Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously? - Linux

This is a discussion on Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously? - Linux ; I'm interested in finding out who uses Linux for serious work, seriously--let's put our partisan hats aside (I personally like Windows OS--not because of its x86 architecture so much as the economies of scale that come from everybody adopting a ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 73

Thread: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

  1. Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    I'm interested in finding out who uses Linux for serious work,
    seriously--let's put our partisan hats aside (I personally like
    Windows OS--not because of its x86 architecture so much as the
    economies of scale that come from everybody adopting a common
    standard).

    I define "serious" work as work that is not specialized, which rules
    out Apache immediately, and includes stuff like interoperable
    documents exchange (i.e. Word), spreadsheets (i.e. Excel), and
    presentations (i.e. PowerPoint), as well as email (i.e. Outlook).

    I'm talking about interoperability--to communicate with everybody,
    even Mac and Windows users, not just fellow Linux users.

    Who wants to take the first bite of this troll thread?

    RL

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

    After takin' a swig o' grog, raylopez99 belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > I'm interested in finding out who uses Linux for serious work,
    > seriously--let's put our partisan hats aside (I personally like
    > Windows OS--not because of its x86 architecture so much as the
    > economies of scale that come from everybody adopting a common
    > standard).


    You already used up that troll, Toto.


  3. Raylopez with serious long term memory problems

    raylopez99 wrote:

    > I'm interested in finding out who uses Linux for serious work,


    This is installment # 8 or 9 of this particular troll?

    < snip raylopez droppings >
    --
    Another name for a Windows tutorial is crash course


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

    raylopez99 wrote:

    > I'm***SLAP***


    PLONK


    --
    Regards,
    [tv]

    ....Federal Law prohibits the removal of this tagline

    Owner/Proprietor, Cheesus Crust Pizza Company
    Good to the last supper

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

    On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 10:44:24 -0400, Tattoo Vampire wrote:

    > raylopez99 wrote:
    >
    >> I'm***SLAP***

    >
    > PLONK


    The Dopez99 troll with memory problems.
    Maybe he was dropped on his head, when he was a kid.

    --
    "If it weren't for Windows, you wouldn't
    be posting anything right now."
    DFS - comp.os.linux.advocacy
    Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004



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

    On 2008-09-28, William Poaster claimed:
    > On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 10:44:24 -0400, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
    >
    >> raylopez99 wrote:
    >>
    >>> I'm***SLAP***

    >>
    >> PLONK

    >
    > The Dopez99 troll with memory problems.
    > Maybe he was dropped on his head, when he was a kid.


    I think he falls on his head when he wakes up.

    --
    Bring Windows to its knees: start an application.

    ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
    http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups

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


    "raylopez99" wrote in message
    news:581f803f-b6a1-46dd-b9de-8d55bf6e003a@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
    > I'm interested in finding out who uses Linux for serious work,
    > seriously--let's put our partisan hats aside (I personally like
    > Windows OS--not because of its x86 architecture so much as the
    > economies of scale that come from everybody adopting a common
    > standard).
    >

    You need to consider the wide variance in what might be considered "serious"
    work. For an individual at home, paying one's bills is serious as is
    acquiring videos and music for ones portable player. The same for archive,
    printing, and other management of one's home videos or photos. Where these
    kinds of activities are performed using webforms and the browser, it is hard
    to distinguish between Windows and Linux since Firefox is, as far as I can
    tell, 100% capable of this kind of activity. I understand that there is
    some difficulty in using Linux to transfer data to highly proprietary
    devices such as the iPod or even Zune, but there is probably some adequate
    work-around available somewhere or it would be a likely addition.

    Many people use Quicken for personal finance management and I would assume
    that they all use it under Windows. I doubt that anyone would trust that
    job, if done that way, to an unguaranteed emulation method.

    Outside of that, though, I can't think of anything that Linux could not do
    if the user were bent on using it.

    When you come to the corporation employee workstation, however, there is
    usually never any choice to be made. The company IT organization dictates
    what software must be used and how it is to be configured. If the company
    has committed to Linux for their operations, as some have, certainly all
    "serious" work at that company uses Linux. And the same is true for
    Windows.

    I do not have any first hand knowledge of any companies that have committed
    to Linux. Whenever that notion s presented, the Linux fans invariably trot
    out the legend of the guitar string company that switched to Linux some
    years ago in protest to the BSA finding them in non-compliance with Windows
    and Windows based application licensing requirements and exacting a
    considerable fine, and there is always the never-ending tale of how the city
    of Munich will have converted to Linux someday in the next year or two. The
    only thing that is certain is that this usage is a very, very small
    percentage of the available total.


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

    raylopez99 wrote:
    > I'm interested in finding out who uses Linux for serious work,
    > seriously--let's put our partisan hats aside (I personally like
    > Windows OS--not because of its x86 architecture so much as the
    > economies of scale that come from everybody adopting a common
    > standard).
    >
    > I define "serious" work as work that is not specialized, which rules
    > out Apache immediately, and includes stuff like interoperable
    > documents exchange (i.e. Word), spreadsheets (i.e. Excel), and
    > presentations (i.e. PowerPoint), as well as email (i.e. Outlook).
    >
    > I'm talking about interoperability--to communicate with everybody,
    > even Mac and Windows users, not just fellow Linux users.
    >
    > Who wants to take the first bite of this troll thread?



    blah blah blah

    You can define "serious work" any way you like. That doesn't make you
    "right".

    For myself, I've made sure the critical stuff [emai/firewall] in our
    family business is linux based. And soon as samba 4 is steady its gonna
    replace our SBS2K3 box as the PDC. Linux hasn't got onto the desktop in
    our outfit yet, but the way microsoft is screwing the pooch on windows
    lately, that day may not be far off. There's only two things realy
    holding it back, accounting software being predominantly windows based
    [as far as our accoutant is concerned] and our in house printing
    software is in a market that seems to have not heard of linux. Or mac
    for that matter.

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

    On Sep 28, 9:02*am, "amicus_curious" wrote:
    > "raylopez99" wrote in message
    >


    Your argument sounds good--on paper.

    In the real world, you'll find that different versions of the same
    program will, if running on different platforms (Windows/Mac/Unix/
    Linux), produce different and sometimes mutually exclusive binaries.

    It's best to have the same platform on everybody's machine--and that
    means windows.

    I've even had problems with Excel, with the RSA security key aspect of
    'encrypted' files, when running the same copy of Excel on Windows XP
    and Vista.

    RL


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

    On Sep 28, 12:37*pm, "Phil Da Lick!"
    wrote:

    > You can define "serious work" any way you like. That doesn't make you
    > "right".
    >


    No, you're right about that. But 100 million + Windows users can't
    *all* be wrong, can they Phil?


    > For myself, I've made sure the critical stuff [emai/firewall] in our
    > family business is linux based. And soon as samba 4 is steady its gonna
    > replace our SBS2K3 box as the PDC. Linux hasn't got onto the desktop in
    > our outfit yet, but the way microsoft is screwing the pooch on windows
    > lately, that day may not be far off. There's only two things realy
    > holding it back, accounting software being predominantly windows based
    > [as far as our accoutant is concerned] and our in house printing
    > software is in a market that seems to have not heard of linux. Or mac
    > for that matter.


    Well, there you go. You sound like a typical relatively happy Windows
    user then. And you didn't even mention the ability to play a number
    of popular games, assuming you or yours are into that sort of thing.

    RL


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

    Phil Da Lick! wrote:
    > blah blah blah


    Indeed.
    I really don't know why you bothered.
    He's asked the same question half a dozen times over the past year.
    And he dismisses every single sensible answer. (or ignores them)
    --
    | spike1@freenet.co,uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | |
    | in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
    | Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |

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

    raylopez99 wrote:
    > On Sep 28, 12:37 pm, "Phil Da Lick!"
    > wrote:
    >
    >> You can define "serious work" any way you like. That doesn't make you
    >> "right".
    >>

    >
    > No, you're right about that. But 100 million + Windows users can't
    > *all* be wrong, can they Phil?


    You imply they all *chose* windows. Now you're not seriously suggesting
    that everyone who has windows consciously chose it are you?


    >> For myself, I've made sure the critical stuff [emai/firewall] in our
    >> family business is linux based. And soon as samba 4 is steady its gonna
    >> replace our SBS2K3 box as the PDC. Linux hasn't got onto the desktop in
    >> our outfit yet, but the way microsoft is screwing the pooch on windows
    >> lately, that day may not be far off. There's only two things realy
    >> holding it back, accounting software being predominantly windows based
    >> [as far as our accoutant is concerned] and our in house printing
    >> software is in a market that seems to have not heard of linux. Or mac
    >> for that matter.

    >
    > Well, there you go. You sound like a typical relatively happy Windows
    > user then.


    Well, that depends how you look at it. In terms of our outfit, its
    [windows] not in any position to do any harm, and every machine that
    runs it is set up so it can be disconnected and replaced in a matter of
    minutes. All the important stuff is on linux. And seeing as it doesn't
    tax me greatly in my working life you can describe me as a fully happy
    linux user as well.


    > And you didn't even mention the ability to play a number
    > of popular games, assuming you or yours are into that sort of thing.


    That's right. Because the ability of windows games playing requirements
    aren't relevant to advocating linux.

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

    On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 06:59:12 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:

    > I'm interested in finding out who uses Linux for serious work,
    > seriously--let's put our partisan hats aside (I personally like Windows
    > OS--not because of its x86 architecture so much as the economies of
    > scale that come from everybody adopting a common standard).
    >
    > I define "serious" work as work that is not specialized, which rules out
    > Apache immediately, and includes stuff like interoperable documents
    > exchange (i.e. Word), spreadsheets (i.e. Excel), and presentations (i.e.
    > PowerPoint), as well as email (i.e. Outlook).
    >
    > I'm talking about interoperability--to communicate with everybody, even
    > Mac and Windows users, not just fellow Linux users.
    >
    > Who wants to take the first bite of this troll thread?
    >
    > RL


    We've covered this ground before, many times. Anyone who uses Linux for
    'serious' work automatically fails your definition.

    I happen to have used OpenOffice to construct ppt files for submitting to
    Olan Mills for pictorial directories - they've worked without a hitch. I
    also happen to maintain records of meeting for three different
    organizations - I prepare them in OpenOffice and send out pdf and rtf
    files every month - no problems. I also do bookkeeping for several -
    using gnu cash - prepare reports regularly and post - no problem.

    Those would seem to fit your definition of 'serious' work even though
    scientific analysis to defend our country (which I've done using Linux)
    seems not to - interesting concept of 'serious'.

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

    On 28 Sep 2008 20:35:22 GMT, ray wrote:

    > On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 06:59:12 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:
    >
    >> I'm interested in finding out who uses Linux for serious work,
    >> seriously--let's put our partisan hats aside (I personally like Windows
    >> OS--not because of its x86 architecture so much as the economies of
    >> scale that come from everybody adopting a common standard).
    >>
    >> I define "serious" work as work that is not specialized, which rules out
    >> Apache immediately, and includes stuff like interoperable documents
    >> exchange (i.e. Word), spreadsheets (i.e. Excel), and presentations (i.e.
    >> PowerPoint), as well as email (i.e. Outlook).
    >>
    >> I'm talking about interoperability--to communicate with everybody, even
    >> Mac and Windows users, not just fellow Linux users.
    >>
    >> Who wants to take the first bite of this troll thread?
    >>
    >> RL

    >
    > We've covered this ground before, many times. Anyone who uses Linux for
    > 'serious' work automatically fails your definition.
    >
    > I happen to have used OpenOffice to construct ppt files for submitting to
    > Olan Mills for pictorial directories - they've worked without a hitch. I
    > also happen to maintain records of meeting for three different
    > organizations - I prepare them in OpenOffice and send out pdf and rtf
    > files every month - no problems. I also do bookkeeping for several -
    > using gnu cash - prepare reports regularly and post - no problem.
    >
    > Those would seem to fit your definition of 'serious' work even though
    > scientific analysis to defend our country (which I've done using Linux)
    > seems not to - interesting concept of 'serious'.


    One of the studios I do work for uses Linux for the RAID based SAN they use
    for backup and archiving.

    They are currently moving their office machines to Linux Ubuntu.

    The actual DAW are a combination of Windows and Mac though with Mac being
    dominant.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    Please Visit www.linsux.org

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

    On Sep 28, 1:20*pm, "Phil Da Lick!"
    wrote:

    > > No, you're right about that. *But 100 million + Windows users can't
    > > *all* be wrong, can they Phil?

    >
    > You imply they all *chose* windows. Now you're not seriously suggesting
    > that everyone who has windows consciously chose it are you?


    No, but the net result is the same: everybody is on the same page.


    > > Well, there you go. *You sound like a typical relatively happy Windows
    > > user then.

    >
    > Well, that depends how you look at it. In terms of our outfit, its
    > [windows] not in any position to do any harm, and every machine that
    > runs it is set up so it can be disconnected and replaced in a matter of
    > minutes. All the important stuff is on linux.


    You contradict yourself, though I'm sure you'll come up with a clever
    rebuttal--you just told us the important finance stuff only runs under
    Windows.

    > And seeing as it doesn't
    > tax me greatly in my working life you can describe me as a fully happy
    > linux user as well.


    OK, fine. YOu are a happy WIndows user, and a happy Linux user.
    Great. Glad to hear you like Windows.

    >
    > > And you didn't even mention the ability to play a number
    > > of popular games, assuming you or yours are into that sort of thing.

    >
    > That's right. Because the ability of windows games playing requirements
    > aren't relevant to advocating linux.


    I guess not. What games does Linux even have? I am a chess game
    player--does Linux have any chess playing software, even open-source
    Crafty? Probably not...let me GOogle this... yes it does, and some
    nice ones at that:

    http://www.linux.com/feature/60859 [mentions Crafty and Fruit]

    But what's interesting for this forum, and telling, is this statement
    (read carefully): "Until version 2.1, Fruit was an open source
    engine, and the source code for version 2.1 is still available. But
    with Fruit becoming the strongest engine, the author decided to close
    the source code to avoid clones which might participate in official
    tournaments. Toga II and GambitFruit are two derivative works based on
    the code of version 2.1 of Fruit."

    There you go Phil la Dick. When given a choice between keeping a
    decent program like Fruit open-source, the author chooses to close the
    source code (for a variety of reasons, supposedly to avoid clones, but
    I'll have you note that Fruit costs about $35 so it might just be so
    the author, who did a great job writing a chess playing game, which is
    extremely difficult to do well, to be compensated for his efforts).

    Compensation for your efforts--something strange to Linux (Communist)
    fans.

    Hey Linux commies--what do you think of the bailout, and its
    consequences and causes? Greed is the cause, and the consequence is
    the end of globalization and capitalism, eh? I bet you commies have a
    lot of thoughts along those lines.

    RL

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


    "Phil Da Lick!" wrote in
    message >

    > You imply they all *chose* windows. Now you're not seriously suggesting
    > that everyone who has windows consciously chose it are you?
    >

    No, but you can say that they probably expected to have it. Furthermore you
    can say that they have indeed chosen to keep it rather than seek out an
    alternative and make a change. That is the reality.
    >



    >
    > Well, that depends how you look at it. In terms of our outfit, its
    > [windows] not in any position to do any harm, and every machine that runs
    > it is set up so it can be disconnected and replaced in a matter of
    > minutes. All the important stuff is on linux. And seeing as it doesn't tax
    > me greatly in my working life you can describe me as a fully happy linux
    > user as well.
    >

    But, again, the reality is that Windows is in use and there appears to be no
    effort to actually replace it with anything else.


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

    raylopez99 wrote:
    >> that everyone who has windows consciously chose it are you?

    >
    > No, but the net result is the same: everybody is on the same page.


    The one small benefit of the windows monopoly.


    >> runs it is set up so it can be disconnected and replaced in a matter of
    >> minutes. All the important stuff is on linux.

    >
    > You contradict yourself,


    No I don't. I have gone on record in this group a number of times on
    that I use windows. Nice that your desperate straw clutching seemed to
    have reaped benefits for you though.


    > though I'm sure you'll come up with a clever
    > rebuttal--you just told us the important finance stuff only runs under
    > Windows.


    That's not what I said and don't pretend that it is. I said that our
    accountant prefers a windows solution - specifically sage.


    >> And seeing as it doesn't
    >> tax me greatly in my working life you can describe me as a fully happy
    >> linux user as well.

    >
    > OK, fine. YOu are a happy WIndows user, and a happy Linux user.
    > Great. Glad to hear you like Windows.


    Again, I didn't *say* that I like windows. I said that I use it. There
    are many things about it I don't like - the swiss cheese security model
    being one. And as far as linux goes, I am happy thank you very much.
    Does exactly what it says on the tin.


    >>> And you didn't even mention the ability to play a number
    >>> of popular games, assuming you or yours are into that sort of thing.

    >> That's right. Because the ability of windows games playing requirements
    >> aren't relevant to advocating linux.

    >
    > I guess not. What games does Linux even have?


    Don't know. Don't care. When I want to use a PC to play games I'll go
    cutting edge GFX card wise - that means windows atm. I'd like that to
    change to be equal across all platforms but that won't happen soon.

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

    Andrew Halliwell wrote:
    > Phil Da Lick! wrote:
    >> blah blah blah

    >
    > Indeed.
    > I really don't know why you bothered.
    > He's asked the same question half a dozen times over the past year.
    > And he dismisses every single sensible answer. (or ignores them)


    beer+weekend I suppose

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

    On 2008-09-28, amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    > "raylopez99" wrote in message
    > news:581f803f-b6a1-46dd-b9de-8d55bf6e003a@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
    >> I'm interested in finding out who uses Linux for serious work,
    >> seriously--let's put our partisan hats aside (I personally like
    >> Windows OS--not because of its x86 architecture so much as the
    >> economies of scale that come from everybody adopting a common
    >> standard).
    >>

    > You need to consider the wide variance in what might be considered "serious"
    > work. For an individual at home, paying one's bills is serious as is
    > acquiring videos and music for ones portable player. The same for archive,
    > printing, and other management of one's home videos or photos. Where these
    > kinds of activities are performed using webforms and the browser, it is hard
    > to distinguish between Windows and Linux since Firefox is, as far as I can
    > tell, 100% capable of this kind of activity. I understand that there is
    > some difficulty in using Linux to transfer data to highly proprietary
    > devices such as the iPod or even Zune, but there is probably some adequate
    > work-around available somewhere or it would be a likely addition.
    >
    > Many people use Quicken for personal finance management and I would assume
    > that they all use it under Windows. I doubt that anyone would trust that
    > job, if done that way, to an unguaranteed emulation method.
    >
    > Outside of that, though, I can't think of anything that Linux could not do
    > if the user were bent on using it.
    >
    > When you come to the corporation employee workstation, however, there is
    > usually never any choice to be made. The company IT organization dictates
    > what software must be used and how it is to be configured. If the company


    This is more theoretical in many cases than real.

    Many of us that are computing professionals often find ourselves
    in the position of needing to be Administrator on our own machines just
    to do our work duties. It's not a far stretch from there to completely
    maintaining your own machine or replacing many of the "standard" tools
    on it.

    Whether or not you can replace a Dell Windows laptop with a Dell
    Linux laptop is mainly a matter of what "shared" software your company
    runs and whether or not it accomodates non-Windows.

    [deletia]

    Where exactly is the show stopper?

    Been there, done that. It's no big deal really.

    --
    If you are going to judge Linux based on how easy
    it is to get onto a Macintosh. Let's try installing |||
    MacOS X on a DELL! / | \

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

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

    On 2008-09-28, ray wrote:
    > On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 06:59:12 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:
    >
    >> I'm interested in finding out who uses Linux for serious work,
    >> seriously--let's put our partisan hats aside (I personally like Windows
    >> OS--not because of its x86 architecture so much as the economies of
    >> scale that come from everybody adopting a common standard).
    >>
    >> I define "serious" work as work that is not specialized, which rules out
    >> Apache immediately, and includes stuff like interoperable documents
    >> exchange (i.e. Word), spreadsheets (i.e. Excel), and presentations (i.e.
    >> PowerPoint), as well as email (i.e. Outlook).
    >>
    >> I'm talking about interoperability--to communicate with everybody, even
    >> Mac and Windows users, not just fellow Linux users.
    >>
    >> Who wants to take the first bite of this troll thread?


    I've been using OO for years in this capacity.

    People are generally oblivious to the fact that your msoffice docs
    might not have been created or edited last in something else. If it does
    come up it doesn't seem to cause much of a fuss. They seem to expect the
    odd problem even in a strictly Microsoft world. Issues between different
    versions of msoffice can also come up (new doc, old copy of office).

    Even the microsoft-only landscape is diverse enough now that sneaking
    something else in there won't get much notice.

    > We've covered this ground before, many times. Anyone who uses Linux for
    > 'serious' work automatically fails your definition.
    >
    > I happen to have used OpenOffice to construct ppt files for submitting to
    > Olan Mills for pictorial directories - they've worked without a hitch. I
    > also happen to maintain records of meeting for three different
    > organizations - I prepare them in OpenOffice and send out pdf and rtf
    > files every month - no problems. I also do bookkeeping for several -
    > using gnu cash - prepare reports regularly and post - no problem.
    >
    > Those would seem to fit your definition of 'serious' work even though
    > scientific analysis to defend our country (which I've done using Linux)
    > seems not to - interesting concept of 'serious'.


    --
    If you are going to judge Linux based on how easy
    it is to get onto a Macintosh. Let's try installing |||
    MacOS X on a DELL! / | \

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

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