Linux Initiative for the Nomad Jukebox?
Chris Bidmead
machine?
(Better still, wouldn't it be nice if it did TCP/IP?)
--
el bid
Starman
bid...@UCEFREEcix.co.uk wrote on 2/12/01 7:19 AM:
Doubtful. Linux isn't nearly as popular as it was, say, a year ago. With
MacOS X being released next month which has REAL commercial support for a
UNIX-based OS, interest in Linux has been waning. You might want to look
into switching if you want a real UNIX-based OS.
Mike
Chris Bidmead
>
> Doubtful. Linux isn't nearly as popular as it was, say, a year ago.
What? Who told you that? I think you may be confusing stock prices
with the size of the user base.
> With
> MacOS X being released next month which has REAL commercial support for a
> UNIX-based OS, interest in Linux has been waning.
Not on this planet, Starman.
> You might want to look
> into switching if you want a real UNIX-based OS.
Well, I've been running NeXTStep (now called MacOS X) here since about
1993. This is hardly the place for operating systems wars, but the size
of the Linux user base (and IBM's massive endorsement of Linux) means
there's just no contest.
As a NeXTStep user I was rivetted by Amelio's announcement in Jan 97
about the purchase of NeXT, and I've kept a close eye on the evolution
of MacOS X from NeXTStep. I wish it well, but it won't be eclipsing any
other operating systems any time soon. Or even, given the glacial rate
of development, in our lifetimes.
--
el bid
Starman
bid...@UCEFREEcix.co.uk wrote on 2/12/01 9:44 AM:
You may want to look at slashdot.com, specifically "Dumping Linux for MacOS
X". You'll be VERY surprised at how many people are fed up with Linux
(myself included). I haven't seen any serious Linux support announcements
for quite some time. I got tired of crappy installers, no driver support,
horrible support for different motherboards and chipsets, poor software
written by "31337 haxors". The only good thing that came out of Linux was
DeCSS (not that some Windows or Mac developer wouldn't have eventually
figured it out anyway...that protection was flawed from the start).
One OS, one chip: MacOS X/G4. 'Nuff said.
Keep yourself in denial, but MacOS X will be THE FIRST UNIX-based OS for the
masses. Protected memory, no OS crashes, commercial support, and
open-source. The funny thing is that most people won't even realize they're
running UNIX.
Mike
Seagull
>
> You may want to look at slashdot.com, specifically "Dumping Linux for MacOS
> X". You'll be VERY surprised at how many people are fed up with Linux
> (myself included).
Many of us never left the BSD camp to join the Linux bandwagon, but that's
beside the point. :)
> Keep yourself in denial, but MacOS X will be THE FIRST UNIX-based OS for the
> masses.
Very possibly, yes. I've always been of the opinion that the only thing
that keeps UNIX from gaining mass appeal is the lack of an indiot-proof
GUI. But, I generally don't make claims on what will or will not happen
in the world before a product is released. Many people did that with the
NJB, and now loook how things have turned out. :) MacOS X _may_ be the
best OS since sliced bread, but I'd hedge my claims of world domination
until it's out there and people have used it a while. I'm hopeful
(especially there's an effort to port it to the x86 world), but skeptical.
Cheers,
-+JLS
--
\ carpe cavy!
seagull @ aracnet.com \
http://www.aracnet.com/~seagull \ (seize the guinea pig!)
Seagull
> Anyone know if any work is going forward on a Linux client for this
> machine?
There is no word of Linux support from Creative, but...
...if I manage to get the USB protocol stuff worked out completely (and
things are going well!), there is an open-source group forming to develop
an API for UNIX systems that is interested in adding NJB support. See:
http://www.pointless.net/libpdmp/
Chris Bidmead
> You may want to look at slashdot.com, specifically "Dumping Linux for MacOS
> X".
Er, Starman, the piece is called "Dumping Linux _PPC_ for MacOS X".
Specifically the strap line reads: "In the past years, many Mac users
have sought out Linux for a number of reasons.... But now Apple is close
to releasing MacOS X, and it solves many of the problems that drove
Apple customers away from MacOS. Will these LinuxPPC users switch back
to Apple's OS when OS X comes out?"
So Mac users who turned to Linux PPC for a decent os when MacOS was the
only offering are looking hopefully towards MacOS X. Is this news?
> You'll be VERY surprised at how many people are fed up with Linux
Why do you think that? I write about UNIX and I read the email from my
readers. Dozens of them are fed up with Linux, mostly because it isn't
sufficiently like Windows.
> (myself included).
No kidding.
> The only good thing that came out of Linux was
> DeCSS (not that some Windows or Mac developer wouldn't have eventually
> figured it out anyway...that protection was flawed from the start).
Something tells me you've missed the point here.
> One OS, one chip: MacOS X/G4. 'Nuff said.
Yes, I see. This is part of the point you've missed. In an
Internet-based world "one os, one chip" is an old tune from the early
'80s. I enjoy nostalgia as much as the next chap, but I wouldn't want
to build my computer systems around it.
> MacOS X will be THE FIRST UNIX-based OS for the
> masses.
For very small values of "masses".
> Protected memory, no OS crashes
Like all UNIXes, but a novelty for Mac users.
> commercial support
Linux has plenty of commercial support, if you need it. In fact, since
you raise the subject, commercial support for MacOS X is set to be one
of its weaknesses, at least for the next couple of years. In terms of
engineer availability, developer head count and dollars invested in
support centres, commercial support for Linux is orders of magnitude
greater than anything MacOS X will attain in that time span.
> open-source.
Some of it. The bit that users and developers are being invited to bet
their futures on won't be open source. Those of them that survived the
NeXTStep collapse will be thinking very carefully about this.
> The funny thing is that most people won't even realize they're
> running UNIX.
Well, it's a little early to guess where and how MacOS X is going to be
adopted. My hope is that as well as giving non-technical end users a
properly engineered alternative to the stuff that washes out of Redmond,
it'll also take its place in the UNIX community. But we'll just have to
wait and see. Meanwhile, using it as a stick to beat Linux seems to me
a bit daft.
As I said before, this really isn't the place for os wars. If you want
to take this up with me by email, strip the caps out of my email address
above.
--
el bid
Starman
bid...@UCEFREEcix.co.uk wrote on 2/12/01 11:47 AM:
> Starman wrote:
>
>> You may want to look at slashdot.com, specifically "Dumping Linux for MacOS
>> X".
>
> Er, Starman, the piece is called "Dumping Linux _PPC_ for MacOS X".
There were two threads. Thanks for checking, though.
> Specifically the strap line reads: "In the past years, many Mac users
> have sought out Linux for a number of reasons.... But now Apple is close
> to releasing MacOS X, and it solves many of the problems that drove
> Apple customers away from MacOS. Will these LinuxPPC users switch back
> to Apple's OS when OS X comes out?"
>
> So Mac users who turned to Linux PPC for a decent os when MacOS was the
> only offering are looking hopefully towards MacOS X. Is this news?
>
>> You'll be VERY surprised at how many people are fed up with Linux
>
> Why do you think that? I write about UNIX and I read the email from my
> readers. Dozens of them are fed up with Linux, mostly because it isn't
> sufficiently like Windows.
Because Linux is not for "the people", it's for "31337 haxors" that want to
fiddle with an OS. I got into it because I've been using UNIX for almost 20
years and wanted UNIX in my home. However, Linux itself got me so pissed off
that I just threw up my hands in disgust at it.
>> (myself included).
>
> No kidding.
>
>> The only good thing that came out of Linux was
>> DeCSS (not that some Windows or Mac developer wouldn't have eventually
>> figured it out anyway...that protection was flawed from the start).
>
> Something tells me you've missed the point here.
>
>> One OS, one chip: MacOS X/G4. 'Nuff said.
>
> Yes, I see. This is part of the point you've missed. In an
> Internet-based world "one os, one chip" is an old tune from the early
> '80s. I enjoy nostalgia as much as the next chap, but I wouldn't want
> to build my computer systems around it.
Really? You'd rather have "many chips, no support for all of them"? I'm glad
you're part of the Intel world - they need you.
>> MacOS X will be THE FIRST UNIX-based OS for the
>> masses.
>
> For very small values of "masses".
Yeah, several million people. Chump change, right? Read up on how businesses
are keeping a VERY close eye on OS X because of it's STABILITY?
>> Protected memory, no OS crashes
>
> Like all UNIXes, but a novelty for Mac users.
And UNlike Windows, something you forgot to mention.
>> commercial support
>
> Linux has plenty of commercial support, if you need it. In fact, since
> you raise the subject, commercial support for MacOS X is set to be one
> of its weaknesses, at least for the next couple of years.
WRONG. Linux has NO support from Microsoft, OS X has EXCELLENT support from
Microsoft. Other than Windows which I despise, they make excellent appl, and
I hate to tell you this, but Office is still a standard on this planet.
Since MS is backing OS X with 100% support for Office and other apps, you
might want to take your head out of the sand and look at Apple's OS X page
for all the support is has NOW. "Next couple of years"? Get real.
> In terms of
> engineer availability, developer head count and dollars invested in
> support centres, commercial support for Linux is orders of magnitude
> greater than anything MacOS X will attain in that time span.
Bullshit. Where do you get these numbers from?
>> open-source.
>
> Some of it. The bit that users and developers are being invited to bet
> their futures on won't be open source. Those of them that survived the
> NeXTStep collapse will be thinking very carefully about this.
>
>> The funny thing is that most people won't even realize they're
>> running UNIX.
>
> Well, it's a little early to guess where and how MacOS X is going to be
> adopted. My hope is that as well as giving non-technical end users a
> properly engineered alternative to the stuff that washes out of Redmond,
> it'll also take its place in the UNIX community. But we'll just have to
> wait and see. Meanwhile, using it as a stick to beat Linux seems to me
> a bit daft.
Really? So back to the original thread point, where's the NJB support for
Linux? Nowhere? OS X is already up and running.
> As I said before, this really isn't the place for os wars. If you want
> to take this up with me by email, strip the caps out of my email address
> above.
Why? I'd rather argue with someone who's got their facts straight than an
anti-Mac bigot.
Mike
Alex
I falling for a troll, oh well... I am bored. I might as well reply.).
Linux is not popular as a year ago??? With investors, yes that is true
(but then again, MOST if not all of the tech stocks have gone down
tremendously - including microsoft and apple). As far as user base, it is
nothing but growing - especially on the server side. Support from hardware
manufacturer has been tremendous and increasing constantly, especially from
IBM. Server type software (oracle, lotus, etc...) is also there now. There
are very few critical server software applications not available for linux
(well, except the microsoft ones, but what do you expect?). Many large
corporations are embracing linux right now, including the one I work for
(sorry, can't name it... I am not a spokeperson, but it is one of the
largest and oldest in the USA, and it's not in the tech sector) both on the
server side and more cautiously on the desktop as well.
Linux adoption has already overcome that of the mac (OK, I know, not that
great of an accomplishment). Again, I don't have the URL handy, but
that's a fact published by one of those big company that reaserch these
things (is it Dataquest?). If you're that interested in the subject, do
your own research on the net.
Even microsoft is scared of it. I don't have the URL for it, but there is
a now famous interview where Balmer actually acknowledges that Linux is
microsoft's number 1 threat (no, not apple, not oracle, not ibm, etc...).
And you can see the evidence too! The FUD from Redmond is coming out in
mass! That's microsoft usual tactic against its competitors - in
comparison, it used to simply ignore linux. No more.
For someone that like to quote slashdot, you probably should know that it's
slashdot.ORG and the article you pointed to was a "Ask Slashdot" article
(an editor asking a thought provoking question to the community, not
offering an answer) and if you actually read the answers from the community,
well, you probably would not have mantioned it because they most
definetely do NOT support any of your claims - by any stretch of
imagination.
As a side note though, I do agree that it is unlikely that creative will
release playcenter for linux. The DESKTOP userbase for linux has not (yet)
reached critical mass yet. And those that have linux on the desktop like
myself typically also have other OSes available to them (wether it is
multiple machines or simply a multi-boot machine). As Ji from creative has
pointed out several times on this newsgroup, creative is not a software
company (in case there was any doubt from the relatively low quality of
their software) and they just don't have the manpower. It sucks, but I
can't blame them. I also can't say that I care that much.
Now about OSX. I think it is a great OS because of the fact that under the
hood it is unix. That being said, it's acceptance is still very much in
the air (maybe because it hasn't been released yet?). Your guess/prediction
is as good as anybody's, but it is just a guess/prediction. I would
predict that its adoption will be very limited, but not because of the
software, but because it only runs on hardware sold by apple, which is
unfortunately not as cheap (not even close) to intel (or compatible)
hardware (which hardware is better is another topic entirely, one that is
unfortunately irrelevant). Microsoft's acceptance of OSX is of course a
facade - just like it's always been (think of it as a weak shield against
more antitrust court challenges). Microsoft only produces two applications
for the mac, one of which is office (which is a big deal - no doubt), the
other one is IE (who cares) and it remains to see wether or not it will do
the NATIVE osx or run under the "classic" emulator - regardless of what
microsoft may have promised.
Anyway, I could write on the subject a whole lot more, but I am not *THAT*
bored.
Chris Bidmead
>
> wow... this guy is a trip... I don't even know where to start. (aarghh...
> I falling for a troll, oh well... I am bored. I might as well reply.).
I'm a newcomer to this ng, so I'm wary about prolonging an OT thread,
but I'll be happy to return to it if there's sufficient general
interest. Meanwhile, thanks for making many of the points I would have
made, particularly about Microsoft's "support" for MacOS X. :-)
> As a side note though, I do agree that it is unlikely that creative will
> release playcenter for linux. The DESKTOP userbase for linux has not (yet)
> reached critical mass yet.
Back on topic, the issue, of course, isn't whether Creative will port
existing Windows and Mac software to Linux, but whether enough of the
interface details are available to allow the free software community to
write the comms link. A workable but inferior alternative would be for
Creative to release the required details under an NDA to a group that
would write binary libraries that could then be called by free,
non-NDA'd software. Proxim does this with its RangeLan 2 wireless
hardware. History indicates that if a piece of hardware is a) widely
available and of interest to the free software community, and b) fits
the interface access criteria I've mentioned, then Linux (and other free
OS) software will soon arise. The Palm Pilot is an obvious example.
If this is an accurate assessement, you'll notice that the dependency is
on the "critical mass" of the device to be attached. The "critical
mass" of Linux isn't a factor.
--
el bid
Chris Bidmead
>
> There is no word of Linux support from Creative, but...
>
> ...if I manage to get the USB protocol stuff worked out completely (and
> things are going well!), there is an open-source group forming to develop
> an API for UNIX systems that is interested in adding NJB support. See:
>
> http://www.pointless.net/libpdmp/
Thanks, Seagull. Exactly what I was looking for.
--
el bid
Starman
on 2/12/01 10:46 PM:
> wow... this guy is a trip... I don't even know where to start. (aarghh...
> I falling for a troll, oh well... I am bored. I might as well reply.).
A troll? Let's look at some of your responses, shall we?
> Linux is not popular as a year ago??? With investors, yes that is true
> (but then again, MOST if not all of the tech stocks have gone down
> tremendously - including microsoft and apple). As far as user base, it is
> nothing but growing - especially on the server side.
The SERVER side! Exactly my point! Thank you for agreeing with my point -
Linux is NOT for users.
> Support from hardware
> manufacturer has been tremendous and increasing constantly, especially from
> IBM. Server type software (oracle, lotus, etc...) is also there now.
Servers again.
> There
> are very few critical server software applications not available for linux
> (well, except the microsoft ones, but what do you expect?).
Uh, this is my point. Without MS support, Linux is nothing more than a
business-oriented OS. You mentioned servers TWICE. Where is the USER
support? Where is Word? Excel? Powerpoint? Freehand? Pagemaker? With me so
far?
> Many large
> corporations are embracing linux right now, including the one I work for
> (sorry, can't name it... I am not a spokeperson, but it is one of the
> largest and oldest in the USA, and it's not in the tech sector) both on the
> server side and more cautiously on the desktop as well.
Server again.
> Linux adoption has already overcome that of the mac (OK, I know, not that
> great of an accomplishment). Again, I don't have the URL handy, but
> that's a fact published by one of those big company that reaserch these
> things (is it Dataquest?). If you're that interested in the subject, do
> your own research on the net.
Linux adoption has OVERCOME the Mac? What are you SMOKING? Where are your
numbers? I don't see Linux-based PCs selling in the BILLIONS of dollars,
bucko.
> Even microsoft is scared of it. I don't have the URL for it, but there is
> a now famous interview where Balmer actually acknowledges that Linux is
> microsoft's number 1 threat (no, not apple, not oracle, not ibm, etc...).
> And you can see the evidence too! The FUD from Redmond is coming out in
> mass! That's microsoft usual tactic against its competitors - in
> comparison, it used to simply ignore linux. No more.
Apple is NOT a threat to MS. I was at the MacWorld keynote where Steve Jobs
himself said "we have to forget about the idea that for Apple to survive, MS
as to die" and he's right. However, it will be a cold day in hell before mom
and pop-types start buying Linux over Windows and Mac.
> For someone that like to quote slashdot, you probably should know that it's
> slashdot.ORG and the article you pointed to was a "Ask Slashdot" article
> (an editor asking a thought provoking question to the community, not
> offering an answer) and if you actually read the answers from the community,
> well, you probably would not have mantioned it because they most
> definetely do NOT support any of your claims - by any stretch of
> imagination.
Right. Want me to smash those rose-colored glasses of yours?
> As a side note though, I do agree that it is unlikely that creative will
> release playcenter for linux. The DESKTOP userbase for linux has not (yet)
> reached critical mass yet.
No kidding. So let's see...you say that Linux has surpassed Mac, but then
you admit that Linux doesn't have the DESKTOP userbase. Macs aren't designed
as servers so you're comparing apples and oranges (no pun intended). If you
think for one minute that there are more Linux-based PCs out there than Macs
you're off your rocker. I don't see a multi-billion-dollar Linux-based
company floating around, do you?
> And those that have linux on the desktop like
> myself typically also have other OSes available to them (wether it is
> multiple machines or simply a multi-boot machine). As Ji from creative has
> pointed out several times on this newsgroup, creative is not a software
> company (in case there was any doubt from the relatively low quality of
> their software) and they just don't have the manpower. It sucks, but I
> can't blame them. I also can't say that I care that much.
Now, why do you need another OS? ;)
> Now about OSX. I think it is a great OS because of the fact that under the
> hood it is unix. That being said, it's acceptance is still very much in
> the air (maybe because it hasn't been released yet?). Your guess/prediction
> is as good as anybody's, but it is just a guess/prediction. I would
> predict that its adoption will be very limited, but not because of the
> software, but because it only runs on hardware sold by apple, which is
> unfortunately not as cheap (not even close) to intel (or compatible)
> hardware (which hardware is better is another topic entirely, one that is
> unfortunately irrelevant). Microsoft's acceptance of OSX is of course a
> facade - just like it's always been (think of it as a weak shield against
> more antitrust court challenges). Microsoft only produces two applications
> for the mac, one of which is office (which is a big deal - no doubt), the
> other one is IE (who cares) and it remains to see wether or not it will do
> the NATIVE osx or run under the "classic" emulator - regardless of what
> microsoft may have promised.
Wrong. MS supports a lot more than that. They're supporting Office (which is
FOUR apps by the way, not one), Outlook Express, IE as you mentioned, lots
of games, and all their name-branded hardware. Regardless of all that, Apple
has a ton of support for OS X, MUCH more than Linux can ever dream of. Don't
belive me? Check out www.apple.com/osx and see for yourself. Does Linux have
support from Alias Wavefront? No and never. Macromedia? Adadptec/Roxio?
FileMaker Pro? MYOB? Quicken? MacOS X has just as much support as MS does,
and more than Linux, more than you'll admit.
> Anyway, I could write on the subject a whole lot more, but I am not *THAT*
> bored.
You seem to be. How long did it take you to write all that? ^^
Mike
Ryan Folstad
Are mac employees so scared that people will just use linux on a pc instead
of their proprietary hardware and proprietary X windows system that they
have to goto every news group and spam?
Also.. i noticed in your posts that you used linux but got too frustrated
with it that you had to switch. Too bad.. you must be a real moron and i
wish you luck with the beta that is called OSX!
Starman
ry...@crmkb.net wrote on 2/13/01 9:38 AM:
> Hi "Starman" <sta...@mac.com>
>
> Are mac employees so scared that people will just use linux on a pc instead
> of their proprietary hardware and proprietary X windows system that they
> have to goto every news group and spam?
Did I go to EVERY newsgroup? No.
Did I spam? No. Just posted some facts.
Do you sound like you're scared yourself? You betcha!
And by the way, Apple isn't using X Windows you dope.
> Also.. i noticed in your posts that you used linux but got too frustrated
> with it that you had to switch. Too bad.. you must be a real moron and i
> wish you luck with the beta that is called OSX!
Wow...sounds like someone who's totally insecure about his OS.
You make it sound like having proprietary hardware is a bad thing. Too bad
that the Wintel world has to suffer through:
1) Not having drivers for every possible piece of hardware out there
2) Too many cooks spoil the soup
3) Too many "31337 haxors" messing up Linux without knowing what they're
doing.
Yeah, Linux is the way to go! Whoo hoo! Long live the OS that nobody can
control!
Mike
Ryan Folstad
going to lose to OSX! Not!
My company doesn't make an os and therefore i am not biased in this
discussion. If i thought an apple employee could give any real unbiased
facts about Linux vs OSX i would have never made my post in the first
place.. and from now on i will disregard yours!
Cheers!
"Starman" <sta...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:B6AEBA77.1626%sta...@mac.com...
Starman
ry...@crmkb.net wrote on 2/13/01 11:11 AM:
> Yes Starman you are right.. I am fearful that the OS made by my company is
> going to lose to OSX! Not!
>
> My company doesn't make an os and therefore i am not biased in this
> discussion. If i thought an apple employee could give any real unbiased
> facts about Linux vs OSX i would have never made my post in the first
> place.. and from now on i will disregard yours!
*looks around the room*
Not only did I never mention that YOUR company made an OS, I have no idea
what the hell you just said above.
I think you should get some tutoring.
Mike
Pique@boo
"Starman" <sta...@mac.com>
> Really? So back to the original thread point, where's the NJB support for
> Linux? Nowhere? OS X is already up and running.
And (a genuine question) do you get the source to go with that up and
running OS X NJB support?
~Pique@boo
Starman
pi...@boo.invalid wrote on 2/13/01 12:53 PM:
No. NJB support comes directly from Apple and Cassidy & Greene for iTunes
and SoundJam MP respectively. Goes back to my previous point - no commercial
support for Linux, solid support for Mac.
The source code issue doesn't bother me in the least. I always saw source
code as sacred - never to be shared. Too many critics, too many people
messing with it, too many people have too many ideas on how to mess with it.
I'm very happy with NJB support for the Mac except for the lack of firmware
upgrade support.
Mike
Alex
2. Outlook express comes as part of IE. And yes Office is 4 apps (more
actually, but anyway). What's your point?
3. the lack of support from microsoft is not important. Every single of
their key applications has an alternative that provide compatibility with
the microsoft file formats. The other applications you specifically
mantioned (adaptec/roxio, etc.etc.) all have alternatives. Most are free
and most are superior. try them. or don't. i couldn't care less - but
unless you do, you can't talk.
4. I have multiple operating systems (several versions of windows, several
versions of linux, BeOS, etc) because i am a big geek at heart (as well as
professionally) and unlike you, i like to know what i am talking about when
i critize other operating systems.
5. Saying things likes "especially on the server side" does not mean "but
not on the desktop". It means that the rate of growth is greater on the
server than it is on the desktop. Get it? It's not that hard to
understand.
6. Are you dense or only reading every other sentence I write? I did say
the company I am working for IS adopting linux on the desktop.
7. That's right, apple is not a threat to microsoft. Where did i say it
was? I said linux is, and that microsoft uses their poor mac support as an
excuse against potential antitrust challenges.
8. you "don't see Linux-based PCs selling in the BILLIONS of dollars"
because most PCs pushed out of Best Buys and other chains are (arguably,
illegally) bundled with windows (this is often refered as the "microsoft
tax"). What people actually do with the machines at home and wether they
put linux on it for free is not something YOU can actually measure too
easily - especially since unlike microsoft, one can't count sold licenses
as an indication of the user base because Linux is freely available and
noone has to pay for any licenses.
9. Mac OSX CAN and IS used as servers - if nobody else, apple is. As per
netcraft, they are using OSX in the load balanced server pool for
www.apple.com Since it is unix under the hood, most of the heavy duty unix
server application will and do run on osx - including apache.
10. my "linux has not reached critical mass" quote is taken out of context,
but i'll give you that that paragraph could have been written a whole lot
better. So I will rewrite it better: creative is not a software company
and their resources are very limited. Considering that, at this time it is
unlikely they will release NJB software for linux because they don't feel
that their linux userbase is great enough. What I fail to mantion is that
nobody wants them to. What people want is for them to release specs and an
SDK. Even windows user want that badly.
"Starman" <sta...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:B6AEA43F.15CA%sta...@mac.com...
Alex
75% of the posts trash the porr quality software from creative, and all the
people that can write software (windows, mac and linux users) want the
source or at least access to some sort of public SDK so that better software
(that will be open source) can be written.
You're satisfied with what you have? Wonderful. But you're missing the
power of open source and so is creative. Even Ji from creative is seeing
the light and is trying to convince the creative PHBs to change their minds.
OK. The next post from you will now trash open source. go for it.
"Starman" <sta...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:B6AEE5BB.164E%sta...@mac.com...
Starman
on 2/13/01 8:06 PM:
> 1. Urgh... microsoft hardware works on all OSes - including Linux.
Haha! Yeah, only after someone gets off their ass to write a driver for it.
> 2. Outlook express comes as part of IE. And yes Office is 4 apps (more
> actually, but anyway). What's your point?
>
> 3. the lack of support from microsoft is not important. Every single of
> their key applications has an alternative that provide compatibility with
> the microsoft file formats. The other applications you specifically
> mantioned (adaptec/roxio, etc.etc.) all have alternatives. Most are free
> and most are superior. try them. or don't. i couldn't care less - but
> unless you do, you can't talk.
Errr...MS Office is a standard application suite in business. You use
anything else and you're prone to bugs, incompatabilities, etc. Oh, I've
used those so-called "Office-compatable" apps. Whoops! Sorry, "compatable"
doesn't mean "we can keep the proper page formatting". DOH!
> 4. I have multiple operating systems (several versions of windows, several
> versions of linux, BeOS, etc) because i am a big geek at heart (as well as
> professionally) and unlike you, i like to know what i am talking about when
> i critize other operating systems.
Oh really? Have you USED a Mac? Sounds like you haven't.
> 5. Saying things likes "especially on the server side" does not mean "but
> not on the desktop". It means that the rate of growth is greater on the
> server than it is on the desktop. Get it? It's not that hard to
> understand.
No shit, Sherlock. That was my point! Thanks for supporting it. Now
then...why should Creative support a product for an OS that's growing on the
SERVER side? See my point? Linux isn't for the average user - and it never
will be.
> 6. Are you dense or only reading every other sentence I write? I did say
> the company I am working for IS adopting linux on the desktop.
That was a reply to someone ELSE. Learn how to read.
> 7. That's right, apple is not a threat to microsoft. Where did i say it
> was? I said linux is, and that microsoft uses their poor mac support as an
> excuse against potential antitrust challenges.
>
> 8. you "don't see Linux-based PCs selling in the BILLIONS of dollars"
> because most PCs pushed out of Best Buys and other chains are (arguably,
> illegally) bundled with windows (this is often refered as the "microsoft
> tax"). What people actually do with the machines at home and wether they
> put linux on it for free is not something YOU can actually measure too
> easily - especially since unlike microsoft, one can't count sold licenses
> as an indication of the user base because Linux is freely available and
> noone has to pay for any licenses.
Again, no shit. However, name one Linux-based company that sells the OS in
the BILLIONS of dollars. I'm sure there's one somewhere since Linux is as
popular as you say....
> 9. Mac OSX CAN and IS used as servers - if nobody else, apple is. As per
> netcraft, they are using OSX in the load balanced server pool for
> www.apple.com Since it is unix under the hood, most of the heavy duty unix
> server application will and do run on osx - including apache.
There are TWO versions of MacOS X, a server version and a consumer version.
Obviously you had no idea about that. What was that you said about knowing
what you're talking about, dumbass?
> 10. my "linux has not reached critical mass" quote is taken out of context,
> but i'll give you that that paragraph could have been written a whole lot
> better. So I will rewrite it better: creative is not a software company
> and their resources are very limited. Considering that, at this time it is
> unlikely they will release NJB software for linux because they don't feel
> that their linux userbase is great enough. What I fail to mantion is that
> nobody wants them to. What people want is for them to release specs and an
> SDK. Even windows user want that badly.
Wait a minute...you say that the Linux userbase is not enough, but that it's
more popular than the Mac. WTF? Go away...you make no sense. If Linux's
desktop base was popular outside the GEEK community (which is where Linux's
real niche is...and it IS a niche), then there'd be support for it from
Creative.
Bigot. Try actually USING a Mac, and play with MacOS X...if you really are a
Linux nut I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by it.
Mike
Starman
on 2/13/01 8:14 PM:
> You should read some of the other threads on this newsgroup.
> 75% of the posts trash the porr quality software from creative, and all the
> people that can write software (windows, mac and linux users) want the
> source or at least access to some sort of public SDK so that better software
> (that will be open source) can be written.
Don't you think that it's not right for a device like the Jukebox to have an
SDK? One wrong move and you can wipe out the hard drive, screw up the
firmware, etc. Are you going to put your $500 unit in the hands of some
"31337 haxor"? I sure as hell won't. I trust Creative and their software to
some dope who can't catch all his stray pointers.
> You're satisfied with what you have? Wonderful. But you're missing the
> power of open source and so is creative. Even Ji from creative is seeing
> the light and is trying to convince the creative PHBs to change their minds.
>
> OK. The next post from you will now trash open source. go for it.
See above. I don't trust most people to write rock-solid code and I'm not
trusting my $500 unit to them either. At least when Creative screws up they
can replace the unit - I donšt think the average open source programmer can
handle that kind of issue. Do you?
Mike
Alex
Alex
> Haha! Yeah, only after someone gets off their ass to write a driver for
it.
Huh... no. No new driver needed. Standard stuff. Microsoft hardware
(until the Xbox comes out) is only peripherals. Nothing magical about them.
> Errr...MS Office is a standard application suite in business. You use
> anything else and you're prone to bugs, incompatabilities, etc. Oh, I've
> used those so-called "Office-compatable" apps. Whoops! Sorry, "compatable"
> doesn't mean "we can keep the proper page formatting". DOH!
Reaslly? Must be why the fortune 500 I work for has no problem whatsoever.
Interesting.
> Oh really? Have you USED a Mac? Sounds like you haven't.
I have used Macs, maintained them at previous jobs, and played with preview
versions of OSX. However I only own PC compatible hardware. Not that any
of it is relevant.
> > 5. Saying things likes "especially on the server side" does not mean
"but
> > not on the desktop". It means that the rate of growth is greater on the
> > server than it is on the desktop. Get it? It's not that hard to
> > understand.
>
> No shit, Sherlock. That was my point! Thanks for supporting it. Now
> then...why should Creative support a product for an OS that's growing on
the
> SERVER side? See my point? Linux isn't for the average user - and it never
> will be.
Urgh, now you've gone from dense to plain stupid. I don't know how to
word this any different other than maybe a drawing or something.
Let me try just one more time though. I'll make it real simple:
Market share for desktop is growing fast. Market share on server even
faster. I probably should stop mantioning the server side all together
because it really seems to be confusing you. Is it the order of the
sentences? Missing punctuation? Do help me out, english is only my third
language... Or somehow you have this weird any that only one of the two can
be growing at any given time. Who knows. Who cares.
> > 6. Are you dense or only reading every other sentence I write? I did
say
> > the company I am working for IS adopting linux on the desktop.
>
> That was a reply to someone ELSE. Learn how to read.
No it wasn't. You even put your remarks inline with my original post.
There really is no confusion. But I am glad you changed your mind.
> Again, no shit. However, name one Linux-based company that sells the OS in
> the BILLIONS of dollars. I'm sure there's one somewhere since Linux is as
> popular as you say....
Again, not that difficult to understand. Linux is free, so no, nobody
that I know of is making BILLIONS just yet. That does not mean it's not
heavily used.
Maybe if I used arrows or mathematical operators. I'll try. For example:
1,000,000,000 installed linux PCs * $0 in licensing fee = $0 in
revenue
OK, I did put the billion installs out of my ass, just trying to
illustrate a concept that you just seem to have a hard time grasping.
> There are TWO versions of MacOS X, a server version and a consumer
version.
> Obviously you had no idea about that. What was that you said about knowing
> what you're talking about, dumbass?
Oh really? Regardless, they both have the same bsd core, and they both
will run the same server apps.
> Wait a minute...you say that the Linux userbase is not enough, but that
it's
> more popular than the Mac. WTF? Go away...you make no sense. If Linux's
> desktop base was popular outside the GEEK community (which is where
Linux's
> real niche is...and it IS a niche), then there'd be support for it from
> Creative.
>
Mike, you really are an asshole. You can twist anything I say the way you
want, it makes no difference - any semi-intelligent person (and you're not
one of them) understood what I said just fine. Good luck to you and your
OSX. Unless mac drops their hardware price by at least 50% it will be
going absolutely nowhere. Complete dead end.
I am not a linux freak anymore than I am a windows freak. I am a developer
and I work on any operating system (except macintosh - those things are
irrelevant to my job)
Starman
<av...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> For crying out loud... This guy is very dense. This is my last reply.
>
>> Haha! Yeah, only after someone gets off their ass to write a driver for
> it.
>
> Huh... no. No new driver needed. Standard stuff. Microsoft hardware
> (until the Xbox comes out) is only peripherals. Nothing magical about them.
BULLSHIT. 100% bullshit. When I got my first PC a few years ago (486) there
was practically NO drivers for it. All I got working was the modem,
keyboard, and mouse. X didn't work because the Trio video board wasn't
supported by Linux yet (oh, but I thought you said "standard stuff". Liar).
Then, my next PC was a Celeron and it didn't have support for the SiS 620 so
AGAIN I had no support for my video card for MONTHS. Don't give me shit
about "oh you could have used this or that" because there was a big thread
about the SiS 620 on deja.com. You can look it up when deja/Google comes
back up. Currently, we use Linux at work and there's NO support for the
STANDARD SGI monitors we have. Using different, similar drivers doesn't give
the support we need because the refresh rates are all messed up. "Standard
stuff" my ass. At least with Windows you get several HUNDRED monitor types
alone "out of the box" with a Windows installation. How many with Redhat
6.2? 50? 75?
Oh, and should I get into this....booting between Windows and Linux screws
up the clock. Linux (6.2) is too stupid to know what GMT is. Yes, it's the
right time zone. Yes, we tell Linux to match Windows' settings but it's
messed up anyway. Yes, there's a thread about that too so AGAIN don't give
me this "standard stuff" bullshit. Also, please point me to where you can
easily change the refresh rate of a monitor. I said EASILY, not "you have to
manually edit you X Configuration file". Again, a thread on this too. Seems
like no matter what there's more support questions for Linux than Windows.
Why? Because there's way too much equipment out there with too many
inconsistencies and Linux just CANNOT and WILL NOT ever support it all.
Linux sucks, and until it becomes a little more than a beta OS (because it
sure as hell doesn't seem like it's up to speed with Windows), it's going
nowhere fast.
If it did, and if it were popular, then why isn't Creative supporting it?
Gosh, they support the Mac just fine.
>> Errr...MS Office is a standard application suite in business. You use
>> anything else and you're prone to bugs, incompatabilities, etc. Oh, I've
>> used those so-called "Office-compatable" apps. Whoops! Sorry, "compatable"
>> doesn't mean "we can keep the proper page formatting". DOH!
>
> Reaslly? Must be why the fortune 500 I work for has no problem whatsoever.
> Interesting.
Must be why the Fortune _100_ company I work for doesn't use it at all
except for hardware-based embedded emulation. Why? Simply because there's no
place for Linux in the real world. All we support are Macs and PCs.
>> Oh really? Have you USED a Mac? Sounds like you haven't.
>
> I have used Macs, maintained them at previous jobs, and played with preview
> versions of OSX. However I only own PC compatible hardware. Not that any
> of it is relevant.
It should be considering your bias against it.
>>> 5. Saying things likes "especially on the server side" does not mean
> "but
>>> not on the desktop". It means that the rate of growth is greater on the
>>> server than it is on the desktop. Get it? It's not that hard to
>>> understand.
>>
>> No shit, Sherlock. That was my point! Thanks for supporting it. Now
>> then...why should Creative support a product for an OS that's growing on
> the
>> SERVER side? See my point? Linux isn't for the average user - and it never
>> will be.
>
> Urgh, now you've gone from dense to plain stupid. I don't know how to
> word this any different other than maybe a drawing or something.
> Let me try just one more time though. I'll make it real simple:
> Market share for desktop is growing fast.
Numbers? Where are your numbers?
> Market share on server even faster.
I totally agree here. That's all Linux is good for.
> I probably should stop mantioning
mantioning?
> the server side all together
> because it really seems to be confusing you. Is it the order of the
> sentences? Missing punctuation? Do help me out, english is only my third
> language... Or somehow you have this weird any that only one of the two can
> be growing at any given time. Who knows. Who cares.
So you insult people that don't agree with you? Sounds like someone who ran
out of arguments. What's wrong? Keyboard driver messed up?
>>> 6. Are you dense or only reading every other sentence I write? I did
> say
>>> the company I am working for IS adopting linux on the desktop.
>>
>> That was a reply to someone ELSE. Learn how to read.
>
> No it wasn't. You even put your remarks inline with my original post.
> There really is no confusion. But I am glad you changed your mind.
>
>> Again, no shit. However, name one Linux-based company that sells the OS in
>> the BILLIONS of dollars. I'm sure there's one somewhere since Linux is as
>> popular as you say....
>
> Again, not that difficult to understand. Linux is free
Errr...let's get something straight here. Vanilla Linux is free, but we all
know that the boxed software in CompUSA is not free. If you think it's free,
feel free to take a box of Redhat or Corel Linux off the shelf and try to
walk out with it. See how far you get.
> , so no, nobody
> that I know of is making BILLIONS just yet.
Nor will they. In this tough time with a soft market, who's going to support
Linux and not make money off it? Support is where the MONEY is and if, as
you say Linux is FREE, where does the revenue come from?
> That does not mean it's not
> heavily used.
> Maybe if I used arrows or mathematical operators. I'll try. For example:
> 1,000,000,000 installed linux PCs * $0 in licensing fee = $0 in
> revenue
> OK, I did put the billion installs out of my ass, just trying to
> illustrate a concept that you just seem to have a hard time grasping.
I see that you really donšt understand a true business model.
$0 licensing fee != $0 for the software off the shelf.
So I'll ask you AGAIN...WHO is making BILLIONS of dollars off Linux?
Nobody. And nobody ever will.
>> There are TWO versions of MacOS X, a server version and a consumer
> version.
>> Obviously you had no idea about that. What was that you said about knowing
>> what you're talking about, dumbass?
>
> Oh really? Regardless, they both have the same bsd core, and they both
> will run the same server apps.
I see you're still clueless.
>> Wait a minute...you say that the Linux userbase is not enough, but that
> it's
>> more popular than the Mac. WTF? Go away...you make no sense. If Linux's
>> desktop base was popular outside the GEEK community (which is where
> Linux's
>> real niche is...and it IS a niche), then there'd be support for it from
>> Creative.
>>
>
> Mike, you really are an asshole. You can twist anything I say the way you
> want, it makes no difference - any semi-intelligent person (and you're not
> one of them) understood what I said just fine. Good luck to you and your
> OSX. Unless mac drops their hardware price by at least 50% it will be
> going absolutely nowhere. Complete dead end.
Yeah right. That's why over 2 million Powerbook G4s sold within the first 24
hours of their announcement, and over 4 million G4s with the SuperDrive were
ordered. Where is the desktop-based DVD authoring tools for Linux? HUH?
WHERE? NOWHERE! You know why? Because too many Linux freaks are wasting
their time supporting everything else just to keep Linux up to speed with
the rest of the planet. You just don't get that do you? Linux is lagging
WAAAAAAY behind MacOS and Windows. You have to depend on some chump in a
basement for a driver you HOPE works. Who the hell wants to recompile a
kernel or learn file permissions? You think THAT kind of OS is going to have
any kind of DECENT home market penetration? Oh, I can see the tech support
calls for that...oh, that's right...unless you bought Linux (or in your
case, took it off the shelves of CompUSA), there is no "tech support".
> I am not a linux freak anymore than I am a windows freak. I am a developer
> and I work on any operating system (except macintosh - those things are
> irrelevant to my job)
I program on both Windows and Macs. Linux is a waste of time because it has
no true support model and no true revenue stream. Macs are very relevant to
my job. In fact, our support for Macs increased significantly in the last
few months. Our company is in the graphics business so I'm sure that despite
your obvious hatred towards the Mac you must understand that it has a strong
foothold in the graphics business. We are not in the Linux business at all,
we never get asked about it, and we never will.
Enjoy your Linux. I'm going to make my own DVDs.
Mike
Starman
Gravity" <spa...@and.die.com> wrote:
Arthur,
I personally don't give a shit if you agree with me or not. The claims
made against Macs are biased (and you know it).
For all self-respecting Mac owners I'd like to say that if you want to see
false claims made against the Mac left alone, please shut the f--- up
yourself because you're not helping anyone.
Mike
> FLAME ON:
>
> Mike, I am a Mac user as well as a Linux and Windows and FreeBSD user, and
> on behalf of all the self respecting Mac users, I would like to ask you to
> shut the f&^% up and stop making Macs and Mac users look bad. You are
> calling people bigots because they don't agree with your "Apple Ueber Alles"
> mentality, but have read the sh*t you are posting? You are troll and just
> agitating people. If you don't want to trust your $500 NJB to OpenSource
> aps, no one will force you to. No one makes you use Linux either. I can't
> believe you actually statred that any Office Suite besides MS Office is
> "prone to bugs, incompatabilities, etc." I guess Corel doesn't have an
> industry accepted Office Suite. I guess IBM's Lotus isn't used by any big
> companies either. Maybe you ought to consider participating in threads that
> have something postive to contribute to and stop flaming. If I were using a
> Un*x based newsreader instead of this MSOE5 for Mac POS, I would killfile
> you, as you have not made a single post in any thread I have seen that had
> ANYTHING to contribute. You are just a bully throwing a temper tantrum
> because not everyone will "Think Different" just like you.
>
> FLAME OFF
>
> I love all of my Macs, and think they are great machines, but Alex is right
> they are overpriced by about 50% when compared with compared with comparable
> PC hardware.
Larry Rogers
production code for a large corporation. But they do the open source out
of a desire for something better. Personally, I have no more trust in the quality
of code out of a major corporation than I do out of some labor of love. I've been
around the block a few times and I would trust the code I wrote through an SDK.
You are already trusting your $500 box to the code written by some unknown
quality of programmer. From the lack of reliability of the NJB, the poor user
interface, and many problem reports, I can guess the quality of the programmer.
I'll take the hacker code instead, thank you.
I paid $2k+ for the computer I'm typing this on and trust much of its operation
to code of unknown quality, all of which is capable of trashing the HDD and
other bad things, similarly I have a PalmPilot that's easily trashed. Why do
you think the NJB is any different?
Trashing my NJB is a risk I'm willing to take in trade for better functionality.
Larry
Arthur Gravity
Mike, I am a Mac user as well as a Linux and Windows and FreeBSD user, and
on behalf of all the self respecting Mac users, I would like to ask you to
shut the f&^% up and stop making Macs and Mac users look bad. You are
calling people bigots because they don't agree with your "Apple Ueber Alles"
mentality, but have read the sh*t you are posting? You are troll and just
agitating people. If you don't want to trust your $500 NJB to OpenSource
aps, no one will force you to. No one makes you use Linux either. I can't
believe you actually statred that any Office Suite besides MS Office is
"prone to bugs, incompatabilities, etc." I guess Corel doesn't have an
industry accepted Office Suite. I guess IBM's Lotus isn't used by any big
companies either. Maybe you ought to consider participating in threads that
have something postive to contribute to and stop flaming. If I were using a
Un*x based newsreader instead of this MSOE5 for Mac POS, I would killfile
you, as you have not made a single post in any thread I have seen that had
ANYTHING to contribute. You are just a bully throwing a temper tantrum
because not everyone will "Think Different" just like you.
FLAME OFF
I love all of my Macs, and think they are great machines, but Alex is right
they are overpriced by about 50% when compared with compared with comparable
PC hardware.
--
Arthur Gravity
Zer0Gee (hillout (ontroller
----------------------------------
acid909 / qpg
Arthur Gravity
everyone, everytime you post. That's what I dislike about your posts. I
can see the post is from Starman, and I know it's just gonna be another
mindless put down to anything not running OSX on Mac hardware.
Have you read any of the posts I have made concerning Creatives
brain-damaged Mac support? If you did then you would know that I am aware
of the anti-mac bias that is popular among the industry and consumers alike.
What I am getting at, is do you want someone to see you post and think "I'm
not going to waste my time reading that, because he's just ranting about how
nobody knows anything anyway."
It's like someone said in another thread where Thickey's answer was "RTFM;"
why bother posting if that's all you have to offer? (I am paraphrasing the
response, but that was the point.)
Thickey, the above reference to your post is not intended as an attack
against you, it just happened that particular post lends itself to the point
I am getting at here.
Mike I honest have to say that the following from your post makes about as
much sense as milking a bull:
> For all self-respecting Mac owners I'd like to say that if you want to see
> false claims made against the Mac left alone, please shut the f--- up
> yourself because you're not helping anyone.
I don't not wish an explanation of it from you either. I can only conclude,
based on the content of your posts, that you enjoy putting people down and
being combative. I am not here not fight those that prefer their Windows
machines, nor do I even question their choice to use a Windows based PC. I
own a Windows based PC, and you stated that you do as well. What I want
from invovlement in this newsgroup is Creative to give their Mac users a
fair deal. The current deal is anything but when you compare it to the PC
package. My NJB was a gift, so you I didn't have th opportunity to research
the product beforehand. I do like my NJB, I just expect more out of a
company with a reputation like Creatives. This isn't the post to get into
those deaitls, though. You don't have to be nice in your posts, Mike and
people don't have to take you seriously.
--
Arthur Gravity
Zer0Gee (hillout (ontroller
----------------------------------
acid909 / qpg
> From: Starman <sta...@iamdigex.net>
> Organization: Creative Labs, Inc.
> Newsgroups: creative.products.nomad
> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:11:51 -0500
> Subject: Re: Linux Initiative for the Nomad Jukebox?
>
Chris Bidmead
>
> I have to disagree here. The open sourcers are typically the same people writing
> production code for a large corporation. But they do the open source out
> of a desire for something better. Personally, I have no more trust in the quality
> of code out of a major corporation than I do out of some labor of love.
I think you've hit the nail on the head here, Larry. I too am on my
n'th lap of the block, and it's clear to me that if there ever was an
argument for "leave it to the professionals" closed source, that
argument went away sometime during the first half of the '90s. (If you
want a milestone, you could call it Taligent).
Two things have happened that turn this argument on its head: 1) there
is just too damn much code to be written these days, and too few
in-house programmers to do it. (Read Ji in the "New firmware - get your
priorities straight" thread on the "immense task" of getting the NJB
software right). 2) In-house programmers and freelance programmers have
discoved that the Internet is a great way of working together in
developing projects. Instead of isolated "islands of programmers"
churning away at pale shadows of projects some marketting department
thought the customers would need a couple of years ago, you get
programmers who are customers aggessively pursuing what's needed right
now.
> You are already trusting your $500 box to the code written by some unknown
> quality of programmer. From the lack of reliability of the NJB, the poor user
> interface, and many problem reports, I can guess the quality of the programmer.
> I'll take the hacker code instead, thank you.
I don't want to get into specific criticisms of the NJB, but the general
point you make here is right. If companies like SGI, IBM and Apple are
discovering that the operating systems own which their hardware sales
depend only have a future if they share the work with the free software
community, expect the same discovery to hit Creative sooner or later.
Actually, of course, Creative already knows this -- I guess that their
legal department is scaring them with the SDMI implications.
--
el bid
Chris Bidmead
Starman wrote:
> > Again, no shit. However, name one Linux-based company that sells the OS in
> > the BILLIONS of dollars. I'm sure there's one somewhere since Linux is as
> > popular as you say....
>
> Again, not that difficult to understand. Linux is free, so no, nobody
> that I know of is making BILLIONS just yet. That does not mean it's not
> heavily used.
Red Hat CEO Bob Young famously declared in 1998 that his aim was to
_shrink_ the size of the operating system market. He was talking
dollars, of course, not user base. "He's not after Microsoft's
multi-billion dollar business; instead, he thinks he can own a big piece
of it if he can shrink it down to a $500-million market." ("The Open
Source Revolution", pub. O'Reilly). The analysts must have missed this
point when they skyrocketted the share price eighteen months later...
:-)
--
el bid
Chris Bidmead
> Currently, we use Linux at work and there's NO support for the
> STANDARD SGI monitors we have. Using different, similar drivers doesn't give
>
> Oh, and should I get into this....booting between Windows and Linux screws
> up the clock. Linux (6.2) is too stupid to know what GMT is.
Starman, if you want to go on fighting this ridiculous os war (not
recommended) here (definitely not recommended) you might at least pick
better examples.
XFree86 defines monitor refresh rates in an editable plain text file.
Solution: edit the config file. If, as you seem to be saying later, you
are too confused by text files to do this I don't understand why you
need a computer.
And there is no "Linux 6.2". If you mean the Red Hat 6.2 distribution
you're taking us back to 1999, but even then you're entirely wrong when
you say it is "too stupid to know what GMT is". May I suggest you avoid
the word "stupid" altogether in your postings. It has a habit of
bouncing back on you.
--
el bid
Starman
spa...@and.die.com wrote on 2/15/01 2:00 AM:
> I'm not helping anyone? Dude, you are the one insulting just about
> everyone, everytime you post. That's what I dislike about your posts. I
> can see the post is from Starman, and I know it's just gonna be another
> mindless put down to anything not running OSX on Mac hardware.
>
> Have you read any of the posts I have made concerning Creatives
> brain-damaged Mac support? If you did then you would know that I am aware
> of the anti-mac bias that is popular among the industry and consumers alike.
If Creative isn't supporting the NJB with the Mac, then there must be some
kind of lack of resources on their end because Creative as a whole is fully
supporting the Mac, releasing a SoundBlaster LIVE! card for the Mac in the
next month or two. I saw the card at MacWorld and it rocks!
> What I am getting at, is do you want someone to see you post and think "I'm
> not going to waste my time reading that, because he's just ranting about how
> nobody knows anything anyway."
It's easy to say that...but how do you feel when someone posts lies like
"you can't upgrade the Mac" or "there's no support for the Mac"? I'll tell
you what..next time you see something like that, close your eyes and turn
away. Ignoring makes it go away, right?
> It's like someone said in another thread where Thickey's answer was "RTFM;"
> why bother posting if that's all you have to offer? (I am paraphrasing the
> response, but that was the point.)
>
> Thickey, the above reference to your post is not intended as an attack
> against you, it just happened that particular post lends itself to the point
> I am getting at here.
>
> Mike I honest have to say that the following from your post makes about as
> much sense as milking a bull:
>
>> For all self-respecting Mac owners I'd like to say that if you want to see
>> false claims made against the Mac left alone, please shut the f--- up
>> yourself because you're not helping anyone.
>
> I don't not wish an explanation of it from you either. I can only conclude,
> based on the content of your posts, that you enjoy putting people down and
> being combative. I am not here not fight those that prefer their Windows
> machines, nor do I even question their choice to use a Windows based PC. I
> own a Windows based PC, and you stated that you do as well. What I want
> from invovlement in this newsgroup is Creative to give their Mac users a
> fair deal. The current deal is anything but when you compare it to the PC
> package. My NJB was a gift, so you I didn't have th opportunity to research
> the product beforehand. I do like my NJB, I just expect more out of a
> company with a reputation like Creatives. This isn't the post to get into
> those deaitls, though. You don't have to be nice in your posts, Mike and
> people don't have to take you seriously.
>
All I want is to people to stop bashing the Mac out of pure ignorance and/or
bias. If you can't understand that, don't read the threads.
Mike
Starman
bid...@UCEFREEcix.co.uk wrote on 2/15/01 4:45 AM:
> Starman wrote:
>> Currently, we use Linux at work and there's NO support for the
>> STANDARD SGI monitors we have. Using different, similar drivers doesn't give
>> the support we need because the refresh rates are all messed up. ...
>>
>> Oh, and should I get into this....booting between Windows and Linux screws
>> up the clock. Linux (6.2) is too stupid to know what GMT is.
>
> Starman, if you want to go on fighting this ridiculous os war (not
> recommended) here (definitely not recommended) you might at least pick
> better examples.
>
> XFree86 defines monitor refresh rates in an editable plain text file.
> Solution: edit the config file. If, as you seem to be saying later, you
> are too confused by text files to do this I don't understand why you
> need a computer.
Shows how you can't read. I asked you SPECIFICALLY in the post I made how to
change the refresh rate WITHOUT editing a text file. This shows how limited
Linux is...they can't even make a control panel for monitor refresh rates!
You think THIS is the OS that's "growing rapidly"?
> And there is no "Linux 6.2". If you mean the Red Hat 6.2 distribution
> you're taking us back to 1999, but even then you're entirely wrong when
> you say it is "too stupid to know what GMT is". May I suggest you avoid
> the word "stupid" altogether in your postings. It has a habit of
> bouncing back on you.
Sorry, you're right, it was Redhat 6.2 and FYI that was early 2000, not
1999. 5.x - 6.0 was 1999. Again, you still ignore the fact that RH 6.2 had a
bug where multi-boot systems had clock problems and AGAIN I'll state that
this is the kind of immaturity Linux suffers from.
Ciao.
Mike
M...@nowhere.com.none
it will be superior to all other OSes. I suggest we all migrate to
that platform and give each other big hugs.
Alan
<M...@nowhere.com.none> wrote
> Why can't we just all get along? Soon WindowsXP will be released and
> it will be superior to all other OSes. I suggest we all migrate to
> that platform and give each other big hugs.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16933.html
Starman
at M...@nowhere.com.none wrote on 2/15/01 12:13 PM:
> Why can't we just all get along? Soon WindowsXP will be released and
> it will be superior to all other OSes. I suggest we all migrate to
> that platform and give each other big hugs.
*PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT*
<insert spit-take here>
Mike
Catweazle
lets wait until its really out, so faar Big Blue delivered nothing
usable since last DOS....
Alex
big blue.
I know many names for microsoft, none of which are very flatering....
"Catweazle" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3A8C42...@nospam.com...
Catweazle
Larry Rogers
Chris Bidmead wrote:
> Larry Rogers wrote:
> >
> > You are already trusting your $500 box to the code written by some unknown
> > quality of programmer. From the lack of reliability of the NJB, the poor user
> > interface, and many problem reports, I can guess the quality of the programmer.
> > I'll take the hacker code instead, thank you.
>
> I don't want to get into specific criticisms of the NJB, but the general
> point you make here is right. If companies like SGI, IBM and Apple are
> discovering that the operating systems own which their hardware sales
> depend only have a future if they share the work with the free software
> community, expect the same discovery to hit Creative sooner or later.
> Actually, of course, Creative already knows this -- I guess that their
> legal department is scaring them with the SDMI implications.
For me, I don't so much want to hack the NJB itself but I do want the transfer protocol
and the ability to download/upload MP3's to the NJB without the PlayCenter, with the
intent of replacing the PlayCenter. I'm already only using it for transfer only and I
use AudioGrabber and Dr.Tag to rip and manage my MP3's. Given this fundamental
capability - I would like to implement a program that manages the tracks on the NJB
using a style similar to PalmPilot sync paradigm. I'm sure other's would like other
styles of i/f and that's why an open protocol and sdk would be nice.
This would at least be a good start. Eventually, I would like to be able to replace
portions
of the NJB code as well. I think the open community could do a better UI and a better
file
system. But that's asking a lot of Creative to open up that and I'm not holding my
breath.
Larry
>
>
> --
> el bid
Arthur Gravity
with the upgrade process on Macs that are not even supposed to be
upgradeable. There is a lot of commercial support for the Mac, and as a Mac
user I know this. I don't close my eyes or ignore people that display there
ignorance of Macs, but I don't feel like they need to be flogged or berated.
I save that for spammers. I understand you not liking when people bash the
Mac, but just because one person behaves like an ignorant jerk, doesn't mean
I should.
It is interesting to hear that Creative has a Live card for the Mac. I
don't know that if would be be worth putting in my PM 7200/120 160MB (RAM
not HD) or not (due to the limitations of that model not the card.) The
upgrade path on that machine is not worth pursuing (new logic board then
processor and USB card). I would consider the USB and Sound Blaster Live
cards before the logic board/processor expense. A 7200/120 can become a
useful network node as is, and I would be more inclined to want to spend the
upgrade costs on a new G4.
I know this post is getting pretty off topic...but this whole thread kind of
has.
--
Arthur Gravity
Zer0Gee (hillout (ontroller
----------------------------------
acid909 / qpg
> From: Starman <sta...@mac.com>
> Organization: Creative Labs, Inc.
> Newsgroups: creative.products.nomad
> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:18:37 -0500
[ snip ]
> It's easy to say that...but how do you feel when someone posts lies like
> "you can't upgrade the Mac" or "there's no support for the Mac"? I'll tell
> you what..next time you see something like that, close your eyes and turn
> away. Ignoring makes it go away, right?
[ snip ]
Chris Bidmead
>
> in article 3A8BA51F...@UCEFREEcix.co.uk, Chris Bidmead at
> bid...@UCEFREEcix.co.uk wrote on 2/15/01 4:45 AM:
>
> > Solution: edit the config file. If, as you seem to be saying later, you
> > are too confused by text files to do this I don't understand why you
> > need a computer.
>
> Shows how you can't read.
A cliche of newsgroup retorts, Starman. And in this case another
boomerang.
> I asked you SPECIFICALLY in the post I made how to
> change the refresh rate WITHOUT editing a text file.
If you re-read my paragraph quoted above you'll see that it's precisely
your text file phobia that I'm addressing.
> This shows how limited
> Linux is...
No, I think your inability to edit a text file shows your own
limitation.
> they can't even make a control panel for monitor refresh rates!
Who exactly do you have in mind when you say "they"? One of the
features of the free software community is that there is no "them and
us". And, by the way, the xvidtune GUI tuning tool for XF86 has existed
for at least five years now.
> You think THIS is the OS that's "growing rapidly"?
Not one of my more original thoughts, I admit. I cribbed it from the
industry analysts.
> > And there is no "Linux 6.2". If you mean the Red Hat 6.2 distribution
> > you're taking us back to 1999, but even then you're entirely wrong when
> > you say it is "too stupid to know what GMT is". May I suggest you avoid
> > the word "stupid" altogether in your postings. It has a habit of
> > bouncing back on you.
>
> Sorry, you're right, it was Redhat 6.2 and FYI that was early 2000, not
> 1999. 5.x - 6.0 was 1999.
Yes, you're right. I was six months out with the dating of RH 6.2. I
get confused by the rapid iterations of releases from multiple Linux
distributors. I guess this is one of the downsides of a rapidly growing
operating system.
> Again, you still ignore the fact that RH 6.2 had a
> bug where multi-boot systems had clock problems
I can appreciate the inability of a dyed-in-the-wool Mac user to
distinguish between the GUI and the operating system, and I say that
with no disrespect for Mac users. UNIX has never been a GUI operating
system, and as you'll discover with MacOS X, the GUI is simply
middleware running on top of the operating system. More strictly
speaking, the GUI you see is an application, running on the middleware
(X in the case of Linux, Display Postscript in the case of NeXTStep and
its later derivatives).
Whether or not the RH 6.2 GUI app you tried to use to set the system
clock "is too stupid to know what GMT is" has no impact on the fact that
Linux, and UNIX before it, has understood timezones for at least the
past 20 years. The operating system certainly knows what GMT is. Again
the solution is simply a matter of editing a text file.
> and AGAIN I'll state that
> this is the kind of immaturity Linux suffers from.
All these boomerangs you keep throwing...
--
el bid
Arthur Gravity
just popping open a text file in my favorite editor (which once was pico,
but is rapidly becoming vi as I grow more proficient with it) and just
changing the parameters to what I want. No more SCRUI (Stupid Computer
Retarded User Interface?) getting in the way of me getting things done or
talking down to me. (Like Windows Me - My Network Places? Come on! Don't
even get me started on XP's "all our users are morons so let's make the
names dumber and the icons bigger, and delted their media files"
interface...) I like GUI (and MacOS), but finding the ap, MacShell, was a
like a fantasy come true. I think I may be disqualified as dyed-in-the wool
Mac user... *grin*
Hmmm...what about a Linux CLI for NJB?
Starman
bid...@UCEFREEcix.co.uk wrote on 2/16/01 3:10 AM:
> Starman wrote:
>>
>> in article 3A8BA51F...@UCEFREEcix.co.uk, Chris Bidmead at
>> bid...@UCEFREEcix.co.uk wrote on 2/15/01 4:45 AM:
>>
>>> XFree86 defines monitor refresh rates in an editable plain text file.
>>> Solution: edit the config file. If, as you seem to be saying later, you
>>> are too confused by text files to do this I don't understand why you
>>> need a computer.
>>
>> Shows how you can't read.
>
> A cliche of newsgroup retorts, Starman. And in this case another
> boomerang.
Editing a config file is not the kind of interface that "the masses" are
going to adopt. You don't seem to understand that, do you?
>> I asked you SPECIFICALLY in the post I made how to
>> change the refresh rate WITHOUT editing a text file.
>
> If you re-read my paragraph quoted above you'll see that it's precisely
> your text file phobia that I'm addressing.
You still didn't answer my question. Typical.
>> This shows how limited
>> Linux is...
>
> No, I think your inability to edit a text file shows your own
> limitation.
I never said I couldn't, I was saying that for "the masses" this is a poor
way of doing something simple.
>> they can't even make a control panel for monitor refresh rates!
>
> Who exactly do you have in mind when you say "they"? One of the
> features of the free software community is that there is no "them and
> us". And, by the way, the xvidtune GUI tuning tool for XF86 has existed
> for at least five years now.
"They" is the Linux community. Duh.
>> You think THIS is the OS that's "growing rapidly"?
>
> Not one of my more original thoughts, I admit. I cribbed it from the
> industry analysts.
I still don't see "MS Office for Linux". When I do, then I'll say that it
has some kind of solid foothold.
>>> And there is no "Linux 6.2". If you mean the Red Hat 6.2 distribution
>>> you're taking us back to 1999, but even then you're entirely wrong when
>>> you say it is "too stupid to know what GMT is". May I suggest you avoid
>>> the word "stupid" altogether in your postings. It has a habit of
>>> bouncing back on you.
>>
>> Sorry, you're right, it was Redhat 6.2 and FYI that was early 2000, not
>> 1999. 5.x - 6.0 was 1999.
>
> Yes, you're right. I was six months out with the dating of RH 6.2. I
> get confused by the rapid iterations of releases from multiple Linux
> distributors. I guess this is one of the downsides of a rapidly growing
> operating system.
Yeah, all those damn bug fixes that they have to make....
>> Again, you still ignore the fact that RH 6.2 had a
>> bug where multi-boot systems had clock problems
>
> I can appreciate the inability of a dyed-in-the-wool Mac user to
> distinguish between the GUI and the operating system, and I say that
> with no disrespect for Mac users. UNIX has never been a GUI operating
> system, and as you'll discover with MacOS X, the GUI is simply
> middleware running on top of the operating system. More strictly
> speaking, the GUI you see is an application, running on the middleware
> (X in the case of Linux, Display Postscript in the case of NeXTStep and
> its later derivatives).
No shit. I never bashed UNIX, just LINUX. I love UNIX, but Linux just plain
sucks. No central support, no corporate support (hence the title of this
thread, did you forget that?), and poor tools (the time zone issue is a
perfect example of that).
This is NOT and NEVER WILL BE the OS for "the masses".
> Whether or not the RH 6.2 GUI app you tried to use to set the system
> clock "is too stupid to know what GMT is" has no impact on the fact that
> Linux, and UNIX before it, has understood timezones for at least the
> past 20 years. The operating system certainly knows what GMT is. Again
> the solution is simply a matter of editing a text file.
I never said anything bad about UNIX, I've been using it for 20 years, I'm
talking about a BUG IN LINUX SPECIFICALLY. I see you can't separate the two.
Sad. Get it now?
>> and AGAIN I'll state that
>> this is the kind of immaturity Linux suffers from.
>
> All these boomerangs you keep throwing...
Ignorance is bliss.
Mike
M...@nowhere.com.none
thread, it's obvious the Microsoft bashers can't let go.
Have you tried Windows2000? It's *very* stable.
It's really funny, though. Whenever MS responds to the complainers,
the complainers find something else to complain about.
When all the Apple folks complained about Windows 3.1 not being
multi-tasking, they came up with Windows95. Then, they complained
about the stability. MS responded with Windows2000. Then the
complaint was that Windows was ugly and hard to use (compared to the
MAC)... now MS has put together an OS that looks as pretty and easy to
use as the MAC.
I suspect nothing short of going bankrupt will please the MS bashers.
- MSB
PS. What really cracks me up is the Linux users who complain about
GUIs being too easy to use (See Arthur Gravity's message here:
<B6B22DD9.5422%spa...@and.die.com>)
I guess they want everything to be command line and text editors...
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:54:40 +0200, Catweazle <nos...@nospam.com>
wrote:
Catweazle
stability.
To be exact, things went ugly for me with W95, 3.11 i used only for
Winword.
What me disturbs is that microsoft claims to be big because they are
sooooo good, or should i say god.
An OS that manages to crash with only one (1) programm installed and
running,
(microsoft) internet explorer has anything needed to disgust me.
Windows is overloaded with crap you never need, geek or normal user, its
BIG.
My Amiga 1000 had 6MB ram and a single cd drive and was running 1mghz
when i remember right.
You can compare what he does with an 300mghz pc with 1gb hardisc plus
soundcard plus big graphik card.
Aside that Amiga1000 is an closed systhem with components and OS from
Commodore,
Windows is until now a ram and hardiscspace wasting chunk of software
that slow down any computer.
Microsoft startet with Win95 a real war against programmers working
outside microsoft.
Not avaiable code, late offered specifications you need for driver
support and so on.
They killed every attempt to create other OS compatible to microsoft
software not by
beeing better, they killed "enemys" by buiseness power.
Maybe windows 2000 is stable right now, but what when you load programms
not designed by microsoft?
There are not so many out yet, so i have my doubts.
Microsoft is at the moment the ONLY real producer for OS, and as long
theres no competition they
wont do anything to make an OS that really use the resources computers
have today.
Why i hate microsoft is one point, they produce an OS that is second
ware, tell everybody
its GREAT and claim thats why they are big.
The truth is that Bill Gates made a very smart move to bundle DOS with
IBM computers and startet this
way an monopol on the OS market.
Everybody uses microsoft because compatibility, not because its such a
shiny OS.
User friendly?
I have to Reinstall Windows at least two times the year because dead
drivers and entries make my systhem unstable.
They make an OS that claims to do everything for the user, make
registrys and inis you have to work three days to clean them out, but
they are not able to create install/desinstall routines that delete an
programm bundle CLEAN from the systhem.
When they start again to make an OS thats as it should be (Kernel OS
Desktop) in three parts OK.
But as long i have to fight as soon as i do things not exactly the way
Microsoft considerd are GOOD and right for me they can put there new
releases where the sun doesent shine.
It just makes me puke when i am sitting in front of an 500mghz computer
and have to restart two times for an simple driver install and wait five
minutes each time until windows is loaded.
MAN every OS i used so far you start the driver and THATS IT.
Iam not an OS programmer, but i know enough to see that microsoft
produces programms that are FAAR away from perfect, they make money not
programms, they should start to make programms and sell them for money
as it should be.
Arthur Gravity
when you want to get something done right and quickly, you drop to the CLI.
MS is big due to mafia-style sales tactics. (e.g bundle our OS/browser/ISP
service or get blacklisted.) There is an infinite amount of information on
the *real* attrocites tha MS has committed, publicly available, with
documentation to verify its authenticity. Just search the web; it's out
there.
I don't need MS to go away. I can use their crappy products quite
proficiently. Of course I won't pay the theftware price of $500 for
MacOffice 2001. Especially when the bundle several of their freeware aps
with it and call them "features." I simply would like to see more options.
Personally Linux is a satisfactory option for me. I don't need an OS
insulting me (MS OS is very condescending.)
Gotta run. I'll feed this more later.
--
Arthur Gravity
Zer0Gee (hillout (ontroller
----------------------------------
acid909 / qpg
> From: M...@nowhere.com.none
> Organization: Creative Labs, Inc.
> Newsgroups: creative.products.nomad
> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:14:08 -0500
> Subject: Re: Linux Initiative for the Nomad Jukebox?
>
M...@nowhere.com.none
I'm talking about when I refer to the MS bashers. You don't care what
they produce (good or bad), you just hate them. Please, let me quote
you:
>Why i hate microsoft is one point, they produce an OS that is second
>ware, tell everybody
Hmm.. so if they aren't the best, you'll *hate* them? Good logic.
Here's another gem:
>Maybe windows 2000 is stable right now, but what when you load programms
>not designed by microsoft?
>There are not so many out yet, so i have my doubts.
Huh? Just install *any* app that was written for Windows 9x and try
crashing Win2K. Now, that's not saying that all of these programs
will work correctly, but the OS won't crash.
>It just makes me puke when i am sitting in front of an 500mghz computer
>and have to restart two times for an simple driver install and wait five
>minutes each time until windows is loaded.
Well then, sit in front of a Win2K and you won't be puking anymore.
Believe it or not (and don't take my word for it, please) Microsoft
did a damn good job with Windows 2000. And now since XP will be based
on the Win2K platform, I expect that to be one of the best OSes
around.
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:28:32 +0200, Catweazle <nos...@nospam.com>
wrote:
Catweazle
>
> Um... your bad grammar and pigeon English aside, you are exactly what
> I'm talking about when I refer to the MS bashers. You don't care what
> they produce (good or bad), you just hate them. Please, let me quote
> you:
have
problems with my grammar anymore, i learned english as 3rd language so
iam
not so firm in it now.
Bashers. A company having an monopol and selling bad products gets
easier bashed
than a company on competition. Thats natural because you dont have to
buy
the non monopolist products. clear?
I have no problem with microsoft software, i have problems with the OS
they sell.
Iam using Microsoft Word and a lot of tools, a pity they dont run on
linux or unix...
I Bash them for destroying competitors on the OS market with other
things than producing
better quality.
They do dirty buisness and as an buisness man i hate there way to do
buisness.
They are not trustworth, they do dirty tricks, a handshake from
microsoft is nothing worth
in my world, they are dirt.
This sounds like a rant ok, its a rant.
As soon as microsoft accepts that there is only one way to do buisness,
doing things better
than anybody else you wouldnt hear anything negative from my side.
A monopol is NEVER the licence to print money, its ALWAYS a position
where you have to be
very carefull what you do and how your buisness pratice smells,
Microsoft stinks at the moment.
Collect all written content avaiable about Microsoft buiseness pratice,
take away 80% for lies
and you still end with an big pile of doubtfull behaviour.
>
> >Why i hate microsoft is one point, they produce an OS that is second
> >ware, tell everybody
>
> Hmm.. so if they aren't the best, you'll *hate* them? Good logic.
market
makes me going ballistic. Show me iam wrong...and dont take quotes out
of context.
>
> Here's another gem:
>
> >Maybe windows 2000 is stable right now, but what when you load programms
> >not designed by microsoft?
> >There are not so many out yet, so i have my doubts.
>
> Huh? Just install *any* app that was written for Windows 9x and try
> crashing Win2K. Now, that's not saying that all of these programs
> will work correctly, but the OS won't crash.
>
microsoft sells
that i want to buy ever ~2 years a new OS for full price.
I refered to software written for win2k, i take it as grantet that they
iron out problems
the last version had.....
> >It just makes me puke when i am sitting in front of an 500mghz computer
> >and have to restart two times for an simple driver install and wait five
> >minutes each time until windows is loaded.
>
> Well then, sit in front of a Win2K and you won't be puking anymore.
>
> Believe it or not (and don't take my word for it, please) Microsoft
> did a damn good job with Windows 2000. And now since XP will be based
> on the Win2K platform, I expect that to be one of the best OSes
> around.
half price
in an intallation pack (you insert cd, linux intalls) so where is the
point buying an overpriced
OS from a company that tells me how i have to use my pc and does
everything to break
every existing personal data protection law or how it is called in
english.
Its really funny to get spamm from bluescreen INC about things i never
told them.
I wait until the holes to microsoft are closed, then maybe i think about
buying W2k.
W2k is not as long out that anyone can say how it behaves, when you
remember there was
the same hype about w95 until things went real.
Iam a consumer that got until now for six years shit for money from
microsoft and
you cant denie me to be very suspicious about new programms from
microsoft.
Starman
at M...@nowhere.com.none wrote on 2/16/01 3:07 PM:
> Um... your bad grammar and pigeon English aside, you are exactly what
> I'm talking about when I refer to the MS bashers. You don't care what
> they produce (good or bad), you just hate them. Please, let me quote
> you:
>
>> Why i hate microsoft is one point, they produce an OS that is second
>> ware, tell everybody
>
> Hmm.. so if they aren't the best, you'll *hate* them? Good logic.
>
> Here's another gem:
>
>> Maybe windows 2000 is stable right now, but what when you load programms
>> not designed by microsoft?
>> There are not so many out yet, so i have my doubts.
>
> Huh? Just install *any* app that was written for Windows 9x and try
> crashing Win2K. Now, that's not saying that all of these programs
> will work correctly, but the OS won't crash.
>
>> It just makes me puke when i am sitting in front of an 500mghz computer
>> and have to restart two times for an simple driver install and wait five
>> minutes each time until windows is loaded.
>
> Well then, sit in front of a Win2K and you won't be puking anymore.
>
> Believe it or not (and don't take my word for it, please) Microsoft
> did a damn good job with Windows 2000. And now since XP will be based
> on the Win2K platform, I expect that to be one of the best OSes
> around.
I use Win2k at work extensively. In fact, I've left it on for 3 weeks at a
time once. HOWEVER, it's not bulletproof. IE has crashed Win2k several
times. Also, NOT every Win9x application runs on Win2k. Most do, but not
EVERY one. Now, my biggest gripe with Win2k is its game performance. It
sucks big time. Proof? Same machine - 2 hard drives. 600 MHz PIII. Unreal
Tournament and Quake III Arena on both, Voodoo 3 2000 and SB Live! Drive.
Latest drivers. UT on WinME - 65fps. Win2k - 46fps. Quake III Arena on WinME
- 52fps. Win2k - 39fps.
Sorry, but Win2k is not for everyone. Just because it's based on NT
technology doesn't mean it's the best OS for a Wintel system. A friend of
mine was convincing me to go back to Win2k and I kept telling him that
certain things either don't work, don't have drivers, or are sluggish. Sure
enough 2 weeks later two brand-new games wouldn't work for him under Win2k
on his system. One was Star Trek (don't know the name...recent game with
Picard and Data). The game says "Sorry, you can't run this under Windows NT"
and then locks up later on. I'm not sure what the other game was (Age of
Empires II??). Also, Everquest just sucked on my Win2k machine - the sound
drivers were all messed up and the video was dog slow. I had to go back to
WinME and the only outstanding reproducable problem I've had is that my
Radeon crashes the system on reboot.
Mike
Alex
purely based on the NT kernel, it is very much for business (thus the name
'professional' for their workstation product). They tried to bridge the gap
by providing DirectX annd all that good stuff, but there was no promises or
anything. Now whistler (or I should say XP) is supposed to be a merge
between win98(or me) and windows 2000 - in other words, bringing the best
of both world. This version *should* provide both the stability and the
games/multimedia performance. At least if you believe the PR bullshit (and
microsoft is VERY good at the PR game). Time will tell if they come true on
their promises.
Arthur Gravity
Play UT where I play it...
on MacOS. ;-)
--
Arthur Gravity
Zer0Gee (hillout (ontroller
----------------------------------
acid909 / qpg
> From: Starman <sta...@mac.com>
> Organization: Creative Labs, Inc.
> Newsgroups: creative.products.nomad
> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:01:18 -0500
> Subject: Re: Linux Initiative for the Nomad Jukebox?
[ snip ]
> Now, my biggest gripe with Win2k is its game performance. It
> sucks big time. Proof? Same machine - 2 hard drives. 600 MHz PIII. Unreal
> Tournament and Quake III Arena on both, Voodoo 3 2000 and SB Live! Drive.
> Latest drivers. UT on WinME - 65fps. Win2k - 46fps. Quake III Arena on WinME
> - 52fps. Win2k - 39fps.
[ snip ]
Catweazle
how good can it handle 3d presentations?
They dont have sound and fx with them and dont need any KI running in
backround, but they are at much higher detail.
I played everquest since start and for my opinion the programmers from
sony are real code wizzards when you count together what they manage to
get out of performance, plus the crashrate went down dramatical the last
three month.
Alex
Not really sure what you mean. But win2k is probably just fine for that.
Games really push the envelope as far as graphics - there really is no other
application that ever come close to it. That's probably why when people
benchmark computers, they usually make a point of using a game at some
point in the benchmark process.
"Catweazle" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3A8E26...@nospam.com...
Chris Bidmead
> Editing a config file is not the kind of interface that "the masses" are
> going to adopt. You don't seem to understand that, do you?
Ah, you speak for the masses? I hadn't realised that.
> > No, I think your inability to edit a text file shows your own
> > limitation.
>
> I never said I couldn't, I was saying that for "the masses" this is a poor
> way of doing something simple.
Again, you speak for the masses. It is the limitation of the masses we
are discussing, not the limitation of Starman. Again, I hadn't realised
that.
> > > they can't even make a control panel for monitor refresh rates!
> >
> > Who exactly do you have in mind when you say "they"? One of the
> > features of the free software community is that there is no "them and
> > us". And, by the way, the xvidtune GUI tuning tool for XF86 has existed
> > for at least five years now.
>
> "They" is the Linux community. Duh.
So let's get this straight. You reject the xvidtune GUI tuning tool for
XF86 that "the Linux community" has written for you. And you want them
to write you another one. Can you explain why you think they should do
you that favour, and what you might be able to offer in return?
> >> You think THIS is the OS that's "growing rapidly"?
> >
> > Not one of my more original thoughts, I admit. I cribbed it from the
> > industry analysts.
>
> I still don't see "MS Office for Linux". When I do, then I'll say that it
> has some kind of solid foothold.
OK, so let's see... A rapidly rising user base doesn't constitute
"rapid growth". Rapid growth is only certified by a particular large
software company in Redmond that sells its own operating system. Rapid
growth is a kind of gentlemen's club; you need the endorsement of an
existing member to join.
See, Starman, I begin to learn your language. Soon I too will be able
to speak for the masses on your planet.
--
el bid
Chris Bidmead
> PS. What really cracks me up is the Linux users who complain about
> GUIs being too easy to use (See Arthur Gravity's message here:
> <B6B22DD9.5422%spa...@and.die.com>)
>
> I guess they want everything to be command line and text editors...
Arthur has a point, which is really nothing to do with os wars, as it
applies across all operating systems (now that the Mac has a command
line).
It is not at all hard to write a GUI app that makes its actions
self-explanatory to the beginner, and this is possibly the real strength
of the GUI. However it is extraordinarily difficult to write a GUI app
that doesn't either 1) limit the capabilities of the advanced user, or
2) get in the way when the advanced user tries to exercise advanced
features of the app.
Case in point: Last week I was determined to use the GUI features of a
particular application because I knew that many of the beginnners who
would be reading my review would be going this same route. In order to
accomplish my goal I needed to make more than 70 mouseclicks. Reaching
the same goal at the command line required me to type no more than a
dozen characters.
The mouse is mighty. But often the keyboard is mightier.
--
el bid
Chris Bidmead
> MS is big due to mafia-style sales tactics. (e.g bundle our OS/browser/ISP
> service or get blacklisted.) There is an infinite amount of information on
> the *real* attrocites tha MS has committed, publicly available, with
> documentation to verify its authenticity. Just search the web; it's out
> there.
Or just head straight for:
http://www.fireandwater.com/books/default.asp?id=21831
--
el bid
Catweazle
When they take this away i would rather live without programms only
avaiable under microsoft OS than buy the next upgrade.....
Keybords are soo much faster, even in programms i like more the
shortcuts from keyboard than searching through five menues for the right
command.
Catweazle
with 60years can handel some DOS commands.
Arthur Gravity
PCs) on other people's computers all the time! I wind up laughing to myself
(usually with an overt *grin*) and then just hit run and type 'command'.
I'd have to say that the Windows keyboard shortcut that I miss the most when
I am Mac'ing it (which is more often than any other OS at he moment.) is the
Windows-M hotkey to get all the windows to minimize instantly. I know it's
easy enough to switch to the Finder, then Hide Others, and option
double-click the title bar of a window, but that is one mouse drag followed
by a click-n-drag, then another drag, then click-n-drag, then drag followed
by keypress and double-click. Whew! Aren't hotkeys great? Now if my NJB
just had a hotsync button like my Handspring Visor's cradle...
--
Arthur Gravity
Zer0Gee (hillout (ontroller
----------------------------------
acid909 / qpg
> From: Catweazle <nos...@nospam.com>
> Organization: Creative Labs, Inc.
> Newsgroups: creative.products.nomad
> Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 18:22:32 +0200
> Subject: Re: Linux Initiative for the Nomad Jukebox?
>
M...@nowhere.com.none
Supposedly Windows XP will be both...
Do you think Microsoft should spend time making video games work on an
OS that sits in an office?
BTW, try running those games on your precious Linux machine.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:23:29 +0200, Catweazle <nos...@nospam.com>
wrote:
Catweazle
> >I wait until the holes to microsoft are closed, then maybe i think about
> >buying W2k.
>
> So, you have no problem bashing a product you have never seen. OK.
> Just as long I know where you're coming from.
SMARTY you have to buy it to test it, but when you buy it and dont like
it you have it already.
So i wait until enough peopel test it for microsoft to iron out the
biggest buggs and safety cracks and F-Secure to write the anti-virus
files for the biggest security leaks.
Its not like linux where you just kick in the last kernel when the new
one was buggy.....
M...@nowhere.com.none
<spa...@and.die.com> wrote:
>I never said I dislike GUI. I like GUI, but any real guru will tell you
>when you want to get something done right and quickly, you drop to the CLI.
Unfortunately real guru's make up less than 1% of the consumer market.
(That number is made up, but it is probably close).
>
>MS is big due to mafia-style sales tactics. (e.g bundle our OS/browser/ISP
>service or get blacklisted.) There is an infinite amount of information on
>the *real* attrocites tha MS has committed, publicly available, with
>documentation to verify its authenticity. Just search the web; it's out
>there.
So there's no possibility that people buy MS products (including the
OS) because they *like* it better, they feel better about the support,
they can run more applications on it?
By the way, the "bundle our OS/browser/ISP service or get blacklisted"
issue you referred to relates to Internet Explorer, not Windows...
besides, I've used lots of different browsers, and none hold a candle
to IE. I remember when I was a Netscape stalwart, arguing the merits
of Netscape over IE. But, I was also objective... and when I saw IE
leapfrog Netscape as a browser, I moved to IE on my own.
>
>I don't need MS to go away. I can use their crappy products quite
>proficiently. Of course I won't pay the theftware price of $500 for
>MacOffice 2001. Especially when the bundle several of their freeware aps
>with it and call them "features." I simply would like to see more options.
>Personally Linux is a satisfactory option for me. I don't need an OS
>insulting me (MS OS is very condescending.)
I agree that the price is too much, but Office is hardly "crappy".
As far as your Linux preference... that's you choice. But I'm just
curious as to which OS you use when you actually have to get something
done?
M...@nowhere.com.none
wrote:
>Iam using Microsoft Word and a lot of tools, a pity they dont run on
>linux or unix...
>Wins2k does everything slower than my linux does, and that was for the
>half price
Yea, all 10 things that Linux does...
>in an intallation pack (you insert cd, linux intalls) so where is the
>point buying an overpriced...
Right. Insert CD, Linux installs. No Problem. I'm sure this is
everyone's experience.
>I wait until the holes to microsoft are closed, then maybe i think about
>buying W2k.
So, you have no problem bashing a product you have never seen. OK.
Arthur Gravity
hear from Windows users that installed Mandrake that it was easier than
installing Windows.
--
Arthur Gravity
Zer0Gee (hillout (ontroller
----------------------------------
acid909 / qpg
> From: M...@nowhere.com.none
> Organization: Creative Labs, Inc.
> Newsgroups: creative.products.nomad
> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 11:30:02 -0500
> Subject: Re: Linux Initiative for the Nomad Jukebox?
>
Arthur Gravity
> Organization: Creative Labs, Inc.
> Newsgroups: creative.products.nomad
> Subject: Re: Linux Initiative for the Nomad Jukebox?
>
> <spa...@and.die.com> wrote:
>
>> I never said I dislike GUI. I like GUI, but any real guru will tell you
>> when you want to get something done right and quickly, you drop to the CLI.
>
> Unfortunately real guru's make up less than 1% of the consumer market.
> (That number is made up, but it is probably close).
>
You will hear no arguement on that stat from me. I agree that 99% of all
people infromnt of a computer are hardly what one couold deem proficient,
let alone "guru." This does not mean they are stupid, but just not computer
savvy.
>>
>> MS is big due to mafia-style sales tactics. (e.g bundle our OS/browser/ISP
>> service or get blacklisted.) There is an infinite amount of information on
>> the *real* attrocites tha MS has committed, publicly available, with
>> documentation to verify its authenticity. Just search the web; it's out
>> there.
>
> So there's no possibility that people buy MS products (including the
> OS) because they *like* it better, they feel better about the support,
> they can run more applications on it?
No, there is NO possibility that people buy MS products (including the
OS) because they *like* it better, they feel better about the support, or
can run more software. In fact most prople don't even "buy" Windows, they
get it forced on them by their hardware vendor. While it is possible to ask
for a non-MS OS from a few leading vendors on non server hardware, it is
still more the exception than the rule. If you are just a consumer you are
not given a choice for the OS on your x86 (or Apple) hardware. Since we are
talking about MS and MS OS doesn't run on Apple hardware, we don't need to
discuss Apple at the moment. Most people that buy MS products of their own
volition do so because they don't know of better choices. MS spends a
fortune on advertising to brainwash the sheep of america into making their
choices, not better choices. You have to learn on your own that there is an
alternative to running MS OS on your PC. Non-MS OS can do more that 10
things and they can do them all better. Unix is not for computing dumbasses
though, which we already established most of the consumer can be
unflatteringly catergorized as.
MS threatened to not license it's OS to hardware vendors that refused to
bundle IE, and while I am an IE user (and yes, also a former Netscape die
hard) it doesn't change the fact that MS is a corporate bully. Look in the
dictionary next to anti-trust and you will see a picture of Bill Gates. ;)
>
> By the way, the "bundle our OS/browser/ISP service or get blacklisted"
> issue you referred to relates to Internet Explorer, not Windows...
> besides, I've used lots of different browsers, and none hold a candle
> to IE. I remember when I was a Netscape stalwart, arguing the merits
> of Netscape over IE. But, I was also objective... and when I saw IE
> leapfrog Netscape as a browser, I moved to IE on my own.
>
>>
>> I don't need MS to go away. I can use their crappy products quite
>> proficiently. Of course I won't pay the theftware price of $500 for
>> MacOffice 2001. Especially when the bundle several of their freeware aps
>> with it and call them "features." I simply would like to see more options.
>> Personally Linux is a satisfactory option for me. I don't need an OS
>> insulting me (MS OS is very condescending.)
>
> I agree that the price is too much, but Office is hardly "crappy".
I should have been clearer that I meant their crappy OS, however Office
embeds way too much private info into it's meta data. You can extract
people's network drive layout amongst other info that just does not belong
in a word doc. The most meta data that should beincluded is the Author
info, etc., not the path to my network or local drive. I like Office but
think that is overpriced by around 500%.
> As far as your Linux preference... that's you choice. But I'm just
> curious as to which OS you use when you actually have to get something
> done?
I like SuSE linux, but I prefer FreeBSD. I have used Solaris and Red Hat as
well. I guess if the machine has vi, MySQL, pine, apache and php it can do
whatever I need it to do. I use my iMac more often than any other machine
when I want to get work done (and I have CLI on it.) I will eventually have
it dual booting (technically I do now, but I need a CD to boot linux from to
upgrade to SuSE 7, and I haven't committed to buying it yet. I don't like
to buy software, but $50 for 5 CDs of OS & aps puts MS prices to shame.)
I do recognize that whatever my opinions are, MS OS is the dominant market
share, and most people in IT make their money from some connection to MS
support. I also know that MS does see Linux as (a very real) threat. Big
corporations have a legacy for abusing their customers. Because of this I
try to choose the companies I do business with carefully.
Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>
> Actually Mandrake does just install from the CD with no effort. I have even
> hear from Windows users that installed Mandrake that it was easier than
> installing Windows.
Personally I'm thrilled about Linux. Not because it's so much more
stable than Windows, or so much cooler. I like it because it's a
programmer's dream coming true. Open source! It's incredible what you
can learn from looking at source code.
Yes, for it to take over as a leading OS it should become more user
friendly. But personally I like it the way it is, I don't have user
friendliness forced down my throat on the expense of power. I think the
computer power users needs an OS for themselves, to fiddle around and
really take advantage of their computers. Let Joe Sixpack have his
Windows in peace, I don't care about it. Let him use Microsoft all he
wants, as long as it doesn't take away *my* chance to use Linux I don't
care if Microsoft stays a monopoly, it just keeps the nasty newbie
features away from Linux...
What is sad is when companies hinders voluntary driver development for
Linux. Creative won't need to spend any energy on this, it's just to
release the USB specs. There's nothing in those specs that can even
remotely be considered a trade secret, it's so extremely simple just to
make up a protocol on your own, other companies wouldn't use their specs
to compete even if they got them delivered nicely wrapped on the door. I
realize they won't make any money on it, but they certainly won't loose
any either. And today's Linux-users are tomorrows technical elite...
Dag Sverre
Chris Bidmead
> Personally I'm thrilled about Linux. Not because it's so much more
> stable than Windows, or so much cooler. I like it because it's a
> programmer's dream coming true. Open source! It's incredible what you
> can learn from looking at source code.
Yup.
> Yes, for it to take over as a leading OS it should become more user
> friendly. But personally I like it the way it is, I don't have user
> friendliness forced down my throat on the expense of power.
Very important point. Because of the separation of GUI from the
operating system in UNIX folks can add a heap of "user friendliness"
without any impact on how the os behaves for the power user ('cos the
power user can just strip out any unneeded upholstery). I'm personally
not thrilled by a lot of the effort that going on to make Linux look and
feel like Windows, but it doesn't get in the way.
I'd also add, perhaps more controversially, that I don't think Linux
actually needs to "become the leading os", or "achieve critical mass" or
"hit the prime time" or whatever. What are we actually talking about
here? Windows needed utterly to dominate the market, because really the
only argument for running it was that everyone else was running it and
all the apps were written for it. Linux is good enough in its own right
that you (well, I) don't particularly care if other people aren't
running it. And as for apps, hey, Linux is a _development_
environment. The Linux community has done pretty well developing its
own apps. If others want to climb on board and write apps for Linux
too, that's fine, but it's absolutely no longer a critical issue.
> I think the
> computer power users needs an OS for themselves, to fiddle around and
> really take advantage of their computers. Let Joe Sixpack have his
> Windows in peace, I don't care about it. Let him use Microsoft all he
> wants, as long as it doesn't take away *my* chance to use Linux I don't
> care if Microsoft stays a monopoly, it just keeps the nasty newbie
> features away from Linux...
:-)
> What is sad is when companies hinders voluntary driver development for
> Linux. Creative won't need to spend any energy on this, it's just to
> release the USB specs. There's nothing in those specs that can even
> remotely be considered a trade secret, it's so extremely simple just to
> make up a protocol on your own, other companies wouldn't use their specs
> to compete even if they got them delivered nicely wrapped on the door. I
> realize they won't make any money on it, but they certainly won't loose
> any either. And today's Linux-users are tomorrows technical elite...
I'm pretty certain that a decision by Creative to release the specs
would show up on the bottom line rather soon. Why is IBM backing
Linux? Because it's going to help IBM sell a lot of hardware. NJB's
are no different.
--
el bid
Chris Bidmead
> So there's no possibility that people buy MS products (including the
> OS) because they *like* it better, they feel better about the support,
> they can run more applications on it?
Most corporate and individual Windows users I talk to either aren't in a
position to make comparisons at all (therefore don't "like it better")
or tell me they only use Windows because they have to (company policy,
peer pressure...). I know nobody in a position to judge the issue who
thinks "support" for Microsoft products is even worthy of the name.
> By the way, the "bundle our OS/browser/ISP service or get blacklisted"
> issue you referred to relates to Internet Explorer, not Windows...
The trial looked at a number of issues. Microsoft argued that the
browser was integral with the operating system, and IMHO Arthur's
thumnail summary is entirely accurate as far as it goes. For the full
picture follow the link in my posting above, or better still, read
Heilemann's book.
> I agree that the price is too much, but Office is hardly "crappy".
Depends how deeply you look into the code.
> As far as your Linux preference... that's you choice. But I'm just
> curious as to which OS you use when you actually have to get something
> done?
I know you were addressing this to Arthur, but speaking for myself I do
everything with various flavours of UNIX, mostly Linux. I have one
Windows installation on a laptop which I installed last week
specifically for looking at the NJB.
--
el bid
M...@nowhere.com.none
<spa...@and.die.com> wrote:
>> So there's no possibility that people buy MS products (including the
>> OS) because they *like* it better, they feel better about the support,
>> they can run more applications on it?
>
>No, there is NO possibility that people buy MS products (including the
>OS) because they *like* it better, they feel better about the support, or
>can run more software. In fact most prople don't even "buy" Windows, they
>get it forced on them by their hardware vendor.
OK. Now I get it. You are simply delusional. Now that I know that,
I feel that any argument I give will make no difference to you.
> Most people that buy MS products of their own
>volition do so because they don't know of better choices. MS spends a
>fortune on advertising to brainwash the sheep of america into making their
>choices, not better choices.
This is so typical of the MS-basher... "MS 'brainwashes' people. Only
I and my other Linux/Aple brethren are smart enough to see through
it."
Give me a break.
> I like Office but
>think that is overpriced by around 500%.
I agree.
>> As far as your Linux preference... that's you choice. But I'm just
>> curious as to which OS you use when you actually have to get something
>> done?
>
>I like SuSE linux, but I prefer FreeBSD. I have used Solaris and Red Hat as
>well. I guess if the machine has vi, MySQL, pine, apache and php it can do
>whatever I need it to do. I use my iMac more often than any other machine
>when I want to get work done (and I have CLI on it.) I will eventually have
>it dual booting (technically I do now, but I need a CD to boot linux from to
>upgrade to SuSE 7, and I haven't committed to buying it yet. I don't like
>to buy software, but $50 for 5 CDs of OS & aps puts MS prices to shame.)
Boy that sounds simple enough. If MS hadn't brainwashed the unclean
masses, then my Mom and Grandma could be doing that, too.
I think that the elite Unix/Linux community (the 1-percenters) is just
mad that Bill Gates brought personal computing -- a domain that they
felt should belong only to them -- to the regular Joe's.
Look. You may want to bash Windows and MS, but you have to admit. It
wasn't Apple or Unix that got the average user using the personal
computer. And as much as you may want to argue, it wasn't
brainwashing or anti-trust practices (this may be an argument for IE,
but not for Windows) that got this done either.
If Gates hadn't done what he did, the *gurus* would still be running
the show. (And maybe that's why they're so angry now.)
M...@nowhere.com.none
<bid...@UCEFREEcix.co.uk> wrote:
>M...@nowhere.com.none wrote:
>
>> So there's no possibility that people buy MS products (including the
>> OS) because they *like* it better, they feel better about the support,
>> they can run more applications on it?
>
>Most corporate and individual Windows users I talk to either aren't in a
>position to make comparisons at all (therefore don't "like it better")
>or tell me they only use Windows because they have to (company policy,
>peer pressure...).
"Peer pressure"? C'mon.
I might go along with your argument about a user's OS on their work
desktop, but what's keeping them from getting Linux or a Mac at home?
>I know nobody in a position to judge the issue who
>thinks "support" for Microsoft products is even worthy of the name.
Well, compared to support for Linux or Apple, I'd say it is pretty
good. I've always had pretty good experiences.
> Microsoft argued that the
>browser was integral with the operating system,
And if you use Windows, you would see some truth in that. First Bill
Gates was derided for not *getting* that the internet was the wave of
the future. Now that he's embracing this idea, he is hammered for
"integration".
What I think is funny is that the trial is based on a claim that the
consumer is being harmed by the practice. Gee, giving away a free
internet browser is pretty harmful.
>
>> I agree that the price is too much, but Office is hardly "crappy".
>
>Depends how deeply you look into the code.
And who does that? I don't know about you, but I (and 99% of the
other Office users) don't give a rat's ass about the code behind
Office. I wan't to use it to get something done... and given that, it
works splendidly.
>> As far as your Linux preference... that's you choice. But I'm just
>> curious as to which OS you use when you actually have to get something
>> done?
>
>I know you were addressing this to Arthur, but speaking for myself I do
>everything with various flavours of UNIX, mostly Linux. I have one
>Windows installation on a laptop which I installed last week
>specifically for looking at the NJB.
Well you are an exception. Everyone that I know who has installed
Linux uses either a dual-boot (so they can get to Windows) or has a
second computer (PC or Mac) so they can actually get stuff done.
Look. I think that the Linux phenomenon is a *good* thing. Let's
just not overstate the reality.
Starman
at M...@nowhere.com.none wrote on 2/22/01 12:42 PM:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 17:01:03 -0800, Arthur Gravity
> <spa...@and.die.com> wrote:
>
>>> So there's no possibility that people buy MS products (including the
>>> OS) because they *like* it better, they feel better about the support,
>>> they can run more applications on it?
>>
>> No, there is NO possibility that people buy MS products (including the
>> OS) because they *like* it better, they feel better about the support, or
>> can run more software. In fact most prople don't even "buy" Windows, they
>> get it forced on them by their hardware vendor.
>
> OK. Now I get it. You are simply delusional. Now that I know that,
> I feel that any argument I give will make no difference to you.
>
>> Most people that buy MS products of their own
>> volition do so because they don't know of better choices. MS spends a
>> fortune on advertising to brainwash the sheep of america into making their
>> choices, not better choices.
>
> This is so typical of the MS-basher... "MS 'brainwashes' people. Only
> I and my other Linux/Aple brethren are smart enough to see through
> it."
Well, let's look at a history here. Back in "the day" I used Wordstar for
word processing. It was horribly ugly, klunky, and quite frankly, shit. BUT,
there was no "Windows" at the time so you're stuck with what you got unless
you had a Mac and then you were in HEAVEN. Other alternatives for DOS were
PFS: Write and Word Perfect. Still crap due to the proportional/fixed width
font issues between the screen and the printer. The Mac was the ONLY
computer that had WYSIWYG until Windows was released.
In comes Windows, out goes everything else for DOS. Note that the Mac had
MacWrite and later MS Word so it wasn't JUST a Windows thing. The major
difference was that Macs were more expensive (and that's what really killed
any chance they had of being accepted), and Windows had the "IBM" name
behind it before the "Clone Wars". I didn't use a clone until many years
later. Until then it was PCs, XTs, ATs, PS/2s, etc.
Where is Word Perfect today? Dead (practically). Wordstar? Dead. PFS: Write?
Dead. What's left? Office. What does everyone on the planet use? Office. In
my job we have to use certain apps to test our printer drivers. What do we
use? Office. Granted, we have to support EVERYTHING, but in our main QA
testing, it's Office (and PageMaker, Corel Draw, Photoshop, etc. but I'm
talking office applications mainly).
My point is that MS doesn't have to brainwash anyone. I'm sure they
advertise only to say "go ahead, try and compete against us!" It's an
in-your-face to startups that think they can make the next Office. It will
never happen. Office has been a standard for like 15 years; it's not going
away soon and it's not "brainwashing" that's keeping it around. You think
that every office on the PLANET is not going to be compatible with everyone
ELSE? It's not brainwashing, it's business. The home is a whole different
story so don't mix the two.
> Give me a break.
>
>> I like Office but
>> think that is overpriced by around 500%.
>
> I agree.
Yeah, for those people that use it at home, it's priced for the office. Bad.
>>> As far as your Linux preference... that's you choice. But I'm just
>>> curious as to which OS you use when you actually have to get something
>>> done?
>>
>> I like SuSE linux, but I prefer FreeBSD. I have used Solaris and Red Hat as
>> well. I guess if the machine has vi, MySQL, pine, apache and php it can do
>> whatever I need it to do. I use my iMac more often than any other machine
>> when I want to get work done (and I have CLI on it.) I will eventually have
>> it dual booting (technically I do now, but I need a CD to boot linux from to
>> upgrade to SuSE 7, and I haven't committed to buying it yet. I don't like
>> to buy software, but $50 for 5 CDs of OS & aps puts MS prices to shame.)
But that $50 doesn't make the same revenue that WinME does. The whole Open
Source model is just plain BAD for private businesses. Read the thread here
about it - I agree that you can't make a business from Open Source. Imagine
pouring a ton of R&D into a driver for something and then being forced to
release the code. Who wants to give their secrets away?? Let's do this:
let's walk into all the pharmaceutical industry companies and demand the
formulas for everything they own. See how far you get. The computer industry
is NO different. The Open Source people will have you think differently. In
the meantime, they're all starving.
> Boy that sounds simple enough. If MS hadn't brainwashed the unclean
> masses, then my Mom and Grandma could be doing that, too.
>
> I think that the elite Unix/Linux community (the 1-percenters) is just
> mad that Bill Gates brought personal computing -- a domain that they
> felt should belong only to them -- to the regular Joe's.
Maybe. I see your point here. However, it was a long time coming.
> Look. You may want to bash Windows and MS, but you have to admit. It
> wasn't Apple or Unix that got the average user using the personal
> computer. And as much as you may want to argue, it wasn't
> brainwashing or anti-trust practices (this may be an argument for IE,
> but not for Windows) that got this done either.
Whoa, slow down there. I was around when the Apple I was released. It _DID_
get people to use personal computers. UNIX couldn't because it was all on
mainframes until Minix was released in like '85 or so - 9 years after the
Apple I was released. I knew people from school whose families had Apple I's
and II's. Don't forget Atari. You might laugh at them now, but back then
Atari computers were VERY good for the money. You also forget one VERY, VERY
important part of the equation for HOME computers - GAMES. GAMES, GAMES,
GAMES. There were no games for the PC back then. Apple had many, Atari had
many, the Commodore 64 had many. Hell, the TRS-80 had some! (Frankenstein's
Adventure). I wrote a text-based one for the TRS-80 and ported it (in
BASIC!) to my Atari 800 and then to the PC in Pascal in '86.
> If Gates hadn't done what he did, the *gurus* would still be running
> the show. (And maybe that's why they're so angry now.)
I'd also get less tech support calls at home :)
Mike
M...@nowhere.com.none
>> Look. You may want to bash Windows and MS, but you have to admit. It
>> wasn't Apple or Unix that got the average user using the personal
>> computer. And as much as you may want to argue, it wasn't
>> brainwashing or anti-trust practices (this may be an argument for IE,
>> but not for Windows) that got this done either.
>
>Whoa, slow down there. I was around when the Apple I was released. It _DID_
>get people to use personal computers. UNIX couldn't because it was all on
>mainframes until Minix was released in like '85 or so - 9 years after the
>Apple I was released. I knew people from school whose families had Apple I's
>and II's. Don't forget Atari. You might laugh at them now, but back then
>Atari computers were VERY good for the money. You also forget one VERY, VERY
>important part of the equation for HOME computers - GAMES. GAMES, GAMES,
>GAMES. There were no games for the PC back then. Apple had many, Atari had
>many, the Commodore 64 had many. Hell, the TRS-80 had some! (Frankenstein's
>Adventure). I wrote a text-based one for the TRS-80 and ported it (in
>BASIC!) to my Atari 800 and then to the PC in Pascal in '86.
I owned a Coleco "Adam" computer... so I know exactly what you are
talking about.
My point is this: the PC didn't gain acceptance from the mainstream
public until IBM (running Bill Gates' OS) got involved. This is a
sticking point with the bashers. They probably know this, they just
can't bring themselves to admit it... and they resent Bill Gates and
MS cause it wasn't Steve Jobs and Apple that did it.
Perhaps if Steve Jobs wasn't such a egomaniac he would be where Gates
is now.
Catweazle
---------snip
> >
> >I know you were addressing this to Arthur, but speaking for myself I do
> >everything with various flavours of UNIX, mostly Linux. I have one
> >Windows installation on a laptop which I installed last week
> >specifically for looking at the NJB.
>
> Well you are an exception. Everyone that I know who has installed
> Linux uses either a dual-boot (so they can get to Windows) or has a
> second computer (PC or Mac) so they can actually get stuff done.
>
> Look. I think that the Linux phenomenon is a *good* thing. Let's
> just not overstate the reality.
Ya you sadly need windows.
Why?
Not because its that what i think about a good OS.
Over 90% use it so theres software you get only for windows so you have
to use it.
Just why cant they do the Kernel Desktop split up, it would make things
much easier.
Microsoft doeas crappy code and as soon as you do things above writing
emails to mum
you get problems..
Yesterday i spend six hours cleaning registry entries from desinstalled
programms on companie
computers, all programms deinstalled the right way as it should be.
Its crappy and cant do its own deinstall routines right, but on the
other hand dont let you
do installs full manually or at least document them in detail so you
know where to dig
for shit.
Every OS exept windows has a JOE USER area, the desktop, and an GURU
area, the naked OS.
Only Microsoft did shit and made mixtures between Desktop and OS.
This makes in virus and failure resistant for shure (just a joke)
BTW ever tried to get an Computer without Microsoft OS ?
You have to DIG for them, most companies dont sell WITHOUT.
Chris Bidmead
> The whole Open
> Source model is just plain BAD for private businesses.
Ah, yes. Jim Allchin just said that. Unamerican, I think he called it.
> Read the thread here
> about it - I agree that you can't make a business from Open Source.
Tell that to IBM.
> Imagine
> pouring a ton of R&D into a driver for something and then being forced to
> release the code.
No, you miss the point completely. Today you can't afford to pour a ton
of R&D into a driver, or an operating system, or anything any other kind
of software, unless is something really niche you can charge a ton of
money for. You don't get your money back. That's why companies are
pooling their efforts with the free software community.
> Who wants to give their secrets away?? Let's do this:
> let's walk into all the pharmaceutical industry companies and demand the
> formulas for everything they own.
You don't need to do that. You reverse engineer their products. And
that's precisely what Brazil is doing in its efforts to counter AIDS.
> The Open Source people will have you think differently. In
> the meantime, they're all starving.
Oh, right. Linus is starving? Larry Wall is starving? Starman, you
just make this stuff up. Engineering skills are a scarce commodity,
which means that talented software developers can spend their time
developing what they like and still make a good living.
--
el bid
Chris Bidmead
>
> My point is this: the PC didn't gain acceptance from the mainstream
> public until IBM (running Bill Gates' OS) got involved.
It wasn't Bill Gates' OS. Bill initially licenced what became MSDOS
from Seattle Computing.
> This is a
> sticking point with the bashers. They probably know this, they just
> can't bring themselves to admit it... and they resent Bill Gates and
> MS cause it wasn't Steve Jobs and Apple that did it.
Well, I'm sure different folks have very different reasons to resent,
despise, abhor or just depricate Bill Gates, and it would be pretty
silly to speak for all of them. But it's clear that Apple's attempt to
introduce "the computer for the rest of us" was vitiated by internal
company strife and greed, and didn't fail as a result of any superior
efforts from the IBM/Microsoft camp. Indeed, the DOS/Windows story is
one of dismal glacial progress through the '80s as the hardware improved
by leaps and bounds.
> Perhaps if Steve Jobs wasn't such a egomaniac he would be where Gates
> is now.
No, I think those of us who have followed the trial in detail understand
why Gates is where he is now.
--
el bid
Chris Bidmead
>
> "Peer pressure"? C'mon.
>
> I might go along with your argument about a user's OS on their work
> desktop, but what's keeping them from getting Linux or a Mac at home?
Peer pressure operates in the home too. I know; I've got kids.
> > Microsoft argued that the
> >browser was integral with the operating system,
>
> And if you use Windows, you would see some truth in that. First Bill
> Gates was derided for not *getting* that the internet was the wave of
> the future. Now that he's embracing this idea, he is hammered for
> "integration".
The internal emails revealed in court quite clearly the reason that
Microsoft pursued
this integration. It had very little to do with Bill's understanding of
the Internet, and everything to do with the destruction of Netscape.
> What I think is funny is that the trial is based on a claim that the
> consumer is being harmed by the practice. Gee, giving away a free
> internet browser is pretty harmful.
No, it's more complicated than that. It's about sustaining a monopoly
and using that monopoly to gain control in a second rising new market.
These behaviours have been made illegal in the States because of their
observed long-term affects on the working of the free market.
> >> I agree that the price is too much, but Office is hardly "crappy".
> >
> >Depends how deeply you look into the code.
>
> And who does that? I don't know about you, but I (and 99% of the
> other Office users) don't give a rat's ass about the code behind
> Office. I wan't to use it to get something done... and given that, it
> works splendidly.
Yup, and folks who ride on the big dipper seldom give a thought to the
engineering. Does this mean that the engineering doesn't matter?
> Look. I think that the Linux phenomenon is a *good* thing. Let's
> just not overstate the reality.
I'm absolutely with you here. My part in this overlong OT thread is
only to correct some of the wilder assertions of the free software
nay-sayers.
--
el bid
Starman
bid...@UCEFREEcix.co.uk wrote on 2/23/01 4:37 AM:
> Starman wrote:
>
>> The whole Open
>> Source model is just plain BAD for private businesses.
>
> Ah, yes. Jim Allchin just said that. Unamerican, I think he called it.
>
>> Read the thread here
>> about it - I agree that you can't make a business from Open Source.
>
> Tell that to IBM.
IBM can afford to have something out there for free. Are you saying their
ENTIRE business is run off of OpenSource? Didn't think so.
>> Imagine
>> pouring a ton of R&D into a driver for something and then being forced to
>> release the code.
>
> No, you miss the point completely. Today you can't afford to pour a ton
> of R&D into a driver, or an operating system, or anything any other kind
> of software, unless is something really niche you can charge a ton of
> money for. You don't get your money back. That's why companies are
> pooling their efforts with the free software community.
Huh? So MS doesn't spend R&D money into Win2k? Apple doesn't into MacOS X? I
don't see one line of code from MS. Who are you trying to fool?
>> Who wants to give their secrets away?? Let's do this:
>> let's walk into all the pharmaceutical industry companies and demand the
>> formulas for everything they own.
>
> You don't need to do that. You reverse engineer their products. And
> that's precisely what Brazil is doing in its efforts to counter AIDS.
Good for Brazil. In THIS country, reverse engineering is a very tricky
situation because you have to PROVE that you did it cleanly. It's not as
cut-and-dry as you make it seem to be.
>> The Open Source people will have you think differently. In
>> the meantime, they're all starving.
>
> Oh, right. Linus is starving? Larry Wall is starving? Starman, you
> just make this stuff up. Engineering skills are a scarce commodity,
> which means that talented software developers can spend their time
> developing what they like and still make a good living.
Duh. You think Linus is making money from licensing Linux? No. He's making
money from his name, not his OS.
This goes back to the original topic - if Creative was to make an NJB
PlayCenter for Linux, would they feel it's worth the effort? Would they have
to release their source code, therefore opening up their protocol which up
to now is private?
Mike
Chris Bidmead
> IBM can afford to have something out there for free. Are you saying their
> ENTIRE business is run off of OpenSource? Didn't think so.
"We are betting the company on Linux." Nick Donofrio, Senior VP
Technology & Manufacturing, IBM.
> > No, you miss the point completely. Today you can't afford to pour a ton
> > of R&D into a driver, or an operating system, or anything any other kind
> > of software, unless is something really niche you can charge a ton of
> > money for. You don't get your money back. That's why companies are
> > pooling their efforts with the free software community.
>
> Huh? So MS doesn't spend R&D money into Win2k? Apple doesn't into MacOS X? I
> don't see one line of code from MS. Who are you trying to fool?
You evidently haven't been following the industry during the OS/2,
Taligent, Copland developments. Like OS/2 before it, Win2K was a major
R&D spend, yes. And Microsoft is straining to find a way to recoup.
MacOS X is a fine example of a cooperative effort with the free software
community. Following the Taligent, Copland disasters, Apple looked for
a way to bring out an operating system that would not require a ton of
R&D this time around. Solution: buy NeXTStep and update the
underpinnings around free software.
> >> Who wants to give their secrets away?? Let's do this:
> >> let's walk into all the pharmaceutical industry companies and demand the
> >> formulas for everything they own.
> >
> > You don't need to do that. You reverse engineer their products. And
> > that's precisely what Brazil is doing in its efforts to counter AIDS.
>
> Good for Brazil. In THIS country, reverse engineering is a very tricky
> situation because you have to PROVE that you did it cleanly. It's not as
> cut-and-dry as you make it seem to be.
Different argument. We're way off on a tangent here. You began by
asking "Who wants to give their secrets away?" Start with Stallman and
work down through Linus, Larry, Eric... And of course they're not
"secrets". That's just an old mind set.
> >> The Open Source people will have you think differently. In
> >> the meantime, they're all starving.
> >
> > Oh, right. Linus is starving? Larry Wall is starving? Starman, you
> > just make this stuff up. Engineering skills are a scarce commodity,
> > which means that talented software developers can spend their time
> > developing what they like and still make a good living.
>
> Duh. You think Linus is making money from licensing Linux? No. He's making
> money from his name, not his OS.
Thank you. He's making a living from his rep, as are Larry et al.
You're beginning to see the point.
> This goes back to the original topic - if Creative was to make an NJB
> PlayCenter for Linux, would they feel it's worth the effort? Would they have
> to release their source code, therefore opening up their protocol which up
> to now is private?
It doesn't matter too much what Creative thinks, feels or does here. If
the free software community likes the NJB, the free software community
will pile in with the code. Actually the free software community may
pile in even if they don't like the thing, just for the fun of it. Does
the word Cue:Cat ring any bells?
--
el bid