Is there a better Alternative to Thunderbird ? <Why I use a Mac>

Fri Feb 4 20:56:11 UTC 2011

2011/2/4 Michael Miles <mmamiga6 at gmail.com>

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: users-bounces at lists.fedoraproject.org
> [mailto:users-bounces at lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of James McKenzie
> Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 10:10
> To: users at lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: Re: Is there a better Alternative to Thunderbird ? <Why I use a
> Mac>
>
> > On 02/03/2011 11:20 AM, Robert Myers wrote:
> > You can't say Linux won't be a factor on the desktop. I have a number
> > of relatively unsophisticated users running CentOS as their desktop
> > and they're quite happy. Oh, they look at my stuff and "ooh" and "aah"
> > at some of the niftiness, but they'll get it when it's stable.
> <Major Soapbox entered the room, set down and I jumped on it>
> If I could get Fedora or CentOS running on my old Thinkpad, I would move
> back to Linux.  I would have to go find an external DVD player.
>
> I use a Mac because it 'works'.  There is not a major program out there
> that I cannot find a Mac equivilent for that 'works'.  Not so for Linux.
>  You cannot find a program with the functionality and flexibility of
> AutoCad.  All of the third party programs are missing some essential
> function that AutoCad has.
>
> If I buy a Dell, it will NOT come with Linux (it is an option) as I work
> in a Windows environment and I still feel that Linux is NOT ready to be
> a prime-time desktop OS (WAY to many quirks and hoops.)  It will come
> with Windows7.  It is very MacOSX like and does not have a crash a day
> problem.
>
> I switched to using a Mac after LOTS of investigation and watching the
> Windows98SE/ME disaster (Microsoft usually screws it up once before
> getting it right.)  I was using RH 9/FC 1, 2, 3, 4 and I did not like
> the new release every six months.  However, as you, I and others have
> pointed out, Fedora is an experimental OS, for RH to try and 'get it
> right'.  That was after IBM dropped support for OS/2 on the SOHO desktop.
>
> Now, before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, I've been playing
> around with 'PCs' before such a term existed.  I've run various versions
> of Linux/UNIX since the mid 1990s and was a great fanboy of OS/2 (too
> bad IBM dropped the ball on that one.)  I would love to say that Linux
> is a great OS, and in many cases it is.  However, for Joe Windows Fanboy
> it is not ready.  Many Windows programs do not and will not have a fully
> functional Linux one.  Linux remains a niche product in many ways.
>
> Gnome/KDE 'wars' and others aside, if you watch the folks in Redmond
> work, you would know why Linux is going to win the Server wars, and
> Windows has such a great grip on the Desktop.  Until Linux can support
> 99% of all hardware OUT OF THE BOX, with no tweaking and other
> non-sense, then it will not even have a fighting chance.  Folks are
> loathe to sell/give away their old hardware and Apple still supports the
> G-3 Graphite that my SO owns.  I cannot say that for ANY PC company
> (Dell, Gateway, IBM, and a few others).
>
> Sad to say, but I may have to become a Windows Fanboy to get what I need
> done, without having to beat on a system all day long.
>
> When Linux gets to that level, it will be a winner.  Otherwise, it will
> continue to be an operating system for servers and cell phones.
>
> <Jim leaves the room, taking his soapbox with him.>
>
> > <soap>
> > MacOS doesn't release often and Macs are very controlled environments
> > and don't have to cater to millions of different hardware combos unlike
> > most Linux environments.  Windows hasn't had a major release since
> > Windows 7, just bug and security fixes (lots of those).
> </soap>
>
> And so did Solaris and other operating systems.  This is called quality
> control.  If the IBM versus Tandy case had gone the other way, we would
> all be using IBM hardware/software.  We would still be running ATs with
> a green screen.  That is called innovation...
>
> > Windows stability?  Remember the travesty that was Vista?
> No but I remember ME, which was MUCH worse.
>
> > Fedora is, by definition, experimental.  If one wishes stability, then
> > use CentOS or RHEL or another "stable" release.  I can't name another
> > OS with a 6-month (more or less) lifetime.  We are on the bleeding edge
> > with Fedora.  It's called that because you must expect to be wounded
> > occasionally when playing with sharp objects.
> Yes, it is and you have good advice for anyone wanting to run Linux.  I
> don't dispise Linux, I think it is very 'neat'.  I just don't want to
> have to go through the hoops to get it to work anymore.
>
> BTW, Windows XP SP3 runs on the hardware I have, slowly.  Linux cannot
> even bring up X.  That is a sad case.
>
> James McKenzie
>
> Very well said....
>
> Michael
>
> --
> users mailing list
> users at lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>

Hummm, All that paragraph that James Mackenzie wrote is really mistaken, I
will only give my
opinion on that ok? I don't believe I have the reason or something like
that, but I think this way:

Reading between Lines:

"If I could get Fedora or CentOS running on my old Thinkpad, I would move
back to Linux.  I would have to go find an external DVD player..."

¿How many RAM does your computer has? You can Run Fedora + LXDE
with at least 128MB in RAM and it will run better than XP or others...
Also,
why you need an external unit? We have USB's and you can install the O.S.
from there...

"I use a Mac because it 'works'... Not so for Linux"

Humm... We have an equivalent for almost everything and they run just fine,
I believe
any Linux alternative for any program has very much power as the Windows/Mac
original
program has. For example, to raplace AutoCAD we have Archimedes and gCAD3D.
Also, for
some other programs you have PlayOnLinux/Wine as an alternative and you have
also the possibility
of Running a Virtual Machine via VMWare Player/Virtualbox (if you have a
strong enough machine)
to run Windows and some programs of it's own.

What I wanted to say with that, is that you pick one or other enviroment not
based exactly on their programs
but in many other things... For example, I use Linux because I was tired of
viruses and HDD errors that made me
wipe the computer once every 2/3 months, it's more secure that windows, it's
more reliable, it's the best out there.

Mac it's just expensive, a Mac Computer costs 3 times more it's real value,
and they're only PC's!!! Hardware, Software...
if I want an OS that can run any hardware only by plugging it, without
viruses and with an alternative for every program
out there, I'll use Linux buying a powerful PC and putting a Linux Distro
inside of it, also I like the "lastest things"
so, for example, fedora is the best O.S. for me, Don't like to have
something for many many long time...

"Fedora is an experimental OS for RH to try and get it right"

And that's a myth buddy :) Fedora was born as an opportunity of keep giving
a free O.S. always very updated to the final user
because Red Hat decided to move it's developing path to focus into more
stable software that could be mantained for large periods
of time without the need for radical changes, They wasn't able to provide
the lastest technology and that kind of service
in only one distro, so they splitted up in two paths: For servers (that are
those that need to be mantained without very much
changes over the years) and for Desktops: (these are the ones for normal
users, the market of everyday's person
who likes to get the lastest technologies and innovations quite soon).
Okey, maybe the company analizes the different features developed in fedora
in order to decide if get them into RHEL or not,
They're also awared about all the new features and technologies that appear
in the Linux world, just like any other company that offers
systems with large maintenance periods (in this case for servers) does. If
that myth was actually the truth, we will be saying that all the
Desktop Operating Systems are just BETAS for Server's ones and we will be
fooling ourselves.

"Linux remains a niche product in many ways"

I don't think so... I've been installing linux in many PC's for some time
ago and
I have to say, my users can't be more happy with it, they even say things
like:
"Wow! How it's possible I'm meeting this right now!" and that's because,
with
every installation I do, I also prepare the computer for almost everything
without
"bloating" it... Linux isn't the problem... The people around Linux is the
problem...

For example, every new user has to follow a "Post-Installation" guide in
order to get all of the things
right in it's Linux, and that stands also for Mac and Windows user. Every
O.S. Need you to follow
some steps to "tweak it" as you like or need just after installing it. I
never seen a O.S. that has
almost everything without bloating itself.. THE ONLY O.S. that can almost
successfully accomplish
this goal (And this is just my opinion) is PARDUS LINUX.

"Sad to say, but I may have to become a Windows Fanboy to get what I need
done, without having to beat on a system all day long."

So tell me, What do you have to "get done" in Linux that makes you "fight
with the system"
in order to get it? If you need a windows instance, use VMware or
VirtualBox, as I see it,
if Linux has more advantages, I'll use it for my real PC, and if I have to
use Windows
for some forced reason, Instead of compromising my computer's integrity,
I'll run it inside
Vbox...

"I just don't want to
have to go through the hoops to get it to work anymore."

Then, DON'T USE FEDORA!! fedora isn't for a person Like you,
if you want a "FULLY FUNCTIONAL" linux without doing anything,
then try with Linux Mint, Mandriva or Pardus, but keep away from Fedora,
OpenSUSE
and even ubuntu maybe...

"BTW, Windows XP SP3 runs on the hardware I have, slowly.  Linux cannot
even bring up X.  That is a sad case."

And, just Remarking my point, if you want to run Linux in very old hardware,
forget about gnome
or KDE, use LXDE instead, it's "very windows like" desktop and very much
Lighter than WinXP

-- 
<-Manuel Escudero->
Linux User #509052
@GWave: jmlevick at googlewave.com
@Blogger: http://www.blogxenode.tk/ (Xenode Systems Blog)
PGP/GnuPG: DAE3 82E9 D68E 7AE4 ED31  1F8F 4AF4 D00C 50E7 ABC6
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20110204/c30c3984/attachment.html 