K
kenny
oh yeah? How about installing packages ment for other distros?
Linux is ok, since its free, but how about a OS that saves you money?
K
kenny
Yet another moron using super high technology for the acts of a baboon.
G
Gordon
kenny said:
Do you install applications built for the Mac on Windows?
No, thought not.
Doh!
K
kenny
???
I am talking about linux distros... not entirely different OS.
You know what I mean, and you know the problem.
I am talking about linux distros... not entirely different OS.
You know what I mean, and you know the problem.
G
Gordon
kenny said:
Not at all. People just do NOT install Redhat packages on Ubuntu for
instance - firstly there's no need, and secondly distros like Ubuntu and
Suse come with over *sixteen* *thousand* packages. Don't try to look more
stupid than you already are.....
K
kenny
ok.. it seems you know little about linux
some apps come in limited variations of installers, if it doesn't work on
your disto so you have to compile the code yourself to make them work. You
may want to use a new application that is NOT included in the distro! Or do
you think that is impossible? Don't you think it is limiting to wait when
and if they will release the app in the format needed to be installed on
your specific distro? And what happens if it never is released?
You would have to learn to compile wouldn't you?
USER FRIENDLY LINUX! you just use the shell and compile.. then you run into
dependency chaos! lol..
You must be kidding. Get windows and just install the damn program!
some apps come in limited variations of installers, if it doesn't work on
your disto so you have to compile the code yourself to make them work. You
may want to use a new application that is NOT included in the distro! Or do
you think that is impossible? Don't you think it is limiting to wait when
and if they will release the app in the format needed to be installed on
your specific distro? And what happens if it never is released?
You would have to learn to compile wouldn't you?
USER FRIENDLY LINUX! you just use the shell and compile.. then you run into
dependency chaos! lol..
You must be kidding. Get windows and just install the damn program!
J
JEDIDIAH
...assuming they thought they could get away with even risking
being slightly incompatable with everyone else that's using msword and
has been on the bandwagon since there was meaningful competition in this
area under Windows.
[deletia]
Claiming that OO is of poor quality due to marketshare alone is
much like doing the same for MacOS.
J
JEDIDIAH
Back in the day, when I still used Amipro I had a class project
with a few other guys. Since I didn't have msword at the time, the whole
lot of them cheerfully offered me pirated copies.
I didn't bother as I could work well enough without office.
They might eventually have to pay for their copy of msoffice.
[deletia]
D
Daniel Mandic
kenny said:
Hi Kenny!
I can understand you a little bit more now.
Don´t be so angry with the Linux User.
Linus Torvald is a nice guy. He have also nice inventions. E.g.
'Crusoe'.
XP or NT4 is faster, indeed. Also in Networking it is very capable
today, and wins one speed-competition after the other!! Server 200x
etc... Although, Apache is very good!
I saw flames (untrue words) against MS from (so called, serious)
official companys. What do you await from the low-end user. Best, if
outspoken by a User what is not using Linux or NT either
))SGI, Solaris etc. mid-end. Cray, and so on - high-end.
Best Regards,
Daniel Mandic
?
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Lin=F8nut?=
After takin' a swig o' grog, Thomas Lauer belched out this bit o' wisdom:
How is OpenOffice "unfriendly"?
No, I mean you are a real bumbler if you cannot see those many links and
try them.
How is OpenOffice "unfriendly"?
No, I mean you are a real bumbler if you cannot see those many links and
try them.
?
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Lin=F8nut?=
After takin' a swig o' grog, Marten Kemp belched out this bit o' wisdom:
Of course! All my content is offered under the Creative Commons license
<grin>.
Of course! All my content is offered under the Creative Commons license
<grin>.
D
Daniel Mandic
kenny said:
And you are not a moron?
I thought the U.S. is the last big ressort of Morons. Just turn on CNN
and you see planty of them. Like small childs, dreaming and babbling
their wishes out, with big, wet openened eyes. Immaterial Babbler!!!
They collected good, but now it is full of other - Not to mention the
Natives.
Best Regards,
Daniel Mandic
C
chrisv
Thomas said:
Yeah? So? Because the above, it means that all people should only be
taught the Micro$oft way of doing things? Despite the fact that that
would greatly limit their choices in life? Despite the fact that it
will cost them a lot of money over their lifetime to go with the
monopoly and the applications that run on it? Despite the fact that
getting overrun with virii and malware and having to periodically
re-install can hardly be called "smooth and efficient"?
Nah, all those "non geeks" should just think "what, me worry?" as they
connect to the frickin Internet, where it's a known fact that every
machine is constantly under attack. Hell, who cares if IE is a
bug-ridden POS that rolls-out the red carpet for attackers? I click
on things and they run, right? Don't ask me to think, I'm not a
"geek".
They should also blindly fork-out hundreds of dollars a year in
software costs so that they can surf the Web, send emails, word
process, and run their (futile) virus-scanner. I mean, just because
free software will do all that (and be plenty "smooth and efficient"
while doing so) is no reason to switch, right?
R
rex.ballard
Good use of words. 250 million people have downloaded Open Office,
which would be about 1/4 to 1/3 of the world's computer users. I'm
sure they have mentioned Open Office to others, and have probably
shared their downloaded copy (which they are encouraged to do), which
means that about 1/2 of the world's computer users HAVE not only heard
of Open Office, but have probably at least tried it.
So you are quite accurate - that is not an Overwhelming Majority - like
the 95% of the users who get Windows preloaded with their OEM machines.
But even those users do not always purchase MS-Office. More and more
users are willing to use OpenOffice and use the Office "Viewers" to
validate their content and make sure it's not too ugly. People with
second computers often don't put MS-Office on the second computer.
OO 2.0 has only been out a few months and over 200 million copies have
been downloaded. Microsoft would kill to have that kind of unit
volume, and I'm sure that Microsoft isn't particularly happy that
hundreds of millions of copies of OpenOffice are running on machines
that would normally be running MS-Office exclusively.
Even if OO wasn't "As Good" as MS-Office, hundreds of millions of
people think OpenOffice is "Good Enough" for work that needs to be
viewable and readable by a number of users who may not have MS-Office.
Of course, Open Office also has the ability to publish PDF documents as
well, and Adobe Acrobat Reader is quite widely distributed.
More importantly, many other applications are now supporting the Open
Document standards, including Lotus Smart Suite, KOffice, and
StarOffice. Is Corel adopting Open Office as well? I'm not sure.
The problem is not whether they are using MS-Word, but rather WHICH
VERSION are they using. Most versions of MS-Word will try to
automatically upgrade documents to newer versions when a document is
revised, make terrible nasty noises if the user rejects the upgrade,
and often still saves the older format in a "Crippled" mode.
Microsoft is great at "one way" transformations from other formats to
Word, but terrible at going back to any other industry standard
formats. Court and legal documents have traditionally been stored in
WordPerfect format and are likely to be migrated to OpenDocument
format, but Microsoft Word cannot save documents in a "WordPerfect"
format that can actually be read by WordPerfect.
Documents stored in MS-Office formats cannot be searched, sorted,
filtered, or transformed using scripting languages and transformation
tools. Open Office documents can be mined for valuable context and
content information which can aid in searching, sorting, and organizing
millions or even billions of documents. Look at how Google is able to
index billions of HTML pages and provide users with nearly instant
access to them. Word documents can also be indexed and accessed, but
the HTML versions lose something in the "translation".
Keep in mind that it was Bill Gates who pointed out to Steve Jobs that
even though Mac was far superior to Windows (2.0), people wouldn't
care, because Windows would be "good enough". It wasn't until the
widespread deployment of corporate 80386 machines preloaded with
Windows 3.1 and MS-Office that Windows really took off, but even Sun
was a bigger threat to Microsoft than Mac by the time Windows 3.1 was
released. At that time, Sun had nearly 15% of the corporate
workstation market, especially engineering and financial workstations.
Mac was pretty much relegated to the Marketing department, along with
Gucci bags and Prado shoes.
which would be about 1/4 to 1/3 of the world's computer users. I'm
sure they have mentioned Open Office to others, and have probably
shared their downloaded copy (which they are encouraged to do), which
means that about 1/2 of the world's computer users HAVE not only heard
of Open Office, but have probably at least tried it.
So you are quite accurate - that is not an Overwhelming Majority - like
the 95% of the users who get Windows preloaded with their OEM machines.
But even those users do not always purchase MS-Office. More and more
users are willing to use OpenOffice and use the Office "Viewers" to
validate their content and make sure it's not too ugly. People with
second computers often don't put MS-Office on the second computer.
OO 2.0 has only been out a few months and over 200 million copies have
been downloaded. Microsoft would kill to have that kind of unit
volume, and I'm sure that Microsoft isn't particularly happy that
hundreds of millions of copies of OpenOffice are running on machines
that would normally be running MS-Office exclusively.
Even if OO wasn't "As Good" as MS-Office, hundreds of millions of
people think OpenOffice is "Good Enough" for work that needs to be
viewable and readable by a number of users who may not have MS-Office.
Of course, Open Office also has the ability to publish PDF documents as
well, and Adobe Acrobat Reader is quite widely distributed.
More importantly, many other applications are now supporting the Open
Document standards, including Lotus Smart Suite, KOffice, and
StarOffice. Is Corel adopting Open Office as well? I'm not sure.
The problem is not whether they are using MS-Word, but rather WHICH
VERSION are they using. Most versions of MS-Word will try to
automatically upgrade documents to newer versions when a document is
revised, make terrible nasty noises if the user rejects the upgrade,
and often still saves the older format in a "Crippled" mode.
Microsoft is great at "one way" transformations from other formats to
Word, but terrible at going back to any other industry standard
formats. Court and legal documents have traditionally been stored in
WordPerfect format and are likely to be migrated to OpenDocument
format, but Microsoft Word cannot save documents in a "WordPerfect"
format that can actually be read by WordPerfect.
Documents stored in MS-Office formats cannot be searched, sorted,
filtered, or transformed using scripting languages and transformation
tools. Open Office documents can be mined for valuable context and
content information which can aid in searching, sorting, and organizing
millions or even billions of documents. Look at how Google is able to
index billions of HTML pages and provide users with nearly instant
access to them. Word documents can also be indexed and accessed, but
the HTML versions lose something in the "translation".
Keep in mind that it was Bill Gates who pointed out to Steve Jobs that
even though Mac was far superior to Windows (2.0), people wouldn't
care, because Windows would be "good enough". It wasn't until the
widespread deployment of corporate 80386 machines preloaded with
Windows 3.1 and MS-Office that Windows really took off, but even Sun
was a bigger threat to Microsoft than Mac by the time Windows 3.1 was
released. At that time, Sun had nearly 15% of the corporate
workstation market, especially engineering and financial workstations.
Mac was pretty much relegated to the Marketing department, along with
Gucci bags and Prado shoes.
T
Thomas Lauer
Linønut said:
Read what I have written. I wrote about the "user unfriendliness of OOo
geeks" not necessarilt the app. Though if you wanna get me started
Okay, so even a real bumbler... fine with me. I once attempted to post
an official bug report... and I am still convalescing from the effort.
OOo is a good product with a high geek factor but in my real bumbler's
opinion it's not ready for prime time. Period.
D
Daniel Mandic
kenny said:
Yes, but you have to remind the costs for that service. My purchase was
not cheap... about 249bucks, but you get something.
As we post here in a freeware situated group, I think Linux and its
various freeware-releases are more topic. But I would welcome any help
with windows, relating freeware (freeware for MS-OSés).
Best Regards,
Daniel Mandic
J
John Bailo
I find that the mindset is that people many not ever, or rarely use
Office, but they "want it there". And certainly, there are many
websites that will offer links to some .doc and .xls format documents.
So, OO is the perfect thing and every mom and pop PC store should be
preloading it.
I can really see it tearing MSO to shreds as people say "why should I
pay for something that's free".
Bill Gates should have gone to college. He might then have some idea of
how evolution works.
Yes, as you point out, in a 386 world, Windows was "good enough", but
now, the platform has expanded out from under them. Add to that the
emergence of the Internet replacing the LAN and now its "not good enough".
T
The Ghost In The Machine
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linønut
<linø[email protected]>
wrote
Pedant Point: the installs are done by the OEM. The only
thing the user gets to do -- if that -- is type in the
certification key somewhere on the disk. It's then off
to the races to see who wins -- the user, in downloading
patches, or the viruses, in downloading themselves to his box
and setting up camp, waiting instructions from the Mothership...
But of course Windows is user-friendly. Microsoft has taken
great pains to explain to us that a GUI is user-friendly.
And Microsoft is never wrong.
(Never mind that I could probably move a set of files more
efficiently using 'mv *.jpg ../somewhere-else', than
using 'pointy draggy clicky', though at least with Windows --
and with Nautilus -- I can sort by filetype.)
<linø[email protected]>
wrote
Pedant Point: the installs are done by the OEM.
The onlything the user gets to do -- if that -- is type in the
certification key somewhere on the disk. It's then off
to the races to see who wins -- the user, in downloading
patches, or the viruses, in downloading themselves to his box
and setting up camp, waiting instructions from the Mothership...
But of course Windows is user-friendly. Microsoft has taken
great pains to explain to us that a GUI is user-friendly.
And Microsoft is never wrong.
(Never mind that I could probably move a set of files more
efficiently using 'mv *.jpg ../somewhere-else', than
using 'pointy draggy clicky', though at least with Windows --
and with Nautilus -- I can sort by filetype.)
M
Martyn Winters
kenny said:
This is nonsense. Windows exploited something that was coming anyway. I
like Windows, but to claim that it somehow enabled the widespread use
of computing hardware is so far wide of the mark as to be ridiculous.
Agreed Windows is easier to use than Linux, but that's partially
because it is more widespread and so people are used to it, not the
other way around. There is no doubt that Microsoft used dubious
marketing strategies to lever Windows into a position of pre-eminence,
something that was denied Linux by the simple complicity of the
computer manufacturers.
OS X has a far more usable interface than Windows, is rock solid, and
has a large body of developed software that installs more easily than
Windows - you just copy it to the applications folder in many cases -
forget all those fiddly little dlls scattered across your hard disk.
What's more it looks better and boots quicker. What more could you
want?
Well, like Microsoft, Apple has little interest in your wellbeing, they
just want to make a buck, and future developments will be structured to
extract more and more money from end users - this is why they're in
business, and if you believe otherwise then you're especially foolish.
And therein is the key to why everyone should try to make Linux better,
to see that it one day matches the usability of Windows and OS X.
Because the purpose of Linux is to see that computer users have the
freedom to choose their platform, rather than having to tailor it to a
budget. This is why the powers that be are developing strategies such
as software patents that are specifically designed to curtail the
activites of software engineers who choose to give away their work.
Make no mistake, the big corporations are trying to crush Linux because
it is a threat to their income. They will use every means at their
disposal to do so, and one of those means is to engender brand loyalty
in the foolish and narrow minded, who cannot see the truth and that is
that they are building their own prison.
G
Gordon
Martyn said:
I have to say that the latest Ubuntu is just as easy to use as Windows XP,
and safer!