[vox] Rumor has it SACLUG is dead.

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Bob Scofield (scofield at omsoft.com):

> But if that's true, then there have to be more Linux programs.

How many do you need?

Let me tell you a story.  Back in early-middle days in the late 1990s, 
suddenly Linux was wildy famous, and we at the LUGs got a lot of public
queries.  

One of the more bizarre ones was 'Linux needs more applications.'  This
was invariably pronounced ex-cathedra by MS-Windows desktop users who
observed us doing Linux things, say, at the public installfests during
Robert Austin Computer Shows (basically big computer flea markets) at
the Cow Palace or Oakland Convention Center.

You could talk to them all day long about what you like to use, but
they'd invariably come back with 'Linux needs more applications.'

I decided something bizarre was going on, some strange communication
problem, so I decided to get to the bottom of it.  Next time I heard
that at a Robert Austin show, I sat down with the guy and said, let's
talk.

I pointed out that the Debian desktop system in front of him had (at the
time) access to literally over 4,500 packages from the Debian
repositories.  'Is that seriously not enough?  How many are required?'
He looked a little uncertain, and I said, OK, 'let's talk about word
processors.  I maintain the WordPerfect for Linux FAQ for the Linux
Documentation Project.  Here, I'll bring up a copy.  Section 8 shows all
currently available word processors for Linux.  Open source ones are 
OpenOffice.org, LBA Office, AbiWord, KWord, Pathetic Writer, Maxwell,
FLWriter, Ted, GWP, Andrew User Interface System, Xclamation (DTP) /
XAllWrite (word processor), Scribus, and Lyx.  Proprietary options are
Star Office, Anyware Office, SOT Office, Lycoris ProductivityPak, Hancom
Office, CliqWord, SmartWare, Ability Linux, GobeProductive, LedIt,
TextMaker for Linux, and ThinkFree Office.  I make that to be 25.  Are
you saying 25 isn't enough?'

'Uhhh...'

'Let me put it a different way:  How many word processors do _you_ use?'

'One.'


We circled back and, he allowed as how 'Linux needs more applications'
is not really what he meant, but he'd been not clear on what he thought
before speaking.  Part of what he meant was that the things _he_ was
familiar with didn't seem to exist (and he got my point that since he
used only _one_, practically any change would be to something new).
The other part was that he looked around at Fry's Electronics, and
wasn't seeing boxed sets of proprietary office suites or such things for
Linux, and in his world this meant the OS couldn't possibly matter.

His actual meaning having been clarified, we could finally have a real
discussion.  But getting stuck on 'Linux needs more applications'
couldn't be a real conversation, because the sentence as phrased was
meaningless, and obviously he had to mean something entirely different.

Sometimes when people say 'Linux needs more applications', they mean 
'I personally wish [proprietary application X] were ported.'  And lo!

> I've heard from talking to people, or have read, that some people
> believe that it was Microsoft that is responsible for Corel no longer
> producing WordPerfect for Linux and for Adobe Photoshop for Linux to
> no longer be developed.
> 
> The last I checked some years ago Itunes wouldn't run on Linux.
> That's interesting since the Mac and Linux both run on, or are, Unix
> systems.  

Apple zealously protects its control over its applications.   Itunes is
particularly sensitive as it's the gateway to quite a bit of
DRM-obscured third-party material.  


> So my question is, what does this Linux on Windows mean?  

Ability to run certain x86 Linux ELF binaries from the MS-Windows
command line with application support in some developer MS-Windows 10
Workstation builds.  Rather a neat trick, really.

> What is Microsoft up to?

Playing around with technology perhaps.  As one does.