Re: life after Windows....
Kcoc Syawedis
> http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/is-...
>
> Linux is free, easy-to-use and is shedding its geeky image, thanks to
> fans who prefer it to Microsoft's mighty operating systems. But is it
> for everyone? Jamie Merrill asks four rookies to put it to the test
>
> Wednesday, 25 March 2009
>
> Once it was fair to say that Linux was the preserve of small coterie
> of computer nerds typing away in their parents' basements and spare
> rooms. This is no longer so, however, as the free and easy-to-use
> operating system with a reputation for rock-solid reliability is
> coming out of the shadows. It's shaking off its geeky reputation by
> getting some computing street cred as a fast web browsing and music
> platform.
>
> Andrew Miller, technology journalist and founder of thinkabouttech.com
> is a self-avowed Linux devotee and typical of its supporters. "For 97
> per cent of computer users, Linux is perfect. Nowadays pretty much
> everyone is living in the cloud – with all of our data storage based
> online – and Linux offers you absolutely everything you need. For
> work, you have OpenOffice, for music you have Spotify and for instant
> messaging you have Pigeon. So it's not just a case of it being as good
> as Windows, because for a large majority of things Linux is actually
> better," he says.
>
> "If you talk to a lot of Windows users and ask them what they use,
> they say, 'I'm using Firefox and OpenOffice,' and if you boot up, say,
> Linux Ubuntu, a community-developed, Linux-based operating system
> created for laptops, desktops and servers, both those tools are there,
> so it's familiar territory, totally safe and free. So the question
> should 'why not use Linux?'".
> Related articles
>
> * Why are games so expensive?
>
> Miller isn't alone in his enthusiasm. A recent survey of IT
> professionals showed that in the midst of recession, free open-source
> software such as Linux is gaining in popularity, especially with small
> business users. And while still dwarfed by Microsoft, Linux is holding
> its own in the netbook stakes, with some estimates suggesting that the
> system is running on more than 10 per cent of all models.
>
> Linux's popularity isn't confined to bloggers, netbook users and
> software aficionados. In the past few years Ubuntu – one of Linux's
> most popular versions – has been adopted as the operating system of
> choice by institutions as varied as Google, Amazon, the French
> National Assembly and paramilitary police force, the entire South
> Korean government, DreamWorks film studio and the government of Mexico
> City. Later this year, the Vietnamese government will be the latest to
> ditch Microsoft in favour of a Linux-based operating system for all
> its computers
>
> The battle between Linux and Windows has been raging for almost as
> long as there have been motherboards and wysiwig monitors, and even
> now, Linux is still light years away from even beginning to challenge
> Microsoft's software hegemony. But some computer experts are starting
> to suggest Linux has reached a "critical mass" and that its day has
> come.
>
> So tech-savvy bloggers and IT professionals may be increasingly
> convinced of the virtues of Linux, but what about the average Windows
> user? To put Linux to the test, we set up four novices – from computer
> whizzes to self-confessed Luddities – with a new Toshiba netbook
> running the latest version of Linux Ubuntu to find out what they
> thought.
>
> Merryl Lawrenson, 56
>
> Community nurse from Ashford, Kent
>
> I wouldn't say that I'm a big computer user as I generally only use
> them for work. However, I do some quite complicated tasks at work like
> writing on patients' records, so reliability is important to me.
>
> The word processor and spreadsheet were all very similar to what I've
> used before as our home laptop runs the same version of OpenOffice.
> Menus were straightforward and the icons were very clear and easy to
> use. The layout was also very clear, so perhaps Ubuntu is a little
> easier for somebody like me when compared with a machine running
> hundreds of programs on Windows.
>
> One gripe was that the red cross to close pages and programs was stuck
> away in a corner, but on the whole it all worked quite intuitively.
> Especially as it's free, I'd give serious thought to adopting Ubuntu
> if I were in the market to buy a new computer.
>
> Tony Messenger, 55
>
> Music technician from Farningham, Kent
>
> I'm a music technician, so should know my stuff, but to be honest I
> really struggled with all the multimedia software that came as
> standard with Ubuntu. For the life of me, I couldn't get any of the
> sound or video elements to work online. I couldn't get it to play WAV
> files, I couldn't get it to play MP3s and it wouldn't play animated
> GIFs. I can only assume you have to download all the individual codecs
> [A computer program that lets you stream multimedia content] for each
> sound or video you want to run, which is a real pain. Nowadays, you
> need a good half a dozen or so codecs just to browse the internet and
> it didn't seem to come with any of these as standard.
>
> This defeats the whole point of using Ubuntu as a fast web browser if
> you have to spend ages setting it up and finding all the codecs, and
> would almost certainly pose problems for a computer novice. Don't get
> me wrong; I'm not a Windows devotee and the rest of the built-in
> software and menu systems seemed fine, but once you've worked on a
> system, any rival has to excel to be worth switching over to. Ubuntu
> and Linux generally seem to be the domain of the real computer geeks
> out there. Everyone that I know who uses Linux tends to be a computer
> nerd or work in the industry. They enjoy playing around with the
> system and I don't know if they actually do any work – whereas I'm
> interested in actually getting things done.
>
> Tim Blake, 23
>
> Teaching assistant from Codicote, Hertfordshire
>
> I'm a pretty dedicated Windows user so I wasn't necessarily expecting
> great things from Linux, but my first impressions were very good. I
> expected to struggle navigating the menu system, but found it pretty
> functional and easy to use. All the information and programs were easy
> to access and the layout was fairly intuitive. It also seemed fairly
> robust when it comes to viruses and surfing the web. Internet safety
> is always a concern, so that's certainly a good feature.
>
> Personally, I'd prefer something a little more complex which allows me
> a greater choice of software. It might be great for an older
> generation of computer users who just want to browse the web easily
> and safely.
>
> I'm training to be a teacher and am on a tight budget at the moment,
> so free software should be really attractive to me, but I'm just too
> heavily reliant on Microsoft Office and Windows to consider switching
> operating systems. I use Word and PowerPoint on a regular basis, both
> on my laptop and on machines at school, so it doesn't make any sense
> to switch to a system which won't run those programs. So I don't think
> Bill Gates and co need to worry about losing my custom just yet.
>
> Androulla Polydorou, 26
>
> Sales manager from Greenwich, London
>
> The first thing that struck me about Ubuntu was the interface. It's
> just so bright, breezy and user-friendly. Everyone who's seen me using
> it has been very impressed and has wanted to have a go. I had a few
> problems at first, such as finding the right icon to turn up the
> volume. I think perhaps I'm so used to Windows that I'm not used to
> searching around for icons.
>
> I don't have wireless internet and while I'm OK with computers I had
> to give in and ask my computer whizz partner for help after 40 minutes
> of trying to get a connection. That could have been more
> straightforward.
>
> Overall, I found Ubuntu pretty simple to use and a nice change from
> Windows. It booted up very quickly and was speedy online. It had
> versions of all the basic programs, such as a word processor, as well
> as a really good selection of games. The Toshiba I tested it on had an
> inbuilt camera, so I played around with the photo-editing software,
> which was impressive. Being able to alter colour and lighting and move
> things about and erase things was really cool for someone like me who
> has no experience of photo editing but wants to have fun with their
> pictures
>
> I wouldn't necessarily trust Ubuntu for work, as I wouldn't want to
> find I couldn't do everything I wanted to do. But as another system on
> my laptop to browse and listen to music I'd think about adopting it.
Relevant.Search.Result
ubuntu is nice and a bit safer than windows straight out of the box.
White Spirit
>> I'm a music technician, so should know my stuff, but to be honest I
>> really struggled with all the multimedia software that came as
>> standard with Ubuntu. For the life of me, I couldn't get any of the
>> sound or video elements to work online. I couldn't get it to play WAV
>> files, I couldn't get it to play MP3s and it wouldn't play animated
>> GIFs. I can only assume you have to download all the individual codecs
>> [A computer program that lets you stream multimedia content] for each
>> sound or video you want to run, which is a real pain. Nowadays, you
>> need a good half a dozen or so codecs just to browse the internet and
>> it didn't seem to come with any of these as standard.
He couldn't get it to play WAVs and MP3s? What's the matter with him?
John Bennett
SNIPPED
>
> ubuntu is nice and a bit safer than windows straight out of the box.
You managed to post JUST one line but felt you had to leave all that
I've snipped away.
Well done.now piss off the adults are talking:-))
William Black
"White Spirit" <wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gqd970$son$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>
> He couldn't get it to play WAVs and MP3s? What's the matter with him?
They're both proprietary formats. You won't get players with the distro if
it's strictly Open Source
Probably couldn't work out how to run the download...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
White Spirit
> "White Spirit" <wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:gqd970$son$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>> He couldn't get it to play WAVs and MP3s? What's the matter with him?
> They're both proprietary formats. You won't get players with the distro if
> it's strictly Open Source
MP3 is not proprietary. IIRC, Ubuntu comes with MP3 software. It's not
difficult to download xmms anyway - it's in the repository.
To be fair, Ubuntu is not always the best choice for beginners given
that it can be quite restrictive and buggy. It's not hard to look on
Google to find simple instructions to get what you need, but there are
better distros for the beginner.
For people who aren't beginners, there is Arch/Arch64 ;)
John McWilliams
you forgot to set a random followup.
Mxsmanic
> He couldn't get it to play WAVs and MP3s? What's the matter with him?
That's the wrong question. The right question is: What's the matter with the
OS? After all, he was able to play all of that under Windows.
This betrays an attitude common among Linux fans: If something doesn't work,
it's the user's fault, not the operating system's fault. It's not a very
rational or productive attitude.
Mxsmanic
> MP3 is not proprietary.
MP3 is a minefield of software patent and copyright issues, both for players
and for recorders of MP3 content.
> To be fair, Ubuntu is not always the best choice for beginners given
> that it can be quite restrictive and buggy. It's not hard to look on
> Google to find simple instructions to get what you need, but there are
> better distros for the beginner.
And that's another problem with Linux: an endless number of "distributions"
which are actually different operating systems. With no standards, there's no
hope of competing with Windows.
Chris H
<mxsm...@gmail.com> writes
Quite so and these versions come and go. There is a web siteIf i can
find it that list the current top 100 Linux versions (there are
thousands)
Also Linux has a major security flaw.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Lou Ravi
Quite, I've been hearing for years now how Linux is going to take over,
that it's the best things since sliced bread etc. That's tosh, it has a
tiny market share, is not suitable for the average PC user and will
never be anything other than a minority OS for people who like tinkering
with their PCs. I have nothing against it, on the contrary it would
perhaps be good if it was widespread and got people away from MS
hegemony but let's be realistic, it just won't happen.
William Black
"Lou Ravi" <j.mu...@libertysurf.fr> wrote in message
news:49ca83ab$0$17759$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
> Quite, I've been hearing for years now how Linux is going to take over,
> that it's the best things since sliced bread etc. That's tosh, it has a
> tiny market share, is not suitable for the average PC user and will never
> be anything other than a minority OS for people who like tinkering with
> their PCs. I have nothing against it, on the contrary it would perhaps be
> good if it was widespread and got people away from MS hegemony but let's
> be realistic, it just won't happen.
So.
What do you run on your server?
Markku Grönroos
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:c0sks49skdo2jrio5...@4ax.com...
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)
[]
> Perhaps you faggot get lost from travel forums.
Yes, you do get a bit lost at times, don't you? Have another.
--
(*) of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
www.davidhorne.net (email address on website)
"The fact is that when I compose I never think of and never
have thought of meeting the listener." -George Perle (RIP 2009)
Lou Ravi
> "Lou Ravi" <j.mu...@libertysurf.fr> wrote in message
> news:49ca83ab$0$17759$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
>
>> Quite, I've been hearing for years now how Linux is going to take
>> over, that it's the best things since sliced bread etc. That's tosh,
>> it has a tiny market share, is not suitable for the average PC user
>> and will never be anything other than a minority OS for people who
>> like tinkering with their PCs. I have nothing against it, on the
>> contrary it would perhaps be good if it was widespread and got
>> people away from MS hegemony but let's be realistic, it just won't
>> happen.
>
> So.
>
> What do you run on your server?
I don't have a server nor do the vast majority of computer users. Nor do
I have Unix, Aix (the other one) or any other exotic OS. Let peope who
use servers use waht they consider best, if that is Linux then fine by
me but that doesn't change a jot of the fac that Linux will never be
anything other than a minority OS.
Lou Ravi
> 'Lou Ravi' wrote this:
>
>
>> Quite, I've been hearing for years now how Linux is going to take
>> over, that it's the best things since sliced bread etc. That's tosh,
>> it has a tiny market share, is not suitable for the average PC user
>> and will never be anything other than a minority OS for people who
>> like tinkering with their PCs.
>
> bring it to prime time. It has the potential to become a serious
> alternative to Windows.
Potental perhaps but then you probably could have said that about CP/M
(had GUIs really existed in those days). It may have the potential but
has been around for years now under ninety nine different versions and
has made really no dent at all in the OS market. It's all very nice to
dream but facts are better.
tim.....
"aracari" <spam...@vailable.here.com> wrote in message
news:gqe3md...@aracari.127.0.0.1...
> 'Lou Ravi' wrote this:
>
>
>>Quite, I've been hearing for years now how Linux is going to take over,
>>that it's the best things since sliced bread etc. That's tosh, it has a
>>tiny market share, is not suitable for the average PC user and will
>>never be anything other than a minority OS for people who like tinkering
>>with their PCs.
>
> bring it to prime time. It has the potential to become a serious
> alternative to Windows.
It does
But only if the geeks accept that the MUST be plug and play for absolutely
everything that a normal domestic user might reasonably want to do.
They don't seem to be so minded.
tim
Doug Jewell
>> Andrew Miller, technology journalist and founder of thinkabouttech.com
>> is a self-avowed Linux devotee and typical of its supporters. "For 97
>> per cent of computer users, Linux is perfect. Nowadays pretty much
>> everyone is living in the cloud – with all of our data storage based
>> online – and Linux offers you absolutely everything you need. For
What a lot of bollocks! This cloud crap is a load of BS. who
stores all their data online etc? Most people store their
data on their computer, maybe back some of it up to a thumb
drive. For "97% of computer users" as he states, Linux would
be absolutely hopeless. Yeah it can run openoffice and open
a fair majority of Office doc's, and yeah you can browse the
web and view email with it, but what happens when you come
home with that shiny new game? what happens when you come
home with that new multifunction printer?
Don't get me wrong, I like Linux, and have it as a 2nd boot
option on all my PC's, but it is not a "97% of users" type
OS. For starters 97% of users expect to be able to just plug
and play - they expect to be able to go to the shop and buy
a new game, family history program, photo editing program,
printer, scanner, webcam, etc and have it JUST WORK. Windows
does this very well. 99% of software you put the disk in and
it works. A fair portion of hardware works out of the box,
and the remainder you put the disk in and away you go.
Linux however does this very poorly. The first limitation
with software is the range available. Lets take just one
category - photo editing. Windows you have the industry
standard - photoshop. You also have dozens of other choices
from publishers such as Corel, Magix, and more, and every
conceivable price point from tens of dollars to thousands of
dollars. Linux you have GIMP. Sure it is free but it also
has a dreadful UI. Put a beginner in front of photoshop
elements and they'll have meaningful results fairly quickly.
Put someone in front of GIMP, and even if they have a
reasonable amount of experience they'll struggle with the UI.
With hardware, while windows is very much plug and play, I
found Ubuntu to be horrid. It does a fairly good job of
picking up hardware that is in the computer at install time,
but does a dreadful job of making changes post-install. Eg
on one of my computers I changed my wireless card - Windows
detected it, I put my CD in, re-typed my wireless key, and
it was working. Ubuntu I just couldn't convince it to detect
and run the new card. I ended up reinstalling it, and during
the reinstall it detected the new card and worked.
Then there is the added difficulty of actually having to
make sure hardware you purchase is Linux compatible. With
windows it is a no-brainer - with Linux you have to browse
the web first, find out what makes and models are
compatible. Then you find out that because of the short
life-cycle of computer hardware, all the compatible models
are now obsolete. So you buy your new printer, and wait 6
months before someone manages to get it supported.
And of course if you want to use things like mobile internet
cards, then just totally forget Linux.
Linux has a lot going for it. In a server environment it is
fantastic. For the desktop though, before it can become a
viable windows contender the following things need to be
addressed:
* Hardware compatibility
* Ease of hardware installation, especially changes.
* Range of Software
* Ease of Software installation
* User friendliness of available software.
Most of the above can be overcome by advanced users, but
advanced users don't represent the bulk of computer operators.
--
Have you ever noticed that all legal documents need to be
completed in black or blue pen, but we vote in pencil?
Mxsmanic
> What do you run on your server?
FreeBSD. It's a real UNIX, not a fake one like Linux. And it runs very well
without a GUI.
In any case, suitability for a server is completely uncorrelated with
suitability for a desktop. In fact, if anything, being suitable for one means
not being suitable for the other.
Linux is used widely for servers mainly because of promotional hype. There
are other free UNIX-like or UNIX-descended operating systems that serve as
well or better than Linux.
Mxsmanic
> That depends on whether developers get their act together and
> bring it to prime time.
That will never happen. If it were going to happen, it would have already
done so.
> It has the potential to become a serious alternative to Windows.
See above.
Mxsmanic
> CP/M cannot be compared with Linux any more than DOS can be.
Why not?
> Once you create a GUI, you essentially create a new op/sys.
The GUI for Windows NT was originally a replaceable subsystem. X Windows
systems on UNIX-like operating systems are also slightly in this category.
Unfortunately, there is a tendency to integrate the GUI further and further
into the OS to improve performance and add features, and eventually they
become one and the same. At the same time, stability and security usually
suffer, as do server applications (GUIs consume enormous amounts of
resources).
Mxsmanic
> But things get better all the time. I know a lot of people using
> one of the distribs quite happily. Mind you, they rarely tell you
> what they do with it!
Because most Linux users do almost nothing with their computers.
William Black
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:79cls4t8m4ogddak6...@4ax.com...
Almost all users do almost nothing with their computers.
The average home computer is used for net surfing, email and letter writing
and perhaps Skype, if they're ambitious.
If they've got kids they may play some games, most of which make a mess of
Windows, but for the vast majority of people a web surfing tool and an
office setup is all they either want or need, and what's more they'll all
tell you that if you ask them.
The major problems only turn up when people write their web pages in such a
way as to only work on Microsoft products, as is currently the case with
the British government's 'Government Gateway' system.
As for the musician who couldn't get software, very few professionals in
the music business use Windows products. They're almost all using Apple
products, including software. Indeed, when Apple bought 'Logic' and
insisted on stopping manufacturing the PC version it caused something of a
stir in the industry.
.
Now, this being the case, there's little reason why people shouldn't use,
for example, Ubuntu on their computers.
It's free, reasonably easy to install, something which most Windows users
find hard work anyway, runs a friendly GUI and finds just about everyone's
hardware with remarkably few problems.
It also finds things like other Windows computers, workgroups, domains,
servers and other stuff that people have at home if they're beyond the
'single machine in the home' stage remarkably easily and connects to them
with few problems.
What's stopping people is that the shops don't sell computers with the stuff
installed, but if Microsoft ever introduce the restrictive annual licensing
systems they were talking about four or five years ago people will.
People already resent paying what is becoming known as 'Windows Tax'.
Already there are larger numbers on Linux computers about than ever before.
The Asus 'eeepc' type devices the shops are currently full of almost all run
Linux in some form or other, with a software fit that is remarkably like
the one I mentioned above for the home user.
As the public become educated (an inevitable result of computer education in
schools), and as government departments in Europe abandon Windows for legal
reason, the user base will expand.
At some point in the reasonably near future I fully expect Unix and its
variants will become dominant.
William Black
> William Black wrote:
>> So.
>>
>> What do you run on your server?
>
> I don't have a server nor do the vast majority of computer users.
So what do you back up to?
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)
> "Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:79cls4t8m4ogddak6...@4ax.com...
> > aracari writes:
> >
> >> But things get better all the time. I know a lot of people using
> >> one of the distribs quite happily. Mind you, they rarely tell you
> >> what they do with it!
> >
> > Because most Linux users do almost nothing with their computers.
>
> Almost all users do almost nothing with their computers.
Rubbish. Try switching it on the next time.
John Stubbings
> 'Mxsmanic' wrote this:
>
>>aracari writes:
>>
>>> CP/M cannot be compared with Linux any more than DOS can be.
>>
>>Why not?
>
> Duh! Because neither are GUI op/systems.
>
> ps-Are you still being sockpuppeted by Ari Silverslime?
> lol.
>
>>> Once you create a GUI, you essentially create a new op/sys.
>>
>>The GUI for Windows NT was originally a replaceable subsystem. X Windows
>>systems on UNIX-like operating systems are also slightly in this category.
>
> The GUI is grafted on after development. That is one reason why
> many functions exist in the op/sys which are not supported by the
> GUI.
>
>>Unfortunately, there is a tendency to integrate the GUI further and further
>>into the OS to improve performance and add features, and eventually they
>>become one and the same. At the same time, stability and security usually
>>suffer, as do server applications (GUIs consume enormous amounts of
>>resources).
>
> See above. You don't quite understand how op/sys are developed
> ...although I agree that GUIs take a lot of system resources.
--
web site at http://www.bbc.co.uk/ - news comment service, logic,
economics, energy, education, politics, etc .... no tits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the working class [] don't feed the squirrels
can kiss my arse [] I mean the tories
i've got the foreman's job at last [] never trust a man with a wig
only when it's money -- i chav made good
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White Spirit
> And that's another problem with Linux: an endless number of "distributions"
> which are actually different operating systems.
No, they are different distributions of the same operating system
(GNU/Linux).
> With no standards, there's no
> hope of competing with Windows.
The difference in standards is negligible and hidden from the general
user. I agree that package management systems should be compatible and
libraries and mount points should be standard, but you're making out
that there is much more of a difference than there actually is.
White Spirit
> William Black writes:
>> What do you run on your server?
> FreeBSD. It's a real UNIX, not a fake one like Linux. And it runs very well
> without a GUI.
I often run FreeBSD as well but to say that it is a real UNIX(tm) as
opposed to a fake UNIX(tm) is ridiculous. Beyond POSIX compliance, what
more do you want?
Next you'll be talking about the difference in memory management...
White Spirit
> aracari writes:
What a load of rubbish. I do far more with Linux than I ever did (or
could) with MICROS~1. I'll also give Mac OSX a miss, thank you very much.
Jesper Lauridsen
I'm currently reading usenet on mine.
White Spirit
> Almost all users do almost nothing with their computers.
Yep. I often complain that user-friendliness has now become
idiot-friendliness. Mainstream operating systems and programs are
targeted at the lowest common denominator, the result being that the
users are lulled into a false sense of security. It wouldn't be a
problem with a system that simply worked with no bugs, but no such
system exists. Instead, the user is left at the mercy of designers who
seek to protect the user from himself. In the case of Windows, a
monolithic system that has been continuously kludged to bring it up to
date with the modern age, there is nothing the user can do once it
fails. At least with Linux and the various open source BSD operating
systems, a quick search on Google will tell the intrepid (or, ideally,
competent) user what to do to make it work again. That is, of course,
if it fails in the first place, although more a matter of when with
Ubuntu ;)
> Already there are larger numbers on Linux computers about than ever before.
> The Asus 'eeepc' type devices the shops are currently full of almost all run
> Linux in some form or other, with a software fit that is remarkably like
> the one I mentioned above for the home user.
> As the public become educated (an inevitable result of computer education in
> schools), and as government departments in Europe abandon Windows for legal
> reason, the user base will expand.
> At some point in the reasonably near future I fully expect Unix and its
> variants will become dominant.
That's what I hope.
We might disagree on politics, but at least you have your head screwed
on when it comes to technology ;)
White Spirit
> Perhaps you faggot get lost from travel forums.
Perhaps you could learn to speak a bit of English before addressing the
adults when they are talking.
Btw., they are called 'newsgroups', not forums.
White Spirit
> White Spirit writes:
>> He couldn't get it to play WAVs and MP3s? What's the matter with him?
> That's the wrong question. The right question is: What's the matter with the
> OS? After all, he was able to play all of that under Windows.
It is precisely the right question because the answer was only a quick
search away. An MP3 application is an extra and is not part of the
operating system.
> This betrays an attitude common among Linux fans: If something doesn't work,
> it's the user's fault, not the operating system's fault. It's not a very
> rational or productive attitude.
Since when did MP3 software comprise part of an operating system? It is
a userspace tool.
White Spirit
> Don't get me wrong, I like Linux, and have it as a 2nd boot option on
> all my PC's, but it is not a "97% of users" type OS. For starters 97% of
> users expect to be able to just plug and play - they expect to be able
> to go to the shop and buy a new game, family history program, photo
> editing program, printer, scanner, webcam, etc and have it JUST WORK.
> Windows does this very well. 99% of software you put the disk in and it
> works. A fair portion of hardware works out of the box, and the
> remainder you put the disk in and away you go.
> Linux however does this very poorly. The first limitation with software
> is the range available. Lets take just one category - photo editing.
> Windows you have the industry standard - photoshop. You also have dozens
> of other choices from publishers such as Corel, Magix, and more, and
> every conceivable price point from tens of dollars to thousands of
> dollars. Linux you have GIMP. Sure it is free but it also has a dreadful
> UI. Put a beginner in front of photoshop elements and they'll have
> meaningful results fairly quickly. Put someone in front of GIMP, and
> even if they have a reasonable amount of experience they'll struggle
> with the UI.
If hardware and software is not compatible, it is not the fault of the
operating system. It is because developers/manufacturers do not support
it. Windows actually does not support software and hardware very well;
speaking as a software developer, I would say that it actually does it
quite poorly. The difference, which you have missed, is that developers
and manufacturers happen to support Windows very well. Think about it.
Ari®
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:57:44 +0000, aracari wrote:
>
>> 'Mxsmanic' wrote this:
>>
>>>aracari writes:
>>>
>>>> CP/M cannot be compared with Linux any more than DOS can be.
>>>
>>>Why not?
>>
>> Duh! Because neither are GUI op/systems.
>>
>> ps-Are you still being sockpuppeted by Ari Silverslime?
Figures. The homo has no balls to do that to my face.
--
Ari's Fun Times!
http://tr.im/hrFG
Motto: Run, rabbit, Run!
Randy Martin
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:07:24 +0000, John Stubbings wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:57:44 +0000, aracari wrote:
>>
>>> 'Mxsmanic' wrote this:
>>>
>>>> aracari writes:
>>>>
>>>>> CP/M cannot be compared with Linux any more than DOS can be.
>>>> Why not?
>>> Duh! Because neither are GUI op/systems.
>>>
>>> ps-Are you still being sockpuppeted by Ari Silverslime?
>
> Figures. The homo has no balls to do that to my face.
What is it you want him to do to your face with his balls, you faggot?
John Stubbings
If you want to read gay pornography, go buy some, don't ask us to write it
for you...
--
You gotta fight, for your right, to party...
The best of the best in Freeware
http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/
Registered Linux User #485718
John Stubbings
> CP/M cannot be compared with Linux any more than DOS can be.
> I speak as a 4DOS lover...but...
> Once you create a GUI, you essentially create a new op/sys.
Since when has Linux been a GUI? Get those books out aracari/hummyhomo...
John Stubbings
> John Stubbings,
> The lengths you uneducated chav socialists go to, to get my
> attention is amazing. Nothing better to do?
>
> Still, I guess it's better than letting you out on the streets
> to vomit everywhere and make a nuisance of yourselves.
>
>
>
>>The chav: 'John Stubbings' wrote nothing:
>
>
>
> [quotes binned]
Your loss hummyhomo, once we have sorted out what Linux is, perhaps we can
move on to socialists
SMS
> But only if the geeks accept that the MUST be plug and play for absolutely
> everything that a normal domestic user might reasonably want to do.
>
> They don't seem to be so minded.
Microsoft benefits from there being relatively few different versions of
Windows. Microsoft also spends a tremendous amount of money and effort
on enforcing hardware compatibility standards and certifying drivers. It
can be a real PITA for hardware manufacturers, but it ends up benefiting
the end user (usually). At one time when Microsoft was setting minimum
standards for hardware they also tried to forbid certain legacy ports
from being included on future hardware because they didn't want to
support them any more, i.e. PS/2, IEEE 1284, RS-232, but the hardware
vendors stopped this nonsense.
Unless there is a convergence of all the different versions of Linux,
with applications and hardware being as easy to install as in Windows or
OS-X, it will remain an OS mainly for servers.
Selaw Parcera
Doug Jewell
to be useful, there must be a sufficient amount of hardware
and software that is compatible with the OS. You might come
up with a technically perfect OS, but if there is no
application software available for it, the OS is as useless
as tits on a bull.
So until enough developers (software and hardware) start
developing for Linux, it will not be suitable for mainstream
use.
And actually, part of the problem is the fault of the OS.
For example there is no single standardised installation
procedure for Linux. There is no single standardised CD
autorun feature. There is no single standardised directory
structure. There is no single standardised configuration
store like the registry. There is no single standardised
sound architecture. There is no single standardised GUI.
There is no single standardised API. These are all
complications which make targetting Linux more complex, and
presenting a good UI to the user more complex. Developing
for Windows, while at times quirky, is at least consistent.
Develop to the API's guidelines, and you know your program
will run on pretty much every Windows machine there is.
--
Have you ever noticed that all legal documents need to be
completed in black or blue pen, but we vote in pencil?
Doug Jewell
be because external developers haven't targetted linux, that
has nothing to do with the fact that adding drivers to the
system is a mess. In some cases you have to do a complete
reinstall to get it to detect hardware changes. In some
cases you have to recompile the kernel to install some
hardware devices, and in many cases you have to manually
configure text files or run commands from the command line
to get drivers to install. The lack of a simple to use
interface for users to install and configure device drivers
is a big limitation to Linux.
Many similar issues arise when installing software too.
Lou Ravi
> "Lou Ravi" <j.mu...@libertysurf.fr> wrote in message
> news:49ca9a25$0$2763$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
>> William Black wrote:
>
>>> So.
>>>
>>> What do you run on your server?
>>
>> I don't have a server nor do the vast majority of computer users.
>
> So what do you back up to?
An external disk
John Stubbings
> 'Mxsmanic' wrote this:
>
>>aracari writes:
>>
>>> That depends on whether developers get their act together and
>>> bring it to prime time.
>>
>>That will never happen. If it were going to happen, it would have already
>>done so.
>
> I don't agree. It has taken MS since the halcyon days in mid
> 1980s to arrive at XP. Too bad they lost the plot after that...
Idiot, in the real world, smart people are using Vista getting ready for
Windows 7, using 64 bit OS's, Linux has been prime time in the server and
embedded markets for years. The BSD's are very important because of their
stability and non restrictive licensing.
Horse's for courses, there is only one OS that competes with Windows on the
Desktop. MAC. It's subsystem is based on............... BSD
Wake up and stop waffling, get your head out of your arse, the future is
already here.
>
>>> It has the potential to become a serious alternative to Windows.
>>
>>See above.
>
> see above
see above
Franklin
alt.comp.freeware news:gqflbv$flt$1...@news.motzarella.org:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:00:46 +0000, aracari wrote:
>
>> CP/M cannot be compared with Linux any more than DOS can be.
>> I speak as a 4DOS lover...but...
>> Once you create a GUI, you essentially create a new op/sys.
>
> Since when has Linux been a GUI? Get those books out
> aracari/hummyhomo...
>
Hummingbird/Chris is still studying the lessons I gave him on pixel
dimensions. Your studies for Chris will have to wait.
Even a school child can understand if you multiply width (of pixels)
by height (of pixels) then you get an AREA (occupied by pixels).
However according to Professor Hummingbird of FreeBearScience
University you get a numeric COUNT.
This must be some new theory of dimensionality involving
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Schrodinger's cat: if you
look at pixels to measure them then they burn out but if you don't
look at them then they are the right size. Something like that.
Schrodinger's cat? Maybe he meant Stubbings's cat? Or the Cheshire
cat. :-) ---> .
--
"The Most Dangerous Man on the Internet"
http://franklin-revealed.notlong.com
Hummingbird's research discovered that's not my photo.
I've "stolen the identity of obscure actor Brad Pitt".
Markku Grönroos
"John Stubbings" <anna.riceD...@virgin.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:gqfu44$hhv$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:01:46 +0000, aracari wrote:
>
>> 'Mxsmanic' wrote this:
>>
>>>aracari writes:
>>>
>>>> That depends on whether developers get their act together and
>>>> bring it to prime time.
>>>
>>>That will never happen. If it were going to happen, it would have
>>>already
>>>done so.
>>
>> I don't agree. It has taken MS since the halcyon days in mid
>> 1980s to arrive at XP. Too bad they lost the plot after that...
>
> Idiot, in the real world, smart people are using Vista getting ready for
> Windows 7, using 64 bit OS's, Linux has been prime time in the server and
> embedded markets for years. The BSD's are very important because of their
> stability and non restrictive licensing.
>
> Horse's for courses, there is only one OS that competes with Windows on
> the
> Desktop. MAC. It's subsystem is based on............... BSD
>
> Wake up and stop waffling, get your head out of your arse, the future is
> already here.
>
nonsensical in every usenet group - particularly so in travel forums.
Neither do you have a grasp on operating systems. Bugger off.
Chris H
<anna.riceD...@virgin.net> writes
>On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:01:46 +0000, aracari wrote:
>
>> 'Mxsmanic' wrote this:
>>
>>>aracari writes:
>>>
>>>> That depends on whether developers get their act together and
>>>> bring it to prime time.
>>>
>>>That will never happen. If it were going to happen, it would have already
>>>done so.
>>
>> I don't agree. It has taken MS since the halcyon days in mid
>> 1980s to arrive at XP. Too bad they lost the plot after that...
>
>Idiot, in the real world, smart people are using Vista
In the real world Business ignored Vista. The sales figures for Vista
are appalling without taking into account that the majority of business
users promptly "downgraded" to XP
This is why XP is STILL available and will continue to be so until
Windows7 is released. There are Beta's about now.
I think this is the first time MS has kept the old OS running and
available until the launch of the next OS after the current one.
>getting ready for
>Windows 7,
That is true.
> using 64 bit OS's, Linux has been prime time in the server and
>embedded markets for years.
CRAP Linux is NOT big in the embedded market for years. The areas where
it is common it is known for being unreliable.
> The BSD's are very important because of their
>stability and non restrictive licensing.
>
>Horse's for courses, there is only one OS that competes with Windows on the
>Desktop. MAC. It's subsystem is based on............... BSD
I have to agree there. OSX is a proper Unix and is very reliable.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
John Stubbings
> Schrodinger's cat? Maybe he meant Stubbings's cat?
My cat is a multi dimensional being capable of spontaneously appearing on
my lap...
White Spirit
> No it's not the fault of the operating system, but for an OS to be
> useful, there must be a sufficient amount of hardware and software that
> is compatible with the OS. You might come up with a technically perfect
> OS, but if there is no application software available for it, the OS is
> as useless as tits on a bull.
> So until enough developers (software and hardware) start developing for
> Linux, it will not be suitable for mainstream use.
There is a vast amount of hardware support already. I find that the
number of freely available open source applications is immense.
> And actually, part of the problem is the fault of the OS. For example
> there is no single standardised installation procedure for Linux.
'configure && make && make install' seems to work. Admittedly, I feel
that package management systems should aim for better compatibility,
however.
> There
> is no single standardised CD autorun feature.
Good. I hate that feature and it is often more trouble that it is worth
in my experience.
> There is no single
> standardised directory structure.
Yes, there is. Libraries and utils could be put into standardised
locations across all distros, but the user is protected from all this
when using 'official' packages. The only time there might be a problem
is when the user is building a package from source, in which case one
would think that the user would know how to resolve a library dependency.
> There is no single standardised
> configuration store like the registry.
Good. The registry is a truly horrible concept. In Linux, /etc has the
system-wide configuration and the users' home directories can contain
local configuration files to provide local settings. It's a much
cleaner way of doing things.
> There is no single standardised
> sound architecture.
There is ALSA and OSS and ALSA has OSS compatibility, which means that
ALSA is therefore a single standardised sound architecture.
> There is no single standardised GUI.
Good. Not everyone likes a taskbar GUI, or wants to use the disk space
to run Gnome and KDE.
> There is no
> single standardised API.
There isn't in Windows either, but with Linux the situation is much
better because you have many standardised APIs.
> These are all complications which make
> targetting Linux more complex, and presenting a good UI to the user more
> complex. Developing for Windows, while at times quirky, is at least
> consistent. Develop to the API's guidelines, and you know your program
> will run on pretty much every Windows machine there is.
I find developing for Linux to be a much nicer experience. From the
point of view as a user as well, I'd much rather run a command like
'pacman -S $_name_of_package' than have to click several useless
dialogue screens. The only improvement I think should be made is, as I
said above, having libraries put in standardised locations.
White Spirit
> And one more thing - while the level of hardware support may be because
> external developers haven't targetted linux, that has nothing to do with
> the fact that adding drivers to the system is a mess. In some cases you
> have to do a complete reinstall to get it to detect hardware changes.
That's not the case. Some distros, like Ubuntu, might use the very
latest beta or CVS drivers, in which case I could see why you might
think that you need to perform a complete reinstall, but the drivers can
be compiled from source if need be. This is really a problem with
hardware vendors not releasing drivers or APIs for their hardware,
leaving it to open source developers to reverse engineer the drivers.
> In
> some cases you have to recompile the kernel to install some hardware
> devices,
No, you just compile a module.
> and in many cases you have to manually configure text files or
> run commands from the command line to get drivers to install.
What's wrong with that? It also gives the user the ability to remove
device drivers that are misbehaving. Try doing that with Win32. With
Apple, the problem is solved by Apple deciding for you some of the
hardware you must use.
> The lack
> of a simple to use interface for users to install and configure device
> drivers is a big limitation to Linux.
That could be taken care of, but no one seems to think that it is enough
of a necessity to do it.
> Many similar issues arise when installing software too.
I can't think of any userspace software that has required this.
John Stubbings
> In message <gqfu44$hhv$1...@news.motzarella.org>, John Stubbings
> <anna.riceD...@virgin.net> writes
>>On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:01:46 +0000, aracari wrote:
>>
>>> 'Mxsmanic' wrote this:
>>>
>>>>aracari writes:
>>>>
>>>>> That depends on whether developers get their act together and
>>>>> bring it to prime time.
>>>>
>>>>That will never happen. If it were going to happen, it would have already
>>>>done so.
>>>
>>> I don't agree. It has taken MS since the halcyon days in mid
>>> 1980s to arrive at XP. Too bad they lost the plot after that...
>>
>>Idiot, in the real world, smart people are using Vista
>
> In the real world Business ignored Vista. The sales figures for Vista
> are appalling without taking into account that the majority of business
> users promptly "downgraded" to XP
>
> This is why XP is STILL available and will continue to be so until
> Windows7 is released. There are Beta's about now.
>
> I think this is the first time MS has kept the old OS running and
> available until the launch of the next OS after the current one.
>
I said, "smart people are using Vista"... the world moves on
>>getting ready for
>>Windows 7,
>
> That is true.
yes, bloody exciting, it's 95% Vista
>> using 64 bit OS's, Linux has been prime time in the server and
>>embedded markets for years.
>
> CRAP Linux is NOT big in the embedded market for years. The areas where
> it is common it is known for being unreliable.
I didn't say BIG, I said prime time. Just looking around here, I have a
Linksys wireless router that runs Linux a Watchguard firebox [5 years old]
which runs Linux, and a product of mine built on freeBSD.
The Watchguard has been up for years.
>> The BSD's are very important because of their
>>stability and non restrictive licensing.
>>
>>Horse's for courses, there is only one OS that competes with Windows on the
>>Desktop. MAC. It's subsystem is based on............... BSD
>
> I have to agree there. OSX is a proper Unix and is very reliable.
--
White Spirit
> CRAP Linux is NOT big in the embedded market for years. The areas where
> it is common it is known for being unreliable.
Linux has in fact been in the embedded market for years, most notably in
set top boxes, DVD players etc., and performs very reliably.
William Black
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:VWIyl.16791$as4....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
At one time when Microsoft was setting minimum
> standards for hardware they also tried to forbid certain legacy ports from
> being included on future hardware because they didn't want to support them
> any more, i.e. PS/2, IEEE 1284, RS-232, but the hardware vendors stopped
> this nonsense.
That's nothing new.
When IBM introduced the PC/2 with Microchannel architecture the same thing
happened.
Microchannel made hardware installation a doddle, in the days when it could
take a couple of days to get a printer working, but nobody was prepared to
pay IBM any patent royalties...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
William Black
"Doug Jewell" <a...@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote in message
news:49cb64c9$0$5619$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
There is no single standardised configuration
> store like the registry.
Thank God.
>. There is no single standardised GUI.
You should have been around a few years ago when Windows wasn't the only
choice arounf the place.
I rather liked an operating system called GEM made by Digital research, but
Microsoft killed it, and I don't mean outsold it, I mean sued them and
stopped them selling it under very strange circumstances.
Mxsmanic
>
> "Lou Ravi" <j.mu...@libertysurf.fr> wrote in message
> news:49ca9a25$0$2763$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
>
> > I don't have a server nor do the vast majority of computer users.
>
> So what do you back up to?
It's very easy to back up to a removable external disk, such as a USB disk.
That's probably the best option for desktop users these days.
Mxsmanic
> I often run FreeBSD as well but to say that it is a real UNIX(tm) as
> opposed to a fake UNIX(tm) is ridiculous. Beyond POSIX compliance, what
> more do you want?
FreeBSD and the other freeware BSDs are actual descendants of UNIX, whereas
Linux has a kernel that is a clone of UNIX functionality.
Additionally, the BSD operating systems are complete operating systems that
are functional "out of the box," whereas Linux is just a kernel around which a
great deal of additional software must be added in order to get anything
resembling a functional operating system. And since everyone adds something
different, there are zillions of different "distributions" of Linux, whereas
there's only one FreeBSD, OpenBSD, etc.
White Spirit
> You should have been around a few years ago when Windows wasn't the only
> choice arounf the place.
> I rather liked an operating system called GEM made by Digital research, but
> Microsoft killed it, and I don't mean outsold it, I mean sued them and
> stopped them selling it under very strange circumstances.
I remember GEM, but it was a GUI (or, in those days, a WIMP system), not
an operating system.
Mxsmanic
> Duh! Because neither are GUI op/systems.
So?
MS-DOS did have GUI-like add-ons.
> The GUI is grafted on after development. That is one reason why
> many functions exist in the op/sys which are not supported by the
> GUI.
Yes, for some operating systems and configurations.
> See above. You don't quite understand how op/sys are developed
> ...although I agree that GUIs take a lot of system resources.
I've developed operating systems; I know a great deal about how they are
designed. I've also seen the source code of just about every operating system
I've used.
White Spirit
> White Spirit writes:
That's an accurate description, aside from the meaningless 'zillions'.
It certainly conveys more meaning than 'real' or 'fake' Unices.
Mxsmanic
> Almost all users do almost nothing with their computers.
Not true. There are two basic types of users: Those who have a computer for
the sake of having a computer (the geeks), and those who have a computer in
order to do productive things that interest them that just happen to require a
computer. The latter group represents the vast majority of computer users.
The former group represents the vast majority of Linux users.
> The major problems only turn up when people write their web pages in such a
> way as to only work on Microsoft products, as is currently the case with
> the British government's 'Government Gateway' system.
I thought the British government was supposed to be using Linux?
> As for the musician who couldn't get software, very few professionals in
> the music business use Windows products. They're almost all using Apple
> products, including software. Indeed, when Apple bought 'Logic' and
> insisted on stopping manufacturing the PC version it caused something of a
> stir in the industry.
> .
> Now, this being the case, there's little reason why people shouldn't use,
> for example, Ubuntu on their computers.
There are other users besides musicians.
> It's free, reasonably easy to install, something which most Windows users
> find hard work anyway, runs a friendly GUI and finds just about everyone's
> hardware with remarkably few problems.
Apart from not being free, all of this is even more true of Windows.
> Already there are larger numbers on Linux computers about than ever before.
> The Asus 'eeepc' type devices the shops are currently full of almost all run
> Linux in some form or other, with a software fit that is remarkably like
> the one I mentioned above for the home user.
>
> As the public become educated (an inevitable result of computer education in
> schools), and as government departments in Europe abandon Windows for legal
> reason, the user base will expand.
>
> At some point in the reasonably near future I fully expect Unix and its
> variants will become dominant.
I've been hearing this for years, and it is no more true today than it was
when fanatics first started saying it.
Mxsmanic
> Yep. I often complain that user-friendliness has now become
> idiot-friendliness. Mainstream operating systems and programs are
> targeted at the lowest common denominator ...
That is the only way to enlarge the user base ... something Linux advocates
don't seem to understand.
Every other mass-market consumer gadget works this way, and computers are
increasingly working this way, too.
Mxsmanic
> What a load of rubbish. I do far more with Linux than I ever did (or
> could) with MICROS~1. I'll also give Mac OSX a miss, thank you very much.
So what exactly do you do with your computer? I have roughly 100 applications
on mine that I use (under Windows).
John Stubbings
Indeedy, that's pretty much the crux of the matter. Both approaches have
their strengths and weaknesses. As a generalisation it means BSD is more
stable but the diversity of GNU/Linux development makes it more cutting
edge wrt features and hardware support.
You can argue that all you like of course...
Mxsmanic
> Unless there is a convergence of all the different versions of Linux,
> with applications and hardware being as easy to install as in Windows or
> OS-X, it will remain an OS mainly for servers.
Even for servers, the lack of coherency in Linux versions works against it.
That's one more argument in favor of full-service, single-version operating
systems like FreeBSD or commercial UNIX systems, or even Windows servers.
Chris H
>On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:20:46 +0000, Chris H wrote:
>
>> In message <gqfu44$hhv$1...@news.motzarella.org>, John Stubbings
>> <anna.riceD...@virgin.net> writes
>>>On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:01:46 +0000, aracari wrote:
>>>
>>>> 'Mxsmanic' wrote this:
>>>>
>>>>>aracari writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That depends on whether developers get their act together and
>>>>>> bring it to prime time.
>>>>>
>>>>>That will never happen. If it were going to happen, it would have already
>>>>>done so.
>>>>
>>>> I don't agree. It has taken MS since the halcyon days in mid
>>>> 1980s to arrive at XP. Too bad they lost the plot after that...
>>>
>>>Idiot, in the real world, smart people are using Vista
>>
>> In the real world Business ignored Vista. The sales figures for Vista
>> are appalling without taking into account that the majority of business
>> users promptly "downgraded" to XP
>>
>> This is why XP is STILL available and will continue to be so until
>> Windows7 is released. There are Beta's about now.
>>
>> I think this is the first time MS has kept the old OS running and
>> available until the launch of the next OS after the current one.
>>
>
>I said, "smart people are using Vista"... the world moves on
Then your definition of "smart" seems to be equivalent of most smart
people's definition for "stupid"
But what would I know? My degree is in Operating Systems and I have 30
years SW engineering behind me. Though it is in high reliability
systems not Windows or Linux.
>>>getting ready for
>>>Windows 7,
>>
>> That is true.
>
>yes, bloody exciting, it's 95% Vista
Quite so. SO it will be interesting to see what happens.
Mxsmanic
> I don't agree. It has taken MS since the halcyon days in mid
> 1980s to arrive at XP. Too bad they lost the plot after that...
Microsoft had NT more than a decade ago.
Mxsmanic
> Horse's for courses, there is only one OS that competes with Windows on the
> Desktop. MAC. It's subsystem is based on............... BSD
Because Apple couldn't afford to develop a completely new operating system,
and its existing operating system was woefully inadequate (being roughly
equivalent to the old Windows 3.1 architecturally).
William Black
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5d5ns41kdf63cndkc...@4ax.com...
Ah, I forget you live alone...
Only one computer as well it seems...
I need a system that will back up a reasonable array of computer equipment
from an Asus eeepc to a Linux box, with a couple of others thrown in.
Wandering around the house once a week with a USB passport for ma couple of
hours (plus the odd conversation on the lines of "Have you finished with
that computer? I need to do backups") isn't really practical, I have a
life to lead...
A Samba box using RAID 1 works, costs next to nothing and is easy to
administer.
Mxsmanic
> I have to agree there. OSX is a proper Unix and is very reliable.
OSX has far too much bolted onto it by Apple to be a proper UNIX. And it will
become increasingly proprietary in the future.
Mxsmanic
> No, they are different distributions of the same operating system
> (GNU/Linux).
No. Linux by itself isn't much of an OS at all; that's why tons of software
have to be added on in "distributions" in order to provide even basic
functionality.
Other true operating systems are complete out of the box--no add-ons required.
> The difference in standards is negligible and hidden from the general
> user.
If there are differences, there is no standard.
You can still run MS-DOS applications on Windows.
Mxsmanic
> It is precisely the right question because the answer was only a quick
> search away.
Windows doesn't require any search at all. It just works. And Mac is
friendlier still. Both leave Linux in the dust.
> An MP3 application is an extra and is not part of the operating system.
Tell that to the average Windows or Mac user.
> Since when did MP3 software comprise part of an operating system? It is
> a userspace tool.
See above. Normal users don't care about userspaces, tools, quick searches,
or anything of the kind. They just want something that works. Unfortunately,
Linux won't give that to them, because geeks refuse to admit that it doesn't
work, and blame all problems on the user.
Mxsmanic
> Windows actually does not support software and hardware very well;
> speaking as a software developer, I would say that it actually does it
> quite poorly.
It supports everything I've given to it.
> The difference, which you have missed, is that developers
> and manufacturers happen to support Windows very well. Think about it.
The difference, such as it is, doesn't matter to the average end user. All
the end user sees is that something works on Windows and not on Linux.
White Spirit
> White Spirit writes:
When not developing software, I play music and video content, rip music
and video content, use various Internet applications, print documents,
word processing, construct graphics (as much as my ability allows, at
least), transfer files from camera and portable media devices, play
games etc.
Mxsmanic
> Good. I hate that feature and it is often more trouble that it is worth
> in my experience.
Most users like it. Put the CD in and it runs.
> Libraries and utils could be put into standardised
> locations across all distros, but the user is protected from all this
> when using 'official' packages.
Why is "packages" plural? It's singular with Windows.
> The only time there might be a problem
> is when the user is building a package from source, in which case one
> would think that the user would know how to resolve a library dependency.
No normal user ever builds anything from source. No normal user knows how to
resolve library dependencies. No normal user even knows what they are.
> Good. The registry is a truly horrible concept. In Linux, /etc has the
> system-wide configuration and the users' home directories can contain
> local configuration files to provide local settings. It's a much
> cleaner way of doing things.
It would be if everything always put all information in the same place, in the
same way. But that isn't the case.
> Good. Not everyone likes a taskbar GUI, or wants to use the disk space
> to run Gnome and KDE.
Normal users don't care. They just want something that works. They do not
want to have to choose things.
> There isn't in Windows either, but with Linux the situation is much
> better because you have many standardised APIs.
No, if you have many APIs, then obviously there is no standard.
Windows does have a single, published, standard API that is fully supported.
> I find developing for Linux to be a much nicer experience.
Normal users do not develop anything.
> From the
> point of view as a user as well, I'd much rather run a command like
> 'pacman -S $_name_of_package' than have to click several useless
> dialogue screens.
Normal users insert the CD and go.
Your post makes it abundantly clear why Linux is unlikely to ever be a player
on the desktop.
William Black
> William Black writes:
>
>> Almost all users do almost nothing with their computers.
>
> Not true. There are two basic types of users: Those who have a computer
> for
> the sake of having a computer (the geeks), and those who have a computer
> in
> order to do productive things that interest them that just happen to
> require a
> computer. The latter group represents the vast majority of computer
> users.
> The former group represents the vast majority of Linux users.
You don't get out much do you...
You're at least a decade out of date.
Most people don't do anyything more productive with their computers than
write emails, surf the net and buy the odd book from Amazon.
>> The major problems only turn up when people write their web pages in such
>> a
>> way as to only work on Microsoft products, as is currently the case with
>> the British government's 'Government Gateway' system.
>
> I thought the British government was supposed to be using Linux?
It is changing over.
The problem isn't them, it's their contractors.
>> As for the musician who couldn't get software, very few professionals in
>> the music business use Windows products. They're almost all using Apple
>> products, including software. Indeed, when Apple bought 'Logic' and
>> insisted on stopping manufacturing the PC version it caused something of
>> a
>> stir in the industry.
>> .
>> Now, this being the case, there's little reason why people shouldn't
>> use,
>> for example, Ubuntu on their computers.
>
> There are other users besides musicians.
Changing the subject won't get you off this particular hook Mixi. You're
still a plonker.
>> It's free, reasonably easy to install, something which most Windows
>> users
>> find hard work anyway, runs a friendly GUI and finds just about
>> everyone's
>> hardware with remarkably few problems.
>
> Apart from not being free, all of this is even more true of Windows.
The 'free' bit is horribly important.
Especially as people are now replacing old Windows XP computers with new
ones and finding they have to pay 'Windows tax' even though they already own
the product...
John Stubbings
I got my swimming certificate at 5, and won second prize in the Bournville
Chocolate writing competition at 7...
>>>>getting ready for
>>>>Windows 7,
>>>
>>> That is true.
>>
>>yes, bloody exciting, it's 95% Vista
>
> Quite so. SO it will be interesting to see what happens.
--
Mxsmanic
> That's not the case. Some distros, like Ubuntu, might use the very
> latest beta or CVS drivers, in which case I could see why you might
> think that you need to perform a complete reinstall, but the drivers can
> be compiled from source if need be. This is really a problem with
> hardware vendors not releasing drivers or APIs for their hardware,
> leaving it to open source developers to reverse engineer the drivers.
What's really a problem is "distros." A real operating system has one
version, not a thousand versions. A thousand "standard" versions really just
means no standard version.
> No, you just compile a module.
Normal users do not compile.
> What's wrong with that? It also gives the user the ability to remove
> device drivers that are misbehaving. Try doing that with Win32.
Normal users don't care about device drivers.
> With Apple, the problem is solved by Apple deciding for you some of the
> hardware you must use.
And when you have a Mac, you plug it in, turn it on, and it works.
> That could be taken care of, but no one seems to think that it is enough
> of a necessity to do it.
Which is another reasons why Linux is going nowhere.
White Spirit
> White Spirit writes:
>> Windows actually does not support software and hardware very well;
>> speaking as a software developer, I would say that it actually does it
>> quite poorly.
> It supports everything I've given to it.
No; the developers/hardware manufacturers support Windows. Windows
provides terrible APIs for developers.
>> The difference, which you have missed, is that developers
>> and manufacturers happen to support Windows very well. Think about it.
> The difference, such as it is, doesn't matter to the average end user. All
> the end user sees is that something works on Windows and not on Linux.
The blame for this situation falls entirely on Microsoft with their
unethical business practices.
William Black
Which of course accounts for the huge popularity of things like the eeepc
and the Acorn 'Aspire One' and a shed load of others, most of which run
Linux...
John Stubbings
Yep, and BSD's liberal licensing, and the provenance of the development I
believe to, wrt not being shafted with law suits about ownership of code.
William Black
More than fifteen years ago to be correct, but it didn't work...
We all had to strain to keep servers running, (you'd be lucky to keep an NT
server running for 7 days because it 'ate' memory when working), until the
inevitable 'SP 3' came out...
White Spirit
> White Spirit writes:
>> That's not the case. Some distros, like Ubuntu, might use the very
>> latest beta or CVS drivers, in which case I could see why you might
>> think that you need to perform a complete reinstall, but the drivers can
>> be compiled from source if need be. This is really a problem with
>> hardware vendors not releasing drivers or APIs for their hardware,
>> leaving it to open source developers to reverse engineer the drivers.
> What's really a problem is "distros." A real operating system has one
> version, not a thousand versions. A thousand "standard" versions really just
> means no standard version.
That's a very big strength. You can choose a distro that aims to be
idiot-proof and does everything for the user, or you can choose a distro
that gives you far more control over the environment.
>> No, you just compile a module.
> Normal users do not compile.
Blame the hardware vendors who don't release APIs.
>> What's wrong with that? It also gives the user the ability to remove
>> device drivers that are misbehaving. Try doing that with Win32.
> Normal users don't care about device drivers.
They will when they screw up the whole system and there is absolutely
nothing that they can do to fix it.
>> With Apple, the problem is solved by Apple deciding for you some of the
>> hardware you must use.
> And when you have a Mac, you plug it in, turn it on, and it works.
As long as you use the hardware they tell you to.
>> That could be taken care of, but no one seems to think that it is enough
>> of a necessity to do it.
> Which is another reasons why Linux is going nowhere.
All the notebook PCs shipping with Linux installed seem to be going
somewhere.
John Stubbings
>> It is precisely the right question because the answer was only a quick
>> search away.
>
> Windows doesn't require any search at all. It just works. And Mac is
> friendlier still. Both leave Linux in the dust.
As a desktop OS I concur
>> An MP3 application is an extra and is not part of the operating system.
>
> Tell that to the average Windows or Mac user.
>
>> Since when did MP3 software comprise part of an operating system? It is
>> a userspace tool.
>
> See above. Normal users don't care about userspaces, tools, quick searches,
> or anything of the kind. They just want something that works. Unfortunately,
> Linux won't give that to them, because geeks refuse to admit that it doesn't
> work, and blame all problems on the user.
Also because geeks don't care in the main, and why should they? To a large
degree GNU/Linux is developed by geeks for themselves... that's pretty much
the way they feel about it... if I was developing for nothing, I wouldn't
care about some tosser moaning about a trivial problem either,... I'd just
do what interests me
White Spirit
> White Spirit writes:
>> Good. I hate that feature and it is often more trouble that it is worth
>> in my experience.
> Most users like it. Put the CD in and it runs.
Do most users like it, or do they have no other choice because it is
there by default?
>> Libraries and utils could be put into standardised
>> locations across all distros, but the user is protected from all this
>> when using 'official' packages.
> Why is "packages" plural? It's singular with Windows.
'Packages' as in applications. Unless you're telling me that there is
only one application available for Windows.
>> The only time there might be a problem
>> is when the user is building a package from source, in which case one
>> would think that the user would know how to resolve a library dependency.
> No normal user ever builds anything from source. No normal user knows how to
> resolve library dependencies. No normal user even knows what they are.
And that 'normal' user doesn't have to, which was my original point.
>> Good. The registry is a truly horrible concept. In Linux, /etc has the
>> system-wide configuration and the users' home directories can contain
>> local configuration files to provide local settings. It's a much
>> cleaner way of doing things.
> It would be if everything always put all information in the same place, in the
> same way. But that isn't the case.
All third party config files are placed in /etc and do not change
between distributions. Distribution-specific config files might differ,
but the user never has to know about them if he does not wish to.
>> Good. Not everyone likes a taskbar GUI, or wants to use the disk space
>> to run Gnome and KDE.
> Normal users don't care. They just want something that works. They do not
> want to have to choose things.
Do they not want the choice or are they just used to not having the choice?
>> There isn't in Windows either, but with Linux the situation is much
>> better because you have many standardised APIs.
> No, if you have many APIs, then obviously there is no standard.
More APIs means more standards, which means more choice. With Win32,
it's just the same kludged 'standard' that doesn't work 100% reliably
between all versions of Windows.
> Windows does have a single, published, standard API that is fully supported.
Until users are forced to upgrade, only to find that software that used
to run won't run at all on the new version.
>> I find developing for Linux to be a much nicer experience.
> Normal users do not develop anything.
The discussion had veered away from normal users. Try to keep up.
>> From the
>> point of view as a user as well, I'd much rather run a command like
>> 'pacman -S $_name_of_package' than have to click several useless
>> dialogue screens.
> Normal users insert the CD and go.
*click, click, click, click, click, click, click* 'Are you sure?'
*click, click, click...*
> Your post makes it abundantly clear why Linux is unlikely to ever be a player
> on the desktop.
I agree - Windows plays at being a stable, functional operating system,
whereas Linux succeeds.
White Spirit
> White Spirit writes:
>> It is precisely the right question because the answer was only a quick
>> search away.
> Windows doesn't require any search at all. It just works. And Mac is
> friendlier still. Both leave Linux in the dust.
I disagree. I find both of them dysfunctional. YMMV.
>> An MP3 application is an extra and is not part of the operating system.
> Tell that to the average Windows or Mac user.
It's something that they ought to know.
>> Since when did MP3 software comprise part of an operating system? It is
>> a userspace tool.
> See above. Normal users don't care about userspaces, tools, quick searches,
> or anything of the kind. They just want something that works.
And when it doesn't work, they haven't a clue.
> Unfortunately,
> Linux won't give that to them, because geeks refuse to admit that it doesn't
> work, and blame all problems on the user.
Linux does offer that to users, but those are distros I avoid like the
plague because I am a competent user.
White Spirit
> White Spirit writes:
>> No, they are different distributions of the same operating system
>> (GNU/Linux).
> No. Linux by itself isn't much of an OS at all;
That's why I specifically said 'GNU/Linux'.
> that's why tons of software
> have to be added on in "distributions" in order to provide even basic
> functionality.
The same is true for any OS.
> Other true operating systems are complete out of the box--no add-ons required.
Rubbish. If Win32 is so complete, why are people abandoning Internet
Explorer in favour of Firefox and acquiring other software to run on it?
>> The difference in standards is negligible and hidden from the general
>> user.
> If there are differences, there is no standard.
> You can still run MS-DOS applications on Windows.
Not all of them. Probably around 50%. Whereas, I can install (or do a
rolling upgrade up to) the latest version of GNU/Linux and know that I
can still use software that was written for earlier versions of the kernel.
White Spirit
>> Microsoft had NT more than a decade ago.
> More than fifteen years ago to be correct, but it didn't work...
> We all had to strain to keep servers running, (you'd be lucky to keep an NT
> server running for 7 days because it 'ate' memory when working), until the
> inevitable 'SP 3' came out...
Do you remember the 'ping of death' for Windows 95 servers? I also
remember that Windows 95 or NT was the version that used to crash after
around 47 days' uptime because of an integer overflow...
Roger Hunt
null.invalid> writes
>
>Even a school child can understand if you multiply width (of pixels)
>by height (of pixels) then you get an AREA (occupied by pixels).
No, no - you get an ARSE, occupied by pixels of poo.
Artefacts are often found on the porcelain if the digestive system
is overclocked.
--
Roger Hunt
Professor Emeritus of bullshit
Chris H
<mxsm...@gmail.com> writes
Its architecture is UNIX which is was more advanced than Win3.1...
actually most of the worlds Internet runs on UNIX.
Jack Campin - bogus address
> version, not a thousand versions. A thousand "standard" versions really
> just means no standard version.
You mean like:
Windows XP
Windows Vista Starter
Windows Vista Home Basic
Windows Vista Home Premium
Windows Vista Business
Windows Vista Enterprise
Windows Vista Ultimate
most of which come in optional N and KN versions,
and may or may not be updated with SP1, along with
Windows Vista Business for Embedded Systems
Windows Vista Ultimate for Embedded Systems
?
==== j a c k at c a m p i n . m e . u k === <http://www.campin.me.uk> ====
Jack Campin, 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland == mob 07800 739 557
CD-ROMs and free stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, and Mac logic fonts
William Black
"White Spirit" <wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gqg7hk$13m$4...@news.motzarella.org...
NT, 'Server Service Pack 1' fixed that.
The guy who claimed he's had an NT server running since they came out
without a problem is just lying. No NT server would run more than six weeks
or so without a fatal error caused by an overflow.
NT was just Microsoft 'LAN manager' V3, and what's more if you look at the
original file headers on an original NT distribution disk it says so.
Anyone who pretends differently, like Mitzi, doesn't know the horrible
history of Microsoft networking products...