Linked by David Adams on Tue 27th Jul 2010 07:35 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Linux Some people hate the idea of adding proprietary software to their desktop Linux. For these people, there are Linux distributions such as gNewSense that use only free software. For the rest of us, who use distributions such as Fedora, openSUSE and Ubuntu, there are times we either want to, or feel forced to, add proprietary programs such as Adobe Flash or Skype or the ability to play proprietary audio and video formats such as MP3 or commercial DVDs to your Linux desktop. Here's how to do it.
Thread beginning with comment 434716
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
ssa2204
Member since:
2006-04-22

Besides not reading your own links, you don't bother to read the posts either. We are talking about Desktop OS, to which Linux is an incredible failure, and will remain so for years and years to come until some finally realize what a complete waste of their lives they spent.

FYI, just because an alternative exists, does not mean it is comparable. You spend so much time obsessing about Linux you have no clue to the world outside. The day most of us decide to recommend some of these idiotic toy apps you always seem to think are equitable is the day we lose our jobs. Fools like you actually believe that something such as that wretched piece of shit called Open Office is actually anywhere comparable to Office. Hell, I would not even compare today's OpenOffice with Office 2003, and we are several iterations beyond that now. And this here is why the delusion will always cause failure. Thinking something is equatable is a hell of a lot different than actually knowing, and more importantly UNDERSTANDING why they are not equatable. Don't even get me started on those CAD programs, what a joke.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Zifre Member since:
2009-10-04

to which Linux is an incredible failure

Not sure where you get this. Product success does not mean that everyone and their dog uses it. Even if it is only 1% (my estimate is about 1.5%), 1% * 1,000,000,000 people = 10,000,000 people. That is hardly insignificant.

and will remain so for years and years to come until some finally realize what a complete waste of their lives they spent.

Hardly. Different people use computers for different things. For me, Windows is a "tinker toy OS" because it doesn't do the things I want it to do, and it's much easier and more efficient for me to use Linux. I certainly wouldn't consider any of my time wasted. I haven't ever had to spend time configuring devices, settings, etc. to get anything to work. On the other hand, I spent days trying to find drivers for all my hardware when I installed Windows 7 (which I've only used to update the firmware on my iPod Touch).

In fact, you are wasting your time trying to convince people not to use software that they already use and like. I'm certainly not going to try to convince you not to use your software. If it works for you, fine.

Many people can and do get real work done on Linux. Many people can and do get work done on Windows or Mac OS X. Wake up, please.

FYI, just because an alternative exists, does not mean it is comparable.

Agreed. I don't think lemur2 has ever even used most of the programs he constantly mentions...

The day most of us decide to recommend some of these idiotic toy apps you always seem to think are equitable is the day we lose our jobs. Fools like you actually believe that something such as that wretched piece of shit called Open Office is actually anywhere comparable to Office. Hell, I would not even compare today's OpenOffice with Office 2003, and we are several iterations beyond that now. And this here is why the delusion will always cause failure. Thinking something is equatable is a hell of a lot different than actually knowing, and more importantly UNDERSTANDING why they are not equatable. Don't even get me started on those CAD programs, what a joke.

It's true that most of those professional apps have more features than the OSS ones. But most people don't ever come close to using all those features (and most people don't even use CAD apps, etc. to begin with).

Sure, MS Office might be nicer than OpenOffice, but you honestly can't tell me that the average person using MS Office could not use OO. (For businesses, that's another matter though. Many businesses do use those advanced features.)

Edited 2010-07-29 16:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Our definitions of "incredible failure" must not be the same. About the only thing my desktop has been "incredibly failing" at for over five years of use now is running Windows only latest game titles.

My guess is that you don't bother to look beyond retail market share percentages which are missleading at best. Retail success is also a limited goal which only a few distributions compete for.

Now, I'll agree that a linux based distribution may not fit some of your specialty needs (all specialty needs dictate the OS choice) but it's far from an "incredible failure".

Reply Parent Score: 3

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Besides not reading your own links, you don't bother to read the posts either. We are talking about Desktop OS, to which Linux is an incredible failure, and will remain so for years and years to come until some finally realize what a complete waste of their lives they spent.


As a desktop OS, my Kubuntu 10.04 Linux installation stomps all over the Windows installation I am required to use at work. Absolutely slaughters it in every way imaginable. The desktop itself is better (desktop cube, multiple desktops, clipboard history, activities, etc, etc), the underlying OS features (performance especially on modest hardware, lack of bloat, security, resistance to malware, updates from on source rather than multiple updaters, inter-operability with other platforms) are light-years ahead.

FYI, just because an alternative exists, does not mean it is comparable.


Indeed, many of them are better. Some of them are much better. As an example, the default out-of-the-box PDF reader is far, far better and more capable than Adobe Acrobat.
http://okular.kde.org/formats.php
Adobe Acrobat can't do most of that, it can only display PDF files. Oh, and as for Windows 7, it doesn't even come with a PDF reader, on any PDF capability at all.

You spend so much time obsessing about Linux you have no clue to the world outside. The day most of us decide to recommend some of these idiotic toy apps you always seem to think are equitable is the day we lose our jobs.


Clearly you haven't used contemporary Linux desktop applications (particularly KDE/Qt ones). This is how you design and build cross-platform protable applications BTW, you write them in C++ to use Qt and simply compile them (on Linux) using GCC for each platform target ... this kind of thing is totally no-can-do for Windows. I use both Windows applications and KDE desktop Applications every day, and the constant-use set of free KDE4 desktop applications I use every day absolutely stomps all over the equivalent, expensive-to-acquire-and-maintain ones I must use for Windows. No contest.

Fools like you actually believe that something such as that wretched piece of shit called Open Office is actually anywhere comparable to Office. Hell, I would not even compare today's OpenOffice with Office 2003, and we are several iterations beyond that now. And this here is why the delusion will always cause failure. Thinking something is equatable is a hell of a lot different than actually knowing, and more importantly UNDERSTANDING why they are not equatable. Don't even get me started on those CAD programs, what a joke.


Fortunately, blinkers, outrageous rudeness and vehement bias such as yours is not universal, or even common.

BTW: OpenOffice penetration is currently measured at between 10% to 20% of the installed base, depending on geographic locality.
http://www.quantenblog.net/free-software/openoffice-market-share
http://www.webmasterpro.de/portal/news/2010/02/05/international-ope...
(they measured it by looking at the fonts installed).

Ten to twenty percent of the installed base of Office suites represents an absolutely huge (hundreds of millions, and rapidly growing) number of people who do not agree with your assesment.

Reply Parent Score: 2

bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

On the desktop there is a huge degree of proprietary lock-in, applications are often written only for windows, data is often stored in proprietary formats only supported by specific applications... In virtually every other market linux is doing extremely well, be it servers, supercomputing, phones and all manner of other embedded devices.

Now all this proprietary lock-in is the sign of an immature market, combined also with constant progress taking place. As the market matures, the users will move towards more standard data formats (as is already happening in places), and you will reach a point where the current systems are adequate for your needs so there is no longer any compelling need to upgrade.
Once you reach this point, the market becomes commoditized and prices start being squeezed. Among a list of several adequate tools, the cheapest one will usually win - especially for business or government use.

Look at how windows was successful, it was crap, massively inferior to its competitors (proprietary unix boxes, novell, apple, even amiga) but it was much cheaper and ran on commoditized hardware.

Look at today, you can argue that openoffice is inferior to msoffice but at the end of the day its more than adequate for the needs of 99.9% of people while being considerably cheaper. Look at it purely from a business perspective, you have an office containing 300 people who need to write simple letters, both products will do the job but one costs $100 per user the other is free. It's the same decision that resulted in a sale for windows rather than a more expensive but massively superior sun/sgi/dec workstation or mac.

The only things holding it back are lack of user awareness (poor marketing) and proprietary data formats, the latter is gradually being addressed and if oracle dont address the former someone else will sooner or later.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

On the desktop there is a huge degree of proprietary lock-in, applications are often written only for windows, data is often stored in proprietary formats only supported by specific applications... In virtually every other market linux is doing extremely well, be it servers, supercomputing, phones and all manner of other embedded devices. Now all this proprietary lock-in is the sign of an immature market, combined also with constant progress taking place. As the market matures, the users will move towards more standard data formats (as is already happening in places), and you will reach a point where the current systems are adequate for your needs so there is no longer any compelling need to upgrade. Once you reach this point, the market becomes commoditized and prices start being squeezed. Among a list of several adequate tools, the cheapest one will usually win - especially for business or government use. Look at how windows was successful, it was crap, massively inferior to its competitors (proprietary unix boxes, novell, apple, even amiga) but it was much cheaper and ran on commoditized hardware. Look at today, you can argue that openoffice is inferior to msoffice but at the end of the day its more than adequate for the needs of 99.9% of people while being considerably cheaper. Look at it purely from a business perspective, you have an office containing 300 people who need to write simple letters, both products will do the job but one costs $100 per user the other is free. It's the same decision that resulted in a sale for windows rather than a more expensive but massively superior sun/sgi/dec workstation or mac. The only things holding it back are lack of user awareness (poor marketing) and proprietary data formats, the latter is gradually being addressed and if oracle dont address the former someone else will sooner or later.


Format compatibility is far more of a problem for MS Office than it is for OpenOffice. I run OpenOffice under Linux, and I can easily open documents produced by various versions of MS Office. I can also save my data in MS Office-readable legacy formats, I can export them to PDF, and I can save them in ISO-approved standard formats.

If I was exchanging documents with another party who was using MS Office, and both of us forgot to save to a common format before sending to the other, then it is the MS Office user who will have the problem reading documents we exchange and not me.

Thats right folks ... MS Office cannot correctly handle the default (and standard) document formats produced by another Office suite that has 10% to 20% of the overall Office market. This is a major, major failing for a far-more-expensive-than-the-main-opposition Office suite.

If a small-to-medium non-complex business needed 300 Office application seats, then OpenOffice is an ideal solution for them. No cost to install, no concerns about tracking license compliance, and no problems with interoperability (given that they are not dealing with highly complex documents). In addition, there would be no need to re-train staff on "how to use the ribbon interface" (OpenOffice is easier to pick up how to use it than new versions of MS Office). None of those same benefits would apply if the small-to-medium business had to use MS Office instead.

Edited 2010-07-30 07:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2