Computer System for Digital Photography: MS-Windows, Apple, or Linux

Ron, what you did maybe perfect for your own things. But it could be
very unwelcome in a grouped environment, even (especially) in the
MS-Windows world.


Ron Hunter wrote:
Nobody Nowhere wrote:
In message , Ron Hunter
writes


Ok, so that is 50% of the 5% or so of total personal computing
market.
About the same as the Unix/Linux Intel penetration. I think I
will
stick with the 90%. I had my fill of being in the minority back
in
the old Atari/Commodore/Apple/IBM days.


There is another way of looking at this: how many PC are there
today in
your country? In the whole world? If Mac OSX has, say, 2.5 per cent
of
the market (I don't know, I just plucked a figure out of thin air),
we
are still talking about millions of MAC PCs, perhaps many millions,
now
being used in the world. Not something to be sneezed at, even if
the
stupid crowd bows to the MS monopoly and puts up with patently
sub-standard MS products . If your argument is based entirely on
sticking with the 90 per cent, but not on any other criteria
(since
you don't indicate any), then what you are saying is that you are
proud
to be a sheep, and belong to the flock.




NO. I find that I can bludgeon MS products into doing what I want,
the
way I want, at least most of the time. I find I can NOT do this with

Apple products, and Unix makes my blood run cold because of
unfortunate
experiences in my last 10 years before retirement. In short, MS does

things more in line with the way I think, and like to work, and it
has
by far the best software support and hardware availability. Not a
day
goes by that I don't see someone commenting in one newsgroup or other

that they can't find a driver to make their hardware work with OSX or

Unix. I just don't need that kind of problem in my retirement.


--
Ron Hunter

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" writes:

My son got firefox, downloaded it,
brought up a file viewer and clicked on the install
package, which worked (I was impressed)! The problem:
the compile left the binary in the firefox directory. He had
no idea why he couldn't execute it from the command line,
or how to make a desktop icon. He didn't know he needed
to copy the binary to /usr/local/bin (or some similar place),
or write a shell script to execute the binary in the firefox
install directory, or add the firefox directory to his path.
It shouldn't be necessary for the new user to do this.

Linux, and the packages that go on it, needs to be able
to install and configure as easily as windows.

RedHat/Fedora has RPMs, which are complete packages that install the
binaries in the right place. I think Debian has something similar.
Installing one of these is much like using an installer under Windows,
with at least one exception:

Windows programs tend to come with all of the DLLs (libraries) that
they might possibly need, which means you end up with multiple copies
of the same library on your system, some of which are out of date.
(That's why, when it turned out there was a security hole involving
the Windows GDI library that decodes JPEG images, Microsoft delivered a
tool that searches for copies of the GDI library anywhere in the system.
There might be a dozen copies of it with the vulnerability, not just one
copy in a standard place that can be fixed by a single patch).

RPMs list, but do not include, other libraries that they are dependent
on, and the RPM-install process checks that the libraries are present
and recent enough; fetching them if necessary. So you typically have
only one version of each library on your system, one that's recent
enough to run all your software. And there may be an automated update
service that you can run periodically to get new versions, too.

On the other hand, it sounds like your son fetched a source package and
compiled it. Those are really intended for someone who knows something
about programming, including how to compile and run a program. You
usually don't even have this option under Windows, because few Windows
systems include a compiler of any sort.

Dave

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" writes:

My son got firefox, downloaded it,
brought up a file viewer and clicked on the install
package, which worked (I was impressed)! The problem:
the compile left the binary in the firefox directory. He had
no idea why he couldn't execute it from the command line,
or how to make a desktop icon. He didn't know he needed
to copy the binary to /usr/local/bin (or some similar place),
or write a shell script to execute the binary in the firefox
install directory, or add the firefox directory to his path.
It shouldn't be necessary for the new user to do this.

Linux, and the packages that go on it, needs to be able
to install and configure as easily as windows.

RedHat/Fedora has RPMs, which are complete packages that install the
binaries in the right place. I think Debian has something similar.
Installing one of these is much like using an installer under Windows,
with at least one exception:

Windows programs tend to come with all of the DLLs (libraries) that
they might possibly need, which means you end up with multiple copies
of the same library on your system, some of which are out of date.
(That's why, when it turned out there was a security hole involving
the Windows GDI library that decodes JPEG images, Microsoft delivered a
tool that searches for copies of the GDI library anywhere in the system.
There might be a dozen copies of it with the vulnerability, not just one
copy in a standard place that can be fixed by a single patch).

RPMs list, but do not include, other libraries that they are dependent
on, and the RPM-install process checks that the libraries are present
and recent enough; fetching them if necessary. So you typically have
only one version of each library on your system, one that's recent
enough to run all your software. And there may be an automated update
service that you can run periodically to get new versions, too.

On the other hand, it sounds like your son fetched a source package and
compiled it. Those are really intended for someone who knows something
about programming, including how to compile and run a program. You
usually don't even have this option under Windows, because few Windows
systems include a compiler of any sort.

Dave

In message , Ron Hunter
writes

NO. I find that I can bludgeon MS products into doing what I want, the
way I want, at least most of the time. I find I can NOT do this with
Apple products, and Unix makes my blood run cold because of unfortunate
experiences in my last 10 years before retirement. In short, MS does
things more in line with the way I think, and like to work, and it has
by far the best software support and hardware availability. Not a day
goes by that I don't see someone commenting in one newsgroup or other
that they can't find a driver to make their hardware work with OSX or
Unix. I just don't need that kind of problem in my retirement.


Strange that you should talk like this, since my experiences with MS led
me to the opposite view: I don't need the MS kind of problems (in
particular, vulnerability to virus/worms, constant ringing of an
engineer, etc.) in *my* retirement... :-)! Anyway, I am about to take
the plunge, and a few thousand $s later, I shall find out who was right,
perhaps at my cost... (but I hope not). And since we are in a
rec.photo.digital context, do not the 4GB of ram apple can offer (even
8GB of ram, if the wife lets you...) mean that apple might also be able
to do what you want, perhaps better than MS?

--
nobody

In message , Ron Hunter
writes

NO. I find that I can bludgeon MS products into doing what I want, the
way I want, at least most of the time. I find I can NOT do this with
Apple products, and Unix makes my blood run cold because of unfortunate
experiences in my last 10 years before retirement. In short, MS does
things more in line with the way I think, and like to work, and it has
by far the best software support and hardware availability. Not a day
goes by that I don't see someone commenting in one newsgroup or other
that they can't find a driver to make their hardware work with OSX or
Unix. I just don't need that kind of problem in my retirement.


Strange that you should talk like this, since my experiences with MS led
me to the opposite view: I don't need the MS kind of problems (in
particular, vulnerability to virus/worms, constant ringing of an
engineer, etc.) in *my* retirement... :-)! Anyway, I am about to take
the plunge, and a few thousand $s later, I shall find out who was right,
perhaps at my cost... (but I hope not). And since we are in a
rec.photo.digital context, do not the 4GB of ram apple can offer (even
8GB of ram, if the wife lets you...) mean that apple might also be able
to do what you want, perhaps better than MS?

--
nobody

Jim Redelfs wrote:
In article , Ron Hunter
wrote:


MS does things more in line with the way I think...


Now, THAT's scary!
[ducking]

JR

Yes, it is, isn't it? I find a lot of things I don't like about
Windows, but I can, usually, get it to work the way I like. It sure
isn't perfect, but having worked with commercial operating systems since
1964, I am used to much less user-friendly systems. Compared to those,
WinXP is a dream come true.
At least it is stable, and relatively trouble-free, as long as one
practices 'safe hex', and takes care to keep updates current.


--
Ron Hunter

Jim Redelfs wrote:
In article , Ron Hunter
wrote:


MS does things more in line with the way I think...


Now, THAT's scary!
[ducking]

JR

Yes, it is, isn't it? I find a lot of things I don't like about
Windows, but I can, usually, get it to work the way I like. It sure
isn't perfect, but having worked with commercial operating systems since
1964, I am used to much less user-friendly systems. Compared to those,
WinXP is a dream come true.
At least it is stable, and relatively trouble-free, as long as one
practices 'safe hex', and takes care to keep updates current.


--
Ron Hunter

In article ,
Ron Hunter wrote:
Chris Brown wrote:
In article ,
Big Bill wrote:

Interestingly, *nix has a larger market share of OS than the Mac does.


Actually, that's not remotely interesting, as given that Macs are UNIX
systems, and therefore a subset of the UNIX installed base, it's trivially
true.

Just what percentage of Macs in use have the underlying Unix kernal? I
was under the impression that only OSX was Unix based.

The claim was about market share, not the share of the installed base. Pre
OS X Macs are no longer on sale.

In article ,
Ron Hunter wrote:
Chris Brown wrote:
In article ,
Big Bill wrote:

Interestingly, *nix has a larger market share of OS than the Mac does.


Actually, that's not remotely interesting, as given that Macs are UNIX
systems, and therefore a subset of the UNIX installed base, it's trivially
true.

Just what percentage of Macs in use have the underlying Unix kernal? I
was under the impression that only OSX was Unix based.

The claim was about market share, not the share of the installed base. Pre
OS X Macs are no longer on sale.