I've been following these Linux threads with some interest because I
personally feel that Linux is going to, at some point, overtake
Microsoft and I also believe that it will be a Linux/Apple world with
Microsoft a way distant 3rd.

What I fail to understand however, is why Linux users seem to be so
nasty, obscene and self righteous. Some of the comments made to the
fine folks in rec.audio.pro are just uncalled for.
Is this what Linux advocacy is about?
You people seem to strut your operating system all over the place
claiming how superior it is to other systems, yet when you are called
to produce any kind of proof, you go scurrying about calling people
trolls, changing the subject, going on the offensive and so forth.
It seems that the Linux ehthusiast's bag of tricks is stuffed to the
brim with various techniques designed to deflect the shrapnel that
flies your way.
That's all well and good, but to put it simply it just makes most of
you look like a bunch of pablum puking babies.
Most of the discussions in rec.audio.pro revolved around making audio
at the professional level using Linux.
Who cares if I can alter the source code?
Who cares if there are 300 different versions of Linux?
Who even has the time to play with an evaluate them?

We need a tool to do a particular job and spending $500.00 for a piece
of software is an investment. I want to USE the noise reduction plugin
for SoundForge, I don't want to design one nor do I have the skills to
do such.
For 99 percent of the rec.audio.pro community, having the source code
means nothing and having 300 different versions of Linux just clouds
the issue.

Can Linux do what Samplitude/Sonar/Protools etc can do?
Doubtful, but it can come close and for some close is good enough.
For others, they need to use the heavy guns.
However, the Linux enthusiasts had better start learning how to deal
with laypeople who are not programmers, but may be experts in THEIR
chosen field.
Doctors running a practice are interested in healing people not sorting
thorough source code and certainly not using programs that make it
difficult to share their data with their collegues or insurance
companies (OpenOffice for example, nice program but everyone on earth
is using Micorsoft Office).

If I can leave the Linux people with one parting thought, it is to stop
acting so dammed arrogant and start realizing that not everyone is a
geek whose life revolves around an operating system that few outside of
the Linux world even know about.
When you post in groups that have nothing to do with Linux, please
leave your arrogance at the door.

Thank you for your consideration.

Jackson Pyle

In article .com,
wrote:
[blah blah blah]

Why do you keep posting under different names, through open proxies?

--
--Tim Smith

writes:

I've been following these Linux threads with some interest because I
personally feel that Linux is going to, at some point, overtake
Microsoft and I also believe that it will be a Linux/Apple world with
Microsoft a way distant 3rd.

What I fail to understand however, is why Linux users seem to be so
nasty, obscene and self righteous. Some of the comments made to the
fine folks in rec.audio.pro are just uncalled for.

They are not, just as not everyone who is an advocate for MS, for USA or
for anything else is. A few are.

Is this what Linux advocacy is about?

Of course not. And you must not have read much to ask this question. There
are lots of people who spend a lot of time and effort to help people.

You people seem to strut your operating system all over the place
claiming how superior it is to other systems, yet when you are called
to produce any kind of proof, you go scurrying about calling people
trolls, changing the subject, going on the offensive and so forth.

????

It seems that the Linux ehthusiast's bag of tricks is stuffed to the
brim with various techniques designed to deflect the shrapnel that
flies your way.

And why exactly are you posting this? Do you honestly believe it will
contribute to civilised discussion? "strut" "claiming" "scurrying", "bag of
tricks" This is supposed to be an example of how a discussion should be
carried on?


That's all well and good, but to put it simply it just makes most of
you look like a bunch of pablum puking babies.

"pablum Puking babies"? Again, a well considered, rational phrase, intended
to further discussion I assume.

Most of the discussions in rec.audio.pro revolved around making audio
at the professional level using Linux.

And how do any of the phrases you have just used do that?


Who cares if I can alter the source code?
Who cares if there are 300 different versions of Linux?
Who even has the time to play with an evaluate them?

We need a tool to do a particular job and spending $500.00 for a piece
of software is an investment. I want to USE the noise reduction plugin
for SoundForge, I don't want to design one nor do I have the skills to
do such.
For 99 percent of the rec.audio.pro community, having the source code
means nothing and having 300 different versions of Linux just clouds
the issue.

Fine. Some people do one thing, some another.


Can Linux do what Samplitude/Sonar/Protools etc can do?

Who knows. Why do you not tell us what it is you want to do, and ask if
there are tools under Linux that do them. No, None of those programs is
ported to linux and there is nothing in Linux that is EXACTLY the same as
them.

But then they are not exactly the same as each other either. What is it you
actually want to do as you certainly do NOT use everything they do.


Doubtful, but it can come close and for some close is good enough.
For others, they need to use the heavy guns.

No. They do not need "heavy guns" they need programs which do what they
want or need to do.


However, the Linux enthusiasts had better start learning how to deal
with laypeople who are not programmers, but may be experts in THEIR
chosen field.

So?
The advantage of open source is that if you find a program which does most
of what you need, you may well find some 15 year old kid in your
neighborhood who can alter it so it does exactly what you want. Spend the
$500 bucks on him rather than on MS or whoever.


Doctors running a practice are interested in healing people not sorting
thorough source code and certainly not using programs that make it
difficult to share their data with their collegues or insurance
companies (OpenOffice for example, nice program but everyone on earth
is using Micorsoft Office).

Which is incompatible with itself. I just watched someone who had developed
a Powerpoint presentation on a Mac try to show it on a PC. It was a
completely garbled mess.



If I can leave the Linux people with one parting thought, it is to stop
acting so dammed arrogant and start realizing that not everyone is a
geek whose life revolves around an operating system that few outside of
the Linux world even know about.

Actually many know about it, just not very much.
It sounds to me like your problem is more jealousy rather than anything
else. "Maybe those Linux guys are really right and I am too ignorant to
recognize it".

If you want to know what id doable in Linux, it is best to ask nicely and
not go calling people who know what is doable names.



When you post in groups that have nothing to do with Linux, please
leave your arrogance at the door.

From you post it seems that this is right, since there is enough
obnoxiousness inside to go around.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy wrote:

Can Linux do what Samplitude/Sonar/Protools etc can do?
Doubtful, but it can come close and for some close is good enough.
For others, they need to use the heavy guns.

Audio geeks are the grunts in their industry -- an industry that revolves
around fame and money, yet they remain forever anonymous and unrewarded.
Britney makes the big bucks, though. I wonder if she's ever heard of
Pro Tools. It's probably more like, "Hey, tell that nerd to fix my
lip syncing. I'm trying to stomp around like a horse, and he's making
me trip."

wrote:

What I fail to understand however, is why Linux users seem to be so
nasty, obscene and self righteous. Some of the comments made to the
fine folks in rec.audio.pro are just uncalled for.

Rest assured that the majority of Linux users (like me) are not like
that. Nor can we be bothered to particpate in all the mud slinging...

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

wrote in message
oups.com...
I've been following these Linux threads with some interest because I
personally feel that Linux is going to, at some point, overtake
Microsoft and I also believe that it will be a Linux/Apple world with
Microsoft a way distant 3rd.


Color My World... seems to fit your optimistic hope.
It is not just about marketing, but about the ability to meet the needs of
the broadest customer base. )

As time goes on I realize
Just what you mean to me
And now, now that you're near
Promise your love
That I've waited to share
And dreams of our moments together
Color my world with hope of loving you

Thanks,
Steve

wrote:
I've been following these Linux threads with some interest because I
personally feel that Linux is going to, at some point, overtake
Microsoft and I also believe that it will be a Linux/Apple world with
Microsoft a way distant 3rd.

What I fail to understand however, is why Linux users seem to be so
nasty, obscene and self righteous.

This is COLA. Worst of the Worst.

Some of the comments made to the
fine folks in rec.audio.pro are just uncalled for.

The fine folks? Um...yeah.... Thats why they kepp trolling and
crossposting over here. Your credibility just about hit zero.

Is this what Linux advocacy is about?
You people seem to strut your operating system all over the place
claiming how superior it is to other systems, yet when you are called
to produce any kind of proof, you go scurrying about calling people
trolls, changing the subject, going on the offensive and so forth.
It seems that the Linux ehthusiast's bag of tricks is stuffed to the
brim with various techniques designed to deflect the shrapnel that
flies your way.

Huh? Proof? Look at uptimes of years or more. Solid security
records. Your problems with applications have nothing to do with the
OS.

That's all well and good, but to put it simply it just makes most of
you look like a bunch of pablum puking babies.
Most of the discussions in rec.audio.pro revolved around making audio
at the professional level using Linux.
Who cares if I can alter the source code?
Who cares if there are 300 different versions of Linux?
Who even has the time to play with an evaluate them?

Then don't waste your time with Linux. More importantly don't waste
our time.



We need a tool to do a particular job and spending $500.00 for a piece
of software is an investment. I want to USE the noise reduction plugin
for SoundForge, I don't want to design one nor do I have the skills to
do such.
For 99 percent of the rec.audio.pro community, having the source code
means nothing and having 300 different versions of Linux just clouds
the issue.

Then why are you even talking about using Linux? Use a Mac. Now go
away.


Can Linux do what Samplitude/Sonar/Protools etc can do?

No OS can do that. Applications do that. Something idiots never seem
to get.

Doubtful, but it can come close and for some close is good enough.
For others, they need to use the heavy guns.
However, the Linux enthusiasts had better start learning how to deal
with laypeople who are not programmers, but may be experts in THEIR
chosen field.

Why? Linux is made by the people working on it for themselves. That
is the whole point of open source. You have the ability to join in and
help work on a project to make sure it meets your personal needs.
Don't like it? Then don't use it.

Doctors running a practice are interested in healing people not sorting
thorough source code and certainly not using programs that make it
difficult to share their data with their collegues or insurance
companies (OpenOffice for example, nice program but everyone on earth
is using Micorsoft Office).

I'm not using MS Office, so i guess not everyone on earth is using it.


If I can leave the Linux people with one parting thought, it is to stop
acting so dammed arrogant and start realizing that not everyone is a
geek whose life revolves around an operating system that few outside of
the Linux world even know about.

Then don't use it. Stop wasting our time with your drivel, you can't
even distiguish between an OS and applications.

wrote:
I've been following these Linux threads with some interest because I
personally feel that Linux is going to, at some point, overtake
Microsoft and I also believe that it will be a Linux/Apple world with
Microsoft a way distant 3rd.

What I fail to understand however, is why Linux users seem to be so
nasty, obscene and self righteous. Some of the comments made to the
fine folks in rec.audio.pro are just uncalled for.
Is this what Linux advocacy is about?

snip

yes, even linux users have a few rude morons who need to shoot their
mouth's off.
since there are less of them than windows users...they feel they need to
be nastier.
all you need to do is killfile them.

of course i don't mind a good arguement now and then...
once in a while it ends up that a seemingly rude poster
is just joking a bit.

either way it's not really worth worrying about.

begin virus.txt.scr Dana wrote:

snip

Hi flatfish

Or

Aftab Singh, allison_hunt1969, Anna Banger, anonymous, Archie Watermann,
Baba Booey, Babu Singh, bill.gates.loves.me, bison, Bjarne Jensen,
BklynBoy, Boyce Mabri, Buster, Charles LeGrand, Charlie, Choppers McGee,
Christine Abernathy, Claire Lynn, Collie Entragion, dbx_boy, Deadpenguin,
Elliot Zimmermann, Fawn Lebowitz, flatfish+++, foamy, Gary Stewart,
gilligan, Greg Finnigan, Greg Laplante, Hans Kimm, Heather, Heather69,
hepcat, Ishmeal Hafizi, itchy balls, Ivan Mctavish, IvanaB, Jeff Szarka,
juke_joint, kaptain kaput, kathy_krantz, Les Turner, Lilly, Lindy, Lisa
Shavas, long_tong_ling, Lukumi Babalu Aye, Major Mynor, McSwain, Moses,
, nate_mcspook, okto_pussy, Paddy McCrockett,
Patricia, Peter Gluckman, Phillip Cornwall, phoung quoak, pickle_pete,
Poopy Pants McGee, Quimby, Richie O'Toole, Robert Strunk, rothstein_ivan,
Sammy, Saul Goldblatt, Schlomo Smykowski, Sharon Hubbasland, Sean, Sean
Fitzhenry, Sean Macpherson, Sewer Rat, sewer_clown, Spammy_Davis,
spanny_davis, Stephan Simonsen, Stephen, Stephen Townshend, SuckyB, SunnyB,
Susan Wong, Suzie Wong, Swampee, The Beaver, Thorsten, Toby Rastus
Roosovelt III, Tori Wassermann, Tracee, trailerpark, Trina Swallows, Walter
Bubniak, Wang Mycock, Whizzer, Wilbur J, Willy Wong, Winnie Septos,Wobbles
and zyklon_C.
Plus many, many, many more.
--
Windows was created to keep stupid people away from UNIX."
-- Tom Christiansen

The Linux Advocates bitter wanna-be's.
Plain and simple.

They do nothing, produce nothing, and live off
the work of others.

Dana writes:




On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 00:30:49 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

begin virus.txt.scr Dana wrote:

Is there some reason why you are attempting to post a virus to newsgroups?

He is not. That text triggers a bug in the Windows email software.

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 18:50:44 -0400, Dana wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 22:48:45 +0000, Unruh wrote:

Dana writes:




On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 00:30:49 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

begin virus.txt.scr Dana wrote:

Is there some reason why you are attempting to post a virus to newsgroups?

He is not. That text triggers a bug in the Windows email software.
Ok.
But why would anyone want to do that?
Seems silly to me.


It's a good demonstration of just how badly put together Microsoft's
software is. They've known about it for years and done nothing but tell
people, "don't do that."

Dana schrieb:

So what does it do?

It may enlighten you

All I could see was an attachment, which I assumed was a virus so I didn't
download it.

No, there was no attachment. There was just plain, normal text.
You might want to ask some Outlook Express newsgroup, how you
can circumvent that bug. One way is to use the "source" view of
the message.

Alexander Skwar
--
National security is in your hands - guard it well.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dana wrote:

It's a good demonstration of just how badly put together Microsoft's
software is. They've known about it for years and done nothing but
tell people, "don't do that."

So what does it do?

Nothing, really.

All I could see was an attachment, which I assumed was a virus so I
didn't download it.

You couldn't have, anyway. It's not an attachment. See this knowledge
base article for more information:

http://support.microsoft.com/default...en-us%3b265230

IMHO, not fixing such a trivial bug for so extremely long is nothing
short of showing contempt for their customers.

This bug, in connection with another bug that has since been fixed,
actually allowed any properly formatted Usenet message to crash OE when
you clicked on it. It's therefore not as harmless as it might seem at
first glance.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCojgEd1ZThqotgfgRAoj/AKC983aGAYws63rBpLneP6enCzS2QQCdFgQR
BhNIaAvxChlrYsvna3h9vWU=
=mEfi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe
Crow- these stupid head hunters want resumes in ms word format
Crow- can you write **** in tex and convert it to word?
Overfiend \converttoword{****}

Liam Slider writes:


It's a good demonstration of just how badly put together Microsoft's
software is. They've known about it for years and done nothing but tell
people, "don't do that."

Of course it affects ordinary users and does nothing to MS, and
furthermore, the user has no idea that he is being affected by a bug in MS
rather than due to the bad behaviour of some poster.
Ie it is not a terribly effective demonstration.

wrote:

Doctors running a practice are interested in healing people not sorting
thorough source code and certainly not using programs that make it
difficult to share their data with their collegues or insurance
companies (OpenOffice for example, nice program but everyone on earth
is using Micorsoft Office).

Not *everyone* uses M$ Office - the OpenOffice users for example.
Furthermore, if someone sends me a M$ office file, I can read it with
OpenOffice but they can't use M$ office to read an OpenOffice file. Does M$
office allow you to export documents as PDF file? OpenOffice does.

--
Mike

tab wrote:

The Linux Advocates bitter wanna-be's.
Plain and simple.

Wow, talk about bitter!


They do nothing, produce nothing,

Then where does the code comefrom?

and live off
the work of others.

Actually, I participate in beta testing, contribute money (and pizza) to
different projects, participate in installfests and administer Linux, that
is hardly living off the work of others. That is called contributing where
I can.

But the simple truth it, the "work of others" has voluntarily been
contributed in such a way that anyone can use it at no cost. If the people
that write to code have no problem with the end user using it for free and
the end user has no issues with using it for free, then just why should it
matter to TAB? The truth it, it is none of his business, it is between the
user and the developer. I think Tab should stop sticking his **** stained
nose where it does not belong.

Yo Mike,

Not *everyone* uses M$ Office - the OpenOffice users for example.

Absolutes like "everyone" and "never" are easy to shoot down... like
you just did. But the majority of people out there do use MS Office.
Not everyone, but most people do.


Furthermore, if someone sends me a M$ office file, I can read it with OpenOffice but they can't use M$ office to read an OpenOffice file.

This is the reality of how it must be done. Being the underdog trying
to unseat the king, OpenOffice must be able to read MS Office files.
Not being able to read .doc files would be a huge hurdle for OO users
simply because of how common .doc (and .xls...) files are. MS-Office
had to do the same thing when it was trying to establish itself. It had
to read WordPerfect documents and Lotus-123 Spreadsheets. Similarly
neither WordPerfect nor 123 could read MS-Office files at that time.


Does M$ office allow you to export documents as PDF file? OpenOffice does.

MS-Office does not have this ability. I don't see that happening
anytime down the road either. Doing so would be damaging to the
relationship they have with Adobe.

On Windows PDF export works at the printer driver level. You get (buy)
a special printer driver from Adobe and "print" to a PDF file. This way
any and all applications can generate PDF files. There are also a
number of free PDF print-drivers available as well. (I never use them
though... I just email .doc files.)

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 21:35:28 UTC, Tim Smith
wrote:

- In article .com,
- wrote:
- [blah blah blah]
-
- Why do you keep posting under different names, through open proxies?
-

Maybe mail.microsoft.com is down because of a virus.


Mark

--
From the eComStation of Mark Dodel

http://www.os2voice.org
Warpstock 2005, Hershey, PA, Oct 6-9, 2005 - http://www.warpstock.org

"Unruh" wrote in message
...
Liam Slider writes:


It's a good demonstration of just how badly put together Microsoft's
software is. They've known about it for years and done nothing but tell
people, "don't do that."

Of course it affects ordinary users and does nothing to MS, and
furthermore, the user has no idea that he is being affected by a bug in MS
rather than due to the bad behaviour of some poster.
Ie it is not a terribly effective demonstration.

Well it is a pretty good demonstration of Peter's mentality and adult
approach to matters as well as that of his followers.

Unruh wrote:

Liam Slider writes:


It's a good demonstration of just how badly put together Microsoft's
software is. They've known about it for years and done nothing but tell
people, "don't do that."

Of course it affects ordinary users and does nothing to MS, and
furthermore, the user has no idea that he is being affected by a bug in MS
rather than due to the bad behaviour of some poster.
Ie it is not a terribly effective demonstration.

It gets discussed enough that they soon learn. But the bottom line is, THERE
IS NOTHING WRONG WITH WHAT IS BEING DONE, PERIOD.

On Windows PDF export works at the printer driver level. You get (buy)
a special printer driver from Adobe and "print" to a PDF file. This way
any and all applications can generate PDF files. There are also a
number of free PDF print-drivers available as well. (I never use them
though... I just email .doc files.)


This is pretty close to how Linux does it too. Because all Linux
progams speak PS ghostscript does all the work translating into data the
printers understand. You can just print to file and translate to PDF
even if the application doesn't directly support it.

You can get ghostscript for Windows and I believe there is a way to set
it up to do what the Adobe printer thingy does. It is likely to be a
lot more work to set up, but also a lot cheaper.

wrote:
I've been following these Linux threads with some interest because I
personally feel that Linux is going to, at some point, overtake
Microsoft and I also believe that it will be a Linux/Apple world with
Microsoft a way distant 3rd.

If M$'s market share is below 50%, it will then die out within a few
days. There is no loyal window user -- everyone hates it!


What I fail to understand however, is why Linux users seem to be so
nasty, obscene and self righteous. Some of the comments made to the
fine folks in rec.audio.pro are just uncalled for.
Is this what Linux advocacy is about?
You people seem to strut your operating system all over the place
claiming how superior it is to other systems, yet when you are called
to produce any kind of proof, you go scurrying about calling people
trolls, changing the subject, going on the offensive and so forth.
It seems that the Linux ehthusiast's bag of tricks is stuffed to the
brim with various techniques designed to deflect the shrapnel that
flies your way.
That's all well and good, but to put it simply it just makes most of
you look like a bunch of pablum puking babies.
Most of the discussions in rec.audio.pro revolved around making audio
at the professional level using Linux.
Who cares if I can alter the source code?
Who cares if there are 300 different versions of Linux?
Who even has the time to play with an evaluate them?

We need a tool to do a particular job and spending $500.00 for a piece
of software is an investment. I want to USE the noise reduction plugin
for SoundForge, I don't want to design one nor do I have the skills to
do such.
For 99 percent of the rec.audio.pro community, having the source code
means nothing and having 300 different versions of Linux just clouds
the issue.

having source code means you're kept safe!

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 18:04:16 -0700, lqualig wrote:

snip

Furthermore, if someone sends me a M$ office file, I can read it with
OpenOffice but they can't use M$ office to read an OpenOffice file.

This is the reality of how it must be done. Being the underdog trying to
unseat the king, OpenOffice must be able to read MS Office files. Not
being able to read .doc files would be a huge hurdle for OO users simply
because of how common .doc (and .xls...) files are. MS-Office had to do
the same thing when it was trying to establish itself. It had to read
WordPerfect documents and Lotus-123 Spreadsheets. Similarly neither
WordPerfect nor 123 could read MS-Office files at that time.


Oh sure...that's why we lso read files for an old DOS version of
StarWriter...as well as Metafiles for OS/2. Spot the flaw in this
argument.


Does M$ office allow you to export documents as PDF file? OpenOffice
does.

MS-Office does not have this ability. I don't see that happening anytime
down the road either. Doing so would be damaging to the relationship
they have with Adobe.


Too bad. What about Flash? No flash integration either?


On Windows PDF export works at the printer driver level. You get (buy) a
special printer driver from Adobe and "print" to a PDF file. This way
any and all applications can generate PDF files. There are also a number
of free PDF print-drivers available as well. (I never use them though...
I just email .doc files.)

Yeah, works that way on Linux too really. *Any* app *can* do pdfs that way
on Linux, but with OO it's just built right into the menu to export as
PDF.

* * * Y o u r . S h e p h e r d . A q u i l a . D e u s . ( d 2 0 0 5 x
x , d 2 0 0 4 x x , d 2 0 0 3 x x , d 2 0 0 2 x x ) * * * wrote:
wrote:

having source code means you're kept safe!


Not unless you are actively looking at all the code you install and are
a secure programming expert. I don't, and I am not.

Since exploitable code is widely installed and used, obviously having
source code isn't a free security blanket. It does mean independant
review is available, and without source code this is just impossible,
but it doesn't guarantee security. For it to provide any security
benefit you also have to stay up on those independant reviews and pay
attention to your distro's updates.

Having source code available does bring a LOT of benefits, but I think
the security card is a little overplayed quite often.

wrote:
I've been following these Linux threads with some interest because I
personally feel that Linux is going to, at some point, overtake
Microsoft and I also believe that it will be a Linux/Apple world with
Microsoft a way distant 3rd.

What I fail to understand however, is why Linux users seem to be so
nasty, obscene and self righteous. Some of the comments made to the
fine folks in rec.audio.pro are just uncalled for.
Is this what Linux advocacy is about?

No Jackson, that is what people hiding behind their computers and
forgetting all about common courtesy and treating each other with
respect is about. It isn't just Linux users...it is common in the
Windows/Mac argument and I've seen in in Sony/JVC and other such
places. You'd think they were talking about Israel and the
Palestinians. I take that back - you'd think they WERE Israel and the
Palestinians.

Here's an article for all you unabashedly mannerless flamers who think
that anyone who has a different point of view is a stupid moronic
asshole or some derivative thereof:

Ground Rules for the Windows-Macintosh War by David Pogue of the New
York Times

Last week, I wrote about some of the changes Microsoft has in store for
the next version of Windows, which is slated for the end of 2006.
Interestingly, very few of you responded to that column, probably
because so much may change in the next 19 months.

But a few of you fired off diatribes about how I'm either a Microsoft
"shill" or an Apple "apologist" (or maybe it was the other way around).
It's not just me, either; it's a running sardonic joke among tech
columnists that you can't even USE the word "Apple" or "Microsoft"
without getting hate mail from somebody or other.

It's kind of amazing that various extremists could find the same column
too pro-Microsoft AND too pro-Apple. But hey--that's the nature of
ideological soldiers, whether they're in the conservative-liberal war,
the evolutionist-creationist war or the Hummer-Prius war.

The Mac-Windows war, though, is especially pointless, protracted, and
winnerless. There will always be people on each side who are every bit
as rabid and un-convincible as those in any other religious war.

Still, I'd like to suggest, as a starting point of civility, a few
pointers forparticipants in the O.S. war. Consider it one man's version
of, "Can't we all just get along?"

1. Hate something for its failings, not for its success.

It's totally fine to criticize something because of its flaws--to hate
Windows because it's bloated and cryptic, for example, or the iPod
because it's too easily scratched. But condemning something just
because it's the dominant product is just sour grapes. Arguments along
the lines of "I hate Bill Gates because he's rich" or "I hate the iPod
because everyone has one" add nothing to the dialogue.

2. No condemning something until you've tried it.

If everyone abided by this idea, about 95 percent of all the
Windows-Macintosh diatribes would evaporate overnight. But here it is:
If you haven't tried something, then you really have no basis to
comment.

3. Execution matters.

I'm so tired of reading discussions like this: Person A: "I love Mac OS
X Tiger! That Spotlight thing is so cool: press a keystroke, type a few
letters, and get an instantaneous listing every file, folder and
program containing that text."

Person B: "You pathetic loser! It's called hard-drive indexing, and
Windows XP has had it from Day One." Of course, the truth is that
Windows Indexing Service is to Spotlight as Thomas the Tank Engine is
to a bullet train. In Indexing Service, you can't search with a single
keystroke, the speed is nothing like Spotlight's, you can't search for
metadata (115 kinds of secondary information, like music genre,
Photoshop layer names, camera settings in digital photos, etc.), the
index isn't updated in real time as you create or delete documents, and
so on.

It goes the other way, too. "I love how Windows XP lets me delete or
rename files right in the Open or Save dialog boxes."

"What's the big deal? On the Mac, we just switch to the desktop and
delete or rename things there."

Sorry, but that's just not as good as being able to do it within the
dialog boxes.

The bottom line: How well something works and how elegantly it's been
built is also relevant to the "which is better" discussion.

4. Don't make grandiose purchasing plans by guessing on technology's
future.

This pointer is directed exclusively at Mac-bashers, particularly the
ones on the nation's boards of education.

If you decide to standardize on Windows across all schools, fine. But
make sure you have legitimate reasons like economics or the need to run
some Windows-only software suite.

"We want the kids to learn what they'll one day use in the business
world," however, is NOT a good reason. If you think you know what
anyone will be using in 2020 (when today's first graders will graduate
from college), you must have a heck of a magical crystal ball.

Truth is, by 2020, no operating system will look anything like it does
today. By 2020, we may well be using holography or tablets or glorified
cellphones instead of computers. Claiming to know what company's
operating system today's kids will be using when they graduate college,
or how that software will work, is nonsense.

5. Consider that they may have a point.

Neither side's members should be allowed to cover their ears and sing
"Blah blah blah!" at the top of their lungs when they hear an argument
that could rock their worldview. As long as the points are factual,
fair and substantive, you should consider them.

Remember: Apple and Microsoft routinely play O.S. leapfrog and
regularly adopt each other's feature ideas; eventually, aficionados in
both camps will enjoy similar enhancements to the computing experience.
As we carry on the never-ending debate, try to generate more light and
less heat. Only then can we discover what aspects of system software
are truly valuable, and thereby usher them into existence for everyone
to enjoy.

This week's Pogue's Posts blog.

Visit David Pogue on the Web at DavidPogue.com.

Love, Craig

(Much Gloved Applause)

On 6/4/05 5:20 PM, in article
,
" wrote:

I've been following these Linux threads with some interest because I
personally feel that Linux is going to, at some point, overtake
Microsoft and I also believe that it will be a Linux/Apple world with
Microsoft a way distant 3rd.

What I fail to understand however, is why Linux users seem to be so
nasty, obscene and self righteous.

(SNIP)
please leave your arrogance at the door.

Thank you for your consideration.

Jackson Pyle

TIM Unruh and robert failed to reply and then:

On 6/4/05 5:51 PM, in article
, "anahata"
wrote:

Rest assured that the majority of Linux users (like me) are not like
that. Nor can we be bothered to particpate in all the mud slinging...

Nice to hear from one of the (hopefully) Silent Majority.

thanks

In article .com,
wrote:
We need a tool to do a particular job and spending $500.00 for a piece
of software is an investment. I want to USE the noise reduction plugin
for SoundForge, I don't want to design one nor do I have the skills to
do such.
For 99 percent of the rec.audio.pro community, having the source code
means nothing and having 300 different versions of Linux just clouds
the issue.

Can Linux do what Samplitude/Sonar/Protools etc can do?
Doubtful, but it can come close and for some close is good enough.
For others, they need to use the heavy guns.
However, the Linux enthusiasts had better start learning how to deal
with laypeople who are not programmers, but may be experts in THEIR
chosen field.

Where it becomes interesting is when those experts in their chosen field
get involved with the development of Linux software. Take a look at
what's going on in the film industry--could the same thing happen in
audio?

In particular, consider The GIMP. It's an image manipulation program,
comparable to Photoshop in many ways, but not as polished. For people
working in print and most graphics arts, GIMP is not as good as
Photoshop. It can do most of the manipulations they need, but Photoshop
has better workflow, and Photoshop also wins on color matching support.

There is an offshoot of GIMP for film work, called Cinepaint. Several
major movie studios jumped in and had their programmers, on company
time, contribute to Cinepaint development. The result is that Cinepaint
is better than Photoshop for a lot of what they need to do in film work.

--
--Tim Smith

In article . com,
wrote:
Does M$ office allow you to export documents as PDF file? OpenOffice does.

MS-Office does not have this ability. I don't see that happening
anytime down the road either. Doing so would be damaging to the
relationship they have with Adobe.

Apple did it, and they have much more reason than Microsoft to not want
to annoy Adobe.

--
--Tim Smith

Mike wrote:

wrote:

Doctors running a practice are interested in healing people not sorting
thorough source code and certainly not using programs that make it
difficult to share their data with their collegues or insurance
companies (OpenOffice for example, nice program but everyone on earth
is using Micorsoft Office).

Not *everyone* uses M$ Office - the OpenOffice users for example.
Furthermore, if someone sends me a M$ office file, I can read it with
OpenOffice but they can't use M$ office to read an OpenOffice file. Does
M$
office allow you to export documents as PDF file? OpenOffice does.


What a useless debate !

I use neither. LaTeX is the only way to produce portable, professional
looking documents. Once you have tex source code, you can produce pdf, dvi,
ps, anything.

SSJVCmag wrote:
On 6/4/05 10:44 PM, in article
, "Liam Slider"
wrote:


Yeah, works that way on Linux too really. *Any* app *can* do pdfs that way
on Linux, but with OO it's just built right into the menu to export as
PDF.




OK kiddies, I'll assume that you're as conversant with email posting to
newsgroups as Linux and so you DO know how not only to kill the crosspost
headers but CHANGE the subject header for discussion of LINUX stuff that
really doesn't need to be floated over in other non-linux NGs.
It's quick! It's easy! do it Now!
Thanks!


multiple copies of same stupid post. By far worse than any purported
topic violation.

*plonk*

In article ,
Dana wrote:
So what does it do?
All I could see was an attachment, which I assumed was a virus so I didn't
download it.

There was no attachment. When Outlook Express sees a line that looks
like this (except I'll change spaces to underscores so as to not trigger
this for you):

begin__something_more_stuff

it *guesses* that it is the start of a uuencoded attachment of a file
named "something", and tries to interpret the rest of the file, down to
whatever the marker is that marks the end of uuencoded attachments (I
forget what that is), as the attachment.

So, basically, if an email message or usenet post contains a line that
starts with the word "begin" followed by two spaces, OE will tell you
there is an attachment.

Microsoft knows about this, and they even have a Knowledgebase article
discussing it, which offers the wonderful advice that you should ask
people not to start lines with "begin ". It took them longer to write
that article than it would have taken any programmer who has advanced
past the beginner stage to make the uuencode detection more robust and
fix this problem. They should just fix this stupid bug.

--
--Tim Smith

Dana wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 23:23:51 +0000, Peter Jensen wrote:


IMHO, not fixing such a trivial bug for so extremely long is nothing
short of showing contempt for their customers.

This bug, in connection with another bug that has since been fixed,
actually allowed any properly formatted Usenet message to crash OE when
you clicked on it. It's therefore not as harmless as it might seem at
first glance.

Ok, ic, but still what is the purpose of exploiting some bug in software
on purpose? What useful purpose does it serve?
These are discussion groups and I was under the impression the basic
concept was to discuss things, not screw up other persons news programs?
I have never seen this type of thing before so I am ignorant.
Is this a Linux thing, IOW some way for Linux users to exploit Windows
software?
The entire thing seems very silly to me.


There is nothing wrong with what they are doing. The format should not cause
any problems what so ever with ANYONE. We have a number of wintrolls in
this group claiming how great windows is. But how can they claim that
windows is so great when such a simple, silly, stupid bug goes unfixed for
YEARS? It is just an easy way of reminding the wintrolls what crappy bug
fix support they get from MS.

Dana wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 23:23:51 +0000, Peter Jensen wrote:


IMHO, not fixing such a trivial bug for so extremely long is nothing
short of showing contempt for their customers.

This bug, in connection with another bug that has since been fixed,
actually allowed any properly formatted Usenet message to crash OE when
you clicked on it. It's therefore not as harmless as it might seem at
first glance.

Ok, ic, but still what is the purpose of exploiting some bug in software
on purpose? What useful purpose does it serve?

This post is without the "begin" bug
I will tell what useful purpose the inclusion of that bug-trigger has.
It keeps OE users from viewing my posts. I think that OE users are actually
all way too stupid to correctly use a computer, and therefor have nothing
to say which could interest me in any way

So there. Live with it.

snip
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
If it starts working, we'll fix it. Pronto.

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

This post is without the "begin" bug
I will tell what useful purpose the inclusion of that bug-trigger has.
It keeps OE users from viewing my posts. I think that OE users are actually
all way too stupid to correctly use a computer, and therefor have nothing
to say which could interest me in any way

That! is pretty stupid.

Dana schrieb:
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 23:23:51 +0000, Peter Jensen wrote:


IMHO, not fixing such a trivial bug for so extremely long is nothing
short of showing contempt for their customers.

This bug, in connection with another bug that has since been fixed,
actually allowed any properly formatted Usenet message to crash OE when
you clicked on it. It's therefore not as harmless as it might seem at
first glance.

Ok, ic, but still what is the purpose of exploiting some bug in software
on purpose? What useful purpose does it serve?

It shows the user, what piece of crap he's using.

These are discussion groups and I was under the impression the basic
concept was to discuss things, not screw up other persons news programs?

Yep. Peter didn't "screw up" your program. Peter wrote perfectly
normal text that your program has chosen to interpret, although
it's quite clear, that the interpretation is wrong.

The entire thing seems very silly to me.

Yep.

Alexander Skwar
--
All Finagle Laws may be bypassed by learning the simple art of doing
without thinking.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 18:50:44 -0400,
Dana wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 22:48:45 +0000, Unruh wrote:

Dana writes:




On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 00:30:49 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

begin virus.txt.scr Dana wrote:

Is there some reason why you are attempting to post a virus to newsgroups?

He is not. That text triggers a bug in the Windows email software.
Ok.
But why would anyone want to do that?
Seems silly to me.


why would someone write a newsreader so poor, it can't handle a couple
of spaces? dunno, ask Microsoft.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCorHyd90bcYOAWPYRAqmwAKDYTRVuOP9J0If25/VSf9g3fq77/ACg8ZmV
w2NRjyBPlPpClkz60k2yoHo=
=FdUt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe
what you just said. --William F. Buckley, Jr.

wrote:

I've been following these Linux threads with some interest because I
personally feel that Linux is going to, at some point, overtake
Microsoft and I also believe that it will be a Linux/Apple world with
Microsoft a way distant 3rd.

What I fail to understand however, is why Linux users seem to be so
nasty, obscene and self righteous.

Because you're reading an *.advocacy newsgroup. It's deliberately
designed to shunt unwanted traffic away from better forums. People who
think they are promoting Linux by posting in *.advocacy groups are rank
amateurs at marketing. Real marketers do not waste their time in
cesspools like this. They construct disciplined marketing campaigns,
use real artists, and talk to real suits with real businesses and real
money on the line. None of these people do it here. If you want to
move and shake for Linux, in any kind of serious way, get off of Usenet
and go get a proper job to do that sort of thing. Microsoft has *many*
Technology Evangelists, it's a known and widely recognized job title. I
don't know what the equivalent in the Linux world is, or what the
funding model is. That's left as an exercise to the serious reader.

I would take Linux marketing discussions seriously if a moderated
comp.os.linux.marketing newsgroup existed. But that won't happen. Only
a smaller number of people can get real work of that sort done. It's
more of a mailing list sort of thing. I've gone through a rough ride in
the Python universe, trying to do that sort of thing. I'm sure you'll
find people who will say I wasn't useful in the slightest; well, neither
was Guido or the PSF, and I was hardly alone in that point of view.
Tried again with OCaml; it wasn't so rough, but nothing got done. After
that, I figured out the only thing I can market is myself. All I can do
is ship a game and make lotsa money at it. The only thing industries
respect is money. If you make the money, and then articulate what you
did, people will pay attention.

In case you're wondering, I'm here to "slum it" and waste my time. Some
people space out in front of the TV; I crank up c.o.l.a. Or play Freeciv.

--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

T-shirt that landed someone a job: "I'm not an asshole,
I'm a Shaper!" http://www.teams.org.uk/shaper.htm

On 2005-06-05, Noah Roberts wrote:
having source code means you're kept safe!


Not unless you are actively looking at all the code you install and are
a secure programming expert. I don't, and I am not.

But the trick is that you can. Sure, right now it doesn't matter (from
your perspective).

But, what happens when a project is canceled (take i.e. Win95 which
would be ideal for some lousy embedded touch screen device)? Nobody's
developing it and there are no bug patches anymore and you need/like
this piece of software.

What do you do? Get the source and hack it. Soon you find people that
thinks like you and need/like the sw. And the life goes on... No hair
pulling, swearing, cursing...

--
Uspjesne regije, tvrtke, muskarci i zene znaju da je uvijek bolje biti
prvorazredna verzija sebe nego drugorazredna verzija nekog drugog.