Re: Linux hits 6.1% on March!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moshe Goldfarb
  • Start date Start date
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:29:55 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Moshe Goldfarb <brick.n.straw@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:08:53 +0100, Christopher Hunter wrote:
>>
>>> Rick wrote:
>>>
>>>> If a persons' work environment is mandated Microsoft, how do you expect
>>>> that person to use Linux?
>>>
>>> A company I used to work for was that stupid. I found /much/ better
>>> employment, and they went out of business quite soon after they tried to
>>> migrate their business software to Windoze XP.
>>>
>>> C.
>>
>> Is that you Kelsey?
>
> LOL!!!!!!!!!! Missed that. Just replied in a similar fashion.

It's getting obvious these days.
The Linux loons are not that swift...

--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
Ignoramus20845 wrote:
> On 2008-04-04, Josef Moellers <josef.moellers@fujitsu-siemens.com> wrote:
>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>
>>> After 10 years, .7 percent is pathetic.
>> After 10 years without a multi-billion advertising campaign and massive
>> bullying, one in 143 is all but pathetic.
>>
>
> Keep in mind that "desktop" is only one of the markets where Linux is
> a player. The other two markets are servers and gadgets (including
> those EEE PCs and PMPs). There, Linux is much more successful.
>
> I think that rather than froth at the mouth with "advocacy", we'd do
> better to promote Linux by writing better software to make Linux run
> smoother.
>
> i


One of the keys to winning the desktop is cross-platform development.

Every new application should be made to run on all three or four of the
most popular OSes.
 
Matt wrote:
> Ignoramus20845 wrote:
>> On 2008-04-04, Josef Moellers <josef.moellers@fujitsu-siemens.com> wrote:
>>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>>
>>>> After 10 years, .7 percent is pathetic.
>>> After 10 years without a multi-billion advertising campaign and
>>> massive bullying, one in 143 is all but pathetic.
>>>
>>
>> Keep in mind that "desktop" is only one of the markets where Linux is
>> a player. The other two markets are servers and gadgets (including
>> those EEE PCs and PMPs). There, Linux is much more successful.
>>
>> I think that rather than froth at the mouth with "advocacy", we'd do
>> better to promote Linux by writing better software to make Linux run
>> smoother.
>>
>> i
>
>
> One of the keys to winning the desktop is cross-platform development.
>
> Every new application should be made to run on all three or four of the
> most popular OSes.

Yeah, Check out

portableapps.com

a GREAT way for those new to open code to get going with what they have
now toward total conversion later.
 
* Matt peremptorily fired off this memo:

> Ignoramus20845 wrote:
>
>> I think that rather than froth at the mouth with "advocacy", we'd do
>> better to promote Linux by writing better software to make Linux run
>> smoother.

"Linux" software is /constantly/ being updated and fixed. For the most
part, it only gets better and better. Give it time.

> One of the keys to winning the desktop is cross-platform development.
>
> Every new application should be made to run on all three or four of the
> most popular OSes.

Some may argue about that. But, in any case, all too many developers in
the commercial arena do not feel they have even time enough for one
platform, and so they stick with the largest platform.

--
In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things
happen and how they happen. I don't know if there's a god or not, but I
think religious principles are quite valid.
-- Bill Gates, PBS interview with David Frost (November 1995)
 
Matt wrote:
> Ignoramus20845 wrote:
>> On 2008-04-04, Josef Moellers <josef.moellers@fujitsu-siemens.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>>
>>>> After 10 years, .7 percent is pathetic.
>>> After 10 years without a multi-billion advertising campaign and
>>> massive bullying, one in 143 is all but pathetic.
>>>
>>
>> Keep in mind that "desktop" is only one of the markets where Linux is
>> a player. The other two markets are servers and gadgets (including
>> those EEE PCs and PMPs). There, Linux is much more successful.
>>
>> I think that rather than froth at the mouth with "advocacy", we'd do
>> better to promote Linux by writing better software to make Linux run
>> smoother.
>>
>> i
>
>
> One of the keys to winning the desktop is cross-platform development.
>
> Every new application should be made to run on all three or four of
> the most popular OSes.

The thing is that under 7% of users use Linux: That's a very small number
compared with XP or Vista. Linux is based on the outdated Unix using which
is as sensible as using a 1960s immersion heater with most of its old wiring
to supply your house with hot water: It does its job although
inefficiently, and it requires constant servicing with obsolete parts to
keep it in a good condition.

Manufacturers in the 21st Century won't be manufacturing updated parts to
improve its performance or selling it as today's technology with a whole new
look and feel to the original Belling and Howell immersion unit: They'll
have instead moved on and designed something much more efficient in terms of
operation, energy conservation/utilisation, and cosmetic appearance.

Maybe 1 in 91 or less households prefer the revamped ancient unit and start
a cult following willing to service it daily, and getting a thrill from
tinkering with and/or improving components but the other 90 households
prefer convenience above sentimentality, and opt for the latest solution.
That's how it is and that's how it always will be. No major manufacturer in
their right mind is going to attempt to develop the aging technology when a
leaner cleaner greener and more efficient alternative is available.

Ok at this point you'll argue that M$ have shot themselves in the foot with
Vista which is helping to drive customers to alternatives: I agree to an
extent. You'll also say that M$ have been developing a 13-year-old system to
a point where it has become so over-vamped that it's no longer efficient
and again I agree that this is somewhat the case with Vista. rather than
getting into Linux instead of Vista I'm personally taking the easier option,
as are seemingly most people, and sticking to XP at least until M$ introduce
Windows 7.

M$ appear to have learned a lesson possibly they've learned the right
lesson, and I'm living in hope.

Yes Linux does have its place as an operating system for smaller embedded
processor technologies such as mobile phones, gaming machines, and old
computers/ Third World budget computers in developing countries, etc. Yes
Linux, like the old immersion heater, will always have its fans and its cult
following: But Linux will never dominate the market, any more than a 1960s
immersion heater would be used by more than 1 in 90 homes at most.

I've used Linux before, and it's useful in its place: But as a main
operating system, and I speak for over 90% of computer users, I want
something efficient, user-friendly, and new: Linux just doesn't cut it.
 
In article <z7-dnXLNq9OUjoLVnZ2dnUVZ8uadnZ2d@bt.com>,
Dr.Hal0nf1r£$ <femail@nospam.kustomkomputa.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>Linux is based on the outdated Unix

Lol.
 
* Dr.Hal0nf1r£$ peremptorily fired off this memo:

> I've used Linux before, and it's useful in its place: But as a main
> operating system, and I speak for over 90% of computer users, I want
> something efficient, user-friendly, and new: Linux just doesn't cut it.

I disagree violently <grin>. Its efficiency, power-user-friendliness,
and constant newness is the reason I'm a Linux nut.

I do agree that many many people like Windows, and there is much to like
in it, but I'm happy to have other choices, including Linux, OS X,
Solaris, and the BSDs.

--
Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can't
lose.
-- Bill Gates, The Road Ahead (1995)
 
* the wharf rat peremptorily fired off this memo:

> In article <z7-dnXLNq9OUjoLVnZ2dnUVZ8uadnZ2d@bt.com>,
> Dr.Hal0nf1r£$ <femail@nospam.kustomkomputa.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>Linux is based on the outdated Unix
>
> Lol.

LOL yourself. Mac is based on the "outdated UNIX", too.

--
The finest pieces of software are those where one individual has a complete
sense of exactly how the program works. To have that, you have to really
love the program and concentrate on keeping it simple, to an incredible
degree.
-- Bill Gates
 
In article <UzGTj.17306$28.1264@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
Linonut <linonut@be11south.net> wrote:
>
>LOL yourself. Mac is based on the "outdated UNIX", too.
>

Well, first of all, ducky, I was laughing at the idea of
"outdated". Second of all, Linux isn't based on unix. It's a ground
up complete re-write, which is why poor SCO is no longer with us.
 
On Mon, 5 May 2008 15:00:46 +0100, "Dr.Hal0nf1r£$"
<femail@nospam.kustomkomputa.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

>That's a very small number compared with XP or Vista.

Now if Microsoft did not engage in their extremely aggressive business
practices of bundling and so forth, and the OEM's actually had the
brass it would take to stand up to MS, then it would be a very
different landscape.

>Linux is based on the outdated Unix

An outdated AMD K5 is still going to perform far better than a
3-transistor circuit. I like Windows however it's far from perfect and
Microsoft seems to be heading in the wrong direction. Pulling out
DirectSound is one significant example.

JD
 
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, the wharf rat
<wrat@panix.com>
wrote
on Mon, 5 May 2008 16:31:11 +0000 (UTC)
<fvncof$jeb$1@reader2.panix.com>:
> In article <UzGTj.17306$28.1264@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
> Linonut <linonut@be11south.net> wrote:
>>
>>LOL yourself. Mac is based on the "outdated UNIX", too.
>>
>
> Well, first of all, ducky, I was laughing at the idea of
> "outdated". Second of all, Linux isn't based on unix. It's a ground
> up complete re-write, which is why poor SCO is no longer with us.
>

Linux is to Unix as a Chevy is to a Ford both Linux
and Unix manage computer resources, and both conform to
standards, POSIX among them.

Linux *may* include some Unix drivers, but I'd frankly have
to look for them the kernel proper is, as you correctly state,
written from the ground up, and while it does implement such
things as fork(), it has no Unix code as such. There was,
however, an iBcs2 effort at one point, allowing Linux systems
to run BSD386 apps.

As for SCO...good riddance. :-P

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Now in nine exciting editions. Try them all!
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
 
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, the wharf rat
> <wrat@panix.com>
> wrote
> on Mon, 5 May 2008 16:31:11 +0000 (UTC)
> <fvncof$jeb$1@reader2.panix.com>:
>> In article <UzGTj.17306$28.1264@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
>> Linonut <linonut@be11south.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> LOL yourself. Mac is based on the "outdated UNIX", too.
>>>
>>
>> Well, first of all, ducky, I was laughing at the idea of
>> "outdated". Second of all, Linux isn't based on unix. It's a ground
>> up complete re-write, which is why poor SCO is no longer with us.
>>
>
> Linux is to Unix as a Chevy is to a Ford both Linux
> and Unix manage computer resources, and both conform to
> standards, POSIX among them.
>
> Linux *may* include some Unix drivers, but I'd frankly have
> to look for them the kernel proper is, as you correctly state,
> written from the ground up, and while it does implement such
> things as fork(), it has no Unix code as such. There was,
> however, an iBcs2 effort at one point, allowing Linux systems
> to run BSD386 apps.
>
> As for SCO...good riddance. :-P

http://news.zdnet.com/2424-9590_22-199987.html?tag=nl.e550

:-D
 
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Dr.Hal0nf1r£$
<femail@nospam.kustomkomputa.co.uk.invalid>
wrote
on Tue, 6 May 2008 00:51:57 +0100
<cOidnWOQ5aQKAILVRVnyjwA@bt.com>:
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, the wharf rat
>> <wrat@panix.com>
>> wrote
>> on Mon, 5 May 2008 16:31:11 +0000 (UTC)
>> <fvncof$jeb$1@reader2.panix.com>:
>>> In article <UzGTj.17306$28.1264@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
>>> Linonut <linonut@be11south.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> LOL yourself. Mac is based on the "outdated UNIX", too.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, first of all, ducky, I was laughing at the idea of
>>> "outdated". Second of all, Linux isn't based on unix. It's a ground
>>> up complete re-write, which is why poor SCO is no longer with us.
>>>
>>
>> Linux is to Unix as a Chevy is to a Ford both Linux
>> and Unix manage computer resources, and both conform to
>> standards, POSIX among them.
>>
>> Linux *may* include some Unix drivers, but I'd frankly have
>> to look for them the kernel proper is, as you correctly state,
>> written from the ground up, and while it does implement such
>> things as fork(), it has no Unix code as such. There was,
>> however, an iBcs2 effort at one point, allowing Linux systems
>> to run BSD386 apps.
>>
>> As for SCO...good riddance. :-P
>
> http://news.zdnet.com/2424-9590_22-199987.html?tag=nl.e550
>
>:-D
>

Well, I'll give Darl McBride points for being consistent,
but that's about it... -) It'll be interesting to see
how many other vendors Novell will sue, though.

Oh, and from the "better late than never" department:

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9593_22-5926241.html?tag=btxcsim

They've finally identified 217 contract violations, but the
document is presumably still under court seal. (Why, I'm
not sure this report is dated 2005-11-01.)

There's also

http://www.cyber.com.au/users/conz/linux_vs_sco_matrix.html

(found using Google Search) which, if complete and
accurate, means Linux suffers not one whit, except perhaps
in perceived reputation, and that only if one believes
Darl McBride, from all this.

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. It'll Fix Everything(tm).
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
 
* the wharf rat peremptorily fired off this memo:

> In article <UzGTj.17306$28.1264@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
> Linonut <linonut@be11south.net> wrote:
>>
>>LOL yourself. Mac is based on the "outdated UNIX", too.
>
> Well, first of all, ducky, I was laughing at the idea of
> "outdated". Second of all, Linux isn't based on unix. It's a ground
> up complete re-write, which is why poor SCO is no longer with us.

Not to continue niggling, but Linux is based on UNIX, enough so that
it's replacing it in a lot of contexts.

"Based on" != "same code"

Oh well, we're just meta-arguing here.

--
Whether it's Google or Apple or free software, we've got some fantastic
competitors and it keeps us on our toes.
-- Bill Gates
 
* Dr.Hal0nf1r£$ peremptorily fired off this memo:

>> As for SCO...good riddance. :-P
>
> http://news.zdnet.com/2424-9590_22-199987.html?tag=nl.e550
>
> :-D

Indeed. McBride is, and always has been, a deluded clown.

In the hearing, which concludes on Friday, SCO chief executive Darl
McBride made claims--including that "Linux is a copy of Unix"--which
are directly contradicted by the open-source community and apparently
run counter to other SCO testimony, ...

--
Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very
efficient. There's a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning.
-- Bill Gates
 
On 2008-05-05, Dr.Hal0nf1r£$ <femail@nospam.kustomkomputa.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> Matt wrote:
>> Ignoramus20845 wrote:
>>> On 2008-04-04, Josef Moellers <josef.moellers@fujitsu-siemens.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> After 10 years, .7 percent is pathetic.
>>>> After 10 years without a multi-billion advertising campaign and
>>>> massive bullying, one in 143 is all but pathetic.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Keep in mind that "desktop" is only one of the markets where Linux is
>>> a player. The other two markets are servers and gadgets (including
>>> those EEE PCs and PMPs). There, Linux is much more successful.
>>>
>>> I think that rather than froth at the mouth with "advocacy", we'd do
>>> better to promote Linux by writing better software to make Linux run
>>> smoother.
>>>
>>> i
>>
>>
>> One of the keys to winning the desktop is cross-platform development.
>>
>> Every new application should be made to run on all three or four of
>> the most popular OSes.
>
> The thing is that under 7% of users use Linux: That's a very small number
> compared with XP or Vista. Linux is based on the outdated Unix using which
> is as sensible as using a 1960s immersion heater with most of its old wiring
> to supply your house with hot water: It does its job although
> inefficiently, and it requires constant servicing with obsolete parts to
> keep it in a good condition.
>
> Manufacturers in the 21st Century won't be manufacturing updated parts to
> improve its performance or selling it as today's technology with a whole new
> look and feel to the original Belling and Howell immersion unit: They'll
> have instead moved on and designed something much more efficient in terms of
> operation, energy conservation/utilisation, and cosmetic appearance.

...except Unix was an industrial grade design when it was created.

Windows never was. Even when it was retrofitted with industrial parts
inside it still retained it's "ronco" quality exterior.

Think of it another way... Unix was created by the same people that
gave you your reliable first class land line communications system.

[deletia]

This is the common "it is old, therefore it must be bad or primitive"
fallacy. There are many devices that are not just based on old designs but
are just plain themselves OLD that are better than what's "shiny and new"
simply because they were engineered better.

It's like a 40 year old Benz versus a brand new Chevy.

--

The social cost of suing/prosecuting individuals |||
for non-commercial copyright infringement far outweighs / | \
the social value of copyright to begin with.



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
 
Linonut wrote:
> * Matt peremptorily fired off this memo:

>> One of the keys to winning the desktop is cross-platform development.
>>
>> Every new application should be made to run on all three or four of the
>> most popular OSes.
>
> Some may argue about that.

!

> But, in any case, all too many developers in
> the commercial arena do not feel they have even time enough for one
> platform, and so they stick with the largest platform.


Partly inertia, partly lack of tools. I don't know, but I understand
GTK+ is kind of a mess, and Qt suffers from licensing issues.
 
* Matt peremptorily fired off this memo:

> Linonut wrote:
>
>> But, in any case, all too many developers in
>> the commercial arena do not feel they have even time enough for one
>> platform, and so they stick with the largest platform.
>
> Partly inertia, partly lack of tools. I don't know, but I understand
> GTK+ is kind of a mess, and Qt suffers from licensing issues.

Inertia, sure. Lack of tools? Nah! In addition to GTK and Qt, there's
wxWidgets and the Fox toolkit. Then there's Python, and even Perl and
Tcl/Tk can be used to reasonable effect.

I normally don't do GUI programming, but I took one of our GUI apps
(shows a bunch of widgets representing a map of an installation, and
you can click the widgets to cause hardware to do stuff) that someone
else had written using Qt, and ported it to Linux over a weekend.

I don't think Microsoft tools have much on Linux tools except looks
(maybe), and an annoying level of integration. I know two guys, one who
really likes Eclipse (though he uses it on Windows mainly) and another
who really likes Netbeans.

There's really no excuse these days, for not programming in a
cross-platform manner, unless you are "locked-in". You snooze, you
looze! <grin>

--
Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can't
lose.
-- Bill Gates, The Road Ahead (1995)
 
Back
Top