Re: Any experience with "The Last One"?
From: Gerry Quinn (gerryq_at_indigo.ie)
Date: 12/01/03
- Next message: Arto V. Viitanen: "Re: The randomfunction"
- Previous message: Gerry Quinn: "Re: Any experience with "The Last One"?"
- Maybe in reply to: CBFalconer: "Re: Any experience with "The Last One"?"
- Next in thread: Brian Inglis: "Re: Any experience with "The Last One"?"
- Reply: Brian Inglis: "Re: Any experience with "The Last One"?"
- Reply: glen herrmannsfeldt: "Re: Any experience with "The Last One"?"
- Reply: Charlie Gibbs: "Re: Any experience with "The Last One"?"
- Reply: Brian {Hamilton Kelly}: "Re: Any experience with "The Last One"?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:00:55 GMT
In article <j36jsvcb96ukklcc76oab93bdsb8eljvfq@4ax.com>, Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca wrote:
>On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:19:04 GMT in alt.folklore.computers,
>gerryq@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) wrote:
>
>>>> Sure, but they don't produce software of equal quality.
>
>I've consistently found freeware of higher quality and with more
>useful features than the majority of shareware in the same category,
>and much commercial software in the same category. OTOH some
>categories of software for commercial OSes are only available as
>commercial software e.g. I don't believe there are any good/up to date
>non-commercial Windows AV packages available nowadays.
It's true that since the cost of entry to the shareware market is so
low, there is a lot of stuff there that shouldn't really be offered as
such, and brings down the average quality. But 'average quality' can be
a misleading measure. There is no freeware package on Windows
equivalent to Paint Shop Pro, for example. Comparing the average
shareware paint program with the average freeware paint program might
obscure this fact.
>>Or that stability [assuming that the hobbyist OSs are running the same
>>variety of software, a factor that may itself impact stability] is the
>>only criterion of a good OS.
>
>Stability, or perhaps more properly availability, is only one
>requirement of a good OS -- but it is a sine qua non. Application
>instability should not affect another application's or the OS's
>stability.
Stability is important, a certain amount of stability is indeed a sine
qua non, naughty applications shouldn't crash the system. If Linux is
indeed inherently more stable than Windows when running an equivalent
load, as many assert, that is indeed an advantage of Linux. But being
better at stability isn't the only criterion, except when the computer
is deployed in a situation where stability is the overriding
consideration. And the vast majority of computers are not so deployed.
Now that I've got my RAM replaced, Windows XP is as solid as I need it
to be - I can't remember the last time it crashed. My old Win 98 system
crashes frequently, but I've used it intensively for four years and
installed all manner of software (probably thousands of programs).
>>>> Linux (assuming it can successfully refute SCO's accusations) cannot
>>>> realistically compete with Windows in non-techie niches (where
>>>> engineers can deploy it out of the sight of end-users, it has some
>>>> advantages).
>>>
>>>I must agree with you here, but only because of the driver issue. If I knew
>>>I could walk into Office World, pick up a scanner, a printer, and a network
>>>card at random, and /know/ that I could find and install Linux drivers for
>>>them easily, I'd be recommending Linux to /all/ my friends and relatives,
>>>not just the techies.
>>
>>The ones who like to play games would not be too happy with it. And
>>from what I've read, Open Office isn't quite MS Office, Gimp is not
>>quite PhotoShop...
>
>The ones who play graphically intensive or multi-user games are
>probably much happier with it, if they can be happy with a
>non-dedicated game machine.
Windows is not dedicated to games, and it has far more
graphically-intensive games than Linux. I don't see that changing,
either.
>OpenOffice is not the same as MSoffice and Gimp is not the same as
>Photoshop, but each has some features that the other lacks which most
>users probably won't care about, plus you can get timely bug fixes and
>save $2000.
If Open Office and Gimp are that great, why doesn't everyone use them?
- Gerry Quinn
- Next message: Arto V. Viitanen: "Re: The randomfunction"
- Previous message: Gerry Quinn: "Re: Any experience with "The Last One"?"
- Maybe in reply to: CBFalconer: "Re: Any experience with "The Last One"?"
- Next in thread: Brian Inglis: "Re: Any experience with "The Last One"?"
- Reply: Brian Inglis: "Re: Any experience with "The Last One"?"
- Reply: glen herrmannsfeldt: "Re: Any experience with "The Last One"?"
- Reply: Charlie Gibbs: "Re: Any experience with "The Last One"?"
- Reply: Brian {Hamilton Kelly}: "Re: Any experience with "The Last One"?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|