MS Office on Linux
B Gruff
I believe that there is a MS Office for the Mac?
I also believe that more people use Linux than Mac?
So is there a MS Office for Linux?
If not, why not?
N.B. not suggesting that it should be Open Source, or gratis, or even
that I would buy it! Just that this would appear to be a missed
marketing opportunity, and I can't really believe that it's because
the Linux share is so small - they did it for the Mac?
Bill
Rick
> I'm curious.
>
> I believe that there is a MS Office for the Mac?
Yes.
>
> I also believe that more people use Linux than Mac?
Many people believe that. It may, or may not be true.
>
> So is there a MS Office for Linux?
No.
>
> If not, why not?
Apparently microsofr doesn't think it would be profitable for them to
develop it.
>
> N.B. not suggesting that it should be Open Source, or gratis, or even that
> I would buy it! Just that this would appear to be a missed marketing
> opportunity, and I can't really believe that it's because the Linux share
> is so small - they did it for the Mac?
>
They did it for the Mac 20 years ago, when the Mac had a far bigger
market share. It also tends to keep them out of more anti-trust actions
without strengthening another competitor.
--
Rick
ray
It's pretty much accepted that there are more Linux users than MAC at this
point in time.
There is no MS Office for Linux - reason: no need; it would not sell due
to the free availability of OpenOffice which imports and exports MS Office
files (all it lacks is the full macro capability), although I prefer
AbiWord for word processing and gnumeric for spreadsheet (they also read
and write MS Office files).
billwg
MS Excel were originally produced for the original Macintosh and evolved
into their Windows 3.0 versions back when WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3
were the king of the DOS/Intel market. IIRC, Mr. Softee tried to do
away with Macintosh versions of MS Office a number of years back, but
they relented when there were suggestions of anti-competitive lawsuits
and a promise by Steve Jobs to add IE to the Macintosh start up.
Mac devotees frequently talk about how the Mac versions of MS Office are
ever so superior to the Wintel versions, too.
The market for software on linux is a mixed bag. On the one hand, the
serious commercial linux server customers are often happy enough just to
have the cost savings of Lintel hardware/software to break their
Sun/Solaris chains and so continue to spend on other products such as
database managers and storage management things identical to the unix
versions and costing just as much. On the other hand, the desktop linux
market, where an MS Office for Linux would presumably be sold, is a vast
wasteland of penniless hobbyists and other forms of software misers who
are constantly looking for free stuff and so are not very fertile ground
for the MS Office sales pitch.
If MS was to do a survey by asking the cola commandos about their
attitudes towards a Linux office product from MS, what do you think
their conclusions would be?
Roy Culley
<3a2t58F...@individual.net>,
B Gruff <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> I'm curious.
>
> I believe that there is a MS Office for the Mac?
>
> I also believe that more people use Linux than Mac?
>
> So is there a MS Office for Linux?
>
> If not, why not?
What are MS's cash cows? Windows and Office. Around 80% profit on
each. Office Standard Edition comes with Excel, Outlook, PowerPoint
and Word. They probably meet the needs of the vast majority of
corporate and government users. If Office was available for Linux then
Windows would be on a hiding to nothing.
MS do not regard Apple Mac as a threat whereas they see Linux as their
number 1 threat. The main reason, I believe, is that you can use the
same HW when going from Windows to Linux. For anyone to move from
Windows to Mac requires buying new HW. There is just no way, in the
short term, MS will port Office to Linux. In the longer term they will
have no choice but by then it will be too late.
Anyone that used IE for Solaris will seriously wonder if MS are
capable of porting Office to Linux. The amusing thing about the IE
port was MS put up a web page, written supposedly by the people who
did the port, bragging about what a great job they did considering the
primitive development environment available under Solaris. It was the
crappiest experience you could imagine running it.
7
I wouldn't dream of using microshaft orifice these days - compared
to Open Office, microshaft products just suck.
First off, its just incompatibility hell
when you have one oriffice and you are trying to upload documents
or email them and they get rejected for compatibility failure.
Then you are in constant exchange of emails to decide which end is at fault.
No thanks.
I'd rather stick to open office.
2nd, I'm managing very large documents in open office without fear.
Almost always microshaft products fail catastrophically
if I did anything like that.
This fear factor automatically limits your boldness when doing
up large documents. Not so with Open Office - everything just works
regardless of how many large pictures and tons of pages
are inserted into the document to create professional documents.
Peter Köhlmann
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:56:59 +0000, B Gruff wrote:
>
>> I'm curious.
>>
>> I believe that there is a MS Office for the Mac?
>>
>> I also believe that more people use Linux than Mac?
>>
>> So is there a MS Office for Linux?
>>
>> If not, why not?
>>
>> N.B. not suggesting that it should be Open Source, or gratis, or even
>> that I would buy it! Just that this would appear to be a missed
>> marketing opportunity, and I can't really believe that it's because
>> the Linux share is so small - they did it for the Mac?
>>
>> Bill
>
> It's pretty much accepted that there are more Linux users than MAC at this
> point in time.
>
> There is no MS Office for Linux - reason: no need; it would not sell due
> to the free availability of OpenOffice which imports and exports MS Office
> files
Actually, it *would* sell, if it is compatible with the windows version
And I am sure MS knows that, but it would take away another reason for
people to use windows
> (all it lacks is the full macro capability),
It has full macro capability, it just is not compatible to the MS one
> although I prefer
> AbiWord for word processing and gnumeric for spreadsheet (they also read
> and write MS Office files).
--
Hardware, n.:
The parts of a computer system that can be kicked.
Rick
(snip)
> On the other hand, the desktop linux
> market, where an MS Office for Linux would presumably be sold, is a vast
> wasteland of penniless hobbyists and other forms of software misers who
> are constantly looking for free stuff and so are not very fertile ground
> for the MS Office sales pitch.
I am not sure the City of Largo workers would appreciate being called
'penniless hobbyists and other forms of software misers. Nor would any of
the office workers that daily use Open or Star Office.
>
> If MS was to do a survey by asking the cola commandos about their
> attitudes towards a Linux office product from MS, what do you think
> their conclusions would be?
Is that a rhetorical question?
--
Rick
B Gruff
> They did it for the Mac 20 years ago, when the Mac had a far bigger
> market share.
OK - but perhaps that is begging the question?
The Mac had a far bigger market share, but how big was the market?
i.e. would it not be true to say that there are very many more Macs in
use now than then?
Bill
Liam Slider
> So is there a MS Office for Linux?
>
> If not, why not?
Microsoft hates Linux, therefore there is no official Microsoft Office for
Linux.
However, Microsoft Office does in fact run on Linux, using Crossover
Office.
Liam Slider
Well, according to gnome.org Abiword, gnumeric, and GNOME-DB are all
components of GNOME Office (or GO, catchy name...), an integrated office
environment for GNOME.
Kier
>
> The market for software on linux is a mixed bag. On the one hand, the
> serious commercial linux server customers are often happy enough just to
> have the cost savings of Lintel hardware/software to break their
> Sun/Solaris chains and so continue to spend on other products such as
> database managers and storage management things identical to the unix
> versions and costing just as much. On the other hand, the desktop linux
> market, where an MS Office for Linux would presumably be sold, is a vast
> wasteland of penniless hobbyists and other forms of software misers who
> are constantly looking for free stuff and so are not very fertile ground
> for the MS Office sales pitch.
When are you going to stop peddling this nonsense about Linux users?
Granted only a few might want an MS Office for Linux, what with OpenOffice
2.0 on its way, but where do you get the foolish and erroneous idea all
Linux users are penniless hobbyists and misers? I can assure you this is
not the case.
It's not poverty which would keep users away from MS Office.
>
> If MS was to do a survey by asking the cola commandos about their
> attitudes towards a Linux office product from MS, what do you think
> their conclusions would be?
That it wouldn't be wanted, I expect. If it's really necessary for a user
to have it, CrossOver Office will provide it. Why give money to a company
like MS, which would be only too glad to see Linux fail?
--
Kier
billwg
>
> When are you going to stop peddling this nonsense about Linux users?
> Granted only a few might want an MS Office for Linux, what with OpenOffice
> 2.0 on its way, but where do you get the foolish and erroneous idea all
> Linux users are penniless hobbyists and misers? I can assure you this is
> not the case.
>
commercially successful linux based initiative for the desktop space?
Red Hat and Suse may be marginally break-even operations, but their
revenues are enterprise server related and nothing associated with the
desktop market can make that claim. You can form your own opinion as to
whether the linux desktop market is unable or unwilling to pay for
software, but you have to agree that it is one or the other and hence
"penniless" or "miserly" as the case may be.
> It's not poverty which would keep users away from MS Office.
>
It would be if they could not steal it. The greatest fear of the OSS
crowd these days seems to be the threat of copyright and patent laws
that might prevent "free" use of people's IP and thus make they pay the
same as the rest of the world.
Liam Slider
> Assure all you want, Kier, talk is cheap. But can you name any
> commercially successful linux based initiative for the desktop space?
> Red Hat and Suse may be marginally break-even operations, but their
> revenues are enterprise server related and nothing associated with the
> desktop market can make that claim.
Um....SuSE always *was* pushing for the desktop, always was desktop
oriented. Their big market was banking and financial companies in Germany,
on the Desktop! Novell has continued the Desktop focus after buying SuSE.
Do *not* be pretending that SuSE's success was built on the server.
Furthermore I bring up Mandrake, which, although it had a few rocky years,
is doing quite well know, running quite profitably, and has *always* been
a desktop user's distro. That's *always* been their primary market.
>You can form your own opinion as
> to whether the linux desktop market is unable or unwilling to pay for
> software, but you have to agree that it is one or the other and hence
> "penniless" or "miserly" as the case may be.
Bullshit. There is plenty of commercial software for Linux. Plenty of
commercial software that's being suddenly shifted to the Linux platform.
Microsoft isn't doing it....because Microsoft doesn't want there to *be*
commercial software for Linux, hell Microsoft doesn't want Linux to exist.
Rick
Not in market share percentage. By market share there are fewer Macs now
than then. So, if Office were just now starting out, it might not make
economical sense for m$ to make a version for the Mac. Look at IE.
--
Rick
Rick
> Kier wrote:
>>
>> When are you going to stop peddling this nonsense about Linux users?
>> Granted only a few might want an MS Office for Linux, what with
>> OpenOffice 2.0 on its way, but where do you get the foolish and
>> erroneous idea all Linux users are penniless hobbyists and misers? I can
>> assure you this is not the case.
>>
> Assure all you want, Kier, talk is cheap. But can you name any
> commercially successful linux based initiative for the desktop space?
Why do insist on nameing 'commercially successful?
> Red Hat and Suse may be marginally break-even operations,
They are much more than 'marginally breakeven.
> but their revenues
> are enterprise server related and nothing associated with the desktop
> market can make that claim.
ahah HHAHAH aHAha hHHA ahahahah HAHA hah ah HAHA ha ah...
Oh, you were serious?
Go read about Suse Professional (Wherever you go, you can use it to browse
the Web, create and share documents, work with graphics and multimedia
files,) , Novell Desktop Linux (Novell Linux Desktop 9 is a desktop
operating system and office-productivity environment that enables
businesses to use Linux and open source with confidence.) and Red Hat
Desktop (Designed for general users who need a variety of software from
email to web applications.)
All of those a commercial products.
> You can form your own opinion as to whether
> the linux desktop market is unable or unwilling to pay for software, but
> you have to agree that it is one or the other and hence "penniless" or
> "miserly" as the case may be.
No, we don't have to agree.
>
>> It's not poverty which would keep users away from MS Office.
>>
> It would be if they could not steal it.
You mean like many (most?) M$ Office users?
> The greatest fear of the OSS
> crowd these days seems to be the threat of copyright and patent laws that
> might prevent "free" use of people's IP and thus make they pay the same as
> the rest of the world.
Uh, wrong again. The fear of patents is of patent office continuing to do
asinine things like awarding patents for XML files.
--
Rick
Linønut
> begin virus.scr ray wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:56:59 +0000, B Gruff wrote:
>>
>>> I'm curious.
>>> I believe that there is a MS Office for the Mac?
>>> I also believe that more people use Linux than Mac?
>>> So is there a MS Office for Linux?
>>> If not, why not?
>>
>> There is no MS Office for Linux - reason: no need; it would not sell due
>> to the free availability of OpenOffice which imports and exports MS Office
>> files
>
> Actually, it *would* sell, if it is compatible with the windows version
> And I am sure MS knows that, but it would take away another reason for
> people to use windows
Exactly.
>> (all it lacks is the full macro capability),
>
> It has full macro capability, it just is not compatible to the MS one
You can run MS Office quite well (not perfectly, but enough for by far the
vast majority of documents) using Wine or (already preconfigured for you)
CrossOver Office.
I pay for that product because it greatly reduces my need to boot to
Windows.
On site, I can do everything I need to to configure and document a system
for our totally Windows-based project, without booting to Windows. telnet,
VNC, rdesktop, samba, and Crossover are my friends.
--
When was the last time you thought about
Microsoft, except in frustration or anger?
-- Michael S. Malone, Silicon Insider
Linønut
> Anyone that used IE for Solaris will seriously wonder if MS are
> capable of porting Office to Linux. The amusing thing about the IE
> port was MS put up a web page, written supposedly by the people who
> did the port, bragging about what a great job they did considering the
> primitive development environment available under Solaris. It was the
> crappiest experience you could imagine running it.
Yeah, those MS idiots think that if it ain't MS, or at least ain't GUI, it
ain't shit.
Linønut
> Almost always microshaft products fail catastrophically if I did anything
> like that. This fear factor automatically limits your boldness when doing
> up large documents.
I agree. As my documents approach 200 or so pages, I begin to get very
nervous.
Ultimately, the document gets corrupted, and I have to cut-and-paste into a
new version to fix the corruption.
It happens.
Bob Hauck
<li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> However, Microsoft Office does in fact run on Linux, using Crossover
> Office.
They used to. The 2003 versions seem to have some problems. Only up to
Office XP is officially supported by Codeweavers. I know for sure that
as of two months ago Visio 2003 would not install.
Of course they all work under QEMU and VMWare, but that's a "heavy"
solution.
I think that if MS offered a deal where companies who are on a licensing
program could get either the Windows or Linux version then there would
be some uptake. I do software development on Linux and bought Crossover
specifically to avoid having to dual-boot.
Billwg is right that home users won't buy it. That's obvious since they
aren't buying the Windows version either. It is too expensive. Home
users get it with the computer, use something else, or "borrow" a copy
from the office.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| A proud member of the reality-based community.
-| http://www.haucks.org/
TheLetterK
number of people using a platform rather than the percentage of people
buying into it.
TheLetterK
> serious commercial linux server customers are often happy enough just to
> have the cost savings of Lintel hardware/software to break their
> Sun/Solaris chains and so continue to spend on other products such as
> database managers and storage management things identical to the unix
> versions and costing just as much. On the other hand, the desktop linux
> market, where an MS Office for Linux would presumably be sold, is a vast
> wasteland of penniless hobbyists and other forms of software misers who
> are constantly looking for free stuff and so are not very fertile ground
> for the MS Office sales pitch.
I hate going out and buying software, not the act of paying for it. Free
software just happens to be the easiest route in avoiding trips to the
store.
Rick
... as opposed to buying it online?
--
Rick
Rick
They look at the number of people buying for a platform as opposed to
another platform.
--
Rick
Arkady Duntov
(<3a2t58F...@individual.net>) wrote:
> I believe that there is a MS Office for the Mac?
Yes.
> I also believe that more people use Linux than Mac?
Probably, but not certainly.
> So is there a MS Office for Linux?
No.
> If not, why not?
Mac users run pay a premium to run proprietary software on proprietary
hardware. MS Office is just more costly proprietary software.
* Some Linux users avoid proprietary software because it's proprietary.
* Some Linux users avoid software from Microsoft because they're a
criminal organization.
* Microsoft must avoid even the appearance of supporting any software
licensed under the GPL (or BSD license or anything similar.)
TheLetterK
store the CD or DVD somewhere, and make sure I don't lose the key...
TheLetterK
> On Saturday 19 March 2005 07:56, B Gruff <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk>
> (<3a2t58F...@individual.net>) wrote:
>
>
>>I believe that there is a MS Office for the Mac?
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>>I also believe that more people use Linux than Mac?
>
>
> Probably, but not certainly.
>
>
>>So is there a MS Office for Linux?
>
>
> No.
>
>
>>If not, why not?
>
>
> Mac users run pay a premium to run proprietary software on proprietary
> hardware.
or no moreso than most PCs anyway (how often do PCs ship with the source
code to the BIOS on the mobo?). The OS is less propriatary than most
commerical operating systems, and not all Mac users rush out to buy
Apple software.
TheLetterK
software to the entirety of the userbase. Macs have a much larger
userbase than Linux does (on the desktop), but Linux has a higher
marketshare (analysts think). Linux is growing on the desktop faster
than Macs are, but still has less users overall.
rapskat
caused a page fault at address <1289947.5...@knode.kde>, details as
follows .vbs
> * Microsoft must avoid even the appearance of supporting any software
> licensed under the GPL (or BSD license or anything similar.)
There it is.
--
rapskat - 17:28:09 up 12:54, 5 users, load average: 0.13, 0.18, 0.22
"... It ... could ... work!"
-- Gene Wilder in Young Frankenstein
billwg
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 18:21:17 +0000, billwg wrote:
>
>
>>Kier wrote:
>>
>>>When are you going to stop peddling this nonsense about Linux users?
>>>Granted only a few might want an MS Office for Linux, what with
>>>OpenOffice 2.0 on its way, but where do you get the foolish and
>>>erroneous idea all Linux users are penniless hobbyists and misers? I can
>>>assure you this is not the case.
>>>
>>
>>Assure all you want, Kier, talk is cheap. But can you name any
>>commercially successful linux based initiative for the desktop space?
>
>
> Why do insist on nameing 'commercially successful?
Because the premise was that Microsoft's not creating a version of
Office for linux was due to Microsoft's desire to withhold any form of
vindication from linux rather than being a business decision due to the
likely inability of such a product to make a profit.
The fact that there have been no commercial success in linux desktop
products ever that in even come close to the successes present in the
Windows world is a strong indicator that is the reason and not the silly
notion presented originally by Billygoat Gruff.
>
>
>>Red Hat and Suse may be marginally break-even operations,
>
>
> They are much more than 'marginally breakeven.
>
Not in this world, liam! Get a clue.
>
>>but their revenues
>>are enterprise server related and nothing associated with the desktop
>>market can make that claim.
>
>
> ahah HHAHAH aHAha hHHA ahahahah HAHA hah ah HAHA ha ah...
> Oh, you were serious?
>
Their current revenue streams are almost 100% resulting from their
enterprise server sales. And even so, the profits at RHAT are minor.
You can't tell with Novell because they don't break them out separately,
and even with the continuing demise of Netware non-linux operations are
many times that of linux. In absolute terms, the total income from
enterprise linux is chump change compared to the server group revenues
at Mr. Softee and wouldn't make for even a good week in Redmond.
> Go read about Suse Professional (Wherever you go, you can use it to browse
> the Web, create and share documents, work with graphics and multimedia
> files,) , Novell Desktop Linux (Novell Linux Desktop 9 is a desktop
> operating system and office-productivity environment that enables
> businesses to use Linux and open source with confidence.) and Red Hat
> Desktop (Designed for general users who need a variety of software from
> email to web applications.)
>
> All of those a commercial products.
>
Read the 10-Q's from RHAT and NOVL and see what they say, silly!
>
>> You can form your own opinion as to whether
>>the linux desktop market is unable or unwilling to pay for software, but
>>you have to agree that it is one or the other and hence "penniless" or
>>"miserly" as the case may be.
>
>
> No, we don't have to agree.
>
Yes you do, liam! It was rhetorical! LOL!!!
>
>>>It's not poverty which would keep users away from MS Office.
>>>
>>
>>It would be if they could not steal it.
>
>
> You mean like many (most?) M$ Office users?
>
Except for the handful that pay the $10B+ per year for these packages,
yes.
> > The greatest fear of the OSS
>
>>crowd these days seems to be the threat of copyright and patent laws that
>>might prevent "free" use of people's IP and thus make they pay the same as
>>the rest of the world.
>
>
> Uh, wrong again. The fear of patents is of patent office continuing to do
> asinine things like awarding patents for XML files.
>
Well get yourself a job there and help them decide!
ray
> begin virus.scr ray wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:56:59 +0000, B Gruff wrote:
>>
>>> I'm curious.
>>>
>>> I believe that there is a MS Office for the Mac?
>>>
>>> I also believe that more people use Linux than Mac?
>>>
>>> So is there a MS Office for Linux?
>>>
>>> If not, why not?
>>>
>>> N.B. not suggesting that it should be Open Source, or gratis, or even
>>> that I would buy it! Just that this would appear to be a missed
>>> marketing opportunity, and I can't really believe that it's because
>>> the Linux share is so small - they did it for the Mac?
>>>
>>> Bill
>>
>> It's pretty much accepted that there are more Linux users than MAC at this
>> point in time.
>>
>> There is no MS Office for Linux - reason: no need; it would not sell due
>> to the free availability of OpenOffice which imports and exports MS Office
>> files
>
> Actually, it *would* sell, if it is compatible with the windows version
> And I am sure MS knows that, but it would take away another reason for
> people to use windows
>
>> (all it lacks is the full macro capability),
>
> It has full macro capability, it just is not compatible to the MS one
You're right - that's not what I said, but what I meant
ray
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:56:59 +0000, B Gruff wrote:
>
>> So is there a MS Office for Linux?
>>
>> If not, why not?
>
> Microsoft hates Linux, therefore there is no official Microsoft Office for
> Linux.
>
But MS certainly does not hate money - if they figured it was in their own
economic best interest, they'd do it in a hearbeat.
B Gruff
>
> The fact that there have been no commercial success in linux desktop
> products ever that in even come close to the successes present in
> the Windows world is a strong indicator that is the reason and not
> the silly notion presented originally by Billygoat Gruff.
Which silly notion was that, our little ray of sunshine?
Bill
Rick
> Rick wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 18:21:17 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Kier wrote:
>>>
>>>>When are you going to stop peddling this nonsense about Linux users?
>>>>Granted only a few might want an MS Office for Linux, what with
>>>>OpenOffice 2.0 on its way, but where do you get the foolish and
>>>>erroneous idea all Linux users are penniless hobbyists and misers? I
>>>>can assure you this is not the case.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Assure all you want, Kier, talk is cheap. But can you name any
>>>commercially successful linux based initiative for the desktop space?
>>
>>
>> Why do insist on nameing 'commercially successful?
>
> Because the premise was that Microsoft's not creating a version of Office
> for linux was due to Microsoft's desire to withhold any form of
> vindication from linux rather than being a business decision due to the
> likely inability of such a product to make a profit.
>
> The fact that there have been no commercial success in linux desktop
> products ever that in even come close to the successes present in the
> Windows world is a strong indicator that is the reason and not the silly
> notion presented originally by Billygoat Gruff.
You do understand the micro$oft's 'success' is based in illegal market
manipulation, don't you?
>>
>>
>>>Red Hat and Suse may be marginally break-even operations,
>>
>>
>> They are much more than 'marginally breakeven.
>>
> Not in this world, liam! Get a clue.
My name's not liam. Learn to read.
>>
>>>but their revenues
>>>are enterprise server related and nothing associated with the desktop
>>>market can make that claim.
>>
>>
>> ahah HHAHAH aHAha hHHA ahahahah HAHA hah ah HAHA ha ah... Oh, you were
>> serious?
>>
> Their current revenue streams are almost 100% resulting from their
> enterprise server sales. And even so, the profits at RHAT are minor.
Define minor.
> You
> can't tell with Novell because they don't break them out separately, and
> even with the continuing demise of Netware non-linux operations are many
> times that of linux. In absolute terms, the total income from enterprise
> linux is chump change compared to the server group revenues at Mr. Softee
> and wouldn't make for even a good week in Redmond.
So what? Red Hat and Suse are profitable ventures.
>
>> Go read about Suse Professional (Wherever you go, you can use it to
>> browse the Web, create and share documents, work with graphics and
>> multimedia files,) , Novell Desktop Linux (Novell Linux Desktop 9 is a
>> desktop operating system and office-productivity environment that
>> enables businesses to use Linux and open source with confidence.) and
>> Red Hat Desktop (Designed for general users who need a variety of
>> software from email to web applications.)
>>
>> All of those a commercial products.
>>
> Read the 10-Q's from RHAT and NOVL and see what they say, silly!
I see you have no good response.
>>
>>> You can form your own opinion as to whether
>>>the linux desktop market is unable or unwilling to pay for software, but
>>>you have to agree that it is one or the other and hence "penniless" or
>>>"miserly" as the case may be.
>>
>>
>> No, we don't have to agree.
>>
> Yes you do, liam! It was rhetorical! LOL!!!
My name's not Liam, you braying ass.
>>
>>>>It's not poverty which would keep users away from MS Office.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>It would be if they could not steal it.
>>
>>
>> You mean like many (most?) M$ Office users?
>>
> Except for the handful that pay the $10B+ per year for these packages,
> yes.
Go do the research and tell us how much of that wasn't pre-installed or
commercial contracts.
>> > The greatest fear of the OSS
>>
>>>crowd these days seems to be the threat of copyright and patent laws
>>>that might prevent "free" use of people's IP and thus make they pay the
>>>same as the rest of the world.
>>
>>
>> Uh, wrong again. The fear of patents is of patent office continuing to
>> do asinine things like awarding patents for XML files.
>>
> Well get yourself a job there and help them decide!
I have a job, thanks.
--
Rick
B Gruff
>>>I hate going out and buying software, not the act of paying for it.
>>>Free software just happens to be the easiest route in avoiding
>>>trips to the store.
>>
>>
>> ... as opposed to buying it online?
> Still have to wait for it to be delivered,
Nono - we are talking about opting for delivery over the 'net - buy
it, and download it there and then.
> install it off the CD or DVD,
Hmmm ... so what do you install it from if you buy it from your local
store?:-)
(In fact, buying on-line, you would install from your HD?)
> store the CD or DVD somewhere, and make sure I don't lose the
> key...
Yes - as buying from your local store?
(Your downloaded S/W and key need backing up, obviously)
Bill
billwg
>
> You do understand the micro$oft's 'success' is based in illegal market
> manipulation, don't you?
>
Why of course, Rick! That can only be the case. How else would a
company come to dominate it's markets and be able to threaten such
established companies as IBM while carving out a $40B per year empire!
There are so many petty criminals doing that these days that I am just
beside myself with irritation! LOL!!!
>
>>>
>>>>Red Hat and Suse may be marginally break-even operations,
>>>
>>>
>>>They are much more than 'marginally breakeven.
>>>
>>
>>Not in this world, liam! Get a clue.
>
>
> My name's not liam. Learn to read.
>
Sorry about that.
Not in this world, then, Rick! Get a clue.
>
>
> Define minor.
>
Net operating income of $2.9M for the most previous year. MSFT was
$9.034B for the same 12 months. Mr. Bill is some 3000 times larger,
which makes RHAT's profits for the year about the same as what MSFT gets
during the Tuesday lunch break in the third week in May.
>
>>You
>>can't tell with Novell because they don't break them out separately, and
>>even with the continuing demise of Netware non-linux operations are many
>>times that of linux. In absolute terms, the total income from enterprise
>>linux is chump change compared to the server group revenues at Mr. Softee
>>and wouldn't make for even a good week in Redmond.
>
>
> So what? Red Hat and Suse are profitable ventures.
>
Suse doesn't exist, of course, NOVL does. Red Hat is the pure linux
play and has an operating income of about 3%. If they went to two more
trade shows, they'd be back in the red.
Red Hat is a hand to mouth operation that has not yet had to stand
against a full year of Novell push on Suse Enterprise in the same space.
It is very likely that Novell will succeed in taking some business
from RHAT and push them back under the break even point. RHAT has a
pile of cash from their stock issues in the past, though, and are not
likely to go out of business, but they are far from what is usually
termed "profitable". Still, they do have their fans.
>
>
> I see you have no good response.
>
Well, I thought that it was good. If you read Novell's 10-Q, you can
see where they are getting revenue from Suse linux and it is NOT from
the desktop side.
>
>
> My name's not Liam, you braying ass.
>
So you say, but can you prove it?
>
>>
>>Except for the handful that pay the $10B+ per year for these packages,
>>yes.
>
>
> Go do the research and tell us how much of that wasn't pre-installed or
> commercial contracts.
>
What difference would that make. The few MS Office users, as a group,
who have paid for it have paid at a rate of over $10B per year. How
they came to the notion of parting with their hard earned cash is not
meaningful. The assertion was that it was stolen and that is not
totally the case. The paid for portion is a handsome income for Mr.
Softee and they are grateful.
>
>
> I have a job, thanks.
>
So you refuse to work to solve the problem then?
Rick
> Rick wrote:
>
>
>> You do understand the micro$oft's 'success' is based in illegal market
>> manipulation, don't you?
>>
> Why of course, Rick! That can only be the case. How else would a company
> come to dominate it's markets and be able to threaten such established
> companies as IBM while carving out a $40B per year empire! There are so
> many petty criminals doing that these days that I am just beside myself
> with irritation!
m$ has violated monopoly laws on at least 2 continents.
> LOL!!!
Look, a braying ass.
>>
>>
>>>>>Red Hat and Suse may be marginally break-even operations,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>They are much more than 'marginally breakeven.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Not in this world, liam! Get a clue.
>>
>>
>> My name's not liam. Learn to read.
>>
> Sorry about that.
>
> Not in this world, then, Rick! Get a clue.
>>
>>
>> Define minor.
>>
> Net operating income of $2.9M for the most previous year. MSFT was
> $9.034B for the same 12 months. Mr. Bill is some 3000 times larger, which
> makes RHAT's profits for the year about the same as what MSFT gets during
> the Tuesday lunch break in the third week in May.
If Linux market penetration is so minor, why is micro$oft so afraid of it?
>>
>>>You
>>>can't tell with Novell because they don't break them out separately, and
>>>even with the continuing demise of Netware non-linux operations are many
>>>times that of linux. In absolute terms, the total income from
>>>enterprise linux is chump change compared to the server group revenues
>>>at Mr. Softee and wouldn't make for even a good week in Redmond.
>>
>>
>> So what? Red Hat and Suse are profitable ventures.
>>
> Suse doesn't exist, of course, NOVL does.
Fine. Fine...
Suse WAS profitable. Novell IS profitable.
> Red Hat is the pure linux play
> and has an operating income of about 3%. If they went to two more trade
> shows, they'd be back in the red.
They are profitable. Period.
>
> Red Hat is a hand to mouth operation that has not yet had to stand against
> a full year of Novell push on Suse Enterprise in the same space.
> It is very likely that Novell will succeed in taking some business
> from RHAT and push them back under the break even point. RHAT has a pile
> of cash from their stock issues in the past, though, and are not likely to
> go out of business, but they are far from what is usually termed
> "profitable". Still, they do have their fans.
You must really be scared of Red Hat.
>> I see you have no good response.
>>
> Well, I thought that it was good. If you read Novell's 10-Q, you can see
> where they are getting revenue from Suse linux and it is NOT from the
> desktop side.
Did you just say Suse Linux is not generating revenue?
>>
>>
>> My name's not Liam, you braying ass.
>>
> So you say, but can you prove it?
Do you still hump your sister?
>>>Except for the handful that pay the $10B+ per year for these packages,
>>>yes.
>>
>>
>> Go do the research and tell us how much of that wasn't pre-installed or
>> commercial contracts.
>>
> What difference would that make. The few MS Office users, as a group, who
> have paid for it have paid at a rate of over $10B per year. How they came
> to the notion of parting with their hard earned cash is not meaningful.
> The assertion was that it was stolen and that is not totally the case.
> The paid for portion is a handsome income for Mr. Softee and they are
> grateful.
Translation: no, you can't.
>>
>>
>> I have a job, thanks.
>>
> So you refuse to work to solve the problem then?
What part of 'I have a job' was unclear to you?
--
Rick
rapskat
page fault at address <AF0Sat, 19 Mar 2005 16:19:19
-0500.44614$5T6....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, details as follows
.vbs
> > The market for software on linux is a mixed bag. On the one hand,
Too true. You can't beat the coolness and convenience factor of needing a
piece of software and typing in a couple words and then, tada, there it
is!
--
rapskat - 20:45:16 up 16:11, 6 users, load average: 1.25, 1.62, 1.59
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Bruce Williams
> Anyone that used IE for Solaris will seriously wonder if MS are
> capable of porting Office to Linux. The amusing thing about the IE
> port was MS put up a web page, written supposedly by the people who
> did the port, bragging about what a great job they did considering the
> primitive development environment available under Solaris. It was the
> crappiest experience you could imagine running it.
I belive it was marketed as Internet Explorer for UNIX, but reading
further it turns out that to MS, UNIX == Solaris 2.5 on SPARC. I never
did manage to run it though, I tried installing on Solaris 2.5.1 ... it
wanted root to install, I extracted the package myself into the correct
place, it never ran it just seg faulted. Another guy managed to get it
to install on 2.6, but he ran the installer as root, and yes, it did
touch files it shouldn't have.
Another marketing point was that it would allow Solaris users to see web
pages that had ActiveX content, when last I looked, ActiveX was native
Wintel code, so i'm not sure how they would have run on a SPARC anyway.
You're totally right it was not worth running.
--
Bruce.
Roy Culley
<423cf4be$0$2731$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
Well any company which takes security at all seriously strips any
ActiveX on their proxy servers. Just to dangerous.
William Poaster
wrote:
> I'm curious.
>
> I believe that there is a MS Office for the Mac?
>
> I also believe that more people use Linux than Mac?
>
> So is there a MS Office for Linux?
>
> If not, why not?
What's the point? Most linux distros (that I've tried) come with Open
Office for free. So why have M$ crap, which you'd probably have to pay
for *over* what you pay for your disto, & be limited with the usual M$haft
licence of one-copy-per-machine. No thanks, I wouldn't be interested.
<snip>
--
"Hit any button to continue...
Heeey? Where's "Any" button?"
- Homer Simpson -
William Poaster
wrote:
> On Saturday 19 March 2005 22:33 billwg wrote:
It's what Ballmer told him to say. Funny, I wonder why he thinks (& I use
the term loosely, in his case) that M$ made linux the Number One Threat?
Another interesting thing too, that I read the other day, under UK law,
M$'s EULA is illegal! Why? Well according to the DTI (Trading Standards
Act) because you can't read the EULA at the point of sale, & agree or
disagree with it's implementation, it's not enforceable.
According to M$'s blurb, they say "You must read the terms of the EULA
before using the corresponding Product." Uh, but you can't read it at
the point of sale, as it's usualy in a shrink-wrapped case on a CD!!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/01/27/windows_refunds_and_the_law/
Nigel Feltham
> begin trojan.vbs It was on Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:56:59 +0000, that B Gruff
> wrote:
>
>> I'm curious.
>>
>> I believe that there is a MS Office for the Mac?
>>
>> I also believe that more people use Linux than Mac?
>>
>> So is there a MS Office for Linux?
>>
>> If not, why not?
>
> What's the point? Most linux distros (that I've tried) come with Open
> Office for free. So why have M$ crap, which you'd probably have to pay
> for *over* what you pay for your disto, & be limited with the usual M$haft
> licence of one-copy-per-machine. No thanks, I wouldn't be interested.
Not just over what you paid for the distro - in many cases over what you
paid for the whole PC.
Linønut
> Their money doesn't come from only new users--it comes from selling
> software to the entirety of the userbase. Macs have a much larger
> userbase than Linux does (on the desktop), but Linux has a higher
> marketshare (analysts think). Linux is growing on the desktop faster
> than Macs are, but still has less users overall.
That's not what I've seen (at least a few months ago).
Linønut
> Billwg is right that home users won't buy it. That's obvious since they
> aren't buying the Windows version either. It is too expensive. Home
> users get it with the computer, use something else, or "borrow" a copy
> from the office.
With 80% profit margins on MS Office, MS can afford to take the hit of a
little piracy, especially since it, in Gate's words, may make them "sort of
addicted" to it.
billwg
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 00:24:32 +0000, billwg wrote:
>
>
>>Rick wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>You do understand the micro$oft's 'success' is based in illegal market
>>>manipulation, don't you?
>>>
>>
>>Why of course, Rick! That can only be the case. How else would a company
>>come to dominate it's markets and be able to threaten such established
>>companies as IBM while carving out a $40B per year empire! There are so
>>many petty criminals doing that these days that I am just beside myself
>>with irritation!
>
>
> m$ has violated monopoly laws on at least 2 continents.
>
simplistic of an answer? Consider the history of this issue. Microsoft
has been dragged into court by the DOJ and umpteen states and charged
with numerous violations of the antitrust laws and nothing stuck except
some minor procedural violations that were deemed by the courts to not
involve causal actions and so were deemed unnecessary for corrective
action. Microsoft was merely enjoined from the practices and required
to provide periodic certifications to the court as to how they have been
adhering to the court orders.
No divestiture of any assets, no remedial actions, and no fines. Now
how does that square with having built a $40B business solely or even
significantly on illegal market manipulation? Do you class yourself as
an economist or jurist with such greater perception than the judges of
the DC District and Circuit court? Hardly. You are at best a minor
cola weenie with nothing but an attitude that isn't doing you any good.
>
>> LOL!!!
>
>
> Look, a braying ass.
>
LOL!!!
>
>>>
>>>>>>Red Hat and Suse may be marginally break-even operations,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>They are much more than 'marginally breakeven.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not in this world, liam! Get a clue.
>>>
>>>
>>>My name's not liam. Learn to read.
>>>
>>
>>Sorry about that.
>>
>>Not in this world, then, Rick! Get a clue.
>>
>>>
>>>Define minor.
>>>
>>
>>Net operating income of $2.9M for the most previous year. MSFT was
>>$9.034B for the same 12 months. Mr. Bill is some 3000 times larger, which
>>makes RHAT's profits for the year about the same as what MSFT gets during
>>the Tuesday lunch break in the third week in May.
>
>
> If Linux market penetration is so minor, why is micro$oft so afraid of it?
>
Short answer, they are not afraid. That's just another myth you
linuxers pass around to bolster your spirits in the face of conspicuous
non-achievements!
>
>>>>You
>>>>can't tell with Novell because they don't break them out separately, and
>>>>even with the continuing demise of Netware non-linux operations are many
>>>>times that of linux. In absolute terms, the total income from
>>>>enterprise linux is chump change compared to the server group revenues
>>>>at Mr. Softee and wouldn't make for even a good week in Redmond.
>>>
>>>
>>>So what? Red Hat and Suse are profitable ventures.
>>>
>>
>>Suse doesn't exist, of course, NOVL does.
>
>
> Fine. Fine...
>
> Suse WAS profitable. Novell IS profitable.
>
>
>>Red Hat is the pure linux play
>>and has an operating income of about 3%. If they went to two more trade
>>shows, they'd be back in the red.
>
>
> They are profitable. Period.
For the same investment, you could make several times the money by
buying US Savings Bonds, Rick. That is not being profitable. Only a
fool would invest in RHAT.
>
>
>>Red Hat is a hand to mouth operation that has not yet had to stand against
>>a full year of Novell push on Suse Enterprise in the same space.
>> It is very likely that Novell will succeed in taking some business
>>from RHAT and push them back under the break even point. RHAT has a pile
>>of cash from their stock issues in the past, though, and are not likely to
>>go out of business, but they are far from what is usually termed
>>"profitable". Still, they do have their fans.
>
>
> You must really be scared of Red Hat.
>
Frightened almost to the point of inaction, Rick! LOL!!!
>
>>>I see you have no good response.
>>>
>>
>>Well, I thought that it was good. If you read Novell's 10-Q, you can see
>>where they are getting revenue from Suse linux and it is NOT from the
>>desktop side.
>
>
> Did you just say Suse Linux is not generating revenue?
>
Of course the Enterprise Linux is generating revenue! It is also
generating expenses that are not broken out separately. Novell did 8%
worse in the year they acquired Suse than they did the year before. Do
you think that is due to Suse? No one can tell except Novell insiders
and they are not saying.
>
>>>
>>>My name's not Liam, you braying ass.
>>>
>>
>>So you say, but can you prove it?
>
>
> Do you still hump your sister?
>
LOL!!!
>
>
billwg
billwg
> Bob Hauck poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>
>>Billwg is right that home users won't buy it. That's obvious since they
>>aren't buying the Windows version either. It is too expensive. Home
>>users get it with the computer, use something else, or "borrow" a copy
>>from the office.
>
>
> With 80% profit margins on MS Office, MS can afford to take the hit of a
> little piracy, especially since it, in Gate's words, may make them "sort of
> addicted" to it.
>
linux wasn't "free" but was expensive but very easy to steal, it would
be much more popular.
Mark Kent
William Poaster <will...@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx> espoused:
> Another interesting thing too, that I read the other day, under UK law,
> M$'s EULA is illegal! Why? Well according to the DTI (Trading Standards
> Act) because you can't read the EULA at the point of sale, & agree or
> disagree with it's implementation, it's not enforceable.
> According to M$'s blurb, they say "You must read the terms of the EULA
> before using the corresponding Product." Uh, but you can't read it at
> the point of sale, as it's usualy in a shrink-wrapped case on a CD!!
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/01/27/windows_refunds_and_the_law/
>
I've been pointing this out in this group for at least a couple of
years now, if not more. EULAs of the kind which MS and other PC
software vendors use are not enforcable in the UK, and no amount of
bribing the government will change this, because it's far too
deeply rooted in British contract law. lol. (that's for billwg).
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day.
Rick
> Rick wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 00:24:32 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Rick wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You do understand the micro$oft's 'success' is based in illegal market
>>>>manipulation, don't you?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Why of course, Rick! That can only be the case. How else would a
>>>company come to dominate it's markets and be able to threaten such
>>>established companies as IBM while carving out a $40B per year empire!
>>>There are so many petty criminals doing that these days that I am just
>>>beside myself with irritation!
>>
>>
>> m$ has violated monopoly laws on at least 2 continents.
>>
> Every now and then don't you wonder about that being just a little bit
> simplistic of an answer?
No.
> Consider the history of this issue. Microsoft
> has been dragged into court by the DOJ and umpteen states and charged with
> numerous violations of the antitrust laws and nothing stuck except some
> minor procedural violations that were deemed by the courts to not involve
> causal actions and so were deemed unnecessary for corrective action.
> Microsoft was merely enjoined from the practices and required to provide
> periodic certifications to the court as to how they have been adhering to
> the court orders.
You never get that right.
>
> No divestiture of any assets, no remedial actions, and no fines.
That is because the remedy did not go to the judge this time. The
US/States settled. They didn't settle before Judge Jackson.
> Now how
> does that square with having built a $40B business solely or even
> significantly on illegal market manipulation?
Yes.
> Do you class yourself as an
> economist or jurist with such greater perception than the judges of the DC
> District and Circuit court?
No, but then she didn't decide the remedy, only agreed to it.
> Hardly. You are at best a minor cola weenie
> with nothing but an attitude that isn't doing you any good.
You're a liar.
>>
>>> LOL!!!
>> Look, a braying ass.
>>
> LOL!!!
And the ass still brays.
>>>>>>>Red Hat and Suse may be marginally break-even operations,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They are much more than 'marginally breakeven.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Not in this world, liam! Get a clue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>My name's not liam. Learn to read.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Sorry about that.
>>>
>>>Not in this world, then, Rick! Get a clue.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Define minor.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Net operating income of $2.9M for the most previous year. MSFT was
>>>$9.034B for the same 12 months. Mr. Bill is some 3000 times larger,
>>>which makes RHAT's profits for the year about the same as what MSFT gets
>>>during the Tuesday lunch break in the third week in May.
>>
>>
>> If Linux market penetration is so minor, why is micro$oft so afraid of
>> it?
>>
> Short answer, they are not afraid. That's just another myth you linuxers
> pass around to bolster your spirits in the face of conspicuous
> non-achievements!
No? Then why is m$ spending so much time trying to convince people not to
use it?
>>
>>>>>You
>>>>>can't tell with Novell because they don't break them out separately,
>>>>>and even with the continuing demise of Netware non-linux operations
>>>>>are many times that of linux. In absolute terms, the total income
>>>>>from enterprise linux is chump change compared to the server group
>>>>>revenues at Mr. Softee and wouldn't make for even a good week in
>>>>>Redmond.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So what? Red Hat and Suse are profitable ventures.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Suse doesn't exist, of course, NOVL does.
>>
>>
>> Fine. Fine...
>>
>> Suse WAS profitable. Novell IS profitable.
>>
>>
>>>Red Hat is the pure linux play
>>>and has an operating income of about 3%. If they went to two more trade
>>>shows, they'd be back in the red.
>>
>>
>> They are profitable. Period.
>
> For the same investment, you could make several times the money by buying
> US Savings Bonds, Rick. That is not being profitable. Only a fool would
> invest in RHAT.
If that were true, you would be heavily invested.
>>>Red Hat is a hand to mouth operation that has not yet had to stand
>>>against a full year of Novell push on Suse Enterprise in the same space.
>>> It is very likely that Novell will succeed in taking some business
>>>from RHAT and push them back under the break even point. RHAT has a
>>>pile of cash from their stock issues in the past, though, and are not
>>>likely to go out of business, but they are far from what is usually
>>>termed "profitable". Still, they do have their fans.
>>
>>
>> You must really be scared of Red Hat.
>>
> Frightened almost to the point of inaction, Rick! LOL!!!
... scared people, many times, have that nervous laughter.
>>
>>>>I see you have no good response.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Well, I thought that it was good. If you read Novell's 10-Q, you can
>>>see where they are getting revenue from Suse linux and it is NOT from
>>>the desktop side.
>>
>>
>> Did you just say Suse Linux is not generating revenue?
>>
> Of course the Enterprise Linux is generating revenue! It is also
> generating expenses that are not broken out separately. Novell did 8%
> worse in the year they acquired Suse than they did the year before. Do
> you think that is due to Suse?
No, I don't.
> No one can tell except Novell insiders and they are not saying.
>>
>>
>>>>My name's not Liam, you braying ass.
>>>>
>>>So you say, but can you prove it?
>> Do you still hump your sister?
I gues that's a yes...
>>
> LOL!!!
Enjoyed it, huh? Good.
--
Rick
rapskat
page fault at address <uGjSun, 20 Mar 2005 18:55:22
+0000.215681$JF2....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, details as follows
.vbs
>> Too true. You can't beat the coolness and convenience factor of needing a
>> piece of software and typing in a couple words and then, tada, there it
>> is!
>>
> Do you have an MSDN subscription, too?
No, I have a DBN Subscription. Annual cost.... $0.
How about you?
--
rapskat - 15:40:34 up 1 day, 11:06, 7 users, load average: 0.34, 0.59, 0.44
Things you Do Not Want To See On IRC: your husband commenting on the
S390 port and in the next comment, announcing that he expects a new toy.
He tells me the two are unrelated. I do hope so.
- Telsa Gwynn, Alan Cox's wife
theletterk
> TheLetterK poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>> Their money doesn't come from only new users--it comes from selling
>> software to the entirety of the userbase. Macs have a much larger
>> userbase than Linux does (on the desktop), but Linux has a higher
>> marketshare (analysts think). Linux is growing on the desktop faster
>> than Macs are, but still has less users overall.
>
> That's not what I've seen (at least a few months ago).
Linux hasn't had enough time to outgrow Macs yet. Marketshare is not
indicative of the size of a userbase, it's indicative of how well a
platform is currently selling. There's more Linux desktop systems
currently shipping than there are Macs, but there are more total Macs than
Linux desktops.
Mark Kent
theletterk <thele...@spymac.com.broken> espoused:
> Linux hasn't had enough time to outgrow Macs yet. m
Haha! yeah - it's only been around for a decade.
> Marketshare is not
> indicative of the size of a userbase, it's indicative of how well a
> platform is currently selling.
Unless you define the term 'marketshare' and then define, very precisely
indeed, the 'market', then your statement has no meaning.
> There's more Linux desktop systems
> currently shipping than there are Macs,
There're no reliable stats this, because there is no way of measuring
'Linux desktop systems', as they do *not* ship in the traditional sense
at all.
> but there are more total Macs than
> Linux desktops.
As there's no way of counting the number of Linux desktops, this is
speculation at best.
billwg
>
> I've been pointing this out in this group for at least a couple of
> years now, if not more. EULAs of the kind which MS and other PC
> software vendors use are not enforcable in the UK, and no amount of
> bribing the government will change this, because it's far too
> deeply rooted in British contract law. lol. (that's for billwg).
>
here? If you have the courage of your convictions, you will have
snapped up the latest offerings of all these PC software vendors whose
EULA fails the British muster and would be duplicating them as fast as
your cheapo burner could run. Sell the copies for pence on the pound
and finance yourself into a fully detached bungalow with your very own
garden! Quick now, before someone changes the law! LOL!!!
billwg
>>
>>Every now and then don't you wonder about that being just a little bit
>>simplistic of an answer?
>
>
> No.
>
LOL!!! Rick, I guess that is that then! It does have the benefit of
being simple!
>
>> Consider the history of this issue. Microsoft
>>has been dragged into court by the DOJ and umpteen states and charged with
>>numerous violations of the antitrust laws and nothing stuck except some
>>minor procedural violations that were deemed by the courts to not involve
>>causal actions and so were deemed unnecessary for corrective action.
>>Microsoft was merely enjoined from the practices and required to provide
>>periodic certifications to the court as to how they have been adhering to
>>the court orders.
>
>
> You never get that right.
>
What do you think the right answer is?
>
>>No divestiture of any assets, no remedial actions, and no fines.
>
>
> That is because the remedy did not go to the judge this time. The
> US/States settled. They didn't settle before Judge Jackson.
>
Well that is not at all true. The DOJ and majority of the states
settled after the DCCCOA reversed or remanded all of Jackson's rulings
and they were left with the sorry non-causal monopoly maintenance
claims, but some 10 or 11 states went to judgment with Judge KK and she
essentially took the settlement terms and awarded them to the last few
states standing. The Massachusetts AG was the only appellant and he was
recently told to go pound sand. Case closed.
>
>> Now how
>>does that square with having built a $40B business solely or even
>>significantly on illegal market manipulation?
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>>Do you class yourself as an
>>economist or jurist with such greater perception than the judges of the DC
>>District and Circuit court?
>
>
> No, but then she didn't decide the remedy, only agreed to it.
>
>
>> Hardly. You are at best a minor cola weenie
>>with nothing but an attitude that isn't doing you any good.
>
>
> You're a liar.
>
Well lets have a contest, Rick! If Judge KK went to a judgment in spite
of what you have said a couple of times, you are a cola weenie in fact.
If you are correct, then I am a liar. OK?
LOL!!!
>
>>
>>Short answer, they are not afraid. That's just another myth you linuxers
>>pass around to bolster your spirits in the face of conspicuous
>>non-achievements!
>
>
> No? Then why is m$ spending so much time trying to convince people not to
> use it?
Well how much time are they spending? There have been a couple of
interviews given by Bill Gates wherein he says that Windows is a better
deal than linux, but he is always talking to the press and talking about
Windows vs linux is probably a lot more comfortable than talking about
Microsoft vs the DOJ or the EU or whatever other topic might take the
place of some minor marketing hype about Windows.
In the USofA, Microsoft has never run any anti-linux ads at all and
usually contents itself with showing some kind of problem that is solved
by Windows or else shows a pudgy guy with butterfly wings protecting
kids and animals from harm.
I think that all you cola boys are just telling yourselves that the
bogey man is afraid and will run at the slightest show of defiance.
>
>
>
> ... scared people, many times, have that nervous laughter.
>
I'll have to modify it then! How do you show a derisive sneer?
<derisive sneer id=LOL!!! />
>
billwg
> begin Error log for Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:55:22 +0000 - billwg caused a
> page fault at address <uGjSun, 20 Mar 2005 18:55:22
> +0000.215681$JF2....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, details as follows
> .vbs
>
>
>>>Too true. You can't beat the coolness and convenience factor of needing a
>>>piece of software and typing in a couple words and then, tada, there it
>>>is!
>>>
>>
>>Do you have an MSDN subscription, too?
>
>
> No, I have a DBN Subscription. Annual cost.... $0.
>
> How about you?
>
tab each year.
>"rapskat - 15:40:34 up 1 day, 11:06, 7 users, load average:
0.34,0.59, 0.44"
How is it that you have to share your computer with so many others?
Rick
.. nothing but m$ BS.
--
Rick
Peter Köhlmann
Idiot
William Poaster
Kent wrote:
> begin oe_protect.scr
> theletterk <thele...@spymac.com.broken> espoused:
>> Linux hasn't had enough time to outgrow Macs yet. m
>
> Haha! yeah - it's only been around for a decade.
>
>> Marketshare is not
>> indicative of the size of a userbase, it's indicative of how well a
>> platform is currently selling.
>
> Unless you define the term 'marketshare' and then define, very precisely
> indeed, the 'market', then your statement has no meaning.
>
>> There's more Linux desktop systems
>> currently shipping than there are Macs,
>
> There're no reliable stats this, because there is no way of measuring
> 'Linux desktop systems', as they do *not* ship in the traditional sense
> at all.
>
>> but there are more total Macs than
>> Linux desktops.
>
> As there's no way of counting the number of Linux desktops, this is
> speculation at best.
I believe one fair indication is, that M$ made *1inux* the Number One
Threat, (after viruses) & *not* Macs...
rapskat
page fault at address <9voMon, 21 Mar 2005 00:24:37
+0000.217897$JF2....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, details as follows
.vbs
> rapskat wrote:
>> begin Error log for Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:55:22 +0000 - billwg caused a
>> page fault at address <uGjSun, 20 Mar 2005 18:55:22
>> +0000.215681$JF2....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, details as follows
>> .vbs
>>
>>
>>>>Too true. You can't beat the coolness and convenience factor of
>>>>needing a piece of software and typing in a couple words and then,
>>>>tada, there it is!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Do you have an MSDN subscription, too?
>>
>>
>> No, I have a DBN Subscription. Annual cost.... $0.
>>
>> How about you?
>>
> MSDN Universal. At no cost to me, of course. My company picks up the
> tab each year.
But *someone* has to pay for it. In my case, no one does, because it's
free. Besides, the two aren't even comparable; I have access to fully
featured complete applications, games, utilities, media, artwork, etc.
through debian repositories.
> >"rapskat - 15:40:34 up 1 day, 11:06, 7 users, load average:
> 0.34,0.59, 0.44"
>
> How is it that you have to share your computer with so many others?
How is it that you are such a complete twit?
--
rapskat - 20:58:54 up 1 day, 16:24, 7 users, load average: 0.65, 0.31, 0.28
"Don't say you don't have enough time. You have exactly the
same number of hours per day that were given to Helen Keller, Pasteur,
Michaelangelo, Mother Teresa, Leonardo da Vinci, Thomas Jefferson, and
Albert Einstein."
-- H. Jackson Brown
rapskat
page fault at address <EOjSun, 20 Mar 2005 19:04:04
+0000.189054$qB6.1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, details as follows
.vbs
So, rather than just making it free legally, you suggest that it would be
better if it were costly and presented *illegally* for people to acquire?
That's an awesome idea! I propose that you develop your own distro and do
it. I would suggest calling it "Moronix".
--
rapskat - 21:28:50 up 1 day, 16:54, 7 users, load average: 0.12, 0.18, 0.26
"Maybe is an Ambivalent Yet Beguiling Enigma"
I am jamming to Prodigy - Funky shit
Jim Trice
> begin oe_protect.scr
> theletterk <thele...@spymac.com.broken> espoused:
>> Linux hasn't had enough time to outgrow Macs yet. m
>
> Haha! yeah - it's only blicences for a decade.
>
>> Marketshare is not
>> indicative of the size of a userbase, it's indicative of how well a
>> platform is currently selling.
>
> Unless you define the term 'marketshare' and then define, very precisely
> indeed, the 'market', then your statement has no meaning.
>
>> There's more Linux desktop systems
>> currently shipping than there are Macs,
>
> There're no reliable stats this, because there is no way of measuring
> 'Linux desktop systems', as they do *not* ship in the traditional sense
> at all.
>
>> but there are more total Macs than
>> Linux desktops.
>
> As there's no way of counting the number of Linux desktops, this is
> speculation at best.
>
There is no way of accurately counting the number of Windows or Mac systems
either, as no-one knows the retirement rate for said systems, and no-one
knows how many of those Windows licences that MS sold were actually
installed in the first place.
Leaves everybody free to choose whatever WAG suites their purposes. I could
take the readers' survey by APCA, from about 2 years ago that found 3.0%
used Linux as their desktop, a further 3.4% dual booted Linux/Windows, 1.9%
used Macs, and nearly all the rest used some flavour of Windows, mostly
98SE.
There you go... A survey of computing professionals "proves" that Linux
desktop use in Australia is well over 3 times greater than that of the
Apple Mac.
On the other hand, Terry Makedon of ATI, while announcing improved Linux
support last September, claimed that Linux has 4% of the desktop market.
ATI must feel reasonably confident about this number, as they have been
basing business decisions on it.
The Wintrolls have it at 0.025%
Take your pick, or make up your own. Hours of fun, the whole family can
play.
--
Regards,
Jim
Mark Kent
William Poaster <will...@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx> espoused:
This is important when considering Microsoft's strategy and tactics
in trying to maintain their monopoly, but I can't see how it gives an
indication of real numbers, though.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
A kind of Batman of contemporary letters.
-- Philip Larkin on Anthony Burgess
Mark Kent
Jim Trice <jimt...@linuxmail.org> espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> theletterk <thele...@spymac.com.broken> espoused:
>>> Linux hasn't had enough time to outgrow Macs yet. m
>>
>> Haha! yeah - it's only blicences for a decade.
>>
>>> Marketshare is not
>>> indicative of the size of a userbase, it's indicative of how well a
>>> platform is currently selling.
>>
>> Unless you define the term 'marketshare' and then define, very precisely
>> indeed, the 'market', then your statement has no meaning.
>>
>>> There's more Linux desktop systems
>>> currently shipping than there are Macs,
>>
>> There're no reliable stats this, because there is no way of measuring
>> 'Linux desktop systems', as they do *not* ship in the traditional sense
>> at all.
>>
>>> but there are more total Macs than
>>> Linux desktops.
>>
>> As there's no way of counting the number of Linux desktops, this is
>> speculation at best.
>>
>
> There is no way of accurately counting the number of Windows or Mac systems
> either, as no-one knows the retirement rate for said systems, and no-one
> knows how many of those Windows licences that MS sold were actually
> installed in the first place.
I don't think that's remotely the same problem, though. It's presently
possible to get an *extremely* accurate figure for sales for Microsoft
and indeed for Mac, the problem is simplified to only considering when
machines are retired. As Microsoft /require/ OEMS to pre-install,
you can be very confident that the licences represent real installs.
There are some licence-only sales, but they do not number greatly in
the figures, so are unlikely to affect them.
>
> Leaves everybody free to choose whatever WAG suites their purposes. I could
> take the readers' survey by APCA, from about 2 years ago that found 3.0%
> used Linux as their desktop, a further 3.4% dual booted Linux/Windows, 1.9%
> used Macs, and nearly all the rest used some flavour of Windows, mostly
> 98SE.
>
> There you go... A survey of computing professionals "proves" that Linux
> desktop use in Australia is well over 3 times greater than that of the
> Apple Mac.
Within that particular audience, yes, but as I also mentioned, unless you
can accurately define a market, these stats don't necessarily tell you
anything anyway.
>
> On the other hand, Terry Makedon of ATI, while announcing improved Linux
> support last September, claimed that Linux has 4% of the desktop market.
> ATI must feel reasonably confident about this number, as they have been
> basing business decisions on it.
I'm not trying to suggest any particular number, but I am pointing out
that reliable stats are hard to come by for Linux installs, because Linux,
as free software, is freely copiable, as well as freely downloadable.
Some people have tried to use downloads as a useful guide, but I certainly
cache downloads for installation across multiple machines, and I suspect
that a lot of others do as well...
>
> The Wintrolls have it at 0.025%
>
> Take your pick, or make up your own. Hours of fun, the whole family can
> play.
:-))
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Jesse F. Hughes
> >"rapskat - 15:40:34 up 1 day, 11:06, 7 users, load average:
> 0.34,0.59, 0.44"
>
> How is it that you have to share your computer with so many others?
Anyone that ssh'es into a box adds another user to the list. Any
virtual consoles add another user to the list. The fact that there
are 7 users doesn't mean he shares the box with other people.
When I am at home or at work, I usually log into my desktop machine
from my laptop machine. It's simple, easy and convenient. I
sometimes do so in multiple windows. I guess you're just not used to
that kind of flexibility.
12:20:50 up 21 days, 19:29, 3 users, load average: 0.04, 0.01, 0.00
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Well, talk to her. Tell her about your feelings in an open and
honest way."
"Yeah. Either that or be a man." -- Futurama
William Poaster
Kent wrote:
> begin oe_protect.scr
> William Poaster <will...@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx> espoused:
>> begin trojan.vbs It was on Sun, 20 Mar 2005 21:50:27 +0000, that Mark
>> Kent wrote:
>>
>>> As there's no way of counting the number of Linux desktops, this is
>>> speculation at best.
>>
>> I believe one fair indication is, that M$ made *1inux* the Number One
>> Threat, (after viruses) & *not* Macs...
>>
>
> This is important when considering Microsoft's strategy and tactics
> in trying to maintain their monopoly, but I can't see how it gives an
> indication of real numbers, though.
It can't (& nothing can give a real number) however for M$ to do that,
they must have a good idea of how many linux desktops are being switched
from Windows to linux...enough to have rattled them, I would suggest. If
there are more Macs than linux (as all these Mac trolls say) would M$
not have made Apple the No.1 threat?
Mark Kent
Jesse F. Hughes <je...@phiwumbda.org> espoused:
<snip>
>
> When I am at home or at work, I usually log into my desktop machine
> from my laptop machine. It's simple, easy and convenient. I
> sometimes do so in multiple windows. I guess you're just not used to
> that kind of flexibility.
>
> 12:20:50 up 21 days, 19:29, 3 users, load average: 0.04, 0.01, 0.00
>
There are times when I really feel a bit sorry for our astroturfing
friends, as they really do not seem to have much of a clue about what
they're missing. The whole concept of multi-user is so broken in the
Microsoft Windows world that it must be very difficult to even imagine
what it might be like in an environment which was designed to be thus
from the ground up.
Poor old b*ggers...
Mark Kent
William Poaster <will...@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx> espoused:
> begin trojan.vbs It was on Mon, 21 Mar 2005 06:40:30 +0000, that Mark
> Kent wrote:
>
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> William Poaster <will...@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx> espoused:
>>> begin trojan.vbs It was on Sun, 20 Mar 2005 21:50:27 +0000, that Mark
>>> Kent wrote:
>>>
>>>> As there's no way of counting the number of Linux desktops, this is
>>>> speculation at best.
>>>
>>> I believe one fair indication is, that M$ made *1inux* the Number One
>>> Threat, (after viruses) & *not* Macs...
>>>
>>
>> This is important when considering Microsoft's strategy and tactics
>> in trying to maintain their monopoly, but I can't see how it gives an
>> indication of real numbers, though.
>
> It can't (& nothing can give a real number) however for M$ to do that,
> they must have a good idea of how many linux desktops are being switched
> from Windows to linux...enough to have rattled them, I would suggest.
I agree.
> If
> there are more Macs than linux (as all these Mac trolls say) would M$
> not have made Apple the No.1 threat?
>
I suspect not, as the Mac share is not rising particularly quickly, the
price is high, and the hardware specialised. Linux is the direct threat,
as the hardware is the same, and the price is zero. It's difficult to
compete with a zero price-tag, which is why Microsoft are trying to use
the patent system and bribery and threats to achieve it instead.
The phenomenal growth of Firefox shows that the public are more than
willing to move to new software if there is a compelling reason to do
so, and their is a good financial case.
Ray Ingles
> Well, clark, whatever are you doing wasting time posting your drivel
> here? If you have the courage of your convictions, you will have
> snapped up the latest offerings of all these PC software vendors whose
> EULA fails the British muster and would be duplicating them as fast as
> your cheapo burner could run. Sell the copies for pence on the pound
> and finance yourself into a fully detached bungalow with your very own
> garden! Quick now, before someone changes the law! LOL!!!
Your confusion between contract and copyright law is, well, breathtaking
and profound. Even if the EULA is invalid, it does *not* mean that one
can legally duplicate a copyrighted work.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"I've never understood people who interpret the Bible literally,
and the Constitution loosely."
- Bill Maher, "When You Ride Alone You Ride With bin Laden"
Ray Ingles
> The fact that there have been no commercial success in linux desktop
> products ever that in even come close to the successes present in the
> Windows world is a strong indicator that is the reason and not the silly
> notion presented originally by Billygoat Gruff.
Windows has over 90% of the desktop share. Are you saying that unless
a competitor can topple that overnight, they can't be a commercial
success?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"We have managed to do something our enemies never could: set up
architectures of control designed specifically to keep our society
from correcting its errors and improving itself.
No society that does this to itself survives even in the short term.
Ours will be no exception, and I for one don't feel a great deal of
lament for it anymore." - Jean-Michel Smith
Ray Ingles
>> It's not poverty which would keep users away from MS Office.
>>
> It would be if they could not steal it. The greatest fear of the OSS
> crowd these days seems to be the threat of copyright and patent laws
> that might prevent "free" use of people's IP and thus make they pay the
> same as the rest of the world.
No, 'free software' advocates don't want to 'steal' the IP of others.
That's a common canard and I'm not surprised to see you parroting it.
We want our fair-use rights, no more, no less.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
*That's* the kind of thing we're worried about. Don't say it couldn't
happen - sea changes like that *have* happened in history (look at
Germany early this century - one of the most advanced and civilized
democracies turning into, well, what it turned into). Look at the CSS
flap. DVD players already have the ability to lock their users out
of features - and the media companies *use* that ability. "Trusted
computing" means the *corporations* can trust *your* computer to
work for *them*.
Even if you don't believe that things could get as extreme as in
that essay, things are headed in that direction and it's not a
way I (and many others) want to go.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Even if you understand something thoroughly, it can still be
marvelous, wonderful, and inspiring." - Me
Mark Kent
Ray Ingles <sorc...@dmc22317.local> espoused:
> In article <m7o%d.141191$pc5....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, billwg wrote:
<snip "if you shared my confusion with law, you would have">
>> snapped up the latest offerings of all these PC software vendors whose
>> EULA fails the British muster and would be duplicating them as fast as
>> your cheapo burner could run. Sell the copies for pence on the pound
<snip rest of invitation to copyright violation by billwg>
> Your confusion between contract and copyright law is, well, breathtaking
> and profound. Even if the EULA is invalid, it does *not* mean that one
> can legally duplicate a copyrighted work.
I do wonder if Microsoft wouldn't be better off finding astroturfers of
somewhat higher calibre?
I have never, and would never, encourage any kind of copyright violation.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
gn18...@subwhale.earthlink.net
> begin trojan.vbs It was on Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:56:59 +0000, that B Gruff
> wrote:
>
>> I'm curious.
>>
>> I believe that there is a MS Office for the Mac?
>>
>> I also believe that more people use Linux than Mac?
>>
>> So is there a MS Office for Linux?
>>
>> If not, why not?
>
> What's the point? Most linux distros (that I've tried) come with Open
> Office for free. So why have M$ crap, which you'd probably have to pay
> for *over* what you pay for your disto, & be limited with the usual M$haft
> licence of one-copy-per-machine. No thanks, I wouldn't be interested.
>
>
You do realize that open office is crap as well, don't you?
Over-bloated, slow as fuck, unstable crap, BOTH of them. The best word processor
ever written was WordPerfect. Abiword is a pretty good replacement.
.
billwg
>
> When I am at home or at work, I usually log into my desktop machine
> from my laptop machine. It's simple, easy and convenient. I
> sometimes do so in multiple windows. I guess you're just not used to
> that kind of flexibility.
>
Quit being so anal, Jesse! certainly I use the RDC capabilities of
Windows to connect from my office workstation or my laptop on the road,
as I am doing now. Linux seems kind of crude in that department. But
that is one user and only one user. Rapskat has 7 and he is either
playing with himself or a number of others are logged on as well. Seems
kind of strange to me.
ray
I have OpenOffice installed, but I prefer to use Abiword and Gnumeric.
William Poaster
Kent wrote:
It looks like it.
> The phenomenal growth of Firefox shows that the public are more than
> willing to move to new software if there is a compelling reason to do
> so, and their is a good financial case.
Maybe more will also take up Open Office, now it's moved to version 2.0..
Arkady Duntov
(<rlq2h2-...@linux.site>) wrote:
> If there are more Macs than linux (as all these Mac trolls say) would
> M$ not have made Apple the No.1 threat?
If Apple Computer was Microsoft's primary threat, Microsoft would simply
continue its usual business practices. The kind of pressure an unlawfully
maintained monopoly can bring against Apple, the kind Microsoft has exerted
repeatedly in the past, is ineffective against GPL software. There's no
single, identifiable place to attack, no business whose products and
protocols they can embrace and extend, no single corporation which can be
bankrupted into submission.
To address their new threat, they will are forced to find new approaches.
A potential defense could be additional restrictions outlawing some means of
distribution, as the RIAA and MPAA are attempting worldwide. Another is
the imposition of a UCITA requiring free software authors to provide
support without compensation while exempting Microsoft and its ilk.
The threat of legislative attack must not be discounted, given the overall
dishonesty of the US congress, and presidents, and their counterparts in
the states. The current corporate-sponsored maneuvers in the EU indicate
that European governments are also vulnerable to leveraged buyouts by the
unscrupulous.
Ray Ingles
> certainly I use the RDC capabilities of
> Windows to connect from my office workstation or my laptop on the road,
> as I am doing now. Linux seems kind of crude in that department.
Linux (and Unix) has had network-transparent desktops for more years
than Windows has existed, and can implement them securely and with
a minimum of bandwidth needed. You can even share apps from multiple
different computers on the same screen. Basically *any* graphical
app on Linux can be displayed over the network (even many 3D apps,
subject to the laws of physics); RDC has limitations in that regard
(some of them deliberate, e.g. Media Center).
Frankly, Windows is the crude one in this regard. Nice to see they're
trying to catch up, though.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Always code as if the guy who ends up maintaining your code will
be a violent psychopath who knows where you live." - Martin Golding
gn18...@subwhale.earthlink.net
> begin trojan.vbs It was on Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:19:11 -0600, that gn184500
> etc, & pass them to people using Windows. They can open & read them on the
> Windows Open Office without any problems, & vice versa. It's fine for me &
> does what I want, so I use it.
>
I'm not sure what that has to do with my point.
Lots of people feel exactly the same way about Microsoft Word. What do I care
if you want to use over-bloated, slow as fuck, unstable crap?
.
William Poaster
wrote:
> William Poaster <will...@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx> wrote:
I've never had any problems with it. I can make any documents, speadsheets
etc, & pass them to people using Windows. They can open & read them on the
Windows Open Office without any problems, & vice versa. It's fine for me &
does what I want, so I use it.
--
Linønut
>> I've never had any problems with it. I can make any documents, speadsheets
>> etc, & pass them to people using Windows. They can open & read them on the
>> Windows Open Office without any problems, & vice versa. It's fine for me &
>> does what I want, so I use it.
>
> I'm not sure what that has to do with my point.
>
> Lots of people feel exactly the same way about Microsoft Word. What do I care
> if you want to use over-bloated, slow as fuck, unstable crap?
Because the same people who think of you as a computer God when you fix
their festering Windows systems will yet look at you like an idiot when you
try to get them to read and save documents in a compact format like ASCII
(or even HTML).
--
When was the last time you thought about
Microsoft, except in frustration or anger?
-- Michael S. Malone, Silicon Insider
Linønut
> In article <99E%d.160175$pc5....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, billwg wrote:
>> certainly I use the RDC capabilities of
>> Windows to connect from my office workstation or my laptop on the road,
>> as I am doing now. Linux seems kind of crude in that department.
Such ignorance is inexcusable.
> Linux (and Unix) has had network-transparent desktops for more years
> than Windows has existed, and can implement them securely and with
> a minimum of bandwidth needed. You can even share apps from multiple
> different computers on the same screen. Basically *any* graphical
> app on Linux can be displayed over the network (even many 3D apps,
> subject to the laws of physics); RDC has limitations in that regard
> (some of them deliberate, e.g. Media Center).
>
> Frankly, Windows is the crude one in this regard. Nice to see they're
> trying to catch up, though.
It seems to me that Microsoft lovers are always crowing about features that
Microsoft has implemented (poorly) that UNIX has had for a lonnnng time.
billwg
>
> But *someone* has to pay for it. In my case, no one does, because it's
> free.
>
And worth it, too!
> Besides, the two aren't even comparable; I have access to fully
> featured complete applications, games, utilities, media, artwork, etc.
> through debian repositories.
Well, maybe it isn't worth much, rapskat, but it is something for the
hobbyist to work with. If you can't make software pay the bills,
there's no reason to pay for it.
billwg
>>>
>>
>>Do you think that is a bad strategy? It seems to work. Perhaps if
>>linux wasn't "free" but was expensive but very easy to steal, it would
>>be much more popular.
>
>
> So, rather than just making it free legally, you suggest that it would be
> better if it were costly and presented *illegally* for people to acquire?
>
> That's an awesome idea! I propose that you develop your own distro and do
> it. I would suggest calling it "Moronix".
>
Try to stay with me here, rapskat! In the first place, it is not
"illegal" unless you make unauthorized copies of materials worth more
than $1000 in any 180 day period. Now what is Windows actually worth?
Even at the list price, XP Pro is only about $295 or so. You can look
it up, but I am sure it is less than $1000.
Now Microsoft might be able to make a case against you on the basis that
you are damaging them by denying them income, but, if you are unwilling
to buy the product in the first place, the copying cannot damage them
since there would have been no sale ever. If by making an unauthorized
copy, the person making the copy avoids using a competitor's product,
say, linux, then the act can even be seen as beneficial to Microsoft
since there is some tiny increment of experience added to the world
total in favor of Windows by the act.
Certainly the reverse can be true as well. If a person makes an
unauthorized copy of, say, Enterprise Linux from Red Hat, valued at
$795, they have not violated the NET Act, and have not otherwise robbed
RHAT of revenue, but have added to the number of servers that Red Hat
can claim in their installed base.
It is the ultimate state of free software!
Greyfrog
> B Gruff wrote:
> > I'm curious.
> >
> > I believe that there is a MS Office for the Mac?
> >
> > I also believe that more people use Linux than Mac?
> >
> > So is there a MS Office for Linux?
> >
> > If not, why not?
> >
even
> > that I would buy it! Just that this would appear to be a missed
> > marketing opportunity, and I can't really believe that it's because
> > the Linux share is so small - they did it for the Mac?
> >
> Ah, goat, your sense of history is deficient once more! MS MacWord
and
> MS Excel were originally produced for the original Macintosh and
evolved
> into their Windows 3.0 versions back when WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3
> were the king of the DOS/Intel market. IIRC, Mr. Softee tried to do
> away with Macintosh versions of MS Office a number of years back, but
> they relented when there were suggestions of anti-competitive
lawsuits
> and a promise by Steve Jobs to add IE to the Macintosh start up.
>
> Mac devotees frequently talk about how the Mac versions of MS Office
are
> ever so superior to the Wintel versions, too.
>
> The market for software on linux is a mixed bag. On the one hand,
the
> serious commercial linux server customers are often happy enough just
to
> have the cost savings of Lintel hardware/software to break their
> Sun/Solaris chains and so continue to spend on other products such as
> database managers and storage management things identical to the unix
> versions and costing just as much. On the other hand, the desktop
linux
> market, where an MS Office for Linux would presumably be sold, is a
vast
> wasteland of penniless hobbyists and other forms of software misers
who
> are constantly looking for free stuff and so are not very fertile
ground
> for the MS Office sales pitch.
>
> If MS was to do a survey by asking the cola commandos about their
> attitudes towards a Linux office product from MS, what do you think
> their conclusions would be?
billwg,
I don't want any M$ Office or anything else from M$/mess. Open
Office more than serves my needs. And, there are many Linux apps like
Crossover Office that fills any gaps.
Don't feed the monopoly monster by begging for any of their apps.
billwg
>
> I'm not trying to suggest any particular number, but I am pointing out
> that reliable stats are hard to come by for Linux installs, because Linux,
> as free software, is freely copiable, as well as freely downloadable.
> Some people have tried to use downloads as a useful guide, but I certainly
> cache downloads for installation across multiple machines, and I suspect
> that a lot of others do as well...
>
Well you confuse the issue, clark. To begin with, the quality of the
market opportunity is more important than the absolute quantity of
computers or copies of linux in the system. You SAY you use a single
copy of linux for multiple machines, but most cola nuts around here seem
to be continually downloading new distributions (they call them
"distros" as a kind of in-crowd kewlness!) of linux and one can only
conclude that there are many copies of linux associate with any one
single machine. Further, the machines themselves are apparently most
often some cast-off junker that entered service as a Windows machine and
became MOL obsolete with the passing of time. The linuxers pride
themselves on being some form of minimalist movement and often confuse
themselves with the environmentalists. They carp continually about how
linux can name the tune with a single note or even less whereas the
Windows machines are sluggish even when brand new and up to date.
So the writing on the wall is to the effect that prospects for a
commercial linux compatible application program are bleak indeed. The
average consumer in this space is conditioned to not paying anything for
their software and are even reluctant to discard hardware at the end of
its design life. If/when they do buy something in the software line,
they feel it is their right to use it on multiple machines and to give
it to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who comes down the lane. This is a
frail reed for basing any reasonable business.
billwg
>
> It can't (& nothing can give a real number) however for M$ to do that,
> they must have a good idea of how many linux desktops are being switched
> from Windows to linux...enough to have rattled them, I would suggest. If
> there are more Macs than linux (as all these Mac trolls say) would M$
> not have made Apple the No.1 threat?
>
If you had an understanding of product marketing, you would know that
Microsoft is just trying to lure you into a false sense of security. An
intelligent product marketer does not care about the competition. For
an intelligent product marketer there is no competition, just an unsold
market comprised of prospective customers for his product which can be
shown to be the best choice for consumers in the intelligent product
marketer's target market. Otherwise, an intelligent product marketer
would not bother to enter a market. Why get into a game that you cannot
win, is the thinking here.
So the intelligent product marketer is focused on the customers that he
needs to reach. At any point it time, some are valued loyal customers
already and some are unsold. It matters not why they are unsold,
whether they have been misled by some other company or whether they are
simply unaware of the availability of the better product being offered
by the the intelligent product marketer.
The battle, my friend, is not over which company can mislead the most,
but rather how quickly you can present your winning arguments to the
entirety of the target market and so obtain your 100% goal.
billwg
>
> Poor old b*ggers...
>
There are times when I just have to laugh out loud at the silly gnomes
and smurfs that seem to comprise the cola nut class. Why are so many of
them Brits? The whole concept of personal computer is so lost in the
linux world that it must be very difficult to even imagine what it might
be like in an environment which was designed to be thus from the ground up!
Imagine being so poverty stricken that you have to "share" your PC with
up to, in some known cases, 6 or more other users. No privacy at all, I
would imagine!
LOL!!!
William Poaster
wrote:
> William Poaster <will...@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx> wrote:
>> begin trojan.vbs It was on Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:19:11 -0600, that gn184500
>> wrote:
>>
>>> William Poaster <will...@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx> wrote:
>>>> begin trojan.vbs It was on Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:56:59 +0000, that B Gruff
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm curious.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe that there is a MS Office for the Mac?
>>>>>
>>>>> I also believe that more people use Linux than Mac?
>>>>>
>>>>> So is there a MS Office for Linux?
>>>>>
>>>>> If not, why not?
>>>>
>>>> What's the point? Most linux distros (that I've tried) come with Open
>>>> Office for free. So why have M$ crap, which you'd probably have to pay
>>>> for *over* what you pay for your disto, & be limited with the usual M$haft
>>>> licence of one-copy-per-machine. No thanks, I wouldn't be interested.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You do realize that open office is crap as well, don't you?
>>>
>>> Over-bloated, slow as fuck, unstable crap, BOTH of them. The best word processor
>>> ever written was WordPerfect. Abiword is a pretty good replacement.
>>
>> I've never had any problems with it. I can make any documents, speadsheets
>> etc, & pass them to people using Windows. They can open & read them on the
>> Windows Open Office without any problems, & vice versa. It's fine for me &
>> does what I want, so I use it.
>>
>
> I'm not sure what that has to do with my point.
Then you can now explain how how I can produce a spreadsheet with
Abiword, or do you have a reading problem?
> Lots of people feel exactly the same way about Microsoft Word. What do
> I care if you want to use over-bloated, slow as fuck, unstable crap?
Except *I* have never found it to be unstable, maybe I'm lucky.
billwg
> In article <3N1%d.130733$pc5.1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, billwg wrote:
>
>>The fact that there have been no commercial success in linux desktop
>>products ever that in even come close to the successes present in the
>>Windows world is a strong indicator that is the reason and not the silly
>>notion presented originally by Billygoat Gruff.
>
>
> Windows has over 90% of the desktop share. Are you saying that unless
> a competitor can topple that overnight, they can't be a commercial
> success?
>
on selling linux-compatible apps. That alone is reason enough for
Microsoft to not try to develop and sell a MS Office for Linux product.
It is a strong reason for anyone to not try to develop and sell a
linux compatible commercial product.
Now some people have tried, of course. Corel, for example, spent what
little money they had left on a WP initiative for linux. Failed
miserably at the bank and left them seeking a handout, ala Apple, from
Mr. Softee himself.
Judge Jackson himself, no fan of Microsoft to be sure, said that there
was such a barrier to entry in the market that Microsoft had an
effective monopoly. You can't expect anyone to go against that kind of
wisdom.
Sinister Midget
On 2005-03-21, quoth Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk>:
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Jesse F. Hughes <je...@phiwumbda.org> espoused:
>
><snip>
>>
>> When I am at home or at work, I usually log into my desktop machine
>> from my laptop machine. It's simple, easy and convenient. I
>> sometimes do so in multiple windows. I guess you're just not used to
>> that kind of flexibility.
>>
>> 12:20:50 up 21 days, 19:29, 3 users, load average: 0.04, 0.01, 0.00
>>
>
> There are times when I really feel a bit sorry for our astroturfing
> friends, as they really do not seem to have much of a clue about what
> they're missing. The whole concept of multi-user is so broken in the
> Microsoft Windows world that it must be very difficult to even imagine
> what it might be like in an environment which was designed to be thus
> from the ground up.
>
> Poor old b*ggers...
I figger they've been told, they've been shown, they've been led. If
they can't see what's placed right under their noses, they deserve what
they get.
--
...Microsoft and its suppliers provide the Product and
support services (if any) AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and
hereby disclaim all other warranties and conditions...
http://proprietary.clendons.co.nz/licenses/eula/windowsxpprofessional-eula.htm
paragraph 12.
billwg
>
> Linux (and Unix) has had network-transparent desktops for more years
> than Windows has existed, and can implement them securely and with
> a minimum of bandwidth needed. You can even share apps from multiple
> different computers on the same screen. Basically *any* graphical
> app on Linux can be displayed over the network (even many 3D apps,
> subject to the laws of physics); RDC has limitations in that regard
> (some of them deliberate, e.g. Media Center).
>
> Frankly, Windows is the crude one in this regard. Nice to see they're
> trying to catch up, though.
>
but how is it that no one other than the cola nuts seem to realize that
is the case? All this time wasted telling people about the kernel and
such when you had a killer app right under your nose "for more years
than Windows has existed"? Are you overstating the case just a little
bit? How is it that the linuxers are so clumsy at pressing such an
advantage? Could it be that this stuff doesn't work all that swell and
may be a woolly bear to set up?
Windows works pretty well and I have been using it ever since XP Pro
came out. If linux would have had such a facility in the Win98 or even
Win2K days, I think I would have gotten myself on board had I known
about it.
rapskat
page fault at address <JZHMon, 21 Mar 2005 22:34:17
+0000.228828$JF2.1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, details as follows
.vbs
> rapskat wrote:
>
>
>> But *someone* has to pay for it. In my case, no one does, because it's
>> free.
> >
> And worth it, too!
Damned straight it is! To achieve the level of functionality I have with
my system would probably run you in the thousands of dollars worth in
proprietary software and associated licenses, and you still wouldn't even
be able to match my performance.
>> Besides, the two aren't even comparable; I have access to fully
>> featured complete applications, games, utilities, media, artwork, etc.
>> through debian repositories.
>
> Well, maybe it isn't worth much, rapskat, but it is something for the
> hobbyist to work with. If you can't make software pay the bills,
> there's no reason to pay for it.
Linux and OSS does pay my bills, or rather, it provides me the tools and
utilities I need in order to do my job to make money to pay my bills.
--
rapskat - 19:42:13 up 53 min, 3 users, load average: 0.44, 0.23, 0.21
"Ironically, DeCSS was published on the Web by a U.S. court (as
evidence) as a result of legal action against people who posted DeCSS on
the Web. Oops."
-- Sandy McMurray
http://canoe.ca/TechNews/column_readme.html
Peter Köhlmann
You are really an incredibly dumb idiot.
Look up "X"
Unix (and linux) could run GUI apps remotely since ages.
billwg
Well I didn't know how to do that, Peter! I'm an incredibly dumb idiot,
after all! LOL!!!
If you and your ilk had been thinking about how to show the world a
better way than in casting your derision, you might be the front runner
today rather than just another whiner.
With the assumption that linux really could do this 7 or 8 years ago, of
course. Else you were doomed from the start.
billwg
> begin Error log for Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:34:17 +0000 - billwg caused a
> page fault at address <JZHMon, 21 Mar 2005 22:34:17
> +0000.228828$JF2.1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, details as follows
> .vbs
>
>
>>rapskat wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>But *someone* has to pay for it. In my case, no one does, because it's
>>>free.
>>
>> >
>>And worth it, too!
>
>
> Damned straight it is! To achieve the level of functionality I have with
> my system would probably run you in the thousands of dollars worth in
> proprietary software and associated licenses, and you still wouldn't even
> be able to match my performance.
>
never shown any performance at all. What are you hiding?
>
>>>Besides, the two aren't even comparable; I have access to fully
>>>featured complete applications, games, utilities, media, artwork, etc.
>>>through debian repositories.
>>
>>Well, maybe it isn't worth much, rapskat, but it is something for the
>>hobbyist to work with. If you can't make software pay the bills,
>>there's no reason to pay for it.
>
>
> Linux and OSS does pay my bills, or rather, it provides me the tools and
> utilities I need in order to do my job to make money to pay my bills.
>
So what is the job and what is the tool? I would think that whatever it
is, there is some commercial tool that is more frequently used. It
would be an interesting case to examine the OSS tool versus the
commercial tool and see what other case studies might be relevant to
such a claim.
What if you could do your job even more easily and/or make even more
money using a commercial app and/or environment?
Peter Köhlmann
Well, it was shown your stupid ilk then. But then, windows users barely knew
what "networking" might mean, so they did not understand
> With the assumption that linux really could do this 7 or 8 years ago, of
> course. Else you were doomed from the start.
You mean that windows had this capability 8 years ago? Really?
Unix machines certainly did. Windows was in Win95 stage
billwg
>
> Well, it was shown your stupid ilk then. But then, windows users barely knew
> what "networking" might mean, so they did not understand
>
So your derision got in the way of your success, eh? Certainly windows
users would have recognized the utility of being able to connect to
their office machines from home in a manner that was the equivalent of
sitting at their office desk or being able to use their home system
similarly from the office.
The fact that this huge number of users had to wait for Microsoft to
show them how to do this argues that the linux advocates were not of a
useful caliber.
>
>>With the assumption that linux really could do this 7 or 8 years ago, of
>>course. Else you were doomed from the start.
>
>
> You mean that windows had this capability 8 years ago? Really?
> Unix machines certainly did. Windows was in Win95 stage
>
No, Ray originally stated that "Linux (and Unix) has had
network-transparent desktops for more years than Windows has existed",
which I took for overly expansive at the least. I got broadband
Internet connections from TimeWarner in 1997, so that was the 8 years
that I spoke of, since I presumably could have used the capability at
that point in time. Desktop emulation over a modem is probably not
feasible in any case.
Jim Trice
<snip>
>
> I have OpenOffice installed, but I prefer to use Abiword and Gnumeric.
One of the nice things about OSS: Abiword opens and saves to OO.o .swx
format quite nicely. It's still easy to communicate, and exchange
documents, with OO.o users, whatever platform they are running on.
Extra brownie points for Abiword, my copy of OO.o doesn't play nearly as
nicely with Abiword's native file format, it displays the raw XML.
I can't really test how well Gnumeric does in this context, as all my
spreadsheets are encrypted, and Gnumeric can't work with encrypted OO.o
files. I could decrypt one, I guess, but a) I'm too lazy, and b) I don't
want decrypted versions of them hanging around, even short term.
--
Regards,
Jim
gn18...@subwhale.earthlink.net
> Because the same people who think of you as a computer God when you fix
> their festering Windows systems will yet look at you like an idiot when you
> try to get them to read and save documents in a compact format like ASCII
> (or even HTML).
>
I'm not sure what that has to do with me caring. I dont care how anyone saves
documents. If I want or need to read something, I do. And I don't need to
use crappy software to do it.
Listen, for many, many moons now there's been this thing about linux, see. I
didnt really start to notice it until it became accessable to the unwashed
masses (through that damnable redhat 4.2 installer), but it has something to
do with this idea:
If it's linux software, it must therefore rule.
In reality, this is not true at all. Piles of linux software is absolute
garbage, and piles is absolute gold. Most of it is somewhere in the middle,
as with most things.
.