Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Re: OS X is PROOF linux that sucks!

4 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted

zara

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 8:47:22 PM6/29/05
to

"Mike Cox" <mikeco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:m0hdfgy...@yahoo.com...
> Question. If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so
> smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap? KDE and Gnome don't
> interoperate well. Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and
> kde apps reliably. How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS
> and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua?
> That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap.
> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux desktop would
> have left everything in the dust! But that is not the case, because
> Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
>
> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with a
> world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?

I'll bite - why can't they?


Ralph

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 8:51:11 PM6/29/05
to
Mike Cox wrote:

> Question. If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so
> smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap? KDE and Gnome don't
> interoperate well. Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and
> kde apps reliably. How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS
> and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua?
> That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap.
> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux desktop would
> have left everything in the dust! But that is not the case, because
> Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
>
> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with a
> world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?

If Linux is so bad, why is it running, at least in part, 8 of the top 10
fastest computers in the world? And why would you have to focus on the
something that is as subjective as looks rather than technical merit?

billwg

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 8:56:51 PM6/29/05
to

"Mike Cox" <mikeco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:m0hdfgy...@yahoo.com...
> Question. If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so
> smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap? KDE and Gnome don't
> interoperate well. Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and
> kde apps reliably. How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS
> and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua?
> That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap.
> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux desktop would
> have left everything in the dust! But that is not the case, because
> Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
>
> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with a
> world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?

I think that the answer is pretty obvious. If you are good at anything,
hitting a baseball, throwing a football, picking a winning horse, or coding
a GUI, you will naturally gravitate to the major leagues where you can test
your skills against the best. No matter how often I threw a football and
was thrilled in doing so, I never got to the level of Roger Staubach and so
had to look elsewhere for achievement. If someone loves to code a GUI and
is good at doing so, they will end up somewhere where the pros gather. That
is not the NYLUG meeting or anything even remotely resembling it. It is
Cupertino or Mountain View or Redmond where the folks that can soar with the
eagles will meet and the results will speak for themselves.


ray

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 8:59:46 PM6/29/05
to
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:27:02 -0700, Mike Cox wrote:

> Question. If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?

it doesn't.


> KDE and Gnome don't interoperate well. Heck, you can't even cut and
> paste between gnome and kde apps reliably.

I've not had any problem.

>How does Apple, which is a
> small fish compared to MS and other computing giants come up with
> something as good as OS X's Aqua? That right there is proof that Linux
> developers can't code worth a crap. Heck, you'd think with all those
> OSS developers, the Linux desktop would have left everything in the
> dust!

IMHO, it has.

> But that is not the case, because Windows 3.1 GUI gives
>Linux a
> run for the money!
>
> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with
> a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?

They have.

Lefty Bigfoot

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 8:59:03 PM6/29/05
to

> Subject: Re: OS X is PROOF linux

It is?

> ... that sucks!

It does?

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 19:27:02 -0500, Mike Cox wrote
(in article <m0hdfgy...@yahoo.com>):

> Question. If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so
> smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?

Because it was not designed as a desktop platform for GUI fans?

> KDE and Gnome don't interoperate well.

I tend to use one or the other at a time.

> Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and kde apps reliably.

I don't use many (any?) Gnome apps, but I don't recall such
problems.

> How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS and
> other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua?

It's pretty decent, but very resource hungry. One of the Linux
goals is to run on things other than the latest greatest
hardware. Since it will fire up KDE and run ok on an old
pentium, I think that's fine.

> That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap.

Really? You like a commercial software package better than a
free one, so that means that the developers are crap? Let me
guess now, hold on.... you don't program at all?

> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux desktop would have
left
> everything in the dust!

It's focus was elsewhere, and it has done quite well in other
places. Look at the supercomputer list sometime. However,
people are finally starting to pour energy into desktop linux,
but it does not happen overnight. Calling the developers crap
probably will help to motivate them though.

> But that is not the case, because Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the
money!

Oh, you don't expect us to take you serious then. Tata...

Alex

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 10:01:42 PM6/29/05
to
Mike Cox wrote:

> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc...

Small?

There is no argument that OSX is a fantastic looking and easy to use
desktop. They have made obvious proprietory advancements to the unix
base, and especially the X11 system, and it's only a matter of time
before the the opensource world catches up.

It's also "solid as a rock":

"Beneath the easy-to-use interface and rich graphics of Mac OS X lies
Darwin, an open source, UNIX-based foundation built on such technologies
as mach and FreeBSD." --
http://www.apple.com/macosx/overview/advancedtechnology.html

I suppose you could say they are standing on the shoulders of knuckleheads?


Liam Slider

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 9:13:38 PM6/29/05
to
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:27:02 -0700, Mike Cox wrote:

> Question. If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are
> so smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?

It doesn't.


> KDE and Gnome
> don't interoperate well.

They do.

>Heck, you can't even cut and paste between
> gnome and kde apps reliably.

Actually, they've been working better and better in this regard lately.


> How does Apple, which is a small fish
> compared to MS and other computing giants come up with something as good

> as OS X's Aqua? That right there is proof that Linux developers can't
> code worth a crap.

No it isn't. And I see nothing all that special about Aqua.


>Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the
> Linux desktop would have left everything in the dust!

It pretty much does.

>But that is
> not the case, because Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!

Now you are definately smoking something.

>
> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with
> a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?

We can, we are, we have.

Snit

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 9:24:10 PM6/29/05
to
"Liam Slider" <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
pan.2005.06.30....@nospam.liamslider.com on 6/29/05 6:13 PM:

> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:27:02 -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
>
>> Question. If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are
>> so smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?
>
> It doesn't.

More accurately: it does and it does not - there is no one "Linux
desktop"... something that is both a strength and a weakness of Linux.


>
>
>> KDE and Gnome don't interoperate well.
>>
> They do.
>
>> Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and kde apps reliably.
>>
> Actually, they've been working better and better in this regard lately.

Good: you realize they do not do it fully yet... and that historically they
have not, even rather recently.


>
>> How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS and other computing
>> giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua? That right there is
>> proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap.
>>
> No it isn't. And I see nothing all that special about Aqua.

It is often held up as a standard for ease of use and attractiveness...
though, of course, it does depend on your needs, experience, and taste.


>
>> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the
>> Linux desktop would have left everything in the dust!
>
> It pretty much does.

In what way?


>
>> But that is
>> not the case, because Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
>
> Now you are definately smoking something.

I have not seen a Linux GUI that is as bad as Win 3.1's... at least not KDE
or GNOME.


>
>>
>> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with
>> a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
>
> We can, we are, we have.

In some ways... Linux surely has a wide feature set... but in ease-of-use
and consistency, nothing beats Apple's OS X.


--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson


Rick

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 9:43:52 PM6/29/05
to
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:27:02 -0700, Mike Cox wrote:

> Question. If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so
> smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?

It doesn't.

> KDE and Gnome don't interoperate well.

They are different windowing environments.


> Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and
> kde apps reliably.

My stuff does.

> How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS
> and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua?

They have put many years of research into GUIs ans useability.

> That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap.

That statement proves how clueless you are.

> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux desktop would

> have left everything in the dust! But that is not the case, because


> Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
>

> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with
> a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?

First, your ignorant bigotry is showing.
Second Apple enforces its UI guidelines. Apple is one company. 'Linux' is
not a company. Red Hat, IBM, Novell are companies.

--
Rick
<http://ricks-place.tripod.com/sound/2cents.wav>

Message has been deleted

Larry Qualig

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 9:58:04 PM6/29/05
to

"Mike Cox" <mikeco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:m0r7ekb...@yahoo.com...

>>
>> > If a relatively small company like Apple Inc...
>>
>> Small?
>
> Compared to Microsoft, HP or IBM, yes.
>

Here's an interesting piece of totally useless trivia for ya....

Market cap

Apple = 29.97 Bil
HP = 69.47 Bil
IBM = 120.6 Bil
Msft = 271.1 Bil

To put it another way, Microsoft is larger than Apple, HP and IBM combined.
I'm a stock geek so I find this interesting.


Snit

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 10:18:09 PM6/29/05
to
"Rick" <no...@trollfeed.com> stated in post
pan.2005.06.30....@trollfeed.com on 6/29/05 6:43 PM:

> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:27:02 -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
>
>> Question. If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so
>> smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?
>
> It doesn't.
>
>> KDE and Gnome don't interoperate well.
>
> They are different windowing environments.

Very good, Rick! This is a wonderful thing for you to realize. Good to see
your know understand that they are not the same!

And before you go on about how you have known it for a long time... since
their is *no* reason to assume the OP did not realize it, the *only* reason
for you to bring it up is for you to brag about your lovely knowledge...

Or maybe you can offer a better reason why you would state such an obvious
fact. [the chance of that happening, however, is essentially nil]

>> Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and
>> kde apps reliably.
>
> My stuff does.

Your pride is enormous... I am sure.


>
>> How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS
>> and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua?
>
> They have put many years of research into GUIs ans useability.

True.


>
>> That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap.
>
> That statement proves how clueless you are.

Says you: who still is bragging that you know KDE and GNOME are, gasp!
"different windowing environments"!. LOL!


>
>> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux desktop would
>> have left everything in the dust! But that is not the case, because
>> Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
>>
>> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with
>> a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
>
> First, your ignorant bigotry is showing.
> Second Apple enforces its UI guidelines. Apple is one company. 'Linux' is
> not a company. Red Hat, IBM, Novell are companies.

And that is both a strength and a weakness for Linux.


--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.

Sean Burke

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 10:23:08 PM6/29/05
to

Mike Cox <mikeco...@yahoo.com> writes:

> HAHAHAHAAHA. You know nothing of BSD vs Linux! BSD developer Theo
> Raadt (creator of the most secure operating system OpenBSD) calls
> linux a "joke", "garbage", and that Linus' priorities are certainly
> not a stabe or secure kernel. From a recent article here is what
> Raadt says:

I wonder if you know any more about Theo than is
mentioned in the Forbes article. Does it discuss
the circumstances of Theo's departure from NetBSD?

-SEan


NoStop

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 10:31:02 PM6/29/05
to
Mike Cox wrote:

> Question. If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so

> smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap? KDE and Gnome don't
> interoperate well. Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and
> kde apps reliably. How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS


> and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua?

> That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap.

> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux desktop would
> have left everything in the dust! But that is not the case, because
> Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
>
> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with a
> world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?

How come you haven't yet figured out to keep your line lengths short?

--
Get Microsoft PowerToys for Windows XP here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
"A must-have for your Toy Operating System"

Message has been deleted

rapskat

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 10:58:33 PM6/29/05
to
begin Error Log for Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:27:02 -0700 - Mike Cox
<mikeco...@yahoo.com> caused an invalid page fault at address
<m0hdfgy...@yahoo.com>, details as follows:

> Question. If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are
> so smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?

It looks like crap according to whom? LGX is very customizable, so if you
think the default desktop "looks like crap" then you are certainly free to
customize it in every detail to something more to your liking.

I don't think my desktop "looks like crap" at all, though I have seen some
shots of Linux and Windows desktops that certainly do.

> KDE and Gnome don't interoperate well.

They don't? News to me, as I use both KDE and GNOME apps regularly
without any issues.

> Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and kde apps reliably.

Really? So when I edit some text in Kate and then copy&paste it into Pan,
that's unreliable?

> How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS and other
> computing giants come up with something as good
> as OS X's Aqua?

Aqua is just a look, not a product. There are a wealth of themes for
both Windows and Linux that can emulate this look if you want it.

> That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap.

What does code have to do with it? I would think that lies more in the
auspices of graphic designers than programmers. Besides, as I've stated,
you can emulate the Aqua look & feel on Windows or Linux.

> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the
> Linux desktop would have left everything in the dust!

Well, it does really. But that's just my opinion.

> But that is not the case, because Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!

Now you're just being silly.



> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with
> a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?

Not counting 3rd party apps and addons, just what functionality is present
in either Windows XP or OS X that isn't with a default install of say,
Mepis Linux?

--
rapskat - 22:47:25 up 1:12, 2 users, load average: 0.36, 0.25, 0.17
The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
and lines to code before I sleep,
And lines to code before I sleep.
-- Stephen Williams

rapskat

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 11:03:47 PM6/29/05
to
begin Error Log for Thu, 30 Jun 2005 02:23:08 +0000 - Sean Burke
<foo...@mystery.org> caused an invalid page fault at address
<x78y0sd...@bolo.xenadyne.com>, details as follows:

http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-users/1994/12/23/0000.html

Just another highly opinionated, condescending, controlling and
overbearing asshole it seems.

Just goes to show that one's accomplishments, no matter how great,
aren't any indicator of one's personality and vice-versa.

--
rapskat - 23:00:40 up 1:25, 2 users, load average: 0.21, 0.26, 0.24
"Immortality is an adequate definition of high availability for
me."
--- Gregory F. Pfister

rapskat

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 11:05:38 PM6/29/05
to
begin Error Log for Wed, 29 Jun 2005 19:18:09 -0700 - Snit
<SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> caused an invalid page fault at address
<BEE8A471.209BD%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, details as follows:

>>> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with
>>> a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
>>
>> First, your ignorant bigotry is showing.
>> Second Apple enforces its UI guidelines. Apple is one company. 'Linux' is
>> not a company. Red Hat, IBM, Novell are companies.
>
> And that is both a strength and a weakness for Linux.

A strength. If Linux were wholely owned and controlled by one company, M$
would have made short work of it long ago.

--
rapskat - 23:04:49 up 1:29, 2 users, load average: 0.06, 0.21, 0.23
"First rule: Never sweat the petty things, or pet the sweaty things."

Liam Slider

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 11:23:57 PM6/29/05
to
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:24:10 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "Liam Slider" <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
> pan.2005.06.30....@nospam.liamslider.com on 6/29/05 6:13 PM:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:27:02 -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
>>
>>> Question. If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are
>>> so smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?
>>
>> It doesn't.
>
> More accurately: it does and it does not - there is no one "Linux
> desktop"... something that is both a strength and a weakness of Linux.

How does choice mean it does (look like crap) and it doesn't (look like
crap)?


>>
>>
>>> KDE and Gnome don't interoperate well.
>>>
>> They do.
>>
>>> Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and kde apps
>>> reliably.
>>>
>> Actually, they've been working better and better in this regard lately.
>
> Good: you realize they do not do it fully yet... and that historically
> they have not, even rather recently.


I release they haven't in the past yes. But, at least on some distros,
it's being done very well right now. Mandrake/Mandriva for example.


>>
>>> How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS and other
>>> computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua? That
>>> right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap.
>>>
>> No it isn't. And I see nothing all that special about Aqua.
>
> It is often held up as a standard for ease of use and attractiveness...
> though, of course, it does depend on your needs, experience, and taste.


There are some nits I can pick about the OSX gui...

>>
>>> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the
>>> Linux desktop would have left everything in the dust!
>>
>> It pretty much does.
>
> In what way?

Configurability, flexibility, speed on the same hardware as other
"mainstream" operating systems, choice (with Linux you can keep your OS,
but choose your Desktop Environment. Not so on other mainstream desktop
operating systems. Plus we have greater choice of hardware as well),
stability and security (we have had less malware problems than OSX
actually, although that numbers is still laughable compared to Windows.
And OSX has had a few more stability issues than Linux overall I've heard,
although that's been improving a great deal), ease of install of a vast
software library (package management systems like urpmi, apt, emerge, and
so forth give us access to many thousands of software titles with a few
simple commands, or with a simple GUI. Just a simple download and install
of virtually anything for our systems), etc...

>>
>>> But that is
>>> not the case, because Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
>>
>> Now you are definately smoking something.
>
> I have not seen a Linux GUI that is as bad as Win 3.1's... at least not
> KDE or GNOME.

I think I can agree here. Win 3.1 was pretty bad.

>>
>>>
>>> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with
>>> a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
>>
>> We can, we are, we have.
>
> In some ways... Linux surely has a wide feature set... but in ease-of-use
> and consistency, nothing beats Apple's OS X.

I'd say we come damn close. OSX has areas where it is a bit irritaing at
times too you know. There are areas where, as a Linux user, I can point to
it and complain about usability issues. In fact, I have.

Snit

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 11:25:11 PM6/29/05
to
"rapskat" <rap...@gmail.com> stated in post
pan.2005.06.30....@rapskat.com on 6/29/05 8:05 PM:

> begin Error Log for Wed, 29 Jun 2005 19:18:09 -0700 - Snit
> <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> caused an invalid page fault at address
> <BEE8A471.209BD%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, details as follows:
>
>>>> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with
>>>> a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
>>>
>>> First, your ignorant bigotry is showing.
>>> Second Apple enforces its UI guidelines. Apple is one company. 'Linux' is
>>> not a company. Red Hat, IBM, Novell are companies.
>>
>> And that is both a strength and a weakness for Linux.
>
> A strength. If Linux were wholely owned and controlled by one company, M$
> would have made short work of it long ago.

A weakness: the "brand" name is so scattered that people really have no idea
what to expect when they use a Linux machine.

As I said, it is both a strength and a weakness. Overall, however, I think
it is a good thing - we already have an Apple as an alternative to MS, Linux
offers a very different alternative. I am happy both exist.

Snit

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 11:39:59 PM6/29/05
to
"Liam Slider" <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
pan.2005.06.30....@nospam.liamslider.com on 6/29/05 8:23 PM:

> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:24:10 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "Liam Slider" <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
>> pan.2005.06.30....@nospam.liamslider.com on 6/29/05 6:13 PM:
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:27:02 -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
>>>
>>>> Question. If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are
>>>> so smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?
>>>
>>> It doesn't.
>>
>> More accurately: it does and it does not - there is no one "Linux
>> desktop"... something that is both a strength and a weakness of Linux.
>
> How does choice mean it does (look like crap) and it doesn't (look like
> crap)?

People, or distributors / IT folks / etc, can have it look, and work, in
many ways.


>>>
>>>> KDE and Gnome don't interoperate well.
>>>>
>>> They do.
>>>
>>>> Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and kde apps
>>>> reliably.
>>>>
>>> Actually, they've been working better and better in this regard lately.
>>
>> Good: you realize they do not do it fully yet... and that historically
>> they have not, even rather recently.
>
> I release they haven't in the past yes. But, at least on some distros,
> it's being done very well right now. Mandrake/Mandriva for example.

No argument here...


>>>
>>>> How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS and other
>>>> computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua? That
>>>> right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap.
>>>>
>>> No it isn't. And I see nothing all that special about Aqua.
>>
>> It is often held up as a standard for ease of use and attractiveness...
>> though, of course, it does depend on your needs, experience, and taste.
>
> There are some nits I can pick about the OSX gui...

As can I. Even things beyond just nits:

http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win/

I certainly do not mean to imply OS X is perfect.


>>>
>>>> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the
>>>> Linux desktop would have left everything in the dust!
>>>
>>> It pretty much does.
>>
>> In what way?
>
> Configurability, flexibility

Configurability and flexibility are a two edges sword. I assume you know
the pros, so do not take my lack of comments on that here to mean I do not
know that there are some pros...

With that said, a well designed interface can be hurt by too much
configurability. How many more accidents would there be on the road if it
were easy to "configure" which peddle was the gas, which was the brake...
and which direction you moved the steering wheel to turn left? The relative
consistency (and lack of easy configurability) from car to car is a *huge*
advantage and even, literally, a life saver.

With Linux almost anything is possible - but it is not consistent from
machine to machine, from application to application, or - sometimes - even
within the same application (while this is true for other OS's, it is much
more true with Linux). This leads to a Linux community that often blames
the user when the user can not efficiently use their computer. It also
requires a larger learning curve and makes shared work stations less
appealing.

> , speed on the same hardware as other "mainstream" operating systems, choice
> (with Linux you can keep your OS, but choose your Desktop Environment. Not so
> on other mainstream desktop operating systems. Plus we have greater choice of
> hardware as well), stability and security (we have had less malware problems
> than OSX actually, although that numbers is still laughable compared to
> Windows.

I would like to see your support that Linux has had less malware than OS
X...

> And OSX has had a few more stability issues than Linux overall I've heard,
> although that's been improving a great deal)

Again I would like to see your support. 10.0 (or maybe 10.1) was the last
time I can say OS X has had any real stability issues.

> , ease of install of a vast software library (package management systems like
> urpmi, apt, emerge, and so forth give us access to many thousands of software
> titles with a few simple commands, or with a simple GUI. Just a simple
> download and install of virtually anything for our systems), etc...

Easy for an experienced user... for most novices, Linux is a huge mystery -
more so than OS X or even Windows.

>>>> But that is
>>>> not the case, because Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
>>>
>>> Now you are definately smoking something.
>>
>> I have not seen a Linux GUI that is as bad as Win 3.1's... at least not
>> KDE or GNOME.
>
> I think I can agree here. Win 3.1 was pretty bad.

You are being kind to say "pretty bad". I do not think it was "pretty" at
all. :)


>>>>
>>>> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with
>>>> a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
>>>
>>> We can, we are, we have.
>>
>> In some ways... Linux surely has a wide feature set... but in ease-of-use
>> and consistency, nothing beats Apple's OS X.
>
> I'd say we come damn close. OSX has areas where it is a bit irritaing at
> times too you know.

No doubt.

> There are areas where, as a Linux user, I can point to
> it and complain about usability issues. In fact, I have.

Even where we disagree, sounds like you are being reasonably fair minded
about this. Good to see, as that is often not the case in CSMA / COLA


--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/f351
Feel free to ask for the recipe.


Tim Smith

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 11:58:48 PM6/29/05
to
In article <m0hdfgy...@yahoo.com>,

Mike Cox <mikeco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with a
> world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?

Apple has a market cap of $30 billion. Compare to:

Sun $12 billion
Redhat $2 billion

Apple has over 11000 employees.

Apple has $11 billion a year in revenue.

Apple has not been a relatively small company for a long long time.

--
--Tim Smith

Tim Smith

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 12:01:20 AM6/30/05
to
In article <pan.2005.06.30....@rapskat.com>,

rapskat <rap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Aqua is just a look, not a product. There are a wealth of themes for
> both Windows and Linux that can emulate this look if you want it.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult>

--
--Tim Smith

Liam Slider

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 12:04:37 AM6/30/05
to
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 20:39:59 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "Liam Slider" <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
> pan.2005.06.30....@nospam.liamslider.com on 6/29/05 8:23 PM:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:24:10 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "Liam Slider" <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
>>> pan.2005.06.30....@nospam.liamslider.com on 6/29/05 6:13 PM:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:27:02 -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Question. If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are
>>>>> so smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't.
>>>
>>> More accurately: it does and it does not - there is no one "Linux
>>> desktop"... something that is both a strength and a weakness of Linux.
>>
>> How does choice mean it does (look like crap) and it doesn't (look like
>> crap)?
>
> People, or distributors / IT folks / etc, can have it look, and work, in
> many ways.

And, so, but, therefore....

<snip>


>>>>
>>>>> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the
>>>>> Linux desktop would have left everything in the dust!
>>>>
>>>> It pretty much does.
>>>
>>> In what way?
>>
>> Configurability, flexibility
>
> Configurability and flexibility are a two edges sword. I assume you know
> the pros, so do not take my lack of comments on that here to mean I do not
> know that there are some pros...
>
> With that said, a well designed interface can be hurt by too much
> configurability. How many more accidents would there be on the road if it
> were easy to "configure" which peddle was the gas, which was the brake...
> and which direction you moved the steering wheel to turn left? The relative
> consistency (and lack of easy configurability) from car to car is a *huge*
> advantage and even, literally, a life saver.
>
> With Linux almost anything is possible - but it is not consistent from
> machine to machine, from application to application, or - sometimes - even
> within the same application (while this is true for other OS's, it is much
> more true with Linux). This leads to a Linux community that often blames
> the user when the user can not efficiently use their computer. It also
> requires a larger learning curve and makes shared work stations less
> appealing.


Actually, this is very rarely the kind of issue you make it out to be. For
instance, GNOME and KDE are both highly configurable, and even more so
with the right add ons...but they are still GNOME and KDE at the heart of
it and still work within their frameworks. Linux still follows a fairly
Unix-like philosophy of lots of standard parts plugging into each other in
order to do various tasks. While people can customise Linux
considerably...it's still Linux.


>
>> , speed on the same hardware as other "mainstream" operating systems,
>> choice (with Linux you can keep your OS, but choose your Desktop
>> Environment. Not so on other mainstream desktop operating systems. Plus
>> we have greater choice of hardware as well), stability and security (we
>> have had less malware problems than OSX actually, although that numbers
>> is still laughable compared to Windows.
>
> I would like to see your support that Linux has had less malware than OS
> X...


The only true viruses that Linux has ever had have been...well...confined
to the lab for all intents and purposes, and never really working even
there. OSX has had a tiny few cases I believe.

>
>> And OSX has had a few more stability issues than Linux overall I've
>> heard, although that's been improving a great deal)
>
> Again I would like to see your support. 10.0 (or maybe 10.1) was the
> last time I can say OS X has had any real stability issues.

True, as I said, it's very minor. Nothing approaching Windows. OSX is a
rock of stability in comparison, but I would not go so far as to say that
it's *quite* as stable as linux. Probably not even big enough for us to be
bothering arguing about though.

>
>> , ease of install of a vast software library (package management
>> systems like urpmi, apt, emerge, and so forth give us access to many
>> thousands of software titles with a few simple commands, or with a
>> simple GUI. Just a simple download and install of virtually anything
>> for our systems), etc...
>
> Easy for an experienced user... for most novices, Linux is a huge
> mystery - more so than OS X or even Windows.

What's so hard, so mysterious about clicking on the "install software
using <whatever>" menu item and choosing the application you want from the
well organised listing, or better, searching within that to find your
application. Then clicking the "install" button?

rapskat

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 12:16:11 AM6/30/05
to
begin Error Log for Thu, 30 Jun 2005 04:01:20 +0000 - Tim Smith
<reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> caused an invalid page fault at address
<reply_in_group-CF7...@news1.west.earthlink.net>, details
as follows:

I take it by this you are trying to convey that in creating themes for
other platforms/WM's that emulate the look and feel of Aqua, people are
"making obeisance to something that it is obvious they do not comprehend"?

Perhaps you are right. Please explain just what mysterious element these
themes and the people that use them just aren't getting if you would.

--
rapskat - 00:12:58 up 2:38, 2 users, load average: 0.14, 0.24, 0.26
"Developing open source software is like being in a car
accident. It's painful and bloody, lots of people stand around to
watch, but few want to help. Those that do are saints."
-- William Stearns

Timberwoof

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 12:39:23 AM6/30/05
to
In article <ANWdnU2x8Om...@rcn.net>, Ralph <n...@way.com> wrote:

> Mike Cox wrote:
>
> > Question. If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so
> > smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap? KDE and Gnome don't
> > interoperate well. Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and
> > kde apps reliably. How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS
> > and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua?
> > That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap.
> > Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux desktop would
> > have left everything in the dust! But that is not the case, because
> > Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
> >
> > If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with a
> > world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
>
> If Linux is so bad, why is it running, at least in part, 8 of the top 10
> fastest computers in the world?

Because you don't install X and KDE or Gnome on a node in a Beowulf cluster.
There's no question that Linux is really good for such things: lots of smart
people have worked on it to make it fast and robust. However, when geeks write
systems for geeks, the result is a system that appeals to geeks. Unfortunately,
they often can't understand the needs of non-geeks.

... which leads to the contradictory messages of "Linux for the Masses!" and
"Linux for only the technically competent!"

> And why would you have to focus on the
> something that is as subjective as looks rather than technical merit?

It's not just looks. (All too many Linux application programmers mistake the
ability to change an application's skin for being able to change its feel.) A
part of technical merit is how well an app follows proven UI conventions and how
well it presents a coherent model of the underlying concepts to a user.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship,
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.

Ralph

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 12:48:44 AM6/30/05
to
Timberwoof wrote:

You mean non-geek systems that get viruses and all that rot? Or ego boxes
that are over priced so people can impress people with how much money they
have to throw away like Apple computers?

>
> ... which leads to the contradictory messages of "Linux for the Masses!"
> and "Linux for only the technically competent!"
>
>> And why would you have to focus on the
>> something that is as subjective as looks rather than technical merit?
>
> It's not just looks.

Funny that's all that Mike focused on.

> (All too many Linux application programmers mistake
> the ability to change an application's skin for being able to change its
> feel.)

Oh, so changing from KDE to GNOME to WindowMaker is changing skins and not
changing feel? You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Switching
from KDE to GNOME to WindowMaker changes much more than its skin OR feel,
it changes some amount of functionality!

> A part of technical merit is how well an app follows proven UI
> conventions and how well it presents a coherent model of the underlying
> concepts to a user.

I noticed that you could not give a single thing that makes apple
technically better than Linux for ANY USE. Guess Apples are just ego
computers so losers that can't impress anyone any other way can at least
show that they have money to waste on over priced crap.

>

rapskat

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 12:49:34 AM6/30/05
to
begin Error Log for Thu, 30 Jun 2005 04:39:23 +0000 - Timberwoof
<timbe...@stimpberawoofm.com> caused an invalid page fault at address
<timberwoof-578E4...@typhoon.sonic.net>, details as follows:

>> And why would you have to focus on the something that is as subjective
>> as looks rather than technical merit?
>
> It's not just looks. (All too many Linux application programmers mistake
> the ability to change an application's skin for being able to change its
> feel.) A part of technical merit is how well an app follows proven UI
> conventions and how well it presents a coherent model of the underlying
> concepts to a user.

And Linux and it's applications don't do this? If a user knows the basic
concepts of computer use, then they would have no issues with Linux et al
at all.

I see children 5 and below using Linux with no problems.

--
rapskat - 00:47:15 up 3:12, 2 users, load average: 0.11, 0.29, 0.27
"5) what are people like spaf/chris rouland/lance then?
a) THEY ARE THE ENEMY. WHITEHATS = ENEMY."
-- http://www.blackhatbloc.org/phrack/texts/faq1.txt

Sean Burke

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 12:52:31 AM6/30/05
to

Mike Cox <mikeco...@yahoo.com> writes:

> I'm using GNU's Emacs. This thing is a gigantic ball of string
> (typical of the GNU/Linux movement. Who knows how to fix anything!
> I'm lucky I even got this far. Getting gnus set up and figuring out
> how to post was a 5 hour effort! First you need to know an obscure
> programming language (lisp), then you need to figure out what commands
> corrospond to what you need to do. Then you need to figure out how to
> even get around emacs with its thousands of commands and key combinations.
>
> It is not easy to use at all! This is representative of what GNU and
> Linux stand for.

You're confusing easy-to-learn with easy-to-use.
It's easy to learn play the kazoo, and hard to learn
to play the violin. But it is very easy to use a violin
to play chamber music - not so with the kazoo.

> The uber nerd experience. With Linux you need to
> learn fdisk and partitioning with weird things like / , and swap and a
> bazillion file systems. Reiser, Reiser4, XFS, AndrewFS, ext2, ext3,
> the list goes on! Then you need to know how to compile a kernel and
> figure out how to use CVS and the patch to command to compile it
> back. Then you need to
>
> Since OS X is based on BSD, I'm able to use this emacs monster from my
> iBook. But, since OS X is so easy to use and powerful, I wonder why
> Linux developers haven't come up with anything remotely as good.
>
> By the way, I fixed the formatting by looking for and old post of mine
> where someone gave me the obscure lisp command to put in my gnus
> file. I remembered I spent a lot of time figuring it out on my Linux
> box before I gave up on Linux and moved to SchilliX (opensolaris
> distro) and OS X.

What am i missing here? You can run GNU Emacs on Linux,
and that's one of the reasons that Linux is terrible.
You can also run it on OSX, but OSX is still easy to use
and powerful?

(BTW, i'm posting using Gnus on Solaris/Sparc).

-SEan

Sean Burke

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 12:57:32 AM6/30/05
to

rapskat <rap...@gmail.com> writes:

> begin Error Log for Thu, 30 Jun 2005 02:23:08 +0000 - Sean Burke
> <foo...@mystery.org> caused an invalid page fault at address
> <x78y0sd...@bolo.xenadyne.com>, details as follows:
>
> >
> > Mike Cox <mikeco...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >> HAHAHAHAAHA. You know nothing of BSD vs Linux! BSD developer Theo
> >> Raadt (creator of the most secure operating system OpenBSD) calls
> >> linux a "joke", "garbage", and that Linus' priorities are certainly
> >> not a stabe or secure kernel. From a recent article here is what
> >> Raadt says:
> >
> > I wonder if you know any more about Theo than is
> > mentioned in the Forbes article. Does it discuss
> > the circumstances of Theo's departure from NetBSD?
> >
> > -SEan
>
> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-users/1994/12/23/0000.html
>
> Just another highly opinionated, condescending, controlling and
> overbearing asshole it seems.
>
> Just goes to show that one's accomplishments, no matter how great,
> aren't any indicator of one's personality and vice-versa.

Definitely. Anyone who uses OpenSSL and OpenSSH (and that's pretty
much everyone, directly or indirectly) has reason to be grateful
to Theo and the OpenBSD team. But Theo's opinions about other
people and OS's should not be taken at face value.

-SEan

NoStop

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 12:59:33 AM6/30/05
to
Mike Cox wrote:

> NoStop <nos...@stopspam.com> writes:
>
>> Mike Cox wrote:
>>
>> > Question. If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are
>> > so
>> > smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap? KDE and Gnome don't
>> > interoperate well. Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome
>> > and
>> > kde apps reliably. How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to
>> > MS and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's
>> > Aqua? That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth
>> > a crap. Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux
>> > desktop would
>> > have left everything in the dust! But that is not the case, because
>> > Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
>> >
>> > If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS
>> > with a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
>>
>> How come you haven't yet figured out to keep your line lengths short?
>

> I'm using GNU's Emacs. This thing is a gigantic ball of string
> (typical of the GNU/Linux movement. Who knows how to fix anything!
> I'm lucky I even got this far. Getting gnus set up and figuring out
> how to post was a 5 hour effort! First you need to know an obscure
> programming language (lisp), then you need to figure out what commands
> corrospond to what you need to do. Then you need to figure out how to
> even get around emacs with its thousands of commands and key combinations.
>
> It is not easy to use at all! This is representative of what GNU and

> Linux stand for. The uber nerd experience. With Linux you need to


> learn fdisk and partitioning with weird things like / , and swap and a
> bazillion file systems. Reiser, Reiser4, XFS, AndrewFS, ext2, ext3,
> the list goes on! Then you need to know how to compile a kernel and
> figure out how to use CVS and the patch to command to compile it
> back. Then you need to
>
> Since OS X is based on BSD, I'm able to use this emacs monster from my
> iBook. But, since OS X is so easy to use and powerful, I wonder why
> Linux developers haven't come up with anything remotely as good.
>
> By the way, I fixed the formatting by looking for and old post of mine
> where someone gave me the obscure lisp command to put in my gnus
> file. I remembered I spent a lot of time figuring it out on my Linux
> box before I gave up on Linux and moved to SchilliX (opensolaris
> distro) and OS X.

Use Knode and post properly.

Timberwoof

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 12:56:42 AM6/30/05
to
In article <m04qbgy...@yahoo.com>, Mike Cox <mikeco...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> NoStop <nos...@stopspam.com> writes:
>
> > Mike Cox wrote:
> >
> > > Question. If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so
> > > smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap? KDE and Gnome don't
> > > interoperate well. Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and
> > > kde apps reliably. How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS
> > > and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua?
> > > That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap.
> > > Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux desktop would
> > > have left everything in the dust! But that is not the case, because
> > > Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
> > >
> > > If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with a
> > > world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
> >
> > How come you haven't yet figured out to keep your line lengths short?
>

> I'm using GNU's Emacs. This thing is a gigantic ball of string
> (typical of the GNU/Linux movement. Who knows how to fix anything!
> I'm lucky I even got this far. Getting gnus set up and figuring out
> how to post was a 5 hour effort! First you need to know an obscure
> programming language (lisp), then you need to figure out what commands
> corrospond to what you need to do. Then you need to figure out how to
> even get around emacs with its thousands of commands and key combinations.
>
> It is not easy to use at all! This is representative of what GNU and
> Linux stand for. The uber nerd experience. With Linux you need to
> learn fdisk and partitioning with weird things like / , and swap and a
> bazillion file systems. Reiser, Reiser4, XFS, AndrewFS, ext2, ext3,
> the list goes on! Then you need to know how to compile a kernel and
> figure out how to use CVS and the patch to command to compile it
> back. Then you need to
>
> Since OS X is based on BSD, I'm able to use this emacs monster from my
> iBook. But, since OS X is so easy to use and powerful, I wonder why
> Linux developers haven't come up with anything remotely as good.

Because Linux developers are geeks who enjoy complicated stuff for its own sake,
don't mind a crufty user interface, and rate an application by the number of
knobs to frob. They complain when an application reduces the main UI to the
barest essentials -- it takes away their sense of control over the application.

For instance, iTunes does let you set all kinds of parameters in how it rips
CDs, but they're hidden in the Preferences. I've seen Linux applications where
every last obscure MP3 encoding parameter is right there on the main UI.

Steve hired some talented and knowledgeable artists to design the look of OS X,
and some talented UI experts to design the feel. Together they came up with a
system that works very well ... and wrote books that explain how to do a
passable job of designing the UI for an OS X app. The result is that OS X apps
tend to have a similar look and feel, one that tends to be sparse and elegant.
What Linux geeks see right off is the sparseness and the apparent lack of
control, and that's what they focus on. OS X isn't meant for them, and they
don't really mean Linux for OS X users.

Especially folks like Peter Köhlmann -- probably pretty intelligent and
knowledgeable about Linux; maybe a decent programmer. But I'd never hire him to
design or implement a UI. His contempt for people he thinks are stupid (he's
said so himself) would spill out into his UI designs, which would probably be a
QA nightmare and show utter disregard for the non-expert user.

It's not that Linux developers are stupid or something -- they're not -- they
for the most part just don't get what good UI design is about.

> By the way, I fixed the formatting by looking for and old post of mine
> where someone gave me the obscure lisp command to put in my gnus
> file. I remembered I spent a lot of time figuring it out on my Linux
> box before I gave up on Linux and moved to SchilliX (opensolaris
> distro) and OS X.

The biggest problem I have with man pages is that they generally tell you all
the atomic behaviors but don't tell you any of the emergent behaviors. The man
page for a 'format' command would tell you all the two dozen parameters you can
use, but there's no wisdom about why or how to do it efficiently. I wish man
pages would include examples, cookbook style, of the most common ways to use a
command. (This is the equivalent of putting the essentials on the main UI and
hiding all the other knobs in a settings dialog.)

I still don't know how to add, for instance, the various MySQL GUI utilities to
the KDE menu. KDE documentation is overflowing with information on how to write
applications, but there's nothing for users. What, is a user supposed to read
the code to figure this out? Screw that ... I'm using OS X; it's easier to read
up on how to use that.

Timberwoof

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 12:58:36 AM6/30/05
to
In article <pan.2005.06.30....@rapskat.com>,
rapskat <rap...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Aqua is just a look, not a product. There are a wealth of themes for
> both Windows and Linux that can emulate this look if you want it.

You are mistaken ... but take comfort in the fact that many, many developers
think that "skinning" a gui is the same thing as changing its behavior.

rapskat

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 1:11:52 AM6/30/05
to
begin Error Log for Thu, 30 Jun 2005 04:58:36 +0000 - Timberwoof
<timbe...@stimpberawoofm.com> caused an invalid page fault at address
<timberwoof-0F25E...@typhoon.sonic.net>, details as follows:

> In article <pan.2005.06.30....@rapskat.com>,
> rapskat <rap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Aqua is just a look, not a product. There are a wealth of themes for
>> both Windows and Linux that can emulate this look if you want it.
>
> You are mistaken ... but take comfort in the fact that many, many
> developers think that "skinning" a gui is the same thing as changing its
> behavior.

But the thing is, on Linux you *can* change how your WM/DE looks, feels,
and behaves. Entirely.

For instance, on KDE you can emulate the top menu bar to be contextual to
the currently focused app, like OS X. Granted this doesn't apply for
non-KDE apps, but then neither does it apply for non-native apps on OS X
either.

--
rapskat - 01:06:11 up 3:31, 2 users, load average: 0.15, 0.31, 0.28
If you think the problem is bad now, just wait until we've solved it.
-- Arthur Kasspe

amosf

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 1:14:14 AM6/30/05
to
Timberwoof wrote something like:

> In article <pan.2005.06.30....@rapskat.com>,
> rapskat <rap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Aqua is just a look, not a product. There are a wealth of themes for
>> both Windows and Linux that can emulate this look if you want it.
>
> You are mistaken ... but take comfort in the fact that many, many
> developers think that "skinning" a gui is the same thing as changing its
> behavior.

Okay, so aqua is a look /and/ feel.

--
-
I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
-

Oxford

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 1:14:23 AM6/30/05
to
"Larry Qualig" <removethis...@uku.co.uk> wrote:

> Here's an interesting piece of totally useless trivia for ya....
>
> Market cap
>
> Apple = 29.97 Bil
> HP = 69.47 Bil
> IBM = 120.6 Bil
> Msft = 271.1 Bil
>
> To put it another way, Microsoft is larger than Apple, HP and IBM combined.
> I'm a stock geek so I find this interesting.

yeah, but that's market cap... yearly revenue is a better measure for
this type of discussion... yes it's also worthless info, but it shows
the relative sizes of the firms... not up or down stock value...

Apple revenues last year: 8,279,000 (will hit 12 billion this year)

HP revenues last year: 79,905,000

IBM revenues last year: 96,293,000

MS revenues last year: 36,835,000

Red Hat revenues last year: 124,737

Ralph

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 1:31:36 AM6/30/05
to
Oxford wrote:

> "Larry Qualig" <removethis...@uku.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Here's an interesting piece of totally useless trivia for ya....
>>
>> Market cap
>>
>> Apple = 29.97 Bil
>> HP = 69.47 Bil
>> IBM = 120.6 Bil
>> Msft = 271.1 Bil
>>
>> To put it another way, Microsoft is larger than Apple, HP and IBM
>> combined. I'm a stock geek so I find this interesting.
>
> yeah, but that's market cap... yearly revenue is a better measure for
> this type of discussion... yes it's also worthless info, but it shows
> the relative sizes of the firms... not up or down stock value...
>
> Apple revenues last year: 8,279,000 (will hit 12 billion this year)

From 8 million to 12 billion is quite a jump!

Oxford

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 1:45:26 AM6/30/05
to
Ralph <n...@way.com> wrote:

> > Apple revenues last year: 8,279,000 (will hit 12 billion this year)
>
> From 8 million to 12 billion is quite a jump!
>
> >
> > HP revenues last year: 79,905,000
> >
> > IBM revenues last year: 96,293,000
> >
> > MS revenues last year: 36,835,000
> >
> > Red Hat revenues last year: 124,737

oh, i forgot, you aren't up on accounting... numbers are in millions...

Ralph

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 1:49:22 AM6/30/05
to
Oxford wrote:

Accountants would have STATED that the numbers were in millions, they don't
just automatically assume that a 7 didgit number means billion. You are
dumber than I thought, and I didn't think it was possible.

7

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 1:58:27 AM6/30/05
to
Mike Cox wrote:

> Question. If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so
> smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap? KDE and Gnome don't
> interoperate well. Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and
> kde apps reliably. How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS
> and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua?
> That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap.
> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux desktop would
> have left everything in the dust! But that is not the case, because
> Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
>
> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with a
> world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?


Maks and OSX is going up and up in price, like windopes,
with interoperability failure to add to all that,
thats why people switch to Linux.

Oxford

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 2:06:56 AM6/30/05
to

give me a break... you were the one that thought it was millions in the
first place, you aren't used to seeing numbers this large, admit it...

Ralph

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 2:09:35 AM6/30/05
to
Oxford wrote:

So, you are saying that the numbers are in millions, that would mean adding
six "0"'s to the end of each... So you are saying that apple's revenue is:

8,279,000,000,000

I'm sure apple will be glad to hear they are making 8 trillion but dropping
to 12 billion will be bad news!

Hey, MORON, to get the numbers right, I think you want to say they are in
thousands, or adding three "0"'s making apple's revenue 8,279,000,000

Did you get math tips from DFS?

Timberwoof

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 2:09:57 AM6/30/05
to
In article <42c3...@news.comindico.com.au>, amosf <am...@bcs4me.com> wrote:

> Timberwoof wrote something like:
>
> > In article <pan.2005.06.30....@rapskat.com>,
> > rapskat <rap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Aqua is just a look, not a product. There are a wealth of themes for
> >> both Windows and Linux that can emulate this look if you want it.
> >
> > You are mistaken ... but take comfort in the fact that many, many
> > developers think that "skinning" a gui is the same thing as changing its
> > behavior.
>
> Okay, so aqua is a look /and/ feel.

Well, then. There you go. It's not just a look that can be emulated with a
theme.

Timberwoof

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 2:08:20 AM6/30/05
to

I'm not sure what you're talking about. There are no viruses for OS X.

> Or ego boxes
> that are over priced so people can impress people with how much money they
> have to throw away like Apple computers?

You sound just like that other jerk who was making stupid claims about how
expensive Macs are and how elitist Mac users are. Got any real technical points
to make?

> > ... which leads to the contradictory messages of "Linux for the Masses!"
> > and "Linux for only the technically competent!"
> >
> >> And why would you have to focus on the
> >> something that is as subjective as looks rather than technical merit?
> >
> > It's not just looks.
>
> Funny that's all that Mike focused on.

Mike doesn't speak for me.

> > (All too many Linux application programmers mistake
> > the ability to change an application's skin for being able to change its
> > feel.)
>
> Oh, so changing from KDE to GNOME to WindowMaker is changing skins and not
> changing feel?

That's an interesting conclusion to jump to. But it is false for that is not
what I said.

> You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Switching
> from KDE to GNOME to WindowMaker changes much more than its skin OR feel,
> it changes some amount of functionality!

Whoopee. I'm talking about individual apps or even entire window managers for
which all kinds of skins are available.

> > A part of technical merit is how well an app follows proven UI
> > conventions and how well it presents a coherent model of the underlying
> > concepts to a user.
>
> I noticed that you could not give a single thing that makes apple
> technically better than Linux for ANY USE.

Well, since that was not your question...

But since it is now, I'll give you a couple of things: 1. iPhoto makes sucking
pictures out of my nifty new used Olympus a snap. The guy I bought it from
warned me that drivers for it would be very hard to find. (I can just imagine
trying to find a driver for Linux that will talk to a C-2100.) So I plugged it
into my iBook. iPhoto launched and offered to get the pictures out of the
camera. No muss, no fuss. No fiddle-farting around with USB drivers or mounting
a volume under /mnt ... It just worked.

Next, iMovie similarly sucks movies right out of DV cameras and lets one edit
them in a friendly environment. It will import MP3s from iTunes, photos from
iPhoto, and compositions from GarageBand. No muss, no fuss. Yeah, Linux has
interactivity between applications ... as long as you can use the pipe operator.
Here, pipe this song from iTunes into iMovie. Yeah, right.

Having made a few iMovies, I can export them into iDVD, which lets me make DVDs
with functional menus without having to write any DVD programming code. Sure,
iDVD doesn't let you make a menu with Donkey jumping up and down in the
background yelling "Pick me, pick me!" but the results look damn fine.

So I just listed four ways that OS X, through its amazing ease of use, is
technically a better choice than Linux.

Here's another one: as a Unix workstation that can read Microshit documents that
people with Windows PCs tend to throw around at each other, OS X is pretty much
unbeatable. Yeah, there's OpenOffice, but it's just not as polished.

And yet another one: I set up a G3 as a firewall at my work. It's running OS X
and some other goodies that will keep the script kiddies at bay. Since it tweaks
one of my cow orkers who has a hate-on for Macs and may eventually realize that
all his work is being protected by that box, it is better than any PC.

So was it really your intention to imply that Linux is better than OS X for ANY
USE?

Don't get me wrong, though. Linux is pretty cool, too. Now unlike some folks
around here, I don't get a hard-on for just one kind of operating system.
Different ones have their uses. To set up a quick and relatively easy server,
whether a web server on the 'net or an internal file server, Linux does really
well. I've got about half a dozen Linux servers at work, running efficiently on
older hardware, mostly transparent to the users.

> Guess Apples are just ego
> computers so losers that can't impress anyone any other way can at least
> show that they have money to waste on over priced crap.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, and all those G3s I've got running around are really worth a
couple of grand apiece instead of the bargain I got them for. You've really got
a pathological fixation on Mac users' egos... I bet you're a nice guy in person,
but you'd have more friends if you didn't harsh on others' choices in computers
so much.

So. How about some real technical reasons Linux is better enough than OS X for
"ANY USE"?

Ralph

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 2:11:49 AM6/30/05
to
Oxford wrote:

You wrote it as millions! I was pointing out your error, but I guess you are
too stupid to get it. Considering you can't get it straight if you tried!
Even your claim that the numbers are in millions is WRONG! Fucking get a
clue! You are the one that obviously does not know how to deal with numbers
that big!

Oxford

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 2:28:43 AM6/30/05
to
In article <tKSdnVjSrcY...@rcn.net>, Ralph <n...@way.com> wrote:

> >> > Apple revenues last year: 8,279,000 (will hit 12 billion this year)
> >>
> >> From 8 million to 12 billion is quite a jump!
> >>
> >> >
> >> > HP revenues last year: 79,905,000
> >> >
> >> > IBM revenues last year: 96,293,000
> >> >
> >> > MS revenues last year: 36,835,000
> >> >
> >> > Red Hat revenues last year: 124,737
> >
> > oh, i forgot, you aren't up on accounting... numbers are in millions...
>
> So, you are saying that the numbers are in millions, that would mean adding
> six "0"'s to the end of each... So you are saying that apple's revenue is:
>
> 8,279,000,000,000

yeah, your error of using millions threw me off, they are in
thousands....

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=AAPL&annual

> I'm sure apple will be glad to hear they are making 8 trillion but dropping
> to 12 billion will be bad news!
>
> Hey, MORON, to get the numbers right, I think you want to say they are in
> thousands, or adding three "0"'s making apple's revenue 8,279,000,000
>
> Did you get math tips from DFS?

give it up ralph, you were the one that originally was confused... i
fell into your mistake, but corrected it...

Oxford

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 2:32:38 AM6/30/05
to
In article <tKSdnVvSrca...@rcn.net>, Ralph <n...@way.com> wrote:

> > give me a break... you were the one that thought it was millions in the
> > first place, you aren't used to seeing numbers this large, admit it...
>
> You wrote it as millions! I was pointing out your error, but I guess you are
> too stupid to get it. Considering you can't get it straight if you tried!
> Even your claim that the numbers are in millions is WRONG! Fucking get a
> clue! You are the one that obviously does not know how to deal with numbers
> that big!

go complain to your broker that you don't understand how revenue numbers
are expressed, your error is not my problem...

Arkady Duntov

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 1:54:18 AM6/30/05
to
On Wednesday 29 June 2005 23:14, Oxford <cs...@mac.com>
(<csma-0A233C.2...@news.uswest.net>) wrote:

> "Larry Qualig" <removethis...@uku.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Market cap
>>
>> Apple = 29.97 Bil
>> HP = 69.47 Bil
>> IBM = 120.6 Bil
>> Msft = 271.1 Bil
>>

> yeah, but that's market cap... yearly revenue is a better measure for
> this type of discussion... yes it's also worthless info, but it shows
> the relative sizes of the firms... not up or down stock value...
>
> Apple revenues last year: 8,279,000 (will hit 12 billion this year)
> HP revenues last year: 79,905,000
> IBM revenues last year: 96,293,000
> MS revenues last year: 36,835,000

Using your numbers, an even better measure is the revenue-price ratio:

Rev Cap Ratio
MSFT 36.835 271.1 0.14
AAPL 8.279 30.0 0.28
IBM 96.293 120.6 0.80
HP 79.905 69.5 1.15

I agree with you: both Apple and Microsoft are poor investments.

Timberwoof

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 2:35:37 AM6/30/05
to
In article <csma-16C5FD.2...@news.uswest.net>, Oxford <cs...@mac.com>
wrote:

Try again.

amosf

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 2:45:11 AM6/30/05
to
Oxford wrote something like:

Actually you fucked up and he just took your word for the figures. Maybe
this is a wintroll thing. When they say there are 3 linux users they
actually mean 3 billion? I'll note that down, thanks!

Oxford

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 2:48:27 AM6/30/05
to
Timberwoof <timbe...@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:

> > > > HP revenues last year: 79,905,000
> > > >
> > > > IBM revenues last year: 96,293,000
> > > >
> > > > MS revenues last year: 36,835,000
> > > >
> > > > Red Hat revenues last year: 124,737
> >
> > oh, i forgot, you aren't up on accounting... numbers are in millions...
>
> Try again.

yes, thousands... Ralph's mistake of millions threw me off, I later had
to correct it...

Ralph

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 2:50:50 AM6/30/05
to
Oxford wrote:

I have no trouble with the numbers from my broker, they are right and stated
correctly, if the numbers are shown in thousands it is stated as such from
my broker. I do have trouble with YOUR numbers that are not correctly
labled. Even a loser like timberwolf noticed that!

Ralph

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 2:53:32 AM6/30/05
to
Oxford wrote:

This is fun! Clearly nobody believes you and your claim is totally
unsupported by fact. I used YOUR numbers to come up with millions. If you
can't stand behind your numbers, you are no better than DFS.

rapskat

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 3:04:19 AM6/30/05
to
begin Error Log for Thu, 30 Jun 2005 06:08:20 +0000 - Timberwoof

<timbe...@stimpberawoofm.com> caused an invalid page fault at address
<timberwoof-6A316...@typhoon.sonic.net>, details as follows:

> (I can just imagine trying to find a driver for Linux that will talk to a C-2100.)

According to gtkam/gphoto, that model is supported.

--
rapskat - 03:03:42 up 5:28, 4 users, load average: 0.29, 0.18, 0.17
"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of
tapes."
-- Dr. Warren Jackson, Director, UTCS

Peter Ammon

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 3:03:23 AM6/30/05
to
rapskat wrote:
> begin Error Log for Thu, 30 Jun 2005 04:39:23 +0000 - Timberwoof

> <timbe...@stimpberawoofm.com> caused an invalid page fault at address
> <timberwoof-578E4...@typhoon.sonic.net>, details as follows:

>
>
>>>And why would you have to focus on the something that is as subjective
>>>as looks rather than technical merit?
>>
>>It's not just looks. (All too many Linux application programmers mistake

>>the ability to change an application's skin for being able to change its
>>feel.) A part of technical merit is how well an app follows proven UI

>>conventions and how well it presents a coherent model of the underlying
>>concepts to a user.
>
>
> And Linux and it's applications don't do this? If a user knows the basic
> concepts of computer use, then they would have no issues with Linux et al
> at all.

If you honestly believe that, you're utterly out of touch. I have major
issues with Linux and I certainly know the basic concepts of computer use.

>
> I see children 5 and below using Linux with no problems.
>

A 5 year old's uses for a computer are hardly representative.

-Peter

--
Pull out a splinter to reply.

Peter Ammon

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 3:07:45 AM6/30/05
to
Ralph wrote:
[...]

>
> I noticed that you could not give a single thing that makes apple
> technically better than Linux for ANY USE.

Off the top of my head: more stable kernel binary interfaces.

> Guess Apples are just ego
> computers so losers that can't impress anyone any other way can at least
> show that they have money to waste on over priced crap.

Linus uses a Mac.

Oxford

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 3:11:52 AM6/30/05
to
amosf <am...@bcs4me.com> wrote:

> > give it up ralph, you were the one that originally was confused... i
> > fell into your mistake, but corrected it...
>
> Actually you fucked up and he just took your word for the figures. Maybe
> this is a wintroll thing. When they say there are 3 linux users they
> actually mean 3 billion? I'll note that down, thanks!

incorrect... Ralph is the one that initially fucked up... he thought it
was "in total" millions... go re-read the thread... he's at the root of
the error... Yes, I said it was "in milllions" which was wrong and I
corrected it to say the numbers were in "in thousands"... Ralph is
clearly the problem here, I just mistakenly continued his error when he
got confused on millions...

Ralph

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 3:16:15 AM6/30/05
to
Oxford wrote:

> In article <tKSdnVjSrcY...@rcn.net>, Ralph <n...@way.com> wrote:
>
>> >> > Apple revenues last year: 8,279,000 (will hit 12 billion this
>> >> > year)
>> >>
>> >> From 8 million to 12 billion is quite a jump!
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > HP revenues last year: 79,905,000
>> >> >
>> >> > IBM revenues last year: 96,293,000
>> >> >
>> >> > MS revenues last year: 36,835,000
>> >> >
>> >> > Red Hat revenues last year: 124,737
>> >
>> > oh, i forgot, you aren't up on accounting... numbers are in millions...
>>
>> So, you are saying that the numbers are in millions, that would mean
>> adding six "0"'s to the end of each... So you are saying that apple's
>> revenue is:
>>
>> 8,279,000,000,000
>
> yeah, your error of using millions threw me off, they are in
> thousands....

My error? Bwahahahahaha, you clearly do not know what you are talking about.
I used the nubers YOU put forward. The error in using millions was YOURS.

Ralph

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 3:16:05 AM6/30/05
to
Timberwoof wrote:

I'm waiting for the MAC-tards to show something that justifies the price!!!

>
>> > ... which leads to the contradictory messages of "Linux for the
>> > Masses!" and "Linux for only the technically competent!"
>> >
>> >> And why would you have to focus on the
>> >> something that is as subjective as looks rather than technical merit?
>> >
>> > It's not just looks.
>>
>> Funny that's all that Mike focused on.
>
> Mike doesn't speak for me.

So?

>
>> > (All too many Linux application programmers mistake
>> > the ability to change an application's skin for being able to change
>> > its feel.)
>>
>> Oh, so changing from KDE to GNOME to WindowMaker is changing skins and
>> not changing feel?
>
> That's an interesting conclusion to jump to. But it is false for that is
> not what I said.

It seems nobody can figure out what you have said. I'm still waiting for
some technical reason that justifies the cost of a MAC.

>
>> You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Switching
>> from KDE to GNOME to WindowMaker changes much more than its skin OR feel,
>> it changes some amount of functionality!
>
> Whoopee. I'm talking about individual apps or even entire window managers
> for which all kinds of skins are available.

And what you are talking about justifies the cost of a MAC? I think not.

>
>> > A part of technical merit is how well an app follows proven UI
>> > conventions and how well it presents a coherent model of the underlying
>> > concepts to a user.
>>
>> I noticed that you could not give a single thing that makes apple
>> technically better than Linux for ANY USE.
>
> Well, since that was not your question...
>
> But since it is now, I'll give you a couple of things: 1. iPhoto makes
> sucking pictures out of my nifty new used Olympus a snap.

Can do that with Linux on my Kodak but I have a CHOICE of applications. Nope
nothing that justifies the cost here.

> The guy I bought
> it from warned me that drivers for it would be very hard to find. (I can
> just imagine trying to find a driver for Linux that will talk to a
> C-2100.)

One camera, BFD, you have justified the cost to very FEW people. BUt wait,
are you talking about the c-2100US? My same photo software takes care of
that. Nothing that justifies the cost here.

> So I plugged it into my iBook. iPhoto launched and offered to get
> the pictures out of the camera. No muss, no fuss. No fiddle-farting around
> with USB drivers or mounting a volume under /mnt ... It just worked.

I don't have to futz with any of that. And since I don't WANT applications
starting when I pug things in, I don't have to hassle disabling it. Nothing
that justifies the cost here.

>
> Next, iMovie similarly sucks movies right out of DV cameras and lets one
> edit them in a friendly environment. It will import MP3s from iTunes,
> photos from iPhoto, and compositions from GarageBand. No muss, no fuss.
> Yeah, Linux has interactivity between applications ... as long as you can
> use the pipe operator. Here, pipe this song from iTunes into iMovie. Yeah,
> right.

Wow, That justifies the cost to SOOOOOOOO many people. Looks like the Mac is
nothing but a nitch player, as usual.

>
> Having made a few iMovies, I can export them into iDVD, which lets me make
> DVDs with functional menus without having to write any DVD programming
> code. Sure, iDVD doesn't let you make a menu with Donkey jumping up and
> down in the background yelling "Pick me, pick me!" but the results look
> damn fine.
>
> So I just listed four ways that OS X, through its amazing ease of use, is
> technically a better choice than Linux.

Nothing I have seen you write shows all that much of a technical superiority
to Linux. Certainly not enough to justify the cost to the vast majority of
computer users.

>
> Here's another one: as a Unix workstation that can read Microshit
> documents that people with Windows PCs tend to throw around at each other,
> OS X is pretty much unbeatable. Yeah, there's OpenOffice, but it's just
> not as polished.

Wow, that justifies the cost, your personal opinion of OO! Bwahahahahahaha.

>
> And yet another one: I set up a G3 as a firewall at my work.

You actually think that is something special? I was doing that with Linux
BEFORE OSX ever came out.

> It's running
> OS X and some other goodies that will keep the script kiddies at bay.

Such as?

> Since it tweaks one of my cow orkers who has a hate-on for Macs and may
> eventually realize that all his work is being protected by that box, it is
> better than any PC.

The problem is, Linux can do the same, so you have not justified the cost of
a MAC, only shown your ignorance of Linux.

>
> So was it really your intention to imply that Linux is better than OS X
> for ANY USE?

It was my intention to say that MAC's are NOT WORTH the price, and you have
helped prove it for me. Other than a niche market, you have shown NOTHING
that is not easy to do with Linux. Some of the things you see as advantages
are nothing but personal preferences and your acting as if a built in
firewall was something special just shows that you don't know enough about
Linux to make assessments as to it's value.

>
> Don't get me wrong, though. Linux is pretty cool, too. Now unlike some
> folks around here, I don't get a hard-on for just one kind of operating
> system. Different ones have their uses. To set up a quick and relatively
> easy server, whether a web server on the 'net or an internal file server,
> Linux does really well. I've got about half a dozen Linux servers at work,
> running efficiently on older hardware, mostly transparent to the users.

But you have not shown where a MAC is worth the added price. I'm talking
value here and you have not shown any added value that a MAC adds that
makes it worth the price.

>
>> Guess Apples are just ego
>> computers so losers that can't impress anyone any other way can at least
>> show that they have money to waste on over priced crap.
>
> Yeah, yeah, yeah, and all those G3s I've got running around are really
> worth a couple of grand apiece instead of the bargain I got them for.
> You've really got a pathological fixation on Mac users' egos... I bet
> you're a nice guy in person, but you'd have more friends if you didn't
> harsh on others' choices in computers so much.

Yes, I beat up on MAC user's egos because they make all these claims but
just like you, can't back them up.

>
> So. How about some real technical reasons Linux is better enough than OS X
> for "ANY USE"?
>

Ok, I'll admit it, for a very small NICHE market, an apple may be worth the
price. Whoopee! As usual, Apple dominates a niche market! BFD. But the real
news here is your showing that you lake the knowledge of Linux to make the
comparison. I have indeed used a MAC and don't see anything that I
currently want that justifies the price, and for the most part, I don't see
anything that most users I know would want that would justify the price.

Oxford

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 3:20:21 AM6/30/05
to
Ralph <n...@way.com> wrote:

> > go complain to your broker that you don't understand how revenue numbers
> > are expressed, your error is not my problem...
>
> I have no trouble with the numbers from my broker, they are right and stated
> correctly, if the numbers are shown in thousands it is stated as such from
> my broker. I do have trouble with YOUR numbers that are not correctly
> labled. Even a loser like timberwolf noticed that!

go re-read the thread... you were the one that flubbed the extrapolation
of 8,279,000... will hit 12 billion this year...

> >> > Apple revenues last year: 8,279,000 (will hit 12 billion this year)
> >>
> >> From 8 million to 12 billion is quite a jump!

see... the original error was yours: "From 8 million to 12 billion is
quite a jump!" anyone with half a brain wouldn't of made such a comment.

egg is on your face Ralph... give it up already...

rapskat

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 3:20:44 AM6/30/05
to
begin Error Log for Thu, 30 Jun 2005 00:07:45 -0700 - Peter Ammon
<gers...@splintermac.com> caused an invalid page fault at address
<sPqdna255a7...@comcast.com>, details as follows:

>> Guess Apples are just ego
>> computers so losers that can't impress anyone any other way can at least
>> show that they have money to waste on over priced crap.
>
> Linus uses a Mac.

So do I. Both were given us, and both run Linux.

--
rapskat - 03:19:43 up 5:44, 4 users, load average: 0.12, 0.27, 0.25
Lavish spending can be disastrous. Don't buy any lavishes for a
while.

Ralph

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 3:27:37 AM6/30/05
to
Oxford wrote:

>> I have no trouble with the numbers from my broker, they are right and
>> stated correctly, if the numbers are shown in thousands it is stated as
>> such from my broker. I do have trouble with YOUR numbers that are not
>> correctly labled. Even a loser like timberwolf noticed that!
>
> go re-read the thread... you were the one that flubbed the extrapolation
> of 8,279,000... will hit 12 billion this year...

^^^^^^^^^ this is YOUR statement and it is in MILLIONS. The use of
millions was YOUR error.

Ralph

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 3:28:42 AM6/30/05
to
Peter Ammon wrote:

But not OS/X. Before you get all hard, you should find out WHY he uses a
MAC.

Ralph

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 3:29:44 AM6/30/05
to
Peter Ammon wrote:

>>>It's not just looks. (All too many Linux application programmers mistake
>>>the ability to change an application's skin for being able to change its
>>>feel.) A part of technical merit is how well an app follows proven UI
>>>conventions and how well it presents a coherent model of the underlying
>>>concepts to a user.
>>
>>
>> And Linux and it's applications don't do this? If a user knows the basic
>> concepts of computer use, then they would have no issues with Linux et al
>> at all.
>
> If you honestly believe that, you're utterly out of touch. I have major
> issues with Linux and I certainly know the basic concepts of computer use.
>

Ahhh, the claim without specifics, how typical.

amosf

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 3:31:57 AM6/30/05
to
Peter Ammon wrote something like:

> Ralph wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> I noticed that you could not give a single thing that makes apple
>> technically better than Linux for ANY USE.
>
> Off the top of my head: more stable kernel binary interfaces.

Apple has known hardware. That's a big head start.

>> Guess Apples are just ego
>> computers so losers that can't impress anyone any other way can at least
>> show that they have money to waste on over priced crap.
>
> Linus uses a Mac.

Running linux... But seriously, linus is such a nerd he just had to have
one... Then put linux on it.

amosf

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 3:34:10 AM6/30/05
to
Oxford wrote something like:

Seriously, this is a pretty fucked up thread, even for cola...

(millions has two l's BTW - I'm not usually a spelling nazi, but you /are/
being a stickler for accuracy here)

amosf

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 3:37:14 AM6/30/05
to
Oxford wrote something like:

Help, I'm sinking, but if I wave my arms and yell maybe they won't notice.

Oxford

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 3:42:11 AM6/30/05
to
Ralph <n...@way.com> wrote:

> > go re-read the thread... you were the one that flubbed the extrapolation
> > of 8,279,000... will hit 12 billion this year...
> ^^^^^^^^^ this is YOUR statement and it is in MILLIONS. The use of
> millions was YOUR error.

Ralph, you are stuck... you mistakenly thought it was millions, "in
total"....

Ralph's error: "From 8 million to 12 billion is quite a jump!"

I then mistakenly said that number "8,279,000" was "in millions" to help
you understand how 12 billion could come into play...

yes, I should of said it was "in thousands"... but it compares nothing
to the fact you weren't able to understand "8,279,000" was representing
"1,000's" as in roughly 8,000 million... or 8 Billion...

Let's simply say you aren't too good with accounting... and leave it at
that...

Peter Köhlmann

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 4:01:12 AM6/30/05
to
begin virus.txt.scr Peter Ammon wrote:

> Ralph wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> I noticed that you could not give a single thing that makes apple
>> technically better than Linux for ANY USE.
>
> Off the top of my head: more stable kernel binary interfaces.
>

Put in other words: A stagnant OS.
BTW: I can still run the exact same apps which ran on linux when OSX was
introduced.
So your claim of "stable binary interface" is somewhat lacking in substance
It would be true only for those apps which have to deal with the kernel
directly. The apps any normal user would use everyday are *not* among those

>> Guess Apples are just ego
>> computers so losers that can't impress anyone any other way can at least
>> show that they have money to waste on over priced crap.
>
> Linus uses a Mac.
>

Right. He did not buy it.
And he runs linux on it. He explained that he wants to stabelize that
processor series of linux, since most effort is (naturally) done on x86
pprocessors

Oh, and don't forget: Linux on that Mac runs 64 bits.
OSX on that very same hardware does not.
--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the
parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means,
do not use a hammer. <from an IBM-Manual>

Peter Jensen

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 4:24:22 AM6/30/05
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Snit wrote:

>>> KDE and Gnome don't interoperate well.
>>

>> They are different windowing environments.
>
> Very good, Rick! This is a wonderful thing for you to realize. Good
> to see your know understand that they are not the same!

Where has he ever said that they were not different windowing
environments? Message-ID, please. Experience has told me not to trust
you on anything without backing evidence.

> And before you go on about how you have known it for a long time...
> since their is *no* reason to assume the OP did not realize it, the
> *only* reason for you to bring it up is for you to brag about your
> lovely knowledge...

Or (shock, horror) because it's actually a relevant response ...

> Or maybe you can offer a better reason why you would state such an
> obvious fact. [the chance of that happening, however, is essentially
> nil]

KDE and Gnome aren't specifically designed to interoperate precisely
*because* they're different windowing environments. They're entirely
different projects, developed by different people. They do, however,
both follow a couple of basic guide-lines, which allows them to be
exchanged with relatively little effort. Also, apps designed for on DE
will run on the other, because the underlying system allows it.

>> First, your ignorant bigotry is showing. Second Apple enforces its
>> UI guidelines. Apple is one company. 'Linux' is not a company. Red
>> Hat, IBM, Novell are companies.
>
> And that is both a strength and a weakness for Linux.

Considering what MS has done to just about every competitor that could
be put out of business (Apple excluded, because it serves their
purpose[1]), any weakness of this model is completely overshadowed by
the fact that Linux can't be killed with their standard predatory
tactics.

[1] They don't run on the same hardware, so there is little direct
threat, as the barrier to migration is quite high. The Mac is quite
a bit more expensive than Windows, when hardware is included. They
can point to Apple and claim "No, we aren't a monopoly". They can
occasionally rip off ideas from the Mac GUI (though Linux provides
that as well). The Mac is just another market segment to sell their
other software to, and one with money to burn as well. Should I go
on?

[Followup-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCw6wtd1ZThqotgfgRAtG9AKDAnHhCTepB8WPuWdXdnAZX/H6huwCgp/LG
1lXF9jQXWsNlVg728J6pJMQ=
=3LZO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe

"Prisons are built with stones of Law, Brothels with bricks of Religion."
[William Blake, "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"]

Sylvester...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 4:38:01 AM6/30/05
to

Mike Cox wrote:
> Question. If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap? KDE and Gnome don't interoperate well. Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and kde apps reliably. How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua? That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap. Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux desktop would have left everything in the dust! But that is not the case, because Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!


>
> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?

I think it's funny whan a Unix-bashing Machead suddenly stops bashing
Unix in general, and complains ONLY about Linux now that Mac OS X is
nothing more than Unix with the Mac simpleton's-interface on top (and
still rather pathetic compared to the other Unix GUIs).

C Lund

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 4:39:09 AM6/30/05
to
In article <pan.2005.06.30....@rapskat.com>,
rapskat <rap...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult>
>
> I take it by this you are trying to convey that in creating themes for
> other platforms/WM's that emulate the look and feel of Aqua, people are
> "making obeisance to something that it is obvious they do not comprehend"?

> Perhaps you are right. Please explain just what mysterious element these
> themes and the people that use them just aren't getting if you would.

We maccies have been trying to explain this to wintrolls since forever
- and more recently, Linux users. And we've had no luck at all.

--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund

Sylvester...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 4:51:44 AM6/30/05
to

Timberwoof wrote:
> In article <m04qbgy...@yahoo.com>, Mike Cox <mikeco...@yahoo.com> wrote:


>
> > NoStop <nos...@stopspam.com> writes:
> >
> > > Mike Cox wrote:
> > >
> > > > Question. If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so
> > > > smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap? KDE and Gnome don't
> > > > interoperate well. Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and
> > > > kde apps reliably. How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS
> > > > and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua?
> > > > That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap.
> > > > Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux desktop would
> > > > have left everything in the dust! But that is not the case, because
> > > > Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
> > > >
> > > > If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with a
> > > > world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
> > >

> > > How come you haven't yet figured out to keep your line lengths short?
> >
> > I'm using GNU's Emacs. This thing is a gigantic ball of string
> > (typical of the GNU/Linux movement. Who knows how to fix anything!
> > I'm lucky I even got this far. Getting gnus set up and figuring out
> > how to post was a 5 hour effort! First you need to know an obscure
> > programming language (lisp), then you need to figure out what commands
> > corrospond to what you need to do. Then you need to figure out how to
> > even get around emacs with its thousands of commands and key combinations.
> >
> > It is not easy to use at all! This is representative of what GNU and
> > Linux stand for. The uber nerd experience. With Linux you need to
> > learn fdisk and partitioning with weird things like / , and swap and a
> > bazillion file systems. Reiser, Reiser4, XFS, AndrewFS, ext2, ext3,
> > the list goes on! Then you need to know how to compile a kernel and
> > figure out how to use CVS and the patch to command to compile it
> > back. Then you need to
> >
> > Since OS X is based on BSD, I'm able to use this emacs monster from my
> > iBook. But, since OS X is so easy to use and powerful, I wonder why
> > Linux developers haven't come up with anything remotely as good.
>
> Because Linux developers are geeks who enjoy complicated stuff for its own sake,
> don't mind a crufty user interface, and rate an application by the number of
> knobs to frob. They complain when an application reduces the main UI to the
> barest essentials -- it takes away their sense of control over the application.
>
> For instance, iTunes does let you set all kinds of parameters in how it rips
> CDs, but they're hidden in the Preferences. I've seen Linux applications where
> every last obscure MP3 encoding parameter is right there on the main UI.
>
> Steve hired some talented and knowledgeable artists to design the look of OS X,
> and some talented UI experts to design the feel. Together they came up with a
> system that works very well ... and wrote books that explain how to do a
> passable job of designing the UI for an OS X app. The result is that OS X apps
> tend to have a similar look and feel, one that tends to be sparse and elegant.
> What Linux geeks see right off is the sparseness and the apparent lack of
> control, and that's what they focus on. OS X isn't meant for them, and they
> don't really mean Linux for OS X users.
>
> Especially folks like Peter Köhlmann -- probably pretty intelligent and
> knowledgeable about Linux; maybe a decent programmer. But I'd never hire him to
> design or implement a UI. His contempt for people he thinks are stupid (he's
> said so himself) would spill out into his UI designs, which would probably be a
> QA nightmare and show utter disregard for the non-expert user.
>
> It's not that Linux developers are stupid or something -- they're not -- they
> for the most part just don't get what good UI design is about.
>

Wrong.

They for the most part just don't get what good UI design is for
the person who views the computer as a mere appliance.... the Linux
UI design is PERFECT for those who want the ability to tweak
anything and everything.


Just because it's not right for lUsers like you doesn't mean that
it's not right for anybody.

Peter Köhlmann

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 4:55:17 AM6/30/05
to

You should ask yourself why that is.
After al, you can hardly claim that linux users generally are ignorant

Maybe it is just that linux users, especially those who use Gnome or KDE,
fail to see where your GUI is *any* better than what they already have?

That your GUI /may/ be slightly better than the windows one is arguable,
although I highly doubt that even that claim holds much water
--
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message, however, a
significant number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Snit

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 5:01:15 AM6/30/05
to
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

"Timberwoof" <timbe...@stimpberawoofm.com> stated in post
timberwoof-0F25E...@typhoon.sonic.net on 6/29/05 9:58 PM:

> In article <pan.2005.06.30....@rapskat.com>,
> rapskat <rap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>> Aqua is just a look, not a product. There are a wealth of themes for
>> both Windows and Linux that can emulate this look if you want it.
>
> You are mistaken ... but take comfort in the fact that many, many developers
> think that "skinning" a gui is the same thing as changing its behavior.

The mistaken idea that simply adding a skin to another GUI makes it the same
as Aqua shows how ignorant rapskat is about OS X.


--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Snit

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 5:01:12 AM6/30/05
to
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

"rapskat" <rap...@gmail.com> stated in post
pan.2005.06.30...@rapskat.com on 6/29/05 9:49 PM:

> begin Error Log for Thu, 30 Jun 2005 04:39:23 +0000 - Timberwoof
> <timbe...@stimpberawoofm.com> caused an invalid page fault at address
> <timberwoof-578E4...@typhoon.sonic.net>, details as follows:
>

>>> And why would you have to focus on the something that is as subjective
>>> as looks rather than technical merit?
>>

>> It's not just looks. (All too many Linux application programmers mistake
>> the ability to change an application's skin for being able to change its
>> feel.) A part of technical merit is how well an app follows proven UI
>> conventions and how well it presents a coherent model of the underlying
>> concepts to a user.
>
> And Linux and it's applications don't do this? If a user knows the basic
> concepts of computer use, then they would have no issues with Linux et al
> at all.
>

> I see children 5 and below using Linux with no problems.

Do you claim they use it as well as you do?

Snit

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 5:01:05 AM6/30/05
to
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

"Liam Slider" <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
pan.2005.06.30....@nospam.liamslider.com on 6/29/05 9:04 PM:

> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 20:39:59 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "Liam Slider" <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
>> pan.2005.06.30....@nospam.liamslider.com on 6/29/05 8:23 PM:
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:24:10 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Liam Slider" <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
>>>> pan.2005.06.30....@nospam.liamslider.com on 6/29/05 6:13 PM:


>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:27:02 -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Question. If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are
>>>>>> so smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?
>>>>>

>>>>> It doesn't.
>>>>
>>>> More accurately: it does and it does not - there is no one "Linux
>>>> desktop"... something that is both a strength and a weakness of Linux.
>>>
>>> How does choice mean it does (look like crap) and it doesn't (look like
>>> crap)?
>>
>> People, or distributors / IT folks / etc, can have it look, and work, in
>> many ways.
>
> And, so, but, therefore....

It (potentially) can look / work well or poorly for any given need (or at
least many).
>
> <snip>


>>>>>
>>>>>> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the
>>>>>> Linux desktop would have left everything in the dust!
>>>>>

>>>>> It pretty much does.
>>>>
>>>> In what way?
>>>
>>> Configurability, flexibility
>>
>> Configurability and flexibility are a two edges sword. I assume you know
>> the pros, so do not take my lack of comments on that here to mean I do not
>> know that there are some pros...
>>
>> With that said, a well designed interface can be hurt by too much
>> configurability. How many more accidents would there be on the road if it
>> were easy to "configure" which peddle was the gas, which was the brake...
>> and which direction you moved the steering wheel to turn left? The relative
>> consistency (and lack of easy configurability) from car to car is a *huge*
>> advantage and even, literally, a life saver.
>>
>> With Linux almost anything is possible - but it is not consistent from
>> machine to machine, from application to application, or - sometimes - even
>> within the same application (while this is true for other OS's, it is much
>> more true with Linux). This leads to a Linux community that often blames
>> the user when the user can not efficiently use their computer. It also
>> requires a larger learning curve and makes shared work stations less
>> appealing.
>
> Actually, this is very rarely the kind of issue you make it out to be. For
> instance, GNOME and KDE are both highly configurable, and even more so
> with the right add ons...but they are still GNOME and KDE at the heart of
> it and still work within their frameworks. Linux still follows a fairly
> Unix-like philosophy of lots of standard parts plugging into each other in
> order to do various tasks. While people can customise Linux
> considerably...it's still Linux.

But, as you said, it can be customized considerably. That is not always a
good thing. While I do not agree with all of the decisions Apple makes with
OS X, I am happy that they have such a large focus on ease-of-use. Makes a
big difference with productivity.
>>
>>> , speed on the same hardware as other "mainstream" operating systems,
>>> choice (with Linux you can keep your OS, but choose your Desktop
>>> Environment. Not so on other mainstream desktop operating systems. Plus
>>> we have greater choice of hardware as well), stability and security (we
>>> have had less malware problems than OSX actually, although that numbers
>>> is still laughable compared to Windows.
>>
>> I would like to see your support that Linux has had less malware than OS
>> X...
>
> The only true viruses that Linux has ever had have been...well...confined
> to the lab for all intents and purposes, and never really working even
> there. OSX has had a tiny few cases I believe.

None that have spread... I would say that are, for all intents and purposes,
equal here. Linux, I believe, has had some in the past, but none of any
importance since OS X was even in beta... and OS X has had none of any
importance at all.
>>
>>> And OSX has had a few more stability issues than Linux overall I've
>>> heard, although that's been improving a great deal)
>>
>> Again I would like to see your support. 10.0 (or maybe 10.1) was the
>> last time I can say OS X has had any real stability issues.
>
> True, as I said, it's very minor. Nothing approaching Windows. OSX is a
> rock of stability in comparison, but I would not go so far as to say that
> it's *quite* as stable as linux. Probably not even big enough for us to be
> bothering arguing about though.

Agreed that both OS X and Linux are amazingly stable. I have seen both lock
up (or at least effectively lock up) but it is rare in both cases.
>>
>>> , ease of install of a vast software library (package management
>>> systems like urpmi, apt, emerge, and so forth give us access to many
>>> thousands of software titles with a few simple commands, or with a
>>> simple GUI. Just a simple download and install of virtually anything
>>> for our systems), etc...
>>
>> Easy for an experienced user... for most novices, Linux is a huge
>> mystery - more so than OS X or even Windows.
>
> What's so hard, so mysterious about clicking on the "install software
> using <whatever>" menu item and choosing the application you want from the
> well organised listing, or better, searching within that to find your
> application. Then clicking the "install" button?

Work with some novices and you shall see... :)


--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.

Bill

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 5:07:34 AM6/30/05
to

Sylvester...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Wrong.
>
> They for the most part just don't get what good UI design is for
> the person who views the computer as a mere appliance.... the Linux
> UI design is PERFECT for those who want the ability to tweak
> anything and everything.

LIES LIES!!!! You cant even change the madrivel STAR ikon that won't
start because it has no T!!!! Linus so dose suck!!!!!!!

Peter Ammon

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 6:06:32 AM6/30/05
to

I guess I figured it was self evident. But if you insist, here's a
short list of issues I typically encounter.

1) Configuring X has never been straightforward. I have always had to
run a program from the command line and had to guess a few times before
I got it to support a tolerable resolution and refresh rate.

2) My scroll wheel has never worked. I did some research and found some
plug-ins to support scroll wheels, but it was complicated and I was
never able to get it to work.

3) Sound usually doesn't work initially, and sometimes never at all.

4) Copy and paste has issues. I don't think I've ever managed to copy
and paste an image between applications.

5) There are far too many controls for irrevelant things. Last time I
tried what was, I think, KDM, there were preferences for changing the
font of the login window's text. Who cares about that?

6) There aren't controls for important things. To add a window manager
to KDM, I had to read a bunch of things and edit several text files, as
root. It was something like this:
http://www.linux-sxs.org/display/wmxf.html

7) Permissions aren't fine grained in any GUI I've tried. To even view
certain settings, which should be viewable by everyone, I had to give
the root password.

8) I never found a built in GUI to set up my basic static IP address so
it would be the same every launch. I had to edit a text file.

9) The visible window refreshing and "trails" is out of hand. Linux
looks great until you move something.

I'm sure you're going to tell me that you don't have these problems, and
maybe you don't. But I don't buy for a second that you have "no issues
with Linux at all." Every OS has issues.

Peter Köhlmann

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 6:16:23 AM6/30/05
to
begin virus.txt.scr Peter Ammon wrote:

> Ralph wrote:
>> Peter Ammon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>It's not just looks. (All too many Linux application programmers
>>>>>mistake the ability to change an application's skin for being able to
>>>>>change its feel.) A part of technical merit is how well an app follows
>>>>>proven UI conventions and how well it presents a coherent model of the
>>>>>underlying concepts to a user.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And Linux and it's applications don't do this? If a user knows the
>>>>basic concepts of computer use, then they would have no issues with
>>>>Linux et al at all.
>>>
>>>If you honestly believe that, you're utterly out of touch. I have major
>>>issues with Linux and I certainly know the basic concepts of computer
>>>use.
>>>
>>
>> Ahhh, the claim without specifics, how typical.
>
> I guess I figured it was self evident. But if you insist, here's a
> short list of issues I typically encounter.
>
> 1) Configuring X has never been straightforward. I have always had to
> run a program from the command line and had to guess a few times before
> I got it to support a tolerable resolution and refresh rate.
>

So use a more modern distro. Like one released after 1998

> 2) My scroll wheel has never worked. I did some research and found some
> plug-ins to support scroll wheels, but it was complicated and I was
> never able to get it to work.
>

I have never heard such bullshit before. Scroll mice work since years
They are usually even detected corrrectly at install time

> 3) Sound usually doesn't work initially, and sometimes never at all.
>

So don't go out of your way to buy a non-supported card.
I have several different computers with different soundcards here.
*All* work

> 4) Copy and paste has issues. I don't think I've ever managed to copy
> and paste an image between applications.


Again, use something released later than 1998


>
> 5) There are far too many controls for irrevelant things. Last time I
> tried what was, I think, KDM, there were preferences for changing the
> font of the login window's text. Who cares about that?
>

There are obviously people who do.
Tell us, who is forcing you to use it?

> 6) There aren't controls for important things. To add a window manager
> to KDM, I had to read a bunch of things and edit several text files, as
> root. It was something like this:
> http://www.linux-sxs.org/display/wmxf.html
>

Well, couldn't you find something even older than that?
It talks about integrating KDE2, for gods sake!
This stuff is several years old!

> 7) Permissions aren't fine grained in any GUI I've tried. To even view
> certain settings, which should be viewable by everyone, I had to give
> the root password.
>

More bullshit lies? You can view permissions since years as normal user
You also can alter permissions in the GUI since years

> 8) I never found a built in GUI to set up my basic static IP address so
> it would be the same every launch. I had to edit a text file.
>

Really? Agasin, use some linux released later than 1998

> 9) The visible window refreshing and "trails" is out of hand. Linux
> looks great until you move something.
>

You should do some more training on this lying routine. You are fairly bad
at it

> I'm sure you're going to tell me that you don't have these problems, and
> maybe you don't. But I don't buy for a second that you have "no issues
> with Linux at all." Every OS has issues.
>
> -Peter
>

Good. And now please come up with something which is actually true, will
you?
--
Just out of curiosity does this actually mean something or have some
of the few remaining bits of your brain just evaporated?

Almad

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 6:05:46 AM6/30/05
to
Sylvester...@gmail.com wrote:

>> It's not that Linux developers are stupid or something -- they're not --
>> they for the most part just don't get what good UI design is about.
>
> Wrong.
>
> They for the most part just don't get what good UI design is for
> the person who views the computer as a mere appliance.... the Linux
> UI design is PERFECT for those who want the ability to tweak
> anything and everything.
>
>
> Just because it's not right for lUsers like you doesn't mean that
> it's not right for anybody.

Agreed totally. Yes, Linux still sucks for people who don't have (and won't
have) knewledge about computer. However, if you are programmer, Linux's UI
are useful.

--
Lukas "Almad" Linhart
[:: http://www.almad.net/ ::]
[:: PGP/GNUPg key: http://www.almad.net/download/pubkey.asc ::]

Travelinman

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 7:34:40 AM6/30/05
to
In article <csma-16C5FD.2...@news.uswest.net>,
Oxford <cs...@mac.com> wrote:

> Ralph <n...@way.com> wrote:
>
> > > Apple revenues last year: 8,279,000 (will hit 12 billion this year)
> >

> > From 8 million to 12 billion is quite a jump!
> >
> > >

> > > HP revenues last year: 79,905,000
> > >
> > > IBM revenues last year: 96,293,000
> > >
> > > MS revenues last year: 36,835,000
> > >
> > > Red Hat revenues last year: 124,737
>
> oh, i forgot, you aren't up on accounting... numbers are in millions...

Looks like you're not up on accounting, either. Those numbers are
actually in thousands.

That is, HP's revenues were $79.9 billion - or $79.9 million thousands.

Travelinman

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 7:35:22 AM6/30/05
to
In article <csma-920C4B.0...@news.uswest.net>,
Oxford <cs...@mac.com> wrote:


> see... the original error was yours: "From 8 million to 12 billion is
> quite a jump!" anyone with half a brain wouldn't of made such a comment.

Actually, anyone with half a brain wouldn't have said 'wouldn't of'.

Travelinman

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 7:39:15 AM6/30/05
to
In article <J8WdncHptdE...@rcn.net>, Ralph <n...@way.com> wrote:

> Timberwoof wrote:
>
> > In article <ANWdnU2x8Om...@rcn.net>, Ralph <n...@way.com> wrote:
> >

> >> Mike Cox wrote:
> >>
> >> > Question. If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are
> >> > so

> >> > smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap? KDE and Gnome don't
> >> > interoperate well. Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome
> >> > and
> >> > kde apps reliably. How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to
> >> > MS and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's
> >> > Aqua? That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth

> >> > a crap. Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux
> >> > desktop would


> >> > have left everything in the dust! But that is not the case, because
> >> > Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
> >> >
> >> > If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS
> >> > with a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
> >>

> >> If Linux is so bad, why is it running, at least in part, 8 of the top 10
> >> fastest computers in the world?
> >
> > Because you don't install X and KDE or Gnome on a node in a Beowulf
> > cluster. There's no question that Linux is really good for such things:
> > lots of smart people have worked on it to make it fast and robust.
> > However, when geeks write systems for geeks, the result is a system that
> > appeals to geeks. Unfortunately, they often can't understand the needs of
> > non-geeks.
>

> You mean non-geek systems that get viruses and all that rot? Or ego boxes

My non-geek Macs don't get viruses.


> that are over priced so people can impress people with how much money they
> have to throw away like Apple computers?

And once again we have the true driving force behind Linux proponents -
they simply can't understand the concept of someone paying a bit more
for a product that they prefer. All that matters is how cheap something
is. Or free, as in free puppies.

Alex

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 8:43:27 AM6/30/05
to
Mike Cox wrote:
> Alex <fa...@mischiefuk.com> writes:
>
>>There is no argument that OSX is a fantastic looking and easy to use
>>desktop. They have made obvious proprietory advancements to the unix
>>base, and especially the X11 system, and it's only a matter of time
>>before the the opensource world catches up.
>
>
> WRONG WRONG WRONG! How long has linux been "trying to catch up"? As of 2005, Gnome and KDE STILL have trouble copying and pasting between apps! Where is the equivalent of iTunes? Or iLife? Linux comes equiped with a bunch of applications that DO NOT work seemlessly together. Each has a command line interface that is completely inconsistant with the next app's switches. Gnomes Nautilus is possibly the worst offender in user friendliness.
>
>

Did I even mention the word "linux" in my response one single time?

Maybe you choose to make an assumption to divert the point of the
argument which you entirely missed! Even though my main point was that
the foundations of OSX are opensource, needless to say, BSD is a hell of
a lot more like linux than other operating systems. OSX GUI is build
upon X11 (XFree86 project), which is certainly not exclusive to BSD and
are, in fact, de-facto techonologies for Linux desktops.

Sylvester...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 8:14:17 AM6/30/05
to
Yeah, the "I want my computer to be only as versatile as my toaster"
outlook is soooooooo appealing.

There's a reason that Macs are only popular with extreme technophobes
like graphics artists.

Rick

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 8:26:34 AM6/30/05
to
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 03:06:32 -0700, Peter Ammon wrote:

> Ralph wrote:
>> Peter Ammon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>It's not just looks. (All too many Linux application programmers
>>>>>mistake the ability to change an application's skin for being able to
>>>>>change its feel.) A part of technical merit is how well an app follows
>>>>>proven UI conventions and how well it presents a coherent model of the
>>>>>underlying concepts to a user.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And Linux and it's applications don't do this? If a user knows the
>>>>basic concepts of computer use, then they would have no issues with
>>>>Linux et al at all.
>>>
>>>If you honestly believe that, you're utterly out of touch. I have major
>>>issues with Linux and I certainly know the basic concepts of computer
>>>use.
>>>
>>>
>> Ahhh, the claim without specifics, how typical.
>
> I guess I figured it was self evident. But if you insist, here's a short
> list of issues I typically encounter.
>
> 1) Configuring X has never been straightforward. I have always had to run
> a program from the command line and had to guess a few times before I got
> it to support a tolerable resolution and refresh rate.

I have not had to resort to the commandline for a while now. The GUI does
quite well.

>
> 2) My scroll wheel has never worked. I did some research and found some
> plug-ins to support scroll wheels, but it was complicated and I was never
> able to get it to work.

My scroll wheel works well. Maybe yours non-standard?

>
> 3) Sound usually doesn't work initially, and sometimes never at all.

Sound has worked well for me. Maybe you should actaully turn up the volume
in the mixer?

>
> 4) Copy and paste has issues. I don't think I've ever managed to copy and
> paste an image between applications.

That may well be true.

>
> 5) There are far too many controls for irrevelant things. Last time I
> tried what was, I think, KDM, there were preferences for changing the font
> of the login window's text. Who cares about that?

The people who would like to change the font of the login window.

>
> 6) There aren't controls for important things. To add a window manager to
> KDM, I had to read a bunch of things and edit several text files, as root.
> It was something like this:
> http://www.linux-sxs.org/display/wmxf.html

How do you add a window manager to OS X?

>
> 7) Permissions aren't fine grained in any GUI I've tried. To even view
> certain settings, which should be viewable by everyone, I had to give the
> root password.

Very tight security.

>
> 8) I never found a built in GUI to set up my basic static IP address so it
> would be the same every launch. I had to edit a text file.

So, OS X will ferret out your static IP without any input from you?

>
> 9) The visible window refreshing and "trails" is out of hand. Linux looks
> great until you move something.

What 'trails'?

>
> I'm sure you're going to tell me that you don't have these problems, and
> maybe you don't. But I don't buy for a second that you have "no issues
> with Linux at all." Every OS has issues.
>

Every OS has issues, including OS X.

--
Rick

Rick

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 8:27:59 AM6/30/05
to
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 00:07:45 -0700, Peter Ammon wrote:

> Ralph wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> I noticed that you could not give a single thing that makes apple
>> technically better than Linux for ANY USE.
>
> Off the top of my head: more stable kernel binary interfaces.
>

>> Guess Apples are just ego
>> computers so losers that can't impress anyone any other way can at least
>> show that they have money to waste on over priced crap.
>
> Linus uses a Mac.

... and on his Mac (which was a gift) he runs ... Linux.

--
Rick

Andrew J. Brehm

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 8:27:39 AM6/30/05
to
Mike Cox <mikeco...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Question. If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so
> smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?

What Linux desktop?

> KDE and Gnome don't interoperate well.

Not on Linux, not on Solaris, not on Mac OS X. True.

> Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and kde apps reliably.

I must check whether I can cut and paste between Aqua and KDE apps
reliably.

> How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS and other computing
> giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua?

You have to be good at something. How do the FSF come with the GCC, how
did Linus come up with Linux?

> That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap.

What Linux developers? What part of Linux are you referring to?

> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux desktop would
> have left everything in the dust!

In many areas they have. That's why Apple use OSS to run their GUI.

> But that is not the case, because Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for
> the money!

I believe you can run Windows 3.1 on Linux.

> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with a
> world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?

If the Linux knuckleheads can create a modern kernel, why did Apple have
to use OSS software to run their GUI on?

--
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches

chrisv

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 9:12:49 AM6/30/05
to
Peter Köhlmann wrote:

>> Linus uses a Mac.
>
>Right. He did not buy it.
>And he runs linux on it. He explained that he wants to stabelize that
>processor series of linux, since most effort is (naturally) done on x86

>processors

Is he maybe wasting his time, now that Mac's future is with x86?

Liam Slider

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 9:32:12 AM6/30/05
to
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 02:01:05 -0700, Snit wrote:

> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
> "Liam Slider" <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
> pan.2005.06.30....@nospam.liamslider.com on 6/29/05 9:04 PM:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 20:39:59 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "Liam Slider" <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
>>> pan.2005.06.30....@nospam.liamslider.com on 6/29/05 8:23 PM:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:24:10 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Liam Slider" <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
>>>>> pan.2005.06.30....@nospam.liamslider.com on 6/29/05 6:13 PM:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:27:02 -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Question. If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are
>>>>>>> so smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It doesn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> More accurately: it does and it does not - there is no one "Linux
>>>>> desktop"... something that is both a strength and a weakness of Linux.
>>>>
>>>> How does choice mean it does (look like crap) and it doesn't (look like
>>>> crap)?
>>>
>>> People, or distributors / IT folks / etc, can have it look, and work, in
>>> many ways.
>>
>> And, so, but, therefore....
>
> It (potentially) can look / work well or poorly for any given need (or at
> least many).


Can you please point out situations where it looks poorly for any given
need (or at least many)? I mean, if there are "many" surely you can point
them out right?

You don't think it's possible to have a focus that is both on
configurability *and* ease of use? I'd say GNOME does wonderfully here.
Their first priority is ease of use for the end user by providing a
simple, consistent interface...but they do not ignore configurability at
all. Maybe Apple could learn something from the GNOME guys, just as the
GNOME guys have clearly learned from Apple.

<snip>


>>>
>>>> , ease of install of a vast software library (package management
>>>> systems like urpmi, apt, emerge, and so forth give us access to many
>>>> thousands of software titles with a few simple commands, or with a
>>>> simple GUI. Just a simple download and install of virtually anything
>>>> for our systems), etc...
>>>
>>> Easy for an experienced user... for most novices, Linux is a huge
>>> mystery - more so than OS X or even Windows.
>>
>> What's so hard, so mysterious about clicking on the "install software
>> using <whatever>" menu item and choosing the application you want from
>> the well organised listing, or better, searching within that to find
>> your application. Then clicking the "install" button?
>
> Work with some novices and you shall see... :)

I have. I think the problem with your approach is that you don't give
people *enough* credit for the ability to learn and think.

Duke Robillard

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 9:34:07 AM6/30/05
to
Mike Cox wrote:
>KDE and Gnome don't interoperate well.

The real miracle is that they interoperate at all. They're
completely different project each designed to run the desktop.
It's kinda like the level of integration you get between
Apple's X11 and Aqua...yeah, you can run them both at the
same time, but things are kinda odd.

Duke

rapskat

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 9:40:23 AM6/30/05
to
begin Error Log for Thu, 30 Jun 2005 03:06:32 -0700 - Peter Ammon
<gers...@splintermac.com> caused an invalid page fault at address
<9tOdne5WDr2...@comcast.com>, details as follows:

> I'm sure you're going to tell me that you don't have these problems, and
> maybe you don't. But I don't buy for a second that you have "no issues
> with Linux at all." Every OS has issues.

Granted in the (distant) past all of these were valid issues on some
distros, but modern distros of today normally have no problems with what
you recounted.

I suppose if you want to judge modern day Linux distros based off of some
experience you had with Red Hat 4.2, then that is your prerogative,
however misleading it may be.

And I suppose it would just as fair to judge the OS X family based on my
experiences with it's predecessors as well.

--
rapskat - 09:36:34 up 12:01, 4 users, load average: 0.04, 0.17, 0.18
'"I wish those people just would be quiet," he said of computer
researchers who publish vulnerabilities in Microsoft's products.'
-- Steve Ballmer, Microsoft

Peter Köhlmann

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 9:42:45 AM6/30/05
to
begin virus.txt.scr chrisv wrote:

Why? He runs the PPC platform, which in this case just happens to be a Mac
--
FLASH! Intelligence of mankind decreasing. Details at ... uh, when
the little hand is on the ....

Liam Slider

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 10:01:00 AM6/30/05
to
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 04:56:42 +0000, Timberwoof wrote:

> Because Linux developers are geeks who enjoy complicated stuff for its
> own sake, don't mind a crufty user interface, and rate an application by
> the number of knobs to frob. They complain when an application reduces
> the main UI to the barest essentials -- it takes away their sense of
> control over the application.

<snip more GUI complaints>

Where are you from, 10 years ago?

Also, learn to wrap your posts properly.

Liam Slider

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 10:03:34 AM6/30/05
to
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:05:46 +0200, Almad wrote:

>
> Sylvester...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> It's not that Linux developers are stupid or something -- they're not
>>> -- they for the most part just don't get what good UI design is about.
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> They for the most part just don't get what good UI design is for the
>> person who views the computer as a mere appliance.... the Linux UI
>> design is PERFECT for those who want the ability to tweak anything and
>> everything.
>>
>>
>> Just because it's not right for lUsers like you doesn't mean that it's
>> not right for anybody.
>
> Agreed totally. Yes, Linux still sucks for people who don't have (and
> won't have) knewledge about computer. However, if you are programmer,
> Linux's UI are useful.

None of you have any idea what you are talking about.

Liam Slider

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 10:14:47 AM6/30/05
to
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:47:21 -0700, Mike Cox wrote:

>
> WRONG WRONG WRONG! How long has linux been "trying to catch up"? As of
> 2005, Gnome and KDE STILL have trouble copying and pasting between apps!


Not true.

> Where is the equivalent of iTunes? Or iLife?

Where is the fully native Apple (not some port using Apple's X11 and
command line compiling and all that...) version of Cinelerra? Where's
Apple's version of the Totem media player?

> Linux comes equiped with a
> bunch of applications that DO NOT work seemlessly together.

Funny, they work damn fine together on my distro.

> Each has a
> command line interface that is completely inconsistant with the next
> app's switches.

Who cares? That's the command line.

> Gnomes Nautilus is possibly the worst offender in user
> friendliness.

Actually, no it isn't. It works remarkably well. I hear it behaves similar
in some ways to file management on OSX actually. And nautilus is very well
integrated with everything else GNOME.

rapskat

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 10:16:27 AM6/30/05
to
begin Error Log for Thu, 30 Jun 2005 00:03:23 -0700 - Peter Ammon

<gers...@splintermac.com> caused an invalid page fault at address
<sPqdnbK55a7...@comcast.com>, details as follows:

> rapskat wrote:
>> begin Error Log for Thu, 30 Jun 2005 04:39:23 +0000 - Timberwoof
>> <timbe...@stimpberawoofm.com> caused an invalid page fault at address
>> <timberwoof-578E4...@typhoon.sonic.net>, details as follows:
>>
>>

>>>>And why would you have to focus on the something that is as subjective
>>>>as looks rather than technical merit?


>>>
>>>It's not just looks. (All too many Linux application programmers mistake
>>>the ability to change an application's skin for being able to change its
>>>feel.) A part of technical merit is how well an app follows proven UI
>>>conventions and how well it presents a coherent model of the underlying
>>>concepts to a user.
>>
>>
>> And Linux and it's applications don't do this? If a user knows the basic

>> concepts of computer use, then they would have no issues with Linux et al


>> at all.
>
> If you honestly believe that, you're utterly out of touch. I have major
> issues with Linux and I certainly know the basic concepts of computer use.
>
>>

>> I see children 5 and below using Linux with no problems.
>>
>

> A 5 year old's uses for a computer are hardly representative.

I find it very telling that you admit you have trouble where 5 year olds
don't.

--
rapskat - 10:15:38 up 12:40, 4 users, load average: 0.06, 0.16, 0.26
"... Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in
terror, and you would not have been informed."
-- Eric Steele

Peter Hayes

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 10:16:14 AM6/30/05
to
Timberwoof <timbe...@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:

> In article <J8WdncHptdE...@rcn.net>, Ralph <n...@way.com> wrote:
> >

> > I noticed that you could not give a single thing that makes apple
> > technically better than Linux for ANY USE.
>

> Well, since that was not your question...
>
> But since it is now, I'll give you a couple of things: 1. iPhoto makes sucking
> pictures out of my nifty new used Olympus a snap.

That's got nothing to do with iPhoto, more to do with whether OS X
recognises the camera as a mountable drive/device.

My Fugi digital camera appears as a drive on my desktop. I open it with
Finder, Preview or any one of half a dozen or more apps. I then select
the pics I want and move them to where I want. No need for iPhoto, which
is probably one of Apple's worst offerings. It insists on duplicating
every image you give it for no purpose for starters.

> The guy I bought it from warned me that drivers for it would be very hard
> to find. (I can just imagine trying to find a driver for Linux that will
> talk to a C-2100.) So I plugged it into my iBook. iPhoto launched and
> offered to get the pictures out of the camera. No muss, no fuss. No
> fiddle-farting around with USB drivers or mounting a volume under /mnt ...

Yes, that's just pathetic in this day and age.

--

Peter

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages