Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source? - Linux

This is a discussion on Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source? - Linux ; After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out this bit o' wisdom: > On Nov 13, 7:39 pm, Linonut wrote: >> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom: >> >> > On ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 36 of 36

Thread: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

  1. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > On Nov 13, 7:39 pm, Linonut wrote:
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >> > On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:39:41 GMT, Linonut wrote:

    >>
    >> >>> Without commercial software vendors, that means linux vendors have to
    >> >>> attract customers almost entirely with open source software, which (with a
    >> >>> few exceptions like Firefox) are largely not of the same calibre as their
    >> >>> commercial alternatives.

    >>
    >> (Forgot to note that little bit of FUD.)
    >>
    >> >> So, Eric, how did Windows reach "critical mass"?

    >>
    >> > It didn't have any competition.

    >>
    >> So, Eric, how did Windows achieve this "lack of competition"?

    >
    > Murder? Adultery? Why don't you tell us what you think? Let me guess,
    > it involves some form of illegality that only the great Linonut has
    > been able to prove.


    I'm asking Erik, not some jive-ass such as yourself.

    --
    Tux rox!

  2. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

    On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:39:02 GMT, Linonut wrote:

    >>> So, Eric, how did Windows reach "critical mass"?

    >>
    >> It didn't have any competition.

    >
    > So, Eric, how did Windows achieve this "lack of competition"?


    Umm.. because there wasn't any? We're talking early 1990's here. Linux
    didn't even exist. The contemporaries were things like GEM, and frankly,
    DRC (who owned GEM) didn't bother to court developers (one of the reasons
    IBM passed over them for DOS in the first place).

    >> Mac's were pretty much excluded because of
    >> their high price tag (at the time) and inability to build enough machines
    >> to satisfy the market even if customers wanted them.

    >
    > So what about the Atari ST and Commodore Amiga, both of which made the
    > Windows then current seem like crap in comparision?


    Lol. Neithe Atari or Commodore could market their way out of a paper bag,
    outside of the home market. Commodore always shot themselves in the foot,
    and Atari was run by Jack Tramiel. Enough Said.

    BTW, I say that as an Avid amiga user at the time, and someone who believed
    that Commodore was always just about to make it big, only to have Commodore
    shoot everything down in flames.

  3. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

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

    On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:54:39 -0600,
    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:38:00 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >
    >>> Without commercial software vendors, that means linux vendors have to
    >>> attract customers almost entirely with open source software, which (with a
    >>> few exceptions like Firefox) are largely not of the same calibre as their
    >>> commercial alternatives.

    >>
    >> You notice the good commercial apps, because they are noticable, you
    >> ignore the great raft of crapware out there that is easily surpassed by
    >> OSS offerings. Even in areas that have good commercial offerings, the
    >> OSS stuff usually compares well. Consider Nero vs K3b for an example
    >> beyond firefox. Or Eclipse compared to many of the CSS offerings.

    >
    > Nero does about 20x more than K3b. K3b is a nice, and does a lot of
    > things, with a good interface, but nero does a lot more. For instance, it
    > doesn't include a transcoder, or the tools to professional looking Video
    > DVD's (a large selection of DVD menu's, for instance).
    >


    Instead, it interfaces with other apps that do, rather than being a
    bloated blob that tries to do everything.


    > Eclipse suffers from the classic problem of many open source tools, you
    > have to "build" your toolset, it's not a complete package ready to run
    > after install. There's a bunch of configuration you have to do, such as
    > debuggers, toolchains, etc.. Certainly it's very flexible, but not what
    > people come to expect from commercial software.
    >





    >> Can you find a lot of crap OSS projects? duh! Same as CSS, the
    >> difference being that the crap CSS stuff vanishes below the waves soon
    >> after it fails, never to be heard of again, but the OSS stuff is out on
    >> an old ftp server somewhere, and occasionally gets picked up. Also,
    >> since the cost of including packages is low, many distros offer several
    >> options for one task or another, some better than others.

    >
    > You misunderstand. Take the leader in any given category, the compare it
    > to the leader in OSS. In most cases, the OSS lacks features, completeness,
    > polish, and maturity.
    >


    Not when you compare the whole package. Since OSS apps build on existing
    tools, they don't have to be swiss army knives with 40 odd little
    blades, tehy can focus on doing the job right. If all you have access
    to is commercial apps, you are pretty much forced in to the one big tool
    that does everything mode, and worse, you have to deal with the whole
    problem they have of reinventing the wheel everytime you look at a
    different version.

    >> Gnumeric compares very favourably with Excel and the like.

    >
    > Only to a certain point. For instance, Gnumeric doesn't have anything like
    > Excel's "Pivot Tables", and it's limited to 256 columns. Excel can have
    > 65536 columns and 1 million rows.
    >


    Gnumeric will support any columns and rows you have the memory
    for. Since the vast majority of people don't need it, the defaults are
    more sane. But you can do the if you want. Pivot tables, yup,
    not supported yet. On the other hand, Gnumeric supports ods out of the
    box, and integrates nicely with the GNOME desktop.

    >> Thunderbird and Evolution totally pwn outlook

    >
    > No, they don't. And especially not Outlook 2007.
    >


    the do for me, better handling of mime data, better security, Outlook is
    *ugly* but that's no surprise. Evo works well with may mail systems, The
    message filtering is far better, integrates with the desktop search, can
    pass messages through arbitrary binary helper apps as part of a filter.
    For example, I have a filter at work that takes incoming Nagios emails,
    and pipes them through a shell script that summerizes a weeks notices.
    The output (done via a weekly cronjob) emails that summary back to my
    acct, for use in a weekly incident tracker. Another filter takes text
    messages sent from my phone, passes them through a filter/pipe and
    tracks hours for contract work. All I have to do is send an email (via a
    preset addressbook entry) with customer name and on or off (or 1 or 0) I
    haven't finished the autobill generator part of that yet, but that will
    only involve email as a transport so it's not too terribly relevant.

    Now, I am sure that with enough smarts and understanding of MS
    internals, MAPI or whatever, I could do that, but it was a few lines of
    shell for me, and works great. Evo pwns outlook.

    >> and Rhythmbox has winamp beat hollow.

    >
    > I don't use either, so I can't compare... however, just looking at the
    > screenshots of both, Rhythmbox looks a bit weak. Can Rhythmbox be skinned
    > like Winamp?


    Dunno, never tried, it's usually minimized in my deskbar. It does DAAP
    server, interfaces with magnatune and jamendo, deals with my ipod,
    catalogues my music, keeps my podcast feeds updated (and plays them when
    I choose that) listens to streamcasts, is extendable in python (and has
    a python console) plays a huge variety of audio formats. Hell, you can
    even control it from the browser if that's important to you.



    >
    > Compare the feature list:
    > http://www.winamp.com/player/features
    > http://live.gnome.org/Rhythmbox/FAQ
    >


    I see that winamp mentions a lot of things that are default with
    rhythmbox, as extras for the non-gratis, non-lite versions. Like ripping
    CDs, you mean you have to pay extra for that?


    > I mean, come on.. look at the FAQ:
    > http://live.gnome.org/Rhythmbox/FAQ
    >
    > You have to create text files to do simple things? Subdirectories not
    > supported?
    >


    rt click on music, select import folder.

    >> Games is a major area where Linux has a large gap in first run stuff.
    >> The fact is though, that I have far more games I enjoy playing on Linux
    >> than I have time I can dedicate to them.
    >>
    >> (WoW plays great under Wine btw, which is the most recent game I have
    >> been playing)

    >
    > Are you playing the most recent version, with the latest patches?
    >
    >> Of course, with most Linux distros, the apps are there, a mouseclick or
    >> two away. Wheras their CSS equivilents on MS-Windows are at best, a
    >> webpage login, enter CC data, pay the $ and eventually be able to
    >> download an installer, and there's no system level update akin to apt or
    >> yum. Even MS own update only handles some of the MS software. Lame.

    >
    > All of which is largely irrelevent to the average person. Seriously.


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHOm7Wd90bcYOAWPYRAn7nAJ99wYj8KAdbg2RCcocCpz Yb+4KeIACglyqg
    L/qkdo8SprxNVhlGFDqwdac=
    =eCnA
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    "Human beings can always be counted on to assert with vigor
    their God-given right to be stupid."
    -- Dean Koontz

  4. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

    On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:43:19 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:

    >> Nero does about 20x more than K3b. K3b is a nice, and does a lot of
    >> things, with a good interface, but nero does a lot more. For instance, it
    >> doesn't include a transcoder, or the tools to professional looking Video
    >> DVD's (a large selection of DVD menu's, for instance).

    >
    > Instead, it interfaces with other apps that do, rather than being a
    > bloated blob that tries to do everything.


    Ah yes, because if there's one thing that's clear about consumers, they
    LOVE to get parts seperate and piece them together. Yes, that's sarcasm.

    >> Eclipse suffers from the classic problem of many open source tools, you
    >> have to "build" your toolset, it's not a complete package ready to run
    >> after install. There's a bunch of configuration you have to do, such as
    >> debuggers, toolchains, etc.. Certainly it's very flexible, but not what
    >> people come to expect from commercial software.

    >
    >


    That kind of proves my point.

    >>> Can you find a lot of crap OSS projects? duh! Same as CSS, the
    >>> difference being that the crap CSS stuff vanishes below the waves soon
    >>> after it fails, never to be heard of again, but the OSS stuff is out on
    >>> an old ftp server somewhere, and occasionally gets picked up. Also,
    >>> since the cost of including packages is low, many distros offer several
    >>> options for one task or another, some better than others.

    >>
    >> You misunderstand. Take the leader in any given category, the compare it
    >> to the leader in OSS. In most cases, the OSS lacks features, completeness,
    >> polish, and maturity.

    >
    > Not when you compare the whole package. Since OSS apps build on existing
    > tools, they don't have to be swiss army knives with 40 odd little
    > blades, tehy can focus on doing the job right. If all you have access
    > to is commercial apps, you are pretty much forced in to the one big tool
    > that does everything mode, and worse, you have to deal with the whole
    > problem they have of reinventing the wheel everytime you look at a
    > different version.


    Look, I love building computers from parts, but it's not something the
    average user wants to do. Hell, they don't even want pay someone to build
    it from parts, even if it's cheaper, because then they have nobody to go to
    when it breaks, other than the person that built it.

    Normal users don't want to piece things together.

    >>> Gnumeric compares very favourably with Excel and the like.

    >>
    >> Only to a certain point. For instance, Gnumeric doesn't have anything like
    >> Excel's "Pivot Tables", and it's limited to 256 columns. Excel can have
    >> 65536 columns and 1 million rows.

    >
    > Gnumeric will support any columns and rows you have the memory
    > for. Since the vast majority of people don't need it, the defaults are
    > more sane. But you can do the if you want. Pivot tables, yup,
    > not supported yet. On the other hand, Gnumeric supports ods out of the
    > box, and integrates nicely with the GNOME desktop.


    By "Defaults", you mean "Hard Coded" defaults that requires a recompile to
    change. Yeah, that's realy friendly.

    >>> Thunderbird and Evolution totally pwn outlook

    >>
    >> No, they don't. And especially not Outlook 2007.

    >
    > the do for me, better handling of mime data, better security, Outlook is
    > *ugly* but that's no surprise.


    That's funny, cause I think Evo and Thunderbird are butt ugly.

    Compare:

    http://www.gnome.org/projects/evolut.../read-mail.png
    http://www.softpedia.com/screenshots...nderbird_1.png
    http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/p...age021_low.jpg

    Yeah, outlook is *SO* ugly.

    > Evo works well with may mail systems, The
    > message filtering is far better


    Uhh.. what? What makes Evo's filtering better?

    > integrates with the desktop search


    As does outlook.

    > can pass messages through arbitrary binary helper apps as part of a filter.


    Something 99.9999% of people will never do.

    > For example, I have a filter at work that takes incoming Nagios emails,
    > and pipes them through a shell script that summerizes a weeks notices.


    Ok, I just write a .net plug-in with the plug-in wizard of the .net tools
    for office and do the same thing. Big deal. What's more, I have full
    access to the outlook object model and can scan the message archives, do my
    own filtering, pretty much whatever i want in about 20 lines of code.

    > The output (done via a weekly cronjob) emails that summary back to my
    > acct, for use in a weekly incident tracker. Another filter takes text
    > messages sent from my phone, passes them through a filter/pipe and
    > tracks hours for contract work. All I have to do is send an email (via a
    > preset addressbook entry) with customer name and on or off (or 1 or 0) I
    > haven't finished the autobill generator part of that yet, but that will
    > only involve email as a transport so it's not too terribly relevant.


    Or, you can simply have an online calendar that you connect to and update a
    tasklist with time tracking. But you can do it the hard way if you want to
    as well.

    > Now, I am sure that with enough smarts and understanding of MS
    > internals, MAPI or whatever, I could do that, but it was a few lines of
    > shell for me, and works great. Evo pwns outlook.


    Tools for office makes plugins simple.

    But, if you need help, there's ****loads of it here:
    http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/office/aa905533.aspx

    >>> and Rhythmbox has winamp beat hollow.

    >>
    >> I don't use either, so I can't compare... however, just looking at the
    >> screenshots of both, Rhythmbox looks a bit weak. Can Rhythmbox be skinned
    >> like Winamp?

    >
    > Dunno, never tried, it's usually minimized in my deskbar. It does DAAP
    > server, interfaces with magnatune and jamendo, deals with my ipod,
    > catalogues my music, keeps my podcast feeds updated (and plays them when
    > I choose that) listens to streamcasts, is extendable in python (and has
    > a python console) plays a huge variety of audio formats. Hell, you can
    > even control it from the browser if that's important to you.


    All of which can be done with Winamp, and more. So what makes it so much
    better?

    >> Compare the feature list:
    >> http://www.winamp.com/player/features
    >> http://live.gnome.org/Rhythmbox/FAQ

    >
    > I see that winamp mentions a lot of things that are default with
    > rhythmbox, as extras for the non-gratis, non-lite versions. Like ripping
    > CDs, you mean you have to pay extra for that?


    The only feature of the pro version that's not in every else is burning,
    don't act like there's a bunch of them.

    >> I mean, come on.. look at the FAQ:
    >> http://live.gnome.org/Rhythmbox/FAQ
    >>
    >> You have to create text files to do simple things? Subdirectories not
    >> supported?

    >
    > rt click on music, select import folder.


    Then why does it say differently?

  5. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

    On Nov 13, 9:41 pm, Linonut wrote:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Nov 13, 7:39 pm, Linonut wrote:
    > >> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    >
    > >> > On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:39:41 GMT, Linonut wrote:

    >
    > >> >>> Without commercial software vendors, that means linux vendors have to
    > >> >>> attract customers almost entirely with open source software, which (with a
    > >> >>> few exceptions like Firefox) are largely not of the same calibre as their
    > >> >>> commercial alternatives.

    >
    > >> (Forgot to note that little bit of FUD.)

    >
    > >> >> So, Eric, how did Windows reach "critical mass"?

    >
    > >> > It didn't have any competition.

    >
    > >> So, Eric, how did Windows achieve this "lack of competition"?

    >
    > > Murder? Adultery? Why don't you tell us what you think? Let me guess,
    > > it involves some form of illegality that only the great Linonut has
    > > been able to prove.

    >
    > I'm asking Erik, not some jive-ass such as yourself.
    >


    Then use email next time, instead of a public forum.


  6. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    >> > Murder? Adultery? Why don't you tell us what you think? Let me guess,
    >> > it involves some form of illegality that only the great Linonut has
    >> > been able to prove.

    >>
    >> I'm asking Erik, not some jive-ass such as yourself.

    >
    > Then use email next time, instead of a public forum.


    Buh-bye, poser.

    --
    Tux rox!

  7. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:39:02 GMT, Linonut wrote:
    >
    > Lol. Neithe Atari or Commodore could market their way out of a paper bag,
    > outside of the home market. Commodore always shot themselves in the foot,
    > and Atari was run by Jack Tramiel. Enough Said.


    Oh, I agree.

    > BTW, I say that as an Avid amiga user at the time, and someone who believed
    > that Commodore was always just about to make it big, only to have Commodore
    > shoot everything down in flames.


    Oh, I agree.

    That still begs the question of why a console OS such as MS-DOS carried
    the day over much more powerful graphical rivals.

    --
    Tux rox!

  8. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    >> Gnumeric will support any columns and rows you have the memory
    >> for. Since the vast majority of people don't need it, the defaults are
    >> more sane. But you can do the if you want.

    >
    >By "Defaults", you mean "Hard Coded" defaults that requires a recompile to
    >change. Yeah, that's realy friendly.


    (snip)

    >> can pass messages through arbitrary binary helper apps as part of a filter.

    >
    >Something 99.9999% of people will never do.


    For what percentage of people will the Gnumeric defaults discussed
    above not be adequate, you fscking hypocrite?


  9. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

    Linonut wrote:

    >> BTW, I say that as an Avid amiga user at the time, and someone who believed
    >> that Commodore was always just about to make it big, only to have Commodore
    >> shoot everything down in flames.

    >
    >Oh, I agree.
    >
    >That still begs the question of why a console OS such as MS-DOS carried
    >the day over much more powerful graphical rivals.


    What? I thought that M$ invented the GUI, and everyone else just
    copied them!

    8)


  10. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

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

    On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:47:46 -0600,
    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:43:19 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >
    >>> Nero does about 20x more than K3b. K3b is a nice, and does a lot of
    >>> things, with a good interface, but nero does a lot more. For instance, it
    >>> doesn't include a transcoder, or the tools to professional looking Video
    >>> DVD's (a large selection of DVD menu's, for instance).

    >>
    >> Instead, it interfaces with other apps that do, rather than being a
    >> bloated blob that tries to do everything.

    >
    > Ah yes, because if there's one thing that's clear about consumers, they
    > LOVE to get parts seperate and piece them together. Yes, that's sarcasm.
    >


    Why would they need to? k3b works out of the box in the KDE install,
    it's not like you have to download and build Linux from scratch, yes,
    that's sarcasm.


    I know you are being deliberately obtuse, but even you know that.

    >>> Eclipse suffers from the classic problem of many open source tools, you
    >>> have to "build" your toolset, it's not a complete package ready to run
    >>> after install. There's a bunch of configuration you have to do, such as
    >>> debuggers, toolchains, etc.. Certainly it's very flexible, but not what
    >>> people come to expect from commercial software.

    >>
    >>

    >
    > That kind of proves my point.
    >


    What? that you *don't* have to "build your tools"? that someone else has
    already done so?

    >>>> Can you find a lot of crap OSS projects? duh! Same as CSS, the
    >>>> difference being that the crap CSS stuff vanishes below the waves soon
    >>>> after it fails, never to be heard of again, but the OSS stuff is out on
    >>>> an old ftp server somewhere, and occasionally gets picked up. Also,
    >>>> since the cost of including packages is low, many distros offer several
    >>>> options for one task or another, some better than others.
    >>>
    >>> You misunderstand. Take the leader in any given category, the compare it
    >>> to the leader in OSS. In most cases, the OSS lacks features, completeness,
    >>> polish, and maturity.

    >>
    >> Not when you compare the whole package. Since OSS apps build on existing
    >> tools, they don't have to be swiss army knives with 40 odd little
    >> blades, tehy can focus on doing the job right. If all you have access
    >> to is commercial apps, you are pretty much forced in to the one big tool
    >> that does everything mode, and worse, you have to deal with the whole
    >> problem they have of reinventing the wheel everytime you look at a
    >> different version.

    >
    > Look, I love building computers from parts, but it's not something the
    > average user wants to do. Hell, they don't even want pay someone to build
    > it from parts, even if it's cheaper, because then they have nobody to go to
    > when it breaks, other than the person that built it.
    >
    > Normal users don't want to piece things together.
    >


    Normal users don't have to. The devs do. That's part of the point of
    OSS, your pool of devs is a lot larger, and even the most Joe Sixpack of
    us can benefit from that.


    >>>> Gnumeric compares very favourably with Excel and the like.
    >>>
    >>> Only to a certain point. For instance, Gnumeric doesn't have anything like
    >>> Excel's "Pivot Tables", and it's limited to 256 columns. Excel can have
    >>> 65536 columns and 1 million rows.

    >>
    >> Gnumeric will support any columns and rows you have the memory
    >> for. Since the vast majority of people don't need it, the defaults are
    >> more sane. But you can do the if you want. Pivot tables, yup,
    >> not supported yet. On the other hand, Gnumeric supports ods out of the
    >> box, and integrates nicely with the GNOME desktop.

    >
    > By "Defaults", you mean "Hard Coded" defaults that requires a recompile to
    > change. Yeah, that's realy friendly.


    You have often pointed out that while 90% of the features of Office are
    not needed by all, or even most, of it's users, they are there for that
    small % of people who do need them. This is one of the examples of that.
    Few "regular users" need 65,536 columns, or a million rows in a spread
    sheet.

    Frankly, if you *need* a million row spreadsheet, you're probably using
    the wrong tool for the job.

    >
    >>>> Thunderbird and Evolution totally pwn outlook
    >>>
    >>> No, they don't. And especially not Outlook 2007.

    >>
    >> the do for me, better handling of mime data, better security, Outlook is
    >> *ugly* but that's no surprise.

    >
    > That's funny, cause I think Evo and Thunderbird are butt ugly.
    >
    > Compare:
    >
    > http://www.gnome.org/projects/evolut.../read-mail.png
    > http://www.softpedia.com/screenshots...nderbird_1.png
    > http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/p...age021_low.jpg
    >
    > Yeah, outlook is *SO* ugly.
    >


    glad you agree. THanks Too bad you were too dishonest to show comparable
    screen shots, instead, showing an email view of Evo, vs a calendar view
    of Outlook, but still, outlook came off poorly.


    >> Evo works well with may mail systems, The
    >> message filtering is far better

    >
    > Uhh.. what? What makes Evo's filtering better?
    >


    what doesn't?

    >> integrates with the desktop search

    >
    > As does outlook.
    >
    >> can pass messages through arbitrary binary helper apps as part of a filter.

    >
    > Something 99.9999% of people will never do.
    >



    which as pointed out many times before, means exactly *what* to me? I
    should conform to *your* choices in my software ? No thanks.

    >> For example, I have a filter at work that takes incoming Nagios emails,
    >> and pipes them through a shell script that summerizes a weeks notices.

    >
    > Ok, I just write a .net plug-in with the plug-in wizard of the .net tools
    > for office and do the same thing. Big deal. What's more, I have full
    > access to the outlook object model and can scan the message archives, do my
    > own filtering, pretty much whatever i want in about 20 lines of code.


    Great, after of course shelling out for all the MS bits, which don't
    work with the rest of us.

    >
    >> The output (done via a weekly cronjob) emails that summary back to my
    >> acct, for use in a weekly incident tracker. Another filter takes text
    >> messages sent from my phone, passes them through a filter/pipe and
    >> tracks hours for contract work. All I have to do is send an email (via a
    >> preset addressbook entry) with customer name and on or off (or 1 or 0) I
    >> haven't finished the autobill generator part of that yet, but that will
    >> only involve email as a transport so it's not too terribly relevant.

    >
    > Or, you can simply have an online calendar that you connect to and update a
    > tasklist with time tracking. But you can do it the hard way if you want to
    > as well.



    Hard way? sending a two word sms is the "hard way"?

    >
    >> Now, I am sure that with enough smarts and understanding of MS
    >> internals, MAPI or whatever, I could do that, but it was a few lines of
    >> shell for me, and works great. Evo pwns outlook.

    >
    > Tools for office makes plugins simple.
    >
    > But, if you need help, there's ****loads of it here:
    > http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/office/aa905533.aspx


    great, doesn't work on Linux.


    >
    >>>> and Rhythmbox has winamp beat hollow.
    >>>
    >>> I don't use either, so I can't compare... however, just looking at the
    >>> screenshots of both, Rhythmbox looks a bit weak. Can Rhythmbox be skinned
    >>> like Winamp?

    >>
    >> Dunno, never tried, it's usually minimized in my deskbar. It does DAAP
    >> server, interfaces with magnatune and jamendo, deals with my ipod,
    >> catalogues my music, keeps my podcast feeds updated (and plays them when
    >> I choose that) listens to streamcasts, is extendable in python (and has
    >> a python console) plays a huge variety of audio formats. Hell, you can
    >> even control it from the browser if that's important to you.

    >
    > All of which can be done with Winamp, and more. So what makes it so much
    > better?
    >


    For one, it runs on Linux, sans wine, winamp doesn't. Second, winamp
    isn't part of a system level update/package manager. Winamp lacks
    python console.


    >>> Compare the feature list:
    >>> http://www.winamp.com/player/features
    >>> http://live.gnome.org/Rhythmbox/FAQ

    >>
    >> I see that winamp mentions a lot of things that are default with
    >> rhythmbox, as extras for the non-gratis, non-lite versions. Like ripping
    >> CDs, you mean you have to pay extra for that?

    >
    > The only feature of the pro version that's not in every else is burning,
    > don't act like there's a bunch of them.


    THey are my criteria, what's important to me is what matters, not you.

    >
    >>> I mean, come on.. look at the FAQ:
    >>> http://live.gnome.org/Rhythmbox/FAQ
    >>>
    >>> You have to create text files to do simple things? Subdirectories not
    >>> supported?

    >>
    >> rt click on music, select import folder.

    >
    > Then why does it say differently?



    dunno, have you tried it?


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHOz7ed90bcYOAWPYRAjAKAJ4jkyhLjSAp869a2jUE7P Lw0EdZjgCfb9NE
    w3VrFw2MlJJqAm0n030zWrw=
    =amj1
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Go sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here

  11. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

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

    On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 07:44:03 -0600,
    chrisv wrote:
    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >>> Gnumeric will support any columns and rows you have the memory
    >>> for. Since the vast majority of people don't need it, the defaults are
    >>> more sane. But you can do the if you want.

    >>
    >>By "Defaults", you mean "Hard Coded" defaults that requires a recompile to
    >>change. Yeah, that's realy friendly.

    >
    > (snip)
    >
    >>> can pass messages through arbitrary binary helper apps as part of a filter.

    >>
    >>Something 99.9999% of people will never do.

    >
    > For what percentage of people will the Gnumeric defaults discussed
    > above not be adequate, you fscking hypocrite?
    >



    Don't throw Erik's words back at him, he might vanish in a huff for a
    few weeks, and *then* what would we do for entertainment?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHOz8Rd90bcYOAWPYRAuPBAJ9i5S+k6nlMWATx6V3Rjo rdrC1MvACgr7Zl
    Wk8jy/+JeyeT5pJ9NgzqQWc=
    =/M6U
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Another cool thing about not being especially
    trendy is that we are a relatively small target of the fun police.
    -- Bear Graves in ASP

  12. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Jim Richardson belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    >> That's funny, cause I think Evo and Thunderbird are butt ugly.
    >>
    >> Compare:
    >>
    >> http://www.gnome.org/projects/evolut.../read-mail.png
    >> http://www.softpedia.com/screenshots...nderbird_1.png
    >> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/p...age021_low.jpg
    >>
    >> Yeah, outlook is *SO* ugly.

    >
    > glad you agree. THanks Too bad you were too dishonest to show comparable
    > screen shots, instead, showing an email view of Evo, vs a calendar view
    > of Outlook, but still, outlook came off poorly.


    Actually, I was kind of suprised at how good Outlook looks. It's
    getting up there with your basic Gnome app. A few more release cycles,
    and it might even reach KDE quality.

    > Great, after of course shelling out for all the MS bits, which don't
    > work with the rest of us.


    No problem. Just get your company to buy an MSDN subscription. Then
    you can "borrow" the expensive bits.



    >> Tools for office makes plugins simple.
    >>
    >> But, if you need help, there's ****loads of it here:
    >> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/office/aa905533.aspx

    >
    > great, doesn't work on Linux.


    When will he understand that we want to *avoid* Microsoft software. Not
    buy it. Not even /use/ it.

    --
    Tux rox!

  13. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

    On 2007-11-14, chrisv claimed:
    > Linonut wrote:
    >
    >>> BTW, I say that as an Avid amiga user at the time, and someone who believed
    >>> that Commodore was always just about to make it big, only to have Commodore
    >>> shoot everything down in flames.

    >>
    >>Oh, I agree.
    >>
    >>That still begs the question of why a console OS such as MS-DOS carried
    >>the day over much more powerful graphical rivals.

    >
    > What? I thought that M$ invented the GUI, and everyone else just
    > copied them!
    >
    > 8)


    That's true. Everybody copied it from MS a few years before they had
    the first one, though.

    --
    The clash of ideas is the sound of freedom.

  14. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

    On Nov 14, 7:34 am, Linonut wrote:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    > >> > Murder? Adultery? Why don't you tell us what you think? Let me guess,
    > >> > it involves some form of illegality that only the great Linonut has
    > >> > been able to prove.

    >
    > >> I'm asking Erik, not some jive-ass such as yourself.

    >
    > > Then use email next time, instead of a public forum.

    >
    > Buh-bye, poser.
    >


    I'm sorry you got so upset over someone else responding to your public
    message. Still not going to answer the question?


  15. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

    On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:30:55 -0800, Jim Richardson
    wrote:

    >>>> Only to a certain point. For instance, Gnumeric doesn't have
    >>>> anything like Excel's "Pivot Tables", and it's limited to 256
    >>>> columns. Excel can have 65536 columns and 1 million rows.


    Not unless you get Excel 2007. The 2003 version only did 64K rows and
    it couldn't plot more than 32K of them on a chart. Which is presumably
    why Erik is now bragging about this.


    > Frankly, if you *need* a million row spreadsheet, you're probably
    > using the wrong tool for the job.


    Indeed. People at $WORK seem to think Excel is a good way to plot lab
    data. And it does work reasonably well until you get a real data set.
    Then you're just kind of sunk.

    A vendor recently sent us a mission analysis file that had 800,000 data
    points, each of which was a dozen or so measurements, representing three
    hours of flight time. All in a simple tab-delimited format.

    Gnuplot had no problem with that. Among other things it made me a nice
    3-D plot of the aircraft position vs altitude vs time, which could be
    rotated and viewed from different angles, zoomed in and out, etc.


    --
    -| Bob Hauck
    -| "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
    -| http://www.haucks.org/

  16. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

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

    On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:54:33 -0500,
    Bob Hauck wrote:
    > On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:30:55 -0800, Jim Richardson
    > wrote:
    >
    >>>>> Only to a certain point. For instance, Gnumeric doesn't have
    >>>>> anything like Excel's "Pivot Tables", and it's limited to 256
    >>>>> columns. Excel can have 65536 columns and 1 million rows.

    >
    > Not unless you get Excel 2007. The 2003 version only did 64K rows and
    > it couldn't plot more than 32K of them on a chart. Which is presumably
    > why Erik is now bragging about this.
    >
    >
    >> Frankly, if you *need* a million row spreadsheet, you're probably
    >> using the wrong tool for the job.

    >
    > Indeed. People at $WORK seem to think Excel is a good way to plot lab
    > data. And it does work reasonably well until you get a real data set.
    > Then you're just kind of sunk.
    >
    > A vendor recently sent us a mission analysis file that had 800,000 data
    > points, each of which was a dozen or so measurements, representing three
    > hours of flight time. All in a simple tab-delimited format.
    >
    > Gnuplot had no problem with that. Among other things it made me a nice
    > 3-D plot of the aircraft position vs altitude vs time, which could be
    > rotated and viewed from different angles, zoomed in and out, etc.
    >
    >



    gnuplot rocks.



    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHO5W3d90bcYOAWPYRAkrcAKCWvzg+aMWJwNNzEcsggR GTJM7qIgCg0EBD
    GXKlhPgqzsaqANgOqIZn75I=
    =X51J
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot
    change, the courage to change the things I can, and the
    weaponry to make the difference stick!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2