caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:

> Hadron wrote:

>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:

>>

>>> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> stated in post

>>> c-mdnVx-bt3cPGvanZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@supernews.com on 4/4/08 2:44 PM:

>>>

>>>>> OOXML is open, that goes over your head.

>>>> No, it isn't.

>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML>

>>> -----

>>> Office Open XML (often referred to as OOXML or OpenXML) is a

>>> free and open XML-based international standard for representing

>>> electronic documents such as spreadsheets, charts, presentations

>>> and word processing documents.

>>> -----

>>>

>>> <http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/OpenXML%20White%20

>>> Paper.pdf>

>>> -----

>>> Office Open XML (OpenXML) is a proposed open standard for

>>> word-processing documents, presentations, and spreadsheets

>>> -----

>>>

>>> You were saying?

>>

>> Considering Rick can't grasp the importance of a consistent User

>> Interface for users I am astonished that he now thinks anyone will

>> listen to his "views" on Open Standards.

>>

>> COLA is getting wackier by the day.

>

>

>

> Being that MS keeps moving target where is their consistency?

> caver1

>

 

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

--

"Do a screen-shot of a text. Now disable anti-aliasing. Do again screen-shot of same text. Compare both. They are exactly the same."

Peter Koehlmann, COLA, explaining Anti Aliasing ....

http://tinyurl.com/33672q

"Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> stated in post

ft8g9j$4i1$2@registered.motzarella.org on 4/5/08 11:26 AM:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:

>

>> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> stated in post

>> c-mdnVx-bt3cPGvanZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@supernews.com on 4/4/08 2:44 PM:

>>

>>>> OOXML is open, that goes over your head.

>>>

>>> No, it isn't.

>>

>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML>

>> -----

>> Office Open XML (often referred to as OOXML or OpenXML) is a

>> free and open XML-based international standard for representing

>> electronic documents such as spreadsheets, charts, presentations

>> and word processing documents.

>> -----

>>

>> <http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/OpenXML%20White%20

>> Paper.pdf>

>> -----

>> Office Open XML (OpenXML) is a proposed open standard for

>> word-processing documents, presentations, and spreadsheets

>> -----

>>

>> You were saying?

>

> Considering Rick can't grasp the importance of a consistent User

> Interface for users I am astonished that he now thinks anyone will

> listen to his "views" on Open Standards.

>

> COLA is getting wackier by the day.

 

Rick 1:

Millions have formatted a disk and installed Linux without problems.

 

Rick 2:

The fact is, very few people know about it [Linux].

 

Does Rick even know what Rick believes?

 

--

Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value.

--Albert Einstein

Hadron wrote:

> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:

>

>> Hadron wrote:

>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:

>>>

>>>> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> stated in post

>>>> c-mdnVx-bt3cPGvanZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@supernews.com on 4/4/08 2:44 PM:

>>>>

>>>>>> OOXML is open, that goes over your head.

>>>>> No, it isn't.

>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML>

>>>> -----

>>>> Office Open XML (often referred to as OOXML or OpenXML) is a

>>>> free and open XML-based international standard for representing

>>>> electronic documents such as spreadsheets, charts, presentations

>>>> and word processing documents.

>>>> -----

>>>>

>>>> <http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/OpenXML%20White%20

>>>> Paper.pdf>

>>>> -----

>>>> Office Open XML (OpenXML) is a proposed open standard for

>>>> word-processing documents, presentations, and spreadsheets

>>>> -----

>>>>

>>>> You were saying?

>>> Considering Rick can't grasp the importance of a consistent User

>>> Interface for users I am astonished that he now thinks anyone will

>>> listen to his "views" on Open Standards.

>>>

>>> COLA is getting wackier by the day.

>>

>>

>> Being that MS keeps moving target where is their consistency?

>> caver1

>>

>

> I have no idea what you are talking about.

>

 

 

 

You sure do weasel out when you're wrong.

caver1

"caver1" <caver1@inthemud.org> stated in post

47f7f599$0$6475$4c368faf@roadrunner.com on 4/5/08 2:56 PM:

> Hadron wrote:

>> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:

>>

>>> Hadron wrote:

>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:

>>>>

>>>>> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> stated in post

>>>>> c-mdnVx-bt3cPGvanZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@supernews.com on 4/4/08 2:44 PM:

>>>>>

>>>>>>> OOXML is open, that goes over your head.

>>>>>> No, it isn't.

>>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML>

>>>>> -----

>>>>> Office Open XML (often referred to as OOXML or OpenXML) is a

>>>>> free and open XML-based international standard for representing

>>>>> electronic documents such as spreadsheets, charts, presentations

>>>>> and word processing documents.

>>>>> -----

>>>>>

>>>>> <http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/OpenXML%20White%

>>>>> 20

>>>>> Paper.pdf>

>>>>> -----

>>>>> Office Open XML (OpenXML) is a proposed open standard for

>>>>> word-processing documents, presentations, and spreadsheets

>>>>> -----

>>>>>

>>>>> You were saying?

>>>> Considering Rick can't grasp the importance of a consistent User

>>>> Interface for users I am astonished that he now thinks anyone will

>>>> listen to his "views" on Open Standards.

>>>>

>>>> COLA is getting wackier by the day.

>>>

>>>

>>> Being that MS keeps moving target where is their consistency?

>>> caver1

>>>

>>

>> I have no idea what you are talking about.

>>

>

>

>

> You sure do weasel out when you're wrong.

> caver1

 

So what the heck is he talking about?

 

 

--

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and

conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

dennis@home had de volgende lumineuze gedachte op 03-04-08 23:17:

>

>

> 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.

>

Just imagine the whole internet mafia had not arisen because of MS

Windows' inherent insecurity.

Just imagine the whole security industry had not arisen because of the

arising of the internet mafia.

All these people do indeed make a lot af cash what a pity if this part

of the IT industry were killed off.

 

And who is to pay all this cash? We, the end-users of course.

 

Erik Jan

* dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:

>> You seem to want vendors to be able to choose to use closed formats and

>> protocols. Why is that?

>

> Why don't you?

> What do you have against competition?

 

That's not "competition". That is an attempt to create a small

monopoly.

> You can't have competition in a world where everything does the same and

> costs the same.

 

Who is asking for such a world? We simply want to be able to access our

documents without having to purchase one (and only one) vendor's

product.

 

--

About 3 million computers get sold every year in China, but people don't pay

for the software. Someday they will, though. As long as they are going to

steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then

we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.

-- Bill Gates, Speech at the University of Washington, as reported in

"Gates, Buffett a bit bearish" CNET News (2 July 1998) [1]

"Erik Jan" <anonymous@discussions.invalid.com> wrote in message

news:47f8c26a$0$15375$bf4948fe@news.tele2.nl...

> dennis@home had de volgende lumineuze gedachte op 03-04-08 23:17:

>>

>>

>> 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.

>>

> Just imagine the whole internet mafia had not arisen because of MS

> Windows' inherent insecurity.

> Just imagine the whole security industry had not arisen because of the

> arising of the internet mafia.

> All these people do indeed make a lot af cash what a pity if this part of

> the IT industry were killed off.

>

> And who is to pay all this cash? We, the end-users of course.

 

Just imagine.. the first worms were all unix based.. I expect whichever OS

were on the Internet would be hacked.

>

> Erik Jan

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

news:AS4Kj.26981$Er2.17932@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

> * dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:

>

>>> You seem to want vendors to be able to choose to use closed formats and

>>> protocols. Why is that?

>>

>> Why don't you?

>> What do you have against competition?

>

> That's not "competition". That is an attempt to create a small

> monopoly.

>

>> You can't have competition in a world where everything does the same and

>> costs the same.

>

> Who is asking for such a world? We simply want to be able to access our

> documents without having to purchase one (and only one) vendor's

> product.

 

Don't produce /your/ documents in one of their formats then!

You really are being stupid.

dennis@home wrote:

>

>

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

> news:AS4Kj.26981$Er2.17932@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

>> * dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:

>>

>>>> You seem to want vendors to be able to choose to use closed formats and

>>>> protocols. Why is that?

>>>

>>> Why don't you?

>>> What do you have against competition?

>>

>> That's not "competition". That is an attempt to create a small

>> monopoly.

>>

>>> You can't have competition in a world where everything does the same and

>>> costs the same.

>>

>> Who is asking for such a world? We simply want to be able to access our

>> documents without having to purchase one (and only one) vendor's

>> product.

>

> Don't produce /your/ documents in one of their formats then!

> You really are being stupid.

>

>

>

 

 

Its not that we won't use certain documents. Its that MS doesn't want

anyone to unless they are using a MS product.

When a Corporation tries to control standards then they will be closed.

As does MS.

caver1

Hadron wrote:

> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:

>

>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>

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

>>> news:AS4Kj.26981$Er2.17932@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

>>>> * dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:

>>>>

>>>>>> You seem to want vendors to be able to choose to use closed formats and

>>>>>> protocols. Why is that?

>>>>> Why don't you?

>>>>> What do you have against competition?

>>>> That's not "competition". That is an attempt to create a small

>>>> monopoly.

>>>>

>>>>> You can't have competition in a world where everything does the same and

>>>>> costs the same.

>>>> Who is asking for such a world? We simply want to be able to access our

>>>> documents without having to purchase one (and only one) vendor's

>>>> product.

>>> Don't produce /your/ documents in one of their formats then!

>>> You really are being stupid.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>

>> Its not that we won't use certain documents. Its that MS doesn't want

>> anyone to unless they are using a MS product.

>> When a Corporation tries to control standards then they will be closed.

>> As does MS.

>> caver1

>

> What are you talking about? Seriously. You keep talking about things

> which are out and out lies. Loads of SW has Office layers. YOu even have

> Wine for crying outside. OOXML is an open standard. Where is this "not

> allowed" garbage you keep spouting?

>

 

 

Prove me wrong.

caver1

Hadron wrote:

> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:

>

>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>

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

>>> news:AS4Kj.26981$Er2.17932@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

>>>> * dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:

>>>>

>>>>>> You seem to want vendors to be able to choose to use closed formats and

>>>>>> protocols. Why is that?

>>>>> Why don't you?

>>>>> What do you have against competition?

>>>> That's not "competition". That is an attempt to create a small

>>>> monopoly.

>>>>

>>>>> You can't have competition in a world where everything does the same and

>>>>> costs the same.

>>>> Who is asking for such a world? We simply want to be able to access our

>>>> documents without having to purchase one (and only one) vendor's

>>>> product.

>>> Don't produce /your/ documents in one of their formats then!

>>> You really are being stupid.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>

>> Its not that we won't use certain documents. Its that MS doesn't want

>> anyone to unless they are using a MS product.

>> When a Corporation tries to control standards then they will be closed.

>> As does MS.

>> caver1

>

> What are you talking about? Seriously. You keep talking about things

> which are out and out lies. Loads of SW has Office layers. YOu even have

> Wine for crying outside. OOXML is an open standard. Where is this "not

> allowed" garbage you keep spouting?

>

 

 

 

MS really didn't concede to let others in until the EU forced them to.

Many court cases have proven that MS tries to keep every one out.

A monolithic society is no good. Just imagine if everyone was like you.

who would you ever argue with let alone claim you.

And no I am not a liar. Which is one term you like to throw around when

a point has you beaten.

caver1

caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:

> Hadron wrote:

>> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:

>>

>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>

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

>>>> news:AS4Kj.26981$Er2.17932@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

>>>>> * dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:

>>>>>

>>>>>>> You seem to want vendors to be able to choose to use closed formats and

>>>>>>> protocols. Why is that?

>>>>>> Why don't you?

>>>>>> What do you have against competition?

>>>>> That's not "competition". That is an attempt to create a small

>>>>> monopoly.

>>>>>

>>>>>> You can't have competition in a world where everything does the same and

>>>>>> costs the same.

>>>>> Who is asking for such a world? We simply want to be able to access our

>>>>> documents without having to purchase one (and only one) vendor's

>>>>> product.

>>>> Don't produce /your/ documents in one of their formats then!

>>>> You really are being stupid.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>> Its not that we won't use certain documents. Its that MS doesn't want

>>> anyone to unless they are using a MS product.

>>> When a Corporation tries to control standards then they will be closed.

>>> As does MS.

>>> caver1

>>

>> What are you talking about? Seriously. You keep talking about things

>> which are out and out lies. Loads of SW has Office layers. YOu even have

>> Wine for crying outside. OOXML is an open standard. Where is this "not

>> allowed" garbage you keep spouting?

>>

>

>

> Prove me wrong.

> caver1

 

Err, yet again, I just did. What is it with you?

caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:

> Hadron wrote:

>> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:

>>

>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>

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

>>>> news:AS4Kj.26981$Er2.17932@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

>>>>> * dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:

>>>>>

>>>>>>> You seem to want vendors to be able to choose to use closed formats and

>>>>>>> protocols. Why is that?

>>>>>> Why don't you?

>>>>>> What do you have against competition?

>>>>> That's not "competition". That is an attempt to create a small

>>>>> monopoly.

>>>>>

>>>>>> You can't have competition in a world where everything does the same and

>>>>>> costs the same.

>>>>> Who is asking for such a world? We simply want to be able to access our

>>>>> documents without having to purchase one (and only one) vendor's

>>>>> product.

>>>> Don't produce /your/ documents in one of their formats then!

>>>> You really are being stupid.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>> Its not that we won't use certain documents. Its that MS doesn't want

>>> anyone to unless they are using a MS product.

>>> When a Corporation tries to control standards then they will be closed.

>>> As does MS.

>>> caver1

>>

>> What are you talking about? Seriously. You keep talking about things

>> which are out and out lies. Loads of SW has Office layers. YOu even have

>> Wine for crying outside. OOXML is an open standard. Where is this "not

>> allowed" garbage you keep spouting?

>>

>

>

>

> MS really didn't concede to let others in until the EU forced them to.

> Many court cases have proven that MS tries to keep every one out.

> A monolithic society is no good. Just imagine if everyone was like you.

> who would you ever argue with let alone claim you.

> And no I am not a liar. Which is one term you like to throw around

> when a point has you beaten.

> caver1

 

beaten? Huh? You're quite crazy. I use MS Office formats daily in

OO. Also in Wine. I also run Windows under VMWare.

Hadron wrote:

> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:

>

>> Hadron wrote:

>>> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:

>>>

>>>> dennis@home wrote:

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

>>>>> news:AS4Kj.26981$Er2.17932@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

>>>>>> * dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> You seem to want vendors to be able to choose to use closed formats and

>>>>>>>> protocols. Why is that?

>>>>>>> Why don't you?

>>>>>>> What do you have against competition?

>>>>>> That's not "competition". That is an attempt to create a small

>>>>>> monopoly.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> You can't have competition in a world where everything does the same and

>>>>>>> costs the same.

>>>>>> Who is asking for such a world? We simply want to be able to access our

>>>>>> documents without having to purchase one (and only one) vendor's

>>>>>> product.

>>>>> Don't produce /your/ documents in one of their formats then!

>>>>> You really are being stupid.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>> Its not that we won't use certain documents. Its that MS doesn't want

>>>> anyone to unless they are using a MS product.

>>>> When a Corporation tries to control standards then they will be closed.

>>>> As does MS.

>>>> caver1

>>> What are you talking about? Seriously. You keep talking about things

>>> which are out and out lies. Loads of SW has Office layers. YOu even have

>>> Wine for crying outside. OOXML is an open standard. Where is this "not

>>> allowed" garbage you keep spouting?

>>>

>>

>> Prove me wrong.

>> caver1

>

> Err, yet again, I just did. What is it with you?

 

 

 

No you just keep arguing or say I just did. No proof.

caver1

Hadron wrote:

> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:

>

>> Hadron wrote:

>>> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:

>>>

>>>> dennis@home wrote:

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

>>>>> news:AS4Kj.26981$Er2.17932@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

>>>>>> * dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> You seem to want vendors to be able to choose to use closed formats and

>>>>>>>> protocols. Why is that?

>>>>>>> Why don't you?

>>>>>>> What do you have against competition?

>>>>>> That's not "competition". That is an attempt to create a small

>>>>>> monopoly.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> You can't have competition in a world where everything does the same and

>>>>>>> costs the same.

>>>>>> Who is asking for such a world? We simply want to be able to access our

>>>>>> documents without having to purchase one (and only one) vendor's

>>>>>> product.

>>>>> Don't produce /your/ documents in one of their formats then!

>>>>> You really are being stupid.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>> Its not that we won't use certain documents. Its that MS doesn't want

>>>> anyone to unless they are using a MS product.

>>>> When a Corporation tries to control standards then they will be closed.

>>>> As does MS.

>>>> caver1

>>> What are you talking about? Seriously. You keep talking about things

>>> which are out and out lies. Loads of SW has Office layers. YOu even have

>>> Wine for crying outside. OOXML is an open standard. Where is this "not

>>> allowed" garbage you keep spouting?

>>>

>>

>>

>> MS really didn't concede to let others in until the EU forced them to.

>> Many court cases have proven that MS tries to keep every one out.

>> A monolithic society is no good. Just imagine if everyone was like you.

>> who would you ever argue with let alone claim you.

>> And no I am not a liar. Which is one term you like to throw around

>> when a point has you beaten.

>> caver1

>

> beaten? Huh? You're quite crazy. I use MS Office formats daily in

> OO. Also in Wine. I also run Windows under VMWare.

 

 

Really. Did you buy another copy of Windows so you can virtualize it?

And yes After OO Figured out how to coexist with Office. Then with xml

the EU forced them to cooperate. Remember the EU ruling?

Both Corel Office and OO can convert to many more formats than Office

ever could.

So who shows more cooperation?

caver1

* dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:

> Don't produce /your/ documents in one of their formats then!

> You really are being stupid.

 

Plonked for being obstinately and repetitively stupid.

 

--

Sometimes we do get taken by surprise. For example, when the Internet came

along, we had it as a fifth or sixth priority. It wasn't like somebody told

me about it and I said, "I don't know how to spell that." I said, "Yeah,

I've got that on my list, so I'm okay." But there came a point when we

realized it was happening faster and was a much deeper phenomenon than

had been recognized in our strategy.

-- Bill Gates, Speech at the University of Washington, as reported in

"Gates, Buffett a bit bearish" CNET News (2 July 1998) [1]

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

news:bNdKj.18302$9O.15332@bignews3.bellsouth.net...

> * dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:

>

>> Don't produce /your/ documents in one of their formats then!

>> You really are being stupid.

>

> Plonked for being obstinately and repetitively stupid.

 

The Linonut idiot doesn't know that he can't put himself in other peoples

killfile for being a repetitive idiot!

On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 03:29:18 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

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

>

>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

>>

>>> Linux seems to be losing no matter where you look.

>>> The ODF vs OOXML debates.

>>> Market Share.

>>

>> Not likely. Refer to http://www.groklaw.net/ and read all the articles

>> (also those they quote in the right column) about the way OOXML gets

>> approved.

>

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

> of getting a virus or trojan or something.

>

> As for OOXML vs ODF, all I see is a lot of conjecture, accusations and so

> forth.

> I see very little in the way of factual evidence.

>

> Possibly it may turn out to be totally rigged I don't know and personally I

> really don't care either way.

>

>> 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.

>

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

> need to run.

> IOW choose your applications first and then your OS.

 

 

MG:

 

Many casual-but-consistent *nix usrs run multiple OSs ... for example I

keep an archaic WinME_box to run a friendly circuit analysis proggie. For

all else including coding I use a speedy x64AMD Ubuntu box.

 

The real danger with *nix having such low desktop penetration is that a

SINGLE "stat-fluct" ( anything from a developer airplane crash, to a

sudden paradigm_shift in mobo hardware ) might render *nix entirely a

deadend doorstop.

Imagine the desktop *nix lusr community being thrown back to the clutches

of slabbering Debiolians, snarling Slackmolinites and

prongtoothed, frothmouth LFSarillions!

 

nss

*****

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:08:53 +0100, Christopher Hunter wrote:

> Rick wrote:

>

>> If a persons' work environment is mandated Microsoft, how do you expect

>> that person to use Linux?

>

> A company I used to work for was that stupid. I found /much/ better

> employment, and they went out of business quite soon after they tried to

> migrate their business software to Windoze XP.

>

> C.

 

Is that you Kelsey?

 

--

Moshe Goldfarb

Collector of soaps from around the globe.

Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:

http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

Moshe Goldfarb <brick.n.straw@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:08:53 +0100, Christopher Hunter wrote:

>

>> Rick wrote:

>>

>>> If a persons' work environment is mandated Microsoft, how do you expect

>>> that person to use Linux?

>>

>> A company I used to work for was that stupid. I found /much/ better

>> employment, and they went out of business quite soon after they tried to

>> migrate their business software to Windoze XP.

>>

>> C.

>

> Is that you Kelsey?

 

LOL!!!!!!!!!! Missed that. Just replied in a similar fashion.

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:29:55 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Moshe Goldfarb <brick.n.straw@gmail.com> writes:

>

>> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:08:53 +0100, Christopher Hunter wrote:

>>

>>> Rick wrote:

>>>

>>>> If a persons' work environment is mandated Microsoft, how do you expect

>>>> that person to use Linux?

>>>

>>> A company I used to work for was that stupid. I found /much/ better

>>> employment, and they went out of business quite soon after they tried to

>>> migrate their business software to Windoze XP.

>>>

>>> C.

>>

>> Is that you Kelsey?

>

> LOL!!!!!!!!!! Missed that. Just replied in a similar fashion.

 

It's getting obvious these days.

The Linux loons are not that swift...

 

--

Moshe Goldfarb

Collector of soaps from around the globe.

Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:

http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

Ignoramus20845 wrote:

> On 2008-04-04, Josef Moellers <josef.moellers@fujitsu-siemens.com> wrote:

>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

>>

>>> After 10 years, .7 percent is pathetic.

>> After 10 years without a multi-billion advertising campaign and massive

>> bullying, one in 143 is all but pathetic.

>>

>

> Keep in mind that "desktop" is only one of the markets where Linux is

> a player. The other two markets are servers and gadgets (including

> those EEE PCs and PMPs). There, Linux is much more successful.

>

> I think that rather than froth at the mouth with "advocacy", we'd do

> better to promote Linux by writing better software to make Linux run

> smoother.

>

> i

 

 

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

 

Every new application should be made to run on all three or four of the

most popular OSes.

Matt wrote:

> Ignoramus20845 wrote:

>> On 2008-04-04, Josef Moellers <josef.moellers@fujitsu-siemens.com> wrote:

>>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

>>>

>>>> After 10 years, .7 percent is pathetic.

>>> After 10 years without a multi-billion advertising campaign and

>>> massive bullying, one in 143 is all but pathetic.

>>>

>>

>> Keep in mind that "desktop" is only one of the markets where Linux is

>> a player. The other two markets are servers and gadgets (including

>> those EEE PCs and PMPs). There, Linux is much more successful.

>>

>> I think that rather than froth at the mouth with "advocacy", we'd do

>> better to promote Linux by writing better software to make Linux run

>> smoother.

>>

>> i

>

>

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

>

> Every new application should be made to run on all three or four of the

> most popular OSes.

 

Yeah, Check out

 

portableapps.com

 

a GREAT way for those new to open code to get going with what they have

now toward total conversion later.

* Matt peremptorily fired off this memo:

> Ignoramus20845 wrote:

>

>> I think that rather than froth at the mouth with "advocacy", we'd do

>> better to promote Linux by writing better software to make Linux run

>> smoother.

 

"Linux" software is /constantly/ being updated and fixed. For the most

part, it only gets better and better. Give it time.

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

>

> Every new application should be made to run on all three or four of the

> most popular OSes.

 

Some may argue about that. But, in any case, all too many developers in

the commercial arena do not feel they have even time enough for one

platform, and so they stick with the largest platform.

 

--

In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things

happen and how they happen. I don't know if there's a god or not, but I

think religious principles are quite valid.

-- Bill Gates, PBS interview with David Frost (November 1995)

Matt wrote:

> Ignoramus20845 wrote:

>> On 2008-04-04, Josef Moellers <josef.moellers@fujitsu-siemens.com>

>> wrote:

>>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

>>>

>>>> After 10 years, .7 percent is pathetic.

>>> After 10 years without a multi-billion advertising campaign and

>>> massive bullying, one in 143 is all but pathetic.

>>>

>>

>> Keep in mind that "desktop" is only one of the markets where Linux is

>> a player. The other two markets are servers and gadgets (including

>> those EEE PCs and PMPs). There, Linux is much more successful.

>>

>> I think that rather than froth at the mouth with "advocacy", we'd do

>> better to promote Linux by writing better software to make Linux run

>> smoother.

>>

>> i

>

>

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

>

> Every new application should be made to run on all three or four of

> the most popular OSes.

 

The thing is that under 7% of users use Linux: That's a very small number

compared with XP or Vista. Linux is based on the outdated Unix using which

is as sensible as using a 1960s immersion heater with most of its old wiring

to supply your house with hot water: It does its job although

inefficiently, and it requires constant servicing with obsolete parts to

keep it in a good condition.

 

Manufacturers in the 21st Century won't be manufacturing updated parts to

improve its performance or selling it as today's technology with a whole new

look and feel to the original Belling and Howell immersion unit: They'll

have instead moved on and designed something much more efficient in terms of

operation, energy conservation/utilisation, and cosmetic appearance.

 

Maybe 1 in 91 or less households prefer the revamped ancient unit and start

a cult following willing to service it daily, and getting a thrill from

tinkering with and/or improving components but the other 90 households

prefer convenience above sentimentality, and opt for the latest solution.

That's how it is and that's how it always will be. No major manufacturer in

their right mind is going to attempt to develop the aging technology when a

leaner cleaner greener and more efficient alternative is available.

 

Ok at this point you'll argue that M$ have shot themselves in the foot with

Vista which is helping to drive customers to alternatives: I agree to an

extent. You'll also say that M$ have been developing a 13-year-old system to

a point where it has become so over-vamped that it's no longer efficient

and again I agree that this is somewhat the case with Vista. rather than

getting into Linux instead of Vista I'm personally taking the easier option,

as are seemingly most people, and sticking to XP at least until M$ introduce

Windows 7.

 

M$ appear to have learned a lesson possibly they've learned the right

lesson, and I'm living in hope.

 

Yes Linux does have its place as an operating system for smaller embedded

processor technologies such as mobile phones, gaming machines, and old

computers/ Third World budget computers in developing countries, etc. Yes

Linux, like the old immersion heater, will always have its fans and its cult

following: But Linux will never dominate the market, any more than a 1960s

immersion heater would be used by more than 1 in 90 homes at most.

 

I've used Linux before, and it's useful in its place: But as a main

operating system, and I speak for over 90% of computer users, I want

something efficient, user-friendly, and new: Linux just doesn't cut it.