«

In article <>, Mxsmanic
<> wrote:

> > OK, would "GNU/Linux system" suit you better?
>
> No. There's one Windows, one Mac OS, and ten thousand Linux distributions. I
> prefer to have a single version of the OS.

actually there are many versions of windows and mac os.

win xp, vista, win7, win8 plus all of the service packs, as well as os
x 10.5, 10.6, 10.7, 10.8 plus all of the incremental updates.

> > MAC security is roughly as good - MS, sadly, trails in that area.
>
> Windows NT is the most secure mass-market desktop OS available.

troll.

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 21:28:48 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

> ray writes:
>
>> OK, would "GNU/Linux system" suit you better?
>
> No. There's one Windows, one Mac OS, and ten thousand Linux
> distributions. I prefer to have a single version of the OS.

Sure. Then what are Win7 starter, Win7 home versions, win7 pro versions,
etc.

There are not ten thousand Linux distributions. According to
distrowatch.com, there are about 300. But you don't have to use all of
them or even try all of them. In our house, we use one distribution on
all six computers.

>
>> Not true. There are arguably more applications for Linux systems than
>> anything else - for any given need there are generally several
>> applications to choose from. It is true that there are not many
>> commercial applications.
>
> There's virtually nothing useful on Linux. There are millions of cottage
> applications for Windows that don't exist for any other platform.
>
>> I did not claim that Linux security was any better - I simply said it
>> was unsurpassed - which is true.
>
> Lots and lots of operating systems had security better than Linux, even
> before Linux existed. That includes Windows NT.

Right. That's why they need all the malware protection, bsod decoders,
etc.

>
>> MAC security is roughly as good - MS, sadly, trails in that area.
>
> Windows NT is the most secure mass-market desktop OS available.

Sure it is. It's also completely outdated.

In article <>, Floyd L. Davidson
<> wrote:

> Linux (Unix) systems have another clear advantage over
> either Windows or Mac, because the others go to extreme
> efforts to hid everything from the user,

that's actually a *huge* advantage because most users don't need to see
what goes on underneath

> and therefore
> almost all that can be done by most users is what the
> original designers/programmers choose to make available.

wrong. if someone needs to get under the hood, they can, and most apps
are very flexible in what they let you do. the limit is often not the
app, but the user.

> Linux systems still follow the original UNIX in concept,
> and provide a *toolbox* to the user.

that concept is outdated.

users want results, not a box of tools to string together.

In article <>, Alan Browne
<> wrote:

> My experience with Open/LibreOffice is horrid results with Word document
> formatting all over the place, mangled spreadsheet cell sizes, fonts
> lines and presentations that don't follow format and animations.
>
> This comes to light when you send a document to someone and they open it
> with their MS app and everything has gone sideways tangent to a 13
> dimension manifold with sauerkraut and moon rocks.
>
> Crap wot!

no kidding.

openoffice is fine for simple stuff like a one page letter. for complex
documents, forget it.

if you are gong to exchange files with the rest of the world who uses
microsoft office, you need the real thing.

Mxsmanic <> wrote:
> nospam writes:

>> false. unix is more secure than windows.

> I've looked at the source code for both. Windows is way, way ahead. It still
> has security features that have not been exposed in the user interface, mainly
> because users would be overwhelmed.

That surprises me, because I thought the differences in security were
not a question of coded implementation but of design. Reading the code
would be an extremely tedious and obscure way of discovering the
design, especially of an operating system with its inherent
asynchrony.

--
Chris Malcolm

In article <>, Floyd L. Davidson
<> wrote:

> >> Linux (Unix) systems have another clear advantage over
> >> either Windows or Mac, because the others go to extreme
> >> efforts to hid everything from the user,
> >
> >that's actually a *huge* advantage because most users don't need to see
> >what goes on underneath
>
> "Underneath" is not the problem. I could care less
> about knowing what system calls are available from the
> kernel, for example.

i'm not talking about system calls in the kernel.

people want to use a computer to do work. they want to make movies,
edit photos, etc. they don't care what happens beyond that, nor do they
need to.

> The problem is that when you have a menu driven system,
> or one that is designed around icons, there is
> necessarily a limited set of choice available.

everything has limits.

non-gui apps also only give you a certain set of options. if what you
need is not there, tough.

> A lot of that goes back to MicroSoft having a single user
> single tasking model to start with.

not relevant anymore, and certainly not for macs.

> >> and therefore
> >> almost all that can be done by most users is what the
> >> original designers/programmers choose to make available.
> >
> >wrong. if someone needs to get under the hood, they can, and most apps
> >are very flexible in what they let you do. the limit is often not the
> >app, but the user.
>
> So says a guy who has no clue...

it's not me lacking the clue.

the fact you can't figure out how to do stuff in a gui is your problem,
not one of the system.

> >> Linux systems still follow the original UNIX in concept,
> >> and provide a *toolbox* to the user.
> >
> >that concept is outdated.
>
> Unless productivity is what you need from a computer.

people are *far* more productive with apps that do the dirty work for
them rather than fuss with stuff.

> >users want results, not a box of tools to string together.
>
> Certainly people who have no imagination will agree with
> you.

actually, people *with* imagination do.

it's the ones who can't think out of the box that think their way is
the only way.

In article <2012082715455135001-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> The problem I had when I moved from my G3, G4, G5 Macs to my current
> Intel Macs was, my old version of MS "Office for Mac" did not migrate.

which version? office v.x and 2004 will run on an intel mac in rosetta,
while 2008 will run natively, and what's really sad, slower than 2004
did in emulation.

In article <2012082716215516708-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> >> The problem I had when I moved from my G3, G4, G5 Macs to my current
> >> Intel Macs was, my old version of MS "Office for Mac" did not migrate.
> >
> > which version? office v.x and 2004 will run on an intel mac in rosetta,
> > while 2008 will run natively, and what's really sad, slower than 2004
> > did in emulation.
>
> MS "Office X" v. 10.0 2001 for PPC. it included "Word Mac" v. 10.1.6.
> It still works fine on my G4 PowerBook Pro relegated to use by my
> "step-daughter from Hell".

that's office v.x.

> It will not run on my current Intel Macs, Rosetta not withstanding.

which mac & system is that? i run office v.x on an intel mac with 10.6
without any problems. it migrated along with other powerpc apps.

v.x and 2004 won't run in lion or later because rosetta is gone.

if you upgraded from a g4/g5 mac to an intel mac with lion in one jump,
then yes it won't work but that's a huge upgrade and i'd think you
would have bought *something* else between 2005 and last year.

> That said, that issue is not one of life's big concerns for me in retirement.

fair enough.

In article <>, Alan Browne
<> wrote:

> >> The problem I had when I moved from my G3, G4, G5 Macs to my current
> >> Intel Macs was, my old version of MS "Office for Mac" did not migrate.
> >
> > which version? office v.x and 2004 will run on an intel mac in rosetta,
> > while 2008 will run natively, and what's really sad, slower than 2004
> > did in emulation.
>
> Give me an example where 2008 is slow.

the biggest difference for me is launch time. on my machine, excel v.x
launches in about 3-4 seconds, while 2008 takes something like 30
seconds, and that's on the *same* machine.

v.x is powerpc code running in emulation in rosetta and 2008 is native
intel code. you would think native code would be faster, but for some
reason it is not. the clock does not lie, and the difference is so big
that you don't even need a clock.

other stuff is also slower, but the difference is not as dramatic as a
ten-fold increase in launch time.

<http://www.mactalk.com.au/56/74617-o...our-mum-drivin
g.html>

<http://forums.macworld.com/index.php...008-man-is-it-
slow/>

In article <>, Floyd L. Davidson
<> wrote:

> >> >> Linux (Unix) systems have another clear advantage over
> >> >> either Windows or Mac, because the others go to extreme
> >> >> efforts to hid everything from the user,
> >> >
> >> >that's actually a *huge* advantage because most users don't need to see
> >> >what goes on underneath
> >>
> >> "Underneath" is not the problem. I could care less
> >> about knowing what system calls are available from the
> >> kernel, for example.
> >
> >i'm not talking about system calls in the kernel.
> >
> >people want to use a computer to do work. they want to make movies,
> >edit photos, etc. they don't care what happens beyond that, nor do they
> >need to.
>
> So you didn't say what you meant...

actually, i did.

> If they don't have the tools, they can't do the work.
> What you are advocating is a single set of large
> relatively non-configurable tools, only.

nope.

> Everyone has to
> chose one of the limited set of configurations, because
> there are no individual tools for subsets of the entire
> job, and there are configurations only for what the
> designers thought would be the useful combinations.

everyone has to choose something, yes, but the limitations you claim
are nowhere near what you make them out to be, if they're there at all.

i doubt very many people find photoshop to be limiting. many people
don't find photoshop elements, the consumer version with fewer features
than the full version, to be limiting.

> If your needs don't fit exactly the cookie cutter output,
> you can't do it.

photoshop, for example, is hardly a cookie cutter. it can do more than
what most people will ever want to do and can be configured in a
variety of ways, including scripting. nobody uses every single feature
in photoshop themselves, but every feature is used by *someone*.

if you can't do something with photoshop, it's not knowing how.

> >> The problem is that when you have a menu driven system,
> >> or one that is designed around icons, there is
> >> necessarily a limited set of choice available.
> >
> >everything has limits.
>
> And systems with fewer of them allow for more productivity.

obviously.

> >non-gui apps also only give you a certain set of options. if what you
> >need is not there, tough.
>
> It isn't a GUI problem. It's having a desktop, and for
> that matter an entire OS, based on use of icons only.
>
> Here's an example... If you invoke a editor (video,
> text, image, sound, whatever) from an icon it necessarily
> has to have a single specific directory where it looks
> for data files. You can't separate your data by project,
> only by program.

i don't know where you get that idea. launching an app from an icon
does not restrict you to a specific directory or any set of features
for that matter.

the app may start at an obvious location, such as 'pictures' in your
home folder, but that's not the only place files have to be. it can
work with files anywhere, even on the network.

and note that you can launch the same app via command line if you
really want to.

> Hence the only text and image editors that can be used
> together in a project are a pair of integrated editors
> that have the same base directory.

where in the world did you get that idea????

> Either that or you necessarily mix every project in the
> same directory...

also wrong.

> >> A lot of that goes back to MicroSoft having a single user
> >> single tasking model to start with.
> >
> >not relevant anymore, and certainly not for macs.
>
> It certainly is for Windows! The whole way of thinking
> is based on a single user single tasking system. Put your
> XYZ program in this directory, put your ABC program in a
> different directory. Heaven help you when a project needs
> to use both...

again wrong.

where the programs are makes no difference. they can work with files
just about anywhere.

> >> So says a guy who has no clue...
> >
> >it's not me lacking the clue.
>
> You repeatedly demonstrate a gross level of cluelessness.

interesting comment, given how much you have said so far that's wrong.

> >the fact you can't figure out how to do stuff in a gui is your problem,
> >not one of the system.
>
> See what I mean. That is a clueless comment.

how is that clueless?

above, you say you can't do things in a gui, the same things which i
can easily do in a gui, therefore i can only conclude you don't know
how to do them.

> I use a GUI that is vastly more complex that yours, no
> doubt. I switch between 15 different GUI desktops, and
> there are 9 different windows that show up in all of
> them. The desktop that I'm using to type this article
> in has 3 other windows open, one of which is the XEmacs
> editor (a GUI program that in itself is probably more
> complex than your window manager).

that's wonderful. that's also an extreme.

do you really think a setup like that is going to make the typical user
more productive??

> The fact that I *also* make judicious use of command
> line based xterms running a shell is an indication that
> I use whatever works best.

no, it only means that's the solution with which you are most familiar.

and it's not either/or. on a mac, just launch terminal and use whatever
shell commands you want. you can even script gui apps from the shell.

> See how clueless you imagination is when you try to
> fabricate "facts" about other people?

yes, i can see that. do you plan to continue or will you stop?