Re: OS X Leopard: A beautiful upgrade - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: OS X Leopard: A beautiful upgrade - Linux ; "Rick" stated in post 13i72agoior2tb9@news.supernews.com on 10/27/07 11:54 AM: > On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:08:40 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> "Rick" stated in post >> 13i6dsgi2g1hgdd@news.supernews.com on 10/27/07 6:05 AM: >> >>>>>> Well, research has repeatedly shown that too ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Re: OS X Leopard: A beautiful upgrade

  1. Re: OS X Leopard: A beautiful upgrade

    "Rick" stated in post 13i72agoior2tb9@news.supernews.com
    on 10/27/07 11:54 AM:

    > On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:08:40 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Rick" stated in post
    >> 13i6dsgi2g1hgdd@news.supernews.com on 10/27/07 6:05 AM:
    >>
    >>>>>> Well, research has repeatedly shown that too many options leads to
    >>>>>> less satisfaction.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Yes it has, but it hasn't defined what too many options is.
    >>>
    >>> You still have defined what 'to many options' is.

    >>
    >> In context: Enough where it leads to confusion or frustration for a
    >> large number of people. We are sure to disagree on details of that, but
    >> there is the general - and obvious - idea.

    >
    > What is a large number of people? There is a large number of people that
    > are lucky to be able to open email Should we design desktops for just
    > those people?


    For just those people? No. Of course not. By extension: Are you
    erroneously claiming that I am against virtual desktops?

    >> OS X and other Apple software generally handles this well: they have
    >> relatively few options for the general user and then more for advanced
    >> users. Firefox does this well, too.

    >
    > No, it doesn't. Firefox hides the configurations in a text file that is
    > far from intuitive.


    For the basic configurations most people would use you simply are not
    correct. Here, from Windows:



    Mac and Linux are much the same. There are, of course, advanced
    configurations the average user would never see.

    > People say the same of Gnome. It is easy to use, but configurable.


    Do you need screen shots and movies of configuration options in Gnome, or
    will you just trust me that they are there?

    > KDE is just as easy to use, and much easier to configure.


    KDE is more like MS... they both like to toss every imaginable setting at
    the user. So many options that many users end up not doing anything at
    all.. except KDE is even more extreme. Might be good for a very techy crowd
    or people who have a computer set up for them and never look at the
    configurations, but not for the general user.

    >> ...
    >>>>>> You repeatedly talked about KDE in terms of Ubuntu - a Gnome based
    >>>>>> desktop.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I have, and will continue to talk about KDE in relation to Ubuntu.
    >>>>> Yes, by default, Ubuntu is Gnome based. Buy KDE can be installed very
    >>>>> quickly. And there is KUbuntu... which is Ubuntui with KDE installed
    >>>>> by default.
    >>>
    >>> ... and, as I switch back and forth between Ubuntu/Gnome, PCLOS/KDE and
    >>> PCLOS/WindowMaker I keep remembering why I stay with WindowMaker. I may
    >>> have to try WindowMaker with Gnome, especially if I don't have to use
    >>> Wallpapoz.

    >>
    >> I am not trying to take away your pride...

    >
    > That's an idiotic thing to say.


    If you think I am then sorry... really, I am not. I have no desire to take
    away your pride and pleasure... but I want you to try to stay on topic.

    >> I am merely noting that when you talk about Ubuntu the standard is Gnome.
    >> Install it or go to their web page if you do not believe me! Nobody has said
    >> you cannot alter it if you wish!

    >
    > ... you and your "few modifications". you do know what apt-get install
    > kde-desktop is, don't you?


    Yes. Why do you ask?
    >
    > ... and you do know that there are 5 editions of Ubuntu, don't you?


    I was speaking in terms of Ubuntu... not Kubuntu or Edubuntu, etc.

    > Ubuntu (Gnome)... generally just referred to as Ubuntu, kubuntu (kde
    > based), edubuntu (educatonal) xubuntu (xfce based) and goubuntu (all Free
    > Software).


    Of course - but off topic.

    But feel free to pick what you want as the comparison base for Linux... need
    not even be Ubuntu. Pick a distro!
    >> ...
    >>>>>>> iWork is not a mature full featured Office suite
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> It is plenty for many... though only in its most recent version.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> ... It is plenty for many. Sheesh. How many? Who?
    >>>
    >>> ... It is plenty for many. Sheesh. How many? Who?

    >>
    >> Glad you came out of "hiding" to post that! Thanks!

    >
    > I wasn't hiding. I was trying to ignore you. Stop being purposely
    > offensive.


    Trying to ignore me? Wow... like you have an addiction or something. OK.
    >>
    >> ...
    >>
    >>>> You actually bring up some good points. Let's try to define systems
    >>>> and then we can compare them.
    >>>>
    >>>> With OS X let's talk about a system, as shipped, with a common Office
    >>>> suite installed. MS Office is most common, but iWork is likely to
    >>>> grow and is an Apple product... so I would be happy to go with either.
    >>>> If you have no preference we can go with iWork... but I am happy to
    >>>> go with MS Office if you prefer.
    >>>
    >>> Doesn't matter to me.

    >>
    >> Ok, then iWork. That will be our "standard". Clearly less feature
    >> filled than MS Office or Open Office, but so be it.
    >>
    >>> Just keep piling on those 'few' modifications.

    >>
    >> I have no plan on modifying iWork or MS Office.

    >
    > No one said you did. You are modifying "default" installs.


    We are trying to define what we are going to use as a general system for
    comparison. No offense but you are not very good at that.

    >>>> Let's assume a common home computer - say a 20 inch iMac. As far as
    >>>> the OS, well, 10.4 for the next few days is the "current" OS. Shall we
    >>>> just look at 10.5 because it will be out so soon?
    >>>
    >>> Uh, no. And I wonder how many Mac users are still using 10.2-10.3.

    >>
    >> Well, then, for Linux shall we look at a years old distro? No, let's
    >> stick to the current. 10.5.

    >
    > 2 days is not current when speaking of the installed userbase.


    So you want most common userbase? Hmmm, OK... so what is the most common
    Linux and version? We can look at that... then 10.4 with MS Office is
    likely the most common for Macs. Just a guess.

    >>>> If that seems unfair to you then 10.4 is fine.
    >>>
    >>> Fair?

    >>
    >> A simple concept... but now 10.5 is out, so 10.5 should be used.

    >
    > ... after all, the overwhelming number of Mac users are using it, right?


    What makes you think that?

    >>>> With Windows we can use Windows ... oh... I guess Vista is the "norm"
    >>>> now...
    >>>
    >>> 2007 is not the norm now.

    >>
    >> It is the year most people live in!

    >
    > Read slowly.... Vista is NOT the system the overwhelming number of users
    > are using. In fact there is a large backlash against it.


    Not in debate... why even mention it? Can't you please focus?

    >>> There a are large still running W2k and XP. It seems there is so much
    >>> customer pressure to keep XP, that Microsoft is allowing customers to
    >>> "downgrade" to XP, and is allowing vendors to still ship it.

    >>
    >> With the debacle of Vista I can see where you would want to stick with
    >> XP as the "norm". OK... that will serve for our "standard" system.

    >
    > How gracious of you


    I am working to accommodate you and all you can do is respond with insults
    and sarcasm. Sad.

    >>>> with Office 2007 (a big change from 2003, but it is the current
    >>>> version).
    >>>
    >>> Current, as in shipping, yes. Current as in usage? No. And it won't be
    >>> for a long while.
    >>>
    >>> So... a Windows machine with only Windows and Office installed is your
    >>> 'default install'?

    >>
    >> Well, and general Internet plugins and other things that people almost
    >> always have.

    >
    > Always have? what plugins? How do they get them?


    Wow... sorry: I expected you would know that the major browsers pretty much
    walk users through very simple procedures to install plugins... Real Player,
    QuickTime, things like that.

    Did you really not know that or were you just being silly?

    >> Heck, for Windows we should include malware protection.
    >> We could go with Norton or McAfee, since they are the most common. I
    >> personally use AVG and Spybot.

    >
    > I don't care what you use, and how many people actually update and use
    > their anti-malware?


    Not enough. Big weakness on Windows.

    >>>> Assume a common Dell with comparable hardware to the iMac - though
    >>>> webcams, Bluetooth, wireless Internet, etc., are not as common.
    >>>
    >>> What AOI is Del shipping?

    >>
    >> I was assuming a non-AIO but otherwise comparable in terms of video
    >> card, CPU, etc.

    >
    > They aren't really comparable. There are many more choices available to
    > users with a box and a monitor. Yes.. choices.. those things you say
    > people can't make.


    Please quote where you think I said that... and then explain why you are
    incapable of figuring out what a roughly comparable system is.

    >>>> For Linux we can go with Ubuntu - with Gnome and the software it comes
    >>>> with. Ubuntu comes with an Office suite... "point" for Linux!
    >>>
    >>> Ubuntu comes with a hell of a lot more than 'an Office suite", so let's
    >>> be a little more enthusiastic.

    >>
    >> Sure, it comes with a lot. Most of it even designed for Gnome... which
    >> is a good thing.

    >
    > Uh, no, most of it is not designed for Gnome. Witness K3b. And there is a
    > number of QT packages, and gtk packages, which are sometime erroneously
    > called Gnome packages.


    Well, there goes that "point" for Ubuntu. OK. Point to OS X.

    >>> And why go with Ubuntu?

    >>
    >> Most common and well known distro from what I understand. If you want
    >> another, though, I can go with that. Pick a common one.

    >
    > From what you understand? Distrowatch. Why is Ubuntu #2? PCLOS gets
    > almost no advertising. Why has OpenSuse remained #3. It must be fairly
    > popular, too.
    >
    > So, why do you "understand" that Ubuntu is the most well know distro?


    Pick whatever damned distri you want... or can you not make a choice?
    Remember: I did - Ubuntu. It is clearly one of the more common ones... if
    it is not the most common I stand corrected.

    I bet you cannot pick one distro to stick with though... maybe the choices
    simply overwhelm you?

    >>> You can't buy Ubuntu in stores. Is downloading and burning an ISO a
    >>> task for this lowly skilled 'average user' you keep speaking of? You
    >>> can order Ubuntu CDs, but you can also order for almost any Linux
    >>> distro, and the #1 distro on Distrowatch for the last 6 moths is
    >>> PCLinuxOS. The #3 is OpenSuse. How about that?

    >>
    >> Well, you can get a Dell with Ubuntu... but it PCLinuxOS is more popular
    >> and you prefer that... sure. You pick.

    >
    > No. We are going to see what you thing a "default" is.


    You are not happy with Ubuntu being used as the comparison system... so I am
    letting you pick.

    So far you have not been able to. Just overwhelms you or whatever. OK.

    >>>> In each case we can assume a high speed connection, a 20 inch screen,
    >>>> say a gig of memory... and maybe an HP all-in-one DeskJet of some
    >>>> flavor.
    >>>
    >>> An all-in-one? For the 'common' user? Why?

    >>
    >> So they can print and scan. If you want just a printer I can go for
    >> that. OK. An HP Printer.

    >
    > Why HP? What's wrong with Epson? They sell well, as do Lexmark and Canon.
    > And why not a scanner and printer? Where do we stop?


    Ok, you pick the printer. Damn... you really suck at this!
    >>
    >>>> The specs are a bit high-end for average Windows home users perhaps,
    >>>> but if we wish to compare all three OSs then we are "limited" by the
    >>>> fact Apple does not target the low end.
    >>>
    >>> And you are making all of these specifications why?

    >>
    >> You wanted a comparison point for "standard" configs. Let's define it
    >> so we can compare systems.
    >>
    >>> Is it just to show your ignorance of virtual desktops?

    >>
    >> What?

    >
    > Is it just to show your ignorance of virtual desktops?


    Is what to show some non-existent thing? Not sure what you mean. Are you
    just spewing more insults?

    >>>
    >>> Is it to show that Apple makes very good systems that are user
    >>> friendly? I agree with that. There are other user friendly systems.

    >>
    >> Sure... just as there are multiple game systems, but Windows is the gold
    >> standard there. OS X is, for now, the gold-standard when it comes to
    >> ease of use, but that does not mean other systems can not be considered
    >> easy, especially if you compare them to what was around, say, 20 years
    >> ago!
    >>
    >>> Your point?

    >>
    >> The one you asked me to make. LOL! You forgot already. That is kinda
    >> funny.

    >
    > No, sad and pathetic... of you. I asked in reference to something else...
    > virtual desktops, "common user", "average computer". All linked together.
    > Try and keep up.


    I have made my views on vd clear... and in talking about standard systems I
    have shown I can pick - the options do not overwhelm me. You, on the other
    hand, just panic and cannot even pick a distro or a printer or an Office
    system... seems unlikely we will ever be able to compare since you get
    overwhelmed even when trying to figure out what to compare!


    --
    I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please
    everyone. -- Bill Cosby



  2. Re: OS X Leopard: A beautiful upgrade

    On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:36:42 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > 13i72agoior2tb9@news.supernews.com on 10/27/07 11:54 AM:
    >
    >> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:08:40 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>> 13i6dsgi2g1hgdd@news.supernews.com on 10/27/07 6:05 AM:
    >>>
    >>>>>>> Well, research has repeatedly shown that too many options leads to
    >>>>>>> less satisfaction.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Yes it has, but it hasn't defined what too many options is.
    >>>>
    >>>> You still have defined what 'to many options' is.
    >>>
    >>> In context: Enough where it leads to confusion or frustration for a
    >>> large number of people. We are sure to disagree on details of that,
    >>> but there is the general - and obvious - idea.

    >>
    >> What is a large number of people? There is a large number of people
    >> that are lucky to be able to open email Should we design desktops for
    >> just those people?

    >
    > For just those people? No. Of course not. By extension: Are you
    > erroneously claiming that I am against virtual desktops?


    No.

    >
    >>> OS X and other Apple software generally handles this well: they have
    >>> relatively few options for the general user and then more for advanced
    >>> users. Firefox does this well, too.

    >>
    >> No, it doesn't. Firefox hides the configurations in a text file that is
    >> far from intuitive.

    >
    > For the basic configurations most people would use you simply are not
    > correct.


    .... "configurations most people would use".

    > Here, from Windows:
    >
    >
    >
    > Mac and Linux are much the same. There are, of course, advanced
    > configurations the average user would never see.


    So what? My statement above stands.

    >
    >> People say the same of Gnome. It is easy to use, but configurable.

    >
    > Do you need screen shots and movies of configuration options in Gnome,
    > or will you just trust me that they are there?


    I don't appreciate insult. Gnome is much harder to configure than KDE,
    although it seems the Gnome guys are learning and making more configs
    less hidden.

    >
    >> KDE is just as easy to use, and much easier to configure.

    >
    > KDE is more like MS...


    No, it isn't.

    > they both like to toss every imaginable setting
    > at the user.


    No, KDE doesn't.

    > So many options that many users end up not doing anything
    > at all.. except KDE is even more extreme.


    No, it isn't.

    > Might be good for a very
    > techy crowd or people who have a computer set up for them and never look
    > at the configurations, but not for the general user.


    There's that general user again. That must be the one that is lucky to
    get his email.

    >
    >>> ...
    >>>>>>> You repeatedly talked about KDE in terms of Ubuntu - a Gnome based
    >>>>>>> desktop.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I have, and will continue to talk about KDE in relation to Ubuntu.
    >>>>>> Yes, by default, Ubuntu is Gnome based. Buy KDE can be installed
    >>>>>> very quickly. And there is KUbuntu... which is Ubuntui with KDE
    >>>>>> installed by default.
    >>>>
    >>>> ... and, as I switch back and forth between Ubuntu/Gnome, PCLOS/KDE
    >>>> and PCLOS/WindowMaker I keep remembering why I stay with WindowMaker.
    >>>> I may have to try WindowMaker with Gnome, especially if I don't have
    >>>> to use Wallpapoz.
    >>>
    >>> I am not trying to take away your pride...

    >>
    >> That's an idiotic thing to say.

    >
    > If you think I am then sorry... really, I am not. I have no desire to
    > take away your pride and pleasure... but I want you to try to stay on
    > topic.


    And that is the kind of statement that gets you labeled a jerk.

    >
    >>> I am merely noting that when you talk about Ubuntu the standard is
    >>> Gnome. Install it or go to their web page if you do not believe me!
    >>> Nobody has said you cannot alter it if you wish!

    >>
    >> ... you and your "few modifications". you do know what apt-get install
    >> kde-desktop is, don't you?

    >
    > Yes. Why do you ask?


    I wanted to know if you knew. I still don't.

    >>
    >> ... and you do know that there are 5 editions of Ubuntu, don't you?

    >
    > I was speaking in terms of Ubuntu... not Kubuntu or Edubuntu, etc.
    >
    >> Ubuntu (Gnome)... generally just referred to as Ubuntu, kubuntu (kde
    >> based), edubuntu (educatonal) xubuntu (xfce based) and goubuntu (all
    >> Free Software).

    >
    > Of course - but off topic.


    Yeah... becasue you say so.

    >
    > But feel free to pick what you want as the comparison base for Linux...
    > need not even be Ubuntu. Pick a distro!


    Uh, no. We all gonna see if you can come up with a default anything.


    >>> ...
    >>>>>>>> iWork is not a mature full featured Office suite
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> It is plenty for many... though only in its most recent version.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> ... It is plenty for many. Sheesh. How many? Who?
    >>>>
    >>>> ... It is plenty for many. Sheesh. How many? Who?
    >>>
    >>> Glad you came out of "hiding" to post that! Thanks!

    >>
    >> I wasn't hiding. I was trying to ignore you. Stop being purposely
    >> offensive.

    >
    > Trying to ignore me? Wow... like you have an addiction or something.
    > OK.


    .... there you go again, and yet you are surprised when I cal you a jerk.

    >>>
    >>> ...
    >>>
    >>>>> You actually bring up some good points. Let's try to define systems
    >>>>> and then we can compare them.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> With OS X let's talk about a system, as shipped, with a common
    >>>>> Office suite installed. MS Office is most common, but iWork is
    >>>>> likely to grow and is an Apple product... so I would be happy to go
    >>>>> with either.
    >>>>> If you have no preference we can go with iWork... but I am happy to
    >>>>> go with MS Office if you prefer.
    >>>>
    >>>> Doesn't matter to me.
    >>>
    >>> Ok, then iWork. That will be our "standard". Clearly less feature
    >>> filled than MS Office or Open Office, but so be it.
    >>>
    >>>> Just keep piling on those 'few' modifications.
    >>>
    >>> I have no plan on modifying iWork or MS Office.

    >>
    >> No one said you did. You are modifying "default" installs.

    >
    > We are trying to define what we are going to use as a general system for
    > comparison. No offense but you are not very good at that.


    It is you that's not coming up with a default. I just keep stick holes in
    your balloons.

    >
    >>>>> Let's assume a common home computer - say a 20 inch iMac. As far as
    >>>>> the OS, well, 10.4 for the next few days is the "current" OS. Shall
    >>>>> we just look at 10.5 because it will be out so soon?
    >>>>
    >>>> Uh, no. And I wonder how many Mac users are still using 10.2-10.3.
    >>>
    >>> Well, then, for Linux shall we look at a years old distro? No, let's
    >>> stick to the current. 10.5.

    >>
    >> 2 days is not current when speaking of the installed userbase.

    >
    > So you want most common userbase? Hmmm, OK... so what is the most
    > common Linux and version? We can look at that... then 10.4 with MS
    > Office is likely the most common for Macs. Just a guess.


    I have no idea what the most common Linux distro/version is. I never
    claimed to.

    >
    >>>>> If that seems unfair to you then 10.4 is fine.
    >>>>
    >>>> Fair?
    >>>
    >>> A simple concept... but now 10.5 is out, so 10.5 should be used.

    >>
    >> ... after all, the overwhelming number of Mac users are using it,
    >> right?

    >
    > What makes you think that?


    It was sarcasm. Can you not recognize it without the ?

    >
    >>>>> With Windows we can use Windows ... oh... I guess Vista is the
    >>>>> "norm" now...
    >>>>
    >>>> 2007 is not the norm now.
    >>>
    >>> It is the year most people live in!

    >>
    >> Read slowly.... Vista is NOT the system the overwhelming number of
    >> users are using. In fact there is a large backlash against it.

    >
    > Not in debate... why even mention it? Can't you please focus?


    YOU mentioned Vista. You. Keep up. You said Vist is the norm now. It is
    not.

    >
    >>>> There a are large still running W2k and XP. It seems there is so much
    >>>> customer pressure to keep XP, that Microsoft is allowing customers to
    >>>> "downgrade" to XP, and is allowing vendors to still ship it.
    >>>
    >>> With the debacle of Vista I can see where you would want to stick with
    >>> XP as the "norm". OK... that will serve for our "standard" system.

    >>
    >> How gracious of you

    >
    > I am working to accommodate you and all you can do is respond with
    > insults and sarcasm. Sad.


    Yes, you are. And pathetic.

    >
    >>>>> with Office 2007 (a big change from 2003, but it is the current
    >>>>> version).
    >>>>
    >>>> Current, as in shipping, yes. Current as in usage? No. And it won't
    >>>> be for a long while.
    >>>>
    >>>> So... a Windows machine with only Windows and Office installed is
    >>>> your 'default install'?
    >>>
    >>> Well, and general Internet plugins and other things that people almost
    >>> always have.

    >>
    >> Always have? what plugins? How do they get them?

    >
    > Wow... sorry: I expected you would know that the major browsers pretty
    > much walk users through very simple procedures to install plugins...
    > Real Player, QuickTime, things like that.


    Wow. I do know what they are. I asked you what you thought they were ..
    how you thought they were obtained. And, BTW windows does NOT come with
    Quicktime, or very many other codecs, either.

    >
    > Did you really not know that or were you just being silly?


    See above.

    >
    >>> Heck, for Windows we should include malware protection. We could go
    >>> with Norton or McAfee, since they are the most common. I personally
    >>> use AVG and Spybot.

    >>
    >> I don't care what you use, and how many people actually update and use
    >> their anti-malware?

    >
    > Not enough. Big weakness on Windows.
    >
    >>>>> Assume a common Dell with comparable hardware to the iMac - though
    >>>>> webcams, Bluetooth, wireless Internet, etc., are not as common.
    >>>>
    >>>> What AOI is Del shipping?
    >>>
    >>> I was assuming a non-AIO but otherwise comparable in terms of video
    >>> card, CPU, etc.

    >>
    >> They aren't really comparable. There are many more choices available to
    >> users with a box and a monitor. Yes.. choices.. those things you say
    >> people can't make.

    >
    > Please quote where you think I said that...


    You didn't make any comments about choice being confusing?

    > and then explain why you are
    > incapable of figuring out what a roughly comparable system is.


    I can't explain something that doesn't exist.

    >
    >>>>> For Linux we can go with Ubuntu - with Gnome and the software it
    >>>>> comes with. Ubuntu comes with an Office suite... "point" for Linux!
    >>>>
    >>>> Ubuntu comes with a hell of a lot more than 'an Office suite", so
    >>>> let's be a little more enthusiastic.
    >>>
    >>> Sure, it comes with a lot. Most of it even designed for Gnome...
    >>> which is a good thing.

    >>
    >> Uh, no, most of it is not designed for Gnome. Witness K3b. And there is
    >> a number of QT packages, and gtk packages, which are sometime
    >> erroneously called Gnome packages.

    >
    > Well, there goes that "point" for Ubuntu. OK. Point to OS X.


    You may now explain that. Why does Ubuntu lose a point?

    >
    >>>> And why go with Ubuntu?
    >>>
    >>> Most common and well known distro from what I understand. If you want
    >>> another, though, I can go with that. Pick a common one.

    >>
    >> From what you understand? Distrowatch. Why is Ubuntu #2? PCLOS gets
    >> almost no advertising. Why has OpenSuse remained #3. It must be fairly
    >> popular, too.
    >>
    >> So, why do you "understand" that Ubuntu is the most well know distro?

    >
    > Pick whatever damned distri you want... or can you not make a choice?


    I have made choices. Imade choices every time I swictched distros...
    Linux PPC and Yellow Dog on a Mac, mandrake (several versions), RH 9,
    Fedora (2 versions), Suse (several versions) PCLOS (2 versions). I have
    looked at and used FVWM, WindowMaker, Gnome KDE, and made choices. I
    looke at XFCE and Fluxbox, but not enough to really evaluate them. Oh,
    that's just Linux.

    But you are the one that is supposed to define "the common desktop",
    remember?

    > Remember: I did - Ubuntu. It is clearly one of the more common ones...
    > if it is not the most common I stand corrected.
    >
    > I bet you cannot pick one distro to stick with though... maybe the
    > choices simply overwhelm you?


    maybe they don't. As I have said above, I have gone through a number of
    distros. As they change, I switch to the ones I like better. So no, I am
    not overwhelmed by the choices in distros.

    >
    >>>> You can't buy Ubuntu in stores. Is downloading and burning an ISO a
    >>>> task for this lowly skilled 'average user' you keep speaking of? You
    >>>> can order Ubuntu CDs, but you can also order for almost any Linux
    >>>> distro, and the #1 distro on Distrowatch for the last 6 moths is
    >>>> PCLinuxOS. The #3 is OpenSuse. How about that?
    >>>
    >>> Well, you can get a Dell with Ubuntu... but it PCLinuxOS is more
    >>> popular and you prefer that... sure. You pick.

    >>
    >> No. We are going to see what you thing a "default" is.

    >
    > You are not happy with Ubuntu being used as the comparison system... so
    > I am letting you pick.


    I didn't say I wasn't happy.

    >
    > So far you have not been able to. Just overwhelms you or whatever. OK.


    That is an untrue statement. Might it be a lie?

    >
    >>>>> In each case we can assume a high speed connection, a 20 inch
    >>>>> screen, say a gig of memory... and maybe an HP all-in-one DeskJet of
    >>>>> some flavor.
    >>>>
    >>>> An all-in-one? For the 'common' user? Why?
    >>>
    >>> So they can print and scan. If you want just a printer I can go for
    >>> that. OK. An HP Printer.

    >>
    >> Why HP? What's wrong with Epson? They sell well, as do Lexmark and
    >> Canon. And why not a scanner and printer? Where do we stop?

    >
    > Ok, you pick the printer. Damn... you really suck at this!


    No, I don't suck at this. You suck at defining "the common desktop".

    >>>
    >>>>> The specs are a bit high-end for average Windows home users perhaps,
    >>>>> but if we wish to compare all three OSs then we are "limited" by the
    >>>>> fact Apple does not target the low end.
    >>>>
    >>>> And you are making all of these specifications why?
    >>>
    >>> You wanted a comparison point for "standard" configs. Let's define it
    >>> so we can compare systems.
    >>>
    >>>> Is it just to show your ignorance of virtual desktops?
    >>>
    >>> What?

    >>
    >> Is it just to show your ignorance of virtual desktops?

    >
    > Is what to show some non-existent thing? Not sure what you mean. Are
    > you just spewing more insults?


    No, I asked a question.

    >
    >
    >>>> Is it to show that Apple makes very good systems that are user
    >>>> friendly? I agree with that. There are other user friendly systems.
    >>>
    >>> Sure... just as there are multiple game systems, but Windows is the
    >>> gold standard there. OS X is, for now, the gold-standard when it
    >>> comes to ease of use, but that does not mean other systems can not be
    >>> considered easy, especially if you compare them to what was around,
    >>> say, 20 years ago!
    >>>
    >>>> Your point?
    >>>
    >>> The one you asked me to make. LOL! You forgot already. That is
    >>> kinda funny.

    >>
    >> No, sad and pathetic... of you. I asked in reference to something
    >> else... virtual desktops, "common user", "average computer". All linked
    >> together. Try and keep up.

    >
    > I have made my views on vd clear... and in talking about standard
    > systems I have shown I can pick - the options do not overwhelm me. You,
    > on the other hand, just panic and cannot even pick a distro or a printer
    > or an Office system...


    You are a liar. I chose the distro I use. I chose the printer I use. When
    the scanner I have dies, I will choose another one, for specific reasons.

    > seems unlikely we will ever be able to compare
    > since you get overwhelmed even when trying to figure out what to
    > compare!


    You're a liar. I am not overwhelmed. You can not define "the common
    desktop", as I have shown.

    I have been using desktop/personal computers for a long time. I am well
    aware of the choices out there. Too bad you are not as informed as you
    think you are.

    --
    Rick

  3. Re: OS X Leopard: A beautiful upgrade

    "Rick" stated in post 13i77oqkf6gie27@news.supernews.com
    on 10/27/07 1:27 PM:


    >> Pick whatever damned distri you want... or can you not make a choice?

    >
    > I have made choices.


    Great! So what shall we use as our comparison. I will pick the Windows and
    OS X boxes if you like (if not you can pick them).

    OS X: 20 inch aluminum iMac with 10.5 and iWork.
    Windows: Vista with MS Office student edition...

    Both with common media players (Quicktime, real, WMP codecs)

    In each case they have an HP printer (not all in one) and 1 GB mem.
    Hardware on the PC is similar to the iMac but not all-in-one.

    What do you pick for Linux as the comparison for ease of use purposes?


    For Linux I suggest standard Ubuntu on a similar hardware system... but if
    you want to pick a different distro go for it.

    Let's see how good you are at dealing with choices. I bet you freeze up.



    --
    One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.


  4. Re: OS X Leopard: A beautiful upgrade

    ____/ Snit on Saturday 27 October 2007 20:36 : \____

    > From: Snit
    > Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    *plonk*

  5. Re: OS X Leopard: A beautiful upgrade

    "Roy Schestowitz" stated in post
    5163271.yPlCuXJZLa@schestowitz.com on 10/27/07 5:14 PM:

    > ____/ Snit on Saturday 27 October 2007 20:36 : \____
    >
    >> From: Snit
    >> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy

    > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >
    > *plonk*


    Why did you post that to CSMA?




    --
    Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments
    that take our breath away.




  6. Re: OS X Leopard: A beautiful upgrade

    On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 14:03:07 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > 13i77oqkf6gie27@news.supernews.com on 10/27/07 1:27 PM:
    >
    >
    >>> Pick whatever damned distri you want... or can you not make a choice?

    >>
    >> I have made choices.

    >
    > Great! So what shall we use as our comparison. I will pick the Windows
    > and OS X boxes if you like (if not you can pick them).
    >
    > OS X: 20 inch aluminum iMac with 10.5 and iWork. Windows: Vista with MS
    > Office student edition...
    >
    > Both with common media players (Quicktime, real, WMP codecs)
    >
    > In each case they have an HP printer (not all in one) and 1 GB mem.
    > Hardware on the PC is similar to the iMac but not all-in-one.
    >
    > What do you pick for Linux as the comparison for ease of use purposes?
    >
    >
    > For Linux I suggest standard Ubuntu on a similar hardware system... but
    > if you want to pick a different distro go for it.
    >
    > Let's see how good you are at dealing with choices. I bet you freeze
    > up.


    Bet what you want. You are the one that is supposed to know what "the
    common desktop" is. Well... go ahead and tell me. You are supposed to
    know what the "default install" is. Go ahead and tell me. Then I'll show
    you why it isn't a "common desktop" and why it isn't a "default install".



    --
    Rick

  7. Re: OS X Leopard: A beautiful upgrade

    On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 17:59:05 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Roy Schestowitz" stated in post
    > 5163271.yPlCuXJZLa@schestowitz.com on 10/27/07 5:14 PM:
    >
    >> ____/ Snit on Saturday 27 October 2007 20:36 : \____
    >>
    >>> From: Snit Newsgroups:
    >>> comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy

    >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >>
    >> *plonk*

    >
    > Why did you post that to CSMA?
    >
    >


    .... because CSmA was in the group list?



    --
    Rick

  8. Re: OS X Leopard: A beautiful upgrade

    "Rick" stated in post 13i7u4pr87bqs2d@news.supernews.com
    on 10/27/07 7:48 PM:

    > On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 17:59:05 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Roy Schestowitz" stated in post
    >> 5163271.yPlCuXJZLa@schestowitz.com on 10/27/07 5:14 PM:
    >>
    >>> ____/ Snit on Saturday 27 October 2007 20:36 : \____
    >>>
    >>>> From: Snit Newsgroups:
    >>>> comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
    >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >>>
    >>> *plonk*

    >>
    >> Why did you post that to CSMA?
    >>
    >>

    >
    > ... because CSmA was in the group list?


    Note the smiley.


    --
    Dear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21217782777472


  9. Re: OS X Leopard: A beautiful upgrade

    "Rick" stated in post 13i7u38e5pphg19@news.supernews.com
    on 10/27/07 7:48 PM:

    > On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 14:03:07 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Rick" stated in post
    >> 13i77oqkf6gie27@news.supernews.com on 10/27/07 1:27 PM:
    >>
    >>
    >>>> Pick whatever damned distri you want... or can you not make a choice?
    >>>
    >>> I have made choices.

    >>
    >> Great! So what shall we use as our comparison. I will pick the Windows
    >> and OS X boxes if you like (if not you can pick them).
    >>
    >> OS X: 20 inch aluminum iMac with 10.5 and iWork. Windows: Vista with MS
    >> Office student edition...
    >>
    >> Both with common media players (Quicktime, real, WMP codecs)
    >>
    >> In each case they have an HP printer (not all in one) and 1 GB mem.
    >> Hardware on the PC is similar to the iMac but not all-in-one.
    >>
    >> What do you pick for Linux as the comparison for ease of use purposes?
    >>
    >>
    >> For Linux I suggest standard Ubuntu on a similar hardware system... but
    >> if you want to pick a different distro go for it.
    >>
    >> Let's see how good you are at dealing with choices. I bet you freeze
    >> up.

    >
    > Bet what you want.


    Sure: and I just won - note your lack of ability to pick a distro or to say
    you accept mine. LOL!

    > You are the one that is supposed to know what "the common desktop" is. Well...
    > go ahead and tell me. You are supposed to know what the "default install" is.
    > Go ahead and tell me. Then I'll show you why it isn't a "common desktop" and
    > why it isn't a "default install".


    See Rick. See Rick run. Run, Rick, Run.

    LOL!

    Face it: I won the "bet". You fear comparing Linux to OS X or Windows...
    you simply will not pick systems to compare. This allows you the "out" to
    play the distro dance. Oh well. I accept your white flag.


    --
    Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
    conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.



  10. Re: OS X Leopard: A beautiful upgrade

    On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 20:29:25 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > 13i7u38e5pphg19@news.supernews.com on 10/27/07 7:48 PM:
    >
    >> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 14:03:07 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>> 13i77oqkf6gie27@news.supernews.com on 10/27/07 1:27 PM:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>> Pick whatever damned distri you want... or can you not make a
    >>>>> choice?
    >>>>
    >>>> I have made choices.
    >>>
    >>> Great! So what shall we use as our comparison. I will pick the
    >>> Windows and OS X boxes if you like (if not you can pick them).
    >>>
    >>> OS X: 20 inch aluminum iMac with 10.5 and iWork. Windows: Vista with
    >>> MS Office student edition...
    >>>
    >>> Both with common media players (Quicktime, real, WMP codecs)
    >>>
    >>> In each case they have an HP printer (not all in one) and 1 GB mem.
    >>> Hardware on the PC is similar to the iMac but not all-in-one.
    >>>
    >>> What do you pick for Linux as the comparison for ease of use purposes?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> For Linux I suggest standard Ubuntu on a similar hardware system...
    >>> but if you want to pick a different distro go for it.
    >>>
    >>> Let's see how good you are at dealing with choices. I bet you freeze
    >>> up.

    >>
    >> Bet what you want.

    >
    > Sure: and I just won - note your lack of ability to pick a distro or to
    > say you accept mine. LOL!
    >
    >> You are the one that is supposed to know what "the common desktop" is.
    >> Well... go ahead and tell me. You are supposed to know what the
    >> "default install" is. Go ahead and tell me. Then I'll show you why it
    >> isn't a "common desktop" and why it isn't a "default install".

    >
    > See Rick. See Rick run. Run, Rick, Run.
    >
    > LOL!
    >
    > Face it: I won the "bet". You fear comparing Linux to OS X or
    > Windows... you simply will not pick systems to compare. This allows you
    > the "out" to play the distro dance. Oh well. I accept your white flag.


    ..... geez, you post speaks for itself.
    QED

    --
    Rick

  11. Re: OS X Leopard: A beautiful upgrade

    "Rick" stated in post 13i8rfafspvkk37@news.supernews.com
    on 10/28/07 4:09 AM:

    > On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 20:29:25 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Rick" stated in post
    >> 13i7u38e5pphg19@news.supernews.com on 10/27/07 7:48 PM:
    >>
    >>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 14:03:07 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>>> 13i77oqkf6gie27@news.supernews.com on 10/27/07 1:27 PM:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>> Pick whatever damned distri you want... or can you not make a
    >>>>>> choice?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I have made choices.
    >>>>
    >>>> Great! So what shall we use as our comparison. I will pick the
    >>>> Windows and OS X boxes if you like (if not you can pick them).
    >>>>
    >>>> OS X: 20 inch aluminum iMac with 10.5 and iWork. Windows: Vista with
    >>>> MS Office student edition...
    >>>>
    >>>> Both with common media players (Quicktime, real, WMP codecs)
    >>>>
    >>>> In each case they have an HP printer (not all in one) and 1 GB mem.
    >>>> Hardware on the PC is similar to the iMac but not all-in-one.
    >>>>
    >>>> What do you pick for Linux as the comparison for ease of use purposes?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> For Linux I suggest standard Ubuntu on a similar hardware system...
    >>>> but if you want to pick a different distro go for it.
    >>>>
    >>>> Let's see how good you are at dealing with choices. I bet you freeze
    >>>> up.
    >>>
    >>> Bet what you want.

    >>
    >> Sure: and I just won - note your lack of ability to pick a distro or to
    >> say you accept mine. LOL!
    >>
    >>> You are the one that is supposed to know what "the common desktop" is.
    >>> Well... go ahead and tell me. You are supposed to know what the
    >>> "default install" is. Go ahead and tell me. Then I'll show you why it
    >>> isn't a "common desktop" and why it isn't a "default install".

    >>
    >> See Rick. See Rick run. Run, Rick, Run.
    >>
    >> LOL!
    >>
    >> Face it: I won the "bet". You fear comparing Linux to OS X or
    >> Windows... you simply will not pick systems to compare. This allows you
    >> the "out" to play the distro dance. Oh well. I accept your white flag.

    >
    > .... geez, you post speaks for itself.


    As opposed to you speaking for it. Yes. Of course.


    --
    "Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
    all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs




+ Reply to Thread