Pros and Cons - NO FLAMES OR FUD
Rhys
This question should be taken in light of switching from Windows XP to
Linux instead of Windows 7 or Vista. It should also include the same
for switching from a Mac OSX environment, making clear reference to
the transitional period and relating to not just one computer but
several to many.
Last point, no Flaming, no FUD, no personal vendettas or opinions,
purely objective comparison.
Sinister Midget III
> What are the pros and cons of linux?
> Last point, no Flaming, no FUD, no personal vendettas or opinions,
> purely objective comparison.
I started to answer. But I can't because you don't want any opinions.
What are the pros and cons of Windows or Mac? No opinions, please.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
The cost of living hasn't affected its popularity.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eee PC900 16G SSD 2G RAM Ubuntu 9.04
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon
OK. Some thoughts from a reasonably new user who uses both Windows (XP
and Vista) and Ubuntu.
Ubuntu boots faster than either XP or Vista on the same hardware.
Ubuntu seems to not drop the wireless connection like Vista seems to do.
If you are what I might call a "power" user of MS Office, then Open
Office, while more than adequate for the average user, in some areas
doesn't cut the mustard. However OO will use any email client address
database you choose (including multiple databases) for address data to
insert in documents or labels and envelopes - MS Office will ONLY use
Outlook
There is still no full Linux equivalent of Outlook (although Thunderbird
with Lightning Calendar extension is rapidly catching up).
Security update patches tend to be released as soon as, rather than once
a month (if at all) as is the MS cycle.
I find personally, that networking two Linux machines isn't as intuitive
as networking two Windows machines. However, networking a Linux machine
with Windows is a doddle.
No viruses or malware to worry about.
Webcams can be problematical in Linux
Printer installation, including network printers seems to be far
superior and easy compared to Windows..
Many Linux (OS) files are text files so they can be edited with a text
editor, unlike dll files in Windows.
RonB
Never used OSX, so I can be of no help there.
Linux Pros:
No malware, virus, trojan or spybot problems.
No "slowdown" over the months as you load new programs and fonts.
No Windows registry so no registry issues.
Easier to install than Windows.
Comes with all basic programs for word processing, spreadsheets, etc.
Easier upgrades (all applications and OS upgrade with one command).
More "solid" - no BSOD, and rogue programs can be killed from a terminal.
Tons of good quality, free software.
Will read Windows partitions and manipulate Windows data w/o issue.
Linux Cons
Is not Windows, there is a learning curve when tweaking or fixing.
Will not natively (without Wine) run Windows applications, like Word,
Excel, Outlook, etc., though OpenOffice does what I need or you could
use Crossover (commercial Wine package).
Issues playing Windows games (not a concern for me)
Since I'm not a business, the "transitional period" was just a matter of
backing up and wiping the hard drive -- then installing Linux. I also
have a few Linux books around for reference (and I had dual-booted Linux
for several years before finally getting rid of XP). And, to ease the
transition, you could run Windows in a virtual machine (like
VirtualBox). That's what I do for Visual dBASE, Movie Magic Screenwriter
and NetObjects Fusion. Since I never used Microsoft Office or Outlook,
there was no transition issues involved for me there.
If I were considering experimenting with Linux, I would dedicate a
computer (or a least a hard drive) for testing purposes. Then you don't
have to worry about dual-booting or possible data loss.
Good luck.
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
Terry Porter
I suggest you download a Ubuntu 9.04 Linux distribution and try it on your
XP PC. Ubuntu 9.04 is a 'live CD' so you can run it from the CD only
without affecting your host OS in any way.
When you have tried it, please report back here and tell us about the pros
and cons of linux taken in light of switching from Windows XP to
Linux instead of Windows 7 or Vista. It should also include the same
for switching from a Mac OSX environment, making clear reference to
the transitional period and relating to not just one computer but
several to many.?
Last point, no Flaming, no FUD, no personal vendettas or opinions, purely
objective comparison.
You can freely and legally obtain Linux Ubuntu 9.04 from here:-
http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download
--
If we wish to reduce our ignorance, there are people we will
indeed listen to. Trolls are not among those people, as trolls, more or
less by definition, *promote* ignorance.
Kelsey Bjarnason, C.O.L.A. 2008
Hadron
> Rhys wrote:
>> What are the pros and cons of linux?
>>
>> This question should be taken in light of switching from Windows XP to
>> Linux instead of Windows 7 or Vista. It should also include the same
>> for switching from a Mac OSX environment, making clear reference to
>> the transitional period and relating to not just one computer but
>> several to many.
>>
>> Last point, no Flaming, no FUD, no personal vendettas or opinions,
>> purely objective comparison.
>
> Never used OSX, so I can be of no help there.
>
> Linux Pros:
> No malware, virus, trojan or spybot problems.
Not yet. But fundamentally yes you're right.
> No "slowdown" over the months as you load new programs and fonts.
I never had that with Windows XP.
> No Windows registry so no registry issues.
But does have application specific equivalents which can cause issues.
> Easier to install than Windows.
Depends on the distro and the HW involved but certainly with older HW it
can be a lot easier.
> Comes with all basic programs for word processing, spreadsheets, etc.
Depends on the distro and all also available for Windows.
> Easier upgrades (all applications and OS upgrade with one command).
No, not all. Only if there are synaptic (or equivalents) package updates
and its not installed from source (in most cases). But generally a lot
easier. Not that most people update that often anyway.
> More "solid" - no BSOD, and rogue programs can be killed from a
> terminal.
Clearly not true as the number of freezes in the Ubuntu fourms
prove. Personally I find my debian Lenny system to be totally stable. A
lot of the apps are crap and crash, but the core OS us faultless for a
long time now.
> Tons of good quality, free software.
Even more for Windows.
> Will read Windows partitions and manipulate Windows data w/o issue.
>
> Linux Cons
> Is not Windows, there is a learning curve when tweaking or fixing.
> Will not natively (without Wine) run Windows applications, like Word,
> Excel, Outlook, etc., though OpenOffice does what I need or you could
> use Crossover (commercial Wine package).
> Issues playing Windows games (not a concern for me)
A lot are supported using CEDEGA.
>
> Since I'm not a business, the "transitional period" was just a matter of
> backing up and wiping the hard drive -- then installing Linux. I also
> have a few Linux books around for reference (and I had dual-booted Linux
> for several years before finally getting rid of XP). And, to ease the
> transition, you could run Windows in a virtual machine (like
> VirtualBox). That's what I do for Visual dBASE, Movie Magic Screenwriter
> and NetObjects Fusion. Since I never used Microsoft Office or Outlook,
> there was no transition issues involved for me there.
>
> If I were considering experimenting with Linux, I would dedicate a
> computer (or a least a hard drive) for testing purposes. Then you don't
> have to worry about dual-booting or possible data loss.
>
> Good luck.
Good advocacy.
--
In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading
lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to
another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that
computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller
philo
I've used XP for many years and never had a problem with it...
but it grew tedious to constantly maintain it.
Plus I was starting to get a bit paranoid about security.
This year I switched over to Linux (95%+) and found that I have an easy
to use system with a GUI that looks better than Windows.
For the most part I've found excellent Linux applications to replace
many of my former Windows applications...and under Wine, the majority of
the Win-apps I need still run.
Of course, if you use Linux, you will have to get used to doing many
things differently, but that should not be too big of a deal.
Don't know anything about Win7...but I have run Vista on the same
machine that I am now using Linux on...and the performance of Linux is
superior to that of Vista.
Is Linux perfect?
No.
If I were you, I'd keep XP but dual boot with Linux.
Not too likely you will ever need to go with Vista or Win7
It looks like Linux is going to keep on improving,
while Windows has already proven itself as getting worse.
Hadron
> Rhys wrote:
>> What are the pros and cons of linux?
>>
>> This question should be taken in light of switching from Windows XP to
>> Linux instead of Windows 7 or Vista. It should also include the same
>> for switching from a Mac OSX environment, making clear reference to
>> the transitional period and relating to not just one computer but
>> several to many.
>>
>> Last point, no Flaming, no FUD, no personal vendettas or opinions,
>> purely objective comparison.
>
>
> I've used XP for many years and never had a problem with it...
> but it grew tedious to constantly maintain it.
> Plus I was starting to get a bit paranoid about security.
I'm curious as to what maintenance you deemed necessary that took time
and was tedious. I just kept up to date virus SW and, err, that was it
pretty much. Obviously I removed services I didn't need anymore same as
I would with gnome/Linux.
>
> This year I switched over to Linux (95%+) and found that I have an easy
> to use system with a GUI that looks better than Windows.
I don't think it does look better personally. Equal maybe. KDE I hate
because it's an ill thought out mess. Gnome is excellent.
>
> For the most part I've found excellent Linux applications to replace
> many of my former Windows applications...and under Wine, the majority of
> the Win-apps I need still run.
And if you use CEDEGA many of your favorite games will too.
>
>
> Of course, if you use Linux, you will have to get used to doing many
> things differently, but that should not be too big of a deal.
>
>
> Don't know anything about Win7...but I have run Vista on the same
> machine that I am now using Linux on...and the performance of Linux is
> superior to that of Vista.
>
> Is Linux perfect?
>
> No.
>
> If I were you, I'd keep XP but dual boot with Linux.
>
> Not too likely you will ever need to go with Vista or Win7
>
> It looks like Linux is going to keep on improving,
> while Windows has already proven itself as getting worse.
>
Then he can switch to Linux and run XP in VirtualBox if necessary. It's
what I do now.
ZnU
<4ff092ba-ed96-4499...@u39g2000pru.googlegroups.com>,
Rhys <rbchi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Relative to OS X, the only real advantages for Linux in the general
desktop market are that it's free and runs (without any hacking) on
non-Apple hardware.
Relative to Windows, there's also much less of a malware threat.
Relative to both systems, however, Linux still suffers from having a
smaller pool of mainstream desktop apps (and many of those it does have
tend to be less mature and of lower quality), and from various issues
with consistency and integration across applications. The Linux driver
situation can also be rather dicy with respect to some hardware; some
stuff just isn't supported, or the drivers aren't very good, or you'll
have to jump through hoops to get things working.
--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
JEDIDIAH
> In article
><4ff092ba-ed96-4499...@u39g2000pru.googlegroups.com>,
> Rhys <rbchi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What are the pros and cons of linux?
>>
>> This question should be taken in light of switching from Windows XP to
>> Linux instead of Windows 7 or Vista. It should also include the same
>> for switching from a Mac OSX environment, making clear reference to
>> the transitional period and relating to not just one computer but
>> several to many.
>>
>> Last point, no Flaming, no FUD, no personal vendettas or opinions,
>> purely objective comparison.
>
> Relative to OS X, the only real advantages for Linux in the general
> desktop market are that it's free and runs (without any hacking) on
> non-Apple hardware.
It's also more generally open.
The apps are much more of the form of "drag, drop and execute".
This in contrast to something like iPhoto where you are expected
to assmimilate your data into some database before proceeding.
Apple also has a NIH mentality. They don't play well with alien
formats and quite often their tools choke on data that did not originate
in one of their own tools.
>
> Relative to Windows, there's also much less of a malware threat.
>
> Relative to both systems, however, Linux still suffers from having a
> smaller pool of mainstream desktop apps (and many of those it does have
> tend to be less mature and of lower quality), and from various issues
Not really. That gap is narrowing consdierably.
OTOH, a Mac will still fall down when presented with simple use
cases like something so trivial as trying to take a few videos from
a camera and burning those to a DVD.
Before you despair at the state of Linux it helps to actually
use the competition and kick the tires a bit.
> with consistency and integration across applications. The Linux driver
> situation can also be rather dicy with respect to some hardware; some
> stuff just isn't supported, or the drivers aren't very good, or you'll
> have to jump through hoops to get things working.
This is rich.
My Macs run Linux because of lack of sufficient hardware support in MacOS.
Even the admittedly mediocre intel (linux) video drivers seem to be better than
what Apple has to offer.
Like I said: it pays to actually play with other technology. You find
all sorts of surprises. The crude red-eye tool in iPhoto is a good example.
All the spit and polish and conformance to some sort of written guidelines
doesn't really mean much if the actual functionality isn't there or is some
how broken.
...and iMovie complains about the onboard video chipset not being up
to snuff. Now that's just sad. Create a machine with "no user serviceable
parts" and you don't even make it suitable for your own apps.
--
"Microsoft looks at new ideas, they don't evaluate whether
the idea will move the industry forward, they ask, |||
'how will it help us sell more copies of Windows?'" / | \
-- Bill Gates
Tim Smith
> What are the pros and cons of linux?
>
> This question should be taken in light of switching from Windows XP to
> Linux instead of Windows 7 or Vista. It should also include the same
> for switching from a Mac OSX environment, making clear reference to
> the transitional period and relating to not just one computer but
> several to many.
For an excellent look at going from Windows to Mac, check out this blog:
Start at the very first entry, from February 2008. The guy is a Windows
developer, who had dismissed it when many of his friends and family got
Macs as just being non-techies looking for something easy or being drawn
to the good Apple ads. Later, techies he knew got Macs, and loved them,
but couldn't really tell him why:
The final straw for me in reevaluating the Macintosh was when two
friends of mine that were long time PC guys, heavy techies that were
also developers, went out and got Macs. They raved about the
machines, talking about how nicely put together everything was and
how stuff just worked really well. The funny thing was neither of my
friends cited real, hard specific things. It was more a feeling. "I
love my Mac". It just seemed so personal.
So he decided to get a Mac laptop to check it out, and to blog about it.
Now, a little over a year later, he's still a Windows developer--doing
all his development in a virtual machine on one of his Macs, and has
gone pretty much completely Mac for his computing, and he blogged about
it the whole way, covering what he liked, what he didn't, what problems
he had, how he overcame them, what apps he found to replace his Windows
apps, and so on.
The nice thing about this blog is that he doesn't appear to have any
secret agenda. He's not a secret Microsoft hater (or a public Microsoft
hater, for that matter). He was perfectly happy with Windows when he
tried a Mac.
Anyone know of a similar blog for Linux? Most of the switch stories to
Linux that I've seen have been from people who wanted to get off of
Windows, either for political or technical reasons, and so had a strong
motive to want to really like Linux. Alison, on the other hand, would
have been fine with concluding that Mac sucks and living happily ever
after with only Windows machines.
--
--Tim Smith
cc
> What are the pros and cons of linux?
>
> This question should be taken in light of switching from Windows XP to
> Linux instead of Windows 7 or Vista. It should also include the same
> for switching from a Mac OSX environment, making clear reference to
> the transitional period and relating to not just one computer but
> several to many.
Who wants to do all that fucking work for you? A tiny minority here
have real jobs. The rest have to bring down Microsoft. There's no time
for you and your silly computer.
> Last point, no Flaming, no FUD, no personal vendettas or opinions,
> purely objective comparison.
Flame: Fuck you bitch.
FUD: Linux won't work with your printer.
Personal Vendetta: I'm a microsoft shill out to damage Roy's
reputation.
Opinion: Bacon is the single greatest food of all time.
Purely objective comparison: Alice in Chains is the best group to come
out of the early 90's because they were the only popular band to
truely embrace the true grunge sound.
ZnU
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> On 2009-05-14, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > In article
> ><4ff092ba-ed96-4499...@u39g2000pru.googlegroups.com>,
> > Rhys <rbchi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> What are the pros and cons of linux?
> >>
> >> This question should be taken in light of switching from Windows
> >> XP to Linux instead of Windows 7 or Vista. It should also include
> >> the same for switching from a Mac OSX environment, making clear
> >> reference to the transitional period and relating to not just one
> >> computer but several to many.
> >>
> >> Last point, no Flaming, no FUD, no personal vendettas or opinions,
> >> purely objective comparison.
> >
> > Relative to OS X, the only real advantages for Linux in the general
> > desktop market are that it's free and runs (without any hacking) on
> > non-Apple hardware.
>
> It's also more generally open.
>
> The apps are much more of the form of "drag, drop and execute".
Huh? Most Linux app installations happen via standard distro package
management systems. This is somewhat better than the Windows situation
where third-party installer apps are often used. But if you want
drag-and-drop install, OS X in your best bet; even OS X doesn't use it
for anything, but it's more common there than anywhere else.
> This in contrast to something like iPhoto where you are expected to
> assmimilate your data into some database before proceeding.
To the extent that this is actually true, it's usually quite easy to get
data in and out, and there are some fairly compelling reasons for it,
like allowing the user to organize and tag files in ways that the file
system alone doesn't allow for.
The truth is, most users aren't really all that good at file management,
and managing thousands of photo files in the file manager isn't
something they're at all interested in doing.
> Apple also has a NIH mentality. They don't play well with alien
> formats and quite often their tools choke on data that did not originate
> in one of their own tools.
This claim is at least 10 years out of date. Apple is on precisely the
opposite trajectory.
> > Relative to Windows, there's also much less of a malware threat.
> >
> > Relative to both systems, however, Linux still suffers from having
> > a smaller pool of mainstream desktop apps (and many of those it
> > does have tend to be less mature and of lower quality), and from
> > various issues
>
> Not really. That gap is narrowing consdierably.
The gap is narrowing with respect to a few high-profile applications;
it's considerably worse once you move away from things like web browsers
and office suites, which virtually 100% of computer users need, into
slightly more esoteric categories like video editing, page layout, or
small business accounting.
> OTOH, a Mac will still fall down when presented with simple use cases
> like something so trivial as trying to take a few videos from a
> camera and burning those to a DVD.
You're basically making stuff up. A typical consumer will find Apple's
tools for this purpose to be far superior to Linux equivalents. Plus
they come pre-installed on every Mac; you don't have to track them down
and install them.
> Before you despair at the state of Linux it helps to actually use the
> competition and kick the tires a bit.
>
> > with consistency and integration across applications. The Linux
> > driver situation can also be rather dicy with respect to some
> > hardware; some stuff just isn't supported, or the drivers aren't
> > very good, or you'll have to jump through hoops to get things
> > working.
>
> This is rich.
>
> My Macs run Linux because of lack of sufficient hardware support in
> MacOS.
You'll note that I listed three issues with respect to hardware support
in Linux.
OS X does support less hardware than Linux. But it's very obvious before
you buy, with OS X, whether the item will be supported or not, and if it
is supported it will be very easy to get it to work, in virtually all
cases.
With Linux, in contrast, it can often be non-trivial to find reliable
information about whether some piece of hardware is supported, and even
if it is, you might have to jump through quite a few hoops (that regular
users have essentially no hope of ever managing) to make things work.
Compared with Windows, Linux supports less hardware, and compatibility
information is less available. Users of both systems will occasionally
encounter problems getting supposedly supported hardware to work. These
problems are still somewhat more frequent in Linux and vendor technical
support is less likely to be available to Linux users.
[snip]
RickyBobby
"Rhys" <rbchi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ff092ba-ed96-4499...@u39g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
Windows is the best because most people use it and it has Office which runs
the world.
Mac is the second best because a lot of people use iTunes but there is no
office suite available.
Linux is the last resort because it does the least but it is free so you can
thumb your nose at the commerical system.
JEDIDIAH
> In article <slrnh0oes...@nomad.mishnet>,
> JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-05-14, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> > In article
>> ><4ff092ba-ed96-4499...@u39g2000pru.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Rhys <rbchi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> What are the pros and cons of linux?
>> >>
>> >> This question should be taken in light of switching from Windows
>> >> XP to Linux instead of Windows 7 or Vista. It should also include
>> >> the same for switching from a Mac OSX environment, making clear
>> >> reference to the transitional period and relating to not just one
>> >> computer but several to many.
>> >>
>> >> Last point, no Flaming, no FUD, no personal vendettas or opinions,
>> >> purely objective comparison.
>> >
>> > Relative to OS X, the only real advantages for Linux in the general
>> > desktop market are that it's free and runs (without any hacking) on
>> > non-Apple hardware.
>>
>> It's also more generally open.
>>
>> The apps are much more of the form of "drag, drop and execute".
>
> Huh? Most Linux app installations happen via standard distro package
I'm talking about "using" stuff rather than "installing stuff".
> management systems. This is somewhat better than the Windows situation
> where third-party installer apps are often used. But if you want
> drag-and-drop install, OS X in your best bet; even OS X doesn't use it
Except it's ENTIRELY NON-INTUITVE to the random user.
A least an installshield script takes care of everything. The same
goes for any Unix package. You select it in your file mangler, the
right handler is excuted, and that handler does the necessary work.
There is no "secret handshake" involved.
Someone with ANY experience from ANY GUI can easily stumble on the
solution quite by accident.
Apple has strange ideas about "intuitive".
> for anything, but it's more common there than anywhere else.
Not really.
Apple apps are more likely proprietary sorts of islands where
the idea of just dragging and dropping things around is actually
somewhat broken.
>
>> This in contrast to something like iPhoto where you are expected to
>> assmimilate your data into some database before proceeding.
>
> To the extent that this is actually true, it's usually quite easy to get
> data in and out, and there are some fairly compelling reasons for it,
> like allowing the user to organize and tag files in ways that the file
> system alone doesn't allow for.
Like what exactly?
What exacty does the 'iPhoto hive' buy me besides a really poorly
organized layout that doesn't even acknowlege that there are months in
a year and present me with 6000 pictures at once?
>
> The truth is, most users aren't really all that good at file management,
> and managing thousands of photo files in the file manager isn't
> something they're at all interested in doing.
They must not be interested in ANY sort of organization then.
iPhoto isn't even bright enough to segregate groups of pictures
that have been taken at different times. This is something that you
should expect of something that's database-esque. It's the classic sort
of grouping feature that database technology gets you.
If iPhoto can't sepaarate my "rolls" from each other than the
filesystem is kind of the only option left.
>
>> Apple also has a NIH mentality. They don't play well with alien
>> formats and quite often their tools choke on data that did not originate
>> in one of their own tools.
>
> This claim is at least 10 years out of date. Apple is on precisely the
> opposite trajectory.
iTunes doesn't do well with alien mp3s. It can't handle older id3
tags. It also doesn't do well with directories that have non-media files
in them.
iTunes also doesn't handle alien video file formats AT ALL.
Neither does iMovie or iDVD.
>
>> > Relative to Windows, there's also much less of a malware threat.
>> >
>> > Relative to both systems, however, Linux still suffers from having
>> > a smaller pool of mainstream desktop apps (and many of those it
>> > does have tend to be less mature and of lower quality), and from
>> > various issues
>>
>> Not really. That gap is narrowing consdierably.
>
> The gap is narrowing with respect to a few high-profile applications;
> it's considerably worse once you move away from things like web browsers
> and office suites, which virtually 100% of computer users need, into
> slightly more esoteric categories like video editing, page layout, or
> small business accounting.
Not at all.
This is the very sort of area where "drag any sort of file" to the
DVD program and "just burn it" is much better done by Windows or Linux.
Windows for all of it's problems doesn't quite suffer the NIH issues.
>
>> OTOH, a Mac will still fall down when presented with simple use cases
>> like something so trivial as trying to take a few videos from a
>> camera and burning those to a DVD.
>
> You're basically making stuff up. A typical consumer will find Apple's
Not at all.
I did this myself.
I was rather surprised at the result.
> tools for this purpose to be far superior to Linux equivalents. Plus
> they come pre-installed on every Mac; you don't have to track them down
> and install them.
Being pre-installed doesn't help if it doesn't do the job.
>
>> Before you despair at the state of Linux it helps to actually use the
>> competition and kick the tires a bit.
>>
>> > with consistency and integration across applications. The Linux
>> > driver situation can also be rather dicy with respect to some
>> > hardware; some stuff just isn't supported, or the drivers aren't
>> > very good, or you'll have to jump through hoops to get things
>> > working.
>>
>> This is rich.
>>
>> My Macs run Linux because of lack of sufficient hardware support in
>> MacOS.
>
> You'll note that I listed three issues with respect to hardware support
> in Linux.
>
> OS X does support less hardware than Linux. But it's very obvious before
MacOS supports less hardware than Linux at the same effort level.
> you buy, with OS X, whether the item will be supported or not, and if it
> is supported it will be very easy to get it to work, in virtually all
> cases.
I think you are grossly overstating that "obviousness".
With most consumers, ANY though or ANY effort is a bit too much.
I mean come on, you're talking about people that can't be bothered
to create folders and drag stuff therein. How do you expect them to be
thoughtful when buying hardware?
>
> With Linux, in contrast, it can often be non-trivial to find reliable
> information about whether some piece of hardware is supported, and even
> if it is, you might have to jump through quite a few hoops (that regular
> users have essentially no hope of ever managing) to make things work.
No it isn't.
It requires the same basic preparation that is required on any platform
before buying something that may end up being junk or unsuitable.
>
> Compared with Windows, Linux supports less hardware, and compatibility
> information is less available. Users of both systems will occasionally
> encounter problems getting supposedly supported hardware to work. These
> problems are still somewhat more frequent in Linux and vendor technical
> support is less likely to be available to Linux users.
After seeing the official Windows drivers for the Hauppauge 1212 and
experiencing a recent HP printer snafu with Vista, I am not so sure that
I really want "official support" from hardware vendors. It's really not
what it's cracked up to be.
[deletia]
Peter Köhlmann
>
> "Rhys" <rbchi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4ff092ba-
ed96-4499-9d4...@u39g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
>> What are the pros and cons of linux?
>>
>> This question should be taken in light of switching from Windows XP to
>> Linux instead of Windows 7 or Vista. It should also include the same
>> for switching from a Mac OSX environment, making clear reference to
>> the transitional period and relating to not just one computer but
>> several to many.
>>
>> Last point, no Flaming, no FUD, no personal vendettas or opinions,
>> purely objective comparison.
>
> Windows is the best because most people use it
Millions of flies...
> and it has Office which runs the world.
Idiot
--
What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth? Judging from realistic
simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog,
we can assume it will be pretty bad. --- Dave Barry
JEDIDIAH
> RickyBobby wrote:
>
>>
>> "Rhys" <rbchi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4ff092ba-
> ed96-4499-9d4...@u39g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
>>> What are the pros and cons of linux?
>>>
>>> This question should be taken in light of switching from Windows XP to
>>> Linux instead of Windows 7 or Vista. It should also include the same
>>> for switching from a Mac OSX environment, making clear reference to
>>> the transitional period and relating to not just one computer but
>>> several to many.
>>>
>>> Last point, no Flaming, no FUD, no personal vendettas or opinions,
>>> purely objective comparison.
>>
>> Windows is the best because most people use it
>
> Millions of flies...
>
>> and it has Office which runs the world.
>
> Idiot
...actually I thought it was sorta kinda funny considering the usual drek.
Still a bit of a troll but amusing...
ZnU
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
The idea that you'd copy an application onto your hard drive the same
way you would any other file is only "non-intuitive" to users of other
systems, who don't understand how things could possibly be that simple.
[snip]
> Apple apps are more likely proprietary sorts of islands where
> the idea of just dragging and dropping things around is actually
> somewhat broken.
This is an utterly insane claim to make in 2009.
> >> This in contrast to something like iPhoto where you are expected
> >> to assmimilate your data into some database before proceeding.
> >
> > To the extent that this is actually true, it's usually quite easy
> > to get data in and out, and there are some fairly compelling
> > reasons for it, like allowing the user to organize and tag files in
> > ways that the file system alone doesn't allow for.
>
> Like what exactly?
>
> What exacty does the 'iPhoto hive' buy me besides a really poorly
> organized layout that doesn't even acknowlege that there are months
> in a year and present me with 6000 pictures at once?
Seriously? Watch some videos: http://www.apple.com/ilife/iphoto/
I'm sure you'll come back and say you can do all of that with shell
scripts or whatever. I'm not interested in convincing completely loony
Linux advocates of anything anymore.
[snip]
> >> Apple also has a NIH mentality. They don't play well with alien
> >> formats and quite often their tools choke on data that did not
> >> originate in one of their own tools.
> >
> > This claim is at least 10 years out of date. Apple is on precisely
> > the opposite trajectory.
>
> iTunes doesn't do well with alien mp3s. It can't handle older id3 tags.
I have never, in 8 years of using iTunes, encountered this problem.
> It also doesn't do well with directories that have non-media files in
> them.
This doesn't particularly have anything to do with "openness".
> iTunes also doesn't handle alien video file formats AT ALL.
>
> Neither does iMovie or iDVD.
iTunes handles whatever QuickTime can play. QuickTime ships with quite a
few codecs and has an extensible architecture that allows more to be
added.
> >> > Relative to Windows, there's also much less of a malware threat.
> >> >
> >> > Relative to both systems, however, Linux still suffers from having
> >> > a smaller pool of mainstream desktop apps (and many of those it
> >> > does have tend to be less mature and of lower quality), and from
> >> > various issues
> >>
> >> Not really. That gap is narrowing consdierably.
> >
> > The gap is narrowing with respect to a few high-profile applications;
> > it's considerably worse once you move away from things like web browsers
> > and office suites, which virtually 100% of computer users need, into
> > slightly more esoteric categories like video editing, page layout, or
> > small business accounting.
>
> Not at all.
Linux advocates can only claim this because they're utterly out of touch
with the needs of regular users of these applications on other platforms.
> This is the very sort of area where "drag any sort of file" to the
> DVD program and "just burn it" is much better done by Windows or Linux.
> Windows for all of it's problems doesn't quite suffer the NIH issues.
I strongly suspect you're trying to use iDVD for something it really
isn't designed for, like burning downloaded AVIs. Apple's consumer video
toolchain works very well with the footage generated by consumer
camcorders.
[snip]
> > With Linux, in contrast, it can often be non-trivial to find reliable
> > information about whether some piece of hardware is supported, and even
> > if it is, you might have to jump through quite a few hoops (that regular
> > users have essentially no hope of ever managing) to make things work.
>
> No it isn't.
>
> It requires the same basic preparation that is required on any platform
> before buying something that may end up being junk or unsuitable.
This is pure fantasy. Hardware will very commonly mention Mac
compatibility, when it exists, on the packaging (Apple has a nice logo
for them to use), the manufacturer web site, or in the manufacturer
provided description on Amazon, etc. This is far, far more rare with
Linux. And unsurprisingly; much of the hardware Linux supports isn't
even supported by vendor-supplied drivers, so they may not even know
that it's supported.
> > Compared with Windows, Linux supports less hardware, and compatibility
> > information is less available. Users of both systems will occasionally
> > encounter problems getting supposedly supported hardware to work. These
> > problems are still somewhat more frequent in Linux and vendor technical
> > support is less likely to be available to Linux users.
>
> After seeing the official Windows drivers for the Hauppauge 1212 and
> experiencing a recent HP printer snafu with Vista, I am not so sure that
> I really want "official support" from hardware vendors. It's really not
> what it's cracked up to be.
It usually beats the alternative. Ever tried to get color-accurate
output from a photo printer using third-party drivers? OS X supports
CUPS drivers and has many official vendor drivers, so one can compare
side by side. The results from the CUPS drivers weren't pretty, the last
time I tried this.
Tim Smith
"RickyBobby" <nasc...@cox.net> wrote:
> Mac is the second best because a lot of people use iTunes but there is no
> office suite available.
Microsoft Office has been available for the Mac continuously since 1989,
with individual components of Office being available even earlier (Word
in 1984, Excel in 1985, and PowerPoint in 1987).
--
--Tim Smith
Erik Funkenbusch
Not to mention iWork is a pretty capable suite. I understand that
OpenOffice for the Mac has recently got better, but for a long time it was
a pretty bad port. There are also a number of smaller suites as well.
Peter Köhlmann
It was not as good as the linux version, as it always lagged behind the
linux versions.
Currently they are nearly at the same level, though
My son runs most of his computing stuff on a Macbook. He uses OO for the
Mac. He has yet to encounter any MSO document which will not open
practically identical to the MS Office
Which is true for the linux version, too
> There are also a number of smaller suites as well.
Big deal
--
Just out of curiosity does this actually mean something or have some
of the few remaining bits of your brain just evaporated?
RickyBobby
"Peter K�hlmann" <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:guhpvf$5pg$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
> RickyBobby wrote:
>
>>
>> "Rhys" <rbchi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4ff092ba-
> ed96-4499-9d4...@u39g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
>>> What are the pros and cons of linux?
>>>
>>> This question should be taken in light of switching from Windows XP to
>>> Linux instead of Windows 7 or Vista. It should also include the same
>>> for switching from a Mac OSX environment, making clear reference to
>>> the transitional period and relating to not just one computer but
>>> several to many.
>>>
>>> Last point, no Flaming, no FUD, no personal vendettas or opinions,
>>> purely objective comparison.
>>
>> Windows is the best because most people use it
>
> Millions of flies...
>
>> and it has Office which runs the world.
>
> Idiot
>
> --
>
There is some high end business software such as Oracle and SAP which offers
more features such as database merge and stuff.
philo
> philo <ph...@privacy.net> writes:
>
>> Rhys wrote:
>>> What are the pros and cons of linux?
>>>
>>> This question should be taken in light of switching from Windows XP to
>>> Linux instead of Windows 7 or Vista. It should also include the same
>>> for switching from a Mac OSX environment, making clear reference to
>>> the transitional period and relating to not just one computer but
>>> several to many.
>>>
>>> Last point, no Flaming, no FUD, no personal vendettas or opinions,
>>> purely objective comparison.
>>
>> I've used XP for many years and never had a problem with it...
>> but it grew tedious to constantly maintain it.
>> Plus I was starting to get a bit paranoid about security.
>
> I'm curious as to what maintenance you deemed necessary that took time
> and was tedious. I just kept up to date virus SW and, err, that was it
> pretty much. Obviously I removed services I didn't need anymore same as
> I would with gnome/Linux.
I am not the type of person who goes to "unsafe" websites...or does
generally foolish things. I decided to really seriously look at getting
rid of Windows when I performed a full virus scan and found a root kit
in my system-restore folder.
No evidence my machine had actually gotten infected...but just wondered
how it got there. Even with careful use and even having a virus checker
with real-time protection it's still a good idea to run a full virus
scan once in a while.
Too many nags to perform Windows updates. Turn off Windows update, then
a nag that Windows update is turned off. I was just getting sick of it.
>
>> This year I switched over to Linux (95%+) and found that I have an easy
>> to use system with a GUI that looks better than Windows.
>
> I don't think it does look better personally. Equal maybe. KDE I hate
> because it's an ill thought out mess. Gnome is excellent.
I'm a Gnome man myself, but to me the GUI is irrelevant. I never noticed
how bad the Windows GUI was until I tried all the new Linux
distributions. I don't care one way or an other what the GUI actually
looks like...I keep all the effects turned off and make it as "plain
vanilla" as possible...What I meant by "nice looking GUI" was simply
nice clear, legible fonts...in other words: No eye strain.
Once I saw what really nice fonts look like...when I booted back to
Windows, with a bit of tweaking I managed to improve things...but with
Linux it was actually a lot simpler getting it to look good...as it
was pretty nice right from the start.
I think the best and cleanest fonts I've ever seen were in OS/2 warp...
But I think my Linux setup now looks about that clean.
>
>> For the most part I've found excellent Linux applications to replace
>> many of my former Windows applications...and under Wine, the majority of
>> the Win-apps I need still run.
>
> And if you use CEDEGA many of your favorite games will too.
>
The only game I play is Tetris, the version that came with BOWEP...
It runs on Windows 3.0 and up. I am not a heavy gamer...and as long as
Tetris runs under Wine...I'm happy with it
>>
>> Of course, if you use Linux, you will have to get used to doing many
>> things differently, but that should not be too big of a deal.
>>
>>
>> Don't know anything about Win7...but I have run Vista on the same
>> machine that I am now using Linux on...and the performance of Linux is
>> superior to that of Vista.
>>
>> Is Linux perfect?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> If I were you, I'd keep XP but dual boot with Linux.
>>
>> Not too likely you will ever need to go with Vista or Win7
>>
>> It looks like Linux is going to keep on improving,
>> while Windows has already proven itself as getting worse.
>>
>
> Then he can switch to Linux and run XP in VirtualBox if necessary. It's
> what I do now.
>
>
I have tried virtual machines and prefer running each OS natively...
Of course, since I had some fairly minimal H/W until recently.
it's probably no longer a necessity.
For the most part I just simply like fooling around with different OS's
My most recent bit of experimentation has been with Plan 9
http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9/
If anyone lese has ever used it, I'd like to hear
JEDIDIAH
> In article <slrnh0opc...@nomad.mishnet>,
> JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-05-14, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> > In article <slrnh0oes...@nomad.mishnet>,
>> > JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2009-05-14, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> >> > In article
>> >> ><4ff092ba-ed96-4499...@u39g2000pru.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> > Rhys <rbchi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> The apps are much more of the form of "drag, drop and execute".
>> >
>> > Huh? Most Linux app installations happen via standard distro package
>>
>> I'm talking about "using" stuff rather than "installing stuff".
>>
>> > management systems. This is somewhat better than the Windows situation
>> > where third-party installer apps are often used. But if you want
>> > drag-and-drop install, OS X in your best bet; even OS X doesn't use it
>>
>> Except it's ENTIRELY NON-INTUITVE to the random user.
>
> The idea that you'd copy an application onto your hard drive the same
> way you would any other file is only "non-intuitive" to users of other
> systems, who don't understand how things could possibly be that simple.
Not quite.
You don't just copy it to any old place. You have to copy it to a
special place or it kind of "disappears" after your next reboot. It's a
very subtle UI bit that's easily missed.
Compared to "just open the file", it is a counter-intuitive mess.
>
> [snip]
>
>> Apple apps are more likely proprietary sorts of islands where
>> the idea of just dragging and dropping things around is actually
>> somewhat broken.
>
> This is an utterly insane claim to make in 2009.
You're the joker that's bringing up the ideas that end users can't
manage their data in the Finder.
I can drop a wide variety of video files onto DVDStyler and have it
spit out a DVD. iDVD will only accept iMovie projects and iMovie is itself
a little particular about what it will accept.
Mac users install VLC and avidemux over this very nonsense.
>
>> >> This in contrast to something like iPhoto where you are expected
>> >> to assmimilate your data into some database before proceeding.
>> >
>> > To the extent that this is actually true, it's usually quite easy
>> > to get data in and out, and there are some fairly compelling
>> > reasons for it, like allowing the user to organize and tag files in
>> > ways that the file system alone doesn't allow for.
>>
>> Like what exactly?
>>
>> What exacty does the 'iPhoto hive' buy me besides a really poorly
>> organized layout that doesn't even acknowlege that there are months
>> in a year and present me with 6000 pictures at once?
>
> Seriously? Watch some videos: http://www.apple.com/ilife/iphoto/
>
> I'm sure you'll come back and say you can do all of that with shell
> scripts or whatever. I'm not interested in convincing completely loony
> Linux advocates of anything anymore.
The truth is that you can't tell me.
The almighty "easy OS" is not infact easy. It's probably not quite
that bad, you're probably just an unsuitable spokesperson.
You don't actually seem to use this stuff.
Big surprise there. You can be safely lumped in with the Lemming posers.
>
> [snip]
>
>> >> Apple also has a NIH mentality. They don't play well with alien
>> >> formats and quite often their tools choke on data that did not
>> >> originate in one of their own tools.
>> >
>> > This claim is at least 10 years out of date. Apple is on precisely
>> > the opposite trajectory.
>>
>> iTunes doesn't do well with alien mp3s. It can't handle older id3 tags.
>
> I have never, in 8 years of using iTunes, encountered this problem.
You probably don't stray off the reservation.
OTOH, I have mp3's that predate iTunes entirely.
>
>> It also doesn't do well with directories that have non-media files in
>> them.
>
> This doesn't particularly have anything to do with "openness".
Sure it does.
This is like the recent shenanigans with ODF. If you break the product
so that it doesn't interact well with a wide range of data sources, you will
tend to have people blaming all things not Apple rather than placing the
blame where it really belongs.
A quick & dirty script with bash and file shouldn't be able to do
better than "professionally developed software" like iTunes.
>
>> iTunes also doesn't handle alien video file formats AT ALL.
>>
>> Neither does iMovie or iDVD.
>
> iTunes handles whatever QuickTime can play. QuickTime ships with quite a
> few codecs and has an extensible architecture that allows more to be
> added.
What I said about VLC and avidemux.
Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
Not only does iTunes "not play well with others" it doesn't even give
a really good experience when playing with it's own data. It's supposed to
be a "media management" app but it doesn't do that. It forces the end user
to manage little details like whether or not a particular file can play on
a particular device.
The all singing all dancing media app should do that.
Although it would be simpler if iPods were just less picky.
>
>> >> > Relative to Windows, there's also much less of a malware threat.
>> >> >
>> >> > Relative to both systems, however, Linux still suffers from having
>> >> > a smaller pool of mainstream desktop apps (and many of those it
>> >> > does have tend to be less mature and of lower quality), and from
>> >> > various issues
>> >>
>> >> Not really. That gap is narrowing consdierably.
>> >
>> > The gap is narrowing with respect to a few high-profile applications;
>> > it's considerably worse once you move away from things like web browsers
>> > and office suites, which virtually 100% of computer users need, into
>> > slightly more esoteric categories like video editing, page layout, or
>> > small business accounting.
>>
>> Not at all.
>
> Linux advocates can only claim this because they're utterly out of touch
> with the needs of regular users of these applications on other platforms.
Linux advocates can claim this because they do interesting things
with technology and are willing to experiment. Some of us have a VERY
long history using Apple products.
What have you done with iDVD?
Don't just direct me to advertising copy.
>
>> This is the very sort of area where "drag any sort of file" to the
>> DVD program and "just burn it" is much better done by Windows or Linux.
>> Windows for all of it's problems doesn't quite suffer the NIH issues.
>
> I strongly suspect you're trying to use iDVD for something it really
> isn't designed for, like burning downloaded AVIs. Apple's consumer video
> toolchain works very well with the footage generated by consumer
> camcorders.
I believe I used the term "proprietary" earlier.
Why should Apple arbitrarily limit the file formats I can use. You know,
even "consumer camcorders" change. Given what I've experienced and your
attitude, I am not too confident at this point that Apple's are well prepared
for what modern camcorders spit out.
If I can play it, then I should be able to convert it into an mpeg ps
stream and burn that to disk (directly or indirectly).
It's digital video. One form of it is no more or less "designed to be
put on a DVD" than another.
>
> [snip]
>
>> > With Linux, in contrast, it can often be non-trivial to find reliable
>> > information about whether some piece of hardware is supported, and even
>> > if it is, you might have to jump through quite a few hoops (that regular
>> > users have essentially no hope of ever managing) to make things work.
>>
>> No it isn't.
>>
>> It requires the same basic preparation that is required on any platform
>> before buying something that may end up being junk or unsuitable.
>
> This is pure fantasy. Hardware will very commonly mention Mac
This is a simple fact of life.
This is why people used to subscribe to Consumer Reports.
Just for laughs, I will have to look for these logos of yours the
next time I am the place where I bought my last camera or printer. I
wonder what the clerk will say when I tell him I want to see the box
and look for an Apple logo.
> compatibility, when it exists, on the packaging (Apple has a nice logo
> for them to use), the manufacturer web site, or in the manufacturer
> provided description on Amazon, etc. This is far, far more rare with
> Linux. And unsurprisingly; much of the hardware Linux supports isn't
Well, Mac users can't use the Finder anymore.
I guess that means that can't use Google either.
> even supported by vendor-supplied drivers, so they may not even know
> that it's supported.
Like I've said... you can't take the vendor support.
I don't need the Gigabytes of useless crap that usually comes with
an officially supported driver.
>
>> > Compared with Windows, Linux supports less hardware, and compatibility
>> > information is less available. Users of both systems will occasionally
>> > encounter problems getting supposedly supported hardware to work. These
>> > problems are still somewhat more frequent in Linux and vendor technical
>> > support is less likely to be available to Linux users.
>>
>> After seeing the official Windows drivers for the Hauppauge 1212 and
>> experiencing a recent HP printer snafu with Vista, I am not so sure that
>> I really want "official support" from hardware vendors. It's really not
>> what it's cracked up to be.
>
> It usually beats the alternative. Ever tried to get color-accurate
> output from a photo printer using third-party drivers? OS X supports
Have you?
Probably not.
> CUPS drivers and has many official vendor drivers, so one can compare
> side by side. The results from the CUPS drivers weren't pretty, the last
> time I tried this.
>
--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \
7
All the cons listed against micoshaft can be used by Linux salesmen
to promote Linux on the retail floor.
I think the future of marketing hardware is all about having a separate
Linux marketing department within stores that focus on Linux only sales
both embedded devices and Linux desktops and Linux netbooks.
You'll then be able to ask both marketing departments and they
will each tell you the answers from their view point.
It would be very competitive and interesting the two viewpoints
and to watch who the consumers will trust.
Snit
4ff092ba-ed96-4499...@u39g2000pru.googlegroups.com on 5/13/09
11:15 PM:
It really depends a *lot* on your needs, skills, and personal preferences.
Linux has the advantage of being free... not just as in open source but as
in no cost. And there is a lot of software for it that is free... much of
it excellent, though also much of it not quite to the standards of say
Microsoft Office or Photoshop or other popular packages. In other areas,
such as Firefox, the open source packages are often considered the best of
the breed - but those applications are generally available for Windows and,
mostly, also for OS X.
A disadvantage of Linux is that it can be confusing which distro to go with.
For most, Ubuntu will meet needs as well as any, but that can vary (and
other distros could be named there as well). No matter what distro you get,
though, you will run into inconsistencies from one application to another.
Many in COLA say these are not a concern to them... but studies and
standards bodies agree that having consistent terms, hot keys, save and
print dialogs, etc. help build efficiency and reduce errors. With that
said, if you are likely to use only a few applications then this weakness
might not be that big of a deal for you.
OS X has the advantage of being the most consistent platform and the easiest
to troubleshoot. It has applications which are often considered the best in
class for general home multi-media work (movie editing, web design, etc.).
Those tools are meant for low end work, though, and many people outgrow
them. On the Mac, though, unlike Linux, you can then migrate to Apple's own
pro tools or Adobe's suite of tools (both very well respected). Most people
have no need for such advanced tools, so the tools that come with the Mac
are generally fine.
A downside of the Mac is that it often costs more to get one than it does
another PC... even though *comparable* machines are roughly the same price,
Apple does not offer anything out of its few "classes" of machines. There
is no way, for example, to get a low end tower nor get an iMac that does not
have a camera and mic.
You can combine the two and get a Mac and *also* run Linux on it. Or do as
I do and run OS X, Linux and Windows on the same box. I use virtualization
software (Parallels) to run OS X with generally one of the other two OSs "on
top" of it. Running all three can be rather resource intensive.
That is a general overview... I, and others, can get a lot more specific if
we know more about you and your needs.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
There also is an issue with desktop Linux programs being made to follow
competing and inconsistent standards... and often poorly following those
standards.
> Since I'm not a business, the "transitional period" was just a matter of
> backing up and wiping the hard drive -- then installing Linux. I also
> have a few Linux books around for reference (and I had dual-booted Linux
> for several years before finally getting rid of XP). And, to ease the
> transition, you could run Windows in a virtual machine (like
> VirtualBox). That's what I do for Visual dBASE, Movie Magic Screenwriter
> and NetObjects Fusion. Since I never used Microsoft Office or Outlook,
> there was no transition issues involved for me there.
>
> If I were considering experimenting with Linux, I would dedicate a
> computer (or a least a hard drive) for testing purposes. Then you don't
> have to worry about dual-booting or possible data loss.
Excellent advice. I second it. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
> RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Rhys wrote:
>>> What are the pros and cons of linux?
>>>
>>> This question should be taken in light of switching from Windows XP to
>>> Linux instead of Windows 7 or Vista. It should also include the same
>>> for switching from a Mac OSX environment, making clear reference to
>>> the transitional period and relating to not just one computer but
>>> several to many.
>>>
>>> Last point, no Flaming, no FUD, no personal vendettas or opinions,
>>> purely objective comparison.
>>
>> Never used OSX, so I can be of no help there.
>>
>> Linux Pros:
>> No malware, virus, trojan or spybot problems.
>
> Not yet. But fundamentally yes you're right.
Since OS X was tossed into the question: pretty much the same on OS X,
though there have been some Trojans. Don't install software from warez
sites... good advice on *any* system.
>> No "slowdown" over the months as you load new programs and fonts.
>
> I never had that with Windows XP.
Main problem comes from more and more things getting added to what launches
at boot. Not hard to resolve, but absurd that so many things add
themselves.
>> No Windows registry so no registry issues.
>
> But does have application specific equivalents which can cause issues.
>
>> Easier to install than Windows.
>
> Depends on the distro and the HW involved but certainly with older HW it
> can be a lot easier.
>
>> Comes with all basic programs for word processing, spreadsheets, etc.
>
> Depends on the distro and all also available for Windows.
Repository installation on Linux is a breeze. Installing other software can
be a pain.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
RickyBobby
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C631ED5B.2FAF1%cs...@gallopinginsanity.com...
Hardware drivers are a big sticking point with Linux. Your neat new bit you
just received from Newegg almost certainly will not work with Linux.
ZnU
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
I have seen people have problems with this. But I'd mostly blame this on
third-party developers. The good ones usually have instructions that
appear when the disk image is opened. The really good ones just zip
their application bundles, so you just have the app sitting in your
downloads folder.
This issue has nothing to do with the underlying operating system
mechanisms that support the creation of self-contained apps.
> > [snip]
> >
> >> Apple apps are more likely proprietary sorts of islands where
> >> the idea of just dragging and dropping things around is actually
> >> somewhat broken.
> >
> > This is an utterly insane claim to make in 2009.
>
> You're the joker that's bringing up the ideas that end users can't
> manage their data in the Finder.
>
> I can drop a wide variety of video files onto DVDStyler and have it
> spit out a DVD. iDVD will only accept iMovie projects and iMovie is itself
> a little particular about what it will accept.
It's absolutely not the case that iDVD will only accept iMovie projects.
It will accept most files QuickTime can read, which is quite a lot.
> Mac users install VLC and avidemux over this very nonsense.
I see. You haven't actually got a case that Apple products are closed to
open formats, you're just complaining that a couple of specific formats
you like aren't supported.
[snip]
> >> What exacty does the 'iPhoto hive' buy me besides a really poorly
> >> organized layout that doesn't even acknowlege that there are months
> >> in a year and present me with 6000 pictures at once?
> >
> > Seriously? Watch some videos: http://www.apple.com/ilife/iphoto/
> >
> > I'm sure you'll come back and say you can do all of that with shell
> > scripts or whatever. I'm not interested in convincing completely loony
> > Linux advocates of anything anymore.
>
> The truth is that you can't tell me.
I just pointed you to a site containing numerous videos of things that
can be done with iPhoto that can't be done organizing photos in the file
system. How does this constitute not being able to tell you?
Or maybe you just can't play the videos in Linux? Heh.
[snip]
> > This doesn't particularly have anything to do with "openness".
>
> Sure it does.
>
> This is like the recent shenanigans with ODF. If you break the product
> so that it doesn't interact well with a wide range of data sources, you will
> tend to have people blaming all things not Apple rather than placing the
> blame where it really belongs.
>
> A quick & dirty script with bash and file shouldn't be able to do
> better than "professionally developed software" like iTunes.
iTunes is designed to manage your music and movie files. It isn't
particularly designed to sort though folders of random crap you dump on
it. I'm not entirely sure why you'd do that, or why you'd think it had
anything to do with this discussion.
> >> iTunes also doesn't handle alien video file formats AT ALL.
> >>
> >> Neither does iMovie or iDVD.
> >
> > iTunes handles whatever QuickTime can play. QuickTime ships with quite a
> > few codecs and has an extensible architecture that allows more to be
> > added.
>
> What I said about VLC and avidemux.
So once again, you haven't actually got a case that Apple products are
closed, you're just complaining that a couple of specific formats you
like aren't supported.
I'm sure I could do precisely the same thing with the Linux products you
use.
[snip]
> >> > The gap is narrowing with respect to a few high-profile applications;
> >> > it's considerably worse once you move away from things like web browsers
> >> > and office suites, which virtually 100% of computer users need, into
> >> > slightly more esoteric categories like video editing, page layout, or
> >> > small business accounting.
> >>
> >> Not at all.
> >
> > Linux advocates can only claim this because they're utterly out of touch
> > with the needs of regular users of these applications on other platforms.
>
> Linux advocates can claim this because they do interesting things
> with technology and are willing to experiment. Some of us have a VERY
> long history using Apple products.
Scribus is not InDesign. GIMP is not Photoshop. And Cinelerra definitely
isn't Final Cut Pro. They're all great for "experimenting", I suppose.
Real production workflows, on the other hand....
> What have you done with iDVD?
I'm actually in the video production business, so very little. I mostly
use DVD Studio Pro. But I'm quite familiar with iDVD's capabilities.
> Don't just direct me to advertising copy.
>
> >
> >> This is the very sort of area where "drag any sort of file" to the
> >> DVD program and "just burn it" is much better done by Windows or Linux.
> >> Windows for all of it's problems doesn't quite suffer the NIH issues.
> >
> > I strongly suspect you're trying to use iDVD for something it really
> > isn't designed for, like burning downloaded AVIs. Apple's consumer video
> > toolchain works very well with the footage generated by consumer
> > camcorders.
>
> I believe I used the term "proprietary" earlier.
Yes. They're proprietary tools for working with open formats.
> Why should Apple arbitrarily limit the file formats I can use. You know,
> even "consumer camcorders" change.
It's not an "arbitrary limit". Supporting additional files formats
requires development resources. Apple has not invested the resources
necessary to support every format in the universe. As new formats become
important for the indented use case, Apple generally supports them.
The intended use case not being the burning of pirated movies, the AVI +
bastardized MPEG-4 files that litter the Internet aren't necessarily
very well supported out of the box.
But hey, if you could point me to an HDV editing workflow on Linux (HDV
being probably the most common consumer camcorder HD format, and trivial
to ingest and work with in iMovie), that might be interesting. Because a
bit of Googling turns up a bunch of results like this:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=487772
http://crazedmuleproductions.blogspot.com/2006/11/cam-compatible-hdv-edit
-chain-part-ii.html
[snip]
> Just for laughs, I will have to look for these logos of yours the
> next time I am the place where I bought my last camera or printer. I
> wonder what the clerk will say when I tell him I want to see the box
> and look for an Apple logo.
You do that. Until then, here are a couple of hardware boxes I happen to
have handy: http://www.flickr.com/photos/21998872@N00/3531619951/
What's funny is that I'm pretty sure both of those products actually
would work with Linux (the camera uses a standard protocol and the card
uses a fairly common chipset). But picking them up off the shelves, who
could tell?
> > compatibility, when it exists, on the packaging (Apple has a nice
> > logo for them to use), the manufacturer web site, or in the
> > manufacturer provided description on Amazon, etc. This is far, far
> > more rare with Linux. And unsurprisingly; much of the hardware
> > Linux supports isn't
>
> Well, Mac users can't use the Finder anymore.
>
> I guess that means that can't use Google either.
With hardware vendors mostly ignoring Linux, it's often quite
non-trivial to get a definitive answer from Google. You'll commonly find
some people who say something works on their system (which doesn't mean
it will necessarily work on yours), and some others saying it doesn't
work for them (which doesn't necessarily mean it will work for you).
(This is yet another downside to all the "choice" that exists in the
Linux world, of course.)
[snip]
> >> After seeing the official Windows drivers for the Hauppauge 1212
> >> and experiencing a recent HP printer snafu with Vista, I am not so
> >> sure that I really want "official support" from hardware vendors.
> >> It's really not what it's cracked up to be.
> >
> > It usually beats the alternative. Ever tried to get color-accurate
> > output from a photo printer using third-party drivers? OS X
> > supports
>
> Have you?
>
> Probably not.
You probably should have read to the end of the post.
> > CUPS drivers and has many official vendor drivers, so one can
> > compare side by side. The results from the CUPS drivers weren't
> > pretty, the last time I tried this.
--
Snit
PM:
> Hardware drivers are a big sticking point with Linux. Your neat new bit you
> just received from Newegg almost certainly will not work with Linux.
Good point - there is, at the very least, a pretty big risk. To be fair,
the same is true - though to a lesser extent - with OS X as well.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
5/14/09 7:26 AM:
> In article
> <4ff092ba-ed96-4499...@u39g2000pru.googlegroups.com>,
> Rhys <rbchi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What are the pros and cons of linux?
>>
>> This question should be taken in light of switching from Windows XP to
>> Linux instead of Windows 7 or Vista. It should also include the same
>> for switching from a Mac OSX environment, making clear reference to
>> the transitional period and relating to not just one computer but
>> several to many.
>>
>> Last point, no Flaming, no FUD, no personal vendettas or opinions,
>> purely objective comparison.
>
> Relative to OS X, the only real advantages for Linux in the general
> desktop market are that it's free and runs (without any hacking) on
> non-Apple hardware.
>
> Relative to Windows, there's also much less of a malware threat.
>
> Relative to both systems, however, Linux still suffers from having a
> smaller pool of mainstream desktop apps (and many of those it does have
> tend to be less mature and of lower quality), and from various issues
> with consistency and integration across applications. The Linux driver
> situation can also be rather dicy with respect to some hardware; some
> stuff just isn't supported, or the drivers aren't very good, or you'll
> have to jump through hoops to get things working.
All true...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
AM:
> On 2009-05-14, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> In article
>> <4ff092ba-ed96-4499...@u39g2000pru.googlegroups.com>,
>> Rhys <rbchi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What are the pros and cons of linux?
>>>
>>> This question should be taken in light of switching from Windows XP to
>>> Linux instead of Windows 7 or Vista. It should also include the same
>>> for switching from a Mac OSX environment, making clear reference to
>>> the transitional period and relating to not just one computer but
>>> several to many.
>>>
>>> Last point, no Flaming, no FUD, no personal vendettas or opinions,
>>> purely objective comparison.
>>
>> Relative to OS X, the only real advantages for Linux in the general
>> desktop market are that it's free and runs (without any hacking) on
>> non-Apple hardware.
>
> It's also more generally open.
>
> The apps are much more of the form of "drag, drop and execute".
OS X is the one that needs to installers for most apps.
> This in contrast to something like iPhoto where you are expected
> to assmimilate your data into some database before proceeding.
Nope... the user has the choice to leave files where they are or to have
them be "self" organized.
> Apple also has a NIH mentality. They don't play well with alien
> formats and quite often their tools choke on data that did not originate
> in one of their own tools.
If you do not like the Apple made tools, use VLC or MPlayer or whatever.
The Apple supplied tools, however, work for most people just fine.
>> Relative to Windows, there's also much less of a malware threat.
>>
>> Relative to both systems, however, Linux still suffers from having a
>> smaller pool of mainstream desktop apps (and many of those it does have
>> tend to be less mature and of lower quality), and from various issues
>
> Not really. That gap is narrowing consdierably.
Really... though the gap is less than it was there is still a way to go.
Here, from the next-to-newest Ubuntu:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/UbuntuCP.mov>
With the newest Ubuntu, right click works in gedit, but the rest is still
the same.
> OTOH, a Mac will still fall down when presented with simple use
> cases like something so trivial as trying to take a few videos from
> a camera and burning those to a DVD.
Why do you think it would fail to do that? What? There are a number of
tools to do that very task.
> Before you despair at the state of Linux it helps to actually
> use the competition and kick the tires a bit.
Agreed: use OS X and Linux for a while. See what you like. One advantage
of Linux is you can try before you buy... and not just at an Apple store or
some place like that.
>> with consistency and integration across applications. The Linux driver
>> situation can also be rather dicy with respect to some hardware; some
>> stuff just isn't supported, or the drivers aren't very good, or you'll
>> have to jump through hoops to get things working.
>
> This is rich.
>
> My Macs run Linux because of lack of sufficient hardware support in
> MacOS.
>
> Even the admittedly mediocre intel (linux) video drivers seem to be
> better than
> what Apple has to offer.
Such as?
> Like I said: it pays to actually play with other technology. You find
> all sorts of surprises. The crude red-eye tool in iPhoto is a good example.
If you do not like iPhoto then use Picasa or Photoshop [elements] or any of
the others of many, many image editing programs you want. With that said,
what is the problem you have with iPhoto's red eye tool?
> All the spit and polish and conformance to some sort of written guidelines
> doesn't really mean much if the actual functionality isn't there or is some
> how broken.
Both is a good thing... and OS X programs, in general, have both.
> ...and iMovie complains about the onboard video chipset not being up
> to snuff. Now that's just sad. Create a machine with "no user serviceable
> parts" and you don't even make it suitable for your own apps.
What? If you run iMovie on an older machine where it is not supported or
something... not sure what you are getting at. Can you show support or an
example?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
JEDIDIAH
>
> "Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C631ED5B.2FAF1%cs...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> Rhys stated in post
>> 4ff092ba-ed96-4499...@u39g2000pru.googlegroups.com on
>> 5/13/09
>> 11:15 PM:
>>
>>> What are the pros and cons of linux?
> Hardware drivers are a big sticking point with Linux. Your neat new bit you
> just received from Newegg almost certainly will not work with Linux.
Not quite.
Some devices/vendors are better than others.
My personal favorite would be the Hauppauge 1212. Did they finally
release MCE support for it yet? Howabout proper QAM support for cards
that support both ATSC and QAM?
Then there are nv9400 based Zotac boards that some of "us" are
eagerly awaiting to hit newegg.
Hardware isn't quite the sticking point it used to be.
You can't really take anything for granted. Strangely enough this
is even true for Vista. It just depends on how mundane your requirements
are.
--
Truth is irrelevant as long as the predictions are good. |||
/ | \
RickyBobby
"JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:slrnh0pbf...@nomad.mishnet...
Linux users do not use it to watch TV. They use it for much more important
matters such as trying to get it to work and illegally open a Word document.
/ | \
JEDIDIAH
How does one do that exactly?
If you are going to rant about something "illegal" like this, you should
at least pick something that's covered by the DMCA.
--
Truth is irrelevant as long as the predictions are good. |||
/ | \
RickyBobby
"JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
That is easy. Microsoft Word is a proprietary bit of software. The files
it creates are only supposed to be opened with Microsoft Word. They cannot
be cracked or reverse engineered. The truth of the matter is that if not
for Microsoft, Linux would not even exist. It is really just one vast
piracy conspiracy. |||
> / | \
JEDIDIAH
You mean a README?
You're a laugh a minute.
> their application bundles, so you just have the app sitting in your
> downloads folder.
>
> This issue has nothing to do with the underlying operating system
> mechanisms that support the creation of self-contained apps.
No. The underlying mechanism is a red herring. Ultimately what
matters is how the implementation works when executed by end users.
Any 30 year old Unix can manage a self-contained application in a
tarball. There's nothing remarkable about that.
>
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> >> Apple apps are more likely proprietary sorts of islands where
>> >> the idea of just dragging and dropping things around is actually
>> >> somewhat broken.
>> >
>> > This is an utterly insane claim to make in 2009.
>>
>> You're the joker that's bringing up the ideas that end users can't
>> manage their data in the Finder.
>>
>> I can drop a wide variety of video files onto DVDStyler and have it
>> spit out a DVD. iDVD will only accept iMovie projects and iMovie is itself
>> a little particular about what it will accept.
>
> It's absolutely not the case that iDVD will only accept iMovie projects.
> It will accept most files QuickTime can read, which is quite a lot.
Well then we're back to the QuickTime only limitation.
Try to open a competing container in QuickTime and you will get sent
to a web based deadend search much like you would experience with Windows
but with less satisfying results. Not only that but QT updates tend to
screw up old vlc installs.
That's especially nice.
>
>> Mac users install VLC and avidemux over this very nonsense.
>
> I see. You haven't actually got a case that Apple products are closed to
> open formats, you're just complaining that a couple of specific formats
> you like aren't supported.
Yeah, just what everyone else uses.
Thus the "Not Invented Here" bit.
>
> [snip]
>
>> >> What exacty does the 'iPhoto hive' buy me besides a really poorly
>> >> organized layout that doesn't even acknowlege that there are months
>> >> in a year and present me with 6000 pictures at once?
>> >
>> > Seriously? Watch some videos: http://www.apple.com/ilife/iphoto/
>> >
>> > I'm sure you'll come back and say you can do all of that with shell
>> > scripts or whatever. I'm not interested in convincing completely loony
>> > Linux advocates of anything anymore.
>>
>> The truth is that you can't tell me.
>
> I just pointed you to a site containing numerous videos of things that
> can be done with iPhoto that can't be done organizing photos in the file
No. You pointed me towards standard corporate advertising copy that
you probably can't describe in any useful detail. IOW, you have no real
clue. You don't actually use this stuff like a real person would.
> system. How does this constitute not being able to tell you?
>
> Or maybe you just can't play the videos in Linux? Heh.
This all boils down to how you can't describe your easy OS in
simple terms.
>
> [snip]
>
>> > This doesn't particularly have anything to do with "openness".
>>
>> Sure it does.
>>
>> This is like the recent shenanigans with ODF. If you break the product
>> so that it doesn't interact well with a wide range of data sources, you will
>> tend to have people blaming all things not Apple rather than placing the
>> blame where it really belongs.
>>
>> A quick & dirty script with bash and file shouldn't be able to do
>> better than "professionally developed software" like iTunes.
>
> iTunes is designed to manage your music and movie files. It isn't
> particularly designed to sort though folders of random crap you dump on
> it. I'm not entirely sure why you'd do that, or why you'd think it had
If it can't do that then what's the point?
Life is messy. That's the whole point of having a "special tool"
to "organize things". One would hope that such a tool could tell the
difference between an mp3 audio file and some random (or even no-random)
bit of text.
iTunes fails if I have to clean data in preparation for it.
The same goes for iPhoto. IT should be the cleaning mechanism.
If I have to clean up stuff before I let iPhoto near it than
the basic function of iPhoto is negated.
> anything to do with this discussion.
>
>> >> iTunes also doesn't handle alien video file formats AT ALL.
>> >>
>> >> Neither does iMovie or iDVD.
>> >
>> > iTunes handles whatever QuickTime can play. QuickTime ships with quite a
>> > few codecs and has an extensible architecture that allows more to be
>> > added.
>>
>> What I said about VLC and avidemux.
>
> So once again, you haven't actually got a case that Apple products are
> closed, you're just complaining that a couple of specific formats you
> like aren't supported.
No. Not just "specific formats"...
what everyone else uses
>
> I'm sure I could do precisely the same thing with the Linux products you
> use.
You're free to try.
Do try to stick with things that are at least somewhat pervasive.
Barfing on AVI files and then calling that "a couple of specific formats"
is really pathetic. It's just the sort of stupid "walled garden" mentality
I am talking about.
>
> [snip]
>
>> >> > The gap is narrowing with respect to a few high-profile applications;
>> >> > it's considerably worse once you move away from things like web browsers
>> >> > and office suites, which virtually 100% of computer users need, into
>> >> > slightly more esoteric categories like video editing, page layout, or
>> >> > small business accounting.
>> >>
>> >> Not at all.
>> >
>> > Linux advocates can only claim this because they're utterly out of touch
>> > with the needs of regular users of these applications on other platforms.
>>
>> Linux advocates can claim this because they do interesting things
>> with technology and are willing to experiment. Some of us have a VERY
>> long history using Apple products.
>
> Scribus is not InDesign. GIMP is not Photoshop. And Cinelerra definitely
> isn't Final Cut Pro. They're all great for "experimenting", I suppose.
> Real production workflows, on the other hand....
They don't need to be.
The question is what are your use cases and how do various tools
address those use cases (or not). You know... apply a little rigour
to the process rather than the sort of handwaving you would accuse
Linux developers of.
>
>> What have you done with iDVD?
>
> I'm actually in the video production business, so very little. I mostly
> use DVD Studio Pro. But I'm quite familiar with iDVD's capabilities.
IOW, you have no real clue.
ZNU: "Don't worry that the bundleware is crap, you can blow a lot of
money on something that actually works (mebbe)"
>
>> Don't just direct me to advertising copy.
>>
>> >
>> >> This is the very sort of area where "drag any sort of file" to the
>> >> DVD program and "just burn it" is much better done by Windows or Linux.
>> >> Windows for all of it's problems doesn't quite suffer the NIH issues.
>> >
>> > I strongly suspect you're trying to use iDVD for something it really
>> > isn't designed for, like burning downloaded AVIs. Apple's consumer video
>> > toolchain works very well with the footage generated by consumer
>> > camcorders.
>>
>> I believe I used the term "proprietary" earlier.
>
> Yes. They're proprietary tools for working with open formats.
I will believe it when I see it.
I haven't seen it yet.
>
>> Why should Apple arbitrarily limit the file formats I can use. You know,
>> even "consumer camcorders" change.
>
> It's not an "arbitrary limit". Supporting additional files formats
> requires development resources. Apple has not invested the resources
What? Poor little Apple is too small and weak to do as well as the
mplayer team? How sad is that?
> necessary to support every format in the universe. As new formats become
> important for the indented use case, Apple generally supports them.
>
> The intended use case not being the burning of pirated movies, the AVI +
> bastardized MPEG-4 files that litter the Internet aren't necessarily
> very well supported out of the box.
Some cameras output that format actually.
Someone that claims to work with video editing should be aware of that.
>
> But hey, if you could point me to an HDV editing workflow on Linux (HDV
> being probably the most common consumer camcorder HD format, and trivial
> to ingest and work with in iMovie), that might be interesting. Because a
> bit of Googling turns up a bunch of results like this:
I think you might have finally found something that won't be immediately
verifable by someone who just happens to have an extra Macintsoh laying about
and doesn't want to necessarily buy (potentially quite expensive) commercial
Mac applications.
>
> http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=487772
>
> http://crazedmuleproductions.blogspot.com/2006/11/cam-compatible-hdv-edit
> -chain-part-ii.html
>
> [snip]
>
>> Just for laughs, I will have to look for these logos of yours the
>> next time I am the place where I bought my last camera or printer. I
>> wonder what the clerk will say when I tell him I want to see the box
>> and look for an Apple logo.
>
> You do that. Until then, here are a couple of hardware boxes I happen to
> have handy: http://www.flickr.com/photos/21998872@N00/3531619951/
>
> What's funny is that I'm pretty sure both of those products actually
> would work with Linux (the camera uses a standard protocol and the card
> uses a fairly common chipset). But picking them up off the shelves, who
> could tell?
I've not bothered lately.
Oddly enough, it wasn't a problem.
>
>> > compatibility, when it exists, on the packaging (Apple has a nice
>> > logo for them to use), the manufacturer web site, or in the
>> > manufacturer provided description on Amazon, etc. This is far, far
>> > more rare with Linux. And unsurprisingly; much of the hardware
>> > Linux supports isn't
>>
>> Well, Mac users can't use the Finder anymore.
>>
>> I guess that means that can't use Google either.
>
> With hardware vendors mostly ignoring Linux, it's often quite
> non-trivial to get a definitive answer from Google. You'll commonly find
Then an example should be easy enough for you to come up with.
> some people who say something works on their system (which doesn't mean
> it will necessarily work on yours), and some others saying it doesn't
> work for them (which doesn't necessarily mean it will work for you).
This is of course total bullshit.
If it's "working on my machine" then that probably means that it
either in the main kernel tree or it is well supported by one or more
of the desktop Linux distributions.
IOW, you will have to "work hard to make it break".
>
> (This is yet another downside to all the "choice" that exists in the
> Linux world, of course.)
>
> [snip]
>
>> >> After seeing the official Windows drivers for the Hauppauge 1212
>> >> and experiencing a recent HP printer snafu with Vista, I am not so
>> >> sure that I really want "official support" from hardware vendors.
>> >> It's really not what it's cracked up to be.
>> >
>> > It usually beats the alternative. Ever tried to get color-accurate
>> > output from a photo printer using third-party drivers? OS X
>> > supports
>>
>> Have you?
>>
>> Probably not.
>
> You probably should have read to the end of the post.
I did.
I still think you're a total poser.
>
>> > CUPS drivers and has many official vendor drivers, so one can
>> > compare side by side. The results from the CUPS drivers weren't
>> > pretty, the last time I tried this.
>
--
Truth is irrelevant as long as the predictions are good. |||
/ | \
RonB
> That is easy. Microsoft Word is a proprietary bit of software. The
> files it creates are only supposed to be opened with Microsoft Word.
> They cannot be cracked or reverse engineered. The truth of the matter
> is that if not for Microsoft, Linux would not even exist. It is really
> just one vast piracy conspiracy. |||
Time for your meds.
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
JEDIDIAH
>
> "JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
> news:slrnh0pf7...@nomad.mishnet...
>> On 2009-05-15, RickyBobby <nasc...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> "JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
>>> news:slrnh0pbf...@nomad.mishnet...
>>>> On 2009-05-14, RickyBobby <nasc...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:C631ED5B.2FAF1%cs...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>>>>>> Rhys stated in post
>>>>>> 4ff092ba-ed96-4499...@u39g2000pru.googlegroups.com on
>>>>>> 5/13/09
>>>>>> 11:15 PM:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What are the pros and cons of linux?
>>>> [deletia]
> That is easy. Microsoft Word is a proprietary bit of software. The files
> it creates are only supposed to be opened with Microsoft Word. They cannot
> be cracked or reverse engineered. The truth of the matter is that if not
It would help if msword files were not something you could just
strip with "strings".
You're still better off depending on something that explicitly
depends on the DMCA for this rant. IOW, try something that is actually
encrypted. You're starting to get dellusional.
> for Microsoft, Linux would not even exist. It is really just one vast
> piracy conspiracy. |||
The first Linux user I ever met (besides myself) ran Linux on an
ATARI. Atari also had it's own version of SysV that it never really
quite got behind.
--
Truth is irrelevant as long as the predictions are good. |||
/ | \
RickyBobby
"RonB" <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9H3Pl.50249$BX....@newsfe18.iad...
> RickyBobby wrote:
>
>> That is easy. Microsoft Word is a proprietary bit of software. The
>> files it creates are only supposed to be opened with Microsoft Word.
>> They cannot be cracked or reverse engineered. The truth of the matter is
>> that if not for Microsoft, Linux would not even exist. It is really just
>> one vast piracy conspiracy. |||
>
> Time for your meds.
>
>
That is the way I look at it. If Linux and open office are purpose designed
to work with Microsoft Office that is intellectual piracy. It may be
illegal but it is immoral. I will use Adobe as an example. You can
download Reader for free so you can read .pdf files and they let you do
that. But you have to purchase Acrobat or any of their other fine programs.
Microsoft does not provide a free reader to anything that was written in
Office so any software that was conceived to do so is moral and intellectual
piracy.
I have no axe to grind with the open source movement. I have nothing
against free and user supported software. But software that was made to
emulate Microsoft Office on purpose is just plain theft. If so many Linux
users hate Microsoft why are they trying to steal some of their best work?
Hmm...makes one wonder.
DFS
> Microsoft does not provide a free reader to
> anything that was written in Office
Yes they do.
> If so
> many Linux users hate Microsoft why are they trying to steal some of
> their best work? Hmm...makes one wonder.
OSS bozos are intellectually barren.
ZnU
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> On 2009-05-14, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <slrnh0p5b...@nomad.mishnet>,
> >> Compared to "just open the file", it is a counter-intuitive mess.
> >
> > I have seen people have problems with this. But I'd mostly blame this on
> > third-party developers. The good ones usually have instructions that
> > appear when the disk image is opened. The really good ones just zip
>
> You mean a README?
>
> You're a laugh a minute.
I mean this sort of thing:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21998872@N00/3532665996/
It's pretty common.
> > their application bundles, so you just have the app sitting in your
> > downloads folder.
> >
> > This issue has nothing to do with the underlying operating system
> > mechanisms that support the creation of self-contained apps.
>
> No. The underlying mechanism is a red herring. Ultimately what
> matters is how the implementation works when executed by end users.
> Any 30 year old Unix can manage a self-contained application in a
> tarball. There's nothing remarkable about that.
It can run it from a tarball?
> > It's absolutely not the case that iDVD will only accept iMovie projects.
> > It will accept most files QuickTime can read, which is quite a lot.
>
> Well then we're back to the QuickTime only limitation.
>
> Try to open a competing container in QuickTime and you will get sent
> to a web based deadend search much like you would experience with Windows
> but with less satisfying results. Not only that but QT updates tend to
> screw up old vlc installs.
>
> That's especially nice.
Install: http://perian.org/
> >> Mac users install VLC and avidemux over this very nonsense.
> >
> > I see. You haven't actually got a case that Apple products are closed to
> > open formats, you're just complaining that a couple of specific formats
> > you like aren't supported.
>
> Yeah, just what everyone else uses.
>
> Thus the "Not Invented Here" bit.
Apple's consumer video editing distribution toolchain is fully
interoperable in the ways that actually matter to the relevant use case:
it ingests video from many cameras and it can export video in widely
supported standard formats.
While I'm sure you can come up with some unlikely hypothetical scenario
here, it's pretty obvious that what you're really complaining about is
that you can't take content already packaged up for distribution (e.g. a
movie you downloaded) and use iDVD to burn it to DVD. This has much more
to do with the fact that this is not the use case iDVD was designed for
than any sort of NIH mentality on Apple's part.
> > I just pointed you to a site containing numerous videos of things that
> > can be done with iPhoto that can't be done organizing photos in the file
>
> No. You pointed me towards standard corporate advertising copy that
> you probably can't describe in any useful detail. IOW, you have no real
> clue. You don't actually use this stuff like a real person would.
Why should I waste time describing something that Apple has taken the
time to extensively demonstrate? How would a text description of (for
instance) the geotagging features of iPhoto possibly be better than
watching a video of them in action?
You're just looking for excuses to divert the conversation.
[snip]
> > iTunes is designed to manage your music and movie files. It isn't
> > particularly designed to sort though folders of random crap you dump on
> > it. I'm not entirely sure why you'd do that, or why you'd think it had
>
> If it can't do that then what's the point?
You're right! All those millions of people using iTunes to manage their
media are clearly deriving no benefit from doing so, since the only
point to an application designed to manage music and video files,
clearly, is sorting through folders of random crap people dump on it.
> Life is messy. That's the whole point of having a "special tool"
> to "organize things". One would hope that such a tool could tell the
> difference between an mp3 audio file and some random (or even no-random)
> bit of text.
I've never, in my life, been tempted to actually dump a folder full of
random crap on iTunes. But just for you, I just dropped a folder with a
bunch of text files, a couple of video files, some MP3s, some Photoshop
files, some iWork documents, and some other stuff scattered though a few
levels of directories, onto an iTunes playlist.
iTunes imported the video and the MP3 files, and ignored the rest. Is
this not the behavior you want?
> iTunes fails if I have to clean data in preparation for it.
>
> The same goes for iPhoto. IT should be the cleaning mechanism.
>
> If I have to clean up stuff before I let iPhoto near it than
> the basic function of iPhoto is negated.
You heard it here, folks. If you can't dump folders of random crap on
iPhoto, then its geotagging features stop working, its facial
recognition becomes useless, its photo retouching breaks, its Facebook
integration doesn't work, it can no longer export slideshows... it's a
real travesty.
[snip]
> >> >> > The gap is narrowing with respect to a few high-profile applications;
> >> >> > it's considerably worse once you move away from things like web
> >> >> > browsers
> >> >> > and office suites, which virtually 100% of computer users need, into
> >> >> > slightly more esoteric categories like video editing, page layout, or
> >> >> > small business accounting.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not at all.
> >> >
> >> > Linux advocates can only claim this because they're utterly out of touch
> >> > with the needs of regular users of these applications on other
> >> > platforms.
> >>
> >> Linux advocates can claim this because they do interesting things
> >> with technology and are willing to experiment. Some of us have a VERY
> >> long history using Apple products.
> >
> > Scribus is not InDesign. GIMP is not Photoshop. And Cinelerra definitely
> > isn't Final Cut Pro. They're all great for "experimenting", I suppose.
> > Real production workflows, on the other hand....
>
> They don't need to be.
>
> The question is what are your use cases and how do various tools
> address those use cases (or not). You know... apply a little rigour
> to the process rather than the sort of handwaving you would accuse
> Linux developers of.
OK. Let's talk real-world use cases. Specifically, mine.
My video production company would probably have to close its doors if it
only had access to Linux-based tools.
I am not exaggerating in any way. Among other issues, Linux is currently
incompatible with the software required to process footage from a
~$40,000 digital cinema camera system we own. They've been promising
Linux tools any day now for about a year, but there aren't actually any
indications they're going to materialize anytime soon.
[snip]
> > The intended use case not being the burning of pirated movies, the AVI +
> > bastardized MPEG-4 files that litter the Internet aren't necessarily
> > very well supported out of the box.
>
> Some cameras output that format actually.
>
> Someone that claims to work with video editing should be aware of that.
This isn't very common. There are a couple of consumer cameras that do
this. The most prominent is probably the Flip, which a bit of research
shows now ships with a QuickTime component that, once installed, allows
iMovie to directly import its AVI files.
> > But hey, if you could point me to an HDV editing workflow on Linux (HDV
> > being probably the most common consumer camcorder HD format, and trivial
> > to ingest and work with in iMovie), that might be interesting. Because a
> > bit of Googling turns up a bunch of results like this:
>
> I think you might have finally found something that won't be immediately
> verifable by someone who just happens to have an extra Macintsoh laying about
> and doesn't want to necessarily buy (potentially quite expensive) commercial
> Mac applications.
>
> >
> > http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=487772
> >
> > http://crazedmuleproductions.blogspot.com/2006/11/cam-compatible-hdv-edit
> > -chain-part-ii.html
No response? Can't give me a straightforward consumer-friendly HDV
workflow for Linux?
> >> Well, Mac users can't use the Finder anymore.
> >>
> >> I guess that means that can't use Google either.
> >
> > With hardware vendors mostly ignoring Linux, it's often quite
> > non-trivial to get a definitive answer from Google. You'll commonly find
>
> Then an example should be easy enough for you to come up with.
OK. Take that eSATA card in the packaging photo I posted, or its PCIe
equivalent. *Does* it actually work with Linux? You tell me, because I
couldn't find a definitive answer in about 10 minutes of searching on
the card name. I did turn up the chipset: Marvel 88SX6081. Do cards with
that chipset work with Linux? The answer (which I seriously doubt a
regular user could ever figure out) seems to be "sort of, but it might
corrupt your data or something". I mean, I found these:
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=165511
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-hardware-18/marvell-sata-co
ntroller-mv-88sx6081-problem-in-running-277991/
http://www.debianhelp.org/node/8276
http://www.mail-archive.com/linu...@vger.kernel.org/msg11282.html
The last one, if you follow the thread, might just have been bad hard
drives, though.
Mind you, these were relevant-looking top-ten Google hits for "Marvel
88SX6081 Linux". I didn't go looking specifically for posts mentioning
problems. Nor did I choose this product as an example because I knew it
would be problematic with Linux. You asked me for an example and I
decided to start looking with the card I'd just posted a picture of the
box for.
Reading those above pages, I think a typical consumer would be a little
more comfortable just looking for the Mac logo on the box, somehow.
> > some people who say something works on their system (which doesn't mean
> > it will necessarily work on yours), and some others saying it doesn't
> > work for them (which doesn't necessarily mean it will work for you).
>
> This is of course total bullshit.
>
> If it's "working on my machine" then that probably means that it
> either in the main kernel tree or it is well supported by one or more
> of the desktop Linux distributions.
Sure. The problem is that if it's the latter, it isn't necessarily
supported by *your* desktop distro.
[snip]
Megabyte
You can download all kinds of programs to create PDF files without the
need to purchase Adobe Acrobat. Did Excel not have the ability to read
Lotus 123 files? What about Word reading Word Perfect files? The whole
concept behind ODF is all about open standards so documents and files
are not locked in to proprietary formats.
With your analogy where do we draw the line? Should everyone be using
Visicalc as by your definition 123, Excel and others was just plain
theft. Shall we talk about Netscape or Stac? What about Windows
itself? Microsoft is the King of using others ideas so considering
OpenOffice to be intellectual piracy and immoral is just plain rediculous.
Sinister Midget
> RickyBobby wrote:
>> Windows is the best because most people use it
>
> Millions of flies...
LittleRicky should be intimately familiar with that one. The buzzing
around him probably _never_ stops.
--
Microsoft: The company that made email dangerous.
RickyBobby
"Sinister Midget" <fardb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:334vd6-...@home.harry.net...
Linux The proudest thing about it is that it can open Microsoft Office
files.
Thieves and losers and Microsoft wannabes who cannot afford to buy the
software they wish to use so they steal it and brag about it
JEDIDIAH
> In article <slrnh0pgr...@nomad.mishnet>,
> JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-05-14, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> > In article <slrnh0p5b...@nomad.mishnet>,
>
>> >> Compared to "just open the file", it is a counter-intuitive mess.
>> >
>> > I have seen people have problems with this. But I'd mostly blame this on
>> > third-party developers. The good ones usually have instructions that
>> > appear when the disk image is opened. The really good ones just zip
>>
>> You mean a README?
>>
>> You're a laugh a minute.
>
> I mean this sort of thing:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/21998872@N00/3532665996/
>
> It's pretty common.
Shiny happy GUI installers are also "pretty common" on Linux too.
Once you create an installation package that requires the end user
to open up some documentation to proceed, you've failed. It's so stupid
that it's amazing that you would even try to defend it.
>
>> > their application bundles, so you just have the app sitting in your
>> > downloads folder.
>> >
>> > This issue has nothing to do with the underlying operating system
>> > mechanisms that support the creation of self-contained apps.
>>
>> No. The underlying mechanism is a red herring. Ultimately what
>> matters is how the implementation works when executed by end users.
>> Any 30 year old Unix can manage a self-contained application in a
>> tarball. There's nothing remarkable about that.
>
> It can run it from a tarball?
Browsing "package" formats is pretty mundane actually.
>
>
>> > It's absolutely not the case that iDVD will only accept iMovie projects.
>> > It will accept most files QuickTime can read, which is quite a lot.
>>
>> Well then we're back to the QuickTime only limitation.
>>
>> Try to open a competing container in QuickTime and you will get sent
>> to a web based deadend search much like you would experience with Windows
>> but with less satisfying results. Not only that but QT updates tend to
>> screw up old vlc installs.
>>
>> That's especially nice.
>
> Install: http://perian.org/
It's a shame that Apple's built in package manager couldn't manage
to point to this. The one in Ubuntu does. There's even something similar
in XP and Vista.
Microsoft getting something more right than Apple.
>
>> >> Mac users install VLC and avidemux over this very nonsense.
>> >
>> > I see. You haven't actually got a case that Apple products are closed to
>> > open formats, you're just complaining that a couple of specific formats
>> > you like aren't supported.
>>
>> Yeah, just what everyone else uses.
>>
>> Thus the "Not Invented Here" bit.
>
> Apple's consumer video editing distribution toolchain is fully
> interoperable in the ways that actually matter to the relevant use case:
> it ingests video from many cameras and it can export video in widely
> supported standard formats.
>
> While I'm sure you can come up with some unlikely hypothetical scenario
> here, it's pretty obvious that what you're really complaining about is
...nothing unlikely about it.
I created a number of video clips in a rather mundane consumer camera
and the iMovie + iDVD combination barfed on it.
> that you can't take content already packaged up for distribution (e.g. a
> movie you downloaded) and use iDVD to burn it to DVD. This has much more
> to do with the fact that this is not the use case iDVD was designed for
> than any sort of NIH mentality on Apple's part.
That is an inherent contradiction.
The moment a camera vendor decides to spit out similar AVI files, the
Apple user is screwed (you can find some examples at apple.com) because
the Apple is being subjected to the "unexpected" and the collective in
Cupertino decided not to be as flexible as computing technology allows
for.
[deletia]
If I can watch it, the video toolset should be able to convert it
to a suitable mpeg ps stream PERIOD. No ifs, ands, buts or excuses.
The "packaged for distribution" excuse is just nonsense.
If it's in my library (for whatever reason) I should be able to render
it to any suitable format including an iPhone resricted MP4 or a standard
DVD capable of being viewed in any standard DVD player.
...for which HDV is remarkably less relevant.
What was that about "rip, mix, burn"?
Gregory Shearman
> news:guhpvf$5pg$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
>> RickyBobby wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Rhys" <rbchi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4ff092ba-
>> ed96-4499-9d4...@u39g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
>>>> What are the pros and cons of linux?
>>>>
>>>> Linux instead of Windows 7 or Vista. It should also include the same
>>>> for switching from a Mac OSX environment, making clear reference to
>>>> the transitional period and relating to not just one computer but
>>>> several to many.
>>>>
>>>> Last point, no Flaming, no FUD, no personal vendettas or opinions,
>>>> purely objective comparison.
>>>
>>
>> Millions of flies...
>>
>>
>> Idiot
>>
>> --
>>
> Not so much. All important documents are in the form of Microsoft Word.
Really? Which version?
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
RickyBobby
"Gregory Shearman" <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:slrnh0pq86.9a...@netscape.net...
All of the versions that you Penguin Power People are trying to steal.
Why don't you superior Linux people go try to steal some SAP or Oracle files
and see what happens?
You do not wish to admit it but you know that a big part of Linux is the
fact that some illegal immoral pirate copyright violating programs can work
with an official Microsoft Office file.
And now at this time some of them can do it very well. If you are going to
be a thief you may as well be a good thief.
You know that Bill Gates invented the personal computer and the office suite
and it is his. You are all just robbing and cheating and lying.
The only argument I have with the penguins is that they stole Microsoft
Office.
RonB
> All of the versions that you Penguin Power People are trying to steal.
>
> Why don't you superior Linux people go try to steal some SAP or Oracle
> files and see what happens?
>
> You do not wish to admit it but you know that a big part of Linux is
> the fact that some illegal immoral pirate copyright violating programs
> can work with an official Microsoft Office file.
>
> And now at this time some of them can do it very well. If you are going
> to be a thief you may as well be a good thief.
>
> You know that Bill Gates invented the personal computer and the office
> suite and it is his. You are all just robbing and cheating and lying.
>
>
> The only argument I have with the penguins is that they stole Microsoft
> Office.
Yeah, the "penguins" and everybody who ever made a word processor. And
guess what? That piece of crap, "thieving" Microsoft was "morally
bankrupt" when they made Word read WordStar and WordPerfect files.
Get a new shtick, this one doesn't have wings.
RickyBobby
Word Star and Word Perfect no longer exist. Microsoft Office does exist and
each and every one of the penguins is bragging on how well they can steal
the files with mimic software that is just almost as good.
Let me give you a lesson in real life. Microsoft Windows can be had at
retail for about one hundred USD. Microsoft Office can had for about the
same. If you cannot afford it, you cannot afford to sacrifice your dignity
to use it either.
You are fluent in English so act like you have some honor.
You penguins all talk about free, free, free. Free is good. So free
yourself from stealing from Microsoft and co-engineer a better office suite.
One that does not base its fame upon being able to open Microsoft Word
files.
Can you do that?
No. You cannot. I know that and all of you know that.
IBM has tried and they failed. Sun Microsystems has tried and they failed.
Borland has tried and they failed. Google has tried and they failed.
Microsoft Office has ruled the world and continues to rule the world for
eons to come.
You can try to spin it any way you like.
ZnU
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> On 2009-05-15, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <slrnh0pgr...@nomad.mishnet>,
> > JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2009-05-14, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >> > In article <slrnh0p5b...@nomad.mishnet>,
> >
> >> >> Compared to "just open the file", it is a counter-intuitive mess.
> >> >
> >> > I have seen people have problems with this. But I'd mostly blame this on
> >> > third-party developers. The good ones usually have instructions that
> >> > appear when the disk image is opened. The really good ones just zip
> >>
> >> You mean a README?
> >>
> >> You're a laugh a minute.
> >
> > I mean this sort of thing:
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/21998872@N00/3532665996/
> >
> > It's pretty common.
>
> Shiny happy GUI installers are also "pretty common" on Linux too.
>
> Once you create an installation package that requires the end user
> to open up some documentation to proceed, you've failed. It's so stupid
> that it's amazing that you would even try to defend it.
You didn't click the link. Or perhaps you don't understand what you're
looking at. That isn't documentation; that's the Finder window that
appears when the disk image containing the app mounts. Finder windows
can have custom backgrounds set; developers use this to provide
installation instructions. That icon is the app, and that Applications
folder is a soft link to /Applications. The user can install the app by
dragging the one icon to the other.
The way Safari is configured by default, it will automount images. In
other words, out of the box, after downloading this app, the above
window will simply appear on the user's screen. I rather suspect most
users will figure out how to install the app.
This practice is common enough that the user will get the hang of
installing apps from disk images pretty fast.
[snip]
> The moment a camera vendor decides to spit out similar AVI files, the
> Apple user is screwed (you can find some examples at apple.com) because
> the Apple is being subjected to the "unexpected" and the collective in
> Cupertino decided not to be as flexible as computing technology allows
> for.
I notice you completely removed discussion of the Flip, probably the
most widely used video camera that produces AVI files. And which is
fully compatible with iMovie thanks to vendor support of the kind that
most vendors don't bother to extend to Linux.
> [deletia]
>
> If I can watch it, the video toolset should be able to convert it to
> a suitable mpeg ps stream PERIOD. No ifs, ands, buts or excuses.
iDVD is part of a package of tools designed around a common consumer use
case: ingesting home movies, editing them, and outputting to DVD.
You seem to want a sort of generic video conversion or manipulation
tool. There are many of those for the Mac; a couple of them are from
Apple. iDVD is not one of them, and is not intended to be. You're
basically complaining because you're trying to use the wrong tool for
the job you're doing, and it doesn't work very well.
> The "packaged for distribution" excuse is just nonsense.
>
> If it's in my library (for whatever reason) I should be able to
> render it to any suitable format including an iPhone resricted MP4 or
> a standard DVD capable of being viewed in any standard DVD player.
>
> ...for which HDV is remarkably less relevant.
You're really interested in camcorders that produce AVI files, but don't
seem to think HDV camcorders (which are much more common) are relevant.
I'm sure it's just pure coincidence that you just happen to favor the
format for which Linux has more a plausible workflow.
> What was that about "rip, mix, burn"?
I notice you removed all discussion of driver-related issues. And all of
your nonsense about how iTunes supposedly couldn't deal with being fed
folders with non-media files. And your silly claims that iPhoto didn't
do anything that couldn't be done by organizing photos in the file
system, or whatever you were trying to imply with that whole line of
argument. (It never made much sense.)
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> RickyBobby wrote:
>
> <silly giggling>
>
> Get a new shtick, this one doesn't have wings.
You're giving him a jet assist, tho.
--
Q: How many hardware engineers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. We'll fix it in software.
Q: How many system programmers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. The application can work around it.
Q: How many software engineers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. We'll document it in the manual.
Q: How many tech writers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. The user can figure it out.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On 2009-05-15, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <slrnh0pgr...@nomad.mishnet>,
>> JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-05-14, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>>> > In article <slrnh0p5b...@nomad.mishnet>,
>>
>>> >> Compared to "just open the file", it is a counter-intuitive mess.
>>> >
>>> > I have seen people have problems with this. But I'd mostly blame this on
>>> > third-party developers. The good ones usually have instructions that
>>> > appear when the disk image is opened. The really good ones just zip
>>>
>>> You mean a README?
>>>
>>> You're a laugh a minute.
>>
>> I mean this sort of thing:
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/21998872@N00/3532665996/
>>
>> It's pretty common.
>
> Shiny happy GUI installers are also "pretty common" on Linux too.
The one shown above is awfully funny.
Why?
It has to have a sentence of /text/ to tell the user how to use the GUI.
Even with arrows present!
--
You will be successful in love.
William Poaster
of the trolls Peter K�hlmann was heard to say:
> RickyBobby wrote:
>
>>
>> "Rhys" <rbchi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4ff092ba-
> ed96-4499-9d4...@u39g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
>>> What are the pros and cons of linux?
>>>
>>> This question should be taken in light of switching from Windows XP to
>>> Linux instead of Windows 7 or Vista. It should also include the same
>>> for switching from a Mac OSX environment, making clear reference to
>>> the transitional period and relating to not just one computer but
>>> several to many.
>>>
>>> Last point, no Flaming, no FUD, no personal vendettas or opinions,
>>> purely objective comparison.
>>
>> Windows is the best because most people use it
>
> Millions of flies...
Sheeple.
>> and it has Office which runs the world.
>
> Idiot
The stupid troll is still here, is it.
--
It IS because of him and two other useless people in particular
(CBFalconer and Harold "old school" Stevens (probably both Willy nyms)
that I started to drift from the Ubuntu fan boy zone.
Hadron - Message-ID: <gdl55d$lc2$1...@registered.motzarella.org>
Gregory Shearman
> On Thu, 14 May 2009 21:04:15 +0200, above the shrieking, FUDding & whining
>
>> RickyBobby wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Rhys" <rbchi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4ff092ba-
>> ed96-4499-9d4...@u39g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
>>>> What are the pros and cons of linux?
>>>>
>>>> This question should be taken in light of switching from Windows XP to
>>>> Linux instead of Windows 7 or Vista. It should also include the same
>>>> for switching from a Mac OSX environment, making clear reference to
>>>> the transitional period and relating to not just one computer but
>>>> several to many.
>>>>
>>>> Last point, no Flaming, no FUD, no personal vendettas or opinions,
>>>> purely objective comparison.
>>>
>>> Windows is the best because most people use it
>>
>> Millions of flies...
>
> Sheeple.
I think that's a little unfair.
Just because people don't care enough or even know of the existence of
Linux are not necessarily following the herd in general. Computers
aren't *that* important for most people. They just want it to do its
job. They're not interesting in *how* it does its job, or what brand of
operating system is running it.
High Plains Thumper
> JEDIDIAH stated:
>> ZnU wrote:
>>
>>> Relative to Windows, there's also much less of a malware
>>> threat.
>>>
>>> Relative to both systems, however, Linux still suffers
>>> from having a smaller pool of mainstream desktop apps (and
>>> many of those it does have tend to be less mature and of
>>> lower quality), and from various issues
>>
>
> Really... though the gap is less than it was there is still a
> way to go. Here, from the next-to-newest Ubuntu:
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/UbuntuCP.mov>
>
> With the newest Ubuntu, right click works in gedit, but the
> rest is still the same.
Re: "<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/UbuntuCP.mov> Care to
comment or do you NOT understand the video?"
Alias: "Copying and pasting or cutting and pasting is a bit
different in Ubuntu. Note that the lamer who made this video
didn't know that you can select something and then just click the
wheel on your mouse and it will paste, something you can't do
with Windows and is much quicker than the lame Windows way in the
video." 19 Apr 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/9abb006c689c9e62
Thus Snit demonstrates his only purpose in COLA is to FUD Linux.
Again.
--
HPT
ZnU
Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
Yeah, that's hilarious. Usually GUI interfaces are purely graphical,
displaying absolutely no text at all.
Uh... wait. That isn't actually true at all.
As anyone who has ever tried to put together Ikea furniture will tell
you, instructions given in purely graphical form aren't always a great
idea.
Hadron
Your post demonstrates yet again why you are known as the dumbest
poaster in COLA. The issues were nothing to do with the mouse set
up. Nothing.
TRY to get a clue before you embarrass yourself any further.
--
In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading
lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to
another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that
computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller
Hadron
You creepy little suck up. Just about ALL guis have text telling people
what to do. You do know that the text is part of the GUI dont you? if
not, why do buttons have text on? Menus made of text? Context help panes
etc.
Christ on a bike, do you ever tell the truth when sucking up to fellow
advocates?
JEDIDIAH
So the Mac has deteriorated into being Ikea furniture now, eh?
What happened to it being a BMW?
You don't get assembly instructions with a BMW.
--
On the subject of kilobyte being "redefined" to mean 1000 bytes...
When I was a wee lad, I was taught that SI units were |||
meant to be computationally convenient rather than just / | \
arbitrarily assigned.
Snit
HPT is just unable to handle the fact that he could not follow simple copy
and paste instructions. It is time - past time - for him to move on.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
chrisv
>> Sheeple.
>
>I think that's a little unfair.
>
>Just because people don't care enough or even know of the existence of
>Linux are not necessarily following the herd in general. Computers
>aren't *that* important for most people. They just want it to do its
>job. They're not interesting in *how* it does its job, or what brand of
>operating system is running it.
Right. Many do not know- or care-of the alternatives. Many have
legitimate reasons (applications) for using Windows - probably
well-over half the market, at this point in time.
What I would call a "sheep" is someone who really could be
better-served by OSS, has had this expained to them, has a reasonable
support-structure to fall-back on, and still won't try it.
I might place most corporate IT leadership into this category - they
have no excuse to be ignorant, and they can hire expertise. They are
generally so afraid of short-term disruption that they will not even
begin planning for a possible future move to OSS, by taking the step
of migrating corporate data to open-standard formats - a relatively
painless and risk-free undertaking.
It's downright tragic that our world has something that is considered
a "de facto standard" word-processor that people are afraid of
deviating-from. A word-processor should be a commodity,
interchangeable tool.
ZnU
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
Once again you demonstrate your complete inability to understand
metaphors, illustrations, or any sort of remotely abstract thought.
These are essential tools of debate. If you can't use them, you probably
shouldn't bother attempting logical argument.
JEDIDIAH
Beyond something as limited a file name or tool tip, no not really.
This is not exactly rocket science here. HELL, this is something on the
order of 1985 non-Apple GUI technology we're talking about here.
> not, why do buttons have text on? Menus made of text? Context help panes
> etc.
>
> Christ on a bike, do you ever tell the truth when sucking up to fellow
> advocates?
>
Well, there's a bit of difference between the caption for an icon or
some tooltip and a README. If you are going to resort to READMEs then that
makes all sorts of (obviously non-intuitive things) being declared as perfectly
suitable for the unwashed masses.
So yes: an MSI in Windows or a DEB in Ubuntu trumps the hell out of any
app on the Mac that installs with one of those naieve DMG archives. My old
comment from before still stands: all it takes is some non-conformant Linux
centric developer to break Apple's "walled garden" all to hell.
Liberty can be a bitch sometimes.
chrisv
>Once again you demonstrate your complete inability to understand
>metaphors, illustrations, or any sort of remotely abstract thought.
>
>These are essential tools of debate.
Are they really "essential" tools of debate, Znit?
They are often used as tools of evasion and deception...
>If you can't use them, you probably shouldn't bother attempting logical argument.
More like, if you can't make your case without them, you probably
ZnU
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
No READMEs have been mentioned or described in this thread by anyone
except you. Do you still not understand what you're looking at in that
picture?
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> You creepy little suck up. Just about ALL guis have text telling people
> what to do. You do know that the text is part of the GUI dont you? if
> not, why do buttons have text on? Menus made of text? Context help panes
> etc.
>
> Christ on a bike, do you ever tell the truth when sucking up to fellow
> advocates?
:-D
What a silly, feckless ass you are, Hadron! :-D
JEDIDIAH
That is fine for this SINGULAR EXAMPLE.
For every other DMG file, this is meaningless.
Yes, it's nice that one person decided to make his tarball all nice
and shiny and happy and such. For the next random tarball, what this guy
did doensn't really mattern.
OTOH, what the Finder does by itself is far more useful/relevant.
Hoist on your own petard...
chrisv
> Quack snotted:
>>
>> You creepy little suck up. Just about ALL guis have text telling people
>> what to do. You do know that the text is part of the GUI dont you? if
>> not, why do buttons have text on? Menus made of text? Context help panes
>> etc.
>>
>> Christ on a bike, do you ever tell the truth when sucking up to fellow
>> advocates?
>
> :-D
>
>What a silly, feckless ass you are, Hadron! :-D
It can be amusing, on occasion, to watch him foaming and frothing at
the mouth... 8)
ZnU
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
This is not a universal practice, but it's an extremely common one for
apps that install via drag and drop.
> For every other DMG file, this is meaningless.
This practice is quite useful even if not universal, because once the
user understands how to install an app from a disk image (drag it to
/Applications), he doesn't need to be told every time.
> Yes, it's nice that one person decided to make his tarball all nice
> and shiny and happy and such. For the next random tarball, what this guy
> did doensn't really mattern.
The fact that you call it a "tarball" seems to indicate that you aren't
actually really aware of how OS X software is distributed and haven't
really been paying much attention to what I've been saying.
> OTOH, what the Finder does by itself is far more useful/relevant.
>
> Hoist on your own petard...
What the Finder does is what the developer instructs it to, basically.
It can mount a disk image (for which the developer may or may not have
included a background image explaining how to install), or extract a zip
or auto-extracting disk image, leaving the user with an app simply
sitting in his downloads folder that he can put where he wants.
GreyCloud
Pretty good there. <g>
--
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo.
American Government official (1863-1941).
GreyCloud
> On May 14, 2:15 am, Rhys <rbchinc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What are the pros and cons of linux?
>>
>> This question should be taken in light of switching from Windows XP to
>> Linux instead of Windows 7 or Vista. It should also include the same
>> for switching from a Mac OSX environment, making clear reference to
>> the transitional period and relating to not just one computer but
>> several to many.
>
>
> have real jobs. The rest have to bring down Microsoft. There's no time
> for you and your silly computer.
>
>> Last point, no Flaming, no FUD, no personal vendettas or opinions,
>> purely objective comparison.
>
> FUD: Linux won't work with your printer.
> Personal Vendetta: I'm a microsoft shill out to damage Roy's
> reputation.
> Opinion: Bacon is the single greatest food of all time.
> Purely objective comparison: Alice in Chains is the best group to come
> out of the early 90's because they were the only popular band to
> truely embrace the true grunge sound.
>
Best summation I ever saw. <G>
GreyCloud
> On Thu, 14 May 2009 13:41:27 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> In article <RrZOl.74842$HZ1....@newsfe15.iad>,
>> "RickyBobby" <nasc...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> Mac is the second best because a lot of people use iTunes but there is no
>>> office suite available.
>> Microsoft Office has been available for the Mac continuously since 1989,
>> with individual components of Office being available even earlier (Word
>> in 1984, Excel in 1985, and PowerPoint in 1987).
>
> Not to mention iWork is a pretty capable suite. I understand that
> OpenOffice for the Mac has recently got better, but for a long time it was
> a pretty bad port. There are also a number of smaller suites as well.
And it seems that Sun had a lot to do with the port. Pretty good seeing
that it is free for the download.
Homer
> On 2009-05-14, Rhys <rbchi...@gmail.com> claimed:
>> What are the pros and cons of linux?
>
>> purely objective comparison.
>
>
>
> What are the pros and cons of Windows or Mac? No opinions, please.
Surely it's pretty obvious.
When a Linux user claims Windows sucks, that's just an opinion.
When a Windows user claims Linux sucks, that's a fact.
So what our devil's-advocate friend is really asking for, is an
admission that Windows is the greatest thing since Jesus-embossed toast,
and Linux is a steaming pile of Slopware.
IOW - "give me any answer, as long as it's the answer I want".
I'd say the question is loaded, to put it mildly, but that's just my
opinion - which I can't give, of course.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which
| the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf
| denounces him for the same act, as the destroyer of liberty.
| Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of
| the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today
| among human creatures." ~ Abraham Lincoln
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
01:12:09 up 3 days, 3:33, 4 users, load average: 0.08, 0.11, 0.04
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Especially since my remark was mainly ironic.
And yet it trolled the troll!
I wonder if Hadron recognizes the difference between a "key word" on a
button and a complete, explanatory, English sentence.
--
You have a deep interest in all that is artistic.
JEDIDIAH
> In article <slrnh0rl7...@nomad.mishnet>,
> JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-05-15, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> > In article <slrnh0rfm...@nomad.mishnet>,
>> > JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2009-05-15, Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@launchmodem.com> writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> After takin' a swig o' grog, JEDIDIAH belched out
>> >> >> this bit o' wisdom:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> On 2009-05-15, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >>>> In article <slrnh0pgr...@nomad.mishnet>,
>> >> >>>> JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> On 2009-05-14, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >>>>> > In article <slrnh0p5b...@nomad.mishnet>,
>> >>
>> >> Well, there's a bit of difference between the caption for an icon or
>> >> some tooltip and a README. If you are going to resort to READMEs then that
>> >> makes all sorts of (obviously non-intuitive things) being declared as
>> >> perfectly
>> >> suitable for the unwashed masses.
>> >
>> > No READMEs have been mentioned or described in this thread by anyone
>> > except you. Do you still not understand what you're looking at in that
>> > picture?
>>
>> That is fine for this SINGULAR EXAMPLE.
>
> This is not a universal practice, but it's an extremely common one for
> apps that install via drag and drop.
...save it for someone that doesn't have a Mac of his own under the desk.
--
Linux: because everyone should get to drink the beer of their |||
choice and not merely be limited to pretensious imports or hard cider. / | \
GreyCloud
ZnU
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
I have all the downloaded packages for the most recent MacHeist bundle
(a nice cross section of downloadable Mac software) sitting in a folder.
Let's look at these, so you can't accuse me to choosing a set of apps
that will necessarily confirm my contention.
- Acorn -- Zip file unzips into app.
- BoinxTV -- Disk image w/ graphical instructions.
- Cro-Mag Rally -- Disk image w/o graphical instructions.
- Delicious Library 2 -- Zip file unzips into app.
- Espresso -- Disk image w/o instructions.
- iSale -- Disk image w/ graphical instructions.
- Kinemac -- Disk image w/ graphical instructions.
- Multiwinia -- Disk image w/ graphical instructions.
- PhoneView -- Zip file unzips into folder containing app.
- Picturesque -- Disk image w/ graphical instructions..
- SousChef -- Zip file unzips into app.
- The Hit List -- Zip file unzips into app.
- Times -- Disk image w/ graphical instructions.
- WireTap Studio -- Installer.
- World of Goo -- Dish image w/o instructions.
So, of the 15 apps, there are three (3) that are distributed on disk
images without instructions, and could conceivably cause problems for
users who don't understand they should drag the app to /Applications.
As I said, taking steps to avoid that problem is extremely common on the
part of developers.
Also notable is that 14 of the 15 apps are installable via drag & drop.
High Plains Thumper
> Hadron stated:
>> High Plains Thumper writes:
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> Really... though the gap is less than it was there is
>>>> still a way to go. Here, from the next-to-newest Ubuntu:
>>>>
>>>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/UbuntuCP.mov>
>>>>
>>>> With the newest Ubuntu, right click works in gedit, but
>>>> the rest is still the same.
>>>
>>> Re: "<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/UbuntuCP.mov> Care
>>> to comment or do you NOT understand the video?"
>>>
>>> Alias: "Copying and pasting or cutting and pasting is a
>>> bit different in Ubuntu. Note that the lamer who made this
>>> video didn't know that you can select something and then
>>> just click the wheel on your mouse and it will paste,
>>> something you can't do with Windows and is much quicker
>>> than the lame Windows way in the video." 19 Apr 2009
>>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/9abb006c689c9e62
>>>
>>> Thus Snit demonstrates his only purpose in COLA is to FUD
>>> Linux. Again.
>>
>> Your post demonstrates yet again why you are known as the
>> dumbest poaster in COLA. The issues were nothing to do with
>> the mouse set up. Nothing.
[quote]
Name: Hadron Quark (aka: Hadron, Damian O'Leary, Hans Schneider)
Traits: [...]
* Doesn't understand the value of telnet client as a simple
network debugging tool. Thinks using telnet always means sending
a username and password in clear text. Truly ignorant of TCP/IP.
[/quote]
http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/01/hadron-quark-troll.html
Debian Stable is one of the most widely used distros for mission
critical applications and where one wants minimal impact to
production work. Very few require bleeding edge software to be
productive.
Yet this same genius stated that Debian Stable is full of bugs
and too backward for usage:
Subject: Re: [News] Sister OS to Linux, OS-X Has Better TCO than
Microsoft Windows
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2008 09:50:07 +0100
Message-ID: fr08c1$9e1$2...@registered.motzarella.org
[quote]
> Hadron has an apparent inability to recognise how more
> consistent usage of Debian Stable will only help his usage of
> the product, preferring unstable versions of Debian; if not
> for the only reason as an opportunity to attack Linux/OSS.
Once more for the hard of brain power : I use testing. Not
unstable. And I use it for a reason - Debian Stable is simply too
buggy and backward and I cant be arsed to manage pinning or
selectively monitoring backports.
[/quote]
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/3364e9f972538fd9
>> TRY to get a clue before you embarrass yourself any further.
Like?
[quote]
Hadron wrote:
> It IS because of him and two other useless people in
> particular (CBFalconer and Harold "old school" Stevens
> (probably both Willy nyms) that I started to drift from the
> Ubuntu fan boy zone.
"I got my ass kicked up around my shoulders in AOLU, so in a lame
attempt to hide the ass-kicking I received and deserved, I puffed
out my hollow chest, chortled 'victory' and acted like I walked
away from the group."
[/quote]
> HPT is just unable to handle the fact that he could not follow
> simple copy and paste instructions. It is time - past time -
> for him[^h^h^hSnit] to move on.
118- Tommy: "In case you did not get it, I think the moral was:
Stop polluting the world with your infantile and obsessive
"writings". You give Mac advocacy a bad name. If that was your
goal you have succeeded! That also goes for all that bullshit on
your website" 11 Jun 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/03610d2080321d33
Snit circus of pathological lies, now up to 128 poster quotes,
with nearly all references!
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/05367cd2cb7d03a5
--
HPT
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> I wonder if Hadron recognizes the difference between a "key word" on a
>> button and a complete, explanatory, English sentence.
>
> http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/
>
> Click on the Time Traveler one. :-))
Dang, it's quicktime, and I haven't bothered loading the mplayer firefox
plugin. But, good for you Apple! I can download the file.
http://movies.apple.com/media/us/mac/getamac/2009/apple-mvp-time_traveler-us-20090419_480x272.mov
Oooh, "Future PC just froze!"
Microsoft -- different century, same old shit!
--
"I wonder", he said to himself, "what's in a book while it's closed. Oh, I
know it's full of letters printed on paper, but all the same, something must
be happening, because as soon as I open it, there's a whole story with people
I don't know yet and all kinds of adventures and battles."
-- Bastian B. Bux
Tim Smith
Note also that for most apps that come on a disk image, there is no need
to actually "install" the app. They usually will run fine from the disk
image.
If I know I'm only going to rarely use an app, I won't bother dragging
it to the Applications folder. I'll just open the disk image and run
the app from there.
--
--Tim Smith
GreyCloud
> After takin' a swig o' grog, GreyCloud belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder if Hadron recognizes the difference between a "key word" on a
>>> button and a complete, explanatory, English sentence.
>> http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/
>>
>> Click on the Time Traveler one. :-))
>
> Dang, it's quicktime, and I haven't bothered loading the mplayer firefox
> plugin. But, good for you Apple! I can download the file.
>
> http://movies.apple.com/media/us/mac/getamac/2009/apple-mvp-time_traveler-us-20090419_480x272.mov
>
> Oooh, "Future PC just froze!"
>
> Microsoft -- different century, same old shit!
>
There is another apple ad, but didn't find it on their web site, that
shows the PC guy clamping a couple of battery
charger cables to this big push button, so that when you pushed the
button you got zapped. Then the PC guy got interrupted
by the apple kid and the PC guy said "where was I anyway?" "Oh, yeah, I
got to test my setup" so he pushed the button
and smoked his butt.