Re: Linux hits 6.1% on March!

April 3, 200817 yr

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:51:38 +0200, Josef Moellers wrote:

> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

>> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 09:40:44 +0200, Josef Moellers wrote:

>>

>>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

>>>> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:20:54 +0200, Josef Moellers wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

>>>>>> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:10:53 +0200, Josef Moellers wrote:

>>>>>>> Even if Linux is in the less-than-1%-area: each and every Linux-user

>>>>>>> uses it because of its merits, not because it came bundeled with the

>>>>>>> computer they bought or someone forces them to use it. Some people

>>>>>>> (including me) even use it *against* pressure from higher places to use

>>>>>>> another OS.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> *That's* the difference.

>>>>>> Noble, however most people just want to get work done not go on some

>>>>>> religious pilgrimage.

>>>>> BTW I wasn't fishing for compliments, I was trying to say that even

>>>>> without a multi-billion advertising campaign, even with the windo

>>>>> ocasionally blowing right into our faces, at least one in 163 desktops

>>>>> is running Linux!

>>>> Linux desktop useage hovers areoun 0.6 percent.

>>>> The BBC pegged it at 0.8 percent, which I think is a little high.

>>>>

>>>> After 10+ years and considering Linux is free, that's pathetic.

>>>>

>>> And your counter-argument is?

>>>

>>> Again: even without a multi-billion advertising campaign (how much did

>>> Microsoft spend on advertising XP?) and some heavy bullying, Linux runs

>>> on (at least) one in 166 desktops!

>>

>> I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find people still using OS/2.....

>

> Does OS/2 have 0,7% desktop market share?

> IIRC, OS/2 was advertised way back when it was still actively developed.

> (if necessary, I can dig through my back-copies of BYTE magazine).

>

> > And your counter argument is?

>

> Counter argument against what? If it has a 0.7% market share without

> multi-billion-$ advertising campaigns, it must be a good OS. IIRC some

> banking people still use it.

After 10 years, .7 percent is pathetic.

--

Moshe Goldfarb

Collector of soaps from around the globe.

Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:

http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

Quote

Mark as Solution

April 3, 200817 yr

* dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:

> However it should be the web site owners choice.

>

> I wonder if lino (lino is an old fashioned oil based floor covering BTW) nut

> understands why he wrote a load of cr@p yet?

I ask, again, what crap? The OP said nothing about restricting choice

in any shape, form, or fashion, yet dennis-the-menace claimed he did,

and I corrected him.

I guess the crap part dennis talks about is bothering to respond to a

bit-wit like him in the first place?

--

I'm sorry that we have to have a Washington presence. We thrived during our

first 16 years without any of this. I never made a political visit to

Washington and we had no people here. It wasn't on our radar screen. We were

just making great software.

-- Bill Gates

Quote

Mark as Solution

April 3, 200817 yr

* Josef Moellers peremptorily fired off this memo:

> Microsoft has a track record of trying everything to keep competitors

> out. As long as there is *real* competition, this is OK: just chose

> another vendor. However, with the market domination Microsoft has, even

> official bodies worry about this and start antitrust investigations.

>

> I just wish Microsoft would use their power with more conscience, or, as

> someone in a move once said: "With great power comes great responsibility".

They use their power mainly to make money.

--

Intellectual property has the shelf life of a banana.

-- Bill Gates

Quote

Mark as Solution

April 3, 200817 yr

* marksouth peremptorily fired off this memo:

> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:58:59 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

>

>> But as the OOXML format is an iso standard anyone can read or write it.

>

> Anyone who has time to read, comprehend, and retain over 6000 pages of

> specification.

And hope it doesn't become moot within the year.

--

There are people who don't like capitalism, and people who don't like PCs.

But there's no-one who likes the PC who doesn't like Microsoft.

-- Bill Gates

Quote

Mark as Solution

April 3, 200817 yr

Alias wrote:

> Frank wrote:

>

>> Alias wrote:

>>

>>> Frank wrote:

>>>

>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>>

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

>>>>>> news:ft094k$8tn$1@aioe.org...

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Considering that it can't be counted, what the FUD meisters

>>>>>>> report as "market share" is not relevant to the immense growth

>>>>>>> that Ubuntu is experiencing. I can't install them for people who

>>>>>>> want to get rid of Vista fast enough. I'm doing two or three a

>>>>>>> day now. I have yet to have anyone ask me to remove Ubuntu and

>>>>>>> install *any* version of Windows.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> So it is hard to install then.

>>>>>> I installed 25 XP machines in 4 hours from DVD when I needed them

>>>>>> for a demo.

>>>>>> I suggest you find a better way to do it. -)

>>>>>

>>>>> Most of installing, be it XP or Ubuntu is waiting for something to

>>>>> finish. I can start three machines quite quickly and then just

>>>>> visit each one when something needs to be clicked and they'll all

>>>>> be done in around an hour and a half if Ubuntu, 4 hours (or more if

>>>>> something fuçks up) if XP -)

>>>>>

>>>>> Alias

>>>>

>>>> Under 45 mins for Vista.

>>>

>>> Including Office, Firefox, Java, Flash, Anti Virus, etc., etc., etc.?

>>> I don't think so ...

>>>

>>> Oops, you lose (again).

>>>

>>> Alias

>>>

>>>> Install it from a flash drive, 15-20 mins., and sometimes 10 mins is

>>>> possible.

>>>> You lose...LOL!

>>>> Frank

>>>>

>> Add 5 mins for all of that.

>

> Installing Office alone takes longer than that not to mention the

> drivers for the audio, chip set and video card. Who do you think you're

> fooling?

>

>> You lose, but you always lose and you're use to being a loser.

>> Loser...LOL!

>> Frank

>

> You lie and you know it. The fact that it doesn't bother you is

> pathological.

>

> Alias

More of your lies?

Give it up mr liar...LOL!

Frank

Quote

Mark as Solution

April 3, 200817 yr

Frank wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>

>> Frank wrote:

>>

>>> Alias wrote:

>>>

>>>> Frank wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

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

>>>>>>> news:ft094k$8tn$1@aioe.org...

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Considering that it can't be counted, what the FUD meisters

>>>>>>>> report as "market share" is not relevant to the immense growth

>>>>>>>> that Ubuntu is experiencing. I can't install them for people who

>>>>>>>> want to get rid of Vista fast enough. I'm doing two or three a

>>>>>>>> day now. I have yet to have anyone ask me to remove Ubuntu and

>>>>>>>> install *any* version of Windows.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> So it is hard to install then.

>>>>>>> I installed 25 XP machines in 4 hours from DVD when I needed them

>>>>>>> for a demo.

>>>>>>> I suggest you find a better way to do it. -)

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Most of installing, be it XP or Ubuntu is waiting for something to

>>>>>> finish. I can start three machines quite quickly and then just

>>>>>> visit each one when something needs to be clicked and they'll all

>>>>>> be done in around an hour and a half if Ubuntu, 4 hours (or more

>>>>>> if something fuçks up) if XP -)

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>

>>>>> Under 45 mins for Vista.

>>>>

>>>> Including Office, Firefox, Java, Flash, Anti Virus, etc., etc.,

>>>> etc.? I don't think so ...

>>>>

>>>> Oops, you lose (again).

>>>>

>>>> Alias

>>>>

>>>>> Install it from a flash drive, 15-20 mins., and sometimes 10 mins

>>>>> is possible.

>>>>> You lose...LOL!

>>>>> Frank

>>>>>

>>> Add 5 mins for all of that.

>>

>> Installing Office alone takes longer than that not to mention the

>> drivers for the audio, chip set and video card. Who do you think

>> you're fooling?

>>

>>> You lose, but you always lose and you're use to being a loser.

>>> Loser...LOL!

>>> Frank

>>

>> You lie and you know it. The fact that it doesn't bother you is

>> pathological.

>>

>> Alias

>

> More of your lies?

> Give it up mr liar...LOL!

> Frank

There you go again, insulting the messenger when you're wrong. Tsk, tsk.

Be a man and admit that installing Ubuntu is quicker and easier than

Vista or any Windows OS. Or will you now start threatening me with

physical violence?

Alias

Quote

Mark as Solution

April 3, 200817 yr

Alias wrote:

> Frank wrote:

>

>> Alias wrote:

>>

>>> Frank wrote:

>>>

>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Frank wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

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

>>>>>>>> news:ft094k$8tn$1@aioe.org...

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Considering that it can't be counted, what the FUD meisters

>>>>>>>>> report as "market share" is not relevant to the immense growth

>>>>>>>>> that Ubuntu is experiencing. I can't install them for people

>>>>>>>>> who want to get rid of Vista fast enough. I'm doing two or

>>>>>>>>> three a day now. I have yet to have anyone ask me to remove

>>>>>>>>> Ubuntu and install *any* version of Windows.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> So it is hard to install then.

>>>>>>>> I installed 25 XP machines in 4 hours from DVD when I needed

>>>>>>>> them for a demo.

>>>>>>>> I suggest you find a better way to do it. -)

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Most of installing, be it XP or Ubuntu is waiting for something

>>>>>>> to finish. I can start three machines quite quickly and then just

>>>>>>> visit each one when something needs to be clicked and they'll all

>>>>>>> be done in around an hour and a half if Ubuntu, 4 hours (or more

>>>>>>> if something fuçks up) if XP -)

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Under 45 mins for Vista.

>>>>>

>>>>> Including Office, Firefox, Java, Flash, Anti Virus, etc., etc.,

>>>>> etc.? I don't think so ...

>>>>>

>>>>> Oops, you lose (again).

>>>>>

>>>>> Alias

>>>>>

>>>>>> Install it from a flash drive, 15-20 mins., and sometimes 10 mins

>>>>>> is possible.

>>>>>> You lose...LOL!

>>>>>> Frank

>>>>>>

>>>> Add 5 mins for all of that.

>>>

>>> Installing Office alone takes longer than that not to mention the

>>> drivers for the audio, chip set and video card. Who do you think

>>> you're fooling?

>>>

>>>> You lose, but you always lose and you're use to being a loser.

>>>> Loser...LOL!

>>>> Frank

>>>

>>> You lie and you know it. The fact that it doesn't bother you is

>>> pathological.

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>> More of your lies?

>> Give it up mr liar...LOL!

>> Frank

>

> There you go again, insulting the messenger when you're wrong. Tsk, tsk.

> Be a man and admit that installing Ubuntu is quicker and easier than

> Vista or any Windows OS. Or will you now start threatening me with

> physical violence?

>

> Alias

Why are you so afraid of me and the truth?

Frank

Quote

Mark as Solution

April 3, 200817 yr

marksouth <ms@really.invalid> writes:

> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:58:59 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

>

>> But as the OOXML format is an iso standard anyone can read or write it.

>

> Anyone who has time to read, comprehend, and retain over 6000 pages of

> specification.

It might surprise you mighty Mark, but that is what one has to do when

implementing things like standards. I realise that you and Gregory

Shearman probably see this as a waste of a programmers time and efforts

but, well, someone has to do the slog.

--

"There is no such thing as Intellectual Property"

Mark Kent

Head of Technology Strategy, BT Global

COLA Hypocrite

Quote

Mark as Solution

April 3, 200817 yr

Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:51:38 +0200, Josef Moellers wrote:

>

>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

>>> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 09:40:44 +0200, Josef Moellers wrote:

>>>

>>>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

>>>>> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:20:54 +0200, Josef Moellers wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

>>>>>>> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:10:53 +0200, Josef Moellers wrote:

>>>>>>>> Even if Linux is in the less-than-1%-area: each and every

>>>>>>>> Linux-user uses it because of its merits, not because it came

>>>>>>>> bundeled with the computer they bought or someone forces them

>>>>>>>> to use it. Some people (including me) even use it *against*

>>>>>>>> pressure from higher places to use another OS.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> *That's* the difference.

>>>>>>> Noble, however most people just want to get work done not go on

>>>>>>> some religious pilgrimage.

>>>>>> BTW I wasn't fishing for compliments, I was trying to say that

>>>>>> even without a multi-billion advertising campaign, even with the

>>>>>> windo ocasionally blowing right into our faces, at least one in

>>>>>> 163 desktops is running Linux!

>>>>> Linux desktop useage hovers areoun 0.6 percent.

>>>>> The BBC pegged it at 0.8 percent, which I think is a little high.

>>>>>

>>>>> After 10+ years and considering Linux is free, that's pathetic.

>>>>>

>>>> And your counter-argument is?

>>>>

>>>> Again: even without a multi-billion advertising campaign (how much

>>>> did Microsoft spend on advertising XP?) and some heavy bullying,

>>>> Linux runs on (at least) one in 166 desktops!

>>>

>>> I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find people still using

>>> OS/2.....

>>

>> Does OS/2 have 0,7% desktop market share?

>> IIRC, OS/2 was advertised way back when it was still actively

>> developed. (if necessary, I can dig through my back-copies of BYTE

>> magazine).

>>

>> > And your counter argument is?

>>

>> Counter argument against what? If it has a 0.7% market share without

>> multi-billion-$ advertising campaigns, it must be a good OS. IIRC

>> some banking people still use it.

>

> After 10 years, .7 percent is pathetic.

....and exaggerated.

--

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Quote

Mark as Solution

April 3, 200817 yr

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 18:41:13 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> marksouth <ms@really.invalid> writes:

>

>> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:58:59 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

>>

>>> But as the OOXML format is an iso standard anyone can read or write

>>> it.

>>

>> Anyone who has time to read, comprehend, and retain over 6000 pages of

>> specification.

>

> It might surprise you mighty Mark, but that is what one has to do when

> implementing things like standards. I realise that you and Gregory

> Shearman probably see this as a waste of a programmers time and efforts

> but, well, someone has to do the slog.

It might surprise you, Hadron, but most standards that get implemented

are of a comprehensible and readable length. The topmost ISO standard on

my desk is 18 pages long, and easy to read, comprehend, and retain.

Even the CORBA standard, which describes many concepts and solutions far

more complicated and subtle than mere documents, is a few pages short of

several thousand.

But as far as I'm concerned, anyone who wants to implement OOXML should

get on with it and do their best to enjoy it. I'm certainly not ever

going to give desk space to 6000 pages of anything.

Do let us know how you get on, won't you?

Quote

Mark as Solution

April 3, 200817 yr

Frank wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>> Frank wrote:

>>

>>> Alias wrote:

>>>

>>>> Frank wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> Frank wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

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

>>>>>>>>> news:ft094k$8tn$1@aioe.org...

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Considering that it can't be counted, what the FUD meisters

>>>>>>>>>> report as "market share" is not relevant to the immense growth

>>>>>>>>>> that Ubuntu is experiencing. I can't install them for people

>>>>>>>>>> who want to get rid of Vista fast enough. I'm doing two or

>>>>>>>>>> three a day now. I have yet to have anyone ask me to remove

>>>>>>>>>> Ubuntu and install *any* version of Windows.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> So it is hard to install then.

>>>>>>>>> I installed 25 XP machines in 4 hours from DVD when I needed

>>>>>>>>> them for a demo.

>>>>>>>>> I suggest you find a better way to do it. -)

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Most of installing, be it XP or Ubuntu is waiting for something

>>>>>>>> to finish. I can start three machines quite quickly and then

>>>>>>>> just visit each one when something needs to be clicked and

>>>>>>>> they'll all be done in around an hour and a half if Ubuntu, 4

>>>>>>>> hours (or more if something fuçks up) if XP -)

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Under 45 mins for Vista.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Including Office, Firefox, Java, Flash, Anti Virus, etc., etc.,

>>>>>> etc.? I don't think so ...

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Oops, you lose (again).

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Install it from a flash drive, 15-20 mins., and sometimes 10 mins

>>>>>>> is possible.

>>>>>>> You lose...LOL!

>>>>>>> Frank

>>>>>>>

>>>>> Add 5 mins for all of that.

>>>>

>>>> Installing Office alone takes longer than that not to mention the

>>>> drivers for the audio, chip set and video card. Who do you think

>>>> you're fooling?

>>>>

>>>>> You lose, but you always lose and you're use to being a loser.

>>>>> Loser...LOL!

>>>>> Frank

>>>>

>>>> You lie and you know it. The fact that it doesn't bother you is

>>>> pathological.

>>>>

>>>> Alias

>>>

>>> More of your lies?

>>> Give it up mr liar...LOL!

>>> Frank

>>

>> There you go again, insulting the messenger when you're wrong. Tsk,

>> tsk. Be a man and admit that installing Ubuntu is quicker and easier

>> than Vista or any Windows OS. Or will you now start threatening me

>> with physical violence?

>>

>> Alias

> Why are you so afraid of me and the truth?

> Frank

I'm not afraid of you or the truth. Oops.

Alias

Quote

Mark as Solution

April 3, 200817 yr

Alias wrote:

> Frank wrote:

>

>> Alias wrote:

>>

>>> Frank wrote:

>>>

>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Frank wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

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

>>>>>>>>>> news:ft094k$8tn$1@aioe.org...

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Considering that it can't be counted, what the FUD meisters

>>>>>>>>>>> report as "market share" is not relevant to the immense

>>>>>>>>>>> growth that Ubuntu is experiencing. I can't install them for

>>>>>>>>>>> people who want to get rid of Vista fast enough. I'm doing

>>>>>>>>>>> two or three a day now. I have yet to have anyone ask me to

>>>>>>>>>>> remove Ubuntu and install *any* version of Windows.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> So it is hard to install then.

>>>>>>>>>> I installed 25 XP machines in 4 hours from DVD when I needed

>>>>>>>>>> them for a demo.

>>>>>>>>>> I suggest you find a better way to do it. -)

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Most of installing, be it XP or Ubuntu is waiting for something

>>>>>>>>> to finish. I can start three machines quite quickly and then

>>>>>>>>> just visit each one when something needs to be clicked and

>>>>>>>>> they'll all be done in around an hour and a half if Ubuntu, 4

>>>>>>>>> hours (or more if something fuçks up) if XP -)

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Under 45 mins for Vista.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Including Office, Firefox, Java, Flash, Anti Virus, etc., etc.,

>>>>>>> etc.? I don't think so ...

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Oops, you lose (again).

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Install it from a flash drive, 15-20 mins., and sometimes 10

>>>>>>>> mins is possible.

>>>>>>>> You lose...LOL!

>>>>>>>> Frank

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>> Add 5 mins for all of that.

>>>>>

>>>>> Installing Office alone takes longer than that not to mention the

>>>>> drivers for the audio, chip set and video card. Who do you think

>>>>> you're fooling?

>>>>>

>>>>>> You lose, but you always lose and you're use to being a loser.

>>>>>> Loser...LOL!

>>>>>> Frank

>>>>>

>>>>> You lie and you know it. The fact that it doesn't bother you is

>>>>> pathological.

>>>>>

>>>>> Alias

>>>>

>>>> More of your lies?

>>>> Give it up mr liar...LOL!

>>>> Frank

>>>

>>> There you go again, insulting the messenger when you're wrong. Tsk,

>>> tsk. Be a man and admit that installing Ubuntu is quicker and easier

>>> than Vista or any Windows OS. Or will you now start threatening me

>>> with physical violence?

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>> Why are you so afraid of me and the truth?

>> Frank

>

> I'm not afraid of you or the truth. Oops.

>

> Alias

You're a known and admitted liar, liar...LOL!

Frank

Quote

Mark as Solution

April 3, 200817 yr

Frank wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>

>> Frank wrote:

>>

>>> Alias wrote:

>>>

>>>> Frank wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> Frank wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>

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

>>>>>>>>>>> news:ft094k$8tn$1@aioe.org...

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Considering that it can't be counted, what the FUD meisters

>>>>>>>>>>>> report as "market share" is not relevant to the immense

>>>>>>>>>>>> growth that Ubuntu is experiencing. I can't install them for

>>>>>>>>>>>> people who want to get rid of Vista fast enough. I'm doing

>>>>>>>>>>>> two or three a day now. I have yet to have anyone ask me to

>>>>>>>>>>>> remove Ubuntu and install *any* version of Windows.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> So it is hard to install then.

>>>>>>>>>>> I installed 25 XP machines in 4 hours from DVD when I needed

>>>>>>>>>>> them for a demo.

>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest you find a better way to do it. -)

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Most of installing, be it XP or Ubuntu is waiting for

>>>>>>>>>> something to finish. I can start three machines quite quickly

>>>>>>>>>> and then just visit each one when something needs to be

>>>>>>>>>> clicked and they'll all be done in around an hour and a half

>>>>>>>>>> if Ubuntu, 4 hours (or more if something fuçks up) if XP -)

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Under 45 mins for Vista.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Including Office, Firefox, Java, Flash, Anti Virus, etc., etc.,

>>>>>>>> etc.? I don't think so ...

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Oops, you lose (again).

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Install it from a flash drive, 15-20 mins., and sometimes 10

>>>>>>>>> mins is possible.

>>>>>>>>> You lose...LOL!

>>>>>>>>> Frank

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Add 5 mins for all of that.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Installing Office alone takes longer than that not to mention the

>>>>>> drivers for the audio, chip set and video card. Who do you think

>>>>>> you're fooling?

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> You lose, but you always lose and you're use to being a loser.

>>>>>>> Loser...LOL!

>>>>>>> Frank

>>>>>>

>>>>>> You lie and you know it. The fact that it doesn't bother you is

>>>>>> pathological.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>

>>>>> More of your lies?

>>>>> Give it up mr liar...LOL!

>>>>> Frank

>>>>

>>>> There you go again, insulting the messenger when you're wrong. Tsk,

>>>> tsk. Be a man and admit that installing Ubuntu is quicker and easier

>>>> than Vista or any Windows OS. Or will you now start threatening me

>>>> with physical violence?

>>>>

>>>> Alias

>>>

>>> Why are you so afraid of me and the truth?

>>> Frank

>>

>> I'm not afraid of you or the truth. Oops.

>>

>> Alias

>

> You're a known and admitted liar, liar...LOL!

> Frank

Your skewered opinion of me doesn't change the fact that Ubuntu is

easier and quicker to install than Vista, as are all the programs and

devices.

Alias

Quote

Mark as Solution

April 3, 200817 yr

Alias wrote:

> Frank wrote:

>

>> Alias wrote:

>>

>>> Frank wrote:

>>>

>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Frank wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ft094k$8tn$1@aioe.org...

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Considering that it can't be counted, what the FUD meisters

>>>>>>>>>>>>> report as "market share" is not relevant to the immense

>>>>>>>>>>>>> growth that Ubuntu is experiencing. I can't install them

>>>>>>>>>>>>> for people who want to get rid of Vista fast enough. I'm

>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing two or three a day now. I have yet to have anyone ask

>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to remove Ubuntu and install *any* version of Windows.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> So it is hard to install then.

>>>>>>>>>>>> I installed 25 XP machines in 4 hours from DVD when I needed

>>>>>>>>>>>> them for a demo.

>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest you find a better way to do it. -)

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Most of installing, be it XP or Ubuntu is waiting for

>>>>>>>>>>> something to finish. I can start three machines quite quickly

>>>>>>>>>>> and then just visit each one when something needs to be

>>>>>>>>>>> clicked and they'll all be done in around an hour and a half

>>>>>>>>>>> if Ubuntu, 4 hours (or more if something fuçks up) if XP -)

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Under 45 mins for Vista.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Including Office, Firefox, Java, Flash, Anti Virus, etc., etc.,

>>>>>>>>> etc.? I don't think so ...

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Oops, you lose (again).

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Install it from a flash drive, 15-20 mins., and sometimes 10

>>>>>>>>>> mins is possible.

>>>>>>>>>> You lose...LOL!

>>>>>>>>>> Frank

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Add 5 mins for all of that.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Installing Office alone takes longer than that not to mention the

>>>>>>> drivers for the audio, chip set and video card. Who do you think

>>>>>>> you're fooling?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> You lose, but you always lose and you're use to being a loser.

>>>>>>>> Loser...LOL!

>>>>>>>> Frank

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> You lie and you know it. The fact that it doesn't bother you is

>>>>>>> pathological.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>

>>>>>> More of your lies?

>>>>>> Give it up mr liar...LOL!

>>>>>> Frank

>>>>>

>>>>> There you go again, insulting the messenger when you're wrong. Tsk,

>>>>> tsk. Be a man and admit that installing Ubuntu is quicker and

>>>>> easier than Vista or any Windows OS. Or will you now start

>>>>> threatening me with physical violence?

>>>>>

>>>>> Alias

>>>>

>>>> Why are you so afraid of me and the truth?

>>>> Frank

>>>

>>> I'm not afraid of you or the truth. Oops.

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>> You're a known and admitted liar, liar...LOL!

>> Frank

>

> Your skewered opinion of me doesn't change the fact that Ubuntu is

> easier and quicker to install than Vista, as are all the programs and

> devices.

>

> Alias

You're really just making a moot point seeing as how your can't do in

urbutto what you can do in Vista.

So you lose anyway...LOL!

Loser!

Frank

Quote

Mark as Solution

April 3, 200817 yr

Frank wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>

>> Frank wrote:

>>

>>> Alias wrote:

>>>

>>>> Frank wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> Frank wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ft094k$8tn$1@aioe.org...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Considering that it can't be counted, what the FUD

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meisters report as "market share" is not relevant to the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> immense growth that Ubuntu is experiencing. I can't

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> install them for people who want to get rid of Vista fast

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough. I'm doing two or three a day now. I have yet to

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have anyone ask me to remove Ubuntu and install *any*

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version of Windows.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> So it is hard to install then.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> I installed 25 XP machines in 4 hours from DVD when I

>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed them for a demo.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest you find a better way to do it. -)

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of installing, be it XP or Ubuntu is waiting for

>>>>>>>>>>>> something to finish. I can start three machines quite

>>>>>>>>>>>> quickly and then just visit each one when something needs to

>>>>>>>>>>>> be clicked and they'll all be done in around an hour and a

>>>>>>>>>>>> half if Ubuntu, 4 hours (or more if something fuçks up) if

>>>>>>>>>>>> XP -)

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Under 45 mins for Vista.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Including Office, Firefox, Java, Flash, Anti Virus, etc.,

>>>>>>>>>> etc., etc.? I don't think so ...

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Oops, you lose (again).

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Install it from a flash drive, 15-20 mins., and sometimes 10

>>>>>>>>>>> mins is possible.

>>>>>>>>>>> You lose...LOL!

>>>>>>>>>>> Frank

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Add 5 mins for all of that.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Installing Office alone takes longer than that not to mention

>>>>>>>> the drivers for the audio, chip set and video card. Who do you

>>>>>>>> think you're fooling?

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> You lose, but you always lose and you're use to being a loser.

>>>>>>>>> Loser...LOL!

>>>>>>>>> Frank

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> You lie and you know it. The fact that it doesn't bother you is

>>>>>>>> pathological.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> More of your lies?

>>>>>>> Give it up mr liar...LOL!

>>>>>>> Frank

>>>>>>

>>>>>> There you go again, insulting the messenger when you're wrong.

>>>>>> Tsk, tsk. Be a man and admit that installing Ubuntu is quicker and

>>>>>> easier than Vista or any Windows OS. Or will you now start

>>>>>> threatening me with physical violence?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>

>>>>> Why are you so afraid of me and the truth?

>>>>> Frank

>>>>

>>>> I'm not afraid of you or the truth. Oops.

>>>>

>>>> Alias

>>>

>>> You're a known and admitted liar, liar...LOL!

>>> Frank

>>

>> Your skewered opinion of me doesn't change the fact that Ubuntu is

>> easier and quicker to install than Vista, as are all the programs and

>> devices.

>>

>> Alias

>

> You're really just making a moot point seeing as how your can't do in

> urbutto what you can do in Vista.

What most home users do with a computer can be done with Ubuntu, the

same holds true for most businesses. I always advise keeping a copy of

XP for gaming with the Windows Toy Operating Systems or if they have to

use AutoCad or some other program most people don't use.

> So you lose anyway...LOL!

> Loser!

> Frank

I haven't lost a thing. I use both XP and Ubuntu and get the best of two

worlds. You have your head so far up MS' FUD that you have to spend all

of your time in this newsgroup spewing insults, lies, profanity and

bluster so, chum, you're the obvious loser.

Alias

Quote

Mark as Solution

April 3, 200817 yr

Alias wrote:

> Frank wrote:

>

>> Alias wrote:

>>

>>> Frank wrote:

>>>

>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Frank wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ft094k$8tn$1@aioe.org...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Considering that it can't be counted, what the FUD

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meisters report as "market share" is not relevant to the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> immense growth that Ubuntu is experiencing. I can't

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> install them for people who want to get rid of Vista fast

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough. I'm doing two or three a day now. I have yet to

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have anyone ask me to remove Ubuntu and install *any*

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version of Windows.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So it is hard to install then.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I installed 25 XP machines in 4 hours from DVD when I

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed them for a demo.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest you find a better way to do it. -)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of installing, be it XP or Ubuntu is waiting for

>>>>>>>>>>>>> something to finish. I can start three machines quite

>>>>>>>>>>>>> quickly and then just visit each one when something needs

>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be clicked and they'll all be done in around an hour and

>>>>>>>>>>>>> a half if Ubuntu, 4 hours (or more if something fuçks up)

>>>>>>>>>>>>> if XP -)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Under 45 mins for Vista.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Including Office, Firefox, Java, Flash, Anti Virus, etc.,

>>>>>>>>>>> etc., etc.? I don't think so ...

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Oops, you lose (again).

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Install it from a flash drive, 15-20 mins., and sometimes 10

>>>>>>>>>>>> mins is possible.

>>>>>>>>>>>> You lose...LOL!

>>>>>>>>>>>> Frank

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Add 5 mins for all of that.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Installing Office alone takes longer than that not to mention

>>>>>>>>> the drivers for the audio, chip set and video card. Who do you

>>>>>>>>> think you're fooling?

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> You lose, but you always lose and you're use to being a loser.

>>>>>>>>>> Loser...LOL!

>>>>>>>>>> Frank

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> You lie and you know it. The fact that it doesn't bother you is

>>>>>>>>> pathological.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> More of your lies?

>>>>>>>> Give it up mr liar...LOL!

>>>>>>>> Frank

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> There you go again, insulting the messenger when you're wrong.

>>>>>>> Tsk, tsk. Be a man and admit that installing Ubuntu is quicker

>>>>>>> and easier than Vista or any Windows OS. Or will you now start

>>>>>>> threatening me with physical violence?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Why are you so afraid of me and the truth?

>>>>>> Frank

>>>>>

>>>>> I'm not afraid of you or the truth. Oops.

>>>>>

>>>>> Alias

>>>>

>>>> You're a known and admitted liar, liar...LOL!

>>>> Frank

>>>

>>> Your skewered opinion of me doesn't change the fact that Ubuntu is

>>> easier and quicker to install than Vista, as are all the programs and

>>> devices.

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>> You're really just making a moot point seeing as how your can't do in

>> urbutto what you can do in Vista.

>

> What most home users do with a computer can be done with Ubuntu, the

> same holds true for most businesses. I always advise keeping a copy of

> XP for gaming with the Windows Toy Operating Systems or if they have to

> use AutoCad or some other program most people don't use.

This is where your urbutto bullsh*t story completely falls apart. Why

would anyone want one useless linux os and another fully usable Windows OS?

>

>> So you lose anyway...LOL!

>> Loser!

>> Frank

>

> I haven't lost a thing.

Well, maybe you don't have anything to lose.

I use both XP and Ubuntu and get the best of two

> worlds.

linux is a waste of time, period!

You have your head so far up MS' FUD that you have to spend all

> of your time in this newsgroup spewing insults, lies, profanity and

> bluster so, chum, you're the obvious loser.

Still can't deal with the truth huh?

Frank

Quote

Mark as Solution

April 3, 200817 yr

"Josef Moellers" <josef.moellers@fujitsu-siemens.com> wrote in message

news:ft212q$v59$1@nntp.fujitsu-siemens.com...

> dennis@home wrote:

>>

>> "Josef Moellers" <josef.moellers@fujitsu-siemens.com> wrote in message

>

>>> Why can't Microsoft use existing standards (ODF)

>>

>> M$ decided it wasn't extensible enough AFAIK. I am not an expert so I

>> couldn't be sure.

>

> MS has a long track record of having to invent new formats for their

> files: audio formats (WMA) and video formats (WMV) spring to my mind. And

> all these formats are kept secret, so interoperability is impossible.

> Since Office is their bread-and-butter product (afaik, most of their

> revenue comes from Office), there is concern that OOXML will follow in

> their tracks.

They would not be standards compliant then and people would start to

question the product.

>

>>> but had to force yet another standard (OOXML) which will continue to

>>> make documents unaccessible to those *not* using their programs? Most

>>> likely, OOXML will become the default file format when storing office

>>> documents and most likeley people will just click "Save" rather than

>>> first select a different format.

>>

>> But as the OOXML format is an iso standard anyone can read or write it.

>> If other developers don't support it then blame them. All the other

>> formats have been published too.

>

> This appears not to be true.

> Apparently having a file format accepted as a standard does not mean that

> everyone is free to use it, most of all to create files using it.

> For one, Microsoft has chosen to specify MP3 as *the* audio format within

> documents, and the MP3 format is still covered by patents

> (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080310153345250).

That hasn't stopped OSS using mp3, so I don't suppose it will stop OO using

OOXML.

Quote

Mark as Solution

April 3, 200817 yr

"Linonut" <linonut@bollsouth.nut> wrote in message

news:uU4Jj.26103$dT.16952@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

> * Josef Moellers peremptorily fired off this memo:

>

>> Microsoft has a track record of trying everything to keep competitors

>> out. As long as there is *real* competition, this is OK: just chose

>> another vendor. However, with the market domination Microsoft has, even

>> official bodies worry about this and start antitrust investigations.

>>

>> I just wish Microsoft would use their power with more conscience, or, as

>> someone in a move once said: "With great power comes great

>> responsibility".

There are an awful lot of people better off because of M$. Just imagine how

much extra tax you would have to pay if you had to support the people that

make cash from M$.

You might think OSS is free, but not if it kills a large part of the IT

industry.

I suppose you hate Cisco too as they monopolize networking and create new

standards for themselves whenever they feel it will be an advantage.

>

> They use their power mainly to make money.

They are legally obliged to do that.

They would be in court if they didn't.

You are just upset that they are better at it than you.

Quote

Mark as Solution

April 3, 200817 yr

"marksouth" <ms@really.invalid> wrote in message

news:47f4bba2$1_4@news.bluewin.ch...

> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:58:59 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

>

>> But as the OOXML format is an iso standard anyone can read or write it.

>

> Anyone who has time to read, comprehend, and retain over 6000 pages of

> specification.

I thought all linux users did that sort of thing with the source code.. its

always claimed that there can be no nasties hidden as anyone can read the

source which requires far more effort. 8-)

Quote

Mark as Solution

April 3, 200817 yr

"Moshe Goldfarb" <brick.n.straw@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:lzni2o8376pv$.bth47xrczgoq$.dlg@40tude.net...

> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 22:07:21 -0700, Frank wrote:

>

>> NoStop wrote:

>>

>>> chrisv wrote:

>>>

>>>>NoStop wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>>On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 23:20:32 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>That's a Roy Schestowitz administered site so I will not go there

>>>>>>>>for fear of getting a virus or trojan or something.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>Run Linux. You won't have to worry. :)

>>>>>>

>>>>>>Sure.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>Tell that to Roy Schestowitz who had his LINUX based website hacked

>>>>>>and 0wned a couple of weeks ago.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>My advice to anyone is to use the OS that supports the

>>>>>>>>applications you need to run.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>Linux runs all the applications you need to run.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>No it doesn't.

>>>>>>And it doesn't for a vast number of people which is why virtually

>>>>>>nobody is using it as a desktop system.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>Except for "viruses or trojans or something".

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>*snicker*

>>>>>>

>>>>>>See Roy Schestowitz who had a trojan embedded in his website and was

>>>>>>infecting God knows how many users who visted him.

>>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>Surely you mean Windoze users? If that is the case, maybe it was

>>>>>there on purpose? So how many hours did it take for you to clean the

>>>>>virus off your toy operating system? Was it fun Mr. Soap Suds?

>>>>>

>>>>>Cheers.

>>>>

>>>>Windows users wouldn't visit Roy's site for any reason.

>>>>It took Roy a few days to clean it up.

>>>>No Windows users were infected.

>>>

>>> Well obviously Mr. Soap Suds visited it and it runs Windoze.

>>>

>>> Cheers.

>>>

>> His linux server got hacked!...LOL!

>> That's wonderful, don't you think so...LOL!

>> Frank

>

> It was hysterical!

>

> That arrogant SOB, Roy Schestowitz was actually WARNED, weeks prior to the

> final assault on his schestowitz.com site, that something strange was

> going

> on when people visited the site.

>

> Of course being the arrogant, narcissistic dweeb that Roy Schestowitz is,

> he ignored it because "nothing can happen to me, I am Roy Schestowitz".

What do you expect when he believes the linux is invulnerable lie that all

the advocates use?

>

> Ultimately he got 0Wned and his home page was defaced.

> Someone else put up a screen shot of the trojan that had been embedded in

> Roy Schestowitz' site, http://www.schestowitz.com and that ws infecting users

> stupid enough to visit that site.

>

> Schestowitz also administers http://www.groklaw.com and a few other sites.

>

> God knows what they are infected with due to his ineptness.

Well if he ran windows he could get kaspersky to scan it for him.. its

pretty good and would probably find most of the hacks and is constantly

updated.

Some people are too stupid to use anything other than windows, and Roy

Schestowitz is one of them.

Quote

Mark as Solution

April 3, 200817 yr

"Linonut" <linonut@bollsouth.nut> wrote in message

news:FT4Jj.26101$dT.17252@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

> * dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:

>

>> However it should be the web site owners choice.

>>

>> I wonder if lino (lino is an old fashioned oil based floor covering BTW)

>> nut

>> understands why he wrote a load of cr@p yet?

>

> I ask, again, what crap? The OP said nothing about restricting choice

> in any shape, form, or fashion, yet dennis-the-menace claimed he did,

> and I corrected him.

You still haven't read it properly.. try again.

Quote

Mark as Solution

April 3, 200817 yr

dennis@home wrote:

> What do you expect when he believes the linux is invulnerable lie that all

> the advocates use?

>

Really? When has Roy, or any other Linux advocate ever said such a thing? Do

you actually have a quote?

--

Regards,

Gregory.

Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

Quote

Mark as Solution

April 3, 200817 yr

dennis@home wrote:

>

> "Josef Moellers" <josef.moellers@fujitsu-siemens.com> wrote in message

> news:ft212q$v59$1@nntp.fujitsu-siemens.com...

>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>

>>> "Josef Moellers" <josef.moellers@fujitsu-siemens.com> wrote in message

>>

>>>> Why can't Microsoft use existing standards (ODF)

>>>

>>> M$ decided it wasn't extensible enough AFAIK. I am not an expert so I

>>> couldn't be sure.

>>

>> MS has a long track record of having to invent new formats for their

>> files: audio formats (WMA) and video formats (WMV) spring to my mind. And

>> all these formats are kept secret, so interoperability is impossible.

>> Since Office is their bread-and-butter product (afaik, most of their

>> revenue comes from Office), there is concern that OOXML will follow in

>> their tracks.

>

> They would not be standards compliant then and people would start to

> question the product.

People actually have questioned the "product". Unfortunately, Microsoft is

not listening.

>> This appears not to be true.

>> Apparently having a file format accepted as a standard does not mean that

>> everyone is free to use it, most of all to create files using it.

>> For one, Microsoft has chosen to specify MP3 as *the* audio format within

>> documents, and the MP3 format is still covered by patents

>> (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080310153345250).

>

> That hasn't stopped OSS using mp3, so I don't suppose it will stop OO

> using OOXML.

OSS doesn't use mp3. It uses OGG. Users can take the risk of litigation and

use mp3 if they wish.. just as they can take the risk and use the windows

proprietary codecs.

--

Regards,

Gregory.

Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

Quote

Mark as Solution

April 3, 200817 yr

dennis@home wrote:

>

> "Linonut" <linonut@bollsouth.nut> wrote in message

> news:uU4Jj.26103$dT.16952@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

>>

>> They use their power mainly to make money.

>

> They are legally obliged to do that.

The EU consider it differently, but there you go.

> They would be in court if they didn't.

har har har.

They've been in court, they've been fined and fined again for not complying

with court directives.

> You are just upset that they are better at it than you.

I suspect he's upset that a company continues to use its monopoly to stifle

competition. Isn't that reasonable?

--

Regards,

Gregory.

Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

Quote

Mark as Solution

April 3, 200817 yr

marksouth wrote:

> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 18:41:13 +0200, Hadron wrote:

>

>> marksouth <ms@really.invalid> writes:

>>

>>> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:58:59 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

>>>

>>>> But as the OOXML format is an iso standard anyone can read or write

>>>> it.

>>>

>>> Anyone who has time to read, comprehend, and retain over 6000 pages of

>>> specification.

>>

>> It might surprise you mighty Mark, but that is what one has to do when

>> implementing things like standards. I realise that you and Gregory

>> Shearman probably see this as a waste of a programmers time and efforts

>> but, well, someone has to do the slog.

I suppose that filthy lying little turd still hasn't provided a quote to

support the filthy lies he keeps spouting about me.

--

Regards,

Gregory.

Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

Quote

Mark as Solution

Sign In

Re: Linux hits 6.1% on March!

Guest, which answer was the most helpful?

Featured Replies

Popular Days

Join the conversation

Popular Days

Account

Navigation

Search