response 58 of 203:

Jan 31 23:30 UTC 2007

Correct.

response 60 of 203:

Feb 1 01:24 UTC 2007

Snigger.

response 62 of 203:

Feb 1 08:09 UTC 2007

Ooo check this out
http://sourceforge.net/project/screenshots.php?group_id=173462&ssid=39022
And if you use Wine with MSWord <heaven :)>

response 64 of 203:

Feb 1 09:23 UTC 2007

 It's a little like Grex in a way :) great ideals but who wants to figure
 out the syntax when gardenweb.com requires no additional brain work. I agree
 with what Mynx has to say.

Remind me to use hand signals exclusively next time we meet and let's see how
far we get communicating.

response 66 of 203:

Feb 1 12:13 UTC 2007

OK, so you said KDE has a lot of bloat - nevertheless, since most people will
be using KDE (or GNOME, and GNOME is comparable in size) - FUD like that is
effective.

Re #64: Actually hand signals wouldn't make any sense either :) given that
 i still need to know what your gestures mean :). A perfect interface would
be
 one which required no learning about the interface by the user but still
 managed to convey the information/meaning :) - at least that's how i see it.

The point I was trying to make is that I  have no problem with GUI's, it's just
that they are in no way suitable for doing a gazillion things you can and
should be able to do with a computer. With the imminent arrival of Windows
PowerShower, I am afraid those of us who say that have won this argument.

 I like Linux well enough to use it, but i'm not completely blind to it's
 defects..as i see it - there's not much sense in trying to get the world
 to fit Linux. It's better for Linux to try to adapt to the world. Given
 that we live in a MS dominated world, from a user perspective it makes
 sense for any UI to simulate MS and gradually wean users away to something
 better.

I'm not totally blind to Linux's faults, either. That doesn't mean I'm willing
to excuse MS's illegal business practices, or that I don't judge that, on
balance, Linux is worth a lot more money and effort than Windows.

response 68 of 203:

Feb 1 13:17 UTC 2007

re#61 why would anyone want Linux to become a Windows clone??? Windows is bad
for many more reasons than merely being a M$ product.

I think the real point of Microsoft's predominance is that they're the only
ones that have aggressively marketed the OS. This started with 95 and the
influence of marketing decisions taken since then is the cause of most of the
technically poor decision made, such as the crippling of the NT design to fit
IE and the 95 desktop.
I think that if others had made a bigger effort in marketing their product,
more people would have switched ages ago.
Look at Mac: once the preserve of graphic studios to which it was marketed
directly, has seen a huge uptake by home and non-business users since their
"switch" campaign and a greater presence in the media, also thanks to the
iPod/iTune success.
Still their marketing scope is a lot smaller than that of MS, with their
unrelenting push for dominance in all their product areas: mass marketing and
focused proselytisation in the business and professional sectors with
certification schemes, seminars and training paths forced down the throat of
everyone in the business.
Now when's the last time you've seen a TV advert for RedHat or SuSe or
Mandr[iva|ake] just to name a few with large user base and solid business
behind them.

A Linux desktop has been more than useable for quite some time and recent
distros are a piece of cake to install. Someone should tell Joe Blogg.

response 70 of 203:

Feb 1 13:39 UTC 2007

Twenesx - too many people have slipped - so I'm not going to answer anything
- (and anyways I have to go deal with immigration issues now) but Jeff you're
missing hte point - you pointed out that DEC or something or the other
imploded - could happen again. How many users did DEC have and how ubiquitous
was computers when that happened? What's the state now?

Market penetration - Windows has it.

response 72 of 203:

Feb 1 15:19 UTC 2007

Re #68: I totally agree that Windows is a piece of shit from a programmers
or computer scientist/engineers point of view..

Re #71: Correction, everyone did not have a DEC. A very small percentage of
the total worlds population did have a DEC. That's not quite the case with
Windows. Most people today that can afford a computer have Windows on it.
The DEC period wasn't known for home computing - imho (at least in India/
Asia). 

One is forced to use Windows through market inertia. Openoffice does not
format Word documents reliably, i'll have problems opening .ppt's. If i 
go to an architect's office, he isn't going to have Linux or OpenOffice 
or StarOffice. Same thing applies in my computer lab wrt Matlab. If i 
had to make a presentation in college it's more likely that they'd have a 
Windows box ready and waiting. Then there are my P2P apps, one or two
of them don't work on Win2K without wine and major headache. My Dad
knows and is familiar with Excel - he doesn't want to sit around learning
and familiarising himself with StarOffice. Then there are the various 
distro's. I don't want to spend time hunting around wondering where to click
when i got to make a class or transfer files - some colleges may go with
KDE other's with Gnome and some others with something-else.

Unless there are compelling reasons to move away from Win2K i won't move
and that's my point. There are no compelling reasons and it would be
impossible given the current state of development Linux is in given the 
market penetrance that Windows has.

Nothing better illustrates this philosophy better than gardenweb. The interface
is lousy when you compare it with NNTP/Grex, but to a horticulturist it's a 
familiar easy to use interface that requires little or no extra effort. 
Lecturing him about the wonders of Grex/NNTP isn't going to bring him here.
What he would want are concrete reasons why he should (freedom of speech is one
that i can think off) but gardenweb may curtail your freedom occasionally
or trample on a user occasionally and that to most ppl is acceptable.

JFTR i love Linux and when i'm not P2Ping that's what i mostly use.

response 74 of 203:

Feb 1 15:32 UTC 2007

I think it's silly to get so upset over the Windows monopoly. If you're a
consumer looking for a home computer, even if you're aware of all the
different choices, you don't have much choice. Apple is proprietary,
expensive, and has limited upgrade options. Linux flavors have no support at
all (unless you count mailing lists/forums and that kind of stuff I guess),
until you start paying for them. Then there's MS's offerings, which are almost
guaranteed to work from day one until the day they're obsolete years later,
on such a wide array of hardware from servers to handheld devices that it
makes the choice a no-brainer. If you have to blame something, blame the
market. If these were car brands, you wouldn't blame consumers for buying a
crappy Ford before they picked up a BMW or ordered a kit car. 

response 76 of 203:

Feb 1 15:45 UTC 2007

Then there's MS's offerings, which are almost
 guaranteed to work from day one until the day they're obsolete years later,

Um, no they aren't.

on such a wide array of hardware from servers to handheld devices that it
 makes the choice a no-brainer. 

Linux runs on a far greater range of devices.

If you have to blame something, blame the
 market. If these were car brands, you wouldn't blame consumers for buying
a
 crappy Ford before they picked up a BMW or ordered a kit car.

If these were car brands, you wouldn't be forced into buying a Ford even if
you wanted a Chevy.

 It's amusing to watch Linux/Unix snobs arguing the evils of Microsoft.
 I understand what you guys mean, but no one could who isn't familiar
 with Unix already. 

I disagree. Linux is no harder to use than Windows, these days, and despite
that STILL doesn't get viruses or spyware. Some people put that down to the
fact that "almost no-one uses it", but it  has 25% of the server market, it's
marketshare can't be counted because people don't have to buy it, it runs most
of the internet and most of the top supercomputers, and if you express
marketshare in terms of raw numbers, then the 5% or so of people who are
*assumed* to be running Linux translates to 15 mil, which is hardly "no-one".

You're assuming everyone agrees that Windows stinks,
 whereas not everyone agrees with that at all. 

I don't know anyone who's familiar with the recent state of Windows and Linux,
and actually thinks Windows is a better choice (except for running
Windows-only applications).

response 78 of 203:

Feb 1 15:55 UTC 2007

I didn't say they weren't. That's different from saying the OSes they run on
are good. If DOS runs more applications than Windows, does that mean Windows
is crappier than DOS?

(I've no doubt that DOS runs more apps than Windows, since in the days
following DOS's heyday, Microsoft have killed off most of the competition in
all the important application areas, too.)

response 80 of 203:

Feb 1 16:04 UTC 2007

I don't think there's any reasoning with twenex anymore.  :(

Why not? I mean, do mind explaining where you get the idea that Windows runs
perfectly for years on end, and (by implication) everything else doesn't, an
experience (and this is where I have difficulty with the idea) contrary to
all the known accounts?

Or is it just because I don't shrink from shooting down arguments that don't
stand up?