Robust apps for x? Do they exist?

Robust apps for x? Do they exist?

Post by Goatb » Mon, 31 Mar 1997 04:00:00



I'm at a crossroads. I don't have much hard disk space, and I am
willing to put out the effort, but when pushed too far, I just say the
hell with it. I am talking about Windows 95 and Linux. I am pretty
good with linux (set up ppp and rebuilt my entire kernel and I've only
been using it since november off and on, mostly off), and I must say
that Linux requires a *great* deal of patience and configuration. I
keep trying to justify my switch to Linux by saying it's crashproof,
more powerful, and fast as hell on my 486. However, since November, I
have found no applications as good as or as easy to use as those found
on Windows 95. So far, these apps that I use mostly:

Office95
Forte Agent .99g
Internet Explorer 3.02 (Navigator on X sucks compared to this, no
matter what anyone says. Nav is slower on X, for some reason the color
depth sucks, and stuff is misaligned. Nav on win95 is better than on
X)
War FTP 1.55
FTP Explorer 1.0
mIRC 4.72
Visual Basic 5.0
Paint Shop Pro 4.12 (I think this is better than Photoshop except for
only the most rare functions)
Serif Page Plus Intro95 (I like this one better than PageMaker except
for again the most rare stuff)

Have no equivalents to those on Linux. I have found no programs on
Linux that even come close to these programs. And maybe the only progs
with any promise are on X, and I hate X. Who needs GUIs. It's bad
enough that Win95 is GUI. The only reason I tolerate the win95 gui is
because it's easy. X may be a gui, but no way is it easy (con*
it is ridiculous). Win95 doesn't crash *often*, but it can get
annoying. I like it that since November Linux has yet to crash.

But someone has to tell me, what apps are there on Linux that are as
good as those on win95. I have yet to see them. And one of the biggest
probs with Linux is useability. IT SUCKS. Not a chance in hell is it
easy, and I snicker at those gurus who write entire scripts or config
files in greek language, and then say, "Now, was that so hard?" Don't
get me wrong. I like it that linux is fast, and it's a command line
os. However, where is this useable (not the software where I have to
recompile and link and configure and debug, and on and on) software
that you guys always refer to when you say linux is better because it
actually has software?

 
 
 

Robust apps for x? Do they exist?

Post by E. Kevin Hal » Tue, 01 Apr 1997 04:00:00



> When do you think that someone will port the USR Pilot Palmtop desktop
> software and connectivity to Linux/Unix..?  Probably never.

> Linux/X-Windows is fine for playing and learning, but hell will freeze over
> before you can find a suite of applications like Office95/97 for $200.00.

Not to start a flame war, but there are several options out there.
Applixware
has the functionality that only but the most hardened wordprocessor
users use.
It's $199 (www.applix.com, www.redhat.com for linux version). If I'm
correct
purchasing office will put you out nearly 400 ,right (?).

Just remember that X has been out much much longer than windows. Unix is
nearly 30 years old and people have used it for a long time to get their
work done...

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Silicon Graphics                        
1 Cabot Road                        work: (508) 562 - 4800


 
 
 

Robust apps for x? Do they exist?

Post by Aaron Hoy » Tue, 01 Apr 1997 04:00:00



> Office95

Try Aplixware.

Quote:> Forte Agent .99g

I agree there isn't a really good news reader.  I have been stuck using
Netscape.

Quote:> Internet Explorer 3.02 (Navigator on X sucks compared to this, no
> matter what anyone says. Nav is slower on X, for some reason the color
> depth sucks, and stuff is misaligned. Nav on win95 is better than on
> X)

I have recently begun playing with it, but I am pretty impressed with
Amaya,
but do you really need all those bells and whistles try lynx.

Quote:> War FTP 1.55
> FTP Explorer 1.0

Try Xftp

Quote:> mIRC 4.72

?

Quote:> Visual Basic 5.0

Nothing much here for robust visual developement.

Quote:> Paint Shop Pro 4.12 (I think this is better than Photoshop except for
> only the most rare functions)

Gimp.  XV.  Image Magic.  I have been able to do almost anything that I
need with these three apps.

Quote:> Serif Page Plus Intro95 (I like this one better than PageMaker except
> for again the most rare stuff)

Sorry no help here either.

Quote:> Have no equivalents to those on Linux. I have found no programs on
> Linux that even come close to these programs. And maybe the only progs
> with any promise are on X, and I hate X. Who needs GUIs. It's bad
> enough that Win95 is GUI. The only reason I tolerate the win95 gui is
> because it's easy. X may be a gui, but no way is it easy (con*
> it is ridiculous). Win95 doesn't crash *often*, but it can get
> annoying. I like it that since November Linux has yet to crash.

> But someone has to tell me, what apps are there on Linux that are as
> good as those on win95. I have yet to see them. And one of the biggest
> probs with Linux is useability. IT SUCKS. Not a chance in hell is it
> easy, and I snicker at those gurus who write entire scripts or config
> files in greek language, and then say, "Now, was that so hard?" Don't
> get me wrong. I like it that linux is fast, and it's a command line
> os. However, where is this useable (not the software where I have to
> recompile and link and configure and debug, and on and on) software
> that you guys always refer to when you say linux is better because it
> actually has software?

Well you said it Linux isn't for wimps.  It is for enthusiasts who enjoy
the challenge.  And your aversion to X leaves you excluding most of the
good applications.  I recomend a little wait and see.  There are quite
a few good packages under developement.  And developemnet goes slow,
when there is a small demand compared to windows apps.  I recomend
keeping Linux arround a little longer just to*off Bill Gates.
--
Aaron Hoyt
Circle of the Ouroboros

http://www.veryComputer.com/~aaronh/
 
 
 

Robust apps for x? Do they exist?

Post by Goatb » Tue, 01 Apr 1997 04:00:00


Quote:>> Forte Agent .99g
>I agree there isn't a really good news reader.  I have been stuck using
>Netscape.

Yes, netscape's news reader isn't that great.

Quote:

>> Internet Explorer 3.02 (Navigator on X sucks compared to this, no
>> matter what anyone says. Nav is slower on X, for some reason the color
>> depth sucks, and stuff is misaligned. Nav on win95 is better than on
>> X)
>I have recently begun playing with it, but I am pretty impressed with
>Amaya,

Does Amaya support most of html 3.2?

Quote:>but do you really need all those bells and whistles try lynx.

Oh boy. Lynx. I can't even view images in linux. It's fast though.

Quote:

>> War FTP 1.55
>> FTP Explorer 1.0
>Try Xftp

Is there a good ftp prog not for X?

Quote:

>> mIRC 4.72
>?

mIRC is an IRC program.

Quote:

>> Visual Basic 5.0
>Nothing much here for robust visual developement.

>> Paint Shop Pro 4.12 (I think this is better than Photoshop except for
>> only the most rare functions)
>Gimp.  XV.  Image Magic.  I have been able to do almost anything that I
>need with these three apps.

XV ain't bad. Never tried gimp or image magic, but heard of em.

Quote:>Well you said it Linux isn't for wimps.  It is for enthusiasts who enjoy
>the challenge.  And your aversion to X leaves you excluding most of the
>good applications.  I recomend a little wait and see.  There are quite

But that's the reason I got Linux. I wanted something non-GUI (all
GUI's suck because for those of us with 486, it's so slow it's playing
with our sanity) because it runs fast and somthing that would still
support my isp connection. And I love prompt UI's. I loved DOS, except
it didn't multitask. And best of all prompt ui's are *fast*.

Quote:>a few good packages under developement.  And developemnet goes slow,

It's nice though that bug fixes are addressed quicker though and
programmers put some good features because they know how it feels to
use suck-ass software. Plus, they usually have to use it themselves,
so it better be good.
 
 
 

Robust apps for x? Do they exist?

Post by Goatb » Tue, 01 Apr 1997 04:00:00


Quote:>Ok, let's see.  There's Applix, there's StarOffice, and then there's
>my personal choice Emacs/LaTeX/Perl.  The first two should be exactly
>what you are looking for (especially if you are willing to shell out
>the $200).  If, however, you are willing to spend a little time
>learning, Emacs/LaTeX can be just as good (I threw perl in on the deal
>because its useful for automatically converting loads of data into
>LaTeX tables).

No offense, but staroffice or applix don't hold a candle to
msoffice97.
 
 
 

Robust apps for x? Do they exist?

Post by larry » Tue, 01 Apr 1997 04:00:00



> Not to start a flame war, but there are several options out there.
> Applixware
> has the functionality that only but the most hardened wordprocessor
> users use.
> It's $199 (www.applix.com, www.redhat.com for linux version). If I'm
> correct
> purchasing office will put you out nearly 400 ,right (?).

> Just remember that X has been out much much longer than windows. Unix is
> nearly 30 years old and people have used it for a long time to get their
> work done...

> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Silicon Graphics
> 1 Cabot Road                        work: (508) 562 - 4800


Yeah, but... (and I'm a real Newbie to Linux/Unix here) the apps are
soooo difficult to install and get running.  Nearly every time I
download something for Linux it requires A, which requires the
installation of B, which requires the installation of C, and the editing
of a half-dozen init files, etc., ad-nauseum...

When I d/l a Win95 app, the most it will require to run is a VB runtime
library, which is CLEARLY stated by the developer, and half the time is
included if you want it in the distribution.

Hey, you're at SGI, huh..?  I work at least a couple of times a year at
the Silicon Valley campus.  I supply the professional computer scan
converters that make beautiful NTSC video from those SGI workstations
for broadcast and recording.  My latest participation was during the
last stockholder's meeting (uggghh!) when the O2 was introduced.

--
Larry Jandro -- Edit De-Spammed Header to Reply via E-Mail

  *   LJ Video Engineering    -   Near San Francisco   *
  * www.ljvideo.com -  Using Linux 1.2.13 & X-Windows  *

 
 
 

Robust apps for x? Do they exist?

Post by Mark Flac » Tue, 01 Apr 1997 04:00:00


If you don't like GUIs but were able to use DOS software packages (such as
Wordperfect and Lotus 1-2-3), then take a look at DesqView.

Preemptive multitasking for DOS on 386s and higher.

--
\ ----------------------------------------------------------------------

\ "There's one in every crowd and it's usually me."       (972) 685-8347
\ Someday I may speak for Nortel.  Someday pigs may howl at a full moon.
\ Expect the latter to occur first.

 
 
 

Robust apps for x? Do they exist?

Post by Colin Smi » Wed, 02 Apr 1997 04:00:00


|> I'm at a crossroads. I don't have much hard disk space, and I am
|> willing to put out the effort, but when pushed too far, I just say the
|> hell with it. I am talking about Windows 95 and Linux. I am pretty
|> good with linux (set up ppp and rebuilt my entire kernel and I've only
|> been using it since november off and on, mostly off), and I must say
|> that Linux requires a *great* deal of patience and configuration. I
|> keep trying to justify my switch to Linux by saying it's crashproof,
|> more powerful, and fast as hell on my 486. However, since November, I
|> have found no applications as good as or as easy to use as those found
|> on Windows 95. So far, these apps that I use mostly:
|>
|> Office95
|> Forte Agent .99g
|> Internet Explorer 3.02 (Navigator on X sucks compared to this, no
|> matter what anyone says. Nav is slower on X, for some reason the color
|> depth sucks, and stuff is misaligned. Nav on win95 is better than on
|> X)
|> War FTP 1.55
|> FTP Explorer 1.0
|> mIRC 4.72
|> Visual Basic 5.0
|> Paint Shop Pro 4.12 (I think this is better than Photoshop except for
|> only the most rare functions)
|> Serif Page Plus Intro95 (I like this one better than PageMaker except
|> for again the most rare stuff)

OK, these are commercial apps. I presume you paid for them?
If you want equivalents under Linux you're going to have to pay
for them too. There are equivalents though.

Check out :
http://www.xnet.com/~blatura/linapps.shtml

What distribution are you using? I've found Red Hat to be almost
configuration free (not quite, but it's getting there).

--
Archeus Free FRPG - http://www.geocities.com/Area51/3002/

My opinions are completely my own, bought and paid for.

 
 
 

Robust apps for x? Do they exist?

Post by Dave Phillip » Wed, 02 Apr 1997 04:00:00


As usual, the answer certainly depends on what it is you're actually
trying to DO with your machine. My computing interests are primarily in
the fields of music and sound, and Linux provides me with tools Win95
does NOT have. Also, although Win95 enjoys such beauties as SAW and
Sound Forge, they are EXPENSIVE ($400 to $900). Right now about all I
miss in Win95 is Cool Edit. vi works fine for the amount of text work I
need to do, so there's very little else I miss in Windows.

So what am I using in Linux X ?

  MiXViews
  Snd
  Multitrack
  Csound
  CMIX
  Rosegarden
  Jazz
  KeyKit
  Xwave
  SANTIS
  FileRunner
  Netscape

They all run well, don't crash, and cost me NOTHING. I have Win95 on
/dev/hda,
haven't used it much since December.

My home page contains a link to my page listing interesting sound & MIDI
apps for Linux, check it out.

== Dave Phillips

   http://www.bright.net/~dlphilp/index.html

 
 
 

Robust apps for x? Do they exist?

Post by Roberto Alsi » Wed, 02 Apr 1997 04:00:00



>>> Forte Agent .99g
>>I agree there isn't a really good news reader.  I have been stuck using
>>Netscape.

>Yes, netscape's news reader isn't that great.

Knews. Slrn.

Quote:

>>> Internet Explorer 3.02 (Navigator on X sucks compared to this, no
>>> matter what anyone says. Nav is slower on X, for some reason the color
>>> depth sucks, and stuff is misaligned. Nav on win95 is better than on
>>> X)
>>I have recently begun playing with it, but I am pretty impressed with
>>Amaya,

>Does Amaya support most of html 3.2?

All of 3.2. It's 3.2 refernece implementation, actually.

Quote:

>>but do you really need all those bells and whistles try lynx.

>Oh boy. Lynx. I can't even view images in linux. It's fast though.

You can. Press *, and all images appear as links. Follow thw link, and
you get the image. Not pretty, but it works if you need it :-)

Quote:

>>> War FTP 1.55
>>> FTP Explorer 1.0
>>Try Xftp

>Is there a good ftp prog not for X?

mc, the midnight commander, from prep.ai.mit.edu. Seamless support for
.tar, .tgz, ftp and a bunch of other things.

Quote:

>>> mIRC 4.72
>>?

>mIRC is an IRC program.

>>> Visual Basic 5.0
>>Nothing much here for robust visual developement.

>>> Paint Shop Pro 4.12 (I think this is better than Photoshop except for
>>> only the most rare functions)
>>Gimp.  XV.  Image Magic.  I have been able to do almost anything that I
>>need with these three apps.

>XV ain't bad. Never tried gimp or image magic, but heard of em.

Image magick has the best format conversions. The Gimp is great for the
more artistic types.

If you don't run X, maybe zgv could be used for image viewing, and
ImageMagick's command line utils for conversions, resizing, and stuff.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

>>Well you said it Linux isn't for wimps.  It is for enthusiasts who enjoy
>>the challenge.  And your aversion to X leaves you excluding most of the
>>good applications.  I recomend a little wait and see.  There are quite

>But that's the reason I got Linux. I wanted something non-GUI (all
>GUI's suck because for those of us with 486, it's so slow it's playing
>with our sanity) because it runs fast and somthing that would still
>support my isp connection. And I love prompt UI's. I loved DOS, except
>it didn't multitask. And best of all prompt ui's are *fast*.

>>a few good packages under developement.  And developemnet goes slow,

>It's nice though that bug fixes are addressed quicker though and
>programmers put some good features because they know how it feels to
>use suck-ass software. Plus, they usually have to use it themselves,
>so it better be good.

--

 ("\''/").__..-''"`-. .         Roberto Alsina

 (_Y_.)' ._   ) `._`.  " -.-'   Centro de Telematica
  _..`-'_..-_/ /-'_.'           Universidad Nacional del Lit*
(l)-'' ((i).' ((!.'             Santa Fe - Argentina

 
 
 

Robust apps for x? Do they exist?

Post by Javier Pine » Wed, 02 Apr 1997 04:00:00



Quote:(Goatboy) writes:
>|> I'm at a crossroads. I don't have much hard disk space, and I am
>|> willing to put out the effort, but when pushed too far, I just say the
>|> hell with it. I am talking about Windows 95 and Linux. I am pretty
>|> good with linux (set up ppp and rebuilt my entire kernel and I've only
>|> been using it since november off and on, mostly off), and I must say
>|> that Linux requires a *great* deal of patience and configuration. I
>|> keep trying to justify my switch to Linux by saying it's crashproof,
>|> more powerful, and fast as hell on my 486. However, since November, I
>|> have found no applications as good as or as easy to use as those found
>|> on Windows 95. So far, these apps that I use mostly:
>|>
>|> Office95

Star Office (requires motif), Applixware, Corel for Java, and
Wordperfect are all out there... They will cost you though. For word
processing ( I have no need for a spreadsheet) I use Edith Pr or
XEmacs. They are free.

Quote:>|> Internet Explorer 3.02 (Navigator on X sucks compared to this, no
>|> matter what anyone says. Nav is slower on X, for some reason the color
>|> depth sucks, and stuff is misaligned. Nav on win95 is better than on
>|> X)

Navigator runs just fine on my PC. The color depth sucks because you
are probably running X at 8bpp and maybe running X at a low res. What
kinda video card do you have? Chances are it can be fixed...

Quote:>|> War FTP 1.55

FileRunner

Quote:>|> mIRC 4.72

Zircon or XIRC

Quote:>|> Visual Basic 5.0

Obviously no substitute. Visual TCL will is not VB, but comes in
pretty handy when you are trying to write a quick gui for a command.

Quote:>|> Paint Shop Pro 4.12 (I think this is better than Photoshop except for
>|> only the most rare functions)

XV is a nice graphics viewer and for manipulation the Gimp is much
better than PaintShop. Both are free as well.
 
 
 

Robust apps for x? Do they exist?

Post by Roberto Alsi » Wed, 02 Apr 1997 04:00:00



>As usual, the answer certainly depends on what it is you're actually
>trying to DO with your machine. My computing interests are primarily in
>the fields of music and sound, and Linux provides me with tools Win95
>does NOT have. Also, although Win95 enjoys such beauties as SAW and
>Sound Forge, they are EXPENSIVE ($400 to $900). Right now about all I
>miss in Win95 is Cool Edit. vi works fine for the amount of text work I
>need to do, so there's very little else I miss in Windows.

>So what am I using in Linux X ?

>  MiXViews
>  Snd
>  Multitrack
>  Csound
>  CMIX
>  Rosegarden
>  Jazz
>  KeyKit
>  Xwave
>  SANTIS
>  FileRunner
>  Netscape

>They all run well, don't crash, and cost me NOTHING. I have Win95 on
>/dev/hda,
>haven't used it much since December.

>My home page contains a link to my page listing interesting sound & MIDI
>apps for Linux, check it out.

>== Dave Phillips

>   http://www.veryComputer.com/~dlphilp/index.html

Sounds like you are a MIDI guy, so maybe I should ask you...

Do you have an opinion on tiMIDIty's output quality, when compared to
"real" MIDI output?
I have been thinking of buying a good MIDI card, but timidity sounds well
(at least to my untrained ears :-) on my ESS SB-clone, so I thought I may
ask before spending the money.

--

 ("\''/").__..-''"`-. .         Roberto Alsina

 (_Y_.)' ._   ) `._`.  " -.-'   Centro de Telematica
  _..`-'_..-_/ /-'_.'           Universidad Nacional del Lit*
(l)-'' ((i).' ((!.'             Santa Fe - Argentina

 
 
 

Robust apps for x? Do they exist?

Post by Goatb » Wed, 02 Apr 1997 04:00:00


Quote:>What distribution are you using? I've found Red Hat to be almost
>configuration free (not quite, but it's getting there).

Slackware 3.1. I have RedHat, but it's incompatible with my cd-rom
drive, so I can't install it.
 
 
 

1. A new and very robust method for doing file locking over NFS?

I'd like to do file locking over NFS without using lockd.  The reason
I want to avoid using lockd is because many lockd implementations are
too buggy.

It is fairly easy to avoid using lockd -- just avoid using lockf() to
lock a file.  Instead of using lockf(), lock a file by creating a lock
file that you open with the O_CREAT | O_EXCL flags.  To unlock the
file, you merely unlink the lock file.  This method is fairly
reliable, except that there is a small chance with every file lock or
unlock that something will go wrong.

The two failure symptoms, as I understand things, are as follows:

(1) The lock file might be created without the client realizing that
it has been created if the file creation acknowledgement is lost due
to severe network problems.  The file being locked would then remain
locked forever (until someone manually deletes the lock) because no
process would take responsibility for having locked the file.  This
failure symptom is relatively benign for my purposes and can be fixed
by writing into the lock file the owner of the lock.  In this manner,
a program attempting to get a lock can check to see if the lock file
it finds contains the process's own signature.  If it does, then it
knows that somehow it obtained the lock, even though NFS told the
process that it hadn't.

(2) When a process goes to remove its file lock, the acknowledgement
for the unlink() could be lost.  If this happens, then the client NFS
driver could accidentally unlink a lock file created by another
process when it retries the unlink() request.  This failure symptom is
pretty bad for my purposes, since it could cause a structured file to
become corrupt.

I have an idea for a slightly different way of doing file locking that
I think solves problem #2 (and also solves problem #1).  What if,
instead of using a lock file to lock a file, we rename the file to
something like "filename.locked.hostname.pid"?  If the rename()
acknowledgement gets lost, the client will see the rename() system
call as having failed due to the file not existing.  But in this case
it can then check for the existence of "filename.locked.hostname.pid".
If this file exists, then the process knows that the rename() system
call didn't actually fail--the acknowledgement just got lost.  Later,
when the process goes to unlock the file, it will rename the file back
to "filename".  Again, if the rename system call appears to fail, the
process can check for the existance of "filename.locked.hostname.pid".
If the file no longer exists, then it knows the rename call really did
succeed, and again the acknowledgement just got lost.

How does this sound?  Is this close to foolproof, or am missing
something?

I'm not much of an NFS expert, so I am a bit worried that there are
details of NFS client-side caching that I don't understand that would
prevent this scheme from working without some modification.

|>oug

2. linux networking with other operating systems

3. What X-based apps exist for Solaris to encode MP3 audio files?

4. Testing

5. Samba: W98 app. thinks rm-ed file exists

6. Memory issue in 2.4.8

7. Looking for Intranet App To Track Work Assignments....Does It Exist?

8. SCSI: DTC3270 supported? Help!!

9. FAX send/receive app exists?

10. Upgrade to Windows Server 2003, you'll have to upgrade lots of your existing apps

11. Q: Does there exist any 128 bit SSL apps for Linux?

12. mishaps with co-existing OSs (Linux and Dos Partitions)

13. Install to existing DOS Part w/UMSDOS