Discussion:
OT: You want to replace Windows XP with Linux? Seriously?
(too old to reply)
Charles Lindbergh
2014-04-26 15:53:34 UTC
Permalink
I came across this article on Infoworld and found it to be interesting and well
written.

You want to replace Windows XP with Linux? Seriously?

http://bit.ly/1h0Iphs

or

http://www.infoworld.com/d/microsoft-windows/you-want-replace-windows-xp-linux-seriously-240986
Alek Trishan
2014-04-26 16:07:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Lindbergh
I came across this article on Infoworld and found it to be interesting and well
written.
You want to replace Windows XP with Linux? Seriously?
http://bit.ly/1h0Iphs
or
http://www.infoworld.com/d/microsoft-windows/you-want-replace-windows-xp-linux-seriously-240986
That was written for the business user.
Charles Lindbergh
2014-04-26 16:18:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alek Trishan
Post by Charles Lindbergh
I came across this article on Infoworld and found it to be interesting and well
written.
You want to replace Windows XP with Linux? Seriously?
http://bit.ly/1h0Iphs
or
http://www.infoworld.com/d/microsoft-windows/you-want-replace-windows-xp-linux-seriously-240986
That was written for the business user.
That is true, but what is your point? I am a business user and Windows is the
dominant OS in business.
Alek Trishan
2014-04-26 16:23:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Alek Trishan
Post by Charles Lindbergh
I came across this article on Infoworld and found it to be interesting and well
written.
You want to replace Windows XP with Linux? Seriously?
http://bit.ly/1h0Iphs
or
http://www.infoworld.com/d/microsoft-windows/you-want-replace-windows-xp-linux-seriously-240986
That was written for the business user.
That is true, but what is your point? I am a business user and Windows is the
dominant OS in business.
I wanted personal users to know that the article was not aimed at them.
Most of the anti-Linux considerations he mentions are just not germane.

I think it's really aimed at business IT managers rather than any kind
of user. "I'm sorry, but your users will hate you if you dump a Linux
system on them..."
Charles Lindbergh
2014-04-26 16:57:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alek Trishan
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Alek Trishan
Post by Charles Lindbergh
I came across this article on Infoworld and found it to be interesting and well
written.
You want to replace Windows XP with Linux? Seriously?
http://bit.ly/1h0Iphs
or
http://www.infoworld.com/d/microsoft-windows/you-want-replace-windows-xp-linux-seriously-240986
That was written for the business user.
That is true, but what is your point? I am a business user and Windows is the
dominant OS in business.
I wanted personal users to know that the article was not aimed at them.
Most of the anti-Linux considerations he mentions are just not germane.
Not germane to the home user, no. But when it comes to maintaining a workplace
environment, it is very applicable.
Post by Alek Trishan
I think it's really aimed at business IT managers rather than any kind
of user. "I'm sorry, but your users will hate you if you dump a Linux
system on them..."
In reality, they would probably like having an unrestricted Linux workstation as
opposed to a workstation which is locked down by AD group policies.
Seth
2014-04-28 20:09:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Alek Trishan
I think it's really aimed at business IT managers rather than any kind
of user. "I'm sorry, but your users will hate you if you dump a Linux
system on them..."
In reality, they would probably like having an unrestricted Linux workstation
as opposed to a workstation which is locked down by AD group policies.
If a business was really interested in alowing users to have an
unrestricted PC then they could just turn off GPOs. Just because you
have a Windows domain doesn't mean GPOs are automatically implemented.

So really, one has nothing to do with the other.
Charles Lindbergh
2014-04-28 21:09:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seth
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Alek Trishan
I think it's really aimed at business IT managers rather than any kind
of user. "I'm sorry, but your users will hate you if you dump a Linux
system on them..."
In reality, they would probably like having an unrestricted Linux workstation
as opposed to a workstation which is locked down by AD group policies.
If a business was really interested in alowing users to have an
unrestricted PC then they could just turn off GPOs. Just because you
have a Windows domain doesn't mean GPOs are automatically implemented.
So really, one has nothing to do with the other.
I do not follow your logic. Possibly you misunderstood? I was saying the users
would probably love having unrestricted workstations.

I would never give unrestricted workstations to the majority of my employees, I
want them working not playing, tinkering and getting into trouble.
Good Guy
2014-04-26 17:20:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Lindbergh
That is true, but what is your point? I am a business user and Windows is the
dominant OS in business.
Do you know any tax software that can be used in Linux? Businesses do
pay taxes and they need something that can be done on Linux. Also, any
ideas of good Accounting packages for Linux?

Word Processor and spreadsheet are one thing and can be found on Linux
but the main applications can't.
--
Good Guy
Website: http://mytaxsite.co.uk
Website: http://html-css.co.uk
Email: http://mytaxsite.co.uk/contact-us
Charles Lindbergh
2014-04-26 17:41:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Good Guy
Post by Charles Lindbergh
That is true, but what is your point? I am a business user and Windows is the
dominant OS in business.
Do you know any tax software that can be used in Linux? Businesses do
pay taxes and they need something that can be done on Linux. Also, any
ideas of good Accounting packages for Linux?
Word Processor and spreadsheet are one thing and can be found on Linux
but the main applications can't.
Actually, I have encountered only a few Windows applications which will not work
properly using Wine under Linux.
Good Guy
2014-04-26 19:24:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Actually, I have encountered only a few Windows applications which will not work
properly using Wine under Linux.
So you still need Windows Applications to run your business!!!!!!!!!

Why not stick with Windows then?
Charles Lindbergh
2014-04-26 20:19:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Good Guy
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Actually, I have encountered only a few Windows applications which will not work
properly using Wine under Linux.
So you still need Windows Applications to run your business!!!!!!!!!
Why all the exclamation marks? Did your key get stuck?
Post by Good Guy
Why not stick with Windows then?
Unfortunately, Windows is the standard in a business environment. Hopefully, at
some point in the future, products such as Centrify and Spacewalk will be able
to completely replace Windows Server Active Directory and Group Policy.
Good Guy
2014-04-26 21:09:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Good Guy
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Actually, I have encountered only a few Windows applications which will not work
properly using Wine under Linux.
So you still need Windows Applications to run your business!!!!!!!!!
Why all the exclamation marks?
Because over the years I have seen many hypocrites on Windows forums and
newsgroups describing virtues of Linux even though they themselves still
run Windows Applications.
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Unfortunately, Windows is the standard in a business environment. Hopefully, at
some point in the future, products such as Centrify and Spacewalk will be able
to completely replace Windows Server Active Directory and Group Policy.
"Some point in the future?" Have you got a time framework in mind? How
long has Linux been in existence? People talk about future but it never
comes. Linux is still tool for hobbyists and enthusiasts. It is
certainly not for business as you have confirmed that "Windows is the
standard in a business environment"
Charles Lindbergh
2014-04-26 22:04:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Good Guy
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Good Guy
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Actually, I have encountered only a few Windows applications which will not work
properly using Wine under Linux.
So you still need Windows Applications to run your business!!!!!!!!!
Why all the exclamation marks?
Because over the years I have seen many hypocrites on Windows forums and
newsgroups describing virtues of Linux even though they themselves still
run Windows Applications.
For some strange reason, you are coming out swinging at me when I am the one who
posted the article. Have you read the article or are you just pissing in the
wind?
Post by Good Guy
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Unfortunately, Windows is the standard in a business environment. Hopefully, at
some point in the future, products such as Centrify and Spacewalk will be able
to completely replace Windows Server Active Directory and Group Policy.
"Some point in the future?" Have you got a time framework in mind? How
long has Linux been in existence? People talk about future but it never
comes. Linux is still tool for hobbyists and enthusiasts. It is
certainly not for business as you have confirmed that "Windows is the
standard in a business environment"
You are joking right? Linux is FAR from a hobbyist OS. Christ, I can just
picture operating a nuclear ballistic missile submarine using any version of
windows! "Hold on skipper, I have to reboot this piece of shit before you can
launch the missiles."

Here are a few statistics from Wikipedia.

The United States Army has the largest install base for Red Hat Linux.

The entire fleet of US Navy Nuclear Submarines runs on Linux.

In June 2012 the US Navy signed a US$27,883,883 contract with Raytheon to
install Linux ground control software for its fleet of vertical take-off and
landing (VTOL) Northrup-Grumman MQ8B Fire Scout drones.

In late 2010 Vladimir Putin signed a plan to move the Russian Federation
government towards free software including Linux in the second quarter of 2012

In July 2001[9] the White House started switching their web servers to an
operating system based on Red Hat Linux and using the Apache HTTP Server.[10]
The installation was completed in February 2009

Linux running Apache represents the most numerous single webserver on the net.

France's national police force, the National Gendarmerie started moving their
90,000 desktops from Windows XP to Ubuntu in 2007 over concerns about the
additional training costs of moving to Windows Vista, and following the success
of OpenOffice.org roll-outs. The migration should be completed by 2015. The
force has saved about €50 million on software licensing between 2004 and
2008.[38][39][40]
Todd
2014-04-27 07:50:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Good Guy
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Good Guy
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Actually, I have encountered only a few Windows applications which will not work
properly using Wine under Linux.
So you still need Windows Applications to run your business!!!!!!!!!
Why all the exclamation marks?
Because over the years I have seen many hypocrites on Windows forums and
newsgroups describing virtues of Linux even though they themselves still
run Windows Applications.
For some strange reason, you are coming out swinging at me when I am the one who
posted the article. Have you read the article or are you just pissing in the
wind?
Post by Good Guy
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Unfortunately, Windows is the standard in a business environment. Hopefully, at
some point in the future, products such as Centrify and Spacewalk will be able
to completely replace Windows Server Active Directory and Group Policy.
"Some point in the future?" Have you got a time framework in mind? How
long has Linux been in existence? People talk about future but it never
comes. Linux is still tool for hobbyists and enthusiasts. It is
certainly not for business as you have confirmed that "Windows is the
standard in a business environment"
You are joking right? Linux is FAR from a hobbyist OS. Christ, I can just
picture operating a nuclear ballistic missile submarine using any version of
windows! "Hold on skipper, I have to reboot this piece of shit before you can
launch the missiles."
Here are a few statistics from Wikipedia.
The United States Army has the largest install base for Red Hat Linux.
The entire fleet of US Navy Nuclear Submarines runs on Linux.
In June 2012 the US Navy signed a US$27,883,883 contract with Raytheon to
install Linux ground control software for its fleet of vertical take-off and
landing (VTOL) Northrup-Grumman MQ8B Fire Scout drones.
In late 2010 Vladimir Putin signed a plan to move the Russian Federation
government towards free software including Linux in the second quarter of 2012
In July 2001[9] the White House started switching their web servers to an
operating system based on Red Hat Linux and using the Apache HTTP Server.[10]
The installation was completed in February 2009
Linux running Apache represents the most numerous single webserver on the net.
France's national police force, the National Gendarmerie started moving their
90,000 desktops from Windows XP to Ubuntu in 2007 over concerns about the
additional training costs of moving to Windows Vista, and following the success
of OpenOffice.org roll-outs. The migration should be completed by 2015. The
force has saved about €50 million on software licensing between 2004 and
2008.[38][39][40]
Hi Charles,

1+

Charles! YOU FORGOT THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION (ISS) !
I am deeply ashamed. (Ignore me, I think I am funny.)

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/155392-international-space-station-switches-from-windows-to-linux-for-improved-reliability

Can't breath? Pardon me while I reboot this piece of
s*** and try get rid of this stupid virus!

When your life depends on it... (Don't use Windows).

Yes, the ISS actually caught some Windows viruses. I was
amazed that the ISS ever used Windows to start with.
And they have their own bastion of programmers, so
who cares about off the shelf apps.

-T
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped
in a couple slices of baloney
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Todd
2014-04-27 07:43:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Good Guy
Because over the years I have seen many hypocrites on Windows forums and
newsgroups describing virtues of Linux even though they themselves still
run Windows Applications.
Hi Guy,

I do both. Linux is a lot better os. But, if doesn't
have the main line applications available.

The only two Windows apps I have right now that won't
run in Linux's Wine are WSUS and Go To Assist.
(Quick Books is a disaster in Wine, but I wrote my
own accounting system in Approach, which does run in Wine.)

And, oh boy do Windows apps run faster in Wine that they
do in Windows. Kind of eerie. No security issues either.

As for system admins, there are so many cool toys in Linux.
Every big network should have at least one Linux machine, so
they can do security checks, probe for rouge computers, etc..

And Linux users are not any more of a hypocrite for liking
their stuff than you are for liking your favorite OS.

At last count, I have around 12 virtual machines. If
I can't get the job done in Linux, or my base version
of Linux won't support it, I use a VM. When I must
run a Windows program in Windows, I chose one of two
of my XP VM's. The others are too clunky and slow,
not to mention resource hogs.

You really need to learn more operating systems other
than just what M$ has to offer. The more you know, the more
fun this field gets. And you will be endlessly comparing
the goods and the bads of all of them. Keeps the brain sharp.

-T
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped
in a couple slices of baloney
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wolf K
2014-04-27 16:15:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Good Guy
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Good Guy
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Actually, I have encountered only a few Windows applications which will not work
properly using Wine under Linux.
So you still need Windows Applications to run your business!!!!!!!!!
Why all the exclamation marks?
Because over the years I have seen many hypocrites on Windows forums and
newsgroups describing virtues of Linux even though they themselves still
run Windows Applications.
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Unfortunately, Windows is the standard in a business environment.
Hopefully, at
some point in the future, products such as Centrify and Spacewalk will be able
to completely replace Windows Server Active Directory and Group Policy.
"Some point in the future?" Have you got a time framework in mind? How
long has Linux been in existence? People talk about future but it never
comes. Linux is still tool for hobbyists and enthusiasts. It is
certainly not for business as you have confirmed that "Windows is the
standard in a business environment"
Depends what you're running. A large proportion of the net runs on Linux
servers. IBM is promoting Linux, too, but I don't know how well that is
going.
--
Best,
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.ca
Todd
2014-04-27 04:23:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Good Guy
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Actually, I have encountered only a few Windows applications which will not work
properly using Wine under Linux.
So you still need Windows Applications to run your business!!!!!!!!!
Why not stick with Windows then?
Linux downfall is the lack of main stream application.

By the way, Wine is way, way faster than Windows. And
you don't have to worry about all the idiot security flaws,
yada, yada, yada.

Now getting your app to run in Wine, that is a whole 'nother
story. But, if you are funded, you can pay Code Weavers to
fix it. Open Source is a different economic model. You make
your money off of "value add".

I am finally getting Wine bugs affecting Lotus Approach fixed
from the free channel, but after three to four years of waiting.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped
in a couple slices of baloney
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Todd
2014-04-27 04:18:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Good Guy
Post by Charles Lindbergh
That is true, but what is your point? I am a business user and Windows is the
dominant OS in business.
Do you know any tax software that can be used in Linux? Businesses do
pay taxes and they need something that can be done on Linux. Also, any
ideas of good Accounting packages for Linux?
Word Processor and spreadsheet are one thing and can be found on Linux
but the main applications can't.
Actually, I have encountered only a few Windows applications which will not work
properly using Wine under Linux.
I use Wine all the time. It is not for the faint hearted.

If you are a well funded company, you can pay Code Weavers to
fix it for you
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped
in a couple slices of baloney
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Todd
2014-04-27 04:17:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Good Guy
Do you know any tax software that can be used in Linux? Businesses do
pay taxes and they need something that can be done on Linux. Also, any
ideas of good Accounting packages for Linux?
Hi Guy,

GNU Cash

There are big ones too, but I forgot what they are called.

-T
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped
in a couple slices of baloney
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shadow
2014-04-28 00:45:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Good Guy
Post by Charles Lindbergh
That is true, but what is your point? I am a business user and Windows is the
dominant OS in business.
Do you know any tax software that can be used in Linux? Businesses do
pay taxes and they need something that can be done on Linux. Also, any
ideas of good Accounting packages for Linux?
Depends on if politicians are bribed and how much. All federal
tax software is available in both Linux and windows versions in
Brazil. Java is cross-platform.
[]'s
Post by Good Guy
Word Processor and spreadsheet are one thing and can be found on Linux
but the main applications can't.
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
2014-04-26 16:17:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Lindbergh
I came across this article on Infoworld and found it to be interesting
and well written.
You want to replace Windows XP with Linux? Seriously?
http://bit.ly/1h0Iphs
or
http://www.infoworld.com/d/microsoft-windows/you-want-replace-windows-xp-
linux-seriously-240986

FUD.

"For better or for worse, I'm a Windows guy." ...

"J. Peter Bruzzese writes the Enterprise Windows blog for InfoWorld"
--
-bts
-Yes, seriously.
s|b
2014-04-26 16:25:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Lindbergh
I came across this article on Infoworld and found it to be interesting and well
written.
You want to replace Windows XP with Linux? Seriously?
http://bit.ly/1h0Iphs
or
http://www.infoworld.com/d/microsoft-windows/you-want-replace-windows-xp-linux-seriously-240986
I stopped reading after this:

| Nevertheless, I see a lot of pitches for Linux -- Zorin, Ubuntu, Mint --
| as the better path for those leaving Windows XP. I'm sorry, but your
| users will hate you if you dump a Linux system on them after years of
| working with XP.

My brother isn't very computer savvy and I had him working for /years/
on an old (at least 8 yo) computer with XP (English version). He was
using Firefox, Thunderbird, Skype, LibreOffice, ...

Last weekend I removed XP and installed Xubuntu 12.04.4. I transferred
his Fx and TB profiles, installed Skype,made sure his printer worked and
I left him a note to contact me when he got home. I was planning on
using Teamviewer (also installed on Xubuntu) to show him the ropes.

The call never happened, so I gave him a ring after a week, to ask if he
had used his computer and why he hadn't called me. His answer? 'I found
out everything by myself and that's why I didn't contact you.'

So I'm sorry, no Linux hater there. On the contrary, he is happy he can
use the same old computer for at least another year.

I'm planning on doing the same with my godchild's computer (XP). The
only difference is that I'll install Xubuntu 14.04. He's 13yo and kids
that age don't need explaining on how a computer works. So I'm guessing
he'll love his Xubuntu as well.

PS: I'm a W7 user (but I have an old computer with Xubuntu as a
"backup").
--
s|b
Charles Lindbergh
2014-04-26 17:01:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by s|b
Post by Charles Lindbergh
I came across this article on Infoworld and found it to be interesting and well
written.
You want to replace Windows XP with Linux? Seriously?
http://bit.ly/1h0Iphs
or
http://www.infoworld.com/d/microsoft-windows/you-want-replace-windows-xp-linux-seriously-240986
| Nevertheless, I see a lot of pitches for Linux -- Zorin, Ubuntu, Mint --
| as the better path for those leaving Windows XP. I'm sorry, but your
| users will hate you if you dump a Linux system on them after years of
| working with XP.
My brother isn't very computer savvy and I had him working for /years/
on an old (at least 8 yo) computer with XP (English version). He was
using Firefox, Thunderbird, Skype, LibreOffice, ...
Last weekend I removed XP and installed Xubuntu 12.04.4. I transferred
his Fx and TB profiles, installed Skype,made sure his printer worked and
I left him a note to contact me when he got home. I was planning on
using Teamviewer (also installed on Xubuntu) to show him the ropes.
The call never happened, so I gave him a ring after a week, to ask if he
had used his computer and why he hadn't called me. His answer? 'I found
out everything by myself and that's why I didn't contact you.'
So I'm sorry, no Linux hater there. On the contrary, he is happy he can
use the same old computer for at least another year.
I'm planning on doing the same with my godchild's computer (XP). The
only difference is that I'll install Xubuntu 14.04. He's 13yo and kids
that age don't need explaining on how a computer works. So I'm guessing
he'll love his Xubuntu as well.
PS: I'm a W7 user (but I have an old computer with Xubuntu as a
"backup").
It isn't about "hating" Linux. It is about installing 1,000 Linux workstations
in a business environment and trying to maintain some degree of control. I
understand many people do not have experience with such environments and
therefore have little appreciation of the challenges associated with such.
Laszlo Lebrun
2014-04-26 15:27:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Lindbergh
It isn't about "hating" Linux. It is about installing 1,000 Linux workstations
in a business environment
really? Why not pointing that out from the beginning?
--
One computer and three operating systems, not the other way round.
One wife and many hotels, not the other way round ! ;-)
ray carter
2014-04-26 18:01:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Lindbergh
It isn't about "hating" Linux. It is about installing 1,000 Linux
workstations in a business environment and trying to maintain some
degree of control. I understand many people do not have experience with
such environments and therefore have little appreciation of the
challenges associated with such.
Interesting concept. Before I retired a few years back, there was a full
time support person for the MS comjputers. I maintained the Linux systems
as a small part of my job - took a few hours a month.
Charles Lindbergh
2014-04-26 18:13:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray carter
Post by Charles Lindbergh
It isn't about "hating" Linux. It is about installing 1,000 Linux
workstations in a business environment and trying to maintain some
degree of control. I understand many people do not have experience with
such environments and therefore have little appreciation of the
challenges associated with such.
Interesting concept. Before I retired a few years back, there was a full
time support person for the MS comjputers. I maintained the Linux systems
as a small part of my job - took a few hours a month.
How many Linux users and what kind of an environment?
Todd
2014-04-27 08:00:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray carter
Post by Charles Lindbergh
It isn't about "hating" Linux. It is about installing 1,000 Linux
workstations in a business environment and trying to maintain some
degree of control. I understand many people do not have experience with
such environments and therefore have little appreciation of the
challenges associated with such.
Interesting concept. Before I retired a few years back, there was a full
time support person for the MS comjputers. I maintained the Linux systems
as a small part of my job - took a few hours a month.
Hi Ray,

I had two customers with a Windows servers and Linux
server sitting next to each other. I originally
thought the fussing would be about 4 to 1, but
was shocked at about 20 to 1. Things are always
going wrong with Windows servers. (Made a bunch
of money off them.)

What really got my goat was that I could work on
a Linux server all day and no one would notice.
On a Windows server: reboot, reboot, reboot,
reboot ... Did I mention "reboot"? And the
users start to get really pissed at you.

Windows servers are such pieces of unprofessional,
unreliable ...

-T
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped
in a couple slices of baloney
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Todd
2014-04-27 07:55:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Lindbergh
It isn't about "hating" Linux. It is about installing 1,000 Linux workstations
in a business environment and trying to maintain some degree of control. I
understand many people do not have experience with such environments and
therefore have little appreciation of the challenges associated with such.
True. They could always learn your jobs.

When the I.T. department gets all NAZI over
everything, it is usually because they are
not up to the challenge of it.

I come in after these guys all the time.
They almost put their users in tears.
I fix that. For starters, I ask the user
to show me what they are trying to do.
Then I assist them in getting their job done.

When I hear, Lock Down, I think Oh Boy!
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped
in a couple slices of baloney
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Todd
2014-04-27 07:52:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by s|b
Post by Charles Lindbergh
I came across this article on Infoworld and found it to be interesting and well
written.
You want to replace Windows XP with Linux? Seriously?
http://bit.ly/1h0Iphs
or
http://www.infoworld.com/d/microsoft-windows/you-want-replace-windows-xp-linux-seriously-240986
| Nevertheless, I see a lot of pitches for Linux -- Zorin, Ubuntu, Mint --
| as the better path for those leaving Windows XP. I'm sorry, but your
| users will hate you if you dump a Linux system on them after years of
| working with XP.
My brother isn't very computer savvy and I had him working for /years/
on an old (at least 8 yo) computer with XP (English version). He was
using Firefox, Thunderbird, Skype, LibreOffice, ...
Last weekend I removed XP and installed Xubuntu 12.04.4. I transferred
his Fx and TB profiles, installed Skype,made sure his printer worked and
I left him a note to contact me when he got home. I was planning on
using Teamviewer (also installed on Xubuntu) to show him the ropes.
The call never happened, so I gave him a ring after a week, to ask if he
had used his computer and why he hadn't called me. His answer? 'I found
out everything by myself and that's why I didn't contact you.'
So I'm sorry, no Linux hater there. On the contrary, he is happy he can
use the same old computer for at least another year.
I'm planning on doing the same with my godchild's computer (XP). The
only difference is that I'll install Xubuntu 14.04. He's 13yo and kids
that age don't need explaining on how a computer works. So I'm guessing
he'll love his Xubuntu as well.
PS: I'm a W7 user (but I have an old computer with Xubuntu as a
"backup").
Hi s|b,

I take XFce and arrange the desktop to look exactly like
XP. Users love that over having to learn W7/F8, so I
don't get the remark either.

-T
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped
in a couple slices of baloney
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johnny
2014-04-26 16:53:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Lindbergh
I came across this article on Infoworld and found it to be interesting and well
written.
You want to replace Windows XP with Linux? Seriously?
http://bit.ly/1h0Iphs
or
http://www.infoworld.com/d/microsoft-windows/you-want-replace-windows-xp-linux-seriously-240986
"Years back, I was very interested in Linux as a desktop OS. Red Hat was
my first choice, but I moved on to Caldera, then Ubuntu. I installed it,
played around a bit, downloaded some applications to try and mimic my
Windows OS, get bored, and moved back to Windows."


That's the mistake a lot of people make, trying to make it act like Windows.

Linux is a Free and Open Source operating system that allows the user to
have complete control. It doesn't spy on you, and you can install it on
as many computers as you want to.

I have used every version of Windows through Windows 7, and when
Microsoft came out with Windows 8, I knew that was the end of Windows
for me.

I have been using Linux Mint 16 for five months, and will not be going
back to Windows again.

I would recommend Linux Mint 16 KDE to anyone that's had enough of
Microsoft.

http://www.linuxmint.com/
Laszlo Lebrun
2014-04-26 15:47:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny
I would recommend Linux Mint 16 KDE to anyone that's had enough of
Microsoft.
That is alt least as wrong as the mentioned author denigrating Linux.

It all depends on how your users are using their workstation.
If they are using only one or two applications (many business users do)
and that applications have a Linux version why not?
If they only need a plain office suite more or less as a typewriter,
read some mail and browse a bit around in a the small office why not?
Many will be less disturbed by Open-Office than by the the newest
versions of Office if they were using Office 2003 or a previous one
(you'd wonder how many stil do).

Of course the power users of Windows, who are using intensively all
groupware functionalities including Sharepoint, Groove, Outlook, and
have complete workflows based on Microsoft stuff aren't obviously the
target here.
--
One computer and three operating systems, not the other way round.
One wife and many hotels, not the other way round ! ;-)
Todd
2014-04-27 08:04:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Laszlo Lebrun
Post by Johnny
I would recommend Linux Mint 16 KDE to anyone that's had enough of
Microsoft.
That is alt least as wrong as the mentioned author denigrating Linux.
It all depends on how your users are using their workstation.
If they are using only one or two applications (many business users do)
and that applications have a Linux version why not?
If they only need a plain office suite more or less as a typewriter,
read some mail and browse a bit around in a the small office why not?
Many will be less disturbed by Open-Office than by the the newest
versions of Office if they were using Office 2003 or a previous one
(you'd wonder how many stil do).
Of course the power users of Windows, who are using intensively all
groupware functionalities including Sharepoint, Groove, Outlook, and
have complete workflows based on Microsoft stuff aren't obviously the
target here.
It is the lack of mainstream apps that makes you stick with
Windows. There are such better alternatives out there,
but ... :'(
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped
in a couple slices of baloney
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ken Springer
2014-04-27 03:18:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny
Post by Charles Lindbergh
I came across this article on Infoworld and found it to be interesting and well
written.
You want to replace Windows XP with Linux? Seriously?
http://bit.ly/1h0Iphs
or
http://www.infoworld.com/d/microsoft-windows/you-want-replace-windows-xp-linux-seriously-240986
"Years back, I was very interested in Linux as a desktop OS. Red Hat was
my first choice, but I moved on to Caldera, then Ubuntu. I installed it,
played around a bit, downloaded some applications to try and mimic my
Windows OS, get bored, and moved back to Windows."
That's the mistake a lot of people make, trying to make it act like Windows.
There is no doubt about that. If you want it to work like Windows, stay
with Windows.

I wonder why people just think one product will mimic the way another
product works.
Post by Johnny
Linux is a Free and Open Source operating system that allows the user to
have complete control. It doesn't spy on you, and you can install it on
as many computers as you want to.
I have used every version of Windows through Windows 7, and when
Microsoft came out with Windows 8, I knew that was the end of Windows
for me.
I have been using Linux Mint 16 for five months, and will not be going
back to Windows again.
This Mac is now 5 years old, I've got Win 7/8 dual boot next to it. Not
moving back to Windows unless there's no option for one reason or another.
Post by Johnny
I would recommend Linux Mint 16 KDE to anyone that's had enough of
Microsoft.
http://www.linuxmint.com/
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.3.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
Todd
2014-04-27 08:05:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Springer
This Mac is now 5 years old, I've got Win 7/8 dual boot next to it. Not
moving back to Windows unless there's no option for one reason or another.
Hi Ken,

M$ actually makes a pretty good Virtual Machine for MAC
call Parallels. Getter than having to boot back and forth.

-T
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped
in a couple slices of baloney
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ken Springer
2014-04-27 09:16:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd
Post by Ken Springer
This Mac is now 5 years old, I've got Win 7/8 dual boot next to it. Not
moving back to Windows unless there's no option for one reason or another.
Hi Ken,
M$ actually makes a pretty good Virtual Machine for MAC
call Parallels. Getter than having to boot back and forth.
Parallels is not made by MS.
http://www.parallels.com/about/about-parallels/

I'm running version 8, version 9 is updated for 10.9 Mavericks, which I
don't think I'll upgrade to. I have XP, Vista, &, and 8.0 running it
it. Rarely use any of them. <G>
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.3.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
Todd
2014-04-27 09:39:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Springer
Post by Todd
Post by Ken Springer
This Mac is now 5 years old, I've got Win 7/8 dual boot next to it. Not
moving back to Windows unless there's no option for one reason or another.
Hi Ken,
M$ actually makes a pretty good Virtual Machine for MAC
call Parallels. Getter than having to boot back and forth.
Parallels is not made by MS.
http://www.parallels.com/about/about-parallels/
I'm running version 8, version 9 is updated for 10.9 Mavericks, which I
don't think I'll upgrade to. I have XP, Vista, &, and 8.0 running it
it. Rarely use any of them. <G>
Hi Ken,

I stand corrected. Thank you!

The two do work together a lot, which is where
I probably got the idea:

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/techflash/2011/07/microsoft-parallels-strike-5m-deal.html

-T
Ken Springer
2014-04-27 14:55:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd
Post by Ken Springer
Post by Todd
Post by Ken Springer
This Mac is now 5 years old, I've got Win 7/8 dual boot next to it. Not
moving back to Windows unless there's no option for one reason or another.
Hi Ken,
M$ actually makes a pretty good Virtual Machine for MAC
call Parallels. Getter than having to boot back and forth.
Parallels is not made by MS.
http://www.parallels.com/about/about-parallels/
I'm running version 8, version 9 is updated for 10.9 Mavericks, which I
don't think I'll upgrade to. I have XP, Vista, &, and 8.0 running it
it. Rarely use any of them. <G>
Hi Ken,
I stand corrected. Thank you!
You're welcome.
Post by Todd
The two do work together a lot, which is where
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/techflash/2011/07/microsoft-parallels-strike-5m-deal.html
I think with the complexity of both the OS and the software, if there
wasn't some way for them to work together, nothing would ever work right.

Oh! Wait!! It still happens. LOL!!

But I still think they have to work together for most programs.
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.3.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
Todd
2014-04-27 08:03:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny
Post by Charles Lindbergh
I came across this article on Infoworld and found it to be interesting and well
written.
You want to replace Windows XP with Linux? Seriously?
http://bit.ly/1h0Iphs
or
http://www.infoworld.com/d/microsoft-windows/you-want-replace-windows-xp-linux-seriously-240986
"Years back, I was very interested in Linux as a desktop OS. Red Hat was
my first choice, but I moved on to Caldera, then Ubuntu. I installed it,
played around a bit, downloaded some applications to try and mimic my
Windows OS, get bored, and moved back to Windows."
That's the mistake a lot of people make, trying to make it act like Windows.
Linux is a Free and Open Source operating system that allows the user to
have complete control. It doesn't spy on you, and you can install it on
as many computers as you want to.
I have used every version of Windows through Windows 7, and when
Microsoft came out with Windows 8, I knew that was the end of Windows
for me.
I have been using Linux Mint 16 for five months, and will not be going
back to Windows again.
I would recommend Linux Mint 16 KDE to anyone that's had enough of
Microsoft.
http://www.linuxmint.com/
Hi Johnny,

1+ on the replacement for Windows. It is a different
culture. Most MAC users make this transition
pretty easy.

KDE's interface is a lot like W7. You can make Xfce
look identical to XP.

Speaking of KDE, have you played with Digikam yet?
K3B is the most stable CD/DVD cutter I have come across.
Love the validate feature too.

-T
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped
in a couple slices of baloney
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mayayana
2014-04-27 13:03:46 UTC
Permalink
| Linux is a Free and Open Source operating system that allows the user to
| have complete control. It doesn't spy on you, and you can install it on
| as many computers as you want to.
|

That needs to be qualified. You can have complete
control only if you learn the details and are comfortable
with console operations. (Last time I tried Linux I discovered
that root [Administrator] was no longer root and I had to
hunt down the real root, known as sudo. That's the same
frustrating trickery that Microsoft has foisted on Vista/7
users. And just like MS, Linux fanatics will say it's for your
own good and that you shouldn't be running as root in the
first place.) That's not what I'd call control.

Linux, like NT, was never designed to be a Desktop OS.

You can have a semblance of control if you don't need
anything unusual. If you just want to choose your Desktop
background and go to GMail, which is all a lot of people
want, then you're OK. Firefox runs on Linux. And if you keep
your files on a FAT32 partition then you won't have to fight
with Linux to get access to your own stuff... If you want more
control you'll need to start reading about shell options, /etc
config files, and on and on. Even then, what are you controlling?
A Desktop OS that doesn't run most Desktop software. (And
no, the GIMP, after some 20 years in development, is not a
replacement for any decent Windows graphic editor. The latest
version can't even save a file properly. It forces one to "export"
any image that's not being saved in GIMP formats. That's
nothing more than marketing mucking up functionality.)

I've dabbled with Linux periodically and always come away
less than impressed. In older versions one had to do silly
things like type "startx" in order to get the GUI loaded. Newer
versions are far more polished, but they've started taking the
approach of Apple and Microsoft: stability through obscurity.
If most people can't find the setting then they won't change
it and that will "keep them out of trouble".

On the spying issue, I'd consider Linux worse than
Windows. I'm not aware of any Linux firewall that handles
detailed control of outgoing communication. I'm not
even aware of any that's relatively easy to use. (There
was a discussion about that on Slashdot recently, and I
didn't see anyone come up with a solution. The discussion
just degenerated -- as Slashdot discussions usually do --
into jokes, Windows insults, and defensive posturing:
"What's wrong with iptables?")
At the same time, software installs have become increasingly
automated. Recent Linux versions brag about how the
software takes care of itself, auto-updating. I don't
want auto-updating. I want software that's finished and
doesn't need to download a patch every week.Why should
I trust an OS that is designed to let all sorts of things go
out without my permission? A Linux fanatic would answer
that those processes going out are just part of a
smooth-running OS. They're honest, squeaky clean, socialist
comrades. Linux can be trusted, unlike Mr. Gates and Mr.
Ballmer... As far as I'm concerned, if it's not transparent and
under my control, it can't be trusted. If it goes online without
my permisison it can't be trusted. It's not for the designers
of Linux to decide what can leave my computer.

I haven't tried WINE in some time, but last time I did
I didn't find any software I used that ran without a hitch.
Typical Linux scenario: It *sort of* works, but don't think
you'll accomplish what you want to accomplish without
rolling up your sleeves and getting your hands dirty.
I tried to cooperate with the WINE programmers to get my
own software running better, but they didn't want to
cooperate. Their idea of cooperation was for Windows
programmers to report bugs. They don't provide any API or
real docs for Windows programmers to work with WINE,
despite the fact that the system works by mimicking the
Win32 API. They're essentially a group of overgrown teenagers
who want to be able to run the latest Grand Theft Auto
on Linux. And WINE is another case of 20 years in the
making. They release updates about every 10 days. For
20 years!

I would like to be able to transition to Linux if I have
to give up Windows, which just keeps getting worse in
my view. But Windows is still fun and there's a lot of
software for it. Linux is not fun and there isn't a lot of
software for it. The Linux fanatics don't help their cause.
They adopt an emotional us-vs-them attitude and feel
they need to be cheerleaders and apologists for Linux.
In many cases they're contemptuous toward the very
people they're trying to convert. I don't see Linux becoming
a really usable Desktop OS until it's out of the hands of
juvenile geeks-on-a-mission.
Blue
2014-04-27 13:54:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
t have to fight
with Linux to get access to your own stuff..
Linux can read and write to NTFS files. It's obvious that it's been
awhile since you've used Linux because this has been true for years.
Right now I am copying data from an NTFS formatted hard drive to Linux.
--
Blue
Mayayana
2014-04-27 15:00:54 UTC
Permalink
| > t have to fight
| > with Linux to get access to your own stuff..
|
| Linux can read and write to NTFS files. It's obvious that it's been
| awhile since you've used Linux because this has been true for years.
| Right now I am copying data from an NTFS formatted hard drive to Linux.
|

I didn't mean that. I meant that file restrictions
on Linux can be a pain in the neck. The Linux file
system (ext*?) is similar to NTFS in that regard.
Since I own my own machine and have no use for
such restrictions, I've found it's easier to just store
files on FAT32 partitions, which Linux can read but
which do not support file access restrictions.
Blue
2014-04-27 15:44:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
| > t have to fight
| > with Linux to get access to your own stuff..
|
| Linux can read and write to NTFS files. It's obvious that it's been
| awhile since you've used Linux because this has been true for years.
| Right now I am copying data from an NTFS formatted hard drive to Linux.
|
I didn't mean that. I meant that file restrictions
on Linux can be a pain in the neck. The Linux file
system (ext*?) is similar to NTFS in that regard.
Since I own my own machine and have no use for
such restrictions, I've found it's easier to just store
files on FAT32 partitions, which Linux can read but
which do not support file access restrictions.
And those restrictions are?
--
Blue
Mayayana
2014-04-27 16:04:23 UTC
Permalink
| > I didn't mean that. I meant that file restrictions
| > on Linux can be a pain in the neck. The Linux file
| > system (ext*?) is similar to NTFS in that regard.
| > Since I own my own machine and have no use for
| > such restrictions, I've found it's easier to just store
| > files on FAT32 partitions, which Linux can read but
| > which do not support file access restrictions.
| >
|
| And those restrictions are?
|

You've never heard of file restrictions?

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb727008.aspx
https://www.linux.com/learn/tutorials/309527-understanding-linux-file-permissions

Interestingly, in both Windows and Linux it's traditional
to call them file permissions. The assumption is that
you don't have any permission until it's given.

For someone used to owning their own machine and
running an OS on FAT32, file and access restrictions
are an unwelcome and pointless complication. I don't
need "permissions" because there was never any
restriction in the first place.
Charles Lindbergh
2014-04-27 16:14:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
| > I didn't mean that. I meant that file restrictions
| > on Linux can be a pain in the neck. The Linux file
| > system (ext*?) is similar to NTFS in that regard.
| > Since I own my own machine and have no use for
| > such restrictions, I've found it's easier to just store
| > files on FAT32 partitions, which Linux can read but
| > which do not support file access restrictions.
| >
|
| And those restrictions are?
|
You've never heard of file restrictions?
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb727008.aspx
https://www.linux.com/learn/tutorials/309527-understanding-linux-file-permissions
Interestingly, in both Windows and Linux it's traditional
to call them file permissions. The assumption is that
you don't have any permission until it's given.
For someone used to owning their own machine and
running an OS on FAT32, file and access restrictions
are an unwelcome and pointless complication. I don't
need "permissions" because there was never any
restriction in the first place.
In a perfect world, if there were no such thing as computer viri, malware,
poorly written software, user error or malicious assholes, you might be able to
eliminate the concept of file permissions.

This article explains it in a reasonable fashion, the logic, in general, also
applies to Windows.

http://www.linuxdevelopernews.com/why-file-permissions-are-important-in-linux-2011-02
Mayayana
2014-04-27 16:36:49 UTC
Permalink
| In a perfect world, if there were no such thing as computer viri, malware,
| poorly written software, user error or malicious assholes, you might be
able to
| eliminate the concept of file permissions.
|
| This article explains it in a reasonable fashion, the logic, in general,
also
| applies to Windows.
|
|
http://www.linuxdevelopernews.com/why-file-permissions-are-important-in-linux-2011-02

Yes I know all that stuff. I've never had a malware
problem, and I'd prefer to make these decisions for
myself. That's the kind of attitude I was referencing
in my first post: The Linux fanatics always want to
explain why it should be the way it is and why I'm
either ignorant or stupid for thinking otherwise.
Charles Lindbergh
2014-04-27 17:01:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
| In a perfect world, if there were no such thing as computer viri, malware,
| poorly written software, user error or malicious assholes, you might be
able to
| eliminate the concept of file permissions.
|
| This article explains it in a reasonable fashion, the logic, in general,
also
| applies to Windows.
|
|
http://www.linuxdevelopernews.com/why-file-permissions-are-important-in-linux-2011-02
Yes I know all that stuff. I've never had a malware
problem, and I'd prefer to make these decisions for
myself. That's the kind of attitude I was referencing
in my first post: The Linux fanatics always want to
explain why it should be the way it is and why I'm
either ignorant or stupid for thinking otherwise.
It seems that in your case it boils down to not wanting to learn something new,
which is fine, I can appreciate that.

Being fanatical about any OS is absurd. The MAC folks do it, so do the Windows
folks and the Linux folks, etc. As my primary concern is ROI and TCO for my
business, I always opt for the OS which maximizes the former and minimizes the
latter. Computers are a tool for us, a necessary evil. I want to be able to
focus on my primary business and devote as little attention to IT as is
possible.
Wolf K
2014-04-27 17:42:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Mayayana
| In a perfect world, if there were no such thing as computer viri, malware,
| poorly written software, user error or malicious assholes, you might be
able to
| eliminate the concept of file permissions.
|
| This article explains it in a reasonable fashion, the logic, in general,
also
| applies to Windows.
|
|
http://www.linuxdevelopernews.com/why-file-permissions-are-important-in-linux-2011-02
Yes I know all that stuff. I've never had a malware
problem, and I'd prefer to make these decisions for
myself. That's the kind of attitude I was referencing
in my first post: The Linux fanatics always want to
explain why it should be the way it is and why I'm
either ignorant or stupid for thinking otherwise.
It seems that in your case it boils down to not wanting to learn something new,
which is fine, I can appreciate that.
Being fanatical about any OS is absurd. The MAC folks do it, so do the Windows
folks and the Linux folks, etc. As my primary concern is ROI and TCO for my
business, I always opt for the OS which maximizes the former and minimizes the
latter. Computers are a tool for us, a necessary evil. I want to be able to
focus on my primary business and devote as little attention to IT as is
possible.
You do realise that many (most, IMO) denizens of computer newsgroups are
hobbyists and fanatics, don't you?

;-)
--
Best,
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.ca
Charles Lindbergh
2014-04-28 16:24:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wolf K
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Mayayana
| In a perfect world, if there were no such thing as computer viri, malware,
| poorly written software, user error or malicious assholes, you might be
able to
| eliminate the concept of file permissions.
|
| This article explains it in a reasonable fashion, the logic, in general,
also
| applies to Windows.
|
|
http://www.linuxdevelopernews.com/why-file-permissions-are-important-in-linux-2011-02
Yes I know all that stuff. I've never had a malware
problem, and I'd prefer to make these decisions for
myself. That's the kind of attitude I was referencing
in my first post: The Linux fanatics always want to
explain why it should be the way it is and why I'm
either ignorant or stupid for thinking otherwise.
It seems that in your case it boils down to not wanting to learn something new,
which is fine, I can appreciate that.
Being fanatical about any OS is absurd. The MAC folks do it, so do the Windows
folks and the Linux folks, etc. As my primary concern is ROI and TCO for my
business, I always opt for the OS which maximizes the former and minimizes the
latter. Computers are a tool for us, a necessary evil. I want to be able to
focus on my primary business and devote as little attention to IT as is
possible.
You do realise that many (most, IMO) denizens of computer newsgroups are
hobbyists and fanatics, don't you?
;-)
Oh?
Mayayana
2014-04-28 00:30:00 UTC
Permalink
| >| In a perfect world, if there were no such thing as computer viri,
malware,
| >| poorly written software, user error or malicious assholes, you might be
| >able to
| >| eliminate the concept of file permissions.
| >|
| >| This article explains it in a reasonable fashion, the logic, in
general,
| >also
| >| applies to Windows.
| >|
| >|
|
Post by Charles Lindbergh
http://www.linuxdevelopernews.com/why-file-permissions-are-important-in-linux-2011-02
| >
| > Yes I know all that stuff. I've never had a malware
| > problem, and I'd prefer to make these decisions for
| >myself. That's the kind of attitude I was referencing
| >in my first post: The Linux fanatics always want to
| >explain why it should be the way it is and why I'm
| >either ignorant or stupid for thinking otherwise.
| >
|
| It seems that in your case it boils down to not wanting to learn something
new,
| which is fine, I can appreciate that.
|

This is a great demonstration of the Linux marketing
problem. If people don't like something about how
Linux works then they're wrong or stupid. (You're calling
me both, which is not unusual in Linux discussions.)

Mr. Linux: I have some oranges. They're good.

Unsuspecting target
of evangelism: Thanks, but I prefer apples.

Mr. Linux: Wrong. Oranges have more vitamin C.

People are not wrong because they disagree with you
or prefer things differently. That also doesn't make them
"unwilling to learn". I know about file restrictions. I've
written a program to remove all restrictions on any file
or folder in Vista+, by simply dropping it onto the program
window. I wrote it as part of a project to learn about
Windows 7 and render it reasonably usable, should I ever
get stuck using it as my primary machine.

http://www.jsware.net/jsware/nt6fix.php5#restfix

I didn't write it because I'm too lazy to learn new things.
I wrote it because file restrictions are of no use to me, so
any file restriction is simply a potential hassle or time waster.
Charles Lindbergh
2014-04-28 17:16:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
This is a great demonstration of the Linux marketing
problem. If people don't like something about how
Linux works then they're wrong or stupid. (You're calling
me both, which is not unusual in Linux discussions.)
For the love of Mike Mayayana, would you please holster your paranoia. I said
nothing of the kind. The impression I have developed, based upon your previous
posts in this thread, is that you have no desire to learn a new OS and even seem
to resent when Microsoft makes changes in the way Windows operates. This is
simply my opinion. If I thought you were "stupid" or "wrong" I would not bother
engaging you.
Post by Mayayana
Mr. Linux: I have some oranges. They're good.
Unsuspecting target
of evangelism: Thanks, but I prefer apples.
Mr. Linux: Wrong. Oranges have more vitamin C.
Over the top.
Post by Mayayana
People are not wrong because they disagree with you
or prefer things differently. That also doesn't make them
"unwilling to learn". I know about file restrictions. I've
written a program to remove all restrictions on any file
or folder in Vista+, by simply dropping it onto the program
window. I wrote it as part of a project to learn about
Windows 7 and render it reasonably usable, should I ever
get stuck using it as my primary machine.
http://www.jsware.net/jsware/nt6fix.php5#restfix
Whoo-Hoo.
Post by Mayayana
I didn't write it because I'm too lazy to learn new things.
I wrote it because file restrictions are of no use to me, so
any file restriction is simply a potential hassle or time waster.
Hey, if you are happy, I am happy for you.
Blue
2014-04-27 16:29:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
| > I didn't mean that. I meant that file restrictions
| > on Linux can be a pain in the neck. The Linux file
| > system (ext*?) is similar to NTFS in that regard.
| > Since I own my own machine and have no use for
| > such restrictions, I've found it's easier to just store
| > files on FAT32 partitions, which Linux can read but
| > which do not support file access restrictions.
| >
|
| And those restrictions are?
|
You've never heard of file restrictions?
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb727008.aspx
https://www.linux.com/learn/tutorials/309527-understanding-linux-file-permissions
Interestingly, in both Windows and Linux it's traditional
to call them file permissions. The assumption is that
you don't have any permission until it's given.
For someone used to owning their own machine and
running an OS on FAT32, file and access restrictions
are an unwelcome and pointless complication. I don't
need "permissions" because there was never any
restriction in the first place.
What OS are you running? Win 98? Me?
--
Blue
Mayayana
2014-04-27 16:38:19 UTC
Permalink
| What OS are you running? Win 98? Me?
|

Do you actually have a point to make or are you
just having too much fun being smug and playing
Devil's advocate?
Blue
2014-04-27 17:08:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
| What OS are you running? Win 98? Me?
|
Do you actually have a point to make or are you
just having too much fun being smug and playing
Devil's advocate?
Just asking a question. Why that would bother you would be interesting.
--
Blue
Paul
2014-04-27 16:53:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
| > I didn't mean that. I meant that file restrictions
| > on Linux can be a pain in the neck. The Linux file
| > system (ext*?) is similar to NTFS in that regard.
| > Since I own my own machine and have no use for
| > such restrictions, I've found it's easier to just store
| > files on FAT32 partitions, which Linux can read but
| > which do not support file access restrictions.
| >
|
| And those restrictions are?
|
You've never heard of file restrictions?
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb727008.aspx
https://www.linux.com/learn/tutorials/309527-understanding-linux-file-permissions
Interestingly, in both Windows and Linux it's traditional
to call them file permissions. The assumption is that
you don't have any permission until it's given.
For someone used to owning their own machine and
running an OS on FAT32, file and access restrictions
are an unwelcome and pointless complication. I don't
need "permissions" because there was never any
restriction in the first place.
Linux doesn't honor permissions on NTFS. Linux has been
able to read/write NTFS for quite a while (Knoppix 5.1).
Linux will honor permissions on its own file systems (EXT2 etc).
Sudo means the ability to elevate a program (like "Run as Administrator").
The sudoers file controls the commands that can be used with sudo.
Usually, for things like a LiveCD, this is relatively open.
Whereas, in a work situation, this can be controlled by your IT
department.

On some of the LiveCD, if you do "su root" it doesn't prompt
for a password, and now you're the administrator. You can also
do "su root" (when the account doesn't have a password),
then "passwd" and set a password for the administrator.
Then the next time you do "su root", you can use the password
value you just set. If you had a persistent home directory
on a USB key, the password would even "stick" (a persistent
home directory uses a "CasperRW" file, a 4GB bitmap file
with EXT4 inside).

Not every distro works the same, and each can provide a
different set of initial conditions. One I used recently,
has "automatic login", and you can easily forget what the
password is on that one, because you don't end up typing
it in all that often. But like Windows, you should write it
down somewhere. Because sooner or later, you'll get into
a jam, and need it.

Paul
Gene E. Bloch
2014-04-27 23:25:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Not every distro works the same, and each can provide a
different set of initial conditions. One I used recently,
has "automatic login", and you can easily forget what the
password is on that one, because you don't end up typing
it in all that often. But like Windows, you should write it
down somewhere. Because sooner or later, you'll get into
a jam, and need it.
I use one of the many password database programs (KeePass, keepass.info,
in my case).

All of my passwords are in there (I hope!).

I have at least 32! copies of it.

Oh - it *is* password protected. I'm OK until I forget *that* password.

I use it in Windows and in Android. It also runs on Linux and OSX, but
those are labeled as "Contributed/Unofficial".
--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
mechanic
2014-04-28 12:03:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gene E. Bloch
I have at least 32! copies of it.
Hmmm, 32! is of order 3x10^35 according to my calculator?
Gene E. Bloch
2014-04-28 18:04:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by mechanic
Post by Gene E. Bloch
I have at least 32! copies of it.
Hmmm, 32! is of order 3x10^35 according to my calculator?
When it comes to backups, I believe in redundancy :-)

I confess that I was exaggerating. There are about ten or twelve copies
of the password data file, but some are out of date, since I'm only
careful to keep about four of them synchronized each time I make a
change.
--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
Andy Burns
2014-04-27 13:55:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
Last time I tried Linux I discovered
that root [Administrator] was no longer root and I had to
hunt down the real root, known as sudo. That's the same
frustrating trickery that Microsoft has foisted on Vista/7
users.
root is always root, some distros just may not give it a password by
default. It's your box, if you want to set a password and login as root
you can, you may get nay-sayers telling you sudo is "best" but you have
the choice.
Mayayana
2014-04-27 15:15:53 UTC
Permalink
| > Last time I tried Linux I discovered
| > that root [Administrator] was no longer root and I had to
| > hunt down the real root, known as sudo. That's the same
| > frustrating trickery that Microsoft has foisted on Vista/7
| > users.
|
| root is always root, some distros just may not give it a password by
| default. It's your box, if you want to set a password and login as root
| you can, you may get nay-sayers telling you sudo is "best" but you have
| the choice.
|

I'm not talking about what name one has or
whether one uses a password. I have no use
for passwords, but I do want full control of
the system. I don't want to be hassling with
restrictions.

root does not have full, unrestricted access
on many (all?) newer Linux versions. sudo is what
root used to be. And last time I tried Linux (Suse
12, I think) sudo was well hidden.

It's analogous to Administrator on
Vista+. In XP and earlier, Administrator has full
access. In other words, all Administrator accounts
are real Administrators. In Vista+ an Administrator
is what used to be called "Power User". They have
an option in many cases to elevate their permssions,
but they normally run with restrictions. The only
real Administrator is the one that's actually named
that, and a special command line tweak is required
to make it available. That can make a difference in
many small ways. For instance, if I want to drag-drop
a file onto a program shortcut in Win7, and that
program requires real admin access, the operation won't
work. Real admin access requires a specific act of
elevation, and that's not possible in a drag-drop
operation.

Linux and Windows NT are both designed to be used
by corporate employees who only have a right to use
specific functionality. For SOHo users who own their
own machines, these restrictions are simply an obstacle.
To make matters worse, both MS and Linux designers
have adopted a strategy of making it increasingly difficult
to bypass the restrictions because people who can't access
much of the system don't need as much tech support
and the system thereby appears to be more stable.
Roger Blake
2014-04-28 03:00:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
root does not have full, unrestricted access
on many (all?) newer Linux versions. sudo is what
root used to be. And last time I tried Linux (Suse
12, I think) sudo was well hidden.
Sudo just lets you run programs as another user, including root.
Ubuntu and Ubuntu-based systems have the root account disabled by
default, so you prepend "sudo" to commands you want to run as root,
giving your own password when prompted.

On Ubuntu systems you can give the root account its own password
to enable it. (Not sure about Suse, haven't used that, but it's
probably the same.)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Lindbergh
2014-04-27 15:29:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
I don't see Linux becoming
a really usable Desktop OS until it's out of the hands of
juvenile geeks-on-a-mission.
Like the US Army, US Navy, NASA and The Russian Federation?

There was a somewhat telling news story in late 2013 where the NSA approached
Linus Torvalds requesting that he build backdoors into the Linux kernel. As the
kernel is open source and is reviewed by so many independent developers,
Torvalds was not able to comply with the request.

The humorous side of the story is, the NSA didn't need to ask Microsoft to build
in any back doors as it is basically child's play for the NSA to gain access to
the OS.

Windows aside, as more and more applications are hosted in the cloud and become
OS independent, Linux will likely become the de facto standard PC OS. Google
drive has helped advance this by providing very capable, hosted word processor
and spreadsheet programs, at no cost to Gmail account holders.

As Todd said, if your life depends on it would any of us really want to rely on
Windows?
Mayayana
2014-04-27 16:28:30 UTC
Permalink
| >I don't see Linux becoming
| >a really usable Desktop OS until it's out of the hands of
| >juvenile geeks-on-a-mission.
|
| Like the US Army, US Navy, NASA and The Russian Federation?
|

I realize that Linux is used in all sorts of special-use
situations. I'm talking about a basic Desktop OS. Many
of the people involved with it are of two minds: They
want Linux to take over the world, with an almost
religious zeal. But on the other hand, they also feel
special being in the Linux camp. They love their console
windows with arcane command lines that no one else
understands. The result? A partially locked down system
designed to work for non-tech people who don't need to
do very much (known as either "my grandmother" or
"frigging idiots" in Linux World), but with a high learning
curve for anyone who wants to really manage the system
themselves.

The beauty of Windows, and what always made it fun,
at least for me, is that it provides multiple levels of expertise
where one can plug in. There's no excuse for anything
requiring command line operation these days. There's no
excuse for program settings that require editing /etc/*.
There's no excuse for software without a proper help file.
That's all standard on Windows, but on Linux such functionality
is considered a luxury, needed only by those famous
"frigging idiots". :)

| There was a somewhat telling news story in late 2013 where the NSA
approached
| Linus Torvalds requesting that he build backdoors into the Linux kernel.
As the
| kernel is open source and is reviewed by so many independent developers,
| Torvalds was not able to comply with the request.
|
| The humorous side of the story is, the NSA didn't need to ask Microsoft to
build
| in any back doors as it is basically child's play for the NSA to gain
access to
| the OS.
|
| Windows aside, as more and more applications are hosted in the cloud and
become
| OS independent, Linux will likely become the de facto standard PC OS.
Google
| drive has helped advance this by providing very capable, hosted word
processor
| and spreadsheet programs, at no cost to Gmail account holders.
|
| As Todd said, if your life depends on it would any of us really want to
rely on
| Windows?

Yes. I know windows. Linux is perennially under construction.
(Again, there's a distinction between a particular rendition
of Linux designed for a speical purpose usage, and just a plain
Desktop OS.)

Why would you assume Linux has no backdoors? Torvalds
doesn't make the distributions. He doesn't write all the software.
Google's Android is Linux. I wouldn't "touch it with a 10-foot-pole",
as the saying goes. And what's the point of being concerned
about security/privacy, anyway, if you're going to use Google
services?
If Linux does have back doors, how would I know? I seem
to need to be a networking expert just to use the Linux
firewall functionality. Even then, it doesn't block outgoing
communication.

I don't mean to be too hard on Linux. I'll happily complain
about Windows, Gates, Ballmer and anything else related
'til the cows come home. :) But there are a lot of Linux
apologists who are motivated more by emotionalism than
reason. I think the true limitations of Linux shouldn't be sugar
coated. It doesn't help anyone, and it certainly doesn't
help the future of Linux.
Wolf K
2014-04-27 17:39:17 UTC
Permalink
On 2014-04-27 12:28 PM, Mayayana wrote:
[...]
Post by Mayayana
I don't mean to be too hard on Linux. I'll happily complain
about Windows, Gates, Ballmer and anything else related
'til the cows come home.:) But there are a lot of Linux
apologists who are motivated more by emotionalism than
reason. I think the true limitations of Linux shouldn't be sugar
coated. It doesn't help anyone, and it certainly doesn't
help the future of Linux.
+1

I do have Mint on the Ancient Acer, which we usually take along when we
expect to use hotel wi-fi. Does all the basic stuff.

Some years back, I tried a number of Linuxes (Linuces?), went to Usenet
for help, and was slagged unmercifully by those Lindroids who can't
stand the thought of ordinary folk wanting KDE or Gnome to work at least
well as Windows and Mac GUIs. Not to mention the reaction to my
complaints about buggy or dysfunctional software, or having to compile
source code, etc, all of which I characterised as Extremely Unfriendly
to New Users of Linux. Many of the slaggers seemed to need the feeling
of superiority over all those stupid people who hadn't mastered all the
arcane features of the OS. Sad, really.
--
Best,
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.ca
Laszlo Lebrun
2014-04-27 16:55:21 UTC
Permalink
...if your life depends on it would any of us really want to rely on
Windows?
You would. A huge percentage of medical equipment runs on Windows.
Frequently even on predecessors of XP.
That is absolutely OK since these devices do exactly one task and never
get in touch with something else.
--
One computer and three operating systems, not the other way round.
One wife and many hotels, not the other way round ! ;-)
Charles Lindbergh
2014-04-27 17:04:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Laszlo Lebrun
...if your life depends on it would any of us really want to rely on
Windows?
You would. A huge percentage of medical equipment runs on Windows.
Frequently even on predecessors of XP.
That is absolutely OK since these devices do exactly one task and never
get in touch with something else.
Yeah, not really so fine, see:

http://www.wired.com/2014/04/hospital-equipment-vulnerable/
Ken Springer
2014-04-27 17:33:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Laszlo Lebrun
...if your life depends on it would any of us really want to rely on
Windows?
You would. A huge percentage of medical equipment runs on Windows.
Frequently even on predecessors of XP.
That is absolutely OK since these devices do exactly one task and never
get in touch with something else.
http://www.wired.com/2014/04/hospital-equipment-vulnerable/
Another instance where it seems to me, users no nothing about the
equipment they use. :-(
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.3.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
Charles Lindbergh
2014-04-28 16:22:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Springer
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Laszlo Lebrun
...if your life depends on it would any of us really want to rely on
Windows?
You would. A huge percentage of medical equipment runs on Windows.
Frequently even on predecessors of XP.
That is absolutely OK since these devices do exactly one task and never
get in touch with something else.
http://www.wired.com/2014/04/hospital-equipment-vulnerable/
Another instance where it seems to me, users no nothing about the
equipment they use. :-(
The best engineered system is one where the end user is required to know very
little about the inner workings of the tool he must use to accomplish his task.
Ken Springer
2014-04-28 17:16:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Ken Springer
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Laszlo Lebrun
...if your life depends on it would any of us really want to rely on
Windows?
You would. A huge percentage of medical equipment runs on Windows.
Frequently even on predecessors of XP.
That is absolutely OK since these devices do exactly one task and never
get in touch with something else.
http://www.wired.com/2014/04/hospital-equipment-vulnerable/
Another instance where it seems to me, users no nothing about the
equipment they use. :-(
The best engineered system is one where the end user is required to know very
little about the inner workings of the tool he must use to accomplish his task.
Agreed. But now we have to define "inner workings". :-)

To me, the "inner workings" would be the knowledge needed to design and
construct the computer, and to write the code that gives the user the OS
and programs/applications used by an individual.

I could have been clearer in my meaning had I stated I think the user
needs to know how to use the features of and control the operating
system as well as the software being used. This will, of course, vary
in complexity between a desktop computer, tablet/smartphone, and the
programmable thermostat.

IMO, if you don't know how the computer works as regards to the
operating system, it's philosophically not that different that having a
spiffy TV connected to a home theater system, and not knowing how to use
the system to it's greatest extent. I've got inlaws that way, the only
person who truly understands their system is their son who has been out
on his own for years. So, they don't get the full benefit of what they own.
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.3.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
Charles Lindbergh
2014-04-28 17:35:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Springer
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Ken Springer
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Laszlo Lebrun
...if your life depends on it would any of us really want to rely on
Windows?
You would. A huge percentage of medical equipment runs on Windows.
Frequently even on predecessors of XP.
That is absolutely OK since these devices do exactly one task and never
get in touch with something else.
http://www.wired.com/2014/04/hospital-equipment-vulnerable/
Another instance where it seems to me, users no nothing about the
equipment they use. :-(
The best engineered system is one where the end user is required to know very
little about the inner workings of the tool he must use to accomplish his task.
Agreed. But now we have to define "inner workings". :-)
To me, the "inner workings" would be the knowledge needed to design and
construct the computer, and to write the code that gives the user the OS
and programs/applications used by an individual.
I could have been clearer in my meaning had I stated I think the user
needs to know how to use the features of and control the operating
system as well as the software being used. This will, of course, vary
in complexity between a desktop computer, tablet/smartphone, and the
programmable thermostat.
IMO, if you don't know how the computer works as regards to the
operating system, it's philosophically not that different that having a
spiffy TV connected to a home theater system, and not knowing how to use
the system to it's greatest extent. I've got inlaws that way, the only
person who truly understands their system is their son who has been out
on his own for years. So, they don't get the full benefit of what they own.
This reminds me of a personal experience. When I was in my undergraduate
electrical engineering curriculum, one of the professors was giving a lecture on
design principles (I don't remember exactly what he called it).

He had a table near the lectern, upon which were two radios. One a very simple,
cheap kitchen type radio. It had two knobs, a combination power / volume
control and a frequency tuning knob. The second was a very, very fancy receiver
(combination tuner and amplifier), I am pretty sure it was a McIntosh and due to
my age, I am pretty sure it was mono.

The professor asked which was the better device for listening to the news.
Virtually everyone agreed the McIntosh was the best. One person, said it was
the cheap kitchen radio. Of course, the professor agreed with the student who
voted for the el cheapo device. His explanation was very pity, with the cheap
radio, you have very little to learn to operate it. Turn it on, adjust the
frequency and volume and you are done. He then read the labels on all the
controls for the receiver. All I remember about that was the list was quite
long.

This was the professor's way of impressing upon us the KISS principle of
engineering design, KISS = Keep It Simple, Stupid.
Ken Springer
2014-04-28 18:29:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Ken Springer
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Ken Springer
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Laszlo Lebrun
...if your life depends on it would any of us really want to rely on
Windows?
You would. A huge percentage of medical equipment runs on Windows.
Frequently even on predecessors of XP.
That is absolutely OK since these devices do exactly one task and never
get in touch with something else.
http://www.wired.com/2014/04/hospital-equipment-vulnerable/
Another instance where it seems to me, users no nothing about the
equipment they use. :-(
The best engineered system is one where the end user is required to know very
little about the inner workings of the tool he must use to accomplish his task.
Agreed. But now we have to define "inner workings". :-)
To me, the "inner workings" would be the knowledge needed to design and
construct the computer, and to write the code that gives the user the OS
and programs/applications used by an individual.
I could have been clearer in my meaning had I stated I think the user
needs to know how to use the features of and control the operating
system as well as the software being used. This will, of course, vary
in complexity between a desktop computer, tablet/smartphone, and the
programmable thermostat.
IMO, if you don't know how the computer works as regards to the
operating system, it's philosophically not that different that having a
spiffy TV connected to a home theater system, and not knowing how to use
the system to it's greatest extent. I've got inlaws that way, the only
person who truly understands their system is their son who has been out
on his own for years. So, they don't get the full benefit of what they own.
This reminds me of a personal experience. When I was in my undergraduate
electrical engineering curriculum, one of the professors was giving a lecture on
design principles (I don't remember exactly what he called it).
He had a table near the lectern, upon which were two radios. One a very simple,
cheap kitchen type radio. It had two knobs, a combination power / volume
control and a frequency tuning knob. The second was a very, very fancy receiver
(combination tuner and amplifier), I am pretty sure it was a McIntosh and due to
my age, I am pretty sure it was mono.
And I'll bet an old vacuum tube unit to boot! My system is old tyme
analogue, and McIntosh. Tuner, preamp, power amp, all solid state. And
a lot of the old stickers saying they'd been checked at a McIntosh clinic.
Post by Charles Lindbergh
The professor asked which was the better device for listening to the news.
Virtually everyone agreed the McIntosh was the best. One person, said it was
the cheap kitchen radio. Of course, the professor agreed with the student who
voted for the el cheapo device. His explanation was very pity, with the cheap
radio, you have very little to learn to operate it. Turn it on, adjust the
frequency and volume and you are done. He then read the labels on all the
controls for the receiver. All I remember about that was the list was quite
long.
Not only that, but only one student listened to and analyzed the needs
of the question. It was just news, not the symphony. :-)
Post by Charles Lindbergh
This was the professor's way of impressing upon us the KISS principle of
engineering design, KISS = Keep It Simple, Stupid.
One of my favorite platitudes.
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.3.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
Charles Lindbergh
2014-04-28 18:42:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Springer
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Ken Springer
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Ken Springer
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Laszlo Lebrun
...if your life depends on it would any of us really want to rely on
Windows?
You would. A huge percentage of medical equipment runs on Windows.
Frequently even on predecessors of XP.
That is absolutely OK since these devices do exactly one task and never
get in touch with something else.
http://www.wired.com/2014/04/hospital-equipment-vulnerable/
Another instance where it seems to me, users no nothing about the
equipment they use. :-(
The best engineered system is one where the end user is required to know very
little about the inner workings of the tool he must use to accomplish his task.
Agreed. But now we have to define "inner workings". :-)
To me, the "inner workings" would be the knowledge needed to design and
construct the computer, and to write the code that gives the user the OS
and programs/applications used by an individual.
I could have been clearer in my meaning had I stated I think the user
needs to know how to use the features of and control the operating
system as well as the software being used. This will, of course, vary
in complexity between a desktop computer, tablet/smartphone, and the
programmable thermostat.
IMO, if you don't know how the computer works as regards to the
operating system, it's philosophically not that different that having a
spiffy TV connected to a home theater system, and not knowing how to use
the system to it's greatest extent. I've got inlaws that way, the only
person who truly understands their system is their son who has been out
on his own for years. So, they don't get the full benefit of what they own.
This reminds me of a personal experience. When I was in my undergraduate
electrical engineering curriculum, one of the professors was giving a lecture on
design principles (I don't remember exactly what he called it).
He had a table near the lectern, upon which were two radios. One a very simple,
cheap kitchen type radio. It had two knobs, a combination power / volume
control and a frequency tuning knob. The second was a very, very fancy receiver
(combination tuner and amplifier), I am pretty sure it was a McIntosh and due to
my age, I am pretty sure it was mono.
And I'll bet an old vacuum tube unit to boot! My system is old tyme
analogue, and McIntosh. Tuner, preamp, power amp, all solid state. And
a lot of the old stickers saying they'd been checked at a McIntosh clinic.
Post by Charles Lindbergh
The professor asked which was the better device for listening to the news.
Virtually everyone agreed the McIntosh was the best. One person, said it was
the cheap kitchen radio. Of course, the professor agreed with the student who
voted for the el cheapo device. His explanation was very pity, with the cheap
radio, you have very little to learn to operate it. Turn it on, adjust the
frequency and volume and you are done. He then read the labels on all the
controls for the receiver. All I remember about that was the list was quite
long.
Not only that, but only one student listened to and analyzed the needs
of the question. It was just news, not the symphony. :-)
Yup, however, there were no speakers with the McIntosh, so even if it were the
symphony, the table top radio would have been better as it had a built-in
speaker.
Post by Ken Springer
Post by Charles Lindbergh
This was the professor's way of impressing upon us the KISS principle of
engineering design, KISS = Keep It Simple, Stupid.
One of my favorite platitudes.
Yeah, me too. Marketers however, hate it.
Ken Springer
2014-04-28 19:00:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Ken Springer
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Ken Springer
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Ken Springer
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Laszlo Lebrun
...if your life depends on it would any of us really want to rely on
Windows?
You would. A huge percentage of medical equipment runs on Windows.
Frequently even on predecessors of XP.
That is absolutely OK since these devices do exactly one task and never
get in touch with something else.
http://www.wired.com/2014/04/hospital-equipment-vulnerable/
Another instance where it seems to me, users no nothing about the
equipment they use. :-(
The best engineered system is one where the end user is required to know very
little about the inner workings of the tool he must use to accomplish his task.
Agreed. But now we have to define "inner workings". :-)
To me, the "inner workings" would be the knowledge needed to design and
construct the computer, and to write the code that gives the user the OS
and programs/applications used by an individual.
I could have been clearer in my meaning had I stated I think the user
needs to know how to use the features of and control the operating
system as well as the software being used. This will, of course, vary
in complexity between a desktop computer, tablet/smartphone, and the
programmable thermostat.
IMO, if you don't know how the computer works as regards to the
operating system, it's philosophically not that different that having a
spiffy TV connected to a home theater system, and not knowing how to use
the system to it's greatest extent. I've got inlaws that way, the only
person who truly understands their system is their son who has been out
on his own for years. So, they don't get the full benefit of what they own.
This reminds me of a personal experience. When I was in my undergraduate
electrical engineering curriculum, one of the professors was giving a lecture on
design principles (I don't remember exactly what he called it).
He had a table near the lectern, upon which were two radios. One a very simple,
cheap kitchen type radio. It had two knobs, a combination power / volume
control and a frequency tuning knob. The second was a very, very fancy receiver
(combination tuner and amplifier), I am pretty sure it was a McIntosh and due to
my age, I am pretty sure it was mono.
And I'll bet an old vacuum tube unit to boot! My system is old tyme
analogue, and McIntosh. Tuner, preamp, power amp, all solid state. And
a lot of the old stickers saying they'd been checked at a McIntosh clinic.
Post by Charles Lindbergh
The professor asked which was the better device for listening to the news.
Virtually everyone agreed the McIntosh was the best. One person, said it was
the cheap kitchen radio. Of course, the professor agreed with the student who
voted for the el cheapo device. His explanation was very pity, with the cheap
radio, you have very little to learn to operate it. Turn it on, adjust the
frequency and volume and you are done. He then read the labels on all the
controls for the receiver. All I remember about that was the list was quite
long.
Not only that, but only one student listened to and analyzed the needs
of the question. It was just news, not the symphony. :-)
Yup, however, there were no speakers with the McIntosh, so even if it were the
symphony, the table top radio would have been better as it had a built-in
speaker.
Post by Ken Springer
Post by Charles Lindbergh
This was the professor's way of impressing upon us the KISS principle of
engineering design, KISS = Keep It Simple, Stupid.
One of my favorite platitudes.
Yeah, me too. Marketers however, hate it.
Others I live by are:

"Do it right the first time."

"There's never enough time to do it right the first time, but always
enough time to do it right the second time."
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.3.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
Charles Lindbergh
2014-04-28 20:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Springer
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Ken Springer
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Ken Springer
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Ken Springer
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Laszlo Lebrun
...if your life depends on it would any of us really want to rely on
Windows?
You would. A huge percentage of medical equipment runs on Windows.
Frequently even on predecessors of XP.
That is absolutely OK since these devices do exactly one task and never
get in touch with something else.
http://www.wired.com/2014/04/hospital-equipment-vulnerable/
Another instance where it seems to me, users no nothing about the
equipment they use. :-(
The best engineered system is one where the end user is required to know very
little about the inner workings of the tool he must use to accomplish his task.
Agreed. But now we have to define "inner workings". :-)
To me, the "inner workings" would be the knowledge needed to design and
construct the computer, and to write the code that gives the user the OS
and programs/applications used by an individual.
I could have been clearer in my meaning had I stated I think the user
needs to know how to use the features of and control the operating
system as well as the software being used. This will, of course, vary
in complexity between a desktop computer, tablet/smartphone, and the
programmable thermostat.
IMO, if you don't know how the computer works as regards to the
operating system, it's philosophically not that different that having a
spiffy TV connected to a home theater system, and not knowing how to use
the system to it's greatest extent. I've got inlaws that way, the only
person who truly understands their system is their son who has been out
on his own for years. So, they don't get the full benefit of what they own.
This reminds me of a personal experience. When I was in my undergraduate
electrical engineering curriculum, one of the professors was giving a lecture on
design principles (I don't remember exactly what he called it).
He had a table near the lectern, upon which were two radios. One a very simple,
cheap kitchen type radio. It had two knobs, a combination power / volume
control and a frequency tuning knob. The second was a very, very fancy receiver
(combination tuner and amplifier), I am pretty sure it was a McIntosh and due to
my age, I am pretty sure it was mono.
And I'll bet an old vacuum tube unit to boot! My system is old tyme
analogue, and McIntosh. Tuner, preamp, power amp, all solid state. And
a lot of the old stickers saying they'd been checked at a McIntosh clinic.
Post by Charles Lindbergh
The professor asked which was the better device for listening to the news.
Virtually everyone agreed the McIntosh was the best. One person, said it was
the cheap kitchen radio. Of course, the professor agreed with the student who
voted for the el cheapo device. His explanation was very pity, with the cheap
radio, you have very little to learn to operate it. Turn it on, adjust the
frequency and volume and you are done. He then read the labels on all the
controls for the receiver. All I remember about that was the list was quite
long.
Not only that, but only one student listened to and analyzed the needs
of the question. It was just news, not the symphony. :-)
Yup, however, there were no speakers with the McIntosh, so even if it were the
symphony, the table top radio would have been better as it had a built-in
speaker.
Post by Ken Springer
Post by Charles Lindbergh
This was the professor's way of impressing upon us the KISS principle of
engineering design, KISS = Keep It Simple, Stupid.
One of my favorite platitudes.
Yeah, me too. Marketers however, hate it.
"Do it right the first time."
"There's never enough time to do it right the first time, but always
enough time to do it right the second time."
Aphorisms to live by! Unfortunately, it seems nearly impossible to instill
those behaviors in so many people. It would appear the concept of: "It's good
enough for government work." has resurfaced and become the accepted approach to
everything in life.

The engineers and technicians who designed and built the B-52 Stratofortress and
the Douglas DC-3 (C-47), aircraft still flying 60 - 80 years after they were
first designed built had the right attitude and approach.
Wolf K
2014-04-28 21:10:22 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Ken Springer
"Do it right the first time."
"There's never enough time to do it right the first time, but always
enough time to do it right the second time."
Aphorisms to live by! Unfortunately, it seems nearly impossible to instill
those behaviors in so many people. It would appear the concept of: "It's good
enough for government work." has resurfaced and become the accepted approach to
everything in life.
Actually, most of it is _not_ good enough for government work.
Post by Charles Lindbergh
The engineers and technicians who designed and built the B-52 Stratofortress and
the Douglas DC-3 (C-47), aircraft still flying 60 - 80 years after they were
first designed built had the right attitude and approach.
Now those were good enough for government work. Just.

But actually somewhat irrelevant, since when it comes to weapons, the
design goal is to make them work just long and well enough to do the job
before they are destroyed. Most current weapons are way over the top.
You can't afford to use 'em, because you can't afford to lose 'em.

Consider the difference between Russian and German tanks in WW2. the
Germans built beautifully crafted machines, lovely fit and finish. the
Russians concentrated on the essentials, engines, armour, and firepower.
Fit and finish, what's that? The average life of a tank in a tank battle
is about 15 minutes. So which side a better understanding of tank design?
--
Best,
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.ca
Wolf K
2014-04-28 19:57:40 UTC
Permalink
On 2014-04-28 1:35 PM, Charles Lindbergh wrote:
[...]
Post by Charles Lindbergh
This was the professor's way of impressing upon us the KISS principle of
engineering design, KISS = Keep It Simple, Stupid.
Too bad there weren't more with his understanding of design.

KISS implies "Forget cool!"
--
Best,
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.ca
Charles Lindbergh
2014-04-28 21:03:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wolf K
[...]
Post by Charles Lindbergh
This was the professor's way of impressing upon us the KISS principle of
engineering design, KISS = Keep It Simple, Stupid.
Too bad there weren't more with his understanding of design.
KISS implies "Forget cool!"
Oh, you can do KISS and be cool. I offer the Ipod as an example. ITunes, not
so much, but the device was very well designed.
Wolf K
2014-04-28 21:11:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Wolf K
[...]
Post by Charles Lindbergh
This was the professor's way of impressing upon us the KISS principle of
engineering design, KISS = Keep It Simple, Stupid.
Too bad there weren't more with his understanding of design.
KISS implies "Forget cool!"
Oh, you can do KISS and be cool. I offer the Ipod as an example. ITunes, not
so much, but the device was very well designed.
Um, matter of taste. I think the iPod is dorky. Sorry 'bout that. ;-)
--
Best,
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.ca
Charles Lindbergh
2014-04-28 21:19:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wolf K
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Wolf K
[...]
Post by Charles Lindbergh
This was the professor's way of impressing upon us the KISS principle of
engineering design, KISS = Keep It Simple, Stupid.
Too bad there weren't more with his understanding of design.
KISS implies "Forget cool!"
Oh, you can do KISS and be cool. I offer the Ipod as an example. ITunes, not
so much, but the device was very well designed.
Um, matter of taste. I think the iPod is dorky. Sorry 'bout that. ;-)
Which music player, back in the heyday of the Ipod, did you feel was "cool" and
well engineered?

Shadow
2014-04-28 01:41:57 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 10:04:03 -0700, Charles Lindbergh
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Laszlo Lebrun
...if your life depends on it would any of us really want to rely on
Windows?
You would. A huge percentage of medical equipment runs on Windows.
Frequently even on predecessors of XP.
That is absolutely OK since these devices do exactly one task and never
get in touch with something else.
http://www.wired.com/2014/04/hospital-equipment-vulnerable/
"Physicians for former Vice President Dick Cheney had the
wireless capability of his defibrillator disabled in 2007 to prevent
terrorists from conducting such an attack to kill him."

They should have been struck off the registrar !!
IMHO
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
Charles Lindbergh
2014-04-28 16:31:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shadow
On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 10:04:03 -0700, Charles Lindbergh
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Laszlo Lebrun
...if your life depends on it would any of us really want to rely on
Windows?
You would. A huge percentage of medical equipment runs on Windows.
Frequently even on predecessors of XP.
That is absolutely OK since these devices do exactly one task and never
get in touch with something else.
http://www.wired.com/2014/04/hospital-equipment-vulnerable/
"Physicians for former Vice President Dick Cheney had the
wireless capability of his defibrillator disabled in 2007 to prevent
terrorists from conducting such an attack to kill him."
They should have been struck off the registrar !!
IMHO
I like and respect Cheney. I really enjoy the fact he irritates the crap out of
the Marxist / progressive / liberal crowd.
Gene E. Bloch
2014-04-28 18:11:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Shadow
On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 10:04:03 -0700, Charles Lindbergh
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Laszlo Lebrun
...if your life depends on it would any of us really want to rely on
Windows?
You would. A huge percentage of medical equipment runs on Windows.
Frequently even on predecessors of XP.
That is absolutely OK since these devices do exactly one task and never
get in touch with something else.
http://www.wired.com/2014/04/hospital-equipment-vulnerable/
"Physicians for former Vice President Dick Cheney had the
wireless capability of his defibrillator disabled in 2007 to prevent
terrorists from conducting such an attack to kill him."
They should have been struck off the registrar !!
IMHO
I like and respect Cheney. I really enjoy the fact he irritates the crap out of
the Marxist / progressive / liberal crowd.
I'm glad I can cheer you up :-)
--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
Ken Springer
2014-04-27 16:14:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
| Linux is a Free and Open Source operating system that allows the user to
| have complete control. It doesn't spy on you, and you can install it on
| as many computers as you want to.
|
That needs to be qualified. You can have complete
control only if you learn the details and are comfortable
with console operations. (Last time I tried Linux I discovered
that root [Administrator] was no longer root and I had to
hunt down the real root, known as sudo. That's the same
frustrating trickery that Microsoft has foisted on Vista/7
users. And just like MS, Linux fanatics will say it's for your
own good and that you shouldn't be running as root in the
first place.) That's not what I'd call control.
In a practical sense... How is this much different than the default
Administrator account being different that a user account with
administrator privileges? I've read those two administrator accounts
are not equal.
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.3.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
Mayayana
2014-04-27 16:41:37 UTC
Permalink
| > That needs to be qualified. You can have complete
| > control only if you learn the details and are comfortable
| > with console operations. (Last time I tried Linux I discovered
| > that root [Administrator] was no longer root and I had to
| > hunt down the real root, known as sudo. That's the same
| > frustrating trickery that Microsoft has foisted on Vista/7
| > users. And just like MS, Linux fanatics will say it's for your
| > own good and that you shouldn't be running as root in the
| > first place.) That's not what I'd call control.
|

| In a practical sense... How is this much different than the default
| Administrator account being different that a user account with
| administrator privileges? I've read those two administrator accounts
| are not equal.
|

Yes. I addressed that in at least one of my posts.
My personal view is that both Linux and Windows
are getting worse in that regard. I would remind you
that I'm not seeing this as a contest between Windows
and Linux. That's what the Linux fanatics like to do.
I'm just trying to present a fair criticism of the many
real shortcomings Linux still has.
Ken Springer
2014-04-27 17:36:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
| > That needs to be qualified. You can have complete
| > control only if you learn the details and are comfortable
| > with console operations. (Last time I tried Linux I discovered
| > that root [Administrator] was no longer root and I had to
| > hunt down the real root, known as sudo. That's the same
| > frustrating trickery that Microsoft has foisted on Vista/7
| > users. And just like MS, Linux fanatics will say it's for your
| > own good and that you shouldn't be running as root in the
| > first place.) That's not what I'd call control.
|
| In a practical sense... How is this much different than the default
| Administrator account being different that a user account with
| administrator privileges? I've read those two administrator accounts
| are not equal.
|
Yes. I addressed that in at least one of my posts.
My personal view is that both Linux and Windows
are getting worse in that regard. I would remind you
that I'm not seeing this as a contest between Windows
and Linux. That's what the Linux fanatics like to do.
I'm just trying to present a fair criticism of the many
real shortcomings Linux still has.
I see fanatics for all the OSes, don't care much for them, regardless of
their knowledge. DanS also mentioned that in his post.
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.3.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
Roger Blake
2014-04-28 03:06:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
I'm just trying to present a fair criticism of the many
real shortcomings Linux still has.
I guess it's a matter of what one is accustomed to. When forced to
use a Windows system I fell like I'm in a strait-jacket. But then
again I've been working with Unix-type systems for nearly 40 years
now and feel perfectly comfortable in the Linux environment.

Linux is used a lot in businesses, but on the server end.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Berger
2014-04-27 23:01:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
That needs to be qualified. You can have complete
control only if you learn the details and are comfortable
with console operations.
[Well, deleted lots of VERY reasonable stuff - see original post]

Boy! GREAT!

Rarely, VERY rarely(!), found my opinion represented in that way (and
especially in english - what is my problem: my english is bad ...)

Thx a lot!!!
Mayayana
2014-04-28 02:42:48 UTC
Permalink
| > That needs to be qualified. You can have complete
| > control only if you learn the details and are comfortable
| > with console operations.
|
| [Well, deleted lots of VERY reasonable stuff - see original post]
|
| Boy! GREAT!
|
| Rarely, VERY rarely(!), found my opinion represented in that way (and
| especially in english - what is my problem: my english is bad ...)
|
| Thx a lot!!!

Happy to be of service. :)

I'm afraid it's all only going to get worse. Restrictions
serve to increase security and reduce support costs,
and corporate admins like them, but a bigger motivation
has been added: The trend toward rental services requires
locked down devices, so that people can't install their
own software or control the spying. Increasing restrictions
on all devices is a way to move toward a services business
and simultaneously acclimate people to the idea that they
don't own their own computers and gadgets. (But I guess
you may have already been thinking that, too. :)
Shadow
2014-04-28 01:21:15 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 09:03:46 -0400, "Mayayana"
Post by Mayayana
On the spying issue, I'd consider Linux worse than
Windows. I'm not aware of any Linux firewall that handles
detailed control of outgoing communication. I'm not
even aware of any that's relatively easy to use. (There
was a discussion about that on Slashdot recently, and I
didn't see anyone come up with a solution. The discussion
just degenerated -- as Slashdot discussions usually do --
"What's wrong with iptables?")
At the same time, software installs have become increasingly
automated.
True, but you can fire up Wireshark and monitor your network.
If you keep your distance from the Ubuntu - based dists(which are the
ones where you can't be root), I think you will find there is very
little outgoing traffic at all.
I don't believe auto updates or any outgoing services are "on"
by default in any of the "serious" Linux dists.
Try that same Wireshark on a windows system ..... check
beforehand you have enough space for the logs.
;)
That said, malware DOES exist for Linux, and the whole "I
can't be compromised" talk is for noobs.

PS They just patched a "zero day" IExplorer exploit that has
been "zero day" since 2001. Yep, it gives you admin...... Probably
been in use for these last 13 years. Black hats(and that includes the
NSA and the various Mafias) tend to keep their exploits secret.

http://www.fireeye.com/blog/uncategorized/2014/04/new-zero-day-exploit-targeting-internet-explorer-versions-9-through-11-identified-in-targeted-attacks.html

As I predicted, malware is being written for the Windows 7 and
8 users. The Windows XP users are being ignored. Not enough cash to
steal. The irony of it....
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
Todd
2014-04-28 08:11:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
| Linux is a Free and Open Source operating system that allows the user to
| have complete control. It doesn't spy on you, and you can install it on
| as many computers as you want to.
|
That needs to be qualified. You can have complete
control only if you learn the details and are comfortable
with console operations. (Last time I tried Linux I discovered
that root [Administrator] was no longer root and I had to
hunt down the real root, known as sudo.
Hi Mayayana,

The administrator is Linux is called "root". It was
never any different. "Sudo" is a utility to elevate
programs to "root" privilege. Same with "su". You still
have to provide your "root" password. I personally
prefer to use "su" over "sudo".
Post by Mayayana
That's the same
frustrating trickery that Microsoft has foisted on Vista/7
users. And just like MS, Linux fanatics will say it's for your
own good and that you shouldn't be running as root in the
first place.) That's not what I'd call control.
Linux, like NT, was never designed to be a Desktop OS.
You are kidding? Linux can be a Desktop or Server depending
on how you configure it. I do both all the time. And Xfce
makes an excellent desktop.
Post by Mayayana
You can have a semblance of control if you don't need
anything unusual. If you just want to choose your Desktop
background and go to GMail, which is all a lot of people
want, then you're OK. Firefox runs on Linux. And if you keep
your files on a FAT32 partition then you won't have to fight
with Linux to get access to your own stuff...
What? I have total acces to everything. I prefer the "ext4"
file system over the M$'s ones as they are way better.

I can even access my LUKS encrypted file system from a
Live CD. (Do need the pass key though, which is the
way it should be.)
Post by Mayayana
If you want more
control you'll need to start reading about shell options, /etc
config files, and on and on. Even then, what are you controlling?
What? There is both a command line and a graphics method to
do everything. It is up to the use to use what he likes
best.
Post by Mayayana
A Desktop OS that doesn't run most Desktop software.
If you mean most main line software (Quick Books, etc.)
you are correct. That is Linux's weakness.
Post by Mayayana
(And
no, the GIMP, after some 20 years in development, is not a
replacement for any decent Windows graphic editor. The latest
version can't even save a file properly. It forces one to "export"
any image that's not being saved in GIMP formats. That's
nothing more than marketing mucking up functionality.)
Oh yes, I use GIMP and it STINKS!

But, graphic artists run their business on the much better
Inkscape. You go nuts if you had to use GIMP for much
more than the occasional screenshot.

Here is a lady that uses Linux and Inkscape professionally
https://fedoraproject.org/en/using/life/mairinduffy.html
Post by Mayayana
I've dabbled with Linux periodically and always come away
less than impressed. In older versions one had to do silly
things like type "startx" in order to get the GUI loaded. Newer
versions are far more polished, but they've started taking the
approach of Apple and Microsoft: stability through obscurity.
If most people can't find the setting then they won't change
it and that will "keep them out of trouble".
On the spying issue, I'd consider Linux worse than
Windows. I'm not aware of any Linux firewall that handles
detailed control of outgoing communication.
Are you kidding? I write firewalls on Linux for a living
and I can tell you in absolute terms that is not the
case. I can lock down a Linux machine so tight it squeaks.
Post by Mayayana
I'm not
even aware of any that's relatively easy to use. (There
was a discussion about that on Slashdot recently, and I
didn't see anyone come up with a solution. The discussion
just degenerated -- as Slashdot discussions usually do --
"What's wrong with iptables?")
At the same time, software installs have become increasingly
automated. Recent Linux versions brag about how the
software takes care of itself, auto-updating.
It is called autoupdated. And it is off by default.
You are in complete control. By the way, "on" is required
for PCI-DSS (credit card security).
Post by Mayayana
I don't
want auto-updating. I want software that's finished and
doesn't need to download a patch every week.Why should
I trust an OS that is designed to let all sorts of things go
out without my permission? A Linux fanatic would answer
that those processes going out are just part of a
smooth-running OS. They're honest, squeaky clean, socialist
comrades. Linux can be trusted, unlike Mr. Gates and Mr.
Ballmer... As far as I'm concerned, if it's not transparent and
under my control, it can't be trusted. If it goes online without
my permisison it can't be trusted. It's not for the designers
of Linux to decide what can leave my computer.
Linux only dos what yo tell it to. No back doors. No
reboot and installs of stuff like Windows. Do you
realize Windows 8 wakes up in the middle of the
night an installs updates? YIKES!
Post by Mayayana
I haven't tried WINE in some time, but last time I did
I didn't find any software I used that ran without a hitch.
Typical Linux scenario: It *sort of* works, but don't think
you'll accomplish what you want to accomplish without
rolling up your sleeves and getting your hands dirty.
I tried to cooperate with the WINE programmers to get my
own software running better, but they didn't want to
cooperate. Their idea of cooperation was for Windows
programmers to report bugs. They don't provide any API or
real docs for Windows programmers to work with WINE,
despite the fact that the system works by mimicking the
Win32 API. They're essentially a group of overgrown teenagers
who want to be able to run the latest Grand Theft Auto
on Linux. And WINE is another case of 20 years in the
making. They release updates about every 10 days. For
20 years!
If you pay for it, Code Weavers will fix any problem
you have with Wine. And Wine is slowly getting better.
But, it is still quite buggy.
Post by Mayayana
I would like to be able to transition to Linux if I have
to give up Windows, which just keeps getting worse in
my view. But Windows is still fun and there's a lot of
software for it. Linux is not fun and there isn't a lot of
software for it.
Since I work in Apple, Linux, and Windows, I have
to tell you, Linux is closed to the assembly code than
any of the rest. And it is a total hoot to work with.
You just haven't learned it yet.
Post by Mayayana
The Linux fanatics don't help their cause.
They adopt an emotional us-vs-them attitude and feel
they need to be cheerleaders and apologists for Linux.
In many cases they're contemptuous toward the very
people they're trying to convert. I don't see Linux becoming
a really usable Desktop OS until it's out of the hands of
juvenile geeks-on-a-mission.
Hay, that contemptuous crap goes both ways. You aught
to see the crap Windows Tech Evangelists foist all over
everyone that violates their religion.

Here is a tip, when a teckie gets nasty, contemptuous,
etc., it is because he doesn't know what he is doing.
Those that know their stuff live to share. You can't
get them to shut up!

-T
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped
in a couple slices of baloney
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mayayana
2014-04-28 13:10:16 UTC
Permalink
| The administrator is Linux is called "root". It was
| never any different. "Sudo" is a utility to elevate
| programs to "root" privilege. Same with "su". You still
| have to provide your "root" password.

OK. That's similar to Vista/7. But the original idea
with root/Administrator was that it was the person
who is not limited. You're redefining it: "It's still root.
You just have to enter passwords sometimes." That's
like saying, "Your flight has landed in Los Angeles, sir.
It just happens to look uncannily similar to El Paso. On
the bright side, this LA has less smog than the LA you're
familiar with, even if there is nothing here but dirt and
hydroponic lettuce fields."

It's not root, or Admin, or whatever
you want to call it, if you have to enter passwords
to "elevate". The "Administrator" account [hidden]
on Vista/7 is the only real Administrator on Vista/7.
It's the only one that doesn't have to elevate. That's
a radical change from NT4/2000/XP. Likewise, last time
I used Suse I had to dig to find Sudo because root
didn't have full control.
(I'm currently on XP running on FAT32, so I'm pleasantly
free of all that mess. Neither Vista/7 nor Linux offers me
that simplicity, even though I can sort of achieve it if I
know how to navigate all the secret settings.)

| > Linux, like NT, was never designed to be a Desktop OS.
|
| You are kidding? Linux can be a Desktop or Server depending
| on how you configure it. I do both all the time. And Xfce
| makes an excellent desktop.
|

I mean Desktop OS as opposed to corporate workstation.
In other words, Linux and NT are both designed to work as
servers or workstations, but neither is well designed for use
in a SOHo environment where people own their own computer.
The excessive and obscure security is a good example of that.
Actual control of the OS is intended to be available and
understood only by sys admins and the stray "power user".
Network security is difficult to maintain while local security is
excessive. (IE is similar. It's a browser for corporate use,
designed to be controlled not by the person using it but by
their corporate bosses.) A SOHo computer needs to be just
the opposite: Local security is not required, while network
security needs to be tight.

| > On the spying issue, I'd consider Linux worse than
| > Windows. I'm not aware of any Linux firewall that handles
| > detailed control of outgoing communication.
|
| Are you kidding? I write firewalls on Linux for a living
| and I can tell you in absolute terms that is not the
| case. I can lock down a Linux machine so tight it squeaks.
|
Are you saying, then, that there is at least one good
Linux firewall (reasonably priced or free), that is easy to
configure to allow full control over all incoming and outgoing
activity, on a per-program basis? Is there such a firewall
that will act like a typical Windows firewall, popping up a
window whenever *anything* tries to go online, allowing
me to decide what action to take and letting me set simple
rules to allow or block that activity? In my experience the
answer to that question takes one of two forms:

1) "You don't need to block outgoing on Linux."
2) "There's iptables, numbnuts. RTFM."

| Do you
| realize Windows 8 wakes up in the middle of the
| night an installs updates? YIKES!
|

Indeed. Windows is getting harder to control with each
rendition. But you're going back to the Linux vs Windows
debate. Pointing to shortcomings in Windows doesn't excuse
shortcomings in Linux.

| > I haven't tried WINE in some time, but last time I did
| > I didn't find any software I used that ran without a hitch.
| > Typical Linux scenario: It *sort of* works, but don't think
| > you'll accomplish what you want to accomplish without
| > rolling up your sleeves and getting your hands dirty.
| > I tried to cooperate with the WINE programmers to get my
| > own software running better, but they didn't want to
| > cooperate. Their idea of cooperation was for Windows
| > programmers to report bugs. They don't provide any API or
| > real docs for Windows programmers to work with WINE,
| > despite the fact that the system works by mimicking the
| > Win32 API. They're essentially a group of overgrown teenagers
| > who want to be able to run the latest Grand Theft Auto
| > on Linux. And WINE is another case of 20 years in the
| > making. They release updates about every 10 days. For
| > 20 years!
|
| If you pay for it, Code Weavers will fix any problem
| you have with Wine.

I guess that would be nice to know if I were forced to run
100 copies of Ace and Acme Business Software for my
business and I had no choice but to use Linux. But the
idea that I might be able to pay someone to make the
software I need work on Linux is hardly a selling point. :)

The WINE people could improve things. If they would
provide docs and updates about Win32 API support for
Windows programmers then the software could arrive
WINE-friendly. But they can't be bothered. They just want
Windows programmers to work as testers and bug reporters.

|
| > I would like to be able to transition to Linux if I have
| > to give up Windows, which just keeps getting worse in
| > my view. But Windows is still fun and there's a lot of
| > software for it. Linux is not fun and there isn't a lot of
| > software for it.
|
| Since I work in Apple, Linux, and Windows, I have
| to tell you, Linux is closed to the assembly code than
| any of the rest. And it is a total hoot to work with.
| You just haven't learned it yet.
|

I'm no expert, but I have used it quite a bit. I've tried
it out periodically to see how things are developing. As
I noted earlier, I tried working with the WINE people for
a short time when they came into Windows programming
groups looking for volunteers.
Each time I try Linux I take the approach that it might
be showing promise if I can set up a good firewall (as
noted above), install WINE, and maybe set up a few
utilities/software, without having to search online for
obscure lines to add to /etc/* files, without having
to open a console window, and without getting frustrated
with software that has no help other than a man page.
So far, Linux hasn't got that good in my view. And the
last time I tried it (Suse), as I mentioned earlier, it was
getting worse from the other end: Trying to hide the real
root from me on the one hand, while requiring console
windows on the other. That's why I've been stressing the
fake root issue. Linux has always been the system with
"some assembly required". As the more polished distributions
begin to try to also protect me from myself, Linux becomes
the worst of both worlds.

| > The Linux fanatics don't help their cause.
| > They adopt an emotional us-vs-them attitude and feel
| > they need to be cheerleaders and apologists for Linux.
| > In many cases they're contemptuous toward the very
| > people they're trying to convert. I don't see Linux becoming
| > a really usable Desktop OS until it's out of the hands of
| > juvenile geeks-on-a-mission.
|
| Hay, that contemptuous crap goes both ways. You aught
| to see the crap Windows Tech Evangelists foist all over
| everyone that violates their religion.
|
Yes, but we're talking about Linux. Again you're
lapsing into us vs them. Though actually I don't find
much Windows arrogance except among MS employees
and shills who depend on the MS "ecosystem". Windows
is unexciting. It's just a tool for the people who use it.
Mac and Linux, by contrast, both attract vehement
partisans. Perhaps that's mostly just the "psychology of
the minority". Minorities have to deal with the majority,
which can cause resentment. The majority doesn't need
to notice the minority in most cases. As a Windows user
there's nothing on Mac or Linux that I feel I'm missing
out on.
Gene E. Bloch
2014-04-28 18:16:06 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 01:11:39 -0700, Todd wrote:

<CLIP what I'm not responding to>
Post by Todd
Post by Mayayana
That needs to be qualified. You can have complete
control only if you learn the details and are comfortable
with console operations. (Last time I tried Linux I discovered
that root [Administrator] was no longer root and I had to
hunt down the real root, known as sudo.
Hi Mayayana,
The administrator is Linux is called "root". It was
never any different. "Sudo" is a utility to elevate
programs to "root" privilege. Same with "su". You still
have to provide your "root" password. I personally
prefer to use "su" over "sudo".
Just for info:

Another term used for root, but AFAIK only informally in conversation,
was Super User, which is where the su command gets its name.

I have always taken sudo to mean something like 'let the Super User Do
this command'.
--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
Wildman
2014-04-28 20:31:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gene E. Bloch
<CLIP what I'm not responding to>
Post by Todd
Post by Mayayana
That needs to be qualified. You can have complete
control only if you learn the details and are comfortable
with console operations. (Last time I tried Linux I discovered
that root [Administrator] was no longer root and I had to
hunt down the real root, known as sudo.
Hi Mayayana,
The administrator is Linux is called "root". It was
never any different. "Sudo" is a utility to elevate
programs to "root" privilege. Same with "su". You still
have to provide your "root" password. I personally
prefer to use "su" over "sudo".
Another term used for root, but AFAIK only informally in conversation,
was Super User, which is where the su command gets its name.
I have always taken sudo to mean something like 'let the Super User Do
this command'.
Actually it means Super User Do Once.
--
<Wildman> GNU/Linux user #557453
The cow died so I don't need your bull!
Good Guy
2014-04-26 17:15:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Lindbergh
You want to replace Windows XP with Linux? Seriously?
Better still upgrade everything to Windows 8.1 and you don't have to
worry for a very long time.

Operating systems can come and go but users have to continue with their
daily routine. When my TV could not operate because of Digital
Changeover about 3 years ago, I bought a new TV and I still have my old
channels and some very new ones including CNN, Bloomberg, RT SKY News
and all that. So I am very happy now.

I had XP, then moved to Windows 7 and now I have 3 laptops with Windows
8.1. I use Windows 7 when I am at home like today but most of the time
I use Windows 8.1.

Not going back to the bad old days of XP except for testing something or
for directing somebody how things are/were done in XP.
--
Good Guy
Website: http://mytaxsite.co.uk
Website: http://html-css.co.uk
Email: http://mytaxsite.co.uk/contact-us
Todd
2014-04-27 08:12:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Good Guy
Post by Charles Lindbergh
You want to replace Windows XP with Linux? Seriously?
Better still upgrade everything to Windows 8.1 and you don't have to
worry for a very long time.
Hi Guy,

Are you kidding? You will have to upgrade all your
software too. M$ did this on purpose to sell more
developer kits, etc.. (Not very nice to hurt their
customer like that, but that is M$ ...)
Post by Good Guy
Operating systems can come and go but users have to continue with their
daily routine. When my TV could not operate because of Digital
Changeover about 3 years ago, I bought a new TV and I still have my old
channels and some very new ones including CNN, Bloomberg, RT SKY News
and all that. So I am very happy now.
I had XP, then moved to Windows 7 and now I have 3 laptops with Windows
8.1. I use Windows 7 when I am at home like today but most of the time
I use Windows 8.1.
I am glad someone likes it. It is too WEIRD for most
users. I don't have a single customer who likes it.
Some are almost in tears.
Post by Good Guy
Not going back to the bad old days of XP except for testing something or
for directing somebody how things are/were done in XP.
I have at last count 1 virtual machines (vm) on my computer.
When I have to do something in Windows, I use one of my
two XP vm's. The others are too slow and too clunky.
If you ever get a change to test XP against the new Windows
OS'es on the same hardware, you will be REALLY PISSED!

-T
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped
in a couple slices of baloney
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(PeteCresswell)
2014-04-27 14:04:15 UTC
Permalink
Per Todd:
(re/Windows 8.1)
Post by Todd
I am glad someone likes it. It is too WEIRD for most
users. I don't have a single customer who likes it.
Some are almost in tears.
I'm one of those people that gets crazy every time MS moves the
furniture around for no apparent reason.

I was avoiding Windows 8 like the plague until I finally had to get
myself in a position where at least knew something about the UI... so I
got a laptop with 8.1 on it expecting the worst.

I have to say that, once I put the five-dollar "Start 8" utility on it,
the transition from 7 to 8 has been pretty much seamless.

Occasionally I'll fat-finger something and wind up staring at the Metro
tiles, but WindowsKey-D gets me right back to the desktop.

Every so often I will wind up in a dead-end dialog: white screen, no
Exit or "X" buttons... but that's rare.

Bottom Line: I don't find Windows 8 to be all that bad and, with the
"Start-8" caveat, I would be comfortable telling somebody not to worry
about getting a new PC with 8 on it.
--
Pete Cresswell
Andy Burns
2014-04-27 13:51:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by (PeteCresswell)
once I put the five-dollar "Start 8" utility on it,
the transition from 7 to 8 has been pretty much seamless.
Ditto.
Post by (PeteCresswell)
Occasionally I'll fat-finger something and wind up staring at the Metro
tiles, but WindowsKey-D gets me right back to the desktop.
Every so often I will wind up in a dead-end dialog: white screen, no
Exit or "X" buttons...
Alt-F4
Gene E. Bloch
2014-04-27 23:31:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Burns
Post by (PeteCresswell)
once I put the five-dollar "Start 8" utility on it,
the transition from 7 to 8 has been pretty much seamless.
Ditto.
Post by (PeteCresswell)
Occasionally I'll fat-finger something and wind up staring at the Metro
tiles, but WindowsKey-D gets me right back to the desktop.
Every so often I will wind up in a dead-end dialog: white screen, no
Exit or "X" buttons...
Alt-F4
Which (as you know) predates Win8 :-)

I think it goes back to the Roman Empire, in fact.
--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
DanS
2014-04-27 14:07:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Lindbergh
I came across this article on Infoworld and found it to be interesting
and well written.
You want to replace Windows XP with Linux? Seriously?
http://bit.ly/1h0Iphs
or
http://www.infoworld.com/d/microsoft-windows/you-want-replace-windows-
xp-linux-seriously-240986

So I've read the whole article, and I've read the entire thread here.


1) I agree with Alek, this article was meant more for business users.

However, the author seems to dismiss RedHat as a viable alternative. RH
provides it's own "central user control" as well as a host of other
'network admin & services' typically provided by Active Directory...

https://access.redhat.com/site/products/Identity_Management

On MS's website, as well as many other Linux distro websites,
instructions are given on how to have a Linux PC authenticate with a MS
AD setup.


2) I agree with Todd as well, in the one post where he says the big issue
is a lack of "mainstream" apps.

THIS is the kicker, and the REAL reason Linux gets a bad rap. I see it
right here, in this thread....Q: "what tax software is there to use in
Linux". Not much. There's TaxAct, which doesn't seem to get to many
favorable reviews, or you can do them online in a browser. Even TurboTax
has a website option, https://turbotax.intuit.com/ (Although you may need
to change a browser setting or two.. <https://ttlc.intuit.com/
questions/1349982-turbotax-online-for-linux>)

Or, for taxes, you could just keep a Windows OS on a dual-boot machine,
and use that for taxes only.

So then, why just not use Windows everyday? Because you don't need to do
your taxes everyday....

....you drive a nice new car, yet you still keep that old pickup truck on
the road, why? Because you need to pick up lumber, or plow your driveway,
or haul a load of stones, and you wouldn't use you new car for that. You
don't use it more than a few times a year.

I last booted into Windows to do my taxes using TaxCut. Booted to
Windows, installed TaxCut, imported last years taxes, updated the
numbers, e-files both federal and state, repeat for the wife, 30 minutes
later, done. Reboot to my 'everyday' OS. I certainly don't see that as a
hard thing to do. It's like hopping in the old pickup truck to go pick up
a bunch of 2 x 4's ad 10 sheets of plywood. Then I'll park the truck
until the next time I need to use it. It might not be until next year.

I've written about this before.....most people don't *need* that pirated
copy of Photoshop. They need to resize, or crop, or touch up some photos.
That's all they do, Photoshop is super-overkill. There is a plethora of
Linux apps that allow you to do this, and none of them are GIMP. I use
something called ShowFoto, to do just that, crop, adjust, etc.

You don't NEED that pirated copy of Premiere to edit your home movies
shot on your $200 camera, or cell phone. 'OpenShot' or 'kdenlive' will do
just fine.

The biggest difference I have found in the apps isn't *usually* that
there isn't an app to do that, it's that there's only 1 or 2 solid,
'mature' apps that can get the job done, whereas in Windows, there's 10,
or 15, or 20.


Some apps are multi-platform so you don't even need to stop using what
you already use....Thunderbird, Opera, Firefox, Chrome, avidmux, and VLC
come to mind. There are others too. XNews works perfectly fine under
WINE. On this dual-boot system, multi-platform apps are set up to share
the same data, so if I open Thunderbird under Windows, or Linux, I see
the exact same...everything. I'm posting this in Pan, and there's a
Windows version of Pan, and those share data too.

I recommend looking over <linuxappfinder.com> to see what apps are
available for Linux. Most free, some old, SOME proprietary, but I'll look
at this list, then go to the authors site to research the app more and
see if it's current, and has the features I need before potentially
trying it out.

But, back to #1, commercial use....Linux does seem to lack some
"commercial quality" applications many businesses use. I haven't found
anything near to Solidworks, (but who uses Solidworks, @ home [to NOT do
work @ home]?) I'm not sure if there is ever was a Linux version of SW,
but the Linux verisn of Pro-E was dropped a long time ago. Also missing
are high quality schematic capture and PCB layout tools.

...but you might need to do SOME general 'drafting' at home, maybe to
build a shed, or lay out your property, and the makers of SW put out a
multi-platform CAD package called DraftSight. This is AutoCAD compatible,
including opening DWG files, and, get this, A COMMAND LINE for keyboard
entry of AutoCAD compatible commands!!!! No picking commands from a
plethora of toolbars arranged in several levels. DraftSight is also free.
Proprietary, but free, and, for Windows, MAC or Linux <http://www.3ds.com/
products-services/draftsight/>



For the typical home user, a form of Linux should most likely be quite
adequate.

I'd recommend staying away from 'Ubuntu', because it has an interface
exactly like Windows8 (called Unity), but instead recommend 'Kubuntu',
which features the KDE desktop which has your typical Taskbar (called a
panel) with a 'Start Menu' (called the Main Menu) and clock/system tray
(called the 'Notification Area'.) It's also got quite a few more options
to configure the look of the GUI than Windows does. You can turn off the
desktop effects if you want, or limit them.

I know many people like square boxy things....to them, XP was "cartoonish
looking" (Huh? Because the title bar had rounded corners?) Looking at
Windows8 PCs at the store, it seems MS has gone full-circle back to flat
and ugly. In this Kubuntu,I can square and ugly, if I want. Or I can have
sleek and 'modern' looking. It's my choice. All choices are readily
available for *me* to make.

Modern- Loading Image...

Well, it turns out I don't have any "flat, square" ugly "themes" (called
"Window Decorations") installed.

Loading Image... - shows a plethora
of "windows decorations I do have. The button that says "Get New
Decorations" will open a dialog box that connects to the official
"windows decoration" repository, and shows me previews of the 100's of
available themes that I can choose to d/l and install right there.


One of my pet peeves, and someone mentioned it in this thread, is that
people say the problem with Linux is that you want it to work exactly
like Windows does. My contention is that "that's because typically, it
does!!!!", noting my references above. You use it in the *same* manner.
There's usually some type of menu to launch programs. Programs open in a
window, with a titlebar, with buttons to control the Window. These apps
also typically have a menu bar, where you can select functions of the
program, and the apps have some sort of purpose, and end up fulfilling
the same end purpose, so, I don't get it.

Administration is a little different....at times. But when you've got a
family of 4, comprising of 1 of those persons usually "doing the IT" and
the other 3 just 'using' their PCs......

<http://www.kubuntu.org/feature-tour>
Ken Springer
2014-04-27 17:30:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Post by Charles Lindbergh
I came across this article on Infoworld and found it to be interesting
and well written.
You want to replace Windows XP with Linux? Seriously?
http://bit.ly/1h0Iphs
or
http://www.infoworld.com/d/microsoft-windows/you-want-replace-windows-
xp-linux-seriously-240986
So I've read the whole article, and I've read the entire thread here.
<snip>
Post by Charles Lindbergh
2) I agree with Todd as well, in the one post where he says the big issue
is a lack of "mainstream" apps.
But, what does "mainstream" mean? Yea, I know, usually MS Office,
AutoCad, Photoshop, etc.

I'm talking about types of apps. Word processing, spreadsheets, etc.,
not a particular program.

And this ties into statements like Office is the software for business.
And that statement really bugs me. If you're talking about a business
with w/ a couple hundred employees that regularly interacts with similar
or larger sized businesses, probably true and a good plan.

But what if you are a one man/woman operation, or may 10 employees, and
you have no need for that type of interaction, do you really need to
absorb the cost of Office and similar programs? I rather doubt it.
Your correspondence is likely very simple, as your needs are simple. If
you need to interact, possibly just sending a PDF file will work.

If you're a small company, looking at your costs, why do you need the
expense of Office when Open Office/Libre Office and other free suites
will likely suffice? There are a lot of competitors in this area.

I figured out, about 2-3 months after buying my first computer in 1973,
I didn't need the same program as the other guy, I just needed a program
that could read/write the other guy's file format. And the program
deals with features my program doesn't support.

So what if Linux doesn't have the big whizzbang programs. I'd think the
larger businesses would have dedicated accountants, either internal or
external, doing the books and taxes. Especially with the external
accountants, let them use whatever software they wish. All you care
about is results.

There are times when I honestly feel that people who recommend to others
which program to buy are totally clueless, as most of the time the
person recommending a particular program doesn't know a thing about what
the new user needs. And in all likelihood, neither does the new user. :-(

Open source, for me, falls flat in two areas: 1) Inability to find an
alternative since the alternative doesn't exist (hold on for further
explanation :-) ) and 2) developers aren't always very interested in
fixing bugs they don't care about.

Reason #2 is why I've left Libre Office. There's no interest in fixing
the bugs that affect the part of Libre Office Writer I use. I've always
maintained those developers would fix them if that project put food on
their table.

Reason #1, not only do alternatives not exist in open source software,
but often not in commercial software either. In my case, I'm thinking
MS Access. Access is the database engine. But so many other database
"programs" are just front ends to operate the database engine. Which
means I have to learn 2 separate programs. OpenOffice/Libre Office is
in this category.

For commercial alternatives to Access, I've only found one, Brilliant
Database. I tried V8, but discovered you could not generate a report
pulling data from multiple databases without writing scripts. And
writing scripts to do something like that shouldn't be necessary today.

<snip>
Post by Charles Lindbergh
I've written about this before.....most people don't *need* that pirated
copy of Photoshop. They need to resize, or crop, or touch up some photos.
That's all they do, Photoshop is super-overkill. There is a plethora of
Linux apps that allow you to do this, and none of them are GIMP. I use
something called ShowFoto, to do just that, crop, adjust, etc.
You don't NEED that pirated copy of Premiere to edit your home movies
shot on your $200 camera, or cell phone. 'OpenShot' or 'kdenlive' will do
just fine.
I think a good portion of people get "pirated" software for three
reasons, 1) the price of Photoshop level software is so high, and 2)
they don't know other options exist, and 3) they don't know what it is
they want to do, just think they need Photoshop to do "it".
Post by Charles Lindbergh
The biggest difference I have found in the apps isn't *usually* that
there isn't an app to do that, it's that there's only 1 or 2 solid,
'mature' apps that can get the job done, whereas in Windows, there's 10,
or 15, or 20.
Similar situation for Mac software. But there's more software out there
than you think, it's just hard to find.
Post by Charles Lindbergh
Some apps are multi-platform so you don't even need to stop using what
you already use....Thunderbird, Opera, Firefox, Chrome, avidmux, and VLC
come to mind. There are others too. XNews works perfectly fine under
WINE. On this dual-boot system, multi-platform apps are set up to share
the same data, so if I open Thunderbird under Windows, or Linux, I see
the exact same...everything. I'm posting this in Pan, and there's a
Windows version of Pan, and those share data too.
I recommend looking over <linuxappfinder.com> to see what apps are
available for Linux. Most free, some old, SOME proprietary, but I'll look
at this list, then go to the authors site to research the app more and
see if it's current, and has the features I need before potentially
trying it out.
But, back to #1, commercial use....Linux does seem to lack some
"commercial quality" applications many businesses use. I haven't found
but the Linux verisn of Pro-E was dropped a long time ago. Also missing
are high quality schematic capture and PCB layout tools.
I only know of Solidworks, and what little is on their webpage, but
would this work?
http://sourceforge.net/projects/free-cad/?source=directory I don't know
anything about this program either, just found it when I was looking for
something simple to use for a home project. I ended up using Sketch-Up,
but I've no use for the paid version there either.

<snip>
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.3.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
Shadow
2014-04-28 00:35:46 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 08:53:34 -0700, Charles Lindbergh
Post by Charles Lindbergh
I came across this article on Infoworld and found it to be interesting and well
written.
You want to replace Windows XP with Linux? Seriously?
http://bit.ly/1h0Iphs
or
http://www.infoworld.com/d/microsoft-windows/you-want-replace-windows-xp-linux-seriously-240986
This from an author that thinks God made Vista ?

http://www.infoworld.com/d/microsoft-windows/why-i-wont-miss-windows-xp-239960

Printing out the Microsoft ads is probably more convincing.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...