dennis@home wrote:

>

> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

> news:fbv0uq$r4j$1@aioe.org...

>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>

>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:fbuhtp$jub$1@aioe.org...

>>>

>>>>> Because it is free no one has come up with a way to make money from

>>>>> it.

>>>>

>>>> Gosh, I guess this "MVP" hasn't heard of making money from tech

>>>> support.

>>>>

>>>

>>> That is why Linux doesn't "sell", people don't want to get a free bit

>>> of software and then pay for support especially when support is free

>>> from the next door neighbor like it is for windows. Almost everyone

>>> knows someone who will help with windows but hardly anyone knows

>>> someone who is knowledgeable about Linux and even less for Ubuntu.

>>

>> Sure, pull the other one, it has bells on it. I have a friend who

>> makes a living with tech support for both Windows and Ubuntu. Just

>> because your "friends" take advantage of you and have you fix their

>> Windows boxes for free, doesn't mean everyone is a patsy.

>

> You charge your friends for a bit of help?

> Do you have any left?

 

A bit of help, no. Hours of cleaning crap off a Windows box, hell yes,

with a strong, "boot into Ubuntu, fool!" after I give them the bill.

Some heed the advice and I don't see them for computer problems other

than "how do I do this in Ubuntu?", others don't and come back again and

again. All thank me and give me a big smile when their computer is fixed.

 

Letting/encouraging "friends" take of advantage of you is not true

friendship. Would you ask a friend who is a brain surgeon to operate on

your brain for free? Would you ask a friend who is a lawyer, plumber or

candle stick maker to work for you for free?

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 22:47:11 +0100, "dennis@home"

<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

>

>"Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

>news:fbv0uq$r4j$1@aioe.org...

>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>

>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:fbuhtp$jub$1@aioe.org...

>>>

>>>>> Because it is free no one has come up with a way to make money from it.

>>>>

>>>> Gosh, I guess this "MVP" hasn't heard of making money from tech support.

>>>>

>>>

>>> That is why Linux doesn't "sell", people don't want to get a free bit of

>>> software and then pay for support especially when support is free from

>>> the next door neighbor like it is for windows. Almost everyone knows

>>> someone who will help with windows but hardly anyone knows someone who is

>>> knowledgeable about Linux and even less for Ubuntu.

>>

>> Sure, pull the other one, it has bells on it. I have a friend who makes a

>> living with tech support for both Windows and Ubuntu. Just because your

>> "friends" take advantage of you and have you fix their Windows boxes for

>> free, doesn't mean everyone is a patsy.

>

>You charge your friends for a bit of help?

>Do you have any left?

 

You can stop auditioning. I'm sure the fanboy club will welcome you

will open arms. They can always use one more chump to tow the party

line.

On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 17:49:00 -0400, "Saucy"

<saucy538347334873772.sjhdf@net.net.net> wrote:

>.

 

 

Talk about idiots. This moron plonks as often as other people take a

bathroom break. True to form he needs to ANNOUCE that he plonked, yet

he's too damn stupid to leave any indication WHO he plonked.

 

Nothing special, Saucy is one of many members of the moronic fanboy

club. None of them have the sense to come in out of the rain.

dont.pullout@yahoo.com wrote:

> Why?

 

Why do you waste time posting the same post that's been posted by a few

dozen other trolls over the years?

dont.pullout@yahoo.com wrote:

> Linux is free.

> Windows is not.

> Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with

> Windows XP.

> Linux is free.

[...]

>

> Why?

 

1) You may be mistaken with the "windows costs money" line of reasoning. See

right here: http://articles.tlug.jp/Windows_Is_Free

 

2) The wife just bought a laptop. It came with Windows on it. It just works.

Why would she go to the trouble of erasing a perfectly functioning OS just

to install another one? The apps that she likes (like OpenOffice or

Firefox) can be downloaded for Windows just as well as for Linux. What

motivation would she have to "switch"?

 

 

Just thinking out loud here...

 

 

-- S

 

 

--

http://www.sgeier.net

My real email address does not contain any "Z"s.

Sven Geier wrote:

> dont.pullout@yahoo.com wrote:

>

>> Linux is free.

>> Windows is not.

>> Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with

>> Windows XP.

>> Linux is free.

> [...]

>> Why?

>

> 1) You may be mistaken with the "windows costs money" line of reasoning. See

> right here: http://articles.tlug.jp/Windows_Is_Free

>

> 2) The wife just bought a laptop. It came with Windows on it. It just works.

> Why would she go to the trouble of erasing a perfectly functioning OS just

> to install another one? The apps that she likes (like OpenOffice or

> Firefox) can be downloaded for Windows just as well as for Linux. What

> motivation would she have to "switch"?

>

>

> Just thinking out loud here...

>

>

> -- S

>

>

You really think that you did not pay for it??

Its just that when you dont want windows, that they try to

force you to pay for it anyway.

We just had a consumer review of VISTA in Holland.

Microsoft was quite pissed off because of it.

Just try to install any upgrade (from openoffice,FF,TB etc)

after you have have used the computer for a while.

Customers in Holland were not pleased to say the least,

and the consumer organisattion advised to swith to XP,LINUX or APPLE.......

"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message

news:uhTycEm8HHA.4200@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

 

>>>>>> Money CAN be made with Linux by selling services, which is the same

>>>>>> way money is made with Windows. However you need to have people

>>>>>> willing to use Linux first and then start selling them services

>>>>>> contracts.

 

>>>>> For linux to become popular it has to be installed on OEM machines.

>>>>> This

>>>>> is what initially drives the market. When a new Microsoft OS comes out

>>>>> the previous is eventually made irrelevant because new computers have

>>>>> the

>>>>> new OS. Most people don't care what OS they run. They walk into a

>>>>> store

>>>>> and buy whatever the salesman gets the best commission on. Once they

>>>>> get

>>>>> home or back to work they try to figure out how to use it. If new

>>>>> computers came with linux they would figure out and use linux. This

>>>>> model

>>>>> isn't based on selling a service but selling a product. OEM's aren't

>>>>> going to switch to linux anytime soon for several reasons. The main

>>>>> one

>>>>> is money. They have a lot of money invested in the Windows ecosystem.

>>>>> It

>>>>> would be very expensive for them to switch to a different OS even if

>>>>> the

>>>>> OS was free. That brings up the second problem. If the OS is free

>>>>> where

>>>>> is the incentive to develop it into a product that can be sold? Yes,

>>>>> some

>>>>> money can be made selling services to medium and big business. No, a

>>>>> lot

>>>>> of money can't be made selling desktop services to the general public.

>>>>> Currently the general public through OEM computer sales drives the

>>>>> desktop market.

>>>>>

 

 

> I agree it will change. I think we disagree on when or what will change

> it. I also disagree that anyone has a monopoly on "knowledge of how to

> provide knowledge via a computer". This knowledge is

> actually very common and supersedes Microsoft. Microsoft has a monopoly on

> selling Windows not on how to create an OS. They may use monopolistic

> marketing techniques to get Windows on as many computers as they can. This

> is part of doing business in a capitalist society. I am not expressing an

> opinion whether I agree with this or think it is right. I am saying what I

> think the current reality is. The future may have a linux based OS as the

> main desktop for most computers but I don't think it will come to pass. I

> think we are stuck with Windows until someone comes along with a new OS

> that has something in it we all want/need/desire and currently don't have

> or even know what it is we want/need/desire. All of the current OS' for

> micro computers are too close to really say one is better. All we can

> say is they are different and I prefer Windows/linux/OS X/Solaris/BSD,

> whatever. It will take something new or someone with a lot of money for

> marketing to knock Microsoft off the top of the heap.

>

 

With rather severe editing of the above, to focus in a few specific points.

 

 

I believe that the problem is going to be a difficult one. In this market,

there must be one major company 'owning' an OS sufficently that they can

invest major funds in marketing.

1. We know that MS offers significant price and other concessions to any

manufacturer who stays 'windows only'. So to gain a few short term sales in

the linux market, every pc they sell becomes more expensive. As long as the

computer makers compete so much on price, we are stuck. What we need os an

'oligopoly' of manufacturers to tell MS to (*&^ themselves. None have the

courage or the means to do it by themeselves.

2. If a superior OS did happen, and was owned and properly promoted, MS

would kill the company, directly like they did for Geoworks and DRDos, steal

the code, like they did for 'superstore/superspace', or simply buy the

company.

 

The reason that linux can survive is that nobody owns it. There is no one

party for MS to attack. Therefore the one thing that saves it, also prevents

it from becomming a dominant force on the OS business.

 

I think it is time for all of us to work for a change in the laws that MS

hides behind. Like maybe you can't copyright software that is not

guaranteed. Or, you can't copyright something that does not work prperly.

You have to put the teeth in the profitability part of it.

Telling/legislating that MS must guarantee/fix their product is a waste of

time - there is no alternative right now, and they won't bother fix it. If

there were competition, such as the auto or laptop computer industries, then

a guarantee works - if they offer a bad product you just go to the other

supplier. If MS faced the prospect of giving away windows until it worked

properly, they would smarten up very quickly.

 

Even if the US legislators and DOJ were not owned by MS, changes in approach

would be a hard sell because of all the foreign exchange and income tax MS

generates. (yes, the government profits from illegal activities). However,

those of us in other countries can make a difference - and we are dealing

with a company that is a drain on our foreign exchange, creates no

significant employment directly (I mean MS employees in the country), and

pays no or very little income tax to our government.

Perhaps we will have a world where MS owns the US but linux run the

computers in the rest of the world.

 

If this worked, I can see 2 significant benefits to all of us. MS only gets

paid if their software works, so we get versions of windows that work. And

when MS can't perform, then linux gets a fair chance.

 

Stuart

> What's Windows?

 

Must be why you are here, right? :)

 

you don't lie well

 

Rich

> The same could be said of viruses. Wait.. MS-DOS will do for that.

 

 

Could Linux exist without viruses?

 

heh, weird mind at work there

 

and now MS-DOS gets dragged into it by the subject changer community

 

perfect execution of my theory, thank you

 

 

Rich

> You mean, like "thank goodness I don't have to put up with Windows

> anymore"?

 

now YOU are telling me what I mean?

 

heh

 

I guess that is the only way you can make your OS politics work?

 

Rich

dennis@home wrote:

>

> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

> news:Oo7zLYj8HHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>

>

>

>> The apple OS is much like Linux, Sun's Solaris is much like Linux, so

>> although they will not directly be about to support free Linux there

>> is a user base out there, which from a learning curve point of view is

>> not insignificant.

>

> The Apple OS is nothing like Linux.. its based on FreeBSD so there is no

> Linux in the Apple OS at all.

>

> Sun Solaris has a kernel similar to Linux.. not really surprising as

> Solaris is based on SVR5 and Linus copied its predecesor to make Linux.

> However the structure and resource management in Solaris is way ahead of

> Linux as is its security model, the kernel is compartmentalised as

> required by the DoD unlike Linux.

>

> BTW you can get Solaris free from

> http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/get.jsp if you want to see a Linux

> killer.

>

>

>

 

 

I have Solaris thanks, not used it much as I have not had much spare

time. I think I phrased the other comment ambiguously, I didn't mean the

Apple OS and Solaris are literally "Like" Linux although as you said

Solaris is somewhat similar, I meant they are both much different than

Windows but like Linux have a reasonable number of users. Although this

does not in any way support Linux directly it does mean that people who

use them can suggest "an" alternative to Windows to their associates. A

lot of people naturally think Windows is all there is.

 

Example, we have XP Pro on machines at work, I (and the IT guy)

generally set them for "Classic" menu. One woman insists we need to get

rid of that slow old thing because it only has Windows 98 on it, and

despite it rebooting with the XP Pro screen she insists we are lying and

it's really 98 because "She knows" what 98 looks like. :)

 

I am not sure about Sun offering a free Solaris, I grabbed a copy but

not sure why they did that...

Saucy wrote:

> [Headers trimmed]

>

> It's because the Linux platform is mostly half baked junk. The platform

> is merely adequate for 3 things:

>

> 1. File serving

> 2. Web file serving

> 3. Sobbery at universities because is it overcomplicated and demands the

> use of arcane command line commands which the snobs think their

> referring to both establishes and proves their self-appointed

> "superiority".

>

> But the truth of the matter is that Linux can't even get drag 'n drop

> right.

>

> Saucy

 

 

Wrong on all three counts, you really have no experience in this

industry do you :)

Saucy wrote:

> .

 

 

 

That'll scare him ....

owl wrote:

> luisortizhome@yahoo.com wrote:

>

>> As for multiple desktops, ever see that utility that comes with every

>> Nvidia card?

>> Probobly not because the CD won't work with Linux, well it has nView

>> which gives you multiple desktops.

 

Yes it does, I'm using it right now.

Sven Geier wrote:

> dont.pullout@yahoo.com wrote:

>

>> Linux is free.

>> Windows is not.

>> Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with

>> Windows XP.

>> Linux is free.

> [...]

>> Why?

>

> 1) You may be mistaken with the "windows costs money" line of reasoning. See

> right here: http://articles.tlug.jp/Windows_Is_Free

>

> 2) The wife just bought a laptop. It came with Windows on it. It just works.

> Why would she go to the trouble of erasing a perfectly functioning OS just

> to install another one? The apps that she likes (like OpenOffice or

> Firefox) can be downloaded for Windows just as well as for Linux. What

> motivation would she have to "switch"?

>

>

> Just thinking out loud here...

>

>

> -- S

>

>

 

 

For me personally I see no reason to switch. However when it suddenly

decides she stole it and activation shuts it down there may be a very

good reason to switch.

dennis@home wrote:

>

> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

> news:Oo7zLYj8HHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>

>

>

>> The apple OS is much like Linux, Sun's Solaris is much like Linux, so

>> although they will not directly be about to support free Linux there is a

>> user base out there, which from a learning curve point of view is not

>> insignificant.

>

> The Apple OS is nothing like Linux.. its based on FreeBSD so there is no

> Linux in the Apple OS at all.

>

> Sun Solaris has a kernel similar to Linux.. not really surprising as

> Solaris is based on SVR5 and Linus copied its predecesor to make Linux.

> However the structure and resource management in Solaris is way ahead of

> Linux as is its security model, the kernel is compartmentalised as

> required by the DoD unlike Linux.

>

 

You mean the EAL4+ certs of several linux distros don't exist?

> BTW you can get Solaris free from

> http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/get.jsp if you want to see a Linux

> killer.

 

Yep, it is killing me to see such a pile of driverless software lying

around, unable to handle common hardware

Linux beats Slowaris hands down in several measures.

 

No thanks, I stay with the better system.

--

Support your local Search and Rescue unit -- get lost.

Rich wrote:

>> You mean, like "thank goodness I don't have to put up with Windows

>> anymore"?

>

> now YOU are telling me what I mean?

 

Looked like a question to me. Can't you see the question mark at the end

of the sentence?

>

> heh

>

> I guess that is the only way you can make your OS politics work?

>

> Rich

 

I guess you can't read properly.

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

Stuart

 

You don't have to legislate against anybody. Linux and all open source

programs are out there already. All free too. With what people paid for OEM

XP, after a couple of years, they have had their monies worth. So why don't

they download Ubuntu or PCLinuxOS, or order the CD?

 

My guess is that they probably think they will struggle with it, that they

will get complaints from family members that this or that no longer runs.

 

Look at the amount of posts here where people are complaining that Vista

changes over XP are too much for them. Imagine the family waking up to

Feisty Fawn. No more MSN Messenger or 'Barbie' program, different colors,

menus, games. Where is the start menu? Why doesn't the webcam work?

 

I know one or two that started with AOL and swear by it (not at it). They

would never change, free or not. People don't want free. They want what they

are used to running, and nothing too technical. Just turn it on and

everything is there, two mouse clicks away.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Stuart Miller" <stuart_miller@shaw.ca> wrote in message

news:J%MEi.141760$fJ5.107482@pd7urf1no...

>

> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message

> news:uhTycEm8HHA.4200@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>

>

>>>>>>> Money CAN be made with Linux by selling services, which is the same

>>>>>>> way money is made with Windows. However you need to have people

>>>>>>> willing to use Linux first and then start selling them services

>>>>>>> contracts.

>

>

>>>>>> For linux to become popular it has to be installed on OEM machines.

>>>>>> This

>>>>>> is what initially drives the market. When a new Microsoft OS comes

>>>>>> out

>>>>>> the previous is eventually made irrelevant because new computers have

>>>>>> the

>>>>>> new OS. Most people don't care what OS they run. They walk into a

>>>>>> store

>>>>>> and buy whatever the salesman gets the best commission on. Once they

>>>>>> get

>>>>>> home or back to work they try to figure out how to use it. If new

>>>>>> computers came with linux they would figure out and use linux. This

>>>>>> model

>>>>>> isn't based on selling a service but selling a product. OEM's aren't

>>>>>> going to switch to linux anytime soon for several reasons. The main

>>>>>> one

>>>>>> is money. They have a lot of money invested in the Windows ecosystem.

>>>>>> It

>>>>>> would be very expensive for them to switch to a different OS even if

>>>>>> the

>>>>>> OS was free. That brings up the second problem. If the OS is free

>>>>>> where

>>>>>> is the incentive to develop it into a product that can be sold? Yes,

>>>>>> some

>>>>>> money can be made selling services to medium and big business. No, a

>>>>>> lot

>>>>>> of money can't be made selling desktop services to the general

>>>>>> public.

>>>>>> Currently the general public through OEM computer sales drives the

>>>>>> desktop market.

>>>>>>

>

>

>

>> I agree it will change. I think we disagree on when or what will change

>> it. I also disagree that anyone has a monopoly on "knowledge of how to

>> provide knowledge via a computer". This knowledge is

>> actually very common and supersedes Microsoft. Microsoft has a monopoly

>> on

>> selling Windows not on how to create an OS. They may use monopolistic

>> marketing techniques to get Windows on as many computers as they can.

>> This

>> is part of doing business in a capitalist society. I am not expressing an

>> opinion whether I agree with this or think it is right. I am saying what

>> I

>> think the current reality is. The future may have a linux based OS as the

>> main desktop for most computers but I don't think it will come to pass. I

>> think we are stuck with Windows until someone comes along with a new OS

>> that has something in it we all want/need/desire and currently don't have

>> or even know what it is we want/need/desire. All of the current OS' for

>> micro computers are too close to really say one is better. All we can

>> say is they are different and I prefer Windows/linux/OS X/Solaris/BSD,

>> whatever. It will take something new or someone with a lot of money for

>> marketing to knock Microsoft off the top of the heap.

>>

>

> With rather severe editing of the above, to focus in a few specific

> points.

>

>

> I believe that the problem is going to be a difficult one. In this market,

> there must be one major company 'owning' an OS sufficently that they can

> invest major funds in marketing.

> 1. We know that MS offers significant price and other concessions to any

> manufacturer who stays 'windows only'. So to gain a few short term sales

> in the linux market, every pc they sell becomes more expensive. As long as

> the computer makers compete so much on price, we are stuck. What we need

> os an 'oligopoly' of manufacturers to tell MS to (*&^ themselves. None

> have the courage or the means to do it by themeselves.

> 2. If a superior OS did happen, and was owned and properly promoted, MS

> would kill the company, directly like they did for Geoworks and DRDos,

> steal the code, like they did for 'superstore/superspace', or simply buy

> the company.

>

> The reason that linux can survive is that nobody owns it. There is no one

> party for MS to attack. Therefore the one thing that saves it, also

> prevents it from becomming a dominant force on the OS business.

>

> I think it is time for all of us to work for a change in the laws that MS

> hides behind. Like maybe you can't copyright software that is not

> guaranteed. Or, you can't copyright something that does not work prperly.

> You have to put the teeth in the profitability part of it.

> Telling/legislating that MS must guarantee/fix their product is a waste of

> time - there is no alternative right now, and they won't bother fix it. If

> there were competition, such as the auto or laptop computer industries,

> then a guarantee works - if they offer a bad product you just go to the

> other supplier. If MS faced the prospect of giving away windows until it

> worked properly, they would smarten up very quickly.

>

> Even if the US legislators and DOJ were not owned by MS, changes in

> approach would be a hard sell because of all the foreign exchange and

> income tax MS generates. (yes, the government profits from illegal

> activities). However, those of us in other countries can make a

> difference - and we are dealing with a company that is a drain on our

> foreign exchange, creates no significant employment directly (I mean MS

> employees in the country), and pays no or very little income tax to our

> government.

> Perhaps we will have a world where MS owns the US but linux run the

> computers in the rest of the world.

>

> If this worked, I can see 2 significant benefits to all of us. MS only

> gets paid if their software works, so we get versions of windows that

> work. And when MS can't perform, then linux gets a fair chance.

>

> Stuart

>

 

--

 

 

Mike Hall

MS MVP Windows Shell/User

http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

Mike Hall - MVP wrote:

> Stuart

>

> You don't have to legislate against anybody. Linux and all open source

> programs are out there already. All free too. With what people paid for

> OEM XP, after a couple of years, they have had their monies worth. So

> why don't they download Ubuntu or PCLinuxOS, or order the CD?

>

> My guess is that they probably think they will struggle with it, that

> they will get complaints from family members that this or that no longer

> runs.

>

> Look at the amount of posts here where people are complaining that Vista

> changes over XP are too much for them. Imagine the family waking up to

> Feisty Fawn. No more MSN Messenger or 'Barbie' program, different

> colors, menus, games. Where is the start menu? Why doesn't the webcam work?

>

> I know one or two that started with AOL and swear by it (not at it).

> They would never change, free or not. People don't want free. They want

> what they are used to running, and nothing too technical. Just turn it

> on and everything is there, two mouse clicks away.

 

You really have a high opinion of computer users. NOT! MSN messenger

comes with GAIM in Ubuntu, btw.

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

"[H]omer" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in news:tjrcr4-lni.ln1@sky.matrix:

> The fact is that no one can ever really know for a fact whether or not

> GNU/Linux is ubiquitous. How can one accurately measure the deployment

> of something that is Free?

 

Snip--->>>>

> Moreover, who would mourn the loss of Microsoft, if it came to that?

Why

> would any ordinary user fear losing something as restrictive,

expensive,

> and buggy as the Windows platform ... unless they were directly

> connected with the company in some way? IME the majority of ordinary

> users have no particular loyalty to Microsoft it isn't about loyalty,

> it's about habit, but bad habits can be broken. So who are these Trolls

> that are so loyal to Microsoft, who are so terrified about the

increased

> popularity of GNU/Linux, that they'd be compelled to come to COLA and

> spout anti-Linux rhetoric?

 

You sound very bitter as well as paranoid. Maybe your antenna are on too

tight? Lossening the straps might allow more blood flow to whatever

passes for a brain in your body.

 

Getting back to Linux vs Microsoft, it appears that the Linux people are

the ones terrified of Microsoft. Why are there so many anti Microsoft

messages in your Linux group? There is very little Linux advocacy

compared to Microsoft sucks messages.

 

With an operating system so *great* as Linux, surely you and the rest of

the tribe could find something positive to spout about Linux.

 

As for measuring Linux, look around and let us know what you see.

I see Windows everywhere and Linux virtually no place.

 

And speaking about numbers, it seems the Linux advocactes love to drag

out surveys that show Linux in good fashion (usually conducted by Linux

websites, magazines etc) but when it's the other way around the Linux

advocates start claiming Linux useage can't be measured.

Maybe not down to the very last CD but in general Linux HAS DONE

VIRTUALLY NOTHING to Microsoft's desktop domination in 10 years and it

doesn't look like it's doing any better today.

 

Face it, Linux is free and people are still running FROM it.

 

Imagine if Sandisk gave away free 30gb iPod clones. There would be riots

in the stores to get one and Sandisks useage numbers would go sky high.

 

Yet Linux is free, and you know the rest.

There's nothing simpler than a product that can't be given away.

Linux is that product.

 

The proof is in the reaction you dorks get when you take your act on the

road, outside the mental institution known as comp.os.linux.advocacy.

Normal people don't act like you clowns over in comp.os.linux.advocacy

do.

Linux is not for the general public.The learning curb is still to great for

the public to take the time and master.People want to click and open a

program or download and installnot write code and jump through hoops in

order to do simple computer commands.

fcs25 wrote:

>

>

> Linux is not for the general public.The learning curb is still to great

> for the public to take the time and master.People want to click and open a

> program or download and installnot write code and jump through hoops in

> order to do simple computer commands.

 

What are you billshitting about now? It's far easier to install software in

Linux than it is in Windoze. Far easier, because of the repositories Linux

distros provide and the GUI tools provided to do the package installations.

And no, again wrong ... with today's modern Linux distros, "simple computer

commands" require clicking your mouse. You can master that, can't you?

 

Cheers.

 

--

Remove Vista Activation Completely ...

http://tinyurl.com/2w8qqo

 

Do you use Linux? Everytime you "google", you're using Linux.

 

Coming Soon! Ubuntu 7.10 ... New Features:

http://lunapark6.com/ubuntu-gutsy-gibbon-710-new-features.html

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 03:22:43 -0500, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>

wrote:

>Saucy wrote:

>> [Headers trimmed]

>>

>> It's because the Linux platform is mostly half baked junk.

>> Saucy

>Wrong on all three counts, you really have no experience in this

>industry do you :)

 

Pointless to try to reason with closed-minded dopes like Saucy.

 

Fact: NASA picked Linux to help send it's rovers to Mars and a new

super computer running Linux is helping to design the next generation

space shuttle named Orion.

 

Guess what, no Windows anywhere in sight. Oops. Wouldn't want to have

a BSOD half way to Mars you know. -)

 

The Columbia cluster at NASA's Ames facility currently consists of

10,160 Itanium 2 chips running at 1.5 GHz. The cluster has a rating of

52 sustained teraflops, 61 teraflops peak and could be easily upgraded

to dual-core "Montecito" Itanium 9000 chips delivering more than twice

the oomph.

 

So that's more or less 52 trillion calculations per second.

fcs25 lied and wrote:

>

> Linux is not for the general public.

 

False.

>The learning curb is still to great for

> the public to take the time and master.

 

False.

> People want to click and open a

> program or download and install

 

viruses and malware. Yeah, great OS. They also want to to dance the WPA

and WGA jig. NOT!

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 03:22:43 -0500, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>

> wrote:

>

>> Saucy wrote:

>>> [Headers trimmed]

>>>

>>> It's because the Linux platform is mostly half baked junk.

>

>>> Saucy

>

>> Wrong on all three counts, you really have no experience in this

>> industry do you :)

>

> Pointless to try to reason with closed-minded dopes like Saucy.

>

> Fact: NASA picked Linux to help send it's rovers to Mars and a new

> super computer running Linux is helping to design the next generation

> space shuttle named Orion.

>

> Guess what, no Windows anywhere in sight. Oops. Wouldn't want to have

> a BSOD half way to Mars you know. -)

>

> The Columbia cluster at NASA's Ames facility currently consists of

> 10,160 Itanium 2 chips running at 1.5 GHz. The cluster has a rating of

> 52 sustained teraflops, 61 teraflops peak and could be easily upgraded

> to dual-core "Montecito" Itanium 9000 chips delivering more than twice

> the oomph.

>

> So that's more or less 52 trillion calculations per second.

 

 

<The entire world's computing needs don't require this stupid old man.

Your point is pointless. And again, have you ever used Linux you sorry

piece of trash?>