MESSAGE
| DATE | 2008-03-28 |
| FROM | ronny abraham
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Re: Linux ready for the home desktop?
|
I cannot understand why you even feel the need to justify this.
The whole concept of Open Source being the way to go is that Open
Source is simply superior to closed source. That being said, if open
source software cannot deliver a better product then it is a joke. I
do not accept the rationale that open source must be used for moral
reasons. That is the sort of intellectual garbage used by people who
are more concerned with their egos than they are with the material
condition of their brothers.
The only possible rationale for working with open source where it is
not superior is that a project will need time and effort to get to
that stage.
If it can deliver a better product then you wouldn't bother with
closed source alternatives.
I use open source both because in many instances it IS better, and
because I believe it enables developers to more easily earn a
livelihood. I also believe that it is ultimately a benefit to the
common man. Both because companies that use it can reduce their
costs, leading to cheaper products, more jobs, etc. And because it
provides alternatives to those of us in poorer countries who do not
have the financial means to use commercial products (and don't feel
like resorting to software piracy). That doesn't mean that I think
that an honest company should go bankrupt just to satisfy someone's
"manifesto". And you know exactly what I'm referring to.
-ron
On Mar 28, 2008, at 6:21 PM, Paul Robert Marino wrote:
> well back to the root of this conversation a little the file system
> check is not a constraint of the kernel its actually a setting that is
> configured when the file system is created and it can be altered after
> the fact (/sbin/tune2fs -c 0 /dev/hd... )however I would not suggest
> it for ext3. if you try XFS on open suse (I'm not sure if Ubuntu
> supports XFS) instead of ext3 your system would not do this.
>
> however be fore warned as Rubin found out the hard way there is no
> undelete on XFS so if you delete a file its gone. this is because xfs
> doesn't really have inodes under the hood only meta-data and a
> journal.
>
> and the truth of the matter is if you want to taint your free system
> with commercial closed source windows software to run on Linux its not
> that hard its actually rather easy and I know several people who do
> it. here are some links
>
> for windows applications that don't require directx
> http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxlinux/
>
> for windows programs that do require directx (video games)
> http://www.transgaming.com/products/cedega/
>
> I my self use Cedega for video games I know some people would ague
> with me over doing that but i look at games in the same way as i look
> at movies. their both entertainment media and just like with a movie
> on a DVD people are not buying the DVD because they want a DVD, they
> buy a movie on a DVD because they want to see the movie and that just
> happens to be the media its available on. besides im told that "World
> Of Warcraft" states very clearly on the bottom of the screen when its
> loading that it was compiled by gcc.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Ronny Abraham
> wrote:
>> I think what it comes down to commercial quality apps being
>> available.
>> If Adobe CS3 was available for Linux, I would probably chuck the
>> Mac
>> part of my dual boot.
>>
>> Then again, if Adobe did that, it would effectively kill the Gimp
>> project. So I suppose it's the nature of trade-offs. Same thing
>> with
>> Quicken and GunCash.
>>
>> -ron
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 28, 2008, at 8:38 AM, Mark Simko wrote:
>>
>> It's been true for eons that if you repeat an untruth often
>> enough and
>> long enough, and it goes unchallenged, that it becomes the accepted
>> truth. I think the Linux desktop is affected by just such an altered
>> reality.
>>
>> I've been using a Linux desktop for well over a year, and it is
>> now also
>> my favored OS on dual boot devices such as my laptops.
>>
>> The Linux desktop is:
>>
>> Faster
>> Has more features
>> Is more reliable
>> Requires much less maintenance
>> Stays current with much less effort
>> Costs less to have and maintain
>> Takes much less time to maintain
>>
>> I wish to point out that Vista, even after being available
>> commercially
>> for a year, is still not ready for the desktop. That the only other
>> desktop OS available from M$ is sunsetting on its availability is
>> going
>> to be very difficult to those that are standardized on M$
>> products. I
>> think we'll begin to see a significant migration to Linux,
>> although I
>> see an even greater migration to Mac, which has already begun.
>>
>> That said, Linux could benefit from some work being done on certain
>> things. For instance, there is a great need for a commercial grade
>> accounting program for Linux. GnuCash needs much more work, and
>> the port
>> to Postgres needs polishing. Basing GnuCash on XML is a problem
>> on many
>> levels. GnuCash also needs to have a built in year end closing, the
>> ability to create customer statements, and the ability to see
>> network
>> drives.
>>
>> Even with the few warts, Linux is much better than what M$ has to
>> offer
>> right now. Linuxland should be more attractive to commercial
>> entities
>> than it is. Right now, in M$land, if you have a successful
>> product, M$
>> will either buy you out and perhaps kill the product, or try to
>> crush
>> you by giving away an inferior imitation with it's next service
>> pack.
>> Perhaps wider adoption of Linux will make it more attractive to the
>> commercial entities.
>>
>> signing off
>> (spell and grammar checked by yours truly)
>> Mark
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 06:05 -0400, Michael L. Richardson wrote:
>> Please stop saying that Linux is not ready for the desktop. 1.
>> Every
>> time you say it,it turns people off from GNU/Linux OS's. 2. If
>> you wait
>> for GNU/Linux OS's to be perfect they never will be. 3. Are there
>> any
>> OS's out there that don't have problems?
>>
>> *****
>> Check this out:
>> www.globalabundanceprogram.com/mlr52
>> *****
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ***************************************
>> Check this out:
>> www.globalabundanceprogram.com/mlr52
>> ***************************************
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Mark Simko wrote:
>> That is one reason why Linux is more ready than Windoze.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 12:55 -0400, Ruben Safir wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 06:31:55AM -0400, Scott Ehrlich wrote:
>>
>> I introduced my parents to Linux [Ubuntu Gutsy] at their place,
>> and they
>> tried it for a few days. It was still too new for them, so they
>> opted
>> back for Windows.
>>
>> I was considering re-introducing it to them at some other point,
>> until a
>> few days later, my Linux box (Ubuntu) presented me with a
>> reminder why
>> Windows and Mac are still desktop-ready, but Linux isn't - the
>> obligatory
>> filesystem check if the machine has been rebooted at least 30 times.
>>
>> This leads me to the question of can this check be turned off? I
>> know it
>> is a kernel function, and not distro-based. If it can be turned
>> off, what
>> are the consequences?
>>
>> How do the [net/free/open]BSD families handle checks, since their
>> kernels
>> are different, I think.
>>
>> Thanks for feedback.
>>
>>
>> If GNU/Linux is not ready for the desktop, what else can a person
>> use?
>> Seems to me nothing else is better, or even usable.
>>
>> Ruben
>>
>>
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> --
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>> believed to be clean.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss-at-blu.org
>> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
|
|
