A businessman tries Ubuntu

A few passionate people here seem to have a mission,
rather like the white shirt and backpack lads who
occasionally knock at my front door. Neither get paid
for their effort, but those very pleasant kids sell
their version of Heaven for ten percent of my income.
The online missionaries "sell" Ubuntu and get nothing
for it. I see the Linux advocates as a cross between
cult members and those who bought Korean cars in the 80s
and said "I saved $1,000 - these are great cars!"

Eventually, relentless pressure works - that's the
result of "relentless". PLEASE DON'T SQUEEZE THE... was
an uberannoying ad campaign for buttwipe named "Charmin"
by some imaginative marketer, but it was successful.

Unpaid missionaries for Ubuntu run equally annoying and
relentless unpaid promotions in this newsgroup, which
was intended to assist Vista users in resolving
transition issues. Why? Well, perhaps they drive Kias...

Nevertheless, I tried it. My new laptop boasts an
incredibly large (120GB) and fast (7200RPM) hard drive,
and it was an interesting process to set up dual boot,
install Ubuntu, and conduct a reasonably objective test.

I'm nothing special - a businessman who does business
planning and spreadsheeting, simple graphics, financial
analysis, and articles and books in my hobbies. I do no
gaming, and view movies only when traveling. Using
Vista, and excluding OS-specific utilities, I need
exactly 13 functions (i.e. "software applications") to
efficiently get my business and personal work done.
Another 8 nice-to-have apps make life easier and more
comfortable or entertaining, but aren't critical.

Using Ubuntu, I could find solutions for only 9 of my 13
mission-critical apps, and for 6 of the 8 nice-to-have
ones. Some hardware drivers (fingerprint, camera) were
simply unavailable, but I don't use them anyway. I
attended a Linux SIG meeting in the tech community near
my company, and people there agreed that I needed to
reduce my requirement or accept less capability. The
conclusion was that I should continue to dual-boot,
using Vista for those tasks that are not achievable
under Ubuntu. Parenthetically, the people at that SIG
generally liked Vista as an overall solution, and
considered Ubuntu as an evolving one that is mostly
applicable to tech-savvy people willing to make
operational compromises.

I conducted a fair test over more than two months, and
was helped by some true experts, many of whom are
software engineers and system analysts with advanced
degrees and lots of experience. All were technically
competent and pro-Linux/Ubuntu (and generally pro "open
source"), but none was a "missionary". The bottom line:

Vista does everything I need to do, and well. Ubuntu
does most of what I need to do, and well. Both are
stable and fast. Vista costs more, but does more. Some
of the "more" is mission-critical. I think my conclusion
applies to most PC users.

If you use Linux and are completely satisfied with the
applications available to you, you've probably shrunk
your requirements to fit the capability of Linux. It is
an excellent, but limiting, OS. Any Linux missionary who
argues otherwise drives a 1980 Hyundai that gets 45mpg
and never, ever, breaks.

e wrote:
> A few passionate people here seem to have a mission, rather like the
> white shirt and backpack lads who occasionally knock at my front door.
> Neither get paid for their effort, but those very pleasant kids sell
> their version of Heaven for ten percent of my income. The online
> missionaries "sell" Ubuntu and get nothing for it. I see the Linux
> advocates as a cross between cult members and those who bought Korean
> cars in the 80s and said "I saved $1,000 - these are great cars!"
>
> Eventually, relentless pressure works - that's the result of
> "relentless". PLEASE DON'T SQUEEZE THE... was an uberannoying ad
> campaign for buttwipe named "Charmin" by some imaginative marketer, but
> it was successful.
>
> Unpaid missionaries for Ubuntu run equally annoying and relentless
> unpaid promotions in this newsgroup, which was intended to assist Vista
> users in resolving transition issues. Why? Well, perhaps they drive Kias...
>
> Nevertheless, I tried it. My new laptop boasts an incredibly large
> (120GB) and fast (7200RPM) hard drive, and it was an interesting process
> to set up dual boot, install Ubuntu, and conduct a reasonably objective
> test.
>
> I'm nothing special - a businessman who does business planning and
> spreadsheeting, simple graphics, financial analysis, and articles and
> books in my hobbies. I do no gaming, and view movies only when
> traveling. Using Vista, and excluding OS-specific utilities, I need
> exactly 13 functions (i.e. "software applications") to efficiently get
> my business and personal work done. Another 8 nice-to-have apps make
> life easier and more comfortable or entertaining, but aren't critical.
>
> Using Ubuntu, I could find solutions for only 9 of my 13
> mission-critical apps, and for 6 of the 8 nice-to-have ones. Some
> hardware drivers (fingerprint, camera) were simply unavailable, but I
> don't use them anyway. I attended a Linux SIG meeting in the tech
> community near my company, and people there agreed that I needed to
> reduce my requirement or accept less capability. The conclusion was that
> I should continue to dual-boot, using Vista for those tasks that are not
> achievable under Ubuntu. Parenthetically, the people at that SIG
> generally liked Vista as an overall solution, and considered Ubuntu as
> an evolving one that is mostly applicable to tech-savvy people willing
> to make operational compromises.
>
> I conducted a fair test over more than two months, and was helped by
> some true experts, many of whom are software engineers and system
> analysts with advanced degrees and lots of experience. All were
> technically competent and pro-Linux/Ubuntu (and generally pro "open
> source"), but none was a "missionary". The bottom line:
>
> Vista does everything I need to do, and well. Ubuntu does most of what I
> need to do, and well. Both are stable and fast. Vista costs more, but
> does more. Some of the "more" is mission-critical. I think my conclusion
> applies to most PC users.
>
> If you use Linux and are completely satisfied with the applications
> available to you, you've probably shrunk your requirements to fit the
> capability of Linux. It is an excellent, but limiting, OS. Any Linux
> missionary who argues otherwise drives a 1980 Hyundai that gets 45mpg
> and never, ever, breaks.

Just curious, what programs can you use in Vista that don't work in Ubuntu?

Alias

e wrote:

> If you use Linux and are completely satisfied with the
> applications available to you, you've probably shrunk
> your requirements to fit the capability of Linux.

Actually the complete opposite is true. I know, because I know how to use
Linux and know what it is capable of doing. My requirements can only be
accomplished efficiently and productively with stability and security by
using Linux. It offers so many tools, so far advanced over anything in the
Windoze world, there is simply no comparison. It is based on a
server/client paradigm that Windoze just doesn't match allowing my desktop
to extend anywhere across my LAN and the Internet. All of this stuff is so
alien to a Windows user, that they don't even know this power exists. So
when a Windows user talks about the lack of capability with Linux, I can
only roll my eyes. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

Cheers.

--
What does Bill Gates use?
http://tinyurl.com/2zxhdl

Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.

Q: What OS is built for lusers?
A: Which one requires running lusermgr.msc to create them?

Frank, hard at work on his Vista computer all day:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...tm/compost.htm

Your stupid post is flawed from the very begining. You are confusuing
Platforms (OS's) with the software that run on those platforms. Its NOT
ubuntu that does not fit your needs, its the companies that dont port the
apps you need on Ubuntu. As a platform Ubuntu is as good as, and if not
better than Vista for many reasons.

Didnt any of those so called "experts" tell you this?

You come accross as stupid incompetent and a snob....

This is not even an UBUNTU newsgroup so why are you posting irrelivent trash
here?







"e" <> wrote in message
news:fqekmh$rh5$...
>A few passionate people here seem to have a mission, rather like the white
>shirt and backpack lads who occasionally knock at my front door. Neither
>get paid for their effort, but those very pleasant kids sell their version
>of Heaven for ten percent of my income. The online missionaries "sell"
>Ubuntu and get nothing for it. I see the Linux advocates as a cross between
>cult members and those who bought Korean cars in the 80s and said "I saved
>$1,000 - these are great cars!"
>
> Eventually, relentless pressure works - that's the result of "relentless".
> PLEASE DON'T SQUEEZE THE... was an uberannoying ad campaign for buttwipe
> named "Charmin" by some imaginative marketer, but it was successful.
>
> Unpaid missionaries for Ubuntu run equally annoying and relentless unpaid
> promotions in this newsgroup, which was intended to assist Vista users in
> resolving transition issues. Why? Well, perhaps they drive Kias...
>
> Nevertheless, I tried it. My new laptop boasts an incredibly large (120GB)
> and fast (7200RPM) hard drive, and it was an interesting process to set up
> dual boot, install Ubuntu, and conduct a reasonably objective test.
>
> I'm nothing special - a businessman who does business planning and
> spreadsheeting, simple graphics, financial analysis, and articles and
> books in my hobbies. I do no gaming, and view movies only when traveling.
> Using Vista, and excluding OS-specific utilities, I need exactly 13
> functions (i.e. "software applications") to efficiently get my business
> and personal work done. Another 8 nice-to-have apps make life easier and
> more comfortable or entertaining, but aren't critical.
>
> Using Ubuntu, I could find solutions for only 9 of my 13 mission-critical
> apps, and for 6 of the 8 nice-to-have ones. Some hardware drivers
> (fingerprint, camera) were simply unavailable, but I don't use them
> anyway. I attended a Linux SIG meeting in the tech community near my
> company, and people there agreed that I needed to reduce my requirement or
> accept less capability. The conclusion was that I should continue to
> dual-boot, using Vista for those tasks that are not achievable under
> Ubuntu. Parenthetically, the people at that SIG generally liked Vista as
> an overall solution, and considered Ubuntu as an evolving one that is
> mostly applicable to tech-savvy people willing to make operational
> compromises.
>
> I conducted a fair test over more than two months, and was helped by some
> true experts, many of whom are software engineers and system analysts with
> advanced degrees and lots of experience. All were technically competent
> and pro-Linux/Ubuntu (and generally pro "open source"), but none was a
> "missionary". The bottom line:
>
> Vista does everything I need to do, and well. Ubuntu does most of what I
> need to do, and well. Both are stable and fast. Vista costs more, but does
> more. Some of the "more" is mission-critical. I think my conclusion
> applies to most PC users.
>
> If you use Linux and are completely satisfied with the applications
> available to you, you've probably shrunk your requirements to fit the
> capability of Linux. It is an excellent, but limiting, OS. Any Linux
> missionary who argues otherwise drives a 1980 Hyundai that gets 45mpg and
> never, ever, breaks.

Folks, my original post was offered as a conclusion, not
a beginning. I don't intend to defend that summary point
by point, application by application. I haven't surveyed
many Linux users or checked all 27,334,598 Windows
applications against their Linux alternatives, but found
that Windows simply does more, and in my personal
experience (and that of many in the Linux SIG) Vista is
a stable, fast, and safe OS.

The people who helped me were highly skilled and had
more interest than passion regarding the little table of
tasks vs solutions that we developed in my first
meeting. Though experts, not one of them would consider
corrupting this Vista discussion with Ubuntu opinions.

Some people find everything they need in the world of
Linux. Linux missionaries should accept the possibility
that many will not. I'm in that second category, and
according to the very helpful experts that I met at the
SIG, most use dual boot simply because Linux (of
whatever flavor) does not meet all their requirements.
That is a fact - most Linux users must dual boot to do
everything they need to do.

The Linux advocate who promotes Ubuntu passion in this
Vista discussion group is exposing personal problems.
He's probably discussing the restoration of his Kia on
alt.cars.ferrari, too.

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 09:29:02 -0800
e <> wrote:

> Folks, my original post was offered as a conclusion, not
> a beginning. I don't intend to defend that summary point
> by point, application by application. I haven't surveyed
> many Linux users or checked all 27,334,598 Windows
> applications against their Linux alternatives, but found
> that Windows simply does more, and in my personal
> experience (and that of many in the Linux SIG) Vista is
> a stable, fast, and safe OS.

That's funny, since you can come by my company with 70 workstations on
a Windows 2003 domain, and half are already Ubuntu 7.10. Half of the
10 servers are already Ubuntu 7.10 64 bit, only the Windows based phone
system and the SBS 2003 R2 still runs Windows, to be gone in about a
year or so. No network drives limitations, no outrages Office
package upgrade fees, score of VM on site, everything is running,
whether locally or via terminal services. Vista lasted about 4 hours on
our site. From a need to change the domain policies and domain schema,
hardware upgrade requirement, latest patches with endless reboots,
memory upgrades and inability to connect remotely to RWW (Remote Web
Access) because of incompatible/faulty IE7/Active X combo, through being
incompatible with many third party applications like UPS worldship, MAS
90 and other core apps, users hated it more then they hate the boss.
So off you go back to Redmond to those "professionals" you got
help from, this time with your real life results.

--
Live & let live, or leave.
:-)

you are confusing platforms (OS's) with applications!
They are 2 different things!

Let the companies that make software port them to linux! Write to them and
show them your interest, if more and more people do that then more software
will be ported.

You not only get a bunch of FREE applications WITH ubuntu, you are
complaining that they are not as good as the professional ones you BUY for
windows!

THATS DARN RIGHT STUPID! You must see the software that is open source and
on ubuntu as
a plus feature, not a replacment for the software that other companies
should be porting...

I am amazed that all those "professionals" (must I laugh here?) didnt take 2
seconds to explain this to you....

in any case you might look into crossover from here www.codeweavers.com/ for
a start

To destroy all your stupid mumbling about how ubuntu is a bad platform, I
must ask you, if all the software houses had all their software for windows
AND linux (ubuntu) would you really have a reason to get the I MUST SAY
HORRIBLE vista?







"e" <> wrote in message
news:fqeo53$cch$...
> Folks, my original post was offered as a conclusion, not a beginning. I
> don't intend to defend that summary point by point, application by
> application. I haven't surveyed many Linux users or checked all 27,334,598
> Windows applications against their Linux alternatives, but found that
> Windows simply does more, and in my personal experience (and that of many
> in the Linux SIG) Vista is a stable, fast, and safe OS.
>
> The people who helped me were highly skilled and had more interest than
> passion regarding the little table of tasks vs solutions that we developed
> in my first meeting. Though experts, not one of them would consider
> corrupting this Vista discussion with Ubuntu opinions.
>
> Some people find everything they need in the world of Linux. Linux
> missionaries should accept the possibility that many will not. I'm in that
> second category, and according to the very helpful experts that I met at
> the SIG, most use dual boot simply because Linux (of whatever flavor) does
> not meet all their requirements. That is a fact - most Linux users must
> dual boot to do everything they need to do.
>
> The Linux advocate who promotes Ubuntu passion in this Vista discussion
> group is exposing personal problems. He's probably discussing the
> restoration of his Kia on alt.cars.ferrari, too.

What kind of idiot professionals did this guy talk to?




"Holz" <> wrote in message
news:20080302093959.1cee9e9e@laptop...
> On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 09:29:02 -0800
> e <> wrote:
>
>> Folks, my original post was offered as a conclusion, not
>> a beginning. I don't intend to defend that summary point
>> by point, application by application. I haven't surveyed
>> many Linux users or checked all 27,334,598 Windows
>> applications against their Linux alternatives, but found
>> that Windows simply does more, and in my personal
>> experience (and that of many in the Linux SIG) Vista is
>> a stable, fast, and safe OS.
>
> That's funny, since you can come by my company with 70 workstations on
> a Windows 2003 domain, and half are already Ubuntu 7.10. Half of the
> 10 servers are already Ubuntu 7.10 64 bit, only the Windows based phone
> system and the SBS 2003 R2 still runs Windows, to be gone in about a
> year or so. No network drives limitations, no outrages Office
> package upgrade fees, score of VM on site, everything is running,
> whether locally or via terminal services. Vista lasted about 4 hours on
> our site. From a need to change the domain policies and domain schema,
> hardware upgrade requirement, latest patches with endless reboots,
> memory upgrades and inability to connect remotely to RWW (Remote Web
> Access) because of incompatible/faulty IE7/Active X combo, through being
> incompatible with many third party applications like UPS worldship, MAS
> 90 and other core apps, users hated it more then they hate the boss.
> So off you go back to Redmond to those "professionals" you got
> help from, this time with your real life results.
>
> --
> Live & let live, or leave.
> :-)
>

e wrote:
> Folks, my original post was offered as a conclusion, not a beginning. I
> don't intend to defend that summary point by point, application by
> application. I haven't surveyed many Linux users or checked all
> 27,334,598 Windows applications against their Linux alternatives, but
> found that Windows simply does more, and in my personal experience (and
> that of many in the Linux SIG) Vista is a stable, fast, and safe OS.
>
> The people who helped me were highly skilled and had more interest than
> passion regarding the little table of tasks vs solutions that we
> developed in my first meeting. Though experts, not one of them would
> consider corrupting this Vista discussion with Ubuntu opinions.
>
> Some people find everything they need in the world of Linux. Linux
> missionaries should accept the possibility that many will not. I'm in
> that second category, and according to the very helpful experts that I
> met at the SIG, most use dual boot simply because Linux (of whatever
> flavor) does not meet all their requirements. That is a fact - most
> Linux users must dual boot to do everything they need to do.
>
> The Linux advocate who promotes Ubuntu passion in this Vista discussion
> group is exposing personal problems. He's probably discussing the
> restoration of his Kia on alt.cars.ferrari, too.

If you're not willing to tell us what programs work in Vista and don't
work in Ubuntu, how can anyone help you? Or are you lying like Frank does?

I mean how much effort does it take to list a few programs? I would say
a lot less than the rant you posted above.

Alias

On the Bridge! wrote:

> What kind of idiot professionals did this guy talk to?
>
The problem is that there are just too damn many "professionals" out there.
We've got a good sampling of "professionals" around here, starting with
MVPs who can only send Microsoft URL links, to Village Idiots like Francis,
to Vista professionals like AlexB who had to install Vista 3 or 4 times
before he got it "right". All of these so-called professionals only
experience with computers is clicking their way through one Microsoft
wizard or another, being totally clueless as to how their computer really
works outside of the amateur handholding they get from these "wizards".
They look down with disdain at the commandline as if its some kind of relic
from the past, when this same commandline in Linux opens up a world of
computing these guys couldn't dream of, let alone understand. It's really
pathetic how Microsoft's dominance on the desktop has been so instrumental
in the dumbing down of computer users generally.

Cheers.

--
What does Bill Gates use?
http://tinyurl.com/2zxhdl

Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.

Q: What OS is built for lusers?
A: Which one requires running lusermgr.msc to create them?

Frank, hard at work on his Vista computer all day:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...tm/compost.htm