Re: Talk to your frTalk your friend into switching to Linux(Re:)

[gmgraves@slip.net (George Graves)]

In article <356A389E.8693FAAF@delphi.com>, crc3419@delphi.com wrote:

> BinaryBillTheSailor@Sea++.com wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, 25 May 1998 16:32:54 -0400, Jeremy Crabtree
> > <crc3419@delphi.com> wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > >Please, elaborate. You need to say specifically what you think is
> > >missing, tell the developers, don't just sit there and assert  that "it
> > >lacks tools and flexibili," you won't get anything done and more than
> > >liklely you will irritate many people.
> > >
> > >> I have StarOffice 4.0. I'm not impressed, Very primitive.
> > >
> > >Is it really primitive (I didn't think so) or is it just more conducive
> > >(sp?) to your argument to *call* it primitive?
> > >
> > >> So where is the Illustrator-like program?
> > >>
> > >> Where is the PageMaker/QuarkXpress-like program.
> > >>
> > >> They are really needed for Linux to be useful to me.
> > >
> > >I see you are finally getting to the real issue. The software that *YOU*
> > >need isn't available. To state just that, would have been acceptable,
> > >but instead you decided to be a horses a** about it and assert, point
> > >blank, that there is *NO* software available, when really there is no
> > >software that *you personally need* available. A distinmction you
> > >trollishly ignored.
> > >
> > >--
> > >Vive Macintosh, all hail OS/2, Long live the Amiga, UNIX forever, umm,
> > >and all the other systems I didn't mention. We all compute differently,
> > >get over it.                                          Jeremy Crabtree
> > 
> > Jeremy,
> > 
> > I have now read probably thousands of posts by proponents of Linux and
> > the one theme I have come away with is that they are very narrow
> > minded and overly defensive about it. I think the single biggest
> > obstacle to the eventual success of Linux, is that pervasive overall
> > tone of "know it all" arrogance.
> 
> Let me apologize now if I came off sounding "arrogant," that was truly
> not my intent.
> 
> > 
> > This fellow is actually saying he will give Linux a chance when it
> > meets more of his own needs. He is not saying Linux is a toad. Why do
> > you think that flaming him is going to help your cause?
> 
> I wasn't trying to flame him, though I may have unintentionally. His
> original post, however, could pass very easily for a troll.

If its being a troll to voice frustration with a project one has 
undertaken (I.E., in my case to build a PC for running Linux, install
same and start to use it), then I cop to being a troll..........
> 
> > I think his
> > questions are fair and should be asked when selecting any OS. Will it
> > do the work that you need to get done. The truth is that Linux is not
> > yet ready for prime time. It has great promise, but there are still
> > some holes to fill and growing to do. There is nothing wrong with that
> > and it is to be expected.
> 
> The primary problem I had was that he asserted that there are "no apps
> available" when he meant to say "I could not find the apps I needed,"

Both myself and Josh McKee had defined our terms earlier in this
thread. It is not practical to repeat "the story thus far" in every
article we post, you know. For your edification, though, I will 
reiterate. By "no software" I mean there is a paucity of basic 
productivity apps for Linux. This means specifically, no mainstraem
apps.

> two distinctly different situations. I also have problems with him, and
> others like him who just sit and complain about the lack of apps or the,
> unfortunately, lower quality of some of the available apps. The more
> appriate action here is to either A) Pick up a compiler and start
> writing, not a viable option for a great many people, or B) talk to the
> developers, tell them what they can do to make their software better, or
> more usable; granted I can't guarantee they will all listen, but,
> speaking from the developers perspective, it is impossible to know what
> to fix/improve/add/create without any user feedback.

This is not my business. I have a computer which fills my needs already.
I use a Mac. BUT I decided to learn Linux and see what it can do. In this
thread I have voiced my frustration. As much as I'd like to use Linux, 
the software I (or most other potential users) need, isn't available.
> 
> > 
> > Meanwhile, the only way it is going to grow fast enough to avoid an
> > early demise is for those who have already adopted it, to be less
> > hostile towards those who are still not satisfied that it will do what
> > they need.  This fellow's personal needs are legitimate and not at all
> > unreasonable from any operating system that is expecting to find a
> > wide audience.
> 
> Not at all unreasonable, though the tone he took when presenting his
> needs was, and is, wholly unacceptable.

Again, if you'd followed the thread...... 
> 
> > 
> > I have news for you
> 
> My ears (well, eyes) are open
> 
> > - a version of Quark Xpress
> 
> I could see that...
> 
> > and Photoshop for
> 
> Sadly, I heard that they officially dropped all UNIX developement of
> Pohotoshop :(
> 
> <breakawayfrommaintopic>
> You really should look at the GIMP for image editing needs though. It is
> quite nice, though it is not there yet. Previous to the GIMP I used (and
> still do at times) Fractal Designs' Painter, so I do know what high
> quality image creation/editing software can do. (well, I used it in
> conjunction with Picture Publisher, Halo Desktop Imager, Paint Shop Pro,
> and a couple others)
> </breakawayfrommaintopic>
> 
> > Linux that are totally conversant with Mac and PC versions would
> 
> As far as Photoshop is concerned, it is simply a matter of using
> standard image formats (Photoshop seems to like to spew out "broken"
> jpeg files that won't load in many of my image editing apps)
> 
> > probably create a sensation in the publishing world and accelerate the
> > spread of Linux more than anything else. I would sure consider it
> > seriously at that point.
> 
> > A program that is "as good as" won't cut it. We would  need the
specific name
> > brand programs ported over to Linux for very good reasons.
> 
> I choose to take issue with you here. The name on the "software box," if
> you will, is not as important as whether or not the software can
> actually deliver. I will conceed, however, that to win over the "pointy
> haired bosses" it will take some "big name players" porting their
> software.

That's not really the point. One needs 100% compatibility with the 
big name 'shrink-wrapped' players because a lot of computer 
generated work gets printed. No print shop is going to want to 
fiddle with some partially Quark or PageMaker compatible file
made with an app like "Gnu Page Layout Application". It either
is QuarkXpress or PageMaker or FrameMaker, or you can't
get it printed. Its that simple. Drawing program output either
is Adobe Illustrator PostScript compliant, and will successfully
print out of an imagesetter or it can't be used. The best way to 
insure that these things are platform independent is for there 
to be fully cross-platform compatible versions of the real 
thing available for the Linux OS.
> 
> > My company not only has to create things with
> > those programs, but it must also accept and process print advertising
> > from other sources that all use these two programs. We don't have time
> > to screw around translating and converting things.
> 
> As far as images go, there are many common formats, so conversions
> shouldn't be a problem. As far as Quark Xpress is concerned, however, I
> will conceed the point that you shouldn't have to deal with conversion
> any more than is absolutely necessary.

Printer service bureaus won't deal with it at all.

> > So, my suggestion is that you back it down a few notches
> 
> <hangdown target="head">
> 
> I apologize if I offended anyone :(

No problem as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> </hangdown>
> 
> > and start
> > talking to us as potential allies
> 
> Welcome aboard.
> 
> > instead of as idiots who have no
> > idea what is what.
> 
> I have no doubt that you, and Mr. Graves do indeed know "what is what,"
> Mr. Graves, however, was blatantly rude in his original posting, and
> should, if nothing else, apologize.

Since that wasn't my original posting on this issue, I was not being 
rude. If you took offense, I'm sorry. I was in a debate with another
individual who doesn't seem to understand the points that we have 
been discussing above. 

 
> > Linux has potential.
> 
> *LOTS* of potential :)

Agreed, IF they can make it more accessible to the average computer
user. Right now its like where DOS was when Win3.1 was introduced
Windows was just a shell (like any of the X-Windows varients) and 
wasn't very user friendly. I find XFree86 very dificult to configure
and am frequently frustrated by:

1) The inability of XFree86 to accommodate tasks that any other 
   GUI does without the user even thinking about it. (like install
   icons when new apps are added, or showing a list of mounted 
   volumes which can then be selected with a mouse click, and 
   the volume's contents displayed).

2) Lack of real documentation. I have 'IconMaker' installed under
   XFree86. Even with a manual from Caldera, and online help for 
   XFree86, it is impossible to figure out how to use an icon or to
   link it to an installed app from any source I can find.

3) Above mentioned lack of industry standard applications. 
> 
> > Don't kill it by chasing everybody away before they really have a
chance to see 
> > what it can do or might be able to do in the near future.
> 
> By that same token one should not come in shouting about how it "can't
> do this that or the other" and that it "stinks" or that it is "geeky and
> unusable," this merely irritates people. More sensibly, if you find
> something that could be improved or changed talk to the software
> developers.

If one knew who they were.

George Graves