Digital BW, The Print

The tinkering done in inkjet printing is a drop in the bucket compared 
to the wet darkroom. There never has been, probably never will be, a 
turn key system to producing a good image on a piece of paper - be it 
light on silver or ink on cotton fibers.

Truman

Peter Nelson wrote:

>-
>
>The other problem is that no matter WHICH approach you take, you have 
>to like being a tinkerer.  Almost all these methods are basically for 
>geeks and nerds who enjoy doing profiling and running test strips and 
>tweaking things and taking out heads and cleaning them and installing 
>special software on their computers, etc, etc.
>
>When it comes to black and white injket printing there is NO 
>equivalent to the Toyota Camry or Honda Accord -  a consistent, 
>reliable, turn-the-key-and-it-goes mass-market solution that appeals 
>to a large base of users.   Instead it's more like collecting 1950's 
>Italian or British sports cars -  a hobby for eccentrics who enjoy 
>spending lots of time in the shop or under the hood, and talking with 
>other hobbyists about arcane and esoteric topics.
>
>
>  
>

Jeez! Geek and nerd? I had British and Italian sports cars in the '50,s and
'60,s and hated spending time in the shop and these cars were not hobbies.
They were my mode of transportation. Driving a 1969 Alfa 1750 Spider at
125mph is not for geeks or nerds. Of course the new Interstates had higher
speed limits at that time (I hope). I don't think using a CFS from MIS is
geeky or nerdy and it's not that difficult. A little care and some luck with
the printer is important but the learning curve is not that steep. You can
get very good prints with medium equipment if you can feel the best way to
use it. I just tried Paul's new UT curves with the MIS VM (on an 1160) and
he was right. It is a type of upgrade. That was easy. Just load the curves
and it works. Didn't have to tinker at all. Camry and Accord? Not in my
garage!

All in good humor....if taken that way.

Barry S.    bgs
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Nelson" <peter@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 10:29 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Stupid newbie questions


> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Martin Howard
>
> > I find the tens of different options (quadtones,
> > hextones, septtones, RIPs, printer drivers, separate
> > drivers, profiling equipment, whatnot) very confusing
> > and I don't know how to choose between them... or to
> > determine what is right for me and the budget
> > that I willing to devote to this.
>
> I asked a similar question when I joined this group and the situation
> hasn't really changed since then.
>
> As you noted above, there are DOZENS of different approaches to this
> problem and NONE of them have more than a tiny percentage of the
> overall user-base.  That alone should tell you something - if there
> was one method that worked well and consistently for most users who
> tried it then we'd see most people gravitating to it.
>
> The other problem is that no matter WHICH approach you take, you have
> to like being a tinkerer.  Almost all these methods are basically for
> geeks and nerds who enjoy doing profiling and running test strips and
> tweaking things and taking out heads and cleaning them and installing
> special software on their computers, etc, etc.
>
> When it comes to black and white injket printing there is NO
> equivalent to the Toyota Camry or Honda Accord -  a consistent,
> reliable, turn-the-key-and-it-goes mass-market solution that appeals
> to a large base of users.   Instead it's more like collecting 1950's
> Italian or British sports cars -  a hobby for eccentrics who enjoy
> spending lots of time in the shop or under the hood, and talking with
> other hobbyists about arcane and esoteric topics.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Truman Prevatt" <tprevatt@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Stupid newbie questions


>
> The tinkering done in inkjet printing is a drop in the bucket compared
> to the wet darkroom. There never has been, probably never will be, a
> turn key system to producing a good image on a piece of paper - be it
> light on silver or ink on cotton fibers.
>
> Truman

Martin,

I would have to agree with Truman on this. When I last cleaned out my
darkroom I had to toss a 18" high stack of boxes of different kinds of 11x14
silver fiber paper I had tried! On top of that the currently available
systems for dedicated B&W printing have really improved over the last couple
of years not to mention the last 4 or 5 years.

A great deal of the confusion comes from the variation in what people
consider easy to use and what they consider good quality. This is not helped
by discussing it on a text based user group!

At the moment I would point a new comer in the direction of a dedicated B&W
inkjet printer. I would recommend the Epson 1280 with a continuous inking
system (CIS) with Inkjetmall Piezotone inks and the R9 pluggin from
bwguys.com or Inkjetmall's plugin which is the same thing. It's not a
perfect system and not the cheapest but I think that it is the easiest way
to start as of today. Need to save some money substitute MIS FS inks. Need
to save more money go with MIS-VM or Ultratone inks and use the free RGB
separation curves but be prepared to do a bit more image tweaking. All are
equal in terms of mechanical type problems such as clogging and banding.
While still an issue it is generally minor compared to a couple of years
ago. In a few months my opinion may change as new products finally reach the
market.

If you are having trouble accessing the group homepage get in touch with me
off-list. There is not a lot I can do but sometimes I can help.

Martin Wesley

Martin Wesley wrote:

>>At the moment I would point a new comer in the direction of a dedicated B&W
inkjet printer. I would recommend the Epson 1280 with a continuous inking
system (CIS) with Inkjetmall Piezotone inks and the R9 pluggin from
bwguys.com or Inkjetmall's plugin which is the same thing. <<

I'm curious as to why you recommend the Epson 1280. I ask because I'm looking to buy another printer and am thinking about the 1280 or the 2000. What do you think makes the 1280 preferable?

Julius

http://www.profotos.com/juliuslester


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks to all who responded, on and off list to my question.  For now, 
I shall read up on what I can on the links you've provided, plus 
plowing through the archives if I find the time.  While I don't mind 
the tinkering per se, my initial reason for getting the inkjet printer 
was to quickly be able to produce prints and thus use it as a tool for 
closing the photographic loop and learning more about photography.  
Given a choice, I'd rather be concentrating on the images, than on the 
technology used to get them.

It'll be interesting to see what people think about the Cone inks + ICC 
profiles due in June.  Until then, I guess I could try the Lyson 
QuadBlack inks, which exist for Canon printers and see if I have any 
luck.

Again, thanks to you all.

Martin.

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "jbles" <jbles@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Stupid newbie questions


> Martin Wesley wrote:
>
> >>At the moment I would point a new comer in the direction of a dedicated
B&W
> inkjet printer. I would recommend the Epson 1280 with a continuous inking
> system (CIS) with Inkjetmall Piezotone inks and the R9 pluggin from
> bwguys.com or Inkjetmall's plugin which is the same thing. <<
>
> I'm curious as to why you recommend the Epson 1280. I ask because I'm
looking to buy another printer and am thinking about the 1280 or the 2000.
What do you think makes the 1280 preferable?

Julius,

First I am looking at it from the point of view of a dedicated B&W printer
with carbon pigment inks. It is then an issue the availability of
aftermarket software. The 2000 is actually quite a good printer with carbon
pigment inks. B&W with the Espon 2000 pigment inks is not a possibility due
to the severe metamerism. However the Piezo and R9 plugin don't support the
2000 for use with carbon inks. There are RGB separation curves to use with
the 2000 and the MIS-VM inks but since it is not as popular as the 1280 I
don't think as much work has been done on them.

The Epson 1160 and 1280 have been the two most popular printers for use with
carbon pigment inks. This is a case where it is really important to go with
the pack to maximize your options. All of the quad and hex ink companies
support these printers and provide regular updates. On top of that it is a
fine printer overall. I suspect that the 2200 will be the next printer to be
added to the list of popular B&W inkjet printers but the software has not
arrived yet.

By the way you have some really fine images on your website. Brought back
memories of living in Georgia in the 50's.

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Truman Prevatt 
<tprevatt@m...> wrote:
> 
> The tinkering done in inkjet printing is a drop in
> the bucket compared to the wet darkroom. 

As a veteran darkroom printer, I think there is a key distinction.  
The tinkering you do in a wet darkroom is OPTIONAL for most ordinary 
prints.  

The difference between a wet darkroom and digital B+W printing is 
that the wet darkroom consists of a basic set of technology 
(darkroom, enlarger, easel, safelight, trays, developer, stop, fix, 
etc) that is universal and it has a standard workflow that you can 
teach anyone in an afternoon.   There are no universal or standard 
tools or processes in digital b+w.   Instead there are a zillion 
competing alternatives, each with their little band of adherents. 

We have plenty of people on this very forum who have tried THIS 
digital black and white system or THAT one for YEARS without getting 
satisfactory results.    

If you want to compare digital black and white to wet darkroom in 
terms of process and tools, you'd have to compare it to the wet 
darkroom of about 1855, when everything was still being invented and 
photgraphers were still experimenting with different technologies, 
and inventing or discovering processes as they were going along.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Martin Howard 
<mvhoward@m...> wrote:

>    my initial reason for getting the inkjet printer 
> was to quickly be able to produce prints and thus use 
> it as a tool for closing the photographic loop and 
> learning more about photography.  
> Given a choice, I'd rather be concentrating on the images,
> than on the technology used to get them.

EXACTLY!

And that's the problem with digital black and white printing.

It FORCES you to concentrate on the technology used to make the 
print.  Only a small percentage of people here are satisfied with any 
ONE system or process.   In the responses to your question, even the 
ENTHUSIASTS said that you needed "luck" and a "feel" for the process 
to get decent results.

well if you want plug n play the new bwguys software and inks will work on
fine art papers without playing around, as will the piezo profiles - if you
like either inks and will pay the price. No fiddling at all

Julian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Nelson" <peter@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 2:06 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Stupid newbie questions


> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "jimj1946"
> <jimj1946@y...> wrote:
> >   Almost all these methods are basically for
> > > geeks and nerds who enjoy doing profiling and running test strips
> > and
> > > tweaking things and taking out heads and cleaning them and
> > installing
> > > special software on their computers, etc, etc.
> > >
> >
> > I hope that geeks and nerds was meant in a good way. I am also just
> > getting started in B&W inkjet printing. So far I don't see how it
> is
> > any different than darkroom work, as far as the
> > tinkering aspect goes. I don't know of any darkroom
> > printer who is not always looking for the perfect paper,
> > film, developer combination.
>
> You must be young.  Nowadays very few people do their own wet
> darkroom work so those that do are in the "enthusiast" category.
> They do it because they LIKE the process, they ENJOY the
> experimenting and tinkering, etc.   That's why all the ones you know
> today seem to be avid tinkerers.
>
> I've been doing wet darkroom since the mid-60's. In those days FOR
> MOST PEOPLE it was simply a means to an end - to make prints of our
> photos or to do it more cheaply than a pro lab.   I found papers and
> chemicals and processes that WORKED and stuck with them; I spent very
> little time tinkering, nor did most people I knew.  We weren't trying
> to be Ansel Adams; we were trying to make prints of our photos.
>
> That's the point that digital B+W has yet to evolve to.   A standard,
> agreed-upon process and set of technologies that works for 90% of
> users so when a newbie comes here we can all say "here's how you get
> started"  and tell him the same basic thing.   Tinkering should
> always be an option for the advanced enthusiast, but it should not be
> REQUIRED to just get a decent, neutral, streak-free, print without
> blocked shadows or mid-tone texturing.
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

The analogy with old English cars goes much too far.  Nothing I have 
encountered in trying to print B&W digitally compares to trying to 
keep a 1953 MGTD running. In all of my trials and tribulations in 
front of my computer, I have never been stuck on a dark country road 
late at night with a broken axle or any of the 100 other things that 
constantly stopped working at the worst possible time.  

Steve

> If you want to compare digital black and white to wet darkroom in 
> terms of process and tools, you'd have to compare it to the wet 
> darkroom of about 1855, when everything was still being invented 
and 
> photgraphers were still experimenting with different technologies, 
> and inventing or discovering processes as they were going along.


I agree, and that is exactly where we are in the digital darkroom 
era right now. We are at the beginning, and still inventing the 
process. So, if someone wants a turnkey operation, they may just 
have to come back in 150 years to find it :>)

Peter-

My experience is very similar to Truman's.  At 3 years experience ( if  
you ignore the ancient history of high school) I am a relative  
newcomer.  I choose digital printing three years ago precisely because  
there was LESS stuffing around to produce decent B&W prints.

For me having tried both as a newcomer ( and hence no experiential bias  
) it was relatively easy to produce a print in the wet or in the dry.   
It was/is much more difficult to produce a _good_ print in the wet than  
in the dry.


--
Kevin Gulstene

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Truman Prevatt
> <tprevatt@m...> wrote:
>>
>> The tinkering done in inkjet printing is a drop in
>> the bucket compared to the wet darkroom.
>
> As a veteran darkroom printer, I think there is a key distinction.
> The tinkering you do in a wet darkroom is OPTIONAL for most ordinary
> prints.
>
> The difference between a wet darkroom and digital B+W printing is
> that the wet darkroom consists of a basic set of technology
> (darkroom, enlarger, easel, safelight, trays, developer, stop, fix,
> etc) that is universal and it has a standard workflow that you can
> teach anyone in an afternoon.   There are no universal or standard
> tools or processes in digital b+w.   Instead there are a zillion
> competing alternatives, each with their little band of adherents.
>
> We have plenty of people on this very forum who have tried THIS
> digital black and white system or THAT one for YEARS without getting
> satisfactory results.
>
> If you want to compare digital black and white to wet darkroom in
> terms of process and tools, you'd have to compare it to the wet
> darkroom of about 1855, when everything was still being invented and
> photgraphers were still experimenting with different technologies,
> and inventing or discovering processes as they were going along.
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  
> ---------------------~-->
> Get A Free Psychic Reading!
> Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/aM1XQD/od7FAA/uetFAA/ucIolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ~->
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls  
> and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish  
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting  
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to  
> keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject  
> header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or  
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the  
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to  
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Peter Nelson" <peter@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 4:50 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Stupid newbie questions


> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Truman Prevatt
> <tprevatt@m...> wrote:
> >
> > The tinkering done in inkjet printing is a drop in
> > the bucket compared to the wet darkroom.
>
> As a veteran darkroom printer, I think there is a key distinction.
> The tinkering you do in a wet darkroom is OPTIONAL for most ordinary
> prints.

Peter,

"Tinkering" is optional in digital printing as well. You can take any
quality computer printer and use the "Black Only" setting to get a nice B&W
print. Some even prefer this method for their quality art prints. With the
Piezo printing system you can also get a good print right out of the box.
Other systems as well.
>
> The difference between a wet darkroom and digital B+W printing is
> that the wet darkroom consists of a basic set of technology
> (darkroom, enlarger, easel, safelight, trays, developer, stop, fix,
> etc) that is universal and it has a standard workflow that you can
> teach anyone in an afternoon.   There are no universal or standard
> tools or processes in digital b+w.   Instead there are a zillion
> competing alternatives, each with their little band of adherents.

A "zillion"? I don't think the alternatives are quite that high and in fact
I wish there were more choices. Actually the workflow is consistent. You
start with a digital image file, either from scanning film or direct
capture, adjust the image in Photoshop and send the file to a digital output
device. The basics are not as complicated as you are making them sound.

As for "little bands of adherents", name me any area of interest where
people don't have loyalty or fanaticism towards a particular brand or
method. Try having a discussion of Leica vs. Nikon vs. Canon! Cold light
enlargers vs. condenser enlargers! Whatever the topic you just have to wade
through that stuff and make your own choices.
>
> We have plenty of people on this very forum who have tried THIS
> digital black and white system or THAT one for YEARS without getting
> satisfactory results.

It took me about two years to get my B&W digital printing to a level that
satisfied me. It took that long for the inkjet ink technology to get where I
was happy with it in terms of hue and for me to learn the Photoshop and
scanning skills necessary to put my vision on paper. I had a head start in
that I had spent many years learning traditional silver printing. Making
good prints is as much or more a process of developing your artistic senses
as it is mastering the technical tools.

I have to point out that there are many people on this forum who are master
digital printers that produce prints second to none. I have a collection of
well over 100 prints from different photographers that are a monument to how
good this medium is.
>
> If you want to compare digital black and white to wet darkroom in
> terms of process and tools, you'd have to compare it to the wet
> darkroom of about 1855, when everything was still being invented and
> photgraphers were still experimenting with different technologies,
> and inventing or discovering processes as they were going along.

I think we have moved past the 1855 level a bit. You need to see some
quality results to really appreciate what can be done. Is it a rapidly
changing medium? You bet! Given that it is computer based and the incredible
advances in that area over the last 25 years this is not surprising.

I am not sure where all your negative comments lead. I have to assume that
you believe digital B&W printing is too hard for the average person or
casual user and should be avoided. To the extent that it will require the
purchase of a computer, software, printers, scanners, etc. and the
investment in time to learn to operate them you are right. Just remember
that learning to use new tools doesn't qualify as "tinkering."

Martin Wesley

> I am not sure where all your negative comments lead. I have 
> to assume that you believe digital B&W printing is too hard 
> for the average person or casual user and should be avoided. 

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned here already, or if it means
anything, but the latest issue of Practical Photography had a two page
review of the PermaJet VT Blax mono inks which are basically rebranded
MIS VM inks I think. They tried the prefilled cartridge version with
Paul's curves and found them straightforward and very easy to use. Total
verdict 89%. They explained the entire process of loading the different
curves and printing the image in a few paragraphs (most of the article
was pictures). It's really not that hard to install a cartridge, load a
curve and press print, so I certainly don't think this is out of reach
for the average person or casual user like Peter seems to think. 

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Wesley" 
> "Tinkering" is optional in digital printing as well.
> You can take any quality computer printer and use the 
> "Black Only" setting to get a nice B&W print. 

There are very few people who would agree with you that black-only 
produces a "nice" print.   Those who do like black-only fall into 
one of two camps:

1.  Poor eyesight so they can't see the dots or midtone texturing.

2.  They LIKE the dots and texturing - it either reminds them of 
film grain (which suggests they have no idea what film grain looks 
like) or they are of the school that says that we shouldn't be 
judging inkjet prints by the same 'outdated' standards as we judge 
darkroom prints, i.e., dots and texturing are a "feature" not a bug.

People say that black-only is acceptable if you stand far enough 
away, but even that's not entirely true, because using only one ink 
forces the driver to employ a dither pattern that simply cannot 
represent 256 distinct shades of gray for any reasonable PPI in the 
output image.   Do the math: even with the printer set at 2880 DPI, 
a 300 PPI in the image nets you maybe 90 distinct values.  That's 
why black-only looks too contrasty for many images.
    
> As for "little bands of adherents", name me any area
> of interest where people don't have loyalty or fanaticism
> towards a particular brand or method. Try having a discussion
> of Leica vs. Nikon vs. Canon! 

EXACTLY:  - Canon and Nikon aren't "little bands"; between them they 
have the vast lion's share of the 35mm market.   So if a newbie 
enters the field he can be pretty sure that if he picks one or the 
other he won't go far wrong.   The problem with digital black and 
white printing is that NO solution has more than a tiny % of 
adherents.   In other words, whatever you pick you're picking 
something that the vast majority chose against.     The fact that no 
method of black and white printing seems to achieve a dominant 
position suggests to me that they all have serious problems.  

Also, I've heard people complain about Nikon or Canon, but I've 
never heard anyone say, "I tried and tried but I just couldn't get 
this brand of cameras to work."    Whereas I've heard plenty of 
people say that, "I've tried for a year messing around with <fill-in-
the-blank> black and white printing system and I had one problem 
after another so I gave up".   

At least two different posters in this thread yesterday talked about 
how newbies in this field need to have some "luck" to get good 
results or select a good printer.   No one says that you need "luck" 
to get good results with a Nikon or Canon.
  
 
> I have a collection of well over 100 prints from 
> different photographers that are a monument to how
> good this medium is.

This is from someone who thinks that black-only printing is good.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel Staver" 
<daniel@p...> wrote:

> They tried the prefilled cartridge version with Paul's 
> curves and found them straightforward and very easy to use.
> Total verdict 89%. They explained the entire process of 
> loading the different curves and printing the image in
> a few paragraphs (most of the article was pictures). It's
> really not that hard to install a cartridge, load a
> curve and press print, so I certainly don't think this
> is out of reach for the average person or casual user like
> Peter seems to think.

If that turns out to be true then we might (finally) see some 
convergence on a practical easy reliable solution.   More likely 
what will happen is that it will be found to have some problem that 
will discourage all but a small band of loyal adherents - head 
clogging, maybe, or color shifting over time, or something.  So it 
will just be another small sliver of the pie.

This whole thing reminds me of Linux-on-the-desktop.   I'm a 
software engineer and at home I have a heterogeneous OS environment -
Windows and Linux.  FOR YEARS I've been hearing about the next new 
release of Linux on the desktop that will finally break Linux out of 
its geek ghetto and into the mainstream where your mother-in-law and 
dentist and art teacher, who aren't geeks and nerds, will use it 
just like they use Mac's and PC's.    And guess what?  It never 
happens.     Walmart is about to start selling a Linux-based PC and 
once again we're hearing these predictions.   Don't hold your breath.