Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously? - Linux

This is a discussion on Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously? - Linux ; On Dec 18, 4:54 am, William Poaster wrote: > Didn't the "raylopez99" tosser post this not long ago? > Is the idiot troll repeating itself? > If so, it must not have read the replies it got to its feeble ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 103

Thread: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

  1. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    On Dec 18, 4:54 am, William Poaster wrote:
    > Didn't the "raylopez99" tosser post this not long ago?
    > Is the idiot troll repeating itself?
    > If so, it must not have read the replies it got to its feeble troll the first
    > time.



    Yes, I posted this a while ago, and the answers are largely the same:
    "I use Linux for [enter specialized application(s) here, that nobody
    else except one in a million use], and therefore everybody else should
    too!".

    R

  2. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    >Who uses Linux here, seriously? For serious work. I'm serious.

    Turbulence code development for plasma physics research
    Writing papers (Tex, emacs)

    The only thing at the moment from my work that I can only do on the
    workstation is detailed graphics, for which I need IDL (and the whole
    license issue for which it is easier to use our site license on our
    platforms). For bureaucracy I cannot use the workstation and need the
    laptop, since only there do I have Open Office 2.0 which seems to be the
    only thing that can read all these Windows filed I get from others.

    Of course, to _run_ my codes I need large systems. The smallest is an
    IBM blade cluster running some SUSE Linux, the next is an IBM regatta
    running something similar to AIX, and the largest so far is an IBM
    BlueGene running something very similar to Linux (in fact on the front
    end machine it is, explicitly, Linux). This machine was number 40 on
    the top super computers list as of last month.

    Any questions?

    --
    ciao,
    Bruce

    drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/


  3. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    On Dec 18, 6:11 am, Bruce Scott TOK Header@[127.1]> wrote:
    > >Who uses Linux here, seriously? For serious work. I'm serious.

    >
    > Turbulence code development for plasma physics research
    > Writing papers (Tex, emacs)


    Ah, the boundary layer, it rings a bell (took a course in rocket
    science once).

    >


    > Of course, to _run_ my codes I need large systems. The smallest is an
    > IBM blade cluster running some SUSE Linux, the next is an IBM regatta
    > running something similar to AIX, and the largest so far is an IBM
    > BlueGene running something very similar to Linux (in fact on the front
    > end machine it is, explicitly, Linux). This machine was number 40 on
    > the top super computers list as of last month.


    OK. Stop. You are on #40 of the top supercomputers in the world. A
    roomful of people like you would be a small room. You use Linux. I
    presume you want the whole world to adopt Linux. Ergo, Linux has no
    future in the real world (seriously). Q.E.F.

    >
    > Any questions?
    >
    > --


    Yes. If relativity says forces only can be transmitted at the speed
    of light, yet Newtonian physics says that forces acting at a distance
    act on the center of mass of an object, then if any forces travel
    faster than light we should be getting a moment (as defined by
    classical mechanics)between the apparent center of mass (as determined
    by relativity) and the actual center of mass, no? Same if the object
    is destroyed (a star, many light years away) yet the star's forces are
    still being observed today, thought the star went extinct. Are people
    looking for these forces? If not, why not?

    Followup question: if information cannot travel faster than light,
    explain the particle-wave duality of an electron as it passes through
    a diffraction grating. How can it be in two places at the same time?

    More questions than answers, like in Linux.

    RL

  4. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    >Ah, the boundary layer, it rings a bell (took a course in rocket
    >science once).


    For us it is driven by the pressure gradient and therefore exists in the
    whole plasma (and does all the thermal transport).

    >OK. Stop. You are on #40 of the top supercomputers in the world. A
    >roomful of people like you would be a small room. You use Linux. I
    >presume you want the whole world to adopt Linux. Ergo, Linux has no
    >future in the real world (seriously). Q.E.F.


    I am one guy. There are circa 100k like me in the US, not including
    fields like industrial engineering which are even larger. i do academic
    scientific research. Without access to large systems I would stick to
    the problems I was working on until about 18 months ago. That means
    (relatively small) Linux clusters.

    In Germany most such small scale research happens on Linux clusters, for
    cost reasons alone. The only reason anyone has Windows is due to
    (typically clueless) University bureaucracies. These, in turn, are a
    lever for large corporations to fleece the taxpayer by convincing
    governments to give the big contracts to those same corporations.

    Without that you'd have very little Windows in this sector indeed (it
    would be hanging off IBM like it used to, not Microsoft).


    >Yes. If relativity says forces only can be transmitted at the speed
    >of light, yet Newtonian physics says that forces acting at a distance
    >act on the center of mass of an object, then if any forces travel
    >faster than light we should be getting a moment (as defined by
    >classical mechanics)between the apparent center of mass (as determined
    >by relativity) and the actual center of mass, no? Same if the object
    >is destroyed (a star, many light years away) yet the star's forces are
    >still being observed today, thought the star went extinct. Are people
    >looking for these forces? If not, why not?


    See the sci.physics FAQ which covers this. Beyond that, google for Ned
    Wright's cosmology tutorial (or get the link from my web site, below)

    >Followup question: if information cannot travel faster than light,
    >explain the particle-wave duality of an electron as it passes through
    >a diffraction grating. How can it be in two places at the same time?


    Also covered by the sci.physics FAQ

    >More questions than answers, like in Linux.


    I don't have time to lecture physics on the Internet...

    --
    ciao,
    Bruce

    drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/


  5. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    raylopez99 wrote:
    >
    > Well you're not credible or trying to be funny. What you mention
    > would fill a career of software development, and since you post like a
    > 20 year old, I doubt you've done all or any of that (in your dreams
    > maybe).


    20. I wish. You are off by a factor of 2. I'm 40 as of last
    Halloween. And that list reads like a consultant who typically spends
    no more than a year at any one contract, which coincidently I happen to
    be.

    > But, again like my reply to Ray was, all of these
    > applications are "specialized". For example, digital cable TV, video
    > game controllers and medical scanning and possibly aerospace (the
    > first three I'm sure on) are coded often in "C" language, if not
    > assembly language. Does this mean "DOS" and other such primitive OSes
    > are the future? No. It just means that for historic reasons most
    > such hardware was programmed by assembly or C, since these languages
    > are extremely platform dependent as well as performance driven, and
    > many people have stuck to that convention, for better or worse. So
    > again, your answer is not acceptible.


    Hey, you were the one that specifically mentioned software development
    as a legitimate 'serious' use in your original post. Anyway, as I
    mentioned in another post, I also run my consulting and real estate
    businesses with Linux. That includes creation of all financial
    spreadsheets, contracts, resumes, project proposals, property leases,
    and invoices. All of our time tracking and accounting is done on
    Linux, as is our daily web surfing and email use. This is a
    completely Linux shop. The only copy of Windows running only any of
    our workstations is an old copy of Win2000 running under VMWare that
    I haven't even booted in months.

    If the point you are trying to make is that most people still use
    Windows for those sorts of tasks, all I can say is, 'tell us
    something we don't know'. If you are trying to claim that Linux
    cannot be used for 'serious' work like running a consulting business,
    well my experience says otherwise.

    Thad
    --
    Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
    all the ingredients on the label.

  6. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    raylopez99 wrote:

    > Wow! Amazing. mysql is a good SQL language though the last version I
    > checked, v 4.x, did not support "stored procedures"


    As of v4.1, MySQL would let you define constraints on a column, but would
    not enforce them:

    DB > create table oss_crap (a int check (a>0))
    OK
    DB > insert into oss_crap values(0)
    OK

    As I said the other day: "That to me typifies what open source slopware is
    all about: cheap, poorly designed, poorly coded, poorly documented, fewer
    features, half-ass testing, etc. The ONLY things most open source code has
    going for it is price, and you can obtain it easily via download."


    > (then again, neither does MSFT Access, which I'm working with now).


    You have to write Access 'stored procedures' in forms, reports and modules.
    The Jet database engine does not support them (or triggers or sequences).





  7. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    raylopez99 wrote:
    >
    > Because the implicit point I'm making is that for business modular and
    > scalable applications (meaning they are stand alone, not specialized
    > and everybody can use them), nobody uses LInux. This is because it
    > pays for everybody to adopt a single standard (.doc for text, .xls for
    > spreadsheets, .ppt for slides, etc). Now that OpenOffice has come
    > into being, this battle could have been won by them but they are 10
    > years too late.
    >
    > So essentially my OP was a flame (as I trust you realized).


    Trust us, we all knew that from the start, but it is still a good
    opportunity to catalog the serious use of Linux by the COLA
    denizens. I trust the various readers of this thread present and
    future to make up their own mind about the validity of your
    definition of 'serious'. The more you contort your argument to
    rationalize away each response, the more your post becomes an
    effective foil to show just how viable Linux is as a general
    purpose business tool. Sometimes, an ineffective troll can be
    the best advocacy.

    Thank you.

    Thad
    --
    Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
    all the ingredients on the label.

  8. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    thad05@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote:

    >raylopez99 wrote:


    Again I'm amazed that anyone engages this worthless POS troll. You
    answer him, and he calls you a liar and claims that what you wrote
    doesn't count. There is no more utterly worthless troll in this
    group. And that is saying something.


  9. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 05:49:24 -0800, raylopez99 wrote:

    > On Dec 17, 7:25 pm, ray wrote:
    >>
    >> I use it fairly seriously - I used to use it quite seriously - for digital
    >> signal processing of coherant radar signals to do target motion resolution
    >> for a major DOD test facility. Is that serious enough? Actually, I did the
    >> scientific software support and development for that area of the post
    >> flight data analysis branch.

    >
    > OK, I want to clarify my question because you raise a good point.
    > When I say "serious work" I'm talking about modular business oriented
    > applications and not "specialized" scientific or military
    > applications. Why? Because people still use FORTRAN in scientific
    > legacy applications and COBOL in business mainframe applications
    > somewhere that I'm sure has serious implications (probably the Social
    > Security administration uses COBOL or some variant thereof).
    >
    > So your vote doesn't count Ray, unfortunately.
    >
    > Anybody else?
    >
    > RL


    Yes, I see, DooFuS. If anyone gives an answer you don't like, then it does
    not count.

    So, am I to conclude that 'business oriented applications' are much more
    'serious' than national defense?


  10. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 00:22:23 -0600, thad05 wrote:

    > ray wrote:
    >>
    >> I use it fairly seriously - I used to use it quite seriously - for digital
    >> signal processing of coherant radar signals to do target motion resolution
    >> for a major DOD test facility. Is that serious enough? Actually, I did the
    >> scientific software support and development for that area of the post
    >> flight data analysis branch.

    >
    > Well, as long as we are talking about specific industries and not just
    > the specific tasks we worked on, I'll mention that I've used Linux to
    > developed software for aerospace instrumentation, medical scanning
    > equipment, embedded automotive computers, medical billing systems,
    > the banking industry, digital cable television equipment, and
    > recently even video game controllers.
    >
    > But really, I did all that on a lark and wouldn't really call it
    > *serious* use of Linux.
    >
    > Thad


    According to the OP, those are not serious applications. They have to be
    related to bussiness applications - change of definition.


  11. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    On Tuesday 18 Dec 2007 3:25 pm, chrisv wrote in comp.os.linux.advocacy:

    > thad05@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote:
    >
    >>raylopez99 wrote:

    >
    > Again I'm amazed that anyone engages this worthless POS troll. You
    > answer him, and he calls you a liar and claims that what you wrote
    > doesn't count. There is no more utterly worthless troll in this
    > group. And that is saying something.


    I agree. The troll should just be ignored for the worthless POS that it is.

    --
    Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2 (64bit), PC-BSD 1.4,
    Testing: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA 3
    Linux systems: Kubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" amd64,
    Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007.

  12. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 05:52:20 -0800, raylopez99 wrote:

    > On Dec 17, 8:50 pm, Rob Hughes wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Why do you get to define what "serious work" is?
    >>

    >
    > Because the implicit point I'm making is that for business modular and
    > scalable applications (meaning they are stand alone, not specialized
    > and everybody can use them), nobody uses LInux. This is because it
    > pays for everybody to adopt a single standard (.doc for text, .xls for
    > spreadsheets, .ppt for slides, etc).


    Which one? It rather seems to be a moving target - e.g. write your docs in
    ms office 2007 and the folks stuck with office 2003 on xp can't deal with
    it. It would be much better if folks would indeed adopt standards.
    Unfortunately, ms does not do standards - they bastardize everything they
    touch in hopes that the world will be forced to follow. BTW - open office
    DOES read ms office 2007 files.

    > Now that OpenOffice has come
    > into being, this battle could have been won by them but they are 10
    > years too late.
    >
    > So essentially my OP was a flame (as I trust you realized).


    Finally, you admit it!!

    >
    >> But to address the rest of your question; yes to all of the above and some
    >> things you didn't mention, like graphics work, multimedia content creation,
    >> etc.
    >>
    >> And FYI; Apache is not a "linux program". It's a cross-platform web server.
    >>

    >
    > I know, but I'm sure the Linux version is the most robust (guessing),
    > and I'm sure that's how Linux got famous, at least that was true 10
    > years ago.
    >
    > RL



  13. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    On Tuesday 18 Dec 2007 6:22 am, thad05@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote in
    comp.os.linux.advocacy:

    > ray wrote:
    >>
    >> I use it fairly seriously - I used to use it quite seriously - for digital
    >> signal processing of coherant radar signals to do target motion resolution
    >> for a major DOD test facility. Is that serious enough? Actually, I did the
    >> scientific software support and development for that area of the post
    >> flight data analysis branch.

    >
    > Well, as long as we are talking about specific industries and not just
    > the specific tasks we worked on, I'll mention that I've used Linux to
    > developed software for aerospace instrumentation, medical scanning
    > equipment, embedded automotive computers, medical billing systems,
    > the banking industry, digital cable television equipment, and
    > recently even video game controllers.


    > But really, I did all that on a lark and wouldn't really call it
    > *serious* use of Linux.


    Linux is also used in the weather & climate research, general research,
    information processing, geophysics, service, semiconductor & a whole range of
    other industries.

    --
    Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2 (64bit), PC-BSD 1.4,
    Testing: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA 3
    Linux systems: Kubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" amd64,
    Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007.

  14. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    "William Poaster" wrote
    news:5cgl35-3t7.ln1@amd64.brunel.eu...
    > On Tuesday 18 Dec 2007 3:25 pm, chrisv wrote in comp.os.linux.advocacy:
    >
    >> thad05@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote:
    >>
    >>>raylopez99 wrote:

    >>
    >> Again I'm amazed that anyone engages this worthless POS troll. You
    >> answer him, and he calls you a liar and claims that what you wrote
    >> doesn't count. There is no more utterly worthless troll in this
    >> group. And that is saying something.

    >
    > I agree...


    Fsck you arsehole troll.
    *plonk*








  15. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

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

    On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:37:54 -0800 (PST),
    raylopez99 wrote:
    > Who uses Linux here, seriously? For serious work. I'm serious. Not
    > talking about Apache. But serious business word processing,
    > spreadsheets, databases, programming, that sort of stuff. Real work.
    > Not hobbyware. Not casual surfing of the net. Leaving aside Apache.
    > Yes I know Apache is a great Linux program. But let's leave that
    > aside, otherwise you're conceeding that the only serious application
    > in Linux is Apache. If you conceed that, I'll go away and never troll
    > here again.
    >
    > Seriously, who uses Linux for *serious* work?
    >



    I do, and have, for nearly ten years. I don't have a Mac, or an
    MS-Windows PC. (I do have an XPpro VM somewhere, haven't fired it up in
    a few months. Only did then to do the update, I don't even bother with
    that any more, it's here so if someone asks, I can say yes, I have
    it...)

    Apart from the casual websurving and such which you so cavalierly
    dismiss, I use it for all my computer related work. Email, IMing,
    gaming, business desktop, all inclusive.



    But console yourself with this, you may be damn near useless, but you do
    serve on useful function here, you make people like 7 look good.

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

    iD8DBQFHaEBvd90bcYOAWPYRAom/AKDXG0Mp8vOQyjzyQmgnNfAnr9z5ZQCfYR8L
    fMRd+9hv+Xk5hdDU7togUuU=
    =TkY5
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    "I think quotes are very dangerous things."
    -- Kate Bush

  16. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 05:46:27 -0800, raylopez99 wrote:

    > On Dec 17, 4:56 pm, Kier wrote:
    >
    >> We believe you. Not.
    >>
    >> > Seriously, who uses Linux for *serious* work?

    >>
    >> > The silence is deafening.

    >>
    >> Actually, no, it isn't. A great many people do.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Kier

    >
    > OK, your 14 year old brother who likes to run kiddie scripts of
    > viruses online and some unnamed other people.


    My brother's forty-five and works for one of the biggest tech companies in
    England. So do his friends. They're all a sight smarter than you.

    --
    Kier



  17. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    raylopez99 wrote:

    > Wow! *Amazing. *mysql is a good SQL language though the last version I
    > checked, v 4.x, did not support "stored procedures" (then again,
    > neither does MSFT Access, which I'm working with now).


    Postgresql supports stored procedures and much, much more.

    On linux you have a choice.

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  18. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    DFS wrote:

    > raylopez99 wrote:
    >
    >> Wow! Amazing. mysql is a good SQL language though the last version I
    >> checked, v 4.x, did not support "stored procedures"

    >
    > As of v4.1, MySQL would let you define constraints on a column, but would
    > not enforce them:
    >
    > DB > create table oss_crap (a int check (a>0))
    > OK
    > DB > insert into oss_crap values(0)
    > OK
    >
    > As I said the other day: "That to me typifies what open source slopware is
    > all about: cheap, poorly designed, poorly coded, poorly documented, fewer
    > features, half-ass testing, etc. The ONLY things most open source code
    > has going for it is price, and you can obtain it easily via download."


    This pathetic tirade has nothing at all to do with open source applications.

    Postgresql supports constraints and much, much, much more.

    One day you may stop your pathetic sniping and do some real work.

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  19. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Gregory Shearman

    wrote
    on Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:18:28 +1100
    <1563789.Jueij2snTi@netscape.net>:
    > DFS wrote:
    >
    >> raylopez99 wrote:
    >>
    >>> Wow! Amazing. mysql is a good SQL language though the last version I
    >>> checked, v 4.x, did not support "stored procedures"

    >>
    >> As of v4.1, MySQL would let you define constraints on a column, but would
    >> not enforce them:
    >>
    >> DB > create table oss_crap (a int check (a>0))
    >> OK
    >> DB > insert into oss_crap values(0)
    >> OK
    >>
    >> As I said the other day: "That to me typifies what open source slopware is
    >> all about: cheap, poorly designed, poorly coded, poorly documented, fewer
    >> features, half-ass testing, etc. The ONLY things most open source code
    >> has going for it is price, and you can obtain it easily via download."

    >
    > This pathetic tirade has nothing at all to do with open source applications.
    >
    > Postgresql supports constraints and much, much, much more.
    >
    > One day you may stop your pathetic sniping and do some real work.
    >


    It's worth noting that MySQL is version 5.0.51 as well.
    Granted, this looks like a payware variant -- although
    one can download it for a 30-day free trial. One can
    also download the source and compile it oneself.

    http://www.mysql.com/
    http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/5.0.html#source

    or just download the precompiled binaries:

    http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/5.0.html#downloads

    Raylopez99 needs to redo his homework. :-)

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Linux. Because it's not the desktop that's
    important, it's the ability to DO something
    with it.

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


  20. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    raylopez99 wrote:
    >
    > Wow! Amazing. mysql is a good SQL language though the last version I
    > checked, v 4.x, did not support "stored procedures" (then again,
    > neither does MSFT Access, which I'm working with now).


    MySQL is now at 6.0 and has had stored procedure support since 5.0
    at least. Indeed, MySQL now has pretty much everything you expect in
    an enterprise DB solution, including some rather interesting clustered
    storage technology that even some commercial solutions don't offer.
    It may not be top performer in every benchmark, but it scores really
    high marks in read heavy environments like the typical web
    application. In short, it deserves at least a serious look before
    shelling out for Oracle, DB2, or MS-SQL.

    Thad
    --
    Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
    all the ingredients on the label.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast