Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

A photo program that does these functions in batch mode?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 4:52:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I download hundreds of photos from my digital camera into my PC/Windows and
I need to do the following in batch mode.

1- Some photos need to be rotated 90" left. I want to display all the
photos from a folder in a browse or photo album mode and multiselect the
ones that need to be rotated and tell it to rotate and save each one in
batch mode.

2- Same thing as 1 but rotate 90 right.

3- Once all look straight, I need to resize all the images.


Is there any photo program for Windows so can do what I need in *batch
mode*?



--
John Dalberg
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 8:12:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"John Dalberg" <johnd@hotmail.com2> wrote in message
news:1dbmpa1o2kpcq$.1nmbs4a4d1pj1$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> I download hundreds of photos from my digital camera into my PC/Windows
and
> I need to do the following in batch mode.
>
> 1- Some photos need to be rotated 90" left. I want to display all the
> photos from a folder in a browse or photo album mode and multiselect the
> ones that need to be rotated and tell it to rotate and save each one in
> batch mode.
>
> 2- Same thing as 1 but rotate 90 right.
>
> 3- Once all look straight, I need to resize all the images.
>
>
> Is there any photo program for Windows so can do what I need in *batch
> mode*?
>
>
>
> --
> John Dalberg

I use XnView. Open XnView in browser mode, select the files to be modified,
right click one of them and select "Batch convert". Hit the "Advanced
operations" and select the modifications to be performed (Rotation and/or
Resize) and hit the arrow button to add it to the sequence and select it on
the right to change the parameters. You can even save the operations as a
script for future use. Hope this helps.

Patrick
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 8:20:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John Dalberg wrote:

>
> I download hundreds of photos from my digital camera into my PC/Windows
> and I need to do the following in batch mode.
>
> 1- Some photos need to be rotated 90" left. I want to display all the
> photos from a folder in a browse or photo album mode and multiselect the
> ones that need to be rotated and tell it to rotate and save each one in
> batch mode.
>
> 2- Same thing as 1 but rotate 90 right.
>
> 3- Once all look straight, I need to resize all the images.
>
>
> Is there any photo program for Windows so can do what I need in *batch
> mode*?
>
>
>

The mogrify command of ImageMagick is incredibly powerful for batch image
processing of just about anything you can imagine doing with images. It is
for the Linux OS, but you could boot a bootable version of Linux such as
Knoppix (free download at knoppix.org) and the run mogrify on your images
files on your MS-Windows hard disk.
http://www.lsw.uni-heidelberg.de/manuals/ImageMagick/ww...
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 1:50:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ACDsee
"John Dalberg" <johnd@hotmail.com2> wrote in message
news:1dbmpa1o2kpcq$.1nmbs4a4d1pj1$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> I download hundreds of photos from my digital camera into my PC/Windows
> and
> I need to do the following in batch mode.
>
> 1- Some photos need to be rotated 90" left. I want to display all the
> photos from a folder in a browse or photo album mode and multiselect the
> ones that need to be rotated and tell it to rotate and save each one in
> batch mode.
>
> 2- Same thing as 1 but rotate 90 right.
>
> 3- Once all look straight, I need to resize all the images.
>
>
> Is there any photo program for Windows so can do what I need in *batch
> mode*?
>
>
>
> --
> John Dalberg
August 4, 2005 2:35:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John Dalberg wrote:
> I download hundreds of photos from my digital camera into my PC/Windows and
> I need to do the following in batch mode.
>
> 1- Some photos need to be rotated 90" left. I want to display all the
> photos from a folder in a browse or photo album mode and multiselect the
> ones that need to be rotated and tell it to rotate and save each one in
> batch mode.
>
> 2- Same thing as 1 but rotate 90 right.
>
> 3- Once all look straight, I need to resize all the images.

Picasa
http://picasa.com

Select photos, Ctrl-R to rotate right, Ctrl-Shift-R left. Click Export
and enter in the size and save directory, click OK.
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 2:36:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John Dalberg wrote:

> I download hundreds of photos from my digital camera into my PC/Windows and
> I need to do the following in batch mode.
>
> 1- Some photos need to be rotated 90" left. I want to display all the
> photos from a folder in a browse or photo album mode and multiselect the
> ones that need to be rotated and tell it to rotate and save each one in
> batch mode.
>
> 2- Same thing as 1 but rotate 90 right.
>
> 3- Once all look straight, I need to resize all the images.
>
>
> Is there any photo program for Windows so can do what I need in *batch
> mode*?

www.irfanview.com

If you're working with JPGs and your camera has an orientation sensor,
thus using the EXIF orientation flag, it will also auto-rotate images
shot with the camera in portrait position.



---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0531-2, 08/03/2005
Tested on: 8/3/2005 3:36:25 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 3:24:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Right, the batch conversion of XnView can be used for this.

Perhaps an even simpler way for the "90 degree orientation" problem using
XnView:
XnView supports the EXIF orientation flag. If the camera has an orientation
sensor and writes the orientation into the JPG file, XnView will rotate the
image accordingly when viewing. Making this rotation permant (for other
graphic programs) is also possible (Tools > JPG lossless transformation >
Rotate image based on EXIF value).

Greetings,

Helmut
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 7:47:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John Dalberg wrote:
> I download hundreds of photos from my digital camera into my PC/Windows and
> I need to do the following in batch mode.
>
> 1- Some photos need to be rotated 90" left. I want to display all the
> photos from a folder in a browse or photo album mode and multiselect the
> ones that need to be rotated and tell it to rotate and save each one in
> batch mode.
>
> 2- Same thing as 1 but rotate 90 right.
>
> 3- Once all look straight, I need to resize all the images.
>
>
> Is there any photo program for Windows so can do what I need in *batch
> mode*?
>
>
>
Irfanview will do that. Free too.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 12:48:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>>1- Some photos need to be rotated 90" left. I want to display all the
>>photos from a folder in a browse or photo album mode and multiselect the
>>ones that need to be rotated and tell it to rotate and save each one in
>>batch mode.

Not sure what you mean by "batch mode" in this context. If you just mean it
does them all on one command, and assuming we are talking about jpeg images
here, then feel free to download my (free) PhotoMan application from
http://homepages.tesco.net/~Keith.Sheppard/photoman/hom....

In PhotoMan, open the folder holding down the Ctrl key, click on each photo
which needs rotating. Right click on any of the selected frames then choose
from the menu:

Selected Files
Rotate
Clockwise

(or anticlockwise if that's what you want). PhotoMan will then do lossless
jpeg rotations of all the selected files. This runs as a background
process. The rotations are in-situ, meaning they overwrite the original
files but as it's lossless, that's no great loss (groan).

Keith
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 2:07:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Proteus wrote:
>>Is there any photo program for Windows so can do what I need in *batch
>>mode*?
>
> The mogrify command of ImageMagick is incredibly powerful for batch image
> processing of just about anything you can imagine doing with images. It is
> for the Linux OS, but you could boot a bootable version of Linux such as
> Knoppix (free download at knoppix.org) and the run mogrify on your images
> files on your MS-Windows hard disk.
> http://www.lsw.uni-heidelberg.de/manuals/ImageMagick/ww...
>
ImageMagick is also available for Windows, to write scripts with it you'll
need something like a Linux shell, for example from Cygwin.
Yesterday I needed to convert a bunch of 'bmp' images, I did that with
ImageMagick's 'convert' and the following tiny csh-shell script:

count=0
ls $1*.bmp| while read rootName
do
echo "converting $rootName to $1$count.tif"
convert $rootName $1$count.tif
count=`expr $count + 1`
done

-- Hans
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 2:07:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

HvdV wrote:
...
> ImageMagick is also available for Windows, to write scripts with it you'll
> need something like a Linux shell, for example from Cygwin.
> Yesterday I needed to convert a bunch of 'bmp' images, I did that with
> ImageMagick's 'convert' and the following tiny csh-shell script:
....

Not sure why you need scripts, it should be possible simply using the
command line options. Very powerful tool. Yeah I forgot about Windows users
and that they can use Cygwin to run a 'sort of' version of Linux within
Windows.
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 2:07:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 07:09:00 -0500, Proteus wrote:

> HvdV wrote:
> ..
>> ImageMagick is also available for Windows, to write scripts with it you'll
>> need something like a Linux shell, for example from Cygwin.
>> Yesterday I needed to convert a bunch of 'bmp' images, I did that with
>> ImageMagick's 'convert' and the following tiny csh-shell script:
> ...
>
> Not sure why you need scripts, it should be possible simply using the
> command line options. Very powerful tool. Yeah I forgot about Windows users
> and that they can use Cygwin to run a 'sort of' version of Linux within
> Windows.


I meant by batch mode as in doing it all in one command in the GUI. I
really do not want to this using scripts or going to the command prompt.
As easy as possible is what I want. Think of your grand mother trying to do
this.

--
John Dalberg
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 4:22:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John Dalberg wrote:
...
> I meant by batch mode as in doing it all in one command in the GUI. I
> really do not want to this using scripts or going to the command prompt.
> As easy as possible is what I want. Think of your grand mother trying to
> do this.
>


yeah I understand. But a GUI with menu options can almost be as complicated
as command line for some. For example, you could use mogrify command in a
commline line (terminal) mode as follows
mogrify -format .jpg *.tif -quality 90
to convert all TIFF images in the current folder (directory) to JPEG images,
with 90% quality (10% compression).

Or you could do
mogrify -shave 5x5 *.jpg
to remove 5 pixels from the image edges of all jpeg images in current
folder; useful for example to give shaved images to someone or have shabved
images printed and keeping the original unshaved images for copyright proof
purposes.

The mogrify command is not too hard, really, and there are example usage
guides that show and explain every option with examples. But I am a geek so
of course I am biased to the power of the command line over graphical
interfaces.
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 4:29:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Proteus wrote:
> HvdV wrote:
> ..
>> ImageMagick is also available for Windows, to write scripts with it
>> you'll need something like a Linux shell, for example from Cygwin.
>> Yesterday I needed to convert a bunch of 'bmp' images, I did that
>> with ImageMagick's 'convert' and the following tiny csh-shell script:
> ...
>
> Not sure why you need scripts, it should be possible simply using the
> command line options. Very powerful tool. Yeah I forgot about Windows
> users and that they can use Cygwin to run a 'sort of' version of
> Linux within Windows.

Windows users may not need Cygwin to access the powerful scripting
functions of Windows. What was once a "DOS prompt" has become, with
Windows NT, 2000 and XP a very powerful language and, if that isn't enough
for you, the Windows Scripting Host (WSH) provides a Basic-like language
accessible from the command prompt.

Unfortunately, command-line is currently out of fashion, so information is
a little harder to find. Typing HELP at a command prompt will list some
of the available commands. The WSH is described here:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/libr...

David
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 5:04:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:
....
> Unfortunately, command-line is currently out of fashion, ...

Only with Windows users. Linux users LOVE the command line! (in addition to
the GUI). I could not live without it-- so useful: batch mode commands to
operate on hundreds of files, displays debug info when running certain
apps, faster than finding applications in menus and submenus, easy on the
eyes, etc.
http://linux.sparlo.net
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 11:13:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Proteus wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
> ...
>> Unfortunately, command-line is currently out of fashion, ...
>
> Only with Windows users.

Yes, I was talking about Windows - I though that was clear. I suspect
that the Windows command line is similar in its power to other OSes, it
just isn't used as much.

David
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 11:13:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:
...>
> Yes, I was talking about Windows - I though that was clear. I suspect
> that the Windows command line is similar in its power to other OSes, it
> just isn't used as much.
...

Actually the Windows command line is pretty weak compared to Linux/Unix; for
example, with *nix OS there is 'bash completion' so that pressing the tab
key completes the desired filename or pathname, and also with *nix you can
add on a '&' to the end of the command to make it run in background mode as
a process task; *nix allows 'piping' of commands to other commands, and
lots more.

Windows is a fine operating system, more user-friendly than *nix (but that
gap is rapidly narrowing each year-- and entire countries and cities around
the globe are dumping Microsoft and switching to Linux-- China, Brazil,
Munich, Venice, Paris, US Military, etc.); but *nix simply is more powerful
as regards mulitasking, command line usage, networking, and GUI stability
(since the GUI in *nix is not part of the operating system whereas with
Windows if the OS freezes so does the GUI which is an integral part of the
OS). *nix was designed in the 1960s from the ground up for mulituser,
multitasking, and networking; MS-Windows was designed in the 1980s and was
never originally intended for multiuser, multitasking, or networking.
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 12:50:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Proteus wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
> ..>
>> Yes, I was talking about Windows - I though that was clear. I
>> suspect that the Windows command line is similar in its power to
>> other OSes, it just isn't used as much.
> ..
>
> Actually the Windows command line is pretty weak compared to
> Linux/Unix; for example, with *nix OS there is 'bash completion' so
> that pressing the tab key completes the desired filename or pathname,
> and also with *nix you can add on a '&' to the end of the command to
> make it run in background mode as a process task; *nix allows
> 'piping' of commands to other commands, and lots more.

I'm using command-line here in the sense of scripting language. Actually,
you can run processes in background in Windows with the "start" command,
and there is some command completion (it's optional). But what I'm really
talking about is the ability to run a set of commands from a script,
perhaps on a scheduled basis.

> Windows is a fine operating system, more user-friendly than *nix (but
> that gap is rapidly narrowing each year-- and entire countries and
> cities around the globe are dumping Microsoft and switching to
> Linux-- China, Brazil, Munich, Venice, Paris, US Military, etc.); but
> *nix simply is more powerful as regards mulitasking, command line
> usage, networking, and GUI stability (since the GUI in *nix is not
> part of the operating system whereas with Windows if the OS freezes
> so does the GUI which is an integral part of the OS). *nix was
> designed in the 1960s from the ground up for mulituser, multitasking,
> and networking; MS-Windows was designed in the 1980s and was never
> originally intended for multiuser, multitasking, or networking.

Your information about Windows appears to be based on Windows 3.1 or 9X.
The current versions (and the previous NT-based versions) were designed
from the start for multi-user, multi-tasking and networking. This work
was done in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and was able to build on the
best from the other OSes of the time.

[If the OS freezes, be it Windows or UNIX, you are stuck wherever the GUI
is located. On my own systems, running 24 x 7 Windows NT, 2000 and XP,
the number of crashes is now of the order of once per year.].

David
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 9:03:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Proteus wrote:
>
> Not sure why you need scripts, it should be possible simply using the
For example to renumber, call some more tools, build a little GUI (replace
bash with wish) for the grandmother-type user, run it from a web server, and
so on :-)
But indeed the result of 'man mogrify' is impressive, thanks for pointing out.
> command line options. Very powerful tool. Yeah I forgot about Windows users
> and that they can use Cygwin to run a 'sort of' version of Linux within
> Windows.
>

-- Hans
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 9:27:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Proteus wrote:
> John Dalberg wrote:
> ..
>
>>I meant by batch mode as in doing it all in one command in the GUI. I
>>really do not want to this using scripts or going to the command prompt.
>>As easy as possible is what I want. Think of your grand mother trying to
>>do this.
To write true grandmother-proof software requires *many* more lines than the
just 1 mogrify line.
If you can get through the manual of your camera and remember how to access
all the settings and modes then it should be doable to type something like
'mogrify -rotate 90 *.tif'. Why not give it a try?

> The mogrify command is not too hard, really, and there are example usage
> guides that show and explain every option with examples. But I am a geek so
> of course I am biased to the power of the command line over graphical
> interfaces.

It might not only be the command line itself, but the idea of navigating
through a filesystem with arcane commands like 'cd' and 'ls'. You need some
sort of mental picture of the filesystem to be able to do that efficiently
with a command line. IMO on Windows the cluttered layout of the filesystem
doesn't help either, but that is probably a biased opinion too.

-- Hans
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 9:27:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

HvdV wrote:
[]
> It might not only be the command line itself, but the idea of
> navigating through a filesystem with arcane commands like 'cd' and
> 'ls'. You need some sort of mental picture of the filesystem to be
> able to do that efficiently with a command line. IMO on Windows the
> cluttered layout of the filesystem doesn't help either, but that is
> probably a biased opinion too.
> -- Hans

Well, I do agree with you here. "My documents" and its friends have never
had any appeal to me, and my stuff is always stored in trees starting
C:\Davids or C:\Hans.

In the Unix field, the proliferation of the many different /Users
/LocalUsers and /~ links (or whatever) standards is something I find
confusing (at least on simple single-user or dual-user systems).

David
August 5, 2005 9:56:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> I download hundreds of photos from my digital camera into my
> PC/Windows and I need to do the following in batch mode.
>
> 1- Some photos need to be rotated 90" left. I want to display all the
> photos from a folder in a browse or photo album mode and multiselect
> the ones that need to be rotated and tell it to rotate and save each
> one in batch mode.
>
> 2- Same thing as 1 but rotate 90 right.
>
> 3- Once all look straight, I need to resize all the images.

I use IrfanView (http://www.irfanview.com/). It has a variety of features,
including a batch mode.

After installing the program, open the "thumbnail" view. There, multi-
select the photos to operate on, and use:
File > Start batch dialog with selected thumbs

In the batch dialog, click "Set advanced options." There, you'll see
options for rotation, resizing, and other operations.

For safety, it's best to put the results in a new folder rather than
overwrite the originals.
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 10:33:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:
<snip>
> In the Unix field, the proliferation of the many different /Users
> /LocalUsers and /~ links (or whatever) standards is something I find
> confusing (at least on simple single-user or dual-user systems).
AFAIK all Linux systems use /home for that, so for home users it is easy to
remember. To bad Apple choose /Users, but as long as cd ~david gets you there
it is not a problem.
Too much links cris-crossing filesystems can be confusing, agreed. Still,
links can be very useful, for example to keep (symbolic) paths the same while
the underlying physical directories are moved from one disk to another. For
example, we've had here a directory /images for many years on all computers
whereas the real (shared) location of that directory was moved around quite a
bit to find room for more images.

getting a bit OT, Hans
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 10:33:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

HvdV wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
> <snip>
>> In the Unix field, the proliferation of the many different /Users
>> /LocalUsers and /~ links (or whatever) standards is something I find
>> confusing (at least on simple single-user or dual-user systems).
> AFAIK all Linux systems use /home for that, so for home users it is
> easy to remember. To bad Apple choose /Users, but as long as cd
> ~david gets you there it is not a problem.
> Too much links cris-crossing filesystems can be confusing, agreed.
> Still, links can be very useful, for example to keep (symbolic) paths
> the same while the underlying physical directories are moved from one
> disk to another. For example, we've had here a directory /images for
> many years on all computers whereas the real (shared) location of
> that directory was moved around quite a bit to find room for more
> images.

Yes, similar features are either in or coming into use in Windows as well.
Windows DFS provides similar location independance for directories.

> getting a bit OT, Hans

Agreed - thanks for the brief diversion!

David
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 11:53:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:
...
> Yes, similar features are either in or coming into use in Windows as well.
> Windows DFS provides similar location independance for directories.
....

Most likely -- I just saw a news clip in my Linux Format magazine that the
founder of Gentoo Linux was hired by Microsoft. I expect future version of
Windows might see some knock-off features of Linux.
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 1:43:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Proteus wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
> ..
>> Yes, similar features are either in or coming into use in Windows as
>> well. Windows DFS provides similar location independance for
>> directories.
> ...
>
> Most likely -- I just saw a news clip in my Linux Format magazine
> that the founder of Gentoo Linux was hired by Microsoft. I expect
> future version of Windows might see some knock-off features of Linux.

DFS has been in Windows since Windows NT4 days - 1996.

As operating systems must meet similar requirements, and desktop users
have similar needs, I don't find it surprising that similar features and
solutions will appear whatever the OS brand (just as most family cars have
four wheels and use a steering wheel which rotates).

Cross-fertilisation of ideas is, I think, a good thing. Is it
"knock-off", is it simply "best practice"? Should you be able to patent
the mouse?

David
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 1:43:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:
....
> As operating systems must meet similar requirements, and desktop users
> have similar needs, I don't find it surprising that similar features and
> solutions will appear whatever the OS brand (just as most family cars have
> four wheels and use a steering wheel which rotates).
>
> Cross-fertilisation of ideas is, I think, a good thing. Is it
> "knock-off", is it simply "best practice"? Should you be able to patent
> the mouse?
...

I think it is a good thing. if nothing else, other OSes like Linux have put
pressure on Microsoft to drop prices, and pressure to incorporate features
found in Linux/Unix; I waited through Win98 and WinXP for Bill to
incorporate multiple virtual desktops like are standard in Linux GUIs, but
they never came to my chagrin. I have erased Windows from my hard drive
now, no real need for it anymore; but it is a fine operating system for
many non-power users.
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 5:18:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

All Things Mopar wrote:
....
> Can't say I've seen any evidence of price cutting from M$
> based on Linux. ...

The evidence is there if you look, it is public information. No price cuts
on shelves at Best Buy, but M$ has cut prices drastically to site licenses
for schools and government, and especially to other countries to try and
stop their movement to Linux.


> Advertising people like to say "nobody gets it until everybody
> wants it". That's my current view of Linux. I've watched its
> development for years and know several people who either run
> Linux exclusively or have it in a multiple boot environment
> with some version(s) of Windoze.

Yes, there are several products that let a person run Windows programs
within Linux, hence no need for Windows. And there are products that let
you install and run Windows within a resizeable window in Linux (I have
done that), gaining the advantage of the Linux filesystem, stability, and
security.


> Not opinion and not from editorials, but from talking to these
> people first-hand and candidly, they all say that Linux is
> still not ready for prime time on the desktop. I can't attest
> to that personally, but from all I know, it is true.

I agree very much with you. Linux is not for everybody. MS-Windows serves
the need for a friendly OS for average users who know little about
computing and do not want to know. Linux can be done by an average joe or
jane, but it usually takes a geek friend to help them migrate (e.g. I had
to help my brother); that does not mean that Linux is harder to learn per
se, it is just that most people grow up with Windows and hence need to
unlearn and then relearn some new ways of doing computing.


> So, there is no real fear in Redmond of hoards of people
> switching sides. ...

Then I wonder why Redmond has planced Linux at #1 on their list of threats
to their OS?


> Competition from Linux or OS X, if it ever comes /may/ cause
> Windoze prices to drop, but I doubt I'll see it in my
> lifetime. Of course, these are just my ramblings, YMMV.

I suspect you will. Give it a year or two. The salespeople at Best Buy used
to mock me about Linux, saying it was just too non-mainstream. Well a news
release was out on Yahoo about 5 months ago that Best Buy will be selling
computers equipped with Linux instead of Window$ (in addition of course to
their Windows computers). Wal-Mart has been selling Linux computers for a
couple of years. Many nations (China, Brazil, etc; Spanish school system,
Munich and Venice city gov., etc) have adopted Linux as their official OS,
entire school systems have, Novell just bought out a version of Linux. The
list is quite long. The 64bit Linux operating system, and software, has
been around now for some time, whereas it will be another year at least
before you see the 64bit version of Windows, and longers still likely for
64bit Windows software. The next few years should be interesting to see
what shakes out.
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 7:39:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 13:18:43 -0500, Proteus wrote:

>> So, there is no real fear in Redmond of hoards of people
>> switching sides. ...
>
> Then I wonder why Redmond has planced Linux at #1 on their
> list of threats to their OS?

It began at least 7 or 8 years ago when MS (secretly) commissioned
an independent "White Paper" by IIRC, The Gartner Group to prove
that NT was superior to Linux as a web server. Essentially, the
tests were rigged to exploit NT's strengths, but in a way ended up
backfiring, as Linux's many developers quickly remedied their OS's
shortcomings. One I recall was at the time, NT could use up to 4GB
of RAM and Linux only 2GB. But this "study" wasn't intended to
prevent "hordes of people" from switching their desktop OS's. It
was intended to pave the way for domination of the server market.
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 8:34:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On this date, Proteus extended this wisdom for the
consideration of other readers...

> All Things Mopar wrote:
> ...
>> Can't say I've seen any evidence of price cutting from M$
>> based on Linux. ...
>
> The evidence is there if you look, it is public
> information. No price cuts on shelves at Best Buy, but M$
> has cut prices drastically to site licenses for schools and
> government, and especially to other countries to try and
> stop their movement to Linux.
>
>
>> Advertising people like to say "nobody gets it until
>> everybody wants it". That's my current view of Linux. I've
>> watched its development for years and know several people
>> who either run Linux exclusively or have it in a multiple
>> boot environment with some version(s) of Windoze.
>
> Yes, there are several products that let a person run
> Windows programs within Linux, hence no need for Windows.
> And there are products that let you install and run Windows
> within a resizeable window in Linux (I have done that),
> gaining the advantage of the Linux filesystem, stability,
> and security.
>
>
>> Not opinion and not from editorials, but from talking to
>> these people first-hand and candidly, they all say that
>> Linux is still not ready for prime time on the desktop. I
>> can't attest to that personally, but from all I know, it
>> is true.
>
> I agree very much with you. Linux is not for everybody.
> MS-Windows serves the need for a friendly OS for average
> users who know little about computing and do not want to
> know. Linux can be done by an average joe or jane, but it
> usually takes a geek friend to help them migrate (e.g. I
> had to help my brother); that does not mean that Linux is
> harder to learn per se, it is just that most people grow up
> with Windows and hence need to unlearn and then relearn
> some new ways of doing computing.
>
>
>> So, there is no real fear in Redmond of hoards of people
>> switching sides. ...
>
> Then I wonder why Redmond has planced Linux at #1 on their
> list of threats to their OS?
>
>
>> Competition from Linux or OS X, if it ever comes /may/
>> cause Windoze prices to drop, but I doubt I'll see it in
>> my lifetime. Of course, these are just my ramblings, YMMV.
>
> I suspect you will. Give it a year or two. The salespeople
> at Best Buy used to mock me about Linux, saying it was just
> too non-mainstream. Well a news release was out on Yahoo
> about 5 months ago that Best Buy will be selling computers
> equipped with Linux instead of Window$ (in addition of
> course to their Windows computers). Wal-Mart has been
> selling Linux computers for a couple of years. Many nations
> (China, Brazil, etc; Spanish school system, Munich and
> Venice city gov., etc) have adopted Linux as their official
> OS, entire school systems have, Novell just bought out a
> version of Linux. The list is quite long. The 64bit Linux
> operating system, and software, has been around now for
> some time, whereas it will be another year at least before
> you see the 64bit version of Windows, and longers still
> likely for 64bit Windows software. The next few years
> should be interesting to see what shakes out.
>

Some interesting observations. Prior to about 1995, I was a
computer "hobbyist", but these days I am a "user", no longer
interested in playing, but only getting value from the PC as a
tool to an end.

Yes, my comments about prices at retail are correct. But, site
licenses for the OEMs is so cheap that no one would really
notice whether Windoze is or isn't under price/feature attack.

But, wherever I go, there's M$ O/S and apps galore and nary
any Linux of any pedigree.

Why is Linux on Redmond's threat list? Bill Gates didn't
become a couple hundred billionaire by being a lousy manager,
so he can recognize a threat when he sees one. But, I've not
personally seen any evidence that he's done even one thing
different in his approach to competition - if he can he buys
it and kills it, if he can't he uses virtual illegal tactics
to bludgeon OEMs into installing his software.

If you can now buy Linux on mainstream hardware, that is
indeed a step in the right direction. As I have no particular
love for M$, I am certainly rooting for your side to win. I'm
also a realist, which makes me dubious. Apple's been trying
for 20 years and has only made gains where M$ has chosen not
to compete.

Again, just one man's ramblings, YMMV...

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 8:41:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On this date, ASAAR extended this wisdom for the
consideration of other readers...

> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 13:18:43 -0500, Proteus wrote:
>
>>> So, there is no real fear in Redmond of hoards of people
>>> switching sides. ...
>>
>> Then I wonder why Redmond has planced Linux at #1 on their
>> list of threats to their OS?
>
> It began at least 7 or 8 years ago when MS (secretly)
> commissioned
> an independent "White Paper" by IIRC, The Gartner Group to
> prove that NT was superior to Linux as a web server.
> Essentially, the tests were rigged to exploit NT's
> strengths, but in a way ended up backfiring, as Linux's
> many developers quickly remedied their OS's shortcomings.
> One I recall was at the time, NT could use up to 4GB of RAM
> and Linux only 2GB. But this "study" wasn't intended to
> prevent "hordes of people" from switching their desktop
> OS's. It was intended to pave the way for domination of
> the server market.
>
People still think the car companies bought out and squashed the
80 mpg carburetor. Maybe they did. "Studies" that are funded
directly or indirectly by a commercial entity are always suspect
with me.

Still, I long for the day when I can dump Windoze for good, but
just call me a pessimist for now. Have a great weekend!

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 9:06:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

All Things Mopar wrote:
...
> But, wherever I go, there's M$ O/S and apps galore and nary
> any Linux of any pedigree.
...

I am sure it is going to be a slow and gradual change. But at the Best Buy
store here in Minnesota, there is a rack about 5'x6' loaded with boxed
Linux OS w/ manuals, etc. from RedHat Linux, SuSe Linux (Novell), etc. And
I have watched the #shelves of Linux books increase each year at Barnes and
Nobel; at my B/N here there is about 30% of the space allocated to Linux as
there is to Windows, pretty remarkable considering.

I think one reason you may not see so much Linux stuff where 'er you go is
that since Linux is free, and thousands of software apps for it are all
free, most linux users just download it for free-- hence you will not see
it all so much around store shelves (except for those wanted boxed Linux
with printed manuals and tech support).
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 11:22:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Proteus wrote:
[]
> The 64bit Linux operating system, and software, has been around now for
> some time, whereas it will be another year at least before you see the
> 64bit version of Windows, and longers still likely for 64bit Windows
> software.

Incorrect.

You can get 64-bit Windows today, and it already runs most of the 32-bit
applications digital photography enthusiasts are likely to be interested
in....

David
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 11:22:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On this date, David J Taylor extended this wisdom for the
consideration of other readers...

> Proteus wrote:
> []
>> The 64bit Linux operating system, and software, has been
>> around now for some time, whereas it will be another year
>> at least before you see the 64bit version of Windows, and
>> longers still likely for 64bit Windows software.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> You can get 64-bit Windows today, and it already runs most
> of the 32-bit applications digital photography enthusiasts
> are likely to be interested in....
>
I investigated the so-called 64-bit version of Windoze XP and
declined. I don't beta test for free and see no need to put my
work at risk so that Bill Gates can add to his billions. Call
me a Luddite if you like, but I've long held the belief that
it is best for me to buy one version /under/ state-the-art in
hardware and software. First, it is far less expensive, and
second, it usually is much less problematic.

Tens of millions of people have unwittingly made themselves
beta testers for SP2 and it is just now, IMHO, become
realistic to consider, hence my change in tune for my new PC.

You're more technical in most/all ways than I am, David, so
perhaps you'll agree that the current 64-bit Windoze leaves
something to be desired particularly for legacy apps and
hardware.

Well, it's Saturday night, and time to go take car pictures
for the Woodward Dream Cruise "pre-cruise" events.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 11:22:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:
....
> Incorrect.
>
> You can get 64-bit Windows today, and it already runs most of the 32-bit
> applications digital photography enthusiasts are likely to be interested
> in....
...

I should have specified I was referring to boxed already tested for-sale
64-bit Windows. That will be a year out before it is on the racks in the
stores. Meantime, 64-bit Linux/Unix has been around for some time, with
many apps already available (and if not any user of Linux can make them
64bit, because unlike commercial Winblows software, open source software
for *nix can be compiled for 64bit freely by all).
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 8:26:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Proteus wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
> ...
>> As operating systems must meet similar requirements, and desktop users
>> have similar needs, I don't find it surprising that similar features and
>> solutions will appear whatever the OS brand (just as most family cars have
>> four wheels and use a steering wheel which rotates).
>>
>> Cross-fertilisation of ideas is, I think, a good thing. Is it
>> "knock-off", is it simply "best practice"? Should you be able to patent
>> the mouse?
> ..
>
> I think it is a good thing. if nothing else, other OSes like Linux have put
> pressure on Microsoft to drop prices, and pressure to incorporate features
> found in Linux/Unix; I waited through Win98 and WinXP for Bill to
> incorporate multiple virtual desktops like are standard in Linux GUIs, but
> they never came to my chagrin. I have erased Windows from my hard drive
> now, no real need for it anymore; but it is a fine operating system for
> many non-power users.
>
>
There are a zillion programs, many of them free, which add the multiple
virtual desktop feature to Windows. It isn't something I want, or need,
but it IS available for Windows.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 8:34:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Proteus wrote:
> All Things Mopar wrote:
> ...
>> Can't say I've seen any evidence of price cutting from M$
>> based on Linux. ...
>
> The evidence is there if you look, it is public information. No price cuts
> on shelves at Best Buy, but M$ has cut prices drastically to site licenses
> for schools and government, and especially to other countries to try and
> stop their movement to Linux.
>
>
>> Advertising people like to say "nobody gets it until everybody
>> wants it". That's my current view of Linux. I've watched its
>> development for years and know several people who either run
>> Linux exclusively or have it in a multiple boot environment
>> with some version(s) of Windoze.
>
> Yes, there are several products that let a person run Windows programs
> within Linux, hence no need for Windows. And there are products that let
> you install and run Windows within a resizeable window in Linux (I have
> done that), gaining the advantage of the Linux filesystem, stability, and
> security.
>
>
>> Not opinion and not from editorials, but from talking to these
>> people first-hand and candidly, they all say that Linux is
>> still not ready for prime time on the desktop. I can't attest
>> to that personally, but from all I know, it is true.
>
> I agree very much with you. Linux is not for everybody. MS-Windows serves
> the need for a friendly OS for average users who know little about
> computing and do not want to know. Linux can be done by an average joe or
> jane, but it usually takes a geek friend to help them migrate (e.g. I had
> to help my brother); that does not mean that Linux is harder to learn per
> se, it is just that most people grow up with Windows and hence need to
> unlearn and then relearn some new ways of doing computing.
>
>
>> So, there is no real fear in Redmond of hoards of people
>> switching sides. ...
>
> Then I wonder why Redmond has planced Linux at #1 on their list of threats
> to their OS?
>
>
>> Competition from Linux or OS X, if it ever comes /may/ cause
>> Windoze prices to drop, but I doubt I'll see it in my
>> lifetime. Of course, these are just my ramblings, YMMV.
>
> I suspect you will. Give it a year or two. The salespeople at Best Buy used
> to mock me about Linux, saying it was just too non-mainstream. Well a news
> release was out on Yahoo about 5 months ago that Best Buy will be selling
> computers equipped with Linux instead of Window$ (in addition of course to
> their Windows computers). Wal-Mart has been selling Linux computers for a
> couple of years. Many nations (China, Brazil, etc; Spanish school system,
> Munich and Venice city gov., etc) have adopted Linux as their official OS,
> entire school systems have, Novell just bought out a version of Linux. The
> list is quite long. The 64bit Linux operating system, and software, has
> been around now for some time, whereas it will be another year at least
> before you see the 64bit version of Windows, and longers still likely for
> 64bit Windows software. The next few years should be interesting to see
> what shakes out.

Right now Linux is for geeks. Even some of us geeks don't want to
bother with it. When you see some company like Best Buy, or Circuit
City selling ONLY Linux systems, let me know. THEN I will consider it a
viable option.
MS is making a Herculean effort to improve its security, and with WinNT
kernal OSs, like WinXP, stability is excellent. Some more work on
drivers, and isolating users from eachother, and a better ram manager,
and they will be as stable. Recall that Linux is the direct descendant
of an OS from the 1960's, so it has had time to get rid of some of the
hitches, and glitches.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 10:26:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 17:06:29 -0500, Proteus wrote:

> I think one reason you may not see so much Linux stuff where 'er you go is
> that since Linux is free, and thousands of software apps for it are all
> free, most linux users just download it for free-- hence you will not see
> it all so much around store shelves (except for those wanted boxed Linux
> with printed manuals and tech support).
Another thing to consider is that most Distros come with manuals built in
to the system.

--
Neil
Delete delete to reply by email
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 11:44:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:

> Proteus wrote:
>> All Things Mopar wrote:
>> ...
>>> Can't say I've seen any evidence of price cutting from M$
>>> based on Linux. ...
>>
>> The evidence is there if you look, it is public information. No price
>> cuts on shelves at Best Buy, but M$ has cut prices drastically to site
>> licenses for schools and government, and especially to other countries to
>> try and stop their movement to Linux.
>>
>>
>>> Advertising people like to say "nobody gets it until everybody
>>> wants it". That's my current view of Linux. I've watched its
>>> development for years and know several people who either run
>>> Linux exclusively or have it in a multiple boot environment
>>> with some version(s) of Windoze.
>>
>> Yes, there are several products that let a person run Windows programs
>> within Linux, hence no need for Windows. And there are products that let
>> you install and run Windows within a resizeable window in Linux (I have
>> done that), gaining the advantage of the Linux filesystem, stability, and
>> security.
>>
>>
>>> Not opinion and not from editorials, but from talking to these
>>> people first-hand and candidly, they all say that Linux is
>>> still not ready for prime time on the desktop. I can't attest
>>> to that personally, but from all I know, it is true.
>>
>> I agree very much with you. Linux is not for everybody. MS-Windows serves
>> the need for a friendly OS for average users who know little about
>> computing and do not want to know. Linux can be done by an average joe or
>> jane, but it usually takes a geek friend to help them migrate (e.g. I had
>> to help my brother); that does not mean that Linux is harder to learn per
>> se, it is just that most people grow up with Windows and hence need to
>> unlearn and then relearn some new ways of doing computing.
>>
>>
>>> So, there is no real fear in Redmond of hoards of people
>>> switching sides. ...
>>
>> Then I wonder why Redmond has planced Linux at #1 on their list of
>> threats to their OS?
>>
>>
>>> Competition from Linux or OS X, if it ever comes /may/ cause
>>> Windoze prices to drop, but I doubt I'll see it in my
>>> lifetime. Of course, these are just my ramblings, YMMV.
>>
>> I suspect you will. Give it a year or two. The salespeople at Best Buy
>> used to mock me about Linux, saying it was just too non-mainstream. Well
>> a news release was out on Yahoo about 5 months ago that Best Buy will be
>> selling computers equipped with Linux instead of Window$ (in addition of
>> course to their Windows computers). Wal-Mart has been selling Linux
>> computers for a couple of years. Many nations (China, Brazil, etc;
>> Spanish school system, Munich and Venice city gov., etc) have adopted
>> Linux as their official OS, entire school systems have, Novell just
>> bought out a version of Linux. The list is quite long. The 64bit Linux
>> operating system, and software, has been around now for some time,
>> whereas it will be another year at least before you see the 64bit version
>> of Windows, and longers still likely for 64bit Windows software. The next
>> few years should be interesting to see what shakes out.
>
> Right now Linux is for geeks. Even some of us geeks don't want to
> bother with it. When you see some company like Best Buy, or Circuit
> City selling ONLY Linux systems, let me know. THEN I will consider it a
> viable option.
> MS is making a Herculean effort to improve its security, and with WinNT
> kernal OSs, like WinXP, stability is excellent. Some more work on
> drivers, and isolating users from eachother, and a better ram manager,
> and they will be as stable. Recall that Linux is the direct descendant
> of an OS from the 1960's, so it has had time to get rid of some of the
> hitches, and glitches.
>
>


Linux has features that geeks love, but non-geeks do not need to use those
features, and can compute happily along using just the graphical user
interface (GUI). Have you ever tried Linux? Why not download an ISO (disk
image) from knoppix.org and burn it to a CD disk and reboot your computer
and try linux? The CD is bootable, what is called a "live" distribution of
Linux, and will not install to the hard drive. It runs totally off the CD,
complete with dozens of software applications, all free, all fully
functional, like browsers, image editors, ImageMagick and mogrify (the
original subject of this thread!); even if you HATE LINUX you have to admit
is makes a great rescue disk-- the Microsoft geeks that run my college's
network and all my college's computers were stunned at Knoppix Linux, that
it could boot off a single CD with internet access, a graphical interface,
video and music players, image editors, and so on-- try getting a version
of Microsoft to boot off a single CD with a GUI and lots of applications (I
have never seen that).

But the main reason I believe Linux and open source software will win out is
national security, for all nations. China and other nations have migrated
to Linux as their official OS, and to open source software; why? Because
they can have the source code and inspect it for spyware, keystroke
loggers, and backdoors, from other governments before they compile and use
it. Same reason our military will and is doing likewise, to be sure
nefarious groups of people do not do the same to us as our CIA might do to
China. Now if Bill were to make Windows available fully as open source
code, things could change.
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 11:52:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Proteus wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
> ...
>> Incorrect.
>>
>> You can get 64-bit Windows today, and it already runs most of the
>> 32-bit applications digital photography enthusiasts are likely to be
>> interested in....
> ..
>
> I should have specified I was referring to boxed already tested
> for-sale 64-bit Windows. That will be a year out before it is on the
> racks in the stores. Meantime, 64-bit Linux/Unix has been around for
> some time, with many apps already available (and if not any user of
> Linux can make them 64bit, because unlike commercial Winblows
> software, open source software for *nix can be compiled for 64bit
> freely by all).

I am talking about commercially available software as well.

If you think moving software to 64-bits is simply about re-compiling, you
have a schock coming!

David
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 11:52:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:
...
> If you think moving software to 64-bits is simply about re-compiling, you
> have a schock coming!
....

Whatever dude. Same thing happened when everybody moved from 16-bit
application code to 32-bit code, which we all now take for granted. N shock
coming my way, except the good kind with 64 bit image processing software,
etc. 64bit Linux is here, has been here since 1994, and there are many
64bit applications already packaged to go for 64bit Linux OS
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020390,3...
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1813588,00.asp
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=03/10/08/024523...

You can go up to Best Buy or online today and buy a boxed 64bit Linux (SuSe
Linux, Mandriva Linux, etc.) operating system, complete with manuals and
tech support, and that comes with 1000 applications, 64-bit browser, 64-bit
Firefox, etc. That simply does not exist for MS-Windows yet.
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 12:19:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

All Things Mopar wrote:
[]
> Tens of millions of people have unwittingly made themselves
> beta testers for SP2 and it is just now, IMHO, become
> realistic to consider, hence my change in tune for my new PC.

It's always going to be a problem with a relatively open architecture
system like PCs, with hundreds of thousands of different applications, not
to find some incompatibilities (I am amazed when I see what some software
writers do - completely over-complex code and tied into versions of the OS
in a completely unnecessary way). Therefore with "tens of millions of
testers", even with a 99.9% success rate that means ten thousand people
with problems. As far as I know, there were a few minor issues with the
OS that were quickly fixed, the rest of the issues were with applications
and not the OS itself.

> You're more technical in most/all ways than I am, David, so
> perhaps you'll agree that the current 64-bit Windoze leaves
> something to be desired particularly for legacy apps and
> hardware.

I would not recommend people to go dashing to 64-bit Windows today (or
64-bit Linux) unless they have a real reason for doing so. Of course it
makes sense to wait until more of the applications you want to run in
64-bit mode are available, and any bugs are ironed out. Moving
applications to 64-bits is not simply a matter of re-compiling, as some
would have us believe. For example, many C programs assume that integers
and pointers are both 32-bits, which is no longer true. External data
files may still have 32-bit integers stored, so you can't simply say
integers are now 64-bit fields.

As far as I know, the only legacy applications which are not supported are
16-bit programs. As we have had 32-bit Windows available since 1992 (NT)
or 1995 (consumer Windows), you would have hoped that people would have
had time to move such applications! Support of older hardware is always a
problem. How far back is it reasonable to expect the hardware
manufacturers to go? Some manufacturers have been better at reacting to
new software versions than others.

> Well, it's Saturday night, and time to go take car pictures
> for the Woodward Dream Cruise "pre-cruise" events.

I do look forward to hearing your eventual solution to the photography of
cars - I recently photographed a black 1953 Citroen (Maigret style) with
white wedding decorations - quite a contrast range!

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 12:25:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

All Things Mopar wrote:

> Still, I long for the day when I can dump Windoze for good, but
> just call me a pessimist for now. Have a great weekend!

Psst- Mac OS X - www.apple.com

The hardware is about $0-200 more expensive than a similarly equipped PC
with Windows, but the whole thing works 10000x better.

Best thing I did 3.5 years ago (And I fix Windows for a living!)!
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 12:25:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Newsgroup User wrote:

....
> Best thing I did 3.5 years ago (And I fix Windows for a living!)!

My cousin used to be a tech support specialist for Windows in Redmond; now
he has his own computer consulting company and fixes lots of Windows
problems for customers (keeps him in the $$$!); oh yeah, himself, he uses
Linux and helps many customers move to Linux. :) 
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 1:58:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 04:34:49 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> Right now Linux is for geeks. Even some of us geeks don't want to
> bother with it. When you see some company like Best Buy, or Circuit
> City selling ONLY Linux systems, let me know. THEN I will consider it a
> viable option.

Sometimes you say the strangest things. That is, unless what you
really mean is "Linux. Over my dead body. Or 50 years from now
when I've promised to try some other things too."
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 3:33:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Proteus commented thusly:

> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> Proteus wrote:
>>> All Things Mopar wrote: ...
>>>> Can't say I've seen any evidence of price cutting from
>>>> M$ based on Linux. ...
>>>
>>> The evidence is there if you look, it is public
>>> information. No price cuts on shelves at Best Buy, but M$
>>> has cut prices drastically to site licenses for schools
>>> and government, and especially to other countries to
>>> try and stop their movement to Linux.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Advertising people like to say "nobody gets it until
>>>> everybody wants it". That's my current view of Linux.
>>>> I've watched its development for years and know several
>>>> people who either run Linux exclusively or have it in a
>>>> multiple boot environment with some version(s) of
>>>> Windoze.
>>>
>>> Yes, there are several products that let a person run
>>> Windows programs within Linux, hence no need for Windows.
>>> And there are products that let you install and run
>>> Windows within a resizeable window in Linux (I have done
>>> that), gaining the advantage of the Linux filesystem,
>>> stability, and security.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Not opinion and not from editorials, but from talking to
>>>> these people first-hand and candidly, they all say that
>>>> Linux is still not ready for prime time on the desktop.
>>>> I can't attest to that personally, but from all I know,
>>>> it is true.
>>>
>>> I agree very much with you. Linux is not for everybody.
>>> MS-Windows serves the need for a friendly OS for average
>>> users who know little about computing and do not want to
>>> know. Linux can be done by an average joe or jane, but it
>>> usually takes a geek friend to help them migrate (e.g. I
>>> had to help my brother); that does not mean that Linux is
>>> harder to learn per se, it is just that most people grow
>>> up with Windows and hence need to unlearn and then
>>> relearn some new ways of doing computing.
>>>
>>>
>>>> So, there is no real fear in Redmond of hoards of people
>>>> switching sides. ...
>>>
>>> Then I wonder why Redmond has planced Linux at #1 on
>>> their list of threats to their OS?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Competition from Linux or OS X, if it ever comes /may/
>>>> cause Windoze prices to drop, but I doubt I'll see it in
>>>> my lifetime. Of course, these are just my ramblings,
>>>> YMMV.
>>>
>>> I suspect you will. Give it a year or two. The
>>> salespeople at Best Buy used to mock me about Linux,
>>> saying it was just too non-mainstream. Well a news
>>> release was out on Yahoo about 5 months ago that Best Buy
>>> will be selling computers equipped with Linux instead of
>>> Window$ (in addition of course to their Windows
>>> computers). Wal-Mart has been selling Linux computers for
>>> a couple of years. Many nations (China, Brazil, etc;
>>> Spanish school system, Munich and Venice city gov., etc)
>>> have adopted Linux as their official OS, entire school
>>> systems have, Novell just bought out a version of Linux.
>>> The list is quite long. The 64bit Linux operating system,
>>> and software, has been around now for some time, whereas
>>> it will be another year at least before you see the 64bit
>>> version of Windows, and longers still likely for 64bit
>>> Windows software. The next few years should be
>>> interesting to see what shakes out.
>>
>> Right now Linux is for geeks. Even some of us geeks don't
>> want to bother with it. When you see some company like
>> Best Buy, or Circuit City selling ONLY Linux systems, let
>> me know. THEN I will consider it a viable option.
>> MS is making a Herculean effort to improve its security,
>> and with WinNT kernal OSs, like WinXP, stability is
>> excellent. Some more work on drivers, and isolating users
>> from eachother, and a better ram manager, and they will be
>> as stable. Recall that Linux is the direct descendant of
>> an OS from the 1960's, so it has had time to get rid of
>> some of the hitches, and glitches.
>>
>>
>
>
> Linux has features that geeks love, but non-geeks do not
> need to use those features, and can compute happily along
> using just the graphical user interface (GUI). Have you
> ever tried Linux? Why not download an ISO (disk image) from
> knoppix.org and burn it to a CD disk and reboot your
> computer and try linux? The CD is bootable, what is called
> a "live" distribution of Linux, and will not install to the
> hard drive. It runs totally off the CD, complete with
> dozens of software applications, all free, all fully
> functional, like browsers, image editors, ImageMagick and
> mogrify (the original subject of this thread!); even if you
> HATE LINUX you have to admit is makes a great rescue disk--
> the Microsoft geeks that run my college's network and all
> my college's computers were stunned at Knoppix Linux, that
> it could boot off a single CD with internet access, a
> graphical interface, video and music players, image
> editors, and so on-- try getting a version of Microsoft to
> boot off a single CD with a GUI and lots of applications (I
> have never seen that).
>
> But the main reason I believe Linux and open source
> software will win out is national security, for all
> nations. China and other nations have migrated to Linux as
> their official OS, and to open source software; why?
> Because they can have the source code and inspect it for
> spyware, keystroke loggers, and backdoors, from other
> governments before they compile and use it. Same reason our
> military will and is doing likewise, to be sure nefarious
> groups of people do not do the same to us as our CIA might
> do to China. Now if Bill were to make Windows available
> fully as open source code, things could change.
>
Everything you say is dead accurate, except for why the
Chinese and some varients of "geeks" are going to Linux for
national security reasons: the very nature of open source have
/source/ code makes it trivial to plant nasty-ware into
releases of the O/S and apps, whether free or commercial.

The Chinese have yet to abandon their avowed purpose of
converting the world to Communism, they just finally figured
out that it takes money to do that, and the only way they can
get hard currency is to become a player in the world's
economy. So, with quite a bit of tongue-in-cheek, how do you
know that going to Linux is not just another "commie, pinko,
fag" conspiracy?

At least it takes /some/ skill to successfully patch nasty-
ware into Windoze and Mac O/S and apps, certainly far more
skill than to simply recompile and re-"load satisfy" the
resulting Linux kernel.

Seems to me the last time somebody said that a "doomsday
device" for "world security" would prevent agression by making
all agressors to afraid to try was in the black comedy "Dr.
Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the
Bomb". And, we all know how that ended.

Again, lest my rant be misunderstood. I am rooting with all my
might for Linux to become a commercially viable O/S /and/ have
people currently writing apps for Windoze and Mac OS X+
/start/ to do regression testing to be certain their proggies
work under the most used versions of Linux.

As a varient of the old advertising saying "nobody gets it
until everybody wants it", I think there's some sort of stand-
off between the app developers and the Linux developers. The
app guys won't port their software until Linux is on enough
desktops (and servers), but Linux won't /ever/ become dominant
on the desktop if there's no assurance that the most popular
apps will run seamlessly.

And, please don't tell me that /all/ Windoze apps and /all/
current PC hardware and Windoze drivers work without mods on
/any/ version of Linux.

Thank you. Rant over.
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 3:34:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 11:33:53 -0500, All Things Mopar <none@none.com>
wrote:

>Again, lest my rant be misunderstood. I am rooting with all my
>might for Linux to become a commercially viable O/S /and/ have
>people currently writing apps for Windoze and Mac OS X+
>/start/ to do regression testing to be certain their proggies
>work under the most used versions of Linux.

I thought one of the main ideas behind Linux was that it specifically
would *NOT* be commercially anything.
IOW, "commercially viable" and "Linux" are supposed to be mutually
exclusive, unless you consider the 'distros' that include far more
than just the Linux core to be "Linux."
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 3:43:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR commented thusly:

> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 04:34:49 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> Right now Linux is for geeks. Even some of us geeks don't
>> want to bother with it. When you see some company like
>> Best Buy, or Circuit City selling ONLY Linux systems, let
>> me know. THEN I will consider it a viable option.
>
> Sometimes you say the strangest things. That is, unless
> what you
> really mean is "Linux. Over my dead body. Or 50 years
> from now when I've promised to try some other things too."
>
The quote I like better might sound like "you'll only pry
Windoze from the fingers of my cold, dead hands!".

I do not for a minute think that Linux is only for geeks. My
nephew and very good friend as well - and my computer builder
and tech support person - has been trying to interest me in
Linux for at least 3 or 4 years.

As he was getting the specs for the new PC he is going to build
for me, with SP2 on it (he has the parts, but no time yet to
build it), he tried to interest me in /not/ putting Windoze on
the box. He cited excellent examples of open source - read: free
- apps that do everything I want to do, including PSP graphics,
music, and MS Office, I simply ask him if I can do that without
tweaking Linux's GUI.

I'm sorry to say, really I am, but he ultimately has to back
down and admit that Linux is still just a bit not quite ready
for what I call "prime time on the desktop". I don't know a
bigger proponent of Linux than my nephew, but if /he/ thinks it
isn't ready, I guess I have to believe it.

But, it /is/ a better mousetrap and someday I'll be on it...
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 5:13:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Proteus wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
> ...
>> There are a zillion programs, many of them free, which add the
>> multiple virtual desktop feature to Windows. It isn't something I
>> want, or need, but it IS available for Windows.
>>
>
> Yeah I tried them (Windowblinds, etc.) and they made my system
> unstable and cause problems, freeze ups, reboots. Why doesn't Redmond
> just put them into the OS in the first place?

Whatever Microsoft does, somebody will complain. Don't put the function
in the OS, you complain. Put the function in the OS, third-party vendors
complain their source of income has been taken away! Same with Firewall
and anti-virus, or Zip-file functionalty.

A lot of people have problems with just one desktop. How would they, and
the people who have to support them, cope with multiple virtual desktops?

David
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 5:13:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor commented thusly:

> Proteus wrote:
>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> ...
>>> There are a zillion programs, many of them free, which
>>> add the multiple virtual desktop feature to Windows. It
>>> isn't something I want, or need, but it IS available for
>>> Windows.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah I tried them (Windowblinds, etc.) and they made my
>> system unstable and cause problems, freeze ups, reboots.
>> Why doesn't Redmond just put them into the OS in the first
>> place?
>
> Whatever Microsoft does, somebody will complain. Don't put
> the function in the OS, you complain. Put the function in
> the OS, third-party vendors complain their source of income
> has been taken away! Same with Firewall and anti-virus, or
> Zip-file functionalty.

There's been plenty of examples of M$ trying to steal market
share by adapting features of competing apps or utilities, but
their attempts are always a nickel short and a day late, hence
there still is and always will be a ready market for robust
software.

XP can burn CDs and unzip and open JPEGs, but these three
examples are pretty dismal and easily enough for me to /pay/
for PSP 9, WinZip registration, and Roxio EZ CD Creator. Yes,
that's right, not pirated copies, legally licenced version.
Hell, I've never taken the time to figure out how to do those
things in native XP, enough friends that have already
convinced me that it is futile waste of my time.

> A lot of people have problems with just one desktop. How
> would they, and the people who have to support them, cope
> with multiple virtual desktops?
>
> David
>
>
>
!