Okay... let's tally up.

Okay... let's tally up.

Post by Stephen Edward » Wed, 13 May 1998 04:00:00



NOTE:  This is not a troll... just an observation.

Here are the basic arguments Linux users present against WindowsNT:

-- WindowsNT is bloated with unnecessary elements.
-- WindowsNT is unstable and unreliable.
-- WindowsNT source code is not available.
-- WindowsNT is full of security holes.
-- WindowsNT lacks in networking capability.
-- WindowsNT is not very scalable.
-- WindowsNT does not support 64-bit processing.
-- WindowsNT only runs on two architectures.
-- WindowsNT cannot be administered very easily.
-- WindowsNT cannot handle heavy network traffic.
-- WindowsNT is not a true multi-user operating system.
-- WindowsNT has an easily fragmented filesystem.
-- WindowsNT is expensive.
-- WindowsNT development is slow.

The above sound like comments from people who know what OSen should have
in them, and how they should work.

Now, here are the basic arguments WindowsNT users present against Linux:

-- Linux is too hard to setup.
-- Linux is too hard to use.
-- Linux apps are too hard to setup.
-- Linux apps are too hard to use.
-- Linux does not have the ability to run "off the shelf" apps.
-- Linux does not have a graphical user interface without adding X.
-- Linux is based on old technology. <-- my favorite

The above sounds like comments from lusers who are too lazy, clueless, or
inept to be using computers in the first place.

Interesting, isn't it.
--
.-----.              Stephen S. Edwards II               |-._.---._
|[_] :|       Support GNU... run UNIX... be happy.       | G N U ! |
| =  :|        http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount         |-._.---._|        

|_..._|     Linux:  Turning toys, into workstations.     |  

 
 
 

Okay... let's tally up.

Post by Evan DiBias » Wed, 13 May 1998 04:00:00


Quote:>The above sounds like comments from lusers who are too lazy, >clueless, or
>inept to be using computers in the first place.

Well, of course. They're used to running Windows, where instructions are
printed in a manual (if not, in a Readme.txt file (same as most in Linux,
yes)) for installing programs, and want to "point and run/install". This is
becoming more true of Linux every day (RPM comes to mind, as well as the
GNOME Panel and KDE). We're almost at the point, I feel, where average users
could come over to Linux and see what there is to see without being
intimidated.

-Evan


>NOTE:  This is not a troll... just an observation.

>Here are the basic arguments Linux users present against WindowsNT:

>-- WindowsNT is bloated with unnecessary elements.
>-- WindowsNT is unstable and unreliable.
>-- WindowsNT source code is not available.
>-- WindowsNT is full of security holes.
>-- WindowsNT lacks in networking capability.
>-- WindowsNT is not very scalable.
>-- WindowsNT does not support 64-bit processing.
>-- WindowsNT only runs on two architectures.
>-- WindowsNT cannot be administered very easily.
>-- WindowsNT cannot handle heavy network traffic.
>-- WindowsNT is not a true multi-user operating system.
>-- WindowsNT has an easily fragmented filesystem.
>-- WindowsNT is expensive.
>-- WindowsNT development is slow.

>The above sound like comments from people who know what OSen should have
>in them, and how they should work.

>Now, here are the basic arguments WindowsNT users present against Linux:

>-- Linux is too hard to setup.
>-- Linux is too hard to use.
>-- Linux apps are too hard to setup.
>-- Linux apps are too hard to use.
>-- Linux does not have the ability to run "off the shelf" apps.
>-- Linux does not have a graphical user interface without adding X.
>-- Linux is based on old technology. <-- my favorite

>Interesting, isn't it.
>--
>.-----.              Stephen S. Edwards II               |-._.---._
>|[_] :|       Support GNU... run UNIX... be happy.       | G N U ! |
>| =  :|        http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount         |-._.---._|

>|_..._|     Linux:  Turning toys, into workstations.     |


 
 
 

Okay... let's tally up.

Post by Humme » Wed, 13 May 1998 04:00:00


    Exactly the  same argument that was made against the PC in the first
place.  Heard many an IS manager stay exactly the same thing, following
right away with the arguments for the central control of the information
and how much easier it was for everyone to have just a network computer,
er, terminal.  Interesting, isn't it.

        Hummer  



> >The above sounds like comments from lusers who are too lazy, >clueless,
or
> >inept to be using computers in the first place.

> Well, of course. They're used to running Windows, where instructions are
> printed in a manual (if not, in a Readme.txt file (same as most in Linux,
> yes)) for installing programs, and want to "point and run/install". This
is
> becoming more true of Linux every day (RPM comes to mind, as well as the
> GNOME Panel and KDE). We're almost at the point, I feel, where average
users
> could come over to Linux and see what there is to see without being
> intimidated.

> -Evan


> >NOTE:  This is not a troll... just an observation.

> >Here are the basic arguments Linux users present against WindowsNT:

> >-- WindowsNT is bloated with unnecessary elements.
> >-- WindowsNT is unstable and unreliable.
> >-- WindowsNT source code is not available.
> >-- WindowsNT is full of security holes.
> >-- WindowsNT lacks in networking capability.
> >-- WindowsNT is not very scalable.
> >-- WindowsNT does not support 64-bit processing.
> >-- WindowsNT only runs on two architectures.
> >-- WindowsNT cannot be administered very easily.
> >-- WindowsNT cannot handle heavy network traffic.
> >-- WindowsNT is not a true multi-user operating system.
> >-- WindowsNT has an easily fragmented filesystem.
> >-- WindowsNT is expensive.
> >-- WindowsNT development is slow.

> >The above sound like comments from people who know what OSen should have
> >in them, and how they should work.

> >Now, here are the basic arguments WindowsNT users present against Linux:

> >-- Linux is too hard to setup.
> >-- Linux is too hard to use.
> >-- Linux apps are too hard to setup.
> >-- Linux apps are too hard to use.
> >-- Linux does not have the ability to run "off the shelf" apps.
> >-- Linux does not have a graphical user interface without adding X.
> >-- Linux is based on old technology. <-- my favorite

> >Interesting, isn't it.
> >--
> >.-----.              Stephen S. Edwards II               |-._.---._
> >|[_] :|       Support GNU... run UNIX... be happy.       | G N U ! |
> >| =  :|        http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount         |-._.---._|

> >|_..._|     Linux:  Turning toys, into workstations.     |

 
 
 

Okay... let's tally up.

Post by TERENCE MURP » Wed, 13 May 1998 04:00:00




Quote:>NOTE:  This is not a troll... just an observation.

I don't care.  This is *.advocacy, for crying out loud, and you
certainly hooked me.

Quote:>Here are the basic arguments Linux users present against WindowsNT:

A>-- WindowsNT is bloated with unnecessary elements.
B>-- WindowsNT is unstable and unreliable.
C>-- WindowsNT source code is not available.
D>-- WindowsNT is full of security holes.
E>-- WindowsNT lacks in networking capability.
F>-- WindowsNT is not very scalable.
G>-- WindowsNT does not support 64-bit processing.
H>-- WindowsNT only runs on two architectures.
I>-- WindowsNT cannot be administered very easily.
J>-- WindowsNT cannot handle heavy network traffic.
K>-- WindowsNT is not a true multi-user operating system.
L>-- WindowsNT has an easily fragmented filesystem.
M>-- WindowsNT is expensive.
N>-- WindowsNT development is slow.

Quote:

>The above sound like comments from people who know what OSen should have
>in them, and how they should work.

Most of these points are _completely_irrelevant_ to 99% of potential
desktop users (C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L).  Point (M) does not
require any special knowledge of computers to realize (and compared to
VMS or most enterprise UNIX's is not true),  Point (N) is complete FUD
and totally untrue.  You exaggerate point (B).  Points (A, C) (and also
use of the term "OSen") are cliquish and demonstrate that you live in a
little world and refuse to have anything do with what isn't compatible
with your little philosophy.

Quote:>Now, here are the basic arguments WindowsNT users present against Linux:

>-- Linux is too hard to setup.
>-- Linux is too hard to use.
>-- Linux apps are too hard to setup.
>-- Linux apps are too hard to use.
>-- Linux does not have the ability to run "off the shelf" apps.
>-- Linux does not have a graphical user interface without adding X.
>-- Linux is based on old technology. <-- my favorite

>The above sounds like comments from lusers who are too lazy, clueless, or
>inept to be using computers in the first place.

>Interesting, isn't it.

I have to ask, what is the point of Linux Advocacy (or even Linux)?

(A) Is the point to create/advocate a system which is only usable by
computer experts, and then create an elitist community to poke fun of
everybody who sees the difficulty in using it?

(B) Or is the point to create/advocate a system which is a seriously
usable alternative to Windows (i.e. usable by "the common man")?

Lots of Linux advocates talk a _lot_ about (B), for example, in talking
about how legislation should be taken against MS.  But you guys are
really only succeeding at (A) (and pretty well, I might add).

Cheers,

Terry Murphy

 
 
 

Okay... let's tally up.

Post by rfi.. » Wed, 13 May 1998 04:00:00


Quote:> A>-- WindowsNT is bloated with unnecessary elements.
> B>-- WindowsNT is unstable and unreliable.
> C>-- WindowsNT source code is not available.
> D>-- WindowsNT is full of security holes.
> E>-- WindowsNT lacks in networking capability.
> F>-- WindowsNT is not very scalable.
> G>-- WindowsNT does not support 64-bit processing.
> H>-- WindowsNT only runs on two architectures.
> I>-- WindowsNT cannot be administered very easily.
> J>-- WindowsNT cannot handle heavy network traffic.
> K>-- WindowsNT is not a true multi-user operating system.
> L>-- WindowsNT has an easily fragmented filesystem.
> M>-- WindowsNT is expensive.
> N>-- WindowsNT development is slow.
> Most of these points are _completely_irrelevant_ to 99% of potential
> desktop users...

...who will only write memos, anyway.

Now, if you're trying to do real work, it's a different story.  Case
in point: I had to setup a week-long class which involved running
simulation models on the classroom computers, NT peecees.  The
classroom was about 10 miles away.  Now, if this had been Unix, the
distance would be irrelevant. Just get a login account, telnet or
rlogin from my office, no hay problema.

But it wasn't Unix, was it?  No, it was just a Nice Toy.  No remote

times to set things up.  What kind of a lame OS *demands* the user
physically be at the machine to use it??!!

(Why is NT so lame, anyway?  It had every advantage in its creation:
money galore, design talent from DEC and elsewhere, hindsight of every
other OS ever created. But to use it, one quickly gets the impression
it was designed by Warner Bros. I mean, did they pour all their
efforts into smirking, winking wizards?)

Quote:> >-- Linux is too hard to setup.
> >-- Linux is too hard to use.
> >-- Linux apps are too hard to setup.
> >-- Linux apps are too hard to use.
> >-- Linux does not have the ability to run "off the shelf" apps.
> >-- Linux does not have a graphical user interface without adding X.
> >-- Linux is based on old technology. <-- my favorite

Note that most of these deal with the applications available for
Linux; not the OS itself.  In other words, Linux itself has few if any
inherent limitations, unlike NT, which has myriads.
 
 
 

Okay... let's tally up.

Post by rfi.. » Wed, 13 May 1998 04:00:00


Quote:> Finch, who do you think creates the content on the web

Who serves it up? Unix mostly.

Quote:> lays out
> magazines, designs electronics and machines, mixes rock albums, makes
> the special effects for movies

Linux, last I heard (Titanic).  And before that, Sun (Toy Story).  And
before that, SGI (Jurassic Park).

Anyway, thanks for confirming my point below: that most gripes with
Unix deal with the dearth of apps, not with the OS itself.  Fair
enough.

Quote:> >Note that most of these deal with the applications available for
> >Linux; not the OS itself.  In other words, Linux itself has few if any
> >inherent limitations, unlike NT, which has myriads.
> If you really think that Linux is not responsible for the lack of
> applications available on it, then you need to learn what features
> of Windows are making software development far more efficient and
> quick.

The reason Unix doesn't have a lot of apps is easy: market share.  As
bad as Dos was to develop for, it had tons of apps because that's
where the money was. Same for Windows, same for NT.

I ran into one of those features a while ago.  Was compiling and
copying a directory structure simultaneously.  Well, for a few seconds
anyway.  Then NT crashed...so badly it scribbled on the hard drive and
wouldn't reboot.  Took our sysadmin 2 days to get everything back (not
fulltime, of course).

That's my personal biggest gripe with NT.  It's unstable.  NT
defenders will then say it's 'cause you didn't install it properly.
Well hey I thought it was supposed to be easy to install??  Anyway the
same guys that install NT for me install Solaris.  How come I can't
remember the last time my Unix machine crashed? (hint--not because I
have a selective memory).

 
 
 

Okay... let's tally up.

Post by Stephen Edward » Wed, 13 May 1998 04:00:00


: Here's some "niche" markets where Linux is a _long_ way behind NT:

*snicker*

: *

So what.  Games are a waste of time.

: CD Writing

Bollocks.  Linux writes CDs just fine.

: 3D Design/Rendering

POV-Ray, Blue Moon Rendering Tools, Mindseye, Blender, Midnight Modeller,
IRIT, Radiance, etc.

: Educational Programs for Children

Linux is it's own educational program.

*giggle*  I just love rousting up the NT weenies.
--
.-----.              Stephen S. Edwards II               |-._.---._
|[_] :|       Support GNU... run UNIX... be happy.       | G N U ! |
| =  :|        http://www.veryComputer.com/~rakmount         |-._.---._|        

|_..._|     Linux:  Turning toys, into workstations.     |  

 
 
 

Okay... let's tally up.

Post by Neurow » Wed, 13 May 1998 04:00:00



>Here's some "niche" markets where Linux is a _long_ way behind NT:
>*

Quake2 and Quake lead the way to MUCH better performance. I have a serious
* machine, and linux by-far outperforms Win95 in speed and performance.

There are a number of high quality games on the boards for Linux.

Quote:>CD Writing

AFAIK, there's no problem writing to CDs under Linux.

Quote:>3D Design/Rendering

Hrm. Have you heard of the movie Titanic? 3d graphics was done on a linux
machine for that movie.

Quote:>Educational Programs for Children

Now that's a market that seriously underappreciated in any OS, except Mac, IMO.
I have 3 kids and am dismayed by the software available for Win95 - it's not
quite what I would want. But that's not Win95s or any OSs fault.. but I'll
take my complaint to the software developers.

In anyrate, as linux gains notice and marketshare, I predict that you'll
see more educational software. I haven't seen too many 2 and 3 yr olds
running around unix systems lately. :)

Quote:>Now, are you seriously going to try and tell me that more people are running
>web servers than are trying to do the above ?

I am going to tell you that 3 out of 4 have serious linux representatives,
and I'm going to tell you that linux's inroads to commercial acceptance is
going to come from one of the fastest-growing and most visible sector in
the computer industry - the Internet.

Quote:>It's a long way from something like Winzip to something like Office97 or 3DS
>Max - it *would* be very cool though, to be able to run Win32 software under
>Linux.

Hrm. There's StarOffice, very much like MSOffice, and available on linux,
Solaris, OS/2 and of course, Windows. Does wp/sprdsht/presen/html/database
that sounds like Office to me. There's Applixware, also an office suite,
and lest we forget, Corel just announced that they are porting their
suite to Linux.

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

PGP public key located on website

 
 
 

Okay... let's tally up.

Post by Neurow » Wed, 13 May 1998 04:00:00



Quote:>ARGHH!!!  I wrote that in my stinking post.  There is other work in the
>world besides servers.  When the _hell_ are you guys going to learn
>that "real work" does not center around servers, _at_all_?  Tens of
>millions of professionals depend on _workstations_ for their work.

Yup, and no servers, and those workstations are just so much standalone
machines and we're back to sneakernet. Your point being...?

Quote:>FYI, about 30% of the Alpha's used to do _Titanic_ were running NT, and
>these had to be converted to Linux later in the project because they
>got their work done faster because the Linux machines kept crashing.
>The person who decided to use Linux considered the decision a major
>mistake!

Could you please provide references showing this? I can provide references
showing the opposite - industry articles.

Quote:>The reason there's not many UNIX (especially Linux) apps is an OS
>problem.  For example, Linux does not have a standard or good GUI,
>which makes creating apps very difficult.  It also doesn't have things

Hrm. Last I knew, X was a GUI that you can code against and it will run on
any other X implementation. Win apps work on... Windows. Where's the
cross platform?

Just fyi, I have 5 years of experience programming in C-api, MFC from 2 up,
ActiveX, VB, Access, etc...

I would dispute at length that WinAPI is not the panacea you make it out
to be. It's 4GLs like VB that make Windows easy to program under, MFC is
not easy.

Quote:>>> If you really think that Linux is not responsible for the lack of
>>> applications available on it, then you need to learn what features
>>> of Windows are making software development far more efficient and
>>> quick.

I got a big chuckle out of that. IMO, it's the skill of the programmer,
as an efficient and well trained programmer can be successful quickly
under any OS, given the tools. From what I've seen, comparative to
both OSs, is that there are enough tools for both OSs for one to be
successful.

Quote:>UNIX selection is much weaker in apps which Windows does better,
>such as Word Processing, Spreadsheets, etc.

I would submit that with tools like LaTeX, and more recently, StarOffice,
Applixware, Corel, etc - that claim is quickly becoming a moot point.
What's interesting is that as Office crowds everything out of the Win
market, diversity and choice are being seen in the Linux market. It's
refreshing.

Quote:>nothing to crash, now is there?  Also, you will find that a large
>portion of NTWS users think it's as stable as a rock.

Dependent on what you do. Most developers find that WinNT is a stable
platform as long as you run on a stable code base. But that's true for
any OS. Given the new versions, such as 4 and beta5, we're finding that
3.51 is really the last truly stable version of NT.

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

PGP public key located on website

 
 
 

Okay... let's tally up.

Post by Neurow » Wed, 13 May 1998 04:00:00



>>-- WindowsNT is not very scalable.

>Once again, the majority of the market NT is aimed at doesn't have the same
>needs for a huge range of scaleability

The scalability that Mr Gates himself admitted that NT needs to work on
as well as reliability:
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,21546,00.html

Quote:>>-- WindowsNT cannot be administered very easily.

>Unless you know what you're doing - kinda like Unix really.

The 'ease' of administering NT is a 'feature' that MS sales information
pushes.

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

PGP public key located on website

 
 
 

Okay... let's tally up.

Post by Stephen Edward » Wed, 13 May 1998 04:00:00


: FYI, about 30% of the Alpha's used to do _Titanic_ were running NT, and
: these had to be converted to Linux later in the project because they
: got their work done faster because the Linux machines kept crashing.
: The person who decided to use Linux considered the decision a major
: mistake!

You are flat-out full of shit.

If you would have read more carefully, you would have seen that they opted
to use Linux for batch processing, because _WindowsNT_ could not handle
the workload.  Yes, they used NT for much of the actual image editing,
and 3-D rendering, but Linux was used to process the frames of film for
final output, because they found NT to be _unreliable_.

http://www.ssc.com... look for back issue articles, so that next time you
post, you won't look foolish.

: >Anyway, thanks for confirming my point below: that most gripes with
: >Unix deal with the dearth of apps, not with the OS itself.  Fair
: >enough.

: The reason there's not many UNIX (especially Linux) apps is an OS
: problem.  For example, Linux does not have a standard or good GUI,

X is a standard... it's the widget sets and the like that suffer from lack
of centralization.  But so what?... I and tons of other users have had
little trouble getting applications to work and play well with others.

: >The reason Unix doesn't have a lot of apps is easy: market share.  As
: >bad as Dos was to develop for, it had tons of apps because that's
: >where the money was. Same for Windows, same for NT.

: This is completely false.  UNIX has apps in places where the apps will
: sell.  UNIX has 90% of the EDA market, for example.  This is because
: UNIX machines are good for EDA (mainly because it runs on fast/cheap
: machines...This is why it will lose its EDA share in the next 10 years).

So, its efficiency will cause people to stop using it?... Tell me:

1.)  What are you smoking?
2.)  Where can I get some?

: UNIX selection is much weaker in apps which Windows does better,
: such as Word Processing, Spreadsheets, etc.

StarOffice, Applixware, Wordperfect, vi, emacs, vim, joe, xspread, elvis,
jed, jove, TeX, LaTeX, LyX, groff, troff, etc.

*sigh*... some people are so clueless, that no meter can measure it.
--
.-----.              Stephen S. Edwards II               |-._.---._
|[_] :|       Support GNU... run UNIX... be happy.       | G N U ! |
| =  :|        http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount         |-._.---._|        

|_..._|     Linux:  Turning toys, into workstations.     |  

 
 
 

Okay... let's tally up.

Post by Stephen Edward » Wed, 13 May 1998 04:00:00


: >So what.  Games are a waste of time.

: So is adminstering a web server as far as I'm concerned.

Uh huh.  Admining a web server is a marketable skill.  Playing games
isn't (unless you take a job as a Nintendo game counselor (the ultimate
luser employment opportunity)).

: >: CD Writing
: >
: >Bollocks.  Linux writes CDs just fine.

: Really ?  Point me to _one_ CD Mastering program as good as EZ CD Pro,
: Prassi CD-Rep, WinOnCD and DiscJuggler.  Linux can't write CDs with Joliet,
: Romeo or HFS formats, nor can it handle multisession discs or audio.

cdwrite works just fine.  And, AFAIK, ISO9660 with Rock Ridge Extensions
is all one needs for UNIX.  Besides, cdwrite can probably be adapted to
support the above, as we have _the source_ to it.

: >: 3D Design/Rendering
: >
: >POV-Ray, Blue Moon Rendering Tools, Mindseye, Blender, Midnight Modeller,
: >IRIT, Radiance, etc.

: I'm sure you can list programs till the cows come home, but show me some as
: simple as Truespace or Simply 3D - or as widely used as 3DS Max and
: Lightwave.

Simple?...

http://www.neogeo.nl/blender.
http://www.gig.nl

As for widely used... Lightwave can and 3DS does use DXF object formats,
which are widely supported by the apps available for Linux/UNIX.  IMHO,
Lightwave is pretty decent, but 3DS is a pathetic, yet expesive,
luser-toy.

: >: Educational Programs for Children
: >
: >Linux is it's own educational program.

: Yeah, I can just imagine kids who can't even read trying to make sense of
: the arcane Unix CLI.

Children... not toddlers... perhaps you expect a toddler to use NT?

All you have done here, is demonstrate your own bias, and lack of
experience.
--
.-----.              Stephen S. Edwards II               |-._.---._
|[_] :|       Support GNU... run UNIX... be happy.       | G N U ! |
| =  :|        http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount         |-._.---._|        

|_..._|     Linux:  Turning toys, into workstations.     |  

 
 
 

Okay... let's tally up.

Post by Stephen Edward » Wed, 13 May 1998 04:00:00


: >You are flat-out full of shit.
: >
: >If you would have read more carefully, you would have seen that they opted
: >to use Linux for batch processing, because _WindowsNT_ could not handle
: >the workload.  Yes, they used NT for much of the actual image editing,
: >and 3-D rendering, but Linux was used to process the frames of film for
: >final output, because they found NT to be _unreliable_.
: >
: >http://www.ssc.com... look for back issue articles, so that next time you
: >post, you won't look foolish.

: http://www.linuxjournal.com/issue46/2494.html

: Read that.  It talks about how Linux crashed a lot.

What you said:

Quote:>> FYI, about 30% of the Alpha's used to do _Titanic_ were running NT,
>> and these had to be converted to Linux later in the project because
>> they got their work done faster because the Linux machines kept
>> crashing.  The person who decided to use Linux considered the decision
>> a major mistake!

Where did they say using Linux was a major mistake?  They had nothing but
good things to say about Linux... and FYI, WindowsNT couldn't handle the
task AT ALL!...  So what does that say about NT?

: >X is a standard... it's the widget sets and the like that suffer from lack
: >of centralization.  But so what?... I and tons of other users have had
: >little trouble getting applications to work and play well with others.

: It's X's fault that widget sets aren't centralized.  Don't try to pass
: it off as a feature either, because in the end it's just annoying.

Customizability is annoying... I see.

: >: This is completely false.  UNIX has apps in places where the apps will
: >: sell.  UNIX has 90% of the EDA market, for example.  This is because
: >: UNIX machines are good for EDA (mainly because it runs on fast/cheap
: >: machines...This is why it will lose its EDA share in the next 10 years).
: >
: >So, its efficiency will cause people to stop using it?... Tell me:

: UNIX will continue to dominate the EDA market, since Windows NT and
: UNIX will be on a level playing field (hardware wise).  There already

Bull.  They never were, and they never will be... WindowsNT requires too
many resources to keep up with UNIX/UNIX-like operating systems.

: >: UNIX selection is much weaker in apps which Windows does better,
: >: such as Word Processing, Spreadsheets, etc.
: >
: >StarOffice, Applixware, Wordperfect, vi, emacs, vim, joe, xspread, elvis,
: >jed, jove, TeX, LaTeX, LyX, groff, troff, etc.
: >
: >*sigh*... some people are so clueless, that no meter can measure it.

: Yeah, especially those who believe "joe" is a word processor.  ;-)

Wordstar was considered a word processor.  How different was that from
joe?... not much.  BTW, nice rebuttle... you didn't even offer one.

: >| =  :|        http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount         |-._.---._|        

: If you're going to advertise your web page, you should at least make it
: good.

Typical NT-luser-BOFH-wannabe-littledicksize statement.
--
.-----.              Stephen S. Edwards II               |-._.---._
|[_] :|       Support GNU... run UNIX... be happy.       | G N U ! |
| =  :|        http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount         |-._.---._|        

|_..._|     Linux:  Turning toys, into workstations.     |  

 
 
 

Okay... let's tally up.

Post by hikmat farha » Wed, 13 May 1998 04:00:00


Quote:> If you really think that Linux is not responsible for the lack of
> applications available on it, then you need to learn what features
> of Windows are making software development far more efficient and
> quick.

> Cheers,

> Terry Murphy

two reasons:
1)al capone tactics from microsoft
2)my grandmother wants to type letters instead of writing them.

you talk about markets and "99% of users"

99% of*users are scientists
99% of the above are in mathematics,physics,computation
99% of the above use unix.for the obvious reason that they need their
system up more than a day at a time

a useful front end for*called scientific word is avaible only for
windows? i must have mentioned it hundreds of times and this is actualy
why  i'm on this newsgroup to blow off some steam .

and oh by the way their answer for not having it on unix is that
there is no visual c++ for unix!! wow i guess they have only one
competent programmer and the rest click ok on wizards