Pavel314 writes:
I was thinking of trying Linux as the OS for my home computer after I
retire and have time to fool around with that sort of thing. Anyone on
here use Linux?

Yep lots of people.

Real easy to try, and the price is right.
Plus some very cool apps.
Many of us use Linux only.

--
Dan Espen

I use puppy linux. Way faster and more stable than windows.:-)

On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 2:52:58 PM UTC-5, Roy wrote:
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 5:17:07 AM UTC-7, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 1:13:42 AM UTC-5, Roy wrote:
On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 3:36:24 PM UTC-7, Moe DeLoughan wrote:
On 1/21/2015 3:32 PM, Roy wrote:
On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 12:17:56 PM UTC-7, Moe DeLoughan wrote:
Want Windows 10? You got it: for free. This is a sea change in
Microsoft's strategy when it comes to upgrades. Gratis upgrades will
be available for Windows 7, 8.1 and even Windows Phone 8.1 users for a
full year.

http://gizmodo.com/windows-10-is-a-f...ear-1680771504

Liar, liar your pants are on fire. Won't apply to my nearly 3 year old Win 7 system.

Get the facts and get back to us.
=======


Too damned lazy to click the link and read, hey? Or are you
comprehension-impaired?

Here's another link:

Free Upgrade Offer

Great news! We will offer a free upgrade to Windows 10 for qualified
new or existing Windows 7, Windows 8.1 and Windows Phone 8.1 devices
that upgrade in the first year!* And even better: once a qualified
Windows device is upgraded to Windows 10, we will continue to keep it
up to date for the supported lifetime of the device, keeping it more
secure, and introducing new features and functionality over time - for
no additional charge. Sign up with your email today, and we will send
you more information about Windows 10 and the upgrade offer in the
coming months.

*It is our intent that most of these devices will qualify, but some
hardware/software requirements apply and feature availability may vary
by device. Devices must be connected to the internet and have Windows
Update enabled. ISP fees may apply. Windows 7 SP1 and Windows 8.1
Update required. Some editions are excluded: Windows 7 Enterprise,
Windows 8/8.1 Enterprise, and Windows RT/RT 8.1. Active Software
Assurance customers in volume licensing have the benefit to upgrade to
Windows 10 Enterprise outside of this offer. We will be sharing more
information and additional offer terms in coming months.

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/w...ows-10_Null_01

Some editions are excluded. Some other conditions apply. Must be connected to the Internet.

If I QUALIFY I may be interested.

Wow, must be connected to the internet to get the free update.
What a show stopping hurdle for consumers! Outrageous!

So far, from what I see my Win 7 PCs are covered.
Amazing how some folks want to just **** all over stuff, even when it
looks genuine and generous. I mean here is MSFT giving out a free
major OS upgrade and you're complaining.

If Windows 10 is to be given out FREE, then we should be able to go to a computer outlet such as Staples or The Source and get a FREE disk with the software and no questions asked. Downloading the software as a service gives way too much control to Microsoft. I wonder if after the FREE offer is over will the purchased version be substantially different than the FREE one. There has to be a catch somewhere.

I guess when you're the one giving out free stuff, you can decide
how and where you're going to do it. I haven't bought a CD based
software product in years. Just got some antivirus software for example,
downloaded it from the manufacturer, entered the activation code.
That is the model the world is moving to, especially given the shift
in platforms, ie smartphones, tablets, etc.
I think it's unreasonable to expect a company to stock retail channels
with a free product, that they don't have to give you to begin with.
Who's going to pay for that? They don't stock retail with SP1, SP2, etc,
ie the other free upgrades they give you. That's how MSFT is apparently
treating this. If I was MSFT, I might offer a CD version, sold directly,
for some reasonable charge to cover the costs, for people in special circumstances.

|I use puppy linux. Way faster and more stable than windows.:-)

"Way faster"? Is there something you find unusably
slow on Windows? I ask because I think speed is
vastly overrated, due to a long history of marketing.
People even talk about browser speed, and the browser
companies encourage it by running tests and trying to
beat each other out with page load times. But a slow
webpage load is usually due to a slow server, a slow
Internet, or a bloated and badly designed webpage.
Choice of browser has little to do with it.

Speed hasn't really been an issue since the late 90s
when CPUs got up to about 500 MHz, unless you're
someone who edits video or giant photos. Then speed
is about getting more RAM.

While a Windows
PC with a lot of junk installed can be very slow (I've
seen XP systems that move like molasses), in
general there's no problem with Windows. I'm running
XP right now, on a home made box that's nothing
fancy. I bought one of the cheapest CPUs about 2
years ago. Yet virtually everything I do is instant, at
least as far as my human perception can tell. I don't
think that even the super-duperest Linux can beat
instant.

Which is not to say I'm against Linux. I just hate to
see people spend money needlessly. And Linux is not
"free" if it takes new hardware and/or lots of time to
set it up. There's also a serious lack of software, despite
what some Linux fans will say. (GIMP is still not a very
good image editor, after 15+ years in development. WINE
is still not a solution, after 15+ years in development
and a ridiculous 10-day update cycle.)

I've seen an awfully
lot of people throw away perfectly good computers because
they started to run a bit slow and the people were told
by others that their PC had "got old", or that the OS was
somehow "outdated". I have some of those PCs now.
I clean them up and save them for people who might
need one.

On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 9:11:13 AM UTC-5, Mayayana wrote:
|I use puppy linux. Way faster and more stable than windows.:-)

"Way faster"? Is there something you find unusably
slow on Windows? I ask because I think speed is
vastly overrated, due to a long history of marketing.
People even talk about browser speed, and the browser
companies encourage it by running tests and trying to
beat each other out with page load times. But a slow
webpage load is usually due to a slow server, a slow
Internet, or a bloated and badly designed webpage.
Choice of browser has little to do with it.

Speed hasn't really been an issue since the late 90s
when CPUs got up to about 500 MHz, unless you're
someone who edits video or giant photos. Then speed
is about getting more RAM.


Baloney. Put Windows 8 on a 500Mhz machine and it will be
a pig. Not saying you need the latest quad core whatever, but
there is a big, noticeable difference in performance between
today's 2ghz multicore CPUs and a 500Mhz CPU.

"Mayayana" writes:

|I use puppy linux. Way faster and more stable than windows.:-)

"Way faster"? Is there something you find unusably
slow on Windows? I ask because I think speed is
vastly overrated, due to a long history of marketing.

Nope.
Try using your system all day, like I do for computer programming.
A fast system allows you to work un-interrupted.

People even talk about browser speed, and the browser
companies encourage it by running tests and trying to
beat each other out with page load times. But a slow
webpage load is usually due to a slow server, a slow
Internet, or a bloated and badly designed webpage.
Choice of browser has little to do with it.

Although the network is the bottleneck,
some browsers do a better job of getting key parts of the web page in
parallel and displaying the page without all the parts present.

Speed hasn't really been an issue since the late 90s
when CPUs got up to about 500 MHz, unless you're
someone who edits video or giant photos. Then speed
is about getting more RAM.

Can't agree.

While a Windows
PC with a lot of junk installed can be very slow (I've
seen XP systems that move like molasses), in
general there's no problem with Windows. I'm running
XP right now, on a home made box that's nothing
fancy. I bought one of the cheapest CPUs about 2
years ago. Yet virtually everything I do is instant, at
least as far as my human perception can tell. I don't
think that even the super-duperest Linux can beat
instant.

XP does some things instantly, other things much slower.
Human reaction time is around 1/10 of a second. As a
guideline, I think humans perceive slowdowns of around
1/10 of a second or more.

Which is not to say I'm against Linux. I just hate to
see people spend money needlessly. And Linux is not
"free" if it takes new hardware and/or lots of time to
set it up.

Nope. Do a dual boot install. No extra hardware required.
Getting on the MSFT upgrade cycle WILL cost you money.
I don't think Linux takes any more time to set up than
a Windows system. It's the other way around.

There's also a serious lack of software, despite
what some Linux fans will say. (GIMP is still not a very
good image editor, after 15+ years in development. WINE
is still not a solution, after 15+ years in development
and a ridiculous 10-day update cycle.)

Wine does some things fine. Personally I don't use or need
Wine.

I can get by in GIMP.
There's a load of other Linux software which works as well
or better than the common Windows equivalents.

I've seen an awfully
lot of people throw away perfectly good computers because
they started to run a bit slow and the people were told
by others that their PC had "got old", or that the OS was
somehow "outdated". I have some of those PCs now.
I clean them up and save them for people who might
need one.

Doesn't happen with Linux systems.
They don't slow down with age and new OS versions
run fine on older hardware.

--
Dan Espen

Dan Espen writes:
Pavel314 writes:
I was thinking of trying Linux as the OS for my home computer after I
retire and have time to fool around with that sort of thing. Anyone on
here use Linux?

Yep lots of people.

Real easy to try, and the price is right.
Plus some very cool apps.
Many of us use Linux only.

Yup. 100% linux. I even have my Dad (76 this summer) converted
from windows to Ubuntu. He's very happy with it (the windows
system had a dozen infections by the time we replaced it).

Steve Stone wrote:

On 1/21/2015 2:17 PM, Moe DeLoughan wrote:
Want Windows 10? You got it: for free.


There is no such thing as a free lunch. What does Microsoft get out of
all of this?
Articles claim Microsoft is now looking at Windows 10 as a Service. What
does that mean? To me it might mean it will be just another way to suck
up info on what you do with your Windows device up to a mothership in
the cloud, that mothership analyzing that data and selling it to the
highest bidders, perhaps targeting you for custom ads, like the
robocalls on the phone you get when you sit down for dinner.

What M$ gets out of it is usage share. Developers don't develop for an
unpopular OS like the Windows Phone or Windows 8. Microsoft has begged for
people to write apps for the Windows Store but the store still looks like
that mall that went out of business last year.

Enterprise customers will buy Office and so forth but the consumers aren't
going to buy a machine that has a limited amount of software available and
software developers aren't going to write for machines with a limited number
of users. You've got to break the cycle somehow and giving free upgrades is
what they hope will do the trick.

Pavel314 wrote:

I was thinking of trying Linux as the OS for my home computer after I
retire and have time to fool around with that sort of thing. Anyone on
here use Linux?

Yup, for the last 20 years or so. Ubuntu is very easy to install and plays
well. You no longer need to be a geek to get it up and running and except
for some specialized applications there is a similar Linux program.

Mayayana wrote:

Which is not to say I'm against Linux. I just hate to
see people spend money needlessly. And Linux is not
"free" if it takes new hardware and/or lots of time to
set it up. There's also a serious lack of software, despite
what some Linux fans will say. (GIMP is still not a very
good image editor, after 15+ years in development. WINE
is still not a solution, after 15+ years in development
and a ridiculous 10-day update cycle.)

It doesn't require new hardware and the setup takes a couple of hours, for
most of which you can go off and groom the cat or something. Yes, there are
some specialized applications that are only available on Windows but how
many casual users have them installed? Browse the web, do email,
LibreOffice, and so forth and Linux has it covered. If you absolutely,
positively have to have Quicken and will accept no others, stay with
Windows.

Dan Espen wrote:

Nope.
Try using your system all day, like I do for computer programming.
A fast system allows you to work un-interrupted.

Yup. Put AndroidStudio on a box that was fairly well spec'd 5 years ago and
you'll wish you hadn't. Or VisualStudio. Or even a straight command line
compilation of a non-trivial application.

If you really want to catch up on your naps, try running ESRI Desktop on a
500 mHZ box.

rbowman writes:

Dan Espen wrote:

Nope.
Try using your system all day, like I do for computer programming.
A fast system allows you to work un-interrupted.

Yup. Put AndroidStudio on a box that was fairly well spec'd 5 years ago and
you'll wish you hadn't. Or VisualStudio. Or even a straight command line
compilation of a non-trivial application.

If you really want to catch up on your naps, try running ESRI Desktop on a
500 mHZ box.

None of that fancy development confuser stuff for me.
I'll stick with Emacs and Makefiles.

--
Dan Espen

| It doesn't require new hardware and the setup takes a couple of hours, for
| most of which you can go off and groom the cat or something. Yes, there
are
| some specialized applications that are only available on Windows but how
| many casual users have them installed? Browse the web, do email,
| LibreOffice, and so forth and Linux has it covered. If you absolutely,
| positively have to have Quicken and will accept no others, stay with
| Windows.
|

As a box with a web browser, yes, Linux might
not be bad, but it's far more than a couple of
hours to learn an entirely new OS if one really
uses a computer beyond web browsing and email.

I wouldn't discourage anyone from experimenting
and exploring, but it's misleading to present Linux
as a great, simple, Windows alternative. It's a
perennially half-finished geek project, maintained
by people who have religious devotion to the project
but who really don't get the importance of finished
software that works properly, with a properly made
installer, and with good documentation.

As Dan Espen tellingly said: "I can get by in GIMP."
Probably he can. Apparently he doesn't do much
with graphics. But that's hardly a convincing sales
pitch. I'm not religiously devoted to Linux, so I'm
not satisfied with "getting by". The last time I tried
GIMP it wouldn't even save files in normal formats.
It only saved in GIMP format. Files had to be "exported"
to save them in other formats. A separate menu option!
Why? Because the Gimpsters are hard-nosed and
humorless about trying to convert people to their
particular trip.

GIMP/OO/Firefox have
been the answer from Linux fans for many years now,
when presented with the paucity of Linux software.
The problem is that their attitude comes from the
angle that one uses Linux first, and figures out how
to make it work later. It's Linux as religion when it
should be Linux as tool.

And that's not even getting into the other half-
finished aspects of Linux. After initially exploring
Linux many years ago I went back twice to see
how it was going. I thought that if I could get a
basic setup going easily then maybe I'd stick around
for awhile. Both times I set simple goals: Get the
system set up and get a clear, easily usable firewall
that would allow me full control over incoming
and outgoing processes. Then maybe get something
that would allow me to make disk images, so that
time I spent setting it all up wouldn't be wasted if
it crashed. That would be the basic requirement so
that I could plug in the network cable and begin using
the OS. That was my aim before even considering
whether there might be enough software to do anything.
My other basic setup requirement was that I should be
able to get that setup done without having to resort
to primitive command line operations in a console window
and without having to dig through obscure config files
in /etc. Both times the experiment was short-lived. One
can hardly do anything without needing a console window.
That's inexcusable in a post-1995 OS.

Even if Linux had pleasantly surprised me, it's
a very long journey to go from being intimately familiar
with Windows to feeling similarly comfortable in Linux
or any other OS. There are a thousand little details.
Just going from XP to Win7 I spent a couple of weeks
learning the details of the new OS. There's no such thing
as "a couple of hours" to switch OSs.

But I'd agree that if someone just wants a consumer
device for web browsing, and they only use webmail,
and if they can somehow keep the creepy spying
and control of Eric Schmidt and Mark Shuttleworth out
of the equation, then some kind of Linux device might
not be a bad option.... as long as it's dirt cheap.

Mayayana wrote:

My other basic setup requirement was that I should be
able to get that setup done without having to resort
to primitive command line operations in a console window
and without having to dig through obscure config files
in /etc. Both times the experiment was short-lived. One
can hardly do anything without needing a console window.
That's inexcusable in a post-1995 OS.

Obviously you've never worked with a modern Linux distro. Try it sometime.
Perhaps GIMP sucks but I've used it about twice. That's not my bag; software
development is.

Dan Espen wrote:

None of that fancy development confuser stuff for me.
I'll stick with Emacs and Makefiles.

Oh, one of those. I stick with gVim and makefiles for the most part. If I
want my fortune told or want to play a game of Go I'll go elsewhere than an
editor. At least with the graphical version of Emacs I can get out of the
damn thing without having to hit more keys simultaneously than I have
fingers.

On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 1:17:56 PM UTC-6, Moe DeLoughan wrote:
Want Windows 10? You got it: for free. This is a sea change in
Microsoft's strategy when it comes to upgrades. Gratis upgrades will
be available for Windows 7, 8.1 and even Windows Phone 8.1 users for a
full year.

http://gizmodo.com/windows-10-is-a-f...ear-1680771504

Here's "Windows 10 Technical Preview" ISO download with COA key.

http://windows.microsoft.com/zh-hk/windows/preview-iso

| Obviously you've never worked with a modern Linux distro. Try it sometime.
| Perhaps GIMP sucks but I've used it about twice. That's not my bag;
software
| development is.

You demonstate my points. I explain what I
find lacking in Linux and you imply that it's perfect
by definition. I tell you it doesn't run the software
I use and you discount that: You write software.
What else would someone do on Linux?

That's the essential Linux problem. The fan
club wants to evangelize, but they dislike the idea
that the product should serve the audience. They
want to convert people to Linux, but woe to anyone
who then asks for a functioning software installer
and a good help file. That person is almost certain
to hear something like, "Hey, it's free software made
by volunteers, Swifty. Why don't you volunteer to
write the help file?" Even finished software is a rare
bird on Linux. The programs are mostly like the
cars that some teenagers like to have on their front
lawns: It's got a corvette engine, scoops, a jazzed
up trannie.... Does it run? Well, no. But it will someday.
I'm still working on it.

It's true that I haven't tried Linux for awhile. I
think I have Suse 12.0 installed. (As I recall, Suse
is on a 6 month release cycle, with .5 release
numbers. One year, v. 13, would have been when
my install of Suse 12 became obsolete and
unsupported. The current version minus 12 would
represent how many years ago I installed it.) But
not long ago some evangelists rode through one of
the Windows groups and I mentioned the same minimal
requirements I had in mind. The responses essentially
boiled down to: If you don't want to live in
console Windows then you're wrong, an idiot, and
a detestable computer "newbie". No one ever did come
up with a clear, easy-to-use firewall that provides
per-process/per-port blocking in and out. There are
several free ones on Windows. The Linux evangelists,
again, just made excuses: Linux is safe and pure, so
you don't need outbound firewall functionality.

I also write software. And I do web design. And I
do a bit of office work -- writing contracts,
estimates, etc. And I edit photos in Paint Shop Pro.
Before I bought PSP16 I tried the latest GIMP, 2.8.
After I managed to set up the help, which was a
funky, separate install, I was ready to try it out.
It was usable. It was not good. I wrote my HTML
editor myself and also use it for VBScript. All of that
would only work through WINE. And I wouldn't be
able to test pages in IE. Visual Studio 6,
which I still use and which still compiles software in
VB6 and VC6, supported on virtually all Windows
systems, would probably not transfer at all. VS6
came out in '98 and the software I can write with it
is still arguably the most widely supported on Windows.
Meanwhile, my relatively recent Suse test system is
a dinosaur. If I tried to install anything on it now I'd
be stuck for the rest of the day running command
lines to install library updates.

If I was lucky I might be able to automate that through
a software library online. But that presents another Linux
problem: In Suse 12 it was already starting to make my
decisions for me. I don't want the OS deciding how to do
things and going online by itself. When I first tried Linux it
was at least fun as a project. I thought of Linux as a car kit,
while Windows was like a normal car that one could work
on and Mac was like a limited-functionality car with the
hood welded shut. Linux now seems to be going straight
to the Mac model, not stopping in the middle at all. What's
always been fun about Windows is that it can do nearly
anything because of the vast software available, and it's
just about as customizable as anyone could want. One
can tinker with it on any level that one wants to get
involved at, and there are plenty of docs to help. With
Windows now headed for lockdown it looks like the
landscape may end up being populated by 3 restrictive,
spyware systems; all of them expecting to call home
freely. (I think I read somewhere recently that Ubuntu
is starting to show ads.)

So, for me, I'd want to see Linux first get cleaned
up, with modern conveniences like dialogues to replace
"console Hell". Then I'd also want to see it *not* treat
the users like "consumers". I haven't given up hope
of that happening. But I've been hoping since about 2000,
so I'm not on the edge of my seat about it.

On 01/24/2015 10:05 AM, Mayayana wrote:
That's the essential Linux problem. The fan
club wants to evangelize, but they dislike the idea
that the product should serve the audience. They
want to convert people to Linux, but woe to anyone
who then asks for a functioning software installer
and a good help file. That person is almost certain
to hear something like, "Hey, it's free software made
by volunteers, Swifty. Why don't you volunteer to
write the help file?"

Linux is made by intelligent people for intelligent people.
The typical democrat will prolly wanna stick with the free Winblows10.

| Linux is made by intelligent people for intelligent people.
| The typical democrat will prolly wanna stick with the free Winblows10.

Thank you, Mr. Limbaugh. A fascinating
and in-depth analysis, indeed.

(I do feel dumb now. I didn't even know that
prolly and wanna were the correct spellings.
Maybe a simpleton like myself should just play
it safe and become an AppleSeed.

"Mayayana" writes:

That's the essential Linux problem. The fan
club wants to evangelize, but they dislike the idea
that the product should serve the audience. They
want to convert people to Linux, but woe to anyone
who then asks for a functioning software installer
and a good help file.

Can't imagine what you are going on about.

First you are magically tuned into the developers motives and you have
reached an unlikely conclusion. You think someone has something
to gain by creating a less than useful product.
On it's face, that conclusion is ridiculous.

Second, all the major distros have had fully graphical installers
for ages. Just click a couple of buttons and install the software.
Or uninstall it. Imagine that.

Don't like typing in complex commands like:

yum install gimp

Go ahead, bring up the graphical installer.
Select install, click on multimedia tools, click on Gimp.
If that floats your boat, that has been working for years.

So, anyone else reading Mayayana's rants, I suggest you take them
with a grain of salt. And remember, you don't even have to install
Linux on your hard disk to see what it runs like.
You can burn a CD or create a boot USB stick.
No change to your OS at all, all you do is boot up and run.

--
Dan Espen

| Second, all the major distros have had fully graphical
| installers for ages.

I never said otherwise. You're twisting my words.
When I installed Red Hat 4 in 1999 it had a graphical
installer. That didn't make it a useful OS. What I said
was that it's difficult to go far in Linux without needing
to open a console window, and that such primitive
functionality should not be required.

| Go ahead, bring up the graphical installer.
| Select install, click on multimedia tools, click on Gimp.
| If that floats your boat, that has been working for years.

Again, your not being entirely straight. You're
talking about being able to install GIMP from a
stored selection of installers that come with a
Linux distribution. (Most of which are usually
outdated.)

I did use the graphical installer for GIMP 2.8 on
Windows. First I had to hunt down the Windows
version. The GIMP people didn't actually take
responsibility for that installer. Now they do at
least have it linked from their site, but one has
to understand FTP indices to get it. Do you really
think the average graphic artist knows how to
navigate the FTP site and understand the difference
between a .exe and a .tar.gz?

Then there's the help. A different install, from
a different FTP site. Hopefully it integrates.
Actually I don't remember now whether the help
actually worked once it was installed. It may have.

I tried GIMP mainly because I'd heard it was
finally going to have MDI design. (Tool windows
docking in a parent window, rather than floating
all over the Desktop.) It turned out the MDI
functionality was less than impressive.

You don't seem to understand just how far all
those little quirks are from the functionality that
has been taken for granted in Windows for decades.
Many people can't find a downloaded file after they
download it.

|
| So, anyone else reading Mayayana's rants, I suggest you take them
| with a grain of salt.

I'd suggest that, too. I'm just trying to provide
the caveats that are missing from the evangelist's
sales pitches. By all means, try Linux. Just don't
go spending time or money with the expectation that
you'll end up smiling and Windows-free, with no
cost, in "a couple of hours". Be prepared to "put on
your work clothes".

"Mayayana" writes:

| Second, all the major distros have had fully graphical
| installers for ages.

I never said otherwise. You're twisting my words.
When I installed Red Hat 4 in 1999 it had a graphical
installer. That didn't make it a useful OS. What I said
was that it's difficult to go far in Linux without needing
to open a console window, and that such primitive
functionality should not be required.

Maybe in 1999 you had to do that.
Do you think things might have changed a bit since then?

| Go ahead, bring up the graphical installer.
| Select install, click on multimedia tools, click on Gimp.
| If that floats your boat, that has been working for years.

Again, your not being entirely straight. You're
talking about being able to install GIMP from a
stored selection of installers that come with a
Linux distribution. (Most of which are usually
outdated.)

What?

The installer (you only need one), goes to the repository.
You get the latest fully tested version.

I did use the graphical installer for GIMP 2.8 on
Windows. First I had to hunt down the Windows
version. The GIMP people didn't actually take
responsibility for that installer. Now they do at
least have it linked from their site, but one has
to understand FTP indices to get it. Do you really
think the average graphic artist knows how to
navigate the FTP site and understand the difference
between a .exe and a .tar.gz?

Are you now criticizing Linux because you had to use
t tar.gz file on Windows?

Then there's the help. A different install, from
a different FTP site. Hopefully it integrates.
Actually I don't remember now whether the help
actually worked once it was installed. It may have.

Once again, Windows.
On Linux, just click on gimp-help.
Separate help is a good thing.
I find web searches much more effective than local
documentation.

I tried GIMP mainly because I'd heard it was
finally going to have MDI design. (Tool windows
docking in a parent window, rather than floating
all over the Desktop.) It turned out the MDI
functionality was less than impressive.

Looks fine to me.
But then I don't walk around with the delusion that
the Gimp developers actually want their package to
be hard to use.

You don't seem to understand just how far all
those little quirks are from the functionality that
has been taken for granted in Windows for decades.
Many people can't find a downloaded file after they
download it.

After you download a package the menus are updated to
include an entry for the package. Why would you be
looking around for any files?

How do you determine which files a Windows installer
has created?
On Linux I have command line tools that tell me which
files are in a package. I don't know (or care) whether
the installer GUI can show the same information.

--
Dan Espen

On 1/24/2015 10:46 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| Linux is made by intelligent people for intelligent people.
| The typical democrat will prolly wanna stick with the free Winblows10.

Thank you, Mr. Limbaugh. A fascinating
and in-depth analysis, indeed.

(I do feel dumb now. I didn't even know that
prolly and wanna were the correct spellings.
Maybe a simpleton like myself should just play
it safe and become an AppleSeed.



http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us..._english/wanna

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us...english/prolly

And for Linux so simple even a democrat could install, surf on over to www.ubuntu.com .

Mayayana wrote:

You demonstate my points. I explain what I
find lacking in Linux and you imply that it's perfect
by definition. I tell you it doesn't run the software
I use and you discount that: You write software.
What else would someone do on Linux?

I never implied Linux was perfect. If the tools you prefer to use are only
available on Windows, stick with Windows. Many graphics people cut their
teeth on Apple.I've never owned or used an Apple computer. I don't have
anything against them but they've never filled my needs.

What else would someone do on Linux? Perhaps respond to posts in this
newsgroup using KNode. Maybe handle their email with KMail. Or browse the
web with Firefox, CHrome, Konqueror or several other browsers. Read
downloaded comics with Gwenview. I don't have the need to do Office type
stuff and haven't figured out how to use a spreadsheet since they were
loading SuperCalc on CP/M machines, but if that fluffs your fur, there's
LibreOffice.

Oh, and there's Eclispse and Googles new Android Studio that are cross
platform but that's back to programming I guess. Then there's the Banshee
media player, among others. Reading eBooks with FBReader, or converting them
to different formats with Caliber. Then I can sideload them into my Kindle
if I want. I generally use the Dolphin file manager. It sort of resembles
Explorer.

Funny thing is I fire all these off from a Start menu, never touch a console
window. It's obvious you've never put more than 5 minutes into a Linux
system so use Windows and prosper. I feel your pain with VS 6.0. I've got to
use it to build one legacy application that's heavily dependent on MFC 4.0
but I'm going to drown that peice of crap one of these days.

I took the liberty to add the (OT) for this off topic thread.

I am only posting a reply because I am wondering why the thread is about
*WINDOWS 10* ???

Unless I missed something, Windows 8 is the current version.

That means Windows'9' will be next!!!!

(Unless Microsoft decides to call it Vista2, Windows2015, or
Millenium+15 edition, or Windows for Offworkgroups....)

Of course if it's released this year, why not just called it "Windows
Deflated", or "Windows Balls"..... (In honor of the Superbowl crap)

writes:

I took the liberty to add the (OT) for this off topic thread.

I am only posting a reply because I am wondering why the thread is about
*WINDOWS 10* ???

Unless I missed something, Windows 8 is the current version.

That means Windows'9' will be next!!!!

(Unless Microsoft decides to call it Vista2, Windows2015, or
Millenium+15 edition, or Windows for Offworkgroups....)

Of course if it's released this year, why not just called it "Windows
Deflated", or "Windows Balls"..... (In honor of the Superbowl crap)

All the news sites have been reporting that 9 will be skipped
and the next version will be 10.

Low Pressure Windows?

--
Dan Espen

On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 4:04:25 PM UTC-5, wrote:
I took the liberty to add the (OT) for this off topic thread.

I am only posting a reply because I am wondering why the thread is about
*WINDOWS 10* ???

Unless I missed something, Windows 8 is the current version.

That means Windows'9' will be next!!!!

Better tell that to MSFT. They announced Win 10 will be released in
the fall. I guess Win 9 will have one hell of a short cycle.....

On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:47:01 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 4:04:25 PM UTC-5, wrote:
I took the liberty to add the (OT) for this off topic thread.

I am only posting a reply because I am wondering why the thread is about
*WINDOWS 10* ???

Unless I missed something, Windows 8 is the current version.

That means Windows'9' will be next!!!!

Better tell that to MSFT. They announced Win 10 will be released in
the fall. I guess Win 9 will have one hell of a short cycle.....

Weird!!!! I have a feeling it has something to do with Windows 95 and
98 being referred to as "Windows 9". Just a guess....

On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 4:16:26 PM UTC-6, wrote:

Weird!!!! I have a feeling it has something to do with Windows 95 and
98 being referred to as "Windows 9". Just a guess....

It was the negative aspect of saying "Windows Nein"...

wrote:

Weird!!!! I have a feeling it has something to do with Windows 95 and
98 being referred to as "Windows 9". Just a guess....

They are just trying to put a lot of distance between 8. It confuses my life
-- a lot of the sofware I use is at the 10 major version so if someone says
"Will that work with 10.1?" I've got to ask "10.1 what?"

On 01/22/2015 04:50 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
I would be running Linux except one
program I use, Pro-Engineer, has discontinued Linux support for their
product two versions earlier than what I have. So I am pretty much
stuck with Windows.

That sucks.

Does Pro E run in Wine?

Have you though of running Pro E from a virtual machine?

On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 19:31:38 -0700, rbowman wrote:

wrote:

Weird!!!! I have a feeling it has something to do with Windows 95 and
98 being referred to as "Windows 9". Just a guess....

They are just trying to put a lot of distance between 8. It confuses my life
-- a lot of the sofware I use is at the 10 major version so if someone says
"Will that work with 10.1?" I've got to ask "10.1 what?"

I dont know why they didn't just stick with using the release year for a
name.

Windows 95, 98, 2000, etc....
The next release would then be Windows 2015 (if it is relased this year)
and Windows 8 was released in (I think) 2013.

Being consistent avoids confusing people.......


---
Anyone running Windows 98 is using the LATEST version if you go by the
number. 98 is bigger than '8' Of course that could get touchy whether
you use 2000 or 00 for Windows 2000 Is anyone confused yet? grin

Todd writes:

On 01/22/2015 04:50 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
I would be running Linux except one
program I use, Pro-Engineer, has discontinued Linux support for their
product two versions earlier than what I have. So I am pretty much
stuck with Windows.

That sucks.

Does Pro E run in Wine?

Simple questions like that are answered at the Wine site:

https://appdb.winehq.org/objectManag...ation&iId=6669

Looks like one version works another has problems.

--
Dan Espen

On 01/24/2015 07:04 AM, bob_villa wrote:
On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 1:17:56 PM UTC-6, Moe DeLoughan wrote:
Want Windows 10? You got it: for free. This is a sea change in
Microsoft's strategy when it comes to upgrades. Gratis upgrades will
be available for Windows 7, 8.1 and even Windows Phone 8.1 users for a
full year.

http://gizmodo.com/windows-10-is-a-f...ear-1680771504

Here's "Windows 10 Technical Preview" ISO download with COA key.

http://windows.microsoft.com/zh-hk/windows/preview-iso


Don't install KB3034229 or you will lose your start button's
pop up.

The current preview is still Alpha stage code. (M$ usually
releases their Beta code on the public for them to debug
for them.)

That being said, Son-of-Frankenstein (w10) preview is a
good twice as fast as Frankenstein (w8) on my virtual
machine

wrote:

I dont know why they didn't just stick with using the release year for a
name.

Windows 95, 98, 2000, etc....
The next release would then be Windows 2015 (if it is relased this year)
and Windows 8 was released in (I think) 2013.

Being consistent avoids confusing people.......

They do for some of the products just to confuse the issue. Server 2003 is
XP generation, Server 2012 is 8, and Server 2012 R2 is 8.1. The preview
release still refer to Windows Server 10 but it might turn into 2015 on
release. Or not.

On 01/25/2015 10:21 PM, wrote:

[snip]

Anyone running Windows 98 is using the LATEST version if you go by the
number. 98 is bigger than '8' Of course that could get touchy whether
you use 2000 or 00 for Windows 2000 Is anyone confused yet? grin


What number would Windows ME be?

BTW, it seems like another 9x, even though it's supposedly later than 2000.

--
"Die verfluchte Huhre, Vernunft." (The damned whore, Reason). [Martin
Luther]

On 26 Jan 2015, Sam E wrote in
alt.home.repair:

What number would Windows ME be?

BTW, it seems like another 9x, even though it's supposedly later
than 2000.

Windows ME was the last in the line of OSs that began with DOS and
included Windows 95 and 98.

Parallel to the DOS-based Windows was the "NT" product line. It was
descended from Microsoft-IBM's joint OS/2 product. The first released
version was NT 3.1, then Windows 2000, then Windows XP, and so on.

The end of the DOS-based OSs overlapped the beginning of the NT-based
OSs. The naming conventions are pretty arbitrary and have little to do
with the order they were released.

On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 13:24:57 -0500, Nil
wrote:

On 26 Jan 2015, Sam E wrote in
alt.home.repair:

What number would Windows ME be?

BTW, it seems like another 9x, even though it's supposedly later
than 2000.

Windows ME was the last in the line of OSs that began with DOS and
included Windows 95 and 98.

Parallel to the DOS-based Windows was the "NT" product line. It was
descended from Microsoft-IBM's joint OS/2 product. The first released
version was NT 3.1, then Windows 2000, then Windows XP, and so on.

The end of the DOS-based OSs overlapped the beginning of the NT-based
OSs. The naming conventions are pretty arbitrary and have little to do
with the order they were released.

I actually thought Windows ME was released in 1999, but I looked it up.
http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...dows-1-to-wind
ows-10-29-years-of-windows-evolution

It was released in 2000, as well as Windows 2000.

I suppose this is what caused problems using the year as the release
name. Even though Win ME could have been called Windows 99 and no one
would have complained, since it was developed in 99.
Windows ME and Windows 2000 was where MS sort of forked or branched off
in two directions. Win2000 was supposed to be more for businesses while
WinME was for home.

Just my opinion, but it would seem that MS released both of them in
2000, just to make more sales, because WinME was a poor attempt at
upgrading Win98SE, and Win2000 was based on NT and was their "new
direction". But WinME contained both the code from Win98se and some NT
as well. MS could (and should) have spent a little more time developing
their new OS and just released one STABLE version. Because WinME was
unstable, while Win2000 was fairly stable, but lacked the tie to Win98.

As it says in that webline (above), WinME was Microsofts biggest failure
(at that time), but later Vista was even worse. It almost seems like
every other version of Windows has been dud ever since after Windows
98.....
I guess they're too fast on the trigger to make another release and thus
more sales....

Win9x was known as platform 1. NT is platform 2.
So Win98 was v. 4.1, platform 1. WinME was v.
4.9, platform 1. NT 4 was v. 4, platform 2. Win2000
was v. 5.0, platform 2.

WinME was a flop, which was actually convenient
when MS tried to push people to XP. WinME was
almost new when XP came out, so it didn't make
much sense to say it was obsolete. What MS did
instead was to pretend ME never existed (as they've
done with Vista) and then talked about upgrading
the "obsolete" Win98 to XP.

On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 16:40:17 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote:

Win9x was known as platform 1. NT is platform 2.
So Win98 was v. 4.1, platform 1. WinME was v.
4.9, platform 1. NT 4 was v. 4, platform 2. Win2000
was v. 5.0, platform 2.

WinME was a flop, which was actually convenient
when MS tried to push people to XP. WinME was
almost new when XP came out, so it didn't make
much sense to say it was obsolete. What MS did
instead was to pretend ME never existed (as they've
done with Vista) and then talked about upgrading
the "obsolete" Win98 to XP.


Seems MS is good at trying to trick people, just by using different
names. I found an article written by MS. The reason they are calling
the next version Windows 10, is "to put some distance between Windows
8". THe reason is because the original release of Windows 8 was a flop
too, but their 8.1 sort of fixed some of that.

But so what????? So we skipped a number...... Who cares, it's still the
same product (the next release after Windows 8.x).

That makes about as much sense as calling "John Doe" who is the homeless
town drunk. But if you call him "Mr. Doe", he suddenly becomes the
town's wealthy Police Chief.