As for me, I first tried Linux mainly because I'd heard that it was a good environment for programming, and since it was free I just had to try it. I went with Mandrake, and quite liked it.
I presume others have similar reasons. But I wonder if, for example, anyone tried Linux purely for political reasons.
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 01:22:44 +0000, tjb wrote: > As for me, I first tried Linux mainly because I'd heard that it was a good > environment for programming, and since it was free I just had to try it. I > went with Mandrake, and quite liked it.
> I presume others have similar reasons. But I wonder if, for example, > anyone tried Linux purely for political reasons.
I was involved with AIX, heard about Linux and bought a Linux Unleashed book which came with a CD. The card that the CDROM was hooked to wasn't supported by Linux, or virtually anything else at the time, so I had to create about 30 1.44mb diskettes to install Slackware. It actually worked and I remember feeling proud when the "darkstar" login appeared. That's what got me started.
tjb wrote: > As for me, I first tried Linux mainly because I'd heard that it was a good > environment for programming, and since it was free I just had to try it. I > went with Mandrake, and quite liked it.
> I presume others have similar reasons. But I wonder if, for example, > anyone tried Linux purely for political reasons.
I took my first computer class in 1968...Fortran IV back in the punch card days. It was hell. It took a week to get one relatively simply program working.
Even after I graduated and went back to school years later and there were some terminals available...I recall still using punch cards as late as 1979.
By 1982 when IBM came out with the PC and the whole world started to become computer literate...I was so burned out by it all... I got out of the field entirely and swore I would never touch a computer again.
That all changed when my girlfriend gave me he old P-1 computer in July of 1999. It had Win95 on it and I was soon hooked.
Before I could progress, I had to get a few older machines such as a 386 and 486 and learn DOS and Win3x and gain familiarity with the hardware...and the operating systems prior to Win95. Then I decided to move up...and upgraded the machines' hardware and put win98 on the machine.
So, though I was out of the loop completely for maybe 17 years or so... within six months I was "caught up" and wanted to learn even more... So I got a Linux for Dummies book that came with a RedHat 5.2 cd.
Though I was not having any problems with Windows...I heard that Linux was superior and it was free...so why not?
I was a slow learner...and I have to admit that from the time I got the book...until the time I got Linux installed and fully configured...was six months!!!! I had to learn how to partition. I had to learn how to configure an X-server..and I had to learn how to configure a dial-up network.
I learned more in those six months than I had in all those years I spent in college...and all for just the price of one book!
So I became a firm believer in Linux...but still continued to use Windows most of the time.
Then...last year...even though I am cautious Windows user (or so I thought) and had all the proper security software...I ended up getting a root kit and had my bank account and credit card hacked!
Though I got new accounts and was absolved of any liability... I immediately switched over to using Linux on an essentially full time basis.
(FWIF: I found the root kit hidden in the restore volume...those cleaver and sneaky Russians.)
So what got me to make the move to Linux was security.
But then I got a pleasant surprise...I found that the graphics rendition is superior when I use Linux (on the same machine that runs Windows)
As one who does a lot of photography...I found this to be a major benefit.
So though maybe Linux was not the superior operating system it was said to be back in the year 2000. I now believe it to be the best choice for me.
Does that mean Linux is for everyone ? No. Most people will stay with Windows...but that's fine. I never liked being like everyone else.
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:57:25 -0600, philo wrote: > I took my first computer class in 1968...Fortran IV > back in the punch card days. > It was hell. It took a week to get one relatively simply program working.
Add a few years and that is what I was doing. Fortran WAT-IV I think I did the basics, all the sorts, the fibonaci sequence etc.
I even wrote a small program that would plot out a curve of the flight of my various Estes model rockets based on input data like wind, weight, engine size etc.
Some unwashed blob knocked my punch cards off the keypunch one day. I made him pick them all up and put them back in the correct order.
SOB smelled like outhouse at the county fair. We used to call him "the breather" because he was a heavy mouth breather. A real specimen of primitive life. But very, very, very smart.
> Even after I graduated and went back to school years later and there > were some terminals available...I recall still using punch cards as late > as 1979.
That and Decwriters which always seemed to need a ribbon.
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 01:22:44 +0000, tjb <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote: >As for me, I first tried Linux mainly because I'd heard that it was a good >environment for programming, and since it was free I just had to try it. I >went with Mandrake, and quite liked it. >I presume others have similar reasons. But I wonder if, for example, >anyone tried Linux purely for political reasons.
I used linux because I was looking to switch after OS/2 was murdered by microsoft and the idea of something as primative as windows 9x wasn't even a consideration. I mean really?! A gui slapped on top of dos and a file system lacking technology even as recent as the late 70's!
I considered BSD and solaris and went with linux becuase it has far more applications and hardware support.
Windows has yet to catch up to a lot of the technology that linux had in 1999. In some ways, windows still lacks technology from the 60's (a protected OS).
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:58:09 -0800, Tim Smith wrote: > In article <slrnhff48q.sma.aznoma...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net>, > AZ Nomad <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote: >> I used linux because I was looking to switch after OS/2 was murdered >> by microsoft and the idea of something as primative as windows 9x
> OS/2 was murdered by IBM. It was IBM that told developers to fuck off. > It was IBM that refused to push OS/2 in retail.
Well now we know where some of the deep rooted hatred for Microsoft that some of these Linux advocates have comes from. Strange. Very strange.
On Nov 8, 6:21 pm, John Fuhrer <fuhrer_spam_no_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:57:25 -0600, philo wrote: > > I took my first computer class in 1968...Fortran IV > > back in the punch card days. > > It was hell. It took a week to get one relatively simply program working.
> Add a few years and that is what I was doing. Fortran WAT-IV I think > I did the basics, all the sorts, the fibonaci sequence etc.
> I even wrote a small program that would plot out a curve of the flight of > my various Estes model rockets based on input data like wind, weight, > engine size etc.
> Some unwashed blob knocked my punch cards off the keypunch one day. > I made him pick them all up and put them back in the correct order.
Try dealing with a card deck where someone randomly inserts "I=1" Never used one letter variables after I heard about that.
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 21:49:48 -0800 (PST), Vaughn Bode wrote: > On Nov 8, 6:21 pm, John Fuhrer <fuhrer_spam_no_...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:57:25 -0600, philo wrote: >>> I took my first computer class in 1968...Fortran IV >>> back in the punch card days. >>> It was hell. It took a week to get one relatively simply program working.
>> Add a few years and that is what I was doing. Fortran WAT-IV I think >> I did the basics, all the sorts, the fibonaci sequence etc.
>> I even wrote a small program that would plot out a curve of the flight of >> my various Estes model rockets based on input data like wind, weight, >> engine size etc.
>> Some unwashed blob knocked my punch cards off the keypunch one day. >> I made him pick them all up and put them back in the correct order.
> Try dealing with a card deck where someone randomly inserts "I=1" > Never used one letter variables after I heard about that.
tjb stated in post lmpl146xaei3....@tjb.invalid.invalid on 11/8/09 6:22 PM:
> As for me, I first tried Linux mainly because I'd heard that it was a good > environment for programming, and since it was free I just had to try it. I > went with Mandrake, and quite liked it.
> I presume others have similar reasons. But I wonder if, for example, > anyone tried Linux purely for political reasons.
I was working for a school where they had a lot of donated computers without any OS. The computers were for pretty minimal usage - basic word processing, typing tutors, etc. My boss was ready to shell out the cash for Windows - I suggested we try Linux first. I had used it a little, but not much. Went with Ubuntu. Worked well on the desktops and, later, when an old OS 9 Mac died, it worked well as a bell system.
John Fuhrer wrote: > On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:57:25 -0600, philo wrote:
>> I took my first computer class in 1968...Fortran IV >> back in the punch card days. >> It was hell. It took a week to get one relatively simply program working.
> Add a few years and that is what I was doing. Fortran WAT-IV I think > I did the basics, all the sorts, the fibonaci sequence etc.
Yep I remember that type of stuff...it was long time ago though!
> I even wrote a small program that would plot out a curve of the flight of > my various Estes model rockets based on input data like wind, weight, > engine size etc.
Yep...me and my friends were into rockets too. We lived in a metropolitan area and lost a lot of them...so we went out to the county hospital grounds and fired them until they asked us to leave. I'm sure if we did that today, we'd all be in jail!
> Some unwashed blob knocked my punch cards off the keypunch one day. > I made him pick them all up and put them back in the correct order.
> SOB smelled like outhouse at the county fair. > We used to call him "the breather" because he was a heavy mouth breather. > A real specimen of primitive life. > But very, very, very smart.
Yep...we had a guy like that at our school too. In the cafeteria he ate with one fork in each hand and just shoveled the food in. He stunk and no one associated with him. He got straigth A's
>> Even after I graduated and went back to school years later and there >> were some terminals available...I recall still using punch cards as late >> as 1979.
> That and Decwriters which always seemed to need a ribbon.
Tim Smith wrote: > In article <slrnhff48q.sma.aznoma...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net>, > AZ Nomad <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote: >> I used linux because I was looking to switch after OS/2 was murdered >> by microsoft and the idea of something as primative as windows 9x
> OS/2 was murdered by IBM. It was IBM that told developers to fuck off. > It was IBM that refused to push OS/2 in retail.
It was not 100% killed
I have a usable ECS installation somewhere and a few people still use it...
philo <ph...@privacy.net> writes: > Tim Smith wrote: >> In article <slrnhff48q.sma.aznoma...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net>, >> AZ Nomad <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote: >>> I used linux because I was looking to switch after OS/2 was murdered >>> by microsoft and the idea of something as primative as windows 9x
>> OS/2 was murdered by IBM. It was IBM that told developers to fuck off. >> It was IBM that refused to push OS/2 in retail.
> It was not 100% killed
> I have a usable ECS installation somewhere and a few people still use it...
> I really liked OS/2
Nonetheless Tim is correct.
IBM killed their own child through a combination of arrogance, inertia , greed and miscalculation.
The only person I know who ever claimed that IBM were "developer friendly" in the OS/2 days is Peter Koehlmann but he's a Windows programming ignoramus who seems to know very little about anything outside of his Windows environment.
>> Tim Smith wrote: >>> In article <slrnhff48q.sma.aznoma...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net>, >>> AZ Nomad <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote: >>>> I used linux because I was looking to switch after OS/2 was murdered >>>> by microsoft and the idea of something as primative as windows 9x
>>> OS/2 was murdered by IBM. It was IBM that told developers to fuck off. >>> It was IBM that refused to push OS/2 in retail.
>> It was not 100% killed
>> I have a usable ECS installation somewhere and a few people still use >> it...
>> I really liked OS/2
> Nonetheless Tim is correct.
> IBM killed their own child through a combination of arrogance, inertia > , greed and miscalculation.
> The only person I know who ever claimed that IBM were "developer > friendly" in the OS/2 days is Peter Koehlmann
You will now certainly provide the Msg-ID for that lie, Hadron Snot Quark. After all, you would not want to be seen as the blatant liar you are, right?
> but he's a Windows > programming ignoramus who seems to know very little about anything > outside of his Windows environment.
Certainly, "true linux advocate", "kernel hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile expert", "X specialist", "CUPS guru", "USB-disk server admin", "defragger professional", "newsreader magician", "hardware maven", "time coordinator", "email sage", "tripwire wizard", "Pulseaudio rockstar", "XORG sorcerer", "filesystem pro" and "OSS culling committee chairman" Hadron Quark, aka Hans Schneider, aka Richard, aka Damian O'Leary, aka Steve Townsend, aka Ubuntu King
-- I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:47:59 -0600, philo wrote: > Tim Smith wrote: >> In article <slrnhff48q.sma.aznoma...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net>, >> AZ Nomad <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote: >>> I used linux because I was looking to switch after OS/2 was murdered >>> by microsoft and the idea of something as primative as windows 9x
>> OS/2 was murdered by IBM. It was IBM that told developers to fuck off. >> It was IBM that refused to push OS/2 in retail.
How unfortunate for Tim that some of us here remember those days and have a different story to tell.
As I recall, Microsoft pushed Windows 95 vaporware heavily, and people waited rather than buy OS/2.
Microsoft killed OS/2
-- This machine running Gnu/Linux Ubuntu 9.10 and posting via Pan. Get your Free copy NOW! http://www.ubuntu.com/
Terry Porter wrote: > On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:47:59 -0600, philo wrote:
>> Tim Smith wrote: >>> In article <slrnhff48q.sma.aznoma...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net>, >>> AZ Nomad <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote: >>>> I used linux because I was looking to switch after OS/2 was murdered >>>> by microsoft and the idea of something as primative as windows 9x
>>> OS/2 was murdered by IBM. It was IBM that told developers to fuck off. >>> It was IBM that refused to push OS/2 in retail.
> How unfortunate for Tim that some of us here remember those days and > have a different story to tell.
> As I recall, Microsoft pushed Windows 95 vaporware heavily, and people > waited rather than buy OS/2.
That was *one* of the reasons. MS was blubbering about "Cairo" and how it would put OS/2 to shame And then came Win95. What a pile of garbage
> Microsoft killed OS/2
It was also IBMs incompetence. They had a vastly superior product (it still is superior to Win7) yet were totally unable to leverage it
Additionally there was naturally browbeating and outright blackmail from MS towards IBM. And to wouldbe OS/2 friendly chains, blackmailing them with high windows prices -- Modern man is the missing link between apes and human beings.
Terry Porter <linu...@netspace.net.au> writes: > On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:47:59 -0600, philo wrote:
>> Tim Smith wrote: >>> In article <slrnhff48q.sma.aznoma...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net>, >>> AZ Nomad <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote: >>>> I used linux because I was looking to switch after OS/2 was murdered >>>> by microsoft and the idea of something as primative as windows 9x
>>> OS/2 was murdered by IBM. It was IBM that told developers to fuck off. >>> It was IBM that refused to push OS/2 in retail.
> How unfortunate for Tim that some of us here remember those days and have > a different story to tell.
> As I recall, Microsoft pushed Windows 95 vaporware heavily, and people > waited rather than buy OS/2.
Bullshit.
OS/2 was almost nowhere to be found in retail stores for a start.
They also did NOTHING to encourage developers.
They did not work with new emerging HW vendors like MS did to develop D3D for example.
> Microsoft killed OS/2
Lou Gerstner killed OS/2 because the company had already handicapped it because of conceit, greed and a self regard that was worthless in the emerging home desktop and small business environments.
OS/2 also needed significantly more memory for the extra power of the PM/WPS to be used efficiently. And in them days memory was not cheap.
>>> Tim Smith wrote: >>>> In article <slrnhff48q.sma.aznoma...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net>, >>>> AZ Nomad <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote: >>>>> I used linux because I was looking to switch after OS/2 was murdered >>>>> by microsoft and the idea of something as primative as windows 9x
>>>> OS/2 was murdered by IBM. It was IBM that told developers to fuck off. >>>> It was IBM that refused to push OS/2 in retail.
>>> It was not 100% killed
>>> I have a usable ECS installation somewhere and a few people still use >>> it...
>>> I really liked OS/2
>> Nonetheless Tim is correct.
>> IBM killed their own child through a combination of arrogance, inertia >> , greed and miscalculation.
>> The only person I know who ever claimed that IBM were "developer >> friendly" in the OS/2 days is Peter Koehlmann
> You will now certainly provide the Msg-ID for that lie, Hadron Snot Quark. > After all, you would not want to be seen as the blatant liar you are, > right?
>> but he's a Windows programming ignoramus who seems to know very little about anything >> outside of his Windows environment.
I actually have the previous model (Spyder2) but it's the same idea. This runs on Mac and Windows but not Linux. I'm not aware of any devices like this that do run on Linux so how do you get your monitor to accurately display images? Otherwise you're severely limited in what photo editing you can do on Linux if you can't see what the actual colors are like.
>> So what got me to make the move to Linux was security.
> That's a good reason to use Linux. But Windows can also be secured if you > know what you're doing. (Most "home" users don't)
>> But then I got a pleasant surprise...I found that the graphics rendition >> is superior when I use Linux (on the same machine that runs Windows)
> What do you mean by "graphics rendition?"
I think he means to use "rendering": And it isn't. Linux has come on a LOT however.
>> As one who does a lot of photography...I found this to be a major >> benefit.
Since you don't "render" photos per se as you do fonts etc (you need a REAL representation not some smoothed equivalent) I'm beginning to wonder about Philo's motives now.
> I actually have the previous model (Spyder2) but it's the same idea. This > runs on Mac and Windows but not Linux. I'm not aware of any devices like > this that do run on Linux so how do you get your monitor to accurately > display images? Otherwise you're severely limited in what photo editing you > can do on Linux if you can't see what the actual colors are like.
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:22:44 -0600, tjb <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote: > As for me, I first tried Linux mainly because I'd heard that it was a > good > environment for programming, and since it was free I just had to try > it. I > went with Mandrake, and quite liked it.
> I presume others have similar reasons. But I wonder if, for example, > anyone tried Linux purely for political reasons.
I tried Linux because it was there, free and I had heard "it worksl". Yes, it was hard to install Debian on a laptop in 1998, but oh so cool the first time X came up. It was so "not Windows". I reallty liked it. I went through a few distro's: Debian > Mandrake > Ubuntu > Mint. As you can see convenience is more important to me that "Linux Cool" these days. My Mint laptop is now so stable I need to force things to break for some tinker entertainment. Probably time for me to get a play OS, something like Gentoo, Arch or even Slack.
ceed <cdposter-use...@yahoo.com> writes: > On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:22:44 -0600, tjb <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> As for me, I first tried Linux mainly because I'd heard that it was a >> good >> environment for programming, and since it was free I just had to try >> it. I >> went with Mandrake, and quite liked it.
>> I presume others have similar reasons. But I wonder if, for example, >> anyone tried Linux purely for political reasons.
> I tried Linux because it was there, free and I had heard "it worksl". Yes, > it was hard to install Debian on a laptop in 1998, but oh so cool the > first time X came up. It was so "not Windows". I reallty liked it. I went > through a few distro's: Debian > Mandrake > Ubuntu > Mint. As you can see > convenience is more important to me that "Linux Cool" these days. My Mint > laptop is now so stable I need to force things to break for some tinker > entertainment. Probably time for me to get a play OS, something like > Gentoo, Arch or even Slack.
What things do you "force to break" so you can "tinker"?
>> The only person I know who ever claimed that IBM were "developer >> friendly" in the OS/2 days is Peter Koehlmann >> but he's a Windows >> programming ignoramus who seems to know very little about anything >> outside of his Windows environment.
> Certainly, "true linux advocate", "kernel hacker", "emacs user", ...
Oddly enough, it is "Hadron" who seems to know more about Windows than about Linux.
I wonder who's been coaching him on the Linux stuff? Poor bastard didn't seem to know that cinelerra was available from apt-get.
-- There is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never care for anything else thereafter. -- Ernest Hemingway
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:18:03 +0100, Hadron wrote: > Terry Porter <linu...@netspace.net.au> writes:
>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:47:59 -0600, philo wrote:
>>> Tim Smith wrote: >>>> In article <slrnhff48q.sma.aznoma...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net>, >>>> AZ Nomad <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote: >>>>> I used linux because I was looking to switch after OS/2 was murdered >>>>> by microsoft and the idea of something as primative as windows 9x
>>>> OS/2 was murdered by IBM. It was IBM that told developers to fuck off. >>>> It was IBM that refused to push OS/2 in retail.
>> How unfortunate for Tim that some of us here remember those days and have >> a different story to tell.
>> As I recall, Microsoft pushed Windows 95 vaporware heavily, and people >> waited rather than buy OS/2.
> Bullshit.
> OS/2 was almost nowhere to be found in retail stores for a start.
> They also did NOTHING to encourage developers.
> They did not work with new emerging HW vendors like MS did to develop > D3D for example.
>> Microsoft killed OS/2
> Lou Gerstner killed OS/2 because the company had already handicapped it > because of conceit, greed and a self regard that was worthless in the > emerging home desktop and small business environments.
> OS/2 also needed significantly more memory for the extra power of the > PM/WPS to be used efficiently. And in them days memory was not cheap.
1. OS/2 initially and officially only worked on IBM PS/2 hardware which was much too expensive for most, even if it was superior. People didn't care.
2. IBM charged for their DDK and took forever getting it into the hands of developers. Microsoft gave theirs away for free and had a program to assist developers in writing drivers for Windows 95. Guess which OS shipped with more support for hardware?
3. Later on IBM 's own PC division was shipping their systems with Windows because they were autonomous, like the other divisions, and needed to make their own bottom line. IOW they had no stake in OS/2.
4. IBM blundered badly with WinOS which they claimed was a "better Windows than Windows", which it wasn't. This actually discouraged software developers from writing OS/2 native programs.
5. IBM did virtually zero to market the product until it was too late.
There is a lot more, but that's the gist of it.
OS/2 was the Linux of the 90's right down to the TeamOS people squealing every time they saw an OS/2 screen on some TV show or movie.
> I actually have the previous model (Spyder2) but it's the same idea. This > runs on Mac and Windows but not Linux. I'm not aware of any devices like > this that do run on Linux so how do you get your monitor to accurately > display images? Otherwise you're severely limited in what photo editing you > can do on Linux if you can't see what the actual colors are like.
On Linux the geek puts up a hi res picture of a Star Wars scene and makes sure the sky is jet black the stars white, Darth Vader jet black etc...
|
