We all know that Free Software has the best apps around and often one
will see the Wintrolls actually mention those apps as tho they are
Windows native!

What they fail to mention is the trouble that the poor old Windows
porters of Free Software apps go thru to make these native Free
Software apps possible.

Here is one example:-

Subject: gEDA: gschupdate & gsymupdate
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:48:50 -0500
Sender: owner-geda-dev@seul.org
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158

I tried to run gnetlist.exe on a design and received messages regarding
running gschupdate and/or gsymupdate. These are both perl scripts, set
up to run /usr/bin/perl. Is there a mingw/msys version of perl or should
I be using ActiveState perl, or is there another option?
.....................................

This poster is using the Windows port of gschem, a professional
schematic capture app for GNU/Linux . As usual the Windows user has run
into the ancillary problems so common with Windows and so fuss free
with GNU/Linux !

Next on this posters list will be Scheme problems, I hope Windows has a
decent integrated Scheme port!

Eventually he will realise that its just so much easier to run
GNU/Linux and get rid of that white goods OS called Windows.





--
Kind Regards from Terry
My Desktop is powered by GNU/LinuX, Gentoo-1.4_rc2
New Homepage: http://milkstone.d2.net.au/
** Linux Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 09:23:33 +1100, Terry wrote:
Or the authors of the software will learn to respect their userbase, and
make it work properly.

Pick either one.

Milo T. threw some tea leaves on the floor
and this is what they wrote:

I don't think MICROS~1 is capable of respecting their userbase.

I thought you said you were leaving Cola, Simon Cooke ?



--
Kind Regards from Terry
My Desktop is powered by GNU/LinuX, Gentoo-1.4_rc2
New Homepage: http://milkstone.d2.net.au/
** Linux Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 15:58:37 +1100, Terry wrote:

Who's talking about Microsoft? I'm talking about the authors of this free
software who can't port their work to Windows without making it painful for
their users. Switch OSes because some crappy application won't work,
because the people who wrote it are lazy, incompetent, or apathetic? Yeah
right. Much better to switch applications to those whose authors actually
give a damn about the people who use them, and don't try to use them as a
political soap-box.

In other words, you get what you pay for.

I thought you already did, Terry Porter.

poster->"Milo T." <fantastical@malaprop.net>

But, as I've argued ( and yes, you have
responded ) with others, including FSF
GNU advocates, the Web model has been
providing free software and apps for 8
years now(!).

In many ways, the desktop argument was
settled a long time ago: the home user
simply does not use 'desktop apps' -- s/h/it
uses a web browser and that's about it.

With a browser, an ISP, and Yahoo! the
typically person can satisfy all software
needs -- it's just that old style developers
have never recognized 'web development' as
real development ( well, hey, Frank Sinatra
didn't think rock and rollers were musicians ).

So all this argument over 'applications' amuses
me, since I'm a web developer ( and therefore,
low order trash on the hierarchy ) -- yet,
the thing that I love about Linux is simply
that it removes the Microsoft bottleneck
(thorn bush) from the Internet. It frees us
to go back use WWW Consortium standards, not
the twisted and warped standards forced on
us by Micro$oft and Bill Grate$ as he tried
to put his decrepit and twisted fingers on the
Web.

Linux is the icebreaker that cuts through
the congested ice floes of LoseDOS operating systems.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:59:46 GMT,
Milo T. <fantastical@malaprop.net> wrote:
If only that were true. But unless what you are paying for, is virus
bait, bug ridden, crapware, a lá MICROS~1, then no, you don't always get
what you pay for.

Unless you meant Pay, in a much more ominous sense.

Actually, he said (and did) that he was going to take a break, and be
back after a rather lengthy hiatus. See the difference?

Now me, I don't much care if you stay, or go. If you (and others) could
keep the comments mostly civil, that would be a nice touch. But this is
COLA, and flamage, is to be expected, if not desired.

But the root of this issue anyway, �s that the software in question,
which runs fine on Linux, and other Unix like OSen, has difficulties on
Windows, because of the paucity of tools available, and the lack of
standards for many of them.

When you install any of the major Linux distros, you get (or at least
have the option to get) a standard perl, compiler, etc, and many of the
tools take advantage of this, to avoid reinventing the wheel. When you
port that to Windows, most of those tools are either not easily
available, or simply unavailable.

Remember when MICROS~1 "ported" IE to Solaris? and what a piece of shit
that was? In part, that was because many of the pieces IE relied upon,
were simply not present in that form on Solaris, and the IE team decided
it was easier to glob up a big kludge, rather than do it properly. The
problems Terry listed, are a result of wanting to do it properly, not
the way the IE folks did on Solaris.

Hope that helps Simon. You seem a tad confused on this.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/oVcUd90bcYOAWPYRAhXeAKCCzK9YcOJTs/6V6EG/K5m14ipQyACgyeZq
ZR0wZ3G6988sO9bw54B1sjg=
=EoRQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Don't get mad, get Linux

Milo T. threw some tea leaves on the floor
and this is what they wrote:

Me, I answered your statement, Wintroll.

--
Kind Regards from Terry
My Desktop is powered by GNU/LinuX, Gentoo-1.4_rc2
New Homepage: http://milkstone.d2.net.au/
** Linux Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:38:56 +1100, Terry wrote:

The authors we're both talking about here are OSS programmers, Terry.
Remember? In your post, the one that I replied to in the first place, you
gave two options - don't use the software, or run it on Linux because it's
easier. I'm giving you a third - get the lazy bastards to make it work
correctly on Windows. The people who need to respect their userbase are the
OSS developers you mentioned.

Although I guess that's to be expected. After all, if they're giving it
away, they have no responsibility to their users, and no reason to improve
their software, or make it work any way other than the way that suits them.
Which means that if a guy decides that you need to enter all your formulae
as RPN, then by golly, Joe User of their free software had better damn will
step to it and learn RPN.

Instead of, more intelligently, perhaps finding out what the userbase is
and tailoring the software to that.

I'm still pissed that the last time I installed Linux, I looked in the
KConf (IIRC) help file, and discovered only a few words. "This isn't
written yet".

OSS software - it's half-assed at the best of times.

Please, do try to keep up. I know it's tough for you, what with your short
attention span and low IQ and all, but at least try.

Milo T. wrote:

Bingo.

An OSS developer is not obligated to provide any hand-holding, often its because
he simply can't due to not having the same environment to test in.



I don't equate the lack of hand-holding with a lack of quality. Its an
unrealistic expectation on your part to assume OSS developers can do all the
things a commercial organization can do (testing before release, good
documentation) because they don't have the same resources. The users have to
help with the testing and the documentation may stay inadequate for some time.
Of course you aren't paying for this software either, so there is a trade off.
If the software acts as advertised and handles my needs, I don't trash talk it
because its documentation doesn't hold my hand tightly enough.



[snip personal insult]

Ed Cogburn threw some tea leaves on the floor
and this is what they wrote:

<deletia>
Well said Ed, and I agree totally. Simon Cooke isn't really interested
in reasoning this thru however.


--
Kind Regards from Terry
My Desktop is powered by GNU/LinuX, Gentoo-1.4_rc2
New Homepage: http://milkstone.d2.net.au/
** Linux Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 22:14:43 +1100, Terry wrote:

Neither are you, Terry. You're saying that people should switch OSes
because it's difficult to install OSS software on Windows -- because of the
software author's laziness/lack of resources/whatever.

Now that is a stupid and unreasonable argument.

Milo T. threw some tea leaves on the floor
and this is what they wrote:

No Simon, thats your spin on my post, which was " Windows loves to
embrace OSS but its not easy!"

I thought you said you were leaving ?


--
Kind Regards from Terry
My Desktop is powered by GNU/LinuX, Gentoo-1.4_rc2
New Homepage: http://milkstone.d2.net.au/
** Linux Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **

On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 11:01:44 +1100, Terry wrote:

It's very easy. It just requires competent software engineers to perform
the port.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 03:52:18 GMT,
Milo T. <fantastical@malaprop.net> wrote:

Nah, it requires someone who wants to put themselves through the pain of
having to use MICROS~1 windows in the first place, in order to port it.

Why do that? the app works great under Linux, the *BSDs and other Unix
like OSen.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/o1F5d90bcYOAWPYRAtofAKDvcR3Pz07kQcwJNrbdcwmSivhVQw CfZWgV
RSvbbZADXDc6HPBO+qjQeVE=
=mKq/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
We're tired of third-rate incompetents in public office. We want first-rate
incompetents.

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 22:23:53 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:

That's as maybe. However, blaming any difficulty of using the Windows port
on the OS is somewhat twisted logic... the kind that could only be
engineered by a blinkered madman from Oz.

Milo T. threw some tea leaves on the floor
and this is what they wrote:

No maybe about it. Some Windows users trying to embrace OSS have a hard
time of it, as I have shown.

Far easier to just use GNU/Linux .





--
Kind Regards from Terry
My Desktop is powered by GNU/LinuX, Gentoo-1.4_rc2
New Homepage: http://milkstone.d2.net.au/
** Linux Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **

Milo T. wrote:

Why do you assume its the software author's responsibility to make sure his
software works well on an OS he may not even be using? Why do you consider it
some moral crime when an OSS developer doesn't write his software for Windows?
OSS developers are largely uninterested in the big market as they usually aren't
interested in a monetary profit, they write their software for themselves first,
for the OSS community second and everyone else comes in third. They write it
mainly for the OS they use, if someone else comes along and ports it to another
OS great, but if not, so what? They aren't obligated to satisfy your every
whim, they don't work for *you*. That so many of them do work hard to make
their programs cross-platform is a testament to their desire to help others,
even people running other platforms that they are indifferent or even hostile
towards. This is not about making software that *you* don't have to pay for,
its about a community building a pool of Free Software that they can share with
each other, without the restrictions and silliness that come with proprietary
software.

I don't know what you and Terry were originally arguing about, but the
implication in your argument that its some kind of failure, or some level of
incompetence, that OSS developers don't write their software so it works best on
*your* OS, and don't provide quality documentation from the outset is arrogant
at best. The world does not yet totally revolve around Windows, if you want OSS
software on Windows its going to take people in the Windows world to make that
happen, if they don't, it won't happen and no whining at the original authors
will change that, because by donating their software to the OSS community thay
have already done all the charity that is expected of them, everything they do
after that is pure good will on their part. The OSS world does not exist to
satisfy your needs, it exists to satisfy its own members' needs, and if others
benefit great, but its the community that is important, not writing software so
you don't have to pay for it.

Ed Cogburn blubbered effusively on Sat, 01 Nov 2003 at 11:01 GMT:

While that's absolutely correct, you have to remember who you're
dealing with: Milo T. "Simple Simon" COoke.

You put out 100% accuracy that is 100% wasted with him. In this
instance, the proper wording could have been borrowed from Peter:

Idiot.

--
Microsoft: The company that made email dangerous.

On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 21:54:54 +1100, Terry wrote:

[un-snip]
However, blaming any difficulty of using the Windows port
on the OS is somewhat twisted logic... the kind that could only be
engineered by a blinkered madman from Oz.

If the OSS authors actually knew what they were doing, or cared about their
user base, it would be as easy to use on Windows as on Linux.

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 06:01:09 -0500, Ed Cogburn wrote:
Perhaps you should read the rest of the thread before butting in then? I
mean, you've already stated that you don't know what we're arguing about.
So what does the rest of your post have to do with reality?

So what you're saying is that if the port is of low quality, it's no-one's
fault because it's free and no-one is holding a gun towards your head to
make you use it?

Note: We're talking about pre-existing ports, here. And no, requiring good
quality documentation isn't arrogant. It's expected, because it's one of
those things that separates professionally developed software from the
amateur hour stuff.

It's not the Windows guys going around demanding high quality software and
high quality documentation - it's the Linux guys running around claiming
that they already do that. However, when the push comes to shove, the real
truth is that, no, they don't. They just do a half-assed job.
They make claims like "Linux is ready for the desktop", and "Windows
documentation sucks", and "Windows doesn't work as well as Linux" - even if
half the documentation work hasn't been done yet, and the other half is
poorly written, and the only part that really works well in Linux is the
kernel.

Similarly, whining about OSS software not working well on Windows, and
claiming it's a fault of the OS, and that people should move to Linux
because of this -- as Terry did -- is a canard. Which, if you had bothered
to read the rest of the thread, you'd have seen was my point originally.

Simon