[Info-vax] Unix on A DEC Vax?

[MG]

On 19-jan-2013 21:09, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> Isn't Flash from Adobe?Got it on my Ubuntu box.

So, what about Photoshop?  That's hardly an uncommon and
insigificant piece of software, now is it?


> And what else is there that an average user might actually need?
> PDF Reader? There are alternatives.  And Windows doesn't come
> with any Adobe out-of-the-box either.

I'm not talking about sub-standard 'alternatives', I'm talking
about quality software.  Does Linux provide it?  No.

The only quality desktop software for Linux is the occasionally
decent F/OSS or ironically the super-expensive, fully customized,
proprietary software (like the aforementioned IFFFS 'turn-key'
suites, which used to run exclusively on IRIX once upon a time).


> Sorry, I have not seen anyone saying that Linux won't work on the
> desktop.

It's not /just me/, it's simply a fact that Linux is frankly a
bit of a deadbeat operating system on the desktop for _serious_
(i.e. professional) usage.

Like others have also pointed out, the only real headway and large
scale Linux made on the desktop is via its Android incarnation.


> Quite the opposite.  I am seeing lots of specific Desktop
> distributions.

So what?  A tiny, insignificant, percentage compared to Windows and
OS X.


> Well, if you are of the opinion that if it doesn't run on Windows it
> isn't serious enough, I am not going to convince you otehrwise.

Beware, I never said that.  There's some very serious and competent
software for Linux, but it's the exact opposite of 'free' and 'open
source', of which many people have never heard and is out of reach
(too expensive and specialized, in setup).

I think of the truly high-end graphics software, somewhat accessible
to smaller parties and even private individuals, is Houdini by SESI
(Side Effects Software, Inc.).  Another former IRIX software house,
which saw more similarities between IRIX and Linux and therefore
found it a good idea to port to.

But, they've also been eying OS X a lot and they've been promoting
that a lot, since the last few years, so the writing is on the wall
...


> I just installed Ubuntu 12.04.1 on a coupel of different PC
> platforms (including, believe it or not, an old Gateway Solo
> laptop) and on a VirtualBox guest system.  It worked out of the
> box on all of them.

It's hardly going to be fast enough to do anything useful.

I've done never visualized anything, it's not like I'm unfamiliar
with it.  In fact, I installed VirtualBox on a more desktop-
oriented (or, that was the plan) Debian Linux Athlon64 X2 (dual-
core) PC and I found the virtualized speed of Windows XP to be
rather poor.  Not to mention my overall gripes with the 'non-
stable' releases of Debian (with the overall broken-'ness of
packages, which got on my nerves and forced me to downgrade to
'stable').


> I still don't see what is wrong with the graphics?

There's nothing 'wrong' with it, there's nothing wrong with
1980s arcade games, so to say.

The thing is, people have seen what modern PC graphics can
look like and even the next-generation so-called "gaming
consoles" are reportedly not going to pack a much greater
punch than some of the 'current-generation' PCs do!


> maybe my eyes are getting old but stuff looks just as good
> as it does under Windows.

I'm talking about raw specifications, measured performance
and graphical resolution/definiton and quality.  You can't deny
that a graphics adapter with a gigantic, multi-core, graphics
processing unit and a gigabyte or more of high-speed GDDR5 memory
is going to under-perform a relatively 'old' embedded graphics
sub-system of a (largely) passively-cooled gaming console.  Not
to mention, many 'current-generation' "video game consoles" only
support "HD-ready" (= 1280 by 720 pixels) resolutions, instead
of the aforementioned "full HD".

It may not matter to you, but some of the die-hard gamers do care
for it.  Plus, the whole game industry is massive nowadays.  From
what I've read, it's a multi-billion dollar industry.


> Maybe I need to hook my computer up to my 47" HDTV using HDMI and see
> what I am missing.  :-)

Many HDTVs sadly 'cheat', in terms of the provided resolution (e.g.
many supposedly 'full HD' screens aren't actually 1920 by 1200
pixels).  Best is to hook it up to a 23", 24", 27" or higher IPS
panel LCD screen, to get that the 'definition' you desire.


> Same thing here.  I find it every bit as usable as Windows or my
> MacBook.

What do you typically use your Linux desktop for, then?  I doubt
it's for graphic/web design, illustration, desktop-publishing,
post-production, computer-aided technical drawing, electrical
engineering, architectural/environmental planning and the like?


> Well, webbrowsing and Office tasks are probably the most common
> things down by people with their laptops.  Linux can do these
> perfectly well.

I remember, back in school, that those using {Open/Libre}Office
ran into trouble, especially because most were using the MS
Office software.


> Like I said, for games I have a gaming console.  It's what it
> was designed for.

Not really, but I don't want to be too hurtful by telling you
what they were truly designed for.  (Especially since the
mid-2000s.)


> You think the average user can't use Linux to do things that he
> does on Windows now and your prefernce is IRIX!!!   Somehow I
> don't see the world flocking n that direction.

Where did I say or suggest that the world is 'flocking' in '[the]
direction' of IRIX, or anything really?

You appeared to have asked me what I preferred (in terms of a
desktop-type system), by the sound of it, I then answered you.

Or would you've preferred an insincere answer?


> So what?  It runs contrary to what you said immediately before
> what I said.

No, not at all.  How does it?  Or are you claiming that OS X
is really just '[a] BSD'?  If so, that's a bit delusional, if
you ask me.  Or, wishful thinking in the least.


> And yet, apparently the rest of the world doesn't really see
> things the same way you do.

It has nothing to do with seeing, what don't you get about:
Windows and OS X are most used, not Linux?!  The statistics
are there.


> Well, like it or not, the primary function of any company is to
> make money.  Cheaper operation is good for that.

Well, guess what: Linux is not cheaper on the desktop, mostly/
only as a server platform.

For a viable Linux desktop, it requires a costly overhaul:
custom drivers, custom(ized) kernel, custom software and other
custom(ized)/special userland changes and additions.  I mean, if
you don't want to be mucking around with absolutely terrible
audio subsystems, graphics drivers and so forth.  For people
with standards and qualitative demands.  I know, that's rapidly
becoming rare, just saying though!


> And again, like it or not,Linux and, yes, even BSD, have more
> marketshare than VMS.

You really think so?!  Thanks, I didn't know that yet!

What about the vibrant IBM "z" internet-browsing user community?
Let's not forget them either...


>> Linux is hardly used on desktops and it certainly is nowhere near as
>> proliferated as Windows and OS X are.
>
> True.
>
>>                                        Most people run Windows or OS
>> X.
>
> True.

(So, it finally sank in?)


> Ah.  Now we get to the crux of the matter.  Explains your love of
> SGI and IRIX.

... How does it 'explain' /what/?


> But how many of the millions and millions of PC users do any kind
> of graphics with their PC that require that kind of power?

There are many typesetters/(desktop) publishers, illustrators,
graphic designers, people involved with post-production (e.g.
matte painters, compositors, video editors, etc.), web designers
and so forth, they require one or few programs and most of the
time, it's not available for Linux, only for Windows and Apple.

Same most of the time applies for professional audio disciplines.
Most so-called "digital audio workstations" are Windows or OS X
based, rarely (if ever) on Linux.

These are hardly rare professions, in a world full of web
designers (relying on Photoshop) and other software.


> They browse the web.  They send email.  They share photos with
> gramma.

What about people who wish to do a /slight/ bit more than that?
I think people who are content with the above functionality are
actually more likely to get a (slightly bigger) 'smartphone'
and/or 'tablet'.  They certainly aren't the types who desire to
mess around with Linux, or figure out which of the countless
distributions and forks would best 'work out' for them!


> They are not creating the next "Toy Story".

The irony is, Pixar used IRIX and Solaris extensively and nowadays
uses mostly Linux (as they must've considered it relatively closer
to the former two).  But, do you even realize how far removed from
'vanilla' Linux it is, what they run?!  In fact, most of their
software isn't retailed, it's in large part in-house/proprietary
software.  Only "RenderMan" is retailed and likely not exactly the
same as what they are using themselves (for obvious reasons).


> They are not publishing "National Geographic".

Even if they wanted to, Linux is a dead-end for publishing.  There
is nothing like, say, FrameMaker (for IRIX, Solaris, nowadays
Windows and undoubtedly OS X) and the 'open source' alternatives
are not used, not for anything significant, as far as I know.


> For what the AVERAGE PC users does Linux can easily do as good
> ajob as Windows.

What is "the average PC user"?  I don't think there's one, unless
you mean the 'PC user about to get a smartphone/tablet'.


> And at a fraction of the price.  And in that AVERAGE category
> I include the majority of business users and pretty much all of
> the government users I have ever had contact with.

How many use Linux?  It's wishful thinking on your part, they
mostly use Windows on their junk PC 'workstations' and laptops
and to a lesser degree OS X.  The statistics are there.

Such organizations don't want to be dealing with (re)installing
Linux and the frequently broken packages, they just want
Windows pre-installed and when they're too broken down, ridden
with malware and so forth, they just swap them out for the
latest Windows PCs.  They certainly don't have any standards
or preferences, they just want something they're used to and
that is /plug-'n'-play/ and /ready to go/.

  - MG