I bought a new Windows computer, decided to use openoffice for my spreadsheet needs, I thought it would save me buying Excel. My most frequent task is to load CSV data into the spreadsheet for graphing, or more precesely, paste CSV data to the spreadsheet (you know, open window with data, ctrl-a, ctrl-c, then hop to spreadsheet and ctrl-v), sadly it doesn't work on openoffice. So I dumped openoffice, tried Gnumeric instead, this did work, now I use Gnumeric (it's not perfect but it's seems better than openoffice).
I think it would be better if the 100,000 were spent on hiring another developer to improve ussability rather than spend it on an ad.
But it is a problem, let's say you've spent a couple of years using a partiular distribution, you know its quirks and the staff are used to it. Then bang, the business goes and the distribution is no longer supported, what happens to your service contract? No different from proprietory OSs.
I think what you're suggesting is absurd. I am quite sure that there will be as many tech calls for a Linux box as there would be for a window box (I'm not going to say whether more or less).
As for hords of virus, trojans etc on windows, if or when Linux becomes main stream, I imagine will be much more of a target for virus writers.
I know people who use ONLY Linux and have the hell more money you could ever want (for one, my PhD supervisor which is a professor in the UK department I am at).
Good for him, glad he earns 'the hell more money you could ever want'. Still, Linux is a great choice for the third-world. Me, I like to have the latest hardware technology the west can make, I'm not interested in saving money, I like my toys. I will save money in other ways, like buying a cheap car. Your professor likes Linux, so be it, hopefully he uses it because it is useful to him not because his is religious about it.
Anyway, I wasn't trolling, I wanted to make the point that there is hypocrisy in both camps, currently being observed in the Linux camp, next time it will probably be in the Windows camp. Both Windows and Linux have their place. Of about ten machines we have three that are Linux, plus we run dual boot on a number of the Windows machines. Also I just ordered a 10 server Linux rack. I'm not anti-Linux, but I am very anti-Linux fanatics. Linux is not a religion, it is a tool.
>One approach makes your computer faster. The other requires a faster computer. >Understand?
Thanks for the clarification, your argument make more sense.
Obviously I touched a raw nerve here, confused or not. As Windows users tend to have good paying jobs we can usually afford to buy nice computers so the problem of not having a powerful enough computer is not really an issue. Of course if you can't afford a nice computer than sure use Linux, it's ideal for the third-world in this respect.
It would be a sorry day if, in all places, we didn't have a choice in what OS we wanted to use at a University. I work at a non-religious computer choice insitute, we can use what ever we want to do the job. Being on the search committe for a new head of IT, one of the first criteria is that the person should not be any kind of zealot.
Money is not the issue here with regards buying the OS. Linux carries a maintenance cost just as Windows does. The cost of the OS itself is marginal and not the real issue. The real issue is choice so that the job can be done most effectively.
I was flabbergasted at the above comment that suggests it is not possible to create molecules such as insulin, chlorophyll etc from basic atomic elements and that these can only be made from compounds found in living cells. I am afraid the level of education displayed by the above contributor is frighteningly low.
There is no difference between the atoms you find in a biological cell or the atoms you find in your TV set. Organic chemistry arose out of the realization that it was possible to make compounds found in living systems in the lab, Urea was the first to be done in 1828, many, many others have been synthesized since.
The main reason why I feel ID is gaining ground in the US is very poor level of education that we give to our population, as shockingly shown by the previous contributor.
Slashdot Mirror
I bought a new Windows computer, decided to use openoffice for my spreadsheet needs, I thought it would save me buying Excel. My most frequent task is to load CSV data into the spreadsheet for graphing, or more precesely, paste CSV data to the spreadsheet (you know, open window with data, ctrl-a, ctrl-c, then hop to spreadsheet and ctrl-v), sadly it doesn't work on openoffice. So I dumped openoffice, tried Gnumeric instead, this did work, now I use Gnumeric (it's not perfect but it's seems better than openoffice). I think it would be better if the 100,000 were spent on hiring another developer to improve ussability rather than spend it on an ad.
But it is a problem, let's say you've spent a couple of years using a partiular distribution, you know its quirks and the staff are used to it. Then bang, the business goes and the distribution is no longer supported, what happens to your service contract? No different from proprietory OSs.
I think what you're suggesting is absurd. I am quite sure that there will be as many tech calls for a Linux box as there would be for a window box (I'm not going to say whether more or less).
As for hords of virus, trojans etc on windows, if or when Linux becomes main stream, I imagine will be much more of a target for virus writers.
Well trolled, sir! You've almost made it to an hour and haven't been downmoderated yet. No points for subtlety, though.
I try!
I know people who use ONLY Linux and have the hell more money
you could ever want (for one, my PhD supervisor which is a professor
in the UK department I am at).
Good for him, glad he earns 'the hell more money you could ever want'. Still, Linux is a great choice for the third-world. Me, I like to have the latest hardware technology the west can make, I'm not interested in saving money, I like my toys. I will save money in other ways, like buying a cheap car. Your professor likes Linux, so be it, hopefully he uses it because it is useful to him not because his is religious about it.
Anyway, I wasn't trolling, I wanted to make the point that there is
hypocrisy in both camps, currently being observed in the Linux camp,
next time it will probably be in the Windows camp. Both Windows and
Linux have their place. Of about ten machines we have three that are Linux,
plus we run dual boot on a number of the Windows machines. Also I just
ordered a 10 server Linux rack. I'm not anti-Linux, but I am very anti-Linux
fanatics. Linux is not a religion, it is a tool.
>One approach makes your computer faster. The other requires a faster computer. >Understand? Thanks for the clarification, your argument make more sense.
Obviously I touched a raw nerve here, confused or not. As Windows users tend to have good paying jobs we can usually afford to buy nice computers so the problem of not having a powerful enough computer is not really an issue. Of course if you can't afford a nice computer than sure use Linux, it's ideal for the third-world in this respect.
It's amazing that when Vista has new eye candy its bad but when Linux has it it's good!?
It would be a sorry day if, in all places, we didn't have a choice in what OS we wanted to use at a University. I work at a non-religious computer choice insitute, we can use what ever we want to do the job. Being on the search committe for a new head of IT, one of the first criteria is that the person should not be any kind of zealot.
Money is not the issue here with regards buying the OS. Linux carries a maintenance cost just as Windows does. The cost of the OS itself is marginal and not the real issue. The real issue is choice so that the job can be done most effectively.
I think you may have to wait a long time before microsoft is 'ruined', you can be sure that if they feel threatened they will do something about it.
I was flabbergasted at the above comment that suggests it is not possible to create molecules such as insulin, chlorophyll etc from basic atomic elements and that these can only be made from compounds found in living cells. I am afraid the level of education displayed by the above contributor is frighteningly low.
There is no difference between the atoms you find in a biological cell or the atoms you find in your TV set. Organic chemistry arose out of the realization that it was possible to make compounds found in living systems in the lab, Urea was the first to be done in 1828, many, many others have been synthesized since.
The main reason why I feel ID is gaining ground in the US is very poor level of education that we give to our population, as shockingly shown by the previous contributor.