Who seriously uses Linux here for serious work? - Linux

This is a discussion on Who seriously uses Linux here for serious work? - Linux ; On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 06:41:25 -0800, raylopez99 wrote: > I know I've probably asked this question at least twice before, but > three's the charm, and I want to know: > > who seriously uses Linux here for serious ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 134

Thread: Who seriously uses Linux here for serious work?

  1. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here for serious work?

    On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 06:41:25 -0800, raylopez99 wrote:

    > I know I've probably asked this question at least twice before, but
    > three's the charm, and I want to know:
    >
    > who seriously uses Linux here for serious work?


    I do, every single day.

    > I define "serious work" as work done by the mainstream, such as
    > spreadsheets, word processing, and graphical slide show presentations,
    > in a medium that is widely adopted or adoptable by the masses.


    Yeah, and again, serving up web pages and email and news and bandwidth
    isn't "serious work". The fact that millions of people rely on just such
    services, day in and day out, to run their business, never mind simply
    enjoy the experience, simply doesn't matter.

    Sorry, nutjob, bu those *are* serious work, whether you want to include
    'em in your list or not.

    Meanwhile, that said, I use word processing and spreadsheeting pretty
    much daily, in Linux, tossing documents back and forth between other
    office workers, most of whom use Windows and MS Office - and they are
    blissfully unaware that I'm not using MS products, because the products I
    use are so damn good they can actually use MS's formats... where, last I
    checked, the MS apps cannot use _their_ formats.

    Plus email, of course; we chuck emails around constantly. I don't do
    many slide shows, but the apps are there to do 'em. Then again, I
    haven't seen *anyone* doing a slide show in about three years; not sure
    how this qualifies as "serious work" when serving up web pages and email
    doesn't.

    > So, I'm pretty much talking about extensions such as .doc, .xls, .ppt,
    > and .pdf in the Windows world.


    PDF? Hey, does MS Office allow you to export to PDF, the way the stuff I
    use does?

    That aside, every one of those formats works just fine here, thanks, and
    I use most of 'em daily. Not the .ppt - who uses those? - but I do have
    the tools to view and create 'em. If I care to.

    > So, I'm pretty much ruling out anything from the Linux world.


    Don't care. Guess what? I'm *in* the Linux world, insofar as using
    Linux day in and day out - and use every one of those formats, other than
    ppt, daily, and with Linux apps.

    > So, I'm pretty much stating the obvious in a rhetorical question: nobody
    > uses Linux for mainstream computing; everybody uses Windows.


    Except they don't.

    I know, you thought you'd be cute, by limiting it to .doc and .xls. Hate
    to break it to you, you drooling little moron, but those are not OS-
    specific file formats, so your little game didn't work.

    Care to try again, but next time, perhaps think first?


  2. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here for serious work?

    On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:09:29 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article
    > <6c66cfe5-f6d0-437a-836e-430ecff6d0bf@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
    > raylopez99 wrote:
    >
    >> I know I've probably asked this question at least twice before, but
    >> three's the charm, and I want to know:
    >>
    >> who seriously uses Linux here for serious work?
    >>
    >> I define "serious work" as work done by the mainstream, such as
    >> spreadsheets, word processing, and graphical slide show presentations,
    >> in a medium that is widely adopted or adoptable by the masses.

    >
    > Wait a second...why are you dismissing out of hand such things as
    > processing customer orders, charging credit cards, running the phone
    > system and the customer support database of a call center, and things
    > like that?
    >
    > How is that not serious work???


    Since you can do that sort of thing *very* effectively in Linux, it must
    not be allowed to count. Mind you, he does include word processing and
    the like, which are also done very effectively in Linux, so it's not
    clear why he limits it the way he does. It's pretty silly. About like
    trying to limit things to only apply to Chevy vehicles by limiting the
    options to vehicles which use tires.


  3. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here for serious work?

    "Linonut" stated in post
    K9Pjj.43653$k27.43403@bignews2.bellsouth.net on 1/17/08 1:56 PM:

    > * Snit peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> You can hire a programmer to work on any platform... sure, you can "muck"
    >> with OSS code, but realistically most companies are not going to do that.
    >> Some will... do not get me wrong - but that will be the exception and not
    >> the norm.

    >
    > There's no "mucking" with OSS. It either fits your needs, or it does
    > not. That is fairly easy to determine.


    I was in response to the comments before mine, specifically:

    'Course, if he's using OSS, he doesn't need to cajole the
    vendor into doing it; he can do it himself (if he's actually
    a high IQ boy) or hire a coder to do it for him. It puts the
    choices and the control in *his* hands, not the vendor's.

    > If it does not fit your needs, then you either modify it (if you have
    > the staff and the budget) or you purchase someone else's work (if you
    > don't have the staff or you estimate that purchase is more
    > cost-effective, and the loss of control is not material to your
    > cause).


    No problem with that... using OSS as part of an overall set of tools makes
    complete sense to me. Heck, I use a number of OSS tools on my Mac...
    *including* parts of the OS itself and the web engine.

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




  4. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here for serious work?

    * Snit peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > You can hire a programmer to work on any platform... sure, you can "muck"
    > with OSS code, but realistically most companies are not going to do that.
    > Some will... do not get me wrong - but that will be the exception and not
    > the norm.


    There's no "mucking" with OSS. It either fits your needs, or it does
    not. That is fairly easy to determine.

    If it does not fit your needs, then you either modify it (if you have
    the staff and the budget) or you purchase someone else's work (if you
    don't have the staff or you estimate that purchase is more
    cost-effective, and the loss of control is not material to your
    cause).

    --
    algorithm, n.:
    Trendy dance for hip programmers.

  5. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here for serious work?

    On Jan 17, 11:08*am, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    > On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 06:41:25 -0800, raylopez99 wrote:
    > > I know I've probably asked this question at least twice before, but
    > > three's the charm, and I want to know:

    >
    > > who seriously uses Linux here for serious work?

    >
    > I do, every single day.
    >


    You're the exception--that proves the rule.

    > > I define "serious work" as work done by the mainstream, such as
    > > spreadsheets, word processing, and graphical slide show presentations,
    > > in a medium that is widely adopted or adoptable by the masses.

    >
    > Yeah, and again, serving up web pages and email and news and bandwidth
    > isn't "serious work". *The fact that millions of people rely on just such
    > services, day in and day out, to run their business, never mind simply
    > enjoy the experience, simply doesn't matter.


    You can do that with ADO.NET, ASP.NET, MS SQL Server, MS Access or a
    simple online service running under Unix. Routine.

    >
    > Sorry, nutjob, bu those *are* serious work, whether you want to include
    > 'em in your list or not.
    >
    > Meanwhile, that said, I use word processing and spreadsheeting pretty
    > much daily, in Linux, tossing documents back and forth between other
    > office workers, most of whom use Windows and MS Office - and they are
    > blissfully unaware that I'm not using MS products, because the products I
    > use are so damn good they can actually use MS's formats... where, last I
    > checked, the MS apps cannot use _their_ formats. *


    So you export to .doc and .xls. Good for you, you're smarter than I
    thought.

    >
    > Plus email, of course; we chuck emails around constantly. *I don't do
    > many slide shows, but the apps are there to do 'em. *Then again, I
    > haven't seen *anyone* doing a slide show in about three years; not sure
    > how this qualifies as "serious work" when serving up web pages and email
    > doesn't.


    PowerPoint is a slide show. Shows you're outside the corporate
    mainstream, but it befits your "lone wolf" persona (and you smell bad
    too).

    >
    > > So, I'm pretty much talking about extensions such as .doc, .xls, .ppt,
    > > and .pdf in the Windows world.

    >
    > PDF? *Hey, does MS Office allow you to export to PDF, the way the stuff I
    > use does?


    Yes. There's a print driver from Adobe for that.

    >
    > That aside, every one of those formats works just fine here, thanks, and
    > I use most of 'em daily. *Not the .ppt - who uses those? - but I do have
    > the tools to view and create 'em. *If I care to.
    >
    > > So, I'm pretty much ruling out anything from the Linux world.

    >
    > Don't care. *Guess what? *I'm *in* the Linux world, insofar as using
    > Linux day in and day out - and use every one of those formats, other than
    > ppt, daily, and with Linux apps.
    >


    Well, you're not in the corporate world, since everybody uses PPt. So
    you're not making big bucks. Thanks for sharing that embarassing
    fact.

    RL

  6. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here for serious work?

    Linonut wrote:
    >
    > * Paul Hovnanian P.E. peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    > > No. You confined your set of s/w to Microsoft products alone.
    > >
    > > Don't think that other developers haven't noticed this as well. They can
    > > either find a niche so small that they will remain under Microsoft's
    > > radar (and abandon all hopes of growing their business).

    >
    > Isn't it kind of an aphorism by now that PC software companies hope to
    > get large enough and successful enough that Microsoft will buy them?


    Venture capitalists dream of this. People who actually enjoy building
    businesses probably want to see their efforts amount to something.

    --
    Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    I think you left the stove on.

  7. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here for serious work?

    DFS wrote:
    >
    > Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
    >
    > > Wow. You've left out CAD and engineering...

    >
    > You recently slunk away several times after claiming "most serious
    > engineering apps" haven't been ported to Windows.
    >
    > Which apps?


    Proprietary. I'm more than happy to watch my competitors struggle with
    AutoCAD.

    --
    Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    Do not interfere in the affairs of dragons,
    For you are crunchy and tasty with barbecue sauce.

  8. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here for serious work?

    "Paul Hovnanian P.E." writes:

    > DFS wrote:
    >>
    >> Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
    >>
    >> > Wow. You've left out CAD and engineering...

    >>
    >> You recently slunk away several times after claiming "most serious
    >> engineering apps" haven't been ported to Windows.
    >>
    >> Which apps?

    >
    > Proprietary. I'm more than happy to watch my competitors struggle with
    > AutoCAD.


    You have your own proprietary cad system? Really? And this application
    which is better than autocad is designed and implemented by one company
    for itself? Hmmm. That is some undertaking.

  9. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here for serious work?

    Hadron wrote:
    >
    > "Paul Hovnanian P.E." writes:
    >
    > > DFS wrote:
    > >>
    > >> Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > Wow. You've left out CAD and engineering...
    > >>
    > >> You recently slunk away several times after claiming "most serious
    > >> engineering apps" haven't been ported to Windows.
    > >>
    > >> Which apps?

    > >
    > > Proprietary. I'm more than happy to watch my competitors struggle with
    > > AutoCAD.

    >
    > You have your own proprietary cad system? Really? And this application
    > which is better than autocad is designed and implemented by one company
    > for itself? Hmmm. That is some undertaking.


    Its not really all that difficult if one doesn't have to struggle with
    toy operating systems and tool sets with the click and drool target
    market.

    --
    Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    David Bradley (IBM programmer who created the Ctrl-Alt-Del reboot
    keyboard sequence), "I may have invented it, but Bill made it famous."

  10. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here for serious work?

    raylopez99 wrote:
    > I know I've probably asked this question at least twice before, but
    > three's the charm, and I want to know:
    >
    > who seriously uses Linux here for serious work?
    >
    > I define "serious work" as work done by the mainstream, such as
    > spreadsheets, word processing, and graphical slide show presentations,
    > in a medium that is widely adopted or adoptable by the masses.
    >
    > So, I'm pretty much talking about extensions such as .doc, .xls, .ppt,
    > and .pdf in the Windows world.
    >
    > So, I'm pretty much ruling out anything from the Linux world.
    >
    > So, I'm pretty much stating the obvious in a rhetorical question:
    > nobody uses Linux for mainstream computing; everybody uses Windows.
    >
    > RL


    Moron and liar. Does using the web count as serious work? Then preparing
    material for it must do. And I routinely prepare ALL my web pages using
    linux-only and open-source tools. Then I load them onto an Apache server
    on linux using a mysql database and perl or php. As do millions. And
    when my university wants me to prepare student materials, I am now
    expected to do it using OpenOffice (for preference) or Word (if no other
    alternative - they convert to OOo for staff who cannot use it
    themselves) and an XML system that prepares web pages and printed
    materials automatically.

    Want to shoot your boss Bill in the foot some more? Feel free to post
    more lying rubbish.

    --
    Ron House house@usq.edu.au
    http://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/house

  11. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here for serious work?

    On Jan 17, 10:37 pm, Ron House wrote:
    > raylopez99 wrote:


    [snip]

    > Does using the web
    > count as serious work? Then preparing
    > material for it must do. And I routinely
    > prepare ALL my web pages using
    > linux-only and open-source tools.
    > Then I load them onto an Apache server
    > on linux using a mysql database and perl
    > or php. As do millions.


    Yes. Beyond the traditional static web pages, there are many people
    who use web servers for collaborations. Just as there are many blog
    tools in public web space, there are private corporate web servers
    accessible only through VPNs, and protected by single-sign-on LDAP
    databases which are used to collaborate. Teams can be larger,
    disbursed across the globe, and content can be prioritized and
    personalized, so that only the people who need to see the information
    get it.

    Linux also has some good clients that can make collaboration and
    version control much easier, and the most current versions can be
    obtained for review and comment.

    All of these make it easy to team effectively, even on very large
    projects.

    Remember, Linux was developed using these tools. Many of the OSS
    applications included in the Linux distributions were also developed
    using these tools. Linux developers make their contributions from all
    over the world, and developing collaboration tools was critical to the
    success of Linux. The team is thousands of contributors, so they had
    to be able to support these large teams.

    Most of the windows versions can't support the large teams. They
    can't support the volume of messages, and they can't coordinate the
    work-flow properly.

    It's a bit like comparing outlook or a web based e-mail solution to
    Linux e-mail clients that can efficiently sort and route hundreds of
    messages per hour into multiple inboxes based on product, contributer,
    team membership, and other input information.

    Rex


  12. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here for serious work?

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > Right. For big projects, it surely is bringing down the compile time.
    > I cluster 4 linux machines in that case, sometimes even a fifth one
    >
    > Too bad that it is not available for windows.


    Explain exactly what isn't available for Windows, dumbkopf.




  13. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here for serious work?

    DFS wrote:

    > Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >
    >> Right. For big projects, it surely is bringing down the compile time.
    >> I cluster 4 linux machines in that case, sometimes even a fifth one
    >>
    >> Too bad that it is not available for windows.

    >
    > Explain exactly what isn't available for Windows, dumbkopf.


    Too stupid to follow the link already provided? Figures

    But then, you are obviously unable to figure it out of the facts already
    provided, DumbFull****

    To make it simpler for twats like you, "icecream" is handling off portions
    of a compile job to several machines in a "compile cluster", bringing down
    the total time to compile BIG projects.

    You know, not the toy one types like your VB thingies
    --
    Just out of curiosity does this actually mean something or have some
    of the few remaining bits of your brain just evaporated?


  14. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here for serious work?

    "Paul Hovnanian P.E." writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >> "Paul Hovnanian P.E." writes:
    >>
    >> > DFS wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> > Wow. You've left out CAD and engineering...
    >> >>
    >> >> You recently slunk away several times after claiming "most serious
    >> >> engineering apps" haven't been ported to Windows.
    >> >>
    >> >> Which apps?
    >> >
    >> > Proprietary. I'm more than happy to watch my competitors struggle with
    >> > AutoCAD.

    >>
    >> You have your own proprietary cad system? Really? And this application
    >> which is better than autocad is designed and implemented by one company
    >> for itself? Hmmm. That is some undertaking.

    >
    > Its not really all that difficult if one doesn't have to struggle with
    > toy operating systems and tool sets with the click and drool target
    > market.


    I don't believe you. The kind of programmers who design and
    implement working CAD solutions are not "click and drool", neither are
    the target market. Or you think AutoCad is for idiots? Another Kelsey
    perhaps?

    Don't get me wrong, there are wonderful scientific apps under Unix and I
    guess Linux but implementing your *own* and keeping it proprietary after
    first boasting of all the OSS greatness?

    It seems you've told on lie to many.

  15. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here for serious work?

    "DFS" writes:

    > Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >
    >> Right. For big projects, it surely is bringing down the compile time.
    >> I cluster 4 linux machines in that case, sometimes even a fifth one
    >>
    >> Too bad that it is not available for windows.

    >
    > Explain exactly what isn't available for Windows, dumbkopf.


    A make file which makes you recompile everything every time?

  16. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here for serious work?

    Hadron wrote:

    > "DFS" writes:
    >
    >> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>
    >>> Right. For big projects, it surely is bringing down the compile time.
    >>> I cluster 4 linux machines in that case, sometimes even a fifth one
    >>>
    >>> Too bad that it is not available for windows.

    >>
    >> Explain exactly what isn't available for Windows, dumbkopf.

    >
    > A make file which makes you recompile everything every time?


    So "icecream" and/or "distcc" is another area you are totally incompetent
    in, "kernel hacker" Hadron Quark

    Why am I not surprised
    --
    There are two kinds of people in this world: the kind that divides
    everybody into two kinds of people, and everybody else


  17. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here for serious work?

    Hadron wrote:
    >
    > You have your own proprietary cad system? Really? And this application
    > which is better than autocad is designed and implemented by one company
    > for itself? Hmmm. That is some undertaking.


    Surprising if true, but not impossible. I've clients that have built
    rather impressive internal systems that rival or surpass commercial
    off-the-shelf software. They often keep it private to maintain a
    competitive advantage. The best example that comes to mind is a
    large, customer service oriented client that developed its own
    helpdesk ticket system. Yes, they could have licensed an existing
    system, but then they would be adapting their business processes to
    the tool rather than the other way around.

    Some of you have probably already made the leap to how open source
    fits into this scenario better than closed source software.

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

  18. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here for serious work?

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

    > Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >> You have your own proprietary cad system? Really? And this application
    >> which is better than autocad is designed and implemented by one company
    >> for itself? Hmmm. That is some undertaking.

    >
    > Surprising if true, but not impossible. I've clients that have built


    Nothing is impossible. But in the context of this thread after being
    challenged to name his Linux/Unix OSS solutions? Highly dubious.

    > rather impressive internal systems that rival or surpass commercial
    > off-the-shelf software. They often keep it private to maintain a
    > competitive advantage. The best example that comes to mind is a
    > large, customer service oriented client that developed its own
    > helpdesk ticket system. Yes, they could have licensed an existing
    > system, but then they would be adapting their business processes to
    > the tool rather than the other way around.
    >
    > Some of you have probably already made the leap to how open source
    > fits into this scenario better than closed source software.


    Virtually all SW I have been involved in has been "Open Source" in that
    the client got the end code to modify themselves SHOULD they want to. We
    did not, however, release it to the masses because competitors would
    have lifted it. Simple really.

    >
    > Thad


    --
    A kind of Batman of contemporary letters.
    -- Philip Larkin on Anthony Burgess

  19. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here for serious work?

    Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
    > DFS wrote:
    >>
    >> Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
    >>
    >>> Wow. You've left out CAD and engineering...

    >>
    >> You recently slunk away several times after claiming "most serious
    >> engineering apps" haven't been ported to Windows.
    >>
    >> Which apps?

    >
    > Proprietary.


    I figured this is why it took you so long, and so many requests, to respond.
    You're bull****ting, and the truth is virtually every "serious engineering
    app" has existed on Windows for years.


    > I'm more than happy to watch my competitors struggle with AutoCAD.


    Bad MS-like competitive attitude. No free crapware for you.





  20. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here for serious work?

    "DFS" writes:

    > Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
    >> DFS wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Wow. You've left out CAD and engineering...
    >>>
    >>> You recently slunk away several times after claiming "most serious
    >>> engineering apps" haven't been ported to Windows.
    >>>
    >>> Which apps?

    >>
    >> Proprietary.

    >
    > I figured this is why it took you so long, and so many requests, to respond.
    > You're bull****ting, and the truth is virtually every "serious engineering
    > app" has existed on Windows for years.
    >
    >
    >> I'm more than happy to watch my competitors struggle with AutoCAD.

    >
    > Bad MS-like competitive attitude. No free crapware for you.


    Quite shocking how this little interrogation has revealed Mr Hovnanian
    for what he is. A closed source hypocrite and liar who is ONLY into
    Linux for what he can take and not for what he can give up. Truly
    amazing and possibly the filthiest, scummiest behaviour I, or Peter
    Koehlmann, have ever witnessed amongst the "scum" and "filth" who
    inhabit this group ..... This disgusting behaviour is on a par with
    Windows user Peter Koehlmann claiming that "all Windows users are
    scum". But now we know what we do about his day job, he is mabye more
    right than I gave him credit for.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast