Windows is freedom!
Mr Grant
have far more freedom to do as you wish with Windows. Flatfish made a great
post. "You choose your software first then your OS" That is dead on the
money. A computer's sole function is to run software. Windows has far more
and better software then Linux has. No matter what your needs are the best
software for that need runs in Windows.
Here is a example of the quality software that run in Windows. My Favorite
program is Guide. Look at the screen shots and read the text next to the
thumbnails. http://www.shawngrantsworld.com/astronomy/guidescreenshots.htm
Look at the power and knowledge right at my finger tips. There is no
software for Linux that comes close to the quality of Guide. Yet Guide is
one of many quality astronomy software that run in Windows Look at this
site. http://user.icx.net/~mfleenor/observatory/observatory_index.html
Notice the picture of the telescope. It is computer controlled. Guide
running in Windows XP points this telescope anywhere the owner wishes.
Click on image galleries. See the CCD Images. These show detail that only
pro scopes showed 30 years ago. They are of professional research quality.
He uses Maxim DL a Windows program to control the CCD camera and to do image
processing and analyzing. He also Uses PhotoShop some of the time.
You may say I don't care about astronomy or its software. That is probably
so but you are interested in something right? Windows has the best software
to fulfill your interest. Also Windows has the best software for any
professional activity. CAD, graphics design, data processing, computer
programming, basket weaving, bird watching. You name it the best software
for it runs in Windows. Now that is freedom. The freedom to choose from
thousands software to fulfill your needs. Linux lacks top quality software
and for many needs there is no software crappy or otherwise. That isn't
freedom that is stifling.
The Linux cult says well we are comparing OSs only. Well Windows XP is more
stable, more secure and faster then any Linux distro, plus there is
software, software and software to fill any of your desires. Windows is
freedom.
Donn Miller
> The Linux cult loves to shout "Linux is about freedom". I beg to differ. You
> have far more freedom to do as you wish with Windows.
Really? OK, then make ten copies of your Win98 install CD, and sell
each one legally without violating a license. Download an ISO of any
version of Windows legally on any public ftp server of your choosing
without violating any licenses. Install Win XP on two or more PCs
without running into license activation snafus. Run Media Player
without MS spying on you. Now see how much freedom Windows affords you.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Mr Grant
what you pay for. You buy Windows and it gives you a stable enviroment to
run software of your dreams. With Linux you get what you pay for. Nothing.
Media Player doesn't spy on anyone.
Donn Miller
> You can't make copy Windows leagaly. That is a good thing. After all you get
> what you pay for. You buy Windows and it gives you a stable enviroment to
> run software of your dreams. With Linux you get what you pay for. Nothing.
You've never tried xmms on Linux? How about Mozilla, and gv to read
PDF's? Also, I can't watch a certain div-x encoded video on Windoze ME
via Media Player (I get audio but no video), but it plays just fine with
xmms and xine on Linux (video+audio). I dunno. Sounds like I'm not
missing much on Windoze.
> Media Player doesn't spy on anyone.
Yes it does. It is spyware.
freefall
wrote:
The problem Linux faces is that there are so many Windows developers
out there by comparison to Linux developers. The sum of the knowledge
in the IT industry on how to develop Windows apps is orders of
magnitude larger than that for Linux apps.
The cost to the IT industry to switch from Windows based clients to
Linux based clients would be analogous to the cost of switching a
railway transport system to a different gauge. It just isn't going to
happen.
And of course there is the obvious fact the Linux desktop just doesn't
compare with what Microsoft has to offer.
Linux developers should stick to clinging to the 20% of the server
market Linux now holds. However even the arguments about the superior
reliability and stability of Linux are starting to wear thin since the
release of Windows 2000.
Mr Grant
With Windows I have the freedom to read PDF's. I also have the freedom to
surf the web with a wide variety of web browsers that are better then the
buggy Mozilla, Opera is one of them. The current media player can accept a
wide variety of plugins and plays div-x. If you find a rare movie that it
doesn't play with media player you have the freedom to choose among the
100's of apps that will play the movie. The are severl div-x players for
windows and many are free.
Also Media Player doesn't have spyware. Remember Windows is freedom.
"Donn Miller" <dmmi...@cvzoom.net> wrote in message
news:3CA47309...@cvzoom.net...
rcarter
Mr Grant <s.gra...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:oOZo8.312213$uv5.26...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Different strokes for different folks! I've been quite happy with the
software I've found for Linux. I'm a computer professional involved with
software development and maintenance, and I've found the development tools
for Linux to be very good; as opposed to Winders which only has one useable
package (IMHO) - that being Visual Basick (tried Visual C++ several times -
can't figure it out). The only software I'm at all interested in that I
can't find is a greeting card program (for the wife's use, at home).
Jerry Nash
>have far more freedom to do as you wish with Windows. Flatfish made a great
>post. "You choose your software first then your OS" That is dead on the
>money. A computer's sole function is to run software. Windows has far more
>and better software then Linux has. No matter what your needs are the best
>software for that need runs in Windows.
>
False. I need to log into my system and run GUI applications remotely
from a wide variety of OSes and platforms. Linux does this better than
Windows.
That's just one example of how Linux is better than Windows. I have
many more.
-snip-
>The Linux cult says well we are comparing OSs only. Well Windows XP is more
>stable, more secure and faster then any Linux distro, plus there is
>software, software and software to fill any of your desires. Windows is
>freedom.
The Windows XP users on microsoft.public.windowsxp.* groups don't agree
with you. They have nothing but crashes, freeze ups, and random reboots.
Jerry Nash
>You can't make copy Windows leagaly. That is a good thing. After all you get
>what you pay for. You buy Windows and it gives you a stable enviroment to
>run software of your dreams. With Linux you get what you pay for. Nothing.
>
The Windows XP users posting on microsoft.public.windowsxp.* groups don't
agree. Windows XP crashes, freezes, and reboots randomly for those
Windows XP users.
>Media Player doesn't spy on anyone.
It does until you tell it not to.
Mart van de Wege
> The problem Linux faces is that there are so many Windows developers out
> there by comparison to Linux developers. The sum of the knowledge in
> the IT industry on how to develop Windows apps is orders of magnitude
> larger than that for Linux apps.
You don't get it do you?
All those Windows developers do *not* contribute to a sum total of
knowledge. They are all out there reinventing the wheel again and again,
living in fear that they will be sued by one of their competitors for
illegal reverse engineering or patent infringement.
In contrast, the much smaller Free Software developer base can work off
of each others code without fear.
Get a clue before you post next time, will you?
Mart
--
There'll be no prisoners taken when the day is done
No flag or uniform ever stopped a bullet from a gun
-- Gary Moore - Out in the Fields
timeOday
It depends on what you want to do.
For scientific computing and
technical writing Linux is better than Windows. A lot of the
Unix/Linux stuff is available on Windows (latex, emacs, perl...) but
doesn't work quite right and generally has the feel of a port.
For general web/email/usenet, linux is still better because they
apps are just as good and they're much more freely available.
Mozilla supposedly works fine on Windows, so that's a tie.
Beyond that, ask yourself why you are using the word "freedom"
differently than most people. There are just too many rules
in the Windows and Mac worlds.
rapskat
Grant" - dump details are as follows...
> Here is a example of the quality software that run in Windows. My
> Favorite program is Guide. Look at the screen shots and read the text
> next to the thumbnails.
> http://www.shawngrantsworld.com/astronomy/guidescreenshots.htm Look at
> the power and knowledge right at my finger tips. There is no software
> for Linux that comes close to the quality of Guide. Yet Guide is one of
> many quality astronomy software that run in Windows Look at this site.
> http://user.icx.net/~mfleenor/observatory/observatory_index.html Notice
> the picture of the telescope. It is computer controlled. Guide running
> in Windows XP points this telescope anywhere the owner wishes. Click on
> image galleries. See the CCD Images. These show detail that only pro
> scopes showed 30 years ago. They are of professional research quality.
> He uses Maxim DL a Windows program to control the CCD camera and to do
> image processing and analyzing. He also Uses PhotoShop some of the time.
You may want to take a look at Xplns --
http://www.astro.ab.psiweb.com/products/xplns/
Pretty impressive software. I use it to track constellations and planetary
movements - past, present and future (gotta stay one ahead of Ms. Cleo
;-). Also, the new release of KDE3 includes a plantarium/astrological
software with the base install in the educational tools.
Any and every type of software available in Windows has a contemporary for
'nix I have found, usually more than one. I do not lack for either
quality or quantity. It is not a matter of "better", since that is
subjective to opinion. I personally think that OSS software in general
tends to be "better" than off-the-shelf apps. It a matter of preference.
You may prefer a particular application and/or platform because you are
already familiar with it and know it, that does not necessarily mean it is
"better" overall, just in your opinion.
Speaking of freedom, most of these applications are open-source, which
gives me the freedom to modify them to fit my own needs more specifically
-- FOR FREE. Try that with any closed-source proprietary application.
Windows and proprietary closed source applications in general are the
antithesis of freedom. You are limited to the whims of the developers in
regards to what features you want or need. With OSS, you can modify
existing code base or create your own from scratch or a combo of the two
to create something specifically for your needs and desires at little or
no cost.
Now *that's* what I call freedom!
--
rapskat - 12:35pm up 16 days, 2:46, 10 users, load average: 0.07, 0.10, 0.12
Increase your system stability and your financial stability...use Linux
rapskat
Grant" - dump details are as follows...
> You can't make copy Windows leagaly. That is a good thing. After all you
You're just being silly. All of my Linux systems are as solid as a rock. I
literally cannot break them, and I've tried.
I tried doing things that I wouldn't even dream of doing with Windows
unless I was looking for an excuse to reboot....and a bunch of things that
I simply *can't* do in Windows. Linux handles them all flawlessly, even
on "obsolete" hardware.
Try watching a full movie on a P100/48MB with no frame drops and excellent
vid/snd synch with Windows. You probably couldn't even load the viewer!
Or burning a CD, playing a game AND watching a movie all at the same time
flawlessly. Let me know when your coaster is done.
Try being logged in as 5 different users with different Windows Managers
simultaneously, all with running apps. Ain't gonna happen.
Try running over 100 applications at the same time with not one error and
minimum swap usage. I doubt it.
Try running Windows on a Sparc, PowerPC, or StrongARM. I don't think so.
How about a simple one. Pick the mp3 player of your choice, then start
playing a mp3 file. Now try to delete or move the file while it is still
playing and see what happens. See you after you reboot.
I've done all this and much more with Linux. This has been stated ad
nauseum, but I'll say it again: Linux is far superior to any version of
Windows -- it is more stable, faster, more configurable, portable, more
secure, reliable, and just kicks Windows ass in all aspects of computing
from playing games to running a high-end server.
You are seriously deluded, my friend. Seek help.
--
rapskat - 1:00pm up 16 days, 3:11, 10 users, load average: 0.12, 0.15, 0.16
Who can control his fate? -- Shakespeare, Othello.
JD
"rapskat" <rap...@gdlteknet.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2002.03.29.13....@gdlteknet.com...
>
> I've done all this and much more with Linux. This has been stated ad
> nauseum, but I'll say it again: Linux is far superior to any version of
> Windows -- it is more stable, faster, more configurable, portable, more
> secure, reliable, and just kicks Windows ass in all aspects of computing
> from playing games to running a high-end server.
>
just don't have good enough software. If you want to work harder to
apply a free (or GPLed) unix, you can for certain apps. There are other
(computer oriented apps) where the unixes are better than Windows.
John
.
> So the only thing you do is read PDF's, surf the web and watch div-x porn.
> With Windows I have the freedom to read PDF's. I also have the freedom to
> surf the web with a wide variety of web browsers that are better then the
> buggy Mozilla, Opera is one of them.
Hi moron, Opera has been available for linux for some time, and is identical
to the windows version in every respect.
> The current media player can accept a
> wide variety of plugins and plays div-x.
xine, mplayer and ogle all do this as well.
> If you find a rare movie that it
> doesn't play with media player you have the freedom to choose among the
> 100's of apps that will play the movie. The are severl div-x players for
> windows and many are free.
All of the ones for linux are free.
> Also Media Player doesn't have spyware. Remember Windows is freedom.
You dont know what youre talking about.
-----.
--
end of line.
Rumblebear
As with the democrats, where are the facts? You can make all the
spurious claims you like, but when asked for the documentation, you
spew the public tripe. "If you disagree with me, you must be an
un-American, illiterate, meat-eating, tree-killing, porn watching
Linux user and advocate." , that is all I hear from you. Do you have
a comparison tale to tell? Some personal experience with two similar
occurrences on a window box and a linux box, with an opinion on which
was easier, (quicker, faster), what have you? Yes, yes, you posted
links to a couple of locations, but what did that tell us?
Thomas Jefferson once said "the tree of liberty must be refreshed
from time to time with the blood of patriots." You may consider the
Linux community to be the ones feeding the tree of IT liberty. Many,
(most?) linux developers are not paid. They perform for the personal
satisfaction of achieving a goal, no matter how small or large it
might be. Does a microsoft developer do the same? Or take the same
pride in his small accomplishments? Possibly, but that is
underscored by the fact that his accomplishment isn't his. It
belongs to Microsoft. A Linux accomplishment is everyones
accomplishment, with the author applauded, (loudly sometimes), all
over the world.
I could go on, but the wood of my soapbox is old, and beginning to
crack in places.
Like Windows? Great! Wallow in it!
Like Linux? Great! Wallow in that!
Just remember...*What are the facts?*
Rumblebear
Delusions are the last refuge of the small-minded.
--
Earth -- A subsidiary of Micro$oft
Nigel Feltham
> just don't have good enough software. If you want to work harder to
Try Broadcast 2000 if you want a pro quality linux video editor.
Mr Grant
talking about things you don't know. First you don't know the difference
between astronomy and astrology. Astrology is the false religion that stars
trillions of miles away can influence peoples lives. Astronomy is a science
that studies things like planets, stars, galaxies anything beyond the Earth.
Astronomy has also proven astrology wrong. Xplns is nothing but a toy. It
lacks the modeling theories required for accurate calculations and it lacks
data sets such as tycho2, GSC, LEDA, Hippocros, Shapeless, Basel and many
other data sets. Those features are a must have for anyone in the amateur
astronomy community. Look at my screen shots and try to get Xplns to do the
same thing. Most things it cannot.
That program that comes with KDE3 is called Kstars. It is even worse then
Xplns. Nothing but toys for the ignorant. If you want free. Windows has
better free astronomy software then Linux does by a huge mile. Look at
http://www.hnsky.org/software.htm and
http://www.stargazing.net/astropc/index.html. See Windows has pretty good
freeware itself. Better then Linux has but it still cannot compare to
commercial software.
What good is open source to those who don't program. Vast majority of
computer users including myself do not program. To us open source is no
different then crappy freeware. We still have to wait for bug fixes and
feature additions. Also it isn't economical. No one is going to write a top
quality program and give it away for free. All of it is like Xplns and
Kstars crap. Guide on the other hand is different. It is being financed.
Donn Miller
> Windows is unstable, inflexible and unreliable. It
> is also slow and expensive.
Not true. It makes one even more flexible, since the Windoze user is
forced to bend over and take it up the arse from Bill and Steve. That
requires great agility.
Donn Miller
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 08:33:42 -0500, in
> comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Donn Miller <dmmi...@cvzoom.net>) wrote:
>
>
>>Mr Grant wrote:
>>
>>>The Linux cult loves to shout "Linux is about freedom". I beg to differ. You
>>>have far more freedom to do as you wish with Windows.
>>
>>Really? OK, then make ten copies of your Win98 install CD, and sell
>>each one legally without violating a license. Download an ISO of any
>>version of Windows legally on any public ftp server of your choosing
>>without violating any licenses. Install Win XP on two or more PCs
>>without running into license activation snafus. Run Media Player
>>without MS spying on you. Now see how much freedom Windows affords you.
>
>
> you want, just like Linux. I've made
> copies of Windows many times. What is
> your point?
I said "and sell each one legally without violating a license"
(specifically Microsoft's EULA).
Donn Miller
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 14:15:36 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Mr Grant" <s.gra...@comcast.net>) wrote:
>
>
>>So the only thing you do is read PDF's, surf the web and watch div-x porn.
Wrong. The div-x video in question is Enya's Only Time video.
rapskat
dump details are as follows...
> Actually, there are applications like video editing, where Linux (or
> BSD) just don't have good enough software.
Really? I wasn't aware of that.
http://www.the-labs.com/Video/
--
rapskat - 4:05pm up 16 days, 6:16, 10 users, load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00
You Know You Need To Upgrade When...
You get home from work and your system is just finishing booting up from when you turned it on this morning.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Mr Grant wrote:
> > The Linux cult loves to shout "Linux is about freedom". I beg to differ.
You
> > have far more freedom to do as you wish with Windows.
>
> Really? OK, then make ten copies of your Win98 install CD, and sell
> each one legally without violating a license. Download an ISO of any
> version of Windows legally on any public ftp server of your choosing
> without violating any licenses.
Do the same with SuSE x86 or Caldera.
> Install Win XP on two or more PCs
> without running into license activation snafus. Run Media Player
> without MS spying on you. Now see how much freedom Windows affords you.
That depends on your license. For instance, my MSDN WinXP allows 10 PC's to
be running the same version. And MediaPlayer doesn't "spy" on you, it just
gives them an ID, which can be turned off.
Donn Miller
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:16:04 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Mr Grant" <s.gra...@comcast.net>) wrote:
>>Here is a example of the quality software that run in Windows. My Favorite
>>program is Guide. Look at the screen shots and read the text next to the
>>thumbnails. http://www.shawngrantsworld.com/astronomy/guidescreenshots.htm
>>Look at the power and knowledge right at my finger tips. There is no
>>software for Linux that comes close to the quality of Guide. Yet Guide is
>>one of many quality astronomy software that run in Windows
>
>
> Astronomy software? Are you some sort of loser?
FreeBSD at least has that anyways, in /usr/ports/astronomy. That means
Linux must have it also, because Linux has a superset of apps that are
available for FreeBSD. Besides, why does liking Astronomy make him a
loser? What makes him a loser is his low IQ, bad social skills, level
of (im)-maturity, and his constant FUD spreading. I dunno Doc, sounds
like you fit that mold as well...
Marc Geerlings
> The Linux cult loves to shout "Linux is about freedom". I beg to differ.
> You have far more freedom to do as you wish with Windows. Flatfish made
> a great post. "You choose your software first then your OS" That is dead
> on the money. A computer's sole function is to run software. Windows has
> far more and better software then Linux has. No matter what your needs
> are the best software for that need runs in Windows.
I beg to differ, what is wrong with the list of applications below that
I use everyday. Please tell me what do they lack, in what point are they
lagging, or what do they lack for everyday use? Please you have a great
mouth, now put up or shut up, give me your critic of these applications
and then we have some substance to discuss about, now you're just
shouting and using oneliners, which are to my opinion lies!
Gnome 1.4.x (desktop manager with lots of eye candy and usefull applets)
with nautilus (e.a. using it for retrieving photo's from my digital camera)
Gnome multiple terminal (Terminal with tabs, woohoo :-))
Evolution (Mailer,Calender,Notification), Gaim (Messenger), GFtp ((s)Ftp
client), Pan (Newsreader), Gnumeric (Spreadsheet), Xmms (Music Player),
Grip (Music Ripper), Galeon (Webbrowsing), X-Chat (Irc), Gimp (Image
Manipulation), Gnome-Roast (CD burning), XSane plugin for gimp
(scanning), Gnome-meeting (netmeeting clone, webcam)
And as only none Gnome application I use OpenOffice quite a lot (Abiword
doesn't cut it at the moment) for among other things presentations,
and formula editing, tell me what I'm I missing not using Word or
Powerpoint?
> Here is a example of the quality software that run in Windows. My
> Favorite program is Guide. Look at the screen shots and read the text
> next to the thumbnails.
> http://www.shawngrantsworld.com/astronomy/guidescreenshots.htm Look at
> the power and knowledge right at my finger tips. There is no software
> for Linux that comes close to the quality of Guide. Yet Guide is one of
> many quality astronomy software that run in Windows
Well I find celestia a very nice astronomy program, look at
http://www.shatters.net/celestia/index.html
Celestia is a free real-time space simulation that lets you experience
our universe in three dimensions. Unlike most planetarium software,
Celestia doesn't confine you to the surface of the Earth. You can travel
throughout the solar system, to any of over 100,000 stars,
or even beyond the galaxy. All travel in Celestia is seamless;
the exponential zoom feature lets you explore space across a huge
range of scales, from galaxy clusters down to spacecraft only a few
meters across. A 'point-and-goto' interface makes it simple to
navigate through the universe to the object you want to visit.
Is that so bad? It's running also on Mac and Windows.....
> Look at this site.
> http://user.icx.net/~mfleenor/observatory/observatory_index.html Notice
[snip]
> He uses Maxim DL a Windows program to control the CCD camera and to do
> image processing and analyzing. He also Uses PhotoShop some of the time.
Boohoo, well I don't think that the average user has a need for this
baby, but very nice indeed, by the way do you know what the pro use on
there telescopes? Right *nix.
So you're far-fetching some nice windows software, well lets see if I can
do some niche work to:
I'm Professionally, developing Medical Image Manipulation applications for
the dept. of radiology of a University hospital, I use:
Gtk 1.2.x (wil become gtk 2.0) with several extra widgets (Opengl) and
VTK (Visual Toolkit) with gcc, Glade (Gui builder), Glimmer (Source
Editor, sorry never liked vi and xemacs, blame it on my Amiga background
:-)), Gvd (Visual debugger, very nice!! I used to use ddd), Memprof
(Memory Profiler), GHex (Hex editor). Tell me why I can't create cutting
edge software with this, and how Windows could do it better with
there tools?
All that and all the rest of the apps I mentioned in this post for 60
bucks, if you want to be really cheap you can download it for free from
the net in nice iso files, give me your argument why the mentioned apps
are crap, slow etc, and by the way how much does you line up cost?
> The freedom to choose from thousands software to fulfill your needs.
> Linux lacks top quality software and for many needs there is no software
> crappy or otherwise. That isn't freedom that is stifling.
Please give me you list of complaince at the software above. These
application are applications a avarage user would use everyday, now tell
me why are they crappy, please give substance to your claims!
> The Linux cult says well we are comparing OSs only. Well Windows XP is
> more stable, more secure and faster then any Linux distro, plus there is
> software, software and software to fill any of your desires. Windows is
> freedom.
Give me examples where my mandrake 8.1 and the last two weeks 8.2 is less
secure and stable then Windows XP. If I look in the news and on the net,
I see a lot of hacks for Windows machines.
How do you mean less stable?
It didn't crash on me the last year (Using Sparc stations and solaris
before the switch, so I'm used to rock solid stability). Developing
memory intensive 3D applications in C and messing with pointers a lot
is the thing to crash any OS, how in the world can Windows XP top that?
it is isn't even out for a whole year! In my opinion you're babbling!
Ok, I gave you a list of software, now give me you vision why this is
crappy and slow. If you say they slow, I will dispute it
(I use it on various machines but the developing one is a athlon 1 ghz
256 Megabyte (are you gonna tell me your windows XP can do better
on lesser hardware? Bwahaha), If you say they crash, I will say doesn't
(I use it everyday), so with those vague arguments it will be your word
against mine (both biased :-). No, you have to give substance,
arguments and reason, bet you will not respond! But this post is just to
take the wind out of your sail!
regards
Marc Geerlings
Erik Funkenbusch
news:slrnaa946l....@attglobal.net...
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:46:52 GMT, Mr Grant <s.gra...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> >You can't make copy Windows leagaly. That is a good thing. After all you
get
> >what you pay for. You buy Windows and it gives you a stable enviroment to
> >run software of your dreams. With Linux you get what you pay for.
Nothing.
>
> The Windows XP users posting on microsoft.public.windowsxp.* groups don't
> agree. Windows XP crashes, freezes, and reboots randomly for those
> Windows XP users.
What about the linux users complaining about crashes and lockups on their
systems? You know, like these:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=32b49b5b.0108030035.4ab44c7%40posting.g
oogle.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8607336f.0203241927.29a029ab%40posting.
google.com
The fact is, Linux isn't perfect either.
> >Media Player doesn't spy on anyone.
>
> It does until you tell it not to.
Perhaps it's just a matter of semantics. It's not spying to send a unique
id with requests. The service that actually records the data would be the
one that spies. It's not been proven that MS actually records that data.
rapskat
Grant" - dump details are as follows...
> Like many Linux cult members you are making a fool out of yourself by
> talking about things you don't know. First you don't know the difference
> between astronomy and astrology. Astrology is the false religion that
> stars trillions of miles away can influence peoples lives. Astronomy is
> a science that studies things like planets, stars, galaxies anything
> beyond the Earth. Astronomy has also proven astrology wrong.
Of course I know the difference, idiot. Hence the smiley? If was a joke,
just like you are. Lighten the fuck up.
> Xplns is nothing but a toy. It lacks the modeling theories required for
> accurate calculations and it lacks data sets such as tycho2, GSC, LEDA,
> Hippocros, Shapeless, Basel and many other data sets. Those features are
> a must have for anyone in the amateur astronomy community. Look at my
> screen shots and try to get Xplns to do the same thing. Most things it
> cannot.
Well, for the "average user", it contains more than enough features and
detail. Also, since it is open source, it can be easily modified to your
specifications.
> That program that comes with KDE3 is called Kstars. It is even worse
> then Xplns. Nothing but toys for the ignorant. If you want free. Windows
> has better free astronomy software then Linux does by a huge mile. Look
> at http://www.hnsky.org/software.htm and
> http://www.stargazing.net/astropc/index.html. See Windows has pretty
> good freeware itself. Better then Linux has but it still cannot compare
> to commercial software.
>
>
Hmmm...sounds like a very specific interest to me. I concede that in your
case you would have to use Windows in order to run this software, but just
because you choose to run it does not make Windows any better of an
Operating System, now does it?
What else can you run while your running that app?
> What good is open source to those who don't program. Vast majority of
> computer users including myself do not program. To us open source is no
> different then crappy freeware. We still have to wait for bug fixes and
> feature additions. Also it isn't economical. No one is going to write a
> top quality program and give it away for free. All of it is like Xplns
> and Kstars crap. Guide on the other hand is different. It is being
> financed.
Well, using the same rationale, the majority of people don't need the
detail that you do for astronomy either. If you are limiting your
arguments to "the average user", then you disqualify yourself based on
your specific skills and interests.
If something works for you, then use it. But don't make all-inclusive
statements about something that is specific just for your eccentricities.
The average user has little use for or interest in star-gazing. Hence the
lack of this type software in Linux. Most people need practical
applications, and Linux has those in spades.
--
rapskat - 4:10pm up 16 days, 6:21, 10 users, load average: 0.12, 0.10, 0.03
The nearest way to glory is to strive to be what you wish to be, thought to be. -- Socrates.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Grant" - dump details are as follows...
>
> > You can't make copy Windows leagaly. That is a good thing. After all you
> > get what you pay for. You buy Windows and it gives you a stable
> > enviroment to run software of your dreams. With Linux you get what you
> > pay for. Nothing.
> >
> > Media Player doesn't spy on anyone.
>
> You're just being silly. All of my Linux systems are as solid as a rock. I
> literally cannot break them, and I've tried.
And all of my XP systems are solid as a rock. I literally cannot break them
either, and I've tried.
> I tried doing things that I wouldn't even dream of doing with Windows
> unless I was looking for an excuse to reboot....and a bunch of things that
> I simply *can't* do in Windows. Linux handles them all flawlessly, even
> on "obsolete" hardware.
What things "can't" you do in Windows?
> Try watching a full movie on a P100/48MB with no frame drops and excellent
> vid/snd synch with Windows. You probably couldn't even load the viewer!
A P100 isn't fast enough handle full frame decompression and transfer of the
video to the video buffer, not to mention that any P100 system isn't going
to have a fast enough video channel to be able to display full screen video
without drops.
It's a simple matter of math. A P100 will be running a PCI video card,
probably an old one at that. Theoretically this could send 133MB/s, but
that's not taking into account bandwidth being used by the disk subsystem,
which has to move quite a bit of data as well. Then throw in the sound
channel, and other activities and your stuck. Why do you think AGP was
created? Then to top it off, MPEG decompression needs a lot more memory
than you'll have available with 48MB.
Stop bullshitting us.
> Or burning a CD, playing a game AND watching a movie all at the same time
> flawlessly. Let me know when your coaster is done.
On that same P100? Again, stop bullshitting. Not a problem with my Windows
system (PIII-550, 512MB RAM)
> Try being logged in as 5 different users with different Windows Managers
> simultaneously, all with running apps. Ain't gonna happen.
Well, in order to run a Window Manager, you'd need to use Unix tools since
Window Managers are unique to Unix. but yes, there is no problem with
logging in with 5 people over telnet or ssh, then running x based programs
with remote GUI's from Windows.
> Try running over 100 applications at the same time with not one error and
> minimum swap usage. I doubt it.
Try being a little less vauge.
> Try running Windows on a Sparc, PowerPC, or StrongARM. I don't think so.
NT 4 runs on PowerPC, not to mention MIPS and Alpha. Versions of CE run
PowerPC and StrongARM (not to mention SH3, and many others).
> How about a simple one. Pick the mp3 player of your choice, then start
> playing a mp3 file. Now try to delete or move the file while it is still
> playing and see what happens. See you after you reboot.
What the hell are you talking about? Even Windows 9x has proper file
locking. You're out in left field on this one.
> I've done all this and much more with Linux. This has been stated ad
> nauseum, but I'll say it again: Linux is far superior to any version of
> Windows -- it is more stable, faster, more configurable, portable, more
> secure, reliable, and just kicks Windows ass in all aspects of computing
> from playing games to running a high-end server.
So far you haven't stated *ANYTHING* which is true in this message.
Erik Funkenbusch
news:a82ipd$pfnpb$3...@ID-35459.news.dfncis.de...
Broadcast 2000 is a toy and nowhere near "pro quality". Just check
Broadcast 2000's features compared even to their commercial version (which
is also a toy compared to tools like Avid or even Premier or Final Cut Pro).
Erik Funkenbusch
message news:eb328a...@drebbelstraat20.dyndns.org...
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:02:13 +0100, freefall wrote:
>
>
> > The problem Linux faces is that there are so many Windows developers out
> > there by comparison to Linux developers. The sum of the knowledge in
> > the IT industry on how to develop Windows apps is orders of magnitude
> > larger than that for Linux apps.
>
> You don't get it do you?
>
> All those Windows developers do *not* contribute to a sum total of
> knowledge. They are all out there reinventing the wheel again and again,
> living in fear that they will be sued by one of their competitors for
> illegal reverse engineering or patent infringement.
Sounds more like the Free Software developers to me. You know, like Jon
Johansen or Dmitry Sklyarov
> In contrast, the much smaller Free Software developer base can work off
> of each others code without fear.
But who does that? Only in terms of infrastructure do you really see that
happening (OS, libraries, etc..)
Donn Miller
> Do the same with SuSE x86 or Caldera.
> That depends on your license. For instance, my MSDN WinXP allows 10 PC's to
> be running the same version. And MediaPlayer doesn't "spy" on you, it just
> gives them an ID, which can be turned off.
OK, how about positive infinity copies?
Erik Funkenbusch
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:16:04 GMT, Mr Grant <s.gra...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> >The Linux cult loves to shout "Linux is about freedom". I beg to differ.
You
> >have far more freedom to do as you wish with Windows. Flatfish made a
great
> >post. "You choose your software first then your OS" That is dead on the
> >money. A computer's sole function is to run software. Windows has far
more
> >and better software then Linux has. No matter what your needs are the
best
> >software for that need runs in Windows.
>
> False. I need to log into my system and run GUI applications remotely
> from a wide variety of OSes and platforms. Linux does this better than
> Windows.
I do that all the time with Windows. How is Linux better? In fact, with
RDP i can even run games which use DirectX remotely. Can you remotely use
DGA or DRI programs?
> That's just one example of how Linux is better than Windows. I have
> many more.
Let's hear them.
> >The Linux cult says well we are comparing OSs only. Well Windows XP is
more
> >stable, more secure and faster then any Linux distro, plus there is
> >software, software and software to fill any of your desires. Windows is
> >freedom.
>
> The Windows XP users on microsoft.public.windowsxp.* groups don't agree
> with you. They have nothing but crashes, freeze ups, and random reboots.
I think you're exagerating when you say "they have *NOTHING* but..."
.
> On 29 Mar 2002 19:03:04 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (yt...@mutilation.net (.)) wrote:
>>Hi moron, Opera has been available for linux for some time, and is identical
>>to the windows version in every respect.
> No it isn't. The Linux version has worse looking
> fonts, more awkward widgets and looks terrible.
The widgets are the same, the fonts are identical, and youre a moron.
> Also, it is uncrackable
Wrong. Youre just not bright enough to figure it out.
> so you have the adbar
> always on your screen. The widgets are bigger &
> so take up more of the screen.
You can set them any way you like.
-----.
.
Those are toys compared to my 10 year old video toaster.
Mr Grant
> Hmmm...sounds like a very specific interest to me. I concede that in your
> case you would have to use Windows in order to run this software, but just
> because you choose to run it does not make Windows any better of an
> Operating System, now does it?
Yes it does. Remember computers are used to run software. The OS that can
run the most and best quality software wins. The winner is Windows.
>
> What else can you run while your running that app?
Multitasking? Look at this screen shot for typical multitasking for me.
http://www.shawngrantsworld.com/multitask.jpg I am running 10 programs
including another complete Linux operating system all under Windows. I do
this all the time without a hitch. In fact my system has been up for months
without a warm boot.
> The average user has little use for or interest in star-gazing. Hence the
> lack of this type software in Linux. Most people need practical
> applications, and Linux has those in spades.
That's the nice thing with windows. There is all kinds of software not just
stuff for the average use like Linux. There are open source programs for
Windows as well. Windows users can even participate in open source
community. Windows is for all.
Bill M
> The Linux cult loves to shout "Linux is about freedom". I beg to differ.
> You have far more freedom to do as you wish with Windows.
As always Shawn, another great post. You got many people to bite; this
may be one for the record books.
And thanks for sharing your Guide screenshots. I use Sky Map Pro, which
I am pleased with, but it doesn't show the planets with such photo-
realism. I actually met SMP's author, Chris Marriot, at the recent
European Astrofest in London. He was a nice guy, for a computer nerd.
And he was clean, dressed well and didn't stink either, completely
shattering my pre-conceptions of programmers! Then again, he also
drives a Golf GTi at 25 MPH regardless of the speed limit and has a
full scale model of a Dalek in his living room, so I was right on that
guess.
Jerry Nash
>"Jerry Nash" <jry...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:slrnaa946l....@attglobal.net...
>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:46:52 GMT, Mr Grant <s.gra...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>> >You can't make copy Windows leagaly. That is a good thing. After all you
>get
>> >what you pay for. You buy Windows and it gives you a stable enviroment to
>> >run software of your dreams. With Linux you get what you pay for.
>Nothing.
>>
>> The Windows XP users posting on microsoft.public.windowsxp.* groups don't
>> agree. Windows XP crashes, freezes, and reboots randomly for those
>> Windows XP users.
- snip attempt to confuse by posting irrelevant linux comments -
Do you know what logic is, Erik?
I was contradicting Grant's false claims that Windows XP is stable.
rapskat
Funkenbusch" - dump details are as follows...
It is mathematically impossible for the common housefly to achieve flight
also. Guess what? They do.
That was a test on that system, and I never for a minute thought it would
be capable of handling it even with Linux. But guess what? It did.
Admittedly I had nothing else going at the time and blackbox for a WM, but
yes indeed I did it. Harry Potter as a matter of fact ;-)
>> Or burning a CD, playing a game AND watching a movie all at the same
>> time flawlessly. Let me know when your coaster is done.
>
> On that same P100? Again, stop bullshitting. Not a problem with my
> Windows system (PIII-550, 512MB RAM)
>
No, this was another higher-end system. Forgot to stipulate that, sorry.
And you are the one who is bullshitting now, no way you could do that on a
system with double those resources under Windows. I do it regularly under
Linux.
>> Try being logged in as 5 different users with different Windows
>> Managers simultaneously, all with running apps. Ain't gonna happen.
>
> Well, in order to run a Window Manager, you'd need to use Unix tools
> since Window Managers are unique to Unix. but yes, there is no problem
> with logging in with 5 people over telnet or ssh, then running x based
> programs with remote GUI's from Windows.
>
NO, I mean all at the terminal at the same time, no remote GUI's. Guess
what, it can't be done in Windows. Period.
You are starting to sound ridiculous..."Well, you can do that in windows
if the stars are in proper alignment and it's the third tuesday of month
and the electromagnetic flux quotient is just so, and...."
With Linux, I just do it, no special qualifiers needed.
>> Try running over 100 applications at the same time with not one error
>> and minimum swap usage. I doubt it.
>
> Try being a little less vauge.
>
What's vague, over 100? I didn't get an exact number, but it was easily
over 100. Hell, I've had over 200 instances of the same program open
before just to prove a point. Admittedly the system was dragging ass at
that point, but such a thing is not possible with Windows even if you used
the smallest signature app you could find (say notepad).
>> Try running Windows on a Sparc, PowerPC, or StrongARM. I don't think
>> so.
>
> NT 4 runs on PowerPC, not to mention MIPS and Alpha. Versions of CE run
> PowerPC and StrongARM (not to mention SH3, and many others).
>
Oh really? How interesting. And what about Win9x/ME, Win2K or XP? Again,
qualifiers and limitations. I thought Windows was freedom according to
the OP?
I can get a port of Linux for any of the above. No limitations, no
qualifiers. All the same programs run just the same as any other port
when compiled.
>> How about a simple one. Pick the mp3 player of your choice, then start
>> playing a mp3 file. Now try to delete or move the file while it is
>> still playing and see what happens. See you after you reboot.
>
> What the hell are you talking about? Even Windows 9x has proper file
> locking. You're out in left field on this one.
>
Of course you would think so, because you cannot do this in Windows.
I regularly do this when I download a large number of mp3's. I play them
and if I don't like them I delete them mid-play, no errors (they keep
playing in XMMS til the end if I let them).
I've swapped out hard drives with the power on in Linux as well, as
documented in this group. Definitely not recommended, but I've done it.
>> I've done all this and much more with Linux. This has been stated ad
>> nauseum, but I'll say it again: Linux is far superior to any version of
>> Windows -- it is more stable, faster, more configurable, portable, more
>> secure, reliable, and just kicks Windows ass in all aspects of
>> computing from playing games to running a high-end server.
>
> So far you haven't stated *ANYTHING* which is true in this message.
I have no reason to lie unlike you. I don't get paid to post here. I am
just relating my own real-world experiences, not conjecture. This is
stuff that I do on a regular basis with Linux (except for the hard drive
hot-swap, that was just an experiment)
I know it is hard for you to grasp considering these activities are beyond
Windows, but it is all true my friend. If you don't believe me then why
don't you install Linux and try it yourself?
--
rapskat - 4:50pm up 16 days, 7:01, 10 users, load average: 0.16, 0.11, 0.06
IF YOU LIVE AS IF EACH DAY WERE YOUR LAST, IT PROBABLY WILL BE.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > Do the same with SuSE x86 or Caldera.
>
> > That depends on your license. For instance, my MSDN WinXP allows 10
PC's to
> > be running the same version. And MediaPlayer doesn't "spy" on you, it
just
> > gives them an ID, which can be turned off.
>
> OK, how about positive infinity copies?
I'm not familiar with that. Perhaps you can explain it.
Erik Funkenbusch
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:20:33 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com>
wrote:
> >"Jerry Nash" <jry...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> >news:slrnaa946l....@attglobal.net...
> >> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:46:52 GMT, Mr Grant <s.gra...@comcast.net>
> >wrote:
> >> >You can't make copy Windows leagaly. That is a good thing. After all
you
> >get
> >> >what you pay for. You buy Windows and it gives you a stable enviroment
to
> >> >run software of your dreams. With Linux you get what you pay for.
> >Nothing.
> >>
> >> The Windows XP users posting on microsoft.public.windowsxp.* groups
don't
> >> agree. Windows XP crashes, freezes, and reboots randomly for those
> >> Windows XP users.
>
>
> - snip attempt to confuse by posting irrelevant linux comments -
This is a Linux newsgroup. How can they be irrelevant?
> Do you know what logic is, Erik?
>
> I was contradicting Grant's false claims that Windows XP is stable.
And I was contradicting your statements. Claims of instability don't really
mean much, since Linux is claimed to be stable yet has people who are asking
for help to solve stability problems all the time.
Erik Funkenbusch
Erik Funkenbusch
Not really. The toaster wasn't a non-linear editor, it was an effects and
signal processor.
flatfish+++
> "Mr Grant" <s.gra...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<oOZo8.312213$uv5.26...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
>
>
> drives a Golf GTi at 25 MPH regardless of the speed limit and has a
> full scale model of a Dalek in his living room, so I was right on that
> guess.
Back in 1980's I used to drive a 1984 Golf GTI (the USA version was
still called Volkswagon GTI back then) with a Callaway turbo setup
Bilstein suspension etc....
The car was black with a red interior, sunroof and a nice 5 speed with
a golf ball on top of the shifter.
I used to eat Camaro's and Firebirds all the time :)
It was one of the most fun cars I have ever owned.
flatfish+++
Jerry Nash
>"rapskat" <rap...@gdlteknet.com> wrote in message
>
>> unless I was looking for an excuse to reboot....and a bunch of things that
>> I simply *can't* do in Windows. Linux handles them all flawlessly, even
>> on "obsolete" hardware.
>
>What things "can't" you do in Windows?
>
Here's just one:
Log in remotely and run native GUI applications remotely from any one of
IRIX, Solaris, Linux, AIX, etc. for free.
there are more.
.
> On 29 Mar 2002 21:44:22 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (yt...@mutilation.net (.)) wrote:
>>Dr Scab <sca...@herpes.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> No it isn't. The Linux version has worse looking
>>> fonts, more awkward widgets and looks terrible.
>>
>>The widgets are the same,
> The Windows widgets are smooth and crisp and colourful.
> The Linux widgets are big and clunky and grey.
>>the fonts are identical,
> The Windows fonts are smooth and readable.
> The Linux fonts are jagged and lethal.
>>and youre a moron.
> You've got me on that one.
>>> Also, it is uncrackable
>>
>>Wrong. Youre just not bright enough to figure it out.
> Cracking it in Windows means 20 seconds searching on Google.
> It is much harder on Linux.
Its the same *exact* key, dipshit.
KillDarren
> The Linux cult loves to shout "Linux is about freedom". I beg to differ.
> You have far more freedom to do as you wish with Windows. Flatfish made
> a great post. "You choose your software first then your OS" That is dead
> on the money. A computer's sole function is to run software. Windows has
> far more and better software then Linux has. No matter what your needs
> are the best software for that need runs in Windows.
>
> Here is a example of the quality software that run in Windows. My
> Favorite program is Guide. Look at the screen shots and read the text
> next to the thumbnails.
> http://www.shawngrantsworld.com/astronomy/guidescreenshots.htm Look at
> the power and knowledge right at my finger tips. There is no software
> for Linux that comes close to the quality of Guide. Yet Guide is one of
> many quality astronomy software that run in Windows Look at this site.
> http://user.icx.net/~mfleenor/observatory/observatory_index.html Notice
> the picture of the telescope. It is computer controlled. Guide running
> in Windows XP points this telescope anywhere the owner wishes. Click on
> image galleries. See the CCD Images. These show detail that only pro
> scopes showed 30 years ago. They are of professional research quality.
> He uses Maxim DL a Windows program to control the CCD camera and to do
> image processing and analyzing. He also Uses PhotoShop some of the time.
>
These old arguments again, Shawn? Don't you get tired of getting smacked
down?
On astronomy:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrna4un4r.bil.ewill%40lexi2.athghost7038suus.net&output=gplain
On GIMP:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020121.201017.1725362297.9413%40frankenstein.com&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=pan.2002.03.07.21.08.02.820442.24388%40killfile.com&output=gplain
On CAD and graphics design:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=pan.2002.03.04.11.56.00.60550.16602%40killfile.com&output=gplain
[further worthless rambling by YAWN snipped]
Now take your stale, FUDge Packed @$$ and stop bothering the people in
COLA who want to learn more about Linux XF.
Mark Kent
>Error Log for Fri, 29 Mar 2002 08:16:04 -0500: segfault in module "Mr
>Grant" - dump details are as follows...
>
>> Favorite program is Guide. Look at the screen shots and read the text
>> next to the thumbnails.
>> http://www.shawngrantsworld.com/astronomy/guidescreenshots.htm Look at
>> the power and knowledge right at my finger tips. There is no software
>> for Linux that comes close to the quality of Guide. Yet Guide is one of
>> many quality astronomy software that run in Windows Look at this site.
>> http://user.icx.net/~mfleenor/observatory/observatory_index.html Notice
>> the picture of the telescope. It is computer controlled. Guide running
>> in Windows XP points this telescope anywhere the owner wishes. Click on
>> image galleries. See the CCD Images. These show detail that only pro
>> scopes showed 30 years ago. They are of professional research quality.
>> He uses Maxim DL a Windows program to control the CCD camera and to do
>> image processing and analyzing. He also Uses PhotoShop some of the time.
>
>
>http://www.astro.ab.psiweb.com/products/xplns/
>
>Pretty impressive software. I use it to track constellations and planetary
>movements - past, present and future (gotta stay one ahead of Ms. Cleo
>;-). Also, the new release of KDE3 includes a plantarium/astrological
>software with the base install in the educational tools.
>
>Any and every type of software available in Windows has a contemporary for
>'nix I have found, usually more than one. I do not lack for either
>quality or quantity. It is not a matter of "better", since that is
>subjective to opinion. I personally think that OSS software in general
>tends to be "better" than off-the-shelf apps. It a matter of preference.
>You may prefer a particular application and/or platform because you are
>already familiar with it and know it, that does not necessarily mean it is
>"better" overall, just in your opinion.
>
>Speaking of freedom, most of these applications are open-source, which
>gives me the freedom to modify them to fit my own needs more specifically
>-- FOR FREE. Try that with any closed-source proprietary application.
>
>Windows and proprietary closed source applications in general are the
>antithesis of freedom. You are limited to the whims of the developers in
>regards to what features you want or need. With OSS, you can modify
>existing code base or create your own from scratch or a combo of the two
>to create something specifically for your needs and desires at little or
>no cost.
>
>Now *that's* what I call freedom!
>
Excellent post, rappy. Now why does Shawn Grant keep spamming our
group with Windows Advocacy?
--
| Mark Kent -- Take out the ham to mail me. |
The software required Win95 or better, so I installed Linux.
Erik Funkenbusch
You're thinking of the bumblebee. You can't even get that right.
> That was a test on that system, and I never for a minute thought it would
> be capable of handling it even with Linux. But guess what? It did.
>
> Admittedly I had nothing else going at the time and blackbox for a WM, but
> yes indeed I did it. Harry Potter as a matter of fact ;-)
It's physically impossible. Even if the movie was uncompressed, you still
wouldn't have enough bandwidth to read it off disk and push it to a P100 era
PCI video card.
> >> Or burning a CD, playing a game AND watching a movie all at the same
> >> time flawlessly. Let me know when your coaster is done.
> >
> > On that same P100? Again, stop bullshitting. Not a problem with my
> > Windows system (PIII-550, 512MB RAM)
> >
> No, this was another higher-end system. Forgot to stipulate that, sorry.
>
> And you are the one who is bullshitting now, no way you could do that on a
> system with double those resources under Windows. I do it regularly under
> Linux.
I regularly play Civilization III while burning CD's, and I have also played
streaming video from things like the msdn show at the same time.
> >> Try being logged in as 5 different users with different Windows
> >> Managers simultaneously, all with running apps. Ain't gonna happen.
> >
> > Well, in order to run a Window Manager, you'd need to use Unix tools
> > since Window Managers are unique to Unix. but yes, there is no problem
> > with logging in with 5 people over telnet or ssh, then running x based
> > programs with remote GUI's from Windows.
> >
> NO, I mean all at the terminal at the same time, no remote GUI's. Guess
> what, it can't be done in Windows. Period.
It's a pointless exercise. But even so, With XP I can do just that. With
an XP Powertoy add-in, I can even switch users with a single keypress.
> You are starting to sound ridiculous..."Well, you can do that in windows
> if the stars are in proper alignment and it's the third tuesday of month
> and the electromagnetic flux quotient is just so, and...."
>
> With Linux, I just do it, no special qualifiers needed.
I thought you were referring to remote users.
> >> Try running over 100 applications at the same time with not one error
> >> and minimum swap usage. I doubt it.
> >
> > Try being a little less vauge.
>
> What's vague, over 100? I didn't get an exact number, but it was easily
> over 100. Hell, I've had over 200 instances of the same program open
> before just to prove a point. Admittedly the system was dragging ass at
> that point, but such a thing is not possible with Windows even if you used
> the smallest signature app you could find (say notepad).
"minimum swap useage" doesn't mean anything. It's a subjective term, that
you can define however you want.
And, just as a test, I used this PIII-733 box running XP and 256MB RAM that
i'm on right now and started 166 copies of Notepad. Also running is MS
Paint and Outlook Express showing part of the email you sent. Task Manager
shows the CPU load and memory load, and a second picture shows a partial
task list.
http://www.funkenbusch.com/pic1.jpg
http://www.funkenbusch.com/pic2.jpg
Even with 166 copies of Notepad, i'm still not even going over 256MB's of
committed memory.
Now, you were saying?
> >> Try running Windows on a Sparc, PowerPC, or StrongARM. I don't think
> >> so.
> >
> > NT 4 runs on PowerPC, not to mention MIPS and Alpha. Versions of CE run
> > PowerPC and StrongARM (not to mention SH3, and many others).
>
> Oh really? How interesting. And what about Win9x/ME, Win2K or XP? Again,
> qualifiers and limitations. I thought Windows was freedom according to
> the OP?
Win9x/ME are dead. They were also never intended to be portable. Win2k ran
on Alpha up to RC1, and XP runs on Itanium.
> I can get a port of Linux for any of the above. No limitations, no
> qualifiers. All the same programs run just the same as any other port
> when compiled.
Oh, right. So, where is that StrongARM version of Netscape 4.72?
> >> How about a simple one. Pick the mp3 player of your choice, then start
> >> playing a mp3 file. Now try to delete or move the file while it is
> >> still playing and see what happens. See you after you reboot.
> >
> > What the hell are you talking about? Even Windows 9x has proper file
> > locking. You're out in left field on this one.
> >
> Of course you would think so, because you cannot do this in Windows.
What are you talking about?
> I regularly do this when I download a large number of mp3's. I play them
> and if I don't like them I delete them mid-play, no errors (they keep
> playing in XMMS til the end if I let them).
You said that attempting to move or delete files while media player was
playing them would cause you to need to reboot. Now you're saying something
entirely different.
> I've swapped out hard drives with the power on in Linux as well, as
> documented in this group. Definitely not recommended, but I've done it.
Really? You swapped out your boot drive? How did you manage to unmount it?
> >> I've done all this and much more with Linux. This has been stated ad
> >> nauseum, but I'll say it again: Linux is far superior to any version of
> >> Windows -- it is more stable, faster, more configurable, portable, more
> >> secure, reliable, and just kicks Windows ass in all aspects of
> >> computing from playing games to running a high-end server.
> >
> > So far you haven't stated *ANYTHING* which is true in this message.
>
> I have no reason to lie unlike you. I don't get paid to post here. I am
> just relating my own real-world experiences, not conjecture. This is
> stuff that I do on a regular basis with Linux (except for the hard drive
> hot-swap, that was just an experiment)
And I do some of it on a regular basis as well. And I highly doubt you even
attempt to play movies on a P100 on a regular basis.
> I know it is hard for you to grasp considering these activities are beyond
> Windows, but it is all true my friend. If you don't believe me then why
> don't you install Linux and try it yourself?
I've already proven you wrong on the number of apps part. Would you like a
solid beating on the rest?
Erik Funkenbusch
Not a problem. I can do that quite easily with any x based application
running on Windows.
> there are more.
Try them.
Donn Miller
> "Donn Miller" <dmmi...@cvzoom.net> wrote in message
> news:3CA4DFD0...@cvzoom.net...
>>OK, how about positive infinity copies?
>
>
> I'm not familiar with that. Perhaps you can explain it.
You know exactly what I mean. Under Linux you can make as many copies
as you like, and sell them at whatever price you like.
Mr Grant
better then any astronomical software for Linux.
Donn Miller
> And I was contradicting your statements. Claims of instability don't really
> mean much, since Linux is claimed to be stable yet has people who are asking
> for help to solve stability problems all the time.
Of course. It's called "software development". They're doing their
duties and informing the Linux developers of problems. Besides, Linux
stays up as long as my laptop is running. Can't say the same about Win
ME. Of course, we all know Win ME is a hack compared to XP, correct?
Donn Miller
> Sky Map Pro is yet another example of freedom Windows gives you. It is far
> better then any astronomical software for Linux.
>
>
You seem to not know the difference between "freedom" and "application
availability".
Donn Miller
> "minimum swap useage" doesn't mean anything. It's a subjective term, that
> you can define however you want.
>
> And, just as a test, I used this PIII-733 box running XP and 256MB RAM that
> i'm on right now and started 166 copies of Notepad. Also running is MS
> Paint and Outlook Express showing part of the email you sent. Task Manager
> shows the CPU load and memory load, and a second picture shows a partial
> task list.
>
> http://www.funkenbusch.com/pic1.jpg
> http://www.funkenbusch.com/pic2.jpg
>
> Even with 166 copies of Notepad, i'm still not even going over 256MB's of
> committed memory.
Of course, it's because they all share the same object code. They don't
share data segments, however, and you aren't editing any text in any of
them. Think it through, Erik: this is the very reason shared libraries
exist.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > "Donn Miller" <dmmi...@cvzoom.net> wrote in message
> > news:3CA4DFD0...@cvzoom.net...
>
> >>OK, how about positive infinity copies?
> >
> >
> > I'm not familiar with that. Perhaps you can explain it.
>
> You know exactly what I mean. Under Linux you can make as many copies
> as you like, and sell them at whatever price you like.
And i've already proven that wrong with at least 2 distro's. SuSE x86 and
Caldera.
Darren
No, you weren't contradicting his statements. His statements said nothing
about Linux stability, positive or negative. What you were doing is
called 'obfuscation'.
Donn Miller
> "Donn Miller" <dmmi...@cvzoom.net> wrote in message
> news:3CA4F2EE...@cvzoom.net...
>
>>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>>"Donn Miller" <dmmi...@cvzoom.net> wrote in message
>>>news:3CA4DFD0...@cvzoom.net...
>>
>>>>OK, how about positive infinity copies?
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm not familiar with that. Perhaps you can explain it.
>>
>>You know exactly what I mean. Under Linux you can make as many copies
>>as you like, and sell them at whatever price you like.
>
>
> And i've already proven that wrong with at least 2 distro's. SuSE x86 and
> Caldera.
So? Don't do it with SuSE and Caldera then. Do it with Debian, and/or
Slackware.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > "minimum swap useage" doesn't mean anything. It's a subjective term,
that
> > you can define however you want.
> >
> > And, just as a test, I used this PIII-733 box running XP and 256MB RAM
that
> > i'm on right now and started 166 copies of Notepad. Also running is MS
> > Paint and Outlook Express showing part of the email you sent. Task
Manager
> > shows the CPU load and memory load, and a second picture shows a partial
> > task list.
> >
> > http://www.funkenbusch.com/pic1.jpg
> > http://www.funkenbusch.com/pic2.jpg
> >
> > Even with 166 copies of Notepad, i'm still not even going over 256MB's
of
> > committed memory.
>
> Of course, it's because they all share the same object code. They don't
> share data segments, however, and you aren't editing any text in any of
> them. Think it through, Erik: this is the very reason shared libraries
> exist.
That doesn't change the fact that Rapskat stated Windows couldn't do it, now
does it?
The same is true on Linux, BTW. The point was, Rapskat made an obviously
stupid claim which was wrong, and this proves it.
What would you consider to be a better test?
Erik Funkenbusch
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > "Donn Miller" <dmmi...@cvzoom.net> wrote in message
> > news:3CA4F2EE...@cvzoom.net...
> >
> >>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Donn Miller" <dmmi...@cvzoom.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:3CA4DFD0...@cvzoom.net...
> >>
> >>>>OK, how about positive infinity copies?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I'm not familiar with that. Perhaps you can explain it.
> >>
> >>You know exactly what I mean. Under Linux you can make as many copies
> >>as you like, and sell them at whatever price you like.
> >
> > And i've already proven that wrong with at least 2 distro's. SuSE x86
and
> > Caldera.
>
> So? Don't do it with SuSE and Caldera then. Do it with Debian, and/or
> Slackware.
The point was, you can't just say "Linux" because there are several distros
which don't meet your statements.
And most of the other Distro's offer versions which cannot be copied and
sold as well.
Tom Wilson
"Erik Funkenbusch" <er...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:FA6p8.5110$vm6.8...@ruti.visi.com...
And you were countered with many more where that isn't the case...
Your "proof" isn't. - Period.
Get over it.
Tom Wilson
This is probably one of the most asinine and pedantic arguments you've
floated for quite some time. What's the point?
Jerry Nash
Please give us a detailed description of how you are logging into your
Windows box from an SGI, or Solaris, or AIX, or linux, etc. and running
running your *native* Windows Internet Explorer remotely from one
of those machines for free.
>
>> there are more.
>
>Try them.
>
Just try to get this one first.
Jerry Nash
Then why was Grant claiming Windows XP is stable and implying Linux is not?
...and doing it in an attempt to somehow falsely claims that Windows XP
was a superior choice of OS.
Jerry Nash
>
>It is mathematically impossible for the common housefly to achieve flight
>also. Guess what? They do.
>
Just a slight correction. I think the example normally used is the bee.
And it's not mathematically impossible, they obviously fly. I believe
it was, maybe still is, mathematically unexplainable.
Erik Funkenbusch
Who said anything about internet explorer? There are lots of applications
you can't run remotely on Unix (pretty much anything that requires local
console access, like framebuffer stuff).
I can telnet into my XP or Win2k box, start, say... xeyes and view it from
an SGI, Solaris, AIX or Linux box running X just fine.
> >> there are more.
> >
> >Try them.
>
> Just try to get this one first.
Why change the requirements to suddenly require IE?
Mr Grant
slower then Windows XP.
I tried to use Evolution. I tried to send an email and it had an error
message that said missing componet cannot open email editor. In windows I
have the freedom to use a PIM that works like Outlook and many others. Gaim
does it have voice? Oh well I can use the real AIM, ICQ, MSN and others.
Freedom of choise. Pan is hard to use. I like outlook express better. There
is also Forte. Again freedom. Excel has more features and is considered a
standard where Gnumeric isn't. The Windows users who don't wish to use Excel
can use something else. Freedom man. The GIMP my favorite. Well GIMP doesn't
have CYMK, adjustment layers, color management and for web features. With
Windows I have the freedom to use PhotoShop if I wish. Or Paint Shop Pro,
PhotoShop Elements and get this I can use the GIMP. Thats right GIMP can run
in Windows. Imagine Windows users contributing to code to GIMP and making it
better. Wow I love windows don't you. XSane isn't compatible with my high
end film scanner. I like silver fast better. See in Windows my scanner works
so I have the freedom to scan where as with Linux I am traped in a prison
and I can't scan my pretty pictures. Do you like pretty pictures? I am so
happy I am a windows user. :-)
> Gnome 1.4.x (desktop manager with lots of eye candy and usefull applets)
> with nautilus (e.a. using it for retrieving photo's from my digital
camera)
> Gnome multiple terminal (Terminal with tabs, woohoo :-))
> Evolution (Mailer,Calender,Notification), Gaim (Messenger), GFtp ((s)Ftp
> client), Pan (Newsreader), Gnumeric (Spreadsheet), Xmms (Music Player),
> Grip (Music Ripper), Galeon (Webbrowsing), X-Chat (Irc), Gimp (Image
> Manipulation), Gnome-Roast (CD burning), XSane plugin for gimp
> (scanning), Gnome-meeting (netmeeting clone, webcam)
> And as only none Gnome application I use OpenOffice quite a lot (Abiword
> doesn't cut it at the moment) for among other things presentations,
> and formula editing, tell me what I'm I missing not using Word or
> Powerpoint?
You like using OpenOffice that's great. I like MS Office however Windows
gives me the freedom to use OpenOffice if I wish. I can also use WordPerfect
and Lotus. I love the freedom Windows gives me. I can pick and choose from a
much greater selection of software then you can.
> http://www.shatters.net/celestia/index.html
>
> Celestia is a free real-time space simulation that lets you experience
> our universe in three dimensions. Unlike most planetarium software,
> Celestia doesn't confine you to the surface of the Earth. You can travel
> throughout the solar system, to any of over 100,000 stars,
> or even beyond the galaxy. All travel in Celestia is seamless;
> the exponential zoom feature lets you explore space across a huge
> range of scales, from galaxy clusters down to spacecraft only a few
> meters across. A 'point-and-goto' interface makes it simple to
> navigate through the universe to the object you want to visit.
I like Celestia as well and use it in Windows. I also have the freedom to
use this software http://www.starrynight.com/en/product_dse.html I like Deep
Space Explorer much better then Celestia. I like to masturbate to Chase
Masterson's Voice. Her voice wow. I am getting hard now. However those are
just fun toys. They are no benefit to the amateur astronomer for printing
charts, calculating positions, controlling telescopes and many other useful
stuff. You may notice the program Starry Night. That is a program I have the
freedom to use while poor Linux users don't have that freedom.
.Net is the best developing there is. You can make software that you can
make money on. Have you ever heard of making money. I guess not. You like to
cheat yourself by giving everything away for free. Also there is the
freedom to use Borland or Delphi and goto www.download.com You might be able
to find to free compilers and development tools.
Windows is freedom. You can pick and choose from a variety of software. You
don't like this software there another available. Linux well You have the
GIMP.
Erik Funkenbusch
I don't care. I've never implied that Linux was unstable in the general
case. In fact, I consider it to be quite stable in most cases, but like
just about any OS, including windows, there are cases where it can be
unstable.
Mart van de Wege
> "Mart van de Wege" <mvdwege...@drebbelstraat20.dyndns.org> wrote in
> message news:eb328a...@drebbelstraat20.dyndns.org...
>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:02:13 +0100, freefall wrote:
>>
>>
>> > The problem Linux faces is that there are so many Windows developers
>> > out there by comparison to Linux developers. The sum of the
>> > knowledge in the IT industry on how to develop Windows apps is orders
>> > of magnitude larger than that for Linux apps.
>>
>> You don't get it do you?
>>
>> All those Windows developers do *not* contribute to a sum total of
>> knowledge. They are all out there reinventing the wheel again and
>> again, living in fear that they will be sued by one of their
>> competitors for illegal reverse engineering or patent infringement.
>
> Sounds more like the Free Software developers to me. You know, like Jon
> Johansen or Dmitry Sklyarov
>
They were not sued by their competitors.
I was more thinking of Microsoft being sued by Stacker.
>> In contrast, the much smaller Free Software developer base can work off
>> of each others code without fear.
>
> But who does that? Only in terms of infrastructure do you really see
> that happening (OS, libraries, etc..)
Infrastructure and tools yes. Applications are by nature unique, so of
course there is not much cross-pollination there. OTOH, look at the
libraries a popular application like Mozilla includes. There's a lot
there that's *not* native to the Mozilla project.
Not to mention the fact that Free Software developers freely take ideas
from each other in the design stage. There's lots of cross-pollination
between KDE and Gnome at that level.
So, unique applications are being built on a common infrastructure. The
infrastructure being available provides for a common development
platform, i.e. people don't have to reinvent the wheel everytime. Where
in your statement is the contradiction with mine? Please be a little more
specific.
Mart
--
There'll be no prisoners taken when the day is done
No flag or uniform ever stopped a bullet from a gun
-- Gary Moore - Out in the Fields
Mart van de Wege
> "Nigel Feltham" <nigel....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:a82ipd$pfnpb$3...@ID-35459.news.dfncis.de...
>> > Actually, there are applications like video editing, where Linux (or
> BSD)
>> > just don't have good enough software. If you want to work harder to
>>
>> Try Broadcast 2000 if you want a pro quality linux video editor.
>
> Broadcast 2000 is a toy and nowhere near "pro quality". Just check
> Broadcast 2000's features compared even to their commercial version
> (which is also a toy compared to tools like Avid or even Premier or
> Final Cut Pro).
1. The original maintainers of Broadcast 2000 ceased maintenance because
the tool was being used *professionaly* and they were afraid that the 'no
warranty' clause of the GPL wouldn't hold up. IOW, people with a very
large legal budget were using it. IOW *professionals* were using it.
2. There is no seperate 'Pro' or commercial version of Broadcast 2000.
The only one that exists is Broadcast 2000, under the GPL.
I can't compare BC2000 with Windows native video editors, but I know the
two statements made above totally invalidate your argument.
Stop FUDding or fuck off. Better yet, fuck off anyway. This group, nay
the world, would be a better place without a lying sack of shit like you.
I tried being reasonable, I tried yelling at you. I give up now. You're
the lowest, scummiest liar I've ever had the displeasure of communicating
with. There is no lower life form imaginable. Heck, I wonder if you even
*are* a life form. Perhaps Ken was right, and you are nothing but an
ELIZA-like program. You certainly sound like you have the IQ of one.
FOAD.
Mart van de Wege
> And MediaPlayer doesn't "spy" on you, it
> just gives them an ID, which can be turned off.
Yes. A globally unique ID to be precise. What part of 'MS tracks your
viewing habits unless you ask them to stop (pretty please)' is unequal to
spying?
Jeez man, you got your ass handed in the thread that covered this, and you
bring it up *again*?
Either you are very courageous, or you are the dumbest piece of shit
walking this earth.
Erik Funkenbusch
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:11:25 +0100, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > And MediaPlayer doesn't "spy" on you, it
> > just gives them an ID, which can be turned off.
>
> Yes. A globally unique ID to be precise. What part of 'MS tracks your
> viewing habits unless you ask them to stop (pretty please)' is unequal to
> spying?
In order for MediaPlayer itself to be spying it would have to be reporting
your music or movie habits to Microsoft. That's not the case. Microsoft
can only log what you've viewed when using their service. The server would
be the one doing the spying (if they were recording that data, which they
claim they are not), not MediaPlayer. MediaPlayer is just giving them a
unique number (again, wich can be turned off).
> Jeez man, you got your ass handed in the thread that covered this, and you
> bring it up *again*?
I didn't bring it up.
> Either you are very courageous, or you are the dumbest piece of shit
> walking this earth.
Or you can't understand the difference between your cat spying on you, and
your vet spying on you by analyzing your cats body fluids.
Doug.M
> "Donn Miller" <dmmi...@cvzoom.net> wrote in message
> news:3CA4F2EE...@cvzoom.net...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> > "Donn Miller" <dmmi...@cvzoom.net> wrote in message
>> > news:3CA4DFD0...@cvzoom.net...
>>
>> >>OK, how about positive infinity copies?
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm not familiar with that. Perhaps you can explain it.
>>
>> You know exactly what I mean. Under Linux you can make as many copies
>> as you like, and sell them at whatever price you like.
>
> And i've already proven that wrong with at least 2 distro's. SuSE x86 and
> Caldera.
Your right you can't make copies of *certain* *commercial* *distros* and sell
them but you can make copies of these *certain* *commercial* *distros* to give
to your family, friends, neighbors to use and they can in turn give them away
as well*FREELY*. All without having the fear of violating the law. Which is
something Win$erf users could NEVER EVER do without violating the law period.
flatfish+++
Because that's the way Nash operates.
He says something stupid, gets in way over his head
and then twists things around in a feeble attempt at trying to
cover himself.
He did it with his CDROM problems under XP.
He did it again with his silly comment about platter rotational
speed not effecting data transfer rate.
He did it yet again with the lack of a native Linux Notes client.
And now he is doing it yet again.
flatfish
>
>
Doug.M
That's because Erik along with the other paid WinTrolls are here to FUD and
troll. It's their job to promote and advocate WinBlow$ over Linux in any
situation and make sure that the FUD flows deeply and fast here in
Comp.OS.Linux.Advocacy.
Donn Miller
> That doesn't change the fact that Rapskat stated Windows couldn't do it, now
> does it?
>
> The same is true on Linux, BTW. The point was, Rapskat made an obviously
> stupid claim which was wrong, and this proves it.
>
> What would you consider to be a better test?
Hmmm, you convinced me to buy Windows XP.
Rumblebear
Friday 29 March 2002 01:16 pm, with
<oOZo8.312213$uv5.26...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> ==>
> The Linux cult loves to shout "Linux is about freedom". I beg to
> differ. You have far more freedom to do as you wish with Windows.
> Flatfish made a great post. "You choose your software first then
> your OS" That is dead on the money. A computer's sole function is to
> run software. Windows has far more and better software then Linux
> has. No matter what your needs are the best software for that need
> runs in Windows.
>
>
==> much verbosity snipped
>
> The Linux cult says well we are comparing OSs only. Well Windows XP
> is more stable, more secure and faster then any Linux distro, plus
> there is software, software and software to fill any of your
> desires. Windows is freedom.
Please, Mr. Grant
As with the democrats, where are the facts? You can make all the
spurious claims you like, but when asked for the documentation, you
spew the public tripe. "If you disagree with me, you must be an
un-American, illiterate, meat-eating, tree-killing, porn watching
Linux user and advocate." , that is all I hear from you. Do you have
a comparison tale to tell? Some personal experience with two similar
occurrences on a window box and a linux box, with an opinion on which
was easier, (quicker, faster), what have you? Yes, yes, you posted
links to a couple of locations, but what did that tell us?
Thomas Jefferson once said "the tree of liberty must be refreshed
from time to time with the blood of patriots." You may consider the
Linux community to be the ones feeding the tree of IT liberty. Many,
(most?) linux developers are not paid. They perform for the personal
satisfaction of achieving a goal, no matter how small or large it
might be. Does a microsoft developer do the same? Or take the same
pride in his small accomplishments? Possibly, but that is
underscored by the fact that his accomplishment isn't his. It
belongs to Microsoft. A Linux accomplishment is everyones
accomplishment, with the author applauded, (loudly sometimes), all
over the world.
I could go on, but the wood of my soapbox is old, and beginning to
crack in places.
Like Windows? Great! Wallow in it!
Like Linux? Great! Wallow in that!
Just remember...*What are the facts?*
Rumblebear
Delusions are the last refuge of the small-minded.
--
Earth -- A subsidiary of Micro$oft
Donn Miller
> Gnome is very slow. It is the slowest of all windows managers and much
> slower then Windows XP.
> I tried to use Evolution. I tried to send an email and it had an error
> message that said missing componet cannot open email editor.
OK, how much experience do you REALLY have running Linux? How long have
you actually lived with it and used it? All you said was, well, I tried
Linux, but it didn't install, and hdparm screwed up my HD, so I took it
off. Besides, who needa GNOME anyways? A lot of Linux users think it
sucks. Besides, GNOME isn't a window manager.
Try something lightweight next time, like Black Box, Fluxbox, XFCE,
Window Maker, ICEwm, fvwm, or even twm, and then get back to us how slow
your computer runs compared to Win XP. Besides, I already tried XP, and
it seemed kind of sluggish, although stable during the period I used it.
You know absolutely nothing about Linux. You tried it, and it didn't
suit your needs. Your point for being here? To practice being a spammer?
You make absolutely the stupidest arguments. See above about the Linux
installs and hdparm, and the part where Windows afford the user more
freedom simply because it has more apps. So, how many different window
managers have you used on Windows? Remember, part of the freedom is
that you should be able to run whatever desktop or window manager you
wish. Windows is kind of lacking in this area. Therefore, your
argument that Windows affords you more freedom has been thouroughly shot
down. It's also a stupid argument.
Erik Funkenbusch
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:36:27 +0100, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > "Nigel Feltham" <nigel....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:a82ipd$pfnpb$3...@ID-35459.news.dfncis.de...
> >> > Actually, there are applications like video editing, where Linux (or
> > BSD)
> >> > just don't have good enough software. If you want to work harder to
> >>
> >> Try Broadcast 2000 if you want a pro quality linux video editor.
> >
> > Broadcast 2000 is a toy and nowhere near "pro quality". Just check
> > Broadcast 2000's features compared even to their commercial version
> > (which is also a toy compared to tools like Avid or even Premier or
> > Final Cut Pro).
>
> 1. The original maintainers of Broadcast 2000 ceased maintenance because
> the tool was being used *professionaly* and they were afraid that the 'no
> warranty' clause of the GPL wouldn't hold up. IOW, people with a very
> large legal budget were using it. IOW *professionals* were using it.
It appears actually, that they WERE sued.
http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=110712
"We are being hit up for compensation on a number of damages that our
software caused so it's probably better that the downloads don't compile."
Just because something is used professionally, doesn't mean that it is
"professional quality". In fact, the fact that damages have been claimed by
people using the software seems to suggest that it is in fact NOT such.
> 2. There is no seperate 'Pro' or commercial version of Broadcast 2000.
> The only one that exists is Broadcast 2000, under the GPL.
Their "pro" product is called Cinelerra
http://freshmeat.net/projects/cinelerra/?topic_id=120%2C256
Oddly enough, they haven't ceased development of Cinelerra... so why kill
B2000? Answer, most likely, they don't own all the B2000 source and want to
get rid of anything they don't own.
> I can't compare BC2000 with Windows native video editors, but I know the
> two statements made above totally invalidate your argument.
Even if what you said were true (which it's not, as I have just proven), it
doesn't invalidate what I said.
> Stop FUDding or fuck off. Better yet, fuck off anyway. This group, nay
> the world, would be a better place without a lying sack of shit like you.
Watch your temper Mart. You seem to get awfully excited about the fact that
a piece of software just might not be of professional quality (even when the
softwares own authors make another product which they claim is more
professional)
> I tried being reasonable, I tried yelling at you. I give up now. You're
> the lowest, scummiest liar I've ever had the displeasure of communicating
> with. There is no lower life form imaginable. Heck, I wonder if you even
> *are* a life form. Perhaps Ken was right, and you are nothing but an
> ELIZA-like program. You certainly sound like you have the IQ of one.
>
> FOAD.
Wow, Mart. Apparently you don't have the stomache for the truth.
Maybe you shouldn't be using Linux. Knowing the truth seems to be raising
your blood pressure to dangerous levels.
freefall
Exactly - we just don't have an accurate enough mathematical model and
enough recorded data. Perhaps bees employ aspects of QED to fly and
the standard models can't cope :-)
An interesting question would be if there are any observed phenomenons
that are in fact mathematically impossible. Might post that one to
one of the particle physics groups and see what happens. I'll
probably be flamed for asking such a stupid question.
Perhaps the term "mathematically impossible" has no meaning, as
mathematics is just a modelling tool.
Erik Funkenbusch
news:_A7p8.166848$q2.16258@sccrnsc01...
Actually, no. You can't make a copy of Caldera's product at all.
SuSE you can make a copy of, but you cannot resell (much less "at whatever
price you like").
Erik Funkenbusch
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > That doesn't change the fact that Rapskat stated Windows couldn't do it,
now
> > does it?
> >
> > The same is true on Linux, BTW. The point was, Rapskat made an
obviously
> > stupid claim which was wrong, and this proves it.
> >
> > What would you consider to be a better test?
>
> Hmmm, you convinced me to buy Windows XP.
So in other words, you don't know of a better test.
Donn Miller
wo statements made above totally invalidate your argument.
>
> Stop FUDding or fuck off. Better yet, fuck off anyway. This group, nay
> the world, would be a better place without a lying sack of shit like you.
>
> I tried being reasonable, I tried yelling at you. I give up now. You're
> the lowest, scummiest liar I've ever had the displeasure of communicating
> with. There is no lower life form imaginable. Heck, I wonder if you even
> *are* a life form. Perhaps Ken was right, and you are nothing but an
> ELIZA-like program. You certainly sound like you have the IQ of one.
>
> FOAD.
Erik loves to extol the virtues of Windows in here. It's pretty evident
he finds it more suitable for is needs, and that it's far faster, more
stable, less buggy, etc., than Linux. You never see him refuting the
claims of the ultra-unintelligent Wintrolls in here. I don't know
exactly what his goals are, but I've given up being nasty, and am trying
a kinder, more gentler approach. Besides, we don't want to shorten his
lifespan due to meanness, because one of these days he hopes to see a
pixel appear on his X-display. But by then, his computer will need
upgraded, so damn, he may never see a pixel appear on his X workstation.
Donn Miller
> So in other words, you don't know of a better test.
<SMARTASS>
I'm not running Mozilla at all under Linux (check the headers). I got
tired of waiting for a pixel to appear on my X display. So, that's why
I'm using Mozilla under Linux to post this. Damn, if only there was
just *one* web browser to run under Linux!
</SMARTASS>
Hell, Erik, Mozilla has never crashed for me once under Linux, yet it
happens on occasion under IE 5.5 on Windows.
Donn Miller
> So in other words, you don't know of a better test.
Oh, BTW, next time try the same test with apps that don't share the same
code segment, okay? After all, notepad is just a trivial app that uses
built-in functionality inside Windows. All instances of the code
segments are shared.
You're getting almost as lame as wjbell.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > So in other words, you don't know of a better test.
>
> Oh, BTW, next time try the same test with apps that don't share the same
> code segment, okay? After all, notepad is just a trivial app that uses
> built-in functionality inside Windows. All instances of the code
> segments are shared.
>
> You're getting almost as lame as wjbell.
I was responding to something Rapskat *SPECIFICALLY* said could not be done.
He's the one that said notepad.
Tom Wilson
<snip>
>
> I don't care. I've never implied that Linux was unstable in the general
> case. In fact, I consider it to be quite stable in most cases, but like
> just about any OS, including windows, there are cases where it can be
> unstable.
And why do you feel that such obvious points even need made?
Donn Miller
> I was responding to something Rapskat *SPECIFICALLY* said could not be done.
> He's the one that said notepad.
Gee Erik, settle down. You're letting your blood pressure get all
worked up over Windows. Maybe you shouldn't be using Windows. Knowing
the truth seems to be raising your blood pressure to dangerous levels.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
Jerry Nash
Well, Internet Explorer is a native Windows XP app that comes with Windows
XP.
The requirement was to run native Windows XP applications remotely. You
know very well what that means.
Pick another native Windows XP application if you want. Don't start
pawning off a lie by talking about running xeyes.
>I can telnet into my XP or Win2k box, start, say... xeyes and view it from
>an SGI, Solaris, AIX or Linux box running X just fine.
>
>> >> there are more.
>> >
>> >Try them.
>>
>> Just try to get this one first.
>
>Why change the requirements to suddenly require IE?
>
The requirements where never changed. You're squirming. A
native Windows XP application was stated right up front.
rapskat
Funkenbusch" - dump details are as follows...
<snip>
>> >> Try watching a full movie on a P100/48MB with no frame drops and
>> >> excellent vid/snd synch with Windows. You probably couldn't even
>> >> load the viewer!
>> >
>> > A P100 isn't fast enough handle full frame decompression and transfer
>> > of the video to the video buffer, not to mention that any P100 system
>> > isn't going to have a fast enough video channel to be able to display
>> > full screen video without drops.
>> >
>> > It's a simple matter of math. A P100 will be running a PCI video
>> > card, probably an old one at that. Theoretically this could send
>> > 133MB/s, but that's not taking into account bandwidth being used by
>> > the disk subsystem, which has to move quite a bit of data as well.
>> > Then throw in the sound channel, and other activities and your stuck.
>> > Why do you think AGP was created? Then to top it off, MPEG
>> > decompression needs a lot more memory than you'll have available with
>> > 48MB.
>> >
>> > Stop bullshitting us.
>>
>> It is mathematically impossible for the common housefly to achieve
>> flight also. Guess what? They do.
>
> You're thinking of the bumblebee. You can't even get that right.
>
Oops, my fault. Whatever, you get my point.
>> That was a test on that system, and I never for a minute thought it
>> would be capable of handling it even with Linux. But guess what? It
>> did.
>>
>> Admittedly I had nothing else going at the time and blackbox for a WM,
>> but yes indeed I did it. Harry Potter as a matter of fact ;-)
>
> It's physically impossible. Even if the movie was uncompressed, you
> still wouldn't have enough bandwidth to read it off disk and push it to
> a P100 era PCI video card.
>
You're telling me it's impossible, I'm telling you I did it...and we all
know who has more credibility, don't we, Mr. Dozens of Root Exploits
Criminal Supporting M$ Apologist?
Mathematical Theories and data must always bow to reality, my friend.
Sorry if this offends you.
"When given a known result, you don't say that it must be wrong because
your calculations say otherwise. You look to your calculations for
error." -- My 9th grade algebra teacher said that to us.
>> >> Or burning a CD, playing a game AND watching a movie all at the same
>> >> time flawlessly. Let me know when your coaster is done.
>> >
>> > On that same P100? Again, stop bullshitting. Not a problem with my
>> > Windows system (PIII-550, 512MB RAM)
>> >
>> No, this was another higher-end system. Forgot to stipulate that,
>> sorry.
>>
>> And you are the one who is bullshitting now, no way you could do that
>> on a system with double those resources under Windows. I do it
>> regularly under Linux.
>
> I regularly play Civilization III while burning CD's, and I have also
> played streaming video from things like the msdn show at the same time.
>
>> >> Try being logged in as 5 different users with different Windows
>> >> Managers simultaneously, all with running apps. Ain't gonna happen.
>> >
>> > Well, in order to run a Window Manager, you'd need to use Unix tools
>> > since Window Managers are unique to Unix. but yes, there is no
>> > problem with logging in with 5 people over telnet or ssh, then
>> > running x based programs with remote GUI's from Windows.
>> >
>> NO, I mean all at the terminal at the same time, no remote GUI's. Guess
>> what, it can't be done in Windows. Period.
>
> It's a pointless exercise. But even so, With XP I can do just that.
> With an XP Powertoy add-in, I can even switch users with a single
> keypress.
>
3rd Party support, huh? <snicker>
And fast user switching? What a joke, you can only use it if you are not
registered to a domain (which you can't do with the Home version anyway).
Plus just by activating it, you lose the SerialKeys and Remote Synching
functionality.
Limitations, limitations. Where is all this freedom you guys are talking
about?
>> You are starting to sound ridiculous..."Well, you can do that in
>> windows if the stars are in proper alignment and it's the third tuesday
>> of month and the electromagnetic flux quotient is just so, and...."
>>
>> With Linux, I just do it, no special qualifiers needed.
>
> I thought you were referring to remote users.
>
Yeah, ok. Classic EF, true to form.
>> >> Try running over 100 applications at the same time with not one
>> >> error and minimum swap usage. I doubt it.
>> >
>> > Try being a little less vauge.
>>
>> What's vague, over 100? I didn't get an exact number, but it was
>> easily over 100. Hell, I've had over 200 instances of the same program
>> open before just to prove a point. Admittedly the system was dragging
>> ass at that point, but such a thing is not possible with Windows even
>> if you used the smallest signature app you could find (say notepad).
>
> "minimum swap useage" doesn't mean anything. It's a subjective term,
> that you can define however you want.
>
> And, just as a test, I used this PIII-733 box running XP and 256MB RAM
> that i'm on right now and started 166 copies of Notepad. Also running
> is MS Paint and Outlook Express showing part of the email you sent. Task
> Manager shows the CPU load and memory load, and a second picture shows a
> partial task list.
>
> http://www.funkenbusch.com/pic1.jpg
> http://www.funkenbusch.com/pic2.jpg
>
> Even with 166 copies of Notepad, i'm still not even going over 256MB's
> of committed memory.
>
> Now, you were saying?
>
I was saying that I had over 200 instances running. And your pictures,
although very nice, tell me nothing. How about posting the output of a ps
aux here?
Oops...that's right, you can't. Sorry.
>> >> Try running Windows on a Sparc, PowerPC, or StrongARM. I don't
>> >> think so.
>> >
>> > NT 4 runs on PowerPC, not to mention MIPS and Alpha. Versions of CE
>> > run PowerPC and StrongARM (not to mention SH3, and many others).
>>
>> Oh really? How interesting. And what about Win9x/ME, Win2K or XP?
>> Again, qualifiers and limitations. I thought Windows was freedom
>> according to the OP?
>
> Win9x/ME are dead. They were also never intended to be portable. Win2k
> ran on Alpha up to RC1, and XP runs on Itanium.
>
Funny, since they are used by more users than either Win2K or XP to date.
I tried to verify your claim that Win2K ran on Alpha, but I couldn't.
Could you post me a link, cuz I honestly didn't know that.
Even so, none of the above comes close to the portability of Linux and you
know it.
>> I can get a port of Linux for any of the above. No limitations, no
>> qualifiers. All the same programs run just the same as any other port
>> when compiled.
>
> Oh, right. So, where is that StrongARM version of Netscape 4.72?
>
Who the hell uses that old thing?
>> >> How about a simple one. Pick the mp3 player of your choice, then
>> >> start playing a mp3 file. Now try to delete or move the file while
>> >> it is still playing and see what happens. See you after you reboot.
>> >
>> > What the hell are you talking about? Even Windows 9x has proper file
>> > locking. You're out in left field on this one.
>> >
>> Of course you would think so, because you cannot do this in Windows.
>
> What are you talking about?
>
Just what I said.
>> I regularly do this when I download a large number of mp3's. I play
>> them and if I don't like them I delete them mid-play, no errors (they
>> keep playing in XMMS til the end if I let them).
>
> You said that attempting to move or delete files while media player was
> playing them would cause you to need to reboot. Now you're saying
> something entirely different.
>
That may or may not result in a needed reboot, I don't know, cuz I would
never ever even think about doing it in Windows.
But it very probably would cause a lock up. Of course you would have to
drop to prompt to do it.
>> I've swapped out hard drives with the power on in Linux as well, as
>> documented in this group. Definitely not recommended, but I've done
>> it.
>
> Really? You swapped out your boot drive? How did you manage to unmount
> it?
>
Did I say primary drive? Don't be so pedantic. Now there's something in
Windows that would surely cause the need for a reboot (well, maybe Win2K
Pro could handle it, it sure wouldn't like it though.)
>> >> I've done all this and much more with Linux. This has been stated
>> >> ad nauseum, but I'll say it again: Linux is far superior to any
>> >> version of Windows -- it is more stable, faster, more configurable,
>> >> portable, more secure, reliable, and just kicks Windows ass in all
>> >> aspects of computing from playing games to running a high-end
>> >> server.
>> >
>> > So far you haven't stated *ANYTHING* which is true in this message.
>>
>> I have no reason to lie unlike you. I don't get paid to post here. I
>> am just relating my own real-world experiences, not conjecture. This
>> is stuff that I do on a regular basis with Linux (except for the hard
>> drive hot-swap, that was just an experiment)
>
> And I do some of it on a regular basis as well. And I highly doubt you
> even attempt to play movies on a P100 on a regular basis.
>
I use that system for other things, so that is not it's primary function.
But it's nice to know that I can if I needed to.
>> I know it is hard for you to grasp considering these activities are
>> beyond Windows, but it is all true my friend. If you don't believe me
>> then why don't you install Linux and try it yourself?
>
> I've already proven you wrong on the number of apps part. Would you
> like a solid beating on the rest?
No, you haven't, you've posted some pics, big deal. When you can post the
equivilant to a ps aux in a message showing all running processes then
maybe I'll concede. BTW, I had over 200 instances open, not 166 (if
that's even the case).
I've also had plenty of heavy duty apps open as well on multiple active
sessions at the same time. Right now I have 3 other sessions running KDE,
GNOME and Enlightenment. All of which have active applications.
Look, Erik. Windows is great for you, I'm sure. We could go round for
round over and over, but it's pointless. Linux is far superior to Windows
IMHO. Your view may differ, it happens. There is no right or wrong were
opinions are involved.
I understand that your employers require you to provide as much FUD as
possible. That's your job, I respect that. Now you should respect my
position too, especially since this is a *LINUX ADVOCACY* newsgroup.
I do not lie about my experiences with Linux because I have no incentive
to. Why should I lie, what would I benefit from it? I choose to share my
opinions and experiences purely for personal reasons in a forum designed
for this purpose. If you don't like it or believe it, then tough shit. I
really could care less, especially considering your impeccable track
record. :-)
--
rapskat - 7:20pm up 16 days, 9:31, 10 users, load average: 0.03, 0.06, 0.10
If you use Windows, then you have my condolences
rapskat
Funkenbusch" - dump details are as follows...
> "Donn Miller" <dmmi...@cvzoom.net> wrote in message
Yup, and you still didn't do it. I also said OVER 200 instances. Try
again.
--
rapskat - 8:20pm up 16 days, 10:31, 10 users, load average: 0.31, 0.35, 0.29
'tis only noble to be good. -- Tennyson
Paolo Ciambotti
[bullshit snipped]
Didn't I already have you in my bozo file? I guess not....
<*PLONK*>
Windows is to freedom what a skateboard is to NASCAR.
Not fuckin' much.
JD
> Error Log for Fri, 29 Mar 2002 14:05:27 -0500: segfault in module "JD" -
> dump details are as follows...
>
> > BSD) just don't have good enough software.
>
>
Refer to the serious applications like Digisuite and Avid. For toy stuff, there
are minimal apps for almost everything.
John
JD
"JD" <dy...@jdyson.com> wrote in message news:AN8p8.1266$Mx3.2...@news1.iquest.net...
work to install, or using non-mainstream applications (e.g. compatilbility issues),
that also have larger scale integration problems.
There are simply some applications where the Unix version isn't quite as friendly
or as well developed as the Win2000/XP version. The key to success is being able
to run either and/or both as needed. Religion that makes one have to pay the price
of adventureousness isn't helpful.
John
freefall
wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> I was responding to something Rapskat *SPECIFICALLY* said could not be done.
>> He's the one that said notepad.
>
>Gee Erik, settle down. You're letting your blood pressure get all
>worked up over Windows. Maybe you shouldn't be using Windows. Knowing
>the truth seems to be raising your blood pressure to dangerous levels.
>
A response like this almost always implies an argument has been lost
i.e. I've lost so I'll make some personal remarks about the person I'm
debating with.
Why don't you just admit you've attempted to take Funkenbusch's words
out of the context of Rapskat's rambling and ill-informed post and
he's called you on it?
Anyone with any intellectual integrity would have simply understood
Rapskat's post was mostly nonsense and stayed out of the argument.
On top of that your sarcastic response is completely bereft of any wit
or humour. If you're going to be rude at least attempt to make it
funny.
Donn Miller
> A response like this almost always implies an argument has been lost
> i.e. I've lost so I'll make some personal remarks about the person I'm
> debating with.
>
> Why don't you just admit you've attempted to take Funkenbusch's words
> out of the context of Rapskat's rambling and ill-informed post and
> he's called you on it?
I already called him on it. He doesn't know how shared libraries work,
as he attempted to open hundreds of apps that share the same code
segment of the same Windows system DLLs. What does his experiment
prove? That shared libraries (and also DLLs) work at saving memory.
Big deal.
Mr Grant
rapskat
dump details are as follows...
> "JD" <dy...@jdyson.com> wrote in message
> news:AN8p8.1266$Mx3.2...@news1.iquest.net...
>>
>> "rapskat" <rap...@gdlteknet.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2002.03.29.16....@gdlteknet.com...
>> > Error Log for Fri, 29 Mar 2002 14:05:27 -0500: segfault in module
>> > "JD" - dump details are as follows...
>> >
>> > > Actually, there are applications like video editing, where Linux
>> > > (or BSD) just don't have good enough software.
>> >
>> > Really? I wasn't aware of that.
>> >
>> Refer to the serious applications like Digisuite and Avid. For toy
>> stuff, there are minimal apps for almost everything.
>>
> Remember: there is a HUGE difference between software that needs alot of
> work to install, or using non-mainstream applications (e.g.
> compatilbility issues), that also have larger scale integration
> problems.
>
> There are simply some applications where the Unix version isn't quite as
> friendly or as well developed as the Win2000/XP version. The key to
> success is being able to run either and/or both as needed. Religion
> that makes one have to pay the price of adventureousness isn't helpful.
>
> John
Revisement of orginal statement noted.
However, you surely cannot overlook the fact that major motion pictures as
well as commercials have been produced using Linux based editing and
rendering software, can you? Shrek, Titanic, Coca Cola, etc. Even Pixar
is looking at Linux software.
I can't think of anything more "professional" than that.
--
rapskat - 9:10pm up 16 days, 11:21, 10 users, load average: 0.10, 0.16, 0.16
I can, therefore, I am.-- Simone Weil.
Donn Miller
> never used Linux? http://www.shawngrantsworld.com/multitask.jpg
>
> http://www.shawngrantsworld.com/vmwarescreenshot.jpg
>
>
But I thought hdparm screwed up your HD?
rapskat
Grant" - dump details are as follows...
> never used Linux? http://www.shawngrantsworld.com/multitask.jpg
>
> http://www.shawngrantsworld.com/vmwarescreenshot.jpg
As excellent a product as VMWare is, it still seriously inhibits the
experience as I learned from running Linux on it last year.
The only way I got the full benefit of it was to do a full install (or
dual boot).
What are those funny looking things that look like peices of hard candy on
your screen? Do you have a virus? Maybe the new Sweets.for.the.Sweet.ch3
virus?
;-)
--
rapskat - 9:20pm up 16 days, 11:31, 10 users, load average: 0.13, 0.17, 0.17
Love's a thing that's never out of season. -- Anonymous
rapskat
"freefall" - dump details are as follows...
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 20:00:07 -0500, Donn Miller <dmmi...@cvzoom.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>> I was responding to something Rapskat *SPECIFICALLY* said could not be
>>> done. He's the one that said notepad.
>>
>>Gee Erik, settle down. You're letting your blood pressure get all
>>worked up over Windows. Maybe you shouldn't be using Windows. Knowing
>>the truth seems to be raising your blood pressure to dangerous levels.
>>
>>
> A response like this almost always implies an argument has been lost
> i.e. I've lost so I'll make some personal remarks about the person I'm
> debating with.
>
> Why don't you just admit you've attempted to take Funkenbusch's words
> out of the context of Rapskat's rambling and ill-informed post and he's
> called you on it?
>
What? What exactly was rambling or ill-informed? I was recounting my own
personal experiences with Linux and suddenly came under massive troll
attack defcon one!
Did I hit a nerve with someone? Usually people only get attention like
this when they tell the truth about something that noone wishes to be
known.
Is this the case here?
> Anyone with any intellectual integrity would have simply understood
> Rapskat's post was mostly nonsense and stayed out of the argument.
>
What nonsense? My personal experiences, i.e. What I have seen with my own
eyes are nonsense? This ain't Area 51 buddy, I don't post to get
attention. I have no reason to lie.
I've used both Windows and Linux andin my opinions Linux is far superior.
All of the personal accounts that I provide are 100% Grade A facts. If I
post conjecture or opinions, I'll label it as such. But if I post a
personal account of what I've actually experienced running Linux, you can
take that to the bank. The same for Windows.
> On top of that your sarcastic response is completely bereft of any wit
> or humour. If you're going to be rude at least attempt to make it
> funny.
Why? You're not. One thing I have to say about you winbitches is that you
guys sure stick together, right or wrong.
Will you let EF use your CC to pay his monthly M$ bill as well? Or will
you guys just have it deducted from your FUD pay?
--
rapskat - 9:35pm up 16 days, 11:46, 10 users, load average: 0.63, 0.48, 0.30
Death before dishonour. -- Anonymous