Linux-Advocacy Digest #546, Volume #31 Thu, 18 Jan 01 10:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows (Shane Phelps)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: you dumb. and lazy. (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... ("Flacco")
Congratulations [ was Re: The Linux Show!] (Shane Phelps)
Re: The Server Saga (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: I just can't help it! (mlw)
Re: Oh look! A Linux virus! (Ilja Booij)
Re: KDE Hell (Donn Miller)
Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K ("Flacco")
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (Donn Miller)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: you dumb. and lazy. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Kevin Ford)
Re: More Linux woes (Kevin Ford)
Re: The Server Saga (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows (Kevin Ford)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 04:14:32 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Milton wrote:
> >
> > Mean time to failure (MTTF) is touted as being 2893 hours for 2000, 919
> > for NT4 and a pathetic 216 hours for Win9x.
> >
> > That works out to 120.5, 38.3 and 9 days.
> >
>
> this has to be a load of crap. I've never known 9x to go more than a
> couple of days before the reset switch is pressed into service!
Well, the study *was* funded by MS. And they habitually fund studies with a
contract clause saying that the reports will not be published without MS's
approval.
That makes the studies subject to the abuse that psychics use in their
"statistical" studies. They try to guess the hidden card (or whatever), and
if they don't score very well they say "The Force wasn't with me today", and
throw away the results. Then they try again. And again. And again. With
sufficiently many tries, they eventually get lucky and get more than the
expected number of correct answers, and then they run to sci.skeptic and
announce to the world what amazing powers they have.
I don't know whether MS ran the experiment 100 times and threw out 99 runs
that they didn't like, but the system is certainly open to that kind of
abuse. That's why you're better off with independent reports such as the
ones you can get from Netcraft.
And of course, Netcraft shows that W2K servers with 120 day uptimes are few
and far between. Check out these numbers that I posted to Linux Today a
while back:
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-01-07-004-20-OP-MS-0022.
>From that not-really-random sample, the average uptimes were -
W2K, 19.15 days
Linux, 84.37 days
Solaris, 142.93 days
See the link for the methodology.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:23:08 +1100
Lincoln Peters wrote:
>
> Probably true if you consider Solaris or VMS, but who can afford the
> price of the software and specialized hardware?
Solaris is free (as in beer) for systems with < 8 CPUs.
It is available for Intel, but Linux outperformas it in many areas.
Low-end SPARC boxes aren't a lot more expensive (ie 2x rather than 10x)
than equivalent Intel boxes these days, and the cost ratio is much lower
if comparing to "name" brands like Compaq or Big Blue.
Most of the software which runs on Linux will run on Solaris as well.
The above probably applies to most commercial Unix versions, BTW
>
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:39:38 GMT, "Stuart R. Fuller"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Charlie Ebert <charlie> wrote:
> >: Linux has the BEST uptime record of any operating system in the
> >: world.
> >
> >Well, between Windows and Linux, that might be true. However, there's more to
> >the world than Linux and Windows.
> >
> > Stu
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 04:19:52 -0600
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > Not likely. See one of the myriad of uptime reports websites for details.
>
> Note the term *MEAN* in Mean Time to failure. That means *AVERAGE*, not
> peak. That means there were in fact machines with much longer uptimes.
Yes, and also some machines with much... lower uptimes. Funny thing,
statistics.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 10:37:48 GMT
"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you can't relate the comparison between Linux's orgy of "library
> revisions" and the painfully complicated methods to which they are kept (or
> not kept) and Window's DLL hell, then your just not thinking.
I guess I am not. Could you point out concrete examples where you (or
others) have been burned by problems with Linux library revisions? I
am aware of a couple of incidents, where certain distributions have
been too eager to ship new libraries, but it sure isn't any DLL hell,
by a long way.
> Maybe if Linux had it's configuration files documented like FreeBSD
> does
Which configuration files are you talking about? Linux and FreeBSD
run mostly the same software, and it's the software that requires most
of the configuration files.
The only really Linux-specific configuration files I can think of, is
the kernel's .config, and certainly Configure.help is pretty good,
isn't it?
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:53:50 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16139.html
Following up to my posting this link I'm surprised that
no one has remarked on how brilliant a bit of advertising
the ad is. Of course Microsoft are now saying that their
previous OS's before W2K are crap. The problem is is
that most people won't notice this. They are used to
BSOD's and expect them. Now Microsoft are saying you
can buy something better which will not BSOD so much. How
many people are just going to say this sounds great, I
must buy it, without realising that they have been
conned for years by Microsoft?
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 06:04:21 -0500
> I just saw Whistler beta 2 and it is gonna be great.
Yep, can't wait for that copy-protected black-box to never set a byte on my
hard drive.
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Congratulations [ was Re: The Linux Show!]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:25:43 +1100
Steve/Claire/whoever.
It's very rare for somebody in an advocacy ng to admit having wrong.
Congratulations on admitting your error, especially given the tone of
the thread.
Would that more posters would do so
Shane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On 16 Jan 2001 23:22:29 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David
> Steinberg) wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >: Learn to read.
> >
> >Pot. Kettle. Black.
> >
> >Here's what the one Linux supporter to which you are referring said:
> >
> >> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:23:28 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> BTW I just went there with Netscape and its all good....
> >> The show link works with either mpg123 or xmms -
> >
> >"The show"...as in "The Linux Show." Take a look at the subject of this
> >thread.
> >
> >The poster never lied because he was not talking about the "Antitrust"
> >trailer. That was your off-topic tangent. He was talking about "The
> >Linux Show," the topic of the thread.
> >
> >That's why he had no idea what you're talking about. Your posts are past
> >ridiculous.
>
> I stand corrected, you are right. I din't realize there was a Linux
> Show, I thought he meant the movie Anti-Trust.
>
> Evidently I wasn't the only one who got confused though because Mr.
> "period" was off target as well.
>
> I apologize for the error, especially to the original poster jjs.
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:39:56 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Aaron Ginn wrote:
>> Your sole purpose here is to inflame and troll.
> My sole purpose here is to counter Linux advocacy.
If that is so, I really must say I'd prefer it if you'd adopt the
style of Kyle, or Flatfish, or whatever.
Your posts looked like you actually wanted solutions to your problems,
and I've on a couple of occasions spent - or rather, wasted - my time
trying to help out.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 07:26:39 -0500
Salvador Peralta wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
> >
> > Win2K: MTTF 2893 Hours? (120 days)
> > NT: MTTF 919 Hours? (38 Days)
> > Win98: MTTF 216 Hours (9 days)
>
> It sure as hell blows the arguments of the Chads and a few others who
> used to say that NT was as stable as linux and that most (all) NT
> downtime was the result of operator/admin error rather than a defect in
> the os.
I remain mystified that Microsoft thinks these are good numbers. Surely
someone in Redmond must have a clue?
The very fact that these numbers are public indicates Microsoft has no
understanding of operating systems. They can't. These are very bad
numbers, there is no argument, yet Microsoft thinks they are good
numbers.
A mean uptime of 120 days, with their flagship operating system. What
the hell is that? I am in shocked disbelief.
How can they see these numbers as good?
How can they see these numbers and not pull the product off the shelves
until it is fixed?
How come there isn't public outcry about poor quality?
A real OS vendor would be disgraced.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Ilja Booij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oh look! A Linux virus!
Date: 18 Jan 2001 14:06:37 +0100
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16168.html
>
> --
> ---
> Pete
Actually it's a Worm, not a virus.
and, more importantly, it makes use of vulnerabilities
already solved by updates (see for instance www.lwn.net,
front page).
so anybody that has been infected has been sloppy in
the system management.
Ilja
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 08:06:51 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> Indeed. That's why I usually suggest Python. It's OO, but it's not
> we-will-force-OOP-on-you-until-we-can-OOP-no-more OO.
How about Perl's implementation of OOP? Yipe! Perl is great for a lot
of things, but IMO its idea of OO is pretty scary. I've never tried
Python, but I've heard people say it can do the same stuff Perl can do.
> But if you teach them, say, C (extreme example ;-), which is just
> unsuited for OOP, you might get them to grok procedural, but you leave
> them no escape route.
Nah, you can do OO in C. You'd just have to use a lot of ugly pointers
to functions, typedef structs, and other such kludges. Why do people
even bother with such things, when they can do the same thing in C++?
I'm sure there's some horrendous way that you can implement private
member functions in C using const pointers to functions. It would be a
scary sight, to be sure. (Even scarier than using packages in Perl to
implement OOP.)
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 08:01:50 +0500
I just configured two systems on-line at Dell's website - one with Linux
and one with Dell - and the Linux system came to $64 *more* than the same
system with Win2K.
Where is the logic behind that? MS flexing muscles again?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 08:43:00 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> It also just plain takes FOREVER to redraw these windows whenever I move
> them around during a high-CPU operation.
Depends on what you're running. Window Maker is pretty fast, and it's
frugal WRT memory usage. Plus, it looks pretty decent, too.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:40:53 GMT
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > OTOH, there's no compelling reason for OSS. The stated advantages are oft
> > never realized (peer review, greater security, better design, etc).
> > Particularly when it comes to the OSS OS we oft discuss around here.
>
> What are you trying to do, win the prize for "Most Unsupported Assertions"?
> You've filled this thread with huge generalizatons, but you haven't tried to
> support any of your claims.
Neither have you. You assert that CSS is less secure, but you really have
no basis for that claim. I'm merely feeding you some of your own.
>
> Re the above: How many spyware incidents were detected last year? How many
of
> those spyware products were OSS? How many were CSS?
You don't know either, so why don't you practice what you preach.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:54:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:30:05 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 01:04:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >> >On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:33:43 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> You are generalizing for a random large collection of
> >> >> individuals.
> >> >
> >> >No I am saying ANYONE who hunts around a typical Linux system and
> >> >clicks on help will be more than likely be greeted with a message
> >> >along the lines of "Help not Written Yet".
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> This is assinine and trivially absurd.
> >> >
> >> >It sure is considering how long kde and Gnome have been in
> >> >development.
> >>
> >> ...compared to what? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years?
> >>
> >> Compared to what Windows was like 2 years after it's
> >> inception, GNOME is a bloody masterpiece.
> >
> >That comparison makes no sense.
> >
> >GNOME uses Linux or some other Unix, that have been around for years.
>
> However, the various GUI's haven't.
Well, windows is its own OS, so this is a muddy area. If you just
intend to compare GUIs, then you must compare to only the GUI.
Then you could say that Windows (the GUI) in its current incarnation
exists since about 1995. Windows 3.x was too different to consider it
the same thing. Or you'd have to say that the linux GUIs date back to
twm.
> Regardless of how long X or Unix has been around, both GNOME
> and KDE still need to get all of the architecture and
> implementation issues worked out that will make them mature
> stable products.
Sure. And that's KDE and GNOME's problem. Excuses are not needed.
> >GNOME uses X, that has been around since ages.
> >GNOME uses GTK+ that has been around 4 years.
> >GNOME itself has been around over 3 years.
>
> X really isn't that relevant here as it's just a basic
> driver layer. That's not what is being compared to on
> WinDOS here. Even so, the actual version of X in use
> still hasn't been 'around for ages'. It's relatively
> young as well.
X does all the drawing. X does what GDI.exe used to do.
It *is* a part of the GUI, IMHO.
> It's just a well known spec.
>
> However, you could say the same for the basics of WIMP
> when Windows 1.x or 2.x were cruel jokes.
Or even windows 286.
> >Compare things as they are, and maybe try to explain away lacks
> >as being in process of being fixed, but comparing what currently
> >exists to something noone even remembers is wishful thinking.
>
> There's a good reason that no one remembers them.
Of course. Time.
> Until about 8 years after the relase of Macintosh, and Atari
> GEM, and the Amiga, NOONE to speak of used Microsoft's fetal
> GUI's. They were crap for 8 years despite Microsoft being
> the industry darling with resources to spare.
Sure. So what? They are not so crappy now. Live in the present.
> So, even GNUstep is doing quite well with it's timetable in
> comparison.
Well, I have no idea of when GNUStep is expected to be usable,
so I don't know. But they sure are approaching the 8 years since
starting already.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:12:26 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flacco once wrote:
>
>> I just saw Whistler beta 2 and it is gonna be great.
>
>Yep, can't wait for that copy-protected black-box to never set a byte on my
>hard drive.
>
Indeed, I'd heard it was ugly as hell, and most people turn off the new
start menu straight away apparently.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:02:08 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nick Condon once wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Todd) wrote in
><9435gs$bkm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>
>>"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> Todd wrote:
>>>
>>> > Linux *is* too hard to use - Linux will *never* replace Windows on the
>>> > desktop if Linux users have this attitude.
>>>
>>> The desktop is dying, anyway. The future is embedded, where Linux
>>dominates
>>> already.
>>
>>Funny... I've heard this comment for years now...
>>
>>Last couple of years it was Java replacing Windows...
>
>That would be difficult, since Java is language and Windows is an OS.
>
Never heard of JavaOS then. Take a look at www.sun.com sometime.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:01:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your posts looked like you actually wanted solutions to your problems,
> and I've on a couple of occasions spent - or rather, wasted - my time
> trying to help out.
I thought anyone who posted to COLA for help was probably mistaken, as
its not that kind of group. Sorry if you were caught out.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:58:08 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Shane Phelps once wrote:
>
>
>Lincoln Peters wrote:
>>
>> Probably true if you consider Solaris or VMS, but who can afford the
>> price of the software and specialized hardware?
>
>Solaris is free (as in beer) for systems with < 8 CPUs.
>It is available for Intel, but Linux outperformas it in many areas.
>Low-end SPARC boxes aren't a lot more expensive (ie 2x rather than 10x)
>than equivalent Intel boxes these days, and the cost ratio is much lower
>if comparing to "name" brands like Compaq or Big Blue.
>
>Most of the software which runs on Linux will run on Solaris as well.
>
>
>The above probably applies to most commercial Unix versions, BTW
>
>
I woldn't call Solaris especially reliable, right perl programmers?
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:55:05 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:46:17 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:07:41 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:04:16 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:38:38 GMT, Chad Myers
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 02:14:37 GMT, Chad Myers
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:31:34 GMT, Chad Myers
> >> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 14 Jan 2001
> >> >15:19:13
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
in
> >> >message
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Chad Myers wrote:
> >> >> [deletia]
> >> >> >> >> So? What's the real problem with that.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> ><sigh> That question alone proves you have no concept of what
> >> >> >> >we're talking about.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >We don't have all the time in the world.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Then educate us, assuming you can actually articulate
> >> >> >> the details of the 'problem'.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Splitting all the movies into 15 minute segments just to
> >> >> >accomodate our poor choice of a poorly designed OS wouldn't
> >> >> >not be high on the list of things the Video department
> >> >> >would've wanted to do. Especially since they were strapping
> >> >>
> >> >> Odd then that consumer digital is distributed
> >> >> in JUST THAT FORMAT.
> >> >
> >> >huh?
> >> >
> >> >1.) I don't think you know what you're talking about
> >> >2.) We weren't distributing "consumer digital" products, we
> >>
> >> Even so.
> >>
> >> How lame can your authoring system be if it can't seamlessly
> >> cut together disparate pieces of video. HELL, that's the whole
> >> point of a corporeal video editing system.
> >
> ><sigh> It's not that it CAN'T, it's that we don't have the time
> >to do it.
>
> What time? They would probably spend more time in manual
> administration than the engineering time it would take to
> add that kind of intellegence to a media editor..
>
>
> >
> >It takes time to split it into pieces. It then takes more time
> >to put the pieces back together for final editing and post
> >production.
> >
> >It would essentially triple the time it took with a real OS that
> >could handle > 2GB files.
> >
> >It's really obvious, you're making an argument out of nothing.
>
> No it isn't.
>
> There are windows shareware tools that do that sort of
> thing. It's hardly rocket science. Your illustrious
> employer is being shown up by DVD pirates.
Why are you so thick?
Have you ever edited a video yourself? All our equipment has
the capability to trim the videos, but it all takes time and
processing power that ordinarily isn't required.
- Import the video from firewire (usually 3:1 or 5:1 with good capture
cards)
- Load the video into Premiere or whatever app they're using for editing
- Save raw video file for posterity.
- Perform edits, insert audio, stills, etc
- Save edits to video file
- Resize video to internet video size (192x144)
- Save resized video
- Convert video into internet video (Quicktime, RealVideo, Windows Media,
yes all three)
- Save converted videos.
Now, each one of these steps can take a good amount of time depending
on the length of the original video.
Now, add the following steps to account for Linux's brain-dead design:
- Import the video from firewire (usually 3:1 or 5:1 with good capture
cards)
- Load the video into Premiere or whatever app they're using for editing
- Break video up into 15min parts
- Save raw video parts for posterity.
- Rejoin video parts
- Perform edits, insert audio, stills, etc
- Break edit video into 15 min parts
- Save edit parts to video files
- Rejoin video parts
- Resize video to internet video size (192x144)
- Break video into 15 min parts (sometimes this isn't necessary at this stage)
- Save resized video parts
- Rejoin video parts
- Convert video into internet video (Quicktime, RealVideo, Windows Media,
yes all three)
- Save converted videos. (breaking not necessary because the compressed
videos are almost always smaller than 2GB)
We have to save the videos at each stage in case we have to reprocess later
due to errors or a change in our motif for producing the videos (which
happens often).
By using Linux, we would've doubled or trippled the time it took to
produce a video. Even with batch processing, it still takes a long time.
There, it's all plainly spelled out. Please stop speaking from your arse.
-Chad
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
