Macs: 1 button, Windows: 2 buttons, Unix: 104 buttons
Karen Hill
basically Unix. That means Steve Jobs figured out how to do practically
every computer operation with one mouse button. Genuis.
Bill Gates figured out how to do practically every computer operation
with two mouse buttons. Smart.
Bill Joy needs at least 104 buttons to do practically every computer
operation. Dumb.
My friend tells me Unix is great and that "everything is a file." Unix
may be great, I certainly wouldn't mind running 100 processors to make
the internet go faster. Yet everything is not a file. Sometimes it is
a Quicktime Movie. Or a pdf document. Or a program. See my point?
Now if I wanted to, I could buy a two button mouse (or more) for my
Mac. Yet I don't have to and don't need to. I could use 104 buttons
on my keyboard and type in commands. Yet I don't have to.
In Unix you have NO CHOICE. You must learn hundreds of commands,
thousands of command line switches and how to tie them together.
Elitism means that less people can benefit from Unix. That means you
either have:
1. A few elite users and expensive hardware and software
or
2: Limited resources to remain competitive.
What I've found is that Unix suffers from both 1 and 2 at the same
time. Why suffer? Why not get a good install program that works, one
or two mouse buttons and a user interface that is actually good!?
If you can make a kernel run 1,000 processors and DTrace every
possible thing, why can't you make a simple to use, clean, modern and
appealing desktop with only 1 or 2 mouse buttons? Elitism is the
reason, and it is time to cure that problem.
Why does JAVA look and work like a native application under OS X? In
OS X Java applications look beautiful, which is the only OS you can say
that about! Why couldn't SUN do it? Elitism. Spend 400,000,000
dollars on that problem and market share will rise like the Sun!
A good designer looks good physically. They are dressed stylishly.
They know form and function do matter. Would you buy a ratty ugly boxy
car? No. Why buy a computer that way?
When you have a decent market share with a good desktop, you will have
time and cash from increased sales to small companies, home users etc
to put all the cool things under the hood like Steve Jobs did in OS X.
Snit
1140206492.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com on 2/17/06 1:01 PM:
> I just found out from reading my previous thread that my Mac OS X is
> basically Unix.
It is based partially on BSD, specifically FreeBSD. Technically this is not
Unix, but the technicalities matter to few.
> That means Steve Jobs figured out how to do practically
> every computer operation with one mouse button. Genuis.
Apple has managed to combine most of the power of Unix with most of the
ease-of-use of the Mac and then added some extra goodies for good measure.
it is an amazing accomplishment.
>
> Bill Gates figured out how to do practically every computer operation
> with two mouse buttons. Smart.
>
> Bill Joy needs at least 104 buttons to do practically every computer
> operation. Dumb.
Er?
>
> My friend tells me Unix is great and that "everything is a file." Unix
> may be great, I certainly wouldn't mind running 100 processors to make
> the internet go faster. Yet everything is not a file. Sometimes it is
> a Quicktime Movie. Or a pdf document. Or a program. See my point?
Those are all kinds of files.
>
> Now if I wanted to, I could buy a two button mouse (or more) for my
> Mac. Yet I don't have to and don't need to. I could use 104 buttons
> on my keyboard and type in commands. Yet I don't have to.
OK.
>
> In Unix you have NO CHOICE. You must learn hundreds of commands,
> thousands of command line switches and how to tie them together.
There is some truth to this with most Unix CL shells.
>
> Elitism means that less people can benefit from Unix. That means you
> either have:
> 1. A few elite users and expensive hardware and software
> or
> 2: Limited resources to remain competitive.
>
> What I've found is that Unix suffers from both 1 and 2 at the same
> time. Why suffer? Why not get a good install program that works, one
> or two mouse buttons and a user interface that is actually good!?
>
> If you can make a kernel run 1,000 processors and DTrace every
> possible thing, why can't you make a simple to use, clean, modern and
> appealing desktop with only 1 or 2 mouse buttons? Elitism is the
> reason, and it is time to cure that problem.
The problem has been largely cured: it is called OS X.
>
> Why does JAVA look and work like a native application under OS X? In
> OS X Java applications look beautiful, which is the only OS you can say
> that about! Why couldn't SUN do it? Elitism. Spend 400,000,000
> dollars on that problem and market share will rise like the Sun!
>
> A good designer looks good physically. They are dressed stylishly.
> They know form and function do matter. Would you buy a ratty ugly boxy
> car? No. Why buy a computer that way?
>
> When you have a decent market share with a good desktop, you will have
> time and cash from increased sales to small companies, home users etc
> to put all the cool things under the hood like Steve Jobs did in OS X.
Hopefully OS X's market share continues to grow.
--
Sex-based crimes are not synonymous with sex
http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/
http://www.registeredoffenderslist.org/
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Rick
.. nothing remotely intelligent.
Dean G.
Karen Hill wrote:
> I just found out from reading my previous thread that my Mac OS X is
> basically Unix. That means Steve Jobs figured out how to do practically
> every computer operation with one mouse button. Genuis.
>
> Bill Gates figured out how to do practically every computer operation
> with two mouse buttons. Smart.
>
> Bill Joy needs at least 104 buttons to do practically every computer
> operation. Dumb.
Presumably you typed this whole post using only your mouse and its
single button, avoid the use of your 104 button keyboard. We'll let
others draw their own conclusion about your intelligence.
> My friend tells me Unix is great and that "everything is a file." Unix
> may be great, I certainly wouldn't mind running 100 processors to make
> the internet go faster. Yet everything is not a file. Sometimes it is
> a Quicktime Movie. Or a pdf document. Or a program. See my point?
A Quicktime movie is a file. A PDF document is a file. More than that,
unix allows you to access not only files and datastreams as files, but
also hardware deviced are treated as files, simplifying the programming
interface.
> Now if I wanted to, I could buy a two button mouse (or more) for my
> Mac. Yet I don't have to and don't need to. I could use 104 buttons
> on my keyboard and type in commands. Yet I don't have to.
In my experience, there are many taks which cannot be performed at all
with only a mouse. By limiting yourself to only the mouse, you have
reduced the utility, and thus the value, of your computer. That is your
loss.
> In Unix you have NO CHOICE. You must learn hundreds of commands,
> thousands of command line switches and how to tie them together.
Oh, but I do. Most version of unix have a graphical interface available
if the user so chooses. Given the choice, which many other OSes do not
really offer, people on unix choose to use a combination of text and
graphical interfaces.
> Elitism means that less people can benefit from Unix. That means you
> either have:
> 1. A few elite users and expensive hardware and software
> or
> 2: Limited resources to remain competitive.
>
> What I've found is that Unix suffers from both 1 and 2 at the same
> time. Why suffer? Why not get a good install program that works, one
> or two mouse buttons and a user interface that is actually good!?
Unix has the best user interface. I can use a mouse when I want, but
still have the shell available for my use. BTW, OSX is based on unix,
in case you didn't know. Without Unix, there would be no OSX.
> Why does JAVA look and work like a native application under OS X? In
> OS X Java applications look beautiful, which is the only OS you can say
> that about! Why couldn't SUN do it? Elitism. Spend 400,000,000
> dollars on that problem and market share will rise like the Sun!
I have no problem making my Java applications look go on whatever
platform I want them to. It is sad that you are only able to correctly
code for a single tiny part of the market.
> A good designer looks good physically.
You are obviously too image concious. Usually this is a sign of
psychological insecurity. I suggest you seek professional help.
> They are dressed stylishly.
> They know form and function do matter. Would you buy a ratty ugly boxy
> car? No. Why buy a computer that way?
My computer looks fine, even though the primary purpose of a computer
is to compute. Perhaps you need to wake up and realise that there is
far more to the world than image. No wonder you are so enraptured with
graphical shells instead of the insides of the OS. You are obviously a
very shallow person who is obsessed with looks, and will have
difficulty in relationships since you haven't the foggiest idea about
real substance.
>
> When you have a decent market share with a good desktop, you will have
> time and cash from increased sales to small companies, home users etc
> to put all the cool things under the hood like Steve Jobs did in OS X.
Yes, Steve did put something very cool under the hood of OSX, which is
to say he put the Mach kernel, based on BSD Unix, under the hood. OSX
is unix. And in unix, everything is a file. Deal with it.
Dean G.
Liam Slider
> I just found out from reading my previous thread that my Mac OS X is
> basically Unix. That means Steve Jobs figured out how to do practically
> every computer operation with one mouse button. Genuis.
Wrong actually, most Mac users toss their one button mice for two button
mice. And those one button mice are pretty unusable without using a
certain keyboard button in addition to the mouse button...providing the
functionality of a second mouse button with less ease.
>
> Bill Gates figured out how to do practically every computer operation
> with two mouse buttons. Smart.
He figured out nothing. Do you think Windows was the first GUI to use two
mouse buttons?
>
> Bill Joy needs at least 104 buttons to do practically every computer
> operation. Dumb.
You are wrong. I can use a two button mouse just fine on this computer,
although it's really a 3 button/scrollwheel mouse. Not 104...WTF is a 104
button mouse Flatfish?
>
> My friend tells me Unix is great and that "everything is a file." Unix
> may be great, I certainly wouldn't mind running 100 processors to make
> the internet go faster.
I wouldn't mind doing so either if you the amount of processors you used
had anything to do with the speed of your internet connection....
> Yet everything is not a file. Sometimes it is a Quicktime Movie. Or a
> pdf document. Or a program. See my point?
No, those are all files.
>
> Now if I wanted to, I could buy a two button mouse (or more) for my Mac.
Same for my Linux box.
> Yet I don't have to and don't need to. I could use 104 buttons on my
> keyboard and type in commands. Yet I don't have to.
I don't have to either. I'm using a nice GUI.
>
> In Unix you have NO CHOICE. You must learn hundreds of commands,
> thousands of command line switches and how to tie them together.
Linux and Unix do have a GUI you know. X11 with any number of choices of
desktop environments. Heck, there's even ways to get a GUI without X11.
But then, you know this Flatfish.
>
> Elitism means that less people can benefit from Unix. That means you
> either have:
> 1. A few elite users and expensive hardware and software
Nope, cheap hardware and mostly OSS software here.
> or 2: Limited
> resources to remain competitive.
No limited resources here. Maybe for those proprietary Unix users.
>
> What I've found is that Unix suffers from both 1 and 2 at the same time.
> Why suffer? Why not get a good install program that works, one or two
> mouse buttons and a user interface that is actually good!?
Linux has both. Many Unix systems also have both.
>
> If you can make a kernel run 1,000 processors and DTrace every
> possible thing, why can't you make a simple to use, clean, modern and
> appealing desktop with only 1 or 2 mouse buttons? Elitism is the
> reason, and it is time to cure that problem.
We have that, have for years. Hell, we had it long before Microsoft had a
usable desktop.
>
> Why does JAVA look and work like a native application under OS X? In OS
> X Java applications look beautiful, which is the only OS you can say
> that about! Why couldn't SUN do it? Elitism. Spend 400,000,000
> dollars on that problem and market share will rise like the Sun!
Ask Sun.
>
> A good designer looks good physically. They are dressed stylishly. They
> know form and function do matter. Would you buy a ratty ugly boxy car?
> No. Why buy a computer that way?
It's the computer world, not high fashion.
>
> When you have a decent market share with a good desktop, you will have
> time and cash from increased sales to small companies, home users etc to
> put all the cool things under the hood like Steve Jobs did in OS X.
We've got cool things under the hood. Fuck off Flatty.
Liam Slider
>
> Karen Hill wrote:
>> I just found out from reading my previous thread that my Mac OS X is
>> basically Unix. That means Steve Jobs figured out how to do practically
>> every computer operation with one mouse button. Genuis.
>>
>> Bill Gates figured out how to do practically every computer operation
>> with two mouse buttons. Smart.
>>
>> Bill Joy needs at least 104 buttons to do practically every computer
>> operation. Dumb.
>
> Presumably you typed this whole post using only your mouse and its single
> button, avoid the use of your 104 button keyboard. We'll let others draw
> their own conclusion about your intelligence.
HAHAHAhahahaha... That made my day :-)
Mojo
"Karen Hill" <karen_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I just found out
[snip]
Zzzzzzzz.
ray
> I just found out from reading my previous thread that my Mac OS X is
> basically Unix. That means Steve Jobs figured out how to do practically
> every computer operation with one mouse button. Genuis.
>
> Bill Gates figured out how to do practically every computer operation
> with two mouse buttons. Smart.
>
> Bill Joy needs at least 104 buttons to do practically every computer
> operation. Dumb.
>
> My friend tells me Unix is great and that "everything is a file." Unix
> may be great, I certainly wouldn't mind running 100 processors to make
> the internet go faster. Yet everything is not a file. Sometimes it is
> a Quicktime Movie. Or a pdf document. Or a program. See my point?
>
> Now if I wanted to, I could buy a two button mouse (or more) for my
> Mac. Yet I don't have to and don't need to. I could use 104 buttons
> on my keyboard and type in commands. Yet I don't have to.
>
The point is not to see what is the least you can get by with, it's
convenience. For example: text messaging on a cell phone is done with 10
or twelve keys to enter the entire alphabet. That's all right for
composing a short message, but how would you like to type your doctoral
dissertation on a telephone keypad! It's possible, but it sure is not
convenient. I find it to be quite convenient to use a mouse with two
buttons and a scroll wheel on my Linux system. The wheel is very
convenient for scrolling through long web pages and other documents. It's
also quite convenient to be able to 'cut and paste' by using the left
button to select text and the middle button (depressing the scroll wheel)
to paste. Oh, by the way, my mouse happens to say "Microsoft" on it. I
think the optimal solution for you might be to replace the entire keyboard
with one button - labeled 'duh'.
By the way, Unix had a functional graphical user interface (called
Xwindows) before MS Win 1.0 existed.
mediis
could not find any merrit to your argument.
Chris
> I just found out from reading my previous thread that my Mac OS X is
> basically Unix. That means Steve Jobs figured out how to do practically
> every computer operation with one mouse button. Genuis.
> Now if I wanted to, I could buy a two button mouse (or more) for my
> Mac. Yet I don't have to and don't need to. I could use 104 buttons
> on my keyboard and type in commands. Yet I don't have to.
I recently tried to burn ISO files of Live Linux CD's to give to my
family. I was at my parents house and only had my iBook laptop with me.
My parent's computer is running XP and has no utility to burn ISO images.
My computer is running Mac OS X and has no GUI utility to burn ISO images.
Now, how do think I solved this little dilema?
Thank God OS X has a command line!
Thank God I've been using Linux and know how to use it!
There's nothing 'elitist' about learning how to use a computer. I mean
REALLY learn it. You have a powerful operating system there under the
hood. It wouldn't be a bad thing to get to know it a little.
BTW, when you typed this message, did you use an on-screen keyboard and
click each letter with a mouse? Guess you can't do EVERY task the best
without the keyboard.
JPB
>
> Karen Hill wrote:
>> I just found out from reading my previous thread that my Mac OS X is
>> basically Unix. That means Steve Jobs figured out how to do practically
>> every computer operation with one mouse button. Genuis.
>>
>> Bill Gates figured out how to do practically every computer operation
>> with two mouse buttons. Smart.
>>
>> Bill Joy needs at least 104 buttons to do practically every computer
>> operation. Dumb.
>
> Presumably you typed this whole post using only your mouse and its
> single button, avoid the use of your 104 button keyboard. We'll let
> others draw their own conclusion about your intelligence.
>
Maybe with Dasher?
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/dasher/
--
JPB
GreyCloud
Makes ya wonder if EggTroll changed his name. Good troll tho. :-))
--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
Cyberwasteland
> I just found out that I'm a complete idiot.
We know.
Steve Hix
"Karen Hill" <karen_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I just found out from reading my previous thread that my Mac OS X is
> basically Unix. That means Steve Jobs figured out how to do practically
> every computer operation with one mouse button. Genuis.
>
> Bill Gates figured out how to do practically every computer operation
> with two mouse buttons. Smart.
Other than the fact that neither of the above actually had anything to
do with implementing the internals of their respective operating
systems...
> Bill Joy needs at least 104 buttons to do practically every computer
> operation. Dumb.
Bill Joy, on the other hand, had quite a bit to do personally with BSD
Unix. The which didn't need *any* mouse buttons for a long time. And
works just fine with one, two, or three working buttons now.
But I see your confusion; it's called a "keyboard". You should have some
adult tell you about them some time.
What a sad little troll you are.
George Ellison
Just out of curiosity, does OSX have the FreeBSD 'burncd' utility for ATA
drives, or do you have to fuck with cdrecord?
TheLetterK
> Karen Hill wrote:
>
>> I just found out from reading my previous thread that my Mac OS X is
>> basically Unix. That means Steve Jobs figured out how to do practically
>> every computer operation with one mouse button. Genuis.
>
>
>
>> Now if I wanted to, I could buy a two button mouse (or more) for my
>> Mac. Yet I don't have to and don't need to. I could use 104 buttons
>> on my keyboard and type in commands. Yet I don't have to.
>
>
> I recently tried to burn ISO files of Live Linux CD's to give to my
> family. I was at my parents house and only had my iBook laptop with me.
>
> My parent's computer is running XP and has no utility to burn ISO images.
>
> My computer is running Mac OS X and has no GUI utility to burn ISO images.
Yes, it does. Mount the ISO image and fire up Disk Utility. Though I
agree that OS X is crippled without the terminal.
Liam Slider
> There's nothing 'elitist' about learning how to use a computer.
What's elitist is when they hide things from you that force you to seek
expert help in order to do almost *anything* important.
B Gruff
> I just found out from reading my previous thread that my Mac OS X is
> basically Unix. That means .....
Nononono.
You must be wrong!
I have it on the very best authority.
Read this:-
On Wednesday 15 February 2006 21:10 Karen Hill wrote:
> I tried Solaris 10. I tried Linux. I tried FreeBSD.
>
> Unix is too hard. Why is that? The Unix versions I listed above were
> installed by my friend on my computer and yet I wasn't able to connect
> to the internet. My friend is a computer Wiz and he couldn't figure
> out how to get my computer on the internet. In fact all the
> secretaries at work have my friend work on their computers and he is
> thinking of going back to college to get his MCSE.
You see the problem?
You say that your Mac OS X is basically Unix.
- BUT you already told us, neither you nor your "computer wiz friend" can
even connect a Unix box to the Internet - it's too hard!
Thus, either:-
1. You are wrong, and your OS X is NOT Unix, or...
2. you are wrong because a Unix box is SO easy to connect that you didn't
know you'd connected it, WITHOUT your "computer wiz friend" even!
So which is it?
Are you wrong, or are you wrong?
JEDIDIAH
On 2006-02-17, Liam Slider <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:01:32 -0800, Karen Hill wrote:
>
>> I just found out from reading my previous thread that my Mac OS X is
>> basically Unix. That means Steve Jobs figured out how to do practically
>> every computer operation with one mouse button. Genuis.
>
> Wrong actually, most Mac users toss their one button mice for two button
> mice. And those one button mice are pretty unusable without using a
> certain keyboard button in addition to the mouse button...providing the
> functionality of a second mouse button with less ease.
>
>>
>> Bill Gates figured out how to do practically every computer operation
>> with two mouse buttons. Smart.
>
> He figured out nothing. Do you think Windows was the first GUI to use two
> mouse buttons?
I think I used a 2 button mouse on an Apple II in 1986.
[deletia]
--
NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club! |||
/ | \
That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
JEDIDIAH
> I just found out from reading my previous thread that my Mac OS X is
> basically Unix. That means Steve Jobs figured out how to do practically
> every computer operation with one mouse button. Genuis.
>
> Bill Gates figured out how to do practically every computer operation
> with two mouse buttons. Smart.
>
> Bill Joy needs at least 104 buttons to do practically every computer
> operation. Dumb.
>
> My friend tells me Unix is great and that "everything is a file." Unix
> may be great, I certainly wouldn't mind running 100 processors to make
> the internet go faster. Yet everything is not a file. Sometimes it is
> a Quicktime Movie. Or a pdf document. Or a program. See my point?
Yes. You're an idiot.
You are using the philosophy of the system kernel and admin
shell to disocunt the existence of GNOME, KDE and CDE as well as
decades of Unix GUI applications.
[deletia]
Unix may think everything is a file but it at least can figure
out what is NOT an mp3 file. Strangely enough, iTunes seems incapable
of this.
Apple: because trans.tbl is an mp3 file. Really it is!
George Ellison
You know, the whole Windows/Mac OS thing reminds me of (perhaps
apocryphal) stories I'd heard in the past about the M16 assault rifle. When
it was first introduced at the beginning of the Vietnam War, it was supposedly
the height of American engineering, a 'supergun' that would fire under any
conditions and never need cleaning. As a result, soldiers weren't trained on
how to perform maintenance on it, and cleaning kits weren't issued. Come to
find out, mud, grime, and cordite affect pretty much all guns the same, and
as the guns got filthy, they would jam and guys would get killed. Eventually
the Army wised up and got the necessary gear and knowledge out there, and
the failure rate dropped considerably.
Any computer being sold today is an incredibly complicated machine, much more
so than the PDP's and VAX's and IBM big iron and other machines that came out
before I was even born. To try to trivialize the nuances of operating this
incredibly complicated machine with an obselete 'desktop' metaphor and a 20-
page "Getting Started" coloring book is just insane. Windows requires
maintenance to be done just like any other system to run correctly, and most
users don't have a fucking clue how to do it. Vista looks like it's going to
try to simpify even further, and personally I think that if it busts, it
might be the straw that broke the camel's back.
Liam Slider
> Liam Slider <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:56:55 +0000, Chris wrote:
>>
>> > There's nothing 'elitist' about learning how to use a computer.
>>
>> What's elitist is when they hide things from you that force you to seek
>> expert help in order to do almost *anything* important.
>
> You know, the whole Windows/Mac OS thing reminds me of (perhaps
> apocryphal) stories I'd heard in the past about the M16 assault rifle.
> When it was first introduced at the beginning of the Vietnam War, it was
> supposedly the height of American engineering, a 'supergun' that would
> fire under any conditions and never need cleaning. As a result, soldiers
> weren't trained on how to perform maintenance on it, and cleaning kits
> weren't issued. Come to find out, mud, grime, and cordite affect pretty
> much all guns the same, and as the guns got filthy, they would jam and
> guys would get killed. Eventually the Army wised up and got the necessary
> gear and knowledge out there, and the failure rate dropped considerably.
Actually, the AR-15 (M16) is designed to break down fairly easily for
cleaning and repair or replacement of parts. The problem in Vietnam
was...well....maintaining the guns was a problem because it was a near
constant chore in the jungle. Also the length of the guns was a problem in
dense jungle, and close quarters combat. However, they were and are
extremely accurate weapons.
On the other hand, the enemy had the AK-47....you might as well take the
damn bullets *out of the gun* and fling them at your target with a
slingshot. You'll certainly hit the target more often and get a higher
number of kills... Hell, they almost make a more effective *club* than a
gun... But the AK-47 is cheap, and rugged, needing far less
maintenance. A trained ape could fight with them.
John Bailo
> When you have a decent market share with a good desktop, you will have
> time and cash from increased sales to small companies, home users etc
> to put all the cool things under the hood like Steve Jobs did in OS X.
>
Karen,
They just made a movie about you:
zara
"Karen Hill" <karen_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140206492.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
What color are your panties?
>
Teo
> In Unix you have NO CHOICE. You must learn hundreds of commands,
> thousands of command line switches and how to tie them together.
That's not true - well, at least when you won't use bash and shell tools.
It's possible to use Linux on desktop system without knowledge of UNIX
commands - I do :).
> Elitism means that less people can benefit from Unix. That means you
> either have:
> 1. A few elite users and expensive hardware and software
> or
> 2: Limited resources to remain competitive.
>
> What I've found is that Unix suffers from both 1 and 2 at the same
> time. Why suffer? Why not get a good install program that works, one
> or two mouse buttons and a user interface that is actually good!?
What for? For people who don't want this kind of thing? ;).
Some think UNIX systems should be more user friendly and there are
proofs for that: PC-BSD (one click installer) or Ubuntu (user friendly
Linux distro - well maybe in a next few years) and of course KDE and Gnome.
> A good designer looks good physically. They are dressed stylishly.
> They know form and function do matter. Would you buy a ratty ugly boxy
> car? No. Why buy a computer that way?
MOX had been made for people who treat computers like a tool, who just
want to do something with that tool and don't want to care about
dependencies for their packages, manually editing text files to setup
daemons, compiling drivers to run sound or video card, etc...
MacOSs are average user oriented systems where mp3 file is object with
music and QuickTime movie file is object with a movie, where MS Word doc
file is document.
Linux is for people who just like that kind of software on their
desktops and want to use it by choice. Linux is a project with a great
potential - MOX is kind of Linux with user friendly GUI ;).
On the other hand Windows... well Bill G. was the right guy, at the
right place, in the right time :).
--
www.tomsiu.prv.pl
Jabber: teo//chrome.pl
#Powered by Mensfeld Warrior Custom :)
Tom Bates
"zara" <zsp...@aol.com> wrote:
The one's you're dying to get in??
--
Yours,
Tom
Ruel Smith
and over again - nothing based in reality, information is a decade old, and
never an answer to a single rebuttel to debate the crap. Just don't bother
and maybe Karen Hill, or whoever they are, will go away.
It's a shame that at one time, advocacy groups had intelligent debates based
on facts... Nowadays, it's just a joke...
nachom...@gmail.com
>
> In Unix you have NO CHOICE. You must learn hundreds of commands,
> thousands of command line switches and how to tie them together.
>
choice of using a decent shell and a standarized operative system on
Windows. I know things are getting a little better since the last
windows I depended on (Win98), but a good shell interpreter is much
better for me than many of the GUI's (even when running graphical
programs).
Why?
- You don't need to lear hundreds of commands... you really need a few:
maybe with apropos and man for info, locate and find to search for the
how-to already shipped in any Linux distribution and less for reading
it you're done.
- You don't need thousand of switchs... just one: "--help".
- And after that... you start to understand that most command line
programs are used the same way and start to plug one with another
because... most shells are programable...
- So... instead of get lost in your GUI you just "apropos something"
and then "man whatever". And using history (I'm a /bin/bash kind of
guy) you can repeate it as you want, or put it in a simple program to
do it eternally if needed.
GUI's are practical for some tasks... but not for all... especially if
it's a boring repetitive task. Some people say that GUI's are more
"intuitive" as if we were naturaly predisposed to use them... shells
are better than "intuitive": are just the same. So, if you have to make
a completely different task... you just do apply whatever you know...
and that's were "everything is a file" enters the stage: as everything
is a file you can connect it with some other program with a pipe or
apply any of the commands you already know... and when you switch to a
completely different system... the GUI may change, but the command line
using is pretty much the same (unless, for Windows that's still with
that crappy copy of CP/M).
Give command line a try... it'll worth it...
Bye,
Nacho
Aragorn
On Saturday 18 February 2006 00:55, Liam Slider stood up and spoke the
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/
> Actually, the AR-15 (M16) is designed to break down fairly easily for
> cleaning and repair or replacement of parts. The problem in Vietnam
> was...well....maintaining the guns was a problem because it was a near
> constant chore in the jungle. Also the length of the guns was a
> problem in dense jungle, and close quarters combat.
That's why they are assault rifles, and why the M655, M653 and XM177
were developed. I believe the latter is now called M4 - as I
understand it, XM is a designation for weapons under evaluation.
> However, they were and are extremely accurate weapons.
For some values of "extremely accurate". The 5.56 mm NATO - also known
as the .223 Remington - is simply too light for use over longer
distances and is easily thrown off course by wind or by hitting a mere
leaf. It also lacks stopping power.
The 7.62 mm NATO caliber - an military update to the .308 Winchester [1]
- is much more stable, has more stopping power and has a wider range
and accuracy. Sadly enough, there were objections to the experienced
recoil and the weight of carrying lots of extra magazines, compared to
an AR-15/M16.
In the 5.56 mm NATO department, the Austrian Steyr AUG/UAR makes a
better weapon than an AR-15 and clones. It rarely jams [2], it's
virtually ambidextrous [3], it's accurate and has a wider range, and it
takes running it over about 50 times with a Mercedes Unimog truck
before it breaks - and even then it can still be used. It also doesn't
have a fire selector. You fire a single shot by pulling the trigger
halfway, and you fire on full auto by pulling the trigger all the way.
Another good 5.56 mm rifle is the FN F2000. It's a fully modular weapon
system that can be adapted to multiple uses just like the AUG, but in a
more radical way and it really *is* fully ambidextrous without any
modifications. The empty cases are ejected towards the front of the
weapon.
The forward handguard can be replaced by a 40 mm grenade launcher or by
a so-called Less Lethal Module for riot control. Other options are a
built-in flashlight or a laserpoint. Standard optics are a 1.6x
integrated scope on a picatinny rail, which can be replaced by other
optics, such as the computer-guided aiming device for firing 40 mm
grenades. Lastly, the weapon accepts standard STANAG magazines,
contrary to the Steyr AUG.
[1] A 7.62 mm NATO is a .308 Winchester, but not necessarily the other
way around. There are some differences.
[2] The rifle was tossed in an oven at 200°C and left there for two
days. It still fired. Then it was buried in mud and stumped on for
hours. It still fired. Then it was buried in ice for days, and it
still fired. Then they threw it in water and let it sit there for a
while, but it still fired. The only time it jammed was when a shooting
stand instructor collected all the unfired rounds - he gathered some
500 magazines worth of 30 rounds each - and started firing all those
rounds on full auto, one magazine after the other. At that stage, the
weapon heated up to over 500°C, and the plastic stock started showing
melting signs.
[3] The only thing needed to adapt the AUG to lefthanded shooters is
another bolt. An ejection window already exists on both sides of the
stock, of which one is covered by a removable plate. Adapting the
weapon or taking it apart can be done without any tools.
> On the other hand, the enemy had the AK-47....you might as well take
> the damn bullets *out of the gun* and fling them at your target with a
> slingshot.
Hmm... This is not entirely true. Your claim goes for the *AK-74,*
yes, which uses the Russian (shorter) version of the 5.56 mm, but the
AK-47 fired a Russian (shorter) version of the 7.62 mm round.
It was not designed for long distance shooting, but it was fairly
accurate up to 500 meters. It's very simple and rugged construction
allowed it to fire under the most difficult circumstances - even under
water - and to almost never jam.
As for the inaccuracy of the AK-74 - the successor of the AK-47 - this
is intentional. The bullet itself is calibrated is off-center so that
it starts tilting in-flight, resulting in bigger and more "frightening"
wounds. This was a deliberate psychological consideration when the
ammunition was designed.
And of course, both the AK-47 and the AK-74 are Very Ugly (TM).
> You'll certainly hit the target more often and get a higher
> number of kills... Hell, they almost make a more effective *club* than
> a gun...
Okay, you don't have to like the AK - and neither do I - but don't push
it any harder than for what it is. ;-) In my army days, I've had to
fire a Stengun, which preceded the French Vigneron in the Belgian Army
- actually, the Vigneron was already on its way out again but the base
where I was stationed only had older weapons (and not even a lot of
them). Both of those were 9 mm open-bolt-fire machine pistols. Now
_those_ are inaccurate, to say the least!
You aim at a target 25 meters away - and I was a qualified marksman! -
and you fire a single shot from the shouldered position, only to find
out that it hits the target disk way over one meter to the left and
over half a meter too low. They also had the reputation of wearing
down easily and then blowing up in your face, as well as for starting
to fire whenever they received a light bump.
The most effective way at using either a Stengun or a Vigneron to kill
lots of enemies gathered in a room was to arm the weapon, throw it on
the floor inside the room and wait outside until it stopped firing (and
dancing around).
> But the AK-47 is cheap, and rugged, needing far less
> maintenance. A trained ape could fight with them.
That's true. And it's the most used weapon in the world - every
self-respecting terrorist has one <grin> - and so wherever there's a
war going on, those using AK-47's will never run out of ammo. That's
why even the US Navy Seals use them on missions in the Middle-East.
--
With kind regards,
*Aragorn*
(Registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
Steve Hix
George Ellison <notam...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
Neither comes with the default installation; either can be downloaded to
use, your choice.
Sig Sauer
> I just found out from reading my previous thread that my Mac OS X is
> basically Unix. That means Steve Jobs figured out how to do practically
> every computer operation with one mouse button. Genuis.
>
lengthy dribble snipped for brevity.......
This read was almost as amusing as the response I got from Larry Q when I
told him he was full of shit. .....almost. :-)
Soggy Sour
--
"Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely
unintentional side effect."
--- Linus Torvalds
Chris
>>
>> My computer is running Mac OS X and has no GUI utility to burn ISO
>> images.
>
> Yes, it does. Mount the ISO image and fire up Disk Utility. Though I
> agree that OS X is crippled without the terminal.
Hmmm...I tried it that way, but never got it to work. Obviously I did
something wrong. I'll have to try again.
--
Chris
Peter Jensen
Hash: SHA1
Aragorn wrote:
> The most effective way at using either a Stengun or a Vigneron to kill
> lots of enemies gathered in a room was to arm the weapon, throw it on
> the floor inside the room and wait outside until it stopped firing
> (and dancing around).
Oooookay ...
>> But the AK-47 is cheap, and rugged, needing far less maintenance. A
>> trained ape could fight with them.
>
> That's true. And it's the most used weapon in the world - every
> self-respecting terrorist has one <grin> - and so wherever there's a
> war going on, those using AK-47's will never run out of ammo.
True. It's also a weapon that's very standardized by virtue of its
popularity. You can take an ammo clip manufactured today and put it in
a decades old gun, and vice versa. It's a virtually indestructible
weapon that typically can take much more punishment than its operator.
> That's why even the US Navy Seals use them on missions in the
> Middle-East.
Another reason is that the AK-47 has a *very* characteristic sound.
When both sides use the same weapon, any enemy fighters hiding out in
the area of combat won't know who is fighting where, based on the sound.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD9xLzd1ZThqotgfgRAgLAAJ41SD9bzwLwj4S7W7qB5lSFN98UTACggsY9
M9DlIOW6sGKI4oOipnErxDo=
=nH+2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe
It is better to give than to lend, and it costs about the same.
zara
"Tom Bates" <t...@offthehk.lk> wrote in message
news:tb-C4F979.18...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
Is that the best you can do?? Weak - as usual.
Aragorn
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/
> Aragorn wrote:
>
>> [...] And it's the most used weapon in the world - every
>> self-respecting terrorist has one <grin> - and so wherever there's a
>> war going on, those using AK-47's will never run out of ammo.
>
> True. It's also a weapon that's very standardized by virtue of its
> popularity. You can take an ammo clip manufactured today and put it
> in a decades old gun, and vice versa. It's a virtually indestructible
> weapon that typically can take much more punishment than its operator.
True. The main reason it's so rugged is because it's such a simple
design. Simplicity was also the strongpoint of the now more or less
obsolete 9 mm Uzi - i.e. the original Israeli Military Industries
version. The Uzi clones were usually not so rugged because of the use
of inferior alloys.
There are also many arms manufacturers all over the world who make
modern military firearms based upon the technical design of the
/Kalashnikov/ AK-47.
The Chinese manufacture their own version of the AK-47, but many newer
assault rifles - even in different caliber - feature the interior
design of the AK's. Even the Israeli's have their own AK clones, which
are dubbed "Galil".
>> That's why even the US Navy Seals use them on missions in the
>> Middle-East.
>
> Another reason is that the AK-47 has a *very* characteristic sound.
> When both sides use the same weapon, any enemy fighters hiding out in
> the area of combat won't know who is fighting where, based on the
> sound.
Again true. ;-) And now, the inventor of the AK-47 is into selling his
"Kalashnikov" wodka. ;-)
TheLetterK
Richard L. Hamilton
"Karen Hill" <karen_...@yahoo.com> writes:
[...]
> Elitism means that less people can benefit from Unix. That means you
> either have:
1. a learning curve that starts out shallow, but gets much steeper toward
the high end, or doesn't _have_ a high end (Windows, in case you missed
that)
or
2. a learning curve that starts out steeper, but increases in steepness
more slowly, and goes on as far as you want to.
If we had a whole lot more social Darwinism, we'd have a lot less (living)
whiners...
--
mailto:rlh...@smart.net http://www.smart.net/~rlhamil
Lasik/PRK theme music:
"In the Hall of the Mountain King", from "Peer Gynt"
Tom Bates
"zara" <zsp...@aol.com> wrote:
Not weak at all, it's what you want. Her pants.
--
Yours,
Tom
TheLetterK
<Snipped Snit Droppings>
>>That means Steve Jobs figured out how to do practically
>>every computer operation with one mouse button. Genuis.
>
>
> ease-of-use of the Mac and then added some extra goodies for good measure.
> it is an amazing accomplishment.
This should be written like:
"Apple has managed to combine some of the power of Unix with most of the
flashy graphics of the Mac, then added some extra garbage for good
measure. It is an amazingly poor accomplishment"
>
>>Bill Gates figured out how to do practically every computer operation
>>with two mouse buttons. Smart.
>>
>>Bill Joy needs at least 104 buttons to do practically every computer
>>operation. Dumb.
>
>
> Er?
>
>>My friend tells me Unix is great and that "everything is a file." Unix
>>may be great, I certainly wouldn't mind running 100 processors to make
>>the internet go faster. Yet everything is not a file. Sometimes it is
>>a Quicktime Movie. Or a pdf document. Or a program. See my point?
>
>
> Those are all kinds of files.
>
>>Now if I wanted to, I could buy a two button mouse (or more) for my
>>Mac. Yet I don't have to and don't need to. I could use 104 buttons
>>on my keyboard and type in commands. Yet I don't have to.
>
>
> OK.
>
>>In Unix you have NO CHOICE. You must learn hundreds of commands,
>>thousands of command line switches and how to tie them together.
>
>
> There is some truth to this with most Unix CL shells.
And *nix users have had a Gui for literally 20 years. Longer than
Windows users have even existed.
>
>>Elitism means that less people can benefit from Unix. That means you
>>either have:
>>1. A few elite users and expensive hardware and software
>>or
>>2: Limited resources to remain competitive.
>>
>>What I've found is that Unix suffers from both 1 and 2 at the same
>>time. Why suffer? Why not get a good install program that works, one
>>or two mouse buttons and a user interface that is actually good!?
>>
>> If you can make a kernel run 1,000 processors and DTrace every
>>possible thing, why can't you make a simple to use, clean, modern and
>>appealing desktop with only 1 or 2 mouse buttons? Elitism is the
>>reason, and it is time to cure that problem.
>
>
> The problem has been largely cured: it is called OS X.
"The problem was cured in the mid-80's: the solution is called the X
Windowing System."
>
>>Why does JAVA look and work like a native application under OS X? In
>>OS X Java applications look beautiful, which is the only OS you can say
>>that about! Why couldn't SUN do it? Elitism. Spend 400,000,000
>>dollars on that problem and market share will rise like the Sun!
>>
>>A good designer looks good physically. They are dressed stylishly.
>>They know form and function do matter. Would you buy a ratty ugly boxy
>>car? No. Why buy a computer that way?
>>
>>When you have a decent market share with a good desktop, you will have
>>time and cash from increased sales to small companies, home users etc
>>to put all the cool things under the hood like Steve Jobs did in OS X.
>
>
> Hopefully OS X's market share continues to grow.
Apple's marketshare has been very sporadic over the past few years, and
has dropped overall.
Snit
a9GKf.18017$UD1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net on 2/21/06 8:19 AM:
> Snit wrote:
> <Snipped Snit Droppings>
>>> That means Steve Jobs figured out how to do practically
>>> every computer operation with one mouse button. Genuis.
>>
>>
>> Apple has managed to combine most of the power of Unix with most of the
>> ease-of-use of the Mac and then added some extra goodies for good measure.
>> it is an amazing accomplishment.
>
> This should be written like:
> "Apple has managed to combine some of the power of Unix with most of the
> flashy graphics of the Mac, then added some extra garbage for good
> measure. It is an amazingly poor accomplishment"
Can you point to *any* other OS that has done what Apple has with OS X?
Ubuntu and some other distros of Linux try but are still far, far away from
what OS X offers for the average user.
OS X is not perfect - far from it, but it is an amazing accomplishment no
matter how many times you whine otherwise.
--
Sex-based crimes are not synonymous with sex
http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/
http://www.registeredoffenderslist.org/
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
The Ghost In The Machine
<zsp...@aol.com>
wrote
on Fri, 17 Feb 2006 19:08:58 -0500
<4xtJf.18393$bW.1...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:
>
> "Karen Hill" <karen_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1140206492.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
[unknown writer wrote:]
>>I just found out from reading my previous thread that my Mac OS X is
>> basically Unix. That means Steve Jobs figured out how to do practically
>> every computer operation with one mouse button. Genuis.
[snip]
>> A good designer looks good physically. They are dressed stylishly.
>> They know form and function do matter. Would you buy a ratty ugly boxy
>> car? No. Why buy a computer that way?
>>
>> When you have a decent market share with a good desktop, you will have
>> time and cash from increased sales to small companies, home users etc
>> to put all the cool things under the hood like Steve Jobs did in OS X.
>
> What color are your panties?
>>
http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/perv.htm
though I'm not entirely certain about the secretive part...so
http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/impostor.htm
might also apply.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
JEDIDIAH
> Snit wrote:
><Snipped Snit Droppings>
>>>That means Steve Jobs figured out how to do practically
>>>every computer operation with one mouse button. Genuis.
>>
>>
>> Apple has managed to combine most of the power of Unix with most of the
>> ease-of-use of the Mac and then added some extra goodies for good measure.
>> it is an amazing accomplishment.
>
> This should be written like:
> "Apple has managed to combine some of the power of Unix with most of the
> flashy graphics of the Mac, then added some extra garbage for good
> measure. It is an amazingly poor accomplishment"
More accurately, it is a rehash of something that was done 20 years
ago. NeXT did the merge of Mac style flash with Unix style substance. Apple
just updated it a little bit.
All the heavy lifting was done already.
Still a nice accomplishment... just not Apple's.
[deletia]
--
Apple: because TRANS.TBL is an mp3 file. It really is! |||
/ | \
JEDIDIAH
> "TheLetterK" <no...@none.net> stated in post
> a9GKf.18017$UD1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net on 2/21/06 8:19 AM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>> <Snipped Snit Droppings>
>>>> That means Steve Jobs figured out how to do practically
>>>> every computer operation with one mouse button. Genuis.
>>>
>>>
>>> Apple has managed to combine most of the power of Unix with most of the
>>> ease-of-use of the Mac and then added some extra goodies for good measure.
>>> it is an amazing accomplishment.
>>
>> This should be written like:
>> "Apple has managed to combine some of the power of Unix with most of the
>> flashy graphics of the Mac, then added some extra garbage for good
>> measure. It is an amazingly poor accomplishment"
>
> Can you point to *any* other OS that has done what Apple has with OS X?
Nextstep.
[deletia]
> Ubuntu and some other distros of Linux try but are still far, far away from
> what OS X offers for the average user.
Try replacing the hot air with something more substantial.
Snit
on 2/21/06 12:38 PM:
> On 2006-02-21, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>> "TheLetterK" <no...@none.net> stated in post
>> a9GKf.18017$UD1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net on 2/21/06 8:19 AM:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>> <Snipped Snit Droppings>
>>>>> That means Steve Jobs figured out how to do practically
>>>>> every computer operation with one mouse button. Genuis.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Apple has managed to combine most of the power of Unix with most of the
>>>> ease-of-use of the Mac and then added some extra goodies for good measure.
>>>> it is an amazing accomplishment.
>>>
>>> This should be written like:
>>> "Apple has managed to combine some of the power of Unix with most of the
>>> flashy graphics of the Mac, then added some extra garbage for good
>>> measure. It is an amazingly poor accomplishment"
>>
>> Can you point to *any* other OS that has done what Apple has with OS X?
>
> Nextstep.
Fair enough: while the platform has grown clearly OS X is derived from
NextStep.
>
> [deletia]
>
>
>> Ubuntu and some other distros of Linux try but are still far, far away from
>> what OS X offers for the average user.
>
> Try replacing the hot air with something more substantial.
Yawn. If you would like to show how Ubuntu has caught up with OS X for the
general population by all means try.
Ian Semmel
Karen Hill wrote:
> I just found out from reading my previous thread that my Mac OS X is
> basically Unix. That means Steve Jobs figured out how to do practically
> every computer operation with one mouse button. Genuis.
>
> Bill Gates figured out how to do practically every computer operation
> with two mouse buttons. Smart.
>
> Bill Joy needs at least 104 buttons to do practically every computer
> operation. Dumb.
>
>
Most unix/linux advocates have taught themselves to touch-type at 90% accuracy
and are really really quick at entering commands.
Unfortunately, this means that they make a mistake every 10 characters.
Never mind, they continue at the same speed recalling the command, editing the
line and re-entering it. They usually only make 1 or 2 mistakes on the this
attempt and repeat the process.
Most commands are entered about 3 times, but gee, they do type quickly.
Greg Menke
Ian Semmel <isemme...@NOJUNKrocketcomp.com.au> writes:
Yeah, but at least we don't drool all over the place after clicking.
Gregm
Steve Hix
Ian Semmel <isemme...@NOJUNKrocketcomp.com.au> wrote:
> Karen Hill wrote:
> > I just found out from reading my previous thread that my Mac OS X is
> > basically Unix. That means Steve Jobs figured out how to do practically
> > every computer operation with one mouse button. Genuis.
> >
> > Bill Gates figured out how to do practically every computer operation
> > with two mouse buttons. Smart.
> >
> > Bill Joy needs at least 104 buttons to do practically every computer
> > operation. Dumb.
> >
> >
> Most unix/linux advocates have taught themselves to touch-type at 90%
> accuracy
> and are really really quick at entering commands.
>
> Unfortunately, this means that they make a mistake every 10 characters.
Speak for yourself, Ace.
Giorgos Keramidas
>In article <yyOKf.13349$yK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>Ian Semmel <isemme...@NOJUNKrocketcomp.com.au> wrote:
>>Karen Hill wrote:
>>> I just found out from reading my previous thread that my Mac OS X is
>>> basically Unix. That means Steve Jobs figured out how to do practically
>>> every computer operation with one mouse button. Genuis.
>>>
>>> Bill Gates figured out how to do practically every computer operation
>>> with two mouse buttons. Smart.
>>>
>>> Bill Joy needs at least 104 buttons to do practically every computer
>>> operation. Dumb.
>>
>> Most unix/linux advocates have taught themselves to touch-type at 90%
>> accuracy
>> and are really really quick at entering commands.
>>
>> Unfortunately, this means that they make a mistake every 10 characters.
>
> Speak for yourself, Ace.
Seconded. I don't "type" stuff on the command-line more than I do when
posting email or news. UNIX, working on a command-line and some
features of the de-facto standard shells on most UNIX platforms I know
of, such as tab-completion, command history, history search, etc., make
things much much faster than your average "click next, click next, oh
damn... that was the wrong button" user.
<mini-anecdotal-evidence-rant>
I have to switch between two Perforce servers on the Solaris systems I
use here, so I have prepared two almost identical ~/.p4config files, and
set P4CONFIG in my shell environment to switch between the two. If I
had to type the full command to do this every time, I'd write something
like:
$ export P4CONFIG=~/.p4config.alpha
$ export P4CONFIG=~/.p4config.beta
Fortunately, with bash, my favorite shell, I can hit Ctrl-R to lookup
previous invocations in the history of my shell (or previous shell
sessions), and then type ``P4CONF''. This brings up the last command
that matches the string I typed. If it's the one I want, I hit return
immediately. If not, I hit ^R once more. The entire operation takes a
fraction of a second, it works in all my shell windows, and once done
applies to all the invocations of the p4(1) command-line client.
Now compare this to having to *close* your graphical client program,
locate it in the mess of "Start" menus, restart it, wait until its menu
is accessible, and start using it again.
</mini-anecdotal-evidence-rant>
Who said typing is error prone and slows things down, or that struggling
with a mouse is somehow, for unspecified, mysterious reasons faster?
- Giorgos
JEDIDIAH
That's hard to do when you're not disclosing what's supposed to be
so special about OSX. Thusfar, with the exception of "it's less supseptable
to malware" none of the apple fanboys have done a good job of communicating
why you would want to bother with a Mac at this point.
At best they can point to the bundled apps and just assume that
they're better than anything that runs on Linux while also just assuming
that all of them (ilife apps that is) are even relevant to most end users.
...that and rhetoric about how everyone has to do everything the
same way all the time...
--
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
|||
/ | \
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Snit
on 2/22/06 8:25 AM:
>>>> Ubuntu and some other distros of Linux try but are still far, far away from
>>>> what OS X offers for the average user.
>>>
>>> Try replacing the hot air with something more substantial.
>>
>> Yawn. If you would like to show how Ubuntu has caught up with OS X for the
>> general population by all means try.
>
> That's hard to do when you're not disclosing what's supposed to be
> so special about OSX. Thusfar, with the exception of "it's less supseptable
> to malware" none of the apple fanboys have done a good job of communicating
> why you would want to bother with a Mac at this point.
>
> At best they can point to the bundled apps and just assume that
> they're better than anything that runs on Linux while also just assuming
> that all of them (ilife apps that is) are even relevant to most end users.
>
> ...that and rhetoric about how everyone has to do everything the
> same way all the time...
I will expand on the areas where OS X is well ahead of Ubuntu later, but for
now just note that you went from claiming I was wrong to saying you could
not say one way or the other unless I pointed out OS X's strengths for you.
JEDIDIAH
> "JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> stated in post fbcuc3-...@nomad.mishnet
> on 2/22/06 8:25 AM:
>
>>>>> Ubuntu and some other distros of Linux try but are still far, far away from
>>>>> what OS X offers for the average user.
>>>>
>>>> Try replacing the hot air with something more substantial.
>>>
>>> Yawn. If you would like to show how Ubuntu has caught up with OS X for the
>>> general population by all means try.
>>
>> That's hard to do when you're not disclosing what's supposed to be
>> so special about OSX. Thusfar, with the exception of "it's less supseptable
>> to malware" none of the apple fanboys have done a good job of communicating
>> why you would want to bother with a Mac at this point.
>>
>> At best they can point to the bundled apps and just assume that
>> they're better than anything that runs on Linux while also just assuming
>> that all of them (ilife apps that is) are even relevant to most end users.
>>
>> ...that and rhetoric about how everyone has to do everything the
>> same way all the time...
>
> I will expand on the areas where OS X is well ahead of Ubuntu later, but for
> now just note that you went from claiming I was wrong to saying you could
> not say one way or the other unless I pointed out OS X's strengths for you.
Not quite.
>>>> Try replacing the hot air with something more substantial.
Not proven != incorrect.
Snit
on 2/22/06 10:19 AM:
> On 2006-02-22, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>> "JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> stated in post fbcuc3-...@nomad.mishnet
>> on 2/22/06 8:25 AM:
>>
>>>>>> Ubuntu and some other distros of Linux try but are still far, far away
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> what OS X offers for the average user.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try replacing the hot air with something more substantial.
>>>>
>>>> Yawn. If you would like to show how Ubuntu has caught up with OS X for the
>>>> general population by all means try.
>>>
>>> That's hard to do when you're not disclosing what's supposed to be
>>> so special about OSX. Thusfar, with the exception of "it's less supseptable
>>> to malware" none of the apple fanboys have done a good job of communicating
>>> why you would want to bother with a Mac at this point.
>>>
>>> At best they can point to the bundled apps and just assume that
>>> they're better than anything that runs on Linux while also just assuming
>>> that all of them (ilife apps that is) are even relevant to most end users.
>>>
>>> ...that and rhetoric about how everyone has to do everything the
>>> same way all the time...
>>
>> I will expand on the areas where OS X is well ahead of Ubuntu later, but for
>> now just note that you went from claiming I was wrong to saying you could
>> not say one way or the other unless I pointed out OS X's strengths for you.
>
> Not quite.
>
>>>>> Try replacing the hot air with something more substantial.
>
> Not proven != incorrect.
I agree that not proven != incorrect, which is the precise reason that your
comment about "hot air" is silly. Still, that is not the focus of the
discussion. I told you I would focus on where OS X is better for the
average user. Here are just a few things that comes to mind (with the
admission that I know OS X *much* better than I know Ubuntu, if you think
any of the following are incorrect please let me know):
* Automator: allows non-programmers to automate things in a way
not possible with Ubuntu
* Runs MS Office. Yes, I know Ubuntu runs OO.o, but that is simply
not the same
* iLife: there is no integrated suite similar to it on *any* platform
* Voice Over: for use with people with handicaps
* System wide dictionary
* Saved status notification
* Parental controls
* Packages
* Column view
Weaknesses of Ubuntu:
* Info in windows does not always fit! It is absurd to have buttons
hanging half off the window!
* Poor default color scheme (poor use of contrast)
* It has a menu with icon + text that looks like two menus
* Inconsistent buttons ("OK", "Cancel" vs. "Save", "Cancel")
* Non-modal dialogs that should be (save dialogs for already
closed files)
* Some menu (top panel) items need a right click, others a left
* I am asked to "Change User" just to give permissions
* All sorts of "gibberish" is displayed on start up
and shut down
* Clock settings default to something other than local time
* The menus on the desktop do not apply to items on the desktop
* Folders have a default location that is not aware of other
folders in the same spot - so windows cover each other
[Much of that shamelessly stolen from various web sources]
Liam Slider
There are automation tools on Linux. You simply have to learn how to use
them.
> * Runs MS Office. Yes, I know Ubuntu runs OO.o, but that is simply
> not the same
You can run MS Office on Linux too, using Crossover Office.
> * iLife: there is no integrated suite similar to it on *any* platform *
Apple's own private software programs, it's no surprise that there's no
exact match for this suite given that Apple custom designed it and
provides it only to Macs. But we do have some nice stuff of our own.
> Voice Over: for use with people with handicaps
Accessability software is incredibly common on Linux. From the fact that
Braille readers are auto-detected hardware, to screen magnifier software,
to text-to-speech software, to "on screen keyboards" (for those who can,
at best, work a pointer of some kind). This is all commonplace software
and included in pretty much every distro. I can't imagine that Ubuntu
lacks any of it by default.
> * System wide dictionary
Another common tool actually.
> * Saved status notification
Describe this exactly.
> * Parental controls
You're kidding right?
> * Packages
Again...
> * Column view
Again...
<snip complaints>
> [Much of that shamelessly stolen from various web sources]
So no personal experience then.
Snit
pan.2006.02.22....@nospam.liamslider.com on 2/22/06 12:10 PM:
No doubt: but nothing as easy as Automator. On both OSs there are far, far
more powerful options. Heck, on OS X there is also AppleScript which allows
for working beyond Automator with multiple applications in ways that I do
not believe you can do with Ubuntu. Shell scripting and the like, of
course, can be done with both.
>
>> * Runs MS Office. Yes, I know Ubuntu runs OO.o, but that is simply
>> not the same
>
> You can run MS Office on Linux too, using Crossover Office.
It is *much* easier to set up on OS X *and* it the interface is designed to
fit in with the rest of the computer (well, mostly).
>
>> * iLife: there is no integrated suite similar to it on *any* platform *
>
> Apple's own private software programs, it's no surprise that there's no
> exact match for this suite given that Apple custom designed it and
> provides it only to Macs. But we do have some nice stuff of our own.
I am not looking for an "exact match", but a suite that is as easy to use
and as well integrated. There are some that are not bad on Windows, I know
of none for Linux.
>
>> Voice Over: for use with people with handicaps
>
> Accessability software is incredibly common on Linux. From the fact that
> Braille readers are auto-detected hardware, to screen magnifier software,
> to text-to-speech software, to "on screen keyboards" (for those who can,
> at best, work a pointer of some kind). This is all commonplace software
> and included in pretty much every distro. I can't imagine that Ubuntu
> lacks any of it by default.
From looking at the Ubuntu site I see nothing that compares to VoiceOver and
the other similar technology built into OS X:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/voiceover/
I did find that Ubuntu by default only uses 900 MB of Ram. Ouch!
>
>> * System wide dictionary
>
> Another common tool actually.
I do not believe it is as universal as the OS X one, for example I do not
believe it auto-underlines misspelled words in its default web browser. I
have not used it for a while so I may be wrong about this.
>
>> * Saved status notification
>
> Describe this exactly.
This is a very powerful though subtle feature of OS X programs: if you have
unsaved changes the close icon for the window changes. It is true than many
novices do not know it is there but it comes in very, very handy once they
are shown how to "use" it (not much to do but just look).
>
>> * Parental controls
>
> You're kidding right?
I have not worked much with the parental controls in Ubuntu but I have not
seen anything that compares to what OS X has. By all means link to anything
to support that Ubuntu is OS X's equal here.
>
>> * Packages
>
> Again...
* Packages
:)
Ubuntu does not have the OS X style packages where an entire program with
all of its subfolders appears as one icon and can, in the vast majority of
cases, be moved around the hard drive and even from one computer to another.
>
>> * Column view
>
> Again...
Go on...
> <snip complaints>
>> [Much of that shamelessly stolen from various web sources]
>
> So no personal experience then.
Perhaps you should get some.
JEDIDIAH
It's not at all silly, it's factual.
> discussion. I told you I would focus on where OS X is better for the
> average user. Here are just a few things that comes to mind (with the
> admission that I know OS X *much* better than I know Ubuntu, if you think
> any of the following are incorrect please let me know):
>
> * Automator: allows non-programmers to automate things in a way
> not possible with Ubuntu
You will have to go into this in some detail and demonstrate how
this isn't just another iteration of SQA Robot.
> * Runs MS Office. Yes, I know Ubuntu runs OO.o, but that is simply
> not the same
Linux runs msoffice. Been able to do that for about 10 years
actually. Probably one of the first things wine could ever run.
> * iLife: there is no integrated suite similar to it on *any* platform
I'm not sure if that's a good thing. Although if I ran PPC Linux
I could try it out for myself and see what all the hubbub is about.
iTunes certainly doesn't give me any interest in trying.
> * Voice Over: for use with people with handicaps
> * System wide dictionary
You mean like Unix had 15+ years ago?
> * Saved status notification
This is a bit vague.
> * Parental controls
You mean like Unix had 15+ years ago?
> * Packages
You mean like Unix had 15+ years ago?
> * Column view
This too is a big vague.
>
> Weaknesses of Ubuntu:
> * Info in windows does not always fit! It is absurd to have buttons
> hanging half off the window!
Never seen this.
> * Poor default color scheme (poor use of contrast)
This one is dubious too.
> * It has a menu with icon + text that looks like two menus
Where?
> * Inconsistent buttons ("OK", "Cancel" vs. "Save", "Cancel")
> * Non-modal dialogs that should be (save dialogs for already
> closed files)
> * Some menu (top panel) items need a right click, others a left
You mean the 2/3 button mice actually get some use.
That is a tragedy.
> * I am asked to "Change User" just to give permissions
Wrong.
For your own files, you just click the boxes in the Permissions
tab. For someone else's files, you can't do anything.
> * All sorts of "gibberish" is displayed on start up
> and shut down
This is just lame.
> * Clock settings default to something other than local time
Never seen this.
> * The menus on the desktop do not apply to items on the desktop
Wrong.
> * Folders have a default location that is not aware of other
> folders in the same spot - so windows cover each other
Wrong.
>
> [Much of that shamelessly stolen from various web sources]
>
--
Sure, I could use iTunes even under Linux. However, I have |||
better things to do with my time than deal with how iTunes doesn't / | \
want to play nicely with everyone else's data (namely mine). I'd
rather create a DVD using those Linux apps we're told don't exist.
Liam Slider
Crossover is based around wine, which can make the windows at least mimic
the desktop's wiget style. So it also fits in, sorta, mostly. :-)
Of course, most people just use OO.org instead.
>>
>>> * iLife: there is no integrated suite similar to it on *any* platform
>>> *
>>
>> Apple's own private software programs, it's no surprise that there's no
>> exact match for this suite given that Apple custom designed it and
>> provides it only to Macs. But we do have some nice stuff of our own.
>
> I am not looking for an "exact match", but a suite that is as easy to
> use and as well integrated. There are some that are not bad on Windows,
> I know of none for Linux.
We tend to prefer tools that can be plugged together over suites.
>>
>>> Voice Over: for use with people with handicaps
>>
>> Accessability software is incredibly common on Linux. From the fact
>> that Braille readers are auto-detected hardware, to screen magnifier
>> software, to text-to-speech software, to "on screen keyboards" (for
>> those who can, at best, work a pointer of some kind). This is all
>> commonplace software and included in pretty much every distro. I can't
>> imagine that Ubuntu lacks any of it by default.
>
> From looking at the Ubuntu site I see nothing that compares to VoiceOver
> and the other similar technology built into OS X:
>
> http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/voiceover/
>
> I did find that Ubuntu by default only uses 900 MB of Ram. Ouch!
Seems similar to the commonly avaliable accessability options to me. And
I haven't heard of any major Linux that doesn't come with a basic set of
them. In fact, AFAIK they use the standard GNOME accessability tools.
>>
>>> * System wide dictionary
>>
>> Another common tool actually.
>
> I do not believe it is as universal as the OS X one, for example I do
> not believe it auto-underlines misspelled words in its default web
> browser. I have not used it for a while so I may be wrong about this.
Highlights misspelled words in the webbrowser? That's the most retarded
thing I've ever heard. Why the hell would you want the web browser to
automatically call the dictionary?
>>
>>> * Saved status notification
>>
>> Describe this exactly.
>
> This is a very powerful though subtle feature of OS X programs: if you
> have unsaved changes the close icon for the window changes. It is true
> than many novices do not know it is there but it comes in very, very
> handy once they are shown how to "use" it (not much to do but just
> look).
Oh we've had similar features for years. Not the exact same thing, but
somewhat similar.
>>
>>> * Parental controls
>>
>> You're kidding right?
>
> I have not worked much with the parental controls in Ubuntu but I have
> not seen anything that compares to what OS X has. By all means link to
> anything to support that Ubuntu is OS X's equal here.
Hello, it's a *nix....if you don't want your kids doing something it's
easy to lock it out. And if you want to know what your kids are up to,
it's easy to check as well.
>>
>>> * Packages
>>
>> Again...
>
> * Packages
>
> :)
>
> Ubuntu does not have the OS X style packages where an entire program
> with all of its subfolders appears as one icon and can, in the vast
> majority of cases, be moved around the hard drive and even from one
> computer to another.
So the same thing as a directory....with an icon on top of it, and a
script that links the directory to the executable. It's actually not too
much trouble to move an entire directory of an executale to another
computer provided that other computer has the proper additional libraries
to run the program.
>>
>>> * Column view
>>
>> Again...
>
> Go on...
Seems similar to the "browsing" in Nautilus in "tree mode." Or using
Konqueror similarly....it's simply nothing special in the Linux world.
Nothing new or revolutionary there. Maybe in the Mac world, but not
elsewhere.
>
>> <snip complaints>
>>> [Much of that shamelessly stolen from various web sources]
>>
>> So no personal experience then.
>
> Perhaps you should get some.
I was suggesting that for yourself.
JEDIDIAH
So MS office is forced to act like something other than MS office.
As far as "ease of installation" goes. That's a farce. You just run
the installer through wine manually or through the codeweavers GUI.
The end result is running the "real" msoffice.
>>
>>> * iLife: there is no integrated suite similar to it on *any* platform *
>>
>> Apple's own private software programs, it's no surprise that there's no
>> exact match for this suite given that Apple custom designed it and
>> provides it only to Macs. But we do have some nice stuff of our own.
>
> I am not looking for an "exact match", but a suite that is as easy to use
> and as well integrated. There are some that are not bad on Windows, I know
> of none for Linux.
If iLife (by way of iTunes) represents Apple's best in terms of
robustness, ease of use and integration I think I will pass.
[dwarves should not call midgets shorty]
>>
>>> * System wide dictionary
>>
>> Another common tool actually.
>
> I do not believe it is as universal as the OS X one, for example I do not
> believe it auto-underlines misspelled words in its default web browser. I
More visual noise. Just what everyone needed.
> have not used it for a while so I may be wrong about this.
>>
>>> * Saved status notification
>>
>> Describe this exactly.
>
> This is a very powerful though subtle feature of OS X programs: if you have
> unsaved changes the close icon for the window changes. It is true than many
> novices do not know it is there but it comes in very, very handy once they
> are shown how to "use" it (not much to do but just look).
Still hardly a big deal.
>>
>>> * Parental controls
>>
[still undefined]
>>
>>> * Packages
>>
>> Again...
>
> * Packages
>
>:)
>
> Ubuntu does not have the OS X style packages where an entire program with
> all of its subfolders appears as one icon and can, in the vast majority of
> cases, be moved around the hard drive and even from one computer to another.
You mean NeXT style applications directories. A different but not
inherently superior way of organizing the filesystem. Certainly not a system
superiority bulletpoint.
>>
>>> * Column view
>>
>> Again...
>
> Go on...
>
>> <snip complaints>
>>> [Much of that shamelessly stolen from various web sources]
>>
>> So no personal experience then.
>
> Perhaps you should get some.
If he could do so without burning 5 Benjamins in the process he might.
--
Sure, I could use iTunes even under Linux. However, I have |||
better things to do with my time than deal with how iTunes doesn't / | \
want to play nicely with everyone else's data (namely mine). I'd
rather create a DVD using those Linux apps we're told don't exist.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
Snit
on 2/22/06 12:48 PM:
>>> Not proven != incorrect.
>>
>> I agree that not proven != incorrect, which is the precise reason that your
>> comment about "hot air" is silly. Still, that is not the focus of the
>
> It's not at all silly, it's factual.
I look forward to your support.
>
>> discussion. I told you I would focus on where OS X is better for the
>> average user. Here are just a few things that comes to mind (with the
>> admission that I know OS X *much* better than I know Ubuntu, if you think
>> any of the following are incorrect please let me know):
>>
>> * Automator: allows non-programmers to automate things in a way
>> not possible with Ubuntu
>
> You will have to go into this in some detail and demonstrate how
> this isn't just another iteration of SQA Robot.
<http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/automator/>
>
>> * Runs MS Office. Yes, I know Ubuntu runs OO.o, but that is simply
>> not the same
>
> Linux runs msoffice. Been able to do that for about 10 years
> actually. Probably one of the first things wine could ever run.
Running something in Wine where is pops up with an interface different from
the norm of the platform is not as good as having a "native" application
experience. And Wine is not exactly something a novice would play much with
in most cases. Wine does not even come with Ubuntu.
>
>> * iLife: there is no integrated suite similar to it on *any* platform
>
> I'm not sure if that's a good thing. Although if I ran PPC Linux
> I could try it out for myself and see what all the hubbub is about.
>
> iTunes certainly doesn't give me any interest in trying.
If iLife was the only choice it would be a bad thing, a very bad thing.
Having such an integrated suite, however, is clearly a very good thing when
it is an option for the platform.
>
>> * Voice Over: for use with people with handicaps
>> * System wide dictionary
>
> You mean like Unix had 15+ years ago?
Using Firefox I do not get my misspelled words underlined. That is today.
>
>> * Saved status notification
>
> This is a bit vague.
I have explained it elsewhere in the thread:
-----
This is a very powerful though subtle feature of OS X programs: if you have
unsaved changes the close icon for the window changes. It is true than many
novices do not know it is there but it comes in very, very handy once they
are shown how to "use" it (not much to do but just look).
-----
>
>> * Parental controls
>
> You mean like Unix had 15+ years ago?
No: like OS X has today: <http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/family/>
Can you point me to any such features for Ubuntu?
>
>> * Packages
>
> You mean like Unix had 15+ years ago?
No: Like OS X has today.
>
>> * Column view
>
> This too is a big vague.
I was assuming an audience familiar with both.
<http://www.wellesley.edu/Computing/OSX3/IntroX3/Images/hierarchy.jpg>
>>
>> Weaknesses of Ubuntu:
>> * Info in windows does not always fit! It is absurd to have buttons
>> hanging half off the window!
>
> Never seen this.
I have not used Ubuntu as much as many and I see it often. If I get time I
shall load it up again and create a screen shot.
>
>> * Poor default color scheme (poor use of contrast)
>
> This one is dubious too.
In what way?
>
>> * It has a menu with icon + text that looks like two menus
>
> Where?
In the top "panel".
>
>> * Inconsistent buttons ("OK", "Cancel" vs. "Save", "Cancel")
>> * Non-modal dialogs that should be (save dialogs for already
>> closed files)
>> * Some menu (top panel) items need a right click, others a left
>
> You mean the 2/3 button mice actually get some use.
>
> That is a tragedy.
Er? You do not seem to understand what I wrote.
>
>> * I am asked to "Change User" just to give permissions
>
> Wrong.
>
> For your own files, you just click the boxes in the Permissions
> tab. For someone else's files, you can't do anything.
Care to look at the dialog? It may have been fixed in HH.
>
>> * All sorts of "gibberish" is displayed on start up
>> and shut down
>
> This is just lame.
Yes, it is. OS X does not have this.
>
>> * Clock settings default to something other than local time
>
> Never seen this.
I have - even posted screenshots in the past.
>
>> * The menus on the desktop do not apply to items on the desktop
>
> Wrong.
What menu do you use to create a new folder?
>
>> * Folders have a default location that is not aware of other
>> folders in the same spot - so windows cover each other
>
> Wrong.
Create two new folders and then open them.
Snit
>>>> * Runs MS Office. Yes, I know Ubuntu runs OO.o, but that is simply
>>>> not the same
>>>
>>> You can run MS Office on Linux too, using Crossover Office.
>>
>> It is *much* easier to set up on OS X *and* it the interface is designed to
>> fit in with the rest of the computer (well, mostly).
>
> Crossover is based around wine, which can make the windows at least mimic
> the desktop's wiget style. So it also fits in, sorta, mostly. :-)
>
> Of course, most people just use OO.org instead.
Yes, they do. Why do you think that is? On OS X people tend to shy away
from OO.o and use MS Office, even though it is not cheap.
>>>
>>>> * iLife: there is no integrated suite similar to it on *any* platform
>>>> *
>>>
>>> Apple's own private software programs, it's no surprise that there's no
>>> exact match for this suite given that Apple custom designed it and
>>> provides it only to Macs. But we do have some nice stuff of our own.
>>
>> I am not looking for an "exact match", but a suite that is as easy to
>> use and as well integrated. There are some that are not bad on Windows,
>> I know of none for Linux.
>
> We tend to prefer tools that can be plugged together over suites.
I prefer having both.
>>>
>>>> Voice Over: for use with people with handicaps
>>>
>>> Accessability software is incredibly common on Linux. From the fact
>>> that Braille readers are auto-detected hardware, to screen magnifier
>>> software, to text-to-speech software, to "on screen keyboards" (for
>>> those who can, at best, work a pointer of some kind). This is all
>>> commonplace software and included in pretty much every distro. I can't
>>> imagine that Ubuntu lacks any of it by default.
>>
>> From looking at the Ubuntu site I see nothing that compares to VoiceOver
>> and the other similar technology built into OS X:
>>
>> http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/voiceover/
>>
>> I did find that Ubuntu by default only uses 900 MB of Ram. Ouch!
>
> Seems similar to the commonly avaliable accessability options to me. And
> I haven't heard of any major Linux that doesn't come with a basic set of
> them. In fact, AFAIK they use the standard GNOME accessability tools.
It is a limitation that can be overcome, but by default it would not use my
1.5 GB and for most users it would never do so.
>
>>>
>>>> * System wide dictionary
>>>
>>> Another common tool actually.
>>
>> I do not believe it is as universal as the OS X one, for example I do
>> not believe it auto-underlines misspelled words in its default web
>> browser. I have not used it for a while so I may be wrong about this.
>
> Highlights misspelled words in the webbrowser? That's the most retarded
> thing I've ever heard. Why the hell would you want the web browser to
> automatically call the dictionary?
In forms you are filling out: not in text you are reading. Does that help
you to understand?
>
>>>
>>>> * Saved status notification
>>>
>>> Describe this exactly.
>>
>> This is a very powerful though subtle feature of OS X programs: if you
>> have unsaved changes the close icon for the window changes. It is true
>> than many novices do not know it is there but it comes in very, very
>> handy once they are shown how to "use" it (not much to do but just
>> look).
>
> Oh we've had similar features for years. Not the exact same thing, but
> somewhat similar.
Such as? If so I do not know of them, though I admit I may be missing it.
>
>
>>>
>>>> * Parental controls
>>>
>>> You're kidding right?
>>
>> I have not worked much with the parental controls in Ubuntu but I have
>> not seen anything that compares to what OS X has. By all means link to
>> anything to support that Ubuntu is OS X's equal here.
>
> Hello, it's a *nix....if you don't want your kids doing something it's
> easy to lock it out. And if you want to know what your kids are up to,
> it's easy to check as well.
Have you seen the ease-of-use that Apple has connected to this feature?
>
>>>
>>>> * Packages
>>>
>>> Again...
>>
>> * Packages
>>
>> :)
>>
>> Ubuntu does not have the OS X style packages where an entire program
>> with all of its subfolders appears as one icon and can, in the vast
>> majority of cases, be moved around the hard drive and even from one
>> computer to another.
>
> So the same thing as a directory....with an icon on top of it, and a
> script that links the directory to the executable. It's actually not too
> much trouble to move an entire directory of an executale to another
> computer provided that other computer has the proper additional libraries
> to run the program.
A pretty big if. And you still have a folder where on a Mac it is just a
single file to the average user. That is a benefit, esp. for novice and
non-techies.
>
>>>
>>>> * Column view
>>>
>>> Again...
>>
>> Go on...
>
> Seems similar to the "browsing" in Nautilus in "tree mode." Or using
> Konqueror similarly....it's simply nothing special in the Linux world.
> Nothing new or revolutionary there. Maybe in the Mac world, but not
> elsewhere.
Are you in reference to Miller-style columns?
>
>
>>
>>> <snip complaints>
>>>> [Much of that shamelessly stolen from various web sources]
>>>
>>> So no personal experience then.
>>
>> Perhaps you should get some.
>
>
> I was suggesting that for yourself.
I returned the suggestion. I suppose that makes us even, eh? :)
Snit
on 2/22/06 1:59 PM:
>>>> * Automator: allows non-programmers to automate things in a way
>>>> not possible with Ubuntu
>>>
>>> There are automation tools on Linux. You simply have to learn how to use
>>> them.
>>
>> No doubt: but nothing as easy as Automator. On both OSs there are far, far
>> more powerful options. Heck, on OS X there is also AppleScript which allows
>> for working beyond Automator with multiple applications in ways that I do
>> not believe you can do with Ubuntu. Shell scripting and the like, of
>> course, can be done with both.
>>>
>>>> * Runs MS Office. Yes, I know Ubuntu runs OO.o, but that is simply
>>>> not the same
>>>
>>> You can run MS Office on Linux too, using Crossover Office.
>>
>> It is *much* easier to set up on OS X *and* it the interface is designed to
>> fit in with the rest of the computer (well, mostly).
>
> So MS office is forced to act like something other than MS office.
>
> As far as "ease of installation" goes. That's a farce. You just run
> the installer through wine manually or through the codeweavers GUI.
>
> The end result is running the "real" msoffice.
MS Office on the Mac is *real* MS Office. I am not in reference to OO.o or
something like that.
>
>>>
>>>> * iLife: there is no integrated suite similar to it on *any* platform *
>>>
>>> Apple's own private software programs, it's no surprise that there's no
>>> exact match for this suite given that Apple custom designed it and
>>> provides it only to Macs. But we do have some nice stuff of our own.
>>
>> I am not looking for an "exact match", but a suite that is as easy to use
>> and as well integrated. There are some that are not bad on Windows, I know
>> of none for Linux.
>
> If iLife (by way of iTunes) represents Apple's best in terms of
> robustness, ease of use and integration I think I will pass.
>
> [dwarves should not call midgets shorty]
I am not saying you should like or dislike - I am saying it is a benefit
for many. This is most true for relative novice and non-techie users.
>>>
>>>> * System wide dictionary
>>>
>>> Another common tool actually.
>>
>> I do not believe it is as universal as the OS X one, for example I do not
>> believe it auto-underlines misspelled words in its default web browser. I
>
> More visual noise. Just what everyone needed.
You can poo-poo the idea all you want, that does not reduce the usefulness
of it. Not one bit. Here is an example:
Go to genericmail.com and write an e-mail and see if you can get realtime
spellchecking. On OS X you can.
>
>> have not used it for a while so I may be wrong about this.
>>>
>>>> * Saved status notification
>>>
>>> Describe this exactly.
>>
>> This is a very powerful though subtle feature of OS X programs: if you have
>> unsaved changes the close icon for the window changes. It is true than many
>> novices do not know it is there but it comes in very, very handy once they
>> are shown how to "use" it (not much to do but just look).
>
> Still hardly a big deal.
It is a very cool detail.
>
>>>
>>>> * Parental controls
>>>
> [still undefined]
>>>
>>>> * Packages
>>>
>>> Again...
>>
>> * Packages
>>
>> :)
>>
>> Ubuntu does not have the OS X style packages where an entire program with
>> all of its subfolders appears as one icon and can, in the vast majority of
>> cases, be moved around the hard drive and even from one computer to another.
>
> You mean NeXT style applications directories. A different but not
> inherently superior way of organizing the filesystem. Certainly not a system
> superiority bulletpoint.
What do you have against Packages as implemented by OS X?
>
>>>
>>>> * Column view
>>>
>>> Again...
>>
>> Go on...
>>
>>> <snip complaints>
>>>> [Much of that shamelessly stolen from various web sources]
>>>
>>> So no personal experience then.
>>
>> Perhaps you should get some.
>
> If he could do so without burning 5 Benjamins in the process he might.
Oh.
Liam Slider
> "Liam Slider" <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
> pan.2006.02.22....@nospam.liamslider.com on 2/22/06 1:37 PM:
>
>>>>> * Runs MS Office. Yes, I know Ubuntu runs OO.o, but that is simply
>>>>> not the same
>>>>
>>>> You can run MS Office on Linux too, using Crossover Office.
>>>
>>> It is *much* easier to set up on OS X *and* it the interface is designed to
>>> fit in with the rest of the computer (well, mostly).
>>
>> Crossover is based around wine, which can make the windows at least mimic
>> the desktop's wiget style. So it also fits in, sorta, mostly. :-)
>>
>> Of course, most people just use OO.org instead.
>
> Yes, they do. Why do you think that is? On OS X people tend to shy away
> from OO.o and use MS Office, even though it is not cheap.
I think it's because OO.org is more open for one, it's compatible with a
wider number of formats and is clearly ready for the future....while
Microsoft Office is rather locked down. Heck, it's more compatible
with MS Office than MS Office is (between versions). Plus the pdf and
flash features are nice, something Microsoft simply doesn't offer. On top
of that it's Free and tends to be included with every distro.
Overall....we use it because we like it, it integrates well with our
environment, and it's a pretty productive office suite.
>>>>
>>>>> * iLife: there is no integrated suite similar to it on *any*
>>>>> platform *
>>>>
>>>> Apple's own private software programs, it's no surprise that there's
>>>> no exact match for this suite given that Apple custom designed it and
>>>> provides it only to Macs. But we do have some nice stuff of our own.
>>>
>>> I am not looking for an "exact match", but a suite that is as easy to
>>> use and as well integrated. There are some that are not bad on
>>> Windows, I know of none for Linux.
>>
>> We tend to prefer tools that can be plugged together over suites.
>
> I prefer having both.
Well, go ahead. That's why you chose the Mac right?
>>>>
>>>>> Voice Over: for use with people with handicaps
>>>>
>>>> Accessability software is incredibly common on Linux. From the fact
>>>> that Braille readers are auto-detected hardware, to screen magnifier
>>>> software, to text-to-speech software, to "on screen keyboards" (for
>>>> those who can, at best, work a pointer of some kind). This is all
>>>> commonplace software and included in pretty much every distro. I can't
>>>> imagine that Ubuntu lacks any of it by default.
>>>
>>> From looking at the Ubuntu site I see nothing that compares to VoiceOver
>>> and the other similar technology built into OS X:
>>>
>>> http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/voiceover/
>>>
>>> I did find that Ubuntu by default only uses 900 MB of Ram. Ouch!
>>
>> Seems similar to the commonly avaliable accessability options to me. And
>> I haven't heard of any major Linux that doesn't come with a basic set of
>> them. In fact, AFAIK they use the standard GNOME accessability tools.
>
> It is a limitation that can be overcome, but by default it would not use my
> 1.5 GB and for most users it would never do so.
I was refering to the accessability software, not this "RAM limitation"
which I'm sure you are exaggerating as a problem.
>>
>>
>>>>> * System wide dictionary
>>>>
>>>> Another common tool actually.
>>>
>>> I do not believe it is as universal as the OS X one, for example I do
>>> not believe it auto-underlines misspelled words in its default web
>>> browser. I have not used it for a while so I may be wrong about this.
>>
>> Highlights misspelled words in the webbrowser? That's the most retarded
>> thing I've ever heard. Why the hell would you want the web browser to
>> automatically call the dictionary?
>
> In forms you are filling out: not in text you are reading. Does that
> help you to understand?
Well, ok. Still, it's a problem of the web browsers not integrating a
feature that calls the system's dictionary, not a lack of a system wide
dictionary itself. And hell, I'm sure there's probably a Firefox extension
that'll do it anyway, there's extensions for everything.
>>
>>
>>>>> * Saved status notification
>>>>
>>>> Describe this exactly.
>>>
>>> This is a very powerful though subtle feature of OS X programs: if you
>>> have unsaved changes the close icon for the window changes. It is
>>> true than many novices do not know it is there but it comes in very,
>>> very handy once they are shown how to "use" it (not much to do but
>>> just look).
>>
>> Oh we've had similar features for years. Not the exact same thing, but
>> somewhat similar.
>
> Such as? If so I do not know of them, though I admit I may be missing
> it.
Well, take Abiword for example. If you open a document, and then alter it,
the titlebar of the window changes slightly, indicating you have a
changed document that hasn't been saved. Trying to close Abiword brings
up a dialog which tells you that you have unsaved changes, and asks if
you'd like to save before closing. This type of behavior is very common in
programs I've used. Heck, going back to old terminal programs even, I
remember back when I had a number of shell accounts, and used console
based *nix exclusively....my mail and news readers behaved this way, as
did my pavorite text editor (actually, the text editor I use in the
console today does this too). This is old tech, around well before X even.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> * Parental controls
>>>>
>>>> You're kidding right?
>>>
>>> I have not worked much with the parental controls in Ubuntu but I have
>>> not seen anything that compares to what OS X has. By all means link
>>> to anything to support that Ubuntu is OS X's equal here.
>>
>> Hello, it's a *nix....if you don't want your kids doing something it's
>> easy to lock it out. And if you want to know what your kids are up to,
>> it's easy to check as well.
>
> Have you seen the ease-of-use that Apple has connected to this feature?
No, but it's not like it's exactly difficult in any *nix, we're talking
extremely basic stuff here.
>>
>>
>>>>> * Packages
>>>>
>>>> Again...
>>>
>>> * Packages
>>>
>>> :)
>>>
>>> Ubuntu does not have the OS X style packages where an entire program
>>> with all of its subfolders appears as one icon and can, in the vast
>>> majority of cases, be moved around the hard drive and even from one
>>> computer to another.
>>
>> So the same thing as a directory....with an icon on top of it, and a
>> script that links the directory to the executable. It's actually not
>> too much trouble to move an entire directory of an executale to another
>> computer provided that other computer has the proper additional
>> libraries to run the program.
>
> A pretty big if. And you still have a folder where on a Mac it is just
> a single file to the average user. That is a benefit, esp. for novice
> and non-techies.
It just looks like a single file, it's really a folder in disguise though.
>>
>>
>>>>> * Column view
>>>>
>>>> Again...
>>>
>>> Go on...
>>
>> Seems similar to the "browsing" in Nautilus in "tree mode." Or using
>> Konqueror similarly....it's simply nothing special in the Linux world.
>> Nothing new or revolutionary there. Maybe in the Mac world, but not
>> elsewhere.
>
> Are you in reference to Miller-style columns?
I don't know, what are Miller-style columns?
The Ghost In The Machine
<SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
wrote
on Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:42:58 -0700
<C0223702.462A2%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>:
> "JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> stated in post 8uvuc3-...@nomad.mishnet
> on 2/22/06 1:59 PM:
>
>>>>> * Automator: allows non-programmers to automate things in a way
>>>>> not possible with Ubuntu
>>>>
>>>> There are automation tools on Linux. You simply have to learn how to use
>>>> them.
>>>
>>> No doubt: but nothing as easy as Automator. On both OSs there are far, far
>>> more powerful options. Heck, on OS X there is also AppleScript which allows
>>> for working beyond Automator with multiple applications in ways that I do
>>> not believe you can do with Ubuntu. Shell scripting and the like, of
>>> course, can be done with both.
>>>>
>>>>> * Runs MS Office. Yes, I know Ubuntu runs OO.o, but that is simply
>>>>> not the same
>>>>
>>>> You can run MS Office on Linux too, using Crossover Office.
>>>
>>> It is *much* easier to set up on OS X *and* it the interface is designed to
>>> fit in with the rest of the computer (well, mostly).
>>
>> So MS office is forced to act like something other than MS office.
>>
>> As far as "ease of installation" goes. That's a farce. You just run
>> the installer through wine manually or through the codeweavers GUI.
>>
>> The end result is running the "real" msoffice.
>
> MS Office on the Mac is *real* MS Office. I am not in reference to OO.o or
> something like that.
Neither was he, if he's mentioning WinE; OO doesn't need WinE.
(Personally, I prefer OO to MSO, even if it did deviate from TeX
for some reason. But that's me; YMMV.)
[rest snipped]
Snit
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:39:51 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "Liam Slider" <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
>> pan.2006.02.22....@nospam.liamslider.com on 2/22/06 1:37 PM:
>>
>>>>>> * Runs MS Office. Yes, I know Ubuntu runs OO.o, but that is simply
>>>>>> not the same
>>>>>
>>>>> You can run MS Office on Linux too, using Crossover Office.
>>>>
>>>> It is *much* easier to set up on OS X *and* it the interface is designed to
>>>> fit in with the rest of the computer (well, mostly).
>>>
>>> Crossover is based around wine, which can make the windows at least mimic
>>> the desktop's wiget style. So it also fits in, sorta, mostly. :-)
>>>
>>> Of course, most people just use OO.org instead.
>>
>> Yes, they do. Why do you think that is? On OS X people tend to shy away
>> from OO.o and use MS Office, even though it is not cheap.
>
> I think it's because OO.org is more open for one, it's compatible with a
> wider number of formats and is clearly ready for the future....while
> Microsoft Office is rather locked down. Heck, it's more compatible
> with MS Office than MS Office is (between versions). Plus the pdf and
> flash features are nice, something Microsoft simply doesn't offer. On top
> of that it's Free and tends to be included with every distro.
>
>
> Overall....we use it because we like it, it integrates well with our
> environment, and it's a pretty productive office suite.
It has some good features but has always seemed built by committee and the
interface is clearly not as mature.
Mac users tend to go for ease of use; as odd as it seems, MS actually is the
easiest to use office suite, though they keep trying to "help" people more
and more which often back fires.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>> * iLife: there is no integrated suite similar to it on *any*
>>>>>> platform *
>>>>>
>>>>> Apple's own private software programs, it's no surprise that there's
>>>>> no exact match for this suite given that Apple custom designed it and
>>>>> provides it only to Macs. But we do have some nice stuff of our own.
>>>>
>>>> I am not looking for an "exact match", but a suite that is as easy to
>>>> use and as well integrated. There are some that are not bad on
>>>> Windows, I know of none for Linux.
>>>
>>> We tend to prefer tools that can be plugged together over suites.
>>
>> I prefer having both.
>
> Well, go ahead. That's why you chose the Mac right?
One reason. And your attitude here is right on: I like the Mac so I should
use it. You like Linux so you should use it. I have no argument with that.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Voice Over: for use with people with handicaps
>>>>>
>>>>> Accessability software is incredibly common on Linux. From the fact
>>>>> that Braille readers are auto-detected hardware, to screen magnifier
>>>>> software, to text-to-speech software, to "on screen keyboards" (for
>>>>> those who can, at best, work a pointer of some kind). This is all
>>>>> commonplace software and included in pretty much every distro. I can't
>>>>> imagine that Ubuntu lacks any of it by default.
>>>>
>>>> From looking at the Ubuntu site I see nothing that compares to VoiceOver
>>>> and the other similar technology built into OS X:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/voiceover/
>>>>
>>>> I did find that Ubuntu by default only uses 900 MB of Ram. Ouch!
>>>
>>> Seems similar to the commonly avaliable accessability options to me. And
>>> I haven't heard of any major Linux that doesn't come with a basic set of
>>> them. In fact, AFAIK they use the standard GNOME accessability tools.
>>
>> It is a limitation that can be overcome, but by default it would not use my
>> 1.5 GB and for most users it would never do so.
>
>
> I was refering to the accessability software, not this "RAM limitation"
> which I'm sure you are exaggerating as a problem.
I have not seen anything in Ubuntu that makes it as usable by handicapped
folks.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> * System wide dictionary
>>>>>
>>>>> Another common tool actually.
>>>>
>>>> I do not believe it is as universal as the OS X one, for example I do
>>>> not believe it auto-underlines misspelled words in its default web
>>>> browser. I have not used it for a while so I may be wrong about this.
>>>
>>> Highlights misspelled words in the webbrowser? That's the most retarded
>>> thing I've ever heard. Why the hell would you want the web browser to
>>> automatically call the dictionary?
>>
>> In forms you are filling out: not in text you are reading. Does that
>> help you to understand?
>
>
> Well, ok. Still, it's a problem of the web browsers not integrating a
> feature that calls the system's dictionary, not a lack of a system wide
> dictionary itself. And hell, I'm sure there's probably a Firefox extension
> that'll do it anyway, there's extensions for everything.
The strength of OS X is you do not have to hack or add or fiddle; things
like that just work. Where OS X fails (and Linux excels) is supporting
every feature and format on the planet. On OS X you have to work a little
harder sometimes to support obscure-format-X.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> * Saved status notification
>>>>>
>>>>> Describe this exactly.
>>>>
>>>> This is a very powerful though subtle feature of OS X programs: if you
>>>> have unsaved changes the close icon for the window changes. It is
>>>> true than many novices do not know it is there but it comes in very,
>>>> very handy once they are shown how to "use" it (not much to do but
>>>> just look).
>>>
>>> Oh we've had similar features for years. Not the exact same thing, but
>>> somewhat similar.
>>
>> Such as? If so I do not know of them, though I admit I may be missing
>> it.
>
> Well, take Abiword for example.
I would prefer not; I have used it. :)
> If you open a document, and then alter it, the titlebar of the window changes
> slightly, indicating you have a changed document that hasn't been saved.
> Trying to close Abiword brings up a dialog which tells you that you have
> unsaved changes, and asks if you'd like to save before closing. This type of
> behavior is very common in programs I've used. Heck, going back to old
> terminal programs even, I remember back when I had a number of shell accounts,
> and used console based *nix exclusively....my mail and news readers behaved
> this way, as did my pavorite text editor (actually, the text editor I use in
> the console today does this too). This is old tech, around well before X even.
What type changes do you mean? I know of no environment that does not
generally have a dialog that warns you about closing an un-saved document.
Some environments, however, have better warnings (especially when it comes
to button labels).
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> * Parental controls
>>>>>
>>>>> You're kidding right?
>>>>
>>>> I have not worked much with the parental controls in Ubuntu but I have
>>>> not seen anything that compares to what OS X has. By all means link
>>>> to anything to support that Ubuntu is OS X's equal here.
>>>
>>> Hello, it's a *nix....if you don't want your kids doing something it's
>>> easy to lock it out. And if you want to know what your kids are up to,
>>> it's easy to check as well.
>>
>> Have you seen the ease-of-use that Apple has connected to this feature?
>
> No, but it's not like it's exactly difficult in any *nix, we're talking
> extremely basic stuff here.
Can you give an example of, say, preventing a child from getting e-mail from
anyone but a small list of people, making it so they can only visit certain
web sites, and preventing them from buying music with the primary tools used
to do each. I am not looking for fool-proof systems, just something to keep
out young kids.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> * Packages
>>>>>
>>>>> Again...
>>>>
>>>> * Packages
>>>>
>>>> :)
>>>>
>>>> Ubuntu does not have the OS X style packages where an entire program
>>>> with all of its subfolders appears as one icon and can, in the vast
>>>> majority of cases, be moved around the hard drive and even from one
>>>> computer to another.
>>>
>>> So the same thing as a directory....with an icon on top of it, and a
>>> script that links the directory to the executable. It's actually not
>>> too much trouble to move an entire directory of an executale to another
>>> computer provided that other computer has the proper additional
>>> libraries to run the program.
>>
>> A pretty big if. And you still have a folder where on a Mac it is just
>> a single file to the average user. That is a benefit, esp. for novice
>> and non-techies.
>
> It just looks like a single file, it's really a folder in disguise though.
Yes.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> * Column view
>>>>>
>>>>> Again...
>>>>
>>>> Go on...
>>>
>>> Seems similar to the "browsing" in Nautilus in "tree mode." Or using
>>> Konqueror similarly....it's simply nothing special in the Linux world.
>>> Nothing new or revolutionary there. Maybe in the Mac world, but not
>>> elsewhere.
>>
>> Are you in reference to Miller-style columns?
>
> I don't know, what are Miller-style columns?
Here is some info: <http://www.osxfaq.com/DailyTips/06-2004/06-14.ws>
Snit
3h8vc3-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 2/22/06 5:00 PM:
I have nothing against folks who prefer OO.o, but having "native" MS Office
support in OS X is a nice bonus. I can, of course, also run OO.o, but few
people on OS X ever do.
Peter Köhlmann
MS Office running in Wine *is* the real Office
And no matter what how much you want to wave it away, it installs about as
easy as in windows, and it runs as in windows, and it feels absolutely
"right" in linux
Too bad that you can't "discuss" it away, "teacher" Snot
< Snot snip >
--
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Liam Slider
Maybe it seems like that on the Mac.
> Mac users tend to go for ease of use; as odd as it seems, MS actually is
> the easiest to use office suite, though they keep trying to "help"
> people more and more which often back fires.
I don't know...I've found the Office software on Linux fairly easy to use.
>>
>>>>>>> * iLife: there is no integrated suite similar to it on *any*
>>>>>>> platform *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apple's own private software programs, it's no surprise that
>>>>>> there's no exact match for this suite given that Apple custom
>>>>>> designed it and provides it only to Macs. But we do have some nice
>>>>>> stuff of our own.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not looking for an "exact match", but a suite that is as easy
>>>>> to use and as well integrated. There are some that are not bad on
>>>>> Windows, I know of none for Linux.
>>>>
>>>> We tend to prefer tools that can be plugged together over suites.
>>>
>>> I prefer having both.
>>
>> Well, go ahead. That's why you chose the Mac right?
>
> One reason. And your attitude here is right on: I like the Mac so I
> should use it. You like Linux so you should use it. I have no argument
> with that.
I've never been the sort to advocate that everyone use just one platform.
My preference is for a more open, even marketplace with plenty of choices
and lots of variety. Sort of like the good old days of home computing of
the 1980s. Personally I feel that Linux is one of the best ways to get
there, since even within Linux there's a huge amount of variety...plus
support for all sorts of wild, out there hardware choices. :-)
Now, I may not like the Mac, but I respect it's place, and the choice
offered. Heck, Apple was there in the heyday of choice, and didn't try to
run everyone into the ground like MS did.
>>
>>>>>>> Voice Over: for use with people with handicaps
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Accessability software is incredibly common on Linux. From the fact
>>>>>> that Braille readers are auto-detected hardware, to screen
>>>>>> magnifier software, to text-to-speech software, to "on screen
>>>>>> keyboards" (for those who can, at best, work a pointer of some
>>>>>> kind). This is all commonplace software and included in pretty much
>>>>>> every distro. I can't imagine that Ubuntu lacks any of it by
>>>>>> default.
>>>>>
>>>>> From looking at the Ubuntu site I see nothing that compares to
>>>>> VoiceOver and the other similar technology built into OS X:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/voiceover/
>>>>>
>>>>> I did find that Ubuntu by default only uses 900 MB of Ram. Ouch!
>>>>
>>>> Seems similar to the commonly avaliable accessability options to me.
>>>> And I haven't heard of any major Linux that doesn't come with a basic
>>>> set of them. In fact, AFAIK they use the standard GNOME accessability
>>>> tools.
>>>
>>> It is a limitation that can be overcome, but by default it would not
>>> use my 1.5 GB and for most users it would never do so.
>>
>>
>> I was refering to the accessability software, not this "RAM limitation"
>> which I'm sure you are exaggerating as a problem.
>
> I have not seen anything in Ubuntu that makes it as usable by
> handicapped folks.
Perhaps you haven't really looked, not beyond the Ubuntu webpages. I mean
heck, I doubnt you'll find too much reference to it at mandriva
either....but they're right there under Accessability in the menu.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> * System wide dictionary
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another common tool actually.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not believe it is as universal as the OS X one, for example I
>>>>> do not believe it auto-underlines misspelled words in its default
>>>>> web browser. I have not used it for a while so I may be wrong about
>>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>> Highlights misspelled words in the webbrowser? That's the most
>>>> retarded thing I've ever heard. Why the hell would you want the web
>>>> browser to automatically call the dictionary?
>>>
>>> In forms you are filling out: not in text you are reading. Does that
>>> help you to understand?
>>
>>
>> Well, ok. Still, it's a problem of the web browsers not integrating a
>> feature that calls the system's dictionary, not a lack of a system wide
>> dictionary itself. And hell, I'm sure there's probably a Firefox
>> extension that'll do it anyway, there's extensions for everything.
>
> The strength of OS X is you do not have to hack or add or fiddle; things
> like that just work. Where OS X fails (and Linux excels) is supporting
> every feature and format on the planet. On OS X you have to work a
> little harder sometimes to support obscure-format-X.
So if someone does not write their software to take advantage of a
particular feature, OS X will impose that feature anyway? That makes for
lousy incentive for being an OS X programmer.
>>
>>
>>>>>>> * Saved status notification
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Describe this exactly.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a very powerful though subtle feature of OS X programs: if
>>>>> you have unsaved changes the close icon for the window changes. It
>>>>> is true than many novices do not know it is there but it comes in
>>>>> very, very handy once they are shown how to "use" it (not much to do
>>>>> but just look).
>>>>
>>>> Oh we've had similar features for years. Not the exact same thing,
>>>> but somewhat similar.
>>>
>>> Such as? If so I do not know of them, though I admit I may be missing
>>> it.
>>
>> Well, take Abiword for example.
>
> I would prefer not; I have used it. :)
What's wrong with it? It's small, fast, and light...yet with it's
extensions (much like Firefox in a way) it can do all sorts of things,
like translation, and wikipedia lookup.
>> If you open a document, and then alter it, the titlebar of the window
>> changes slightly, indicating you have a changed document that hasn't
>> been saved. Trying to close Abiword brings up a dialog which tells you
>> that you have unsaved changes, and asks if you'd like to save before
>> closing. This type of behavior is very common in programs I've used.
>> Heck, going back to old terminal programs even, I remember back when I
>> had a number of shell accounts, and used console based *nix
>> exclusively....my mail and news readers behaved this way, as did my
>> pavorite text editor (actually, the text editor I use in the console
>> today does this too). This is old tech, around well before X even.
>
> What type changes do you mean? I know of no environment that does not
> generally have a dialog that warns you about closing an un-saved
> document. Some environments, however, have better warnings (especially
> when it comes to button labels).
The warnings are pretty good, and explicit, you can't close it without
being made pretty clear what's going on, and very clear what your options
are.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> * Parental controls
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're kidding right?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have not worked much with the parental controls in Ubuntu but I
>>>>> have not seen anything that compares to what OS X has. By all means
>>>>> link to anything to support that Ubuntu is OS X's equal here.
>>>>
>>>> Hello, it's a *nix....if you don't want your kids doing something
>>>> it's easy to lock it out. And if you want to know what your kids are
>>>> up to, it's easy to check as well.
>>>
>>> Have you seen the ease-of-use that Apple has connected to this
>>> feature?
>>
>> No, but it's not like it's exactly difficult in any *nix, we're talking
>> extremely basic stuff here.
>
> Can you give an example of, say, preventing a child from getting e-mail
> from anyone but a small list of people
Offhand, I'd set that in the email filters of the email program. I'd check
regularly to ensure those filters are in place.
>, making it so they can only
> visit certain web sites,
Install DansGuardian.
>and preventing them from buying music with the
> primary tools used to do each.
They wouldn't even have access. I'd have set it up so their account didn't
have permission to use any software that I didn't specifically allow them
to.
>I am not looking for fool-proof
> systems, just something to keep out young kids.
This is just stuff off the top of my head. Of course, most likely, I'd set
only really let them run off a LiveCD...probably a child's distro like
Freeduc. Lots of games and educational activities, few things to get into
trouble with. Kids love it, I remember some young cousins and kids of
older cousins coming and playing with it, had to burn off copies to send
home with them.
>>>>>>> * Column view
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again...
>>>>>
>>>>> Go on...
>>>>
>>>> Seems similar to the "browsing" in Nautilus in "tree mode." Or using
>>>> Konqueror similarly....it's simply nothing special in the Linux
>>>> world. Nothing new or revolutionary there. Maybe in the Mac world,
>>>> but not elsewhere.
>>>
>>> Are you in reference to Miller-style columns?
>>
>> I don't know, what are Miller-style columns?
>
> Here is some info: <http://www.osxfaq.com/DailyTips/06-2004/06-14.ws>
Oh, yup, that looks like it's about the same thing alright.
Snit
Compared to the Mac.
>
>
>> Mac users tend to go for ease of use; as odd as it seems, MS actually is
>> the easiest to use office suite, though they keep trying to "help"
>> people more and more which often back fires.
>
> I don't know...I've found the Office software on Linux fairly easy to use.
It still is not as well laid out. One example: zooming to page width is
left out of the toolbar for no good reason.
>
>
>>>
>>>>>>>> * iLife: there is no integrated suite similar to it on *any*
>>>>>>>> platform *
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apple's own private software programs, it's no surprise that
>>>>>>> there's no exact match for this suite given that Apple custom
>>>>>>> designed it and provides it only to Macs. But we do have some nice
>>>>>>> stuff of our own.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not looking for an "exact match", but a suite that is as easy
>>>>>> to use and as well integrated. There are some that are not bad on
>>>>>> Windows, I know of none for Linux.
>>>>>
>>>>> We tend to prefer tools that can be plugged together over suites.
>>>>
>>>> I prefer having both.
>>>
>>> Well, go ahead. That's why you chose the Mac right?
>>
>> One reason. And your attitude here is right on: I like the Mac so I
>> should use it. You like Linux so you should use it. I have no argument
>> with that.
>
>
> I've never been the sort to advocate that everyone use just one platform.
> My preference is for a more open, even marketplace with plenty of choices
> and lots of variety. Sort of like the good old days of home computing of
> the 1980s. Personally I feel that Linux is one of the best ways to get
> there, since even within Linux there's a huge amount of variety...plus
> support for all sorts of wild, out there hardware choices. :-)
>
>
> Now, I may not like the Mac, but I respect it's place, and the choice
> offered. Heck, Apple was there in the heyday of choice, and didn't try to
> run everyone into the ground like MS did.
We largely agree on these points. I think Linux has a *lot* to offer and
respect the OS and the people that work on it and use it. I use it some but
use OS X much more and even teach its (and Windows) usage professionally. I
am a Linux novice, and openly admit that (even though it causes trolls such
as Peter K. to go into frenzy mode)
it is possible I have missed it. Do you have any links that discuss it more?
As I have time I will load it up again and play with it. From the distros I
have played with Ubuntu is my distro of choice.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> * System wide dictionary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another common tool actually.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not believe it is as universal as the OS X one, for example I
>>>>>> do not believe it auto-underlines misspelled words in its default
>>>>>> web browser. I have not used it for a while so I may be wrong about
>>>>>> this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Highlights misspelled words in the webbrowser? That's the most
>>>>> retarded thing I've ever heard. Why the hell would you want the web
>>>>> browser to automatically call the dictionary?
>>>>
>>>> In forms you are filling out: not in text you are reading. Does that
>>>> help you to understand?
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, ok. Still, it's a problem of the web browsers not integrating a
>>> feature that calls the system's dictionary, not a lack of a system wide
>>> dictionary itself. And hell, I'm sure there's probably a Firefox
>>> extension that'll do it anyway, there's extensions for everything.
>>
>> The strength of OS X is you do not have to hack or add or fiddle; things
>> like that just work. Where OS X fails (and Linux excels) is supporting
>> every feature and format on the planet. On OS X you have to work a
>> little harder sometimes to support obscure-format-X.
>
> So if someone does not write their software to take advantage of a
> particular feature, OS X will impose that feature anyway?
Not sure what you mean...
> That makes for
> lousy incentive for being an OS X programmer.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> * Saved status notification
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Describe this exactly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a very powerful though subtle feature of OS X programs: if
>>>>>> you have unsaved changes the close icon for the window changes. It
>>>>>> is true than many novices do not know it is there but it comes in
>>>>>> very, very handy once they are shown how to "use" it (not much to do
>>>>>> but just look).
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh we've had similar features for years. Not the exact same thing,
>>>>> but somewhat similar.
>>>>
>>>> Such as? If so I do not know of them, though I admit I may be missing
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> Well, take Abiword for example.
>>
>> I would prefer not; I have used it. :)
>
>
> What's wrong with it? It's small, fast, and light...yet with it's
> extensions (much like Firefox in a way) it can do all sorts of things,
> like translation, and wikipedia lookup.
First, for the price it is excellent - hard to argue with free. Apple's
Pages word processor is not free and I would prefer to use AbiWord over it.
Been a while since I have used it, so I just downloaded the newest version
and am opening it. Here are my impressions:
1) Uses system Open/Save and Print dialogs. That is a good thing. Joffice
does not. [It does use dialogs and not sheets, but that is not a huge deal]
2) When I hit the green resize button on the Mac the window resized too big,
moving over the toolbars. That is bad.
3) Started typing: holy cow! The fonts are horrid. I kept thinking I had
accidentally added an extra space they were so bad. Editing was miserable
because I literally could not tell where spaces were between letters. Here
is a screen shot where I compared it to MS Word:
<http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/tmp/fonts.jpg>
That is a deal breaker to me.
4) The font menu on the tool bar did not show anything at all. When I
clicked there the menu popped up. I could not recreate this so I have no
screenshot.
5) The icons are clearly not as well designed as those in MS Word, for
example, it is not as easy to tell if the style icons are pressed.
6) Looking at dialogs it does things like list measurements as "0.0000in".
Are all those decimals needed? Not a huge deal, but still annoying.
7) Tab selection is not as easy (MS Office has a menu, Abiword has you click
through all options)
Just a few thoughts. #3 is the biggest deal, but the others add up.
>
>>> If you open a document, and then alter it, the titlebar of the window
>>> changes slightly, indicating you have a changed document that hasn't
>>> been saved. Trying to close Abiword brings up a dialog which tells you
>>> that you have unsaved changes, and asks if you'd like to save before
>>> closing. This type of behavior is very common in programs I've used.
>>> Heck, going back to old terminal programs even, I remember back when I
>>> had a number of shell accounts, and used console based *nix
>>> exclusively....my mail and news readers behaved this way, as did my
>>> pavorite text editor (actually, the text editor I use in the console
>>> today does this too). This is old tech, around well before X even.
>>
>> What type changes do you mean? I know of no environment that does not
>> generally have a dialog that warns you about closing an un-saved
>> document. Some environments, however, have better warnings (especially
>> when it comes to button labels).
>
>
> The warnings are pretty good, and explicit, you can't close it without
> being made pretty clear what's going on, and very clear what your options
> are.
But how do you know if you will get the dialog before you close the
document?
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> * Parental controls
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're kidding right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have not worked much with the parental controls in Ubuntu but I
>>>>>> have not seen anything that compares to what OS X has. By all means
>>>>>> link to anything to support that Ubuntu is OS X's equal here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello, it's a *nix....if you don't want your kids doing something
>>>>> it's easy to lock it out. And if you want to know what your kids are
>>>>> up to, it's easy to check as well.
>>>>
>>>> Have you seen the ease-of-use that Apple has connected to this
>>>> feature?
>>>
>>> No, but it's not like it's exactly difficult in any *nix, we're talking
>>> extremely basic stuff here.
>>
>> Can you give an example of, say, preventing a child from getting e-mail
>> from anyone but a small list of people
>
> Offhand, I'd set that in the email filters of the email program. I'd check
> regularly to ensure those filters are in place.
Can you lock them?
>
>
>> , making it so they can only
>> visit certain web sites,
>
> Install DansGuardian.
But it is not built in. OK.
>
>
>> and preventing them from buying music with the
>> primary tools used to do each.
>
> They wouldn't even have access. I'd have set it up so their account didn't
> have permission to use any software that I didn't specifically allow them
> to.
I have no problem with them using the software for other things. In OS X I
can also lock out software (I use this at one of the schools I work for -
works flawlessly).
>
>
>> I am not looking for fool-proof
>> systems, just something to keep out young kids.
>
>
> This is just stuff off the top of my head. Of course, most likely, I'd set
> only really let them run off a LiveCD...probably a child's distro like
> Freeduc. Lots of games and educational activities, few things to get into
> trouble with. Kids love it, I remember some young cousins and kids of
> older cousins coming and playing with it, had to burn off copies to send
> home with them.
No doubt LiveCDs are very, very cool.
>
>
>>>>>>>> * Column view
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Go on...
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems similar to the "browsing" in Nautilus in "tree mode." Or using
>>>>> Konqueror similarly....it's simply nothing special in the Linux
>>>>> world. Nothing new or revolutionary there. Maybe in the Mac world,
>>>>> but not elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>> Are you in reference to Miller-style columns?
>>>
>>> I don't know, what are Miller-style columns?
>>
>> Here is some info: <http://www.osxfaq.com/DailyTips/06-2004/06-14.ws>
>
> Oh, yup, that looks like it's about the same thing alright.
OK. Fair enough.
GreyCloud
There is neoOffice for OS X that does run in native mode. Developed
pretty much from the same team of OpenOffice.
It's better than the clunker AppleWorks 6.
--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
Liam Slider
*shrug*
Maybe they didn't have a good reason to put it in.
Indeed, I'm personally hoping that Windows gets knocked off it's high
horse by Linux, OS X, BSD (I do know a couple desktop users), Haiku
(when it's finished), and a few of the quirkier projects out there. I
don't mind them being around...horrible as they are...so long as they
eventually come around to playing fair. They can have their slice.
http://www.linux.com/howtos/Accessibility-HOWTO/index.shtml
This covers alot of the atuff abvaliable, most distros have at least the
basics covered in some respects. Although each company is free to choose
different applications in it's system.
> As I have time I will load it up again and play with it. From the distros I
> have played with Ubuntu is my distro of choice.
They are probably there somewhere.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> * System wide dictionary
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Another common tool actually.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do not believe it is as universal as the OS X one, for example I
>>>>>>> do not believe it auto-underlines misspelled words in its default
>>>>>>> web browser. I have not used it for a while so I may be wrong about
>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Highlights misspelled words in the webbrowser? That's the most
>>>>>> retarded thing I've ever heard. Why the hell would you want the web
>>>>>> browser to automatically call the dictionary?
>>>>>
>>>>> In forms you are filling out: not in text you are reading. Does that
>>>>> help you to understand?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, ok. Still, it's a problem of the web browsers not integrating a
>>>> feature that calls the system's dictionary, not a lack of a system wide
>>>> dictionary itself. And hell, I'm sure there's probably a Firefox
>>>> extension that'll do it anyway, there's extensions for everything.
>>>
>>> The strength of OS X is you do not have to hack or add or fiddle; things
>>> like that just work. Where OS X fails (and Linux excels) is supporting
>>> every feature and format on the planet. On OS X you have to work a
>>> little harder sometimes to support obscure-format-X.
>>
>> So if someone does not write their software to take advantage of a
>> particular feature, OS X will impose that feature anyway?
>
> Not sure what you mean...
Well, it seems to me that you're saying that a web browser, which was
never written to take advantage of the system's dictionary system, has the
dictionary system imposed on it anyway...as if it's forcing function onto
the browser that was never designed into it. That just seems...rather
un-unix-like.
>
>> That makes for
>> lousy incentive for being an OS X programmer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> * Saved status notification
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Describe this exactly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a very powerful though subtle feature of OS X programs: if
>>>>>>> you have unsaved changes the close icon for the window changes. It
>>>>>>> is true than many novices do not know it is there but it comes in
>>>>>>> very, very handy once they are shown how to "use" it (not much to
>>>>>>> do but just look).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh we've had similar features for years. Not the exact same thing,
>>>>>> but somewhat similar.
>>>>>
>>>>> Such as? If so I do not know of them, though I admit I may be
>>>>> missing it.
>>>>
>>>> Well, take Abiword for example.
>>>
>>> I would prefer not; I have used it. :)
>>
>>
>> What's wrong with it? It's small, fast, and light...yet with it's
>> extensions (much like Firefox in a way) it can do all sorts of things,
>> like translation, and wikipedia lookup.
>
> First, for the price it is excellent - hard to argue with free. Apple's
> Pages word processor is not free and I would prefer to use AbiWord over
> it.
I personally prefer it over OO for basic word processing.
> Been a while since I have used it, so I just downloaded the newest version
> and am opening it. Here are my impressions:
>
> 1) Uses system Open/Save and Print dialogs. That is a good thing. Joffice
> does not. [It does use dialogs and not sheets, but that is not a huge deal]
>
> 2) When I hit the green resize button on the Mac the window resized too big,
> moving over the toolbars. That is bad.
haven't had this problem on Linux. I'm guessing a problem with the Mac
version.
>
> 3) Started typing: holy cow! The fonts are horrid. I kept thinking I
> had accidentally added an extra space they were so bad. Editing was
> miserable because I literally could not tell where spaces were between
> letters. Here is a screen shot where I compared it to MS Word:
> <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/tmp/fonts.jpg> That is a deal breaker to
> me.
Yeah, that is definately a Mac issue. My fonts look nothing like that!
That's abysmal! No wonder you hate Abiword! It looks like death on a Mac!
>
> 4) The font menu on the tool bar did not show anything at all. When I
> clicked there the menu popped up. I could not recreate this so I have
> no screenshot.
Another problem not duplicated on my Abiword.
>
> 5) The icons are clearly not as well designed as those in MS Word, for
> example, it is not as easy to tell if the style icons are pressed.
Very easy to tell on the screen I'm looking at. Very clearly marked.
Display problems with the Mac version of Abiword?
>
> 6) Looking at dialogs it does things like list measurements as
> "0.0000in". Are all those decimals needed? Not a huge deal, but still
> annoying.
I don't even know where this is. I see nothing like that.
>
> 7) Tab selection is not as easy (MS Office has a menu, Abiword has you
> click through all options)
I can go through the menu items with *my* keyboard easily enough....
>
> Just a few thoughts. #3 is the biggest deal, but the others add up.
Maybe you've got a corrupted installation of Abiword or something. Or
maybe it just blows on the Mac. It runs fantastically from where I sit.
>>
>>>> If you open a document, and then alter it, the titlebar of the window
>>>> changes slightly, indicating you have a changed document that hasn't
>>>> been saved. Trying to close Abiword brings up a dialog which tells
>>>> you that you have unsaved changes, and asks if you'd like to save
>>>> before closing. This type of behavior is very common in programs I've
>>>> used. Heck, going back to old terminal programs even, I remember back
>>>> when I had a number of shell accounts, and used console based *nix
>>>> exclusively....my mail and news readers behaved this way, as did my
>>>> pavorite text editor (actually, the text editor I use in the console
>>>> today does this too). This is old tech, around well before X even.
>>>
>>> What type changes do you mean? I know of no environment that does not
>>> generally have a dialog that warns you about closing an un-saved
>>> document. Some environments, however, have better warnings (especially
>>> when it comes to button labels).
>>
>>
>> The warnings are pretty good, and explicit, you can't close it without
>> being made pretty clear what's going on, and very clear what your
>> options are.
>
> But how do you know if you will get the dialog before you close the
> document?
As I said before, most programs give you some sort of indicator, Like
putting "[modified]" at the top of the window, or a small symbol besides
the name to indicate that it's been changed. Depennding on the
environment. But basically the same sort of idea that OS X pulls off
with it's bits of tagging.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> * Parental controls
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're kidding right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have not worked much with the parental controls in Ubuntu but I
>>>>>>> have not seen anything that compares to what OS X has. By all
>>>>>>> means link to anything to support that Ubuntu is OS X's equal
>>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello, it's a *nix....if you don't want your kids doing something
>>>>>> it's easy to lock it out. And if you want to know what your kids
>>>>>> are up to, it's easy to check as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you seen the ease-of-use that Apple has connected to this
>>>>> feature?
>>>>
>>>> No, but it's not like it's exactly difficult in any *nix, we're
>>>> talking extremely basic stuff here.
>>>
>>> Can you give an example of, say, preventing a child from getting
>>> e-mail from anyone but a small list of people
>>
>> Offhand, I'd set that in the email filters of the email program. I'd
>> check regularly to ensure those filters are in place.
>
> Can you lock them?
Not sure, but there's probably a way. I personally haven't looked into it
too much. I haven't really a need.
>>
>>
>>> , making it so they can only
>>> visit certain web sites,
>>
>> Install DansGuardian.
>
> But it is not built in. OK.
No, but it's not like software install is particularly difficult with
Linux. Parents that want content filtering can easily install it.
>>
>>
>>> and preventing them from buying music with the primary tools used to
>>> do each.
>>
>> They wouldn't even have access. I'd have set it up so their account
>> didn't have permission to use any software that I didn't specifically
>> allow them to.
>
> I have no problem with them using the software for other things. In OS
> X I can also lock out software (I use this at one of the schools I work
> for - works flawlessly).
True, but some software they probably shouldn't be messing with, at least
without adult supervision. Particularly at the ages you were speaking of.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> * Packages
> >
> > Again...
>
> * Packages
>
> :)
>
> Ubuntu does not have the OS X style packages where an entire program with
> all of its subfolders appears as one icon and can, in the vast majority of
> cases, be moved around the hard drive and even from one computer to another.
That's not a "package", that's a "bundle".
A package has a .pkg extension and is used to install applications
with Installer.app
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
mr-1A8A04.08...@individual.net on 2/23/06 12:11 AM:
<http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/tmp/package.jpg>
You were saying?
Snit
Any ideas what this "good reason" might be?
No argument here. I would like to see that, too.
Thank you. I will read it in more depth later.
You can turn the feature on and off as a user and, I would bet, a programmer
has the option to include it or not. There are places where spellcheck does
not make sense, such as the address bar, where it is not used.
Could be.
>
>>
>> 3) Started typing: holy cow! The fonts are horrid. I kept thinking I
>> had accidentally added an extra space they were so bad. Editing was
>> miserable because I literally could not tell where spaces were between
>> letters. Here is a screen shot where I compared it to MS Word:
>> <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/tmp/fonts.jpg> That is a deal breaker to
>> me.
>
> Yeah, that is definately a Mac issue. My fonts look nothing like that!
> That's abysmal! No wonder you hate Abiword! It looks like death on a Mac!
If I set it to 100%, 150%, or 200% it looks fine. The default, however, was
"Page Width", which is my preferred way to work anyway - when it works. If
this is not a problem on other platforms that is a good thing. :)
>>
>> 4) The font menu on the tool bar did not show anything at all. When I
>> clicked there the menu popped up. I could not recreate this so I have
>> no screenshot.
>
> Another problem not duplicated on my Abiword.
As I said I could not replicate it either. I was going to take a screenshot
but couldn't.
>>
>> 5) The icons are clearly not as well designed as those in MS Word, for
>> example, it is not as easy to tell if the style icons are pressed.
>
> Very easy to tell on the screen I'm looking at. Very clearly marked.
> Display problems with the Mac version of Abiword?
Could be. Here is a comparison on the Mac versions of each program:
<http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/tmp/buttons.jpg>
>>
>> 6) Looking at dialogs it does things like list measurements as
>> "0.0000in". Are all those decimals needed? Not a huge deal, but still
>> annoying.
>
> I don't even know where this is. I see nothing like that.
Format > Paragraph
>>
>> 7) Tab selection is not as easy (MS Office has a menu, Abiword has you
>> click through all options)
>
> I can go through the menu items with *my* keyboard easily enough....
I prefer having a menu: <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/tmp/tabs.png>
>>
>> Just a few thoughts. #3 is the biggest deal, but the others add up.
>
> Maybe you've got a corrupted installation of Abiword or something. Or
> maybe it just blows on the Mac. It runs fantastically from where I sit.
It blows on the Mac. Another concern: when I close an unsaved window the
buttons on the dialog are "Yes" and "No", not "Save" and "Don't Save" as is
the norm on the Mac - and leads to less user error.
>
>>>
>>>>> If you open a document, and then alter it, the titlebar of the window
>>>>> changes slightly, indicating you have a changed document that hasn't
>>>>> been saved. Trying to close Abiword brings up a dialog which tells
>>>>> you that you have unsaved changes, and asks if you'd like to save
>>>>> before closing. This type of behavior is very common in programs I've
>>>>> used. Heck, going back to old terminal programs even, I remember back
>>>>> when I had a number of shell accounts, and used console based *nix
>>>>> exclusively....my mail and news readers behaved this way, as did my
>>>>> pavorite text editor (actually, the text editor I use in the console
>>>>> today does this too). This is old tech, around well before X even.
>>>>
>>>> What type changes do you mean? I know of no environment that does not
>>>> generally have a dialog that warns you about closing an un-saved
>>>> document. Some environments, however, have better warnings (especially
>>>> when it comes to button labels).
>>>
>>>
>>> The warnings are pretty good, and explicit, you can't close it without
>>> being made pretty clear what's going on, and very clear what your
>>> options are.
>>
>> But how do you know if you will get the dialog before you close the
>> document?
>
> As I said before, most programs give you some sort of indicator, Like
> putting "[modified]" at the top of the window, or a small symbol besides
> the name to indicate that it's been changed. Depennding on the
> environment. But basically the same sort of idea that OS X pulls off
> with it's bits of tagging.
But there is no standard way. I know some programs, such as Dreamweaver,
give an indicator on Windows, too, but there is no consistent way on Windows
or, as far as I know, Ubuntu. If there is I have missed it.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> * Parental controls
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You're kidding right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have not worked much with the parental controls in Ubuntu but I
>>>>>>>> have not seen anything that compares to what OS X has. By all
>>>>>>>> means link to anything to support that Ubuntu is OS X's equal
>>>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello, it's a *nix....if you don't want your kids doing something
>>>>>>> it's easy to lock it out. And if you want to know what your kids
>>>>>>> are up to, it's easy to check as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you seen the ease-of-use that Apple has connected to this
>>>>>> feature?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, but it's not like it's exactly difficult in any *nix, we're
>>>>> talking extremely basic stuff here.
>>>>
>>>> Can you give an example of, say, preventing a child from getting
>>>> e-mail from anyone but a small list of people
>>>
>>> Offhand, I'd set that in the email filters of the email program. I'd
>>> check regularly to ensure those filters are in place.
>>
>> Can you lock them?
>
> Not sure, but there's probably a way. I personally haven't looked into it
> too much. I haven't really a need.
On OS X such things are easy: though if you do not also stop the user from
running other software they can do that and get around the protection.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> , making it so they can only
>>>> visit certain web sites,
>>>
>>> Install DansGuardian.
>>
>> But it is not built in. OK.
>
> No, but it's not like software install is particularly difficult with
> Linux. Parents that want content filtering can easily install it.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> and preventing them from buying music with the primary tools used to
>>>> do each.
>>>
>>> They wouldn't even have access. I'd have set it up so their account
>>> didn't have permission to use any software that I didn't specifically
>>> allow them to.
>>
>> I have no problem with them using the software for other things. In OS
>> X I can also lock out software (I use this at one of the schools I work
>> for - works flawlessly).
>
> True, but some software they probably shouldn't be messing with, at least
> without adult supervision. Particularly at the ages you were speaking of.
I have an infant: as she gets older I have no problem with her using her own
account on my computer and using iTunes to play her music, make play lists,
even copy any CDs she has, but I do not want her to be able to "experiment"
with my credit card if she gets a hold of it and buy music. Or, as she gets
older, maybe I will give her as a gift 10 songs - of her choice. She will
be able to download those songs, pre-paid, and I will not have to worry
about her accidentally (or not so accidentally) going over her limit.
Well, by the time she is old enough for me to do that things may change with
the addition of video, holographic emersion experiences, or whatever else
they come up with. :)
The Ghost In The Machine
<SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
wrote
<C0224D36.463E5%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>:
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> stated in post
> 3h8vc3-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 2/22/06 5:00 PM:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
>> <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>> wrote
>> on Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:42:58 -0700
>> <C0223702.462A2%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>:
[snippage]
>>> MS Office on the Mac is *real* MS Office. I am not in reference
>>> to OO.o or something like that.
>>
>> Neither was he, if he's mentioning WinE; OO doesn't need WinE.
>>
>> (Personally, I prefer OO to MSO, even if it did deviate from TeX
>> for some reason. But that's me; YMMV.)
>>
>> [rest snipped]
>
> I have nothing against folks who prefer OO.o, but having "native"
> MS Office support in OS X is a nice bonus. I can, of course,
> also run OO.o, but few people on OS X ever do.
>
To each his own, although OO.o does have the advantage of requiring
no license outlay. I for one consider MSOffice on Windows to be
a steaming pile of [] but that may be more due to Windows than
to Office (although I do have IE running on WinE here, and yes, it
seems to have the occasional hang even there).
I do not see the advantage of MS Office, though OSX is a good OS,
as far as I know.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-1A8A04.08...@individual.net on 2/23/06 12:11 AM:
>
> > In article <C02209D5.4627E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >>>> * Packages
> >>>
> >>> Again...
> >>
> >> * Packages
> >>
> >> :)
> >>
> >> Ubuntu does not have the OS X style packages where an entire program with
> >> all of its subfolders appears as one icon and can, in the vast majority of
> >> cases, be moved around the hard drive and even from one computer to
> >> another.
> >
> > That's not a "package", that's a "bundle".
> >
> > A package has a .pkg extension and is used to install applications
> > with Installer.app
> >
> <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/tmp/package.jpg>
>
> You were saying?
I was saying that a package has a .pkg extension and is used to
install applications with Installer.app
--
Sandman[.net]
Liam Slider
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-1A8A04.08...@individual.net on 2/23/06 12:11 AM:
>
>> In article <C02209D5.4627E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>>>> * Packages
>>>>
>>>> Again...
>>>
>>> * Packages
>>>
>>> :)
>>>
>>> Ubuntu does not have the OS X style packages where an entire program with
>>> all of its subfolders appears as one icon and can, in the vast majority of
>>> cases, be moved around the hard drive and even from one computer to another.
>>
>> That's not a "package", that's a "bundle".
>>
>> A package has a .pkg extension and is used to install applications
>> with Installer.app
>>
> <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/tmp/package.jpg>
>
> You were saying?
That everyone outside the Mac community has a different name for it.
Snit
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
> <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> wrote
> on Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:17:42 -0700
> <C0224D36.463E5%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>:
>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> stated in post
>> 3h8vc3-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 2/22/06 5:00 PM:
>>
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
>>> <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>>> wrote
>>> on Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:42:58 -0700
>>> <C0223702.462A2%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>:
>
> [snippage]
>
>>>> MS Office on the Mac is *real* MS Office. I am not in reference
>>>> to OO.o or something like that.
>>>
>>> Neither was he, if he's mentioning WinE; OO doesn't need WinE.
>>>
>>> (Personally, I prefer OO to MSO, even if it did deviate from TeX
>>> for some reason. But that's me; YMMV.)
>>>
>>> [rest snipped]
>>
>> I have nothing against folks who prefer OO.o, but having "native"
>> MS Office support in OS X is a nice bonus. I can, of course,
>> also run OO.o, but few people on OS X ever do.
>>
>
> To each his own, although OO.o does have the advantage of requiring
> no license outlay.
No doubt. That is a huge advantage.
> I for one consider MSOffice on Windows to be a steaming pile of [] but that
> may be more due to Windows than to Office (although I do have IE running on
> WinE here, and yes, it seems to have the occasional hang even there).
I am teaching two intro classes and in both of them Word has been locking up
often - several times a class. It is amazingly annoying, esp. for new
users. These users are so new we had spend hours on just how to use a
mouse; they certainly do not need to be distracted by such BS as they try to
learn what an insertion point is.
I think the problem, to be fair, is some add-ons that the college has put
into Word. This is not typical Word behavior.
>
> I do not see the advantage of MS Office, though OSX is a good OS,
> as far as I know.
I did a recent comparison of AbiWord vs. MS Office on the Mac. At least on
the Mac MS Office is far, far better. I think much the same can be said of
OO.o. At least on the Mac it is not very good, and from my experience with
it on Ubuntu it is not a whole lot better.
Snit
Sandman uses Macs: or at least claims to.
What other OS uses the form of package I was in reference to by any other
name?
Liam Slider
> "Liam Slider" <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
> pan.2006.02.23....@nospam.liamslider.com on 2/23/06 8:06 AM:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 07:22:57 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
>>> mr-1A8A04.08...@individual.net on 2/23/06 12:11 AM:
>>>
>>>> In article <C02209D5.4627E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> * Packages
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again...
>>>>>
>>>>> * Packages
>>>>>
>>>>> :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Ubuntu does not have the OS X style packages where an entire program with
>>>>> all of its subfolders appears as one icon and can, in the vast majority of
>>>>> cases, be moved around the hard drive and even from one computer to
>>>>> another.
>>>>
>>>> That's not a "package", that's a "bundle".
>>>>
>>>> A package has a .pkg extension and is used to install applications
>>>> with Installer.app
>>>>
>>> <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/tmp/package.jpg>
>>>
>>> You were saying?
>>
>> That everyone outside the Mac community has a different name for it.
>>
> Sandman uses Macs: or at least claims to.
Yes, but what he was refering to was exactly the same sort of thing we
also call packages.
>
> What other OS uses the form of package I was in reference to by any
> other name?
Well, it's certainly something that has been done on Linux. I remember a
popular tool for making TCL/TK applications, which basically packed all
the scripts, libraries, and interpreter together into a single
"executable" (not really, just a fancy folder like I said) with an icon.
You could move that pretty much anywhere on any Linux system (a seperate
"executable" was needed for Windows) and it would run fine, because it was
totally self contained. Provided there was a GUI to display it, should it
have needed one, of course.
Snit
>>>>>>>> * Packages
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Packages
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ubuntu does not have the OS X style packages where an entire program with
>>>>>> all of its subfolders appears as one icon and can, in the vast majority
>>>>>> of cases, be moved around the hard drive and even from one computer to
>>>>>> another.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not a "package", that's a "bundle".
>>>>>
>>>>> A package has a .pkg extension and is used to install applications
>>>>> with Installer.app
>>>>>
>>>> <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/tmp/package.jpg>
>>>>
>>>> You were saying?
>>>
>>> That everyone outside the Mac community has a different name for it.
>>>
>> Sandman uses Macs: or at least claims to.
>
> Yes, but what he was refering to was exactly the same sort of thing we
> also call packages.
Sure: the term "packages" has more than one meaning in the computing world.
Please note that I had already explained I was in reference to "OS X style
packages" and then even described them; in fact it is that comment that
Sandman was in reference to when he said they were not called packages but
instead were called "bundles". I showed him that in OS X what I was in
reference to is called a "Package". I admit I may not have stated it as
kindly as I would have to others but Sandman is following me around trolling
me in other threads right now; I certainly was much more kind to him than he
is being to me. In any case, my image makes it very, very clear what
"Package" I am talking about.
>
>>
>> What other OS uses the form of package I was in reference to by any
>> other name?
>
> Well, it's certainly something that has been done on Linux.
I did not know that.
> I remember a popular tool for making TCL/TK applications, which basically
> packed all the scripts, libraries, and interpreter together into a single
> "executable" (not really, just a fancy folder like I said) with an icon. You
> could move that pretty much anywhere on any Linux system (a seperate
> "executable" was needed for Windows) and it would run fine, because it was
> totally self contained. Provided there was a GUI to display it, should it have
> needed one, of course.
Could an user open the folder and alter resources? If so was it as easy as
my image shows it being on OS X?
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> We largely agree on these points. I think Linux has a *lot* to offer and
> respect the OS and the people that work on it and use it. I use it some but
> use OS X much more and even teach its (and Windows) usage professionally. I
> am a Linux novice, and openly admit that (even though it causes trolls such
> as Peter K. to go into frenzy mode)
You're the guy that goes in to frenzy mode... actually, more like
bullshit mode, when linux users point out where you are wrong. That you
are seen here admitting you are a novice doesn't bolster the feeling
that you ever had a clue in any of the arguments you've trolled... uh
... posted to cola.
--
"I am not fond of "me too" posts..." - Snit
Elizabot v2.0.3
> "Liam Slider" <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
> pan.2006.02.23....@nospam.liamslider.com on 2/22/06 11:08 PM:
>>True, but some software they probably shouldn't be messing with, at least
>>without adult supervision. Particularly at the ages you were speaking of.
>
>
> I have an infant: as she gets older I have no problem with her using her own
> account on my computer and using iTunes to play her music, make play lists,
> even copy any CDs she has, but I do not want her to be able to "experiment"
> with my credit card if she gets a hold of it and buy music. Or, as she gets
> older, maybe I will give her as a gift 10 songs - of her choice. She will
> be able to download those songs, pre-paid, and I will not have to worry
> about her accidentally (or not so accidentally) going over her limit.
>
> Well, by the time she is old enough for me to do that things may change with
> the addition of video, holographic emersion experiences, or whatever else
> they come up with. :)
>
It's really terrible that you are worried about your 8 month old
daughter breaking into your computer, and it's not the first time you've
expressed this concern of yours.
"To encrypt files. I have my computer set to auto-log on into my
account and there are files I do not want people to have access to
should my computer by stolen or as my daughter gets older."
"I have a daughter who is currently too young to be a concern, but kids
are curious and leaving such data where she could access it would be
similar (though not as dangerous) as these idiot parents who leave guns
where their kids can get to them."
What sort of family did you grow up in, Mike? I know when I was a kid I
*never* went through my parents' personal belongings. Apparently, you
must have. Otherwise I don't know where your mistrust comes from. It's
really horrible that you are already projecting your own personal
deviant and immoral behavior onto your innocent baby girl. How much time
do you spend sitting around and focusing on all the negative things she
might do in her life, Mike? You realize it's unhealthy for you to do
that, right??
Snit
11vrplf...@corp.supernews.com on 2/23/06 9:45 AM:
Please stop sharing your fantasies about my life, Elizabeth. Your obsession
with me is beyond annoying: <http://snipurl.com/elizabeths_obsession>.
Liam Slider
No idea really, I'm not one of the developers.
<snip>
Oh, so now you're saying that programmers do choose whether or not to
include the dictionary function in their software? That's exactly what I
said about Linux. We have things like system wide dictionaries, it's up to
programmers if they actually want to use the things.
Nope, don't see it even when set to "page width" so it's not a general
Abiword bug. Fonts still look nice here.
>>>
>>> 4) The font menu on the tool bar did not show anything at all. When I
>>> clicked there the menu popped up. I could not recreate this so I have
>>> no screenshot.
>>
>> Another problem not duplicated on my Abiword.
>
> As I said I could not replicate it either. I was going to take a screenshot
> but couldn't.
Hmmm.
>>>
>>> 5) The icons are clearly not as well designed as those in MS Word, for
>>> example, it is not as easy to tell if the style icons are pressed.
>>
>> Very easy to tell on the screen I'm looking at. Very clearly marked.
>> Display problems with the Mac version of Abiword?
>
> Could be. Here is a comparison on the Mac versions of each program:
> <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/tmp/buttons.jpg>
Looks a tad different. maybe a little less clear. I certainly have no
problem telling what is pressed and what isn't on Abiword on Linux though.
>>>
>>> 6) Looking at dialogs it does things like list measurements as
>>> "0.0000in". Are all those decimals needed? Not a huge deal, but still
>>> annoying.
>>
>> I don't even know where this is. I see nothing like that.
>
> Format > Paragraph
Ah yes, I see it now. I would assume it's there for precision in
document formatting. It may not be needed by you, but perhaps by some.
>>>
>>> 7) Tab selection is not as easy (MS Office has a menu, Abiword has you
>>> click through all options)
>>
>> I can go through the menu items with *my* keyboard easily enough....
>
> I prefer having a menu: <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/tmp/tabs.png>
>>>
>>> Just a few thoughts. #3 is the biggest deal, but the others add up.
>>
>> Maybe you've got a corrupted installation of Abiword or something. Or
>> maybe it just blows on the Mac. It runs fantastically from where I sit.
>
> It blows on the Mac. Another concern: when I close an unsaved window
> the buttons on the dialog are "Yes" and "No", not "Save" and "Don't
> Save" as is the norm on the Mac - and leads to less user error.
The buttons here are "close without saving", "cancel", and "save." Makes
it fairly clear what the options are, and that there is unsaved content.
There's no standard environment on Linux. Of course different applications
for different environments may behave differently. Most programs do have
some sufficient similarity though.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> * Parental controls
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You're kidding right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have not worked much with the parental controls in Ubuntu but
>>>>>>>>> I have not seen anything that compares to what OS X has. By all
>>>>>>>>> means link to anything to support that Ubuntu is OS X's equal
>>>>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello, it's a *nix....if you don't want your kids doing something
>>>>>>>> it's easy to lock it out. And if you want to know what your kids
>>>>>>>> are up to, it's easy to check as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have you seen the ease-of-use that Apple has connected to this
>>>>>>> feature?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, but it's not like it's exactly difficult in any *nix, we're
>>>>>> talking extremely basic stuff here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you give an example of, say, preventing a child from getting
>>>>> e-mail from anyone but a small list of people
>>>>
>>>> Offhand, I'd set that in the email filters of the email program. I'd
>>>> check regularly to ensure those filters are in place.
>>>
>>> Can you lock them?
>>
>> Not sure, but there's probably a way. I personally haven't looked into
>> it too much. I haven't really a need.
>
> On OS X such things are easy: though if you do not also stop the user
> from running other software they can do that and get around the
> protection.
I'm sure it's fairly easy on Linux too, I just haven't looked into it.
This is why seperation of the purchasing software and the listening
software is a good idea. :-)
Elizabot v2.0.3
Oh, come on now, Mike. You missed your cue. This is when you are
supposed to make up some story about my wanting to be involved in
raising your daughter. I can't believe you missed this opportunity to
add onto your trolling page about me.
Mike, seriously, take a break.
Snit
>>>>>> Mac users tend to go for ease of use; as odd as it seems, MS actually is
>>>>>> the easiest to use office suite, though they keep trying to "help"
>>>>>> people more and more which often back fires.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know...I've found the Office software on Linux fairly easy to use.
>>>>
>>>> It still is not as well laid out. One example: zooming to page width is
>>>> left out of the toolbar for no good reason.
>>>
>>> *shrug*
>>>
>>> Maybe they didn't have a good reason to put it in.
>>
>> Any ideas what this "good reason" might be?
>
> No idea really, I'm not one of the developers.
If there is a reason it should be from the user perspective, not the
developer. Apple seems to keep that in mind more than other companies
(though they are far from perfect!)
But in OS X they *are* used. To say it would be possible for the
programmers of FireFox to include it if they wanted does not help the user.
>>>> 3) Started typing: holy cow! The fonts are horrid. I kept thinking I
>>>> had accidentally added an extra space they were so bad. Editing was
>>>> miserable because I literally could not tell where spaces were between
>>>> letters. Here is a screen shot where I compared it to MS Word:
>>>> <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/tmp/fonts.jpg> That is a deal breaker
>>>> to me.
>>>
>>> Yeah, that is definately a Mac issue. My fonts look nothing like that!
>>> That's abysmal! No wonder you hate Abiword! It looks like death on a
>>> Mac!
>>
>> If I set it to 100%, 150%, or 200% it looks fine. The default, however,
>> was "Page Width", which is my preferred way to work anyway - when it
>> works. If this is not a problem on other platforms that is a good thing. :)
>
> Nope, don't see it even when set to "page width" so it's not a general
> Abiword bug. Fonts still look nice here.
OK. As shown in my image on OS X they are a deal breaker.
>>>> 5) The icons are clearly not as well designed as those in MS Word, for
>>>> example, it is not as easy to tell if the style icons are pressed.
>>>
>>> Very easy to tell on the screen I'm looking at. Very clearly marked.
>>> Display problems with the Mac version of Abiword?
>>
>> Could be. Here is a comparison on the Mac versions of each program:
>> <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/tmp/buttons.jpg>
>
> Looks a tad different. maybe a little less clear. I certainly have no
> problem telling what is pressed and what isn't on Abiword on Linux though.
Do you see where, at least on OS X, it is much more clear in MS Office? The
GNOME screenshot on the AbiWord site has a bit more contrast, but is still
not much better:
<http://www.abisource.com/screenshots/AbiWord-2.0-Gnome.png>
Then again, their Mac screenshots do not exactly match what I am seeing - so
maybe they are not from the most recent version?
>
>>>>
>>>> 6) Looking at dialogs it does things like list measurements as
>>>> "0.0000in". Are all those decimals needed? Not a huge deal, but still
>>>> annoying.
>>>
>>> I don't even know where this is. I see nothing like that.
>>
>> Format > Paragraph
>
> Ah yes, I see it now. I would assume it's there for precision in
> document formatting. It may not be needed by you, but perhaps by some.
I have no problem with being able to add that precision if needed (not that
it would matter on any printer I know of) but why show all the trailing
zeros?
>
>>>>
>>>> 7) Tab selection is not as easy (MS Office has a menu, Abiword has you
>>>> click through all options)
>>>
>>> I can go through the menu items with *my* keyboard easily enough....
>>
>> I prefer having a menu: <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/tmp/tabs.png>
>>>>
>>>> Just a few thoughts. #3 is the biggest deal, but the others add up.
>>>
>>> Maybe you've got a corrupted installation of Abiword or something. Or
>>> maybe it just blows on the Mac. It runs fantastically from where I sit.
>>
>> It blows on the Mac. Another concern: when I close an unsaved window
>> the buttons on the dialog are "Yes" and "No", not "Save" and "Don't
>> Save" as is the norm on the Mac - and leads to less user error.
>
> The buttons here are "close without saving", "cancel", and "save." Makes
> it fairly clear what the options are, and that there is unsaved content.
Agreed. Wish the Mac version had that.
The relative consistency on OS X is a strength. Ubuntu (and other distros)
are heading this way. Look at close/open and print dialogs in Ubuntu. While
there are a few "oddballs" for the most part they are the same. This is
true in OS X. It is not true for XP.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> * Parental controls
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You're kidding right?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have not worked much with the parental controls in Ubuntu but
>>>>>>>>>> I have not seen anything that compares to what OS X has. By all
>>>>>>>>>> means link to anything to support that Ubuntu is OS X's equal
>>>>>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hello, it's a *nix....if you don't want your kids doing something
>>>>>>>>> it's easy to lock it out. And if you want to know what your kids
>>>>>>>>> are up to, it's easy to check as well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Have you seen the ease-of-use that Apple has connected to this
>>>>>>>> feature?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, but it's not like it's exactly difficult in any *nix, we're
>>>>>>> talking extremely basic stuff here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you give an example of, say, preventing a child from getting
>>>>>> e-mail from anyone but a small list of people
>>>>>
>>>>> Offhand, I'd set that in the email filters of the email program. I'd
>>>>> check regularly to ensure those filters are in place.
>>>>
>>>> Can you lock them?
>>>
>>> Not sure, but there's probably a way. I personally haven't looked into
>>> it too much. I haven't really a need.
>>
>> On OS X such things are easy: though if you do not also stop the user
>> from running other software they can do that and get around the
>> protection.
>
> I'm sure it's fairly easy on Linux too, I just haven't looked into it.
I would love to see an easy solution for Linux. Maybe I will dig into this
more later. With OS X it is built in and there is very little looking to
do. With Linux this is not the case.
There are counter examples to this - I am not saying it is an overall solid
rule. For example OS X bizarrely does not ship with any GUI Usenet client.
I wish it would.
It is good, however, to have the same interface and be able to play my, for
example, Billy Joel album, decide I want more of his music, and with a
couple clicks get to all of his albums, listen to samples, buy one if I want
to, and have it immediately go into my "Billy Joel" smart album.
Snit
Do not just take a break: permanently stop obsessing over me. Get the hint
that I will *never* return your emotional pre-teen infatuation.
Elizabot v2.0.3
Mike, why are you being so silly? *You* are the one who needs to take a
break! You can't even read straight. Aren't you going to add what I
suggested to your trolling page?
Snit
>>>> Please stop sharing your fantasies about my life, Elizabeth. Your
>>>> obsession
>>>> with me is beyond annoying: <http://snipurl.com/elizabeths_obsession>.
>>>
>>> Oh, come on now, Mike. You missed your cue. This is when you are
>>> supposed to make up some story about my wanting to be involved in
>>> raising your daughter. I can't believe you missed this opportunity to
>>> add onto your trolling page about me.
>>>
>>> Mike, seriously, take a break.
>>
>>
>> Do not just take a break: permanently stop obsessing over me. Get the hint
>> that I will *never* return your emotional pre-teen infatuation.
>>
>
> Mike, why are you being so silly? *You* are the one who needs to take a
> break! You can't even read straight. Aren't you going to add what I
> suggested to your trolling page?
Please stop obsessing over me. Please note that even you have admitted you
have no excuse for your actions as shown on the page which details them.
There is no excuse for your emotional pre-teen obsession.
Elizabot v2.0.3
> "Elizabot v2.0.3" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> stated in post
> 11vrruv...@corp.supernews.com on 2/23/06 10:24 AM:
>
>
>>>>>Please stop sharing your fantasies about my life, Elizabeth. Your
>>>>>obsession
>>>>>with me is beyond annoying: <http://snipurl.com/elizabeths_obsession>.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, come on now, Mike. You missed your cue. This is when you are
>>>>supposed to make up some story about my wanting to be involved in
>>>>raising your daughter. I can't believe you missed this opportunity to
>>>>add onto your trolling page about me.
>>>>
>>>>Mike, seriously, take a break.
>>>
>>>
>>>Do not just take a break: permanently stop obsessing over me. Get the hint
>>>that I will *never* return your emotional pre-teen infatuation.
>>>
>>
>>Mike, why are you being so silly? *You* are the one who needs to take a
>>break! You can't even read straight. Aren't you going to add what I
>>suggested to your trolling page?
>
>
> Please stop obsessing over me. Please note that even you have admitted you
> have no excuse for your actions as shown on the page which details them.
I said no such thing. It is your classic reading comprehension problem
which has led you to believe such.
> There is no excuse for your emotional pre-teen obsession.
Aren't you going to add what I suggested to your trolling page, Mike?
This is a very simple yes OR no question.
Liam Slider
<snip>
>> I remember a popular tool for making TCL/TK applications, which
>> basically packed all the scripts, libraries, and interpreter together
>> into a single "executable" (not really, just a fancy folder like I
>> said) with an icon. You could move that pretty much anywhere on any
>> Linux system (a seperate "executable" was needed for Windows) and it
>> would run fine, because it was totally self contained. Provided there
>> was a GUI to display it, should it have needed one, of course.
>
> Could an user open the folder and alter resources? If so was it as easy
> as my image shows it being on OS X?
I can't remember too well, it's been a little while since I've done
anything with tcl, but I seem to recall it was possible.
GreyCloud
>
> What other OS uses the form of package I was in reference to by any other
> name?
>
Simple. Solaris... they use pkgadd, pkgrm, etc. (Prodreg)
RPM ... Redhat Package Manager. (Linux)
Sandman
Liam Slider <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
> >>>> That's not a "package", that's a "bundle".
> >>>>
> >>>> A package has a .pkg extension and is used to install applications
> >>>> with Installer.app
> >>>>
> >>> <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/tmp/package.jpg>
> >>>
> >>> You were saying?
> >>
> >> That everyone outside the Mac community has a different name for it.
> >>
> > Sandman uses Macs: or at least claims to.
>
> Yes, but what he was refering to was exactly the same sort of thing we
> also call packages.
Yes, and that's what packages are in OSX as well. What Michael
describes is an "Application Bundle" and has an .app extension.
--
Sandman[.net]
JEDIDIAH
> "JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> stated in post soruc3-...@nomad.mishnet
> on 2/22/06 12:48 PM:
>
>>>> Not proven != incorrect.
>>>
>>> I agree that not proven != incorrect, which is the precise reason that your
>>> comment about "hot air" is silly. Still, that is not the focus of the
>>
>> It's not at all silly, it's factual.
>
> I look forward to your support.
The fact that an assertion was bald?
There's really not much to support there. It either is or isn't.
You can count up the lines around the assertion accused of being bald.
It's pretty mathematical, not at all a matter of opinion.
>>
>>> discussion. I told you I would focus on where OS X is better for the
>>> average user. Here are just a few things that comes to mind (with the
>>> admission that I know OS X *much* better than I know Ubuntu, if you think
>>> any of the following are incorrect please let me know):
>>>
>>> * Automator: allows non-programmers to automate things in a way
>>> not possible with Ubuntu
>>
>> You will have to go into this in some detail and demonstrate how
>> this isn't just another iteration of SQA Robot.
>
> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/automator/>
IOW you've never used it.
OTOH, I've actually used SQA Robot and various other forms
of end user automation. Automating a visual environment can be
rather tricky, especially when you try to validate based on the
actual visual.
>>
>>> * Runs MS Office. Yes, I know Ubuntu runs OO.o, but that is simply
>>> not the same
>>
>> Linux runs msoffice. Been able to do that for about 10 years
>> actually. Probably one of the first things wine could ever run.
>
> Running something in Wine where is pops up with an interface different from
> the norm of the platform is not as good as having a "native" application
It's an "industry standard" application. It is far more suitable
to have the standard interface and binary file filters.
> experience. And Wine is not exactly something a novice would play much with
> in most cases. Wine does not even come with Ubuntu.
That is both an untruth and something you have absolutely zero
clue about.
>>
>>> * iLife: there is no integrated suite similar to it on *any* platform
>>
>> I'm not sure if that's a good thing. Although if I ran PPC Linux
>> I could try it out for myself and see what all the hubbub is about.
>>
>> iTunes certainly doesn't give me any interest in trying.
>
> If iLife was the only choice it would be a bad thing, a very bad thing.
> Having such an integrated suite, however, is clearly a very good thing when
> it is an option for the platform.
We have radically divergent ideas on integration.
An ubersuite doesn't constitute integration.
>>
>>> * Voice Over: for use with people with handicaps
>>> * System wide dictionary
>>
>> You mean like Unix had 15+ years ago?
>
> Using Firefox I do not get my misspelled words underlined. That is today.
IOW, that feature can't be turned off. Sounds rather annoying actually.
>>
>>> * Saved status notification
>>
>> This is a bit vague.
>
> I have explained it elsewhere in the thread:
> -----
> This is a very powerful though subtle feature of OS X programs: if you have
> unsaved changes the close icon for the window changes. It is true than many
Seems rather redundant actually. Are MacOS apps in the habit of
letting you close them with unsaved data? Even emacs doesn't do that.
> novices do not know it is there but it comes in very, very handy once they
> are shown how to "use" it (not much to do but just look).
> -----
>>
>>> * Parental controls
>>
>> You mean like Unix had 15+ years ago?
>
> No: like OS X has today: <http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/family/>
More stuff you like to ramble on about but can't provide a
meaningful personal anecdote on. Very revealing.
As an advocate, you get an F.
[deletia]
--
NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club! |||
/ | \
That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
JEDIDIAH
> on 2/22/06 1:59 PM:
>
>>>>> * Automator: allows non-programmers to automate things in a way
>>>>> not possible with Ubuntu
>>>>
>>>> them.
>>>
>>> No doubt: but nothing as easy as Automator. On both OSs there are far, far
>>> more powerful options. Heck, on OS X there is also AppleScript which allows
>>> for working beyond Automator with multiple applications in ways that I do
>>> not believe you can do with Ubuntu. Shell scripting and the like, of
>>> course, can be done with both.
>>>>
>>>>> * Runs MS Office. Yes, I know Ubuntu runs OO.o, but that is simply
>>>>> not the same
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is *much* easier to set up on OS X *and* it the interface is designed to
>>> fit in with the rest of the computer (well, mostly).
>>
>>
>> As far as "ease of installation" goes. That's a farce. You just run
>> the installer through wine manually or through the codeweavers GUI.
>>
>> The end result is running the "real" msoffice.
>
> MS Office on the Mac is *real* MS Office. I am not in reference to OO.o or
> something like that.
No it isn't. It's a bastard red headed stepchild.
Any Mac user that thinks otherwise is not worth listening to.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> * iLife: there is no integrated suite similar to it on *any* platform *
>>>>
>>>> Apple's own private software programs, it's no surprise that there's no
>>>> exact match for this suite given that Apple custom designed it and
>>>> provides it only to Macs. But we do have some nice stuff of our own.
>>>
>>> I am not looking for an "exact match", but a suite that is as easy to use
>>> and as well integrated. There are some that are not bad on Windows, I know
>>> of none for Linux.
>>
>> If iLife (by way of iTunes) represents Apple's best in terms of
>> robustness, ease of use and integration I think I will pass.
>>
>> [dwarves should not call midgets shorty]
>
> I am not saying you should like or dislike - I am saying it is a benefit
> for many. This is most true for relative novice and non-techie users.
Robustness and correctness come before the shiny bits.
Given Apple's resources they don't really have a good excuse to
not nail both pretty effectively. iTunes is one of those apps that actually
undermines your confidence in the commercial model of software for desktop
apps. It's rather bizarre actually. Never thought that would happen.
>>>>
>>>>> * System wide dictionary
>>>>
>>>> Another common tool actually.
>>>
>>> I do not believe it is as universal as the OS X one, for example I do not
>>> believe it auto-underlines misspelled words in its default web browser. I
>>
>> More visual noise. Just what everyone needed.
>
> You can poo-poo the idea all you want, that does not reduce the usefulness
> of it. Not one bit. Here is an example:
>
> Go to genericmail.com and write an e-mail and see if you can get realtime
> spellchecking. On OS X you can.
So what you're crowing about is a widget, not the dictionary.
You seriously need to work on those communication skills.
[deletia]
>>> * Packages
>>>
>>> :)
>>>
>>> Ubuntu does not have the OS X style packages where an entire program with
>>> all of its subfolders appears as one icon and can, in the vast majority of
>>> cases, be moved around the hard drive and even from one computer to another.
>>
>> You mean NeXT style applications directories. A different but not
>> inherently superior way of organizing the filesystem. Certainly not a system
>> superiority bulletpoint.
>
> What do you have against Packages as implemented by OS X?
You've got reading comprehensive problems too.
[deletia]
>>> Perhaps you should get some.
>>
>> If he could do so without burning 5 Benjamins in the process he might.
>
> Oh.
Snit
>> Please stop obsessing over me. Please note that even you have admitted you
>> have no excuse for your actions as shown on the page which details them.
>
> I said no such thing.
Oh, you have stated you are not able to post a defense and then lied and
claimed I was begging you to make up whatever lies you could to try to
defend your actions.
There is no defense for your obsessive actions. Please stop.
Snit
Would be interesting to know more details. Maybe I will go Googling later.
Thanks.
Snit
cPidnemER8r7Z2De...@bresnan.com on 2/23/06 11:06 AM:
> Snit wrote:
>
>>
>> What other OS uses the form of package I was in reference to by any other
>> name?
>>
>
> Simple. Solaris... they use pkgadd, pkgrm, etc. (Prodreg)
> RPM ... Redhat Package Manager. (Linux)
>
I look forward to your explanation as to how those are the same type of
packages I was in reference to.
<http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/tmp/package.jpg>
Snit
on 2/23/06 1:24 PM:
> On 2006-02-22, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>> "JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> stated in post soruc3-...@nomad.mishnet
>> on 2/22/06 12:48 PM:
>>
>>>>> Not proven != incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that not proven != incorrect, which is the precise reason that your
>>>> comment about "hot air" is silly. Still, that is not the focus of the
>>>
>>> It's not at all silly, it's factual.
>>
>> I look forward to your support.
>
> The fact that an assertion was bald?
>
> There's really not much to support there. It either is or isn't.
> You can count up the lines around the assertion accused of being bald.
> It's pretty mathematical, not at all a matter of opinion.
You claimed my comments about OS X / Linux were "hot air". You have yet to
support your claim. Will you now?
>
>>>
>>>> discussion. I told you I would focus on where OS X is better for the
>>>> average user. Here are just a few things that comes to mind (with the
>>>> admission that I know OS X *much* better than I know Ubuntu, if you think
>>>> any of the following are incorrect please let me know):
>>>>
>>>> * Automator: allows non-programmers to automate things in a way
>>>> not possible with Ubuntu
>>>
>>> You will have to go into this in some detail and demonstrate how
>>> this isn't just another iteration of SQA Robot.
>>
>> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/automator/>
>
> IOW you've never used it.
Sigh: I am not interested in your lies. Sure I have used it - I do so
often, actually. Even if I had not, though, that would not make Linux
suddenly gain a similar tool.
>
> OTOH, I've actually used SQA Robot and various other forms
> of end user automation. Automating a visual environment can be
> rather tricky, especially when you try to validate based on the
> actual visual.
What does that have to do with Linux not having anything similar to
Automator?
>
>>>
>>>> * Runs MS Office. Yes, I know Ubuntu runs OO.o, but that is simply
>>>> not the same
>>>
>>> Linux runs msoffice. Been able to do that for about 10 years
>>> actually. Probably one of the first things wine could ever run.
>>
>> Running something in Wine where is pops up with an interface different from
>> the norm of the platform is not as good as having a "native" application
>
> It's an "industry standard" application. It is far more suitable
> to have the standard interface and binary file filters.
It still have an interface that is non-standard for the environment.
>
>> experience. And Wine is not exactly something a novice would play much with
>> in most cases. Wine does not even come with Ubuntu.
>
> That is both an untruth and something you have absolutely zero
> clue about.
Yaaaaaaaawn. Did you say something?
>
>>>
>>>> * iLife: there is no integrated suite similar to it on *any* platform
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if that's a good thing. Although if I ran PPC Linux
>>> I could try it out for myself and see what all the hubbub is about.
>>>
>>> iTunes certainly doesn't give me any interest in trying.
>>
>> If iLife was the only choice it would be a bad thing, a very bad thing.
>> Having such an integrated suite, however, is clearly a very good thing when
>> it is an option for the platform.
>
> We have radically divergent ideas on integration.
>
> An ubersuite doesn't constitute integration.
Yaaaaaaaawn. Did you have anything of value to say?
>
>>>
>>>> * Voice Over: for use with people with handicaps
>>>> * System wide dictionary
>>>
>>> You mean like Unix had 15+ years ago?
>>
>> Using Firefox I do not get my misspelled words underlined. That is today.
>
> IOW, that feature can't be turned off. Sounds rather annoying actually.
Wow, you are clueless about what I am talking about. OK. Thanks for
sharing. I have no desire to explain things in more detail to someone being
hostile such as yourself. I have written about it elsewhere in the thread.
Go fish.
>
>>>
>>>> * Saved status notification
>>>
>>> This is a bit vague.
>>
>> I have explained it elsewhere in the thread:
>> -----
>> This is a very powerful though subtle feature of OS X programs: if you have
>> unsaved changes the close icon for the window changes. It is true than many
>
> Seems rather redundant actually. Are MacOS apps in the habit of
> letting you close them with unsaved data? Even emacs doesn't do that.
Er? When will you show some understanding of what you are responding to?
Next post maybe? I hope so.
>
>> novices do not know it is there but it comes in very, very handy once they
>> are shown how to "use" it (not much to do but just look).
>> -----
>>>
>>>> * Parental controls
>>>
>>> You mean like Unix had 15+ years ago?
>>
>> No: like OS X has today: <http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/family/>
>
> More stuff you like to ramble on about but can't provide a
> meaningful personal anecdote on. Very revealing.
>
> As an advocate, you get an F.
Your trolling was not very exciting. Spice it up some if you want me to
keep responding to it.
Snit
on 2/23/06 1:31 PM:
If you actually gain the ability to understand what you read you will
someday be embarrassed you wrote the above. :)