Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distro for the general computer/device market.

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 14:40:28 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote
(in article <cb0ot4-lb9.ln1@dragon.myth>):
[color=blue]
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 14:04:55 -0600,
> Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote:[color=green]
>> Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Like anyone listens to someone like you.[/color]
>>
>> ah, but they do. they have run away from linux in recent years...
>>[color=darkred]
>>>> chances are now zero that they can't rally around and heed this advice.
>>>> they are mostly young kids with no skills outside of playing games or
>>>> hacking.
>>>
>>> Lie.[/color]
>>
>> show me ONE professional level program that runs on Linux? bet you can't.
>>[/color]
>
> Maya 2008, from autodesk
> <http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=7639522>[/color]

Good point.[color=blue]
>
> but the 64 bit version doesn't run on OSX, only on Linux and some
> MSWindows versions.
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFHCVJLd90bcYOAWPYRApgTAJ9XtOa6226qEXQKGxX+dD+KiCuwBACfehcW
> DkaZFyUnnfN+62wmE3ZhHn0=
> =fLRB
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>[/color]

George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> did eloquently scribble:[color=blue]
> Could a company like, for instance, Adobe, release a single shrink-wrapped
> fully compiled version of its applications marked "For Linux" and have it
> install as easily on ALL modern Linux distributions as it now does on PCs or
> Macs?[/color]

Seems to work fine for google earth and opera.
[color=blue]
> But that begs another question. If all the
> distros are that alike, why haven't any of the major software publishers
> released any of their applications on Linux?.[/color]

Oracle isn't a major software publisher now?
--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
| [email]spike1@freenet.co.uk[/email] |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| in |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|

George Graves wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 12:45:12 -0700, Stephan Rose wrote
> (in article <n9adnYZAK7jVqpTanZ2dneKdnZzinZ2d@giganews.com>):
>[color=green]
>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 13:16:30 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> [email]ultimauw@hotmail.com[/email] wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Agreed. Linux is the classic case of "too many cooks in the kitchen."
>>>>>
>>>>> If Linux were going to succeed in the consumer market it would have
>>>>> done so already. Now it's simply too-little, too-late as Linux has
>>>>> absolutely zero mindset with the consumer. OSX and Vista will
>>>>> continue to dominate.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Maybe there is still hope yet, but it requires the developers to get
>>>> together, set aside their egos, and all work on a single master distro.
>>>> If they did that, Linux would beat the pants off of Vista and OSX
>>>> guaranteed, and perhaps chart the course for the whole computer (and
>>>> computer-device) industry away from the lockdown-drm-crippled dreck
>>>> that it's been floating in for a while now.
>>>
>>> yes, and I've told them SEVERAL times they need to concentrate on just
>>> one or two distros and let the others die off. they just can't compete
>>> until they take this advice.
>>>
>>> chances are now zero that they can't rally around and heed this advice.
>>> they are mostly young kids with no skills outside of playing games or
>>> hacking.
>>>
>>> linux had a chance during the late 90's but blew it. now OSX is the main
>>> UNIX distro by a 7 to 1 margin... all because Apple knew about design
>>> and understood high quality computing.
>>>
>>> linux is a total mess now, and it's very sad. I thought at least they
>>> would have 1% of the market, but it still hovers around .76 percent. Not
>>> good when Apple has jumped to 6.4% in recent months.
>>>[/color]
>>
>> I find it funny how everyone takes the statistic of one irrelevant web-
>> server of any actual value.
>>
>> That said, what do you think is happening? The efforts *are*
>> consolidated.
>>
>> All distributions use the same kernel.
>> The same desktop managers.
>> The same browers.
>> The same software.
>> The same e-mail software.
>> The same newsreaders.
>> The same everything.
>>
>> The only main significant difference between any distributions is what
>> they come with out of the box. That's largely irrelevant.
>>
>> So how is this not consolidated?
>>
>> So redhat has different package management than ubuntu does. Big friggin
>> deal....they still use the same software and kernel.
>>
>>[/color]
>
> Could a company like, for instance, Adobe, release a single shrink-wrapped
> fully compiled version of its applications marked "For Linux" and have it
> install as easily on ALL modern Linux distributions as it now does on PCs
> or Macs?[/color]

Yes, provided the distros are for the same processor family
The libc and other supporting stuff are basically at the same level on
modern distros
[color=blue]
> If so, then you're right. But that begs another question. If all
> the distros are that alike, why haven't any of the major software
> publishers released any of their applications on Linux?.[/color]

Because they have to port first?
--
Linux: Because rebooting is for adding new hardware

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 13:01:04 -0700, Oxford wrote
(in article
<colalovesmacs-6157E7.14004908102007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net>):
[color=blue]
> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Maybe there is still hope yet, but it requires the developers to get
>>> together, set aside their egos, and all work on a single master
>>> distro. If they did that, Linux would beat the pants off of Vista and
>>> OSX guaranteed, and perhaps chart the course for the whole computer
>>> (and computer-device) industry away from the lockdown-drm-crippled
>>> dreck that it's been floating in for a while now.
>>>[/color]
>>
>> I doubt if it would "beat the pants off" of either OSX or Vista. Even
>> though
>> Linux is better than Windows "anything" MS is too entrenched in the
>> computer
>> world, and OSX is simply too sophisticated to be displaced by an OS like
>> Linux.
>>
>> But what a single distro would do would be to stimulate acceptance in the
>> "shrink-wrap" software world to the point where they could release
>> pre-compiled versions of their software for that one distro for one
>> platform
>> (PC compatible) that would be relatively safe. Not wanting to open their
>> source-code to prying eyes is, IMHO, the single biggest reason why
>> companies
>> like Adobe et al don't port their software to Linux is because of the need
>> for that software to be compiled by the user due to the non-standard
>> configurations of various distributions of Linux on a myriad of
>> platforms/processors.
>>
>> Once this happened, the MS hegemony would truly start to fall apart as
>> there
>> would be fewer and fewer reasons not to replace Windows with Linux.[/color]
>
> good post George!
>
> i really don't think anyone is "against" Linux, its just their own
> internal "perceived strength" is really their "greatest weakness" when
> they come up against very well organized, funded UNIX distros like OSX.
>
> they need to learn to focus on 1 or 2 distros, then let the others die
> off, this diluted effort has killed Linux so far, but it doesn't have to
> be.
>
> Later this month they are going to get hit with another massive round of
> a better UNIX that is incredibly "organized". I feel sorry for them in a
> way, but if they can't match this, they can't compete:
>
> [url]http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/features/[/url]
>
> -[/color]

Well, platform gnostics are like any other true believers. They are blind to
their platform weaknesses and indeed assert that what others see as
weaknesses They see as strengths. I.E, "Sure, Linux doesn't have Photoshop
but we lave The GIMP and it's free while Photoshop costs six hundred bucks."
We've all done it, and the point is not to denigrate Linux or its
enthusiasts, but to show them that as true believers, they simply can't see
their platform as enthusiasts of other platforms see it. It's like an
Orthodox Jew waltzing into a Southern Baptist church and spouting off about
the weaknesses he sees in the Baptist faith. The people in the church are
simply not going to be very receptive to his comments.

George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Could a company like, for instance, Adobe, release a single shrink-wrapped
> fully compiled version of its applications marked "For Linux" and have it
> install as easily on ALL modern Linux distributions as it now does on PCs or
> Macs? If so, then you're right. But that begs another question. If all the
> distros are that alike, why haven't any of the major software publishers
> released any of their applications on Linux?.[/color]

from my understanding Linux simply doesn't have a modern enough
foundation to support high level apps like PhotoShop, InDesign, etc.

they'd have to do a lot of software kludges to make a Linux versions
work correctly and since the Linux market is so tiny compared to the Mac
one in the creative fields they simply can't afford do it.

Same for all other professional level apps, like Office, iLife, AutoCad,
etc. Their approach is too fractured and hard to support is the other
issue. Wish it was different, but unless they "focus", they will never
be a serious contender.

[email]spike1@freenet.co.uk[/email] wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Could a company like, for instance, Adobe, release a single shrink-wrapped
> > fully compiled version of its applications marked "For Linux" and have it
> > install as easily on ALL modern Linux distributions as it now does on PCs
> > or
> > Macs?[/color]
>
> Seems to work fine for google earth and opera.[/color]

java based apps and a few open source apps are fine. but when you get
into "professional" level code, Linux doesn't work without a LOT of
extra fine tuning.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > But that begs another question. If all the
> > distros are that alike, why haven't any of the major software publishers
> > released any of their applications on Linux?.[/color]
>
> Oracle isn't a major software publisher now?[/color]

Oracle works on anything, linux is nothing special there.

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:05:21 -0600, Oxtard wrote:
[color=blue]
> java based apps and a few open source apps are fine. but when you get
> into "professional" level code, Linux doesn't work without a LOT of
> extra fine tuning.[/color]

OTOH, I don't have to wonder how long before Apple starts bricking
computers, too. :)

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:01:04 -0600, Oxford wrote:

[color=blue]
> i really don't think anyone is "against" Linux, its just their own
> internal "perceived strength" is really their "greatest weakness" when
> they come up against very well organized, funded UNIX distros like OSX.
>
> they need to learn to focus on 1 or 2 distros, then let the others die[/color]

Good luck with getting that to happen, moron.
[color=blue]
> off, this diluted effort has killed Linux so far, but it doesn't have to
> be.
>
> Later this month they are going to get hit with another massive round of
> a better UNIX that is incredibly "organized". I feel sorry for them in a
> way, but if they can't match this, they can't compete:
>
> [url]http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/features/[/url][/color]

Yawn. Never learn, do you, Oxford>

--
Kier

George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Well, platform gnostics are like any other true believers. They are blind to
> their platform weaknesses and indeed assert that what others see as
> weaknesses They see as strengths. I.E, "Sure, Linux doesn't have Photoshop
> but we lave The GIMP and it's free while Photoshop costs six hundred bucks."
> We've all done it, and the point is not to denigrate Linux or its
> enthusiasts, but to show them that as true believers, they simply can't see
> their platform as enthusiasts of other platforms see it. It's like an
> Orthodox Jew waltzing into a Southern Baptist church and spouting off about
> the weaknesses he sees in the Baptist faith. The people in the church are
> simply not going to be very receptive to his comments.[/color]

yes, and while agree for the most part... linux users forget they are
mainly isolated to the poorer sections of northwest europe. and never
have been able to spread beyond that region. nobody in the states uses
linux, nobody in japan, canada, etc.

photoshop is technically free, you just need to learn where to look. so
the idea of gimp replacing it is just mythical thinking.

i've learned to have no bias regarding platforms, i just search for the
best and be done with it. i think if linux users will do the same
they'll switch on over to OSX since there really isn't a better OS at
this time.

it's not about "faith" it's about being practical and currently OSX owns
the unix market.

yakety yak <who.me@nospam.diespammers.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
> > java based apps and a few open source apps are fine. but when you get
> > into "professional" level code, Linux doesn't work without a LOT of
> > extra fine tuning.[/color]
>
> OTOH, I don't have to wonder how long before Apple starts bricking
> computers, too. :)[/color]

they'd first have to start bricking anything. so far they haven't
bricked any of their products in 31 years.

sounds like you are reading false reports designed by Nokia to trick the
uneducated.

In article <0001HW.C32FE3110EA79800F0182648@news.comcast.net>,
George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >>>> chances are now zero that they can't rally around and heed this
> >>>> advice. they are mostly young kids with no skills outside of playing
> >>>> games or hacking.
> >>>
> >>> Lie.
> >>
> >> show me ONE professional level program that runs on Linux? bet you
> >> can't.[/color]
> >
> > Open Office[/color]
>
> Sorry. Open Office is open source, that doesn't count as a professional level
> program. I'm not saying anything against OpenOffice, mind you, but a
> pro-level program is the likes of Photoshop, Word, AutoCAD, Premier, Final
> Cut Pro, Sound Forge, Word, Excel, FileMaker Pro, etc.[/color]

correct. OpenOffice really can't be considered "professional level".

It's more of a "hack" or "project" needing several years worth of
development. When you run it, it's like looking back into 1991.

We want REAL apps, like MS Office 2008 or super high end like iWork.

[url]http://www.apple.com/iwork/[/url]

[url]http://www.macoffice2008.com/[/url]

linux has none of these.

-

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Oxford
<colalovesmacs@mac.com>
wrote
on Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:03:10 -0600
<colalovesmacs-591FE9.15031008102007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net>:[color=blue]
> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Could a company like, for instance, Adobe, release a single shrink-wrapped
>> fully compiled version of its applications marked "For Linux" and have it
>> install as easily on ALL modern Linux distributions as it now does on PCs or
>> Macs? If so, then you're right. But that begs another question. If all the
>> distros are that alike, why haven't any of the major software publishers
>> released any of their applications on Linux?.[/color]
>
> from my understanding Linux simply doesn't have a modern enough
> foundation to support high level apps like PhotoShop, InDesign, etc.[/color]

Does Windows? Windows has Photoshop, InDesign, etc.
I'd like to know what "modern" means in this context,
specifically what is in the foundation of a "modern OS".
For example, one of the selling points of the old Mac
OS was its Resource Fork; the general idea was to use a
hierarchical typed container system, which could contain
code, pictures, audio, and stylized text. Windows also
has a Resource Fork, though it's not nearly as widely used
in its software; Windows tends to like to put things in
its Registry, instead.

And of course most operating systems have a Graphical User
Interface; Windows in particular has Win32 and Mac OSX has
something which I can't properly identify, apart from the
fact that the X Window System (X11) is part of its makeup.
(Mac OS had Quickdraw, but I'm not sure what layer that
was -- API or drivers?)

For its part Linux has none of a Resource Fork, a Registry,
nor a GUI [+]. Clearly, this makes Linux ancient in
design and philosophy -- except that Unix, which is more
or less Linux's precursor, was object-oriented before the
concept even *existed*, though later revs took out some of
the objectuivity (if that's a word) by disallowing open()
on a directory, for example. However, one can still open()
a symbolic link (which results, as it turns out, in opening
the file to which the link points). AFAIK, Mac OS did not
have this concept (not sure it really needed it, but it
does come in handy), and fortunately Mac OSX inherited it
from its Mach/Unix kernel. The Amiga, before it died, had
a concept very akin to a Unix "hard link", a concept rarely
used (though still available) in Unix or Linux today.[*]
Windows has a very befuddled implementation of shortcuts.

And of course X11 carefully implemented client versus
server communications, which effectively made abstract
tokens out of pretty much everything except an XImage,
which was a client-local datastructure. Windows tried;
it has things such as a "device-independent bitmap",
or DIB, but that was somewhat later on, if memory serves.
[color=blue]
>
> they'd have to do a lot of software kludges to make a Linux versions
> work correctly and since the Linux market is so tiny compared to the Mac
> one in the creative fields they simply can't afford do it.[/color]

Or test it. It is a problem; until we mimic the entire
functionality list of both Windows and Mac OS/Mac OSX, we
probably won't be able to get good high-quality software
on Linux.

(Spot the flaw.)
[color=blue]
>
> Same for all other professional level apps, like Office, iLife, AutoCad,
> etc. Their approach is too fractured and hard to support is the other
> issue. Wish it was different, but unless they "focus", they will never
> be a serious contender.[/color]

And what, precisely, should Linux (or a Linux distro, more
properly) focus on?

[+] the GUI in most distros is implemented using a mixture
of Linux for the very base support such as framebuffers
and KGI, the X server, and user-level libraries such
as Qt and Gtk. Utility programs are also available,
which gives one KDE and Gnome -- the entire enchilada,
as it were.
[*] in a soft link, an entry points to another entry by
name; that entry can easily be changed. In a hard
link, an entry points to an *object* (identified by
inode), and once made, a hardlink is indistinguishable
from any other reference to that object. In effect,
one has two or more entries for the same object
-- a fact reflected in the link count of the
stat()/lstat()/fstat() call. (Since directories all
contain '.' and '..', the link count for a directory
can be any number greater than or equal to 2, and
depends on the number of directories immediately below.)

In other words:

(create file a)
ln a b
rm a

is indistinguishable from

(create file b)

as far as other tools are concerned, after this
sequence of instructions is done. In a symlink
(ln -s a b above) deleting a would result in a
broken symlink; it is still possible to do a create
through that symlink under certain conditions, but
it points to no object prior to that creation.

For its part the Amiga implementation was asymmetrical,
unlike the Unix one, which presumably led to some
interesting quirks. Part of that asymmetry was because
the Amiga did not have inodes as such, and therefore
could not implement the symmetric variant.

--
#191, [email]ewill3@earthlink.net[/email]
Windows. When it absolutely, positively, has to crash.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:07:14 -0600, Oxford wrote:
[color=blue]
> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Well, platform gnostics are like any other true believers. They are blind to
>> their platform weaknesses and indeed assert that what others see as
>> weaknesses They see as strengths. I.E, "Sure, Linux doesn't have Photoshop
>> but we lave The GIMP and it's free while Photoshop costs six hundred bucks."
>> We've all done it, and the point is not to denigrate Linux or its
>> enthusiasts, but to show them that as true believers, they simply can't see
>> their platform as enthusiasts of other platforms see it. It's like an
>> Orthodox Jew waltzing into a Southern Baptist church and spouting off about
>> the weaknesses he sees in the Baptist faith. The people in the church are
>> simply not going to be very receptive to his comments.[/color]
>
> yes, and while agree for the most part... linux users forget they are
> mainly isolated to the poorer sections of northwest europe. and never
> have been able to spread beyond that region. nobody in the states uses
> linux, nobody in japan, canada, etc.[/color]

Where do you get *that* incredibly dumb idea? You must have pulled it out
of your arse.
[color=blue]
>
> photoshop is technically free, you just need to learn where to look. so[/color]

'Technically free' - in other words, you recommend that people steal it.
We Linux users have no need to be thieves.
[color=blue]
> the idea of gimp replacing it is just mythical thinking.
>
> i've learned to have no bias regarding platforms, i just search for the
> best and be done with it. i think if linux users will do the same
> they'll switch on over to OSX since there really isn't a better OS at
> this time.[/color]

Bull****. You're incredibly biased against Linux.
[color=blue]
>
> it's not about "faith" it's about being practical and currently OSX owns
> the unix market.[/color]

Bull****.

--
Kier

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:17:44 -0600, Oxford wrote:
[color=blue]
> correct. OpenOffice really can't be considered "professional level".
>
> It's more of a "hack" or "project" needing several years worth of
> development. When you run it, it's like looking back into 1991.[/color]

Bull****. Stop lying, Oxford.

--
Kier

In article
<colalovesmacs-FE4F41.16174408102007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> We want REAL apps, like MS Office 2008 or super high end like iWork.[/color]

Um, you have that backwards. MS office is the high end. iWork is
definitely low to mid end.

Bob Campbell

Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
> > i really don't think anyone is "against" Linux, its just their own
> > internal "perceived strength" is really their "greatest weakness" when
> > they come up against very well organized, funded UNIX distros like OSX.
> >
> > they need to learn to focus on 1 or 2 distros, then let the others die[/color]
>
> Good luck with getting that to happen, moron.[/color]

so you are you talking to yourself, or admitting I'm correct with that
comment?

kier, you know I want the best for the linux movement, but I've clearly
seen that it has stalled, so just trying to help you and other linux
users see the clear light.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > off, this diluted effort has killed Linux so far, but it doesn't have to
> > be.
> >
> > Later this month they are going to get hit with another massive round of
> > a better UNIX that is incredibly "organized". I feel sorry for them in a
> > way, but if they can't match this, they can't compete:
> >
> > [url]http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/features/[/url][/color]
>
> Yawn. Never learn, do you, Oxford>[/color]

Ah, OSX is now 7 times larger than Linux's installed base, so that means
I've learned quite a bit, while you have been sent back to school to
learn more.

The biggest event in the history of UNIX is about to happen, where will
you be when it does?

[url]http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=10951[/url]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:17:44 -0600, Oxford wrote:
[color=blue]
> In article <0001HW.C32FE3110EA79800F0182648@news.comcast.net>,
> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >>>> chances are now zero that they can't rally around and heed this
>> >>>> advice. they are mostly young kids with no skills outside of
>> >>>> playing games or hacking.
>> >>>
>> >>> Lie.
>> >>
>> >> show me ONE professional level program that runs on Linux? bet you
>> >> can't.
>> >
>> > Open Office[/color]
>>
>> Sorry. Open Office is open source, that doesn't count as a professional
>> level program. I'm not saying anything against OpenOffice, mind you,
>> but a pro-level program is the likes of Photoshop, Word, AutoCAD,
>> Premier, Final Cut Pro, Sound Forge, Word, Excel, FileMaker Pro, etc.[/color]
>
> correct. OpenOffice really can't be considered "professional level".[/color]

You're a lying ass.
[color=blue]
>
> It's more of a "hack" or "project" needing several years worth of
> development. When you run it, it's like looking back into 1991.[/color]

It is a good Office suite.
[color=blue]
>
> We want REAL apps, like MS Office 2008 or super high end like iWork.[/color]

HAH Hah HAHHA ahhah HAH ahahA haa
[color=blue]
>
> [url]http://www.apple.com/iwork/[/url]
>
> [url]http://www.macoffice2008.com/[/url]
>
> linux has none of these.
>
> -[/color]
"Linux" doesn't need MacOffice. We have Open Office.




--
Rick

"Bob Campbell" <bob@bob.bob> wrote in message
news:bob-ED5DC8.18425908102007@sn-indi.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...[color=blue]
> In article
> <colalovesmacs-FE4F41.16174408102007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net>,
> Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> We want REAL apps, like MS Office 2008 or super high end like iWork.[/color]
>
> Um, you have that backwards. MS office is the high end. iWork is
> definitely low to mid end.
>
> Bob Campbell[/color]

iWork 08 is not low end when you are talking to a bunch of Linux dweebs.
It is far more advanced than ANY Linux program out there.

Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> did eloquently scribble:[color=blue]
> correct. OpenOffice really can't be considered "professional level".[/color]
[color=blue]
> It's more of a "hack" or "project" needing several years worth of
> development. When you run it, it's like looking back into 1991.[/color]
[color=blue]
> We want REAL apps, like MS Office 2008 or super high end like iWork.[/color]
[color=blue]
> [url]http://www.apple.com/iwork/[/url][/color]
[color=blue]
> [url]http://www.macoffice2008.com/[/url][/color]
[color=blue]
> linux has none of these.[/color]

Bull****.
I already posted my nominations to trounce your argument.
I notice you conveniently ignored those because they made you look like the
utter twat you are.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| [email]spike1@freenet.co.uk[/email] | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> did eloquently scribble:[color=blue]
> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Could a company like, for instance, Adobe, release a single shrink-wrapped
>> fully compiled version of its applications marked "For Linux" and have it
>> install as easily on ALL modern Linux distributions as it now does on PCs or
>> Macs? If so, then you're right. But that begs another question. If all the
>> distros are that alike, why haven't any of the major software publishers
>> released any of their applications on Linux?.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> from my understanding Linux simply doesn't have a modern enough
> foundation to support high level apps like PhotoShop, InDesign, etc.[/color]

Bull****.
[color=blue]
> they'd have to do a lot of software kludges to make a Linux versions
> work correctly and since the Linux market is so tiny compared to the Mac
> one in the creative fields they simply can't afford do it.[/color]

Bull****
[color=blue]
> Same for all other professional level apps, like Office, iLife, AutoCad,
> etc. Their approach is too fractured and hard to support is the other
> issue. Wish it was different, but unless they "focus", they will never
> be a serious contender.[/color]

Bull****

I wonder when oxford will begin to talk about something he has knowledge
of... Obviously, in this newsgroup, the answer is "Never"
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| [email]spike1@freenet.co.uk[/email] | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------