Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which version of linux...

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
April 13, 2004 10:42:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

I am about to do my spring-cleaning reformat of my OS and I want to get in
on linux, I have heard great things about it as it pertains to video
encoding especially. So I plan to set up a dual boot with XP Pro and Linux.

What free version of Linux would be best for video work? I have a dual AMD
2000+ with 2 gigs of ram, and an Nvidia 5600u softquado'ed to a 700go GL if
that makes any difference.

Videoken


--
------

More about : version linux

Anonymous
April 13, 2004 11:19:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

videoken wrote:
> I am about to do my spring-cleaning reformat of my OS and I want to get in
> on linux, I have heard great things about it as it pertains to video
> encoding especially. So I plan to set up a dual boot with XP Pro and
Linux.
>
> What free version of Linux would be best for video work? I have a dual AMD
> 2000+ with 2 gigs of ram, and an Nvidia 5600u softquado'ed to a 700go GL
if
> that makes any difference.

Suse is a good choice. If this is your first go with linux, you might think
about Mandrake, though.

Have a look here http://www.linuxiso.org/
Anonymous
April 13, 2004 3:49:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

i'm_tired wrote:

> videoken wrote:
> > I am about to do my spring-cleaning reformat of my OS and I want to get in
> > on linux, I have heard great things about it as it pertains to video
> > encoding especially. So I plan to set up a dual boot with XP Pro and
> Linux.
> >
> > What free version of Linux would be best for video work? I have a dual AMD
> > 2000+ with 2 gigs of ram, and an Nvidia 5600u softquado'ed to a 700go GL
> if
> > that makes any difference.
>
> Suse is a good choice. If this is your first go with linux, you might think
> about Mandrake, though.
>
> Have a look here http://www.linuxiso.org/

I agree about SuSE but disagree about Mandrake.

Mandrake's current installer is reported not to work on a system with any SCSI
drives (on my system it refused to install at all because I wanted it on the
second drive rather than the first). Mandrake's auto update can easily wipe out
your system (at least it's royally hosed my KDE desktop the two times I gave 9.1
a try).

SuSE just rocks. It's as easy to configure as Windows, with the YaST tool. SuSE
9.1 is coming out May 8 and includes the 2.6.3 kernel.

Also the SuSE newsgroup is very helpful.

You can get the "personal" version for $29. A lot cheaper than Microsoft and a
lot more powerful, stable and secure. Setting it up for dual boot with Windows
is brain dead simple, and the installer will even give you an icon for your
"C:\" drive so you have access to your Windows fonts and other files in Linux.

You won't find any apps that can equal Ulead DVD Workshop or Movie Factory, but
there are plenty of other types of apps. Just boot into Windows for making DVDs
and editing mpeg-2.

Keith
Related resources
Anonymous
April 13, 2004 5:04:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Baron Von "videoken"
<chekken_removethispart_u_andthispart_out_andthispart@yahooyouknowwhattodowiththispart.com>
sayed:

>I am about to do my spring-cleaning reformat of my OS and I want to get in
>on linux, I have heard great things about it as it pertains to video
>encoding especially. So I plan to set up a dual boot with XP Pro and Linux.

Think about what file format you're gonna use when formatting your HDD
if you want both Linux and XP to read from the same drive.

--
Joe's Nunn out, out
Anonymous
April 13, 2004 5:04:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

SjT wrote:

> Baron Von "videoken"
> <chekken_removethispart_u_andthispart_out_andthispart@yahooyouknowwhattodowiththispart.com>
> sayed:
>
> >I am about to do my spring-cleaning reformat of my OS and I want to get in
> >on linux, I have heard great things about it as it pertains to video
> >encoding especially. So I plan to set up a dual boot with XP Pro and Linux.
>
> Think about what file format you're gonna use when formatting your HDD
> if you want both Linux and XP to read from the same drive.
>
>

Not necessarily good advice, and misleading, since you need a separate *blank* partition to
install Linux to.

You can read NTFS in Linux with no problems. SuSE will create mount-points for your NTFS drives
during the install and when you boot into linux the first time you'll be able to read all your
Windows files. SuSE can also shrink your Windows partition to make room to install SuSE. I
haven't tried this on NTFS and don't recommend doing so on a production system (unless you've
Ghosted it first).

You can't write to NTFS drives from Linux. Not an issue, since you can't read or write to a
Linux formatted drive from Windows anyway.

The solution is to use a FAT-32 formatted drive (or partition) for sharing files between
Windows and Linux.

~Keith
Anonymous
April 13, 2004 7:33:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Keith Clark wrote:

> You can get the "personal" version for $29. A lot cheaper than Microsoft and a
> lot more powerful, stable and secure. Setting it up for dual boot with Windows
> is brain dead simple, and the installer will even give you an icon for your
> "C:\" drive so you have access to your Windows fonts and other files in Linux.

Can you both read and write to that C: drive? I have heard that
NTFS-formatted drives are read-only....?

(ok, it's a bit off-topic)

--
Josef Garvi

"Reversing desertification through drought tolerant trees"
http://www.eden-foundation.org/

new income - better environment - more food - less poverty
Anonymous
April 13, 2004 7:33:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Josef Garvi wrote:

> Keith Clark wrote:
>
> > You can get the "personal" version for $29. A lot cheaper than Microsoft and a
> > lot more powerful, stable and secure. Setting it up for dual boot with Windows
> > is brain dead simple, and the installer will even give you an icon for your
> > "C:\" drive so you have access to your Windows fonts and other files in Linux.
>
> Can you both read and write to that C: drive? I have heard that
> NTFS-formatted drives are read-only....?
>
> (ok, it's a bit off-topic)
>

No, it's a valid point. File systems have to be considered when dual booting.

NTFS write support is very limited, experimental, and dangerous. You should *not*
attempt to write to an NTFS disk in Linux currently.

The easiest solution is to have a separate OS and data drive. Your Windows and Linux
installations can reside on a small 80 GB drive, and you can use like a 160 or 250
GB drive for your video capturing. A 250 or bigger would be recommended, because
then you could partition it in two big parts, a NTFS partition to get around file
size limitations in Windows, and a Fat-32 partition. You would use the Fat-32
partition for sharing files. This is roughly how I do it on my machine (I boot from
two SCSI drives, one each for Windows/Linux, and I have two video drives, a small
one formatted as Fat-32 and a 160 GB drive as NTFS).

Otherwise if you have a second machine you could store files over your network, and
the filesystem on that machine wouldn't matter as long as it supported large
(multi-gigabyte) files.

~Keith
Anonymous
April 13, 2004 7:33:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> NTFS write support is very limited, experimental, and dangerous.

Depends on what NTFS driver you mean. There are several, for example
the two open source drivers at http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/status.html
One of them is obsolete the other is very limited but safe.

There is also Captive NTFS:
http://www.jankratochvil.net/project/captive/

Then Paragon's NTFS for Linux: http://www.ntfs-linux.com

> You should *not*
> attempt to write to an NTFS disk in Linux currently.

With which NTFS driver? Write is disabled in the obsolete driver and
the other one is indeed still too limited. I didn't try the other two
drivers. You?

> The easiest solution is to have a separate OS and data drive. Your Windows and Linux
> installations can reside on a small 80 GB drive, and you can use like a 160 or 250
> GB drive for your video capturing. A 250 or bigger would be recommended, because
> then you could partition it in two big parts, a NTFS partition to get around file
> size limitations in Windows, and a Fat-32 partition. You would use the Fat-32
> partition for sharing files. This is roughly how I do it on my machine (I boot from
> two SCSI drives, one each for Windows/Linux, and I have two video drives, a small
> one formatted as Fat-32 and a 160 GB drive as NTFS).

This is a good idea.
Anonymous
April 13, 2004 8:02:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"Sz. Csetey" wrote:

> Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > NTFS write support is very limited, experimental, and dangerous.
>
> Depends on what NTFS driver you mean. There are several, for example
> the two open source drivers at http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/status.html
> One of them is obsolete the other is very limited but safe.
>
> There is also Captive NTFS:
> http://www.jankratochvil.net/project/captive/
>
> Then Paragon's NTFS for Linux: http://www.ntfs-linux.com
>
> > You should *not*
> > attempt to write to an NTFS disk in Linux currently.
>
> With which NTFS driver? Write is disabled in the obsolete driver and
> the other one is indeed still too limited. I didn't try the other two
> drivers. You?
>
> > The easiest solution is to have a separate OS and data drive. Your Windows and Linux
> > installations can reside on a small 80 GB drive, and you can use like a 160 or 250
> > GB drive for your video capturing. A 250 or bigger would be recommended, because
> > then you could partition it in two big parts, a NTFS partition to get around file
> > size limitations in Windows, and a Fat-32 partition. You would use the Fat-32
> > partition for sharing files. This is roughly how I do it on my machine (I boot from
> > two SCSI drives, one each for Windows/Linux, and I have two video drives, a small
> > one formatted as Fat-32 and a 160 GB drive as NTFS).
>
> This is a good idea.

I just use the one built in to the kernel, but I still have the NTFS drives mounted "read
only" because I can simply save to a Fat-32 drive if needed.

If you can safely write to an NTFS volume that's fine, but consider the context - we're
talking to a potential newbie, who's never used Linux and isn't going to want to be bogged
down with compiling kernels right away. So in that context, it's just safe and prudent to
say "don't write to NTFS", especially since drives are cheap and IDE connections
plentiful, at least that was my reasoning for saying it (yes, I acknowledge that for
technically advanced users, that may not be the case).

Cheers,
Keith
Anonymous
April 14, 2004 12:37:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Thanks for all the great replys...

I think I'll have to look into how to do this right before I screw up my
production sytem. Can I install SuSE at any time or should I do it at the
same time I reformat and reinstall XP?

Not to be redundant but here are my understandings of what has been said so
far:

I can install SuSE on the same partition as XP. Then after that, it is a
matter of having a fat 32 drive or partition so that I may use my results in
xp if I have to. Also, can I 'send' files back to my linux OS by writing
them to the fat 32 drive in XP.

Is that all correct?

Videoken


"Keith Clark" <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:407C1C7C.215122D9@hotmail.com...
>
>
> SjT wrote:
>
> > Baron Von "videoken"
> >
<chekken_removethispart_u_andthispart_out_andthispart@yahooyouknowwhattodowi
ththispart.com>
> > sayed:
> >
> > >I am about to do my spring-cleaning reformat of my OS and I want to get
in
> > >on linux, I have heard great things about it as it pertains to video
> > >encoding especially. So I plan to set up a dual boot with XP Pro and
Linux.
> >
> > Think about what file format you're gonna use when formatting your HDD
> > if you want both Linux and XP to read from the same drive.
> >
> >
>
> Not necessarily good advice, and misleading, since you need a separate
*blank* partition to
> install Linux to.
>
> You can read NTFS in Linux with no problems. SuSE will create mount-points
for your NTFS drives
> during the install and when you boot into linux the first time you'll be
able to read all your
> Windows files. SuSE can also shrink your Windows partition to make room to
install SuSE. I
> haven't tried this on NTFS and don't recommend doing so on a production
system (unless you've
> Ghosted it first).
>
> You can't write to NTFS drives from Linux. Not an issue, since you can't
read or write to a
> Linux formatted drive from Windows anyway.
>
> The solution is to use a FAT-32 formatted drive (or partition) for sharing
files between
> Windows and Linux.
>
> ~Keith
>
Anonymous
April 14, 2004 12:37:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

videoken wrote:

> Thanks for all the great replys...
>
> I think I'll have to look into how to do this right before I screw up my
> production sytem. Can I install SuSE at any time or should I do it at the
> same time I reformat and reinstall XP?
>

You can do it at any time.

But as with any OS install, "back up your data first" applies.

Personally, I would install XP first and then install SuSE (or other Linux).

The reason is that Microsoft doesn't respect third party boot loaders and will
over-write your MBR and you will lose the ability to boot into Linux (without
doing a painfully slow floppy boot).

Almost all Linux installs give you a wide range of choices about how to
configure the bootloader. Microsoft doesn't. That alone should be grounds for
an anti-trust suit.

I don't hate Microsoft's OS (except for the poor security, the fact that you
have to reboot after installing any trivial patch, and other annoyances). I do
hate Microsoft's arrogant attitude when it comes to level playing fields, and
fair and open competition.

>
> Not to be redundant but here are my understandings of what has been said so
> far:
>
> I can install SuSE on the same partition as XP.

No!

Assuming that you're installing both XP and Linux from scratch on an empty drive
:

You need to partition your boot drive into TWO partitions. Install XP first. You
can use XP to do the partitioning. Start the XP install, and it will eventually
get to the partitioning screen just like you see in Win2K. Delete all existing
partitions using the menu. Then create a new partition, that's for sake of
discussion only, 1/2 the size of the drive. Let XP format and install to that
partition.

Then, when XP is finished, and you've downloaded and installed all the service
packs, patches, etc., boot to the SuSE (or other Linux) CD #1 and begin the
install. The wizard will detect that you have Windows installed, and set up a
partitioning scheme for the *rest* of the drive, the unused part. You can review
and change this before any changes are made (unlike the Microsoft installer,
where one wrong mouse click can destroy all your existing data instantly -
Microsoft needs to learn from Linux, not the other way around!).


> Then after that, it is a
> matter of having a fat 32 drive or partition so that I may use my results in
> xp if I have to. Also, can I 'send' files back to my linux OS by writing
> them to the fat 32 drive in XP.

Yes. Of course the downside to Fat32 is you now have a limit of only 4 GB per
file but you can work around that. Popular Linux capture programs support "auto
split" during capture.


>
> Is that all correct?
>
> Videoken
>

I highly suggest you hang out in the SuSE discussion group, "alt.os.linux.suse"
and ask questions there too. Of course the most popular discussions currently
are "how soon can I buy version 9.1"...imagine that, people lining up to pay for
open source software. That ought to say something for the quality.

Also check out this new Toms Hardware Guide to Linux :

http://www20.tomshardware.com/howto/20040412/index.html
(lots of SuSE screenshots :->)

and this older one

http://www.tomshardware.com/howto/20040329/index.html

And a misc. review I stumbled across to whet your appetite:

http://news.devnetwork.net/suse/suse_review.html

By the way, the books that come in the SuSE box are very good.

Keith
Anonymous
April 14, 2004 12:39:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Nope, after another re-read, I have to install Linux on it's own partition.
My inference is that partion should also be the 'sharing' Fat 32 partition.

videoken


"videoken"
<chekken_removethispart_u_andthispart_out_andthispart@yahooyouknowwhattodowi
ththispart.com> wrote in message
news:YbYec.16324$mX.5560060@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> Thanks for all the great replys...
>
> I think I'll have to look into how to do this right before I screw up my
> production sytem. Can I install SuSE at any time or should I do it at the
> same time I reformat and reinstall XP?
>
> Not to be redundant but here are my understandings of what has been said
so
> far:
>
> I can install SuSE on the same partition as XP. Then after that, it is a
> matter of having a fat 32 drive or partition so that I may use my results
in
> xp if I have to. Also, can I 'send' files back to my linux OS by writing
> them to the fat 32 drive in XP.
>
> Is that all correct?
>
> Videoken
>
>
> "Keith Clark" <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:407C1C7C.215122D9@hotmail.com...
> >
> >
> > SjT wrote:
> >
> > > Baron Von "videoken"
> > >
>
<chekken_removethispart_u_andthispart_out_andthispart@yahooyouknowwhattodowi
> ththispart.com>
> > > sayed:
> > >
> > > >I am about to do my spring-cleaning reformat of my OS and I want to
get
> in
> > > >on linux, I have heard great things about it as it pertains to video
> > > >encoding especially. So I plan to set up a dual boot with XP Pro and
> Linux.
> > >
> > > Think about what file format you're gonna use when formatting your HDD
> > > if you want both Linux and XP to read from the same drive.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Not necessarily good advice, and misleading, since you need a separate
> *blank* partition to
> > install Linux to.
> >
> > You can read NTFS in Linux with no problems. SuSE will create
mount-points
> for your NTFS drives
> > during the install and when you boot into linux the first time you'll be
> able to read all your
> > Windows files. SuSE can also shrink your Windows partition to make room
to
> install SuSE. I
> > haven't tried this on NTFS and don't recommend doing so on a production
> system (unless you've
> > Ghosted it first).
> >
> > You can't write to NTFS drives from Linux. Not an issue, since you can't
> read or write to a
> > Linux formatted drive from Windows anyway.
> >
> > The solution is to use a FAT-32 formatted drive (or partition) for
sharing
> files between
> > Windows and Linux.
> >
> > ~Keith
> >
>
>
Anonymous
April 14, 2004 2:03:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

On a sunny day (Tue, 13 Apr 2004 20:39:33 GMT) it happened "videoken"
<chekken_removethispart_u_andthispart_out_andthispart@yahooyouknowwhattodowith
ohispart.com> wrote in <9eYec.16325$mX.5560869@twister.nyc.rr.com>:

>Nope, after another re-read, I have to install Linux on it's own partition.
>My inference is that partion should also be the 'sharing' Fat 32 partition.
Nope, Linux in its own partition (ext2 or reiserfs if possible),
and soem FAT based partition for files that both Linux and MS windows can write
to.
And MS windows in yest an other partition.
Do not be afraid of partitions, you will be using more, like for swap etc..
Anonymous
April 14, 2004 2:03:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Jan Panteltje wrote:

> On a sunny day (Tue, 13 Apr 2004 20:39:33 GMT) it happened "videoken"
> <chekken_removethispart_u_andthispart_out_andthispart@yahooyouknowwhattodowith
> ohispart.com> wrote in <9eYec.16325$mX.5560869@twister.nyc.rr.com>:
>
> >Nope, after another re-read, I have to install Linux on it's own partition.
> >My inference is that partion should also be the 'sharing' Fat 32 partition.
> Nope, Linux in its own partition (ext2 or reiserfs if possible),
> and soem FAT based partition for files that both Linux and MS windows can write
> to.
> And MS windows in yest an other partition.
> Do not be afraid of partitions, you will be using more, like for swap etc..

I only use 2 partitions for SuSE : "/" and "swap"... But the point was that the
install wizard does it for you.
Anonymous
April 14, 2004 5:01:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Baron Von Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> sayed:

>I don't hate Microsoft's OS (except for the poor security, the fact that you
>have to reboot after installing any trivial patch, and other annoyances). I do
>hate Microsoft's arrogant attitude when it comes to level playing fields, and
>fair and open competition.

Microsoft are a business, not a charity case remember ;) 

--
Joe's Nunn out, out
Anonymous
April 14, 2004 5:01:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

SjT wrote:

> Baron Von Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> sayed:
>
> >I don't hate Microsoft's OS (except for the poor security, the fact that you
> >have to reboot after installing any trivial patch, and other annoyances). I do
> >hate Microsoft's arrogant attitude when it comes to level playing fields, and
> >fair and open competition.
>
> Microsoft are a business, not a charity case remember ;) 
>
>

That's fine.

But if you look at the multitude of court cases in which Microsoft LOST because of
their business practices, it becomes clear to anyone with a brain that Microsoft's
business practices are ILLEGAL in a great many cases.

Look, I have nothing against the right of any business, whether Microsoft or
RedHat or SCO to make a good profit - based on the *merits of their products*.

But engaging in dirty tricks like including DLLs that make the OS crash unless
you're using MS DOS instead of DR DOS (a vastly superior, Unix like version of DOS)
in Windows 3.11 days, or deliberately overwriting the MBR without asking to screw
up somebody's boot loader is inexcusable.

Telling PC makers that they will lose the right to sell any Microsoft products if
they include another OS, is not acceptable either.

Suing everybody in sight just to make them spend money on legal fees and extort
illegal "license fees" (SCO) isn't acceptable either.

If you think it is, then maybe you should go to work for the Mafia, beaches you
don't belong in a legitimate business.

Competition is what makes the free market system so great. But competition needs to
be on a level playing field. That's why we have anti-trust laws. I just wish those
laws would be enforced a lot more vigorously.

Look, if RedHat or SuSE (Novell) were pulling these stunts, I'd be ranting about
them too.
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 1:43:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

On a sunny day (Wed, 14 Apr 2004 10:02:38 -0700) it happened Keith Clark
<clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in <407D6EAE.E4686AFD@hotmail.com>:

>
>
>SjT wrote:
>
>> Baron Von Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> sayed:
>>
>> >I don't hate Microsoft's OS (except for the poor security, the fact that you
>> >have to reboot after installing any trivial patch, and other annoyances). I do
>> >hate Microsoft's arrogant attitude when it comes to level playing fields, and
>> >fair and open competition.
>>
>> Microsoft are a business, not a charity case remember ;) 
>>
>>
>
>That's fine.
>
>But if you look at the multitude of court cases in which Microsoft LOST because of
>their business practices, it becomes clear to anyone with a brain that Microsoft's
>business practices are ILLEGAL in a great many cases.
>
>Look, I have nothing against the right of any business, whether Microsoft or
>RedHat or SCO to make a good profit - based on the *merits of their products*.
>
>But engaging in dirty tricks like including DLLs that make the OS crash unless
>you're using MS DOS instead of DR DOS (a vastly superior, Unix like version of DOS)
>in Windows 3.11 days, or deliberately overwriting the MBR without asking to screw
>up somebody's boot loader is inexcusable.
>
>Telling PC makers that they will lose the right to sell any Microsoft products if
>they include another OS, is not acceptable either.
>
>Suing everybody in sight just to make them spend money on legal fees and extort
>illegal "license fees" (SCO) isn't acceptable either.
>
>If you think it is, then maybe you should go to work for the Mafia, beaches you
>don't belong in a legitimate business.
>
>Competition is what makes the free market system so great. But competition needs to
>be on a level playing field. That's why we have anti-trust laws. I just wish those
>laws would be enforced a lot more vigorously.
>
>Look, if RedHat or SuSE (Novell) were pulling these stunts, I'd be ranting about
>them too.
>
On this one I agree with you...
Most of it..
JP
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 1:43:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Jan Panteltje wrote:

> On a sunny day (Wed, 14 Apr 2004 10:02:38 -0700) it happened Keith Clark
> <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in <407D6EAE.E4686AFD@hotmail.com>:
>
> >
> >
> >SjT wrote:
> >
> >> Baron Von Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> sayed:
> >>
> >> >I don't hate Microsoft's OS (except for the poor security, the fact that you
> >> >have to reboot after installing any trivial patch, and other annoyances). I do
> >> >hate Microsoft's arrogant attitude when it comes to level playing fields, and
> >> >fair and open competition.
> >>
> >> Microsoft are a business, not a charity case remember ;) 
> >>
> >>
> >
> >That's fine.
> >
> >But if you look at the multitude of court cases in which Microsoft LOST because of
> >their business practices, it becomes clear to anyone with a brain that Microsoft's
> >business practices are ILLEGAL in a great many cases.
> >
> >Look, I have nothing against the right of any business, whether Microsoft or
> >RedHat or SCO to make a good profit - based on the *merits of their products*.
> >
> >But engaging in dirty tricks like including DLLs that make the OS crash unless
> >you're using MS DOS instead of DR DOS (a vastly superior, Unix like version of DOS)
> >in Windows 3.11 days, or deliberately overwriting the MBR without asking to screw
> >up somebody's boot loader is inexcusable.
> >
> >Telling PC makers that they will lose the right to sell any Microsoft products if
> >they include another OS, is not acceptable either.
> >
> >Suing everybody in sight just to make them spend money on legal fees and extort
> >illegal "license fees" (SCO) isn't acceptable either.
> >
> >If you think it is, then maybe you should go to work for the Mafia, beaches you
> >don't belong in a legitimate business.
> >
> >Competition is what makes the free market system so great. But competition needs to
> >be on a level playing field. That's why we have anti-trust laws. I just wish those
> >laws would be enforced a lot more vigorously.
> >
> >Look, if RedHat or SuSE (Novell) were pulling these stunts, I'd be ranting about
> >them too.
> >
> On this one I agree with you...
> Most of it..
> JP

Ohh ohh... ;->

I didn't know this till a few minutes ago, but Israel, in October of last year suspended
all of their government contracts and banned new business with Microsoft effective for
all of 2004.

This article in the Globe and Mail that I found on Slashdot says that Microsoft
considers endless anti-trust actions merely a "cost of doing business".

http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.2004...

Think of how much better their software would be if they could spend that money on new
feature development and just compete fairly on merit. What a concept.
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 3:33:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

On a sunny day (Tue, 13 Apr 2004 20:37:12 GMT) it happened "videoken"
<chekken_removethispart_u_andthispart_out_andthispart@yahooyouknowwhattodowith


>Thanks for all the great replys...
>
>I think I'll have to look into how to do this right before I screw up my
>production sytem. Can I install SuSE at any time or should I do it at the
>same time I reformat and reinstall XP?
>
>Not to be redundant but here are my understandings of what has been said so
>far:
>
>I can install SuSE on the same partition as XP. Then after that, it is a
>matter of having a fat 32 drive or partition so that I may use my results in
>xp if I have to. Also, can I 'send' files back to my linux OS by writing
>them to the fat 32 drive in XP.
>
>Is that all correct?
No, you CANNOT install Linux on the same partition as windows.
You CAN install it on the same drive in a different partition.
JP
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 2:16:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Baron Von Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> sayed:

>> >I don't hate Microsoft's OS (except for the poor security, the fact that you
>> >have to reboot after installing any trivial patch, and other annoyances). I do
>> >hate Microsoft's arrogant attitude when it comes to level playing fields, and
>> >fair and open competition.
>>
>> Microsoft are a business, not a charity case remember ;) 
>
>That's fine.
>
>But if you look at the multitude of court cases in which Microsoft LOST because of
>their business practices, it becomes clear to anyone with a brain that Microsoft's
>business practices are ILLEGAL in a great many cases.

I don't like MS and their business practises either, but at the end of
the day i dont see why they should play fair and be forced to shell
out on these monopolyu cases its the end users who pays for it, not
them, besides i beleive that if linux was really any competitor to
windows and was half as good as its users claim then it would win out,
unfortunatly its seen as a tight-fisted geek's operating system and
that's why alot of developers dont produce for it, no ones really
prepared to pay serious money for linux apps, and so it is left to
bedroom programmers, who probably haven't got little johnny and his
mum in mind.

I wish it was better than windows, but for the majority of people who
want to turn on and talk to a paper clip and play a few games on their
machines it isnt, and thats why MS have the monopoly, not because of
their tricks, dont fool yourself.

--
Joe's Nunn out, out
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 2:16:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

I agree to the extent that it's not Microsoft's job to enforce
anti-trust legislation, or engage in fair business practises.
Microsoft's job is to make money. It is the government's failure to
enforce it's own laws that is to blame. The Bush Administration chose
to drop the DOJ action in spite of overwhelming evidence of Microsoft's
malfeasance. The government failed to escalate the fines and
punishments to match the scale of the rewards Microsoft received for
it's illegal marketting practises.

As to why Microsoft has a monopoly, I doubt that it's because of their
product. In fact, Microsoft has been stunningly ineffective at
anticipating or address consumer desires, especially in terms of
reliability and security (yesterday: another security alert for
defective MS code). Microsoft failed to see the internet coming.
Remember "Bob"? Remember all the problems managing memory above 640K?
The only reason they have their market position is because of their
foothold obtained with DOS which they used to leverage themselves onto
everybody's desktop without any regard for consumer preference.

I am still outraged by the way all computer users were forced to buy
Windows with every computer whether we asked for it or not.

SjT wrote:

>I don't like MS and their business practises either, but at the end of
>the day i dont see why they should play fair and be forced to shell
>out on these monopolyu cases its the end users who pays for it, not
>them, besides i beleive that if linux was really any competitor to
>windows and was half as good as its users claim then it would win out,
>unfortunatly its seen as a tight-fisted geek's operating system and
>that's why alot of developers dont produce for it, no ones really
>prepared to pay serious money for linux apps, and so it is left to
>bedroom programmers, who probably haven't got little johnny and his
>mum in mind.
>
>I wish it was better than windows, but for the majority of people who
>want to turn on and talk to a paper clip and play a few games on their
>machines it isnt, and thats why MS have the monopoly, not because of
>their tricks, dont fool yourself.
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 2:16:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

SjT wrote:

>
>
> I don't like MS and their business practises either, but at the end of
> the day i dont see why they should play fair

Because it's the LAW.


> <snip> besides i beleive that if linux was really any competitor to
> windows and was half as good as its users claim then it would win out,

It IS as good, and it IS winning out. Many large companies and even whole city
governments are run on it. When the US Navy bought a bung of new Macs the requirement
was that they run Linux. Use a cell phone? It's not Microsoft software running the
racks of line cards in the central office, it's VX Works and Linux. Mention Microsoft
in a telco environment and the least that'll happen is hysterical laughter. Watch many
Hollywood movies? Lots of FX is done with Linux. Whole Disney studios are running
Linux. Sinbad was done on Linux.



>
> unfortunatly its seen as a tight-fisted geek's operating system

By some maybe.

Except that people get excited about getting new versions of SuSE the minute it goes on
sale. Of course, the license entitles you to install it on an unlimited number of
machines, but that's besides the point (or is it?).

Talk to game companies that make Linux demos available and they'll tell you that the
conversion rate (those who actually buy the game) is higher for Linux users. There've
been articles about this. Search on Slashdot, I think it was covered about 6 months ago
or so. I'm to the point where I only buy games that will run on Linux, in part because
I get a better gaming experience in Linux than Windows (higher frame rates, more
responsive controls), and in part because installing a game on Linux can be done at the
"user" security level, and not hose any system files like codecs etc. I've had major
headaches on Windows after a game messed with my codecs.



> and
> that's why alot of developers dont produce for it,

Actually it's more to do with support. Support is complicated on Linux for a variety of
reasons, more so than Windows. As more distributions adopt standards-based
configurations, this is changing. SuSE is a leader in that area.


> no ones really
> prepared to pay serious money for linux apps,

That's not true.

Macromedia did some serious market research and found that there is enough of a paying
market to port their tools over to Linux.

People want relief from the virus-of-the-week attacks that Microsoft's unsecure
architecture invites. They want to be free from having to reboot every time they
install a patch or minor upgrade or new application. People want fast, reliable, stable
systems. And they want to be free from paying huge sums of money to get a license for
every machine they own just to upgrade the OS.

> and so it is left to
> bedroom programmers<snip>

Some people do open source as a hobby, but many do it as a business.

And some people do "closed source" for Linux.

At the end of the day, I just want apps that work. If I can find open source ones for
free that will do what I want, I'll use them. But if not, and there's a closed source
"Ulead" or "Macromedia" tool that I need to do the job, then so be it.

>
>
> I wish it was better than windows

It IS better than Windows. You've obviously never used SuSE.



> , but for the majority of people who
> want to turn on and talk to a paper clip and play a few games on their
> machines it isnt,

Wrong again.

Most people want everything to come with the OS and not have to buy anything extra.
People use Media Player because it's installed. They use IE because it's installed
(never mind that Opera and Mozilla are better in several ways). They use MS Office
because they pirate a copy from work because their employer forces them to use it.

Do you have ANY idea how much quality software comes on the 5 SuSE CD's and 2 double
sided DVDs? A TON (and it installs in about the same time as Windows). There's Open
Office, which by Microsoft's own admission is every bit as some versions of MS Office.
The latest version opened every Microsoft Word document or Excel spreadsheet I could
throw at it and looked and printed identically to Windows versions.

Look, there are 4 year olds using Linux daily. Anyone who can use a mouse can do what
they need pretty easily. Even advanced system administration is pretty easy using the
SuSE "Yast" setup wizard (think Windows Device Manager, Windows Update, "msconfig" all
on steroids and rolled into one utility). I was amazed sine I'd been used to doing
things the hard way.

Hell, even networking with Windows machines didn't take any thought. At Christmas, my
mother-in-law was here and wanted to download some pictures from her digital camera.
Even though it was USB, it required special drivers (Kodak) that you can't download
without a butt load of forms to fill out. Well that ticked me off so I plugged in in to
my SuSE machine just to see what would happen - and before I could look for the manual,
an icon popped up on the desktop, I clicked on it (once), and there were all her
pictures. Then I clicked the "Local Network" icon on the desktop (I had never bothered
to try to configure networking, I just have the system plugged into my Linksys
firewall/DSL router), and saw the hard drive of my wife's machine. So I clicked &
dragged the pictures from the camera to my wife's machine without even thinking about
it, it was so simple.

Not as good as Windows? Think again. It's BETTER than Windows and that's just one
example.

> and thats why MS have the monopoly, not because of
> their tricks, dont fool yourself.
>
>

Don't fool YOURself.
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 2:16:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Bill Van Dyk wrote:

>
>
> I am still outraged by the way all computer users were forced to buy
> Windows with every computer whether we asked for it or not.

Not all.

Microsoft has lobbied hard to make selling computers with no OS illegal,
but it can be done.

I organized a purchase of several IBM laptops for work with no
pre-installed OS (we have a site license and didn't want to pay twice for
the OS).

You buy some machines at Walmart with either no OS or with versions of
Linux installed.

Dell and IBM will be selling systems with SuSE installed later this year.

And you can build your own (by far the best option in many cases).

But read up on what BIOS features are included. There are some BIOSes
beginning to surface that pretty much lock you into Microsoft. That right
there will make me refuse to buy any pre-made systems, whether for home or
work (we use a lot of Linux machines for software testing in the group I
work in).
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 5:27:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Bill Van Dyk wrote:

> Yes, pardon me-- I did mean to refer to the past. We also now
> routinely buy our computers without an OS, but I believe that that is
> largely possible, at last, due to the DOJ actions a few years ago.
>

Yeah, when I bought my first PC, a 286, I specified DR-DOS because I was
used to working with "mini-computers" and was used to powerful command
lines and didn't want the pain of MS DOS. I really enjoyed DR-DOS. Then
came Windows 3.11 (I never liked Desk View) and I was forced to change
to MS DOS. I looked for a legal version of MS DOS but all I could find
was "upgrade versions" that *required* a previous version. In other
words I would have had to buy a new computer just to get a legal version
of DOS. So I did what everyone else did. And it didn't involve buying a
new PC.

Anyway, do you know of a good place to buy a laptop without an OS (for a
single home user as opposed to a large multi-unit purchase)?
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 5:51:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c5khn4$19jm$1@news.wplus.net...
> On a sunny day (Tue, 13 Apr 2004 20:37:12 GMT) it happened "videoken"
>
<chekken_removethispart_u_andthispart_out_andthispart@yahooyouknowwhattodowi
th
>
>
> >Thanks for all the great replys...
> >
> >I think I'll have to look into how to do this right before I screw up my
> >production sytem. Can I install SuSE at any time or should I do it at the
> >same time I reformat and reinstall XP?
> >
> >Not to be redundant but here are my understandings of what has been said
so
> >far:
> >
> >I can install SuSE on the same partition as XP. Then after that, it is a
> >matter of having a fat 32 drive or partition so that I may use my results
in
> >xp if I have to. Also, can I 'send' files back to my linux OS by writing
> >them to the fat 32 drive in XP.
> >
> >Is that all correct?
> No, you CANNOT install Linux on the same partition as windows.
> You CAN install it on the same drive in a different partition.
> JP

You can if it's fat32, but it runs like a 2 legged dog.

Paul
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 8:35:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Yes. Our local vendor, CRV computers in St. Jacobs, Ontario (small
town, north of Waterloo) now supplies us with very nice Asus laptops
without an OS. We then install a licensed version of Windows 2000 on
these systems.

Keith Clark wrote:

>Anyway, do you know of a good place to buy a laptop without an OS (for a
>single home user as opposed to a large multi-unit purchase)?
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 8:35:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Bill Van Dyk wrote:

> Yes. Our local vendor, CRV computers in St. Jacobs, Ontario (small
> town, north of Waterloo) now supplies us with very nice Asus laptops
> without an OS. We then install a licensed version of Windows 2000 on
> these systems.
>

I was thinking more of a Linux use, myself since I only use Windows for
making DVDs and running my PVR.

Anyway, you're the first person I've heard of using those. Obviously you
think highly of them so I won't ask the obvious question. Which model do you
use?

Keith
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 9:14:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

On a sunny day (Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:51:42 +1000) it happened "Paul Hales"
<paulh@riptof.org.ti> wrote in <c5l0pf$1rga$1@otis.netspace.net.au>:

>> >Is that all correct?
>> No, you CANNOT install Linux on the same partition as windows.
>> You CAN install it on the same drive in a different partition.
>> JP
>
>You can if it's fat32, but it runs like a 2 legged dog.
>
>Paul
Yes, you can also run it from CDROM..... Knoppix for example,
a good resque disk
But that has its limitations and is even slower..
JP
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 9:14:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Jan Panteltje wrote:

> On a sunny day (Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:51:42 +1000) it happened "Paul Hales"
> <paulh@riptof.org.ti> wrote in <c5l0pf$1rga$1@otis.netspace.net.au>:
>
> >> >Is that all correct?
> >> No, you CANNOT install Linux on the same partition as windows.
> >> You CAN install it on the same drive in a different partition.
> >> JP
> >
> >You can if it's fat32, but it runs like a 2 legged dog.
> >
> >Paul
> Yes, you can also run it from CDROM..... Knoppix for example,
> a good resque disk
> But that has its limitations and is even slower..
> JP

Right, and SuSE has a "Live Eval" CD that you can download free (basically a
demo) that runs from CD I was so blown away and impressed that I bought the
full version (even though I'd been using RedHat for free previously). I
really like SuSE's licensing strategy and not having to "register" to
automatically download security update patches. That was the other reason I
stopped using RedHat (and Fedora).
Anonymous
April 16, 2004 12:08:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Bill Van Dyk wrote:

> I agree to the extent that it's not Microsoft's job to enforce
> anti-trust legislation, or engage in fair business practises.
> Microsoft's job is to make money.

That's a philosophy that puts the world where it is today. If all everybody
cares about is their personal interest, and they do not carry a decent
level of moral both as individuals and as corporations, it simply becomes
an unbearable burden for society to keep everybody in check.
Being fair in one's way of conducting business is just like being fair in
sports, or life in general. It makes everything better for everyone, as we
can focus on the things that are important instead of needing to prevent or
combat the unjust activities of our neighbours.

When there is heavy accountancy fraud, like in the Enron and WorldCom
cases, governments respond with more regulations. This in turn makes life
harder for everyone, as more time is spent controlling organisations, and
organisations spend more time fulfilling new requirements, and customers
spend more in order to cover the increased expenses. Money and efforts are
spent there that could otherwise have been used in much more important
places, like education, health care, combating poverty, etc. When people
see their own moral obligations (and not only the legal ones), society as a
whole improves.

An act doesn't become immoral only if you "get caught" or "punished"....


--
Josef Garvi

"Reversing desertification through drought tolerant trees"
http://www.eden-foundation.org/

new income - better environment - more food - less poverty
Anonymous
April 16, 2004 12:08:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

You are absolutely right.

Josef Garvi wrote:

> Bill Van Dyk wrote:
>
>> I agree to the extent that it's not Microsoft's job to enforce
>> anti-trust legislation, or engage in fair business practises.
>> Microsoft's job is to make money.
>
>
> That's a philosophy that puts the world where it is today. If all
> everybody cares about is their personal interest, and they do not
> carry a decent level of moral both as individuals and as corporations,
> it simply becomes an unbearable burden for society to keep everybody
> in check.
> Being fair in one's way of conducting business is just like being fair
> in sports, or life in general. It makes everything better for
> everyone, as we can focus on the things that are important instead of
> needing to prevent or combat the unjust activities of our neighbours.
>
> When there is heavy accountancy fraud, like in the Enron and WorldCom
> cases, governments respond with more regulations. This in turn makes
> life harder for everyone, as more time is spent controlling
> organisations, and organisations spend more time fulfilling new
> requirements, and customers spend more in order to cover the increased
> expenses. Money and efforts are spent there that could otherwise have
> been used in much more important places, like education, health care,
> combating poverty, etc. When people see their own moral obligations
> (and not only the legal ones), society as a whole improves.
>
> An act doesn't become immoral only if you "get caught" or "punished"....
>
>
Anonymous
April 16, 2004 12:08:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Josef Garvi wrote:

>
>
> An act doesn't become immoral only if you "get caught" or "punished"....
>

Just ask Clinton.
Anonymous
April 16, 2004 2:42:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

On a sunny day (Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:27:30 -0700) it happened Keith Clark
<clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in <407EF032.D2D71A6@hotmail.com>:

>
>
>Bill Van Dyk wrote:
>
>> Yes, pardon me-- I did mean to refer to the past. We also now
>> routinely buy our computers without an OS, but I believe that that is
>> largely possible, at last, due to the DOJ actions a few years ago.
>>
>
>Yeah, when I bought my first PC, a 286, I specified DR-DOS because I was
>used to working with "mini-computers" and was used to powerful command
>lines and didn't want the pain of MS DOS.
My win 3.1 ran perfectly on DR-DOS
Then in that time I started using Linux (because of the unlimited memory
... and free compiler (I like to write code), and all other Unix cool stuff,
only years later bought a win 98 to run some progs my bank did not have a
Linux one for.
Now the banks here are web based.. So that makes win actually redundant.
There is still the tax I have to do in win 98.
Also my first experience with xfree made MS windows really look like a joke.
JP
Anonymous
April 16, 2004 12:51:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Baron Von Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> sayed:

>> I don't like MS and their business practises either, but at the end of
>> the day i dont see why they should play fair
>
>Because it's the LAW.

The point i am making is that MS Windows, for the masses is the better
OS on the market (I'm talking for the average home user that wants
something like disney paint studio for the kids, a few games and MS
Word for letter writing wrapped up in an easy to use package), there
is not much microsoft can do to stop this now apart from forcefully
pushing people away from their product, something i feel they
shouldn't (As a business) have to do.

Linux is no real competitor at the moment, and apple is just too
costly.

>It IS as good, and it IS winning out. Many large companies and even whole city
>governments are run on it.

Yes, because they have the money to develop for it themselves, for
most small/medium businesses i can think of nothing easier than
installing Win2003 server with SBS etc, XP and Office XP on the client
machines and bingo, thats everything sorted.

>When the US Navy bought a bung of new Macs the requirement
>was that they run Linux. Use a cell phone? It's not Microsoft software running the
>racks of line cards in the central office, it's VX Works and Linux. Mention Microsoft
>in a telco environment and the least that'll happen is hysterical laughter. Watch many
>Hollywood movies? Lots of FX is done with Linux. Whole Disney studios are running
>Linux. Sinbad was done on Linux.

You are talking high-end servers/workstations, i'm referring to the
home market, as we are on a rec. group.

>Except that people get excited about getting new versions of SuSE the minute it goes on
>sale. Of course, the license entitles you to install it on an unlimited number of
>machines, but that's besides the point (or is it?).

No thats the way things should be, but do you think if SuSE was the
bigger monopoly that they would stick with their sales strategy!? i
dont think so, whoever is at top will receive all the negative press,
if Linux and Windows OS swapped roles you would find the majority of
viruses/trojans/worms etc etc aimed towards linux users, its the way
of the world. And everyone would be saying how great Windows is as an
OS because it's really safe.

>Macromedia did some serious market research and found that there is enough of a paying
>market to port their tools over to Linux.

That sounds good, Linux always appears (On the outside) to be a
free-for-all of minimilistic apps.

>People want relief from the virus-of-the-week attacks that Microsoft's unsecure
>architecture invites. They want to be free from having to reboot every time they
>install a patch or minor upgrade or new application.

Only a problem if you're referring to a business server.

>> I wish it was better than windows
>
>It IS better than Windows. You've obviously never used SuSE.

No i havent, and i would love to stick my fingers up to windows but i
just wouldnt be able to do the stuff i can do with windows on a
linux/SuSE machine unfortunatly.

Give me the equivalent of Cubase SX with good plugin support, Vegas
Video, some decent Video FX app, a nice DV codec and capture utility
and i would swap over at no delay, but it just aint happening for me
yet, ive tried so many times with Linux and so many times i've deleted
it.. Year after year, maybe in a few years time it will have what i
need.

The real issue here is support for the OS's as opposed to how good an
OS actually is, and i am choosing XP for its developers support which
is probably going back to your original statement how MS have in
effect 'forced' companies to produce for their OS's.

But then, if Linux developers were quick enough at the start maybe
they would have the same support as MS? I just feel now they will
always be playing catchup, just like the many Mac users who run
nothing but Windows Emulators.. i mean why?!

>The latest version opened every Microsoft Word document or Excel spreadsheet I could
>throw at it and looked and printed identically to Windows versions.

Sounds very good for businesses.

>Not as good as Windows? Think again. It's BETTER than Windows and that's just one
>example.

But how long do i have to wait until it will do what i want?

If i have to have windows installed as well as linux then it is of no
use to me whatsoever.

>> and thats why MS have the monopoly, not because of
>> their tricks, dont fool yourself.
>
>Don't fool YOURself.

I'm glad we've had this discussion, i will certainly look into SuSE, i
guess its easy to get in the UK, i will check online, thanks.

--
Joe's Nunn out, out
Anonymous
April 16, 2004 4:23:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

SjT wrote:

> Baron Von Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> sayed:
>
> >> I don't like MS and their business practises either, but at the end of
> >> the day i dont see why they should play fair
> >
> >Because it's the LAW.
>
> The point i am making is that MS Windows, for the masses is the better
> OS on the market (I'm talking for the average home user that wants
> something like disney paint studio for the kids, a few games and MS
> Word for letter writing wrapped up in an easy to use package), there
> is not much microsoft can do to stop this now apart from forcefully
> pushing people away from their product, something i feel they
> shouldn't (As a business) have to do.
>
> Linux is no real competitor at the moment, and apple is just too
> costly.
>

Again, you speak without being informed of the facts. There are a ton of news articles by
mainstream journalists about how this is changing.

As for Apple, it too is a better OS, being based on Unix.

If Apple would have the common sense to make their OS run on X86, they'd have a lot more
market share.

I agree with you that it's too costly as long it's tied to monopolistic hardware. Apple is
far worse than Microsoft in that regard. Too bad they don't fire Steve Jobs again.

Ever watch "Pirates of Silicon Valley"? Very good docu-flick.


>
> >It IS as good, and it IS winning out. Many large companies and even whole city
> >governments are run on it.
>
> Yes, because they have the money to develop for it themselves, for
> most small/medium businesses i can think of nothing easier than
> installing Win2003 server with SBS etc, XP and Office XP on the client
> machines and bingo, thats everything sorted.
>
> >When the US Navy bought a bung of new Macs the requirement
> >was that they run Linux. Use a cell phone? It's not Microsoft software running the
> >racks of line cards in the central office, it's VX Works and Linux. Mention Microsoft
> >in a telco environment and the least that'll happen is hysterical laughter. Watch many
> >Hollywood movies? Lots of FX is done with Linux. Whole Disney studios are running
> >Linux. Sinbad was done on Linux.
>
> You are talking high-end servers/workstations, i'm referring to the
> home market, as we are on a rec. group.
>

You still don't get it - it's the same OS.

Take the same machines that you and I edit video on, put Linux on them, and you have a high
performance workstation. I kid you not.

The 2.6 kernel makes Linux an "enterprise class" OS by every analyst's opinion.


>
> >Except that people get excited about getting new versions of SuSE the minute it goes on
> >sale. Of course, the license entitles you to install it on an unlimited number of
> >machines, but that's besides the point (or is it?).
>
> No thats the way things should be, but do you think if SuSE was the
> bigger monopoly that they would stick with their sales strategy!? i
> dont think so, whoever is at top will receive all the negative press,
> if Linux and Windows OS swapped roles you would find the majority of
> viruses/trojans/worms etc etc aimed towards linux users, its the way
> of the world. And everyone would be saying how great Windows is as an
> OS because it's really safe.
>
> >Macromedia did some serious market research and found that there is enough of a paying
> >market to port their tools over to Linux.
>
> That sounds good, Linux always appears (On the outside) to be a
> free-for-all of minimilistic apps.
>

I won't dispute that there are some people who believe that all software should be free and
routinely break the law towards that end. These people aren't idealists, they're just scum
looking for a free lunch at somebody else's expense.

The rest of us, the majority, don't have a problem paying for software when the right tool
for the job is not free. Of course everyone likes to find quality software for free with no
restrictions, and there's a fair amount of it licensed under the GPL.

One thing that's nice to see is work being done under contract, with the resulting code
being made open. This is happening to some degree with Kino. People are willing to pay for
improved or added functionality, and everyone benefits. That's probably the ideal.

But I fully agree that for Linux to succeed as a Microsoft killer there has to be more
mainstream *commercial* applications.

Linux as a desktop is ready for Grandma right now. No question about it. Anyone that can use
Windows without a user manual, can sit down at a Linux desktop and start being productive
with very little effort. The only thing stopping mass adoption is you can't go to CompUSA
and get "Create-a-Card 2010" for Linux.

Of course you can buy mainstream software for Linux that installs painlessly on almost any
version of Linux (Unreal Tournament 2003 and 2004 are great examples), but more need to
come. There are quite a lot of people who buy Unreal Tournament and install it on Linux.


>
> >People want relief from the virus-of-the-week attacks that Microsoft's unsecure
> >architecture invites. They want to be free from having to reboot every time they
> >install a patch or minor upgrade or new application.
>
> Only a problem if you're referring to a business server.

No, man, get a clue.

These new viruses tuns mom and pop's computer into a spam machine - or worse. These new
viruses are being used for identity theft, spreading porno, distributed-denial-of-service
attacks, and more. Do you read the news?

People in the town I live in, regular folk, not hackers, have woken up to the FBI breaking
down their doors and marching off with all their computer gear because of viruses they were
un-aware of.

So don't say that it's only a problem for businesses.

By the way, if a business has to spend millions of dollars fighting viruses, how do they
make up that lost revenue? Raise prices? Uh uh, they fire people and out source their jobs.
It's plain to see for anyone who reads the business section of the newspapers.

Just a problem for businesses? Think again. Viruses hurt all of us.


>
>
> >> I wish it was better than windows
> >
> >It IS better than Windows. You've obviously never used SuSE.
>
> No i havent, and i would love to stick my fingers up to windows but i
> just wouldnt be able to do the stuff i can do with windows on a
> linux/SuSE machine unfortunatly.
>
> Give me the equivalent of Cubase SX with good plugin support, Vegas
> Video, some decent Video FX app, a nice DV codec and capture utility
> and i would swap over at no delay, but it just aint happening for me
> yet, ive tried so many times with Linux and so many times i've deleted
> it.. Year after year, maybe in a few years time it will have what i
> need.
>

Now you've hit the nail on the head.

Applications are not the OS.

Linux itself as an OS is outstanding and far superior to Windows.

It is true that there are a lack of commercial applications for multimedia production but
that's changing slowly.

Write to all the companies whose software you use and request Linux versions. I have. Some
of the responses I get back are encouraging.

>
> The real issue here is support for the OS's as opposed to how good an
> OS actually is, and i am choosing XP for its developers support which
> is probably going back to your original statement how MS have in
> effect 'forced' companies to produce for their OS's.
>
> But then, if Linux developers were quick enough at the start maybe
> they would have the same support as MS? I just feel now they will
> always be playing catchup, just like the many Mac users who run
> nothing but Windows Emulators.. i mean why?!
>
> >The latest version opened every Microsoft Word document or Excel spreadsheet I could
> >throw at it and looked and printed identically to Windows versions.
>
> Sounds very good for businesses.
>
> >Not as good as Windows? Think again. It's BETTER than Windows and that's just one
> >example.
>
> But how long do i have to wait until it will do what i want?
>
> If i have to have windows installed as well as linux then it is of no
> use to me whatsoever.
>

Why? It's not a big deal to reboot every once in a while. Use Windows for video, Linux for
everything else. The more you use Linux, especially SuSE, the more you'll see how you've
been missing out on something good. Last night I rebooted to Linux to play Unreal Tournament
2004. It's really nice to be able to install games without worrying that they'll hose the
system, unlike doing it in Windows.


>
> >> and thats why MS have the monopoly, not because of
> >> their tricks, dont fool yourself.
> >
> >Don't fool YOURself.
>
> I'm glad we've had this discussion, i will certainly look into SuSE, i
> guess its easy to get in the UK, i will check online, thanks.
>

Yeah, me too.

If you want to try SuSE without installing it, download this ISO and burn it to a CD. Then
boot to the CD and it will run from the CD. Don't judge the speed of Linux this way though.
;-> Of course it will be slow, running from the CD. But you'll get a good feel for it. If
you have a system with an Nvidia based card, try it on that because Nvidia makes better
Linux drivers than ATI (sorry, just an observation, nothing against ATI). Also keep in mind
that the link is for version 9.0, with the 2.4 kernel. Version 9.1 is significantly improved
and will start shipping May 8.


ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/live-eval-9.0/SuSE-9.0...
Anonymous
April 16, 2004 4:23:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"Keith Clark" wrote ...
> Again, you speak without being informed of the facts.
> There are a ton of news articles by mainstream journalists
> about how this is changing.

There are a ton of news articles on UFOs also. But the same
question applies to both, "where's the beef?" :-)

> As for Apple, it too is a better OS, being based on Unix.
>
> If Apple would have the common sense to make their OS
> run on X86, they'd have a lot more market share.
>
> I agree with you that it's too costly as long it's tied to
> monopolistic hardware. Apple is far worse than Microsoft
> in that regard. Too bad they don't fire Steve Jobs again.

We'll have to agree to agree on that one! :-)

There is a pretty believable rumor that Apple maintains an
x86 version of their latest OS against that day when they
finally give up the hardware business. Of course the original
that OSX was based on is x86 and was ported to Mac.

> Ever watch "Pirates of Silicon Valley"? Very good docu-flick.

At best it was a "docu-drama" and is more likely simply a
"mocumentary".

OTOH, if you want to see the *actual people* who made Silicon
Valley (and the industry) what it is today, you can start here...

http://silicongenesis.stanford.edu/complete_listing.htm...

> Take the same machines that you and I edit video on,
> put Linux on them, and you have a high performance
> workstation. I kid you not.

All that is missing is the Linux version of the tools you
need to actually call it a WORKstation (as contrasted
with an OS experimental platform).

> The 2.6 kernel makes Linux an "enterprise class" OS
> by every analyst's opinion.

No argument. A large portion of the websites we surf
every day are served from Unix (or derivations) boxes.

But we're not talking about servers here. We are talking
about workstations capable of running the audio/video
manipulation applications that we all know and love.

> But I fully agree that for Linux to succeed as a Microsoft
> killer there has to be more mainstream *commercial*
> applications.
>
> Linux as a desktop is ready for Grandma right now.
> No question about it. Anyone that can use Windows
> without a user manual, can sit down at a Linux desktop
> and start being productive with very little effort. The
> only thing stopping mass adoption is you can't go to
> CompUSA and get "Create-a-Card 2010" for Linux.

Or most of the other applications that are needed for mass
acceptance.

It is partly the chicken and egg problem (which comes first),
but it is also somewhat the perception of the big commerical
software vendors that any open-source OS (like Linux) is too
much of an unknown (compared to the MS Windows API).
Even if they were convinced to port and sell Linux versions,
support would be a potential nightmare.

> These new viruses tuns mom and pop's computer into a spam
> machine - or worse. These new viruses are being used for
> identity theft, spreading porno, distributed-denial-of-service
> attacks, and more. Do you read the news?

Do we have to port the viruses to Linux to prove that they are
just as vulnerable? Linux' only advantage here is that is too
small a target to be attractive to virus writers.

> People in the town I live in, regular folk, not hackers, have
> woken up to the FBI breaking down their doors and marching
> off with all their computer gear because of viruses they were
> un-aware of.

If true, it says more about the FBI in your town than
it does about any computing topic.

> Just a problem for businesses? Think again. Viruses
> hurt all of us.

And when the virus writers get around to attacking Linux,
who is going to get scores of programmers together to work
all night and develop and distribute patches? Now THAT
is really a nightmare.

> Linux itself as an OS is outstanding and far superior
> to Windows.

You aren't an application developer, are you? I work for a
very large high-tech corporation whose name you would
instantly recognize. We are in the final stages of porting
ALL of our factory software FROM Unix/SunOS/Linux/VMS
et.al. *TO* MS Windows. It came down to economics.
Easier/cheaper to develop and support the platforms/OS/
applications on MSwin than on all those ephemeral flavors
of Unix.

> It is true that there are a lack of commercial applications
> for multimedia production but that's changing slowly.

Don't the big commercial "rendering farms" that people like
Pixar, etc. use all run on *ix? It is the lack of CONSUMER
applications for media production that is the missing link here.

> Write to all the companies whose software you use and
> request Linux versions. I have. Some of the responses I
> get back are encouraging.

Seems doubtful that they would reveal their REAL corporate
strategies to a stranger off the street. I'd bet you received
form letter number 1292.3b (Titled "Make nice to the Linux
fan") from the marketing dept.
Anonymous
April 16, 2004 4:23:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Richard Crowley wrote:

> There is a pretty believable rumor that Apple maintains an
> x86 version of their latest OS against that day when they
> finally give up the hardware business.

Yeah, they probably have UFO's and black helicopters too... ;->
April 16, 2004 8:30:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On a sunny day (Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:27:30 -0700) it happened Keith Clark
><clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in <407EF032.D2D71A6@hotmail.com>:
>
>>
>>
>>Bill Van Dyk wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, pardon me-- I did mean to refer to the past. We also now
>>> routinely buy our computers without an OS, but I believe that that is
>>> largely possible, at last, due to the DOJ actions a few years ago.
>>>
>>
>>Yeah, when I bought my first PC, a 286, I specified DR-DOS because I was
>>used to working with "mini-computers" and was used to powerful command
>>lines and didn't want the pain of MS DOS.
>My win 3.1 ran perfectly on DR-DOS
>
That was because you had a latter version or a patched version. The
original DR-DOS would not work with Win3.1 because M$ crippled it to
prevent you using DR-DOS. DR issues a update version for those
enlightened folks who wanted to stay with DR..
Anonymous
April 16, 2004 8:30:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:30:53 +1200) it happened Mutley
<mutley2000@hotmail.com> wrote in
<68ou70tb057ggl34ckq3bq9huareu04vb0@4ax.com>:

>Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On a sunny day (Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:27:30 -0700) it happened Keith Clark
>><clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in <407EF032.D2D71A6@hotmail.com>:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Bill Van Dyk wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, pardon me-- I did mean to refer to the past. We also now
>>>> routinely buy our computers without an OS, but I believe that that is
>>>> largely possible, at last, due to the DOJ actions a few years ago.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yeah, when I bought my first PC, a 286, I specified DR-DOS because I was
>>>used to working with "mini-computers" and was used to powerful command
>>>lines and didn't want the pain of MS DOS.
>>My win 3.1 ran perfectly on DR-DOS
>>
>That was because you had a latter version or a patched version. The
>original DR-DOS would not work with Win3.1 because M$ crippled it to
>prevent you using DR-DOS. DR issues a update version for those
>enlightened folks who wanted to stay with DR..
Yes, it was DR DOS 6.0 (I look at the book on the bookshelf).
I still have the 7 or so win 3.1 floppies, but the DR-DOS flops did
not want to load anymore (I have this old vrs-slighshot 3 D game with LCD
glasses I liked to play, that no way would run in win 98).
So some time ago I downloaded DR-DOS 7.something from
http://public.planetmirror.com/pub/drdos/DR-DOS.703/
Had not time to install it yet, just hope it will work with the old games.
JP
Anonymous
April 16, 2004 8:44:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:51:08 GMT) it happened NOT@yahoo.com (SjT)
wrote in <407f94c8.147820156@130.133.1.4>:

>Baron Von Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> sayed:
>
>>> I don't like MS and their business practises either, but at the end of
>>> the day i dont see why they should play fair
>>
>>Because it's the LAW.
>
>The point i am making is that MS Windows, for the masses is the better
>OS on the market (I'm talking for the average home user that wants
>something like disney paint studio for the kids, a few games and MS
>Word for letter writing wrapped up in an easy to use package), there
>is not much microsoft can do to stop this now apart from forcefully
>pushing people away from their product, something i feel they
>shouldn't (As a business) have to do.
>
>Linux is no real competitor at the moment, and apple is just too
>costly.
Maybe you are wrong about that, Billy The Gates is not scared to death
for nothing of Linux, if he gives an interview the interviewer is not
even allowed to mention Linux.
When you install a latest version of Linux, be it from any source, say
Slackware, RedHat, Suse, etc.., you get much MORE then you get win windows.
Or you can download that for FREE.
For example star-office, or open-office will do most MS-office can, and
interchange files.
Then there is the whole set of DVB satellite and cable driver software (and
personal video recorder) you can use.
Video 4 linux makes programs in AV communicate with each other.
There are tig languages for free, just pick you choice what you want to
program in.
Extremely good scripting for automating tasks.
Things like mplayer play any format that exists it seems, there is also xine
for video player.
There is network video streaming with videolan.
There are many editors, pick your choice.
You have system / hardware monitor (lm-sensors) for the temperatures in the
machine, fan speeds if you are into that.
There is an OUTRAGEOUS amount of networking software, from simple (well not
really) netcat to icr clients, icq clients, anything you can think of.
Most big companies now have Unix / Linux ports of their software.
unlike Clark here, I burn the DVDs in Linux, including authoring,
and that is with more then 4 subtitle channels and 8 audio channels.
We are still talking for free here, now in windows that will not be so 'for
free', you'd have to invest.
There is cinerella, for some real AV stuff, and mjpegtools, mplex, my own
site of cause http://www.home.zonnet.nl/panteltje/subtitles and
http://www.home.zonnet.nl/panteltje/dvd or the latest links via
www.panteltje.com.
(The zonnet site is just used for backup now, because of cause the Linux
server runs here, there is also a nice offline newsreader, I wrote, same site
NewsFleX, and, for picture manipulation you could do worse then the Gimp,
Image Magic, and plenty of viewers too, like ee and xv.
Now there is very extensive printing support, ghostscript, for most printers.
I even use it t make very very high quality PCB layouts.
Then there are plenty of REAL sound editors, some people use audacity, there
is also sound-studio, little very fast utilities like nightingale, and not to
forget the swiss army knife of video conversion transcode, that will convert
anything to anything.
And of cause a whole bunch of audio mixers...
There is ALSA sound and OSS sound drivers... for most sound cards.
There are drivers for almost any type of network card, radio amateur cards
and systems, terminal programs like seyon, voice modem stuff like speaker,
analog TV stuff like xawtv, spreadsheets, mathematical software, because
Unix and Linux is used a lot at universities and in research a lot of VERY
high quality stuff exists that is state of the art and free to download.
Then there is music editing / composing software, midi stuff, what not.
This is only a very SMALL SUBSET of what there is, but already from this
we can say that Linux is a billion times more value for the buck the MS
windows in WHATEVER version.
And of cause it is evaluating.
I started 11 years ago or so with Linux 0.98 from SLS.
I strongly recommend you get a book on Unix to understand the basic
file structure and command syntax, and most important utilities, there
are (hit TAB twice to see how many):
Display all 3227 possibilities? (y or n)
-
So 3227 programs on this PC that you can start from the command line...
Now perhaps you understand why MS is screeking up the wall and wildly
doing illegal things out of fears (like the SCO scam).
It is all over, China is Linux, Germany moves towards Linux, I think I
did read 11 of more countries have 'gone Linux).
i will stop here, because of those guys who have to pay 4 the download
of the news.
But there is a million times more or perhaps a zillion more.
ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/linux
download ls-LR.gz, a 5MB only for the INDEX of the programs there.
Sorry Billy, you know its over for you, I just felt like typing today.
JP

PS I forgot Blender, a great 3D animation tool! Made beautiful leaders with
that.
Anonymous
April 16, 2004 8:44:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Jan Panteltje wrote:

> On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:51:08 GMT) it happened NOT@yahoo.com (SjT)
> wrote in <407f94c8.147820156@130.133.1.4>:
>
> >Baron Von Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> sayed:
> >
> >>> I don't like MS and their business practises either, but at the end of
> >>> the day i dont see why they should play fair
> >>
> >>Because it's the LAW.
> >
> >The point i am making is that MS Windows, for the masses is the better
> >OS on the market (I'm talking for the average home user that wants
> >something like disney paint studio for the kids, a few games and MS
> >Word for letter writing wrapped up in an easy to use package), there
> >is not much microsoft can do to stop this now apart from forcefully
> >pushing people away from their product, something i feel they
> >shouldn't (As a business) have to do.
> >
> >Linux is no real competitor at the moment, and apple is just too
> >costly.
> Maybe you are wrong about that, Billy The Gates is not scared to death
> for nothing of Linux, if he gives an interview the interviewer is not
> even allowed to mention Linux.
> When you install a latest version of Linux, be it from any source, say
> Slackware, RedHat, Suse, etc.., you get much MORE then you get win windows.
> Or you can download that for FREE.
> For example star-office, or open-office will do most MS-office can, and
> interchange files.
> Then there is the whole set of DVB satellite and cable driver software (and
> personal video recorder) you can use.

Very good points!

Can you point me to an easy how-to for getting my PVR-250 card to work in Linux? I
tried both Fedora Core 2 (test 2), and SuSE 9.0.


>
> Video 4 linux makes programs in AV communicate with each other.
> There are tig languages for free, just pick you choice what you want to
> program in.
> Extremely good scripting for automating tasks.
> Things like mplayer play any format that exists it seems, there is also xine
> for video player.
> There is network video streaming with videolan.
> There are many editors, pick your choice.
> You have system / hardware monitor (lm-sensors) for the temperatures in the
> machine, fan speeds if you are into that.
> There is an OUTRAGEOUS amount of networking software, from simple (well not
> really) netcat to icr clients, icq clients, anything you can think of.
> Most big companies now have Unix / Linux ports of their software.
> unlike Clark here, I burn the DVDs in Linux, including authoring,
> and that is with more then 4 subtitle channels and 8 audio channels.
> We are still talking for free here, now in windows that will not be so 'for
> free', you'd have to invest.
> There is cinerella, for some real AV stuff, and mjpegtools, mplex, my own
> site of cause http://www.home.zonnet.nl/panteltje/subtitles and
> http://www.home.zonnet.nl/panteltje/dvd or the latest links via
> www.panteltje.com.
> (The zonnet site is just used for backup now, because of cause the Linux
> server runs here, there is also a nice offline newsreader, I wrote, same site
> NewsFleX, and, for picture manipulation you could do worse then the Gimp,
> Image Magic, and plenty of viewers too, like ee and xv.
> Now there is very extensive printing support, ghostscript, for most printers.
> I even use it t make very very high quality PCB layouts.
> Then there are plenty of REAL sound editors, some people use audacity, there
> is also sound-studio, little very fast utilities like nightingale, and not to
> forget the swiss army knife of video conversion transcode, that will convert
> anything to anything.
> And of cause a whole bunch of audio mixers...
> There is ALSA sound and OSS sound drivers... for most sound cards.
> There are drivers for almost any type of network card, radio amateur cards
> and systems, terminal programs like seyon, voice modem stuff like speaker,
> analog TV stuff like xawtv, spreadsheets, mathematical software, because
> Unix and Linux is used a lot at universities and in research a lot of VERY
> high quality stuff exists that is state of the art and free to download.
> Then there is music editing / composing software, midi stuff, what not.
> This is only a very SMALL SUBSET of what there is, but already from this
> we can say that Linux is a billion times more value for the buck the MS
> windows in WHATEVER version.
> And of cause it is evaluating.
> I started 11 years ago or so with Linux 0.98 from SLS.
> I strongly recommend you get a book on Unix to understand the basic
> file structure and command syntax, and most important utilities, there
> are (hit TAB twice to see how many):
> Display all 3227 possibilities? (y or n)
> -
> So 3227 programs on this PC that you can start from the command line...
> Now perhaps you understand why MS is screeking up the wall and wildly
> doing illegal things out of fears (like the SCO scam).
> It is all over, China is Linux, Germany moves towards Linux, I think I
> did read 11 of more countries have 'gone Linux).
> i will stop here, because of those guys who have to pay 4 the download
> of the news.
> But there is a million times more or perhaps a zillion more.
> ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/linux
> download ls-LR.gz, a 5MB only for the INDEX of the programs there.
> Sorry Billy, you know its over for you, I just felt like typing today.
> JP
>
> PS I forgot Blender, a great 3D animation tool! Made beautiful leaders with
> that.
>
Anonymous
April 18, 2004 3:55:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:32:45 -0700) it happened Keith Clark
<clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in <408026CC.46849E29@hotmail.com>:

>Very good points!
Thank you!

>Can you point me to an easy how-to for getting my PVR-250 card to work in Linux? I
>tried both Fedora Core 2 (test 2), and SuSE 9.0.
I do not know this card, just looked it up at
http://www.hauppauge.com/html/wintvpvr250_datasheet.htm
This is not DVB, but an analog card with hardware mpeg2 coder chip it seems.
Someone here has one too, for a while, but he runs windows.
Google is your friend here, I just typed 'PVR250 linux' that gives
1510 links....
These use 3 PVR250 in a PC in Linux?
http://www.poptix.net/ivtv/Jul-2003/msg00067.html
I can not really say anything about this myself, because I don't have this
card, but it may perhaps help to ask some of these guys?
JP
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 2:43:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Baron Von Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> sayed:

>But check out the "Live Eval" CD since you have a decent connection first.

Yeah i did check it out, and was /very/ impressed with it, i just wish
there was a way to install it to a HDD so that i could download my
modem drivers and try it online etc.

It crashed twice which worried me when i was playing around with the
screensavers, but i'm guessing this is because i didn't have the
Nvidia drivers that it kept asking for :D 

>The one thing I want to take issue with you on is the assertion that an OS can be judged by
>applications available for it. I strongly disagree - on technical grounds. There is no "Ulead DVD
>Workshop" for Linux, but that doesn't mean Linux is a bad OS. It simply means that there isn't
>that application. Now, on the other hand, if the reason that the application didn't exist in
>Linux was that Linux wasn't *capable* of supporting such an application because of throughput,
>memory, filesystem, etc., issues, then I would say that it's not a good OS. But the fact is, that
>you can create very powerful applications on that OS, so therefore the OS is not "bad". You
>always need to separate applications from OS.

Yeah, i get that obviously, but i'm making the point that the OS has
not been testing to the extent that MS Windows has, who's to say it
isn't going to fall down? I'm sure it isn't of course, it's gotta be
better than Windows purely for its architecture being superior. But
it would be great to see how it would perform.

Comparing SuSE to other distributions ive tried in the past seems like
there is alot more being bolted on to the basic OS now to get it to
run like Windows, Undecided on whether this is good or bad as yet :D 

I still stand by saying an OS can only be as good as the applications
you can run on it though, otherwise it's just all fantasy ;) 

Probably will buy it now i've had a little play, even if its just for
web browsing, i will have to have a FAT formatted HDD for swapping
data between windows etc

--
Joe's Nunn out, out
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 2:44:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Bill Van Dyk wrote:

> Our current model is the A2500H.
>

OK, thanks!


>
> Keith Clark wrote:
>
>> Bill Van Dyk wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Yes. Our local vendor, CRV computers in St. Jacobs, Ontario
>> > (small
>> > town, north of Waterloo) now supplies us with very nice Asus
>> > laptops
>> > without an OS. We then install a licensed version of Windows 2000
>> > on
>> > these systems.
>> >
>> >
>> I was thinking more of a Linux use, myself since I only use Windows
>> for
>> making DVDs and running my PVR.
>>
>> Anyway, you're the first person I've heard of using those. Obviously
>> you
>> think highly of them so I won't ask the obvious question. Which
>> model do you
>> use?
>>
>> Keith
>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 3:02:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

SjT wrote:

> Baron Von Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> sayed:
>
> >But check out the "Live Eval" CD since you have a decent connection first.
>
> Yeah i did check it out, and was /very/ impressed with it, i just wish
> there was a way to install it to a HDD so that i could download my
> modem drivers and try it online etc.
>
> It crashed twice which worried me when i was playing around with the
> screensavers, but i'm guessing this is because i didn't have the
> Nvidia drivers that it kept asking for :D 
>
> >The one thing I want to take issue with you on is the assertion that an OS can be judged by
> >applications available for it. I strongly disagree - on technical grounds. There is no "Ulead DVD
> >Workshop" for Linux, but that doesn't mean Linux is a bad OS. It simply means that there isn't
> >that application. Now, on the other hand, if the reason that the application didn't exist in
> >Linux was that Linux wasn't *capable* of supporting such an application because of throughput,
> >memory, filesystem, etc., issues, then I would say that it's not a good OS. But the fact is, that
> >you can create very powerful applications on that OS, so therefore the OS is not "bad". You
> >always need to separate applications from OS.
>
> Yeah, i get that obviously, but i'm making the point that the OS has
> not been testing to the extent that MS Windows has, who's to say it
> isn't going to fall down? I'm sure it isn't of course, it's gotta be
> better than Windows purely for its architecture being superior. But
> it would be great to see how it would perform.

Well, I've used it for capturing a few hundred hours of DV video, copying some of my DVD's into DivX
for streaming to the other PCs in the house, scanning 35mm slides, making big 13x19" prints to hang on
the wall, downloading pictures from various digital cameras, playing more hours of Unreal Tournament
2003 (and now UT-2004) than I want to try to count, watching DVDs, watching Quicktime movie trailers
online, developing PHP based web-sites for fun, and it has never fallen down on me.





>
>
> Comparing SuSE to other distributions ive tried in the past seems like
> there is alot more being bolted on to the basic OS now to get it to
> run like Windows, Undecided on whether this is good or bad as yet :D 

You mean Wine? Almost all major Linux distros have included Wine for a while now.

The best one is "Crossover Office" from www.codeweavers.com. It's not free, and Codeweavers is doing
pretty well, even so. I have Crossover Office, and it let me install and run Microsoft Office,
Photoshop, Terragen (which I use for designing 3D landscapes for fun) and Ultra-Fractal 3 another
favorite creative program.

Otherwise, the YaST tool is all Linux, and it makes it very easy to configure things in Linux. Some
things I still do by hand from a command line, just because I know how and some of them are faster to
do that way than waiting for a window to open (like configuring a Linux system to do it's own DNS
lookups rather than relying on your ISP - for those of us who use Verizon, this is almost mandatory,
Verizon's DNS is so slow where I live, and this is quick and painless from the command line in almost
any version of Linux).

Maybe you're thinking of the way the KDE desktop resembles Windows? Well, that's not SuSE's doing... I
used to use a Gnome desktop and had it configured to emulate the OS-X look and feel. Right now I use
something that resembles neither, although I do use KDE.


>
>
> I still stand by saying an OS can only be as good as the applications
> you can run on it though, otherwise it's just all fantasy ;) 
>

Well how about saying "the success of an OS depends on mainstream applications being available for
it"? Wouldn't you say that's a little more fair/accurate?

Doesn't really matter. It's all semantics anyway and it's not you and I are deciding the fate of Linux
by ourselves...there were 18 million users of Linux last time I looked.

>
> Probably will buy it now i've had a little play, even if its just for
> web browsing, i will have to have a FAT formatted HDD for swapping
> data between windows etc
>
> --
> Joe's Nunn out, out

Cheers,
Keith
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 2:47:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

this is, unfortunately, a very old discussion.
linux servers? all over the place - running
apache, mysql, samba, bind etc. desktop?
still an issue after all these years. why? as a
slackware / redhat / suse user, the issue is
APPS. You can't run most games and other
off-the-shelf software without wine, and some
just don't work at all. Also, hardware vendors still
write drivers primarily for windows or mac. If
they don't open up the code (and they
usually don't), you're screwed.

i know the argument - "there are opensource
alternatives for all the major apps", and i
agree with that statement. however, when a
user has to choose between an OS that runs
all his apps vs one that might run some of his
apps, guess which one wins?

when vendors start writing drivers for linux as
a rule (and not the exception) and when
pc/mac compatible games and apps become
pc/mac/linux compatible as a rule as well, then
linux on the desktop will rule imho.

--
Brian
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 2:47:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

i haven't found any of the distros particularly
good with video editing. it's not linux in
particular, its just the amount of apps
available. and i don't just mean software like
premiere or media studio pro - even the
freeware is in short supply (e.g. i can't live
without virtualdub!).

--
brian
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 2:47:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Brian T. Rowe" wrote:

> i haven't found any of the distros particularly
> good with video editing. it's not linux in
> particular, its just the amount of apps
> available. and i don't just mean software like
> premiere or media studio pro - even the
> freeware is in short supply (e.g. i can't live
> without virtualdub!).
>
> --
> brian

Well then don't mention the distros.

Any modern Linux distribution will do a fine job of editing, given a
good editing program.

Have you used Kino?

Have you tried Main Actor?

Or Cinelerra?

I agree about VirtualDub. Nothing like it that I've found. And someone
needs to get on the author's case - he made it available under the GPL,
but it only compiles on Windows, with Microsoft tools!

And I agree that there needs to be commercial apps. Write to Ulead.
Write to Sony. Write to Avid. Write to Adobe. Tell them you're in the
market for new applications and tell them your workflow requires
commercial applications on Linux.

Refuse to buy hardware that's not certified as being usable on Linux.
Refuse to buy games that don't have a penguin on the box or a native
Linux installer on the CD.

Companies will get the hint. Macromedia did.


Just to show that I'm not a blind follower, here's an article some Linux
users will hate, but unfortunately one that I think has a valid point.

http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?...
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 1:16:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Baron Von Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> sayed:

>Well, I've used it for capturing a few hundred hours of DV video, copying some of my DVD's into DivX
>for streaming to the other PCs in the house, scanning 35mm slides, making big 13x19" prints to hang on
>the wall, downloading pictures from various digital cameras, playing more hours of Unreal Tournament
>2003 (and now UT-2004) than I want to try to count, watching DVDs, watching Quicktime movie trailers
>online, developing PHP based web-sites for fun, and it has never fallen down on me.

But to be fair windows would do all that with no problem whatsoever,
but howabout, for example, what i do with Cubase everyday:- I'm
talking about being able to record 24-bit audio whilst playing back 10
24-Bit Audio tracks in perfect sync, all with real-time effects
playing, plus additional master effects and filtering at real-time,
along with emulating 4 Virtual midi devices, and 2 actual midi
devices, and if that isn't enough it has to process my dry Line-in
signals with any realtime effect chains i have selected at under 7ms.

And even with MSN Messenger, Outlook and a download client running XP
pisses through it all, i don't think Linux has been proving in that
respect yet (I.e. multimedia developing tools).

But saying that of course, and this is what i hate about windows and
would love to run linux, somehow windows can fall down like a sack of
shite when i just connect to the net and open outlook express,
madness! :D 

>> Comparing SuSE to other distributions ive tried in the past seems like
>> there is alot more being bolted on to the basic OS now to get it to
>> run like Windows, Undecided on whether this is good or bad as yet :D 
>
>Maybe you're thinking of the way the KDE desktop resembles Windows? Well, that's not SuSE's doing... I
>used to use a Gnome desktop and had it configured to emulate the OS-X look and feel. Right now I use
>something that resembles neither, although I do use KDE.

Yeah i don't know what tools are doing the job, but i do mean KDE from
what i've read. I just think that Linux is getting flooded with
add-ons and that is Windows' downfall, the fact that they have to bolt
on so many services and user interfaces, wizards etc etc is why it
decides to fall down so badly, im sure of it.

>Well how about saying "the success of an OS depends on mainstream applications being available for
>it"? Wouldn't you say that's a little more fair/accurate?

Yeah, the success is sure i agree with that, however i still beleive
that an OS is only as good as it's applications, i.e. would you buy a
Playstation rival if it was 1000x times better than a Playstation2 yet
all the games were made by bedroom producers and the commercial
releases were very few and far between?! Probably not, but here's
where the linux mentality comes in... It's free! ;)  So of course you
would get one, and you would also spend time explaining to people how
great it is (Could be?) if only it had the right games.

Does that make sense?

I don't like Windows as i'm still a hardened Mac/Amiga fan, but
there's times where you must just take your hat of to them as a
business, and how they have conquered the home market.

>Doesn't really matter. It's all semantics anyway and it's not you and I are deciding the fate of Linux
>by ourselves...there were 18 million users of Linux last time I looked.

So where's the commercial releases that these 18 million people could
use?! It just doesn't make sense.

Anyway, my copy of SuSE arrived today, so i will have some fun tonite
:) )) lol

--
Joe's Nunn out, out
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 1:45:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

SjT wrote:

> Anyway, my copy of SuSE arrived today, so i will have some fun tonite
> :) )) lol
>

Did you get 9.1?
!