__/ [ Michael B. Trausch ] on Sunday 14 May 2006 00:59 \__
Thanks for snipping out Tab's earlier pearls of wisdom (or droppings
thereof). I'll just have a quick stab at it...
__/ [ rapskat ] on Saturday 13 May 2006 18:35 \__
> On Fri, 12 May 2006 11:42:45 -0700, tab wrote:
>> Did you notice that they wanted to go Microsoft, but
>> just can't afford it? They have an AFFORDABLE system.
The article said they received a stable or more reliable system. I can't
recall the exact phrasing, but I am sure this was true in practice.
>> They did not say a BETTER, SMOOTHER, EASIER TO OPERATE,
Do you know about front ends such as cPanel at all? Did *you* (as in Tab)
ever administered GNU/Linux? If so, did you have prior training and
experience? If not, your arguments are as void as your messages (learn to
> So, what exactly are Linux desktop users missing out on? A few
> proprietary apps whose functionality is available through various freely
> available OSS projects?
> Tell us exactly, tabulator...what is that you can do with a Windows system
> that I can't do with my Linux system, besides contract malware (and we can
> do that too, we just don't like to ;-).
> For all you flapping about how Windows is all this and that and Linux
> isn't, you haven't yet provided any exclusive functionality that Windows
> users enjoy that Linux users simply can't.
> I'll be waiting.
All points are valid, but I would like to add that many Linux systems come
with these "freely available OSS projects" out of the box. This is not the
case with Windows servers (I am familiar with the hosting domain) where
even something as fundamental as site statistics needs to be paid for and
then installed or enabled. What a PITA. What a ripoff.
> tab wrote in <1147545999.276467.223230@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on Sat
> May 13 2006 14:46:
>> You think people don't mind COMMAND LINE's. If linux is SO GREAT,
>> people would be wanting to go linux. I don't see that. Do you?
> My girlfriends both use Linux. One of them never touches the command line,
> as she doesn't have any need to. The other one does when she needs to (she
> uses SSH for tunnelling an application from home to her office PC), though
> that could very easily be automated using something like a shell script or
> Windows Scripting Host on the Windows side of things. I did that in the
> office at one of my jobs so that everybody would have access to a UNIX
> application (HP OpenView) simply by clicking on an icon on their desktop
> and running with it. It would've been slightly easier for me to do this
> under Linux or another UNIX-like system running your typical shells, since
> I'm more familiar with shell scripting then WSH, but it worked nonetheless.
For a pure GUI experience, I suggest you take a look at KSSH. Also, once
connected over SSH with X forwarding enabled (ssh -x), be sure to run
kicker (KDE) or gnome-panel (GNOME). The environment is imported in its
entirety over SSH. The comment line needn't be visible. If you set up
.bashrc to include kicker/gnome-panel/other, this might even be
transparent and you can think of the command-line as a non-obligatory
status box/bar. YMMV in accordance with the user.
>> I see, cost savings as a primary reason. I do not see offices
>> dying to go linux.
> I know plenty that want to make the move -- and quite a few, who have.
> They look at the cost savings of it and they see that they can increase
> their bottom line savings, hence being able to reduce the amount of money
> on things such as license compliance and acquisition. And the systems that
> are out there today are more able to handle the needs of an office, be it
> small or enterprise. It's still not ready for every class of end-user
> you're going to find *at home*, however, because they like to have the
> ability to do things in the way that they've been conditioned to do them --
> download an installer from the Internet, double-click on the downloaded
> file, and install the program, etc. -- there are people working on things
> to address this issue, though.
> I see plenty of people that have enough problems with Windows that my phone
> rings pretty often for help in that regard, as well. I can support Windows
> and Linux, and I do. Even better, I can help the people with Linux faster
> because I can actually have a login to their system that I can use without
> a great deal of overhead -- the command line works just fine for me, and I
> don't mind using SSH to help fix a system. Whereas, with Microsoft
> systems, I tend to make house-calls or VNC to fix the things remotely.
> People don't understand the registry editor -- just the same way that they
> don't grasp the Linux command line interface. The problems are the same,
> the utilities and methods used are the only different things.
I have little to add here, but it's merely a sign of consent.
SSH is a lightweight method (comprae with Citrix client), which enables
you to 'strain' a lot of function even when the user has a modem
connection (telnet becomes viable). As everything is a file in Linux and
many command-line utilities exist, the routes to solving a problem may
often be quicker. No command-line familiarity? No problem. Just launch the
GUI equivalent. And wait, and wait, and wait... for small changes to files
(a characeter or two), I have begun using vim, just because it's quicker.
>> Now, there are tons of software, in the law field, that run on WINDOWS
>> only. Objection, Amicus, Abacus, HotDocs. Where is the like in Linux?
>> Hell, I can't even log onto the SUPREME COURT of OHIO and pay dues,
>> with FIREFOX.
> This is a problem with the web designers that work on the site for the
> of Ohio. In fact, this is most probably in violation of Federal laws which
> provide accessibility requirements to web sites. They should be using
> standards-based code that runs in a portable fashion. After all, the
> Internet never has been a heterogeneous network of computers -- and I don't
> see that it ever will be.
Rest assured that the State of Ohio has received many complaints
/already/. As it truly is an offence, based on Federal law, the developers
will be told off and be forced to rectify the matter. It's only /their/
>> If you are a real estate agent, you can't go Linux, because of the
>> accounting and listing software, in may offices.
> There are ways to migrate from anything to anything. If they don't want to
> go through a migration, though, they're not going to. Often, businesses
> won't migrate from something until the cost of staying with that something
> is more then the cost of migration. This is something that is going to
> vary on a case-by-case basis, though, and so it would be incorrect to make
> generalizations to address this particular issue. While your office may
> not be making the move, there are many offices that are. For one thing,
> you don't want your employees messing with the system configuration -- and
> the system configuration is quite easy to protect in Linux. You're able to
> protect it with Windows, too, but with a different set of problems that
> tends to make the comparison something akin to comparing apples and
>> At home, you can't play many games on the computer, that you buy
>> from the local store or walmart in the USA. You MUST buy
>> a game machine to play games.
> I've always rather preferred using a console to play games. I like to work
> on my computer, and play elsewhere. However, this is just a preference.
> If I want to play games like Solitaire, Connect Four, Othello, Chess,
> whatever, I have that on my computer, and sometimes I do. But for other
> types of games, I much prefer a console, or a console remade into a
> computer with controllers, for that. I *hate* using my computer for things
> like playing my old Nintendo games. I don't see the point. Mind you,
> however, this is just a matter of my opinion; you're certainly free to have
> your own opinions.
Why even agree that Linux has no games? It's a fallacy. Many games run
natively on Linux. Other than that, there's Wine and other similar tools
such as virtualisation, Win4Linux, CrossOver Office, and other whose
existence doesn't spring to mind immediately.
>> NOW, this blows all to hell your poor person theory, since you will not
>> be able to utilize your PC to play games, and instead, have to spend a lot
>> more money.
> Not really. You are more then able to run PC games on a Linux box. There
> are, in fact, multiple methods of doing so. And as time goes on, there
> will be only more of these ways to do things -- not less. Also, if Linux
> usage continues to grow, games will become more commonplace for it, perhaps
> on a single CD with the Windows version of said game. As time goes by,
> standards are being formed that will help independent software vendors be
> able to write things that they know will work on Linux systems, and be able
> to do things like create a common package that people can download and run
> without hassle. Some incarnations of this have already existed in the
> past, and in the future, I can see them becoming closer and closer to
> something that suits the stereotypical "end-user."
>> Good thinking. Do you work for Play Station by chance?
> There's a company called "Play Station"? That's new to me... I thought
> PlayStation consoles were made by Sony...
As you can see, he is not /that/ bright. But he's harmless...
Roy S. Schestowitz | "No, I didn't buy that from eBay"
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
4:25am up 16 days 11:22, 11 users, load average: 0.99, 1.10, 0.83
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms