10 Months of my time wasted on Linux. Back to Microsoft for me!
Steven Smolinski
[... made up story of a Wharton grad who starts a business without
researching the needs of his target market, and who can't spell
"Tiberius". Sing it with me: Troll, troll, troll your boat... ]
Steve
David Steinberg
"X-Newsreader" line!
But here's a free hint: if you keep posting the exact same thing
everytime, people don't even have to LOOK at your headers!
Seriously, can anyone figure Steve out? Is he really the world's worst
troll? Is he really a Micorosft-employed astroturfer? Does he really
suffer from a multiple personality disorder?
What's the deal? Who would spend so much time writing the exact same
thing over and over again, pretending to be different people?
It's fascinating and disturbing at the same time...
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
stei...@interchange.ubc.ca _\_v
Tiberious
businessman educated in solid business principles (Wharton if you must
know), I thought I saw an opportunity to get my foot in the door and
promote Linux as an alternative to Windows and less so Apple. Let's face
it there are millions of folks out there "consulting" at various levels
of competency and in truth, just looking at my own area it is
frightening the level of MSCE that is out there. Some of these people
can barely format a diskette via a command line.
So anyway, I started investigating the various Linux distributions and
hired 2 Linux Systems Engineers who knew the product so well it was
scary.
I am not exactly a Unix newbie either having dealt with IBM/AIX in the
past, but my function was mainly to garner support and try and sell
Linux.
Our business plan called for the money to be made in pricing Linux much
lower than similar Windows configurations (not hard at all) and making
our money on hardware and the system software set up as well as
maintenance of the above items.
What seemed like a good idea at first quickly blossomed into the worst
nightmare a person in my field could ever imagine.
The basic problem was that NOBODY WANTED LINUX!!!!
We couldn't GIVE IT AWAY!
They were so entrenched in Windows that to even consider switching was
out of the question.
The first problem was providing Microsoft compatible applications. I
tried most of the applications we were going to pitch to the end users
and quite frankly thought that although they needed a little polish here
and there, for the most part they were Microsoft compatible.
Boy was I wrong, BIG TIME!!!
First we tried Wordperfect but it kept crashing far too much to be
useful. The demo's were getting embarrassing. Then we tried StarOffice
but even on decent hardware (Pentium II 450mhz with 256 meg) it ran like
molasses and took over the entire desktop. As a last resort we tried
Applix, which seemed to work ok until one client asked us to try and
import his payroll/tax spreadsheets.
Applix died on the launch pad like Apollo 0ne.
Other problems were the general dislike of Netscape. People, for some
reason or another, seem to hate that program. They keep bringing up
features and the general look and feel of Explorer as being far nicer.
Look is another area where Linux let us down. We kept getting complaints
about the screen layouts. Essentially the end users could not adjust the
screen so that the text looked smooth and clear. My Linux gurus
explained the lack of anti-aliased fonts to me and that was the end of
that. A person who has to look at a screen for 8 hours a day with jagged
fonts is an OSHA lawsuit in the making.
More problems surfaced.
Several clients use video and audio embedded applications which depend
on the Creative Sound Blaster Live Card. The support for this device
under Linux seems to be dismal.
What we discovered about Linux is that while it may look like a great
and superior system on paper, the truth of the matter is that the end
users ARE NOT INTERESTED IN LINUX.
They are interested in solutions to their problems and Windows 2000
provides them in a polished, ready to go package that is the current
standard and is supported by THEIR clients. We had other consultants
blowing us out of the water with their offerings and although our
clients were trying to be loyal to us because of our integrity and long
term relationships with most of them, the honest truth was Linux was NOT
and option if we intended to remain their consultants.
Linux is lagging terribly in polished world class applications. Even the
SoundBlaster Live card has Liveware! available for Win2k, despite Win2k
just being released. Linux has been spouting support "coming real soon
now" for a long time. Still no full support for this popular card.
Linux drivers are bare bones and no Livewire is even in sight.
In conclusion, we have dumped Linux because Windows is really the
future.
Linux shows it age with every command line instruction.
We tried to support and sell Linux but the truth of the matter is that
the end users have spoken and Linux is NOT in their vocabulary.
Tiberious
JEDIDIAH
>I run a small hardware / software consulting firm and being a
>businessman educated in solid business principles (Wharton if you must
>First we tried Wordperfect but it kept crashing far too much to be
>useful. The demo's were getting embarrassing. Then we tried StarOffice
>but even on decent hardware (Pentium II 450mhz with 256 meg) it ran like
This assertion seems suspect.
[deletia]
>explained the lack of anti-aliased fonts to me and that was the end of
>that. A person who has to look at a screen for 8 hours a day with jagged
>fonts is an OSHA lawsuit in the making.
This, I think, is the clincher. While I'll agree that there
may be certain subjective aesthetic considerations to consider,
this strikes me as much the same as certain OS advocates that
look down on cheap 19" monitors for no other reason then that
they are cheap.
>
>More problems surfaced.
>
>Several clients use video and audio embedded applications which depend
>on the Creative Sound Blaster Live Card. The support for this device
>under Linux seems to be dismal.
SB Lives in Office machines?
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
simo...@earthlink.net
On 7 Jun 2000 23:00:29 GMT, stei...@interchange.ubc.ca (David
JEDIDIAH
>On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 22:45:42 GMT, Tiberious <pop_goes_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>I run a small hardware / software consulting firm and being a
>>businessman educated in solid business principles (Wharton if you must
>[deletia]
>>First we tried Wordperfect but it kept crashing far too much to be
>>useful. The demo's were getting embarrassing. Then we tried StarOffice
>>but even on decent hardware (Pentium II 450mhz with 256 meg) it ran like
>
> This assertion seems suspect.
...and another thing: StarOffice under X responds to resize
events just like any other Window. Under both X and Win32
there are main menu items that will stop it from monopolizing
your desktop.
Charlie Ebert
>I run a small hardware / software consulting firm and being a
>businessman educated in solid business principles (Wharton if you must
>useful. The demo's were getting embarrassing. Then we tried StarOffice
>but even on decent hardware (Pentium II 450mhz with 256 meg) it ran like
>Applix, which seemed to work ok until one client asked us to try and
>import his payroll/tax spreadsheets.
>Applix died on the launch pad like Apollo 0ne.
>
>Other problems were the general dislike of Netscape. People, for some
>reason or another, seem to hate that program. They keep bringing up
>features and the general look and feel of Explorer as being far nicer.
>
>Look is another area where Linux let us down. We kept getting complaints
>about the screen layouts. Essentially the end users could not adjust the
>screen so that the text looked smooth and clear. My Linux gurus
>that. A person who has to look at a screen for 8 hours a day with jagged
>fonts is an OSHA lawsuit in the making.
>
>
>Several clients use video and audio embedded applications which depend
>on the Creative Sound Blaster Live Card. The support for this device
>under Linux seems to be dismal.
>
>and superior system on paper, the truth of the matter is that the end
>users ARE NOT INTERESTED IN LINUX.
>
>They are interested in solutions to their problems and Windows 2000
>provides them in a polished, ready to go package that is the current
>standard and is supported by THEIR clients. We had other consultants
>blowing us out of the water with their offerings and although our
>clients were trying to be loyal to us because of our integrity and long
>term relationships with most of them, the honest truth was Linux was NOT
>and option if we intended to remain their consultants.
>
>
>Linux is lagging terribly in polished world class applications. Even the
>SoundBlaster Live card has Liveware! available for Win2k, despite Win2k
>just being released. Linux has been spouting support "coming real soon
>now" for a long time. Still no full support for this popular card.
>
>Linux drivers are bare bones and no Livewire is even in sight.
>
>In conclusion, we have dumped Linux because Windows is really the
>future.
>Linux shows it age with every command line instruction.
>
>We tried to support and sell Linux but the truth of the matter is that
>the end users have spoken and Linux is NOT in their vocabulary.
>
>Tiberious
Ha. Well, I don't doubt you had some problems Tiberious.
But just out of curiousity, will you be going back to slide rules in the next 5
years when Microsoft falls off it's pedistle?
I mean to say, you can't actually believe Microsoft is the future?
Do you have cancer or some serious terminal disease which would prevent you
from living past 4-5 years?
Charlie
simo...@earthlink.net
wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 22:45:42 GMT, Tiberious <pop_goes_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>I run a small hardware / software consulting firm and being a
>>businessman educated in solid business principles (Wharton if you must
>[deletia]
>>First we tried Wordperfect but it kept crashing far too much to be
>>useful. The demo's were getting embarrassing. Then we tried StarOffice
>>but even on decent hardware (Pentium II 450mhz with 256 meg) it ran like
>
> This assertion seems suspect.
Actually I hade the WOrdperfect suite crash on me a couple of times
under Linux, but truthfully the experience was no worse than
Wordperfect (Corel variety) under Windows.
The on screen fonts were painful though, but it did printout fine.
>[deletia]
>>explained the lack of anti-aliased fonts to me and that was the end of
>>that. A person who has to look at a screen for 8 hours a day with jagged
>>fonts is an OSHA lawsuit in the making.
>
> This, I think, is the clincher. While I'll agree that there
> may be certain subjective aesthetic considerations to consider,
> this strikes me as much the same as certain OS advocates that
> look down on cheap 19" monitors for no other reason then that
> they are cheap.
I saw osha come in and fine a client for not having wrist pads on
their PC's because some user complained. I also saw them fine another
client for having a coat hook too close to the bathroom door, meaning
someone could hit their head on it.
Nothing would surprise me with osha.
>>
>>More problems surfaced.
>>
>>Several clients use video and audio embedded applications which depend
>>on the Creative Sound Blaster Live Card. The support for this device
>>under Linux seems to be dismal.
>
> SB Lives in Office machines?
I agree. this is doubtful. More than likely they are running the
Yamaha embedded SoundBoard whose name escapes me at the moment. XG
something or other.
Most sudio I have seen is done over a laptop via an on screen
projection system and they usually use Ensoniq sound chips.
I agree with you jedi.
>[deletia]
JEDIDIAH
>On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:01:13 GMT, jedi...@dementia.mishnet (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 22:45:42 GMT, Tiberious <pop_goes_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>I run a small hardware / software consulting firm and being a
>>>businessman educated in solid business principles (Wharton if you must
>>[deletia]
>>>First we tried Wordperfect but it kept crashing far too much to be
>>>useful. The demo's were getting embarrassing. Then we tried StarOffice
>>>but even on decent hardware (Pentium II 450mhz with 256 meg) it ran like
>>
>> This assertion seems suspect.
>Actually I hade the WOrdperfect suite crash on me a couple of times
I was talking about the performance of StarOffice.
>under Linux, but truthfully the experience was no worse than
>Wordperfect (Corel variety) under Windows.
>
>The on screen fonts were painful though, but it did printout fine.
>
>
>>[deletia]
>>>explained the lack of anti-aliased fonts to me and that was the end of
>>>that. A person who has to look at a screen for 8 hours a day with jagged
>>>fonts is an OSHA lawsuit in the making.
>>
>> This, I think, is the clincher. While I'll agree that there
>> may be certain subjective aesthetic considerations to consider,
>> this strikes me as much the same as certain OS advocates that
>> look down on cheap 19" monitors for no other reason then that
>> they are cheap.
>
>
>I saw osha come in and fine a client for not having wrist pads on
>their PC's because some user complained. I also saw them fine another
There is a bit more science behind the claims regarding
improper wrist support. I prefer to have good support all
the way back to the elbow...
>client for having a coat hook too close to the bathroom door, meaning
>someone could hit their head on it.
>
>Nothing would surprise me with osha.
OTOH, reading too much high resolution text (of the printed
variety) can cause premature and extreme degredation in
eyesight. This correlation can easily been seen amongst the
ranks of lawyers and law students.
So, I kind of chuckle when people complain about "poor quality"
versus "good quality" screen fonts in this context.
simo...@earthlink.net
wrote:
This is true. I have several folks I know that have requested, and
gotten, high tech ergonimic chairs and workstation support facilities.
>>client for having a coat hook too close to the bathroom door, meaning
>>someone could hit their head on it.
>>
>>Nothing would surprise me with osha.
>
> OTOH, reading too much high resolution text (of the printed
> variety) can cause premature and extreme degredation in
> eyesight. This correlation can easily been seen amongst the
> ranks of lawyers and law students.
Super high res text is as bad or worse than fuzzy text. IMHO it's a
fine line, and an individual line, between what is comfortable.
Personally I prefer the smooth MS fonts and general look. Others may
differ.
I find a
Ciaran
wrote:
>In article <slrn8jtkv...@john.sympatico.ca>,
stories read
>exactly alike? Reminds me of the do-it-yourself jokes in Mad
Magazine
>or the letters to Penthouse. Just fill in the blanks with a
selection
>from the numbered choices.
>
>I'm waiting for someone to pop in here and tell us that this
guy's got
>the same IP address, same ISP, same proxy, same version of
Windows as
>some other well known troll.
Yeah I believe it is. The same SBLive driver complaint. When the
linux SBLive driver matches the capabilities of the Win9X
version the traffic on cola is going to half I reckon. When
antialiases fonts are supported by X out of the box the traffic
will half again :)
What is a Wharton BTW ? I assume its some kinda university.
Cheers,
Ciaran
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
pac...@my-deja.com
s...@yorku.ca wrote:
> Tiberious <pop_goes_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [... made up story of a Wharton grad who starts a business without
> researching the needs of his target market, and who can't spell
> "Tiberius". Sing it with me: Troll, troll, troll your boat... ]
>
> Steve
>
Is it just my imagination, or do all these Linux failure stories read
exactly alike? Reminds me of the do-it-yourself jokes in Mad Magazine
or the letters to Penthouse. Just fill in the blanks with a selection
from the numbered choices.
I'm waiting for someone to pop in here and tell us that this guy's got
the same IP address, same ISP, same proxy, same version of Windows as
some other well known troll.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tim
you seem like a complete moron to me(not that you are one).
If you didn't know the shortcoming of Linux that you mention,
why on earth did you get into that business? That seems pretty inept.
How could it be a secret that Linux falls short for Joe Blow enduser?
ITS NOT! No, Joe Blow can't play all the Windows games and run all the
Windows apps and all the Windows hardware. DUH DUH DUH!!!
THat's we're preactically all of the time and the money have gone in recent
years, to Windows development. But Linus does have its applications in
which it excels, and I'm sure that will continue to grow. It works great
for people that are very intellegent and can(and want to) understand
the nuts and bolts of an OS. It can also work great for the average user
whose expertise is faw and away from computer technology if the hardware
support and software is there, which in many cases its not. Hopefully that will
improve(boy would I like to see some of MS capital donated to GPL and Linux
development as part of the settlement!)
It has other hurdles as well. Corporations continue to struggle with the
economic model of free software. Some people are driven away from GPL
software just as others are drawn to it. But at least(thank god) *some* of us
have a worthy alternative to Windows. My profile: I'm a computer "geek"
and I can make it work quite well for me. I spend more time in getting it
to do the things I want it to do than I would in Windows, but that is enoying and
satisfying for me. I have way more control in Linux than I do in Windows.
That is not to say that Linux is not for end-users. End-users, of course,
dont like to fiddle, probably dont want to use the computer more than thay have
to. That makes sense. Corel is making inroads in this area. Corel Linux is
purportedly even slicker and easier to use than Red-Hat(which I use). I
beleive their goal is to be acceptable to the end-user. And from what I read
they do a pretty good job.(I attened a Corel road show and it *was* pretty
nice looking). Did you know about Corel Linux? If you read a reveiw of it( I
suggest hopping over to www.maximumlinux.com) you'll see it has a lot of
the ease-of-use features other Linux's are missing. This can only get better.
But yes it still has a long way to go. At least for now *I'm* not stuck with MS
view of how my computer should work, and in the long run we'll have more
choices of how our computers work if we have an alternative to MS.
So to me it sounds like you resent Linux for the failure of your
origional idea and wasted time when you should be resenting your own
ignorance of the Linux OS itself.
____________________________
Remove "s"'s from address to private e-mail.
In article <MPG.13a89e67e...@news.earthlink.net>, Tiberious
<pop_goes_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I run a small hardware / software consulting firm and being a
> businessman educated in solid business principles (Wharton if you must
> First we tried Wordperfect but it kept crashing far too much to be
> useful. The demo's were getting embarrassing. Then we tried StarOffice
> but even on decent hardware (Pentium II 450mhz with 256 meg) it ran like
> molasses and took over the entire desktop. As a last resort we tried
> Applix, which seemed to work ok until one client asked us to try and
> import his payroll/tax spreadsheets. Applix died on the launch pad like
> Apollo 0ne.
>
> Other problems were the general dislike of Netscape. People, for some
> reason or another, seem to hate that program. They keep bringing up
> features and the general look and feel of Explorer as being far nicer.
>
> Look is another area where Linux let us down. We kept getting complaints
> about the screen layouts. Essentially the end users could not adjust
> the screen so that the text looked smooth and clear. My Linux gurus
> explained the lack of anti-aliased fonts to me and that was the end of
> that. A person who has to look at a screen for 8 hours a day with jagged
> fonts is an OSHA lawsuit in the making.
>
> More problems surfaced.
>
> Several clients use video and audio embedded applications which depend
> on the Creative Sound Blaster Live Card. The support for this device
> under Linux seems to be dismal.
>
R.E.Ballard
Tiberious <pop_goes_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I run a small hardware / software consulting firm and being a
> businessman educated in solid business
> principles (Wharton if you must
> know), I thought I saw an opportunity
> to get my foot in the door and
> promote Linux as an alternative to
> Windows and less so Apple.
So let's see, you had limited exposure to Linux, wanted to
get your foot in the door, and you decided to try selling
Linux. And now you're upset because you're not an instant
Millionaire!
I helped the first 8000 Internet publishers get their content on the
Web. Many of them had to start with 80386 machines because they had
absolutely zero budget. My own Dow Jones site didn't make a dime
for almost 18 months.
You want freeze-dried, instant, microwavable ready-to-eat success.
Even Amway (the largest producer of millionaires) doesn't promise
that.
You are going to have to do more than hang out your shingle and
wait for the business. You just have to go "out of the box" a bit.
> Let's face
> it there are millions of folks out
> there "consulting" at various levels
> of competency and in truth, just
> looking at my own area it is
> frightening the level of MSCE that is out there.
You are an MCSE (who can't spell MCSE)? You've been carefully
trained to thing the way Microsoft wants you to think. You
have no idea what the bits of a TCP/IP frame mean, or how to
configure a CISCO packet filtering router based on that frame
content, but you passed a TCP/IP certification test because you
knew how to use the "network" tool on the "Control Panel".
I'm going to assume that you are brighter than that, and help
you see what isn't working about your business plan.
> Some of these people can barely format a diskette via a command line.
True. They can't even write a .bat file anymore. Many NT
administrators get paid many dollars an hour to push the same buttons
on hundreds of machines because critical functions can't be scripted.
But since you're MCSE, you can't yet appreciate the advantages of
scripts and cron jobs. Sure, perl scripts aren't glamourous, and
pretty forms are easier to drag-and-drop than HTML forms (but not
much harder), and CGI http Get and Put requests are much harder to
parse than letting VB Forms call your routines when the buttons are
pressed -- or is it. The debate goes on and on.
> So anyway, I started investigating the
> various Linux distributions and
> hired 2 Linux Systems Engineers who
> knew the product so well it was scary.
I sounds scary. What is a Linux Systems Engineer, and why would
you turn to them for a business model? A UNIX systems engineer
generally has a BSEE that requires 5 years of college or 5 years
of really intense experience to earn the title of Engineer (before
that they are associate engineers if they don't have the BSEE).
How many years did this Linux Systems Engineer have? How many years
of UNIX experience? How many years of system administration?
> I am not exactly a Unix newbie either
> having dealt with IBM/AIX in the
> past,
How did you "deal" with IBM/AIX in the past?
Were you a shell progammer?
Did you configure an Apache site?
Did you configure Websphere?
Did you write your own servers?
Did you write C, C++, and Lex/Yacc programs?
Did you write PERL programs?
Many people "deal" with IBM/AIX sites everyday,
they visit AIX machines every day using their friendly
little web browser.
You've posted no URL, you've posted from hotmail, and you're
login is offensive and rediculous. This would indicate that
you are a troll. I like playing with trolls, feeding them,
fattening them up, and eating them for dinner.
You can find my URL at the bottom of this article.
Click the picture in the middle for a bio.
> but my function was mainly to
> garner support and try and sell
> Linux.
Don't try, do!
People who try are willing to accept failure.
People who DO won't let themselves be stopped by failure.
When I was putting Dow Jones on the Web, my boss threatened
to fire me at least 30 times, my co-workers would laugh and
joke, and many of the other managers figured I was crazy and
would mellow out in a few years.
I kept pushing and pushing and pushing, I created my first web
server with an 80386/16 with 16 meg of RAM, a perl script to parse
the Dow Jones News feed and a really simple freeWAIS database.
I had to install Mosaic and Trumpet Winsock on the desktops of
20 managers and 40 co-workers before they could really see that
this was going to be real. Microsoft had told them that the
Internet was nothing but a bunch of drunken college kids. I told
them that within 5 years (this was early 1993) people would give
out URLs instead of phone numbers.
I don't take no for Linux and Open Source either!
I know that there are at least 30,000 advocates out there, many
of whom actually search for my postings on this forum. I know
that they are bumping up against the same problems you are having.
> Our business plan called for the money
> to be made in pricing Linux much
> lower than similar Windows configurations
> (not hard at all) and making our money on
> hardware and the system software set up as well as
> maintenance of the above items.
What is your market. If your market is low-income families, single
parents, and community centers, this is a good business plan, but
you still need to provide more than I would guess you were providing.
> What seemed like a good idea at first
> quickly blossomed into the worst
> nightmare a person in my field could ever imagine.
You figured you could offer cut-rate systems with
minimal configurations and with little more than
a 3 minute tap-dance, you were going to have your
Billion dollar IPO!
Bob Young and the Red Hat team still tell the stories of going
to New York and selling CDs for $10 a pop just to be able to pay
for lunch. Pat Volkerding couldn't afford to make it to the show.
In early 1994, Linux wasn't even known for being a good SERVER.
In fact, the Internet had about 200 commercial web sites, and only
5 nationally branded publishers.
Guess what! Bill Gates spent almost 2 years living at the
"no-tell Motel" in Albequerue, New Mexico - not counting his little
stay in the Graybar Hotel. Even when he had an office, it was
also his bedroom for almost a year.
> The basic problem was that NOBODY WANTED LINUX!!!!
Nobody wanted what you were offering. You offered dirt cheap
PCs on overpowered hardware and wondering why people didn't
beat a path to your door.
> We couldn't GIVE IT AWAY!
You have competition! Heck, there are two magazines giving away
Linux and Linux software in their shrink-wrapped bundles. One
offered Storm Linux. The other offered a selection of software
than seem to have been dropped from the popular distributions.
> They were so entrenched in Windows that to
> even consider switching was out of the question.
Why should they?
Did you offer benefits?
Did you compare costs of archival, maintenence, support?
Were you willing to put your butts on the line?
SCO is a really good example of how you market PC versions of
UNIX. People by PCs because they need many of them (franchises
like McDonalds, Burger King, Pizza Hut, Radio Shack...), and they
are cheap (compared to $25,000 UNIX servers).
Where SCO always gets the win is that they can provide a 24/7 support
contract for every site for less than the cost of a minimum wage
employee - working part time.
They can do this because they know that while NT machines require
a relatively skilled operator that must be physically present when
things get messy, UNIX machines can be almost completely managed
without ever unlocking the cabinet door. The literally hide a key
in the building that is only used if the machine fails to reboot.
Other than that, only the Owner knows even the basics, like what
kind of machine is being used.
> The first problem was providing Microsoft compatible applications.
You mean to tell me that the only way you know of to exchange
information that's useful, informative, and aesthetically
pleasing is to use Microsoft Office? If this is true, you might
have a bigger problem than you think! One of the great joys
of Office Addiction is when they come up with a new version and
10% of the organization has the new version and the rest are
trying to figure out why they can't read their documents anymore
(because the lucky 10% keep autoconverting the documents to the new
flavor). Office for Windows is obsolete, Office 95 is almost
obsolete, Office 97 is hanging on for dear life, and Office 2000
is last year's model.
That was your first problem. We didn't create the internet by
trying to figure out a nice friendly way to share Word documents,
we adopted a standard that could easily be supported by Windows,
UNIX, and Mac. We wanted to run on anything from Windows 3.1 on an
80386 to $50,000 HP/9000 workstations.
An organization considering a Linux solution needs to adopt similar
standards. Use HTML, XML, GIF, JPEG, CGM, and/or RTF formats for
publishing content. If you want to add OpenGL and Postscript for
revisable "Line Art" that's an option.
Don't put new wine in old wineskins. There are several well-known
standard formats that can be used to publish information. You can
even use these formats to import.
The added benefit of switching to open standards for documentation,
protocols, and applications is that you can manage the archive
more creatively. If you have 5000 documents in Word format, you
might have a bit of a problem finding the documents later. If you
have 5000 documents in HTML format, you can use a robot to load a text
search engine like WAIS or Verity and provide information that can
easily be located.
The web succeeded as well as it did because it adopted standards that
could be implemented on everything from an 80386 running Windows 3.1 or
Slackware Linux all the way up to a Quad Xeon running Windows 2000 or
Mandrake 7.0. Heck, you can even implement web browsers on palm pilots
and Video Game machines.
> I tried most of the applications we
> were going to pitch to the end users
> and quite frankly thought that although
> they needed a little polish here
> and there, for the most part they
> were Microsoft compatible.
That's a pretty accurate description. If you use
every bell and whistle, chunk up the ugliest applications
you can find, and use cute features like watermarks,
not only will you break Applix, WordPerfect, and StarOffice,
but you'll also blow away Office 97, Office 95, and Office 2.0.
Bill Gates doesn't mind telling customers that the machines
they bought for $2000 two years ago are worthless pieces of junk
because the new versions of Windows and Office will transform
documents written on the older systems into undecipherable blobs
which can only be read by this year's $2000 workstation. After all,
it's how he makes his money. Furthermore, each time a new major
product is rolled out, you have to pay a premium price because
there are parts shortages. In the off years you can buy
next-year's-junk for $500 a pop.
> Boy was I wrong, BIG TIME!!!
Actually, the original statemnt was relatively accurate. Linux
Office suites can perform similar functions to any of Microsoft's
products, and can publish documents in formats that Microsoft's
Office suites can use. In some cases, you can even do a decent
job of importing and exporting relatively standard documents.
Beware, there are Microsoft advocates who are walking around with
"Linux Killers", these are documents that include embedded objects
that you'd never allow anyone to publish (embedded executables, macro
viruses, and direct calls into DLLs). If someone hands you a disk,
you can almost bet he's a ringer. He's probably planned this little
torpedo for a month, just waiting to blow some poor unsuspecting
Linux advocate's credibility.
> First we tried Wordperfect but it
> kept crashing far too much to be useful.
Which version of WordPerfect? Don't expect the demo versions to
have a flawless performance. The full implementation ($$$) includes
numerous features including backgrounds, templates, wizards, and
import/export filters that support much more than the shareware
version.
> The demo's were getting embarrassing.
> Then we tried StarOffice
> but even on decent hardware
> (Pentium II 450mhz with 256 meg)
> it ran like molasses and took over
> the entire desktop.
I've never liked StarOffice, but it usually get's touted as
the "compatibility box". It's pretty good at importing and
exporting, but it's generally better to import Word, export to
RTF or an older version like Word 6 and edit using one of the
better Suites.
> As a last resort we tried Applix,
> which seemed to work ok
> until one client asked us to try and
> import his payroll/tax spreadsheets.
Which probably contained a bunch of VBA scripts, ODBC
connections, and other "Microsoft Only" stuff that would
make most security managers completely nuts.
You were sandbagged. Better to point out that if they have
VBA and ODBC needs, that there are conversions for those
components.
> Applix died on the launch pad like Apollo 0ne.
No suprise. The sheets probably had enough Linux killers
to choke a horse. The best "acid test" is to have a copy
of Windows 95 running under VMWare. If Windows 95 chokes,
you can call the bluff.
You need to be able to offer alternatives which cooperate
with Windows rather than trying to trash windows entirely.
There are some people who really must have windows to run
some hard-coded application written 2 years ago. Don't worry,
in 6 more months, it will be obsolete, rendered disfunctional
by a Microsoft service pack, and then they will be free
to explore the Linux alternative.
> Other problems were the general dislike of Netscape. People, for some
> reason or another, seem to hate that program. They keep bringing up
> features and the general look and feel of Explorer as being far nicer.
Netscape 4.6 or 4.7 is a horrible excuse for a Linux application. It
was written using a static link to the proprietary Motif library and
comes with 8 meg of "toolkit" that cannot be shared. Furthermore,
bugs in the Mosaic for Linux implementation have left uncorrected
memory leaks and the program can grow until it has taken all of your
swap space, at which time, the system locks up.
There are over 15 web browsers for Linux, including Netscape 6.0,
which has been designed for Linux since very early on.
> Look is another area where Linux let us down.
> We kept getting complaints about the screen layouts.
> Essentially the end users could not adjust the
> screen so that the text looked smooth and clear.
Look in the how-to for deuglification. There are a number of
simple, trivial changes that can be implemented, especially when
using large displays and/or high resolutions. Switching to 100 DPI
fonts, Speedo fonts, and setting the font server will give a much
more pleasant display. The 75 DPI fonts were designed for users
who want to pack 30 screens into a single display panel.
> My Linux gurus explained the lack of anti-aliased fonts
> to me and that was the end of that.
> A person who has to look at a screen
> for 8 hours a day with jagged
> fonts is an OSHA lawsuit in the making.
That's actually amusing. Actually, Network administrators
deliberately choose these fonts because they want to manage
a great deal of information very quickly. UNIX administrators
have the option and usually go for "Quick and Ugly" over "Slow
and Beautiful".
> More problems surfaced.
Why Am I not Suprised. This is sounding more and more like
the typical troll who trashes Linux and admits in the last
paragraph that they used it for a whole 10 hours.
If you seriously want to consider making a business out of
Linux, you should seriously consider using it at least 10 hours
per week for 13 weeks. I'd strongly reccomend at least 200 hours
as quickly as you can stand it.
I can't believe that you actually went to a customer without
knowing in advance what you were doing. This is like a TV repairman
claiming that he's a mainframe programmer.
There are those who get paid very well by Microsoft to
prevent the proliferation of Linux. They use tools ranging
from bogus "tests" to benchmarks that are fraudulent though
legally accurate.
> Several clients use video and audio
> embedded applications which depend
> on the Creative Sound Blaster Live Card.
Most real soundblaster cards are pretty well supported.
Why would the clients be using applications that depend
on specific hardware - the Linux kernel wouldn't even
allow them to acces the hardware directly. At best, they
would have access to audio streams.
> The support for this device
> under Linux seems to be dismal.
Sound configuration is a function of the OEM. If you, who are
offering to function as the OEM or VAR can't configure a functional
sound system, that's your incompetance, not the fault of Linux.
You should know which cards are supported, what drivers need to
be installed, and then insure that the full system is configured.
-----------
And here's the real Troll-bait.
> What we discovered about Linux is
> that while it may look like a great
> and superior system on paper,
Let me guess, you bought a thousand shares of Red Hat,
figured since it shot up like a rocket (recently) that
you'd make a quick buck.
> the truth of the matter is that the end
> users ARE NOT INTERESTED IN LINUX.
No. Users are not interested in two-bit hustlers trying to
make a quick buck on a product with which they have demonstrated
that they haven't even the most rudementary knowledge, in hopes
of making some quick cash in a fly-by-night scheme based on the
latest "Buzz Word".
Let me guess, you were also pawning yourself off as a "Web Guru"
telling them how they could get rich by paying you $500/month to
host an NT web server in your garage.
You were also pawning yourself off as a "Webmaster" telling them
you could manage their site's content - using front-page and
NT server.
You were also hocking your e-commerce solution based on you
as the clearing agent (through your access to the credit card company)
using ActiveX "checks" authenticated by you.
I'll bet you were promising to be able to do enterprise integration
as an "Achitect" because you understood the "Architecture" of Windows
NT.
> They are interested in solutions to their problems
Which you clearly did not offer. I'm a Linux advocate
grande and I WOULDN'T EVEN RECCOMEND YOU FOR AN NT SOLUTION.
You may have passed the MCSE exam, but you seem to be too
unethical to even qualify as a "box booter".
> and Windows 2000 provides them in a polished,
> ready to go package that is the current
> standard and is supported by THEIR clients.
I bet you got that right out of the Microsoft Press Releases.
Drestin, hurry, you have another Press Release Writer in the
making! Put him on salary! (if he isn't already).
> We had other consultants
> blowing us out of the water
No suprise here. You bungle your way through a Linux demo that
you obviously haven't even rehearsed, and show applications that
you haven't even tried, and let yourself get "Sucker Punched" by
a Microsoft biggot who has sworn to destroy all Linux advocates,
and you wonder why they weren't buying.
I'm sure you have no clue!
> with their offerings and although our
> clients were trying to be loyal to us
> because of our integrity
Snort, LOL, ROFL, ROFLMAO!
> and long term relationships with most of them,
> the honest truth was Linux was NOT
> and option if we intended to remain their consultants.
Gee - I wonder why. I'm finding it hard to imagin that
they would keep you on as consultants at all.
> Linux is lagging terribly in
> polished world class applications.
Judge Jackson certainly agrees!
> Even the SoundBlaster Live card has Liveware! available
> for Win2k, despite Win2k
> just being released. Linux has been spouting support "coming real soon
> now" for a long time. Still no full support for this popular card.
It might have something to do with that Nondisclosure and noncompete
agreement between Microsoft and Creative that was nullified this
afternoon. Now that Creative is off the hook, they can do their own
Linux port.
> Linux drivers are bare bones and no Livewire is even in sight.
It's a bit hard to write Linux drivers when your only source of
information not covered by a now illegal nondisclosure agreement
is anonymous leaks passed in verbal form.
> In conclusion, we have dumped Linux
Why am I not suprised.
> because Windows is really the future.
And this is what you believed all along, all that milarky
about being an AIX guru aside. What makes you worse than
these Microsoft Biggots who try Linux for 10 hours and then
rant about what a horrible system it is, is that you actually
think that after a few weeks with Linux, that you have the
right to represent the product.
> Linux shows it age with every command line instruction.
The classic Microsoft Employee Propaganda. If you are so
ignorant that you can't even figure out how to use linuxconf,
and the KDE system tools, then you really don't have a clue.
I'm not saying that a configuration guru will never need to use
the CLI to configure a system, but if he's doing his job effectively,
the customer wont need the CLI, until he's ready.
I've had my share of recent run-ins with GUI swamp, this is the
experience of trying to implement a solution using a GUI that
would take a matter of minutes in a CLI.
Certainly the best classic example of the GUI from hell in the
Registry editor, regedit. Just try and actually edit the registry.
And then kiss your system goodbye because it may never boot again.
Try and uninstall software and watch the corrupted registry turn
your hard drive into confetti.
Then it's back to the 5 Rs.
Restart the Application
Reboot the system.
Reinstall the Application
Reinstall the System.
Reformat the hard drive and start from scratch.
> We tried to support and sell Linux but
> the truth of the matter is that
> the end users have spoken and Linux
> is NOT in their vocabulary.
Certainly not if they have to depend on YOU for support!
Remember, with Linux, the code is free, but the profit is in
the support.
Did you offer a service level agreement?
Did you offer 24/7 service?
Did you offer virtual desk-side assistance?
Did you offer upgrades for a year?
Did you offer fully functional systems on every machine you provided?
This is what your competition offers!
Microsoft doesn't!
No, you offered a really cheap desktop, with no support,
and proved beyond any reasonable doubt that you were totally
incompetent to provide the support needed to even provide
the most BASIC functionality.
You made no attempt to manage the customer's expectations, made
no attempt to manage the nature of the conversation, and offered
no significant benefit other than a low-ball price.
As I've said before, this would be a worth-while strategy if
you were trying to sell to single parents - but even then you'd
have to offer a goof-proof self-configuration package that was
custom tailored to that machine.
> Tiberious
Tiberious who?
From where?
Who does What?
Who has used Linux for how long?
Who has configured how many systems?
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 90 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month!
P.S. Fire your Linux geeks, thier "Softees" in disguise.
Chris Ahlstrom
>
>
> The basic problem was that NOBODY WANTED LINUX!!!!
>
>
> out of the question.
>
> SoundBlaster Live card has Liveware! available for Win2k, despite Win2k
> just being released.
When I bought Win2k, it had only a provisional driver, rather crappy.
Creative finally brought out an SBLive driver, and they've about
finished
one for Linux.
Truthfully, part of the problem in your story was that you didn't do
your
market research before diving in.
Businessmen (and I love what George Carlin has to say about them) have
this
equation in mind: Bill Gates is smart = Microsoft software is good =
Bill Gates
is rich = I'm smart if I buy Microsoft = I'll be rich too.
These are the same corporate VPs who vote themselves a big bonus during
times
of layoffs, and who will do these layoffs to save money, but hire back
the
employee as a consultant to do the work.
Oh well.
Nico Coetzee
> I run a small hardware / software consulting firm and being a
> businessman educated in solid business principles (Wharton if you must
> know), I thought I saw an opportunity to get my foot in the door and
> promote Linux as an alternative to Windows and less so Apple. Let's face
> it there are millions of folks out there "consulting" at various levels
> of competency and in truth, just looking at my own area it is
> frightening the level of MSCE that is out there. Some of these people
> can barely format a diskette via a command line.
> So anyway, I started investigating the various Linux distributions and
> hired 2 Linux Systems Engineers who knew the product so well it was
> scary.
> I am not exactly a Unix newbie either having dealt with IBM/AIX in the
> past, but my function was mainly to garner support and try and sell
> Linux.
>
> Our business plan called for the money to be made in pricing Linux much
> lower than similar Windows configurations (not hard at all) and making
> our money on hardware and the system software set up as well as
> maintenance of the above items.
>
> What seemed like a good idea at first quickly blossomed into the worst
> nightmare a person in my field could ever imagine.
>
> The basic problem was that NOBODY WANTED LINUX!!!!
>
I suggest a good marketing course.
>
> We couldn't GIVE IT AWAY!
>
> They were so entrenched in Windows that to even consider switching was
> out of the question.
>
> The first problem was providing Microsoft compatible applications. I
> tried most of the applications we were going to pitch to the end users
> and quite frankly thought that although they needed a little polish here
> and there, for the most part they were Microsoft compatible.
>
> Boy was I wrong, BIG TIME!!!
>
I exchange documents between StarOffice and M$ Office all the time - no
problem.
>
> First we tried Wordperfect but it kept crashing far too much to be
> useful. The demo's were getting embarrassing. Then we tried StarOffice
> but even on decent hardware (Pentium II 450mhz with 256 meg) it ran like
> molasses and took over the entire desktop.
With that HW config I don't believe you - I run StarOffice at work on a
P166 with 32 MB RAM. Only the initial loading of the app is slow. There
after everything flies as normal.
As for WordPerfect - Next time hire tech people that know their stuff! If
only QuatroPro was free I would use Corel Office the whole time.
> As a last resort we tried
> Applix, which seemed to work ok until one client asked us to try and
> import his payroll/tax spreadsheets.
> Applix died on the launch pad like Apollo 0ne.
>
> Other problems were the general dislike of Netscape. People, for some
> reason or another, seem to hate that program. They keep bringing up
> features and the general look and feel of Explorer as being far nicer.
>
Luckily Linux users at least have a choice...
>
> Look is another area where Linux let us down. We kept getting complaints
> about the screen layouts. Essentially the end users could not adjust the
> screen so that the text looked smooth and clear. My Linux gurus
> explained the lack of anti-aliased fonts to me and that was the end of
> that. A person who has to look at a screen for 8 hours a day with jagged
> fonts is an OSHA lawsuit in the making.
>
Why are my fonts ok? Only Netscape sometime battle with some of the fonts
on Web Sites ( example: http://www.mweb.co.za )
>
> More problems surfaced.
>
> Several clients use video and audio embedded applications which depend
> on the Creative Sound Blaster Live Card. The support for this device
> under Linux seems to be dismal.
>
For these kind of apps I believe Apple is better then any other platform
(this I hear from friends as I don't use these kind of apps really)
>
> What we discovered about Linux is that while it may look like a great
> and superior system on paper, the truth of the matter is that the end
> users ARE NOT INTERESTED IN LINUX.
>
> They are interested in solutions to their problems and Windows 2000
> provides them in a polished, ready to go package that is the current
> standard and is supported by THEIR clients. We had other consultants
> blowing us out of the water with their offerings and although our
> clients were trying to be loyal to us because of our integrity and long
> term relationships with most of them, the honest truth was Linux was NOT
> and option if we intended to remain their consultants.
>
> Linux is lagging terribly in polished world class applications. Even the
> SoundBlaster Live card has Liveware! available for Win2k, despite Win2k
> just being released. Linux has been spouting support "coming real soon
> now" for a long time. Still no full support for this popular card.
>
> Linux drivers are bare bones and no Livewire is even in sight.
>
> In conclusion, we have dumped Linux because Windows is really the
> future.
> Linux shows it age with every command line instruction.
>
> We tried to support and sell Linux but the truth of the matter is that
> the end users have spoken and Linux is NOT in their vocabulary.
>
> Tiberious
--
--------------
The following signature was created automatically under Linux:
.
My godda bless, never I see sucha people.
-- Signor Piozzi, quoted by Cecilia Thrale
Leslie Mikesell
>The first problem was providing Microsoft compatible applications. I
>tried most of the applications we were going to pitch to the end users
>and quite frankly thought that although they needed a little polish here
>and there, for the most part they were Microsoft compatible.
>Boy was I wrong, BIG TIME!!!
Was this before or after you sold them Linux file/web/email servers where
the user applications don't matter as much as performance?
Les Mikesell
l...@mcs.com
2:1
>
>
> In conclusion, we have dumped Linux because Windows is really the
> future.
> Linux shows it age with every command line instruction.
Apart from the excessive use of capitals (couldn't GIVE IT AWAY/ NOBODY
WANTED LINUX), this last paragraph really gives it away that you are a
troll. Phrases like X is the future are designed to provoke. Secondly,
there is nothing wrong with a command line --- many of the things I do,
I do in the command line because they are not possible with /any/ gui I
have ever used.
Also, why does everybody go on so much about fonts in X. Why not just
download ttxfs and shut up about it.
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
2:1
>
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 22:45:42 GMT, Tiberious <pop_goes_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >I run a small hardware / software consulting firm and being a
> >businessman educated in solid business principles (Wharton if you must
> >First we tried Wordperfect but it kept crashing far too much to be
> >useful. The demo's were getting embarrassing. Then we tried StarOffice
> >but even on decent hardware (Pentium II 450mhz with 256 meg) it ran like
>
I must agree. Soffice 5.1 is reasonably responsive on my ageing P133.
Quite how it could be slow on a PII 450 is beyond me.
> >Several clients use video and audio embedded applications which depend
> >on the Creative Sound Blaster Live Card. The support for this device
> >under Linux seems to be dismal.
>
> SB Lives in Office machines?
good popint...
JEDIDIAH
>JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 22:45:42 GMT, Tiberious <pop_goes_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >I run a small hardware / software consulting firm and being a
>> >businessman educated in solid business principles (Wharton if you must
>> [deletia]
>> >First we tried Wordperfect but it kept crashing far too much to be
>> >useful. The demo's were getting embarrassing. Then we tried StarOffice
>> >but even on decent hardware (Pentium II 450mhz with 256 meg) it ran like
>>
>> This assertion seems suspect.
>
>I must agree. Soffice 5.1 is reasonably responsive on my ageing P133.
>Quite how it could be slow on a PII 450 is beyond me.
...actually, after I saw that I quickly looked for some SO
reviews in the Shill press. At least the Win32 version seems
to be getting reasonable reviews. It's performance isn't
being criticized and reviewers are needing to stretch things
a bit to find nasty things to say about it (like making comparisons
against typically mutually exclusive products like wp+excel).
I suspect this is just people repeating the criticism leveled by
users such as myself that SO is too much like msoffice in terms
of bloat. That doesn't necessarily imply that SO is WORSE than
msoffice, but rather that some of us view the whole bloatsuite/
vendorlock paradigm as fundementally faulty.
Novice users shouldn't have to put up with the like of WP (or Word).
>
>
>
>
>> >Several clients use video and audio embedded applications which depend
>> >on the Creative Sound Blaster Live Card. The support for this device
>> >under Linux seems to be dismal.
>>
>> SB Lives in Office machines?
>good popint...
...not that there aren't "suitable candidates" mind you...
Nathaniel Jay Lee
>
> I run a small hardware / software consulting firm and being a
> businessman educated in solid business principles (Wharton if you must
> promote Linux as an alternative to Windows and less so Apple. Let's face
> it there are millions of folks out there "consulting" at various levels
> of competency and in truth, just looking at my own area it is
> frightening the level of MSCE that is out there. Some of these people
> can barely format a diskette via a command line.
> So anyway, I started investigating the various Linux distributions and
> hired 2 Linux Systems Engineers who knew the product so well it was
> scary.
> I am not exactly a Unix newbie either having dealt with IBM/AIX in the
> past, but my function was mainly to garner support and try and sell
> Linux.
>
> Our business plan called for the money to be made in pricing Linux much
> lower than similar Windows configurations (not hard at all) and making
> our money on hardware and the system software set up as well as
> maintenance of the above items.
>
> What seemed like a good idea at first quickly blossomed into the worst
> nightmare a person in my field could ever imagine.
>
> The basic problem was that NOBODY WANTED LINUX!!!!
>
>
> They were so entrenched in Windows that to even consider switching was
> out of the question.
>
> tried most of the applications we were going to pitch to the end users
> and quite frankly thought that although they needed a little polish here
> and there, for the most part they were Microsoft compatible.
>
> Boy was I wrong, BIG TIME!!!
>
> useful. The demo's were getting embarrassing. Then we tried StarOffice
> but even on decent hardware (Pentium II 450mhz with 256 meg) it ran like
> Applix, which seemed to work ok until one client asked us to try and
> import his payroll/tax spreadsheets.
> Applix died on the launch pad like Apollo 0ne.
>
> Other problems were the general dislike of Netscape. People, for some
> reason or another, seem to hate that program. They keep bringing up
> features and the general look and feel of Explorer as being far nicer.
>
> about the screen layouts. Essentially the end users could not adjust the
> screen so that the text looked smooth and clear. My Linux gurus
> explained the lack of anti-aliased fonts to me and that was the end of
> that. A person who has to look at a screen for 8 hours a day with jagged
> fonts is an OSHA lawsuit in the making.
>
>
> Several clients use video and audio embedded applications which depend
> on the Creative Sound Blaster Live Card. The support for this device
> under Linux seems to be dismal.
>
> and superior system on paper, the truth of the matter is that the end
> users ARE NOT INTERESTED IN LINUX.
>
> They are interested in solutions to their problems and Windows 2000
> provides them in a polished, ready to go package that is the current
> standard and is supported by THEIR clients. We had other consultants
> blowing us out of the water with their offerings and although our
> clients were trying to be loyal to us because of our integrity and long
> term relationships with most of them, the honest truth was Linux was NOT
> and option if we intended to remain their consultants.
>
> Linux is lagging terribly in polished world class applications. Even the
> SoundBlaster Live card has Liveware! available for Win2k, despite Win2k
> just being released. Linux has been spouting support "coming real soon
> now" for a long time. Still no full support for this popular card.
>
> Linux drivers are bare bones and no Livewire is even in sight.
>
> future.
> Linux shows it age with every command line instruction.
>
> the end users have spoken and Linux is NOT in their vocabulary.
>
> Tiberious
End users tend to be the last to pick up on new technology. Now, I will
agree that there are some areas where Linux needs improvement (I would
love to see X be fully anti-aliases sometime soon) but it is usuable in
a Work environment. If you were starting from scratch, you probably
would have a better shot at it. The problem is, if you go at an
existing business with it, they are not going to see the benifit in
changing over from what they have. But, if you target new businesses,
many of them will see the advantage (especially early in thier business
plan) of using a free system that they can have customized any way that
they want. I know, I've done it myself with the business I currently
work in (an all Linux network for a woodworking company) and as a
consultant for a couple of other businesses (smaller, home based
businesses for other people). Now, I wouldn't automatically consider
Linux for every new business starting up, but if the requirements could
be met by Linux, then by all means it should be brought up. You can't
force it in. But in a few more years, Linux will be much more ready for
the big time.
I don't think that Windows is the future, I think it is the past and the
present. But if you watch, you will see the momentum building in Linux
for the future. The future will be Linux. Maybe not as soon as some
people think, but it will come. Just don't expect everything to happen
right now, it will happen.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
lee...@willinet.net
Bart Oldeman
> Also, why does everybody go on so much about fonts in X. Why not just
> download ttxfs and shut up about it.
That helps a lot, but it's still not anti-aliasing. Compare it with
gv: in this application you can turn on/off anti-aliasing in the
"state" menu. This application (in combination with ghostscript) of course
does the rendering itself and hence can do it.
Of course there is somebody working on it. So read
http://www.xfree86.org/~keithp/talks/render.html
and _then_ shut up about it.
Bart
Charlie Ebert
You mean like news reports from Tokyo Rose?
Charlie
Terry Porter
>I run a small hardware / software consulting firm and being a
>businessman educated in solid business principles (Wharton if you must
>know),
Better go back to business school mate, and this time take
Market Research 101 !!!
No businessman EVER spends money without doing market research FIRST.
I thought I saw an opportunity to get my foot in the door and
>promote Linux as an alternative to Windows and less so Apple.
You "thought you saw" ??? a puddy tat ??
Repeat after me, market research, market research ...
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use tpn...@gronk.apana.org.au ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 13 hours 11 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
Mark S. Bilk
Ciaran <ciaranN...@hubble.dialix.com.au.invalid> wrote:
>In <8hmq24$svn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, pac...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>In <slrn8jtkv...@john.sympatico.ca>, s...@yorku.ca wrote:
>>>Tiberious <pop_goes_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>made up story of a Wharton grad who starts a business
>>>without researching the needs of his target market, and
>>>who can't spell "Tiberius". Sing it with me: Troll, troll,
>>>troll your boat...
>>Is it just my imagination, or do all these Linux failure
>>stories read exactly alike? Reminds me of the do-it-yourself
>>jokes in Mad Magazine or the letters to Penthouse. Just fill
>>in the blanks with a selection from the numbered choices.
>>
>>I'm waiting for someone to pop in here and tell us that this
>>guy's got the same IP address, same ISP, same proxy, same
>>version of Windows as some other well known troll.
>Yeah I believe it is. The same SBLive driver complaint.
The "Tiberious" post came from Earthlink, and the man who
calls himself Steve/Mike/Heather/Simon/Sponge/S/piddy/
teknite/McSwain/pickle_pete/Ishmeal_hafizi/etc. has posted
from there recently with his characteristic headers. In
the last month or two he's gotten several new accounts with
different ISPs that he's now posting from, in addition to
the one he's used for more than a year, AT&T Worldnet.
He has some kind of obsession to post the same set of lies
about Linux over and over again, many thousands of times by
now, to c.o.l.a. His new accounts are an attempt to disguise
himself better; previously he just used lots of different
names, some with hotmail accounts, but usually posted from
AT&T. Now he's also learned how to alter some of the header
data, and he's begun to use X-No-Archive, the mark of the
worst sort of Usenet liar.
Apparently he wants to make it seem that dozens of people
are dissatisifed with Linux and complaining about it, when
it's only him. But even when he manages to change most of
the headers, the things he says and the way he says them are
still unmistakable.
Last year he also posted a number of very emotional anti-gay
diatribes to c.o.l.a, mostly focussed on anal sex; he's a
Fundamentalist "Christian":
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=590061261
"No wonder they are dying of aids..Good riddence.....and
no loss."
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=594068952
"It is a sickness that God is dealing with via AIDS."
>When the linux SBLive driver matches the capabilities of the
>Win9X version the traffic on cola is going to half I reckon.
I don't think he'll ever stop unless he gets some very serious
psychological counseling. To go to all the trouble and expense
that he does to carry on a totally unconvincing charade, and
constantly make an utter fool of himself in front of the whole
world, seems to indicate that he has severe emotional problems.
>What is a Wharton BTW ? I assume its some kinda university.
The Wharton School of business and management, of the Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania. Highly regarded in those circles.
Charlie Ebert
I am firmly convinced that Microsoft is paying people to snipe us.
I think they are on the Microsoft payroll as they seem to stup at nothing
to be secure and secret in their postings and yet come back time and
time again.
They are on the Microsoft Payroll.
Charlie
Mark S. Bilk
>I am firmly convinced that Microsoft is paying people to snipe us.
>
>I think they are on the Microsoft payroll as they seem to stop at
>nothing to be secure and secret in their postings and yet come
>back time and time again.
>
>They are on the Microsoft Payroll.
I was wondering about this as I recalled Steve/Mike's his-
tory. Some of the astroturfers -- "Drestin Black", Chad
Myers, Erik Funkenbusch, "Chad Mulligan" -- are technically
knowledgeable and robotically defend everything Microsoft
does. Sometimes they seem to get press releases before MS
makes them public; in any case, these guys always know where
the latest propaganda is on the MS website about why today's
new virus, security hole, or protocol incompatibility isn't
Microsoft's fault. If these guys aren't on the payroll,
they should be; they're very good liars -- always on point.
But Steve/Mike/Sponge/piddy is so obnoxious and stupid that
I was thinking Microsoft couldn't possibly be paying him.
Then I saw Bill Gates on TV, and heard him say about the fed-
eral court case, "The only issue here is whether it's wrong
to put Internet support in the operating system." If Gates
himself can utter such an outrageous lie on TV, in front of
the entire country, then who knows, his PR department might
actually pay a buffoon like Steve/Mike.
Matthias Warkus
AFAIK, the biggest problem is that X considers fonts to have a colour
depth of 1 bit. Full stop. Hard to bypass that...
mawa
--
The fact that they produce _Sindbad_, _Baywatch_ and _PENSACOLA_ makes
me not only doubt the United States' qualification as /de facto/ ruler
of this world. It makes me wonder about their strange infatuation with
cleavage, too. -- mawa
JEDIDIAH
>It was the Thu, 8 Jun 2000 21:38:55 GMT...
>...and Bart Oldeman <en...@enbeo.resnet.bris.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Jun 2000 2 wrote:
>>
>> > Also, why does everybody go on so much about fonts in X. Why not just
>> > download ttxfs and shut up about it.
>>
>> That helps a lot, but it's still not anti-aliasing. Compare it with
>> gv: in this application you can turn on/off anti-aliasing in the
>> "state" menu. This application (in combination with ghostscript) of course
>> does the rendering itself and hence can do it.
>>
>> Of course there is somebody working on it. So read
>> http://www.xfree86.org/~keithp/talks/render.html
>> and _then_ shut up about it.
>
>AFAIK, the biggest problem is that X considers fonts to have a colour
>depth of 1 bit. Full stop. Hard to bypass that...
It would most likely require some sort of extention that
is completely moot for any legacy apps. Considering the
speed of release cycles in both commercial and open source
software, that might not be as much of a problem as it would
initially seem.
[deletia]
Mingus
wrote:
>[deletia]
>>explained the lack of anti-aliased fonts to me and that was the end of
>>that. A person who has to look at a screen for 8 hours a day with jagged
>>fonts is an OSHA lawsuit in the making.
>
> This, I think, is the clincher. While I'll agree that there
> may be certain subjective aesthetic considerations to consider,
> this strikes me as much the same as certain OS advocates that
> look down on cheap 19" monitors for no other reason then that
> they are cheap.
I have a cheap 19" monitor. I value high price / performence. One of
my friends has a sony 19" and I can hardly tell the difference.
(except of course his has a line accross the middle. Thanks Sony)
The simple truth is... Linux looks fucking horrible on both.
JEDIDIAH
Bullocks. It's the individual font, not the font technology.
--
...However it is easier to dumb down a general
interface than to add generality to a limited set of choices,...
-Leslie Mikes-
Aaron Kulkis
>
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:01:13 GMT, jedi...@dementia.mishnet (JEDIDIAH)
> wrote:
>
> >[deletia]
> >>explained the lack of anti-aliased fonts to me and that was the end of
> >>that. A person who has to look at a screen for 8 hours a day with jagged
> >>fonts is an OSHA lawsuit in the making.
> >
> > This, I think, is the clincher. While I'll agree that there
> > may be certain subjective aesthetic considerations to consider,
> > this strikes me as much the same as certain OS advocates that
> > look down on cheap 19" monitors for no other reason then that
> > they are cheap.
>
> I have a cheap 19" monitor. I value high price / performence. One of
you have it backwards.
Uh, I think you mean high performance/price.
or...LOW PRICE / performance.
> my friends has a sony 19" and I can hardly tell the difference.
> (except of course his has a line accross the middle. Thanks Sony)
>
> The simple truth is... Linux looks fucking horrible on both.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
Terry Porter
>On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:01:13 GMT, jedi...@dementia.mishnet (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>
>>[deletia]
>>>explained the lack of anti-aliased fonts to me and that was the end of
>>>that. A person who has to look at a screen for 8 hours a day with jagged
>>>fonts is an OSHA lawsuit in the making.
>>
>> This, I think, is the clincher. While I'll agree that there
>> may be certain subjective aesthetic considerations to consider,
>> this strikes me as much the same as certain OS advocates that
>> look down on cheap 19" monitors for no other reason then that
>> they are cheap.
>
>
>I have a cheap 19" monitor. I value high price / performence. One of
>(except of course his has a line accross the middle. Thanks Sony)
shaddow mask, instead of the cheaper pressed hole plate type, you have.
The "wire" you see is a tensioning cable to hold the wire frame steady, and
must be in front of the frame, hence its visible if you look carefully.
Mine has 2 wires, but I don't notice them. What I do notice is the lack of
sharpness of the type of "high price/performance" cheap crap you use.
>
>The simple truth is... Linux looks fucking horrible on both.
Simple truth is you dont have a clue, about what your using, how it works, or
how to improve it.
You'd go for aparrent beauty, everytime, no matter how brain dead/unreliable
or cheap it was.
Linux looks stunning here, on my 17" trinitron Apple monitor.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use tpn...@gronk.apana.org.au ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 4 days 13 hours 53 minutes