On the Bridge! wrote:[color=blue]
> I think he is here to troll, unless he tells us what the programs were, his
> credibility does down the drain.[/color]

He won't list the programs because he's lying and talked to no Linux IT
people.

Alias[color=blue]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Alias" <iamalias@removethisgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23gRm$4IfIHA.5280@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> e wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> Folks, my original post was offered as a conclusion, not a beginning. I
>>> don't intend to defend that summary point by point, application by
>>> application. I haven't surveyed many Linux users or checked all
>>> 27,334,598 Windows applications against their Linux alternatives, but
>>> found that Windows simply does more, and in my personal experience (and
>>> that of many in the Linux SIG) Vista is a stable, fast, and safe OS.
>>>
>>> The people who helped me were highly skilled and had more interest than
>>> passion regarding the little table of tasks vs solutions that we
>>> developed in my first meeting. Though experts, not one of them would
>>> consider corrupting this Vista discussion with Ubuntu opinions.
>>>
>>> Some people find everything they need in the world of Linux. Linux
>>> missionaries should accept the possibility that many will not. I'm in
>>> that second category, and according to the very helpful experts that I
>>> met at the SIG, most use dual boot simply because Linux (of whatever
>>> flavor) does not meet all their requirements. That is a fact - most Linux
>>> users must dual boot to do everything they need to do.
>>>
>>> The Linux advocate who promotes Ubuntu passion in this Vista discussion
>>> group is exposing personal problems. He's probably discussing the
>>> restoration of his Kia on alt.cars.ferrari, too.[/color]
>> If you're not willing to tell us what programs work in Vista and don't
>> work in Ubuntu, how can anyone help you? Or are you lying like Frank does?
>>
>> I mean how much effort does it take to list a few programs? I would say a
>> lot less than the rant you posted above.
>>
>> Alias[/color]
>
>[/color]

On the Bridge! wrote:
[color=blue]
> What kind of idiot professionals did this guy talk to?
>[/color]


....certainly not you...LOL!
You're a real fukkin idiot!
Frank

"On the Bridge!" <On@the,Bridge> wrote in message
news:47cae687$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...[color=blue]
> you are confusing platforms (OS's) with applications![/color]

8<
[color=blue]
> THATS DARN RIGHT STUPID! You must see the software that is open source
> and on ubuntu as
> a plus feature, not a replacment for the software that other companies
> should be porting...[/color]

Should be porting?
Why should they be porting their apps to linux?
As it stands they aren't porting to Linux, however you can run the open
source apps on vista so guess who is better off as far as choice of
applications goes?

Alias wrote:
[color=blue]
> e wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Folks, my original post was offered as a conclusion, not a beginning.
>> I don't intend to defend that summary point by point, application by
>> application. I haven't surveyed many Linux users or checked all
>> 27,334,598 Windows applications against their Linux alternatives, but
>> found that Windows simply does more, and in my personal experience
>> (and that of many in the Linux SIG) Vista is a stable, fast, and safe OS.
>>
>> The people who helped me were highly skilled and had more interest
>> than passion regarding the little table of tasks vs solutions that we
>> developed in my first meeting. Though experts, not one of them would
>> consider corrupting this Vista discussion with Ubuntu opinions.
>>
>> Some people find everything they need in the world of Linux. Linux
>> missionaries should accept the possibility that many will not. I'm in
>> that second category, and according to the very helpful experts that I
>> met at the SIG, most use dual boot simply because Linux (of whatever
>> flavor) does not meet all their requirements. That is a fact - most
>> Linux users must dual boot to do everything they need to do.
>>
>> The Linux advocate who promotes Ubuntu passion in this Vista
>> discussion group is exposing personal problems. He's probably
>> discussing the restoration of his Kia on alt.cars.ferrari, too.[/color]
>
>
> If you're not willing to tell us what programs work in Vista and don't
> work in Ubuntu, how can anyone help you?[/color]

We've answered this question numerous times before in the past. Are you
having memory problems? The list of popular software that has not nor
will never, ever be ported to linux is at least a physical mile long.
The real question is what popular software works in linux. That list is
about one inch long.
Now, if you're serious and I doubt you are, you'd stop this nonsensical
bs and get a real life.
Frank

NoStop wrote:
[color=blue]
> e wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>If you use Linux and are completely satisfied with the
>>applications available to you, you've probably shrunk
>>your requirements to fit the capability of Linux.[/color]
>
>
> Actually the complete opposite is true.[/color]

No it is not true.
Only for you.
You are an avowed linux fanatic and an MS hater.
You are blinded by your hate.
End of deal!
Frank

On the Bridge! wrote:


....question...did you take your meds today?
Frank

"Alias" <iamalias@removethisgmail.com> wrote in message
news:#gRm$4IfIHA.5280@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> e wrote:[/color]
[color=blue]
> If you're not willing to tell us what programs work in Vista and don't
> work in Ubuntu, how can anyone help you? Or are you lying like Frank does?[/color]

I'll start the list if you want..
[url]http://www.play.com/Games/PC/6-/RegionHome.html[/url]

Then there are things like office, CS3, loads of engineering programs.
It is probably easier for you to list any programs that run on linux that
don't run on vista as you can probably do that in one line.
[color=blue]
> I mean how much effort does it take to list a few programs? I would say a
> lot less than the rant you posted above.[/color]

Well you have your chance now.

"NoStop" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:fqelna01jie@news1.newsguy.com...[color=blue]
> e wrote:
>[color=green]
>> If you use Linux and are completely satisfied with the
>> applications available to you, you've probably shrunk
>> your requirements to fit the capability of Linux.[/color]
>
> Actually the complete opposite is true. I know, because I know how to use
> Linux and know what it is capable of doing. My requirements can only be
> accomplished efficiently and productively with stability and security by
> using Linux. It offers so many tools, so far advanced over anything in the
> Windoze world, there is simply no comparison.[/color]

Such as?

No, I'm not a troll - though the effect is the same
because those who seek to promote Linux in this Vista
discussion group are maintaining this thread beyond its
real value. Had they not felt it necessary to defend
their hobby, this thread would have been much shorter.

I won't perpetuate the thread, so offer a few points as
a final post.

1. The "professionals" that I met in the Linux SIG were
not "Linux professionals". They were generally degree'd
computer science or IT professionals that gather
periodically to share Linux information and help
newcomers (like me). Most use Windows in one part or
another of their professional lives. If I printed out
this thread and shared it at a future meeting, most
would be amused.

2. I don't care whether software companies publish
Linux-compatible applications in the future. My work is
now, and Vista satisfies my needs NOW while Linux
cannot. I won't boot into one OS to do some of my work
and then into another to finish it.

3. Ubuntu was 100% stable. It never crashed or froze
while I was using it. My SIG friends set up cosmetic
features that made it look and feel better than the
basic install. It doesn't seem like an OS for hobbyists.

4. Vista was 100% stable. It never crashed or froze
while I was using it. It looks somewhat nicer than
Ubuntu, and has more cosmetic features available for it.

5. I'm leaving Ubuntu on this computer. Why not? It's
interesting, though for me not practical.

FINALLY:
I would have preferred a shift to Ubuntu, but in my line
of work [Ubuntu plus available apps] doesn't provide
task-by-task equivalence to [Vista plus available apps].

On the Bridge! wrote:
[color=blue]
> I am NOT confused. You don't seem to understand do you? Ill try to explain
> once again...[/color]

So you're going to explain his answer to him?
Wonderful!
..[color=blue]
>
> IF AND WHEN LINUX starts getting used by more people then companies will
> port their programs,
> but if there are no ported programs then most people will avoid Linux and
> stick to Windows.
> This is a vicious circle, and this circle was created by MS that actually
> has a monopoly dah...[/color]

Oh, so it's all MS's fault huh? Like it's MS fault you're too
incompetent to get one little install of Vista to run properly, huh?
[color=blue]
> and knows how to control what platforms get installed on new computers to
> ENSURE that most people have windows, and ensure that there will not be many
> linux boxes, in order to ensure that more people wont be asking for programs
> to be ported on linux! DAH![/color]

Again, it's all MS's fault that linux, an old POS toy os isn't doing
very well?[color=blue]
>
> The UBUNTU platform is up and ready to handle whatever ported app you throw
> at it and it can do ANYTHING windows can.[/color]

Except run almost none of the today's most popular software.

And it can do it better than Vista[color=blue]
> if you ask me, that is the most horrid version of windows I have seen.[/color]

Well, considering the source that's not hard to understand.[color=blue]
>
> Forget those so called lousy " professionals" you talked to that come
> accross as ignorant fellows, and all your "testing" was in vain. You were
> looking for something that does not exist, but its not because of the
> platform but because of the "computer ecology" that is on planet earth now.[/color]

OMG...are you confused or what?[color=blue]
>
> all you had to do is ask me and I would explain the situation to you as
> things are.[/color]

hehehe...yeah..capin' crunch will fly right over in his cardboard space
ship and fix everything...hahaha!
Frank

dennis@home wrote:[color=blue]
>
>
> "Alias" <iamalias@removethisgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:#gRm$4IfIHA.5280@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> e wrote:[/color]
>[color=green]
>> If you're not willing to tell us what programs work in Vista and don't
>> work in Ubuntu, how can anyone help you? Or are you lying like Frank
>> does?[/color]
>
> I'll start the list if you want..
> [url]http://www.play.com/Games/PC/6-/RegionHome.html[/url]
>
> Then there are things like office, CS3, loads of engineering programs.
> It is probably easier for you to list any programs that run on linux
> that don't run on vista as you can probably do that in one line.
>[color=green]
>> I mean how much effort does it take to list a few programs? I would
>> say a lot less than the rant you posted above.[/color]
>
> Well you have your chance now.[/color]

With the exception of a few specialized Windows-only programs and games,
Ubuntu can do everything Vista can and would be appropriate for 95% of
retail buyers of Vista, be it retail or preinstalled by Dell et al.

For those few programs that are Windows only and games, a dual boot is
very easy to set up unless you're Frank.

The biggie for me that Vista and XP will run and Linux won't is WPA and
WGA, especially WGA. The other is Windows being prone to viruses, root
kits and other malware.

The other thing is finding programs, even if they do work on Vista, is
much easier than Windows as are updates.

Now, that's programs. The ones you don't have to run in Ubuntu but are
essential in Windows are anti virus and anti malware programs as long as
you have a hard firewall enabled in a router.

Sooo, the best of both worlds is to have both, each for their own
particular benefits. Use Windows for your Windows only specialized
programs and games. Use Ubuntu for everything else. I think sooner or
later someone like Dell or HP will offer a dual boot Vista/Ubuntu.

Alias.

"Alias" <iamalias@removethisgmail.com> wrote in message
news:u7dt95JfIHA.5208@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> dennis@home wrote:[color=green]
>>
>>
>> "Alias" <iamalias@removethisgmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:#gRm$4IfIHA.5280@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>> e wrote:[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>>> If you're not willing to tell us what programs work in Vista and don't
>>> work in Ubuntu, how can anyone help you? Or are you lying like Frank
>>> does?[/color]
>>
>> I'll start the list if you want..
>> [url]http://www.play.com/Games/PC/6-/RegionHome.html[/url]
>>
>> Then there are things like office, CS3, loads of engineering programs.
>> It is probably easier for you to list any programs that run on linux that
>> don't run on vista as you can probably do that in one line.
>>[color=darkred]
>>> I mean how much effort does it take to list a few programs? I would say
>>> a lot less than the rant you posted above.[/color]
>>
>> Well you have your chance now.[/color][/color]

Lets try again with you answering the question..
which Ubuntu programs won't run on windows?

snip stuff that didn't answer the question at all.

Alias wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>
> ...With the exception of a few specialized Windows-only programs and games,
> Ubuntu can do everything Vista can and would be appropriate for 95% of
> retail buyers of Vista, be it retail or preinstalled by Dell et al.[/color]

You're totally wrong. Hey fool...do you actually think you can get by
with that outright lie in this ng? Are you really that stupid, huh?[color=blue]
>
> For those few programs that are Windows only and games, a dual boot is
> very easy to set up unless you're Frank.
>
> The biggie for me that Vista and XP will run and Linux won't is WPA and
> WGA, especially WGA. The other is Windows being prone to viruses, root
> kits and other malware.[/color]

More of your lies...or are so dumb that you actually believe them?[color=blue]
>
> The other thing is finding programs, even if they do work on Vista, is
> much easier than Windows as are updates.[/color]

???[color=blue]
>
> Now, that's programs. The ones you don't have to run in Ubuntu but are
> essential in Windows are anti virus and anti malware programs as long as
> you have a hard firewall enabled in a router.
>
> Sooo, the best of both worlds is to have both, each for their own
> particular benefits.[/color]

Bullsh*t. One OS, Vista, will run everything...absolutely everything.

Use Windows for your Windows only specialized[color=blue]
> programs and games. Use Ubuntu for everything else.[/color]

Why bother with urbunttoo when Vista will run everything?

I think sooner or[color=blue]
> later someone like Dell or HP will offer a dual boot Vista/Ubuntu.[/color]

You think...that is your first problem.
Frank

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 11:20:59 -0800
Frank <fab@notspam.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Oh, so it's all MS's fault huh? Like it's MS fault you're too
> incompetent to get one little install of Vista to run properly, huh?[/color]

Yes, because Vista sucks. Just check this forum.

--
Live & let live, or leave.
:-)

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:33:32 -0800
Frank <fb@osspan.clm> wrote:
[color=blue]
> You're totally wrong. Hey fool...do you actually think you can get by
> with that outright lie in this ng? Are you really that stupid, huh?[/color]

In the business environment, Everything that VISTA can with few
exceptions:
No anti virus needed on the workstations.
No limit in drive letter connections.
Better support and performance for large drives.
Better RDP capability.
Safer browsing on the Internet without the need for third party "Anti"
software.
A better built in firewall.
Better fix and repair capability over the famous re-install.
Bottom line
There is no business or home PC reason what so ever to have VISTA
installed.
Read the Vista forums, sounds like they are running DOS 5.1...


--
Live & let live, or leave.
:-)