Re: [ILUG-BOM] Re: [Ilug-cal-discuss] Introduction to Inkscape -Graphic Design and publishing with Free / Open Source Software
Subject: Re: [ILUG-BOM] Re: [Ilug-cal-discuss] Introduction to Inkscape -Graphic Design and publishing with Free / Open Source Software From: Rony gnulinuxist@gmail.com Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:00:21 +0530
Don't know where this subject line is inherited from, the discussion seems to have strayed way off. Anyway, since this is my first post on this forum, I will refrain from tampering with it.
It is surprising that after being a power user and an expert in Linux, you still have a Windows partition in your system and it is used too. If linux experts ( I mean all experts) find Windows crappy, then why do they still have the partition in their systems?
Don't know about 'experts', but for ordinary folk like me, many of us have to deal with clients who work with proprietary software and sometimes want stuff in proprietary formats. Like, when some work is needed on an Indesign file, there is little choice for me but to go to Windoze. Thus, while I hate it and rarely go there, that partition stays undisturbed on my comp., ready for use when needed. Free software fundamentalism to this extent would mean some serious pain -- paapi pet ka sawaal hai!
On Wednesday 17 October 2007 21:36, Vidyadhar Gadgil wrote:
Don't know where this subject line is inherited from, the discussion seems to have strayed way off. Anyway, since this is my first post on this forum, I will refrain from tampering with it.
It is surprising that after being a power user and an expert in Linux, you still have a Windows partition in your system and it is used too. If linux experts ( I mean all experts) find Windows crappy, then why do they still have the partition in their systems?
Don't know about 'experts', but for ordinary folk like me, many of us have to deal with clients who work with proprietary software and sometimes want stuff in proprietary formats. Like, when some work is needed on an Indesign file, there is little choice for me but to go to Windoze. Thus, while I hate it and rarely go there, that partition stays undisturbed on my comp., ready for use when needed. Free software fundamentalism to this extent would mean some serious pain -- paapi pet ka sawaal hai!
The rants are not about somebody's personal decision to do as he pleases, but the completely wrong statement "abc is not ready for use". As u might have seen slightly skewing their arbitary metrics proves exactly the opposite. But even that is not the main point. The point is that the posters DO NOT want to understand the complexities and handicaps that foss faces daily. They do not understand that it's their hard earned money being used against foss (and themselves in the long run). They do not understand that their rant is because someone has fought hard against unbelievable odds to achieve their stunning successes. If you make a fair test bench and apply them to foss and non foss programs any advatntages that u see will be because of non availability of data sheets or are encumbered by patents or are already being addressed. It is extremely rare that something reasonable importatnt is not already addressed. There might still be some non foss programmes that are superior AFTER the above benchmark but i have yet to come across one in my areas of interest. And if they do exist all money to them. In my 27 yrs in the industry i have yet to come across a closed software that does not bite you really bad a few yrs down the line inspite of taking extreme precaution. It's the nature of this every changing industry.
But to each his own poison. And everytime somebody makes a blanket statement based on arbitary criteria i will jump at them.
jtd wrote:
But to each his own poison. And everytime somebody makes a blanket statement based on arbitary criteria i will jump at them.
You started it all with your blanket statements about software that don't run in Linux. Expressing problems about Linux does not mean you have to attack Windows or its users every time. If you face problems in Windows, its crappy. If others face problems in Linux, they are the ones wrong. This is the wrong attitude that triggers flames. All software whether libre or closed have problems and the approach to solving the problems is no different.
On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 16:09 +0530, Rony wrote:
jtd wrote:
But to each his own poison. And everytime somebody makes a blanket statement based on arbitary criteria i will jump at them.
You started it all with your blanket statements about software that don't run in Linux. Expressing problems about Linux does not mean you have to attack Windows or its users every time. If you face problems in
I don't think that the statements you are referring to conveyed the idea you suggest they do.
Windows, its crappy. If others face problems in Linux, they are the ones wrong. This is the wrong attitude that triggers flames. All software whether libre or closed have problems and the approach to solving the problems is no different.
And, no! No one is saying that users of Windows apps are wrong. What we (the linux bigots) are trying to say is that with closed source apps and closed standards, you (the OS secularists) are likely (to put it extremely mildly) to be stuck in a one way downward spiral that will force you to -
a. spend larger amounts of money b. tolerate lower levels of freedom c. be forever tied to the whims of individual companies
Nobody is denying that problems/bugs exist. However, to assume that the approach to solving them is the same is completely incorrect.
It's not our attitude that is wrong. It is your interpretation of that attitude.
-gabin
On 19-Oct-07, at 11:04 AM, Gabin Kattukaran wrote:
Windows, its crappy. If others face problems in Linux, they are the ones wrong. This is the wrong attitude that triggers flames. All software whether libre or closed have problems and the approach to solving the problems is no different.
And, no! No one is saying that users of Windows apps are wrong. What we (the linux bigots) are trying to say
what he is trying to say is that in the OSS world we either solve the problems ourselves or get them solved whereas in the CSS world we whine
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 19-Oct-07, at 11:04 AM, Gabin Kattukaran wrote:
Windows, its crappy. If others face problems in Linux, they are the ones wrong. This is the wrong attitude that triggers flames. All software whether libre or closed have problems and the approach to solving the problems is no different.
And, no! No one is saying that users of Windows apps are wrong. What we (the linux bigots) are trying to say
what he is trying to say is that in the OSS world we either solve the problems ourselves or get them solved whereas in the CSS world we whine
Not true. What I am saying is that the approach to solving software problems is the same whether OSS or CSS. Send bug feedbacks, wait for updates and get going. Or tap into the community help resources available freely on the web.
Gabin Kattukaran wrote:
On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 16:09 +0530, Rony wrote:
Windows, its crappy. If others face problems in Linux, they are the ones wrong. This is the wrong attitude that triggers flames. All software whether libre or closed have problems and the approach to solving the problems is no different.
And, no! No one is saying that users of Windows apps are wrong. What we (the linux bigots) are trying to say is that with closed source apps and closed standards, you (the OS secularists) are likely (to put it extremely mildly) to be stuck in a one way downward spiral that will force you to -
I know the problems associated with CSS and I have used the same points in the other mails on this topic. I want to promote FOSS on its merits, not by attacking Windows or its users. Those who are looking to migrate to FOSS are already windows users and they know how it works. Telling them biased opinions about windows is of no help to them as it is what they want to leave behind and enter FOSS. Ultimately they want to get work done in FOSS, not hear stories about windows.
On Thursday 18 October 2007 16:09, Rony wrote:
jtd wrote:
But to each his own poison. And everytime somebody makes a blanket statement based on arbitary criteria i will jump at them.
You started it all with your blanket statements about software that don't run in Linux.
Wrong read the thread again. It was in response to someone elses wrong blanket statement inkscape is not ready for use. By using a slightly different assumption one arrives at a very correct and totally different conclusion. Which is exactly the point i am making - dont make ridiculous blanket statements.
Expressing problems about Linux does not mean you have to attack Windows or its users every time.
Windows is totally crappy as are the service providers who ride it's coat tails. Even with their pathetic reliability, usability and security standards most closed software (eeven under linux) have become less secure, more bloated and unmaintainable. Nvidia graphic, samsung printer drivers, adobe acrobat reader are cases in point. Under M$ the os and it's architecture is one big mess that they cant fix it since 1995.The less said about them the better. BTW we worked very closely for 3 yrs with dos and mwindoze3.0 to 3.11. So i know what i am talking about (though i dont remember all the details 15 yrs on).
If you face problems in Windows, its crappy. If others face problems in Linux, they are the ones wrong.
No. It's when they say "abc on linux is not ready for use" that they are wrong.
This is the wrong attitude that triggers flames.
Aha. I hope u get it.
All software whether libre or closed have problems and the approach to solving the problems is no different.
Rubbish. The problems and causes are totally different. The approach to solving them could not get more different. FOSS relies on public review and contribution. CSS specialises in hiding the crap that's all.
jtd wrote:
On Thursday 18 October 2007 16:09, Rony wrote:
Expressing problems about Linux does not mean you have to attack Windows or its users every time.
Windows is totally crappy as are the service providers who ride it's coat tails.
Pure bias.
Even with their pathetic reliability, usability and security standards most closed software (eeven under linux) have become less secure, more bloated and unmaintainable. Nvidia graphic, samsung printer drivers, adobe acrobat reader are cases in point. Under M$ the os and it's architecture is one big mess that they cant fix it since 1995.The less said about them the better. BTW we worked very closely for 3 yrs with dos and mwindoze3.0 to 3.11. So i know what i am talking about (though i dont remember all the details 15 yrs on).
Times have changed and windows has come a long way.
If you face problems in Windows, its crappy. If others face problems in Linux, they are the ones wrong.
No. It's when they say "abc on linux is not ready for use" that they are wrong.
It will have to cater to users, not vice versa.
This is the wrong attitude that triggers flames.
Aha. I hope u get it.
I hope you get it too.
All software whether libre or closed have problems and the approach to solving the problems is no different.
Rubbish. The problems and causes are totally different. The approach to solving them could not get more different. FOSS relies on public review and contribution. CSS specialises in hiding the crap that's all.
It is the same for both except that the review is done publicly in FOSS and privately by the company in CSS. In both cases bugs are reported and updates are made available. In both cases there is a huge community out there ready to help and solve problems.
On Sunday 21 October 2007 19:39, Rony wrote:
jtd wrote:
On Thursday 18 October 2007 16:09, Rony wrote:
Expressing problems about Linux does not mean you have to attack Windows or its users every time.
Windows is totally crappy as are the service providers who ride it's coat tails.
Pure bias.
Even with their pathetic reliability, usability and security standards most closed software (eeven under linux) have become less secure, more bloated and unmaintainable. Nvidia graphic, samsung printer drivers, adobe acrobat reader are cases in point. Under M$ the os and it's architecture is one big mess that they cant fix it since 1995.The less said about them the better. BTW we worked very closely for 3 yrs with dos and mwindoze3.0 to 3.11. So i know what i am talking about (though i dont remember all the details 15 yrs on).
Times have changed and windows has come a long way.
Dream on. The underlying stuff is still the same as 95 and even earlier in the case of M$OS and hence the problems remain exactly the same. These are archtectural goofups many directly imposed by HMBG. Recently someone found that calloc hands out dirty pages in vista. MY MY... the more things change the more they are the same - this was one of the worst problems in 3.xxx (WARNING: i havent written a line of code on doze since 98, knowing fully well that whenever they fix the problems, you will have to rewrite everything anyway)
If you face problems in Windows, its crappy. If others face problems in Linux, they are the ones wrong.
No. It's when they say "abc on linux is not ready for use" that they are wrong.
It will have to cater to users, not vice versa.
You still dont get it (unlikely u ever will). Compare a app on linux with another app on doze ONLY if the underlying protocols and formats are open and unencumbered. If they are not you are making a blatantly wrong comparison. Catering to a user in a hole willfully there is not possible until he gets out of the hole dug by the closed software companies. So stop playing victim and get out of the hole.
This is the wrong attitude that triggers flames.
Aha. I hope u get it.
I hope you get it too.
I got it long back and did the wise thing. You still havent and continue to make comparisons and statements based on ZERO understanding. CSS users all the while hide behind the statement that this or that does not work the way it does in doze. I repeat that is because of encumberances or willful violation of standards / good practices by CSS. There are extremely few closed systems that actually have genuine advantages. Eg. Sun solaris ZFS ( but it is encumbered by patents) addresses several problem areas in large file systems.
All software whether libre or closed have problems and the approach to solving the problems is no different.
Rubbish. The problems and causes are totally different. The approach to solving them could not get more different. FOSS relies on public review and contribution. CSS specialises in hiding the crap that's all.
It is the same for both except that the review is done publicly in FOSS and privately by the company in CSS. In both cases bugs are reported and updates are made available.
Wrong again. There is nothin to review with CSS - there is no code. Dont confuse observing some result with reviewing. U can make a patch if u know howto with foss. Can you with CSS? Also dont confuse sending bug reports to companies with sending bug reports to developers. The company is not the developer or in most cases even the maintaner. We were on a project for an external company who wanted to use a closed toolchain to cut development time. We refused saying that end results were not guranteed. The project went to someone else. Nine months later the project failed cause the toolchain had bugs. The toolchain was developed for a french company's hardware by an Indian subcontractor (who further subcontracted). So u wrote to the french, who wrote to India, who wrote to their subcontractor who would send a new blob. I am sure more time was spent debugging the blobs than reviewing their own code. The situation is infinitely worse for packaged apps.
In both cases there is a huge community out there ready to help and solve problems.
Wrong again. in the case of CSS it's not bug fixes but stupid workarounds offered by the community - the companies may provide a fix in the next release. In the case of foss you dont wait for a next release - just downlaod from cvs and recompile.
There are many more important differences, but until u get the basics the rest does not matter.
And thanks to Andy Tridgell and a few other FOSS developers, who spent massive amounts of time educating the courts of M$ crookedness, when many other companies choose to take M$ money and look the other way, the EU courts have forced M$ THREE years after the original judgement, to comply.
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/1567&forma...
Guess where M$ found the money for dragging on for three years, paying fines and generally creating a rukus.
Guess the rag tags will continue to pay M$ for the privilige of M$ crumbs. What a farce. It would have been funny if we did not have to deal with the trash of this gaint garbage generator.
-
Gabin Kattukaran -
jtd -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
Rony -
Vidyadhar Gadgil