Very Computer

by **Gord** » Tue, 16 Apr 2002 22:36:04

I am the IT person in a NGO. We wish to sack Bill Gates. We chose
Linux to replace M$ because everybody keeps telling us how wonderful
it is, easy to use, and has all the apps we need.

We chose Debian Woody (yes, we know it is still unstable, but we're
waiting for the release) with KDE 2.2.2 (yes, we know about v3, but
again, the CD's...)

OK, so tell me this: with over 100 tetris clones, 70 clocks, 20 or 30
*sql managers, more than 150 different editors, and 6 or 7 biff front
ends, not to mention all those general email packages -- WHERE ARE THE
FONT MANAGERS?

We are NOT "hackers" here. we don't have time to get multiple degrees
in computer science just to show off how wonderful we are. WE
actually WORK, doing DOCUMENTS and WEBPAGES. Our computers are NOT
toys, they are TOOLS.

So, script kiddies, what should we write on our website? That Linux
has what it takes to do a job of work? Or that we gave it the boot in
favour of BeOS because Linux has all the usefulness of Pascal?

By the way -- our website only pulls 2500 hits/week, but it's seen by
lots and lots of people who are completely pissed off with Microsoft
-- and who will follow our lead.

What do we want? Two packages, one for TTF, one for Postscript (ala
Adobe Type Manager), which will install fonts and make them available
to ALL the apps which want them. We don't use *tex, *roff,
ghostscript, etc: we use WYSIWYG wordprocessors, databases,
spreadsheets & etc. We expect to point the Font Manager at a font
file and push a button.

Can you script kiddies get an act together?

Ummm... Don't bother flaming me. If flaming is all you can do, that
answers my question elegantly: you lose. And so will Linux.

by **Hal Burgis** » Tue, 16 Apr 2002 22:40:06

Quote:
> Can you script kiddies get an act together?

> Ummm... Don't bother flaming me. If flaming is all you can do, that
> answers my question elegantly: you lose. And so will Linux.

You make * type comments like the above, and what do you expect?
Not worth a good flame though ... Go back to windows. You all were made
for each other it sounds like.

--
Hal Burgiss

by **Marco Fiorett** » Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:33:45

> > Can you script kiddies get an act together?

> You make * type comments like the above, and what do you expect?
> Hal Burgiss

Hello,

Equiparating the Linux/Free Software/Open Source communities to "script
kiddies",
and in general the whole tone of the original message, do make me think
too that the
OP is an arrogant, clueless guy, not worth an answer.

Generally speaking, however, I can't help but to agree with statements
like:

Quote:>OK, so tell me this: with over 100 tetris clones, 70 clocks, 20 or 30
>*sql managers, more than 150 different editors, and 6 or 7 biff front
>ends, not to mention all those general email packages -- WHERE ARE THE
>FONT MANAGERS?
>We are NOT "hackers" here. we don't have time to get multiple degrees
>in computer science just to show off how wonderful we are. WE
>actually WORK, doing DOCUMENTS and WEBPAGES. Our computers are NOT
>toys, they are TOOLS.

The two paragraphs above repeat (in unhappy format, I agree) the fact
that
most Open Source/Free software is still made by professional for
professionals'
use only, not for people who touch computers just to do something else.

This category is by definition 90% of the workforce, and by its sheer
mass and
inertia can decree success or failure of any software development model.
One
can do the finest servers on earth, but if it doesn't help the majority
of clients
users is bound to loose.

One may or may not care for this, but it's true nevertheless.

Just my two eurocent,

Marco

by **Hal Burgis** » Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:51:18

On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 16:33:45 +0200, Marco Fioretti

> The two paragraphs above repeat (in unhappy format, I agree) the fact
> that most Open Source/Free software is still made by professional for
> professionals' use only, not for people who touch computers just to do
> something else.

True, but I don't think you can have both. If you dumb Linux down to the
level of users that have minimal requirements, then what you have is
probably something just like windows. So why bother? Some people have
greater needs and expectations and are willing to spend a little time to
learn what it takes, so they can reap the benefits. To turn linux into
just point and click is a big mistake IMO. Somebody has already done
that.

Quote:> This category is by definition 90% of the workforce, and by its sheer
> mass and inertia can decree success or failure of any software
> development model. One can do the finest servers on earth, but if it
> doesn't help the majority of clients users is bound to loose.

Linux is already successful in its market niche. It doesn't need the
rest -- IMHO. Let them eat cake :)

I have a font manager -- ME!!!!! (and I do a very nice job of it :)

--
Hal Burgiss

by **Dave S** » Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:56:21

> I am the IT person in a NGO. We wish to sack Bill Gates. We chose
> Linux to replace M$ because everybody keeps telling us how wonderful
> it is, easy to use, and has all the apps we need.

> We chose Debian Woody (yes, we know it is still unstable, but we're
> waiting for the release) with KDE 2.2.2 (yes, we know about v3, but
> again, the CD's...)

> OK, so tell me this: with over 100 tetris clones, 70 clocks, 20 or 30
> *sql managers, more than 150 different editors, and 6 or 7 biff front
> ends, not to mention all those general email packages -- WHERE ARE THE
> FONT MANAGERS?

> We are NOT "hackers" here. we don't have time to get multiple degrees
> in computer science just to show off how wonderful we are. WE
> actually WORK, doing DOCUMENTS and WEBPAGES. Our computers are NOT
> toys, they are TOOLS.

> So, script kiddies, what should we write on our website? That Linux
> has what it takes to do a job of work? Or that we gave it the boot in
> favour of BeOS because Linux has all the usefulness of Pascal?

> By the way -- our website only pulls 2500 hits/week, but it's seen by
> lots and lots of people who are completely pissed off with Microsoft
> -- and who will follow our lead.

> What do we want? Two packages, one for TTF, one for Postscript (ala
> Adobe Type Manager), which will install fonts and make them available
> to ALL the apps which want them. We don't use *tex, *roff,
> ghostscript, etc: we use WYSIWYG wordprocessors, databases,
> spreadsheets & etc. We expect to point the Font Manager at a font
> file and push a button.

> Can you script kiddies get an act together?

> Ummm... Don't bother flaming me. If flaming is all you can do, that
> answers my question elegantly: you lose. And so will Linux.

Do you do actual research or just expect others to do it for you? Google
up some of what you're looking for. Visit Freshmeat. Visit Sourceforge.
Come back when you can research a problem yourself, and if you still have
troubles then ask for help.

--Dave

by **Hal Burgis** » Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:55:05

Quote:
> Do you do actual research or just expect others to do it for you?
> Google up some of what you're looking for. Visit Freshmeat. Visit
> Sourceforge. Come back when you can research a problem yourself, and
> if you still have troubles then ask for help.

This is a big difference: big brother in redmond makes all the
decisions, so we loose the ability to think and solve problems outside
of what comes down from on high.

--
Hal Burgiss

by **Gord** » Wed, 17 Apr 2002 12:17:55

... snip

Quote:> > ends, not to mention all those general email packages -- WHERE ARE THE
> > FONT MANAGERS?

> Under KDE configuration>KDE>LooknFeel>fonts but with linux you have to know
> a little about the different font sets and not just be an idiot.

Except that this (arrogant) idiot already knows the difference between
Postscript and Type 1, 2, and 3 (which are all different to each other
as well). Do you?

... snip

Gordon.

by **Faux_Pseud** » Wed, 17 Apr 2002 12:46:59

--(Once apon a time, in comp.os.linux,)--
--(Gordon said it like only they can.)--

Quote:> I am the IT person in a NGO. We wish to sack Bill Gates. We chose
> Linux to replace M$ because everybody keeps telling us how wonderful
> it is, easy to use, and has all the apps we need.

Not sure what country you are posting from but in the US sack has a
triple meaning. I will take it that you want him fired and
necessarily stuffed in a bag. The third meaning has something to do
with a bed. I hope thats not it =)

Quote:
> OK, so tell me this: with over 100 tetris clones, 70 clocks, 20 or 30
> *sql managers, more than 150 different editors, and 6 or 7 biff front
> ends, not to mention all those general email packages -- WHERE ARE THE
> FONT MANAGERS?

I wish I could answer that for you. I see your point but I tend to
live in the stone age on the command line where fonts aren't an
issue. The only time I load up GUI based fonts in on Mozilla and I
use fixed width fonts on that so I don't have to mess with them.
Again you do have a very valid point. But you forgot that there are
20 GUI's, 35 GUI based virtual terminals, 15 news group readers, and
15 browsers.

Quote:> So, script kiddies, what should we write on our website? That Linux
> has what it takes to do a job of work? Or that we gave it the boot in
> favour of BeOS because Linux has all the usefulness of Pascal?

Up until this point you had some people behind you. But remember that
IBM is spending a BILLION dollars on Linux. Germany, Norway, France
and the people in charge of a BILLION china men use Linux. Would you
call them script kiddies? I think you need to redefine usefulness.
If you are interested in nice looking fonts then go back to windows.
If you want to have some power then stick with Linux. Why should
people who visit your web site care what you are running? The average
user will only be able to tell if your web page displays well on their
browser. And that is determined by the skill of your webmaster not by
the type of server you run on.

Quote:> By the way -- our website only pulls 2500 hits/week, but it's seen by
> lots and lots of people who are completely pissed off with Microsoft
> -- and who will follow our lead.

Again this makes no difference at all. In fact this is the kind of
comment I used to hear form idiot customers who demanded that we issue
a trace on their package, which was sent via 3rd class mail. In short
its the style of argument that is used only by those who have the
inability to clearly state their goal or are unable to determined what
they really want in the first place.

Quote:> What do we want? Two packages, one for TTF, one for Postscript (ala
> Adobe Type Manager), which will install fonts and make them available
> to ALL the apps which want them.

You fail to understand the way that all *nix machines work. You want
a registry. You can't have that.
The philosophy for developing nix apps is that it do one thing and it
do it well. If another app2 needs to use app1 then app2 needs to be
told about app1. Not the other way around.

Quote:
> Can you script kiddies get an act together?

Thats not even proper English.

Quote:
> Ummm... Don't bother flaming me. If flaming is all you can do, that
> answers my question elegantly: you lose. And so will Linux.

Are you familiar with the old phrase "the pot calling the kettle
black"

Or maybe you would be better off with something small enough for you
to understand. Just one word "hypocrite"

--

It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word.
- Andrew Jackson
UIN=66618055

by **Tim Hammerquis** » Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:32:18

Gordon graced his own ears by uttering:

[ something about "script kiddies": snipped ]

[ something else about "script kiddies": snipped ]

[ something about predicting linux' future without (apparently) knowing
how it or its culture works: snipped ]

* plonk *

See? No flames, no fuss, no muss.

Tim Hammerquist
--
Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities.
-- Mark Twain

by **cef** » Wed, 17 Apr 2002 22:00:30

> We chose Debian Woody (yes, we know it is still unstable, but we're
> waiting for the release) with KDE 2.2.2 (yes, we know about v3, but
> again, the CD's...)

> OK, so tell me this: with over 100 tetris clones, 70 clocks, 20 or 30
> *sql managers, more than 150 different editors, and 6 or 7 biff front
> ends, not to mention all those general email packages -- WHERE ARE THE
> FONT MANAGERS?

In Debian, there is a font manager framework called defoma (DEbian Font
MAnager). There is a font manager (GUI Front End) app named 'dfontmgr' that
will do what you probably want. You may also like to install 'psfontmgr'
and 'x-ttcidfont-conf' as well.

Suggestion of places to check in the future:
1. "apt-cache search keyword" - replace keyword with the thing you are
looking for (eg: 'font').
2. http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages and use the search system.
3. If you can't find what you are looking for, try using keywords of
similar meaning.

Quote:> So, script kiddies, what should we write on our website? That Linux
> has what it takes to do a job of work? Or that we gave it the boot in
> favour of BeOS because Linux has all the usefulness of Pascal?

a. BeOS is dead, but expect some of the people developing for BeOS to
switch to other platforms like MacOS X and Linux (eg: gobe -
http://gobe.com/, whose "Productive" office suite is now available for
Windows and very soon for Linux).
b. A number of low level API's and libraries have been developed (and many
more are being developed) for use on multiple platforms, to try and make
porting to a new platform easy. Alternatively, some of these new efforts
are centralising the work into one place, to reduce duplication of code,
while providing flexibility at the interface leve. This sort of stuff is
bearing fruit - more and more apps are becoming easier to port or develop
because of such tools, and code duplication is lessened, bringing more eyes
to focus on the lower level problems. If these low level tools don't work
properly, then don't expect anything higher to work. Nothing with a weak
foundation stands well.
c. Alienating the people you are asking for help is not going to help you
get a response. If I was going to reply badly, you'd get a simple "Are you
serious about Linux, or just serious about being a tool?". Fortunately, you
caught me on a good day, and I was willing to overlook such things, which I
can only guess are brought up due to frustration. Not everyone will put up
with such behaviour, as you have undoubtedly seen in the replies to your
post.

Good luck. I hope you manage to get something that does what you want.

--
Cef

by **Marcell** » Thu, 18 Apr 2002 15:53:38

I think this is a very good example of how to advocate even in the worse
conditions ;-) , that is when answering very bad posts like the one
Gordon wrote.
(ok, this is probably not even 2 euro-cent... just 1 eurocent ;)

by **Gord** » Thu, 18 Apr 2002 14:19:53

... snip

Quote:
> In Debian, there is a font manager framework called defoma (DEbian Font
> MAnager). There is a font manager (GUI Front End) app named 'dfontmgr' that
> will do what you probably want. You may also like to install 'psfontmgr'
> and 'x-ttcidfont-conf' as well.

Ta thanx. I've already found Defoma/dfontmgr. dfontmgr does not
offer any mechanism to point it to fonts I want installed, and it has
no useful help, while Defoma is horrendously complex, involving a
knowledge of fonts that I don't yet have. It also means I will have
to do about 60 separate installs, one for each font, plus the
preparatory study to make sure I understand all the issues, both TTF
and PS. That's a day's work down the drain.

I have seen it stated in this thread that Linux does one thing at a
time, but does it very well. That was true also of the C64 -- but who
uses those now? Coming from a Windows background (more on that down
the page) I have to wonder -- given the raw power of computers -- why
an app cannot be written to do many things, AND do them all "very
well"?

I will check out psfontmgr and x-ttcidfont-conf.

Quote:
> Suggestion of places to check in the future:
> 1. "apt-cache search keyword" - replace keyword with the thing you are
> looking for (eg: 'font').
> 2. http://www.veryComputer.com/
> 3. If you can't find what you are looking for, try using keywords of
> similar meaning.

I've spent the last two weeks doing "apt-cache search", and I've
already worked out that a smart thing to do is run "dpkg -l |
/Ba*t/PackingList" after every (un)install.

I have also learnt that you can't put a Postscript font in and assume
that (for example) type1inst will recognise it. No, I'm not going to
say why, but trust me, there _is_ a difference, and it took me a day's
research to find out what.

The biggest problem with fonts (and it almost qualifies as a "bug") is
the decentralised nature of Linux development: even Bear Giles uses
some strong language about the multiplicity of places used to put
fonts, and the different standards adopted.

Quote:
> > So, script kiddies, what should we write on our website? That Linux
> > has what it takes to do a job of work? Or that we gave it the boot in
> > favour of BeOS because Linux has all the usefulness of Pascal?

> a. BeOS is dead, but expect some of the people developing for BeOS to
> switch to other platforms like MacOS X and Linux (eg: gobe -
> http://www.veryComputer.com/, whose "Productive" office suite is now available for
> Windows and very soon for Linux).
> b. A number of low level API's and libraries have been developed (and many
> more are being developed) for use on multiple platforms, to try and make
> porting to a new platform easy. Alternatively, some of these new efforts
> are centralising the work into one place, to reduce duplication of code,
> while providing flexibility at the interface leve. This sort of stuff is
> bearing fruit - more and more apps are becoming easier to port or develop
> because of such tools, and code duplication is lessened, bringing more eyes
> to focus on the lower level problems. If these low level tools don't work
> properly, then don't expect anything higher to work. Nothing with a weak
> foundation stands well.
> c. Alienating the people you are asking for help is not going to help you
> get a response. If I was going to reply badly, you'd get a simple "Are you
> serious about Linux, or just serious about being a tool?". Fortunately, you
> caught me on a good day, and I was willing to overlook such things, which I
> can only guess are brought up due to frustration. Not everyone will put up
> with such behaviour, as you have undoubtedly seen in the replies to your
> post.

I wrote the way I did because after spending a lot of time looking
through forums like this, I saw _nothing_ that treated new converts
with the respect they deserve. There is a pervasive attitude that
anybody who does not use the commandline is a geek. Even the term
"newbie", while vaguely cute to begin with, has a derogatory sound.
Unfortunately, it has found currency in the M$ community, who found it
on the Internet. There is even one LUG which calls all new (less than
5 contributions) contributors to its forums "script kiddies" -- I'm
deleting my membership from that one real soon.

Just because we are completely competent in the Windows environment,
and we also use "pretty pictures" to make things happen, does not mean
we are as uselessly helpless as Microsoft (mis)Management thinks we
are -- or indeed, helplessly useless.

I should say now that the only thing preventing a real trial and
roll-out is the total lack of integrated font management. KDE is
doing all the things that M$ talks about with Windows, AND neither
Debian, Linux or KDE want to phone home to complain about me. When we
get the Woody and KDE 3 CD's I will be installing High Performance
Liquid -- and please believe the wait is PAINFUL.

Quote:
> Good luck. I hope you manage to get something that does what you want.

Gordon.

by **Faux_Pseud** » Thu, 18 Apr 2002 16:09:32

--(Once apon a time, in comp.os.linux,)--
--(Gordon said it like only they can.)--

Quote:> I have seen it stated in this thread that Linux does one thing at a
> time, but does it very well.

That was not what I had said. What I said is that each app has its
job and does it well. The way you are paraphrasing it looks more like
you are talking about DOS which did only "one thing at a time".

Quote:> That was true also of the C64 -- but who
> uses those now? Coming from a Windows background (more on that down
> the page) I have to wonder -- given the raw power of computers -- why
> an app cannot be written to do many things, AND do them all "very
> well"?

The reason is simple. Have you ever done any programing? It is much
easier to write an app that does just one thing and does it well. As
soon as you try to get it to do more than one thing updateing and
maintaining the code becomes very hard. Things become unstable and
apps crash with no dissernable reason. Look at windows for an
example. This is over come in the unix world by the nature of the
system. You can use the output of one app as the input for another.
By stringing apps together you can create apps that do many things but
because each part is done by one app stability is maintained. One
nice thing is that if something does go wrong its much easier to fix
by tweeking the data format than it is if you are working with a
monolithic app that is so convaluted that the bug may never bee fixed.

After a while this mentality will grow on you and you will see its
advantages and wonder why not all systems are done like this.
One day you will sit down at a windows computer and find your self
wishing you could do something that is just not possible on windows.

--

It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word.
- Andrew Jackson
UIN=66618055

by **Mark Mynste** » Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:09:27

Gordon> I am the IT person in a NGO. We wish to sack Bill Gates. We chose
Gordon> Linux to replace M$ because everybody keeps telling us how wonderful
Gordon> it is, easy to use, and has all the apps we need.

Gordon> We chose Debian Woody (yes, we know it is still unstable, but we're
Gordon> waiting for the release) with KDE 2.2.2 (yes, we know about v3, but
Gordon> again, the CD's...)

Gordon> OK, so tell me this: with over 100 tetris clones, 70 clocks, 20 or 30
Gordon> *sql managers, more than 150 different editors, and 6 or 7 biff front
Gordon> ends, not to mention all those general email packages -- WHERE ARE THE
Gordon> FONT MANAGERS?

So what exactly is the problem you are having?

Gordon> We are NOT "hackers" here. we don't have time to get multiple degrees
Gordon> in computer science just to show off how wonderful we are. WE
Gordon> actually WORK, doing DOCUMENTS and WEBPAGES. Our computers are NOT
Gordon> toys, they are TOOLS.

So what exactly is the problem you are having? What is preventing you
from "doing DOCUMENTS and WEBPAGES"?

Gordon> So, script kiddies, what should we write on our website? That Linux
Gordon> has what it takes to do a job of work? Or that we gave it the boot in
Gordon> favour of BeOS because Linux has all the usefulness of Pascal?

Huh?

Gordon> By the way -- our website only pulls 2500 hits/week, but it's seen by
Gordon> lots and lots of people who are completely pissed off with Microsoft
Gordon> -- and who will follow our lead.

OK. So again, what exactly is the problem you are having?

Gordon> What do we want? Two packages, one for TTF, one for Postscript (ala
Gordon> Adobe Type Manager), which will install fonts and make them available
Gordon> to ALL the apps which want them. We don't use *tex, *roff,
Gordon> ghostscript, etc: we use WYSIWYG wordprocessors, databases,
Gordon> spreadsheets & etc. We expect to point the Font Manager at a font
Gordon> file and push a button.

Perhaps you should read the Font howto. This should help you
understand how fonts work.
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Font-HOWTO-4.html

Even if you use WYSIWYG wordprocessors, etc., you should learn how to
use them so you can do what you want with them. TeX, ghostscript, etc
are powerful tools. You you may want to consider learning them,
especially if someday you want to do some professional writing, or
publishing.

--
-MM

(No un-solicited email please.) \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
See following url, X Against HTML Mail
http://pages.prodigy.net/mmynsted/spamoff.htm / \

by **Gord** » Thu, 18 Apr 2002 23:05:15

> --(Once apon a time, in comp.os.linux,)--
> --(Gordon said it like only they can.)--
> > I have seen it stated in this thread that Linux does one thing at a
> > time, but does it very well.

> That was not what I had said. What I said is that each app has its
> job and does it well. The way you are paraphrasing it looks more like
> you are talking about DOS which did only "one thing at a time".

> > That was true also of the C64 -- but who
> > uses those now? Coming from a Windows background (more on that down
> > the page) I have to wonder -- given the raw power of computers -- why
> > an app cannot be written to do many things, AND do them all "very
> > well"?

> The reason is simple. Have you ever done any programing? It is much
> easier to write an app that does just one thing and does it well. As
> soon as you try to get it to do more than one thing updateing and
> maintaining the code becomes very hard. Things become unstable and
> apps crash with no dissernable reason. Look at windows for an
> example. This is over come in the unix world by the nature of the
> system. You can use the output of one app as the input for another.
> By stringing apps together you can create apps that do many things but
> because each part is done by one app stability is maintained. One
> nice thing is that if something does go wrong its much easier to fix
> by tweeking the data format than it is if you are working with a
> monolithic app that is so convaluted that the bug may never bee fixed.

Erm... Not a lot. A bit of spaghetti code in BASIC and Fortran, then
I found COBOL, PL/1 and Algol. About 2000 lines on a HP 9825A and
5000 in Fortran on an ICL 1900 under George something-or-other doing
data acquisition and processing, some actuarial and statistical
analysis using COBOL (1500 lines), plus amusing myself with Assembler
on the C64... I gave up because I'm too dumb to get my head round
object-oriented programming. But my work was still being used -- with
no significant modification -- 20 years later, and not just because
nobody could see what I had done.

I totally agree that one should avoid monolithic construction, which
is why subroutines & etc were invented, so we could string apps
together. But we had one major app doing many things, in a delegated
fashion -- just like today's word processors, spreadsheets and
databases.

You see, whenever you write a script in bash or whatever to pipe data
from some input through various apps to some output, you are making a
wrapper program using subroutines to segment the processing -- exactly
as I learnt to do. The only difference is that your script is not a
tightly integrated application.

So the question remains. With the advances in structured programming,
the development of C and its derivatives, and better understanding of
workflow and information processing -- given the raw power of
computers -- why cannot an app be written to do many things, AND do
them all "very well"?

Quote:
> After a while this mentality will grow on you and you will see its
> advantages and wonder why not all systems are done like this.
> One day you will sit down at a windows computer and find your self
> wishing you could do something that is just not possible on windows.

Ahhhh... I do that anyway! One day, in the distant future, it will
be possible to have more than three apps open simultaneously in
Windows _without_ one of them (usually the M$ app) causing a memory
fault! Unfortunately, not only can I not afford to hold my breath, it
probably won't happen in my lifetime.

Gordon.

Very Computer

Is Linux serious -- or just a serious toy?

Is Linux serious -- or just a serious toy?

Is Linux serious -- or just a serious toy?

Is Linux serious -- or just a serious toy?

Is Linux serious -- or just a serious toy?

Is Linux serious -- or just a serious toy?

Is Linux serious -- or just a serious toy?

Is Linux serious -- or just a serious toy?

Is Linux serious -- or just a serious toy?

Is Linux serious -- or just a serious toy?

Is Linux serious -- or just a serious toy?

Is Linux serious -- or just a serious toy?

Is Linux serious -- or just a serious toy?

Is Linux serious -- or just a serious toy?

Is Linux serious -- or just a serious toy?

Is Linux serious -- or just a serious toy?