Discussion:
Some comments on the latest Linux Format magazine
(too old to reply)
Kier
2005-10-24 09:10:02 UTC
Permalink
(Apologies for posting through Google; my regular new server seems to
have fallen down a black hole; I'm hoping normal service will resume at
some point, but until then...)

The latest Linux Format magazine, issue 73, has plenty of its usual
good articles on a variety of topics. This month it also includes a
thought-provoking article on the nature of open source/Free software.
The article debates the differences between the two, the difficulties
in defining them, and whether or not the two ideas embodied in them can
or should be considered interchangeable.

It suggests that what is 'Open' may not necessarily be 'Free'. You can
have teh source code, and read it, but does it also come with the
genuine freedom to modify and change it, legally and without penalty?
If not, then it isn't really Free as in Freedom.

"Part of this [....] is the belief that one should use free software
rather than proprietary software, even if the proprietary software is
better."

This seems to put the finger on a very important point, which I think
merits discussion.

Trolls love to pretend that we all use Linux only because it's cheap or
free (as in beer). This is certainly a factor in making it popular with
many, and why not? Why should we pay huge sums, and think this is a
virtue?

But 'free beer' is not the whole story by any means, IMO.Though a
relatively small number of 'ordinary' Linux users will ever examine the
source code, and probably even fewer actually alter it, the freedom to
do so *if they so wish, at any time in the future* is actually very
important. So long as the code is Free as well as Open, users and
developers can't be held hostage.

Now, I'll admit my own attitude in this regard is faily relaxed - but I
still value Freedom that the GPL gives me, and that underlays the Free
Software movement in its most pure form. It's like free speech - it may
not seem all that important, until it's taken from you.

So, what do others here think? Just how important is it that software
is Free, rather than just being open?
--
Kier
DFS
2005-10-24 15:25:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kier
Trolls love to pretend that we all use Linux only because it's cheap
or free (as in beer).
You do.

If the GPL was somehow retroactively changed and you couldn't view or modify
the source code on your system ("It's no longer Free? OK. No problem."),
you wouldn't care less. But if a price tag was suddenly attached, you'd
pitch a fit ("What do you mean it's no longer free?!?!?! What am I - made
of money?!!").
Post by Kier
This is certainly a factor in making it popular
with many, and why not?
It's the most important factor, as revealed by yourselves. I believe if OSS
programs cost more than closed-source commercial code, you'd all start using
commercial code.
Post by Kier
Why should we pay huge sums, and think this is a virtue?
So you don't get stuck with Linux and OSS-quality software

You know, you guys slay me. You seem to think there is an OSS alternative
for every commercial Windows software package out there, so if you just hunt
around you can find something for free and call it 'equivalent'. It's not.
It only takes a day working in the business world to find out how wrong you
are. There are so many expensive, powerful, closed-source commercial
software packages out there, for database work, decision modeling, financial
analysis, document mgmt, sales force automation, contact mgmt, scheduling,
etc etc it will make your head spin.

Those tools aren't even available to the Linux/OSS world. You suffer a
dearth of apps - in some categories - and pretend you don't need them, and
act as if people are evil for selling them without giving their source code
away.

Some of you - I'm thinking Richard Stallman and those who adhere to his
philosophies - are mentally ill.
Post by Kier
But 'free beer' is not the whole story by any means, IMO.Though a
relatively small number of 'ordinary' Linux users will ever examine
the source code, and probably even fewer actually alter it, the
freedom to do so *if they so wish, at any time in the future* is
actually very important.
It's less important than having good software.
Post by Kier
So long as the code is Free as well as Open,
users and developers can't be held hostage.
Held hostage to what? By who? They're always free to write their own
programs.
Post by Kier
Now, I'll admit my own attitude in this regard is faily relaxed -
Meaning you're an unabashed freeloader.
Post by Kier
but
I still value Freedom that the GPL gives me, and that underlays the
Free Software movement in its most pure form. It's like free speech -
it may not seem all that important, until it's taken from you.
So, what do others here think? Just how important is it that software
is Free, rather than just being open?
To me, not very.

It's nice that some of these programs are released under licenses like the
GPL, and include the source code, but I'm more than willing to pay for
better quality closed-source software. Along those lines, I don't really
care if KDE is Free and/or open-source, just that they're providing some
competition to Microsoft and other vendors.
Rick
2005-10-25 02:17:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
Trolls love to pretend that we all use Linux only because it's cheap
or free (as in beer).
You do.
If the GPL was somehow retroactively changed and you couldn't view or modify
the source code on your system ("It's no longer Free? OK. No problem."),
you wouldn't care less. But if a price tag was suddenly attached, you'd
pitch a fit ("What do you mean it's no longer free?!?!?! What am I - made
of money?!!").
.. except that a great many of us pay for our distros. And many
businesses pay for support subscriptions.
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
This is certainly a factor in making it popular
with many, and why not?
It's the most important factor, as revealed by yourselves. I believe if OSS
programs cost more than closed-source commercial code, you'd all start using
commercial code.
I doesn't matter what you believe.
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
Why should we pay huge sums, and think this is a virtue?
So you don't get stuck with Linux and OSS-quality software
Stuck? Stuck? You are the one stuck with window$ 'quality' sotware.
Post by DFS
You know, you guys slay me. You seem to think there is an OSS alternative
for every commercial Windows software package out there, so if you just hunt
around you can find something for free and call it 'equivalent'. It's not.
It only takes a day working in the business world to find out how wrong you
are. There are so many expensive, powerful, closed-source commercial
software packages out there, for database work, decision modeling, financial
analysis, document mgmt, sales force automation, contact mgmt, scheduling,
etc etc it will make your head spin.
Those tools aren't even available to the Linux/OSS world. You suffer a
Uh.. yeah.. many of them are.
Post by DFS
dearth of apps - in some categories - and pretend you don't need them,
and act as if people are evil for selling them without giving their
source code away.
Some of you - I'm thinking Richard Stallman and those who adhere to his
philosophies - are mentally ill.
But bigots like you aren't mentally ill?
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
But 'free beer' is not the whole story by any means, IMO.Though a
relatively small number of 'ordinary' Linux users will ever examine
the source code, and probably even fewer actually alter it, the
freedom to do so *if they so wish, at any time in the future* is
actually very important.
It's less important than having good software.
... in YOUR opinion.
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
So long as the code is Free as well as Open,
users and developers can't be held hostage.
Held hostage to what?
Proprietary formats.
Post by DFS
By who?
The developers of proprietary formats.
Post by DFS
They're always free to write their own programs.
Post by Kier
Now, I'll admit my own attitude in this regard is faily relaxed -
Meaning you're an unabashed freeloader.
... no, but you are a stupid, bigoted little liar.
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
but
I still value Freedom that the GPL gives me, and that underlays the
Free Software movement in its most pure form. It's like free speech -
it may not seem all that important, until it's taken from you.
So, what do others here think? Just how important is it that software
is Free, rather than just being open?
To me, not very.
Fine.. so don't use it.
Post by DFS
It's nice that some of these programs are released under licenses like the
GPL, and include the source code, but I'm more than willing to pay for
better quality closed-source software.
Well... OpenOffice suits my needs. As does the GIMP, X-Chat, XSane, XMMS,
KMail, FireFox, gftp, Evolution, and a bunch of other apps.
Post by DFS
Along those lines, I don't really
care if KDE is Free and/or open-source, just that they're providing some
competition to Microsoft and other vendors.
--
Rick
William Poaster
2005-10-25 09:33:53 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 02:17:10 +0000, a broadcast message from the Rick
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
Trolls love to pretend that we all use Linux only because it's cheap or
free (as in beer).
You do.
Note, DFS has *not* denied he's a troll here!
Post by DFS
If the GPL was somehow retroactively changed and you couldn't view or
modify the source code on your system ("It's no longer Free? OK. No
problem."), you wouldn't care less. But if a price tag was suddenly
attached, you'd pitch a fit ("What do you mean it's no longer free?!?!?!
What am I - made of money?!!").
.. except that a great many of us pay for our distros. And many businesses
pay for support subscriptions.
I pay for my version upgrades too.
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
This is certainly a factor in making it popular with many, and why not?
It's the most important factor, as revealed by yourselves. I believe if
OSS programs cost more than closed-source commercial code, you'd all
start using commercial code.
I doesn't matter what you believe.
Exactly. What a troll "thinks" is worthless.
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
Why should we pay huge sums, and think this is a virtue?
So you don't get stuck with Linux and OSS-quality software
Stuck? Stuck? You are the one stuck with window$ 'quality' sotware.
Yes, he's "locked-in" to M$.
Post by DFS
You know, you guys slay me. You seem to think there is an OSS
alternative for every commercial Windows software package out there, so
if you just hunt around you can find something for free and call it
'equivalent'. It's not. It only takes a day working in the business
world to find out how wrong you are. There are so many expensive,
powerful, closed-source commercial software packages out there, for
database work, decision modeling, financial analysis, document mgmt,
sales force automation, contact mgmt, scheduling, etc etc it will make
your head spin.
Those tools aren't even available to the Linux/OSS world. You suffer a
Uh.. yeah.. many of them are.
Post by DFS
dearth of apps - in some categories - and pretend you don't need them,
and act as if people are evil for selling them without giving their
source code away.
Some of you - I'm thinking Richard Stallman and those who adhere to his
philosophies - are mentally ill.
But bigots like you aren't mentally ill?
He proves he is, with almost every post I've seen replies to.
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
But 'free beer' is not the whole story by any means, IMO.Though a
relatively small number of 'ordinary' Linux users will ever examine the
source code, and probably even fewer actually alter it, the freedom to
do so *if they so wish, at any time in the future* is actually very
important.
It's less important than having good software.
... in YOUR opinion.
Which is worthless from a troll.
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
So long as the code is Free as well as Open, users and developers can't
be held hostage.
Held hostage to what?
Proprietary formats.
Post by DFS
By who?
The developers of proprietary formats.
Post by DFS
They're always free to write their own programs.
Post by Kier
Now, I'll admit my own attitude in this regard is faily relaxed -
Meaning you're an unabashed freeloader.
... no, but you are a stupid, bigoted little liar.
You forgot "idiot" & "racist".
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
but
I still value Freedom that the GPL gives me, and that underlays the
Free Software movement in its most pure form. It's like free speech -
it may not seem all that important, until it's taken from you.
So, what do others here think? Just how important is it that software
is Free, rather than just being open?
To me, not very.
Fine.. so don't use it.
Post by DFS
It's nice that some of these programs are released under licenses like
the GPL, and include the source code, but I'm more than willing to pay
for better quality closed-source software.
Well... OpenOffice suits my needs. As does the GIMP, X-Chat, XSane, XMMS,
KMail, FireFox, gftp, Evolution, and a bunch of other apps.
--
Lie of the 70's = The check is in the mail
Lie of the 80's = Trickle down economics
Lie of the 90's = I have not had sex with that woman/man/computer/etc.
Lie of the 00's = Monopoly promotes innovation
-- ackthpt (2001-05-30)
Thomas Wootten
2005-10-25 07:35:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
Trolls love to pretend that we all use Linux only because it's cheap
or free (as in beer).
You do.
If the GPL was somehow retroactively changed and you couldn't view or modify
the source code on your system ("It's no longer Free? OK. No problem.")
only way that can happen would be by the intervention of your favourite
dubyastandards government
Post by DFS
,
you wouldn't care less.
oh yes we would. the development teams would, for a start, and, see above
point, there'd be protests outside the Capitol.
Post by DFS
But if a price tag was suddenly attached, you'd
pitch a fit ("What do you mean it's no longer free?!?!?! What am I - made
of money?!!").
Maybe some of us would - not least because in practice that would involve a
substantial modification or legal override of the GPL.
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
This is certainly a factor in making it popular
with many, and why not?
It's the most important factor, as revealed by yourselves. I believe if
OSS programs cost more than closed-source commercial code, you'd all start
using commercial code.
Post by Kier
Why should we pay huge sums, and think this is a virtue?
So you don't get stuck with Linux and OSS-quality software
I like "OSS-quality software". Linux is certainly higher quality than
Windows. Something that after one or two (if that) slightly negative
experiences with Linux, you will not understand.
Post by DFS
You know, you guys slay me. You seem to think there is an OSS alternative
for every commercial Windows software package out there, so if you just hunt
around you can find something for free and call it 'equivalent'. It's not.
But it can be made to be. By anyone.
Post by DFS
It only takes a day working in the business world to find out how wrong you
are. There are so many expensive, powerful, closed-source commercial
software packages out there, for database work, decision modeling,
financial analysis, document mgmt, sales force automation, contact mgmt,
scheduling, etc etc it will make your head spin. Those tools aren't even >
available to the Linux/OSS world.
Yeah blah blah blah and how many of those are merely pieces of custom
software where 90% of the work was duplicating that of a major Free
Software project.
Post by DFS
You suffer a
dearth of apps - in some categories - and pretend you don't need them, and
act as if people are evil for selling them without giving their source
code away.
Proprietary software isn't exactly evil, but neither is it good.
Post by DFS
Some of you - I'm thinking Richard Stallman and those who adhere to his
philosophies - are mentally ill.
I think that would be worth forwarding to rms himself...then again I guess
he's learned to ignore trolls like yourself.
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
But 'free beer' is not the whole story by any means, IMO.Though a
relatively small number of 'ordinary' Linux users will ever examine
the source code, and probably even fewer actually alter it, the
freedom to do so *if they so wish, at any time in the future* is
actually very important.
It's less important than having good software.
Is it? Is having good software that you cannot improve better than having
inferior but improveable software? Would you buy a house, no matter how
amazing it was, if you had to sign a contract promising never to change the
decor?

<snip - length of post to address is not worth wasting on a troll, I've
l;aready fed him too much>
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
Now, I'll admit my own attitude in this regard is faily relaxed -
Meaning you're an unabashed freeloader.
Post by Kier
but
I still value Freedom that the GPL gives me, and that underlays the
Free Software movement in its most pure form. It's like free speech -
it may not seem all that important, until it's taken from you.
So, what do others here think? Just how important is it that software
is Free, rather than just being open?
To me, not very.
It's nice that some of these programs are released under licenses like the
GPL, and include the source code, but I'm more than willing to pay for
better quality closed-source software. Along those lines, I don't really
care if KDE is Free and/or open-source, just that they're providing some
competition to Microsoft and other vendors.
so "pay for better quality closed-source software" if you believe it to be
so. And stay off cola.

DFS from what I've seen you're the biggest troll here. You make the SAME
points EVERY time, you get the same responses, which you ignore. Maybe when
the likes of me decide to stop poking food through the bars of your cage
you'll finally curl up in a sobbing lonely ball and die.
--
Tom Wootten, Trinity Hall.
oof.trinhall.cam.ac.uk
There was only ever one valid use for the notorious <blink> tag:
Schrodinger's cat is <blink>not</blink> dead.
DFS
2005-10-25 23:26:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Wootten
Post by DFS
If the GPL was somehow retroactively changed and you couldn't view or modify
the source code on your system ("It's no longer Free? OK. No problem.")
only way that can happen would be by the intervention of your
favourite dubyastandards government
How about that? Another Bush-hating Linux user. Who could have guessed?
Post by Thomas Wootten
Post by DFS
you wouldn't care less.
oh yes we would. the development teams would, for a start, and, see
above point, there'd be protests outside the Capitol.
Geeks in the street, eh?
Post by Thomas Wootten
Post by DFS
But if a price tag was suddenly attached, you'd
pitch a fit ("What do you mean it's no longer free?!?!?! What am I
- made of money?!!").
Maybe some of us would - not least because in practice that would
involve a substantial modification or legal override of the GPL.
And a modification of your cheapskate behavior.
Post by Thomas Wootten
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
Why should we pay huge sums, and think this is a virtue?
So you don't get stuck with Linux and OSS-quality software
I like "OSS-quality software". Linux is certainly higher quality than
Windows.
The world doesn't agree with you. In every other situation I can think of,
high-quality products given away for free generate high-demand. Not so with
Linux and open source.
Post by Thomas Wootten
Something that after one or two (if that) slightly negative
experiences with Linux, you will not understand.
Linux is just sort of irritating - well, not Linux per se, but lots of the
apps (and definitely the users). There's almost always a lack of attention
to detail that detracts from the experience - and I believe that's due to a
lack of 3rd party testing.

Simple example: AisleRiot Solitaire card game included with Ubuntu. It lets
you build stacks of cards below the edge of the screen, which you then can't
move to the foundation.

Another example: Rex Ballard.
Post by Thomas Wootten
Post by DFS
You know, you guys slay me. You seem to think there is an OSS
alternative for every commercial Windows software package out there,
so if you just hunt
around you can find something for free and call it 'equivalent'.
It's not.
But it can be made to be. By anyone.
Sure it *can* be made to be. But it hasn't yet.
Post by Thomas Wootten
Post by DFS
It only takes a day working in the business world to find out how wrong you
are. There are so many expensive, powerful, closed-source commercial
software packages out there, for database work, decision modeling,
financial analysis, document mgmt, sales force automation, contact
mgmt, scheduling, etc etc it will make your head spin. Those tools
aren't even > available to the Linux/OSS world.
Yeah blah blah blah and how many of those are merely pieces of custom
software where 90% of the work was duplicating that of a major Free
Software project.
I'm not talking about custom, in-house code. I'm talking about
shrink-wrapped programs from Hummingbird and Hyperion and ACT! and other
companies who make Window-only products.
Post by Thomas Wootten
Post by DFS
You suffer a
dearth of apps - in some categories - and pretend you don't need
them, and act as if people are evil for selling them without giving
their source code away.
Proprietary software isn't exactly evil, but neither is it good.
It's the best software, by a long shot.
Post by Thomas Wootten
Post by DFS
Some of you - I'm thinking Richard Stallman and those who adhere to
his philosophies - are mentally ill.
I think that would be worth forwarding to rms himself...then again I
guess he's learned to ignore trolls like yourself.
Forward away.
Post by Thomas Wootten
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
But 'free beer' is not the whole story by any means, IMO.Though a
relatively small number of 'ordinary' Linux users will ever examine
the source code, and probably even fewer actually alter it, the
freedom to do so *if they so wish, at any time in the future* is
actually very important.
It's less important than having good software.
Is it? Is having good software that you cannot improve better than
having inferior but improveable software?
Depends on who's producing the good vs improveable software. MS makes
better software than OSS alternatives. So do lots of companies. I'd rather
rely on them than the lone OSS developer (ie, the guy building Gambas).
Post by Thomas Wootten
Would you buy a house, no
matter how amazing it was, if you had to sign a contract promising
never to change the decor?
Again, that depends. Pretty bad analogy, though, as software doesn't cost
$300,000.
Post by Thomas Wootten
<snip - length of post to address is not worth wasting on a troll,
I've l;aready fed him too much>
I predict you can't help yourself....
Post by Thomas Wootten
Post by DFS
It's nice that some of these programs are released under licenses
like the GPL, and include the source code, but I'm more than willing
to pay for better quality closed-source software. Along those
lines, I don't really care if KDE is Free and/or open-source, just
that they're providing some competition to Microsoft and other
vendors.
so "pay for better quality closed-source software" if you believe it
to be so. And stay off cola.
....well, that didn't take long.

And no, I won't stay off cola.
Post by Thomas Wootten
DFS from what I've seen you're the biggest troll here. You make the
SAME points EVERY time, you get the same responses, which you ignore.
Of course I get the same responses over and over - I'm in a newsgroup full
of rabid Linux fanatics who hate MS.
Post by Thomas Wootten
Maybe when the likes of me decide to stop poking food through the
bars of your cage you'll finally curl up in a sobbing lonely ball and
die.
You'll die before me if you have to read an 'all pro-Linux posts' cola.
Tattoo Vampire
2005-10-26 05:22:58 UTC
Permalink
DFS hitched up their overalls,
Post by DFS
How about that? Another Bush-hating Linux user. Who could have guessed?
No matter what the OS, Bush still sucks. Or are you one of those people who
actually thinks he's a good leader?
--
My computer runs MY operating system: GNU/Linux
Registered Linux User #376403
The Microsoft Motto: "We're the leaders, wait for us!"
Kier
2005-10-25 08:51:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
Trolls love to pretend that we all use Linux only because it's cheap
or free (as in beer).
You do.
How do you know? Did you ask everyone? I love the way you make these
sweeping statements about us without knowing anything at all, and
without any evidence to back you up.
Post by DFS
If the GPL was somehow retroactively changed and you couldn't view or modify
the source code on your system ("It's no longer Free? OK. No problem."),
you wouldn't care less. But if a price tag was suddenly attached, you'd
pitch a fit ("What do you mean it's no longer free?!?!?! What am I - made
of money?!!").
Again, a sweeping generalisation, without any evidence to back it up.
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
This is certainly a factor in making it popular
with many, and why not?
It's the most important factor, as revealed by yourselves. I believe if OSS
programs cost more than closed-source commercial code, you'd all start using
commercial code.
That might well be true of some users. But I think, not all users by
any means. Contrary to what you erroneously believe, low cost is only
one of many factors, and not always the most important one. Many of the
posters in this group have bought software, bought distros, and make
contributions to the community. YOu, of course, like to pretend this
nevert happen. Unfortunately for you, we know better.
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
Why should we pay huge sums, and think this is a virtue?
So you don't get stuck with Linux and OSS-quality software
We're not stuck with anything. And even if we were, there are those who
value the principles of Free software before anything else.
Post by DFS
You know, you guys slay me. You seem to think there is an OSS alternative
for every commercial Windows software package out there, so if you just hunt
around you can find something for free and call it 'equivalent'. It's not.
Says you. But why should we listen to a liar and troll?
Post by DFS
It only takes a day working in the business world to find out how wrong you
are. There are so many expensive, powerful, closed-source commercial
software packages out there, for database work, decision modeling, financial
analysis, document mgmt, sales force automation, contact mgmt, scheduling,
etc etc it will make your head spin.
Doubt it.
Post by DFS
Those tools aren't even available to the Linux/OSS world. You suffer a
dearth of apps - in some categories - and pretend you don't need them, and
act as if people are evil for selling them without giving their source code
away.
You're a liar.
Post by DFS
Some of you - I'm thinking Richard Stallman and those who adhere to his
philosophies - are mentally ill.
By thhat remark, to merely prove your *own* insanity, I'm afraid, not
mine. I am very far from mentally ill, as is Mr Stallman. You really
should stop making such ridiculous statements. You seem incapable of
understanding what Free software is all about, so you project your own
foolish prejudices onto us.
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
But 'free beer' is not the whole story by any means, IMO.Though a
relatively small number of 'ordinary' Linux users will ever examine
the source code, and probably even fewer actually alter it, the
freedom to do so *if they so wish, at any time in the future* is
actually very important.
It's less important than having good software.
That very much depends on how you view the matter of freedom.
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
So long as the code is Free as well as Open,
users and developers can't be held hostage.
Held hostage to what? By who? They're always free to write their own
programs.
To write them, yes, but not to share them with others, and have them
remain freely alterable by anyone. You are once again completely
missing the point, and failing to understand the issue.

The moment a program becomes closed source/non-Free, it is lost to
eveeryone in the future except for the privileged few. That may be fine
for you, but what of others?
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
Now, I'll admit my own attitude in this regard is faily relaxed -
Meaning you're an unabashed freeloader.
No, it does *not* mean that, you complete arsehole. It means I
sometimes allow myself to use binary modules as suchlike. If I were
really hardcare I would simply do without. That is in fact what's at
the heart of the Free versus Open debate in the magazine. Maybe you
should read and understand it before you spew lies and nonsense about
me, particularly since you do not know me at all except from this
group, and i have never said or implied I was or am any kind of
freeloader. In fact, deeply resent your insulting implication.
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
but
I still value Freedom that the GPL gives me, and that underlays the
Free Software movement in its most pure form. It's like free speech -
it may not seem all that important, until it's taken from you.
Funny that you have no comment to make here, isn't it?
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
So, what do others here think? Just how important is it that software
is Free, rather than just being open?
To me, not very.
That's because you are not and never have been a real Linux user. You
just use Linux to further your aims of distruption in this group.
Post by DFS
It's nice that some of these programs are released under licenses like the
GPL, and include the source code, but I'm more than willing to pay for
better quality closed-source software.
Fine. That's your right. But don't claim it makes you more virtuous. It
doesn't.
Post by DFS
Along those lines, I don't really
care if KDE is Free and/or open-source, just that they're providing some
competition to Microsoft and other vendors.
This is the *only* part of your post which is genuinely relevant to the
debate. The rest was sneering, insults and lies. *This* statement is
honest, and perfectly valid in the context of the article and its
discussion about the differences in attitude prevailing in the Free
versus Open camps. Read the article and you might understand why all
your other remarks are worthless.
--
Kier
Aragorn
2005-10-25 00:07:57 UTC
Permalink
On Monday 24 October 2005 11:10, Kier stood up and spoke the following
words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/
Post by Kier
(Apologies for posting through Google; my regular new server seems to
have fallen down a black hole; I'm hoping normal service will resume
at some point, but until then...)
The latest Linux Format magazine, issue 73, has plenty of its usual
good articles on a variety of topics. This month it also includes a
thought-provoking article on the nature of open source/Free software.
The article debates the differences between the two, the difficulties
in defining them, and whether or not the two ideas embodied in them
can or should be considered interchangeable.
It suggests that what is 'Open' may not necessarily be 'Free'. You can
have teh source code, and read it, but does it also come with the
genuine freedom to modify and change it, legally and without penalty?
If not, then it isn't really Free as in Freedom.
Indeed. This is the difference between the FSF and the OSI that Richard
Stallman often refers to.

RMS is being pedantic about it, but then again, I believe that is is his
strength. Most likely Microsoft or SCO would have had lawyers crawling
all over his place if he hadn't been.
Post by Kier
"Part of this [....] is the belief that one should use free software
rather than proprietary software, even if the proprietary software is
better."
This is again literally something RMS has said, yes. However, a nice
sidenote is that all Free and Open Source Software is mostly of better
quality than proprietary software, and that lacking features or bugs
will be resolved either way.
Post by Kier
This seems to put the finger on a very important point, which I think
merits discussion.
Trolls love to pretend that we all use Linux only because it's cheap
or free (as in beer). This is certainly a factor in making it popular
with many, and why not? Why should we pay huge sums, and think this is
a virtue?
I for one don't mind paying for software, on two conditions:
- if the quality of the software warrants a price; and
- if the price is reasonable.

In regards to the price being reasonable, I find that most GNU/Linux
distributions offered for sale in a shrinkwrapped box are absolutely
worthy of their retail price. In addition, you also support the
community by buying such a retail pack.

The fact that Free & Open Source Software is usually also free as in
"free beer" is nice for the financially lesser blessed among us, but it
is my experience - and not just mine - that people are actually much
more willing to pay for a GNU/Linux distribution even when there are
freely downloadable distributions, while in the case of something like
Microsoft Windows, people are more inclined to look for an illegal copy
or a cracked version on some secret /warez/ site, rather than to pay
for Windows. And that's not just because of the price of Windows.

While it is true that most proprietary software is extremely expensive -
at least, if it comes from big names like Microsoft, Oracle or Adobe -
it is my impression - and in this a confirmation of my personal
philosophy - that people are more inclined to give voluntarily if they
are being given something voluntarily. In other words: freedom.

Yet it's _not_ _only_ about freedom. It's also about sympathy, about
human values, about "being nice to people". Offer it for free, and
people will pay you for it. Push it onto people - even when they don't
want it - and steal their hard-earned cash out of their pockets, and
people will turn their backs on you and resort to trying to cheat you
back as much as you've cheated them into paying.

*That* is why Microsoft Windows installations are being cracked or their
CD's copied while it should legally be paid for, and why people pay for
GNU/Linux while it is essentially gratis.
Post by Kier
But 'free beer' is not the whole story by any means, IMO.Though a
relatively small number of 'ordinary' Linux users will ever examine
the source code, and probably even fewer actually alter it, the
freedom to do so *if they so wish, at any time in the future* is
actually very important. So long as the code is Free as well as Open,
users and developers can't be held hostage.
Exactly! People who are starting to get into programming and need some
examples to study the code - of which they will use some of the
existing code for their very own and first proverbial /hello_world.c/
will benefit from the software being free - as in "freedom".

And what better examples than the code for an actually working operating
system and all of its components?
Post by Kier
Now, I'll admit my own attitude in this regard is faily relaxed - but
I still value Freedom that the GPL gives me, and that underlays the
Free Software movement in its most pure form. It's like free speech -
it may not seem all that important, until it's taken from you.
... for which a lot of politicians - in their role of sock puppet for
certain large software companies - are lobbying heavily.

Fortunately, should they ever succeed in their plan, then this would
only apply to the United States, not to any other countries - least of
all in Europe.

And given the fact that the US politicians are now being forced to
recognize Europe as an entity with leverage of its own - whereas it was
considered a third world continent by the USA for a long time - I doubt
that they would dare to push such a fascist law onto the American
people.

Europe doesn't quite like taking orders from the man in the White House
anymore - especially not the one who's been occupying it for the last
four years - and even keeps an open eye that the rest of the world
doesn't need to take his orders anymore either now... ;-)

From the business point of view, forbidding Free & Open Source Software
in the United States would also be a very bad thing for the USA, as
there suppressing the offer for an existing need in one's own country
would only lead to those with such need seeking to fulfill it
elsewhere.

Additionally, I don't think the people of the United States would stand
for that, and certainly not if the restrictions imposed were to
particularly benefit Microsoft, of which everyone already knows its
reputation in the class action and anti-trust cases.
Post by Kier
So, what do others here think? Just how important is it that software
is Free, rather than just being open?
I believe it is very important that software is free and that it may be
recycled - according to the terms and conditions of its license, with
my personal preference going out to the GNU General Public License - in
order to build consistent frameworks, in order to allow debugging and
upgrading.

For the last 40 to 50 years, the industry in general has zoomed in on
business itself. Things are not being produced anymore for the sake of
filling a need, but for the sake of numbers and statistics.

If a need doesn't exist, one will be created. The stock market and the
advertising industry play an important role in the manipulation of the
people to serve the industry, whereas the industry should be serving
the people.

The above has led to a stagnation in true technical and scientific
development. Everything is subdued to the laws of economics.
Everything has a price. Technology is being developed to control
economic principles, i.e. Digital Rights Management.

Naturally, both Microsoft and Apple Computer are strongly endorsing DRM,
with companies like Sony playing an ambiguous role. For instance, Sony
is one of the leading manufacturers of CD and DVD writers and CD-R(W)
and DVD+/-R(W) media.

Yet, Sony is also one of the biggest endorsers of DRM and since they
incorporate a record company - even music is no more than a business
these days - they are also the first to complain about the illegally
downloading and distributing of music and/or videos. As a sidenote,
the commission of the artists themselves is quite negligible next to
what the record companies are making.

Enter Free Software... Software being developed for the sake of making
better software, by involving people from all over the world. Not only
can they review the source code, but they can modify it and
redistribute it. Software being improved for the sake of technological
advance, not for the sake of the economy.

Free Software is only one of the areas in which such a change has been
due for long, but as yet it is still only one of the very few where
such a change has indeed already taken place. The rest of the world is
still following the advertising campaigns and the stock market around,
turning liquid assets into some kind of a God; a God that stagnates
progress and feeds off of the less fortunate.

Free Software is as democratic as it can be. It gives you liberty, it
gives you recognition, it's available to all, and it becomes the
property of everyone who gets to use it.

No hidden clauses. No small print allowing anyone to audit your
computers for using their software. No paying big dough for just a box
and a CD while the software remains the property of some large and dark
corporate mogul.

Free Software is Democracy, with a capital "D"...

<stepping down from the beer crate again>

;-)
--
With kind regards,

*Aragorn*
(Registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
DFS
2005-10-25 01:32:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aragorn
On Monday 24 October 2005 11:10, Kier stood up and spoke the following
words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/
Post by Kier
"Part of this [....] is the belief that one should use free software
rather than proprietary software, even if the proprietary software is
better."
This is again literally something RMS has said, yes. However, a nice
sidenote is that all Free and Open Source Software is mostly of better
quality than proprietary software,
In your dreams. You might be able to list a few OSS apps better than
commercial, but 99.9% of closed-source software is better than the OSS
clone.
Post by Aragorn
and that lacking features or bugs
will be resolved either way.
Mostly by waiting for a closed-source product, then copying its features.
Post by Aragorn
Post by Kier
This seems to put the finger on a very important point, which I think
merits discussion.
Trolls love to pretend that we all use Linux only because it's cheap
or free (as in beer). This is certainly a factor in making it popular
with many, and why not? Why should we pay huge sums, and think this
is a virtue?
- if the quality of the software warrants a price; and
- if the price is reasonable.
In regards to the price being reasonable, I find that most GNU/Linux
distributions offered for sale in a shrinkwrapped box are absolutely
worthy of their retail price. In addition, you also support the
community by buying such a retail pack.
Nobody told that to the Linux community.
Post by Aragorn
The fact that Free & Open Source Software is usually also free as in
"free beer" is nice for the financially lesser blessed among us, but
it is my experience - and not just mine - that people are actually
much more willing to pay for a GNU/Linux distribution even when there
are freely downloadable distributions,
Where did you experience that?
Post by Aragorn
while in the case of something
like Microsoft Windows, people are more inclined to look for an
illegal copy or a cracked version on some secret /warez/ site, rather
than to pay for Windows. And that's not just because of the price of
Windows.
While it is true that most proprietary software is extremely
expensive - at least, if it comes from big names like Microsoft,
MS software is inexpensive.
Post by Aragorn
Oracle or Adobe - it is my impression - and in this a confirmation of
my personal philosophy - that people are more inclined to give
voluntarily if they are being given something voluntarily. In other
words: freedom.
Yet it's _not_ _only_ about freedom. It's also about sympathy, about
human values, about "being nice to people". Offer it for free, and
people will pay you for it.
No they won't. Not Linux users, anyway.

Go look at the donations on the KDE website, or on any open source project .
Post by Aragorn
Push it onto people - even when they
don't want it - and steal their hard-earned cash out of their
pockets, and people will turn their backs on you and resort to trying
to cheat you back as much as you've cheated them into paying.
*That* is why Microsoft Windows installations are being cracked or
their CD's copied while it should legally be paid for, and why people
pay for GNU/Linux while it is essentially gratis.
You're out of your mind. Windows is not pushed onto anyone, anywhere. And
people do not pay for Linux when they can get it for free.
Post by Aragorn
Post by Kier
But 'free beer' is not the whole story by any means, IMO.Though a
relatively small number of 'ordinary' Linux users will ever examine
the source code, and probably even fewer actually alter it, the
freedom to do so *if they so wish, at any time in the future* is
actually very important. So long as the code is Free as well as Open,
users and developers can't be held hostage.
Exactly! People who are starting to get into programming and need
some examples to study the code - of which they will use some of the
existing code for their very own and first proverbial /hello_world.c/
will benefit from the software being free - as in "freedom".
And what better examples than the code for an actually working
operating system and all of its components?
I'll agree with you here. For instance, I was wondering why Konqueror was
so slow to list big folders, so I dove into the source code and I think the
answer can be found at
http://lxr.kde.org/source/kdebase/konqueror/listview/konq_listview.cc
(around line 256 or 640.)
Post by Aragorn
The above has led to a stagnation in true technical and scientific
development. Everything is subdued to the laws of economics.
Everything has a price. Technology is being developed to control
economic principles, i.e. Digital Rights Management.
Naturally, both Microsoft and Apple Computer are strongly endorsing
DRM, with companies like Sony playing an ambiguous role. For
instance, Sony is one of the leading manufacturers of CD and DVD
writers and CD-R(W) and DVD+/-R(W) media.
Enter Free Software... Software being developed for the sake of
making better software, by involving people from all over the world.
Not only can they review the source code, but they can modify it and
redistribute it. Software being improved for the sake of
technological advance, not for the sake of the economy.
Spare us the slimy accusations that MS programmers go to work only for the
money. They're motivated by pride in the quality of their work, just as a
small percent of open source coders are (I say a small percent, because,
after seeing some of the extremely amateurish open source programs released,
it seems like many open source developers really don't care).
Post by Aragorn
Free Software is only one of the areas in which such a change has been
due for long, but as yet it is still only one of the very few where
such a change has indeed already taken place. The rest of the world
is still following the advertising campaigns and the stock market
around, turning liquid assets into some kind of a God; a God that
stagnates progress and feeds off of the less fortunate.
Do you blab this stuff just to listen to yourself talk?
Post by Aragorn
Free Software is as democratic as it can be. It gives you liberty, it
gives you recognition, it's available to all, and it becomes the
property of everyone who gets to use it.
No hidden clauses. No small print allowing anyone to audit your
computers for using their software. No paying big dough for just a
box and a CD while the software remains the property of some large
and dark corporate mogul.
Free Software is Democracy, with a capital "D"...
<stepping down from the beer crate again>
It's about time. I thought I was gonna puke.
Post by Aragorn
;-)
Rick
2005-10-25 02:28:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
On Monday 24 October 2005 11:10, Kier stood up and spoke the following
words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/
Post by Kier
"Part of this [....] is the belief that one should use free software
rather than proprietary software, even if the proprietary software is
better."
This is again literally something RMS has said, yes. However, a nice
sidenote is that all Free and Open Source Software is mostly of better
quality than proprietary software,
In your dreams. You might be able to list a few OSS apps better than
commercial, but 99.9% of closed-source software is better than the OSS
clone.
Post by Aragorn
and that lacking features or bugs will be resolved either way.
Mostly by waiting for a closed-source product, then copying its features.
As oppose to m$'s buying features, or ....
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Post by Kier
This seems to put the finger on a very important point, which I think
merits discussion.
Trolls love to pretend that we all use Linux only because it's cheap
or free (as in beer). This is certainly a factor in making it popular
with many, and why not? Why should we pay huge sums, and think this
is a virtue?
- if the quality of the software warrants a price; and
- if the price is reasonable.
In regards to the price being reasonable, I find that most GNU/Linux
distributions offered for sale in a shrinkwrapped box are absolutely
worthy of their retail price. In addition, you also support the
community by buying such a retail pack.
Nobody told that to the Linux community.
Bullshit. A bunch of us pay for our distros.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
The fact that Free & Open Source Software is usually also free as in
"free beer" is nice for the financially lesser blessed among us, but
it is my experience - and not just mine - that people are actually
much more willing to pay for a GNU/Linux distribution even when there
are freely downloadable distributions,
Where did you experience that?
I have paid for Mandrake 6, 7, 8, 8.2, RH 9, Suse 8.2 and Suse 9.3. I
didn't pay for Fedora Core 1, but then I don' think you can buy it.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
while in the case of something
like Microsoft Windows, people are more inclined to look for an
illegal copy or a cracked version on some secret /warez/ site, rather
than to pay for Windows. And that's not just because of the price of
Windows.
While it is true that most proprietary software is extremely
expensive - at least, if it comes from big names like Microsoft,
MS software is inexpensive.
AHAH HAhaHHAHA hhahHA HAHah AHAHA hahHAh...

Microsoft Office Standard Professional $329

MapPoint $299, XP Pro --Upgrade-- $199, Visual Studio .Net --Upgrade--
$499, FrontPage $199, Word $230,

... yeah, real cheap...
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Oracle or Adobe - it is my impression - and in this a confirmation of
my personal philosophy - that people are more inclined to give
voluntarily if they are being given something voluntarily. In other
words: freedom.
Yet it's _not_ _only_ about freedom. It's also about sympathy, about
human values, about "being nice to people". Offer it for free, and
people will pay you for it.
No they won't. Not Linux users, anyway.
Go look at the donations on the KDE website, or on any open source project .
Red HAt seems to get paid. As does Novel and Mandriva.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Push it onto people - even when they
don't want it - and steal their hard-earned cash out of their
pockets, and people will turn their backs on you and resort to trying
to cheat you back as much as you've cheated them into paying.
*That* is why Microsoft Windows installations are being cracked or
their CD's copied while it should legally be paid for, and why people
pay for GNU/Linux while it is essentially gratis.
You're out of your mind. Windows is not pushed onto anyone, anywhere.
yes, it is.
Post by DFS
And people do not pay for Linux when they can get it for free.
Red Hat disagrees, as does Novel and Mandriva.

(snip)
--
Rick
Aragorn
2005-10-25 03:49:47 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday 25 October 2005 04:28, Rick stood up and spoke the following
words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/
Eventhough he's in my /killfile,/ I see myself obliged to reply to this
troll, so I'm going to make use of /Rick's/ reply...
Post by Rick
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
On Monday 24 October 2005 11:10, Kier stood up and spoke the
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/
Post by Kier
"Part of this [....] is the belief that one should use free
software rather than proprietary software, even if the proprietary
software is better."
This is again literally something RMS has said, yes. However, a
nice sidenote is that all Free and Open Source Software is mostly of
better quality than proprietary software,
In your dreams. You might be able to list a few OSS apps better than
commercial, but 99.9% of closed-source software is better than the
OSS clone.
I'd say that is rather the opposite, considering that there are no
Windows alternatives for a lot of GNU/Linux software.

GNU/Linux as a UNIX-style operating system is the preferred platform for
computer needs far more elaborate than those on Windows. As a result,
you will not find such special software for Windows, unless it is FOSS
and/or runs inside an emulator like Cygwin.

I'm going to give you one little example. MSN has killed off most of
the interest people today still have in IRC, but I happen to be running
an IRC network with a few friends.

In Windows, the most preferred IRC client is a shareware program named
/mIRC,/ written by Khalid Mardam-Bey. /mIRC/ is known to crash
regularly and has already been found to feature tons of security
exploits, ranging from allowing other users to use a DCC string to
crash the unpatched /mIRC/ versions down to creating zombie bots that
can take over an IRC network through DDoS or simply dwell on an IRC
network awaiting the instructions from their "master", so they can DDoS
any other domain.

My preferred IRC client is /KVIrc/ (http://www.kvirc.net). It is a very
user-friendly GUI IRC client based upon the Qt libraries and with
support for KDE, eventhough it can be used without KDE, i.e. the static
version.

/KVIrc/ is just as user-friendly as /mIRC/ or even more, is visually far
more appealing - it has transparancy, for one - is rock-solid stable
and allows for the more experienced IRC user to script it up and
customize it to such an extent that it can be used as a complete bot.

I know this all too well because I've done that. It's scripting
language is called /KVI++/ and is a blend of the /mIRC/ scripting
language, C/C++ and /bash/ script.

/KVIrc/ is mainly aimed at UNIX-style operating systems and integrates
seamlessly with the chosen KDE style if applicable, but it also exists
for Windows. I've actually been in contact with the chief developer -
a man called Szymon Stefanek - and he is endorsing our little network.
In return, we are promoting /KVIrc./

Now, the curious thing about it is that the version I'm running is a CVS
version of /KVIrc/ /3.0.0,/ a CVS version which is a snapshot in
between the beta 2 and beta 3 releases. The official stable release in
the meantime is 3.2.0, but - and here it comes - I have been using this
CVS version for over a year now, connected to IRC 24/7, and yet this
CVS snapshot _has_ _yet_ _to_ _crash_ _on_ _me!_

No crashes, no security flaws, no exploits. A CVS snapshot. Free
Software - I believe it's GPL-compliant.

The bottom line is that - to my experience - Free & Open Source Software
is *for* *most* *part* of a significantly higher quality than
proprietary, closed source applications.

You're in my /killfile,/ but I *dare* you to find _*10*_ proprietary
applications that are _better_ than their FOSS alternatives, and you
had better not come up with Photoshop, because everything Photoshop
does, the Gimp can do just as well.
Post by Rick
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
and that lacking features or bugs will be resolved either way.
Mostly by waiting for a closed-source product, then copying its features.
I'm afraid you're too much into Windows-thinking. For you, only Windows
exists, and nothing else. Microcomputers only exist on home and office
desktops, and that's it. Well I'm sorry, but you're definitely
clueless.

Any serious computing is always done on UNIX-style machines, and that
also goes for "the desktop", but it's a "desktop" *you* have probably
never heard of: the professional UNIX workstation.

It is a historic fact that nearly everything existing in Windows today
was copied from UNIX and UNIX-likes. UNIX had support for three
mousebuttons long before Windows did. UNIX had support for virtual
desktops long before Wind... Oh wait, Windows doesn't _have_ any
virtual desktops. Tabbed browsing? Konqueror and Mozilla had it long
before IE.

The first Windows GUI was based upon Motif for its looks, and shared its
layout with OS/2's Presentation Manager.
Post by Rick
As oppose to m$'s buying features, or ....
... or stealing them... ;-)
Post by Rick
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Post by Kier
This seems to put the finger on a very important point, which I
think merits discussion.
Trolls love to pretend that we all use Linux only because it's
cheap or free (as in beer). This is certainly a factor in making it
popular with many, and why not? Why should we pay huge sums, and
think this is a virtue?
- if the quality of the software warrants a price; and
- if the price is reasonable.
In regards to the price being reasonable, I find that most GNU/Linux
distributions offered for sale in a shrinkwrapped box are absolutely
worthy of their retail price. In addition, you also support the
community by buying such a retail pack.
Nobody told that to the Linux community.
The GNU/Linux community is the community of people who *use* GNU/Linux,
and who have therefore bothered to look at the website for the
distribution they are interested in. Those websites do mention this
and the commercial ones do advertise their boxed sets.
Post by Rick
Bullshit. A bunch of us pay for our distros.
Exactly! And most of the people I know who use GNU/Linux have purchased
it. Some are even on a dial-up, and leeching some 4 to 7 CD's is
simply too much to ask of these people. Yet, they are totally okay
with spending that money on the purchase of a shrink-wrapped boxed set.

The main thing behind it is that people *respect* GNU/Linux and FOSS
developers, and that they are showing their gratitude by supporting
those developers.

Microsoft on the other hand can't count on too much sympathy anymore
from the larger computer-using masses - except for the resident trolls,
of course - and they've got themselves to blame for that through their
unethical practices and their totally outrageous pricing.
Post by Rick
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
The fact that Free & Open Source Software is usually also free as in
"free beer" is nice for the financially lesser blessed among us, but
it is my experience - and not just mine - that people are actually
much more willing to pay for a GNU/Linux distribution even when
there are freely downloadable distributions,
Where did you experience that?
With just about every GNU/Linux user I know in person, excluding the
15-year olds who don't have any allowance or who prefer to waste that
on drugs and booze. Yeah, I've seen those too...

I even know teenagers who went out and bought a Mandriva PowerPack, a
RedHat Enterprise or a SuSE Professional. They're typically
dual-booters because they don't want to give up on their Windows games,
but at least they go out and buy such a boxed set - eventhough they're
on broadband and could easily download a distro - while their Windows
software is mostly copied or cracked.
Post by Rick
I have paid for Mandrake 6, 7, 8, 8.2, RH 9, Suse 8.2 and Suse 9.3. I
didn't pay for Fedora Core 1, but then I don' think you can buy it.
Let's see...:
- Linux-Mandrake 6.0 PowerPack Edition
- Linux-Mandrake 7.0 PowerPack Edition
- Linux-Mandrake 7.2 Download Edition (the only one I've downloaded)
- Mandrake Linux 8.1 Standard Edition (PowerPacks were not available)
- Mandrake Linux 8.2 PowerPack Edition (still running on my laptop)
- Mandrake Linux 9.0 PowerPack Edition (a gift for someone)
- Mandrake Linux 9.0 ProSuite Edition (used on our organization's
server)
- Mandrake Linux 9.2 PowerPack DVD (currently on this machine)
- "The Definitive Guide to Mandrake Linux 9.2" book, purchased from
Mandriva's on-line store.
- Mandrake Linux 10.0 PowerPack DVD (not even installed yet)
- Gentoo 2005.1 : Gentoo is installed over the Internet as it's compiled
from sources on your own machine. I haven't gotten around to
installing it yet, and I intend to make a financial contribution to
them later.
Post by Rick
Post by DFS
MS software is inexpensive.
AHAH HAhaHHAHA hhahHA HAHah AHAHA hahHAh...
Ditto... ;-))
Post by Rick
Microsoft Office Standard Professional $329
MapPoint $299, XP Pro --Upgrade-- $199, Visual Studio .Net --Upgrade--
$499, FrontPage $199, Word $230,
... yeah, real cheap...
Maybe for a guy driving a Rolls Royce... ;-)
Post by Rick
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Yet it's _not_ _only_ about freedom. It's also about sympathy,
about human values, about "being nice to people". Offer it for
free, and people will pay you for it.
No they won't. Not Linux users, anyway.
That judgment is as flawed as your racist beliefs. My experience
contradicts you.
Post by Rick
Post by DFS
Go look at the donations on the KDE website, or on any open source project .
Red HAt seems to get paid. As does Novel and Mandriva.
Exactly. So do Gentoo, Slackware and Debian, and many, many more.
Post by Rick
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Push it onto people - even when they don't want it - and steal their
hard-earned cash out of their pockets, and people will turn their
backs on you and resort to trying to cheat you back as much as
you've cheated them into paying.
*That* is why Microsoft Windows installations are being cracked or
their CD's copied while it should legally be paid for, and why
people pay for GNU/Linux while it is essentially gratis.
You're out of your mind.
Coming from a man who believes the Caucasian race to be supreme over all
others, I will gladly wave that statement away without even blinking an
eye.
Post by Rick
Post by DFS
Windows is not pushed onto anyone, anywhere.
yes, it is.
Of course it is. It's damn nearly impossible to purchase a computer
_without_ Windows and even *if* you try, then you will _still_ need to
pay for the Windows license that you don't want.
Post by Rick
Post by DFS
And people do not pay for Linux when they can get it for free.
Maybe that is what you think because that is what *you* would do if you
were in their place. *We* obviously have a more respectful mindset.
Post by Rick
Red Hat disagrees, as does Novel and Mandriva.
(snip)
There are even people who buy Gentoo, (K)Ubuntu or Debian CD's when they
could easily download them.
--
With kind regards,

*Aragorn*
(Registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
DFS
2005-10-25 07:27:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aragorn
Eventhough he's in my /killfile,/ I see myself obliged to reply to
this troll, so I'm going to make use of /Rick's/ reply...
I'm not a troll.
Post by Aragorn
Post by Rick
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
This is again literally something RMS has said, yes. However, a
nice sidenote is that all Free and Open Source Software is mostly
of better quality than proprietary software,
In your dreams. You might be able to list a few OSS apps better
than commercial, but 99.9% of closed-source software is better than
the OSS clone.
I'd say that is rather the opposite, considering that there are no
Windows alternatives for a lot of GNU/Linux software.
I think you're lying. I think you can't find a single piece of GNU/Linux
software that doesn't have a Windows counterpart. (note: counterpart
doesn't mean feature-for-feature match)
Post by Aragorn
GNU/Linux as a UNIX-style operating system is the preferred platform
for computer needs far more elaborate than those on Windows.
Like routing viruses all around the world via sendmail?
Post by Aragorn
As a
result, you will not find such special software for Windows, unless
it is FOSS and/or runs inside an emulator like Cygwin.
I'm going to give you one little example.
One bad, little example that does absolutely nothing to support your claim.

http://www.ircreviews.org/clients/
48 IRC clients for Windows
71 IRC clients for *nix

But when you delve in, you see nearly half the Unix clients are... get
ready... command-line or Emacs clients...LOL! Or they're old and defunct.
And it's not at all clear they're even FOSS.

And you may have missed this potential security issue with KVirc
http://www.kvirc.de/docu/doc_shared_files.html


<snip 8 paragraphs on IRC clients - ridiculous - you need an editor before
you hit Send>
Post by Aragorn
The bottom line is that - to my experience - Free & Open Source
Software is *for* *most* *part* of a significantly higher quality than
proprietary, closed source applications.
If you've had that experience you haven't supported it here, what with
showing me IRC clients, a category where I can find several dozen examples
for Windows.
Post by Aragorn
You're in my /killfile,/ but I *dare* you to find _*10*_ proprietary
applications that are _better_ than their FOSS alternatives,
Just 10?
Post by Aragorn
and you had better not come up with Photoshop, because everything
Photoshop does, the Gimp can do just as well.
No it can't.

#1. Adobe Photoshop
#2. Microsoft Access
#3. Microsoft Excel
#4. Microsoft PowerPoint
#5. Microsoft Visio
#6. Microsoft Visual Basic
#7. Microsoft .NET
#8. Microsoft Publisher
#9. Microsoft Project
#10. Microsoft Money
(and about 10 other MS products)
#11. ACT! contact mgmt http://www.act.com/
#12. Hummingbird content and document mgmt http://www.hummingbird.com/
#13. Hyperion and Brio business intelligence and analytics software
http://www.hyperion.com/products/business_intelligence/analysis/essbase_analytics.cfm
#14. Oracle dbms
#15. IBM DB2 dbms
#16. Opera web browser
#17. Lotus Domino/Notes
...
...


Too many to list. I could literally go on for page after page. I imagine
there are hundreds or thousands of software apps whose Windows version is
far superior to the FOSS version, if there even is a FOSS version.

The profit motive is a far, far stronger motivator than "helping the
community" or creating 'free software'.
Post by Aragorn
Post by Rick
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
and that lacking features or bugs will be resolved either way.
Mostly by waiting for a closed-source product, then copying its features.
I'm afraid you're too much into Windows-thinking. For you, only
Windows exists, and nothing else. Microcomputers only exist on home
and office desktops, and that's it. Well I'm sorry, but you're
definitely clueless.
You are.
Post by Aragorn
Any serious computing is always done on UNIX-style machines, and that
also goes for "the desktop", but it's a "desktop" *you* have probably
never heard of: the professional UNIX workstation.
hee hee... I hear an oxymoron in there.
Post by Aragorn
It is a historic fact that nearly everything existing in Windows today
was copied from UNIX and UNIX-likes. UNIX had support for three
mousebuttons long before Windows did. UNIX had support for virtual
desktops long before Wind... Oh wait, Windows doesn't _have_ any
virtual desktops. Tabbed browsing? Konqueror and Mozilla had it long
before IE.
Just because a few features existed first on other platforms doesn't mean
they're better today than the Windows version.
Post by Aragorn
The first Windows GUI was based upon Motif for its looks,
Says you.
Post by Aragorn
and shared its layout with OS/2's Presentation Manager.
Interesting. Do you think that's because both were developed by MS?
Post by Aragorn
Post by Rick
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
In regards to the price being reasonable, I find that most
GNU/Linux distributions offered for sale in a shrinkwrapped box
are absolutely worthy of their retail price. In addition, you
also support the community by buying such a retail pack.
Nobody told that to the Linux community.
The GNU/Linux community is the community of people who *use*
GNU/Linux, and who have therefore bothered to look at the website for
the distribution they are interested in. Those websites do mention
this and the commercial ones do advertise their boxed sets.
Yes. Too bad they hardly sell any of them.
Post by Aragorn
Post by Rick
Bullshit. A bunch of us pay for our distros.
Exactly! And most of the people I know who use GNU/Linux have
purchased it. Some are even on a dial-up, and leeching some 4 to 7
CD's is simply too much to ask of these people. Yet, they are
totally okay with spending that money on the purchase of a
shrink-wrapped boxed set.
The main thing behind it is that people *respect* GNU/Linux and FOSS
developers, and that they are showing their gratitude by supporting
those developers.
I'm sorry you hold those misconceptions. The reality is different:

"Almost 40 percent of developers say they get their Linux by downloading it
over the Internet."

http://linux.sys-con.com/read/32648.htm?CFID=958956&CFTOKEN=14B8B91F-153D-5DB3-C24413B46353BD39
Post by Aragorn
Microsoft on the other hand can't count on too much sympathy anymore
from the larger computer-using masses - except for the resident
trolls, of course - and they've got themselves to blame for that
through their unethical practices and their totally outrageous
pricing.
Their prices are low to fair. Full-retail for XP Pro at $299 is a little
high, but not nearly outrageous.

The most important thing to remember, which cola bozos can't seem to get
through their thick skulls, is you don't have to buy MS products. They can
ask what they want.

Ferrari charges a lot for their autos; I don't have to buy them and I don't
worry about it or complain.
Post by Aragorn
Post by Rick
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
The fact that Free & Open Source Software is usually also free as
in "free beer" is nice for the financially lesser blessed among
us, but it is my experience - and not just mine - that people are
actually much more willing to pay for a GNU/Linux distribution
even when there are freely downloadable distributions,
Where did you experience that?
With just about every GNU/Linux user I know in person,
All 3 of them? It's a fact that most Linux users don't pay for their
distro, or their apps.
Post by Aragorn
excluding the
15-year olds who don't have any allowance or who prefer to waste that
on drugs and booze. Yeah, I've seen those too...
I even know teenagers who went out and bought a Mandriva PowerPack, a
RedHat Enterprise or a SuSE Professional. They're typically
dual-booters because they don't want to give up on their Windows
games, but at least they go out and buy such a boxed set - eventhough
they're on broadband and could easily download a distro - while their
Windows software is mostly copied or cracked.
What does that have to do with anything?
Post by Aragorn
Post by Rick
Post by DFS
MS software is inexpensive.
Microsoft Office Standard Professional $329
MapPoint $299, XP Pro --Upgrade-- $199, Visual Studio .Net
--Upgrade-- $499, FrontPage $199, Word $230,
... yeah, real cheap...
Maybe for a guy driving a Rolls Royce... ;-)
Everything you listed can be found for 50% to 70% of those amounts
(naturally you list full retail).

I don't understand you cola nuts. Many of you seem intelligent enough to
earn a good living, but over and over again I hear how expensive you think
MS software is. It's cheap compared to much of the commercial software out
there.
Post by Aragorn
Post by Rick
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Yet it's _not_ _only_ about freedom. It's also about sympathy,
about human values, about "being nice to people". Offer it for
free, and people will pay you for it.
No they won't. Not Linux users, anyway.
That judgment is as flawed as your racist beliefs. My experience
contradicts you.
Then you haven't grown up in a black city like Atlanta and seen how they
behave, and you extrapolate 3 Linux purchasers to the entire 'community'.

The evidence in both cases is against you.
Post by Aragorn
Post by Rick
Post by DFS
Go look at the donations on the KDE website, or on any open source project .
Red HAt seems to get paid. As does Novel and Mandriva.
Exactly. So do Gentoo, Slackware and Debian, and many, many more.
This is too easy:

Red Hat and Novell get paid by businesses. Red Hat is doing OK. Novell not
so well.

Mandriva recently emerged from bankruptcy.

The Gentoo founder had to take a job with Microsoft because the cheap-ass
Linux community wouldn't pay for their Gentoo software.

Slackware has 0 (or maybe 1) full-time employees.
http://www.slackware.com/about/ The two they had now work for Red Hat and
someone else. The Slackware founder got very sick last year and solicited
for public donations to help pay his medical bills.

And worst of all:
"...Debian has expenses that were, for a long time, paid for out of the
pockets of a few of the developers."... "Given the small budget Debian
runs on it is not possible, at this time, for Debian to purchase and
maintain it's own computers and network connections. We therefore rely on
the donation of equipment and services from companies and universities to
keep Debian connected to the world."

http://www.debian.org/donations.en-gb.html#money_donations

As you really should know by now, not much money revolves around Linux. As
much as you wish it so, the fact is Linux users don't pay for all their
distros.
Post by Aragorn
Post by Rick
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Push it onto people - even when they don't want it - and steal
their hard-earned cash out of their pockets, and people will turn
their backs on you and resort to trying to cheat you back as much
as you've cheated them into paying.
*That* is why Microsoft Windows installations are being cracked or
their CD's copied while it should legally be paid for, and why
people pay for GNU/Linux while it is essentially gratis.
You're out of your mind.
Coming from a man who believes the Caucasian race to be supreme over
all others,
No doubt about it, though Asians (Orientals) are smart and industrious as
well.
Post by Aragorn
I will gladly wave that statement away without even blinking an eye.
As you wish. You're still wrong about people paying for Linux software.
Post by Aragorn
Post by Rick
Post by DFS
Windows is not pushed onto anyone, anywhere.
yes, it is.
Of course it is. It's damn nearly impossible to purchase a computer
_without_ Windows and even *if* you try, then you will _still_ need to
pay for the Windows license that you don't want.
It's exceedingly easy to buy a computer without Windows. Or to build one.
Post by Aragorn
Post by Rick
Post by DFS
And people do not pay for Linux when they can get it for free.
Maybe that is what you think because that is what *you* would do if
you were in their place. *We* obviously have a more respectful
mindset.
You have only a stubborn, uninformed mindset that fails to register the
evidence proving you wrong.
Post by Aragorn
Post by Rick
Red Hat disagrees, as does Novel and Mandriva.
(snip)
There are even people who buy Gentoo, (K)Ubuntu or Debian CD's when
they could easily download them.
Like me. I recently bought Debian 3.1, Fedora 4, and Knoppix 4.0 DVD from
FrozenTech, when I could have downloaded them. $8.45 for 4 DVDs.

In the past I bought Red Hat 4.2, TurboLinux, and Suse 7.1 Pro. I really
don't use Linux much - just install and see what's good and bad - but I'm
glad it's growing and creating competition for MS. I do plan on making
contributions to the OSDL, KDE, and to some open source apps I like. I
really don't care much whether the code is open-source, and I disagree with
a lot of the philosophies and attitudes, but MS badly needs competition in
OSes.
amosf
2005-10-25 08:31:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Eventhough he's in my /killfile,/ I see myself obliged to reply to
this troll, so I'm going to make use of /Rick's/ reply...
I'm not a troll.
The first best sign of a troll :)
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
GNU/Linux as a UNIX-style operating system is the preferred platform
for computer needs far more elaborate than those on Windows.
Like routing viruses all around the world via sendmail?
This is a feature, not a fault. Why should *nix protect the poor MS machines
anyway?
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
and you had better not come up with Photoshop, because everything
Photoshop does, the Gimp can do just as well.
No it can't.
#1. Adobe Photoshop
#2. Microsoft Access
#3. Microsoft Excel
#4. Microsoft PowerPoint
#5. Microsoft Visio
#6. Microsoft Visual Basic
#7. Microsoft .NET
#8. Microsoft Publisher
#9. Microsoft Project
#10. Microsoft Money
(and about 10 other MS products)
#11. ACT! contact mgmt http://www.act.com/
#12. Hummingbird content and document mgmt http://www.hummingbird.com/
#13. Hyperion and Brio business intelligence and analytics software
http://www.hyperion.com/products/business_intelligence/analysis/essbase_analytics.cfm
Post by DFS
#14. Oracle dbms
#15. IBM DB2 dbms
#16. Opera web browser
#17. Lotus Domino/Notes
Gimp and OOo are better for me. Opera is okay, but firefox has a margin
there.
Post by DFS
Too many to list. I could literally go on for page after page. I imagine
there are hundreds or thousands of software apps whose Windows version is
far superior to the FOSS version, if there even is a FOSS version.
The profit motive is a far, far stronger motivator than "helping the
community" or creating 'free software'.
So go make some money and give it to bill. Why were you here again?
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
It is a historic fact that nearly everything existing in Windows today
was copied from UNIX and UNIX-likes. UNIX had support for three
mousebuttons long before Windows did. UNIX had support for virtual
desktops long before Wind... Oh wait, Windows doesn't _have_ any
virtual desktops. Tabbed browsing? Konqueror and Mozilla had it long
before IE.
Just because a few features existed first on other platforms doesn't mean
they're better today than the Windows version.
Virtual desktops on linux are still better than windows. Indeed you need
third party in windows to get any sort of usefulness.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
The first Windows GUI was based upon Motif for its looks,
Says you.
It did suck a bit. It was a clone of the Mac, but really looked more like a
poor version of fvwm.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
and shared its layout with OS/2's Presentation Manager.
Interesting. Do you think that's because both were developed by MS?
WPS was a better effort. The MS team (if any) that worked on that one was
better. Pity they were absorbed into the machine somewhere.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Microsoft on the other hand can't count on too much sympathy anymore
from the larger computer-using masses - except for the resident
trolls, of course - and they've got themselves to blame for that
through their unethical practices and their totally outrageous
pricing.
Their prices are low to fair. Full-retail for XP Pro at $299 is a little
high, but not nearly outrageous.
It's only an OS. That's all. It doesn't really even do anything at all on
it's own. Not real work. It's not like you install XP in the office and
then use the PC, is it? $299 (more in Oz) is a lot for something that
doesn't actually do anything useful. You can't even really browse the
internet with it coz you need protection software first...
Post by DFS
The most important thing to remember, which cola bozos can't seem to get
through their thick skulls, is you don't have to buy MS products. They
can ask what they want.
Ferrari charges a lot for their autos; I don't have to buy them and I
don't worry about it or complain.
You go to buy a car. You say, "I want a car."

"Sure, we have the best Ferrari in town and our prices..."

"I don't want a Ferrari. I want a Ford."

"A what?"
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
With just about every GNU/Linux user I know in person,
All 3 of them? It's a fact that most Linux users don't pay for their
distro, or their apps.
I know many more windows users than linux users. Some of these people are
very well off. I don't know of any that actually paid for office. They all
stole it. They often offer me a copy of stolen office. They all got they
windows with the PC, of course, but all the other software tends to be
stolen or free download. They steal software even when they drive a BMW.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Post by Rick
Microsoft Office Standard Professional $329
MapPoint $299, XP Pro --Upgrade-- $199, Visual Studio .Net
--Upgrade-- $499, FrontPage $199, Word $230,
... yeah, real cheap...
Maybe for a guy driving a Rolls Royce... ;-)
Everything you listed can be found for 50% to 70% of those amounts
(naturally you list full retail).
Well duh. You want into the shop and that's what the price is. Some dicks
actually pay that. The rest steal it.
Post by DFS
I don't understand you cola nuts. Many of you seem intelligent enough to
earn a good living, but over and over again I hear how expensive you think
MS software is. It's cheap compared to much of the commercial software
out there.
MS had some marketting genius. They sold an OS. Hard to believe. They could
sell ice to polar bears.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
That judgment is as flawed as your racist beliefs. My experience
contradicts you.
Then you haven't grown up in a black city like Atlanta and seen how they
behave, and you extrapolate 3 Linux purchasers to the entire 'community'.
Of course duty free shopping is an angel. We can tell that by his
attitude :)

So now prove that he only knows 3 linux buyers. Indeed, prove that you don't
actually live in a trailer park and spend your time watch jerry...
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Coming from a man who believes the Caucasian race to be supreme over
all others,
No doubt about it, though Asians (Orientals) are smart and industrious as
well.
Yep. You better be nice to them as they are likely to be signing your
paycheck soon. If you have a job.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
I will gladly wave that statement away without even blinking an eye.
As you wish. You're still wrong about people paying for Linux software.
Some people pay for it. Some don't. It's the same with MS software. Or any
software. You've heard of software piracy, right?
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Of course it is. It's damn nearly impossible to purchase a computer
_without_ Windows and even *if* you try, then you will _still_ need to
pay for the Windows license that you don't want.
It's exceedingly easy to buy a computer without Windows. Or to build one.
Not really. It's easier than it used to be, but still not common. There
appears to be a push to make it illegal here.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
There are even people who buy Gentoo, (K)Ubuntu or Debian CD's when
they could easily download them.
Like me. I recently bought Debian 3.1, Fedora 4, and Knoppix 4.0 DVD from
FrozenTech, when I could have downloaded them. $8.45 for 4 DVDs.
Well, that's not really buying the OS.
Post by DFS
In the past I bought Red Hat 4.2, TurboLinux, and Suse 7.1 Pro. I really
don't use Linux much - just install and see what's good and bad - but I'm
glad it's growing and creating competition for MS. I do plan on making
contributions to the OSDL, KDE, and to some open source apps I like. I
really don't care much whether the code is open-source, and I disagree
with a lot of the philosophies and attitudes, but MS badly needs
competition in OSes.
Well duh. What do you think MS would be doing now if it didn't have linux at
it's heels. People would stil be stuck with another version of 9x
--
-
I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
-
William Poaster
2005-10-25 09:27:50 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:31:14 +0000, a broadcast message from the amosf
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Eventhough he's in my /killfile,/ I see myself obliged to reply to this
troll, so I'm going to make use of /Rick's/ reply...
I'm not a troll.
BINGO! *Just* what I told Aragorn!
Post by amosf
The first best sign of a troll :)
It's like spammer saying "I don't spam". ;-)

<snip>
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
It's exceedingly easy to buy a computer without Windows. Or to build one.
Not really. It's easier than it used to be, but still not common. There
appears to be a push to make it illegal here.
M$ even *tried* to stop "bare bones" computers being sold, on the grounds
of *piracy* but it was also a disincentive for corporate purchasers who
wanted to ghost an image of Linux onto a pre-specced PC.
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
There are even people who buy Gentoo, (K)Ubuntu or Debian CD's when
they could easily download them.
Like me. I recently bought Debian 3.1, Fedora 4, and Knoppix 4.0 DVD
from FrozenTech, when I could have downloaded them. $8.45 for 4 DVDs.
Well, that's not really buying the OS.
Post by DFS
In the past I bought Red Hat 4.2, TurboLinux, and Suse 7.1 Pro. I
really don't use Linux much - just install and see what's good and bad -
but I'm glad it's growing and creating competition for MS. I do plan on
making contributions to the OSDL, KDE, and to some open source apps I
like. I really don't care much whether the code is open-source, and I
disagree with a lot of the philosophies and attitudes, but MS badly
needs competition in OSes.
Well duh. What do you think MS would be doing now if it didn't have linux
at it's heels. People would stil be stuck with another version of 9x
--
Lie of the 70's = The check is in the mail
Lie of the 80's = Trickle down economics
Lie of the 90's = I have not had sex with that woman/man/computer/etc.
Lie of the 00's = Monopoly promotes innovation
-- ackthpt (2001-05-30) --
Aragorn
2005-10-26 05:55:57 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday 25 October 2005 10:31, amosf stood up and spoke the following
words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/
Which again I feel I have to refute. As with the previous reply from
me, I'm going to make use of /atmosf's/ reply to straighten this out...
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Eventhough he's in my /killfile,/ I see myself obliged to reply to
this troll, so I'm going to make use of /Rick's/ reply...
I'm not a troll.
The first best sign of a troll :)
If he's not a troll, then let's call him a biased and clueless Microsoft
apologist and GNU/Linux naysayer from now on. ;-)
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
GNU/Linux as a UNIX-style operating system is the preferred platform
for computer needs far more elaborate than those on Windows.
Like routing viruses all around the world via sendmail?
Those are Microsoft Windows viruses, propagated by Microsoft Windows
e-mail clients and other Internet-connected aspects of Windows, or even
by hidden SMTP or FTP servers in your Windows machine.

So the problem is not GNU/Linux's. For the record, I would like to add
that my domain and my ISP are both using GNU/Linux mailservers which
scan all incoming and outgoing e-mail for viruses.

Windows creates the virus problem, and GNU/Linux helps eradicate it.
Post by amosf
This is a feature, not a fault. Why should *nix protect the poor MS
machines anyway?
Well it does. Microsoft machines cannot protect themselves, let alone
anything else.
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
and you had better not come up with Photoshop, because everything
Photoshop does, the Gimp can do just as well.
No it can't.
#1. Adobe Photoshop
The Gimp is better. It's a professional application, which you would
not have heard of before it appeared as a standard feature application
in GNU/Linux. The Gimp was already being used on other UNIX systems by
professionals long before Photoshop was even available for Windows.
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
#2. Microsoft Access
Access is a toy, compared to genuine relational databases.
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
#3. Microsoft Excel
Gnumeric, OpenOffice Calc and KCalc are better.
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
#4. Microsoft PowerPoint
OpenOffice Impress is just as good. KPresenter is also nice.
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
#5. Microsoft Visio
Sorry, I don't know that one.
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
#6. Microsoft Visual Basic
<ROFL!> The preferred development engine for virusmakers. To quote
Dijkstra : "Anyone who's been exposed to BASIC has braindamage beyond
repair".
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
#7. Microsoft .NET
Mono is just as good.
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
#8. Microsoft Publisher
Scribus.
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
#9. Microsoft Project
Don't know that one.
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
#10. Microsoft Money
GnuCash.
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
(and about 10 other MS products)
Yes, you do seem to have a strange favor for Microsoft, don't you?

<snip those I don't know>
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
#14. Oracle dbms
Also exists on GNU/Linux, by the way.
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
#15. IBM DB2 dbms
Idem ditto.
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
#16. Opera web browser
Idem ditto. Not my preferred browser though. I have it installed here.
I much prefer Konqueror.
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
#17. Lotus Domino/Notes
Gimp and OOo are better for me. Opera is okay, but firefox has a
margin there.
Post by DFS
Too many to list. I could literally go on for page after page. I
imagine there are hundreds or thousands of software apps whose
Windows version is far superior to the FOSS version, if there even is
a FOSS version.
There are also hundreds or thousands of apps for which there *is* *no*
Windows version, or for which only now a Windows version is being
developed.
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
The profit motive is a far, far stronger motivator than "helping the
community" or creating 'free software'.
The coders don't earn zilch by the software being proprietary. On the
contrary, their intellectual property will have to be transfered to
Microsoft.

They also have to work on their projects from nine to five every day,
even when they are having an off-day. What do you think that does to
the code? Oh, and there's no catching up later. Deadlines are
deadlines.
Post by amosf
So go make some money and give it to bill. Why were you here again?
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
It is a historic fact that nearly everything existing in Windows
today was copied from UNIX and UNIX-likes. UNIX had support for
three mousebuttons long before Windows did. UNIX had support for
virtual desktops long before Wind... Oh wait, Windows doesn't
_have_ any virtual desktops. Tabbed browsing? Konqueror and
Mozilla had it long before IE.
Just because a few features existed first on other platforms doesn't
mean they're better today than the Windows version.
Sure, whatever. Let's count the crashes and the lock-ups, let's
evaluate the uptime, etc.
Post by amosf
Virtual desktops on linux are still better than windows. Indeed you
need third party in windows to get any sort of usefulness.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
The first Windows GUI was based upon Motif for its looks,
Says you.
That's a given and documented fact. Microsoft took out a license for
that, even. Look it up.
Post by amosf
It did suck a bit. It was a clone of the Mac, but really looked more
like a poor version of fvwm.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
and shared its layout with OS/2's Presentation Manager.
Interesting. Do you think that's because both were developed by MS?
According to the book from an IBM developer I've read, OS/2 was
developed by IBM in cooperation with Microsoft, not the other way
around as had been the case for DOS - IBM had a license to release
PC-DOS for use on IBM machines, but OS/2 was their baby.
Post by amosf
WPS was a better effort. The MS team (if any) that worked on that one
was better. Pity they were absorbed into the machine somewhere.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Microsoft on the other hand can't count on too much sympathy anymore
from the larger computer-using masses - except for the resident
trolls, of course - and they've got themselves to blame for that
through their unethical practices and their totally outrageous
pricing.
Their prices are low to fair. Full-retail for XP Pro at $299 is a
little high, but not nearly outrageous.
For a fundamentally flawed, bare operating system with crippled
functionality, gratuitous instability and a criminally insecure default
set-up, that amount is far too much.

Besides, you *do* know that Microsoft maintains an 80% profit margin,
don't you?
Post by amosf
It's only an OS. That's all. It doesn't really even do anything at all
on it's own. Not real work. It's not like you install XP in the office
and then use the PC, is it? $299 (more in Oz) is a lot for something
that doesn't actually do anything useful. You can't even really browse
the internet with it coz you need protection software first...
Post by DFS
The most important thing to remember, which cola bozos can't seem to
get through their thick skulls, is you don't have to buy MS products.
They can ask what they want.
Yeah, right...
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Ferrari charges a lot for their autos; I don't have to buy them and I
don't worry about it or complain.
Comparing Windows to a Ferrari now, are you? Well, I guess my computer
must be a whole garage full of Lamborghinis and Porsches then.
Post by amosf
You go to buy a car. You say, "I want a car."
"Sure, we have the best Ferrari in town and our prices..."
"I don't want a Ferrari. I want a Ford."
"A what?"
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
With just about every GNU/Linux user I know in person,
All 3 of them? It's a fact that most Linux users don't pay for their
distro, or their apps.
Save your sarcasm, okay? Nearly everyone I know in person who uses
GNU/Linux has bought a distro, period. If you're going to say that's
not true, then you might as well call me a liar.

Hint: I don't have the reputation of being a liar.

Besides, in the style of the other FUD'sters around here, I would like
to see *proof* of this "fact" you are speaking about.
Post by amosf
I know many more windows users than linux users. Some of these people
are very well off. I don't know of any that actually paid for office.
They all stole it. They often offer me a copy of stolen office. They
all got they windows with the PC, of course, but all the other
software tends to be stolen or free download. They steal software even
when they drive a BMW.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Post by Rick
Microsoft Office Standard Professional $329
MapPoint $299, XP Pro --Upgrade-- $199, Visual Studio .Net
--Upgrade-- $499, FrontPage $199, Word $230,
... yeah, real cheap...
Maybe for a guy driving a Rolls Royce... ;-)
Everything you listed can be found for 50% to 70% of those amounts
(naturally you list full retail).
If you don't have any previous license to warrant the purchase of an
Upgrade Edition, then you do have to purchase the full retail version.
Post by amosf
Well duh. You want into the shop and that's what the price is. Some
dicks actually pay that. The rest steal it.
Post by DFS
I don't understand you cola nuts. Many of you seem intelligent
enough to earn a good living, but over and over again I hear how
expensive you think MS software is. It's cheap compared to much of
the commercial software out there.
It's expensive because it's a damn rip-off. It's not worth its money.
Post by amosf
MS had some marketting genius. They sold an OS. Hard to believe. They
could sell ice to polar bears.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
That judgment is as flawed as your racist beliefs. My experience
contradicts you.
Then you haven't grown up in a black city like Atlanta and seen how
they behave, and you extrapolate 3 Linux purchasers to the entire
'community'.
I live in a town with a great deal of racists and a great deal of
Moroccan and Turkish immigrants.

Oh, and my second cousin is black. Her mother was a Belgian native, her
father an African. Are you going to call her inferior? Or stupid?
She does happen to have a University degree, and over here, those are
not given away as gratuitously as in the USA.

The one thing I have seen from history is that the White Man has always
been the most cruel and vicious, and was always best at stealing other
people's homeland, enslaving them and driving them off into
reservations.

Jesus Christ, that there still are people who judge others by the color
of their skin, in the 21st Century, it's simply outrageous!
Post by amosf
Of course duty free shopping is an angel. We can tell that by his
attitude :)
My attitude? <confused>
Post by amosf
So now prove that he only knows 3 linux buyers. Indeed, prove that you
don't actually live in a trailer park and spend your time watch
jerry...
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Coming from a man who believes the Caucasian race to be supreme over
all others,
No doubt about it, though Asians (Orientals) are smart and
industrious as well.
Yep. You better be nice to them as they are likely to be signing your
paycheck soon. If you have a job.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
I will gladly wave that statement away without even blinking an eye.
As you wish. You're still wrong about people paying for Linux software.
I know for a fact that I'm right, as I have seen it. Now *you* must
prove me wrong, with hard evidence. But there isn't any. It's all in
your head.

You're delusional, period.
Post by amosf
Some people pay for it. Some don't. It's the same with MS software. Or
any software. You've heard of software piracy, right?
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Of course it is. It's damn nearly impossible to purchase a computer
_without_ Windows and even *if* you try, then you will _still_ need
to pay for the Windows license that you don't want.
It's exceedingly easy to buy a computer without Windows. Or to build one.
To build one, yes. To buy one... Try that from the brandname computer
sellers. And if you buy it without Windows, then you are buying it
_with_ Windows, but without that you _get_ the copy of Windows.

Besides, you'll never own Windows. Microsoft owns it. All you get to
own is the CD and the box. You don't even own the right to say "no"
when Microsoft demands an audit of your computer.
Post by amosf
Not really. It's easier than it used to be, but still not common.
There appears to be a push to make it illegal here.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
There are even people who buy Gentoo, (K)Ubuntu or Debian CD's when
they could easily download them.
Like me. I recently bought Debian 3.1, Fedora 4, and Knoppix 4.0 DVD
from FrozenTech, when I could have downloaded them. $8.45 for 4
DVDs.
Well, that's not really buying the OS.
Post by DFS
In the past I bought Red Hat 4.2, TurboLinux, and Suse 7.1 Pro. I
really don't use Linux much - just install and see what's good and
bad - but I'm glad it's growing and creating competition for MS. I
do plan on making contributions to the OSDL, KDE, and to some open
source apps I like.
??? Have you been struck by lightning? Have you been touched by an
Angel? Did aliens get to your subconscious self? *You* are going to
contribute to the OSDL? You???

By God, a Miracle must have just happened! <disbelief>
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
I really don't care much whether the code is open-source, and I
disagree with a lot of the philosophies and attitudes, but MS badly
needs competition in OSes.
If Microsoft is so good and their software so affordable, then why would
they need competition?
Post by amosf
Well duh. What do you think MS would be doing now if it didn't have
linux at it's heels. People would stil be stuck with another version
of 9x
Or another version of NT... Oh wait, they are! ;-)
--
With kind regards,

*Aragorn*
(Registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
DFS
2005-10-27 04:17:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aragorn
On Tuesday 25 October 2005 10:31, amosf stood up and spoke the
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/
Which again I feel I have to refute. As with the previous reply from
me, I'm going to make use of /atmosf's/ reply to straighten this out...
You can't straighten out what was never crooked...
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Eventhough he's in my /killfile,/ I see myself obliged to reply to
this troll, so I'm going to make use of /Rick's/ reply...
I'm not a troll.
The first best sign of a troll :)
If he's not a troll, then let's call him a biased and clueless
Microsoft apologist and GNU/Linux naysayer from now on. ;-)
That's a mouthful of lies, but if you insist.
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
GNU/Linux as a UNIX-style operating system is the preferred
platform for computer needs far more elaborate than those on
Windows.
Like routing viruses all around the world via sendmail?
Those are Microsoft Windows viruses, propagated by Microsoft Windows
e-mail clients and other Internet-connected aspects of Windows, or
even by hidden SMTP or FTP servers in your Windows machine.
They're happily delivered by Linux/OSS, so Linux/OSS contributes to the
problem.
Post by Aragorn
So the problem is not GNU/Linux's.
Indirectly it is, and it's actually a problem for everyone who uses the web,
who might experience slowdowns or DOS attackes, etc.
Post by Aragorn
For the record, I would like to
add that my domain and my ISP are both using GNU/Linux mailservers
which scan all incoming and outgoing e-mail for viruses.
So?
Post by Aragorn
Windows creates the virus problem, and GNU/Linux helps eradicate it.
Where? They're not doing a very good job.
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
This is a feature, not a fault. Why should *nix protect the poor MS
machines anyway?
Well it does. Microsoft machines cannot protect themselves, let alone
anything else.
My WinServer machine hasn't been infected in a year of daily use. My Win2K
machine, in 3-4 years of usage, got one browser hijack (coolwebsearch) and
that's it. I sporadically used ZoneLabs firewall, but was otherwise on
unprotected dial-up or cable modem.
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
and you had better not come up with Photoshop, because everything
Photoshop does, the Gimp can do just as well.
No it can't.
#1. Adobe Photoshop
The Gimp is better. It's a professional application, which you would
not have heard of before it appeared as a standard feature application
in GNU/Linux. The Gimp was already being used on other UNIX systems
by professionals long before Photoshop was even available for Windows.
Adobe Photoshop is far superior to Gimp. Everyone knows it. You're
deluding yourself.
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
#2. Microsoft Access
Access is a toy, compared to genuine relational databases.
The Jet engine is not so good in some respects. But Access is more than the
db engine; it's a database client builder and query/reporting system with a
file-server dbms. There is no comparable solution in the OSS world. Your
challenge was for me to name 10 proprietary applications better than their
OSS counterpart. Access has no open source counterpart - you can call OO
Base one, but you'd be deluding yourself.
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
#3. Microsoft Excel
Gnumeric, OpenOffice Calc and KCalc are better.
They're all worse. They're all slower to launch, and open and save files.
They offer inferior or no scripting. They offer inferior charting. They
offer inferior or no interoperability with any other office programs. If
they can even run macros, they will allow you to record macros that will
overwrite your data without warning. They have inferior print previews, and
printing setup (headers/footers, margins, etc).
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
#4. Microsoft PowerPoint
OpenOffice Impress is just as good. KPresenter is also nice.
You're wrong. Again, everyone who has ever used both (including me) knows
the truth
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
#5. Microsoft Visio
Sorry, I don't know that one.
I'm afraid it's not going to be that easy for you. Dia and DiaCanvas are
the only OSS diagramming tools I know about, and they're totally inferior to
MS Visio.
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
#6. Microsoft Visual Basic
<ROFL!> The preferred development engine for virusmakers. To quote
Dijkstra : "Anyone who's been exposed to BASIC has braindamage beyond
repair".
Again, it won't be that easy for you to weasel away. Your challenge was for
me to name 10 proprietary applications better than their OSS counterpart.
Technically, VB has no open source counterpart - you can call Gambas an OSS
VB, but you'd be deluding yourself.

If VB is no good, why is a VB-killer the most awaited Linux app?
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
#7. Microsoft .NET
Mono is just as good.
No it's not. Not even close. It's just another OSS
clone/theftware/wannabe.
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
#8. Microsoft Publisher
Scribus.
Inferior.
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
#9. Microsoft Project
Don't know that one.
Again, you can't weasel out that easy. MS Project is a project management
system for Windows. It's the best one available, as I told you.

You can use KPlato if you can stop laughing
Loading Image... Or some other inferior
OSS project mgmt efforts: http://proj.chbs.dk/

They ALL pale in comparison to MS Project.
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
#10. Microsoft Money
GnuCash.
A laughable joke in comparison to MS Money or Quicken.
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
(and about 10 other MS products)
Yes, you do seem to have a strange favor for Microsoft, don't you?
Not necessarily. Your challenge was for me to name 10 proprietary
applications better than their OSS counterpart. MS happens to make very
good business apps.
Post by Aragorn
<snip those I don't know>
Naturally. You're lazy.
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
#14. Oracle dbms
Also exists on GNU/Linux, by the way.
Your challenge was for me to name 10 proprietary applications better than
their OSS counterpart. Oracle is proprietary. You didn't say anything
about whether they run on Linux or not, only that they were Free or Open
Source.
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
#15. IBM DB2 dbms
Idem ditto.
Your challenge was for me to name 10 proprietary applications better than
their OSS counterpart. IBM DB2 is proprietary. You didn't say anything
about whether they run on Linux or not, only that they were Free or Open
Source.
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
#16. Opera web browser
Idem ditto. Not my preferred browser though. I have it installed
here. I much prefer Konqueror.
Your challenge was for me to name 10 proprietary applications better than
their OSS counterpart. Opera is proprietary. You didn't say anything about
whether they run on Linux or not, only that they were Free or Open Source.

Konqueror is a much lesser web browser than Opera, or Firefox for that
matter.
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
#17. Lotus Domino/Notes
Too lazy to look it up, because you know you probably won't find a
comparable OSS system.
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Too many to list. I could literally go on for page after page. I
imagine there are hundreds or thousands of software apps whose
Windows version is far superior to the FOSS version, if there even
is a FOSS version.
There are also hundreds or thousands of apps for which there *is* *no*
Windows version, or for which only now a Windows version is being
developed.
What are they? You fail to name even ONE.
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
The profit motive is a far, far stronger motivator than "helping the
community" or creating 'free software'.
The coders don't earn zilch by the software being proprietary. On the
contrary, their intellectual property will have to be transfered to
Microsoft.
Only if they work for MS. Larry Ellison and friends coded Oracle in the
beginning, and they're worth billions. Same for all the other proprietary
apps.
Post by Aragorn
They also have to work on their projects from nine to five every day,
even when they are having an off-day. What do you think that does to
the code? Oh, and there's no catching up later. Deadlines are
deadlines.
LOL! What a silly excuse.

You're BEATEN, Aragorn. Again. The best OSS apps are, almost to a package,
inferior to the best commercial counterpart.

That's just how it is. Has something to do with money I think.
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
So go make some money and give it to bill. Why were you here again?
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
It is a historic fact that nearly everything existing in Windows
today was copied from UNIX and UNIX-likes. UNIX had support for
three mousebuttons long before Windows did. UNIX had support for
virtual desktops long before Wind... Oh wait, Windows doesn't
_have_ any virtual desktops. Tabbed browsing? Konqueror and
Mozilla had it long before IE.
Just because a few features existed first on other platforms doesn't
mean they're better today than the Windows version.
Sure, whatever. Let's count the crashes and the lock-ups, let's
evaluate the uptime, etc.
If I counted all the app lockups and crashes I've experienced in Linux it
would fill this post. Konqueror on Kubuntu crashes constantly.
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
Virtual desktops on linux are still better than windows. Indeed you
need third party in windows to get any sort of usefulness.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
The first Windows GUI was based upon Motif for its looks,
Says you.
That's a given and documented fact. Microsoft took out a license for
that, even. Look it up.
Can't find it.
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
It did suck a bit. It was a clone of the Mac, but really looked more
like a poor version of fvwm.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
and shared its layout with OS/2's Presentation Manager.
Interesting. Do you think that's because both were developed by MS?
According to the book from an IBM developer I've read, OS/2 was
developed by IBM in cooperation with Microsoft, not the other way
around as had been the case for DOS - IBM had a license to release
PC-DOS for use on IBM machines, but OS/2 was their baby.
History seems to remember it differently, as an MS product at the start.

http://pages.prodigy.net/michaln/history/pr/87apr_m3592.html
http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/OS2Warp.html
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
WPS was a better effort. The MS team (if any) that worked on that one
was better. Pity they were absorbed into the machine somewhere.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Microsoft on the other hand can't count on too much sympathy
anymore from the larger computer-using masses - except for the
resident trolls, of course - and they've got themselves to blame
for that through their unethical practices and their totally
outrageous pricing.
Their prices are low to fair. Full-retail for XP Pro at $299 is a
little high, but not nearly outrageous.
For a fundamentally flawed, bare operating system with crippled
functionality, gratuitous instability and a criminally insecure
default set-up, that amount is far too much.
It's not fundamentally flawed, it's not a bare OS (it provides MUCH more
functionality than a bare Linux OS), it's stable, and with SP2 it's fairly
secure.

You're 1 for 5, at best.
Post by Aragorn
Besides, you *do* know that Microsoft maintains an 80% profit margin,
don't you?
Lie.
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
It's only an OS. That's all. It doesn't really even do anything at
all on it's own. Not real work. It's not like you install XP in the
office and then use the PC, is it? $299 (more in Oz) is a lot for
something that doesn't actually do anything useful. You can't even
really browse the internet with it coz you need protection software
first...
Post by DFS
The most important thing to remember, which cola bozos can't seem to
get through their thick skulls, is you don't have to buy MS
products. They can ask what they want.
Yeah, right...
Exactly. And you're not forced to pay for MS software.
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Ferrari charges a lot for their autos; I don't have to buy them and
I don't worry about it or complain.
Comparing Windows to a Ferrari now, are you? Well, I guess my
computer must be a whole garage full of Lamborghinis and Porsches
then.
Post by amosf
You go to buy a car. You say, "I want a car."
"Sure, we have the best Ferrari in town and our prices..."
"I don't want a Ferrari. I want a Ford."
"A what?"
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
With just about every GNU/Linux user I know in person,
All 3 of them? It's a fact that most Linux users don't pay for
their distro, or their apps.
Save your sarcasm, okay?
It wasn't too long ago that you were claiming your Asperger's Syndrome
prevented you from recognizing sarcasm. So you appear to have been lying,
and playing up your condition for some kind of odd attempt at sympathy.
Post by Aragorn
Nearly everyone I know in person who uses
GNU/Linux has bought a distro, period. If you're going to say that's
not true, then you might as well call me a liar.
That's the people you know. The evidence all over the web, and from the
mouths of cola nuts, is they don't pay for their distros.
Post by Aragorn
Hint: I don't have the reputation of being a liar.
OK. That doesn't mean you aren't a liar.
Post by Aragorn
Besides, in the style of the other FUD'sters around here, I would like
to see *proof* of this "fact" you are speaking about.
Ask around.
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
I know many more windows users than linux users. Some of these people
are very well off. I don't know of any that actually paid for office.
They all stole it. They often offer me a copy of stolen office. They
all got they windows with the PC, of course, but all the other
software tends to be stolen or free download. They steal software
even when they drive a BMW.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Post by Rick
Microsoft Office Standard Professional $329
MapPoint $299, XP Pro --Upgrade-- $199, Visual Studio .Net
--Upgrade-- $499, FrontPage $199, Word $230,
... yeah, real cheap...
Maybe for a guy driving a Rolls Royce... ;-)
Everything you listed can be found for 50% to 70% of those amounts
(naturally you list full retail).
If you don't have any previous license to warrant the purchase of an
Upgrade Edition, then you do have to purchase the full retail version.
So? As I said "Everything you listed can be found for 50% to 70% of those
amounts (naturally you list full retail)." I didn't say upgrade version -
you can find the full versions cheaply.
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
Well duh. You want into the shop and that's what the price is. Some
dicks actually pay that. The rest steal it.
Post by DFS
I don't understand you cola nuts. Many of you seem intelligent
enough to earn a good living, but over and over again I hear how
expensive you think MS software is. It's cheap compared to much of
the commercial software out there.
It's expensive because it's a damn rip-off. It's not worth its money.
Then you better not ever be in charge of purchasing commercial software at a
large company, 'cause some of the licensing costs for non-MS software (like
for Oracle, SAP, Hummingbird, Hyperion, etc) are exorbitant.
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
MS had some marketting genius. They sold an OS. Hard to believe. They
could sell ice to polar bears.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
That judgment is as flawed as your racist beliefs. My experience
contradicts you.
Then you haven't grown up in a black city like Atlanta and seen how
they behave, and you extrapolate 3 Linux purchasers to the entire
'community'.
I live in a town with a great deal of racists
How do you know?
Post by Aragorn
and a great deal of
Moroccan and Turkish immigrants.
Bummer for you.
Post by Aragorn
Oh, and my second cousin is black.
Bummer for him.
Post by Aragorn
Her mother was a Belgian native,
her father an African.
Bummer for her.
Post by Aragorn
Are you going to call her inferior? Or stupid?
Is she?
Post by Aragorn
She does happen to have a University degree, and over here, those are
not given away as gratuitously as in the USA.
You must be thinking of Harvard University, where 50% of the students have A
averages, and affirmative action is a way of life.
Post by Aragorn
The one thing I have seen from history is that the White Man has
always been the most cruel and vicious, and was always best at
stealing other people's homeland, enslaving them and driving them off
into reservations.
But we ended slavery in all our White countries. Slavery exists today only
in black countries. I'm sure you'll have an excuse for them too; probably
"It's the White man's fault."
Post by Aragorn
Jesus Christ, that there still are people who judge others by the
color of their skin, in the 21st Century, it's simply outrageous!
It's not the color of their skin. They could be purple for all I care.
It's the content of their character.

You should be condemning all the black racists (which I think is about 95%
of them), but I know you won't.
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
I will gladly wave that statement away without even blinking an eye.
As you wish. You're still wrong about people paying for Linux software.
I know for a fact that I'm right, as I have seen it. Now *you* must
prove me wrong, with hard evidence. But there isn't any. It's all in
your head.
It's all over the web, in the pitifully low donations made to OSS projects
and vendors. In the financial history of Linux distro vendors. In the
studies done.
Post by Aragorn
You're delusional, period.
You're thinking of yourself, who's deluded into believing Linux users pay
for all, or even most, of their software. Linux user freeload, and rarely
give back.
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
It's exceedingly easy to buy a computer without Windows. Or to build one.
To build one, yes. To buy one... Try that from the brandname
computer sellers.
OK. Dell and HP both offer Linux systems. Just those 2 vendors comprise at
least 35% of the worldwide PC market.

If you feel that's not enough choice, you have every right to open up your
own hardware vendor and sell only Linux systems. I hope you have a lot of
money to waste - well, you're a Linux user, so it's almost a certainty you
don't. But maybe you can bilk a rich friend into wasting his money trying
to sell Linux machines.
Post by Aragorn
And if you buy it without Windows, then you are
buying it _with_ Windows, but without that you _get_ the copy of
Windows.
?
Post by Aragorn
Besides, you'll never own Windows. Microsoft owns it. All you get to
own is the CD and the box.
So? Those are terms of their licensing. You're not forced to buy it.
Post by Aragorn
You don't even own the right to say "no"
when Microsoft demands an audit of your computer.
Where do you get that idea from?
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
In the past I bought Red Hat 4.2, TurboLinux, and Suse 7.1 Pro. I
really don't use Linux much - just install and see what's good and
bad - but I'm glad it's growing and creating competition for MS. I
do plan on making contributions to the OSDL, KDE, and to some open
source apps I like.
??? Have you been struck by lightning? Have you been touched by an
Angel? Did aliens get to your subconscious self? *You* are going to
contribute to the OSDL? You???
By God, a Miracle must have just happened! <disbelief>
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
I really don't care much whether the code is open-source, and I
disagree with a lot of the philosophies and attitudes, but MS badly
needs competition in OSes.
If Microsoft is so good and their software so affordable, then why
would they need competition?
So the world doesn't have only 1 option for an Intel PC operating system.
Linux isn't a credible alternative at this point, but it's probably the best
hope. Though MacOS on Intel is looking promising.

I used to use lots of non-MS programs, but MS kept improving their versions
and the market responded by buying them, until the inferior competition gave
up. Lotus, Borland, WordPerfect, etc.
Post by Aragorn
Post by amosf
Well duh. What do you think MS would be doing now if it didn't have
linux at it's heels. People would stil be stuck with another version
of 9x
Or another version of NT... Oh wait, they are! ;-)
And what's wrong with NT? It still powers much of the corporate world. I
wouldn't be surprised if its server market share is larger than Linux'.
amosf
2005-10-27 05:05:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Those are Microsoft Windows viruses, propagated by Microsoft Windows
e-mail clients and other Internet-connected aspects of Windows, or
even by hidden SMTP or FTP servers in your Windows machine.
They're happily delivered by Linux/OSS, so Linux/OSS contributes to the
problem.
It really is a feature. Look, somebody went to a lot of trouble writing
those viruses. Win users have gone to a lot of trouble leaving their PC's
open to attack. It's only right that nix does the right thing by everyone
and deliver the malware. Sheesh, these linux severs running anti-virus
should be shut down for dog's sake.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
So the problem is not GNU/Linux's.
Indirectly it is, and it's actually a problem for everyone who uses the
web, who might experience slowdowns or DOS attackes, etc.
With any disease you can treat the cause or the symptom. In this case it's
hard to get to the actual cause (the virus writer) but you can remove the
organ the disease attacks (windows) and keep the patient (the internet)
alive just fine.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
For the record, I would like to
add that my domain and my ISP are both using GNU/Linux mailservers
which scan all incoming and outgoing e-mail for viruses.
So?
Like many linux servers out there doing their best. But let's face it,
windows makes it hard for the nix servers to help it. A lot of it is likely
caused by by all those pirated copies of windows that don't get the updates
they need...
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Windows creates the virus problem, and GNU/Linux helps eradicate it.
Where? They're not doing a very good job.
We can only imagine how bad it would be without nix helping out.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Well it does. Microsoft machines cannot protect themselves, let alone
anything else.
My WinServer machine hasn't been infected in a year of daily use. My
Win2K machine, in 3-4 years of usage, got one browser hijack
(coolwebsearch) and
that's it. I sporadically used ZoneLabs firewall, but was otherwise on
unprotected dial-up or cable modem.
You are not the norm it seems. All those pirated copies get the shit kicked
out of them.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
The Gimp is better. It's a professional application, which you would
not have heard of before it appeared as a standard feature application
in GNU/Linux. The Gimp was already being used on other UNIX systems
by professionals long before Photoshop was even available for Windows.
Adobe Photoshop is far superior to Gimp. Everyone knows it. You're
deluding yourself.
Well, for the price you would expect it to be 'better'. For my useage there
is little difference feature wise. I prefer gimp, but that's likely due to
the fact I use it more.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Access is a toy, compared to genuine relational databases.
The Jet engine is not so good in some respects. But Access is more than
the db engine; it's a database client builder and query/reporting system
with a
file-server dbms. There is no comparable solution in the OSS world. Your
challenge was for me to name 10 proprietary applications better than their
OSS counterpart. Access has no open source counterpart - you can call OO
Base one, but you'd be deluding yourself.
Access does seemed to aimed at the home user, but it's not my field...
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Gnumeric, OpenOffice Calc and KCalc are better.
They're all worse. They're all slower to launch, and open and save files.
They offer inferior or no scripting. They offer inferior charting. They
offer inferior or no interoperability with any other office programs. If
they can even run macros, they will allow you to record macros that will
overwrite your data without warning. They have inferior print previews,
and printing setup (headers/footers, margins, etc).
But the car I drive to town in also does the job for a fraction of the price
of a ferrari...
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
<ROFL!> The preferred development engine for virusmakers. To quote
Dijkstra : "Anyone who's been exposed to BASIC has braindamage beyond
repair".
Again, it won't be that easy for you to weasel away. Your challenge was
for me to name 10 proprietary applications better than their OSS
counterpart. Technically, VB has no open source counterpart - you can call
Gambas an OSS VB, but you'd be deluding yourself.
If VB is no good, why is a VB-killer the most awaited Linux app?
VB is okay. A linux VB workalike is a good idea.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Sure, whatever. Let's count the crashes and the lock-ups, let's
evaluate the uptime, etc.
If I counted all the app lockups and crashes I've experienced in Linux it
would fill this post. Konqueror on Kubuntu crashes constantly.
If I counted all the app lockups and crashes I've experiences in windows...
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
That's a given and documented fact. Microsoft took out a license for
that, even. Look it up.
Can't find it.
Me either
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
For a fundamentally flawed, bare operating system with crippled
functionality, gratuitous instability and a criminally insecure
default set-up, that amount is far too much.
It's not fundamentally flawed, it's not a bare OS (it provides MUCH more
functionality than a bare Linux OS), it's stable, and with SP2 it's fairly
secure.
The distro I install is what counts tho, eh. Out of the 'box' mandr* appears
to do more than windows.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Besides, you *do* know that Microsoft maintains an 80% profit margin,
don't you?
Lie.
What is the profit margin then?
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Yeah, right...
Exactly. And you're not forced to pay for MS software.
That's what people say. Lots of them use it for free.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
If you don't have any previous license to warrant the purchase of an
Upgrade Edition, then you do have to purchase the full retail version.
So? As I said "Everything you listed can be found for 50% to 70% of those
amounts (naturally you list full retail)." I didn't say upgrade version -
you can find the full versions cheaply.
Or steal it. That seems to be what most win users do.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
It's expensive because it's a damn rip-off. It's not worth its money.
Then you better not ever be in charge of purchasing commercial software at
a large company, 'cause some of the licensing costs for non-MS software
(like for Oracle, SAP, Hummingbird, Hyperion, etc) are exorbitant.
Tech is a rip off. Not that it can't be a fun thing. I got $50 yesterday for
telling a lady with PC/modem problems that her phone line was cut off. (she
cut it off as the phone company was ripping her off charging for 2 'fax'
lines). I was there for about 2 minutes. People aren't real bright.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
I live in a town with a great deal of racists
How do you know?
Back to the racist crap...
--
-
I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
-
Claus Agerskov
2005-10-28 08:00:48 UTC
Permalink
MS Project is a project management
system for Windows.  It's the best one available, as I told you.
No it isn't - it is the most used one.

Project Scheduler and Primavera P3 are better if you really know anything
about planning and tracking a project.
You can use KPlato if you can stop laughing
http://www.koffice.org/kplato/pics/plain_2005_09.png  Or some other
inferior OSS project mgmt efforts: http://proj.chbs.dk/
They ALL pale in comparison to MS Project.
I am sorry to say that they all are at the moment.

But we have started the analyze phase at the OpenOffice.org Project
Management Tool Subproject where all interested can tell what they want to
see in a project management tool.

You can see the current whish list at

http://oopm.openoffice.org/initial_analyze/wishes.html

The most enjoyable greetings
--
Claus Agerskov #=== Analyze OpenOffice.org
Content Developer ==== Requirements Project Management Tool
***@OpenOffice.org ==== Design/model Subproject
http://ooo.chbs.dk/ ==== Implement http://oopm.openoffice.org/
Linønut
2005-10-28 11:48:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Claus Agerskov
MS Project is a project management
system for Windows.  It's the best one available, as I told you.
No it isn't - it is the most used one.
That's for sure.
Post by Claus Agerskov
Project Scheduler and Primavera P3 are better if you really know anything
about planning and tracking a project.
You can use KPlato if you can stop laughing
http://www.koffice.org/kplato/pics/plain_2005_09.png  Or some other
inferior OSS project mgmt efforts: http://proj.chbs.dk/
They ALL pale in comparison to MS Project.
I am sorry to say that they all are at the moment.
But we have started the analyze phase at the OpenOffice.org Project
Management Tool Subproject where all interested can tell what they want to
see in a project management tool.
You can see the current whish list at
http://oopm.openoffice.org/initial_analyze/wishes.html
The most enjoyable greetings
Just make sure you don't copy the mistakes of MS Project.

Good luck!
--
Treat yourself to the devices, applications, and services running on the
GNU/Linux® operating system!
Claus Agerskov
2005-10-28 13:40:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Linønut
Post by Claus Agerskov
You can see the current whish list at
http://oopm.openoffice.org/initial_analyze/wishes.html
The most enjoyable greetings
Just make sure you don't copy the mistakes of MS Project.
Many of the responders to the questionary actually stated "not a Microsoft
Project clone" - so we are pretty aware not to make the same mistakes.

The most enjoyable greetings
--
| Claus Agerskov | Jeg vil leve i en verden, hvor al kommunikation
|--------------------| er baseret på frie og åbne standarder, så enhver
| ***@chbs.dk | har friheden til at vælge.
| http://www.chbs.dk | Claus Sørensen, 2001
Linønut
2005-10-28 15:43:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Claus Agerskov
Post by Linønut
Post by Claus Agerskov
You can see the current whish list at
http://oopm.openoffice.org/initial_analyze/wishes.html
Just make sure you don't copy the mistakes of MS Project.
Many of the responders to the questionary actually stated "not a Microsoft
Project clone" - so we are pretty aware not to make the same mistakes.
Have you looked at the Open Workbench project (on SourceForge)? It is
Windows only, but open-source.
--
Treat yourself to the devices, applications, and services running on the
GNU/Linux® operating system!
DFS
2005-10-28 14:35:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Claus Agerskov
Post by DFS
MS Project is a project management
system for Windows. It's the best one available, as I told you.
No it isn't - it is the most used one.
Project Scheduler and Primavera P3 are better if you really know
anything about planning and tracking a project.
OK. I stand corrected.

But, MS Project is $200. You can hardly compare it to Primavera, an
industry-tailored product so costly you have to register on their website
just to get a sales rep to contact you.

CDW sells their *single user* complete package for $4,000
http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=161705

A 10-user license for SureTrak is also $4000
http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=410930

A single-user license for SureTrak is $440
http://www.cdw.com/shop/search/Results.aspx?key=primavera&platform=all

And Primavera is Windows only.
Post by Claus Agerskov
Post by DFS
You can use KPlato if you can stop laughing
http://www.koffice.org/kplato/pics/plain_2005_09.png Or some other
inferior OSS project mgmt efforts: http://proj.chbs.dk/
They ALL pale in comparison to MS Project.
I am sorry to say that they all are at the moment.
But we have started the analyze phase at the OpenOffice.org Project
Management Tool Subproject where all interested can tell what they
want to see in a project management tool.
How about Microsoft in the title bar?
Post by Claus Agerskov
You can see the current whish list at
http://oopm.openoffice.org/initial_analyze/wishes.html
The most enjoyable greetings
DFS
2005-10-26 15:14:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Eventhough he's in my /killfile,/ I see myself obliged to reply to
this troll, so I'm going to make use of /Rick's/ reply...
I'm not a troll.
The first best sign of a troll :)
Trolls don't stay around and debate issues. They hit and run, and soon
leave.
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
GNU/Linux as a UNIX-style operating system is the preferred platform
for computer needs far more elaborate than those on Windows.
Like routing viruses all around the world via sendmail?
This is a feature, not a fault. Why should *nix protect the poor MS
machines anyway?
That's not the issue. The issue is why do *nix programs aid in propagating
viruses all over the Internet?
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
and you had better not come up with Photoshop, because everything
Photoshop does, the Gimp can do just as well.
No it can't.
#1. Adobe Photoshop
#2. Microsoft Access
#3. Microsoft Excel
#4. Microsoft PowerPoint
#5. Microsoft Visio
#6. Microsoft Visual Basic
#7. Microsoft .NET
#8. Microsoft Publisher
#9. Microsoft Project
#10. Microsoft Money
(and about 10 other MS products)
#11. ACT! contact mgmt http://www.act.com/
#12. Hummingbird content and document mgmt
http://www.hummingbird.com/ #13. Hyperion and Brio business
intelligence and analytics software
http://www.hyperion.com/products/business_intelligence/analysis/essbase_analytics.cfm
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
#14. Oracle dbms
#15. IBM DB2 dbms
#16. Opera web browser
#17. Lotus Domino/Notes
Gimp and OOo are better for me. Opera is okay, but firefox has a
margin there.
Firefox is an excellent program, but Gimp and OO are inferior to closed
source. And the other closed-source apps I listed are superior to all OSS
alternatives, if one even exists.
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Too many to list. I could literally go on for page after page. I
imagine there are hundreds or thousands of software apps whose
Windows version is far superior to the FOSS version, if there even
is a FOSS version.
The profit motive is a far, far stronger motivator than "helping the
community" or creating 'free software'.
So go make some money and give it to bill. Why were you here again?
To smack down cola liars.
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
It is a historic fact that nearly everything existing in Windows
today was copied from UNIX and UNIX-likes. UNIX had support for
three mousebuttons long before Windows did. UNIX had support for
virtual desktops long before Wind... Oh wait, Windows doesn't
_have_ any virtual desktops. Tabbed browsing? Konqueror and
Mozilla had it long before IE.
Just because a few features existed first on other platforms doesn't
mean they're better today than the Windows version.
Virtual desktops on linux are still better than windows. Indeed you
need third party in windows to get any sort of usefulness.
Since Linux is just a kernel, you REALLY need third party software to get
any sort of usefulness at all.
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
The first Windows GUI was based upon Motif for its looks,
Says you.
It did suck a bit. It was a clone of the Mac, but really looked more
like a poor version of fvwm.
That was 1985 I believe. 10 years later MS had a monopoly position in
computer OS's.
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Microsoft on the other hand can't count on too much sympathy anymore
from the larger computer-using masses - except for the resident
trolls, of course - and they've got themselves to blame for that
through their unethical practices and their totally outrageous
pricing.
Their prices are low to fair. Full-retail for XP Pro at $299 is a
little high, but not nearly outrageous.
It's only an OS. That's all. It doesn't really even do anything at
all on it's own. Not real work. It's not like you install XP in the
office and then use the PC, is it?
Of course you install it and do real work. It comes with a web browser,
email and news client, word processor, image program, calculator, task
scheduler, computer mgmt, disk mgmt, printer setup, networking, ODBC
configurator, scanner and camera device mgmt, sound and audio device mgmt,
mouse setup, etc.
Post by amosf
$299 (more in Oz) is a lot for
something that doesn't actually do anything useful. You can't even
really browse the internet with it coz you need protection software
first...
All the protection software you need is free. SP2 + MS AntiSpyware +
ZoneLabs firewall = fairly safe Windows system.
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
The most important thing to remember, which cola bozos can't seem to
get through their thick skulls, is you don't have to buy MS
products. They can ask what they want.
Ferrari charges a lot for their autos; I don't have to buy them and I
don't worry about it or complain.
You go to buy a car. You say, "I want a car."
"Sure, we have the best Ferrari in town and our prices..."
"I don't want a Ferrari. I want a Ford."
"A what?"
And exactly what does MS have to do with the fact that nobody else had the
intellect and ability to build and sell a competitive PC operating system?
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
With just about every GNU/Linux user I know in person,
All 3 of them? It's a fact that most Linux users don't pay for their
distro, or their apps.
I know many more windows users than linux users. Some of these people
are very well off. I don't know of any that actually paid for office.
They all stole it. They often offer me a copy of stolen office. They
all got they windows with the PC, of course, but all the other
software tends to be stolen or free download. They steal software
even when they drive a BMW.
You need to get new friends, Dim. They're thieves. Everything you just
said is a reflection of their poor character, and has nothing to do with
Microsoft or Windows.
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Post by Rick
Microsoft Office Standard Professional $329
MapPoint $299, XP Pro --Upgrade-- $199, Visual Studio .Net
--Upgrade-- $499, FrontPage $199, Word $230,
... yeah, real cheap...
Maybe for a guy driving a Rolls Royce... ;-)
Everything you listed can be found for 50% to 70% of those amounts
(naturally you list full retail).
Well duh. You want into the shop and that's what the price is. Some
dicks actually pay that. The rest steal it.
The rest *of the 3rd world* steals it. But again you digress. The issue is
cost, and MS software is far from expensive.
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
I don't understand you cola nuts. Many of you seem intelligent
enough to earn a good living, but over and over again I hear how
expensive you think MS software is. It's cheap compared to much of
the commercial software out there.
MS had some marketting genius. They sold an OS. Hard to believe. They
could sell ice to polar bears.
"Hard to believe" they sold a product? Why? Unix was sold for exorbitant
amounts for years.
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
That judgment is as flawed as your racist beliefs. My experience
contradicts you.
Then you haven't grown up in a black city like Atlanta and seen how
they behave, and you extrapolate 3 Linux purchasers to the entire
'community'.
Of course duty free shopping is an angel. We can tell that by his
attitude :)
What do my actions have to do with anything?
Post by amosf
So now prove that he only knows 3 linux buyers. Indeed, prove that
you don't actually live in a trailer park and spend your time watch
jerry...
So what if I do? What does that have to do with anything?
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Coming from a man who believes the Caucasian race to be supreme over
all others,
No doubt about it, though Asians (Orientals) are smart and
industrious as well.
Yep. You better be nice to them as they are likely to be signing your
paycheck soon. If you have a job.
I did work for Wang Laboratories right after college, but since then only
American companies.
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
I will gladly wave that statement away without even blinking an eye.
As you wish. You're still wrong about people paying for Linux software.
Some people pay for it. Some don't. It's the same with MS software.
Or any software. You've heard of software piracy, right?
It's a fact most Linux users don't pay for their software. Whether Windows
user do or not is irrelevant.
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Of course it is. It's damn nearly impossible to purchase a computer
_without_ Windows and even *if* you try, then you will _still_ need
to pay for the Windows license that you don't want.
It's exceedingly easy to buy a computer without Windows. Or to build one.
Not really. It's easier than it used to be, but still not common.
There appears to be a push to make it illegal here.
Lawmakers in Australia are trying to make it illegal to buy a computer
without Windows pre-installed?

I don't believe you.
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
There are even people who buy Gentoo, (K)Ubuntu or Debian CD's when
they could easily download them.
Like me. I recently bought Debian 3.1, Fedora 4, and Knoppix 4.0
DVD from FrozenTech, when I could have downloaded them. $8.45 for 4
DVDs.
Well, that's not really buying the OS.
Then what is it?
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
In the past I bought Red Hat 4.2, TurboLinux, and Suse 7.1 Pro. I
really don't use Linux much - just install and see what's good and
bad - but I'm glad it's growing and creating competition for MS. I
do plan on making contributions to the OSDL, KDE, and to some open
source apps I like. I really don't care much whether the code is
open-source, and I disagree with a lot of the philosophies and
attitudes, but MS badly needs competition in OSes.
Well duh. What do you think MS would be doing now if it didn't have
linux at it's heels. People would stil be stuck with another version
of 9x
Probably not. MS improved Win95 to Win98, then to 2000 - all in the absence
of OS competition.

But even if MS stayed with Win95 and didn't improve it at all, so what?
It's not MS' fault that nobody else stepped up and created a competing
product (until recently).
Thomas Wootten
2005-10-26 16:40:58 UTC
Permalink
DFS wrote:

<snip...>
Post by DFS
Probably not. MS improved Win95 to Win98, then to 2000 - all in the
absence of OS competition.
Incorrect.

Firstly there are two lineages of Windows OSes

3.1-95-98-ME
and NT(1,2,3,4)-2000-XP and some other server OSes.

Win98 was not improved to 2000, but to ME.

ME was notoriously rubbish. Hence why 2000 was commonly deployed as a
desktop OS despite originally being intended for server/networked type
usage.

And MS did recognise Linux as a potential competitor, seeing that unless
they made their systems more stable it would hurt their business. You'll
note that XP is orders of magnitude more stable than the 9x/ME series.
Because MS saw the competition that Linux posed, and acted accordingly.

<snip>
--
Tom Wootten, Trinity Hall.
oof.trinhall.cam.ac.uk
There was only ever one valid use for the notorious <blink> tag:
Schrodinger's cat is <blink>not</blink> dead.
DFS
2005-10-26 17:38:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Wootten
<snip...>
Post by DFS
Probably not. MS improved Win95 to Win98, then to 2000 - all in the
absence of OS competition.
Incorrect.
Firstly there are two lineages of Windows OSes
I know that, but you get the idea: there was little or no OS competition,
yet MS still improved Win95, and developed NT/2000 from scratch (well - Dave
Cutler from DEC did anyway).
Post by Thomas Wootten
3.1-95-98-ME
and NT(1,2,3,4)-2000-XP and some other server OSes.
Win98 was not improved to 2000, but to ME.
ME was notoriously rubbish. Hence why 2000 was commonly deployed as a
desktop OS despite originally being intended for server/networked type
usage.
And MS did recognise Linux as a potential competitor, seeing that
unless they made their systems more stable it would hurt their
business. You'll note that XP is orders of magnitude more stable than
the 9x/ME series. Because MS saw the competition that Linux posed,
and acted accordingly.
<snip>
amosf
2005-10-26 22:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Thomas Wootten
<snip...>
Post by DFS
Probably not. MS improved Win95 to Win98, then to 2000 - all in the
absence of OS competition.
Incorrect.
Firstly there are two lineages of Windows OSes
I know that, but you get the idea: there was little or no OS competition,
yet MS still improved Win95, and developed NT/2000 from scratch (well -
Dave Cutler from DEC did anyway).
MS sold ice to polar bears with the 9x series. There wasn't much improvement
over the series, just really bug fixes on the same old product. The last in
the line was ME, which was the peak of the 9x line apparently :)
--
-
I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
-
Thomas Wootten
2005-10-26 23:47:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Thomas Wootten
<snip...>
Post by DFS
Probably not. MS improved Win95 to Win98, then to 2000 - all in the
absence of OS competition.
Incorrect.
Firstly there are two lineages of Windows OSes
I know that, but you get the idea: there was little or no OS competition,
yet MS still improved Win95, and developed NT/2000 from scratch (well -
Dave Cutler from DEC did anyway).
MS sold ice to polar bears with the 9x series. There wasn't much
improvement over the series, just really bug fixes on the same old
product. The last in the line was ME, which was the peak of the 9x line
apparently :)
MS thought so. But ME was actually more like the trough of said line.
--
Tom Wootten, Trinity Hall.
oof.trinhall.cam.ac.uk
There was only ever one valid use for the notorious <blink> tag:
Schrodinger's cat is <blink>not</blink> dead.
Thomas Wootten
2005-10-26 23:46:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Thomas Wootten
<snip...>
Post by DFS
Probably not. MS improved Win95 to Win98, then to 2000 - all in the
absence of OS competition.
Incorrect.
Firstly there are two lineages of Windows OSes
I know that, but you get the idea: there was little or no OS competition,
yet MS still improved Win95, and developed NT/2000 from scratch (well -
Dave Cutler from DEC did anyway).
vv
Post by DFS
Post by Thomas Wootten
3.1-95-98-ME
and NT(1,2,3,4)-2000-XP and some other server OSes.
Win98 was not improved to 2000, but to ME.
ME was notoriously rubbish. Hence why 2000 was commonly deployed as a
desktop OS despite originally being intended for server/networked type
usage.
And MS did recognise Linux as a potential competitor, seeing that
unless they made their systems more stable it would hurt their
business. You'll note that XP is orders of magnitude more stable than
the 9x/ME series. Because MS saw the competition that Linux posed,
and acted accordingly.
<snip>
Funny how you failed to respond to that, despite what you posted to my above
point...
--
Tom Wootten, Trinity Hall.
oof.trinhall.cam.ac.uk
There was only ever one valid use for the notorious <blink> tag:
Schrodinger's cat is <blink>not</blink> dead.
DFS
2005-10-27 00:56:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Wootten
Post by Thomas Wootten
Win98 was not improved to 2000, but to ME.
ME was notoriously rubbish. Hence why 2000 was commonly deployed as
a desktop OS despite originally being intended for server/networked
type usage.
Win98/ME wasn't that great, but worked fine for me for years.

WinServer2003 is a pretty nice system, I must say.
Post by Thomas Wootten
Post by Thomas Wootten
And MS did recognise Linux as a potential competitor, seeing that
unless they made their systems more stable it would hurt their
business. You'll note that XP is orders of magnitude more stable
than the 9x/ME series. Because MS saw the competition that Linux
posed, and acted accordingly.
<snip>
Funny how you failed to respond to that, despite what you posted to
my above point...
Of course you're right about Linux being a potential competitor. A stable
OS with a bunch of free desktop apps that are mostly good enough for casual
use? And it can be stripped down for use as a server, a firewall, router,
etc. And you can switch out different window managers? And it's now
supported by Oracle and IBM?

Linux has some good things going for it. Gaming and fonts and
desktop/office apps and consistency and ease of use/config/maintenance
aren't there yet, but if you're willing to spend a LOT of time you can
really make Linux sing. It's nice to customize your Linux system and your
desktop to the Nth degree. It can be a hassle to
install/register/authenticate/authorize your Windows system, and never
having to worry about Linux licensing or costs is nice.

But for me, the slight hassles every so often, and the upfront costs are
easily worth it, for entry into the Windows app and hardware universe. And
since I like (really, really like) to develop Access applications I'm sort
of "locked in."

(I see your sig mentions Cambridge. Are you a student there? Comp Sci?)
amosf
2005-10-27 01:16:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Thomas Wootten
Post by Thomas Wootten
Win98 was not improved to 2000, but to ME.
ME was notoriously rubbish. Hence why 2000 was commonly deployed as
a desktop OS despite originally being intended for server/networked
type usage.
Win98/ME wasn't that great, but worked fine for me for years.
WinServer2003 is a pretty nice system, I must say.
It would want to be at the price, huh? Still retails for $1000 here in
places. Then add the actual software to do anything.
Post by DFS
Post by Thomas Wootten
Funny how you failed to respond to that, despite what you posted to
my above point...
Of course you're right about Linux being a potential competitor. A stable
OS with a bunch of free desktop apps that are mostly good enough for casual
use? And it can be stripped down for use as a server, a firewall, router,
etc. And you can switch out different window managers? And it's now
supported by Oracle and IBM?
And you need a competitor if you want to use windows.
Post by DFS
Linux has some good things going for it. Gaming and fonts and
desktop/office apps and consistency and ease of use/config/maintenance
aren't there yet, but if you're willing to spend a LOT of time you can
really make Linux sing. It's nice to customize your Linux system and your
desktop to the Nth degree. It can be a hassle to
install/register/authenticate/authorize your Windows system, and never
having to worry about Linux licensing or costs is nice.
Windows apps, especially third party, aren't really consistant either tho,
are they? Most of the linux 'issues' are app support, and that's just
because of the MS monopoly.
Post by DFS
But for me, the slight hassles every so often, and the upfront costs are
easily worth it, for entry into the Windows app and hardware universe.
And since I like (really, really like) to develop Access applications I'm
sort of "locked in."
For me it's a continuous win issues. Used to dive me nuts when the wife used
to run windows. It was always screwed. With linux the issues have been
slight, as you say :)

But you are locked in. Glad you admit it. The MS monopoly has a lot to do
with that. You can claim that you like it that way. That's a good attitude
if you are stuck there. That will help keep you happy in the job.

I could be locked into linux I guess, tho I would move to BSD or HURD or
FRED if they turn out better in the future...
--
-
I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
-
DFS
2005-10-27 03:15:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Thomas Wootten
Win98 was not improved to 2000, but to ME.
ME was notoriously rubbish. Hence why 2000 was commonly deployed
as a desktop OS despite originally being intended for
server/networked type usage.
Win98/ME wasn't that great, but worked fine for me for years.
WinServer2003 is a pretty nice system, I must say.
It would want to be at the price, huh? Still retails for $1000 here in
places. Then add the actual software to do anything.
You can get it much cheaper. Add MS Office 97 Pro, Opera 8.5, inexpensive
developer editions of SQL Server and Oracle, a few games, and you're good to
go.
Post by amosf
Windows apps, especially third party, aren't really consistant either
tho, are they?
They're much more consistent than Linux apps.
Post by amosf
Most of the linux 'issues' are app support, and that's
just because of the MS monopoly.
There you go again. Never taking responsibility for your OS.
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
But for me, the slight hassles every so often, and the upfront costs
are easily worth it, for entry into the Windows app and hardware
universe. And since I like (really, really like) to develop Access
applications I'm sort of "locked in."
For me it's a continuous win issues. Used to dive me nuts when the
wife used to run windows. It was always screwed. With linux the
issues have been slight, as you say :)
But you are locked in. Glad you admit it. The MS monopoly has a lot
to do with that. You can claim that you like it that way. That's a
good attitude if you are stuck there. That will help keep you happy
in the job.
I used to develop apps with Borland Paradox (DOS and Windows), and before
that dBase and some Clipper. I loved Paradox for Windows - its scripting
language from 1993 is probably still better and in some ways more powerful
than VB. But nobody uses it. The market is MS. And Access is unsurpassed
as a query/reporting tool - except for some really pricey programs like Brio
and Business Objects. Overall there is just not a Windows db-client tool
anywhere near as good as MS Access for data processing. One of the nice
things is you query any datasource that has an ODBC driver. I can write
joins between SQL Server, Oracle, DB2, Access, Informix and Lotus Notes
systems, all at once. It's slow, but it will work. And the report writer
is excellent.

Even so, I probably need to move away from Access development anyway, into
web development. Java and Javascript, maybe even PHP and PostgreSQL.
Post by amosf
I could be locked into linux I guess, tho I would move to BSD or HURD
or FRED if they turn out better in the future...
amosf
2005-10-27 03:27:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
It would want to be at the price, huh? Still retails for $1000 here in
places. Then add the actual software to do anything.
You can get it much cheaper. Add MS Office 97 Pro, Opera 8.5, inexpensive
developer editions of SQL Server and Oracle, a few games, and you're good
to go.
What's with the old office software? Is the new stuff no good?
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Windows apps, especially third party, aren't really consistant either
tho, are they?
They're much more consistent than Linux apps.
Some are pretty wild. Of course I actually don't mind the variety.
Consistancy isn't much of a selling point...
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Most of the linux 'issues' are app support, and that's
just because of the MS monopoly.
There you go again. Never taking responsibility for your OS.
I'm talking about the 'issues' that converting MS users say they experience.
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
For me it's a continuous win issues. Used to dive me nuts when the
wife used to run windows. It was always screwed. With linux the
issues have been slight, as you say :)
But you are locked in. Glad you admit it. The MS monopoly has a lot
to do with that. You can claim that you like it that way. That's a
good attitude if you are stuck there. That will help keep you happy
in the job.
I used to develop apps with Borland Paradox (DOS and Windows), and before
that dBase and some Clipper. I loved Paradox for Windows - its scripting
language from 1993 is probably still better and in some ways more powerful
than VB. But nobody uses it. The market is MS. And Access is
unsurpassed as a query/reporting tool - except for some really pricey
programs like Brio
and Business Objects. Overall there is just not a Windows db-client tool
anywhere near as good as MS Access for data processing. One of the nice
things is you query any datasource that has an ODBC driver. I can write
joins between SQL Server, Oracle, DB2, Access, Informix and Lotus Notes
systems, all at once. It's slow, but it will work. And the report writer
is excellent.
Even so, I probably need to move away from Access development anyway, into
web development. Java and Javascript, maybe even PHP and PostgreSQL.
Might be a nice change. Like a holiday.
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
I could be locked into linux I guess, tho I would move to BSD or HURD
or FRED if they turn out better in the future...
--
-
I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
-
DFS
2005-10-27 20:27:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
It would want to be at the price, huh? Still retails for $1000 here
in places. Then add the actual software to do anything.
You can get it much cheaper. Add MS Office 97 Pro, Opera 8.5,
inexpensive developer editions of SQL Server and Oracle, a few
games, and you're good to go.
What's with the old office software? Is the new stuff no good?
It's better than ever, but you get 90% of the functionality for 25% of the
price if you buy version 97. The new Office help system is excellent, and
Access has some nice new features, but version 97 is plenty good.

The amount of features in MS Office 97 is overkill for most home/office
users anyway.
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Windows apps, especially third party, aren't really consistant
either tho, are they?
They're much more consistent than Linux apps.
Some are pretty wild. Of course I actually don't mind the variety.
Consistancy isn't much of a selling point...
But consistency is.
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
I could be locked into linux I guess, tho I would move to BSD or
HURD or FRED if they turn out better in the future...
Stay away from that crude, cheap stuff. There's no future in it.
amosf
2005-10-27 21:52:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
It would want to be at the price, huh? Still retails for $1000 here
in places. Then add the actual software to do anything.
You can get it much cheaper. Add MS Office 97 Pro, Opera 8.5,
inexpensive developer editions of SQL Server and Oracle, a few
games, and you're good to go.
What's with the old office software? Is the new stuff no good?
It's better than ever, but you get 90% of the functionality for 25% of the
price if you buy version 97. The new Office help system is excellent, and
Access has some nice new features, but version 97 is plenty good.
The amount of features in MS Office 97 is overkill for most home/office
users anyway.
Or you can get 95% of the functionality for 0% of the price if you d/l
OOo2... The amount of features in OOo2 is overkill for most home/office
users anyway.
--
-
I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
-
DFS
2005-10-27 22:06:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
It would want to be at the price, huh? Still retails for $1000
here in places. Then add the actual software to do anything.
You can get it much cheaper. Add MS Office 97 Pro, Opera 8.5,
inexpensive developer editions of SQL Server and Oracle, a few
games, and you're good to go.
What's with the old office software? Is the new stuff no good?
It's better than ever, but you get 90% of the functionality for 25%
of the price if you buy version 97. The new Office help system is
excellent, and Access has some nice new features, but version 97 is
plenty good.
The amount of features in MS Office 97 is overkill for most
home/office users anyway.
Or you can get 95% of the functionality for 0% of the price if you d/l
OOo2... The amount of features in OOo2 is overkill for most
home/office users anyway.
What are they charging for the slowness?
amosf
2005-10-27 22:28:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
It would want to be at the price, huh? Still retails for $1000
here in places. Then add the actual software to do anything.
You can get it much cheaper. Add MS Office 97 Pro, Opera 8.5,
inexpensive developer editions of SQL Server and Oracle, a few
games, and you're good to go.
What's with the old office software? Is the new stuff no good?
It's better than ever, but you get 90% of the functionality for 25%
of the price if you buy version 97. The new Office help system is
excellent, and Access has some nice new features, but version 97 is
plenty good.
The amount of features in MS Office 97 is overkill for most
home/office users anyway.
Or you can get 95% of the functionality for 0% of the price if you d/l
OOo2... The amount of features in OOo2 is overkill for most
home/office users anyway.
What are they charging for the slowness?
It isn't slow for normal use. I don't think many home users have million
cell sheets and I find it can load that many in an acceptable time. 200,000
cell load is very quick. So what the heck do you think these home users
will be doing???
--
-
I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
-
Linønut
2005-10-27 23:42:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
What are they charging for the slowness?
It isn't slow for normal use. I don't think many home users have million
cell sheets and I find it can load that many in an acceptable time. 200,000
cell load is very quick. So what the heck do you think these home users
will be doing???
Besides, if it is a real issue, it will be fixed before too long.
--
Treat yourself to the devices, applications, and services running on the
GNU/Linux® operating system!
Timo Pirinen
2005-10-28 15:48:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
The amount of features in MS Office 97 is overkill for most home/office
users anyway.
Really. You mean features like losing images between pages, printing the
page numbers wrong etc. There sure is an overabundance of those in
MSOffice. That's overkill for sure. On the other hand, the ability to save
in pdf and flash are quite nice features for an office suite. Does any
version of Microsoft Office have them? OpenOffice does.
--
Timo Pirinen
***@dlc.fi
DFS
2005-10-28 16:04:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timo Pirinen
Post by DFS
The amount of features in MS Office 97 is overkill for most
home/office users anyway.
Really. You mean features like losing images between pages, printing
the page numbers wrong etc. There sure is an overabundance of those in
MSOffice.
Liar.
Post by Timo Pirinen
That's overkill for sure. On the other hand, the ability to
save in pdf and flash are quite nice features for an office suite.
Does any version of Microsoft Office have them?
Not now. Next version.
Post by Timo Pirinen
OpenOffice does.
It's a nice feature.

I need to do a join query between SQL Server, Oracle and DB2 datasources,
write the results out to a spreadsheet, automatically format the spreadsheet
(bold headers, set alignments, colors, etc) and save it to my local drive,
copy it to a server, generate an email, attach the spreadsheet, send it to
30 people (blind copy 3 others), and record the successful completion of
each step in a local database, and write the step-by-step results to a text
file and email it to a system administrator if the job doesn't finish.

I need to run this entire job with a single button click each week.

Does any version of STOOL (SlowToOpenOrLoad) Office allow this level of
customization and automation? Of course not.

Does MS Office allow this level of customization and automation? Of course.

OpenOffice does not meet the business world's requirements.
The Ghost In The Machine
2005-10-28 21:00:06 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS
<***@dfs_.com>
wrote
on Fri, 28 Oct 2005 12:04:21 -0400
Post by DFS
Post by Timo Pirinen
Post by DFS
The amount of features in MS Office 97 is overkill for most
home/office users anyway.
Really. You mean features like losing images between pages, printing
the page numbers wrong etc. There sure is an overabundance of those in
MSOffice.
Liar.
I don't know about losing images, but it mangles figures fairly well.
Post by DFS
Post by Timo Pirinen
That's overkill for sure. On the other hand, the ability to
save in pdf and flash are quite nice features for an office suite.
Does any version of Microsoft Office have them?
Not now. Next version.
Ooooh, look at the pretty swirling vapors. And they smell
so nice, too.... *swoon*
Post by DFS
Post by Timo Pirinen
OpenOffice does.
It's a nice feature.
And a largely unnecessary one, if one looks at the bigger picture.
What is *really* needed here? Answer: something that allows for
marks to be placed on a virtual page. True, PDF can do that, but
so can many many other things, Microsoft Word among them. (The
most standard one coming to mind, in fact, is SVG. However, most
people don't initially think SVG for document propagation; they
think PDF. Kudos to Adobe for a good sales presentation here.)
Post by DFS
I need to do a join query between SQL Server, Oracle
and DB2 datasources, write the results out to a
spreadsheet, automatically format the spreadsheet
(bold headers, set alignments, colors, etc) and save
it to my local drive, copy it to a server, generate
an email, attach the spreadsheet, send it to 30 people
(blind copy 3 others), and record the successful
completion of each step in a local database, and write
the step-by-step results to a text file and email it to
a system administrator if the job doesn't finish.
I need to run this entire job with a single button click each week.
Three words: AT and VBscript. Or do you really get a thrill
out of pushing Da Button? :-P
Post by DFS
Does any version of STOOL (SlowToOpenOrLoad) Office allow
this level of customization and automation? Of course not.
Does MS Office allow this level of customization
and automation? Of course.
OpenOffice does not meet the business world's requirements.
I for one consider this a challenge. To be sure, there
are a number of ways by which one can implement this;
the simplest is to set up a mailsender that shoves out a
Weblink to 30 people. However, the devil's in the details,
and there's no guarantee that the person receiving said
Weblink will actually bother to read it.

A custom solution is psosible that generates the PDF and
then sends it to people using Content-Type: application/pdf;
a Linux mailreader would have no problems displaying such,
if it's sufficiently capable.
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
DFS
2005-10-28 22:13:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS
on Fri, 28 Oct 2005 12:04:21 -0400
Post by DFS
Post by Timo Pirinen
Post by DFS
The amount of features in MS Office 97 is overkill for most
home/office users anyway.
Really. You mean features like losing images between pages, printing
the page numbers wrong etc. There sure is an overabundance of those
in MSOffice.
Liar.
I don't know about losing images, but it mangles figures fairly well.
Don't make me say it...
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by DFS
Post by Timo Pirinen
That's overkill for sure. On the other hand, the ability to
save in pdf and flash are quite nice features for an office suite.
Does any version of Microsoft Office have them?
Not now. Next version.
Ooooh, look at the pretty swirling vapors. And they smell
so nice, too.... *swoon*
Ye of little faith. When has MS let you down?
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by DFS
Post by Timo Pirinen
OpenOffice does.
It's a nice feature.
And a largely unnecessary one, if one looks at the bigger picture.
What is *really* needed here? Answer: something that allows for
marks to be placed on a virtual page. True, PDF can do that, but
so can many many other things, Microsoft Word among them. (The
most standard one coming to mind, in fact, is SVG. However, most
people don't initially think SVG for document propagation; they
think PDF. Kudos to Adobe for a good sales presentation here.)
I've never seen an SVG doc as I recall. But you can get the spec in PDF :-)
http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/REC-SVG11-20030114.pdf

PDF results in a (theoretically?) uneditable document which almost exactly
resembles the original. And it's a fairly small size. And the reader is
free, and featureful. What's not to like?
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by DFS
I need to do a join query between SQL Server, Oracle
and DB2 datasources, write the results out to a
spreadsheet, automatically format the spreadsheet
(bold headers, set alignments, colors, etc) and save
it to my local drive, copy it to a server, generate
an email, attach the spreadsheet, send it to 30 people
(blind copy 3 others), and record the successful
completion of each step in a local database, and write
the step-by-step results to a text file and email it to
a system administrator if the job doesn't finish.
I need to run this entire job with a single button click each week.
Three words: AT and VBscript. Or do you really get a thrill
out of pushing Da Button? :-P
Are AT and VBScript supported in STOOL? Don't think so.

Will VBScript allow you to join and query heterogeneous data sources like MS
Access will? Don't think so.

Will VBScript open the Excel sheet and format columns based on the value in
the first row? Don't think so (but I could be wrong)
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by DFS
Does any version of STOOL (SlowToOpenOrLoad) Office allow
this level of customization and automation? Of course not.
Does MS Office allow this level of customization
and automation? Of course.
OpenOffice does not meet the business world's requirements.
I for one consider this a challenge. To be sure, there
are a number of ways by which one can implement this;
Almost as many ways as there are bugs in Linux.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
the simplest is to set up a mailsender that shoves out a
Weblink to 30 people. However, the devil's in the details,
and there's no guarantee that the person receiving said
Weblink will actually bother to read it.
Like I hear in the business world all the time: "that's a process problem"
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
A custom solution is psosible that generates the PDF and
then sends it to people using Content-Type: application/pdf;
a Linux mailreader would have no problems displaying such,
if it's sufficiently capable.
MS Office won't currently generate PDF without add-in programs, or a certain
amount of untidy VB code.
Thomas Wootten
2005-10-29 22:04:49 UTC
Permalink
DFS wrote:

<snip>
Post by DFS
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by DFS
Does any version of STOOL (SlowToOpenOrLoad) Office allow
this level of customization and automation? Of course not.
Does MS Office allow this level of customization
and automation? Of course.
OpenOffice does not meet the business world's requirements.
I for one consider this a challenge. To be sure, there
are a number of ways by which one can implement this;
Almost as many ways as there are bugs in Linux.
Not very many then.

<snip>
--
Tom Wootten, Fresher NatSci, Trinity Hall.
oof.trinhall.cam.ac.uk
There was only ever one valid use for the notorious <blink> tag:
Schrodinger's cat is <blink>not</blink> dead.
Timo Pirinen
2005-10-29 10:53:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Timo Pirinen
Post by DFS
The amount of features in MS Office 97 is overkill for most
home/office users anyway.
Really. You mean features like losing images between pages, printing
the page numbers wrong etc. There sure is an overabundance of those in
MSOffice.
Liar.
Because of MS Word's habit of losing images in a limbo between pages while
dragging them from one page to another and Word's inability to print page
numbers right my predecessor dumped Word 2000. Lucky us. You could say that
those two faults were the proverbial straws that broke the camel's back.

That was in October 2000. Since then we used CorelDraw for all document
production and it worked surprisingly well for the few years we ran Windows
NT4.

Currently we are producing our documents with OpenOffice under Suse Linux.
Legacy 'sleeping' documents are handled with CorelDraw Essentials running
under wine. We only export cdr-format documents to OpenOffice if the
document becomes active again.
Post by DFS
Post by Timo Pirinen
That's overkill for sure. On the other hand, the ability to
save in pdf and flash are quite nice features for an office suite.
Does any version of Microsoft Office have them?
Not now. Next version.
You mean the next version of Word will export to flash? Do you have any
proof? I don't think it will.
Post by DFS
Post by Timo Pirinen
OpenOffice does.
It's a nice feature.
Yes, they are nice features.
Post by DFS
I need to do a join query between SQL Server, Oracle and DB2 datasources,
write the results out to a spreadsheet, automatically format the
spreadsheet (bold headers, set alignments, colors, etc) and save it to my
local drive, copy it to a server, generate an email, attach the
spreadsheet, send it to 30 people (blind copy 3 others), and record the
successful completion of each step in a local database, and write the
step-by-step results to a text file and email it to a system administrator
if the job doesn't finish.
I need to run this entire job with a single button click each week.
So you work as a button pusher. Pity you. I don't need to.
--
Timo Pirinen
***@dlc.fi
DFS
2005-10-29 13:42:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timo Pirinen
Post by DFS
Post by Timo Pirinen
That's overkill for sure. On the other hand, the ability to
save in pdf and flash are quite nice features for an office suite.
Does any version of Microsoft Office have them?
Not now. Next version.
You mean the next version of Word will export to flash? Do you have
any proof? I don't think it will.
My mistake. I don't know about flash. I meant pdf only.
Post by Timo Pirinen
Post by DFS
I need to do a join query between SQL Server, Oracle and DB2
datasources, write the results out to a spreadsheet, automatically
format the spreadsheet (bold headers, set alignments, colors, etc)
and save it to my local drive, copy it to a server, generate an
email, attach the spreadsheet, send it to 30 people (blind copy 3
others), and record the successful completion of each step in a
local database, and write the step-by-step results to a text file
and email it to a system administrator if the job doesn't finish.
I need to run this entire job with a single button click each week.
So you work as a button pusher. Pity you. I don't need to.
Yet another crushing defeat by DFS of a Linux non-advocate who childishly
deflects the fact that STOOL is an inferior business data processing
platform compared to MS Office.
John Bailo
2005-10-29 13:44:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Timo Pirinen
You mean the next version of Word will export to flash? Do you have
any proof? I don't think it will.
My mistake. I don't know about flash. I meant pdf only.
Flash...PDF...yea, you're a computer /consultant/ right? Sure...
Post by DFS
Yet another crushing defeat by DFS of a Linux non-advocate who childishly
deflects the fact that STOOL is an inferior business data processing
platform compared to MS Office.
Oh wait, were you talking about paint programs? You seem to mix things up.

DOS-FUS.
--
360 updated 10/5
http://360.yahoo.com/manfrommars_43
Kier
2005-10-29 13:57:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Timo Pirinen
Post by DFS
Post by Timo Pirinen
That's overkill for sure. On the other hand, the ability to
save in pdf and flash are quite nice features for an office suite.
Does any version of Microsoft Office have them?
Not now. Next version.
You mean the next version of Word will export to flash? Do you have
any proof? I don't think it will.
My mistake. I don't know about flash. I meant pdf only.
Post by Timo Pirinen
Post by DFS
I need to do a join query between SQL Server, Oracle and DB2
datasources, write the results out to a spreadsheet, automatically
format the spreadsheet (bold headers, set alignments, colors, etc)
and save it to my local drive, copy it to a server, generate an
email, attach the spreadsheet, send it to 30 people (blind copy 3
others), and record the successful completion of each step in a
local database, and write the step-by-step results to a text file
and email it to a system administrator if the job doesn't finish.
I need to run this entire job with a single button click each week.
So you work as a button pusher. Pity you. I don't need to.
Yet another crushing defeat by DFS of a Linux non-advocate who childishly
deflects the fact that STOOL is an inferior business data processing
platform compared to MS Office.
'STOOL' does not exist. It's a product of your twisted imagination, stinky.
--
Kier
DFS
2005-10-29 20:15:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kier
Post by DFS
Yet another crushing defeat by DFS of a Linux non-advocate who
childishly deflects the fact that STOOL is an inferior business data
processing platform compared to MS Office.
'STOOL' does not exist. It's a product of your twisted imagination, stinky.
Of course it exists. Slow To Open Or Load Office 2.0 was just released.
They just forgot to use all the words to describe how slow it is.

Loading Image...
Kier
2005-10-30 02:43:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
Post by DFS
Yet another crushing defeat by DFS of a Linux non-advocate who
childishly deflects the fact that STOOL is an inferior business data
processing platform compared to MS Office.
'STOOL' does not exist. It's a product of your twisted imagination, stinky.
Of course it exists. Slow To Open Or Load Office 2.0 was just released.
They just forgot to use all the words to describe how slow it is.
http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/STOOL.PNG
Only in your twisted dreams, stinky.
--
Kier
Timo Pirinen
2005-10-29 16:36:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Timo Pirinen
Post by DFS
Post by Timo Pirinen
That's overkill for sure. On the other hand, the ability to
save in pdf and flash are quite nice features for an office suite.
Does any version of Microsoft Office have them?
Not now. Next version.
You mean the next version of Word will export to flash? Do you have
any proof? I don't think it will.
My mistake. I don't know about flash.
Of course you don't. You are a button pusher after all. How many sprockets
did you make, Jetson?
--
Timo Pirinen
***@dlc.fi
Timo Pirinen
2005-10-29 16:40:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Timo Pirinen
Post by DFS
I need to do a join query between SQL Server, Oracle and DB2
datasources, write the results out to a spreadsheet, automatically
format the spreadsheet (bold headers, set alignments, colors, etc)
and save it to my local drive, copy it to a server, generate an
email, attach the spreadsheet, send it to 30 people (blind copy 3
others), and record the successful completion of each step in a
local database, and write the step-by-step results to a text file
and email it to a system administrator if the job doesn't finish.
I need to run this entire job with a single button click each week.
So you work as a button pusher. Pity you. I don't need to.
Yet another crushing defeat by DFS of a Linux non-advocate who childishly
deflects the fact that STOOL is an inferior business data processing
platform compared to MS Office.
Right, sprocketman. You really know how to snatch defeat out of the jaws of
victory. How I wish I had your childlike ability to get interested in
trivialities.
--
Timo Pirinen
***@dlc.fi
DFS
2005-10-29 19:52:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timo Pirinen
Post by DFS
Post by Timo Pirinen
Post by DFS
I need to do a join query between SQL Server, Oracle and DB2
datasources, write the results out to a spreadsheet, automatically
format the spreadsheet (bold headers, set alignments, colors, etc)
and save it to my local drive, copy it to a server, generate an
email, attach the spreadsheet, send it to 30 people (blind copy 3
others), and record the successful completion of each step in a
local database, and write the step-by-step results to a text file
and email it to a system administrator if the job doesn't finish.
I need to run this entire job with a single button click each week.
So you work as a button pusher. Pity you. I don't need to.
Yet another crushing defeat by DFS of a Linux non-advocate who
childishly deflects the fact that STOOL is an inferior business data
processing platform compared to MS Office.
Right, sprocketman.
Of course I'm right. SlowToOpenOrLoad Office isn't nearly ready for prime
time.
Post by Timo Pirinen
You really know how to snatch defeat out of the
jaws of victory.
Considering you totally failed to address the issue, your defeat is
complete.
Post by Timo Pirinen
How I wish I had your childlike ability to get interested in trivialities.
Look - it's a Linux user so desperate to dismiss *yet another* OSS software
failure he can't bring himself to talk about it any longer.

How unusual.
John Bailo
2005-10-29 19:59:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
SlowToOpenOrLoad Office isn't nearly ready for prime
Funny -- I defeat Qualig.

He goes away, and DFS shows up.
--
360 updated 10/5
http://360.yahoo.com/manfrommars_43
l***@uku.co.uk
2005-10-29 20:02:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bailo
Post by DFS
SlowToOpenOrLoad Office isn't nearly ready for prime
Funny -- I defeat Qualig.
He goes away, and DFS shows up.
Funny. I'm still here and you're still wrong.
John Bailo
2005-10-29 20:03:34 UTC
Permalink
***@uku.co.uk wrote:
By threatening me physically, you no longer have a right to publish here
--
360 updated 10/5
http://360.yahoo.com/manfrommars_43
l***@lycos.com
2005-10-29 23:07:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bailo
By threatening me physically, you no longer have a right to publish here
--
360 updated 10/5
http://360.yahoo.com/manfrommars_43
hey asshole, quit spamming this newsgroup with your stupid crap.
Peter Köhlmann
2005-10-29 23:37:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@lycos.com
Post by John Bailo
By threatening me physically, you no longer have a right to publish here
--
360 updated 10/5
http://360.yahoo.com/manfrommars_43
hey asshole, quit spamming this newsgroup with your stupid crap.
Although you are perfectly right about Bailo, you should stop also.
Because you are (although it sounds improbable) an even bigger asshole
--
"Last I checked, it wasn't the power cord for the Clue Generator that
was sticking up your ass." - John Novak, rasfwrj
Timo Pirinen
2005-10-30 07:25:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Timo Pirinen
You really know how to snatch defeat out of the
jaws of victory.
Considering you totally failed to address the issue, your defeat is
complete.
The issue is that you are blinded by trivialities, some extremely simple
things like office automation. You probably think that digital watches are
cool too. Carry on, Jetson. For a wannabee like you, it's the thought that
counts.
--
Timo Pirinen
***@dlc.fi
DFS
2005-10-30 16:17:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timo Pirinen
Post by DFS
Post by Timo Pirinen
You really know how to snatch defeat out of the
jaws of victory.
Considering you totally failed to address the issue, your defeat is
complete.
The issue is that you are blinded by trivialities, some extremely
simple things like office automation.
Dig that hole deeper, Nemo.

This statement just reinforces the inferiority of SlowToOpenOffice, which
isn't even capable of tasks you call trivial and extremely simple.
Post by Timo Pirinen
You probably think that digital
watches are cool too. Carry on, Jetson. For a wannabee like you, it's
the thought that counts.
Me a wannabe? That's rich, coming from an OSS nutcase whose catalog of
software mostly consists of uninspired, unimaginative, unoriginal,
lesser-featured, theftware clones.
John Bailo
2005-10-30 16:56:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
This statement just reinforces the inferiority of SlowToOpenOffice, which
isn't even capable of tasks you call trivial and extremely simple.
I was cleaning up my XP desktop yesterday after having installed OO 2.0 and
choosing it to be my preference for opening .doc and xls

I have my desktop set to single click.

As I was moving things via my vpn connected by remote desktop to my
workstation, which for some reason reverses my mouse buttons, I would
accidently click and open.

OO 2.0 opened my .xls and .doc files it was blinding.
--
360 updated 10/5
http://360.yahoo.com/manfrommars_43
l***@uku.co.uk
2005-10-29 13:50:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timo Pirinen
Post by Timo Pirinen
Post by DFS
The amount of features in MS Office 97 is overkill for most
home/office users anyway.
Really. You mean features like losing images between pages, printing
the page numbers wrong etc. There sure is an overabundance of those in
MSOffice.
Liar.
Because of MS Word's habit of losing images in a limbo
between pages while dragging them from one page to
another..... That was in October 2000. Since then we used .....
So five (5), almost six years ago some drag&drop operations of images
between pages failed for you. And how exactly is this relevant to
software that is shipping today?

How well does a 5 year old version of Open-Office handle drag&drop of
images between pages? What's next, are we going to start talking about
bugs in Windows-95? There a couple of nasty DOS 2.1 bugs (Circa 1984)
that we should definitely discuss.
John Bailo
2005-10-29 13:54:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@uku.co.uk
There a couple of nasty DOS 2.1 bugs (Circa 1984)
that we should definitely discuss.
They haven't fixed those yet?

No wonder XP doesn't work right...
--
360 updated 10/5
http://360.yahoo.com/manfrommars_43
Timo Pirinen
2005-10-29 17:02:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@uku.co.uk
Post by Timo Pirinen
Post by Timo Pirinen
Post by DFS
The amount of features in MS Office 97 is overkill for most
home/office users anyway.
Really. You mean features like losing images between pages, printing
the page numbers wrong etc. There sure is an overabundance of those in
MSOffice.
Liar.
Because of MS Word's habit of losing images in a limbo
between pages while dragging them from one page to
another..... That was in October 2000. Since then we used .....
Well well well, some creative cutting there. Getting desperate, aren't you?
Post by l***@uku.co.uk
So five (5), almost six years ago some drag&drop operations of images
between pages failed for you.
Did they? Who said so? Not me. Could it be that Larry the Crook misquoted
something?
Post by l***@uku.co.uk
And how exactly is this relevant to
software that is shipping today?
The software shipping to us is not shipping from Microsoft. That's how.
Post by l***@uku.co.uk
How well does a 5 year old version of Open-Office handle drag&drop of
images between pages? What's next, are we going to start talking about
bugs in Windows-95? There a couple of nasty DOS 2.1 bugs (Circa 1984)
that we should definitely discuss.
Yes, that's the true Microsoft way. Bugs just won't get fixed.
--
Timo Pirinen
***@dlc.fi
John Bailo
2005-10-29 19:18:18 UTC
Permalink
***@uku.co.uk wrote:
By threatening me physically, you no longer have a right to publish here.
--
360 updated 10/5
http://360.yahoo.com/manfrommars_43
Thomas Wootten
2005-10-27 15:15:55 UTC
Permalink
DFS wrote:
<snip>
Post by DFS
(I see your sig mentions Cambridge. Are you a student there? Comp Sci?)
See amended sig.
--
Tom Wootten, Fresher NatSci, Trinity Hall.
oof.trinhall.cam.ac.uk
There was only ever one valid use for the notorious <blink> tag:
Schrodinger's cat is <blink>not</blink> dead.
amosf
2005-10-26 22:09:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Eventhough he's in my /killfile,/ I see myself obliged to reply to
this troll, so I'm going to make use of /Rick's/ reply...
I'm not a troll.
The first best sign of a troll :)
Trolls don't stay around and debate issues. They hit and run, and soon
leave.
Obviously not.
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
GNU/Linux as a UNIX-style operating system is the preferred platform
for computer needs far more elaborate than those on Windows.
Like routing viruses all around the world via sendmail?
This is a feature, not a fault. Why should *nix protect the poor MS
machines anyway?
That's not the issue. The issue is why do *nix programs aid in
propagating viruses all over the Internet?
It's a feature. Why should nix protect the poor windows boxes. Let them die.
http://www.hyperion.com/products/business_intelligence/analysis/essbase_analytics.cfm
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
#14. Oracle dbms
#15. IBM DB2 dbms
#16. Opera web browser
#17. Lotus Domino/Notes
Gimp and OOo are better for me. Opera is okay, but firefox has a
margin there.
Firefox is an excellent program, but Gimp and OO are inferior to closed
source. And the other closed-source apps I listed are superior to all OSS
alternatives, if one even exists.
That's an opinion. I have both PS and gimp. I prefer gimp. PS is okay.
Likewise with MSO and OOo. I have both and can run either on linux. I still
prefer OOo. I prefer a couple of apps over OOo for some jobs.
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
So go make some money and give it to bill. Why were you here again?
To smack down cola liars.
Bored and lonely.
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Virtual desktops on linux are still better than windows. Indeed you
need third party in windows to get any sort of usefulness.
Since Linux is just a kernel, you REALLY need third party software to get
any sort of usefulness at all.
Yawn. Virtual desktops are better in Mandr*. Windows is just an OS. You
can't do anything with windows without third party software and additional
MS software, etc.
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
The first Windows GUI was based upon Motif for its looks,
Says you.
It did suck a bit. It was a clone of the Mac, but really looked more
like a poor version of fvwm.
That was 1985 I believe. 10 years later MS had a monopoly position in
computer OS's.
A lucky break after the IBM PC became a hit.
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
It's only an OS. That's all. It doesn't really even do anything at
all on it's own. Not real work. It's not like you install XP in the
office and then use the PC, is it?
Of course you install it and do real work. It comes with a web browser,
email and news client, word processor, image program, calculator, task
scheduler, computer mgmt, disk mgmt, printer setup, networking, ODBC
configurator, scanner and camera device mgmt, sound and audio device mgmt,
mouse setup, etc.
Oh, so you don't need that wonderful MSO you keep raving about. Good to
know :)

So, how many people actually use and get anything done with a PC that has
ONLY MS windows and nothing else. Hmm.
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
$299 (more in Oz) is a lot for
something that doesn't actually do anything useful. You can't even
really browse the internet with it coz you need protection software
first...
All the protection software you need is free. SP2 + MS AntiSpyware +
ZoneLabs firewall = fairly safe Windows system.
Everything is free with linux. And included, dick. With MS you are adding
third party... Sheesh.
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
The most important thing to remember, which cola bozos can't seem to
get through their thick skulls, is you don't have to buy MS
products. They can ask what they want.
Ferrari charges a lot for their autos; I don't have to buy them and I
don't worry about it or complain.
You go to buy a car. You say, "I want a car."
"Sure, we have the best Ferrari in town and our prices..."
"I don't want a Ferrari. I want a Ford."
"A what?"
And exactly what does MS have to do with the fact that nobody else had the
intellect and ability to build and sell a competitive PC operating system?
They fluked a monopoly and fought to keep it. Still do.
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
I know many more windows users than linux users. Some of these people
are very well off. I don't know of any that actually paid for office.
They all stole it. They often offer me a copy of stolen office. They
all got they windows with the PC, of course, but all the other
software tends to be stolen or free download. They steal software
even when they drive a BMW.
You need to get new friends, Dim. They're thieves. Everything you just
said is a reflection of their poor character, and has nothing to do with
Microsoft or Windows.
The statistics say that most windows users around the world are thieves.
That's the MS claim.
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Well duh. You want into the shop and that's what the price is. Some
dicks actually pay that. The rest steal it.
The rest *of the 3rd world* steals it. But again you digress. The issue
is cost, and MS software is far from expensive.
MS says that a very large number of people in the US also steal it. And it's
not just the 3rd world that seems to steal it. Seems like a lot of people
thinks it's expensive... A majority in most countries...
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
MS had some marketting genius. They sold an OS. Hard to believe. They
could sell ice to polar bears.
"Hard to believe" they sold a product? Why? Unix was sold for exorbitant
amounts for years.
So? That makes it right?
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
That judgment is as flawed as your racist beliefs. My experience
contradicts you.
Then you haven't grown up in a black city like Atlanta and seen how
they behave, and you extrapolate 3 Linux purchasers to the entire
'community'.
Of course duty free shopping is an angel. We can tell that by his
attitude :)
What do my actions have to do with anything?
You represent a type.
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
So now prove that he only knows 3 linux buyers. Indeed, prove that
you don't actually live in a trailer park and spend your time watch
jerry...
So what if I do? What does that have to do with anything?
That would make you a liar.
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Yep. You better be nice to them as they are likely to be signing your
paycheck soon. If you have a job.
I did work for Wang Laboratories right after college, but since then only
American companies.
You might be at home in the future then.
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Some people pay for it. Some don't. It's the same with MS software.
Or any software. You've heard of software piracy, right?
It's a fact most Linux users don't pay for their software. Whether
Windows user do or not is irrelevant.
Apparently most people in the world like and get free software regardless of
the brand. With linux it's legal.
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Not really. It's easier than it used to be, but still not common.
There appears to be a push to make it illegal here.
Lawmakers in Australia are trying to make it illegal to buy a computer
without Windows pre-installed?
I don't believe you.
Oh come on. Anything is likely here. We get all sorts of crap laws. I can't
even legally rip a CD I bought to an mp3 and play it in my mp3 player in
the car...
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
There are even people who buy Gentoo, (K)Ubuntu or Debian CD's when
they could easily download them.
Like me. I recently bought Debian 3.1, Fedora 4, and Knoppix 4.0
DVD from FrozenTech, when I could have downloaded them. $8.45 for 4
DVDs.
Well, that's not really buying the OS.
Then what is it?
You paid for some media and handling that had a free OS on it.
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Well duh. What do you think MS would be doing now if it didn't have
linux at it's heels. People would stil be stuck with another version
of 9x
Probably not. MS improved Win95 to Win98, then to 2000 - all in the
absence of OS competition.
2000 wasn't desktop, tho it may have been in responce to server competition.
Post by DFS
But even if MS stayed with Win95 and didn't improve it at all, so what?
It's not MS' fault that nobody else stepped up and created a competing
product (until recently).
MS created linux. MS stifled any comercial competition on the desktop. Only
FLOSS had any hope to survive. You know damn well that a comercial OS has
no hope of getting a foothold in the situation that existed, regardless of
how good it was. OS/2 was better. Heck, even NT was better, but people used
9x as it was cheaper and easier to steal, etc...

History shows that even a free OS has to struggle in the monopoly created
here...
--
-
I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
-
William Poaster
2005-10-27 00:02:30 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 22:09:31 +0000, a broadcast message from the amosf
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Eventhough he's in my /killfile,/ I see myself obliged to reply to
this troll, so I'm going to make use of /Rick's/ reply...
I'm not a troll.
The first best sign of a troll :)
Trolls don't stay around and debate issues. They hit and run, and soon
leave.
Obviously not.
No. He's the argumentative type troll.
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
GNU/Linux as a UNIX-style operating system is the preferred platform
for computer needs far more elaborate than those on Windows.
Like routing viruses all around the world via sendmail?
This is a feature, not a fault. Why should *nix protect the poor MS
machines anyway?
That's not the issue. The issue is why do *nix programs aid in
propagating viruses all over the Internet?
It's a feature. Why should nix protect the poor windows boxes. Let them die.
The sooner the better.
Post by amosf
http://www.hyperion.com/products/business_intelligence/analysis/essbase_analytics.cfm
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
#14. Oracle dbms
#15. IBM DB2 dbms
#16. Opera web browser
#17. Lotus Domino/Notes
Gimp and OOo are better for me. Opera is okay, but firefox has a margin
there.
Firefox is an excellent program, but Gimp and OO are inferior to closed
source. And the other closed-source apps I listed are superior to all
OSS alternatives, if one even exists.
That's an opinion. I have both PS and gimp. I prefer gimp. PS is okay.
Likewise with MSO and OOo. I have both and can run either on linux. I
still prefer OOo. I prefer a couple of apps over OOo for some jobs.
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
So go make some money and give it to bill. Why were you here again?
To smack down cola liars.
AH, HAHAHAHAHHAHA!!! He couldn't smack his way out of a paper bag.
Post by amosf
Bored and lonely.
It must be, down in his basement.
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Virtual desktops on linux are still better than windows. Indeed you
need third party in windows to get any sort of usefulness.
Since Linux is just a kernel, you REALLY need third party software to
get any sort of usefulness at all.
Yawn. Virtual desktops are better in Mandr*. Windows is just an OS. You
can't do anything with windows without third party software and additional
MS software, etc.
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
The first Windows GUI was based upon Motif for its looks,
Says you.
It did suck a bit. It was a clone of the Mac, but really looked more
like a poor version of fvwm.
That was 1985 I believe. 10 years later MS had a monopoly position in
computer OS's.
A lucky break after the IBM PC became a hit.
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
It's only an OS. That's all. It doesn't really even do anything at all
on it's own. Not real work. It's not like you install XP in the office
and then use the PC, is it?
Of course you install it and do real work. It comes with a web browser,
email and news client, word processor, image program, calculator, task
scheduler, computer mgmt, disk mgmt, printer setup, networking, ODBC
configurator, scanner and camera device mgmt, sound and audio device
mgmt, mouse setup, etc.
Oh, so you don't need that wonderful MSO you keep raving about. Good to
know :)
So, how many people actually use and get anything done with a PC that has
ONLY MS windows and nothing else. Hmm.
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
$299 (more in Oz) is a lot for
something that doesn't actually do anything useful. You can't even
really browse the internet with it coz you need protection software
first...
All the protection software you need is free. SP2 + MS AntiSpyware +
ZoneLabs firewall = fairly safe Windows system.
Everything is free with linux. And included, dick. With MS you are adding
third party... Sheesh.
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
The most important thing to remember, which cola bozos can't seem to
get through their thick skulls, is you don't have to buy MS products.
They can ask what they want.
Ferrari charges a lot for their autos; I don't have to buy them and I
don't worry about it or complain.
You go to buy a car. You say, "I want a car."
"Sure, we have the best Ferrari in town and our prices..."
"I don't want a Ferrari. I want a Ford."
"A what?"
And exactly what does MS have to do with the fact that nobody else had
the intellect and ability to build and sell a competitive PC operating
system?
They fluked a monopoly and fought to keep it. Still do.
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
I know many more windows users than linux users. Some of these people
are very well off. I don't know of any that actually paid for office.
They all stole it. They often offer me a copy of stolen office. They
all got they windows with the PC, of course, but all the other software
tends to be stolen or free download. They steal software even when they
drive a BMW.
You need to get new friends, Dim. They're thieves. Everything you just
said is a reflection of their poor character, and has nothing to do with
Microsoft or Windows.
The statistics say that most windows users around the world are thieves.
That's the MS claim.
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Well duh. You want into the shop and that's what the price is. Some
dicks actually pay that. The rest steal it.
The rest *of the 3rd world* steals it. But again you digress. The
issue is cost, and MS software is far from expensive.
MS says that a very large number of people in the US also steal it. And
it's not just the 3rd world that seems to steal it. Seems like a lot of
people thinks it's expensive... A majority in most countries...
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
MS had some marketting genius. They sold an OS. Hard to believe. They
could sell ice to polar bears.
"Hard to believe" they sold a product? Why? Unix was sold for
exorbitant amounts for years.
So? That makes it right?
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
That judgment is as flawed as your racist beliefs. My experience
contradicts you.
Then you haven't grown up in a black city like Atlanta and seen how
they behave, and you extrapolate 3 Linux purchasers to the entire
'community'.
Of course duty free shopping is an angel. We can tell that by his
attitude :)
What do my actions have to do with anything?
You represent a type.
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
So now prove that he only knows 3 linux buyers. Indeed, prove that you
don't actually live in a trailer park and spend your time watch
jerry...
So what if I do? What does that have to do with anything?
That would make you a liar.
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Yep. You better be nice to them as they are likely to be signing your
paycheck soon. If you have a job.
I did work for Wang Laboratories right after college, but since then
only American companies.
You might be at home in the future then.
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Some people pay for it. Some don't. It's the same with MS software. Or
any software. You've heard of software piracy, right?
It's a fact most Linux users don't pay for their software. Whether
Windows user do or not is irrelevant.
Apparently most people in the world like and get free software regardless
of the brand. With linux it's legal.
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Not really. It's easier than it used to be, but still not common. There
appears to be a push to make it illegal here.
Lawmakers in Australia are trying to make it illegal to buy a computer
without Windows pre-installed?
I don't believe you.
Oh come on. Anything is likely here. We get all sorts of crap laws. I
can't even legally rip a CD I bought to an mp3 and play it in my mp3
player in the car...
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
There are even people who buy Gentoo, (K)Ubuntu or Debian CD's when
they could easily download them.
Like me. I recently bought Debian 3.1, Fedora 4, and Knoppix 4.0 DVD
from FrozenTech, when I could have downloaded them. $8.45 for 4 DVDs.
Well, that's not really buying the OS.
Then what is it?
You paid for some media and handling that had a free OS on it.
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
Well duh. What do you think MS would be doing now if it didn't have
linux at it's heels. People would stil be stuck with another version of
9x
Probably not. MS improved Win95 to Win98, then to 2000 - all in the
absence of OS competition.
2000 wasn't desktop, tho it may have been in responce to server competition.
Post by DFS
But even if MS stayed with Win95 and didn't improve it at all, so what?
It's not MS' fault that nobody else stepped up and created a competing
product (until recently).
MS created linux. MS stifled any comercial competition on the desktop.
Only FLOSS had any hope to survive. You know damn well that a comercial OS
has no hope of getting a foothold in the situation that existed,
regardless of how good it was. OS/2 was better. Heck, even NT was better,
but people used 9x as it was cheaper and easier to steal, etc...
History shows that even a free OS has to struggle in the monopoly created
here...
--
Lie of the 70's = The check is in the mail
Lie of the 80's = Trickle down economics
Lie of the 90's = I have not had sex with that woman/man/computer/etc.
Lie of the 00's = Monopoly promotes innovation
-- ackthpt (2001-05-30)
Linønut
2005-10-27 12:05:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by amosf
Post by DFS
Post by amosf
I know many more windows users than linux users. Some of these people
are very well off. I don't know of any that actually paid for office.
They all stole it. They often offer me a copy of stolen office. They
all got they windows with the PC, of course, but all the other
software tends to be stolen or free download. They steal software
even when they drive a BMW.
You need to get new friends, Dim. They're thieves. Everything you just
said is a reflection of their poor character, and has nothing to do with
Microsoft or Windows.
The statistics say that most windows users around the world are thieves.
That's the MS claim.
People are amazingly casual about this "theft", too. They casually ask
for a copy of MS Office, or assume you'll install your copy of Windows
to fix their machine.

Hell, this casual attitude even bit me! <sickly grin>
--
Treat yourself to the devices, applications, and services running on the
GNU/Linux® operating system!
Tattoo Vampire
2005-10-26 05:21:59 UTC
Permalink
DFS hitched up their overalls,
Post by DFS
I'm not a troll.
Liar.

[snip DFS Drool(tm)]
--
My computer runs MY operating system: GNU/Linux
Registered Linux User #376403
The Microsoft Motto: "We're the leaders, wait for us!"
William Poaster
2005-10-25 09:08:50 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 03:49:47 +0000, a broadcast message from the Aragorn
Post by Aragorn
On Tuesday 25 October 2005 04:28, Rick stood up and spoke the following
words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/
Eventhough he's in my /killfile,/ I see myself obliged to reply to this
troll, so I'm going to make use of /Rick's/ reply...
Wanna a bet he says "I'm not a troll" ?

<snipped for brevity>

Well said, Aragorn! :-)
Post by Aragorn
Post by Rick
Red Hat disagrees, as does Novel and Mandriva.
(snip)
There are even people who buy Gentoo, (K)Ubuntu or Debian CD's when they
could easily download them.
Anyone would think that DFS had a direct link into SuSE, RedHat & Mandriva
etc, to come up with such a statement, but (as usual) it's just wishful
thinking on his part.
--
Lie of the 70's = The check is in the mail
Lie of the 80's = Trickle down economics
Lie of the 90's = I have not had sex with that woman/man/computer/etc.
Lie of the 00's = Monopoly promotes innovation
-- ackthpt (2001-05-30)
amosf
2005-10-25 07:00:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
On Monday 24 October 2005 11:10, Kier stood up and spoke the following
words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/
Post by Kier
"Part of this [....] is the belief that one should use free software
rather than proprietary software, even if the proprietary software is
better."
This is again literally something RMS has said, yes. However, a nice
sidenote is that all Free and Open Source Software is mostly of better
quality than proprietary software,
In your dreams. You might be able to list a few OSS apps better than
commercial, but 99.9% of closed-source software is better than the OSS
clone.
Of course things like word and excel are already clones of previous work...

So better to go with a 'clone' that carries less baggage. Like OSS.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
and that lacking features or bugs
will be resolved either way.
Mostly by waiting for a closed-source product, then copying its features.
AS if MS products are somehow original :)
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Post by Kier
This seems to put the finger on a very important point, which I think
merits discussion.
Trolls love to pretend that we all use Linux only because it's cheap
or free (as in beer). This is certainly a factor in making it popular
with many, and why not? Why should we pay huge sums, and think this
is a virtue?
- if the quality of the software warrants a price; and
- if the price is reasonable.
In regards to the price being reasonable, I find that most GNU/Linux
distributions offered for sale in a shrinkwrapped box are absolutely
worthy of their retail price. In addition, you also support the
community by buying such a retail pack.
Nobody told that to the Linux community.
I've bought retail before today. It's a good option for the newer user.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
While it is true that most proprietary software is extremely
expensive - at least, if it comes from big names like Microsoft,
MS software is inexpensive.
Doesn't appear to be. A quick search still tells me I'd have to spend
$5000-$10,000 to get any sort of useful MS software on the network here.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Push it onto people - even when they
don't want it - and steal their hard-earned cash out of their
pockets, and people will turn their backs on you and resort to trying
to cheat you back as much as you've cheated them into paying.
*That* is why Microsoft Windows installations are being cracked or
their CD's copied while it should legally be paid for, and why people
pay for GNU/Linux while it is essentially gratis.
You're out of your mind. Windows is not pushed onto anyone, anywhere.
And people do not pay for Linux when they can get it for free.
And people don't pay for windows when they can get it for free, apparently.
But with MS software it's illegal to do that apparently. People do it
anyway.
Post by DFS
Post by Aragorn
Enter Free Software... Software being developed for the sake of
making better software, by involving people from all over the world.
Not only can they review the source code, but they can modify it and
redistribute it. Software being improved for the sake of
technological advance, not for the sake of the economy.
Spare us the slimy accusations that MS programmers go to work only for the
money. They're motivated by pride in the quality of their work, just as a
small percent of open source coders are (I say a small percent, because,
after seeing some of the extremely amateurish open source programs
released, it seems like many open source developers really don't care).
Backwards, of course. At MS you are a cog in the machine. That's the way
bill wants it.
--
-
I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
-
Kelsey Bjarnason
2005-10-25 19:04:57 UTC
Permalink
[snips]
Post by DFS
In your dreams. You might be able to list a few OSS apps better than
commercial, but 99.9% of closed-source software is better than the OSS
clone.
I think you have that backwards. Completely backwards.

Let's see. KMail as an example. Does everything one expects from a mail
client. Contrast that to, say, Outhouse, which also does everything one
expects from an email client, but adds on such wonderfully bad things as
HTML, remote image retrieval, script execution and used to, at least, also
support remote retrieval of executable content such as ActiveX objects.
All of which leads to massive security issues, privacy issues and the
like, not a one of which affect KMail. KMail may have its flaws, but to
go out of your way to intentionally make something as unsafe as possible
is insane - go see Outhouse.

How about, oh, compilers? GCC - open source - works across umpteen
different platforms and even supports cross-compilation. I'm sure the
closed-source MS compiler works in Unix, and can cross-compile for a
non-X86 chipset, right? No? Oh. Well. Much better, then.

How about the desktop interface, then? Virtually every one of the OSS
desktop interfaces supports, among other things, multiple virtual
desktops; with a trivially small bit of work, they can even be set up to
allow remote applications to run _as if they were local_. As in, I click
an icon on my desktop, I get an application running that looks just like
all the others I'm using, except it's actually running remotely. Not
remote desktop - we have that, too - but remote applications, managed by
the local window manager. Your CSS solution has this built in, right?
Right?

The list goes on and on and on and on. OSS tools such as wxwindows, gtk,
and others, let you create applications with portable graphical
interfaces; the CSS offerings such as, oh, MFC/WinAPI allow this too,
right? Nope. Whoops.

Even little things, like bindings. I can control virtually every aspect
of my entire desktop via Java, C, C++, Python, and a number of other
languages, using tools which are, to all intents and purposes, bundled.
Your CSS offering allows that, too, right? No? Oh, well.

My OSS tools allow me to control virtually everything in my system,
including the underlying file system, from any of a half dozen or more,
depending on my needs. I can select any of another half dozen or more
networked file systems, again, all bundled. Even for talking with
completely unrelated systems, such as Apple. Hell, the file selection and
partition management tools allow me to use or even create partitions from
any of perhaps a dozen completely alien OSen. Your CSS offering does all
that, right?

Oh, and let's not forget something as trivial as installation. On
installation, my OSS tools will, barring very unusual conditions, detect
and, as much as possible, support all those foreign OSen and file systems,
to the point where it will add them automagically to the boot menu so I
can select them and boot them if I wish. Your CSS tools do all this by
default, too, right? No, didn't think so.

My OSS tools allow me to use the same software even when I move to
different hardware platforms - eg the PowerPC. Same desktop. Same mail
client. Same media apps. Your CSS offerings do that, too, right?

But... when push comes to shove... the real bottom line, for me, is this;
my OSS tools allow me to _change the code_. Which I've had to do, on
several occasions, because I, like many another power user, tend to push
systems into places they were never really designed to go, and that can
require tuning and tailoring. Your CSS offerings, of course, can't even
begin to compete with that.


Yes, I'm sure you can point to a hatful of applications in the CSS world
which are better than their OSS counterparts. Very good. I can spend the
next six months listing all the OSS options which are better than their
CSS counterparts. KMail/Outlook. KDE/Explorer. Grub/Windows boot code.
And on and on and on.

Feel free, though, to look at your silly little list of six "better CSS
apps" and think that means something.
Tim Smith
2005-10-26 00:59:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
How about, oh, compilers? GCC - open source - works across umpteen
different platforms and even supports cross-compilation. I'm sure the
closed-source MS compiler works in Unix, and can cross-compile for a
non-X86 chipset, right? No? Oh. Well. Much better, then.
The Intel compiler generates better code.
--
--Tim Smith
Kelsey Bjarnason
2005-10-26 01:18:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Smith
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
How about, oh, compilers? GCC - open source - works across umpteen
different platforms and even supports cross-compilation. I'm sure the
closed-source MS compiler works in Unix, and can cross-compile for a
non-X86 chipset, right? No? Oh. Well. Much better, then.
The Intel compiler generates better code.
How's it's code generation for non-x86 chips?
Tim Smith
2005-10-26 03:22:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Post by Tim Smith
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
How about, oh, compilers? GCC - open source - works across umpteen
different platforms and even supports cross-compilation. I'm sure the
closed-source MS compiler works in Unix, and can cross-compile for a
non-X86 chipset, right? No? Oh. Well. Much better, then.
The Intel compiler generates better code.
How's it's code generation for non-x86 chips?
Since there isn't any technical reason that one needs to use the same
compiler for different architectures, why would it matter?
--
--Tim Smith
Bob Hauck
2005-10-26 15:01:35 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 03:22:41 GMT, Tim Smith
Post by Tim Smith
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Post by Tim Smith
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
How about, oh, compilers? GCC - open source - works across umpteen
different platforms and even supports cross-compilation. I'm sure the
closed-source MS compiler works in Unix, and can cross-compile for a
non-X86 chipset, right? No? Oh. Well. Much better, then.
The Intel compiler generates better code.
How's it's code generation for non-x86 chips?
Since there isn't any technical reason that one needs to use the same
compiler for different architectures, why would it matter?
Because it is a pain in the ass to re-learn the quirks of the compiler
for each new port, or each CPU in the system, or each project. If
performance is the big driver, sure, use what works. But in most cases
being comfortable with the tools is more important because productivity
is the driver.

Maybe that's not a "technical reason", but it is still a reason.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| A proud member of the reality-based community.
-| http://www.haucks.org/
Linønut
2005-10-26 21:12:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Smith
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Post by Tim Smith
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
How about, oh, compilers? GCC - open source - works across umpteen
different platforms and even supports cross-compilation. I'm sure the
closed-source MS compiler works in Unix, and can cross-compile for a
non-X86 chipset, right? No? Oh. Well. Much better, then.
The Intel compiler generates better code.
How's it's code generation for non-x86 chips?
Since there isn't any technical reason that one needs to use the same
compiler for different architectures, why would it matter?
I thought one had to use gcc to compile the Linux kernel (except on x86,
where the Intel compiler will also work)? Sounds like a technical
reason.
--
Treat yourself to the devices, applications, and services running on the
GNU/Linux® operating system!
Bob Hauck
2005-10-26 01:39:19 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:59:37 GMT, Tim Smith
Post by Tim Smith
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
How about, oh, compilers? GCC - open source - works across umpteen
different platforms and even supports cross-compilation. I'm sure the
closed-source MS compiler works in Unix, and can cross-compile for a
non-X86 chipset, right? No? Oh. Well. Much better, then.
The Intel compiler generates better code.
But only for x86. Its PowerPC code generation is really bad.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| A proud member of the reality-based community.
-| http://www.haucks.org/
Aragorn
2005-10-26 05:59:41 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday 26 October 2005 02:59, Tim Smith stood up and spoke the
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/
Post by Tim Smith
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
How about, oh, compilers? GCC - open source - works across umpteen
different platforms and even supports cross-compilation. I'm sure
the closed-source MS compiler works in Unix, and can cross-compile
for a non-X86 chipset, right? No? Oh. Well. Much better, then.
The Intel compiler generates better code.
The difference in performance between /gcc-compiled/ code and code
compiled with the Intel compiler is negligible, and many optimization
options can only be used with /gcc,/ not with the Intel compiler.

This in addition to what Kelsey already summed up.
--
With kind regards,

*Aragorn*
(Registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
Tim Smith
2005-10-26 08:37:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aragorn
Post by Tim Smith
The Intel compiler generates better code.
The difference in performance between /gcc-compiled/ code and code
compiled with the Intel compiler is negligible, and many optimization
options can only be used with /gcc,/ not with the Intel compiler.
This in addition to what Kelsey already summed up.
For scientific and engineering work, the Intel compiler produces code
that is much faster than gcc code:

<http://www.coyotegulch.com/reviews/linux_compilers/>
--
--Tim Smith
Peter Köhlmann
2005-10-26 08:49:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Smith
Post by Aragorn
Post by Tim Smith
The Intel compiler generates better code.
The difference in performance between /gcc-compiled/ code and code
compiled with the Intel compiler is negligible, and many optimization
options can only be used with /gcc,/ not with the Intel compiler.
This in addition to what Kelsey already summed up.
For scientific and engineering work, the Intel compiler produces code
<http://www.coyotegulch.com/reviews/linux_compilers/>
Good. Now supply a newer comparison.
That one from above (GCC4) is a beta version nearly a year old

It has a reason that SuSE10 is faster than SuSE9.3
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
Form follows malfunction.
Jim Richardson
2005-10-26 21:08:27 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:59:37 GMT,
Post by Tim Smith
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
How about, oh, compilers? GCC - open source - works across umpteen
different platforms and even supports cross-compilation. I'm sure the
closed-source MS compiler works in Unix, and can cross-compile for a
non-X86 chipset, right? No? Oh. Well. Much better, then.
The Intel compiler generates better code.
Not as a cross compiler... It won't even optimise for AMD64 will it?

"Better", is a context sensitive term.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDX/BKd90bcYOAWPYRAoh4AKCvbsYg4/OgCOLt9N6gnj8R76d9+gCePr3H
Y7UEpJ7OQkpEyqfUggBwlPg=
=tJQC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"Remember, half-measures can be very effective if all you deal with are
half-wits."
--Chris Klein
Thomas Wootten
2005-10-25 07:16:23 UTC
Permalink
Aragorn gave a splendid speech from the top of Minas Tirith:
<snip>

Seconded.
--
Tom Wootten, Trinity Hall.
oof.trinhall.cam.ac.uk
There was only ever one valid use for the notorious <blink> tag:
Schrodinger's cat is <blink>not</blink> dead.
DFS
2005-10-25 07:36:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Wootten
<snip>
Seconded.
You're all deluded.
Kier
2005-10-25 09:04:52 UTC
Permalink
Isn't that funny. *We're* all deluded. So you're the only sane person
in this group, and in the free software community, and in the world?
God you are such a hypocrite. You scream about your virtue, you are a
liar, a racist and hypocrite and a fool.

If you don't like free software, stop using it and go away. The rest of
us are happy and productive while you whine and cry.

You seem incapable of understand the real issues at stake. Freedom.
--
Kier
amosf
2005-10-25 09:18:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kier
Isn't that funny. *We're* all deluded. So you're the only sane person
in this group, and in the free software community, and in the world?
God you are such a hypocrite. You scream about your virtue, you are a
liar, a racist and hypocrite and a fool.
If you don't like free software, stop using it and go away. The rest of
us are happy and productive while you whine and cry.
You seem incapable of understand the real issues at stake. Freedom.
We know he don't like no freedom. If Duty had his way there would still be
slaves in the US...
--
-
I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
-
William Poaster
2005-10-25 09:49:23 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 09:18:20 +0000, a broadcast message from the amosf
Post by amosf
Isn't that funny. *We're* all deluded. So you're the only sane person in
this group, and in the free software community, and in the world? God
you are such a hypocrite. You scream about your virtue, you are a liar,
a racist and hypocrite and a fool.
Let me guess, this is DFS....right?
Post by amosf
If you don't like free software, stop using it and go away. The rest of
us are happy and productive while you whine and cry.
You seem incapable of understand the real issues at stake. Freedom.
We know he don't like no freedom. If Duty had his way there would still be
slaves in the US...
--
Lie of the 70's = The check is in the mail
Lie of the 80's = Trickle down economics
Lie of the 90's = I have not had sex with that woman/man/computer/etc.
Lie of the 00's = Monopoly promotes innovation
-- ackthpt (2001-05-30)
DFS
2005-10-25 15:15:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by amosf
Post by Kier
Isn't that funny. *We're* all deluded. So you're the only sane person
in this group, and in the free software community, and in the world?
God you are such a hypocrite. You scream about your virtue, you are
a liar, a racist and hypocrite and a fool.
If you don't like free software, stop using it and go away. The rest
of us are happy and productive while you whine and cry.
You seem incapable of understand the real issues at stake. Freedom.
We know he don't like no freedom. If Duty had his way there would
still be slaves in the US...
It's a heartwarming thought, but no, no involuntary indentured servitude in
my USA.
DFS
2005-10-25 15:19:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kier
Isn't that funny. *We're* all deluded. So you're the only sane person
in this group, and in the free software community, and in the world?
God you are such a hypocrite. You scream about your virtue, you are a
liar, a racist and hypocrite and a fool.
If you don't like free software, stop using it and go away. The rest
of us are happy and productive while you whine and cry.
You seem incapable of understand the real issues at stake. Freedom.
Spare me, you drama queen. The world would move along just fine with only
Windows and closed-source programs available (including Unix).
The Ghost In The Machine
2005-10-25 19:00:02 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS
<***@dfs_.com>
wrote
on Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:19:22 -0400
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
Isn't that funny. *We're* all deluded. So you're the only sane person
in this group, and in the free software community, and in the world?
God you are such a hypocrite. You scream about your virtue, you are a
liar, a racist and hypocrite and a fool.
If you don't like free software, stop using it and go away. The rest
of us are happy and productive while you whine and cry.
You seem incapable of understand the real issues at stake. Freedom.
Spare me, you drama queen. The world would move along just fine with only
Windows and closed-source programs available (including Unix).
This is true enough, though there are those that claim
Windows has set back the course of "true innovation" back
10 years or more. (I for one can't say, but Linux for me has
made computing fun again, after the Amiga became a zombie
machine after Commodore's death by stupidity^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hbankruptcy.)

Ideally, at least from Microsoft's viewpoint, a user's
computer system would invoice for and reliably enforce
per-use billing of remote software -- briefly, one
would in fact be able to rent out something such as
Office or even the base OS on a per-document or per hour
basis, and the user would later compensate Microsoft
automatically for the privilege, or at least get a
bill that he can dispute (don't hold one's breath on
winning said dispute, though). Microsoft would also be
free to give out special promotions, deals to important
clients, enterprise licensing/local grant capability, and
whatnot, depending on the whims of the managers thereof.
(Note that enterprise licensing is problematic, since
hackers can steal the enterprise license, if the company
is not careful. Therefore, enterprises should probably
be renewable on a regular basis.)

The bad press resulting from this of course is not the
responsibility of the license enforcement authority,
whoever it is. In any event, alternatives now exist
such as OpenOffice, kedit, and Gnumeric. However, those
alternatives should probably be eliminated under this new
system, as they lack the requisite checking. For shame,
us freeware freeloaders! Taking money from a convicted
monopolist...that's not right...

Perhaps there's not much one can do about per-use licensing
until every machine in the US is replaced by a unit that
can in fact do media, license, and other such checking in
hardware; this might be enforced on the actual disk drives,
monitors, I/O buss, and display cards, in a manner vaguely
similar to DVD region coding but far more comprehensive.

One might even require a machine-by-machine certificate
key-in upon first boot, enforced by the BIOS. (Note that
biometrics are devices, like any other; remove that
fingerprint device and hack into the security bus, and
one has a little local authentication problem. Teenager
hackers aren't dumb, though they are generally amoral.
Fortunately, not every hacker has a fab in his basement
(Inspector Gadget episodes notwithstanding), and a
unit control chip is the logical place to put license
enforcement. Intellectual property must be protected,
to ensure that monopolists^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hbusinesses
are not being undercut by greedy selfserving pirates.)

Note that per-use licensing would be all-pervasive in
this new scheme (and therefore would probably have to
be negotiated at the UN level and enforced by Customs
authorities in some sort of test mechanism prior to
machine import), encompassing everything from software
use to reading of Gutenberg/public domain texts such
as Shakespeare's works. The latter would probably be
assigned to a specialized government domain, for purposes
of ownership verification. One hopes that that domain
can handle the load, but there's a tradeoff here: $
spent on shoring up that domain might be better off spent
on healing the injured (and burying the dead) boys and
girls coming back from foreign wars, or cleaning up after
disastrous storms. If we run out of tax $, too bad.

Or maybe it'll be decommissioned by Congress 2 years after
its foundation, leaving everyone in the dark regarding
what happens to Puck, Hamlet, Ophelia, or Alice.

Note also that machines will have to be replaced every
3 years, as the certificates are time-sensitive.
(X.509 certificates already are.)

But never mind all that; where did you want to go today?
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Dom
2005-10-25 19:37:15 UTC
Permalink
Microsoft has stated, on their website, that they wish to implement
subscription-based liscensing on all of their products. Try searching
the Microsoft site for "Software as a Service", "Subsctiption
Liscensing" or "Software Assurance". Next thing you know, insurance
companies will be offering software insurance.
The Ghost In The Machine
2005-10-25 22:00:07 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Dom
<***@invalid>
wrote
on Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:37:15 -0500
Post by Dom
Microsoft has stated, on their website, that they wish to implement
subscription-based liscensing on all of their products. Try searching
the Microsoft site for "Software as a Service", "Subsctiption
Liscensing" or "Software Assurance". Next thing you know, insurance
companies will be offering software insurance.
You mean they're not already? Well, the insurance types always
were a conservative bunch. :-)

Of course this will probably work better in the mobile market.
Guess where Microsoft's going. (Guess where Linux is already.)
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
DFS
2005-10-25 22:54:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS
on Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:19:22 -0400
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
Isn't that funny. *We're* all deluded. So you're the only sane
person in this group, and in the free software community, and in
the world? God you are such a hypocrite. You scream about your
virtue, you are a liar, a racist and hypocrite and a fool.
If you don't like free software, stop using it and go away. The rest
of us are happy and productive while you whine and cry.
You seem incapable of understand the real issues at stake. Freedom.
Spare me, you drama queen. The world would move along just fine
with only Windows and closed-source programs available (including
Unix).
This is true enough, though there are those that claim
Windows has set back the course of "true innovation" back
10 years or more. (I for one can't say, but Linux for me has
made computing fun again, after the Amiga became a zombie
machine after Commodore's death by
stupidity^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hbankruptcy.)
Ideally, at least from Microsoft's viewpoint, a user's
computer system would invoice for and reliably enforce
per-use billing of remote software -- briefly, one
would in fact be able to rent out something such as
Office or even the base OS on a per-document or per hour
basis, and the user would later compensate Microsoft
automatically for the privilege, or at least get a
bill that he can dispute (don't hold one's breath on
winning said dispute, though). Microsoft would also be
free to give out special promotions, deals to important
clients, enterprise licensing/local grant capability, and
whatnot, depending on the whims of the managers thereof.
(Note that enterprise licensing is problematic, since
hackers can steal the enterprise license, if the company
is not careful. Therefore, enterprises should probably
be renewable on a regular basis.)
The bad press resulting from this of course is not the
responsibility of the license enforcement authority,
whoever it is. In any event, alternatives now exist
such as OpenOffice, kedit, and Gnumeric. However, those
alternatives should probably be eliminated under this new
system, as they lack the requisite checking. For shame,
us freeware freeloaders! Taking money from a convicted
monopolist...that's not right...
Perhaps there's not much one can do about per-use licensing
until every machine in the US is replaced by a unit that
can in fact do media, license, and other such checking in
hardware; this might be enforced on the actual disk drives,
monitors, I/O buss, and display cards, in a manner vaguely
similar to DVD region coding but far more comprehensive.
One might even require a machine-by-machine certificate
key-in upon first boot, enforced by the BIOS. (Note that
biometrics are devices, like any other; remove that
fingerprint device and hack into the security bus, and
one has a little local authentication problem. Teenager
hackers aren't dumb, though they are generally amoral.
Fortunately, not every hacker has a fab in his basement
(Inspector Gadget episodes notwithstanding), and a
unit control chip is the logical place to put license
enforcement. Intellectual property must be protected,
to ensure that monopolists^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hbusinesses
are not being undercut by greedy selfserving pirates.)
Note that per-use licensing would be all-pervasive in
this new scheme (and therefore would probably have to
be negotiated at the UN level and enforced by Customs
authorities in some sort of test mechanism prior to
machine import), encompassing everything from software
use to reading of Gutenberg/public domain texts such
as Shakespeare's works. The latter would probably be
assigned to a specialized government domain, for purposes
of ownership verification. One hopes that that domain
can handle the load, but there's a tradeoff here: $
spent on shoring up that domain might be better off spent
on healing the injured (and burying the dead) boys and
girls coming back from foreign wars, or cleaning up after
disastrous storms. If we run out of tax $, too bad.
Or maybe it'll be decommissioned by Congress 2 years after
its foundation, leaving everyone in the dark regarding
what happens to Puck, Hamlet, Ophelia, or Alice.
Note also that machines will have to be replaced every
3 years, as the certificates are time-sensitive.
(X.509 certificates already are.)
But never mind all that; where did you want to go today?
Whew! That must have been some trip you went on in 1969...
The Ghost In The Machine
2005-10-26 01:00:02 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS
<***@dfs_.com>
wrote
on Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:54:18 -0400
Post by DFS
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS
on Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:19:22 -0400
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
Isn't that funny. *We're* all deluded. So you're the only sane
person in this group, and in the free software community, and in
the world? God you are such a hypocrite. You scream about your
virtue, you are a liar, a racist and hypocrite and a fool.
If you don't like free software, stop using it and go away. The rest
of us are happy and productive while you whine and cry.
You seem incapable of understand the real issues at stake. Freedom.
Spare me, you drama queen. The world would move along just fine
with only Windows and closed-source programs available (including
Unix).
This is true enough, though there are those that claim
Windows has set back the course of "true innovation" back
10 years or more. (I for one can't say, but Linux for me has
made computing fun again, after the Amiga became a zombie
machine after Commodore's death by
stupidity^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hbankruptcy.)
Ideally, at least from Microsoft's viewpoint, a user's
computer system would invoice for and reliably enforce
per-use billing of remote software -- briefly, one
would in fact be able to rent out something such as
Office or even the base OS on a per-document or per hour
basis, and the user would later compensate Microsoft
automatically for the privilege, or at least get a
bill that he can dispute (don't hold one's breath on
winning said dispute, though). Microsoft would also be
free to give out special promotions, deals to important
clients, enterprise licensing/local grant capability, and
whatnot, depending on the whims of the managers thereof.
(Note that enterprise licensing is problematic, since
hackers can steal the enterprise license, if the company
is not careful. Therefore, enterprises should probably
be renewable on a regular basis.)
The bad press resulting from this of course is not the
responsibility of the license enforcement authority,
whoever it is. In any event, alternatives now exist
such as OpenOffice, kedit, and Gnumeric. However, those
alternatives should probably be eliminated under this new
system, as they lack the requisite checking. For shame,
us freeware freeloaders! Taking money from a convicted
monopolist...that's not right...
Perhaps there's not much one can do about per-use licensing
until every machine in the US is replaced by a unit that
can in fact do media, license, and other such checking in
hardware; this might be enforced on the actual disk drives,
monitors, I/O buss, and display cards, in a manner vaguely
similar to DVD region coding but far more comprehensive.
One might even require a machine-by-machine certificate
key-in upon first boot, enforced by the BIOS. (Note that
biometrics are devices, like any other; remove that
fingerprint device and hack into the security bus, and
one has a little local authentication problem. Teenager
hackers aren't dumb, though they are generally amoral.
Fortunately, not every hacker has a fab in his basement
(Inspector Gadget episodes notwithstanding), and a
unit control chip is the logical place to put license
enforcement. Intellectual property must be protected,
to ensure that monopolists^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hbusinesses
are not being undercut by greedy selfserving pirates.)
Note that per-use licensing would be all-pervasive in
this new scheme (and therefore would probably have to
be negotiated at the UN level and enforced by Customs
authorities in some sort of test mechanism prior to
machine import), encompassing everything from software
use to reading of Gutenberg/public domain texts such
as Shakespeare's works. The latter would probably be
assigned to a specialized government domain, for purposes
of ownership verification. One hopes that that domain
can handle the load, but there's a tradeoff here: $
spent on shoring up that domain might be better off spent
on healing the injured (and burying the dead) boys and
girls coming back from foreign wars, or cleaning up after
disastrous storms. If we run out of tax $, too bad.
Or maybe it'll be decommissioned by Congress 2 years after
its foundation, leaving everyone in the dark regarding
what happens to Puck, Hamlet, Ophelia, or Alice.
Note also that machines will have to be replaced every
3 years, as the certificates are time-sensitive.
(X.509 certificates already are.)
But never mind all that; where did you want to go today?
Whew! That must have been some trip you went on in 1969...
Weed? LSD? PCP? In 1969? You're overestimating my age
there, sonny boy. :-P I was born in '61. LBJ et al couldn't
have legally called me up to a certain South Asian country,
even had they wanted to; nor would I have been all that
interested in the tiedye-broken-cross-with-circle-and-VW crowd,
and I doubt they'd have been all that interested in me. ;-)

In any event, what do you think the ideal model is? Bear
in mind that many media moguls -- various record and movie
labels among them -- are keenly interested in ensuring that
they are not pirated, and that most distribution methods involve
100% perfect duplication, except maybe for DAT tapes, which was
a rather odd (but workable) compromise between tape player
manufacturers and the rest of the industry, and DVD drives, which
use a "region code", which can be modified a fixed number of
times.

But these are stopgap measures at best. Ideally, the moguls
would charge per minute -- which used to be the case for
certain porn houses, AIUI. (No, I can't say from personal
experience.)

Ultimately, everybody will be happy...except for the poor, who
won't be able to afford diddly-squat, and the public libraries,
who won't be able to afford diddly-squat either. After all,
what's the point of loaning used books, tapes, video, etc. when
one has to charge by the minute? Might as well go direct.

Don't worry...be happy.
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Linønut
2005-10-25 20:15:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Spare me, you drama queen. The world would move along just fine with only
Windows and closed-source programs available (including Unix).
Yeah, just like it would have gotten along with only Ford automobiles
and only one oil company, Standard Oil.

And there's nothing wrong with being a simple member of the proletariat.
--
Treat yourself to the devices, applications, and services running on the
GNU/Linux® operating system!
tab
2005-10-28 15:02:32 UTC
Permalink
Hmm, cell phones are closed by the Network Providers.
Things seem to move along just fine.
Rick
2005-10-25 10:33:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Thomas Wootten
<snip>
Seconded.
You're all deluded.
You're psychotic.
--
Rick
William Poaster
2005-10-25 11:29:25 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 10:33:57 +0000, a broadcast message from the Rick
Post by Rick
Post by DFS
Aragorn gave a splendid speech from the top of Minas Tirith: <snip>
Seconded.
You're all deluded.
You're psychotic.
If anyone's deluded, it's DooFu$.
--
Lie of the 70's = The check is in the mail
Lie of the 80's = Trickle down economics
Lie of the 90's = I have not had sex with that woman/man/computer/etc.
Lie of the 00's = Monopoly promotes innovation
-- ackthpt (2001-05-30)
Dom
2005-10-25 01:54:19 UTC
Permalink
On a private level, the right to obtain/modify/use open source code
legally and without penalty is deeply integrated into a right to
privacy. Any attempt to police a private enitity within its own
organization constitutes a breach of that right. In the absence of such
a right, governments have proven themselves totalitarian. Humanity's
race for ownership spawns such abominations. The race to own everything
that a government could ever enforce. Humans can no longer just be,
humans must now pay to be and it wasn't always like this. Once upon a
time, humans were truly free and free and open source software allows us
to experience that freedom once again. I would urge everyone to reserve
the right to privacy and all rights inherent.
Kier
2005-10-25 09:07:55 UTC
Permalink
<snip>

Well said, Dom. It's clear you understand what DFS does not.
--
Kier
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...