Re: What makes a mac better?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ray, Aug 26, 2012.

  1. ray

    nospam Guest

    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.
     
    nospam, Aug 27, 2012
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. ray

    ray Guest

    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 It's also completely outdated.
     
    ray, Aug 27, 2012
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. ray

    nospam Guest

    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.
     
    nospam, Aug 27, 2012
    #23
  4. ray

    nospam Guest

    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.
     
    nospam, Aug 27, 2012
    #24
  5. 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
     
    Chris Malcolm, Aug 27, 2012
    #25
  6. ray

    nospam Guest

    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.
     
    nospam, Aug 27, 2012
    #26
  7. ray

    nospam Guest

    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.
     
    nospam, Aug 27, 2012
    #27
  8. ray

    nospam Guest

    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.
     
    nospam, Aug 28, 2012
    #28
  9. ray

    nospam Guest

    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-office-mac-2008-slow-your-mum-drivin
    g.html>

    <http://forums.macworld.com/index.php?/topic/97528-office-2008-man-is-it-
    slow/>
     
    nospam, Aug 28, 2012
    #29
  10. ray

    nospam Guest

    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?
     
    nospam, Aug 28, 2012
    #30
  11. ray

    nospam Guest

    In article <2012082717572015668-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.

    >
    > Reading off the disc, "Office X" not "office v.x". What the Hell is that?
    > From the "Info" on my G4 PowerBook Pro 17'', "MS Office X" v10.0.0 2001.


    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office_v._X>
    Microsoft Office v. X was released in 2001 and was the first version
    of Microsoft Office for the Mac OS X platform.

    <http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=20272>
    Microsoft Office v. X for Mac Security Update (10.1.6)

    > Before that I was using "Word 98" which did not migrate from OS 7.6 to OS X.


    that might have worked in classic.

    > >> 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.

    >
    > I have not made the move to "Lion" (I hate the pretentious "kitty"
    > names). I am quite happy with OSX 10.6.8 on my iMac 11,2 running a 3.6
    > GHz i5 with 8 GB RAM.


    i haven't moved to lion either.

    > ...and, yes I have tried running "Office X" under Rosetta, without success.


    what happens?

    v.x runs great for me on 10.6. i mostly use excel but occasionally use
    word when i have no other option.
     
    nospam, Aug 28, 2012
    #31
  12. ray

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > > Amen. But WINE is not an emulator. It is an application interface - big
    > > difference.

    >
    > It's more code than Windows by itself.


    wrong.

    it's less.
     
    nospam, Aug 29, 2012
    #32
  13. ray

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > > and *which* unix did you look at, assuming you actually did?

    >
    > Mostly FreeBSD in recent years.


    you snipped the part about windows source code.

    how did you get the source code to windows so you could look at it?

    or have you beed caught in yet another lie?

    > > specifics?

    >
    > Windows has extremely fine-grained permissions, as compared to the nearly
    > useless system of UNIX. I can grant a specific user on Windows permission to
    > traverse a directory in order to look at subdirectories, without giving him
    > permission to do anything else in the directory. Likewise, there are create,
    > delete, modify, traverse, permissions modify, and other permissions, as I
    > recall (it has been a few years) ... plus others. Some are not even exposed in
    > user interfaces yet, although you can reach them through APIs.


    go read up on acls.
     
    nospam, Aug 29, 2012
    #33
  14. ray

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > And it depends on how it is written. Windows NT and its descendants are very
    > cleanly written internally, whereas Windows 95 and its predecessors were
    > written by eighth-graders (or at least it looks that way from the code).


    once again, where did you get the source code to windows?
     
    nospam, Aug 29, 2012
    #34
  15. ray

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > > actually there are many versions of windows and mac os.

    >
    > There is no such thing as a Windows or Mac "distribution."


    there are many, many versions of windows and mac os.
     
    nospam, Aug 29, 2012
    #35
  16. ray

    ray Guest

    On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 21:19:54 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

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

    >
    > That's all the average user wants to do. Anything beyond that is a
    > source of frustration.
    >
    >> Linux systems still follow the original UNIX in concept, and provide a
    >> *toolbox* to the user.

    >
    > Linux isn't a descendant of UNIX. It's a clone. And the only reason it
    > has become widespread is that it's free, whereas most systems with UNIX
    > in the name are not (although there are some direct descendants that
    > are).


    Linux is not a Unix clone. It is a work-alike that was written from
    scratch - possibly some borrowed from Minix.

    There is now a whole family of free Unix variants.
     
    ray, Aug 29, 2012
    #36
  17. ray

    ray Guest

    On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 21:29:29 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

    > ray writes:
    >
    >> Sure it is. It's also completely outdated.

    >
    > All subsequent versions of Windows are evolved from the NT code base.


    evolved from != is
     
    ray, Aug 29, 2012
    #37
  18. ray

    ray Guest

    On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:15:59 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

    > On 2012.08.29 18:01 , Russell D. wrote:
    >> On 08/26/2012 10:30 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
    >>> On 2012.08.26 11:51 , ray wrote:

    >>
    >>
    >>> Linux has been the NEXT THING since about 2000 - at that point in time
    >>> it had "arrived" as a desktop environment for the masses. It was
    >>> going to replace Windows outright and possibly turn off Apple's
    >>> lights.
    >>>
    >>> Sure Wilbur.
    >>>
    >>> As a home/office desktop environment it absolutely sucks. And that is
    >>> why only geeks use it for such.

    >>
    >> Now that is so dumb it's dumb. My wife's laptop dual boots to Windows
    >> or Linux. She almost never chooses Windows. She much prefers the Linux
    >> (in this case KDE, with Linux you have many choices) desktop. She hates
    >> Word because Word sucks, always as, always will. She doesn't use
    >> spreadsheets. She is about as ungeeky as they come. Believe me.

    >
    > Well my colleagues, customers and suppliers use MS Word/Excel as I do.
    > Exchanging documents that were edited on Open/Libre-Office results in
    > misformatting, pagination errors, table screwups galore. Then someone
    > makes the mistake of fixing a document and returning/forwarding it and
    > all hell breaks completely loose.
    >
    > It is not practical in a world with a lot of documents being exchanged.


    Exactly why the whole world should move to OO. I strive for 100%
    interchangeability and OO reads MS a lot better than the other way
    around. Virtually anyone can install and use OO and it won't cost them a
    brass farthing.
     
    ray, Aug 30, 2012
    #38
  19. Alan Browne <> wrote:

    > Linux has been the NEXT THING since about 2000 - at that point in time
    > it had "arrived" as a desktop environment for the masses. It was going
    > to replace Windows outright and possibly turn off Apple's lights.


    > Sure Wilbur.


    Nice strawman.
    Really nice.
    Now tear it down yourself.


    > As a home/office desktop environment it absolutely sucks. And that is
    > why only geeks use it for such.


    Professional photographers only use chemical sensors!


    > For fucks sake it is FREE! ... and only has a couple percent of the
    > desktop market. If something is so ridiculously good and free, everone
    > should be using it.


    Yes, they should!


    > Yet people pay MS' ridiculous premium prices for MS Windows (and pay for
    > malware protection too) and eschew Linux.


    Vendor lock in, FUD, wrong advertizing etc. ... it works ...
    The people also could switch to Apple. Wonder why they don't.


    > It has utterly failed to take on the home/office after a 10+ years assault.


    Mac has failed that for much longer. So?

    Nice that you agree that Linux is very strong on the server
    maket, though. *Unlike* Apple.


    >, The lack of Adobe suite software and MS Office for Linux are part of the
    > issue. (Don't even bring up LibreOffice - the biggest pile of horse
    > dung on the planet or for God's sake "The Gimp").


    LibreOffice.
    The Gimp.

    Feel better now?

    The real problenm is that the MS Office crap is especially made
    to be incompatible to everything. Even to itself (try opening an
    newer Office's file with an older one ... even if there's nothing
    in there that the older Office couldn't handle). That's just to
    lock people into Windows and Office, not because it can't be done
    any better.

    On the other hand it's a great carrier for viruses and other
    malware, so it's an ideal combination.


    > Mountain Lion (upgrade) is $20. And that one (downloaded update)
    > payment applies to ALL the Macs in a house. Got 15 intel Macs? Fine
    > load 'em all up. And there are no idiotic feature levels like Windows
    > (except the OS X server, an additional $20).


    $20? How nice. How much more percent is that compared to $0
    for a whole town?


    > Linux is for industrial, embedded, databases, super-computing and so on.
    > It is horrid as a desktop home/office machine. Yes I've been there.
    > Useless.


    I see. Everyone is you, and because you didn't find everything
    just like you were used to, it's useless. Interesting logic.


    > Your "stability and security unsurpassed" claim is specious too. Indeed
    > with the encrypted volume scheme on a Mac the hard disk is effectively
    > scrambled at all times that the key is not loaded. That's secure.


    That's as secure as a locked steel door. Without making sure
    the windows are closed and the roller shutters are down and
    the roof can't be cut through and the floor can't be burrowed
    through ... and that noone can be tricked to open the door
    from the inside or the key duplicated and so on and so on ...
    it's pretty worthless.

    How does the Mac handle the evil maid attack here?

    BTW, HDD encryption is available with Linux just as well.

    > As
    > to malware prevention Linux's sole advantage is that it is not targetted
    > as much as Windows.


    That's an interesting claim. Can you prove it?
    And how about OS X?


    > Linux (like OS X) depends on the user to keep the barbarians out of the
    > gate.


    s/user/administrator/


    > A well written attack with a dash of social engineering will get
    > malware in there. But I guess malware writers consider Linux to be too
    > lean, too savvy and especially too poor to bother attacking.


    Especially Google is too poor to bother attacking.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 31, 2012
    #39
  20. Alan Browne <> wrote:
    > On 2012.08.27 11:25 , ray wrote:


    >> Funny, I don't recall saying that. The point is that MS has a virtual
    >> monopoly on reasonably priced, readily available systems.


    > MS is not reasonably priced at all.


    Compared to OS X, yes.
    Comparing "PC" hardware + Windows to Mac hardware + OS X,
    however ...

    > 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!


    What does happen when you load a LibreOffice file in a LibreOffice
    format with LibreOffice?
    What happens when you load a MS-Office file in a MS-Office format
    with MS-Office?

    Works, right?

    What happens when you load a LibreOffice file in a LibreOffice
    format with MS-Office?
    What happens when you load a MS-Office file in a MS-Office format
    with LibreOffice?

    What does that tell you?


    > Since 2000 or so these are the Linux installs I have run, each in
    > service for a couple months to a few years on various machines.


    > Mandrake (1 version)
    > Fedora (n versions)
    > Ubuntu (2 versions - 1 on PC one under VMWare Fusion on the Mac)
    > Debian (on my Raspberry Pi - for some embeddable projects)


    So WHEN did you get your Pi?


    > Fact is that Linux has failed in its onslaught against Windows largely
    > for the reasons mentioned.


    "onslaught"?
    "reasons"?
    "mentioned"?


    > You're right about that. But the shrill cry of the Linux fans in the
    > 2000's has died down as they've realized Linux will not and cannot take
    > over from Windows. In the meantime Mac sales have blossomed (halo
    > effect to be sure).


    Nice shrill cry from you.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 31, 2012
    #40
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. nospam

    Re: What makes a mac better?

    nospam, Aug 26, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    304
    nospam
    Aug 26, 2012
  2. nospam

    Re: What makes a mac better?

    nospam, Aug 26, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    312
    nospam
    Aug 26, 2012
  3. nospam

    Re: What makes a mac better?

    nospam, Aug 26, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    325
    nospam
    Aug 26, 2012
  4. tony cooper

    Re: What makes a mac better?

    tony cooper, Aug 26, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    109
    Views:
    1,258
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Aug 31, 2012
  5. nospam

    Re: What makes a mac better?

    nospam, Aug 27, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    285
    nospam
    Aug 27, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page