all
> choose to ignore, he would go away. He has a history which predates his
> time in CSMA, I understand, so I imagine he'd go somewhere in order to
> attempt to gain the attention he so clearly desires.
Funny how Elizabot blames me for sock puppets - ones that are most likely
more from Steve Carroll - in fact, one of them was shown to be Steve. When
I stated I would be ignoring that puppet, Steve responded by whining I was
"punishing" him. He admitted to posting as Sigmond. The fact that Elizabot
will deny this is no surprise. You can expect their whole crew to chime in
- Wally and Tim Adams will support any lie the group tells as well.
--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?
Tim Smith
rapskat <rap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think Pete is a troll, far from it in fact. I think he has less
> tolerance for BS and perhaps is a little crass in his manner at times,
> though not necessarily unwarranted. Pete is a long time poster here in
> cola and extremely knowledgeable about Linux and OSS, and I respect him as
> such.
Peter's problem is that he is (1) knowledgeable about some things, (2)
arrogant about those things he is knowledgeable of, (3) *thinks* he is
knowledgeable about much more than he actually is, and (4) assumes that
if something works for him, then anyone who has a problem with it must
by lying.
--
--Tim Smith
Peter Köhlmann
Your description would be Ok for most of the worlds populace, actually
Apart from the hyperbole, naturally
Fact is: It is quite easy to know more than the typical windows user who
posts in cola. In fact, it would be nearly impossible not to, as those guys
are utter retards. There is no arrogance needed to be aware of that fact
--
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat,
and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken
rapskat
You just defined the majority of people that post in cola, especially
myself.
--
rapskat - 03:21:02 up 1:56, 1 user, load average: 0.07, 0.12, 0.04
"Bother," said Pooh as he struggled with sendmail.cf, "it never
does quite what I want. I wish Christopher Robin was here."
Mark Kent
rapskat <rap...@gmail.com> espoused:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 07:07:57 +0000, Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> In article <pan.2005.09.07....@rapskat.com>,
>> rapskat <rap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I don't think Pete is a troll, far from it in fact. I think he has less
>>> tolerance for BS and perhaps is a little crass in his manner at times,
>>> though not necessarily unwarranted. Pete is a long time poster here in
>>> cola and extremely knowledgeable about Linux and OSS, and I respect him as
>>> such.
>>
>> Peter's problem is that he is (1) knowledgeable about some things, (2)
>> arrogant about those things he is knowledgeable of, (3) *thinks* he is
>> knowledgeable about much more than he actually is, and (4) assumes that
>> if something works for him, then anyone who has a problem with it must
>> by lying.
>
> You just defined the majority of people that post in cola, especially
> myself.
>
I don't usually read Tim's posts, but I think he black & white nature of
those statements needs some clarification in order to really get to the
majority of posters...
(1) knowledgeable about some things,
This is a tautology - it *must* be true of everyone.
(2) arrogant about those things he is knowledgeable of
This should not be a problem...arrogance is fine when you're
right.
(3) *thinks* he is knowledgeable about much more than he actually is,
Personally, I'm permanently concerned about how little I know,
and how little time I have to expand my knowledge. Looking at
many of the posters here (including rappy, in spite of the remark
above), I would say that they agree with me. I would agree
that several of the win trolls very much fall into this bracket,
but clearly it's their deliberate intention to do so, so how
well it really fits this statement is less than clear.
(4) assumes that if something works for him, then anyone who has a
problem with it must by lying.
It's a question of probabilities. For things which are clearly
problematic, difficult to configure, then it's possibly true.
If, however, the *same* posters repeatedly have problems making
things work which are well known as typically working, then it's
very likely, >80% probability, that they are lying.
So, we can discount 1 and 2 as unimportant. 3 is wrong at least for the
capable advocates. 4 is misleading, as it fails to take into account
the OPs posting history and the likelyhood of a given problem actually
happening.
Thus I do not agree that these statements (1-4) form a reasonable
description of typical advocates.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
'Scuse me, while I kiss the sky!
-- Robert James Marshall (Jimi) Hendrix
Tim Smith
>> Peter's problem is that he is (1) knowledgeable about some things, (2)
>> arrogant about those things he is knowledgeable of, (3) *thinks* he is
>> knowledgeable about much more than he actually is, and (4) assumes that
>> if something works for him, then anyone who has a problem with it must by
>> lying.
>
> You just defined the majority of people that post in cola, especially
> myself.
I have not seen you exhibit #3 or #4, and it's only when you are slumming in
troll threads that you exhibit #2. The closest you come to #3 is
occasionally letting your enthusiasm blind you a bit temporarily. That's
fine.
--
--Tim Smith