Why is my old computer faster than my new computer?
DFS
P1-166, 32mb: 7 seconds to launch MS Excel 97.
P4-2000, 1000mb: 12 seconds to launch OpenOffice Calc 2.0 (for Windows)
Linux/OSS: sucks the life out of a computer.
Larry Qualig
<sarcasm>
Gee. I have absolutely no idea what the response to your post is
going to be.
</sarcasm>
Madhusudan Singh
Nice move buster. Comparing a 1997 program with a 2005 program.
7
So how long does it take to open a photo document with
32 pictures each 1600x1200, two pictures per page
with captions?
Open office no problems, micoshaft oriffice - yeah well if you got
all day you might want to try that. Just click once to edit, and
then kiss goodbye to the rest of the day while you cuddle
up with clippy as it explains how its now fornicating with your hard disk.
Swing Daddy
Now that is a post that will really, "reel em' in!"
The sharpnel on that puppy should be very intense indeed.
Yes, very intense indeed.
ray
How's about comparing MS Excel 2005 vice OO2.0 - or else the first version
of OO against Excel 97 - talk about comparing apples with oranges!
George Ellison
Demoted yourself to cheerleader, flatty?
MaskedSlacker
Do you think DFS writes the "Get the Facts" advertisements?
TheLetterK
> Because my old computer runs MS Office, and my new computer has OpenOffice.
>
> P1-166, 32mb: 7 seconds to launch MS Excel 97.
> P4-2000, 1000mb: 12 seconds to launch OpenOffice Calc 2.0 (for Windows)
speak tweaks and let it preload like Office does.
--
"There is nothing I understand." - Shit
Kleuskes & Moos
DFS schreef:
So you compare two programs you run on windows and then (somehow) draw
a conclusion about Open Source software in general and linux in
particular?
"Non Sequitur" is the appropriate term here. The conclusion you draw
does not follow from your premisse.
Karel "de Jazz" Jansens
> So how long does it take to open a photo document with
> 32 pictures each 1600x1200, two pictures per page
> with captions?
Ten minutes, in OOo 2beta. AMD Athlon 1Ghz, 512 MB, both Linux Ubuntu BB
and Windows 2k. I don't have MSOffice, but TextMaker choked completely
on the file.
15 page-size scans, at 600 dpi, with transparent graphic additions (done
in Draw) + 1 page of 5 by 10 photos and 10 pages of text and tables.
I thought that was rather good, but next time I'm certainly splitting
that sucker up.
--
Karel "de Jazz" Jansens
"Those of us who fail history, are doomed to repeat it in summer school."
(Buffy Summers)
Karel "de Jazz" Jansens
It would even be more interesting to compare the spreadsheet module of
StarOffice 5.1 with Excel 2005: back then all modules of SO were
standalone, and they loaded faster than the hard drive could serve them up.
Skeets
air.
wake me up when any version of MSO can do anything on linux.
DFS
I doubt any version (ever) of OpenOffice would run on a 32mb RAM system.
OpenOffice/OSS reduces a computer with 12x the CPU and 30x the memory to the
status of an also ran.
DFS
> dfs, you must be bored. take a walk around the block - get some fresh
> air.
I did that earlier. I played with my dogs in the backyard.
> wake me up when any version of MSO can do anything on linux.
Enjoy your nap...
Tim Smith
wrote:
> Because my old computer runs MS Office, and my new computer has OpenOffice.
>
> P1-166, 32mb: 7 seconds to launch MS Excel 97.
> P4-2000, 1000mb: 12 seconds to launch OpenOffice Calc 2.0 (for Windows)
On the old computer, Office is pre-resident in RAM. Turn that off, and
it will take approximately forever to launch.
--
--Tim Smith
Malware Magnet
Wintrolls need to come up with some new lies. These are tired and
uninteresting.
Must be hard to "innovate" bullshit when your stuck with a monosynaptic
brain.
--
Back from the restroom? Better scan your Winwoes system.
Malware Magnet
LOL! Nice to see a level head.
Malware Magnet
> Madhusudan Singh wrote:
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Because my old computer runs MS Office, and my new computer has
>>> OpenOffice.
>>>
>>> P1-166, 32mb: 7 seconds to launch MS Excel 97.
>>> P4-2000, 1000mb: 12 seconds to launch OpenOffice Calc 2.0 (for
>>> Windows)
>>>
>>> Linux/OSS: sucks the life out of a computer.
>>
>> Nice move buster. Comparing a 1997 program with a 2005 program.
>
>
> I doubt any version (ever) of OpenOffice would run on a 32mb RAM system.
It does, genius.
>
> OpenOffice/OSS reduces a computer with 12x the CPU and 30x the memory to the
> status of an also ran.
Only on a computer configured at DFS labs.
Malware Magnet
Exactly. Opening a "view" of a file means nothing. Editing/updating it is
where OO shines and MSO gags and pukes all over the Winwoes sill.
DFS
That's a joke. Try this simple test with MS Word and OpenOffice Writer on
the same computer, and see which craps out first.
Type a sentence "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of
their country." (or whatever sentence you want). Now copy it and paste it
after itself. Keep pasting until you have a page or two. Then copy the
pages and paste it, and so on. Just hold down Ctrl+V and it will keep
pasting.
Using Word 2000, I quit at page 7,045 with no problems. It was still
cutting and pasting as fast as ever (but took a few seconds to repaginate
when it was in the multi-thousand page range). The 7,045 page file saved in
3 seconds, at 28.8mb. It opened in 1 second, and took 4 seconds to go to
the last page. This whole process took me less than a minute.
Now try the same operations on the same computer with that piece of shit
OpenOffice 2.0. It won't even paste after about 15 pages. You'll have to
wait for it to catch up. Then hit Ctrl + V, over and over, each time
waiting for the inferior code. I bet you can't ever get 1000 pages into an
OpenOffice doc this way. It will take you all night.
DFS
Sure it is. And that's why MS Office launches in no time WINE on Linux as
well.
DFS
> On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 19:43:29 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>> Madhusudan Singh wrote:
>>> DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> Because my old computer runs MS Office, and my new computer has
>>>> OpenOffice.
>>>>
>>>> P1-166, 32mb: 7 seconds to launch MS Excel 97.
>>>> P4-2000, 1000mb: 12 seconds to launch OpenOffice Calc 2.0 (for
>>>> Windows)
>>>>
>>>> Linux/OSS: sucks the life out of a computer.
>>>
>>> Nice move buster. Comparing a 1997 program with a 2005 program.
>>
>>
>> I doubt any version (ever) of OpenOffice would run on a 32mb RAM
>> system.
>
> It does, genius.
And which version would that be?
>> OpenOffice/OSS reduces a computer with 12x the CPU and 30x the
>> memory to the status of an also ran.
>
> Only on a computer configured at DFS labs.
And yours. The difference is you're too weak-minded to admit how slow
OpenOffice is.
Bobbie
singing along with Enya's Caribbean Blue vocalized:
> On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 16:36:47 -0500, DFS wrote:
> <snipped unread>
>
> Wintrolls need to come up with some new lies. These are tired and
> uninteresting.
>
> Must be hard to "innovate" bullshit when your stuck with a monosynaptic
> brain.
Can you imagine how boring his life must be if he has the time to sit
around and time the start-up of different office programs?
--
---------
Bobbie the Triple Killer
My website:
http://members.shaw.ca/bobbie4/index.htm
Kate made this sig.
Today's posting is brought to you by:
The numbers 0 & 1, Suse 10.0 and Pan Newsreader.
http://www.opensuse.org/Download
The ideal engineer is a composite ... He is not a scientist, he is not a
mathematician, he is not a sociologist or a writer; but he may use the
knowledge and techniques of any or all of these disciplines in solving
engineering problems.
N. W. Dougherty, 1955
DFS
> Can you imagine how boring his life must be if he has the time to sit
> around and time the start-up of different office programs?
What kind of ignoramus are you? Timing computer programs is what we do
here.
mlw
> Tim Smith wrote:
>> In article <X%5gf.37812$7s1....@fe04.lga>, "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Because my old computer runs MS Office, and my new computer has
>>> OpenOffice.
>>>
>>> P1-166, 32mb: 7 seconds to launch MS Excel 97.
>>> P4-2000, 1000mb: 12 seconds to launch OpenOffice Calc 2.0 (for
>>> Windows)
>>
>> On the old computer, Office is pre-resident in RAM. Turn that off,
>> and it will take approximately forever to launch.
>
> Sure it is.
So, you admit you are starting from a position where MS Office is already
loaded, and OpenOffice.org must load first.
Typical wintroll
Bobbie
with Enya's Caribbean Blue vocalized:
> Bobbie wrote:
And here I thought that playing music and browsing the net were good uses
for a computer. How silly of me.
What stop watch would you recommend?
Also, can I compare other programs than just OO and MS Office? Can I
compare Linux Solitare vs. Microsoft Solitare?
7
> 7 wrote:
>
>> So how long does it take to open a photo document with
>> 32 pictures each 1600x1200, two pictures per page
>> with captions?
>
> Ten minutes, in OOo 2beta. AMD Athlon 1Ghz, 512 MB, both Linux Ubuntu BB
> and Windows 2k. I don't have MSOffice, but TextMaker choked completely
> on the file.
Eh? What are you talking about?
First time it was less than 3 seconds with Open Office on a 750MHz duron!!
2nd time it was less than 2 seconds.
However, it took a few minutes for micoshaft oriffice to do anything.
7
You will be wrong 100%. Most documents that big needs pictures and
multiple columns and thats where micoshaft just falls down.
And when it crashes and takes your documents with it, you
become yet another micoshaftee that has been had by micoshaft
and learn to accept to not to write anything more than one page memos
with it.
Karel "de Jazz" Jansens
> Karel "de Jazz" Jansens wrote:
>
>
>>7 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So how long does it take to open a photo document with
>>>32 pictures each 1600x1200, two pictures per page
>>>with captions?
>>
>>Ten minutes, in OOo 2beta. AMD Athlon 1Ghz, 512 MB, both Linux Ubuntu BB
>>and Windows 2k. I don't have MSOffice, but TextMaker choked completely
>>on the file.
>
>
> Eh? What are you talking about?
> First time it was less than 3 seconds with Open Office on a 750MHz duron!!
> 2nd time it was less than 2 seconds.
> However, it took a few minutes for micoshaft oriffice to do anything.
That's how long it took on my computer, specs stated above. I did have
the graphics only linked in the OOo "test". I made a "special" version
for TextMaker, which cannot cope with those proprietary links. It
probably gave up because the file was too large. I have /no/ idea how
MSOffice would have coped, as I am blissfully free of it.
>>15 page-size scans, at 600 dpi, with transparent graphic additions (done
>>in Draw) + 1 page of 5 by 10 photos and 10 pages of text and tables.
>>
>>I thought that was rather good, but next time I'm certainly splitting
>>that sucker up.
>>
>
>
DFS
> DFS wrote:
>
>> Because my old computer runs MS Office, and my new computer has
>> OpenOffice.
>>
>> P1-166, 32mb: 7 seconds to launch MS Excel 97.
>> P4-2000, 1000mb: 12 seconds to launch OpenOffice Calc 2.0 (for
>> Windows)
>>
>> Linux/OSS: sucks the life out of a computer.
>
>
> 32 pictures each 1600x1200, two pictures per page
> with captions?
Little guy, you've got to get over this misuse of technology where you store
photos inside word processing documents.
* store the photos as individual files on your hard drive - like a normal
person
* create a database (MySQL, OO Base, Access) and store the path to the
photo, along with your name and description and/or caption. You can group
them together in albums, categorize them, sort by date, subject, etc.
* you have the option of storing the photo inside a binary data type field
in the database
* with Access or VB you can create a photo album/viewer system in no time
* use OpenOffice (Access would be much better) to generate a report that
prints the photos and the captions, in whatever order you want.
* or use Picasa from Google http://picasa.google.com/index.html
> Open office no problems,
You made a joke!
> micoshaft oriffice - yeah well if you got
> all day you might want to try that. Just click once to edit, and
> then kiss goodbye to the rest of the day while you cuddle
> up with clippy as it explains how its now fornicating with your hard
> disk.
Then you made a lie.
Malware Magnet
> Malware Magnet wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 21:49:30 +0000, 7 wrote:
>>
>>> DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> Because my old computer runs MS Office, and my new computer has
>>>> OpenOffice.
>>>>
>>>> P1-166, 32mb: 7 seconds to launch MS Excel 97.
>>>> P4-2000, 1000mb: 12 seconds to launch OpenOffice Calc 2.0 (for
>>>> Windows)
>>>>
>>>> Linux/OSS: sucks the life out of a computer.
>>>
>>>
>>> So how long does it take to open a photo document with
>>> 32 pictures each 1600x1200, two pictures per page
>>> with captions?
>>>
>>> Open office no problems, micoshaft oriffice - yeah well if you got
>>> all day you might want to try that. Just click once to edit, and
>>> then kiss goodbye to the rest of the day while you cuddle
>>> up with clippy as it explains how its now fornicating with your hard
>>> disk.
>>
>> Exactly. Opening a "view" of a file means nothing. Editing/updating
>> it is where OO shines and MSO gags and pukes all over the Winwoes
>> sill.
>
> That's a joke.
Word is a joke. I've crashed Word trying to copy/paste five lines of
mathematical theorems and formulas. It stumbles all over itslef trying to use that
crapware Solver.
--
Back from the restroom? Better scan your Windows system.
Malware Magnet
>> On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 19:43:29 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Madhusudan Singh wrote:
>>>> DFS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Because my old computer runs MS Office, and my new computer has
>>>>> OpenOffice.
>>>>>
>>>>> P1-166, 32mb: 7 seconds to launch MS Excel 97.
>>>>> P4-2000, 1000mb: 12 seconds to launch OpenOffice Calc 2.0 (for
>>>>> Windows)
>>>>>
>>>>> Linux/OSS: sucks the life out of a computer.
>>>>
>>>> Nice move buster. Comparing a 1997 program with a 2005 program.
>>>
>>>
>>> I doubt any version (ever) of OpenOffice would run on a 32mb RAM
>>> system.
>>
>> It does, genius.
>
> And which version would that be?
I have 1.1.3 running on SuSE 8.2.
You'll grow cobwebs on your mouse waiting for it to do anything...
but it *does* run.
Next.
--
Back from the restroom? Better scan your Windows system.
Archie
> Word is a joke. I've crashed Word trying to copy/paste five lines of
> mathematical theorems and formulas. It stumbles all over itslef trying
> to use that
> crapware Solver.
Care to post these horrible lines that cause Word so much grief?
Or is this yet another wild claim from the Linux zealots that will go
unchallenged.
Yea, I'll bet that's it.
Better start googling.
Archie
Peter Köhlmann
< snip flatfish droppings >
You lately posted as
Aftab Singh, Allen Cusimano, allison_hunt1969, Anna Banger, anonymous,
Archie, Archie Watermann, Baba Booey, Babu Singh, bill.gates.loves.me,
bison, Bjarne Jensen, BklynBoy, bonobo magilla, Boyce Mabri, Buster,
Charles LeGrand, Charlie, Choppers McGee, Christine Abernathy, Claire Lynn,
Clippy, Collie Entragion, Connie Hines, Corrie, Corrie Titlaand, dbx_boy,
Deadpenguin, Debbie, dismoqualifetch, Donn Carlsbad, Dr.Long John Jones,
Elliot Zimmermann, Emmanuel Arias, Fawn Lebowitz, flatfish+++, foamy, Fred
Simmons, gabriele howorth, Gary Stewart, George Littlefield, Gilbert,
Gilbert Hochaim, gilligan, Greg Finnigan, Greg Laplante, Hans Kimm, Harry
Hilton, Harvey Fogel, Heather, Heather69, Heddy Seafield, hepcat, Hugh
Himless, Ishmeal Hafizi, itchy balls, Ivan Mctavish, IvanaB, Jeff Szarka,
Joe Josephson, John Shelton, Jorge Jorgensen, Jose Lopez, juke_joint,
kaptain kaput, Karel Olish, Karla Snodgress, kathy_krantz, Kendra, Kenny
Dugan, Kent Dorfman, Kyle Cadet, Laura Shillingford, Le Farter, Les Turner,
Lilly, Lindy, Lisa Shavas, Lisa Cottmann, Long, long_tong_ling, Lukumi
Babalu Aye, Luna Lane, Major Mynor, McSwain, Mogumbo, Moses, Mooshoo Bong
Singh, narrows_...@yahoo.com, nate_mcspook, okto_pussy, OSS KDE User,
Paddy McCrockett, Patricia, Patty Poppins, Peter Gluckman, Phillip
Cornwall, phoung, phoung quoak, pickle_pete, Piss Clam, Poopy Pants McGee,
Quimby, Quizno Backer, Rich, Richard P. Johnson, Richie, Richie O'Toole,
Robert Strunk, rothstein_ivan, Sally Vadi, Sammy, Sammy Whalen, Saul
Goldblatt, Schlomo Smykowski, Sharon Cackle, Sharon Hubbasland, Sean, Sean
Fitzhenry, Sean Macpherson, Sewer Rat, sewer_clown, Sherlock Holmes ,
Simon, slacker.mcspritze, Spammy_Davis, spanny_davis, Stephan Simonsen,
Stephanie Mannerz, Stephen, Stephen Olsen, Stephen Townshend, SuckyB,
SunnyB, Susan Lapinski, Susan Wong, Suzie Wong, Swampee, The Beaver,
Thorsten, Timmy Luncford , Toby Rastus Roosovelt III, Tomas Bicsak, Tori,
Tori Wassermann, Trace Dennison, Tracee, Traci, trailerpark, Trina
Swallows, Trolly, Vince Fontain, Vladimir Yepifano, Walter Bubniak, Wang
Mycock, Wasser, Whizzer, Wilbur J, Willy Wong, Winnie Septos, Wobbles and
zyklon_C.
Plus many, many, many more.
--
"Against stupidity, the very gods themselves contend in vain."
Friedrich Schiller
Kelsey Bjarnason
> Because my old computer runs MS Office, and my new computer has OpenOffice.
>
> P1-166, 32mb: 7 seconds to launch MS Excel 97.
> P4-2000, 1000mb: 12 seconds to launch OpenOffice Calc 2.0 (for Windows)
And your P1-166, 32Mb machine loads Office 2003 how fast, exactly?
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 23:02:42 -0500, DFS wrote:
> Now try the same operations on the same computer with that piece of shit
> OpenOffice 2.0. It won't even paste after about 15 pages.
3000 pages so far. No problems yet. I'm pasting 10 pages at a go, it did
slow down a little after about 3000 pages, but nothing to raise any
concerns. <pause> 7000 pages, still merrily pasting. Happy happy, joy
joy.
Something occurs to me, though. Your cutesy little tests have one
fundamental flaw in them; specifically, they have virtually no
relationship to actual real-world usage.
Someone creating a 16 million entry spreadsheet, for example, is either
doing so specifically to test the software, or is unbelievably unclear on
the concept: a spreadsheet is not a database. Someone pasting 7,000 pages
hasn't quite grasped the concept of how documents are created or processed.
It seems to me like you look at a semi and complain it won't go 200mph,
then you look at a sports car and complain it won't haul 60,000 pounds.
Most folks simply don't care, because they're trying to drive to work, buy
groceries and the like; neither 200mph nor 60,000 pounds are relevant, and
if they need either of those, there are tools for those purposes - sports
cars and semis.
Show me that a stock, out of the box XP system can handle all the things I
use my box for. Web development, so I run my own multi-site server. PHP
scripting for active pages. Database backends, usiing multiple servers.
Development in C and C++. Word processing. Spreadsheeting. News, IRC,
Email and web browsing. Media format conversion. Creating - or even
simply viewing - PDF files. Indexing large document collections.
I pop in any of a dozen popular Linux distros, I have all of those
functions and more available simply by selecting the appropriate packages,
either from the shipped CDs, or the available repositories, all of it
managed by a unified GUI package manager with searching capabilities.
Show us how XP stacks up. Oh, right, it doesn't, because all it really
comes with is a media player, news/mail client, web browser and a badly
crippled text editor. It doesn't even provide a coherent, unified
installation manager for adding extra products.
Let's put this in perspective. Can MS Office paste 7,000 pages faster
than I can using OOo and Linux? Perhaps. On the other hand, I currently
have an active process in the background, indexing every document I have,
into a database, limited basically by disk speed. I'm running the DB
server it's storing things to. And running the web server I use for
testing and also for querying said index. Plus a second DB server I use
for other things. Plus file modification monitoring and reporting tools.
Plus a mail server. Plus an irc server, for testing my eggdrop bot. Plus
the bot itself, which is currently spewing forth information as fast as
the server will take it.
Golly gee. MS Office can paste 7000 pages - an operation I'm virtually
certain never to do in the first place - faster than OOo does... yet at
the end of the day, this system is probably processing 100 times the data
yours does, yet remains responsive and stable. Which is more important -
serving up _my_ needs for a system that actually does things I _need_ to
do? Or _your_ "needs" to post 7000 pages of repeated text, something
you've demonstrated you don't even have a need to do, else you'd have done
it with a real document?
Right. Next.
DFS
> [snips]
>
> On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 23:02:42 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>> Now try the same operations on the same computer with that piece of
>> shit OpenOffice 2.0. It won't even paste after about 15 pages.
>
> 3000 pages so far. No problems yet. I'm pasting 10 pages at a go,
> it did slow down a little after about 3000 pages, but nothing to
> raise any concerns. <pause> 7000 pages, still merrily pasting.
> Happy happy, joy joy.
Not on my OO 2.0 for Windows system. After 15 pages, it basically quits
pasting. I sit and wait and wait. It took me 3 minutes to get to 45 pages.
And I have 1gig of RAM.
> Something occurs to me, though. Your cutesy little tests have one
> fundamental flaw in them; specifically, they have virtually no
> relationship to actual real-world usage.
It was just a throwaway smackdown posted for the benefit of 7, who's deluded
himself into using OpenOffice Writer for his photo album.
> Someone creating a 16 million entry spreadsheet, for example, is
> either doing so specifically to test the software, or is unbelievably
> unclear on the concept: a spreadsheet is not a database. Someone
> pasting 7,000 pages hasn't quite grasped the concept of how documents
> are created or processed.
How ridiculous. When Toyota tests a new engine prototype by running it at
8000 rpm for 10 days straight, is it because they haven't grasped the
concept of stop and go city driving? The product is stress-tested to gauge
it's capabilities under lesser loads.
> Show me that a stock, out of the box XP system can handle all the
> things I use my box for.
How dishonest of you to ask XP to do something it's not intended to do. Why
don't you show me a Linux kernel that does all that stuff?
> Web development, so I run my own multi-site server.
Available for free for Windows
> PHP scripting for active pages.
Available for free for Windows
> Database backends, usiing multiple servers.
Available for free for Windows
> Development in C and C++.
Available for free for Windows
>Word processing.
Available for free for Windows
> Spreadsheeting.
Available for free for Windows
>News,
Available for free for Windows
>IRC,
Available for free for Windows
>Email and web browsing.
Available for free for Windows
> Media format conversion.
Available for free for Windows
> Creating - or even simply viewing - PDF files.
Available for free for Windows
> Indexing large document collections.
Available for free for Windows
> I pop in any of a dozen popular Linux distros, I have all of those
> functions and more available simply by selecting the appropriate
> packages, either from the shipped CDs, or the available repositories,
> all of it managed by a unified GUI package manager with searching
> capabilities.
Nice.
Why doesn't anyone in the world care? Why do they only want to use Windows
for those functions? And they're plenty willing to install the software one
CD at a time, swapping them in and out. And buy one app after another.
> Show us how XP stacks up. Oh, right, it doesn't, because all it
> really comes with is a media player, news/mail client, web browser
> and a badly crippled text editor. It doesn't even provide a
> coherent, unified installation manager for adding extra products.
But it provides access to a universe of the very best software and games.
It looks much better than Linux. It usually runs smoother and is more
consistent. It's generally faster at launching and running apps.
As a for instance, some Linux apps open quickly and some very slowly. And
when they open they have wildly differing interfaces that are bothersome -
lots of the apps just seem tossed together without testing or documentation.
Gnome apps often look funny on KDE, and vice versa. It's not the end of the
world, but it's a lesser computing experience than Windows provides.
> Let's put this in perspective. Can MS Office paste 7,000 pages faster
> than I can using OOo and Linux? Perhaps.
Those OO guys are good at copying MS Office feature for feature, but they
have got to do something about its speed. A snappy OO with a good db-client
would be a great free app.
> On the other hand, I
> currently have an active process in the background, indexing every
> document I have, into a database, limited basically by disk speed.
huh? My 100-yard dash is limited by my running speed. What are you talking
about?
I just turned on Windows Indexing Service. Will keep cola posted. Without
indexing on, the search under Windows stinks - bogs down the machine and is
slow.
I can't say Find Files is much better under Linux - I was able to lock it up
in the past just by doing a *.* search in usr/bin.
> I'm running the DB server it's storing things to. And running the
> web server I use for testing and also for querying said index. Plus
> a second DB server I use for other things. Plus file modification
> monitoring and reporting tools. Plus a mail server. Plus an irc
> server, for testing my eggdrop bot. Plus the bot itself, which is
> currently spewing forth information as fast as the server will take
> it.
Well, if you want to play that. Right now I'm running:
* Oracle 9.2 service
* Oracle Enterprise Mgr
* SQL Server 2000 service
* Hummingbird doc mgmt server service
* two instances of Access 2003
* a couple of native db clients
* Firefox
* Outlook Express
* Outlook 2003
* Opera
* Word 2000
* two Windows Explorers
etc etc etc
Though it's fairly rare I, or anyone, runs that many large programs at once.
> Golly gee. MS Office can paste 7000 pages - an operation I'm
> virtually certain never to do in the first place - faster than OOo
> does... yet at the end of the day, this system is probably processing
> 100 times the data yours does, yet remains responsive and stable.
Interesting. In one sentence you dismiss my 7K page test, but brag about
your unreal test.
And I'm sensing a rapskat-type challenge. He says Linux will handle 2x
Windows workload. Are you now claiming a Linux box will handle 100x the
data processing of a Windows Server box over an 8-hour period? Is that your
claim?
(as if you have any idea how much data moves through my system each day
anyway)
> Which is more important - serving up _my_ needs for a system that
> actually does things I _need_ to do? Or _your_ "needs" to post 7000
> pages of repeated text, something you've demonstrated you don't even
> have a need to do, else you'd have done it with a real document?
>
> Right. Next.
Next is OO 2.0 Base. I'm quite sure I can make OO Base choke on something
MS Access handles with ease.
Stay tuned...
amosf (Tim Fairchild)
> [snips]
>
> On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 23:02:42 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>> Now try the same operations on the same computer with that piece of shit
>> OpenOffice 2.0. It won't even paste after about 15 pages.
>
> 3000 pages so far. No problems yet. I'm pasting 10 pages at a go, it did
> slow down a little after about 3000 pages, but nothing to raise any
> concerns. <pause> 7000 pages, still merrily pasting. Happy happy, joy
> joy.
It's just another Doof troll. He will just say you are lying, which is funny
considering this lie of his about OOo. I pasted a formatted 18 page story
up to and over 7000 pages in well under a minute. Never slowed at all. And
it saved in MSO doc format in about 5 seconds, which is a nice fair
comparison. I can also go from start to finish of the doc instantly. It
takes longer, say 30 seconds, to save in open odt format (load in 15), but
then the file size is also 7 meg compared to 38 meg.
All lies as far as Doof is concerned, of course, just as when I told him I
installed firefox 1.0.4 without any trouble...
> Something occurs to me, though. Your cutesy little tests have one
> fundamental flaw in them; specifically, they have virtually no
> relationship to actual real-world usage.
Yep. Like who actually uses 7000 page docs? Ah well, it's nice to know that
OOo does it very well in case I might need a 7000 page doc some time...
> Let's put this in perspective. Can MS Office paste 7,000 pages faster
> than I can using OOo and Linux? Perhaps. On the other hand, I currently
It doesn't seem that MSO can do the pasting much faster if at all, it didn't
take long to get 7000 pages in OOo, that's for sure... MSO saves in MSO DOC
format slightly faster than OOo saves in MSO DOC format. But then OOo saves
in OOo ODT format infinitely faster then MSO saves in (any) OOo format.
OOo ODT format saves are substancially slower than MSO DOC saves, but then
the file size can be 5 times smaller or more, so when dealing with 7000
page docs it's a good trade off.
--
-
I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
-
amosf (Tim Fairchild)
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>> [snips]
>>
>> On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 23:02:42 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Now try the same operations on the same computer with that piece of
>>> shit OpenOffice 2.0. It won't even paste after about 15 pages.
>>
>> 3000 pages so far. No problems yet. I'm pasting 10 pages at a go,
>> it did slow down a little after about 3000 pages, but nothing to
>> raise any concerns. <pause> 7000 pages, still merrily pasting.
>> Happy happy, joy joy.
>
> Not on my OO 2.0 for Windows system. After 15 pages, it basically quits
> pasting. I sit and wait and wait. It took me 3 minutes to get to 45
> pages. And I have 1gig of RAM.
Ah, a windows problem. That sounds more like it. Took under a minute to get
7000+ pages on my 512meg linux box without even going into swap... You
should try linux then...
amosf (Tim Fairchild)
> On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 16:36:47 -0500, DFS wrote:
And how will it run Office 12?
Mind you, I'm sure there is an older version of staroffice that would run
fine on 32 meg. I used v 4 and 5 back when I had a p120, and it only had
32meg... We are talking about 1997 software here after all...
I don't currently have a p166/32 to try as I turned them into print servers
and routers and stuff. Too many cheap P2's and P3's around to bother with
the old P1's any more...
DFS
Welcome back, Dim. You were pouting for a few days, but you seem to have
forgotten what all the fuss was about....
LOL! Don't you know better than to reveal any personal foibles on cola?
As for OO on Windows, I just tried it again and similar result. It just
bogs down after 15 pages or so. It will still copy, but you have to wait 5
or so seconds for it to catch up. And just trying to select 100 pages of
text causes it to hang for at least one minute.
I will try it on Linux. I don't believe you with your 7000 pages in one
minute with no lag. The code base is C++ on all platforms, and there's no
reason for OO to behave that much differently under Windows.
MS has no worries, mate.
Ron House
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>Someone creating a 16 million entry spreadsheet, for example, is
>>either doing so specifically to test the software, or is unbelievably
>>unclear on the concept: a spreadsheet is not a database. Someone
>>pasting 7,000 pages hasn't quite grasped the concept of how documents
>>are created or processed.
>
>
> How ridiculous. When Toyota tests a new engine prototype by running it at
> 8000 rpm for 10 days straight, is it because they haven't grasped the
> concept of stop and go city driving? The product is stress-tested to gauge
> it's capabilities under lesser loads.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about computers. If a
program does X competently today, it will do it tomorrow under the same
conditions. How comparatively well software can handle 100s of times the
expected load has nothing to do with how it handles the load it is meant
to handle. But physical objects wear out. A motor that only just runs
under city conditions today will probably conk in the city tomorrow. A
semtrailer going over a bridge that only just supports it today will
most likely collapse the bridge when it tries it next time. That is why
physical objects are tested beyond specifications. Tell that to Bill
next time you go past his office.
--
Ron House ho...@usq.edu.au
http://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/house
amosf (Tim Fairchild)
Nope, you can go back to the pit you came from and stay ignored as much as
possible. Not much point telling you anything when the reply is always
'lie'... I just thought it funny that windows was giving you trouble...
Mark Kent
Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjar...@gmail.com> espoused:
Can you still buy Office 97?
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Today you'll start getting heavy metal radio on your dentures.
Aragorn
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>> [snips]
>>
>> On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 23:02:42 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Now try the same operations on the same computer with that piece of
>>> shit OpenOffice 2.0. It won't even paste after about 15 pages.
>>
>> 3000 pages so far. No problems yet. I'm pasting 10 pages at a go,
>> it did slow down a little after about 3000 pages, but nothing to
>> raise any concerns. <pause> 7000 pages, still merrily pasting.
>> Happy happy, joy joy.
>
> Not on my OO 2.0 for Windows system. After 15 pages, it basically
> quits pasting. I sit and wait and wait. It took me 3 minutes to get
> to 45 pages. And I have 1gig of RAM.
Perhaps it's the fault of the underlying operating system...?
>> Show me that a stock, out of the box XP system can handle all the
>> things I use my box for.
>
> How dishonest of you to ask XP to do something it's not intended to
> do. Why don't you show me a Linux kernel that does all that stuff?
Linux is a kernel. XP claims to be an operating system. If an
operating system cannot do certain things by default, then it is a
crippled operating system, period.
>> I pop in any of a dozen popular Linux distros, I have all of those
>> functions and more available simply by selecting the appropriate
>> packages, either from the shipped CDs, or the available repositories,
>> all of it managed by a unified GUI package manager with searching
>> capabilities.
>
> Nice.
>
> Why doesn't anyone in the world care? Why do they only want to use
> Windows for those functions?
Oh they *do* care. Please don't compare yourself with other people.
Not everyone is as unfairly biased as you.
> And they're plenty willing to install the software one CD at a time,
> swapping them in and out. And buy one app after another.
I will tell all the people who complain about such matters that you said
so, since you consider yourself so wise that you'd be an authority on
just about everything, including genetic analysis.
>> Show us how XP stacks up. Oh, right, it doesn't, because all it
>> really comes with is a media player, news/mail client, web browser
>> and a badly crippled text editor. It doesn't even provide a
>> coherent, unified installation manager for adding extra products.
>
> But it provides access to a universe of the very best software and
> games.
No, it offers you access to a universe of software and games that were
developed for Windows because of the Microsoft monopoly. The words
"very best" are _yours_ and you are just one person, with such an
unfair and outspoken Microsoft-bias that you could be one of their
major stockholders.
> It looks much better than Linux.
Once again, that is _your_ opinion. De coloribus et de gustibus non
disputandum.
KDE, Gnome and Enlightenment are far more advanced as graphical
interfaces than Windows is, and to many people, they are far more
attractive as well.
I find Windows boring.
> It usually runs smoother and is more consistent.
Ubuntu offers you a consistent GTK/Gnome desktop. Kubuntu offers you a
consistent Qt/KDE desktop. Windows does not run any smoother than
GNU/Linux by a long shot.
> It's generally faster at launching and running apps.
Bogus statement, based upon your (in)experiences and one particular
application you are always nagging about: OpenOffice 2.0. Windows uses
preloading, and under GNU/Linux, OpenOffice can be preloaded as well.
> As a for instance, some Linux apps open quickly and some very slowly.
Some are quite a bit heavier than others.
> And when they open they have wildly differing interfaces that are
> bothersome - lots of the apps just seem tossed together without
> testing or documentation.
They do not. The only difference would be the Qt look versus the GTK
look, and some older apps may have a Motif look.
> Gnome apps often look funny on KDE, and vice versa. It's not the end
> of the world, but it's a lesser computing experience than Windows
> provides.
I find the whole of Windows to be inconsistent. Especially the
comparison of the features, security and stability from the salestalk
and advertising versus the features showing from field experience.
>> Let's put this in perspective. Can MS Office paste 7,000 pages
>> faster than I can using OOo and Linux? Perhaps.
>
> Those OO guys are good at copying MS Office feature for feature, but
> they have got to do something about its speed. A snappy OO with a
> good db-client would be a great free app.
>
>> On the other hand, I currently have an active process in the
>> background, indexing every document I have, into a database, limited
>> basically by disk speed.
>
> huh? My 100-yard dash is limited by my running speed. What are you
> talking about?
>
> I just turned on Windows Indexing Service. Will keep cola posted.
> Without indexing on, the search under Windows stinks - bogs down the
> machine and is slow.
>
> I can't say Find Files is much better under Linux - I was able to lock
> it up in the past just by doing a *.* search in usr/bin.
Just cause to show that you don't understand how UNIX systems work.
Unrelated to the lock-up, "all files" is denoted by a single asterisk,
not by "*.*".
> [...]
>
>> Golly gee. MS Office can paste 7000 pages - an operation I'm
>> virtually certain never to do in the first place - faster than OOo
>> does... yet at the end of the day, this system is probably processing
>> 100 times the data yours does, yet remains responsive and stable.
>
> Interesting. In one sentence you dismiss my 7K page test, but brag
> about your unreal test.
>
> And I'm sensing a rapskat-type challenge. He says Linux will handle
> 2x Windows workload.
Yes it will, and more even.
> Are you now claiming a Linux box will handle 100x the data processing
> of a Windows Server box over an 8-hour period? Is that your claim?
Does the word "mainframe" mean anything to you? Does the word
"supercomputer" mean anything to you? Guess what OS they run...
> (as if you have any idea how much data moves through my system each
> day anyway)
>
>
>
>
>> Which is more important - serving up _my_ needs for a system that
>> actually does things I _need_ to do? Or _your_ "needs" to post 7000
>> pages of repeated text, something you've demonstrated you don't even
>> have a need to do, else you'd have done it with a real document?
>>
>> Right. Next.
>
>
> Next is OO 2.0 Base. I'm quite sure I can make OO Base choke on
> something MS Access handles with ease.
Anyone with the right privileges can choke any software on any operating
system, including the operating system itself, if they were to set
their mind to it.
I'm sure I can make Windows XP choke as well, and I didn't have too much
trouble choking IE when I first fired up my second-hand laptop.
> Stay tuned...
--
With kind regards,
*Aragorn*
(Registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
DFS
> DFS wrote:
>> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
>>> Someone creating a 16 million entry spreadsheet, for example, is
>>> either doing so specifically to test the software, or is
>>> unbelievably unclear on the concept: a spreadsheet is not a
>>> database. Someone pasting 7,000 pages hasn't quite grasped the
>>> concept of how documents are created or processed.
>>
>>
>> How ridiculous. When Toyota tests a new engine prototype by running
>> it at 8000 rpm for 10 days straight, is it because they haven't
>> grasped the concept of stop and go city driving? The product is
>> stress-tested to gauge it's capabilities under lesser loads.
>
> You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about computers.
You seem to be making fundamental "mis-assumptions" based on a not-so-great
but useful analogy.
> If a
> program does X competently today, it will do it tomorrow under the
> same conditions.
OK. And what computing conditions are the same from minute to minute, let
alone day to day?
> How comparatively well software can handle 100s of
> times the expected load has nothing to do with how it handles the
> load it is meant to handle.
You really believe software developers don't stress-test their apps, their
database engines, etc, to see how well they operate at the fringe, then
learn from those experiences and tweak the code to optimize processing
within the more likely ranges of whatever parameters are used? I'm 100%
sure they do.
When I find a bunch of 'stress-test' software, will you apologize for your
post? Of course not - you're a Linux nutcase who accepts nothing unless
it's written by a Linux User (tm).
Whoops:
http://www.topshareware.com/Load-Testing-and-Stress-Test-Software-download-3339.htm
http://www.paessler.com/webstress
http://www.webperformanceinc.com/?source=Google
> But physical objects wear out.
Hmmm... did you hear flash memory wears out? Hard drives? Optical drives?
I hear Linux causes bit rot after a while.
> A motor
> that only just runs under city conditions today will probably conk in
> the city tomorrow. A semtrailer going over a bridge that only just
> supports it today will most likely collapse the bridge when it tries
> it next time. That is why physical objects are tested beyond
> specifications.
Isn't memory a physical constraint that may impact program operation? And
shouldn't out of memory conditions that didn't exist today be considered in
case they exist tomorrow?
> Tell that to Bill next time you go past his office.
You're probably the 10th cola bozo to insinuate MS pays me to smack down you
weirdos. I do this for the entertainment value.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 00:09:32 -0500, DFS wrote:
> Not on my OO 2.0 for Windows system. After 15 pages, it basically quits
> pasting. I sit and wait and wait. It took me 3 minutes to get to 45 pages.
> And I have 1gig of RAM.
OOo 2.0, Linux. 640Mb. 1.4Ghz machine. Fairly busy machine, too. No
problems at all.
> How ridiculous. When Toyota tests a new engine prototype by running it
> at 8000 rpm for 10 days straight, is it because they haven't grasped the
> concept of stop and go city driving? The product is stress-tested to
> gauge it's capabilities under lesser loads.
Once again, showing your core dishonesty. I *said* "is either doing so
specifically to test the software..." but here you are arguing as if I
were denying that very possibility. Why aren't you capable of even
pretending to be honest?
> How dishonest of you to ask XP to do something it's not intended to do.
> Why don't you show me a Linux kernel that does all that stuff?
One doesn't *buy* the Linux kernel - nor the Windows kernel - as an
isolated product; one buys an OS and bundled software.
With Linux, that bundled software includes an actually useful selection
of tools; Windows, despite costing more in the general case, doesn't.
So, pay more, get less, and your support of this is to bring up a complete
irrelevancy, namely, a bare kernel?
Hey, if Windows is costing more, it should *do* more, right? Right. Does
it? No. Linux does *far* more for the price. Try again.
>> Web development, so I run my own multi-site server.
> Available for free for Windows
Bundled, right?
>> PHP scripting for active pages.
> Available for free for Windows
Bundled, right?
>> Database backends, usiing multiple servers.
> Available for free for Windows
Bundled, right?
>> Development in C and C++.
> Available for free for Windows
Bundled, right?
Oh, right. I'm still paying more, getting less, and then, to make up the
difference, I can spend the next week hunting websites, download and
installing applications, one by one, instead of having them ready to go,
off the boxed CD, or, at worst, a single unified installation GUI that
will let me install the whole bloomin' lot in a single fell swoop, with
virtually no effort.
Again, pay more, get less... and? This makes sense to you?
> Why doesn't anyone in the world care?
Many of us, do, obviously. You see the name of the group? It's *Linux*
advocacy. As in people who like and use Linux, explaining why. And we're
hardly alone. IBM has made widespread use of it, and is continuing to do
so. Several governments are either converting, or examining it. Research
organizations. Many Fortune 500 companies. Most of the vendors of the
most powerful computers in existence.
Okay, fine, *you* may not care... but millions do. That's far from
"nobody".
> Why do they only want to use
> Windows for those functions?
They don't. Some do, sure. Many - millions - don't. I'm one of them. I
know the concept is hard for you to grasp, but the fact is that "millions"
and "nobody" aren't quite the same thing.
>> Show us how XP stacks up. Oh, right, it doesn't, because all it really
>> comes with is a media player, news/mail client, web browser and a badly
>> crippled text editor. It doesn't even provide a coherent, unified
>> installation manager for adding extra products.
>
> But it provides access to a universe of the very best software
So you're paying for access to software. I get that, too. With, frankly,
*better* software for my needs than what's available in Windows. And
let's face it; that "access" is far simpler and more effective in Linux
than in Windows. So, easier access to more readily available software,
with less effort. Hmm... what did you pay for again? Oh, right; you paid
for more wasted time, more complexity and less bundled functionality.
Yes, good choice.
> As a for instance, some Linux apps open quickly and some very slowly.
Same for Windows. The existence of the splash screen came about largely
as a result of that very issue. Golly gee, your ability to spot the
screamingly obvious is impressive.
> And when they open they have wildly differing interfaces that are
> bothersome
Much like Windows. Download any of a dozen media players for a simple
example of this. Compare them to other apps; no consistency at all. Now
add some other apps - I seem to recall a development environment which,
while everyone else was using MDI, chose instead to use multiple
disassociated top level windows, making for a cluttered and effectively
unmanageable desktop, especially with other applications open.
Check how some applications use "personalized" menus, while others don't.
Check how some support undockable toolbars, while others don't. And on
and on and on and on and on.
Tell us about how Windows makes everything magically consistent. We could
use the laugh.
> - lots of the apps just seem tossed together without testing
> or documentation.
Actually, most are documented, though documentation does have one failing
in Linux; specifically that there's about 19 different ways in which
something might be documented. There's a distinct lack of a standardized
mechanism for documenting things. As to testing, I'll simply note that
most of the applications I use work at least as well and reliably as their
Windows counterparts.
> Gnome apps often look funny on KDE, and vice versa.
Sort of like skinned apps often look funny in the presence of normal apps?
Yes, well. Let me know when it is the standard for every app to have the
weird disappearing frame that media player seems to like.
> It's not the end of the world, but it's a lesser computing experience
> than Windows provides.
Excuse? Let's see. You whine about inconsistency in Linux, while
ignoring it in Windows, you ignore the supreme ease of finding and
installing apps in Linux compared to Windows, you fail to grasp that a
Linux installation generally _includes_ a large and rich set of
applications and tools, while a Windows installation as a matter of fact
*cannot*, because Windows doesn't include more than a handful of
semi-useful applets... yet this makes Linux a *lesser* computing
experience?
In what universe does having more apps, more flexibility, more tools to
get your needs met, while having effectively comparable issues in regards
to consistency, make something a *lesser* experience?
Too freakin' weird.
>> On the other hand, I
>> currently have an active process in the background, indexing every
>> document I have, into a database, limited basically by disk speed.
>
> huh? My 100-yard dash is limited by my running speed. What are you
> talking about?
I'm talking about how OOo, on this machine, is still going strong after
several thousand pages, *despite* the system being loaded to a level where
it's the hardware imposing limits on further demands, whilst you, somehow,
can only manage some 15 pages, on, I rather suspect, a faster system with
a lower load. Pretty pathetic.
> I just turned on Windows Indexing Service. Will keep cola posted.
> Without indexing on, the search under Windows stinks - bogs down the
> machine and is slow.
Indexing in Windows bites. The default search, even when set to use the
indexing service, apparently doesn't. A simple example of this would be
to set your indexing to instant update, let it do its thing, say
overnight, then do a search for files: *.txt on "My Computer", for
example. Since it's already been indexed, the results should come back in
a fraction of a second. ROFL. Yeah, right.
> I can't say Find Files is much better under Linux - I was able to lock
> it up in the past just by doing a *.* search in usr/bin.
No idea how you're doing this "search". ls /usr/bin works just fine.
locate works just fine. ls /usr/bin | grep pattern works fine. find
/usr/bin -iname '*zoo*' works just fine. grep -r pattern /usr/bin/* works
just fine.
Not only does Linux's searching actually work, it provides a large variety
of different ways to do it, ways generally intended for different
purposes, but each very usable.
> * Oracle 9.2 service
> * Oracle Enterprise Mgr
> * SQL Server 2000 service
> * Hummingbird doc mgmt server service * two instances of Access 2003 * a
> couple of native db clients
> * Firefox
> * Outlook Express
> * Outlook 2003
> * Opera
> * Word 2000
> * two Windows Explorers
Marvellous. Now, how many apps - if any - are actually hammering data
into the datbase servers? Mine are active, as in, actually doing
something.
It's trivial to load a mess of apps. It's a different matter entirely to
actually have them _doing_ things, actively, such that your system is
actually experiencing a heavy load... yet still being responsive.
Care to try again? Didn't think so.
> Though it's fairly rare I, or anyone, runs that many large programs at
> once.
Scuse? It's a couple DBs, web browsers, mail clients and a word
processor. Where's the big applications? You don't even indicate that
the DB servers are _doing_ anything; they could well be swapped out to
disk. Mine spend most of their time these days active.
> Interesting. In one sentence you dismiss my 7K page test, but brag
> about your unreal test.
'Scuse? It was *your* test, pasting 700 lines for no reason. On the
other hand, what I discussed - running the servers, the indexing apps,
etc, is not some made up thing... it's what this system *does*. Daily.
I'm *using* my system to do these things. I don't need to paste 7,000
pages of the same thing over and over to show how it holds up under load,
because I'm already loading it, doing things that I actually want it to be
doing. Sorry, try again.
> Windows workload. Are you now claiming a Linux box will handle 100x the
> data processing of a Windows Server box over an 8-hour period? Is that
> your claim?
I wish you'd learn how to read. Go back, try it again, see if it sinks in.
> Next is OO 2.0 Base. I'm quite sure I can make OO Base choke on
> something MS Access handles with ease.
And undoubtedly vice-versa. So?
The measure of a thing isn't whether you can break it if you try; it's
whether it breaks or not when you're _not_ trying, simply using it. Guess
what? OOo holds up quite well. Cope.
mlw
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>> [snips]
>>
>> On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 23:02:42 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Now try the same operations on the same computer with that piece of
>>> shit OpenOffice 2.0. It won't even paste after about 15 pages.
>>
>> 3000 pages so far. No problems yet. I'm pasting 10 pages at a go,
>> it did slow down a little after about 3000 pages, but nothing to
>> raise any concerns. <pause> 7000 pages, still merrily pasting.
>> Happy happy, joy joy.
>
> Not on my OO 2.0 for Windows system. After 15 pages, it basically quits
> pasting. I sit and wait and wait. It took me 3 minutes to get to 45
> pages. And I have 1gig of RAM.
>
>
>> Something occurs to me, though. Your cutesy little tests have one
>> fundamental flaw in them; specifically, they have virtually no
>> relationship to actual real-world usage.
>
> It was just a throwaway smackdown posted for the benefit of 7, who's
> deluded himself into using OpenOffice Writer for his photo album.
how is he "deluded" if it works and has no downside?
>
>
>> Someone creating a 16 million entry spreadsheet, for example, is
>> either doing so specifically to test the software, or is unbelievably
>> unclear on the concept: a spreadsheet is not a database. Someone
>> pasting 7,000 pages hasn't quite grasped the concept of how documents
>> are created or processed.
>
> How ridiculous. When Toyota tests a new engine prototype by running it at
> 8000 rpm for 10 days straight, is it because they haven't grasped the
> concept of stop and go city driving? The product is stress-tested to
> gauge it's capabilities under lesser loads.
Testing an engine prototype at 8000 RPM? Interesting, have a source URL? s
this a turbine?
>
>> Show me that a stock, out of the box XP system can handle all the
>> things I use my box for.
>
> How dishonest of you to ask XP to do something it's not intended to do.
> Why don't you show me a Linux kernel that does all that stuff?
Is it fair then t ask, I wonder, what then *is* an XP system intended to do?
>
>
>> Web development, so I run my own multi-site server.
> Available for free for Windows
Multi-site and charge and make a profit?
>
>> PHP scripting for active pages.
> Available for free for Windows
Not, of course, out of the box.
>
>> Database backends, usiing multiple servers.
> Available for free for Windows
Who's? and wha's the license?
>
>> Development in C and C++.
> Available for free for Windows
Yes, cygwin is a great benefit.
>
>>Word processing.
> Available for free for Windows
[snip]
>
Open Source benefits everyone!!
>> I pop in any of a dozen popular Linux distros, I have all of those
>> functions and more available simply by selecting the appropriate
>> packages, either from the shipped CDs, or the available repositories,
>> all of it managed by a unified GUI package manager with searching
>> capabilities.
>
> Nice.
It, of course, is.
>
> Why doesn't anyone in the world care? Why do they only want to use
> Windows
> for those functions? And they're plenty willing to install the software
> one
> CD at a time, swapping them in and out. And buy one app after another.
Microsoft, a corporation convicted of illegally maintaining a monopoly.
Barriers to competition easily explain why regular consumers can't use
Windows.
>
>
>
>> Show us how XP stacks up. Oh, right, it doesn't, because all it
>> really comes with is a media player, news/mail client, web browser
>> and a badly crippled text editor. It doesn't even provide a
>> coherent, unified installation manager for adding extra products.
>
> But it provides access to a universe of the very best software and games.
Games, maybe, but the *best* software is quite subjective.
> It looks much better than Linux.
No
> It usually runs smoother and is more
> consistent.
> It's generally faster at launching and running apps.
No.
>
> As a for instance, some Linux apps open quickly and some very slowly. And
> when they open they have wildly differing interfaces that are bothersome -
> lots of the apps just seem tossed together without testing or
> documentation.
> Gnome apps often look funny on KDE, and vice versa. It's not the end of
> the world, but it's a lesser computing experience than Windows provides.
Yea, without the bonus features, viruses, trojans, and spyware.
>
>
>> Let's put this in perspective. Can MS Office paste 7,000 pages faster
>> than I can using OOo and Linux? Perhaps.
>
> Those OO guys are good at copying MS Office feature for feature, but they
> have got to do something about its speed. A snappy OO with a good
> db-client would be a great free app.
OO is a great app in an of itself.
>
>
>
>> On the other hand, I
>> currently have an active process in the background, indexing every
>> document I have, into a database, limited basically by disk speed.
>
> huh? My 100-yard dash is limited by my running speed. What are you
> talking about?
The nonsense of Windows bloat.
>
> I just turned on Windows Indexing Service. Will keep cola posted.
> Without indexing on, the search under Windows stinks - bogs down the
> machine and is slow.
>
> I can't say Find Files is much better under Linux - I was able to lock it
> up in the past just by doing a *.* search in usr/bin.
Like we believe you.
Bogus benchmarks is what M$ is all about.
>
> And I'm sensing a rapskat-type challenge. He says Linux will handle 2x
> Windows workload. Are you now claiming a Linux box will handle 100x the
> data processing of a Windows Server box over an 8-hour period? Is that
> your claim?
2x vs 100x?
>
>
>> Which is more important - serving up _my_ needs for a system that
>> actually does things I _need_ to do? Or _your_ "needs" to post 7000
>> pages of repeated text, something you've demonstrated you don't even
>> have a need to do, else you'd have done it with a real document?
>>
>> Right. Next.
>
>
> Next is OO 2.0 Base. I'm quite sure I can make OO Base choke on something
> MS Access handles with ease.
>
> Stay tuned...
Yea, sure.
Anyone can create a benchmark that shows bad performance, reality is always
different.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:53:00 -0500, DFS wrote:
>> If a
>> program does X competently today, it will do it tomorrow under the
>> same conditions.
>
> OK. And what computing conditions are the same from minute to minute, let
> alone day to day?
Identical isn't required; sufficiently similar is generally enough. If
your app performs appropriately when the system has a 30% CPU load and 50%
resource consumption, it will very likely continue to do so if there's a
25% load or 35% load, or 45% resource consumption or 55% resource
consumption.
Borderline cases are useful tests, to be sure... but not, generally, in
determining how the application performs, but rather in determining how
gracefully it handles failure conditions.
More to the point, as relates to your sad little argument, testing for
those borderline conditions says _nothing_ about how it performs in normal
conditions.
Years back, I wrote a disk defragmenter which would continue to work as
long as there was a single free cluster available. I even tested it in
that situation. Worked fine - but it took damn near forever to do the
job. Contrasted to the normal case where 10% or more of the disk is free
for moving things about, performance was literally orders of magnitude
slower.
Now... does the fact it can take a month to defrag a disk in the
borderline case say *anything* about the performance in the normal case,
which, for a typical disk of the period, would require a couple hours,
tops? No. So testing it to that level is simply assurance that it can
handle it - not that it's going to handle it _well_.
>> But physical objects wear out.
>
> Hmmm... did you hear flash memory wears out? Hard drives? Optical
> drives?
Irrelevant in context. A word processor is neither expected nor required
to cope with such situations. It has a core expectation that it will be
used on reliable hardware; if you expect your drive to wear out, and the
data is important, you'll use a RAID setup or some equivalent such that
failure is accounted for... and the app won't even notice.
> You're probably the 10th cola bozo to insinuate MS pays me to smack down
> you weirdos. I do this for the entertainment value.
If you were any good at it, I could see the entertainment value. As it
stands, all you accomplish is repeatedly demonstrating how little you know
about Linux, software development, computing in general, or, well, pretty
much anything that might be topical.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:52:53 -0500, DFS wrote:
> 7 wrote:
> Little guy, you've got to get over this misuse of technology where you store
> photos inside word processing documents.
Or storing 16 million entries in a spreadsheet. Or pasting 7,000 pages of
the same sentence.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 05:50:59 +0000, amosf (Tim Fairchild) wrote:
>> And your P1-166, 32Mb machine loads Office 2003 how fast, exactly?
>
> And how will it run Office 12?
According to MS's page, Office 2003 requires Win2K or XP, and 128Mb or
more memory.
Since XP won't install in 32Mb, that leaves 2K as the only option... but
it won't install in 32Mb either, will it?
Yes well.
DFS
> DFS wrote:
>
>> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>> [snips]
>>>
>>> On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 23:02:42 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now try the same operations on the same computer with that piece of
>>>> shit OpenOffice 2.0. It won't even paste after about 15 pages.
>>>
>>> 3000 pages so far. No problems yet. I'm pasting 10 pages at a go,
>>> it did slow down a little after about 3000 pages, but nothing to
>>> raise any concerns. <pause> 7000 pages, still merrily pasting.
>>> Happy happy, joy joy.
>>
>> Not on my OO 2.0 for Windows system. After 15 pages, it basically
>> quits pasting. I sit and wait and wait. It took me 3 minutes to
>> get to 45 pages. And I have 1gig of RAM.
>>
>>
>>> Something occurs to me, though. Your cutesy little tests have one
>>> fundamental flaw in them; specifically, they have virtually no
>>> relationship to actual real-world usage.
>>
>> It was just a throwaway smackdown posted for the benefit of 7, who's
>> deluded himself into using OpenOffice Writer for his photo album.
>
> how is he "deluded" if it works and has no downside?
No downside? Storing photos as documents embedded in a word processing file
is nothing but downsides:
Finding, categorizing, sorting, editing, sending, copying, deleting... just
using photos in general is supremely difficult if they're stored 32 each
inside a word processing file. It's absurd.
See Google Picasa for the solution. Or build your own photo mgmt database
in Access or .. shudder... OO Base.
>>> Someone creating a 16 million entry spreadsheet, for example, is
>>> either doing so specifically to test the software, or is
>>> unbelievably unclear on the concept: a spreadsheet is not a
>>> database. Someone pasting 7,000 pages hasn't quite grasped the
>>> concept of how documents are created or processed.
>>
>> How ridiculous. When Toyota tests a new engine prototype by running
>> it at 8000 rpm for 10 days straight, is it because they haven't
>> grasped the concept of stop and go city driving? The product is
>> stress-tested to gauge it's capabilities under lesser loads.
>
> Testing an engine prototype at 8000 RPM? Interesting, have a source
> URL? s this a turbine?
That was a made-up example, but Honda, Toyota and Mazda all produce 8000 to
10,000 RPM engines, mostly for race cars. The Honda S2000 consumer auto
engine redlines at 8000rpm. Same with the Mazda RX-8, I believe.
>>> Show me that a stock, out of the box XP system can handle all the
>>> things I use my box for.
>>
>> How dishonest of you to ask XP to do something it's not intended to
>> do. Why don't you show me a Linux kernel that does all that stuff?
>
> Is it fair then t ask, I wonder, what then *is* an XP system intended
> to do?
Manage PC resources, host apps, games, play movies, music, etc.
>>> Web development, so I run my own multi-site server.
>> Available for free for Windows
>
> Multi-site and charge and make a profit?
Sure. Remember Windows Server? And there are all kinds of free web
development apps that run on Windows.
>>> PHP scripting for active pages.
>> Available for free for Windows
>
> Not, of course, out of the box.
No. Not every Linux distro includes PHP out of the box either.
>>> Database backends, usiing multiple servers.
>> Available for free for Windows
>
> Who's? and wha's the license?
Oracle. MSDE. Various open source.
>>> Development in C and C++.
>> Available for free for Windows
>
> Yes, cygwin is a great benefit.
Who uses it? I hear Ghost mention it from time to time. I've never tried
it.
>>> Word processing.
>> Available for free for Windows
> [snip]
>>
> Open Source benefits everyone!!
Yes.
>> Why doesn't anyone in the world care? Why do they only want to use
>> Windows
>> for those functions? And they're plenty willing to install the
>> software one
>> CD at a time, swapping them in and out. And buy one app after
>> another.
>
> Microsoft, a corporation convicted of illegally maintaining a
> monopoly. Barriers to competition easily explain why regular
> consumers can't use Windows.
I sense your head coming loose just now....
>>> Show us how XP stacks up. Oh, right, it doesn't, because all it
>>> really comes with is a media player, news/mail client, web browser
>>> and a badly crippled text editor. It doesn't even provide a
>>> coherent, unified installation manager for adding extra products.
>>
>> But it provides access to a universe of the very best software and
>> games.
>
> Games, maybe, but the *best* software is quite subjective.
50,000,000 Office fans can't be wrong.
>> It looks much better than Linux.
> No
>> It usually runs smoother and is more
>> consistent.
>> It's generally faster at launching and running apps.
> No.
Yes. Yes.
>> As a for instance, some Linux apps open quickly and some very
>> slowly. And when they open they have wildly differing interfaces
>> that are bothersome - lots of the apps just seem tossed together
>> without testing or documentation.
>> Gnome apps often look funny on KDE, and vice versa. It's not the
>> end of the world, but it's a lesser computing experience than
>> Windows provides.
>
> Yea, without the bonus features, viruses, trojans, and spyware.
I have none. I've only ever had a few pieces of that stuff - in 9 years of
using Windows online.
>>> Let's put this in perspective. Can MS Office paste 7,000 pages
>>> faster than I can using OOo and Linux? Perhaps.
>>
>> Those OO guys are good at copying MS Office feature for feature, but
>> they have got to do something about its speed. A snappy OO with a
>> good db-client would be a great free app.
>
> OO is a great app in an of itself.
It's ridiculously slow and the included db app is bogus. Fix those (no
small matter - especially the db client) and it becomes great - it becomes a
realistic MS Office alternative for most users.
>>> On the other hand, I
>>> currently have an active process in the background, indexing every
>>> document I have, into a database, limited basically by disk speed.
>>
>> huh? My 100-yard dash is limited by my running speed. What are you
>> talking about?
>
> The nonsense of Windows bloat.
XP and nearly all Windows apps run faster on similar equipment than KDE and
bloated Linux apps.
>> I just turned on Windows Indexing Service. Will keep cola posted.
>> Without indexing on, the search under Windows stinks - bogs down the
>> machine and is slow.
>>
>> I can't say Find Files is much better under Linux - I was able to
>> lock it up in the past just by doing a *.* search in usr/bin.
>
> Like we believe you.
It was a version of Mandrake - it locked up every time.
> Bogus benchmarks is what M$ is all about.
I wasn't benchmarking anything - just demonstrating Word's superior speed.
>> And I'm sensing a rapskat-type challenge. He says Linux will handle
>> 2x Windows workload. Are you now claiming a Linux box will handle
>> 100x the data processing of a Windows Server box over an 8-hour
>> period? Is that your claim?
>
> 2x vs 100x?
Rapskat says Linux handles 2x Window's workload. Kelsey seems to be
claiming Linux will handle 100x Window's workload.
Both are wrong.
>> Next is OO 2.0 Base. I'm quite sure I can make OO Base choke on
>> something MS Access handles with ease.
>>
>> Stay tuned...
>
> Yea, sure.
> Anyone can create a benchmark that shows bad performance, reality is
> always different.
I'm talking about importing text files, or spreadsheets, or running queries,
or something like that. I haven't spent much time with OO Base, but I have
a strong feeling it's a disaster waiting to happen.
DFS
> [snips]
>
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 00:09:32 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>> Not on my OO 2.0 for Windows system. After 15 pages, it basically
>> quits pasting. I sit and wait and wait. It took me 3 minutes to
>> get to 45 pages. And I have 1gig of RAM.
>
> OOo 2.0, Linux. 640Mb. 1.4Ghz machine. Fairly busy machine, too.
> No problems at all.
>
>> How ridiculous. When Toyota tests a new engine prototype by running
>> it
>> at 8000 rpm for 10 days straight, is it because they haven't grasped
>> the concept of stop and go city driving? The product is
>> stress-tested to
>> gauge it's capabilities under lesser loads.
>
> Once again, showing your core dishonesty. I *said* "is either doing
> so specifically to test the software..." but here you are arguing as
> if I were denying that very possibility. Why aren't you capable of
> even pretending to be honest?
I jumped the gun a little. My apologies.
> Oh, right. I'm still paying more, getting less, and then, to make up
> the difference, I can spend the next week hunting websites,
Why does everything take you so long? You're at least an order of magnitude
slower than everyone else at finding and installing Windows software.
> download
> and installing applications, one by one, instead of having them ready
> to go, off the boxed CD, or, at worst, a single unified installation
> GUI that will let me install the whole bloomin' lot in a single fell
> swoop, with virtually no effort.
>
> Again, pay more, get less... and? This makes sense to you?
Your problem is you seem to consider a Windows app and the corresponding
Linux app to be equivalents. They're not.
>> Why doesn't anyone in the world care?
>
> Many of us, do, obviously. You see the name of the group? It's
> *Linux* advocacy. As in people who like and use Linux, explaining
> why. And we're hardly alone.
I kind of think you are.
> IBM has made widespread use of it, and
> is continuing to do so.
You know what was funny about that? They continued to sell their consumer
computers with only Windows pre-installed. LOL! Does IBM really believe in
Linux?
> Several governments are either converting,
> or examining it. Research organizations. Many Fortune 500
> companies. Most of the vendors of the most powerful computers in
> existence.
>
> Okay, fine, *you* may not care... but millions do. That's far from
> "nobody".
I forget how petty and pedantic you really are sometimes. By convention,
nobody = few
>> Why do they only want to use
>> Windows for those functions?
>
> They don't. Some do, sure. Many - millions - don't. I'm one of
> them. I know the concept is hard for you to grasp, but the fact is
> that "millions" and "nobody" aren't quite the same thing.
They might as well be, considering MS still has 93% or so of the desktop.
>>> Show us how XP stacks up. Oh, right, it doesn't, because all it
>>> really comes with is a media player, news/mail client, web browser
>>> and a badly crippled text editor. It doesn't even provide a
>>> coherent, unified installation manager for adding extra products.
>>
>> But it provides access to a universe of the very best software
>
> So you're paying for access to software. I get that, too. With,
> frankly, *better* software for my needs than what's available in
> Windows.
Exactly which apps are better?
And your needs are different from my needs are different from George Bush's
needs.
> And let's face it; that "access" is far simpler and more
> effective in Linux than in Windows.
No it's not. It's exceedingly simple to find and download Windows software.
> So, easier access to more
> readily available software, with less effort. Hmm... what did you
> pay for again? Oh, right; you paid for more wasted time, more
> complexity and less bundled functionality.
> Yes, good choice.
It is. It's the best choice.
>> And when they open they have wildly differing interfaces that are
>> bothersome
>
> Much like Windows. Download any of a dozen media players for a simple
> example of this. Compare them to other apps; no consistency at all.
> Now add some other apps - I seem to recall a development environment
> which, while everyone else was using MDI, chose instead to use
> multiple disassociated top level windows, making for a cluttered and
> effectively unmanageable desktop, especially with other applications
> open.
>
> Check how some applications use "personalized" menus, while others
> don't. Check how some support undockable toolbars, while others
> don't. And on and on and on and on and on.
>
> Tell us about how Windows makes everything magically consistent. We
> could use the laugh.
The "average" look and feel of Windows apps is remarkably more consistent
than what you experience when running Linux.
>> - lots of the apps just seem tossed together without testing
>> or documentation.
>
> Actually, most are documented, though documentation does have one
> failing in Linux; specifically that there's about 19 different ways
> in which something might be documented. There's a distinct lack of a
> standardized mechanism for documenting things.
Too often there's a distinct lack of documentation at all. The KDE apps
usually have something, but I just picked an app at random from my Knoppix
menus - Nessus, which looks to be some kind of port scanner - and there's
not a single bit of Help or documentation to tell you what it does or how to
use it.
> As to testing, I'll
> simply note that most of the applications I use work at least as well
> and reliably as their Windows counterparts.
How would you know? You don't use the Windows counterparts?
>> It's not the end of the world, but it's a lesser computing experience
>> than Windows provides.
>
> Excuse? Let's see. You whine about inconsistency in Linux, while
> ignoring it in Windows,
Open 6 Windows apps and tile them on a desktop. Then open 6 Linux apps and
tile them on a desktop (if you can spare the time to arrange them, 'cause
Linux won't do it for you). Then look at the difference.
> you ignore the supreme ease of finding and
> installing apps in Linux compared to Windows,
Trying to find and install Linux apps in Synaptic is often a huge hassle,
because it's filled with arcane names and hundreds of packages with strange
descriptions, and it can be nearly impossible to figure out what you really
need - so you end up installing lots of unnecessary stuff.
For instance, use Synaptic and try to find what you need for a MySQL
installation. Do you use mysql-common? mysql-client? mysql-server? All
3? What about libmysql10, libmysql12, libmysql14, libmysql14-dev, etc?
And KDE? Fuhgettaboutit. A Synaptic search on KDE in the name (on my
Knoppix 4.0 install) comes back with 88 packages. Some guy on cola recently
tried to install KDE via a package manager, and the result was an unbootable
system. (make sure to call him stupid - be as predictable as you always
are)
In the time it takes to find and install via Synaptic or whatever package
mgr in Linux, you can almost always find and download and install on
Windows.
> you fail to grasp that a
> Linux installation generally _includes_ a large and rich set of
> applications and tools, while a Windows installation as a matter of
> fact *cannot*, because Windows doesn't include more than a handful of
> semi-useful applets... yet this makes Linux a *lesser* computing
> experience?
Lying again, are you? Of course I didn't say that.
> In what universe does having more apps, more flexibility, more tools
> to get your needs met, while having effectively comparable issues in
> regards to consistency, make something a *lesser* experience?
In the Linux universe.
> Too freakin' weird.
>>> On the other hand, I
>>> currently have an active process in the background, indexing every
>>> document I have, into a database, limited basically by disk speed.
>>
>> huh? My 100-yard dash is limited by my running speed. What are you
>> talking about?
>
> I'm talking about how OOo, on this machine, is still going strong
> after several thousand pages, *despite* the system being loaded to a
> level where it's the hardware imposing limits on further demands,
> whilst you, somehow, can only manage some 15 pages, on, I rather
> suspect, a faster system with a lower load. Pretty pathetic.
Yes, OO on Windows is pathetic. Too bad, 'cause it coulda been a contender.
But it's just as pathetic on Linux. I just did the test on OO 2.0 (beta)
for Linux (P3-800, 512RAM), and it bogged down as usual, in the mid-teen
pages. After waiting 10 seconds I could paste another few pages.
Eventually it just hung for at least a minute and I shut it down.
I don't believe for one second that Dim pasted 7000 pages of text into OO
2.0 Writer in one minute (as I did with Word 2000) on the hardware he said.
And I don't believe it worked very well for you, either. I'd love to see a
video with a clock showing how long it took you to start with one sentence
and get 7000 pages in OO 2.0 on Linux.
>> I just turned on Windows Indexing Service. Will keep cola posted.
>> Without indexing on, the search under Windows stinks - bogs down the
>> machine and is slow.
>
> Indexing in Windows bites. The default search, even when set to use
> the indexing service, apparently doesn't. A simple example of this
> would be to set your indexing to instant update, let it do its thing,
> say overnight, then do a search for files: *.txt on "My Computer", for
> example. Since it's already been indexed, the results should come
> back in a fraction of a second. ROFL. Yeah, right.
I searched my D: partition for *.txt and it brought back 1885 files in about
5 seconds with Indexing on.
>> I can't say Find Files is much better under Linux - I was able to
>> lock it up in the past just by doing a *.* search in usr/bin.
>
> No idea how you're doing this "search". ls /usr/bin works just fine.
> locate works just fine. ls /usr/bin | grep pattern works fine. find
> /usr/bin -iname '*zoo*' works just fine. grep -r pattern /usr/bin/*
> works just fine.
>
> Not only does Linux's searching actually work, it provides a large
> variety of different ways to do it, ways generally intended for
> different purposes, but each very usable.
It was the Find Files app (part of Gnome I think), under Mandrake.
>> * Oracle 9.2 service
>> * Oracle Enterprise Mgr
>> * SQL Server 2000 service
>> * Hummingbird doc mgmt server service
>> * two instances of Access 2003
>> * a couple of native db clients
>> * Firefox
>> * Outlook Express
>> * Outlook 2003
>> * Opera
>> * Word 2000
>> * two Windows Explorers
>
> Marvellous. Now, how many apps - if any - are actually hammering data
> into the datbase servers? Mine are active, as in, actually doing
> something.
>
> It's trivial to load a mess of apps. It's a different matter
> entirely to actually have them _doing_ things, actively, such that
> your system is actually experiencing a heavy load... yet still being
> responsive.
>
> Care to try again? Didn't think so.
Of course I would. I did some tests in September.
* launched MS Access, Outlook Express, MS Paint, 2 instances of Firefox,
Windows Task Manager, Nero Express, and had the Oracle service running
(136mb)
* logged to www.rushradio.org and started listening to streaming radio
* kicked off a large .iso file download from
ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/distributions/mepis/released/
* launched 10 low-res .mpg videos at the same time, each in their own
instance of Windows Media Player on Access forms
* began burning a few midsize files to CD-RW, using Nero
* emailed a 1mb file from Outlook Express
Everything ran pretty well. The videos hitched here and
there, but overall it was successful. Downloading progress seemed
unaffected. Streaming radio was fine. The 10 .mpgs overlapped each other
on the sound, of course. But I could switch between apps, log to new
websites, stop and restart the streaming audio, etc. CPU usage was up and
down between 50% and 80% or so, and would hit 100% when new apps were
started.
http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/DFS_multitask.PNG
But I'm sure any old Linux box could do 2x - 100x this amount of work
(ROFL@you and rapskat)
Remember to never let your Linux bozo bias get in the way of reality.
>> Though it's fairly rare I, or anyone, runs that many large programs
>> at once.
>
> Scuse? It's a couple DBs, web browsers, mail clients and a word
> processor. Where's the big applications?
The Oracle apps and Hummingbird.
> You don't even indicate
> that the DB servers are _doing_ anything; they could well be swapped
> out to disk. Mine spend most of their time these days active.
The two Access clients were running programs and queries against Oracle and
SQL Server. The others were in various states, but mostly inactive.
>> Interesting. In one sentence you dismiss my 7K page test, but brag
>> about your unreal test.
>
> 'Scuse? It was *your* test, pasting 700 lines for no reason.
The reason was to show what a dog OO was and is.
> On the
> other hand, what I discussed - running the servers, the indexing apps,
> etc, is not some made up thing... it's what this system *does*.
> Daily.
Fine. And what did any of it have to do with the failure of OO to do
something as basic as copy text?
> I'm *using* my system to do these things. I don't need to paste 7,000
> pages of the same thing over and over to show how it holds up under
> load, because I'm already loading it, doing things that I actually
> want it to be doing. Sorry, try again.
Why? Are you still not convinced OpenOffice is slug-like?
>> Windows workload. Are you now claiming a Linux box will handle 100x
>> the data processing of a Windows Server box over an 8-hour period?
>> Is that your claim?
>
> I wish you'd learn how to read. Go back, try it again, see if it
> sinks in.
Your claim was "at the end of the day, this system is probably processing
100 times the data yours does" and since you have no idea how much data my
system processes you have to be assuming an average amount, and thus your
claim must be Linux can/will process 100x what Windows will process on
average.
>> Next is OO 2.0 Base. I'm quite sure I can make OO Base choke on
>> something MS Access handles with ease.
>
> And undoubtedly vice-versa. So?
Based on what I've seen with OO Calc and OO Writer vs. Excel and Word, very
much doubtedly.
> The measure of a thing isn't whether you can break it if you try; it's
> whether it breaks or not when you're _not_ trying, simply using it.
I doubt [and hope] very seriously you could, with all honesty, recommend
OpenOffice to any organization with serious data processing needs. That dog
won't hunt.
> Guess what? OOo holds up quite well. Cope.
Cope? That's what the OO developers have been trying to do since their
slow-ware came out to universal criticism for being so ... slow:
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=OpenOffice+slow&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
DFS
You can't both insult me as a dunce and continue to reply to my posts in
great detail and with great purpose and effort, trying to refute the points
of a dunce. In the first place it's unseemly, and secondly it makes you a
hypocrite.
Besides, it's *my* entertainment value; that you also derive some is
incidental. Your unspoken gratitude is acknowledged.
DFS
Different issues. He's misusing OpenOffice; I'm exploding it.
amosf (Tim Fairchild)
> I don't believe for one second that Dim pasted 7000 pages of text into OO
> 2.0 Writer in one minute (as I did with Word 2000) on the hardware he
> said.
> And I don't believe it worked very well for you, either. I'd love to see
> a video with a clock showing how long it took you to start with one
> sentence and get 7000 pages in OO 2.0 on Linux.
DFS
> DFS wrote something like:
>
>
>> I don't believe for one second that Dim pasted 7000 pages of text
>> into OO
>> 2.0 Writer in one minute (as I did with Word 2000) on the hardware he
>> said.
>> And I don't believe it worked very well for you, either. I'd love
>> to see a video with a clock showing how long it took you to start
>> with one sentence and get 7000 pages in OO 2.0 on Linux.
>
> http://bcs4me.com/crap.png
Thank you, Dim. Took you just 1 minute this time, too, eh?
amosf (Tim Fairchild)
Correct. Your claim is that OOo2 would not paste past 20 pages AT ALL.
Meanwhile your message came through on news, which tends to be slow and the
server I use especially slow, and was downloaded here on my machine, which
checks news every 15 minutes. I then happened to see your lie while doing
other things, then pasted it to OOo2, in about a minute or so, then did a
screenshot, then uploaded that screenshot to my web page, on dialup, then
posted that url to news, which is slow.
Give me a fresh message that I get while sitting here at the PC and maybe I
can even get it uploaded quicker for you... Unfortunately it seems that
your news posts are already 15 minutes old before I even get them...
Email me privately if you dare. If it's a hotmail, yahoo, gmail, mail.com,
etc tho I will ignore it.
mlw
Those are downsides in your opinion, he may have criteria you do not know
about.
>
>
>
>>>> Someone creating a 16 million entry spreadsheet, for example, is
>>>> either doing so specifically to test the software, or is
>>>> unbelievably unclear on the concept: a spreadsheet is not a
>>>> database. Someone pasting 7,000 pages hasn't quite grasped the
>>>> concept of how documents are created or processed.
>>>
>>> How ridiculous. When Toyota tests a new engine prototype by running
>>> it at 8000 rpm for 10 days straight, is it because they haven't
>>> grasped the concept of stop and go city driving? The product is
>>> stress-tested to gauge it's capabilities under lesser loads.
>>
>> Testing an engine prototype at 8000 RPM? Interesting, have a source
>> URL? s this a turbine?
>
> That was a made-up example, but Honda, Toyota and Mazda all produce 8000
> to
> 10,000 RPM engines, mostly for race cars. The Honda S2000 consumer auto
> engine redlines at 8000rpm. Same with the Mazda RX-8, I believe.
The RX-8 does make sense, the Wankel rotary engine can rev far higher than
piston engines. 8000 RPM is a very high RPM for a piston engine.
>
>
>
>>>> Show me that a stock, out of the box XP system can handle all the
>>>> things I use my box for.
>>>
>>> How dishonest of you to ask XP to do something it's not intended to
>>> do. Why don't you show me a Linux kernel that does all that stuff?
>>
>> Is it fair then t ask, I wonder, what then *is* an XP system intended
>> to do?
>
> Manage PC resources, host apps, games, play movies, music, etc.
Ahh, "Manage" and "Host," cool, so Linux is better than Windows as it does
all this for free, and is better at it. If the above is all you expect of
Windows, why do you insist it is better?
>
>
>
>>>> Web development, so I run my own multi-site server.
>>> Available for free for Windows
>>
>> Multi-site and charge and make a profit?
>
> Sure. Remember Windows Server? And there are all kinds of free web
> development apps that run on Windows.
Yes, and look at the license agreements. "not for profit."
>
>
>
>>>> PHP scripting for active pages.
>>> Available for free for Windows
>>
>> Not, of course, out of the box.
>
> No. Not every Linux distro includes PHP out of the box either.
Really? I can't think of one.
Said the last lemming.
>
>
>
>>> It looks much better than Linux.
>> No
>>> It usually runs smoother and is more
>>> consistent.
>>> It's generally faster at launching and running apps.
>> No.
>
> Yes. Yes.
>
>
>>> As a for instance, some Linux apps open quickly and some very
>>> slowly. And when they open they have wildly differing interfaces
>>> that are bothersome - lots of the apps just seem tossed together
>>> without testing or documentation.
>>> Gnome apps often look funny on KDE, and vice versa. It's not the
>>> end of the world, but it's a lesser computing experience than
>>> Windows provides.
>>
>> Yea, without the bonus features, viruses, trojans, and spyware.
>
> I have none. I've only ever had a few pieces of that stuff - in 9 years
> of using Windows online.
Then you are the amazing exception. I find it odd that, industry wide,
malware is epidemic on Windows, but here on COLA the Windows users never
have a problem.
A lie repeated is still a lie.
>
>
>
>>>> Let's put this in perspective. Can MS Office paste 7,000 pages
>>>> faster than I can using OOo and Linux? Perhaps.
>>>
>>> Those OO guys are good at copying MS Office feature for feature, but
>>> they have got to do something about its speed. A snappy OO with a
>>> good db-client would be a great free app.
>>
>> OO is a great app in an of itself.
>
> It's ridiculously slow and the included db app is bogus.
How is it slow? It takes a while to start the first instance of it, but all
big apps, including MS Office, have to do that.
> Fix those (no
> small matter - especially the db client) and it becomes great - it becomes
> a realistic MS Office alternative for most users.
>
>
>
>>>> On the other hand, I
>>>> currently have an active process in the background, indexing every
>>>> document I have, into a database, limited basically by disk speed.
>>>
>>> huh? My 100-yard dash is limited by my running speed. What are you
>>> talking about?
>>
>> The nonsense of Windows bloat.
>
> XP and nearly all Windows apps run faster on similar equipment than KDE
> and bloated Linux apps.
Sigh, I don't believe you. Site some 3rd party references for this claim
because it is counter to my, and most other's, observations.
>
>
>
>>> I just turned on Windows Indexing Service. Will keep cola posted.
>>> Without indexing on, the search under Windows stinks - bogs down the
>>> machine and is slow.
>>>
>>> I can't say Find Files is much better under Linux - I was able to
>>> lock it up in the past just by doing a *.* search in usr/bin.
>>
>> Like we believe you.
>
> It was a version of Mandrake - it locked up every time.
Again, don't believe you. You have lied to me many times before, played
ignorant of the truth, why should I believe what you post?
I used mandrake a long time before switching to Ubuntu, and never
experiences any such problem.
>
>
>
>> Bogus benchmarks is what M$ is all about.
>
> I wasn't benchmarking anything - just demonstrating Word's superior speed.
You posted one such claim before, and it was quickly refuted.
>
>
>
>>> And I'm sensing a rapskat-type challenge. He says Linux will handle
>>> 2x Windows workload. Are you now claiming a Linux box will handle
>>> 100x the data processing of a Windows Server box over an 8-hour
>>> period? Is that your claim?
>>
>> 2x vs 100x?
>
> Rapskat says Linux handles 2x Window's workload. Kelsey seems to be
> claiming Linux will handle 100x Window's workload.
>
> Both are wrong.
That depends on the workload. Linux has faster I/O and a better
implementation of Berkeley sockets, and will out perform Windows when these
are the gating items. Windows used to have an edge on thread scheduling in
2.4, but with 2.6 this is faster as well. Also the implementation of the
pthreads mutex is much much faster than Windows mutex and can easily be
100x faster because on non-contention Linux does not suffer a the overhead
of a kernel call.
2x or 100x? Maybe, depending on how it works.
>
>
>>> Next is OO 2.0 Base. I'm quite sure I can make OO Base choke on
>>> something MS Access handles with ease.
>>>
>>> Stay tuned...
>>
>> Yea, sure.
>> Anyone can create a benchmark that shows bad performance, reality is
>> always different.
>
> I'm talking about importing text files, or spreadsheets, or running
> queries,
> or something like that. I haven't spent much time with OO Base, but I
> have a strong feeling it's a disaster waiting to happen.
Make it a reality based benchmark and Linux will win.
Beowulf Trollshammer
>
> 50,000,000 Office fans can't be wrong.
>
Your logic is fucked:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
>
> It was a version of Mandrake - it locked up every time.
>
Either provide the *exact* version number along with an accurate description
of the problem or shut the fuck up.
Aragorn
words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
Considering that you have just confessed to only being on C.O.L.A. as
the obnoxious, lying, racist, and insulting Microsoft-propagandist you
are, you have just lost all reasons as to why I should ever reply to
you again.
You are from this moment on a self-confessed troll and bully, ergo I
appeal onto every self-respecting GNU/Linux advocate inhere to
/killfile/ you and ignore you from now on.
Go find your "entertainment" in a Windows group, bully!
*<plonk>*
Kleuskes & Moos
DFS schreef:
> Besides, it's *my* entertainment value; that you also derive some is
> incidental. Your unspoken gratitude is acknowledged.
You are one sick puupy if your 'entertainment' value lies in the drivel
you post here and bathing in the general disgust you seem to provoke.
Perhaps you'd better seek professional help. You may have a problem.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 01:40:43 -0500, DFS wrote:
>> Oh, right. I'm still paying more, getting less, and then, to make up
>> the difference, I can spend the next week hunting websites,
>
> Why does everything take you so long? You're at least an order of magnitude
> slower than everyone else at finding and installing Windows software.
Actually, I'm *faster* than most. Problem is, Windows doesn't include
anything. So, to go from a bare system to a full system, let's see, what
am I going to need?
At least a couple different archivers
Codec packs for media players
Something like DixV player, because I don't like WMP
WinAmp or some equivalent for sound files
A word processor
Email clients
New clients
IRC Clients
Instant Messaging clients
Web browsers
A web sever
At least two disparate DB servers, typically MySQL and Postgres
A decent PHP editor
A decent text editor
C and C++ compilers
A Java IDE and runtime environment
Flash and other such plugins
CVS or some equivalent
UML Modelling tools
Debuggers and profilers
Diffing and patching tools
Web editors
Link checkers
Tools such as htmltidy
Image viewers
Image editors
Vector-drawing tools
Project management tools
Scheduling and appointment apps
Once the necessities are in place, one can start looking for fun things:
Modelling apps for POV
Image cataloguing apps
More flexible media apps
Virtual desktop utilities
Wallpaper managers
Screensavers
Desktop themes
Icon sets
P2P apps if you're into that
Bittorrent clients
Stats, monitoring and logging apps
Of course, this doesn't include the _required_ tools for safe operation:
Anti virus
Anti spyware
Anti hijack
Anti adware
Popup blocking
Firewalling - and let's be honest, XP's firewall is a pathetic joke.
Now, every one of those things has to be *found*, first. Then downloaded.
Installed. Configured. In many cases, updated. Sometimes repeatedly.
Most folks take *months* to go from a bare Windows install to the
environment they're happy with, with all the apps and goodies, all the
settings and the look, everything tailored just the way they want. Some
of us *cannot* get there, as Windows simply can't handle the job, but
living within the confines of what Windows can do, if it takes as little
as a week, that's not slow... that's actually suprisingly fast.
What's pathetic about it, though, is that in Linux, I can do it in about
two hours, if you include the package download time, and I can do it with
a lot less effort.
Go on, tell me you can go from bare Windows to fully loaded in two hours,
unless you cheat by using a pre-fab image, which most Windows users don't
have.
>> Again, pay more, get less... and? This makes sense to you?
>
> Your problem is you seem to consider a Windows app and the corresponding
> Linux app to be equivalents. They're not.
Aren't they? Take MS Word and OOo Writer. What does MSW offer the
typical user than OOoW doesn't? Right; nothing at all. Oh, sure, it
might include some ability to do some weird thing that most users aren't
even aware it can do, but in the end, is that significant? It might be,
if you're in need of that, but let's get real here. Fact is, most Linux
apps are on a par, at least, with their Windows equivalent.
However, that misses the point entirely. Specifically, *ignore* the apps
entirely. If I buy a boxed set of Linux, and I by an off the shelf
version of XP, I'm going to be paying between two and six times as much
for XP as I am for Linux - so *the boxed software* must be able to do at
least twice as much to be of comparable value.
Does it?
No. The Linux boxed set includes development tools and word processors
and DB servers and on and on and on; the XP boxed set includes... well...
XP. So I'm paying more, to get less.
>>> Why doesn't anyone in the world care?
>>
>> Many of us, do, obviously. You see the name of the group? It's
>> *Linux* advocacy. As in people who like and use Linux, explaining why.
>> And we're hardly alone.
>
> I kind of think you are.
Then you're too stupid to be able to count past one, since there's more
than one Linux advocate here. Very good; you've just demonstrated that
you are, in fact, more stupid than even *I* gave you credit for.
>> IBM has made widespread use of it, and is continuing to do so.
>
> You know what was funny about that? They continued to sell their
> consumer computers with only Windows pre-installed. LOL! Does IBM
> really believe in Linux?
Let 'em sell 'em that way. Their choice, and they're in business to make
money; if that means selling Windows boxen, what of it? They're not, in
any real way, a desktop OS vendor. They're selling the hardware. If you
want to be foolish and spend more to get less by buying a crippled OS,
that's your choice.
> I forget how petty and pedantic you really are sometimes. By
> convention, nobody = few
Unlike you, I'm capable of comprehending English... and you still don't
seem to grasp it. "Millions" and "few" aren't even remotely close, any
more than "few" and "nobody" are.
>> They don't. Some do, sure. Many - millions - don't. I'm one of them.
>> I know the concept is hard for you to grasp, but the fact is that
>> "millions" and "nobody" aren't quite the same thing.
>
> They might as well be, considering MS still has 93% or so of the
> desktop.
And your numbers are? No, no, not marketing figures, *installed desktop*
figures. I know you're intellectually challenged, but we've already
dispensed with your "market share" bullshit, no need to do it again.
Simply provide the figures, ones *not* based on sales or revenues, but
actual *installs*, that supports the 93% figure.
>> So you're paying for access to software. I get that, too. With,
>> frankly, *better* software for my needs than what's available in
>> Windows.
>
> Exactly which apps are better?
Well, let's see. I'm a KDE user, so let's start with that. How does it
stack up to the Windows world? First, it offers something Windows
doesn't, unless you go out of your way to find it, install it and
configure it - virtual desktops. To me, these are a major benefit.
Of course, that brings along Konqueror, which is itself kinda sexy. Like
Windows Explorer, it can morph between file management and web browsing
at the flick of a switch... but in both modes, it beats the Windows
offerings hands-down.
As a simple example, when I examine an audio CD, I see several folders,
including CDA, FLAC, Full CD, MP3 and Ogg Vorbis, plus a collection of
.wav files. Note that none of these folders actually exists on the disk;
instead, Konqueror is creating virtual folders, such that if I copy the
files from there - eg Ogg Vorbis/* - Konqueror will automatically rip and
convert the tracks to that particular format.
Of course, for both Web browsing and file management, Konq supports tabbed
browsing, which is another win. And popup blocking. And web shortcuts.
It also allows one to specify whether to use a single core process or
multiple processes, either for local browsing or web browsing, or both,
and whether to pre-load instances for faster launching - or not. In
short, it is more flexible, safer and more configurable.
But we're not done yet. If you're an eye-candy junkie, KDE offers all
sorts of fun things. For example, you can specify different wallpapers
for each desktop. Or timed wallpaper changing, in order or randomly, from
a list of images. And it's capable of scaling those images without
distortion. While also allowing the background color to be handled in
any of a variety of ways, including gradients. Plus applying blending
effects. Or you can specify an application which can be used to manage
the background display. And that doesn't begin to address all the umpteen
other forms of eye candy available, such as selecting background images,
transparencies and effects for the task bar.
That's *just* the look-and-feel, the file manager and the web browser, and
already, Linux is way ahead in both functionality and interface. Is there
any need to keep going? If Windows, despite being more expensive, yet
including effectively nothing *but* the desktop, can't even produce an
equal product, then they've pretty much already thrown in the towel,
haven't they? Pay more, get less. Woo hoo.
> And your needs are different from my needs are different from George
> Bush's needs.
Golly gee. Your grasp of the obvious is impressive.
>> And let's face it; that "access" is far simpler and more effective in
>> Linux than in Windows.
>
> No it's not. It's exceedingly simple to find and download Windows
> software.
Really? Good. Show me the unified interface that lets me select from a
list of, say, several thousand applications, with search capabilities, so
that I can select the applications to be installed with a click, and, when
I've picked the 30 or 40 I want, another click or two will have the lot of
them downloaded, installed and configured for me.
Right. No such thing exists in Windows, which makes you jump through
endless hoops to do what I can accomplish with a half-dozen mouse clicks.
Pay more, get less! Woo hoo!
>> So, easier access to more
>> readily available software, with less effort. Hmm... what did you pay
>> for again? Oh, right; you paid for more wasted time, more complexity
>> and less bundled functionality. Yes, good choice.
>
> It is. It's the best choice.
Pay more, get less. Only DFS would regard this as the best choice... but
then you've already admitted you can't count past one.
>> Tell us about how Windows makes everything magically consistent. We
>> could use the laugh.
>
> The "average" look and feel of Windows apps is remarkably more
> consistent than what you experience when running Linux.
The "average" app I use in Linux is at least as consistent as the ones I
see in Windows. I realize this is hard for you to understand, but the
fact that there are exceptions - on both sides - doesn't change this.
>> As to testing, I'll
>> simply note that most of the applications I use work at least as well
>> and reliably as their Windows counterparts.
>
> How would you know? You don't use the Windows counterparts?
Says who? I choose not to when I can avoid it; ofttimes, however, I do
end up having to. And I have been doing so since the days of Windows/286.
You persist in your delusion that those of us who choose to use Linux do
so because we don't know Windows. The opposite, however, is often more
true - we choose Linux *precisely* because we know Windows.
>> Excuse? Let's see. You whine about inconsistency in Linux, while
>> ignoring it in Windows,
>
> Open 6 Windows apps and tile them on a desktop. Then open 6 Linux apps
> and tile them on a desktop
Both sides look pretty much as I'd expect - consistent. Unless I happen
to pick one of the oddballs. xmms, for example - but then, WinAmp works
much the same way, right? Or WMP, which does this weird vanishing frame
bullshit. Etc.
>> you ignore the supreme ease of finding and installing apps in Linux
>> compared to Windows,
>
> Trying to find and install Linux apps in Synaptic is often a huge
> hassle
Golly gee, when I do it, it's remarkably simple. In fact, it's _easier_
than doing it via the web, which is your endlessly recommended way. Why
is it simpler? Let's check.
I want a spreadsheet, we'll say. I bring up Synaptic, do a search for
"spreadsheet" - I'll do it in names and descriptions, to maximize hits -
and I get a result set of about 50 items. Checking the descriptions
column, I see "MS-Word to Tex or plain text converter", which is included
because of the extended description (visible below) which reads, in part,
"Also provided is xls2csv, which extracts data from Excel spreadsheets."
Obviously, I can skip that. I then see Gnome-office, and gnumeric, which
are obviously viable candidates. So's koffice. In short, in a few
seconds, I've reduced the options down to about 50 packages, of which
about 10 are relevant to what I'm actually looking for, so in less than a
minute, I've selected some or all of those. Click click and it - or they
- are installing. Go for a smoke or a coffee and voila, all done.
Now let's try it with, say, google.
Results 1 - 10 of about 27,100,000 for spreadsheet.
Goodie! 27 *million* records. Gonna be a long day. What're the first
few that come up, though? Here they are:
The Spreadsheet Page - Microsoft Excel
Spreadsheet Basics
GNOME Office / Gnumeric - Welcome to Gnumeric!
Download details: Excel Viewer 2003
Spreadsheet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
School Spreadsheet Safari
Spreadsheet
Free Spreadsheet Software for Windows
LT Technologies - Spreadsheet Resources
Num Sum: web spreadsheets
Hmm... of those, it looks like perhaps three - Gnome Office, School
Spreadsheet Safari, and Free Spreadsheet Software for Windows - might
point to actual products. Okay, good, so we're getting about equivalent
"hit" rates for our searches. So, let's do this right. We're going to
install, say, Gnumeric, both from Synaptic and your way. In Synaptic, I
click once to select the package, once to accept the dependency lists, and
twice more to kick the whole process off. After that, I'm *done*. Let's
try it your way.
First click takes me to the Gnumeric page. Second to the "Get Gnumeric
Now" page. Third to start the download. Fourth to select "save". Fifth
through, what, seventh? Tenth? To pick where to save it. Be generous,
we'll say it only takes one. Seventh to click "open". How many for the
wizard? Not sure, but if it's like most Windows apps, figure on at least
four. That's 11. Voila! Done!
Time elapsed, call it five minutes. Total clicks, about 11. Not a big
deal, obviously, except this misses a very basic point... well... two,
actually. First is, with Synaptic, I can do this for 20 or 200 packages,
only needing one or two clicks to select each, and two more to kick off
the entire install process - not 11 or more *per application*. And that
leads to the second point... that unlike your way, I don't have to sit
there and babysit the damned thing; it will handle the downloading,
installation and configuration without needing me to click through a mess
of pointless wizards, etc. I can walk away and have every reasonable
expectation that in seconds to an hour or so, depending on how many
packages I picked, it'll all be *done*.
So. Easier to find the right things. Easier to select them once found.
Easier to install them once selected. But making it easier in *every*
relevant way is, somehow, "a huge hassle".
Gods you're a weenie.
> For instance, use Synaptic and try to find what you need for a MySQL
> installation. Do you use mysql-common? mysql-client? mysql-server?
What is "a MySQL installation"? It's meaningless. Do you want to run a
MySQL server? Golly gee, there's mysql-server. Do you need *client*
tools to access a MySQL server? Golly gee, there's mysql-client. Wasn't
that hard?
> And KDE? Fuhgettaboutit. A Synaptic search on KDE in the name (on my
> Knoppix 4.0 install) comes back with 88 packages.
Only 88? I see 307. 'Course, if I simply go to the "KDE Desktop"
section, that drops to 158. 'Course even the most casual browsing the
list very quickly reveals items such as "kdebase", which could be a
database tool, and "kdecore", which could be any of several things, but
both are at least likely contenders as "base of the KDE system" and/or
"core of the KDE system". A little further down, however, we also run
across "kdesktop" - hmm. What is KDE? Right; a desktop manager. Could
kdesktop be it? What's the description say? Let's read:
"This package is part of KDE, and a component of the KDE base module.
See the 'kde' and 'kdebase' packages for more information.
Aha! So first, it's very likely, and second, it's hinting at "kdebase",
which we already thought was likely. Voila.
That took all of what, 30 seconds? Clickity-click, we've got a KDE system
ready to install. While we're at it, though, let's also check a couple
other things, like, say, kdepim, maybe koffice... basically, anything that
looks useful and wasn't automatically included by kdestop and/or kdebase.
So, we're talking less than two minutes, we've selected a good range of
apps, two more clicks and we're downloading, installing and configuring.
Gods, that was *so* difficult.
> recently tried to install KDE via a package manager, and the result was
> an unbootable system. (make sure to call him stupid - be as predictable
> as you always are)
How he'd wind up with an unbootable system as a result of installing KDE
isn't clear. I suppose he could, conceivably, have hosed his display
manager, so X wouldn't launch, or would, but not give him the proper
desktop, but _not boot_? No idea how installing KDE could even *possibly*
accomplish that.
> In the time it takes to find and install via Synaptic or whatever
> package mgr in Linux, you can almost always find and download and
> install on Windows.
In the time it takes me to find and install _dozens_ or _hundreds_ of
packages via Synaptic, I can find, download and install perhaps _two_
applications in Windows. And I have to babysit the whole process. Sad,
just sad. Synaptic is *so* much easier and more effective.
>> you fail to grasp that a
>> Linux installation generally _includes_ a large and rich set of
>> applications and tools, while a Windows installation as a matter of
>> fact *cannot*, because Windows doesn't include more than a handful of
>> semi-useful applets... yet this makes Linux a *lesser* computing
>> experience?
>
> Lying again, are you? Of course I didn't say that.
Actually, that's pretty much exactly what you're saying. You persist in
your ability to grasp that when you install Windows, all you get is
*Windows*, but when you install Linux, what you generally get is a
*complete, functional system*.
Despite this, despite the fact that spending about the same time to
install, despite spending less on the install media, despite expending
less effort during the install, there's simply no comparison - Linux gives
you a *far* richer end result than Windows, one which is easier to extend
with new software, easier to upgrade, easily as consistent, has similar
but not notably more inconsistencies - but you dismiss the entire thing as
a "lesser computing experience".
>> In what universe does having more apps, more flexibility, more tools to
>> get your needs met, while having effectively comparable issues in
>> regards to consistency, make something a *lesser* experience?
>
> In the Linux universe.
In your weird little universe, perhaps, not the Linux universe. We have
more, easier, with less effort and hassle and cost and risk, than Windows
can ever hope to offer. We have a much richer, more powerful, more
flexible environment, with less demands on us, as users, to install and
maintain and secure it. To me, that says a greater experience, not a
lesser one.
Explain - if you can do so without lapsing into gibbering idiocy - how
having more, more tools, more power, more flexibility, more security, more
control, more everything that matters, while requiring less cost, effort,
and time to get it or maintain it, makes for a "lesser experience".
Right, you can't. Not without simply hand-waving, dismissing something as
inferior without ever really examining it in the manner it's actually used.
>> I'm talking about how OOo, on this machine, is still going strong after
>> several thousand pages, *despite* the system being loaded to a level
>> where it's the hardware imposing limits on further demands, whilst you,
>> somehow, can only manage some 15 pages, on, I rather suspect, a faster
>> system with a lower load. Pretty pathetic.
>
> Yes, OO on Windows is pathetic. Too bad, 'cause it coulda been a
> contender.
Since OOo demonstrably isn't pathetic - since it keeps chugging merrily
along despite system load, the problem doesn't seem to be with OOo.
> But it's just as pathetic on Linux. I just did the test on OO 2.0
> (beta) for Linux (P3-800, 512RAM), and it bogged down as usual, in the
> mid-teen pages.
Don't know how you manage to screw up something so basic. As I said,
7,000 pages, OOo is still going strong, despite a fairly high system load.
And others have duplicated that result, so it's not just something magical
about me or my machine.
>> Indexing in Windows bites. The default search, even when set to use
>> the indexing service, apparently doesn't. A simple example of this
>> would be to set your indexing to instant update, let it do its thing,
>> say overnight, then do a search for files: *.txt on "My Computer", for
>> example. Since it's already been indexed, the results should come back
>> in a fraction of a second. ROFL. Yeah, right.
>
> I searched my D: partition for *.txt and it brought back 1885 files in
> about 5 seconds with Indexing on.
Indeed. Let's see.
kbjarnason@spanky:~$ time locate *txt | wc -l
16292
real 0m3.959s
user 0m0.428s
sys 0m0.739s
Found 16,292 documents in about 4 seconds. Ten times the documents, 20%
less runtime. Tastes great, less filling, meanwhile you're busy paying
more for less. Good call.
> It was the Find Files app (part of Gnome I think), under Mandrake.
Could be; I don't use Gnome, so I don't know how their find files app
works.
> * launched MS Access, Outlook Express, MS Paint, 2 instances of Firefox,
> Windows Task Manager, Nero Express, and had the Oracle service running
> (136mb)
> * logged to www.rushradio.org and started listening to streaming radio *
> kicked off a large .iso file download from
> ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/distributions/mepis/released/ * launched
> 10 low-res .mpg videos at the same time, each in their own instance of
> Windows Media Player on Access forms * began burning a few midsize files
> to CD-RW, using Nero * emailed a 1mb file from Outlook Express
So far so good... now how about actually loading the system? I notice you
skipped that part.
>> Scuse? It's a couple DBs, web browsers, mail clients and a word
>> processor. Where's the big applications?
>
> The Oracle apps and Hummingbird.
Doing nothing. No load. Try again.
> The two Access clients were running programs and queries against Oracle
> and SQL Server. The others were in various states, but mostly inactive.
Doing queries, meaning *constantly* querying, as fast as the system can
manage it? You didn't indicate this, despite being prompted to, so I
rather suspect not.
>> 'Scuse? It was *your* test, pasting 700 lines for no reason.
>
> The reason was to show what a dog OO was and is.
Yet OOo works, fine, here, even when the system's under load. Golly gee.
>> On the
>> other hand, what I discussed - running the servers, the indexing apps,
>> etc, is not some made up thing... it's what this system *does*. Daily.
>
> Fine. And what did any of it have to do with the failure of OO to do
> something as basic as copy text?
Since there was no failure, obviously it had nothing to do with it. Try
to pay attention.
>> I'm *using* my system to do these things. I don't need to paste 7,000
>> pages of the same thing over and over to show how it holds up under
>> load, because I'm already loading it, doing things that I actually want
>> it to be doing. Sorry, try again.
>
> Why? Are you still not convinced OpenOffice is slug-like?
Since I use OOo, no, I'm not convinced it's slug-like. Since I tried your
stupid little test, even on a heavily loaded system, and OOo worked like a
charm, I'm even less convinced OOo is sluglike.
Granted, I'm pretty convinced *you* are sluglike, but that's another
matter.
> Your claim was "at the end of the day, this system is probably
> processing 100 times the data yours does" and since you have no idea how
> much data my system processes you have to be assuming an average amount,
> and thus your claim must be Linux can/will process 100x what Windows
> will process on average.
Since you - even when prompted - couldn't bring yourself to say that,
despite those apps being loaded, your system was actually *doing*
anything, other than pasting text... and since I'd already discussed, in
some detail, what my system was doing when I performed the test - that it
was processing large amounts of data, basically limited only by the
hardware speed, it suggests that in fact, your system *wasn't* doing jack
squat... so the conclusion that, in all likelihood, this box is in fact
doing a hell of a lot more come end of the day, is warranted. It may be
incorrect, though you've not even hinted at anything suggesting that this
is the case, but even if it does turn out to be incorrect, it is
warranted, based on the evidence provided thus far.
>> The measure of a thing isn't whether you can break it if you try; it's
>> whether it breaks or not when you're _not_ trying, simply using it.
>
> I doubt [and hope] very seriously you could, with all honesty, recommend
> OpenOffice to any organization with serious data processing needs. That
> dog won't hunt.
I wouldn't recommend Access to anyone with serious data needs, either.
I'd recommend something actually *worth* having. If they're a dedicated
Windows shop, that'd probably be something like SQL server or Oracle.
>> Guess what? OOo holds up quite well. Cope.
>
> Cope?
Yes, cope. OOo may not win every speed record... but then it's not trying
to. It's providing a good, reliable, high-quality product which suits the
needs of the vast majority of its userbase. The fact some goober can't
paste the same sentence to 7,000 pages, or process a 16 million entry
spreadsheet, really doesn't matter... because that simply demonstrates
that the user is in fact simply not clear on the concept - they're using a
screwdriver instead of a hammer, or nail clippers to cut wires. Can you
do it? Sure. Is it a sensible use of the tool? No. Does anyone give a
rat's rear if it works efficiently? No. Cope.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:02:58 +0000, amosf (Tim Fairchild) wrote:
>> Thank you, Dim. Took you just 1 minute this time, too, eh?
>
> Correct. Your claim is that OOo2 would not paste past 20 pages AT ALL.
Here, I just repeated the test, using the same paragraph you used. I
paste it out to 100 pages, then did a copy and paste of that, some 70
times. Final result was 7094 pages.
How long? It took between 2.5 and 3 seconds per 100-page paste, so about
three minutes, give or take.
Golly gee. Only 30 pages a second. How will I ever live. :)
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 01:48:57 -0500, DFS wrote:
>> Or storing 16 million entries in a spreadsheet. Or pasting 7,000
>> pages of the same sentence.
>
> Different issues. He's misusing OpenOffice; I'm exploding it.
Wrong. He *may* be misusing it, or he may have perfectly legitimate
requirements for doing what he's doing.
By contrast, you demonstrate that you have no such requirements, as you're
not, in fact, running into these problems with real documents, only with
artificially created test cases.
Next.
amosf (Tim Fairchild)
I can paste 100 pages in under a second here, but this is a fairly quick
machine (A64-2800 with 512 ram). I would guess my P700 might take 3 seconds
or so for a 100 page paste. Anyway, at better than 100 pages a second I can
get 7000 in about a minute.
But regardless of the machine, it's obvious that OOo2 can do the job at a
reasonable speed while the DFS claim was that it would choke and freeze at
20 pages... That was a poor troll even by DFS standards...
Jesse F. Hughes
> Tools such as htmltidy
I had never run across this utility before. I just installed it.
Pretty nice.
(This somewhat undercuts your main point, since I had to go find it
and install it. But I use Slackware, which is a fairly minimal
distribution.)
--
"Your knowledge is the power that promote good thought, how then can you have
good thought without powerful knowledge or how can you have powerful knowledge
without learning or how can you learn without a teacher and how can a teacher
teach if he or she has not learned the subject." --CA Alternative High School
Kier
Well, DFS *is* a pretty poor troll ;-)
--
Kier
amosf (Tim Fairchild)
Well, maybe he has a point here... I noticed that when I started pasting
7000 pages at a time that I was only getting 30 pages per second or so, and
OOo2 does start using a fair amount of CPU when you do that up to 20,000
pages and up... It still scrolls smooth and runs fine, but those 21,000+
pages do chew some CPU... I gave up trying to break it at 28,000 pages...
It started to use a bit of swap then...
And since my biggest real doc is only about 600 pages, I think I should be
okay, huh?
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:29:13 +0000, amosf (Tim Fairchild) wrote:
>> Golly gee. Only 30 pages a second. How will I ever live. :)
>
> I can paste 100 pages in under a second here, but this is a fairly quick
> machine (A64-2800 with 512 ram).
32 bit, half the rated speed, and loaded. I can live with 30pps.
> But regardless of the machine, it's obvious that OOo2 can do the job at a
> reasonable speed while the DFS claim was that it would choke and freeze at
> 20 pages... That was a poor troll even by DFS standards...
One wonders who, exactly, he expects to buy his particular brand of
slightly stewed crap.
Kelsey Bjarnason
> Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Tools such as htmltidy
>
> I had never run across this utility before. I just installed it.
> Pretty nice.
>
> (This somewhat undercuts your main point, since I had to go find it
> and install it. But I use Slackware, which is a fairly minimal
> distribution.)
It is... but even there, when you installed the system, you had at least a
reasonable collection of applications available for installation, I'm
guessing... including, likely, the majority of the ones on the list.
Kelsey Bjarnason
> DooFuS babbled:
>
>>
>> 50,000,000 Office fans can't be wrong.
>>
>
> Your logic is fucked:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Eat dung, after all, 100 billion flies can't be wrong. :)
>> It was a version of Mandrake - it locked up every time.
>>
>
> Either provide the *exact* version number along with an accurate description
> of the problem or shut the fuck up.
This is DFS. He's never experienced any such problems; he just pores
through reports of people who actually use Linux enough to encounter the
odd rough edge, then wines as if every Linux developer was personally out
to get him.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
Well, if he acts in "real life" anything like he acts here, people
probably *are* out to get him.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDh4N9d90bcYOAWPYRAkhMAKC+k7rM2ih3yX2UxuZGsM7kdNRiQACgx+aF
olk6eHx9Yte0Ut89yR8BMgg=
=S9ej
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
You know, there's a word for people who
think that everyone is out to get them...'
`Yes! Perceptive!' --Woody Allen
GreyCloud
LOL! Possibly, the Feds are also looking for him. Idaho is a hotspot
for the white supremicist types.
--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
mlw
It a has been my experience that term "supremacist" is typically ironic.
Skeets
when an HONEST comparison won't suffice, and person knows he has to rig
the comparison, they do more for the credibility of linux than any
linux advocate could do.
thanks dfs...
keep rigging your gripes.
i'll get worried when msft actually wins in a reasonable like to like,
real world comparison.
DFS
> On Thursday 24 November 2005 07:47, DFS stood up and spoke the
> following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/
>
>> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>> [snips]
>>>
>>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:53:00 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>
>>>> You're probably the 10th cola bozo to insinuate MS pays me to smack
>>>> down you weirdos. I do this for the entertainment value.
>>>
>>> If you were any good at it, I could see the entertainment value. As
>>> it stands, all you accomplish is repeatedly demonstrating how little
>>> you know about Linux, software development, computing in general,
>>> or, well, pretty much anything that might be topical.
>>
>> You can't both insult me as a dunce and continue to reply to my posts
>> in great detail and with great purpose and effort, trying to refute
>> the points
>> of a dunce. In the first place it's unseemly, and secondly it makes
>> you a hypocrite.
>>
>> Besides, it's *my* entertainment value; that you also derive some is
>> incidental. Your unspoken gratitude is acknowledged.
>
> Considering that you have just confessed to only being on C.O.L.A. as
> the obnoxious, lying, racist, and insulting Microsoft-propagandist you
> are, you have just lost all reasons as to why I should ever reply to
> you again.
The reason you should reply to me is to add spice to your boring Linux-life.
There are important issues to debate on cola, and if you don't listen to
opposing viewpoints you become like your hero Adolf.
> You are from this moment on a self-confessed troll
Nein, Herr Adolf. I do not confess to being a troll. Trolls don't stay
around and talk about the issues.
> and bully,
Me? Do you not read the anti-MS and Windows vitriol here? Or do you read
it and just not comprehend it?
> ergo I appeal onto every self-respecting
> GNU/Linux advocate
oxymoron.
> inhere to /killfile/ you and ignore you from now on.
>
> Go find your "entertainment" in a Windows group, bully!
>
> *<plonk>*
I am truly LOL! @ your pompous twit self, Aragorn.
amosf (Tim Fairchild)
> DFS had to rig his rant on linux.
>
> when an HONEST comparison won't suffice, and person knows he has to rig
> the comparison, they do more for the credibility of linux than any
> linux advocate could do.
>
> thanks dfs...
>
> keep rigging your gripes.
It's pure troll material just to get a bite, and it usually does. He always
says over the top things like 'firefox 1.0.4 will not install' or 'OOo2
can't paste over 20 pages' knowing that people will disagree with him
straight away as they have just installed firefox 1.0.4 or use OOo2 docs of
500 pages or so...
It's just trolling and it's best to leave him crap on to himself...
But yes, in a way it may be linux advocacy in a way. 'People' like dfs and
win make the wintrolls look very desperate...
DFS
>>> I can paste 100 pages in under a second here, but this is a fairly
>>> quick machine (A64-2800 with 512 ram). I would guess my P700 might
>>> take 3 seconds or so for a 100 page paste. Anyway, at better than
>>> 100 pages a second I can get 7000 in about a minute.
Just let us know when you have a video showing this 7000 pages in 'about a
minute.'
I have twice the memory, a P4-2ghz processor, and OO on Windows generally
fails this simple test. I just turned my system back on from being out of
town, and with only Outlook Express running did the SlowO tests again.
Similar results - maybe a little better. Fill up one page, then Ctrl+C,
then hold down Ctrl+V. At page 13, it hung for at least 10 seconds. Then I
copied and pasted in 13-page chunks, and had to wait about 2 seconds for the
paste *every single time*. Word on Windows blazes, of course, pasting one
page after another, until you get bored watching it work its magic.
When I got to page 45 or so I started pasting in 45-page chunks. Slow as
usual. Wait and wait. At page 683 SlowO just hung for at least a minute.
Copying in 683 page chunks just results in more waiting. Eventually you get
control back, but who knows when.
OO basically fails at cut and paste. Unbelievable.
> Well, maybe he has a point here...
You think?
> I noticed that when I started
> pasting 7000 pages at a time that I was only getting 30 pages per
> second or so,
So you were waiting about 10 minutes per paste - sounds about right.
> and OOo2 does start using a fair amount of CPU when you
> do that up to 20,000 pages and up... It still scrolls smooth and runs
> fine, but those 21,000+ pages do chew some CPU... I gave up trying to
> break it at 28,000 pages... It started to use a bit of swap then...
>
> And since my biggest real doc is only about 600 pages, I think I
> should be okay, huh?
You'll never be OK if you use OpenOffice when you could be using MS Office.
DFS
Piggybacking on their posts?
Bad dullard! Bad!
DFS
> Skeets wrote something like:
>
>> DFS had to rig his rant on linux.
Of course I didn't.
>> when an HONEST comparison won't suffice, and person knows he has to
>> rig the comparison, they do more for the credibility of linux than
>> any linux advocate could do.
>>
>> thanks dfs...
>>
>> keep rigging your gripes.
>
> It's pure troll material just to get a bite, and it usually does. He
> always says over the top things like 'firefox 1.0.4 will not install'
> or 'OOo2 can't paste over 20 pages'
Dim, you're becoming a liar. I never said either of those things.
DFS
> DFS wrote:
>> Finding, categorizing, sorting, editing, sending, copying,
>> deleting... just using photos in general is supremely difficult if
>> they're stored 32 each
>> inside a word processing file. It's absurd.
>>
>> See Google Picasa for the solution. Or build your own photo mgmt
>> database in Access or .. shudder... OO Base.
>>
> Those are downsides in your opinion,
How pathetic for you to defend such a photo mgmt scheme, only because he's a
Linux user. If it were me suggesting such an absurdity I'd never hear the
end of it.
> he may have criteria you do not
> know about.
What could these criteria be?
>> Manage PC resources, host apps, games, play movies, music, etc.
>
> Ahh, "Manage" and "Host," cool, so Linux is better than Windows as it
> does all this for free, and is better at it. If the above is all you
> expect of Windows, why do you insist it is better?
Because of the reasons I've stated a dozen times.
>>>>> Web development, so I run my own multi-site server.
>>>> Available for free for Windows
>>>
>>> Multi-site and charge and make a profit?
>>
>> Sure. Remember Windows Server? And there are all kinds of free web
>> development apps that run on Windows.
>
> Yes, and look at the license agreements. "not for profit."
Huh? I can host commercial websites on a Windows Server system.
>>>>> PHP scripting for active pages.
>>>> Available for free for Windows
>>>
>>> Not, of course, out of the box.
>>
>> No. Not every Linux distro includes PHP out of the box either.
>
> Really? I can't think of one.
DamnSmallLinux. KUbuntu. And others you can find at www.distrowatch.com.
>> 50,000,000 Office fans can't be wrong.
>
> Said the last lemming.
Said 50,000,000 Office fans.
>> I have none. I've only ever had a few pieces of that stuff - in 9
>> years of using Windows online.
>
> Then you are the amazing exception. I find it odd that, industry wide,
> malware is epidemic on Windows, but here on COLA the Windows users
> never have a problem.
Oh, I had a problem and I don't deny it. I had one coolwebsearch browser
hijack in 2003 that set my home page to coolwebsearch, and reset it there no
matter what. I found cwsshredder and it was fixed.
> A lie repeated is still a lie.
cola repeats lots of lies about MS and Windows.
>> XP and nearly all Windows apps run faster on similar equipment than
>> KDE and bloated Linux apps.
>
> Sigh, I don't believe you. Site some 3rd party references for this
> claim because it is counter to my, and most other's, observations.
I was hoping you were going to ask, so I could show you.
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=7324
>> It was a version of Mandrake - it locked up every time.
>
> Again, don't believe you. You have lied to me many times before,
> played ignorant of the truth, why should I believe what you post?
>
> I used mandrake a long time before switching to Ubuntu, and never
> experiences any such problem.
I posted it here on cola, when I used to post the bullshit Linux/OSS bugs.
It was the Find Files apps in Mandrake 10.1 CE. Searching for 'any
letter'*.* in /usr/bin would completely hang the app.
I quit posting bugs for the most part, 'cause it gets old hearing you liars
deny them. But they were there then, and they're there today. I installed
Knoppix 4.0 DVD to my hard drive last week. At least a dozen of the apps in
the menus won't even start. The hourglass cursor comes up for a while, then
quits and nothing else happens.
>>> Bogus benchmarks is what M$ is all about.
>>
>> I wasn't benchmarking anything - just demonstrating Word's superior
>> speed.
>
> You posted one such claim before, and it was quickly refuted.
Nah.
>> Rapskat says Linux handles 2x Window's workload. Kelsey seems to be
>> claiming Linux will handle 100x Window's workload.
>>
>> Both are wrong.
>
> That depends on the workload. Linux has faster I/O and a better
> implementation of Berkeley sockets, and will out perform Windows when
> these are the gating items. Windows used to have an edge on thread
> scheduling in
> 2.4, but with 2.6 this is faster as well. Also the implementation of
> the pthreads mutex is much much faster than Windows mutex and can
> easily be 100x faster because on non-contention Linux does not suffer
> a the overhead of a kernel call.
>
>
> 2x or 100x? Maybe, depending on how it works.
Always hedge your absurd claims with 'maybe' and 'depending'.
>> I'm talking about importing text files, or spreadsheets, or running
>> queries,
>> or something like that. I haven't spent much time with OO Base, but
>> I have a strong feeling it's a disaster waiting to happen.
>
> Make it a reality based benchmark and Linux will win.
I will, and it won't.
DFS
> DFS wrote something like:
>> Thank you, Dim. Took you just 1 minute this time, too, eh?
>
> Correct. Your claim is that OOo2 would not paste past 20 pages AT ALL.
But I didn't claim that, Dim.
> I then happened to see
> your lie while doing other things, then pasted it to OOo2, in about a
> minute or so,
How long does 'or so' cover?
> Email me privately if you dare. If it's a hotmail, yahoo, gmail,
> mail.com, etc tho I will ignore it.
Like you said you would ignore me before, when we were talking about your
affliction?
amosf (Tim Fairchild)
> amosf (Tim Fairchild) wrote:
>
>>>> I can paste 100 pages in under a second here, but this is a fairly
>>>> quick machine (A64-2800 with 512 ram). I would guess my P700 might
>>>> take 3 seconds or so for a 100 page paste. Anyway, at better than
>>>> 100 pages a second I can get 7000 in about a minute.
>
> Just let us know when you have a video showing this 7000 pages in 'about a
> minute.'
I could do one with my digital camera, but it would be a big file. But if
you send my your name and home address I'll send it to you on a CD.
> I have twice the memory, a P4-2ghz processor, and OO on Windows generally
> fails this simple test. I just turned my system back on from being out of
> town, and with only Outlook Express running did the SlowO tests again.
> Similar results - maybe a little better. Fill up one page, then Ctrl+C,
> then hold down Ctrl+V. At page 13, it hung for at least 10 seconds. Then
> I copied and pasted in 13-page chunks, and had to wait about 2 seconds for
> the
> paste *every single time*. Word on Windows blazes, of course, pasting one
> page after another, until you get bored watching it work its magic.
>
> When I got to page 45 or so I started pasting in 45-page chunks. Slow as
> usual. Wait and wait. At page 683 SlowO just hung for at least a minute.
> Copying in 683 page chunks just results in more waiting. Eventually you
> get control back, but who knows when.
>
> OO basically fails at cut and paste. Unbelievable.
Wow. I didn't realize that the AMD 64's were that much better than intel! Or
is it linux is just better than windows? My machine is a bit loaded with
other tasks at the moment, and ducking into swap, so it took me 1:14 to get
from a 14 page doc to 7,000 pages. That's including keystrokes to get to
100 page doc then pasting 100 pages at a time to get 7000...
>> Well, maybe he has a point here...
>
> You think?
What's that ailment that makes you miss sarcasm?
>> I noticed that when I started
>> pasting 7000 pages at a time that I was only getting 30 pages per
>> second or so,
>
> So you were waiting about 10 minutes per paste - sounds about right.
Math problem? Pasting 7000 pages at a time on large docs (like 14,000-20,000
pages) takes 3:01 in the test I just did... Machine was using a fair chunk
of swap by then as it's only 512 meg with a lot of stuff open. A little
slower than pasting 100 or 1000 page chunks, but then it's not something
most people do in the real world. It does work fine, tho, and smooth...
Steady page count, no pauses.
>> and OOo2 does start using a fair amount of CPU when you
>> do that up to 20,000 pages and up... It still scrolls smooth and runs
>> fine, but those 21,000+ pages do chew some CPU... I gave up trying to
>> break it at 28,000 pages... It started to use a bit of swap then...
>>
>> And since my biggest real doc is only about 600 pages, I think I
>> should be okay, huh?
>
> You'll never be OK if you use OpenOffice when you could be using MS
> Office.
Yep, next time I need to work on 20,000 page docs and need to paste 7000
pages at a time and don't have 3 minutes to spare I will definately use
MSO...
I'll use OOo the rest of the time tho...
amosf (Tim Fairchild)
> Not on my OO 2.0 for Windows system. After 15 pages, it basically quits
> pasting. I sit and wait and wait.
DFS
> [snips]
>
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 01:48:57 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>>> Or storing 16 million entries in a spreadsheet. Or pasting 7,000
>>> pages of the same sentence.
>>
>> Different issues. He's misusing OpenOffice; I'm exploding it.
>
> Wrong. He *may* be misusing it, or he may have perfectly legitimate
> requirements for doing what he's doing.
uh huh. What could those be?
> By contrast, you demonstrate that you have no such requirements, as
> you're not, in fact, running into these problems with real documents,
> only with artificially created test cases.
I can't imagine a real-world OpenOffice vs MS Office test MS Office wins
that you wouldn't try to dismiss in one way or another. It's what Linux
users do.
When MS bests Linux, and it often does, the *immediate* response is to
1) discredit the poster, then
2) discredit the test
If I show you the superior charting capabilities of Excel (actually the MS
Graph engine), you'll dismiss them as unrealistic or say who cares? If I
show you the superior speed of MS Office, you dismiss it in a flippant,
dishonest, sarcastic way.
amosf (Tim Fairchild)
> Now try the same operations on the same computer with that piece of shit
> OpenOffice 2.0. It won't even paste after about 15 pages.
amosf (Tim Fairchild)
> amosf (Tim Fairchild) wrote:
>> DFS wrote something like:
>
>>> Thank you, Dim. Took you just 1 minute this time, too, eh?
>>
>> Correct. Your claim is that OOo2 would not paste past 20 pages AT ALL.
>
> But I didn't claim that, Dim.
My mistake. It was 15 pages. Sorry.
DFS
> DFS wrote something like:
>> When I got to page 45 or so I started pasting in 45-page chunks.
>> Slow as usual. Wait and wait. At page 683 SlowO just hung for at
>> least a minute. Copying in 683 page chunks just results in more
>> waiting. Eventually you get control back, but who knows when.
>>
>> OO basically fails at cut and paste. Unbelievable.
>
> Wow. I didn't realize that the AMD 64's were that much better than
> intel!
That may be the case - for this app anyway.
> Or is it linux is just better than windows?
That's definitely not the case, for any app.
>My machine is a
> bit loaded with other tasks at the moment, and ducking into swap, so
> it took me 1:14 to get from a 14 page doc to 7,000 pages. That's
> including keystrokes to get to 100 page doc then pasting 100 pages at
> a time to get 7000...
OK. I believe you. No need to get your tripod out and burn me a CD and
mail it to:
______ _____
___ _______ Rd.
_____________, __ _____
>>> Well, maybe he has a point here...
>>
>> You think?
>
> What's that ailment that makes you miss sarcasm?
Dim, I don't miss a thing. I note every smarmy little remark you make.
>>> I noticed that when I started
>>> pasting 7000 pages at a time that I was only getting 30 pages per
>>> second or so,
In Word, 7000 pages gets pasted in 15 seconds.
>> So you were waiting about 10 minutes per paste - sounds about right.
>
> Math problem?
Yes. 7000 pages at 30 pages per second ~ 3.9 minutes per paste. Still
unreasonable, when it takes MS Word 15 seconds to paste 7000 pages on top of
7000, then another 15 seconds to paste 7000 on top of 14000, until page
28000+ when I ran out of memory.
> Pasting 7000 pages at a time on large docs (like
> 14,000-20,000 pages) takes 3:01 in the test I just did... Machine was
> using a fair chunk of swap by then as it's only 512 meg with a lot of
> stuff open. A little slower than pasting 100 or 1000 page chunks, but
> then it's not something most people do in the real world. It does
> work fine, tho, and smooth... Steady page count, no pauses.
That's the AMD chip. Impressive, considering the OO app and the Linux OS.
>> You'll never be OK if you use OpenOffice when you could be using MS
>> Office.
>
> Yep, next time I need to work on 20,000 page docs and need to paste
> 7000 pages at a time and don't have 3 minutes to spare I will
> definately use MSO...
>
> I'll use OOo the rest of the time tho...
OK. It's your life.
amosf (Tim Fairchild)
>> It's pure troll material just to get a bite, and it usually does. He
>> always says over the top things like 'firefox 1.0.4 will not install'
>> or 'OOo2 can't paste over 20 pages'
>
> Dim, you're becoming a liar. I never said either of those things.
You first claimed firefox 1.0.4 would not install as per instructions on
mandrake on June 15th, 2005 - then a number of times since. Easily searched
on google groups.
The claims that OOo2 wouldn't paste after 15 pages (without issues) were
this month...
Now, okay, you trolled me. I still suggest that ignoring trolls is the best
thing to do, but we all have our weaker moments.
DFS
> DFS wrote something like:
>
>> Now try the same operations on the same computer with that piece of
>> shit OpenOffice 2.0. It won't even paste after about 15 pages.
And it won't - though I see it depends on your keystrokes. If I start with
a sentence, copy it to fill a page, then copy that page into memory, go to
the end of the page, then hit Ctrl+V and hold it down, OO TOTALLY QUITS
pasting at somewhere between pages 13 and 17. I repeated this test three
times in a row.
Nothing else will happen at that point, until I either 1) cursor to the top
and back down, or 2) hit Enter to move to the next line at which time I can
continue pasting, and afterwards it's very slow.
OO 2.0 is majorly borked on my Pentium/Windows system. I only have the OO
2.0 beta on my Knoppix box to test with, and beta is a built-in excuse for
cola.
DFS
> DFS wrote something like:
>
>>> It's pure troll material just to get a bite, and it usually does. He
>>> always says over the top things like 'firefox 1.0.4 will not
>>> install' or 'OOo2 can't paste over 20 pages'
>>
>> Dim, you're becoming a liar. I never said either of those things.
>
> You first claimed firefox 1.0.4 would not install as per instructions
> on mandrake on June 15th, 2005 - then a number of times since. Easily
> searched on google groups.
That's a far different claim than just "FF will not install." And it wasn't
at all over the top - it was another clear case of a pain in the butt Linux
installation.
> The claims that OOo2 wouldn't paste after 15 pages (without issues)
> were this month...
I had to go back and see why I would say something like that. And I
confirmed it. If I copy 1 page in memory, then hit Ctrl+V and hold it down,
my OO 2 on Windows system absolutely will not paste after 13 to 17 pages -
unless I cursor around or hit Enter or start over by copying pages 1 to 13
and pasting them.
I hadn't discovered these workarounds when I posted that the first time.
> Now, okay, you trolled me. I still suggest that ignoring trolls is
> the best thing to do, but we all have our weaker moments.
It's not being weak to respond to someone bringing up significant issues
with Linux software.
Plonking someone you don't agree with *is* weak.
Kier
You really are a piece of scum, DFS. You think your insults are funny. I
think they makje you a lowlife piece of shit.
>
>
>> You are from this moment on a self-confessed troll
>
> Nein, Herr Adolf. I do not confess to being a troll. Trolls don't stay
> around and talk about the issues.
Sick twisted stinky little man. Of course you're a troll.
>
>
>
>> and bully,
>
> Me? Do you not read the anti-MS and Windows vitriol here? Or do you read
> it and just not comprehend it?
How about the anti-Linux slurs we read daily? Or are they supposed to be
okay?
>
>
>
>> ergo I appeal onto every self-respecting
>> GNU/Linux advocate
>
> oxymoron.
Whereas, you're just a moron, full stop.
>
>
>
>> inhere to /killfile/ you and ignore you from now on.
>>
>> Go find your "entertainment" in a Windows group, bully!
>>
>> *<plonk>*
>
> I am truly LOL! @ your pompous twit self, Aragorn.
LOL away, stinky, but at least he *does* advocate. You just sneer and lie.
--
Kier
Kier
Sorry, what? I merely commented on your uselessness, that's all, stinky.
I wasn't talking to you, but about you. And since nobody made you God
yesterday, kindly sod off out of my business.
--
Kier
amosf (Tim Fairchild)
> amosf (Tim Fairchild) wrote:
>> DFS wrote something like:
>>
>>> Now try the same operations on the same computer with that piece of
>>> shit OpenOffice 2.0. It won't even paste after about 15 pages.
>
> And it won't - though I see it depends on your keystrokes. If I start
> with a sentence, copy it to fill a page, then copy that page into memory,
> go to the end of the page, then hit Ctrl+V and hold it down, OO TOTALLY
> QUITS
> pasting at somewhere between pages 13 and 17. I repeated this test three
> times in a row.
Make up your mind... Did you say it or not??? Anyway, whether you believe it
or not, this does not happen here. I can't find any combination of
keystrokes that will make OOo2 (2.0 final release) stall in such a way on
linux. I have cut and pasted from a single sentence to 7000 pages very many
times without issue. I can do it in a couple of minutes including
keystrokes. A little over a minute if I'm quick.
I don't have OOo2 for windows to test... And then I would have to find a
windows box to try it on...
> Nothing else will happen at that point, until I either 1) cursor to the
> top and back down, or 2) hit Enter to move to the next line at which time
> I can continue pasting, and afterwards it's very slow.
No problems here with OOo2.0 final on mandrake 10.0, kernel 2.6.13.1 and
kernel 2.6.14.3
> OO 2.0 is majorly borked on my Pentium/Windows system. I only have the OO
> 2.0 beta on my Knoppix box to test with, and beta is a built-in excuse for
> cola.
No problems here. It also works on my P4-2.4 gig machine. But I have a suse
10 beta on that box at the moment with an OOo2 beta. It does pause a few
seconds after a 100page paste when you get up in the 1000 page area and
beyond... So there might be a beta issue there - but nothing of the order
you are seeing. The suse beta release certainly pastes quickly up to
several hundred pages before seeing even small pauses.
Get OOo2 final for linux and let us know, huh...
amosf (Tim Fairchild)
> amosf (Tim Fairchild) wrote:
>> DFS wrote something like:
>>
>>>> It's pure troll material just to get a bite, and it usually does. He
>>>> always says over the top things like 'firefox 1.0.4 will not
>>>> install' or 'OOo2 can't paste over 20 pages'
>>>
>>> Dim, you're becoming a liar. I never said either of those things.
>>
>> You first claimed firefox 1.0.4 would not install as per instructions
>> on mandrake on June 15th, 2005 - then a number of times since. Easily
>> searched on google groups.
>
> That's a far different claim than just "FF will not install." And it
> wasn't at all over the top - it was another clear case of a pain in the
> butt Linux installation.
Well, maybe I don't hang on you every word... It just went something like.
dfs: firefox 1.0.4 will not install if you follow the instructions on
mozilla.org
me: yes it does. I just installed it. Several times.
dfs: Lier!
me: dfs said that ff 1.0.4 would not install.
dfs: lier!
etc...
>> The claims that OOo2 wouldn't paste after 15 pages (without issues)
>> were this month...
>
> I had to go back and see why I would say something like that. And I
> confirmed it. If I copy 1 page in memory, then hit Ctrl+V and hold it
> down, my OO 2 on Windows system absolutely will not paste after 13 to 17
> pages - unless I cursor around or hit Enter or start over by copying pages
> 1 to 13 and pasting them.
Yes. You said it. Then you said you didn't say it. Either way it seems that
again you are the only one with the problem.
> I hadn't discovered these workarounds when I posted that the first time.
No workaround needed here.
>> Now, okay, you trolled me. I still suggest that ignoring trolls is
>> the best thing to do, but we all have our weaker moments.
>
> It's not being weak to respond to someone bringing up significant issues
> with Linux software.
Yes it is. I will try and improve my ways for a while.
I do feel that I should counter false claims against OSS, so it's not too
bad to respond to this. But it's still a troll, it's just not as bad as the
racist crap...
mlw
> mlw wrote:
>> DFS wrote:
>
>>> Finding, categorizing, sorting, editing, sending, copying,
>>> deleting... just using photos in general is supremely difficult if
>>> they're stored 32 each
>>> inside a word processing file. It's absurd.
>>>
>>> See Google Picasa for the solution. Or build your own photo mgmt
>>> database in Access or .. shudder... OO Base.
>>>
>> Those are downsides in your opinion,
>
> How pathetic for you to defend such a photo mgmt scheme, only because he's
> a
> Linux user. If it were me suggesting such an absurdity I'd never hear the
> end of it.
I am neither defending nor promoting such a scheme, I am simply saying that
such a system, regardless of what we think of its relative merits is none
of our concern as we do not know what the parameters of his decision was.
>
>
>
>> he may have criteria you do not
>> know about.
>
> What could these criteria be?
It doesn't matter.
>
>
>
>>> Manage PC resources, host apps, games, play movies, music, etc.
>>
>> Ahh, "Manage" and "Host," cool, so Linux is better than Windows as it
>> does all this for free, and is better at it. If the above is all you
>> expect of Windows, why do you insist it is better?
>
> Because of the reasons I've stated a dozen times.
But which must seem pointless at this juncture as I've never seen you
unwilling to post.
>
>
>
>
>>>>>> Web development, so I run my own multi-site server.
>>>>> Available for free for Windows
>>>>
>>>> Multi-site and charge and make a profit?
>>>
>>> Sure. Remember Windows Server? And there are all kinds of free web
>>> development apps that run on Windows.
>>
>> Yes, and look at the license agreements. "not for profit."
>
> Huh? I can host commercial websites on a Windows Server system.
Ahh, there it is, the lie of misdirection. Yes you can host commercial
websites with Windows Server, but you can't legally use Microsoft's student
or free downloads to do so. You must purchase the license.
>
>
>
>>>>>> PHP scripting for active pages.
>>>>> Available for free for Windows
>>>>
>>>> Not, of course, out of the box.
>>>
>>> No. Not every Linux distro includes PHP out of the box either.
>>
>> Really? I can't think of one.
>
> DamnSmallLinux. KUbuntu. And others you can find at www.distrowatch.com.
I'm running kubuntu and it seems to have it.
>
>
>
>
>>> 50,000,000 Office fans can't be wrong.
>>
>> Said the last lemming.
>
> Said 50,000,000 Office fans.
>
I do not put stock in the number of people believing in something. Most
people believe, in fact are sure, that you are safe in your car in a
lightening storm because of the rubber tires and this is absolutely wrong.
So, yes, any large number of people can be wrong, I wuld especially the M$
Office fans.
>
>
>
>>> I have none. I've only ever had a few pieces of that stuff - in 9
>>> years of using Windows online.
>>
>> Then you are the amazing exception. I find it odd that, industry wide,
>> malware is epidemic on Windows, but here on COLA the Windows users
>> never have a problem.
>
> Oh, I had a problem and I don't deny it. I had one coolwebsearch browser
> hijack in 2003 that set my home page to coolwebsearch, and reset it there
> no
> matter what. I found cwsshredder and it was fixed.
One one incident, you must be amazing. Everyone I know bitches and complains
about there Windows machine. Just starting IS causes popups to come up!
>
>
>
>> A lie repeated is still a lie.
>
> cola repeats lots of lies about MS and Windows.
I haven't seen many.
>
>
>
>
>
>>> XP and nearly all Windows apps run faster on similar equipment than
>>> KDE and bloated Linux apps.
>>
>> Sigh, I don't believe you. Site some 3rd party references for this
>> claim because it is counter to my, and most other's, observations.
>
> I was hoping you were going to ask, so I could show you.
Why not present it with your claim?
>
> http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=7324
A few notes:
The article is more than a year old.
The distro used, at the time was old.
Lastly, it is not a test that can be verified. There were no actual tests
done and no metrics presented that someone interested in comparing could
use.
This is an opinion piece, one with which I do not agree, and does not
present any facts.
>
>
>>> It was a version of Mandrake - it locked up every time.
>>
>> Again, don't believe you. You have lied to me many times before,
>> played ignorant of the truth, why should I believe what you post?
>>
>> I used mandrake a long time before switching to Ubuntu, and never
>> experiences any such problem.
>
> I posted it here on cola, when I used to post the bullshit Linux/OSS bugs.
> It was the Find Files apps in Mandrake 10.1 CE. Searching for 'any
> letter'*.* in /usr/bin would completely hang the app.
Never saw it, never heard of it, and it never happened to me, and I can't
reproduce it. I don't consider your claim factual.
>
> I quit posting bugs for the most part, 'cause it gets old hearing you
> liars
> deny them.
I suspect that if the bugs were lies, they would be denied.
> But they were there then, and they're there today. I
> installed
> Knoppix 4.0 DVD to my hard drive last week. At least a dozen of the apps
> in
> the menus won't even start. The hourglass cursor comes up for a while,
> then quits and nothing else happens.
Post the exact steps you used to have this happen, if it is verified someone
will fix it.
>
>
>
>>>> Bogus benchmarks is what M$ is all about.
>>>
>>> I wasn't benchmarking anything - just demonstrating Word's superior
>>> speed.
>>
>> You posted one such claim before, and it was quickly refuted.
>
> Nah.
LOL, you compared M$ Office (preloaded) with OpenOffice.org and "surprise"
open office was slower. Duh! Preload open office at startup like you do M$
Office, that's the difference.
>
>
>
>>> Rapskat says Linux handles 2x Window's workload. Kelsey seems to be
>>> claiming Linux will handle 100x Window's workload.
>>>
>>> Both are wrong.
>>
>> That depends on the workload. Linux has faster I/O and a better
>> implementation of Berkeley sockets, and will out perform Windows when
>> these are the gating items. Windows used to have an edge on thread
>> scheduling in
>> 2.4, but with 2.6 this is faster as well. Also the implementation of
>> the pthreads mutex is much much faster than Windows mutex and can
>> easily be 100x faster because on non-contention Linux does not suffer
>> a the overhead of a kernel call.
>>
>>
>> 2x or 100x? Maybe, depending on how it works.
>
> Always hedge your absurd claims with 'maybe' and 'depending'.
It is no such thing, performance varies greatly between the two platforms.
If your application executes mainly in your application space ad makes very
few system calls, if you have similar compilers, the programs will probably
run similarly on similar hardware.
If your application does a lot of I/O, depends on the scheduler, the
implementation of mutex, and so on, the the OS will play a greater role in
application performance.
It should be obvious that there is no hard fast number, but generally, Linux
is faster than Windows.
>
>
>>> I'm talking about importing text files, or spreadsheets, or running
>>> queries,
>>> or something like that. I haven't spent much time with OO Base, but
>>> I have a strong feeling it's a disaster waiting to happen.
>>
>> Make it a reality based benchmark and Linux will win.
>
> I will, and it won't.
I bet you don't know how to make a benchmark that actually tests what you
want to test, and does it in a way that translates equally across multiple
platforms.
Timo Pirinen
> Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Tools such as htmltidy
>
> I had never run across this utility before. I just installed it.
> Pretty nice.
>
> (This somewhat undercuts your main point, since I had to go find it
> and install it.
No need, as it is included on the Slack media, just spelled html-tidy. It is
part of the KDE-addons package.
<http://slackware.it/en/pb/searchfile.php?v=current&c=slackware&string=html-tidy&w=on>
Btw, that is one nice package browser they got.
> But I use Slackware, which is a fairly minimal
> distribution.)
Four CDs is minimal? Full-featured, rather.
--
Timo Pirinen
piri...@dlc.fi
DFS
> DFS wrote:
>
>> mlw wrote:
>>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>>> Finding, categorizing, sorting, editing, sending, copying,
>>>> deleting... just using photos in general is supremely difficult if
>>>> they're stored 32 each
>>>> inside a word processing file. It's absurd.
>>>>
>>>> See Google Picasa for the solution. Or build your own photo mgmt
>>>> database in Access or .. shudder... OO Base.
>>>>
>>> Those are downsides in your opinion,
>>
>> How pathetic for you to defend such a photo mgmt scheme, only
>> because he's a
>> Linux user. If it were me suggesting such an absurdity I'd never
>> hear the end of it.
>
> I am neither defending nor promoting such a scheme, I am simply
> saying that such a system, regardless of what we think of its
> relative merits is none of our concern as we do not know what the
> parameters of his decision was.
Poor copout, mlw.
>>> he may have criteria you do not
>>> know about.
>>
>> What could these criteria be?
>
> It doesn't matter.
Really poor copout: no imagination, no guesses even.
>> Huh? I can host commercial websites on a Windows Server system.
>
> Ahh, there it is, the lie of misdirection. Yes you can host commercial
> websites with Windows Server, but you can't legally use Microsoft's
> student or free downloads to do so. You must purchase the license.
Huh? Now you have to purchase Apache?
>>>>>>> PHP scripting for active pages.
>>>>>> Available for free for Windows
>>>>>
>>>>> Not, of course, out of the box.
>>>>
>>>> No. Not every Linux distro includes PHP out of the box either.
>>>
>>> Really? I can't think of one.
>>
>> DamnSmallLinux. KUbuntu. And others you can find at
>> www.distrowatch.com.
>
> I'm running kubuntu and it seems to have it.
According to distrowatch it does not come with PHP.
>>>> 50,000,000 Office fans can't be wrong.
>>>
>>> Said the last lemming.
>>
>> Said 50,000,000 Office fans.
>>
> I do not put stock in the number of people believing in something.
> Most people believe, in fact are sure, that you are safe in your car
> in a lightening storm because of the rubber tires and this is
> absolutely wrong.
>
> So, yes, any large number of people can be wrong, I wuld especially
> the M$ Office fans.
If any large number of people can be wrong, many small groups of people can
be wrong, and many, many tiny groups. Such as Linux users.
>>>> I have none. I've only ever had a few pieces of that stuff - in 9
>>>> years of using Windows online.
>>>
>>> Then you are the amazing exception. I find it odd that, industry
>>> wide, malware is epidemic on Windows, but here on COLA the Windows
>>> users never have a problem.
>>
>> Oh, I had a problem and I don't deny it. I had one coolwebsearch
>> browser hijack in 2003 that set my home page to coolwebsearch, and
>> reset it there no
>> matter what. I found cwsshredder and it was fixed.
>
> One one incident, you must be amazing. Everyone I know bitches and
> complains about there Windows machine. Just starting IS causes popups
> to come up!
What's IS? And what kind of popups?
If you're talking about website popups, my screen gets full of them when I
use Konqueror.
>> cola repeats lots of lies about MS and Windows.
>
> I haven't seen many.
You told a funny!
>>>> XP and nearly all Windows apps run faster on similar equipment than
>>>> KDE and bloated Linux apps.
>>>
>>> Sigh, I don't believe you. Site some 3rd party references for this
>>> claim because it is counter to my, and most other's, observations.
>>
>> I was hoping you were going to ask, so I could show you.
>
> Why not present it with your claim?
>>
>> http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=7324
>
> A few notes:
>
> The article is more than a year old.
> The distro used, at the time was old.
> Lastly, it is not a test that can be verified. There were no actual
> tests done and no metrics presented that someone interested in
> comparing could use.
>
> This is an opinion piece, one with which I do not agree, and does not
> present any facts.
Oh, but it's plenty easy enough to confirm everything he said. Use the
latest and greatest versions of everything if you must. The results won't
change - but you already know this.
>>>> It was a version of Mandrake - it locked up every time.
>>>
>>> Again, don't believe you. You have lied to me many times before,
>>> played ignorant of the truth, why should I believe what you post?
>>>
>>> I used mandrake a long time before switching to Ubuntu, and never
>>> experiences any such problem.
>>
>> I posted it here on cola, when I used to post the bullshit Linux/OSS
>> bugs. It was the Find Files apps in Mandrake 10.1 CE. Searching for
>> 'any letter'*.* in /usr/bin would completely hang the app.
>
> Never saw it, never heard of it, and it never happened to me, and I
> can't reproduce it. I don't consider your claim factual.
It hasn't happened on the other distros I've tried.
>> I quit posting bugs for the most part, 'cause it gets old hearing you
>> liars deny them.
>
> I suspect that if the bugs were lies, they would be denied.
The bugs are always denied. Then when they're proven, they're dismissed as
inconsequential.
>> But they were there then, and they're there today. I
>> installed
>> Knoppix 4.0 DVD to my hard drive last week. At least a dozen of the
>> apps in
>> the menus won't even start. The hourglass cursor comes up for a
>> while, then quits and nothing else happens.
>
> Post the exact steps you used to have this happen, if it is verified
> someone will fix it.
1) boot Knoppix 4.0 DVD. Install to the hard drive by opening a root shell
and entering knx2hd. It will kick off an installation program. I believe I
used the option to install a Debian-like system. It shows an option to
repartition, but qtParted won't ever start. I installed into these
partitions I previously used when installing Ubuntu.
http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/DFS_partitions.png
After the install - I don't remember if the default wm is KDE or not, but
launch a KDE session. I haven't tried these under other window managers.
System | gscanbus won't start
System | i810rotate flashes and won't start
System | KRandRTray won't start
System | Xconsole throws error - says 'couldn't open console'
Emulators | Bochs won't start
Emulators | XTel won't start
Development | KDE | KDevelop Designer won't start - throws a SIGSEGV fault
every time.
Development | KDE | KDevelop Assistante won't start - throws a SIGSEGV fault
every time.
Development | Monodoc (http) won't start
Games | Adventure | Falcon's Eye won't start - flashes and back to the
desktop
Lost & Found | E-Gnome won't start
Lost & Found | xfce calendar won't start
KANOTIX | Network/Internet | My PPP conf won't start
and so on and so on
>>>>> Bogus benchmarks is what M$ is all about.
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't benchmarking anything - just demonstrating Word's superior
>>>> speed.
>>>
>>> You posted one such claim before, and it was quickly refuted.
>>
>> Nah.
>
> LOL, you compared M$ Office (preloaded) with OpenOffice.org and
> "surprise" open office was slower. Duh! Preload open office at
> startup like you do M$ Office, that's the difference.
And how do you explain MS Office loading so much faster under WINE?
> It should be obvious that there is no hard fast number, but
> generally, Linux is faster than Windows.
You mixed your OS's around.
>>>> I'm talking about importing text files, or spreadsheets, or running
>>>> queries,
>>>> or something like that. I haven't spent much time with OO Base,
>>>> but I have a strong feeling it's a disaster waiting to happen.
>>>
>>> Make it a reality based benchmark and Linux will win.
>>
>> I will, and it won't.
>
> I bet you don't know how to make a benchmark that actually tests what
> you want to test, and does it in a way that translates equally across
> multiple platforms.
Already starting with the excuses, eh? Whatever it takes to justify the
poor OO performance...