Re: Linux Weaknesses

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moshe Goldfarb.
  • Start date Start date
M

Moshe Goldfarb.

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 01:50:04 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio wrote:

> If I were Steve Jobs or Larry Ellison, I would manufacture linux viruses
> and pump them into the wild to make linux look vulnerable and dangerous
> to use.
>
> It probably wouldn't even take that many: a couple of hundred over six
> months or so.
>
> The image of linux as safe from viruses would be shattered, and any
> company that was thinking of switching to linux would think again.
>
> It would set back linux by 10 years.

Linux has been around for 15+ years and still sits at 0.6 percent of the
desktop market.

How can you set something back that never got moving in the first place?

My idea is to include a free Linux LiveCD with every shrinkwrap of Vista as
a gesture of "good will".

People will try Linux, destroy their systems, see how bad Linux is and
never want to use it again.
Nothing kills a product faster than bad press and people remember when they
get a terrible product and will not venture that path again.
They also tend to tell their friends.

I sent this idea to Microsoft a while back.
We shall see what happens but I think it's brilliant!

--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 01:50:04 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
>> If I were Steve Jobs or Larry Ellison, I would manufacture linux viruses
>> and pump them into the wild to make linux look vulnerable and dangerous
>> to use.
>>
>> It probably wouldn't even take that many: a couple of hundred over six
>> months or so.
>>
>> The image of linux as safe from viruses would be shattered, and any
>> company that was thinking of switching to linux would think again.
>>
>> It would set back linux by 10 years.
>
> Linux has been around for 15+ years and still sits at 0.6 percent of the
> desktop market.
>
> How can you set something back that never got moving in the first place?
>
> My idea is to include a free Linux LiveCD with every shrinkwrap of Vista as
> a gesture of "good will".
>
> People will try Linux, destroy their systems, see how bad Linux is and
> never want to use it again.
> Nothing kills a product faster than bad press and people remember when they
> get a terrible product and will not venture that path again.
> They also tend to tell their friends.
>
> I sent this idea to Microsoft a while back.
> We shall see what happens but I think it's brilliant!
>
never work
 
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 01:57:43 +1000, Vote out Brendan Nelson wrote:

> Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 01:50:04 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>
>>> If I were Steve Jobs or Larry Ellison, I would manufacture linux viruses
>>> and pump them into the wild to make linux look vulnerable and dangerous
>>> to use.
>>>
>>> It probably wouldn't even take that many: a couple of hundred over six
>>> months or so.
>>>
>>> The image of linux as safe from viruses would be shattered, and any
>>> company that was thinking of switching to linux would think again.
>>>
>>> It would set back linux by 10 years.
>>
>> Linux has been around for 15+ years and still sits at 0.6 percent of the
>> desktop market.
>>
>> How can you set something back that never got moving in the first place?
>>
>> My idea is to include a free Linux LiveCD with every shrinkwrap of Vista as
>> a gesture of "good will".
>>
>> People will try Linux, destroy their systems, see how bad Linux is and
>> never want to use it again.
>> Nothing kills a product faster than bad press and people remember when they
>> get a terrible product and will not venture that path again.
>> They also tend to tell their friends.
>>
>> I sent this idea to Microsoft a while back.
>> We shall see what happens but I think it's brilliant!
>>
> never work

I dunno.....
I think it will.

For example I got a free Quickbooks CD when I bought some hardware a few
years ago.
I gave it a try and found out, later of course, that it was trial ware.
I had an awful time removing it from my system.

Guess what financial program I will *never* use?
Yep.
Quickbooks.

--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 01:57:43 +1000, Vote out Brendan Nelson wrote:

> Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 01:50:04 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>
>>> If I were Steve Jobs or Larry Ellison, I would manufacture linux
>>> viruses and pump them into the wild to make linux look vulnerable and
>>> dangerous to use.


Wasn't Larry Ellison booted, or something? Anyhow, what would he have
against Linux given that his company has its very own Linux distro?


-Thufir
 
Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 01:57:43 +1000, Vote out Brendan Nelson wrote:
>
>> Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 01:50:04 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>
>>>> If I were Steve Jobs or Larry Ellison, I would manufacture linux viruses
>>>> and pump them into the wild to make linux look vulnerable and dangerous
>>>> to use.
>>>>
>>>> It probably wouldn't even take that many: a couple of hundred over six
>>>> months or so.
>>>>
>>>> The image of linux as safe from viruses would be shattered, and any
>>>> company that was thinking of switching to linux would think again.
>>>>
>>>> It would set back linux by 10 years.
>>> Linux has been around for 15+ years and still sits at 0.6 percent of the
>>> desktop market.
>>>
>>> How can you set something back that never got moving in the first place?
>>>
>>> My idea is to include a free Linux LiveCD with every shrinkwrap of Vista as
>>> a gesture of "good will".
>>>
>>> People will try Linux, destroy their systems, see how bad Linux is and
>>> never want to use it again.
>>> Nothing kills a product faster than bad press and people remember when they
>>> get a terrible product and will not venture that path again.
>>> They also tend to tell their friends.
>>>
>>> I sent this idea to Microsoft a while back.
>>> We shall see what happens but I think it's brilliant!
>>>
>> never work
>
> I dunno.....
> I think it will.
>
> For example I got a free Quickbooks CD when I bought some hardware a few
> years ago.
> I gave it a try and found out, later of course, that it was trial ware.
> I had an awful time removing it from my system.


You found uninstalling a program difficult? That says something about
your expertise then eh?
 
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 01:47:21 -0500, Charlie Tame wrote:

> Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 01:57:43 +1000, Vote out Brendan Nelson wrote:
>>
>>> Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 01:50:04 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If I were Steve Jobs or Larry Ellison, I would manufacture linux viruses
>>>>> and pump them into the wild to make linux look vulnerable and dangerous
>>>>> to use.
>>>>>
>>>>> It probably wouldn't even take that many: a couple of hundred over six
>>>>> months or so.
>>>>>
>>>>> The image of linux as safe from viruses would be shattered, and any
>>>>> company that was thinking of switching to linux would think again.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would set back linux by 10 years.
>>>> Linux has been around for 15+ years and still sits at 0.6 percent of the
>>>> desktop market.
>>>>
>>>> How can you set something back that never got moving in the first place?
>>>>
>>>> My idea is to include a free Linux LiveCD with every shrinkwrap of Vista as
>>>> a gesture of "good will".
>>>>
>>>> People will try Linux, destroy their systems, see how bad Linux is and
>>>> never want to use it again.
>>>> Nothing kills a product faster than bad press and people remember when they
>>>> get a terrible product and will not venture that path again.
>>>> They also tend to tell their friends.
>>>>
>>>> I sent this idea to Microsoft a while back.
>>>> We shall see what happens but I think it's brilliant!
>>>>
>>> never work
>>
>> I dunno.....
>> I think it will.
>>
>> For example I got a free Quickbooks CD when I bought some hardware a few
>> years ago.
>> I gave it a try and found out, later of course, that it was trial ware.
>> I had an awful time removing it from my system.
>
>
> You found uninstalling a program difficult? That says something about
> your expertise then eh?

Idiot.
FULLY removing all the crap the defective un-installer program left around,
probably on purpose.

Think Symantec and you'll get the idea, maybe.

You don't seem to be the sharpest knife in the drawer.
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
Vote out Brendan Nelson wrote:
> Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 01:50:04 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>
>>> If I were Steve Jobs or Larry Ellison, I would manufacture linux
>>> viruses and pump them into the wild to make linux look vulnerable
>>> and dangerous to use.
>>>
>>> It probably wouldn't even take that many: a couple of hundred over
>>> six months or so.
>>>
>>> The image of linux as safe from viruses would be shattered, and any
>>> company that was thinking of switching to linux would think again.
>>>
>>> It would set back linux by 10 years.
>>
>> Linux has been around for 15+ years and still sits at 0.6 percent of the
>> desktop market.
>>
>> How can you set something back that never got moving in the first place?
>>
>> My idea is to include a free Linux LiveCD with every shrinkwrap of
>> Vista as
>> a gesture of "good will".
>>
>> People will try Linux, destroy their systems, see how bad Linux is and
>> never want to use it again.
>> Nothing kills a product faster than bad press and people remember
>> when they
>> get a terrible product and will not venture that path again.
>> They also tend to tell their friends.
>>
>> I sent this idea to Microsoft a while back.
>> We shall see what happens but I think it's brilliant!
>>
> never work
You sound uninformed, childish, and maybe around 18 or 19 years old.
For you to hate Linux so bad tells me that you test drove it and didn't
have the competence to master the terminal or just sat there wondering
what to do now - but you wanted it bad enough to try it didn't you?
Ubuntu Linux is on the market to date and shipped out on Dell PC's.
while Microsoft just pulled Vista off the market because of a profit
plunged.

http://www.dell.com/content/topics/...hs&ST=dell ubuntu&dgc=ST&cid=22125&lid=519235

If it wasn't for Unix, you wouldn't be online AT ALL. Microsoft can't
even run on the net without Unix/Linux. Nothing digital runs without it
- cell phone servers, dns servers, electric meter, gas meter, water
meter, our Satellite and much more than meets the eye. If it wasn't for
Unix/Linux, you couldn't have made such a stupid post.

WorthyOfUrAttn
 
digitaldoll45 wrote:

> while Microsoft just pulled Vista off the market because of a profit
> plunged.

Got a source for this?

Alias
 
If it wasn't for Unix, you wouldn't be online AT ALL. Microsoft can't
> even run on the net without Unix/Linux. Nothing digital runs without it
> - cell phone servers, dns servers, electric meter, gas meter, water
> meter, our Satellite and much more than meets the eye. If it wasn't for
> Unix/Linux, you couldn't have made such a stupid post.
>
> WorthyOfUrAttn


I totally agree. Ive used windows since win 3.xx. Started using computers
in 1982 (the bbc micro, speccy). Windows is OK if you want it to just run,
and your not interested in keeping the brain cells working by learning, as
windows makes you lazy.

Linux on the other hand, makes you learn. Im dual booting with win xp and
ubuntu 7.10. I find Ubuntu probably one of the easiest, but was hard work
learning. But it was well worth the work. Microsoft only made it, because
bill gates saw a chance and took it. fair play to the bloke, thats how
good business people make it, they have the right product at the right
time. And it cant be that crap else another OS would have been no. 1.

The reason all the hackers get into windows is because its used by 90% of
the pc users. Hacker, script kiddies and scammers want a fast buck, get in
get out, its that simple, so they learn how to hack what ever os is out
there, which will reap the biggest profit in the shortest time. Hence why
they find flaws in windows. Im sure its not just about "Writing a bad OS",
its also finding the cracks. I think that no OS is 100% safe. Linux is
just safer, at the moment.
 
On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:54:44 +0100, Confused Donkey wrote:


>
> I totally agree. Ive used windows since win 3.xx. Started using computers
> in 1982 (the bbc micro, speccy). Windows is OK if you want it to just run,
> and your not interested in keeping the brain cells working by learning, as
> windows makes you lazy.

Windows allows you to use the common software that you need to do your
work.
It's most likely what you use during your day job.
It's most likely what is used at your college.
Etc...

It has nothing to do with being lazy, it's all about using the
APPLICATIONS.

> Linux on the other hand, makes you learn.

Great if you are into that kind of stuff.
My Doctor, accountant,cleaning lady,etc want to run their business and they
don't care how a computer works.

> Im dual booting with win xp and
> ubuntu 7.10. I find Ubuntu probably one of the easiest, but was hard work
> learning. But it was well worth the work.

Good for you.
Knowledge is always a good thing but see above for how most people feel
about computers.
Computers have become more of an appliance, like a microwave for example.
Do you think people care how a microwave works?
Of course not, they just want to cook with it.
Same thing for most people and the computer.


> Microsoft only made it, because
> bill gates saw a chance and took it. fair play to the bloke, thats how
> good business people make it, they have the right product at the right
> time. And it cant be that crap else another OS would have been no. 1.

It was timing.

> The reason all the hackers get into windows is because its used by 90% of
> the pc users. Hacker, script kiddies and scammers want a fast buck, get in
> get out, its that simple, so they learn how to hack what ever os is out
> there, which will reap the biggest profit in the shortest time. Hence why
> they find flaws in windows. Im sure its not just about "Writing a bad OS",
> its also finding the cracks. I think that no OS is 100% safe. Linux is
> just safer, at the moment.

It's mostly due to the stupidity of the users.
If Linux ever becomes more popular on the desktop, the fun will begin.


--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
On 2008-08-04, Confused Donkey <confused@wartydog.invalid> wrote:
> If it wasn't for Unix, you wouldn't be online AT ALL. Microsoft can't
>> even run on the net without Unix/Linux. Nothing digital runs without it
>> - cell phone servers, dns servers, electric meter, gas meter, water
>> meter, our Satellite and much more than meets the eye. If it wasn't for
>> Unix/Linux, you couldn't have made such a stupid post.
>>
>> WorthyOfUrAttn
>
>
> I totally agree. Ive used windows since win 3.xx. Started using computers
> in 1982 (the bbc micro, speccy). Windows is OK if you want it to just run,
> and your not interested in keeping the brain cells working by learning, as
> windows makes you lazy.
>
> Linux on the other hand, makes you learn. Im dual booting with win xp and
> ubuntu 7.10. I find Ubuntu probably one of the easiest, but was hard work
> learning. But it was well worth the work. Microsoft only made it, because
> bill gates saw a chance and took it. fair play to the bloke, thats how
> good business people make it, they have the right product at the right
> time. And it cant be that crap else another OS would have been no. 1.
>
> The reason all the hackers get into windows is because its used by 90% of
> the pc users. Hacker, script kiddies and scammers want a fast buck, get in

....and it's CRAP.

There have been platforms in the past that WISH they had as many users
as Linux does now (even under the worst Lemming troll estimates) and
they have been plagued by malware of ALL KINDS.

If you build it, they will come and break into it.

It doesn't how matter how ubiquitious you are.

> get out, its that simple, so they learn how to hack what ever os is out
> there, which will reap the biggest profit in the shortest time. Hence why
> they find flaws in windows. Im sure its not just about "Writing a bad OS",
> its also finding the cracks. I think that no OS is 100% safe. Linux is
> just safer, at the moment.

Linux is remarkably safer. It's built based off of a better template.
It's design is not intentionally sabotaged by poorly thought out ideas
and notions of convenience.

Microsoft goes out of it's way above and beyond anyone else to be stupid.

That's why Windows is the leader in malware. They work at it.

--
Sure, I could use iTunes even under Linux. However, I have |||
better things to do with my time than deal with how iTunes doesn't / | \
want to play nicely with everyone else's data (namely mine). I'd
rather create a DVD using those Linux apps we're told don't exist.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
 
On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:54:44 +0100, Confused Donkey wrote:

> If it wasn't for Unix, you wouldn't be online AT ALL. Microsoft can't
>> even run on the net without Unix/Linux. Nothing digital runs without
>> it - cell phone servers, dns servers, electric meter, gas meter, water
>> meter, our Satellite and much more than meets the eye. If it wasn't
>> for Unix/Linux, you couldn't have made such a stupid post.
>>
>> WorthyOfUrAttn
>
>
> I totally agree. Ive used windows since win 3.xx. Started using
> computers in 1982 (the bbc micro, speccy). Windows is OK if you want it
> to just run, and your not interested in keeping the brain cells working
> by learning, as windows makes you lazy.

Well computers COULD make live an awful lot easier!
I think that is the purpose of computers in the first place,
keeping your brain cells working isn't a very good argument
for Linux here.
Linux could do a whole lot better if those programmers would listen for
once to people which simply want to use a computer instead of learning to
program!
Starting to listen to well motivated critism would help a lot too.
So IMHO !! linux could have been a 100 times better by now with
less then 1% of the effort which is spent on all linux flavors.

Edmund
 
On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 16:31:56 +0000, Edmund wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:54:44 +0100, Confused Donkey wrote:
>
>> If it wasn't for Unix, you wouldn't be online AT ALL. Microsoft can't
>>> even run on the net without Unix/Linux. Nothing digital runs without
>>> it - cell phone servers, dns servers, electric meter, gas meter, water
>>> meter, our Satellite and much more than meets the eye. If it wasn't
>>> for Unix/Linux, you couldn't have made such a stupid post.
>>>
>>> WorthyOfUrAttn
>>
>>
>> I totally agree. Ive used windows since win 3.xx. Started using
>> computers in 1982 (the bbc micro, speccy). Windows is OK if you want it
>> to just run, and your not interested in keeping the brain cells working
>> by learning, as windows makes you lazy.
>
> Well computers COULD make live an awful lot easier! I think that is the
> purpose of computers in the first place, keeping your brain cells
> working isn't a very good argument for Linux here.
> Linux could do a whole lot better if those programmers would listen for
> once to people which simply want to use a computer instead of learning
> to program!
> Starting to listen to well motivated critism would help a lot too. So
> IMHO !! linux could have been a 100 times better by now with less then
> 1% of the effort which is spent on all linux flavors.
>
> Edmund

By percentage, very little effort goes into distro packaging, as opposed
to the effort that goes into the app/utility development.



--
Rick
 
On 2008-08-04, Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:54:44 +0100, Confused Donkey wrote:
>
>> If it wasn't for Unix, you wouldn't be online AT ALL. Microsoft can't
>>> even run on the net without Unix/Linux. Nothing digital runs without
>>> it - cell phone servers, dns servers, electric meter, gas meter, water
>>> meter, our Satellite and much more than meets the eye. If it wasn't
>>> for Unix/Linux, you couldn't have made such a stupid post.
>>>
>>> WorthyOfUrAttn
>>
>>
>> I totally agree. Ive used windows since win 3.xx. Started using
>> computers in 1982 (the bbc micro, speccy). Windows is OK if you want it
>> to just run, and your not interested in keeping the brain cells working
>> by learning, as windows makes you lazy.
>
> Well computers COULD make live an awful lot easier!
> I think that is the purpose of computers in the first place,
> keeping your brain cells working isn't a very good argument
> for Linux here.
> Linux could do a whole lot better if those programmers would listen for
> once to people which simply want to use a computer instead of learning to
> program!

Programming is nothing more than telling the computer EXACTLY what
you want done. It can be done at a very highly technical level very
close to the hardware or it can be done at a higher level layer in
a more abstract manner.

> Starting to listen to well motivated critism would help a lot too.
> So IMHO !! linux could have been a 100 times better by now with
> less then 1% of the effort which is spent on all linux flavors.
>
> Edmund
>
>
>


--
Sure, I could use iTunes even under Linux. However, I have |||
better things to do with my time than deal with how iTunes doesn't / | \
want to play nicely with everyone else's data (namely mine). I'd
rather create a DVD using those Linux apps we're told don't exist.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
 
On 2008-08-04, Rick <none@nomail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 16:31:56 +0000, Edmund wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:54:44 +0100, Confused Donkey wrote:
>>
>>> If it wasn't for Unix, you wouldn't be online AT ALL. Microsoft can't
>>>> even run on the net without Unix/Linux. Nothing digital runs without
>>>> it - cell phone servers, dns servers, electric meter, gas meter, water
>>>> meter, our Satellite and much more than meets the eye. If it wasn't
>>>> for Unix/Linux, you couldn't have made such a stupid post.
>>>>
>>>> WorthyOfUrAttn
>>>
>>>
>>> I totally agree. Ive used windows since win 3.xx. Started using
>>> computers in 1982 (the bbc micro, speccy). Windows is OK if you want it
>>> to just run, and your not interested in keeping the brain cells working
>>> by learning, as windows makes you lazy.
>>
>> Well computers COULD make live an awful lot easier! I think that is the
>> purpose of computers in the first place, keeping your brain cells
>> working isn't a very good argument for Linux here.
>> Linux could do a whole lot better if those programmers would listen for
>> once to people which simply want to use a computer instead of learning
>> to program!
>> Starting to listen to well motivated critism would help a lot too. So
>> IMHO !! linux could have been a 100 times better by now with less then
>> 1% of the effort which is spent on all linux flavors.
>>
>> Edmund
>
> By percentage, very little effort goes into distro packaging, as opposed
> to the effort that goes into the app/utility development.

One of the trolls just complained about this very thing:

How some distros are nothing more than a package list.

OTOH, if Mark hired some graphic artists that could be very handy.
A few well done bits of art in the right places could go a long way.

--
Sure, I could use iTunes even under Linux. However, I have |||
better things to do with my time than deal with how iTunes doesn't / | \
want to play nicely with everyone else's data (namely mine). I'd
rather create a DVD using those Linux apps we're told don't exist.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
 
"Confused Donkey" <confused@wartydog.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.08.04.15.47.06.698526@wartydog.invalid...
> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:28:48 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:54:44 +0100, Confused Donkey wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> It has nothing to do with being lazy, it's all about using the
>> APPLICATIONS.
>
> It is being lazy. People want it to just work and dont give a rats arse
> about the workings. Hence why car mechanics rip you off for bucket loads
> of money, because the end user is tooo dumb/stupid/ lazy to learn the
> basics of where the oil goes, the water etc.
>
>>
>>> Linux on the other hand, makes you learn.
>>
>> Great if you are into that kind of stuff. My Doctor, accountant,cleaning
>> lady,etc want to run their business and they don't care how a computer
>> works.
>
> This is why they use windows. Plus doctors are VERY busy people, they dont
> have the time to learn comp, their job is people.
>
> Isnt that what I actually said ? Right product at the right time ? Do you
> like repeating people with dribble ?
>
So I fail to see the problem.
>
Very funny, Confused Donkey, your name says it all. MG has it exactly
correct, most people use Windows because it works out of the box. Users
don't have to figure out arcane languages to get their wireless working, or
use all the other applications, or tinker with the OS just to use the
applications. I know it's fun to do so but few people want to spend this
kind of time and energy. AS MG says, they just want to use the
applications. Contrary to your belief, for the vast majority of users, the
object of computing is not tinkering with the OS, it is using the
applications.

If any of the Linux distros worked as completely as does Windows out of the
box many more people would use it. But it doesn't. I know I would, and
I've tried a number of them.

John
 
On 2008-08-04, John J <goodnews@goodnews.com> wrote:
> "Confused Donkey" <confused@wartydog.invalid> wrote in message
> news:pan.2008.08.04.15.47.06.698526@wartydog.invalid...
>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:28:48 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:54:44 +0100, Confused Donkey wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> It has nothing to do with being lazy, it's all about using the
>>> APPLICATIONS.
>>
>> It is being lazy. People want it to just work and dont give a rats arse
>> about the workings. Hence why car mechanics rip you off for bucket loads
>> of money, because the end user is tooo dumb/stupid/ lazy to learn the
>> basics of where the oil goes, the water etc.
>>
>>>
>>>> Linux on the other hand, makes you learn.
>>>
>>> Great if you are into that kind of stuff. My Doctor, accountant,cleaning
>>> lady,etc want to run their business and they don't care how a computer
>>> works.
>>
>> This is why they use windows. Plus doctors are VERY busy people, they dont
>> have the time to learn comp, their job is people.
>>
>> Isnt that what I actually said ? Right product at the right time ? Do you
>> like repeating people with dribble ?
>>
> So I fail to see the problem.
>>
> Very funny, Confused Donkey, your name says it all. MG has it exactly
> correct, most people use Windows because it works out of the box. Users

....it's funny you should mention that.

I had to install a USB camera for a Doctor so she could use it on
her Windows box.

[deletia]

The notion that Windows is "easy" or "robust" is a myth.

A doctor is much better of buying a Mac. They have the money.
They should help the upscale end of the market stay in business.

--
Sure, I could use iTunes even under Linux. However, I have |||
better things to do with my time than deal with how iTunes doesn't / | \
want to play nicely with everyone else's data (namely mine). I'd
rather create a DVD using those Linux apps we're told don't exist.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
 
JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2008-08-04, John J <goodnews@goodnews.com> wrote:
>> "Confused Donkey" <confused@wartydog.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2008.08.04.15.47.06.698526@wartydog.invalid...
>>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:28:48 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:54:44 +0100, Confused Donkey wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It has nothing to do with being lazy, it's all about using the
>>>> APPLICATIONS.
>>>
>>> It is being lazy. People want it to just work and dont give a rats
>>> arse about the workings. Hence why car mechanics rip you off for
>>> bucket loads of money, because the end user is tooo dumb/stupid/
>>> lazy to learn the basics of where the oil goes, the water etc.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Linux on the other hand, makes you learn.
>>>>
>>>> Great if you are into that kind of stuff. My Doctor,
>>>> accountant,cleaning lady,etc want to run their business and they
>>>> don't care how a computer works.
>>>
>>> This is why they use windows. Plus doctors are VERY busy people,
>>> they dont have the time to learn comp, their job is people.
>>>
>>> Isnt that what I actually said ? Right product at the right time ?
>>> Do you like repeating people with dribble ?
>>>
>> So I fail to see the problem.
>>>
>> Very funny, Confused Donkey, your name says it all. MG has it
>> exactly correct, most people use Windows because it works out of the
>> box. Users
>
> ...it's funny you should mention that.
>
> I had to install a USB camera for a Doctor so she could use it on
> her Windows box.
>
> [deletia]

That seems to be a comment on _your_ deficiency, not Windows.
 
On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:26:34 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:

> On 2008-08-04, John J <goodnews@goodnews.com> wrote:
>> "Confused Donkey" <confused@wartydog.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2008.08.04.15.47.06.698526@wartydog.invalid...
>>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:28:48 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:54:44 +0100, Confused Donkey wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It has nothing to do with being lazy, it's all about using the
>>>> APPLICATIONS.
>>>
>>> It is being lazy. People want it to just work and dont give a rats arse
>>> about the workings. Hence why car mechanics rip you off for bucket loads
>>> of money, because the end user is tooo dumb/stupid/ lazy to learn the
>>> basics of where the oil goes, the water etc.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Linux on the other hand, makes you learn.
>>>>
>>>> Great if you are into that kind of stuff. My Doctor, accountant,cleaning
>>>> lady,etc want to run their business and they don't care how a computer
>>>> works.
>>>
>>> This is why they use windows. Plus doctors are VERY busy people, they dont
>>> have the time to learn comp, their job is people.
>>>
>>> Isnt that what I actually said ? Right product at the right time ? Do you
>>> like repeating people with dribble ?
>>>
>> So I fail to see the problem.
>>>
>> Very funny, Confused Donkey, your name says it all. MG has it exactly
>> correct, most people use Windows because it works out of the box. Users
>
> ...it's funny you should mention that.
>
> I had to install a USB camera for a Doctor so she could use it on
> her Windows box.
>
I have a digital camera (USB) just plugged it in, switched it on, and
screw me it worked, out of the box, aint that sweet !!!

And guess what ? Windows doesnt support every piece of hardware. So even
with windows you have to piss about installing drivers and setting up. So
quit the crap about windows works out of the box.
 
On 2008-08-04, Damian <nospam@rabid-dog.net> wrote:
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2008-08-04, John J <goodnews@goodnews.com> wrote:
>>> "Confused Donkey" <confused@wartydog.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2008.08.04.15.47.06.698526@wartydog.invalid...
>>>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:28:48 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:54:44 +0100, Confused Donkey wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It has nothing to do with being lazy, it's all about using the
>>>>> APPLICATIONS.
>>>>
>>>> It is being lazy. People want it to just work and dont give a rats
>>>> arse about the workings. Hence why car mechanics rip you off for
>>>> bucket loads of money, because the end user is tooo dumb/stupid/
>>>> lazy to learn the basics of where the oil goes, the water etc.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Linux on the other hand, makes you learn.
>>>>>
>>>>> Great if you are into that kind of stuff. My Doctor,
>>>>> accountant,cleaning lady,etc want to run their business and they
>>>>> don't care how a computer works.
>>>>
>>>> This is why they use windows. Plus doctors are VERY busy people,
>>>> they dont have the time to learn comp, their job is people.
>>>>
>>>> Isnt that what I actually said ? Right product at the right time ?
>>>> Do you like repeating people with dribble ?
>>>>
>>> So I fail to see the problem.
>>>>
>>> Very funny, Confused Donkey, your name says it all. MG has it
>>> exactly correct, most people use Windows because it works out of the
>>> box. Users
>>
>> ...it's funny you should mention that.
>>
>> I had to install a USB camera for a Doctor so she could use it on
>> her Windows box.
>>
>> [deletia]
>
> That seems to be a comment on _your_ deficiency, not Windows.

Why would it be MY deficiency?

Perhaps you would like to do something silly like call the
relevant MD a moron. That should be amusing.

--
Sure, I could use iTunes even under Linux. However, I have |||
better things to do with my time than deal with how iTunes doesn't / | \
want to play nicely with everyone else's data (namely mine). I'd
rather create a DVD using those Linux apps we're told don't exist.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
 
Back
Top