Re: Only 30 More Days To Go!

[DanS]

"WaterBoy" wrote in

news4idnUjtoezkFy_WnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@giganews.com:



> Ah!!! and I felt sorry that you got sick... That 13 million

> number is not as accurate as you may think. There were a

> few of us myself included, that successfully installed

> U***TU, ran the updates and rebooted.

>

> After the reboot, it was command line after command line to

> try and upgrade Firefox to the latest version.



That is the most bizarre claim I've ever heard.



.....especially since Firefox updates itself !!!!!!

 

[Alias]

DanS wrote:

> "WaterBoy" wrote in

> news4idnUjtoezkFy_WnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@giganews.com:

>

>> Ah!!! and I felt sorry that you got sick... That 13 million

>> number is not as accurate as you may think. There were a

>> few of us myself included, that successfully installed

>> U***TU, ran the updates and rebooted.

>>

>> After the reboot, it was command line after command line to

>> try and upgrade Firefox to the latest version.

>

> That is the most bizarre claim I've ever heard.

>

> ....especially since Firefox updates itself !!!!!!

>



He means a higher version than what comes preinstalled with Ubuntu. What

he doesn't realize is that the new versions will be put in the

repository pipe when it's *ready*.



--

Alias

 

[DanS]

DanS wrote in

news:Xns9D4C4AC9A27D7thisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131:



> "WaterBoy" wrote in

> news4idnUjtoezkFy_WnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@giganews.com:

>

>> Ah!!! and I felt sorry that you got sick... That 13 million

>> number is not as accurate as you may think. There were a

>> few of us myself included, that successfully installed

>> U***TU, ran the updates and rebooted.

>>

>> After the reboot, it was command line after command line to

>> try and upgrade Firefox to the latest version.

>

> That is the most bizarre claim I've ever heard.

>

> ....especially since Firefox updates itself !!!!!!



Hmmmmm. It doesn't seem to update itself, but instead uses the package manager. I

hadn't noticed this before. It only updates plugins.



Is 3.5.8 the latest version ? That's what's on here now.

 

[Alias]

DanS wrote:

> DanS wrote in

> news:Xns9D4C4AC9A27D7thisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131:

>

>> "WaterBoy" wrote in

>> news4idnUjtoezkFy_WnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@giganews.com:

>>

>>> Ah!!! and I felt sorry that you got sick... That 13 million

>>> number is not as accurate as you may think. There were a

>>> few of us myself included, that successfully installed

>>> U***TU, ran the updates and rebooted.

>>>

>>> After the reboot, it was command line after command line to

>>> try and upgrade Firefox to the latest version.

>> That is the most bizarre claim I've ever heard.

>>

>> ....especially since Firefox updates itself !!!!!!

>

> Hmmmmm. It doesn't seem to update itself, but instead uses the package manager. I

> hadn't noticed this before. It only updates plugins.

>

> Is 3.5.8 the latest version ? That's what's on here now.

>

>



In Windows, it's 3.6.2. In Ubuntu, it's the version you have. The new

version will be shipped with 10.04, aka Lucid Lynx.



--

Alias

 

[Joel]

Alias wrote:



>In Windows, it's 3.6.2. In Ubuntu, it's the version you have.





You can install the generic Mozilla bits for Linux. I see no reason

to limit oneself to the distro's customized/delayed release.



--

Joel Crump

 

[Alias]

Joel wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>

>> In Windows, it's 3.6.2. In Ubuntu, it's the version you have.

>

>

> You can install the generic Mozilla bits for Linux. I see no reason

> to limit oneself to the distro's customized/delayed release.

>



And many think like you do. I don't. I only update from the repository

and, as a result, I haven't had a problem since I got started with

Ubuntu in 06.



--

Alias

 

[Joel]

Alias wrote:



>> You can install the generic Mozilla bits for Linux. I see no reason

>> to limit oneself to the distro's customized/delayed release.

>

>And many think like you do. I don't. I only update from the repository

>and, as a result, I haven't had a problem since I got started with

>Ubuntu in 06.





Why would you have a problem because you installed something like

Mozilla's own compile of Firefox, though? I mean, in its specific

case, it's really six of one, half dozen of the other, since Canonical

and virtually all if not all distros have a Firefox version available,

but what if you want an application that the distro doesn't provide

(perhaps a commercial one - they do exist for Linux)? If that will

cause some kind of trouble with the OS, it doesn't seem very

encouraging about its overall quality.



--

Joel Crump

 

[DanS]

Joel wrote in

news:tpe6r5llcpdc177bknamnb4bkklr5uu99b@4ax.com:



> Alias wrote:

>

>>In Windows, it's 3.6.2. In Ubuntu, it's the version you

>>have.

>

>

> You can install the generic Mozilla bits for Linux. I see

> no reason to limit oneself to the distro's

> customized/delayed release.



By the same token, I see no reason to install a newer version if

it's unnecessary.



At this stage in the game, what new feature could they possibly

have in a web browser update that would make it a must have

(other than anything security related).

 

[Alias]

Joel wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>

>>> You can install the generic Mozilla bits for Linux. I see no reason

>>> to limit oneself to the distro's customized/delayed release.

>> And many think like you do. I don't. I only update from the repository

>> and, as a result, I haven't had a problem since I got started with

>> Ubuntu in 06.

>

>

> Why would you have a problem because you installed something like

> Mozilla's own compile of Firefox, though? I mean, in its specific

> case, it's really six of one, half dozen of the other, since Canonical

> and virtually all if not all distros have a Firefox version available,

> but what if you want an application that the distro doesn't provide

> (perhaps a commercial one - they do exist for Linux)? If that will

> cause some kind of trouble with the OS, it doesn't seem very

> encouraging about its overall quality.

>



You can't install a Linux app in Windows, either. The repository has

thousands of programs to choose from. Which one do you have in mind? As

far as I know, you can only install Windows based commercial software

using Wine. As I don't need any of those programs, I just use what's in

the Software Center and Synaptic.



--

Alias

 

[Alias]

DanS wrote:

> Joel wrote in

> news:tpe6r5llcpdc177bknamnb4bkklr5uu99b@4ax.com:

>

>> Alias wrote:

>>

>>> In Windows, it's 3.6.2. In Ubuntu, it's the version you

>>> have.

>>

>> You can install the generic Mozilla bits for Linux. I see

>> no reason to limit oneself to the distro's

>> customized/delayed release.

>

> By the same token, I see no reason to install a newer version if

> it's unnecessary.

>

> At this stage in the game, what new feature could they possibly

> have in a web browser update that would make it a must have

> (other than anything security related).



Security with FF is more important if you're using Windows. With Ubuntu,

it's not a problem.



--

Alias

 

[Joel]

DanS wrote:



>> You can install the generic Mozilla bits for Linux. I see

>> no reason to limit oneself to the distro's

>> customized/delayed release.

>

>By the same token, I see no reason to install a newer version if

>it's unnecessary.





That much I *tend* to agree with (although it would depend on the

nature of the update, and how long it took the distro to release their

package), although I didn't like the way it was modified, beyond just

being a slightly older version.





>At this stage in the game, what new feature could they possibly

>have in a web browser update that would make it a must have

>(other than anything security related).





3.6.2 did fix at least one critical bug in 3.6 - although i believe

3.5.x didn't have the bug, so I wouldn't say at least in this case

Canonical is missing anything.



--

Joel Crump

 

[Joel]

Alias wrote:



>You can't install a Linux app in Windows, either.





Not without MS's Unix subsystem (with Win7, using it requires

Enterprise/Ultimate) or Cygwin (pretty much recognized as better than

MS's, free, and will run on any version of Windows), at least, yes.





> The repository has

>thousands of programs to choose from. Which one do you have in mind? As

>far as I know, you can only install Windows based commercial software

>using Wine. As I don't need any of those programs, I just use what's in

>the Software Center and Synaptic.





There is a commercial version of Wine for Linux (and OS X), CrossOver

(http://www.codeweavers.com/products/). I used it under OS X, until I

decided to run Win7 on my MacBook. It's really worth looking into

even if you don't run Windows programs, because it's an intriguing

project - it gives a lot back to the free Wine project, while

providing support for some heavy Windows software under Linux and OS X

(including MS Office 2007, among others), and helping to manage the

Windows software installed (this was highly advantageous under OS X,

since it provided a native Mac GUI shell for Wine's X interface - but

Wine can be compiled without too much trouble under OS X, if one is

really that cheap not to pay a modest annual fee for CrossOver).



However, I don't mean to totally sidetrack into that one program.

There are other commercial programs for Linux, and there are

inevitably going to be free programs or specific versions thereof that

aren't in every distro's repository. It shouldn't cause problems to

install them - that wouldn't speak well of the distro.



--

Joel Crump

 

[Alias]

Joel wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>

>> You can't install a Linux app in Windows, either.

>

>

> Not without MS's Unix subsystem (with Win7, using it requires

> Enterprise/Ultimate) or Cygwin (pretty much recognized as better than

> MS's, free, and will run on any version of Windows), at least, yes.

>

>

>> The repository has

>> thousands of programs to choose from. Which one do you have in mind? As

>> far as I know, you can only install Windows based commercial software

>> using Wine. As I don't need any of those programs, I just use what's in

>> the Software Center and Synaptic.

>

>

> There is a commercial version of Wine for Linux (and OS X), CrossOver

> (http://www.codeweavers.com/products/). I used it under OS X, until I

> decided to run Win7 on my MacBook. It's really worth looking into

> even if you don't run Windows programs, because it's an intriguing

> project - it gives a lot back to the free Wine project, while

> providing support for some heavy Windows software under Linux and OS X

> (including MS Office 2007, among others), and helping to manage the

> Windows software installed (this was highly advantageous under OS X,

> since it provided a native Mac GUI shell for Wine's X interface - but

> Wine can be compiled without too much trouble under OS X, if one is

> really that cheap not to pay a modest annual fee for CrossOver).

>

> However, I don't mean to totally sidetrack into that one program.

> There are other commercial programs for Linux, and there are

> inevitably going to be free programs or specific versions thereof that

> aren't in every distro's repository. It shouldn't cause problems to

> install them - that wouldn't speak well of the distro.

>



I didn't say it would cause problems if you know what you're doing. For

the average user, only installing from the repositories will provide all

the programs most users will need.



--

Alias

 

[Joel]

Alias wrote:



>> However, I don't mean to totally sidetrack into that one program.

>> There are other commercial programs for Linux, and there are

>> inevitably going to be free programs or specific versions thereof that

>> aren't in every distro's repository. It shouldn't cause problems to

>> install them - that wouldn't speak well of the distro.

>

>I didn't say it would cause problems if you know what you're doing. For

>the average user, only installing from the repositories will provide all

>the programs most users will need.





Presumably that is true - but it's not all that different from

Windows, really, where most users will find all the software they need

from reputable sources (whether free or commercial).



--

Joel Crump

 

[Alias]

Joel wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>

>>> However, I don't mean to totally sidetrack into that one program.

>>> There are other commercial programs for Linux, and there are

>>> inevitably going to be free programs or specific versions thereof that

>>> aren't in every distro's repository. It shouldn't cause problems to

>>> install them - that wouldn't speak well of the distro.

>> I didn't say it would cause problems if you know what you're doing. For

>> the average user, only installing from the repositories will provide all

>> the programs most users will need.

>

>

> Presumably that is true - but it's not all that different from

> Windows, really, where most users will find all the software they need

> from reputable sources (whether free or commercial).

>



If you cut out the cost of Windows, PhotoShop, Adobe Acrobat and MS

Office, Linux saves a helluva lot of money. So, no, it isn't like

Windows cost-wise.



--

Alias

 

[Philo P. Shagnasty]

"Alias" wrote in message

news:hovhtt$2nm$2@news.eternal-september.org...

> DanS wrote:

>> Joel wrote in

>> news:tpe6r5llcpdc177bknamnb4bkklr5uu99b@4ax.com:

>>> Alias wrote:

>>>

>>>> In Windows, it's 3.6.2. In Ubuntu, it's the version you

>>>> have.

>>>

>>> You can install the generic Mozilla bits for Linux. I see

>>> no reason to limit oneself to the distro's

>>> customized/delayed release.

>>

>> By the same token, I see no reason to install a newer version if it's

>> unnecessary.

>>

>> At this stage in the game, what new feature could they possibly have in a

>> web browser update that would make it a must have (other than anything

>> security related).

>

> Security with FF is more important if you're using Windows. With Ubuntu,

> it's not a problem.

>

> --

> Alias



Of course security is not a problem with that SHITTY Ubuntu. Nobody uses

it! LOL!

 

[Joel]

Alias wrote:



>>> I didn't say it would cause problems if you know what you're doing. For

>>> the average user, only installing from the repositories will provide all

>>> the programs most users will need.

>>

>> Presumably that is true - but it's not all that different from

>> Windows, really, where most users will find all the software they need

>> from reputable sources (whether free or commercial).

>

>If you cut out the cost of Windows, PhotoShop, Adobe Acrobat and MS

>Office, Linux saves a helluva lot of money. So, no, it isn't like

>Windows cost-wise.





I wasn't talking about cost. But how many people buy all three of

Photoshop, Acrobat and MS Office? I don't own any of them, myself. I

have two free versions of PSP

(an old NT4/9x-era freebie one I saved from my old dial-up modem's

driver CD, and the PSP9 installer that requires no serial or anything,

that they put out via a word to the wise right before PSP10 came

out - if anyone wants either of them, feel free to ask),

and OpenOffice.



I have bought several Windows programs, but they were all in the

$20-90 range (except Windows itself, of course, which I've paid over

$100 for each copy of - one XP, two 7).



--

Joel Crump

 

[Alias]

Joel wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>

>>>> I didn't say it would cause problems if you know what you're doing. For

>>>> the average user, only installing from the repositories will provide all

>>>> the programs most users will need.

>>> Presumably that is true - but it's not all that different from

>>> Windows, really, where most users will find all the software they need

>>> from reputable sources (whether free or commercial).

>> If you cut out the cost of Windows, PhotoShop, Adobe Acrobat and MS

>> Office, Linux saves a helluva lot of money. So, no, it isn't like

>> Windows cost-wise.

>

>

> I wasn't talking about cost. But how many people buy all three of

> Photoshop, Acrobat and MS Office? I don't own any of them, myself. I

> have two free versions of PSP

> (an old NT4/9x-era freebie one I saved from my old dial-up modem's

> driver CD, and the PSP9 installer that requires no serial or anything,

> that they put out via a word to the wise right before PSP10 came

> out - if anyone wants either of them, feel free to ask),

> and OpenOffice.

>

> I have bought several Windows programs, but they were all in the

> $20-90 range (except Windows itself, of course, which I've paid over

> $100 for each copy of - one XP, two 7).

>



My point is that Linux has comparable programs for these expensive

Windows based programs and is a good incentive -- along with Linux'

security -- to make the switch and go through the learning curve.



--

Alias

 

[Alias]

Philo P. Shagnasty wrote:

>

>

> "Alias" wrote in message

> news:hovhtt$2nm$2@news.eternal-september.org...

>> DanS wrote:

>>> Joel wrote in

>>> news:tpe6r5llcpdc177bknamnb4bkklr5uu99b@4ax.com:

>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> In Windows, it's 3.6.2. In Ubuntu, it's the version you

>>>>> have.

>>>>

>>>> You can install the generic Mozilla bits for Linux. I see

>>>> no reason to limit oneself to the distro's

>>>> customized/delayed release.

>>>

>>> By the same token, I see no reason to install a newer version if it's

>>> unnecessary.

>>>

>>> At this stage in the game, what new feature could they possibly have

>>> in a web browser update that would make it a must have (other than

>>> anything security related).

>>

>> Security with FF is more important if you're using Windows. With

>> Ubuntu, it's not a problem.

>>

>> --

>> Alias

>

> Of course security is not a problem with that SHITTY Ubuntu. Nobody

> uses it! LOL!

>

>

>



13 million users say you're a blatant liar. Why are you so afraid of Ubuntu?



--

Alias

 

[Joel]

Alias wrote:



>My point is that Linux has comparable programs for these expensive

>Windows based programs and is a good incentive -- along with Linux'

>security -- to make the switch and go through the learning curve.





Windows has comparable free programs, too. Windows can be used

securely. If people are genuinely interested in Linux, and genuinely

find that they prefer it, great - but Ubuntu simply can't be anywhere

near matching Windows, yet. It works decently for some machines, but

not for others, and isn't polished in any event. Other distros are

fairly polished, but they also don't go balls-out on bleeding-edge

hardware support - Linux remains a Catch-22, in that respect, but it

is improving, and I *do* believe it will gain usage in the coming

years.



--

Joel Crump