The bogus argument: "My time isn't free"
Richard Rasker
support the myth that Linux may be free, but costs a significant amount
of time to install and configure: learn the math.
A typical Windows installation (Windows plus MS Office) costs *at least*
some $500 in software alone. This represents no less than 25 hours of
working time for Joe Sixpack! But wait, there's more! After these 25
hours, does Joe Sixpack have a fully configured Windows system? No way!
He /still/ has to spend several hours installing and configuring
everything he needs! And I won't even mention the time and money spent on
ongoing yet futile attempts to keep Windows clean, secure and crud-free.
So especially when you say your time isn't free, you'd be a real idiot to
choose Windows, as it will cost you some 30 hours at least. Even my very
first Linux installation attempt took less than a third of that time!
These days, a Linux install takes me 2 hours at most, after which I have
pretty much everything I ever need :-)
Richard Rasker
--
http://www.linetec.nl/
nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu
The usual acid test is the technophobic grandmother. However, most of
the technophobic people I know who have Windows spend a lot of time
(and money) getting help with one thing or another, including trips to
the shop to have virus infestations removed. And remember, they have
to worry about setting up and paying for anti-virus software even
after they have received their nice preinstalled Windows system from
some OEM, something most technophobic grandmothers won't do. This is
assuming they don't have some techno-guru friend to help them. These
types of expenses (of time and money) are not present with Linux, and
for basic computing needs modern distributions of Linux are pretty
easy to use and require very little maintenance once set up.
Speaking of money, some Windows advocates on this group have said that
they spend $75/year on antivirus software. This of course is
unnecessary on Linux (and Macs) because of superior design of the OS.
And over the lifetime of a computer, $75/year adds up (certainly helps
to cut the cost differential between PCs and Macs, for example).
High Plains Thumper
Talking about the so called superiority of Windows, it is a
monolithic system. Even in Windows XP, I periodically run
Defrag, so files and OS load quicker. This is not necessary in
Linux, a true multi-user, multi-tasking operating system.
You are right about costs. Even XP in the work environment
occasionally blows up, requiring a rebuild. This means wiping
the hard disk clean and reinstalling. How much to an employer is
that worth? The IT staffer ends up spending time to that.
Trolls would like you to believe that Linux is unstable (quoting
Alpha version problems or making things up), Linux is virus prone
just like Windows, something that is free reflects its
worthlessness, etc. They are part of the background "pink noise"
that is best ignored.
--
HPT
Kelsey Bjarnason
> Linux isn't perfect, and there are things that take time with Linux.
Few things are perfect, and most things take time to get working.
> The usual acid test is the technophobic grandmother. However, most of
> the technophobic people I know who have Windows spend a lot of time
> (and money) getting help with one thing or another, including trips to
> the shop to have virus infestations removed.
Exactly. Even if we grant Windows is easier to get up to speed with in
some areas, it requires more time and cost to do maintenance, making it at
_best_ equal.
> Speaking of money, some Windows advocates on this group have said that
> they spend $75/year on antivirus software. This of course is
> unnecessary on Linux (and Macs) because of superior design of the OS.
> And over the lifetime of a computer, $75/year adds up (certainly helps
> to cut the cost differential between PCs and Macs, for example).
$75 a year. Okay, in a decade that's still less than a grand, so it's not
like it's a huge cost. However, it's not the only one, either. I know
many folks with AV plus anti-spyware, anti-hijack, etc apps... ones
they've paid for. Don't forget to add in a faster processor to get
equivalent performance after you've added on all the resource-guzzling
extras... and more memory so they don't suck that all up, too.
Ick. I'll pass.
The Ghost In The Machine
<highplai...@invalid.invalid>
wrote
on Wed, 12 Sep 2007 06:32:23 +0900
<46e70993$0$31121$6e1e...@read.cnntp.org>:
> Richard Rasker wrote:
>
>> For all those stupid wintrolls who whine that "their time
>> isn't free", to support the myth that Linux may be free, but
>> costs a significant amount of time to install and configure:
>> learn the math.
>>
>> A typical Windows installation (Windows plus MS Office) costs
>> *at least* some $500 in software alone. This represents no
>> less than 25 hours of working time for Joe Sixpack! But wait,
>> there's more! After these 25 hours, does Joe Sixpack have a
>> fully configured Windows system? No way! He /still/ has to
>> spend several hours installing and configuring everything he
>> needs! And I won't even mention the time and money spent on
>> ongoing yet futile attempts to keep Windows clean, secure and
>> crud-free.
>>
>> So especially when you say your time isn't free, you'd be a
>> real idiot to choose Windows, as it will cost you some 30
>> hours at least. Even my very first Linux installation attempt
>> took less than a third of that time! These days, a Linux
>> install takes me 2 hours at most, after which I have pretty
>> much everything I ever need :-)
>
> Talking about the so called superiority of Windows, it is a
> monolithic system. Even in Windows XP, I periodically run
> Defrag, so files and OS load quicker. This is not necessary in
> Linux, a true multi-user, multi-tasking operating system.
Um...I think the concepts are rather orthogonal.
The performance of Linux might be better simply because
the file system is more intelligent as to where it puts
data; ext2 in particular uses a clustering arrangement.
(Ext3 added a journal, and I'd have to look to see how
reiserfs and jfs store their files. On a test I ran long
ago, reiserfs had superior performance, but I've not tried
things lately.)
It is also possible, admittedly, that Linux has better
performance simply because Unix before it optimized some of
the questions routinely asked while opening a file: "does
it exist here?" "do you have legal access thereto?" "where
are the data blocks?" because long ago Unix didn't have
that much computing power; a PDP 11/70 could run Unix in
all of 128 kB (we had one at my alma mater; that's all it
had if memory serves), though it could go up to all of 2
Mwords, which presumably is 4 MB in modern parlance (since
the PDP 11 was 16-bit). I'm not sure what a "high speed"
processor is in this context, but the data I was able
to pull up suggests that the MM11-E 4 KW memory module
took 1.2 microseconds, or 833 kHz, for a clock cycle.
That translates into 1.667 MB/s, assuming 16 bit words.
http://www.village.org/pdp11/faq.pages/11model.html
The webpage
http://www.psych.usyd.edu.au/pdp-11/models.html
suggests instead that the Unibus had a throughput of 1 MB/s,
as opposed to 1.7 MB/s for some of the older models. In
other words, the 11/70 was slightly crippled -- but it still
ran Unix reasonably well.
The Vaxen, of course, helped quite a bit; I remember BSD 4.2
on an 11/750, just before I went into the working world and
used VMS for awhile instead.
(To be fair, Unix back then didn't do a lot of graphics,
especially since X didn't really take off until the
mid-1980's. Windows in fact came out first, but X has
far better engineering -- a tribute to the MIT design team,
and the workers in XFree86 and X/Open later on.)
And of course Unix borrowed a concept or two from Unix, though
only the concepts, not the actual source code (SCO's claims
notwithstanding).
In any event, Windows came from the other direction; MS-DOS
wasn't too concerned about scheduling processes (*what*
processes??), allocating memory (here, you have it all,
congratulations), or intelligent file cluster allocation,
and Windows inherited quite a bit of that badness.
Windows *did* have better graphics than the other
offerings sitting on DOS at the time -- in particular,
Borland's CGI -- but that's probably not saying all
that much.
>
> You are right about costs. Even XP in the work environment
> occasionally blows up, requiring a rebuild. This means wiping
> the hard disk clean and reinstalling. How much to an employer is
> that worth? The IT staffer ends up spending time to that.
While the user waits for his system to come back.
>
> Trolls would like you to believe that Linux is unstable (quoting
> Alpha version problems or making things up), Linux is virus prone
> just like Windows, something that is free reflects its
> worthlessness, etc. They are part of the background "pink noise"
> that is best ignored.
>
And wrong anyway. Granted, it *is* possible to infect
Linux with a worm or virus, but for many reasons,
such malware tend to be harder to introduce into Linux
systems to begin with, and less vicious when they get
into the system. For starters, email clients don't
allow "single-click convenient infection", and the
actual /usr/bin directory is inviolate under normal
circumstances -- unless someone's dumb enough to run
an unknown script as root, but that's a little less
convenient than double-clicking on a WEIRDNESS.JPG.EXE
file and watching one's machine mutate into a zombiebot.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #2239120:
void f(char *p) {char *q = p; strcpy(p,q); }
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
The Ghost In The Machine
<kbjar...@gmail.com>
wrote
on Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:54:31 -0700
<7uijr4-...@spanky.localhost.net>:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:20:32 -0700, nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu wrote:
>
>> Linux isn't perfect, and there are things that take time with Linux.
>
> Few things are perfect, and most things take time to get working.
>
>> The usual acid test is the technophobic grandmother. However, most of
>> the technophobic people I know who have Windows spend a lot of time
>> (and money) getting help with one thing or another, including trips to
>> the shop to have virus infestations removed.
>
> Exactly. Even if we grant Windows is easier to get up to speed with in
> some areas, it requires more time and cost to do maintenance, making it at
> _best_ equal.
The only reason I can see Windows being easier is because
Windows is preinstalled on the vast majority of machines.
The OEM has spent the time once so that each of his thousands
of customers doesn't -- a not unreasonable tradeoff, in
some respects.
Were Linux preinstalled, apart from some teething problems
("duh, what's the password again?") which are common to any
system, one wouldn't have too many problems. I suspect one
would have fewer problems in that regard than an equivalent
Windows install, in fact -- especially since Windows
likes to try to connect and upgrade when it's at its most
vulnerable, and possibly get infected in the process.
>
>> Speaking of money, some Windows advocates on this group have said that
>> they spend $75/year on antivirus software. This of course is
>> unnecessary on Linux (and Macs) because of superior design of the OS.
>> And over the lifetime of a computer, $75/year adds up (certainly helps
>> to cut the cost differential between PCs and Macs, for example).
>
> $75 a year. Okay, in a decade that's still less than a grand, so it's not
> like it's a huge cost. However, it's not the only one, either. I know
> many folks with AV plus anti-spyware, anti-hijack, etc apps... ones
> they've paid for. Don't forget to add in a faster processor to get
> equivalent performance after you've added on all the resource-guzzling
> extras... and more memory so they don't suck that all up, too.
>
> Ick. I'll pass.
A 1.4 MHz Athlon with 512 MB RAM runs Linux + OpenGL very
well, in fact (though part of that is the BT5500 nVidia
card in there :-) ). I'll admit I wouldn't mind replacing
this system, but that's mostly because of non-OS issues;
the thing has some very noisy fans (not because of bad
bearings, either).
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux. Because vaporware only goes so far.
amicus_curious
"Richard Rasker" <spam...@linetec.nl> wrote in message
news:fqGdnYHXCro3Znvb...@fiberworld.nl...
> For all those stupid wintrolls who whine that "their time isn't free", to
> support the myth that Linux may be free, but costs a significant amount
> of time to install and configure: learn the math.
>
time probably isn't worth so much.
> A typical Windows installation (Windows plus MS Office) costs *at least*
> some $500 in software alone. This represents no less than 25 hours of
> working time for Joe Sixpack! But wait, there's more! After these 25
> hours, does Joe Sixpack have a fully configured Windows system? No way!
> He /still/ has to spend several hours installing and configuring
> everything he needs! And I won't even mention the time and money spent on
> ongoing yet futile attempts to keep Windows clean, secure and crud-free.
>
You are probably not the right person to make the case, if you have used the
same old box for 9 years. Joe Sixpack probably doesn't have MS Windows to
begin with and so would not be in a mood to pay for a replacement. If he
did, by some chance, he could just as easily pick up the MS Office Home and
Student edition at the local Costco, WalMart, Sams, Best Buy, Office Depot,
or wherever he likes to go to buy software for about $100 on the shelf. I
would imagine that you have never bought a copy, else you would know that
you don't have to pay all that much. Even then, Joe probably can't type
anyway and so doesn't use anything at all. The commercial office worker, on
the other hand, gets MS Office as part of their workstation installation and
doesn't pay anything themselves either. MS Office is sold to corporations
under various site license agreements and none of the ersatz stuff like OO
has the ability to enter the distribution chain where the real sales are
made. Nobody is paid to sell OO and so no one does. OO doesn't sell
itself, so it sits in the dark unused in real commerce. The hobbyists love
it, since it is available at no cost, but they feel bad because they are not
in the mainstream. That is why they are constantly complaining about MS
Office.
> So especially when you say your time isn't free, you'd be a real idiot to
> choose Windows, as it will cost you some 30 hours at least. Even my very
> first Linux installation attempt took less than a third of that time!
> These days, a Linux install takes me 2 hours at most, after which I have
> pretty much everything I ever need :-)
>
Even so, I bet that, if you looked deeply enough, you would find that the
vast majority of OO users use it on Windows platforms. That's the easiest
way to do it.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:39:06 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> Exactly. Even if we grant Windows is easier to get up to speed with in
>> some areas, it requires more time and cost to do maintenance, making it at
>> _best_ equal.
>
> The only reason I can see Windows being easier is because
> Windows is preinstalled on the vast majority of machines.
Hence "even if". ;)
> A 1.4 MHz Athlon with 512 MB RAM runs Linux + OpenGL very
> well, in fact (though part of that is the BT5500 nVidia
> card in there :-) ). I'll admit I wouldn't mind replacing
> this system, but that's mostly because of non-OS issues;
> the thing has some very noisy fans (not because of bad
> bearings, either).
Yeah, and the Wintrolls just can't grasp this. "You're still running
*that* instead of a 4-processor dual-core machine with 16GB of RAM? You
must be cheap!"
They don't seem to get - or care - that there's a difference between not
being willing to spend money and not being willing to spend it needlessly.
Spend $hundreds to upgrade hardware to spend $hundreds on an OS to spend
$hundreds on apps, all to do what I do *now*? This makes sense?
amicus_curious
<nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:1189545632....@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
reading this group, I cannot recall anyone making such a claim. Retail, a
one year subscription to Norton or similar is $50 to $80 per year, but only
a small percentage of users ever pay that. Imagine, a couple of hundred
Windows machines sold each year and an installed base approaching a billion
Windows machines and if Symantec and McAfee and them got $75 each, that
would be some $75 billion bucks a year, about double the take for Mr. Softee
over all product lines. Symantec, IIRC, has about a $2B per year revenue
and is the biggest AV supplier. Your guess sucks.
amicus_curious
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7uijr4-...@spanky.localhost.net...
>
> $75 a year. Okay, in a decade that's still less than a grand, so it's not
> like it's a huge cost. However, it's not the only one, either. I know
> many folks with AV plus anti-spyware, anti-hijack, etc apps... ones
> they've paid for. Don't forget to add in a faster processor to get
> equivalent performance after you've added on all the resource-guzzling
> extras... and more memory so they don't suck that all up, too.
>
so many people using that stuff at all. You need to come up with a better
sales pitch, the one you all have isn't selling so well.
amicus_curious
"High Plains Thumper" <highplai...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:46e70993$0$31121$6e1e...@read.cnntp.org...
> Richard Rasker wrote:
>
>> For all those stupid wintrolls who whine that "their time
>> isn't free", to support the myth that Linux may be free, but
>> costs a significant amount of time to install and configure:
>> learn the math.
>>
>> A typical Windows installation (Windows plus MS Office) costs
>> *at least* some $500 in software alone. This represents no
>> less than 25 hours of working time for Joe Sixpack! But wait,
>> there's more! After these 25 hours, does Joe Sixpack have a
>> fully configured Windows system? No way! He /still/ has to
>> spend several hours installing and configuring everything he
>> needs! And I won't even mention the time and money spent on ongoing yet
>> futile attempts to keep Windows clean, secure and
>> crud-free.
>>
>> So especially when you say your time isn't free, you'd be a
>> real idiot to choose Windows, as it will cost you some 30
>> hours at least. Even my very first Linux installation attempt
>> took less than a third of that time! These days, a Linux
>> install takes me 2 hours at most, after which I have pretty
>> much everything I ever need :-)
>
> Talking about the so called superiority of Windows, it is a
> monolithic system. Even in Windows XP, I periodically run
> Defrag, so files and OS load quicker. This is not necessary in
> Linux, a true multi-user, multi-tasking operating system.
>
http://www.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de/~loizides/reiserfs/ for example.
> You are right about costs. Even XP in the work environment occasionally
> blows up, requiring a rebuild. This means wiping the hard disk clean and
> reinstalling. How much to an employer is that worth? The IT staffer ends
> up spending time to that.
>
> Trolls would like you to believe that Linux is unstable (quoting Alpha
> version problems or making things up), Linux is virus prone just like
> Windows, something that is free reflects its worthlessness, etc. They are
> part of the background "pink noise" that is best ignored.
>
The only thing wrong with Linux is that it is a me-too kind of platform that
has shown up years after people have made their decision. It is not 100%
compatible with Windows applications and is not even 100% as functional as
Windows. There is no need for such a thing as Linux on the desktop and
consequently it is only a curiousity in the market.
amicus_curious
>
>> A 1.4 MHz Athlon with 512 MB RAM runs Linux + OpenGL very
>> well, in fact (though part of that is the BT5500 nVidia
>> card in there :-) ). I'll admit I wouldn't mind replacing
>> this system, but that's mostly because of non-OS issues;
>> the thing has some very noisy fans (not because of bad
>> bearings, either).
>
> Yeah, and the Wintrolls just can't grasp this. "You're still running
> *that* instead of a 4-processor dual-core machine with 16GB of RAM? You
> must be cheap!"
>
has expired is not very interesting to most people in the PC business.
Whatever may be on the machine now, it doubtless started life with a
paid-for copy of Windows. If you have need for a new machine with dual
DuoCores and oodles of RAM, they are inexpensive enough compared to the
increased productivity.
> They don't seem to get - or care - that there's a difference between not
> being willing to spend money and not being willing to spend it needlessly.
>
They are much more interested in what people who can afford it think. Are
those new computers all going to wastrels?
> Spend $hundreds to upgrade hardware to spend $hundreds on an OS to spend
> $hundreds on apps, all to do what I do *now*? This makes sense?
Do you think that nothing new does anything more? If that were the case,
you would be right, but that does not seem to be the case.
Bob Hauck
> There are a billion machines out there. The AV market isn't that big.
That does go a long way toward explaining the amount of spam we all get.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
-| http://www.haucks.org/
High Plains Thumper
> "High Plains Thumper" wrote...
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/
7.6 Trespasser Disinformation Tactics (numbered for clarity):
[quote]
2. Distract your opponent from the issues at hand by accusing
your opponents of being "petty", "pathetic", "childish" or any of
a number of other such terms.
3. Put your opponent off guard by insulting him. The liberal
use of profanity and vulgarisms can be very effective,
particularly when used against you more dignified opponents.
Your experience as a school yard bully can be handy here.
[/quote]
> Try http://www.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de/~loizides/reiserfs/
> for example.
Your point? Care to expound on what that is? Oh, I see, you
haven't finished your homework. I clicked on "# Benchmarks &
Results, ReiserFS benchs, got:
"Not Found
The requested URL /benchmarks/benchmark-results.html was not
found on this server."
Yeah, right:
[quote]
47. Don't do your own homework. Make your opponent do your
research for you. Depending on who much credibility you still
have will determine how successful you will be at this tactic.
[/quote]
Okay, here is my quote of the day from your article link:
[quote]
Filesystems using clusters (like the MSDOS/Windows FAT
filesystems) are known to be a worst case example, that get
severely fragmented.
[/quote]
>> You are right about costs. Even XP in the work environment
>> occasionally blows up, requiring a rebuild. This means
>> wiping the hard disk clean and reinstalling. How much to an
>> employer is that worth? The IT staffer ends up spending
>> time to that.
>>
>> Trolls would like you to believe that Linux is unstable
>> (quoting Alpha version problems or making things up), Linux
>> is virus prone just like Windows, something that is free
>> reflects its worthlessness, etc. They are part of the
>> background "pink noise" that is best ignored.
>
> The only thing wrong with Linux is that it is a me-too kind of
> platform that has shown up years after people have made their
> decision. It is not 100% compatible with Windows
> applications and is not even 100% as functional as Windows.
> There is no need for such a thing as Linux on the desktop and
> consequently it is only a curiousity in the market.
My, my, tsk, tsk. Did I hurt the widdle troll's feelings? Too
bad you are out-of-date. Here are some things to cheer up
your widdle heart:
http://www.itjungle.com/tlb/tlb073107-story01.html
[quote]
In any event, according to the survey, Windows is increasingly
popular as a means of evaluating software, but when it comes to
actually deploying the software, enterprises actually choose
Linux. Alfresco found that users evaluated the content management
system on Windows about as much as on Linux, which makes sense
given that most of the world that sits at a PC sits at a Windows
PC. And with enterprise licenses for Linux being pretty
inexpensive--at least if you don't need 24x7 support--it makes
sense that companies are willing to give Linux a whirl on the
server supporting programs like the Alfresco CMS.
According to the report generated from the study, which you can
read here, during the evaluation phase, 43 percent of respondents
chose Linux, 42 percent chose Windows, 10 percent chose Mac OS,
and 5 percent chose Unix. But moving to the deployment stage,
only 29 percent chose Windows, compared to 52 percent for Linux,
12 percent for Mac OS, and 7 percent for Unix. All other
operating systems take a bite out of Windows when it comes to
deployment. And when it comes to Linux, by the way, the Alfresco
barometer indicates a fairly balanced pie among the major Linuxes.
[/quote]
Linux 52% to Windows 29%! You can take your market shares and
kiss my grits! Bwaaaahaaaahaaawwww!
--
HPT
DFS
> <nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
> news:1189545632....@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> Linux isn't perfect, and there are things that take time with Linux.
>> The usual acid test is the technophobic grandmother. However, most
>> of the technophobic people I know who have Windows spend a lot of
>> time (and money) getting help with one thing or another, including
>> trips to the shop to have virus infestations removed. And remember,
>> they have to worry about setting up and paying for anti-virus
>> software even after they have received their nice preinstalled
>> Windows system from some OEM, something most technophobic
>> grandmothers won't do. This is assuming they don't have some
>> techno-guru friend to help them. These types of expenses (of time
>> and money) are not present with Linux, and for basic computing needs
>> modern distributions of Linux are pretty easy to use and require
>> very little maintenance once set up.
Linux Format magazine would take issue with that "very little maintenance"
statement. The cover story in this month's issue is about reinstalling
Linux after bit-rot and system instability sets in. I've certainly
experienced it, even in my short time using Linux. I had a PCLinuxOS
system, and after about a week of installing/removing various packages using
Synaptic, the system was *very noticeably* slower to boot and use. My
WinServer03 system, on the other hand, just keeps blazing year after year,
despite heavy usage and infrequent reboots.
It's a Windows thang, you wouldn't understand.
>> Speaking of money, some Windows advocates on this group have said
>> that they spend $75/year on antivirus software.
I doubt very seriously you can provide a cite for that claim.
>> This of course is unnecessary on Linux
Of course not:
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18880277-Ubuntu-servers-hacked-to-attack-others
>> (and Macs) because of superior design of the OS.
Now then, does this superior design make Linux run slow and act flaky?
>> And over the lifetime of a computer, $75/year adds up (certainly
>> helps to cut the cost differential between PCs and Macs, for
>> example).
It does add up... if even 1 out of 100 Windows users spent that much on AV
software. There are 2 big av vendors - Norton and McAfee - and a bunch of
smaller. None cost more than $50 to buy, or cost more than $50/year to
subscribe.
http://anti-virus-software-review.toptenreviews.com/
http://antivirus.about.com/od/antivirussoftwarereviews/tp/aatpavwin.htm
> I think you pulled that one out of your shorts. In all these years of
> reading this group, I cannot recall anyone making such a claim. Retail, a
> one year subscription to Norton or similar is $50 to $80
> per year, but only a small percentage of users ever pay that. Imagine, a
> couple of hundred Windows machines sold each year and an
> installed base approaching a billion Windows machines and if Symantec
> and McAfee and them got $75 each, that would be some $75 billion
> bucks a year, about double the take for Mr. Softee over all product
> lines. Symantec, IIRC, has about a $2B per year revenue and is the
> biggest AV supplier. Your guess sucks.
cola "advocates" love to dig deep holes of lies and exaggerations, until
they find they can't climb out of them. Then they worm away and surface
elsewhere to start another hole of lies and exaggerations.
Kier
It's a really funny thing about you: when Linux Fornat praises Linux or
Linux software, (like its recent review of Amarok), you either ignore it
or twist it to slag off Linux. But lo! if anyone says anything slightly
detrimental to Linux, you're on it like a rat leaping on its prey.
The only reason you read Linux magazines is to pick through all the good
information and news about Linux to find the slightest little thing you
can turn against it. What a pathetic way to spend your time.
--
Kier
Richard Rasker
this:
> "Richard Rasker" <spam...@linetec.nl> wrote in message
> news:fqGdnYHXCro3Znvb...@fiberworld.nl...
>> For all those stupid wintrolls who whine that "their time isn't free",
>> to support the myth that Linux may be free, but costs a significant
>> amount of time to install and configure: learn the math.
>>
> You're the guy who just go around to replacing a 9 year old computer.
> Your time probably isn't worth so much.
I don't quite follow you here. Are you suggesting that I actually would
have saved time and money if I had bought a new computer every three or
four years or so, even though my old one still did everything I wanted?
What economic advatage is there in scrapping stuff prematurely?
>> A typical Windows installation (Windows plus MS Office) costs *at
>> least* some $500 in software alone. This represents no less than 25
>> hours of working time for Joe Sixpack! But wait, there's more! After
>> these 25 hours, does Joe Sixpack have a fully configured Windows
>> system? No way! He /still/ has to spend several hours installing and
>> configuring everything he needs! And I won't even mention the time and
>> money spent on ongoing yet futile attempts to keep Windows clean,
>> secure and crud-free.
>>
> You are probably not the right person to make the case, if you have used
> the same old box for 9 years. Joe Sixpack probably doesn't have MS
> Windows to begin with and so would not be in a mood to pay for a
> replacement.
Oh, I *know* Joe Sixpack has Windows, because even now, they show up at
my doorstep on a regular basis, asking me to fix their Windows problems
(which I politely decline). And after their machines have been back to
the shop a few times to "repair" those problems, they get conned into
buying a new one, with the promise that they'll have less trouble exactly
because it's new. Which is a lie, of course. Perhaps this is the
"timesaving" principle behind regularly buying a new machine you're
referring to? Well, you're wrong.
> If he did, by some chance, he could just as easily pick up
> the MS Office Home and Student edition at the local Costco, WalMart,
> Sams, Best Buy, Office Depot, or wherever he likes to go to buy software
> for about $100 on the shelf.
Oh, I know that there are cheaper versions. But even if Joe Sixpack
doesn't play by Microsoft's rules and gets himself a student version,
just Windows plus Office will cost him approximately $250.
> I would imagine that you have never bought a copy, else you would know
> that you don't have to pay all that much.
As a matter of fact, I did buy a copy of MS Office, back in 1997, and it
cost me something in the region of $500. Which was a total waste of hard-
earned money, because I fully migrated to Linux only a few months later.
And no, a student version was out of the question, as I wasn't a student.
Besides, I was running a business, so I wanted to abide by the rules, no
matter how much I felt that the price I paid was extortionate.
> Even then, Joe probably can't type anyway and so doesn't use anything
> at all.
Joe needs to open Word documents and PowerPoint "jokes" sent to him by
friends and family. So he "needs" MS Office -- just like Microsoft wants
everyone to believe.
> The commercial office worker, on the other hand, gets MS Office
> as part of their workstation installation and doesn't pay anything
> themselves either.
Are you really that stupid? So whatever a company spends on software has
no impact whatsoever on either employees' wages or product pricing (and
therefore competitive strength)? You are just as big a liar as Microsoft,
trying to make people believe that their crapware is somehow
automatically included in everything, so you never know that you're
actually paying for it, one way or another.
> MS Office is sold to corporations under various site
> license agreements and none of the ersatz stuff like OO has the ability
> to enter the distribution chain where the real sales are made. Nobody
> is paid to sell OO and so no one does. OO doesn't sell itself, so it
> sits in the dark unused in real commerce. The hobbyists love it, since
> it is available at no cost, but they feel bad because they are not in
> the mainstream. That is why they are constantly complaining about MS
> Office.
Your psychological insight is even worse than your math.
>> So especially when you say your time isn't free, you'd be a real idiot
>> to choose Windows, as it will cost you some 30 hours at least. Even my
>> very first Linux installation attempt took less than a third of that
>> time! These days, a Linux install takes me 2 hours at most, after which
>> I have pretty much everything I ever need :-)
>>
> Even so, I bet that, if you looked deeply enough, you would find that
> the vast majority of OO users use it on Windows platforms. That's the
> easiest way to do it.
It is, because buying a computer with Windows preinstalled is the easiest
way -- in fact, to the ordinary public, Windows is an inevitable part of
any computer.
Richard Rasker
this:
> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:sjojr4-...@spanky.localhost.net...
>>
>>> A 1.4 MHz Athlon with 512 MB RAM runs Linux + OpenGL very well, in
>>> fact (though part of that is the BT5500 nVidia card in there :-) ).
>>> I'll admit I wouldn't mind replacing this system, but that's mostly
>>> because of non-OS issues; the thing has some very noisy fans (not
>>> because of bad bearings, either).
>>
>> Yeah, and the Wintrolls just can't grasp this. "You're still running
>> *that* instead of a 4-processor dual-core machine with 16GB of RAM?
>> You must be cheap!"
>>
> What some impoverished hobbyist does with his machine after its useful
> life has expired is not very interesting to most people in the PC
> business. Whatever may be on the machine now, it doubtless started life
> with a paid-for copy of Windows. If you have need for a new machine
> with dual DuoCores and oodles of RAM, they are inexpensive enough
> compared to the increased productivity.
Ah, another one of those famous Microsoft lies: the "increased
productivity" argument. Well, let me tell you that the average office
worker's productivity hasn't increased significantly the past ten years.
People haven't learned to type any faster, or interpret spreadsheet
information any more economical, and most certainly haven't learned to
communicate more efficiently -- infact, more time than ever before is
wasted on "frivolous" communication. People now routinely send each other
complete multi-megabyte spreadsheets and databases to communicate a
point, instead of simply summarizing the small amount of useful
information the recipient actually needs.
It's even worse with software efficiency: even the fifty-fold increase in
hardware power in the past decade or so can hardly keep up with the huge
software bloat, in particular with regard to Microsoft's products.
Face it: the vast majority of office workers still use their computer as
a kind of glorified typewriter, with the occasional trivial calculation
and perhaps a presentation. They would be just as productive with an old
'486 machine with 1MB of RAM running Windows 95 (that is, if Windows 95
wouldn't be the crash-prone crapware it was) as they are now with a dual-
core P4-3.6Ghz with 2GB of RAM running Vista (that is, if Vista wouldn't
be this hugely annoying piece of beta crapware it is).
Nothing has changed, really. People get conned into buying new stuff over
and over again, but end up doing the same things they did yesterday, with
just about as much efficiency. For the average user, the only real
progress (and thus reason to buy new stuff) is found in the realm of
gaming, with ever more realistic graphics. For all the rest, there is no
real reason to toss out even a ten year old computer if it still does
what the user needs.
>> They don't seem to get - or care - that there's a difference between
>> not being willing to spend money and not being willing to spend it
>> needlessly.
>>
> They are much more interested in what people who can afford it think.
> Are those new computers all going to wastrels?
Yup. And to gullible people, who think that newer is always better. Just
look at the bean counters: businesses avoid Vista /en masse/ for the time
being, simply because they know it offers no substantial advantage, but
quite contrary, constitutes a big risk of disrupting their processes.
Businesses tend to switch to "new" stuff when it has thoroughly proven
itself, in the process having become old stuff to the general public.
>> Spend $hundreds to upgrade hardware to spend $hundreds on an OS to
>> spend $hundreds on apps, all to do what I do *now*? This makes sense?
>
> Do you think that nothing new does anything more? If that were the
> case, you would be right, but that does not seem to be the case.
Well, Microsoft's newest OS indeed is not considered a step forward.
William Poaster
halfway through a large jam doughnut, Bob Hauck wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:44:28 -0400, amicus_curious <AC...@sti.net> wrote:
>
>> There are a billion machines out there. The AV market isn't that big.
>
> That does go a long way toward explaining the amount of spam we all get.
Via the millions of zombied *windoze* machines.
--
Surely you are not comparing the non-existent Linux (at that time) with
(Windows)98? - Hadron aka Hadron Quark, Hans Schneider, & Damian O'Leary
comp.os.linux.advocacy - Thu, 16 Aug 2007
Message-ID: <npk5rvz...@homelinux.net>
William Poaster
halfway through a large jam doughnut, Richard Rasker wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:10:09 -0400, amicus_curious enriched the world
> with this:
>
>> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:sjojr4-...@spanky.localhost.net...
>>>
>>>> A 1.4 MHz Athlon with 512 MB RAM runs Linux + OpenGL very well, in
>>>> fact (though part of that is the BT5500 nVidia card in there :-) ).
>>>> I'll admit I wouldn't mind replacing this system, but that's mostly
>>>> because of non-OS issues; the thing has some very noisy fans (not
>>>> because of bad bearings, either).
>>>
>>> Yeah, and the Wintrolls just can't grasp this. "You're still running
>>> *that* instead of a 4-processor dual-core machine with 16GB of RAM?
>>> You must be cheap!"
>>>
>> What some impoverished hobbyist does with his machine after its useful
>> life has expired is not very interesting to most people in the PC
>> business. Whatever may be on the machine now, it doubtless started life
>> with a paid-for copy of Windows. If you have need for a new machine
>> with dual DuoCores and oodles of RAM, they are inexpensive enough
>> compared to the increased productivity.
Well actually mine didn't. I built my own 64bit machine with an AMD
processor back in October 2003 to run SuSE 9.0 (*way* before any Windoze
home users could run 64bit windoze on their machines) & it's still
running absolutely fine. Some of my other machines are a little newer
(not much) & they run my linux OSs very well. I see no reason to throw
money at them to upgrade them for no *good* reason.
Two things:-
1] "Never give a sucker an even break" which M$ appear to have adopted as
their motto, for they certainly apply it to their "customers" & con them
for everything they can squeeze out of them.
2] There's an old saying "A fool & his money are easily parted". This
would apply to M$ "customers" who quickly part with wad loads of cash to
buy the latest flashiest PC to do just what they were doing *last*
year....or in M$'s case, when they bought eX-Pee a *few* years ago.
>>> They don't seem to get - or care - that there's a difference between
>>> not being willing to spend money and not being willing to spend it
>>> needlessly.
>>>
>> They are much more interested in what people who can afford it think.
>> Are those new computers all going to wastrels?
>
> Yup. And to gullible people, who think that newer is always better. Just
> look at the bean counters: businesses avoid Vista /en masse/ for the
> time being, simply because they know it offers no substantial advantage,
> but quite contrary, constitutes a big risk of disrupting their
> processes. Businesses tend to switch to "new" stuff when it has
> thoroughly proven itself, in the process having become old stuff to the
> general public.
Exactly, & so the average "Joe Public" who rushes out to buy Fista, is a
beta tester for M$. Wise businesses sit back & wait till it's been sorted
out.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199201492
OTOH some are even dumping M$ & moving to linux solutions.
Even some US gummint departments won't touch Fista:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17739772/
>>> Spend $hundreds to upgrade hardware to spend $hundreds on an OS to
>>> spend $hundreds on apps, all to do what I do *now*? This makes sense?
>>
>> Do you think that nothing new does anything more? If that were the
>> case, you would be right, but that does not seem to be the case.
>
> Well, Microsoft's newest OS indeed is not considered a step forward.
>
> Richard Rasker
By some windoze admins I know, it's seen as a step or two back. A couple
told me they won't upgrade from Win2000, as it was better than anything
M$ has since produced. Another has had to upgrade to Server 2003...but
even that's 4 years old!
amicus_curious
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:10:09 -0400, amicus_curious enriched the world with
> this:
>
>> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:sjojr4-...@spanky.localhost.net...
>>>
>>>> A 1.4 MHz Athlon with 512 MB RAM runs Linux + OpenGL very well, in
>>>> fact (though part of that is the BT5500 nVidia card in there :-) ).
>>>> I'll admit I wouldn't mind replacing this system, but that's mostly
>>>> because of non-OS issues; the thing has some very noisy fans (not
>>>> because of bad bearings, either).
>>>
>>> Yeah, and the Wintrolls just can't grasp this. "You're still running
>>> *that* instead of a 4-processor dual-core machine with 16GB of RAM?
>>> You must be cheap!"
>>>
>> What some impoverished hobbyist does with his machine after its useful
>> life has expired is not very interesting to most people in the PC
>> business. Whatever may be on the machine now, it doubtless started life
>> with a paid-for copy of Windows. If you have need for a new machine
>> with dual DuoCores and oodles of RAM, they are inexpensive enough
>> compared to the increased productivity.
>
> Ah, another one of those famous Microsoft lies: the "increased
> productivity" argument. Well, let me tell you that the average office
> worker's productivity hasn't increased significantly the past ten years.
Well you can say that, but it isn't true.
> People haven't learned to type any faster, or interpret spreadsheet
> information any more economical, and most certainly haven't learned to
> communicate more efficiently -- infact, more time than ever before is
> wasted on "frivolous" communication. People now routinely send each other
> complete multi-megabyte spreadsheets and databases to communicate a
> point, instead of simply summarizing the small amount of useful
> information the recipient actually needs.
>
Maybe you need to wake up and smell the coffee. I suppose you don't have a
Blackberry in your purse or a GPS system in your car either. Probably don't
need any home management software either, since you have reached the peak of
perfection. Do you have a cell?
> It's even worse with software efficiency: even the fifty-fold increase in
> hardware power in the past decade or so can hardly keep up with the huge
> software bloat, in particular with regard to Microsoft's products.
>
Assembler language and command line text do take care of everything. All
that pixel pounding is just frivolous.
> Face it: the vast majority of office workers still use their computer as
> a kind of glorified typewriter, with the occasional trivial calculation
> and perhaps a presentation. They would be just as productive with an old
> '486 machine with 1MB of RAM running Windows 95 (that is, if Windows 95
> wouldn't be the crash-prone crapware it was) as they are now with a dual-
> core P4-3.6Ghz with 2GB of RAM running Vista (that is, if Vista wouldn't
> be this hugely annoying piece of beta crapware it is).
>
I use Vista on my dual DuoCore Dell Precision 490 with 8 GB of RAM and it is
a pleasant experience. Perhaps you just need better hardware. Life's too
short the way it is, why not make it a bit sweeter? Let your heirs make
their own fortune.
> Nothing has changed, really. People get conned into buying new stuff over
> and over again, but end up doing the same things they did yesterday, with
> just about as much efficiency. For the average user, the only real
> progress (and thus reason to buy new stuff) is found in the realm of
> gaming, with ever more realistic graphics. For all the rest, there is no
> real reason to toss out even a ten year old computer if it still does
> what the user needs.
>
Whatever floats your boat. Would you deny the pleasures of today's
wonderful games to the common man? Are you some sort of elitist? You seem
to have a low opinion of the "average user". Are you sure you are correct?
>>> They don't seem to get - or care - that there's a difference between
>>> not being willing to spend money and not being willing to spend it
>>> needlessly.
>>>
>> They are much more interested in what people who can afford it think.
>> Are those new computers all going to wastrels?
>
> Yup. And to gullible people, who think that newer is always better. Just
> look at the bean counters: businesses avoid Vista /en masse/ for the time
> being, simply because they know it offers no substantial advantage, but
> quite contrary, constitutes a big risk of disrupting their processes.
> Businesses tend to switch to "new" stuff when it has thoroughly proven
> itself, in the process having become old stuff to the general public.
>
Are you a bean counter? I find them, as a class, to be dull and
uninteresting, but that is just my opinion. I think that it is always
better to focus on making more revenue than on saving expenses. I know it
is easier to do the latter, but in the long run, it is much more rewarding
to do the former. Look at Microsoft. Then look at yourself. Do you see
what I mean?
>>> Spend $hundreds to upgrade hardware to spend $hundreds on an OS to
>>> spend $hundreds on apps, all to do what I do *now*? This makes sense?
>>
>> Do you think that nothing new does anything more? If that were the
>> case, you would be right, but that does not seem to be the case.
>
> Well, Microsoft's newest OS indeed is not considered a step forward.
>
Well, that is your opinion, I am sure, but it is not mine. I find the
changes visually refreshing and using Vista for my old applications makes
them look new and inviting. You need to put on a happier face and look on
the bright side. You are too much of a bean counter.
amicus_curious
"William Poaster" <w...@kubuntu704-1.eu> wrote in message
news:h4ukr4-...@wp.leafnode.mc1...
>
> Two things:-
> 1] "Never give a sucker an even break" which M$ appear to have adopted as
> their motto, for they certainly apply it to their "customers" & con them
> for everything they can squeeze out of them.
>
it is somewhat dishonest to go into the tank, even for a "sucker". Also, it
is ever so unlikely that such a high percentage of consumers are the
"suckers" that you suggest. I think that this claimed widespread lack of
sophisitication is just a convenient excuse to explain behavior that is
counter to your desires.
> 2] There's an old saying "A fool & his money are easily parted". This
> would apply to M$ "customers" who quickly part with wad loads of cash to
> buy the latest flashiest PC to do just what they were doing *last*
> year....or in M$'s case, when they bought eX-Pee a *few* years ago.
>
It is also said "If you have it, flaunt it!". That may not make much sense
to a have-not, of course, and the world's drudges will continue to deplore
any sort of conspicuous consumption. They create fables such as the Ant And
The Grasshopper to make their point. In the case of the Vista detractors,
though, I think that Sour Grapes is more appropriate.
>
chrisv
>Your guess sucks.
You suck.
chrisv
>(snip rat droppings)
May you burn in hell, you filthy rat.
amicus_curious
> It was on, or about, Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:00:36 -0400, that as I was
> halfway through a large jam doughnut, Bob Hauck wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:44:28 -0400, amicus_curious <AC...@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>>> There are a billion machines out there. The AV market isn't that big.
>>
>> That does go a long way toward explaining the amount of spam we all get.
>
> Via the millions of zombied *windoze* machines.
>
for the group that you are around.
chrisv
>The only thing wrong with Linux is that it is a me-too kind of platform that
>has shown up years after people have made their decision. It is not 100%
>compatible with Windows applications
There's no need for it to be, for large segments of the market.
>and is not even 100% as functional as Windows.
Right. It's more like 150% as functional as Windows.
>There is no need for such a thing as Linux on the desktop
Except, of course, to provide a viable alternative to the Micro$oft
products, which, obviously, are far from ideal, for large segments of
the market.
There's really _no way_ for one product line from one company to be
the best solution for everyone, whether you're talking about operating
systems, cars, telephones, or toothpaste. You know this, yet you
spout your bullshit anyway. This is why I call you a lying piece of
shit, you lying piece of shit.
>and consequently it is only a curiousity in the market.
Funny, IBM doesn't think so. The country of China doesn't think so.
chrisv
>(snip rat droppings)
amicus_curious
"High Plains Thumper" <highplai...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>
>> Try http://www.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de/~loizides/reiserfs/
>> for example.
>
> Your point? Care to expound on what that is? Oh, I see, you
> haven't finished your homework. I clicked on "# Benchmarks &
> Results, ReiserFS benchs, got:
>
> "Not Found
> The requested URL /benchmarks/benchmark-results.html was not
> found on this server."
>
latest version from microsoft.com if you haven't already done so. Use it
and the link will work fine.
>
> Okay, here is my quote of the day from your article link:
>
> [quote]
> Filesystems using clusters (like the MSDOS/Windows FAT
> filesystems) are known to be a worst case example, that get
> severely fragmented.
> [/quote]
>
system for almost 10 years. Where do you get your information on Windows?
I suspect that you are being poorly informed by your associates.
>>
>> The only thing wrong with Linux is that it is a me-too kind of
>> platform that has shown up years after people have made their
>> decision. It is not 100% compatible with Windows
>> applications and is not even 100% as functional as Windows.
>> There is no need for such a thing as Linux on the desktop and
>> consequently it is only a curiousity in the market.
>
> My, my, tsk, tsk. Did I hurt the widdle troll's feelings? Too
> bad you are out-of-date.
Why would you ever think that? I enjoy the repartee.
> Here are some things to cheer up
> your widdle heart:
>
You are using the nym "High Plains Thumper". Why use the Elmer Fudd act?
> http://www.itjungle.com/tlb/tlb073107-story01.html
>
> [quote]
> In any event, according to the survey, Windows is increasingly popular as
> a means of evaluating software, but when it comes to actually deploying
> the software, enterprises actually choose Linux. Alfresco found that users
> evaluated the content management system on Windows about as much as on
> Linux, which makes sense given that most of the world that sits at a PC
> sits at a Windows PC. And with enterprise licenses for Linux being pretty
> inexpensive--at least if you don't need 24x7 support--it makes sense that
> companies are willing to give Linux a whirl on the server supporting
> programs like the Alfresco CMS.
>
> According to the report generated from the study, which you can read here,
> during the evaluation phase, 43 percent of respondents chose Linux, 42
> percent chose Windows, 10 percent chose Mac OS, and 5 percent chose Unix.
> But moving to the deployment stage, only 29 percent chose Windows,
> compared to 52 percent for Linux, 12 percent for Mac OS, and 7 percent for
> Unix. All other operating systems take a bite out of Windows when it comes
> to deployment. And when it comes to Linux, by the way, the Alfresco
> barometer indicates a fairly balanced pie among the major Linuxes.
> [/quote]
>
> Linux 52% to Windows 29%! You can take your market shares and kiss my
> grits! Bwaaaahaaaahaaawwww!
>
Given the manifest relative usage of Windows and Linux on the desktop,
aren't you the least bit suspicious of these statistics?
Richard Rasker
this:
> "Richard Rasker" <spam...@linetec.nl> wrote in message
> news:oaednXthtY-SJnrb...@fiberworld.nl...
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:10:09 -0400, amicus_curious enriched the world
>> with this:
>>
>>> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:sjojr4-...@spanky.localhost.net...
[snip]
>> Ah, another one of those famous Microsoft lies: the "increased
>> productivity" argument. Well, let me tell you that the average office
>> worker's productivity hasn't increased significantly the past ten
>> years.
>
> Well you can say that, but it isn't true.
Please come up with one good example where recent computer hardware or
software significantly improved the average (office) worker's
productivity.
>> People haven't learned to type any faster, or interpret spreadsheet
>> information any more economical, and most certainly haven't learned to
>> communicate more efficiently -- infact, more time than ever before is
>> wasted on "frivolous" communication. People now routinely send each
>> other complete multi-megabyte spreadsheets and databases to communicate
>> a point, instead of simply summarizing the small amount of useful
>> information the recipient actually needs.
>>
> Maybe you need to wake up and smell the coffee. I suppose you don't
> have a Blackberry in your purse
Nope. I don't have a purse.
> or a GPS system in your car either.
Nope. I don't even have a car, as I do >95% of my work from my own home.
If I travel in unfamiliar places, I consult a map if necessary. The time
it takes most people to tell their GPS system their destination is enough
for me to memorize all I need to know.
> Probably don't need any home management software either,
What is "home management software"? I did create a simple database to
keep track of our home financials -- almost eight years ago, and it still
runs fine today.
> since you have reached the peak of perfection. Do you have a cell?
Nope. And from what I see around me, these things don't really enhance
productivity either for the average worker -- more likely the contrary.
Besides, what productivity-enhancing things have happened to cell phones
in the past ten years?
>> It's even worse with software efficiency: even the fifty-fold increase
>> in hardware power in the past decade or so can hardly keep up with the
>> huge software bloat, in particular with regard to Microsoft's products.
>>
> Assembler language and command line text do take care of everything.
> All that pixel pounding is just frivolous.
I'm talking about a decade ago, when a GUI was already the default UI for
most users. So tell me, exactly what has happened in the past ten years
to significantly increase a GUI user's productivity? The best I can come
up with is increased screen size. For all the rest, all that expensive
new hardware and software has had zero effect.
>> Face it: the vast majority of office workers still use their computer
>> as a kind of glorified typewriter, with the occasional trivial
>> calculation and perhaps a presentation. They would be just as
>> productive with an old '486 machine with 1MB of RAM running Windows 95
>> (that is, if Windows 95 wouldn't be the crash-prone crapware it was) as
>> they are now with a dual- core P4-3.6Ghz with 2GB of RAM running Vista
>> (that is, if Vista wouldn't be this hugely annoying piece of beta
>> crapware it is).
>>
> I use Vista on my dual DuoCore Dell Precision 490 with 8 GB of RAM and
> it is a pleasant experience. Perhaps you just need better hardware.
> Life's too short the way it is, why not make it a bit sweeter? Let your
> heirs make their own fortune.
Oh, I like the fact that on my new machine, heavy applications (such as
OO.o) start considerably faster. But as I start most apps perhaps once or
twice a day, after which I keep 'em running in separate virtual desktops
for easy access, it has no impact on my productivity whatsoever. My time
tracking data shows no jump in productivity either since I bought the new
box.
>> Nothing has changed, really. People get conned into buying new stuff
>> over and over again, but end up doing the same things they did
>> yesterday, with just about as much efficiency. For the average user,
>> the only real progress (and thus reason to buy new stuff) is found in
>> the realm of gaming, with ever more realistic graphics. For all the
>> rest, there is no real reason to toss out even a ten year old computer
>> if it still does what the user needs.
>>
> Whatever floats your boat. Would you deny the pleasures of today's
> wonderful games to the common man? Are you some sort of elitist? You
> seem to have a low opinion of the "average user". Are you sure you are
> correct?
As I said, a better gaming experience is one of the few reasons I can
think of to buy the latest hardware. But still the majority of users
doesn't really care about games, and thus doesn't need the latest hardware
at all. And oh, playing games isn't exactly god for productivity, now is
it?
[snip]
> Are you a bean counter? I find them, as a class, to be dull and
> uninteresting, but that is just my opinion. I think that it is always
> better to focus on making more revenue than on saving expenses.
My whole point is that always buying the latest stuff is no guarantee
whatsoever that you'll make more revenue; and if it doesn't increase
revenue, it's plain stupid to go ahead and replace perfectly functional
systems anyway.
> I know it is easier to do the latter, but in the long run, it is much
> more rewarding to do the former. Look at Microsoft. Then look at
> yourself. Do you see what I mean?
Yup, I see what you mean. You say it's better to be a rich, greedy and
generally hated con artist, than to be an honest person who spends his
money wisely and shares what he has with others.
>> Well, Microsoft's newest OS indeed is not considered a step forward.
>>
> Well, that is your opinion, I am sure, but it is not mine. I find the
> changes visually refreshing and using Vista for my old applications
> makes them look new and inviting. You need to put on a happier face and
> look on the bright side. You are too much of a bean counter.
A "visually refreshing" experience is the stupidest reason I've heard to
go out and spend hundreds of dollars on Vista. Simply choose another
theme, and you have your refreshing new look, without any of the hassle
of having to get familiar with a new system and installing all the old
software once more. Besides, we were talking productivity, not
aesthetics. IMHO, the OS should be totally irrelevant for productivity;
it's just an app starter.
chrisv
>amicus_shithead wrote:
>
>>Look at Microsoft. Then look at
>> yourself. Do you see what I mean?
>
>Yup, I see what you mean. You say it's better to be a rich, greedy and
>generally hated con artist, than to be an honest person who spends his
>money wisely and shares what he has with others.
That sum-up amicus_shithead nicely.
amicus_curious
>
> I don't quite follow you here. Are you suggesting that I actually would
> have saved time and money if I had bought a new computer every three or
> four years or so, even though my old one still did everything I wanted?
>
substantially longer time than the average person. That puts you in the
lower fringe of a bell curve based on frequency of purchase of a new
computer system and so hardly qualifies you to state an opinion about the
upper half of the curve. You lack the experience and understanding of what
motivates the consumers who do replace their computers often. They
obviously do not have the same values as you do and so behave differently.
You are arrogant to think that your attitude is superior when it is just
different. People involved in the commerce of computers and personal
computer software are much more interested in the attitudes and motivations
of the group that does buy more often.
>>> A typical Windows installation (Windows plus MS Office) costs *at
>>> least* some $500 in software alone. This represents no less than 25
>>> hours of working time for Joe Sixpack! But wait, there's more! After
>>> these 25 hours, does Joe Sixpack have a fully configured Windows
>>> system? No way! He /still/ has to spend several hours installing and
>>> configuring everything he needs! And I won't even mention the time and
>>> money spent on ongoing yet futile attempts to keep Windows clean,
>>> secure and crud-free.
>>>
>> You are probably not the right person to make the case, if you have used
>> the same old box for 9 years. Joe Sixpack probably doesn't have MS
>> Windows to begin with and so would not be in a mood to pay for a
>> replacement.
>
> Oh, I *know* Joe Sixpack has Windows, because even now, they show up at
> my doorstep on a regular basis, asking me to fix their Windows problems
> (which I politely decline). And after their machines have been back to
> the shop a few times to "repair" those problems, they get conned into
> buying a new one, with the promise that they'll have less trouble exactly
> because it's new. Which is a lie, of course. Perhaps this is the
> "timesaving" principle behind regularly buying a new machine you're
> referring to? Well, you're wrong.
>
I don't believe your story simply because your propensity to refuse to help
your fellows would certainly cause them to not bother with you. Your
conclusion simply reflects your jaded attitude.
>> If he did, by some chance, he could just as easily pick up
>> the MS Office Home and Student edition at the local Costco, WalMart,
>> Sams, Best Buy, Office Depot, or wherever he likes to go to buy software
>> for about $100 on the shelf.
>
> Oh, I know that there are cheaper versions. But even if Joe Sixpack
> doesn't play by Microsoft's rules and gets himself a student version,
> just Windows plus Office will cost him approximately $250.
>
The computer comes with Windows, of course, so there is no incremental
purchase required. The home edition of Office may be used legally on
multiple machines in a single household.
>> I would imagine that you have never bought a copy, else you would know
>> that you don't have to pay all that much.
>
> As a matter of fact, I did buy a copy of MS Office, back in 1997, and it
> cost me something in the region of $500. Which was a total waste of hard-
> earned money, because I fully migrated to Linux only a few months later.
>
A one-off copy of small business Office is half of that now, but if you are
impoverished or despise paying anything, just use Open Office on your
Windows machine instead. Works fine. You should take this experience to
heart as well and vow to plan better in the future.
> And no, a student version was out of the question, as I wasn't a student.
> Besides, I was running a business, so I wanted to abide by the rules, no
> matter how much I felt that the price I paid was extortionate.
>
>> Even then, Joe probably can't type anyway and so doesn't use anything
>> at all.
>
> Joe needs to open Word documents and PowerPoint "jokes" sent to him by
> friends and family. So he "needs" MS Office -- just like Microsoft wants
> everyone to believe.
>
You are grasping at straws here.
>> The commercial office worker, on the other hand, gets MS Office
>> as part of their workstation installation and doesn't pay anything
>> themselves either.
>
> Are you really that stupid? So whatever a company spends on software has
> no impact whatsoever on either employees' wages or product pricing (and
> therefore competitive strength)? You are just as big a liar as Microsoft,
> trying to make people believe that their crapware is somehow
> automatically included in everything, so you never know that you're
> actually paying for it, one way or another.
>
So you suspect, I believe, but do you really think that, if you said "Boss,
don't buy me a copy of MS Office, I'll bring in my own copy of Open Office
and save you the cash. You can split it with me 50-50." that he would hand
over a couple of hundred bucks and smile? You are misinformed as to how
things work.
>
> It is, because buying a computer with Windows preinstalled is the easiest
> way -- in fact, to the ordinary public, Windows is an inevitable part of
> any computer.
>
And that is what makes the world go around. You pay for the comfort and
ease of a service that saves you effort. Someone comes every Wednesday
morning to cut my grass and trim my trees and bushes, saving me a couple of
hours in the hot outdoors and I pay for that. Someone else cleans the pool.
And someone else washes the windows. Etc. They collectively save me
substantial effort and so I have extra time to write software that I am paid
to write. I make more money writing software than I can save cutting grass.
Maybe you are different.
Anonymous
ROTFL!
Thanks for demonstrating just how utterly clue free Wintards really are.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0276-7783(199106)15%3A2%3C191%3AIOPS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=4656.214329
http://www.allbusiness.com/management/740140-10.html
http://www.bioteams.com/2006/02/14/web_surfing_destroys.html
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=132
> > Well, Microsoft's newest OS indeed is not considered a step forward.
> >
> Well, that is your opinion, I am sure, but it is not mine.
How unfortunate for you that a Wintard's opinion is less significant
than a pussy fart in a hurricane then, huh?
LOL!
nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu
> amicus_curious wrote:
> > <ness...@wigner.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
And you will, of course, apologize when and if I do? And for all your
other imputations below that I am lying?
>
> >> This of course is unnecessary on Linux
>
> Of course not:http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18880277-Ubuntu-servers-hacked-to-at...
>
> >> (and Macs) because of superior design of the OS.
>
> Now then, does this superior design make Linux run slow and act flaky?
>
> >> And over the lifetime of a computer, $75/year adds up (certainly
> >> helps to cut the cost differential between PCs and Macs, for
> >> example).
>
> It does add up... if even 1 out of 100 Windows users spent that much on AV
> software. There are 2 big av vendors - Norton and McAfee - and a bunch of
> smaller. None cost more than $50 to buy, or cost more than $50/year to
> subscribe.
>
>
> > I think you pulled that one out of your shorts. In all these years of
> > reading this group, I cannot recall anyone making such a claim. Retail, a
> > one year subscription to Norton or similar is $50 to $80
> > per year, but only a small percentage of users ever pay that. Imagine, a
> > couple of hundred Windows machines sold each year and an
> > installed base approaching a billion Windows machines and if Symantec
> > and McAfee and them got $75 each, that would be some $75 billion
> > bucks a year, about double the take for Mr. Softee over all product
> > lines. Symantec, IIRC, has about a $2B per year revenue and is the
> > biggest AV supplier. Your guess sucks.
>
> cola "advocates" love to dig deep holes of lies and exaggerations, until
> they find they can't climb out of them. Then they worm away and surface
> elsewhere to start another hole of lies and exaggerations.
The quote is from raylopez99, who I believe is a Windows advocate on
cola. His ever so politely framed reply to one of my previous posts
is the following:
<Quote>
Malware comes with market share Berkeley Nut.
Same thing would happen to Linux if it had market share.
And yes, I employ four different malware and virusware and firewalls--
and pay a yearly fee. Something like $75 a year total. I figure it's
like your cable TV subscription--though I don't own a TV--you pay and
play. Simple. If you make money, you spend money and buy the best.
Or you can, as a student, use the library computers to post email, use
Linux to save money on the cost of the OS, use freebees like coupon
clipping and eating at the campus cafeteria and so forth. If and when
you ever graduate and actually start working instead of sponging off
your parents, you might vote Republican as well as gravitate to the
Windows camp.
Best of luck finding a job!
<\Quote>
If my $75 dollar figure is incorrect, I would be happy to know how
much it does cost to keep up to date with Windows anti-malware
software. But not from you, thanks, I don't trust your figures or
those of amicus stultorum. I quoted someone else because I do not
know personally. Personally, I do not buy AV software because I do
not need it. I manage 7 Linux machines at work, one at home and I
also have a Mac laptop. I have never had any trouble with security in
any form on any of my machines, including more than 10 years now with
Linux. Only Windows, it seems, requires AV software. And by the way,
I have a job already.
Anonymous Remailer (austria)
amicus_curious wrote:
>
> "Richard Rasker" <spam...@linetec.nl> wrote in message
> news:wvadnZeV5adALHrb...@fiberworld.nl...
> >
> > I don't quite follow you here. Are you suggesting that I actually
> > would have saved time and money if I had bought a new computer
> > every three or four years or so, even though my old one still did
> > everything I wanted?
> >
> I think that I was perfectly clear. You held onto your computer for
> a substantially longer time than the average person. That puts you
> in the lower fringe of a bell curve based on frequency of purchase of
> a new computer system and so hardly qualifies you to state an opinion
> about the upper half of the curve. You lack the experience and
> understanding of what motivates the consumers who do replace their
> computers often. They obviously do not have the same values as you
> do and so behave differently.
You finally got something almost right. Blind squirrel in action. But
the average Wintard's "motivation and values" regarding hardware are
dictated by the broken software they're running. With the notable
exception of gaming the average Wintard's actual computing requirements
could be met by a 386 class machine. And as ironic as it is gaming is
counter to productivity, so in it's basest terms top of the line
hardware is actually a deterrent to productivity.
Wintards only need new hardware every year because Windows itself lacks
stability. Tossing money away on failed attempts to compensate for an
operating system that can't run for 8 hours without needing a major
overhaul is the Bill Gates business model. By design, Windows will
frustrate a Wintard so much in a 6 month period that the Wintard will
gladly part with another thousand dollars or so just for the illusion
of being free of it all for a couple weeks.
Linux users, on the other hand, aren't slaves to an operating system
written and maintained by incompetent code apes with a con-and-grab
agenda. Linux users are on average 60% more productive than Wintards
because Linux users actually have that much more time to produce.
Wintards spent more time hand wringing over how much they have to spend
to "upgrade" this year, and rebooting every time they save a new virus
riddled word document.
> > Oh, I *know* Joe Sixpack has Windows, because even now, they show
> > up at my doorstep on a regular basis, asking me to fix their
> > Windows problems (which I politely decline). And after their
> > machines have been back to the shop a few times to "repair" those
> > problems, they get conned into buying a new one, with the promise
> > that they'll have less trouble exactly because it's new. Which is a
> > lie, of course. Perhaps this is the "timesaving" principle behind
> > regularly buying a new machine you're referring to? Well, you're
> > wrong.
Bingo!
That's my experience exactly. More than 20 years of it to be truthful,
as an ivy league educated computer technician. Windows is *designed*
from the ground up to force hardware "upgrades" every 6 to 12 months.
It's almost as if Gates and company got kickbacks from the hardware
industry. ;)
> >
> I don't believe your story simply because your propensity to refuse
> to help your fellows would certainly cause them to not bother with
> you. Your conclusion simply reflects your jaded attitude.
No, it reflects frustration with inferior products. I refuse to touch
Windows boxes now too. If you want me to fix it, expect it to come back
truly fixed and able to run perfectly for as long as you need it to
perform the task it's designed to do, not for as long as the toy
operating system and flaky ass software allow it to run before a
horrendous amount of problems frustrates you into giving up and
starting over.
Actually, this philosophy has worked out pretty well. I've converted
hundreds of people to a real operating system since I "retired" and
every single one of them is happy as a clam. I even manage to make a
goodly amount of walking around money doing it. Truly a win-win
situation. Nothing but good comes from separating a Wintard from his
broken software, It's a benefit to the Wintard, to the people that have
to support the Wintard's machine, and to the computing populace in
general. Fewer problems, and more productivity. :)
>
> >> If he did, by some chance, he could just as easily pick up
> >> the MS Office Home and Student edition at the local Costco,
> >> WalMart, Sams, Best Buy, Office Depot, or wherever he likes to go
> >> to buy software for about $100 on the shelf.
> >
> > Oh, I know that there are cheaper versions. But even if Joe Sixpack
> > doesn't play by Microsoft's rules and gets himself a student
> > version, just Windows plus Office will cost him approximately $250.
> >
> The computer comes with Windows, of course, so there is no
> incremental purchase required.
Bullshit. Wintards pay out the nose for their software. They're just to
Wintarded to notice.
I, on the other hand, just got a $200 refund on my last computer
purchase by nuking Winblows before even booting it for the first time,
installing a real operating system, and shipping the removable media
flotsam that came with the hardware back to Wintard central with a
demand for the return of the ransom money.
They of course had no choice but to comply. :)
> > As a matter of fact, I did buy a copy of MS Office, back in 1997,
> > and it cost me something in the region of $500. Which was a total
> > waste of hard- earned money, because I fully migrated to Linux only
> > a few months later.
> >
> A one-off copy of small business Office is half of that now, but if
Who cares?
I own the developer's edition of every MS Orifice version ever retched
up on an unsuspecting public's shoes, and haven't paid a dime for any
of it. Fact is I've never paid for a single Micro$lop product in my
entire life and I'm damned proud of that fact. I spent over $40,000
amassing an impressive library of third party manuals and books over
the years, but not one *penny* on the actual tools themselves. Gates has
precisely none of my money, and he'll never get any.
Put that in your pipe Wintard, and smoke away. <laugh>
Anonymous
> > [quote]
> > Filesystems using clusters (like the MSDOS/Windows FAT
> > filesystems) are known to be a worst case example, that get
> > severely fragmented.
> > [/quote]
> >
> I wouldn't argue with you about that, but FAT hasn't been the default
> file system for almost 10 years.
Sure t has.
Oh wait. You didn't buy into the cock and bull story about NTFS being
something new, now did you?
Silly Wintard.
> > According to the report generated from the study, which you can
> > read here, during the evaluation phase, 43 percent of respondents
> > chose Linux, 42 percent chose Windows, 10 percent chose Mac OS, and
> > 5 percent chose Unix. But moving to the deployment stage, only 29
> > percent chose Windows, compared to 52 percent for Linux, 12 percent
> > for Mac OS, and 7 percent for Unix. All other operating systems
> > take a bite out of Windows when it comes to deployment. And when it
> > comes to Linux, by the way, the Alfresco barometer indicates a
> > fairly balanced pie among the major Linuxes. [/quote]
> >
> > Linux 52% to Windows 29%! You can take your market shares and kiss
> > my grits! Bwaaaahaaaahaaawwww!
> >
> Given the manifest relative usage of Windows and Linux on the
> desktop, aren't you the least bit suspicious of these statistics?
Not at all. Given a level playing field with the constant hand holding
and chattering in your ears, even a Wintard can spot quality when it
so far surpasses the competition. :)
Peter Köhlmann
< snip >
>> [quote]
>> Filesystems using clusters (like the MSDOS/Windows FAT
>> filesystems) are known to be a worst case example, that get
>> severely fragmented.
>> [/quote]
>>
> I wouldn't argue with you about that, but FAT hasn't been the default file
> system for almost 10 years. Where do you get your information on Windows?
> I suspect that you are being poorly informed by your associates.
So the defrag tool for NTFS is superfluous, right?
< snip >
> You are using the nym "High Plains Thumper". Why use the Elmer Fudd act?
You are using the "amicus_curious" nym.
What was wrong with "billwg", Bill Weissgerber?
Too many hard drops at the botttom of kill files?
< snip >
--
Support bacteria -- it's the only culture some people have!
Sgt. Wannacker
"Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixm...@remailer.privacy.at> wrote in
message news:3f72204714cbb6e4...@remailer.privacy.at...
Yet another new nym for the retard previously known as "flyer"
These lintards like flyer and High Plains Rafael are really pathetic.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 05:10:23 -0500, Richard Rasker wrote:
> Ah, another one of those famous Microsoft lies: the "increased
> productivity" argument. Well, let me tell you that the average office
> worker's productivity hasn't increased significantly the past ten years.
C64: Turn on machine, wait about 1 second, it's ready to use. Has word
processors, spread sheets, DB and more. Can't quite process those
multi-gig databases, but...
> People haven't learned to type any faster, or interpret spreadsheet
> information any more economical, and most certainly haven't learned to
> communicate more efficiently -- infact, more time than ever before is
> wasted on "frivolous" communication.
Like COLA. :)
'Course, for those purposes, a good old 110 baud modem and Fido worked
just fine.
> People now routinely send each
> other complete multi-megabyte spreadsheets and databases to communicate
> a point, instead of simply summarizing the small amount of useful
> information the recipient actually needs.
Not to mention merrily including all sorts of evil nasties in the process
- something the older generation didn't generally worry about all that
much. (Nor the newer generation using LGX, BSD, OSX...)
> It's even worse with software efficiency: even the fifty-fold increase
> in hardware power in the past decade or so can hardly keep up with the
> huge software bloat, in particular with regard to Microsoft's products.
Do you recall GeoWorks? A GIMP multitasking system for the C64. Ran the
entire OS *plus* apps in 64K. That's _K_. As in 10 copies in a run of
the mill XT machine. Or some 16,384 copies in a 2GB machine capable of
running Vista. Hmm. 16 thousand entire GUI-based multitasking OSen, plus
apps. Yeah, well, we've sure come a long way. :)
> Face it: the vast majority of office workers still use their computer as
> a kind of glorified typewriter, with the occasional trivial calculation
> and perhaps a presentation. They would be just as productive with an old
> '486 machine with 1MB of RAM running Windows 95 (that is, if Windows 95
> wouldn't be the crash-prone crapware it was) as they are now with a
> dual- core P4-3.6Ghz with 2GB of RAM running Vista (that is, if Vista
> wouldn't be this hugely annoying piece of beta crapware it is).
Indeed. Most of what I do "for fun" is coding: HTML, C, PHP. Could do
that quite happily on a very low-power machine.
> Nothing has changed, really. People get conned into buying new stuff
> over and over again, but end up doing the same things they did
> yesterday, with just about as much efficiency. For the average user, the
> only real progress (and thus reason to buy new stuff) is found in the
> realm of gaming, with ever more realistic graphics.
Oh there are some other perks. While an old C64 would merrily let you
write entire books, balance your home finances, etc, etc, etc, the larger
memory availability in newer machines makes doing so somewhat more
efficient.
>>> They don't seem to get - or care - that there's a difference between
>>> not being willing to spend money and not being willing to spend it
>>> needlessly.
>>>
>> They are much more interested in what people who can afford it think.
>> Are those new computers all going to wastrels?
> Yup. And to gullible people, who think that newer is always better.
I find it amusing he said "people who can afford it". Again, these guys
just aren't smart enough to figure out the difference between being able
to afford something and wanting to buy something for the simple sake of
spending money.
>>> Spend $hundreds to upgrade hardware to spend $hundreds on an OS to
>>> spend $hundreds on apps, all to do what I do *now*? This makes sense?
>>
>> Do you think that nothing new does anything more? If that were the
>> case, you would be right, but that does not seem to be the case.
>
> Well, Microsoft's newest OS indeed is not considered a step forward.
No, it's not. Particularly by a non-trivial segment of users.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:02:02 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
> Maybe you need to wake up and smell the coffee. I suppose you don't have a
> Blackberry in your purse
No purse. Also no Blackberry.
> or a GPS system in your car either.
Nope. I have this nifty technology called a "map". Works even when the
car is off. Works even outside the car.
> Probably
> don't need any home management software either
No idea what that is or what, if anything, it would do for me.
> since you have reached
> the peak of perfection. Do you have a cell?
Yup. Need one for work. Note, that's "cell". Not "Umpteen-gigabyte
device which can't make up its mind whether it is a phone or a media
center."
>> It's even worse with software efficiency: even the fifty-fold increase
>> in hardware power in the past decade or so can hardly keep up with the
>> huge software bloat, in particular with regard to Microsoft's products.
>>
> Assembler language and command line text do take care of everything. All
> that pixel pounding is just frivolous.
Assembly language has not been the language of choice for, oh, 30 years?
Probably more.
C, and to some extent C++, are the languages of choice these days, with
some others - Java for example - thrown in for fun.
> I use Vista on my dual DuoCore Dell Precision 490 with 8 GB of RAM and
> it is a pleasant experience.
Indeed. Now try it on a 1.4Ghz machine with 512MB RAM.
Why? Simple. If I can do all the things I need to do, and do them
efficiently and effectively, using just that sort of system, then doubling
the speed or quadrupling the memory really doesn't benefit me; I'm
*already* doing the tasks I'm trying to do, as efficiently as I can do
them; doubling the CPU speed is not going to write my code any faster.
So, how does Vista hold up on such a system? Sill a pleasant experience?
Probably not. Ah, so, what is _currently_ a pleasant experience, one
which achieves the maximal efficiency I need for my uses, would - if I
switched to Vista - have to undergo a radical increase in hardware _just
to get back to where I am now_.
Maybe that makes sense to you. It doesn't make any sense to me. If all
I'm accomplishing is getting back to the point where it is pleasant to use
the machine to do what I'm doing, then I'm spending all that money to wind
up exactly where I started. I can accomplish the same thing without
spending a cent.
> uninteresting, but that is just my opinion. I think that it is always
> better to focus on making more revenue than on saving expenses. I know
> it is easier to do the latter, but in the long run, it is much more
> rewarding to do the former. Look at Microsoft. Then look at yourself.
> Do you see what I mean?
You mean unlike Microsoft, he's _not_ losing billions on the xbox, Zune
and assorted other projects? A good argument for his approach, then.
Perhaps they'd do better to emulate him.
> Well, that is your opinion, I am sure, but it is not mine. I find the
> changes visually refreshing and using Vista for my old applications
> makes them look new and inviting. You need to put on a happier face and
> look on the bright side.
We do. We look at what we have, we look at what we could have, we see
that the end result is the same and we smile, very happy, having not
forked over gobs of dough to accomplish nothing. Then we use some of that
money to take the better halves out for dinner.
William Poaster
> amicus_curious wrote:
>
>>(snip rat droppings)
I dunno why you bother responding to the asshole. Bill Weisgerber's an
idiot, & I've had him binned for ages.
--
Operating systems:
FreeBSD 6.2, Debian 4.0
PCLinuxOS 2007, (K)Ubuntu 7.04
Ubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" alpha - Tribe 5
Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
> "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixm...@remailer.privacy.at> wrote
<snippage>
> Yet another new nym for the retard previously known as "flyer"
Garden variety clueless rubes the world over, are at this very moment
cursing you for raising the bar so high.
*chortle*
Linonut
> chrisv wrote:
>
>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>>>(snip rat droppings)
>
> I dunno why you bother responding to the asshole. Bill Weisgerber's an
> idiot, & I've had him binned for ages.
Everybody has to have at least one Troll-Reform Project®. It's kind of
like a Project Reach-Around® for COLA. We each do our part by reaching
out to one poor, deluded, wandering soul.
Even chrisv does his part.
I think its sweet.
--
Tux rox!
![[H]omer's profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjWMQWyYwHeIwxhG3nGUeGWmLQD0R8TeZrvdWDiv5-2S_z3rHg=s40-c)
[H]omer
> Face it: the vast majority of office workers still use their computer
> as a kind of glorified typewriter
From my observations, the archetypal office worker uses his computer as
a receptacle for stick-it notes, playing solitaire, installing stupid
screensavers, browsing eBay and Amazon, and sending chain-mail jokes and
pornography to an ever expanding contact list, which eventually gets
compromised by a Trojan that blasts the entire list with \/i4gra spam.
I'm not quite sure how /Vista/ would make anyone more "productive" in
those endeavours.
> Nothing has changed, really. People get conned into buying new stuff
> over and over again, but end up doing the same things they did
> yesterday
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "OOXML is a superb standard"
| - GNU/Linux traitor, Miguel de Icaza.
`----
Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.22.1-41.fc7
20:11:07 up 34 days, 19:06, 2 users, load average: 0.38, 0.27, 0.17
[H]omer
> I find it amusing he said "people who can afford it". Again, these
> guys just aren't smart enough to figure out the difference between
> being able to afford something and wanting to buy something for the
> simple sake of spending money.
The Trolls simply refuse to accept that there could be any legitimate
reason for not /wanting/ Windows or other proprietary software, and that
therefore we must be skinflints. They're brainwashed beyond reason.
The fact is that I spend a scary amount of money on personal computing,
it's just that none of it goes into Microsoft's pockets. That makes me a
"freak" and a "tightwad", apparently.
I'm as much of a gearhead as the next guy, but I've found that the vast
majority of the gadgets I've bought over the years were just a waste of
money ... little more than novelties. The most useful hardware I own has
turned out to be some of the least expensive (e.g. my file-server), and
the most useful software has been free (and Free). I'm sorry if the
Trolls are too far gone to understand that but it is a fact nonetheless.
It has nothing to do with what I can, or cannot, afford. I could
/afford/ to waste thousands on Microsoft Crudware every year, if I
was so inclined, but fortunately I'm more enlightened.
AFAICT Sweaty's Munchkins are not interested in the technical merit or
functionality of software, they are only interested in money - how much
they earn, how much Microsoft earns, how stock prices are affected, how
many units of a product are sold, etc. It's not about computing at all,
it just about money. It's /all/ about the money. By taking a stand, and
stating that I'm not interested in the financial aspects of computing at
all, one way or another; and that my decisions are based on technical
merit, functionality, and ethics only; I represent a threat to the
status quo of Sheep who spend spend spend without proper justification.
God forbid that consumers should ever start to think for themselves,
wake up, and realise that they're wasting their money on unnecessary
hardware and software - it would spell the end for the Money Machine
driven by the likes of Microsoft and Intel.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "OOXML is a superb standard"
| - GNU/Linux traitor, Miguel de Icaza.
`----
Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.22.1-41.fc7
20:39:09 up 34 days, 19:34, 2 users, load average: 0.52, 0.23, 0.16
Anonymous
I *really* want to thank you in advance for the opportunity to point
out just how much more advanced and useful Linux is than anything
Micro$loth could ever conceieve. :)
> Maybe you need to wake up and smell the coffee. I suppose you don't
> have a Blackberry in your purse or a GPS system in your car either.
My laptop is my GPS. Complete with on the fly WiFi hot spot mapping and
automatic connections to "best case" AP's if I need it. Not only do I
have real time on-the-fly map updates both in the car AND on my boat
(yes, my "GPS" is also a marine chart plotter), I have multilingual
speech synthesis directions, weather advisories, traffic advisories, and
system events notifications like network changes. And I also have over
1000 hours of music to listen to along the way. :)
That's right Wintards, Linux not only gives me a GPS with features above
and beyond any off the shelf "dedicated" solution, it does it with tools
that don't even have Winblows counterparts because Winblows isn't
capable of supporting them.
> Probably don't need any home management software either,
No "home management" software here, but I do have home AUTOMATION
software that controls everything from my irrigation (7 zones) to my
HVAC, gives me real time access to my security system (including video
and audio) while I'm on the road with my "GPS", and even makes sure my
coffee is ready for me in the morning when I'm home.
And none of THAT software will run on any Winblows box either, and
never will because it employs a networking protocol that can't be
implemented the crippled excuse of an operating system affectionately
known as Winblows, by DESIGN.
*snicker*
Richard Rasker
thusly:
> "Richard Rasker" <spam...@linetec.nl> wrote in message
> news:wvadnZeV5adALHrb...@fiberworld.nl...
>>
>> I don't quite follow you here. Are you suggesting that I actually would
>> have saved time and money if I had bought a new computer every three or
>> four years or so, even though my old one still did everything I wanted?
>>
> I think that I was perfectly clear. You held onto your computer for a
> substantially longer time than the average person. That puts you in the
> lower fringe of a bell curve based on frequency of purchase of a new
> computer system and so hardly qualifies you to state an opinion about
> the upper half of the curve.
I asked you if *I* would probably have saved money and time by buying new
stuff much more often than I did. You didn't answer that question. Then
again, I know the answer, and it's "no".
> You lack the experience and understanding of what motivates the
> consumers who do replace their computers often.
I have 25+ years of experience in the repairs business, including
computer repairs, and I understand perfectly well what motivates people
to go out and buy new stuff:
- Their old stuff is "broken" -- read: infected by malware for the
umpteenth time, and the sales droid comes up with the suggestion that
"it's an old beastie, and you're probably better off buying a new one."
Without any improvement, of course, with regard to productivity, user
experience, or malware immunity. But *with* a shitload of work and a
hefty bill to get their favourite apps, settings and files on their
new machine. This is nothing less than a con job.
- They're the kind of people who always want the latest stuff. OK, fine
with me. These are the people who don't come to my doorstep anyway, as
they never have stuff repaired. They just buy new stuff.
> They obviously do not have the same values as you do and so behave
> differently. You are arrogant to think that your attitude is superior
> when it is just different. People involved in the commerce of computers
> and personal computer software are much more interested in the attitudes
> and motivations of the group that does buy more often.
Sure, and they'll do anything to tell the poor sods that they need a new
computer, complete with Vista crapware and all. A true con artist
mentality. Every so often, I come across people I can "save" -- as with
quite a number of my current Linux users, who were told that they'd
better scrap their old machines and buy new preinstalled Windows boxes.
Now they still use their old, "obsolete" machines, with Linux installed,
and they're perfectly happy. And, of course, they'll never use Windows
again.
Or in another line of business, this poor old pensioner with a 4-year-old
Sony TV which suddenly had lost all colour. The sales droid almost
convinced the man that the picture tube was at its end ("it's a very
common problem with Sony, sir!"), and that he'd have to buy a new TV on
short notice. Luckily, his son referred the man to me, and I could fix
this (indeed very common) problem within five minutes, by adjusting a
small trim capacitor.
But Microsoft really has turned forced obsolescence plus upgrading into
an art form. And of course they have to, because their whole business
model is based on it.
[snip]
>> Are you really that stupid? So whatever a company spends on software
>> has no impact whatsoever on either employees' wages or product pricing
>> (and therefore competitive strength)? You are just as big a liar as
>> Microsoft, trying to make people believe that their crapware is somehow
>> automatically included in everything, so you never know that you're
>> actually paying for it, one way or another.
>>
> So you suspect, I believe, but do you really think that, if you said
> "Boss, don't buy me a copy of MS Office, I'll bring in my own copy of
> Open Office and save you the cash. You can split it with me 50-50."
> that he would hand over a couple of hundred bucks and smile? You are
> misinformed as to how things work.
You haven't addressed my remark, i.e. that higher operational costs lead
to lower wages and/or lower profits. This economic principle holds true,
regardless of the way "how things work".
>> It is, because buying a computer with Windows preinstalled is the
>> easiest way -- in fact, to the ordinary public, Windows is an
>> inevitable part of any computer.
>>
> And that is what makes the world go around. You pay for the comfort and
> ease of a service that saves you effort.
Ah, the art of circular reasoning. "This is the way it works in this
world, and therefore it is the right way, because it is the way it
works."
So, people pay every three or four years or so for the "comfort" of
getting a completely new machine, on which they (who else?) will have to
install all the apps they need, plus their old files and stuff, just
because with Windows, it is not a viable option to keep a machine in
service for much longer.
> Someone comes every Wednesday morning to cut my grass and trim my trees
> and bushes, saving me a couple of hours in the hot outdoors and I pay
> for that. Someone else cleans the pool. And someone else washes the
> windows. Etc. They collectively save me substantial effort and so I
> have extra time to write software that I am paid to write. I make more
> money writing software than I can save cutting grass.
So? People pay me to install Linux. And if they ask me whether they
should buy a new computer, I give an honest answer, based on what they
want from their computer. Most of the time, the answer is "no". Although
I usually advise to get a bit more RAM (older Windows XP machines often
have a mere 64 or 128MB), and perhaps a spiffier graphics card.
> Maybe you are different.
I like to think I am.
Singer
> From my observations, the archetypal office worker uses his computer as
> a receptacle for stick-it notes, playing solitaire, installing stupid
> screensavers, browsing eBay and Amazon, and sending chain-mail jokes and
> pornography to an ever expanding contact list, which eventually gets
> compromised by a Trojan that blasts the entire list with \/i4gra spam.
Maybe at the local Quickstop, where you apparently work, at least based
upon your observations of your co-workers computers.
Or from the Linux perspective a machine on which to keep trying the various
distribution of the week endlessly and never actually doing anything with
the machine but trying to make it look more and more like Windows.
IOW, the Network Neighborhood, start menu etc.
> I'm not quite sure how /Vista/ would make anyone more "productive" in
> those endeavours.
It won't.
Vista is a waste of money IMHO.
7
Corporation:
>
> "Richard Rasker" <spam...@linetec.nl> wrote in message
> news:fqGdnYHXCro3Znvb...@fiberworld.nl...
>> For all those stupid wintrolls who whine that "their time isn't free", to
>> support the myth that Linux may be free, but costs a significant amount
>> of time to install and configure: learn the math.
>>
> You're the guy who just go around to replacing a 9 year old computer. Your
> time probably isn't worth so much.
Your time is worth even less as an asstroturfer working
for Micoshaft Corporation.
>> A typical Windows installation (Windows plus MS Office) costs *at least*
>> some $500 in software alone. This represents no less than 25 hours of
>> working time for Joe Sixpack! But wait, there's more! After these 25
>> hours, does Joe Sixpack have a fully configured Windows system? No way!
>> He /still/ has to spend several hours installing and configuring
>> everything he needs! And I won't even mention the time and money spent on
>> ongoing yet futile attempts to keep Windows clean, secure and crud-free.
>>
> You are probably not the right person to make the case, if you have used
> the
> same old box for 9 years.
But I guess that means you are?
> Joe Sixpack probably doesn't have MS Windows to
> begin with and so would not be in a mood to pay for a replacement. If he
> did, by some chance, he could just as easily pick up the MS Office Home
> and Student edition at the local Costco, WalMart, Sams, Best Buy, Office
> Depot,
> or wherever he likes to go to buy software for about $100 on the shelf.
Joe Six pack doesn't need to do all that with Linux around.
30 minutes for a full install. Max 1 hour.
Knoppix, Ubuntu. All free
http://www.ubuntu.com
http://www.livecdlist.com
> I
> would imagine that you have never bought a copy, else you would know that
> you don't have to pay all that much. Even then, Joe probably can't type
> anyway and so doesn't use anything at all.
Thats why Joe Sixpack is better off going Linux.
> The commercial office worker,
> on the other hand, gets MS Office as part of their workstation
> installation and
> doesn't pay anything themselves either.
Their companies do however pay Micoshaft Corporation,
and so its better for those companies
and their accountants to switch to Linux
to save money.
> MS Office is sold to corporations
> under various site license agreements and none of the ersatz stuff like OO
> has the ability to enter the distribution chain where the real sales are
> made.
You don't sound too sure about that.
Hundreds of millions of Open Office has been downloaded already.
> Nobody is paid to sell OO and so no one does.
And you unsure of this as well.
Hundreds of millions of copies have been downloaded and
in use today. You walk into any net cafe, or particularly
IT poor countrier, its Open Office OO that you see everywhere.
> OO doesn't sell
> itself, so it sits in the dark unused in real commerce.
Which is something you are not sure of again?
Its all Micoshaft Asstroturfing rubbish as you must
buy support for it which is
the power house of real commerce that funds the free downloads.
Buying that support from third parties means Open Office
is eating Micoshaft's lunch and you (an asstroturfer
working for Micoshaft Corporation) don't seem happy.
> The hobbyists
> love it, since it is available at no cost, but they feel bad because they
> are not
> in the mainstream.
Well a few hundred million don't feel bad at all so far
about that. And I'm sure freedom will mean they will get over
their regrets (if any :-)
> That is why they are constantly complaining about MS
> Office.
And switching it looks like by the hundreds of millions
of copies downloaded.
>
>
>> So especially when you say your time isn't free, you'd be a real idiot to
>> choose Windows, as it will cost you some 30 hours at least. Even my very
>> first Linux installation attempt took less than a third of that time!
>> These days, a Linux install takes me 2 hours at most, after which I have
>> pretty much everything I ever need :-)
>>
> Even so, I bet that, if you looked deeply enough, you would find that the
> vast majority of OO users use it on Windows platforms. That's the easiest
> way to do it.
Switching to Linux is lower cost which is the point the OP made
and it seems to hold true despite your wintroll post.
High Plains Thumper
> amicus_curious wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
>>> [quote]
>>> Filesystems using clusters (like the MSDOS/Windows FAT
>>> filesystems) are known to be a worst case example, that
>>> get severely fragmented.
>>> [/quote]
>>
>> I wouldn't argue with you about that, but FAT hasn't been
>> the default file system for almost 10 years. Where do you
>> get your information on Windows? I suspect that you are
>> being poorly informed by your associates.
>
> So the defrag tool for NTFS is superfluous, right?
I simply quoted that from the article in the link he posted.
Amazing he can't read, isn't it?
> < snip >
>
>> You are using the nym "High Plains Thumper". Why use the
>> Elmer Fudd act?
>
> You are using the "amicus_curious" nym. What was wrong with
> "billwg", Bill Weissgerber? Too many hard drops at the bottom
> of kill files?
>
> < snip >
amicus_curious is a corruption of amicus curiae:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=amicus%20curiae
[quote]
Main Entry: amicus cu·ri·ae
Pronunciation: -'kyur-E-"I, -'kur-, -i-"E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural amici curiae
Etymology: New Latin, literally, friend of the court
: one (as a professional person or organization) that is not a
party to a particular litigation but that is permitted by the
court to advise it in respect to some matter of law that directly
affects the case in question
[/quote]
amicus_curious' nym is literally correct. He is not a friend of
the court, he certainly hasn't responded professionally, which
then leaves "curious", implying doubt (as in FU"D").
--
HPT
chrisv
> After takin' a swig o' grog, William Poaster belched out this bit o'
> wisdom:
>>
>> I dunno why you bother responding to the asshole. Bill Weisgerber's an
>> idiot, & I've had him binned for ages.
>
> Everybody has to have at least one Troll-Reform Project®. It's kind of
> like a Project Reach-Around® for COLA. We each do our part by reaching
> out to one poor, deluded, wandering soul.
>
> Even chrisv does his part.
>
> I think its sweet.
Yes, I'm so sweet to the filthy rat. 8) He came damn close to getting
plonked today, I'll tell ya...
chrisv
William Poaster
halfway through a large jam doughnut, Linonut wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, William Poaster belched out this bit o'
> wisdom:
>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>
>>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>>
>>>>(snip rat droppings)
>>
>> I dunno why you bother responding to the asshole. Bill Weisgerber's an
>> idiot, & I've had him binned for ages.
>
> Everybody has to have at least one Troll-Reform Project®. It's kind of
> like a Project Reach-Around® for COLA. We each do our part by reaching
> out to one poor, deluded, wandering soul.
You sound like the Salvation Army! <grin>
> Even chrisv does his part.
>
> I think its sweet.
LOL!
--
Surely you are not comparing the non-existent Linux (at that time) with
(Windows)98? - Hadron aka Hadron Quark, Hans Schneider, & Damian O'Leary
comp.os.linux.advocacy - Thu, 16 Aug 2007
Message-ID: <npk5rvz...@homelinux.net>
William Poaster
Whack-A-Troll® sounds better, IMO...
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:40:51 +0100, [H]omer wrote:
> The fact is that I spend a scary amount of money on personal computing,
> it's just that none of it goes into Microsoft's pockets. That makes me a
> "freak" and a "tightwad", apparently.
Indeed. For most of my computing carreer, I bought a new machine about
every 18 months, because while I can happily _write_ code on pretty much
anything, *building* and *testing* code is another matter entirely.
Toss in endless memory, drive space, assorted peripherals, video cards,
USB drives, cases, fans, PSUs and on and on and on, it adds up. The fact
it adds up for someone other than MS, however, seems to concern these
goobers for some reason.
> money ... little more than novelties. The most useful hardware I own has
> turned out to be some of the least expensive (e.g. my file-server), and
> the most useful software has been free (and Free).
Indeed. The brand-new gaming box gets flaky after a week, needing to go
back to the shop, but the file server serves files, day in and day out,
for a decade. Keep using it, though, instead of replacing it and
upgrading to the latest pointless-bells-and-whistles OS, and you're "cheap".
> AFAICT Sweaty's Munchkins are not interested in the technical merit or
> functionality of software
If they were, their DRM code wouldn't be merrily disabling every high-end
audio and video device they encounter.
> God forbid that consumers should ever start to think for themselves,
> wake up, and realise that they're wasting their money on unnecessary
> hardware and software - it would spell the end for the Money Machine
> driven by the likes of Microsoft and Intel.
Well, they can always start charging $40,000 for a copy of whatever comes
after Vista. The local Wintrolls will have no choice but to buy, because,
see, they're not "cheap".
--
You’ve just blown your only chance at salvation. See you in Hell.
-- John Silvester
[H]omer
> +100 8)
+1000 8-)
> Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
>> Windows is *designed* from the ground up to force hardware
>> "upgrades" every 6 to 12 months. It's almost as if Gates and
>> company got kickbacks from the hardware industry. ;)
One word: DirectX.
Want to play the latest game? You'll need the latest graphics card.
Oh, but guess what? It only works with the latest version of Windows
(a proven lie). Want the latest version of Windows? You'll need a faster
processor, more memory, a Protected Media Path compatible monitor
(HDMI), a bigger HDD ... essentially a new PC.
So consumers are doomed to run like hamsters on the Upgrade Treadmill,
under the /pretext/ of new software requiring new hardware requiring new
software. But the key word, and the /lie/, is the word "require". The
/need/ is imaginary ... imposed by an act of manipulation. It's nothing
more than greedy extortion.
The boiler room deals between Microsoft and the hardware manufacturers
are more than mere suppositions ... it's bloody obvious. They're the
Mafia of the software industry, and I don't mean metaphorically either.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "OOXML is a superb standard"
| - GNU/Linux traitor, Miguel de Icaza.
`----
Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.22.1-41.fc7
01:55:23 up 35 days, 50 min, 3 users, load average: 0.04, 0.16, 0.15
DFS
> On Sep 11, 9:58 pm, "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>> I doubt very seriously you can provide a cite for that claim.
>
> And you will, of course, apologize when and if I do?
Of course not - there's nothing to apologize for. You still haven't
delivered on the "$75/year on antivirus software".
> And for all your other imputations below that I am lying?
You're not a liar, but in this case you're playing a role the comes very
easy to Linux "advocates": exaggerating about Windows cost, time,
difficulty, stability, crashing, etc.
If you guys didn't lie and exaggerate, you'd have nothing to talk about.
>>>> This of course is unnecessary on Linux
>>
>> Of course
>> not:http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18880277-Ubuntu-servers-hacked-to-at...
Can't answer this one, eh? Why?
>>>> And over the lifetime of a computer, $75/year adds up (certainly
>>>> helps to cut the cost differential between PCs and Macs, for
>>>> example).
>>
>> It does add up... if even 1 out of 100 Windows users spent that much
>> on AV
>> software. There are 2 big av vendors - Norton and McAfee - and a
>> bunch of
>> smaller. None cost more than $50 to buy, or cost more than $50/year
>> to
>> subscribe.
>>
>> http://anti-virus-software-review.toptenreviews.com/http://antivirus.about.com/od/antivirussoftwarereviews/tp/aatpavwin.htm
And you just skipped over this too.
> The quote is from raylopez99, who I believe is a Windows advocate on
> cola. His ever so politely framed reply to one of my previous posts
> is the following:
>
> <Quote>
> And yes, I employ four different malware and virusware and firewalls--
> and pay a yearly fee. Something like $75 a year total.
<\Quote>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/browse_thread/thread/70bbba87ed95637a/09d0ba40e40c8efa?lnk=st&q=Mac+group%3Acomp.os.linux.advocacy+author%3Anessuno&rnum=13&hl=en#09d0ba40e40c8efa
>
> If my $75 dollar figure is incorrect, I would be happy to know how
> much it does cost to keep up to date with Windows anti-malware
> software.
$Zero, if you want to use free stuff, up to $hundreds if you're paranoid and
buy everything in sight.
> Personally, I do not buy AV software because I do
> not need it.
Nor do I, and I run Windows Server 2003 (as administrator) connected to
always-on broadband for 3.5 years. I get no viruses or malware or spyware.
I use Firefox (prior to that Opera, prior to that IE), don't install the
porn viewers I frequently get asked to install, run behind a Linksys router,
rename the administrator account, and use the built-in Windows firewall.
> I manage 7 Linux machines at work, one at home and I
> also have a Mac laptop. I have never had any trouble with security in
> any form on any of my machines, including more than 10 years now with
> Linux.
Cool! Linux is a fairly secure platform, by design and also because its low
market share makes it an unattractive target for the thousands of virus
writers who target Windows.
> Only Windows, it seems, requires AV software.
Only Windows? Looks like I have to repeat myself, since you tried to slink
away the first time. These Ubuntu guys
needed some kind of protection:
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18880277-Ubuntu-servers-hacked-to-attack-others
cc
> Nor do I, and I run Windows Server 2003 (as administrator) connected to
> always-on broadband for 3.5 years. I get no viruses or malware or spyware.
> I use Firefox (prior to that Opera, prior to that IE), don't install the
> porn viewers I frequently get asked to install, run behind a Linksys router,
> rename the administrator account, and use the built-in Windows firewall.
>
If you don't visit the porn sites and install the porn viewers, then
why own a computer?
Anonymous Sender
> "[H]omer" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in news:fbqlr4-...@sky.matrix:
>
> > From my observations, the archetypal office worker uses his
> > computer as a receptacle for stick-it notes, playing solitaire,
> > installing stupid screensavers, browsing eBay and Amazon, and
> > sending chain-mail jokes and pornography to an ever expanding
> > contact list, which eventually gets compromised by a Trojan that
> > blasts the entire list with \/i4gra spam.
>
> Maybe at the local Quickstop, where you apparently work, at least
> based upon your observations of your co-workers computers.
I'm a near 30 year veteran tech with a college education,
certifications out the yingyang, and a resume that includes hospitals,
schools, libraries, law offices, publishing houses, and probably tens
of thousands of individuals.
He's right... you're clueless... learn to live with it and your head
won't explode.
Nomen Nescio
> nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu wrote:
> > On Sep 11, 9:58 pm, "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>
> >> I doubt very seriously you can provide a cite for that claim.
> >
> > And you will, of course, apologize when and if I do?
>
> Of course not - there's nothing to apologize for. You still haven't
> delivered on the "$75/year on antivirus software".
Of course he did. You're just too big a cunt to admit it.
> You're not a liar,
You are. The sort of village idiot breed that lies even when the truth
sounds better.
> >> not:http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18880277-Ubuntu-servers-hacked-to-at...
>
> Can't answer this one, eh? Why?
What's to answer? A couple unmaintained servers administered by
independent community members were hacked. Nothing of consequence in a
vacuum, let alone compared to the roughly 4 in 10 Wintard's boxes that
are owned every single day of the week.
> >> http://anti-virus-software-review.toptenreviews.com/http://antivirus.about.com/od/antivirussoftwarereviews/tp/aatpavwin.htm
>
> And you just skipped over this too.
"404 Not Found"
Leave it to a Wintard to embarrass himself by prancing about and
yapping about how people don't address things that don't exist.
*snicker*
> > Personally, I do not buy AV software because I do
> > not need it.
>
> Nor do I, and I run Windows Server 2003 (as administrator) connected
> to always-on broadband for 3.5 years. I get no viruses or malware or
> spyware. I use Firefox (prior to that Opera, prior to that IE), don't
"I've experienced no undetected problems that I know of..."
Typical idiot Wintard gibberish.
> install the porn viewers I frequently get asked to install, run
> behind a Linksys router, rename the administrator account, and use
> the built-in Windows firewall.
ROTFL!
> > I manage 7 Linux machines at work, one at home and I
> > also have a Mac laptop. I have never had any trouble with security
> > in any form on any of my machines, including more than 10 years now
> > with Linux.
>
> Cool! Linux is a fairly secure platform, by design and also because
> its low market share makes it an unattractive target for the
> thousands of virus writers who target Windows.
Winblows is targeted because it's an easy target. If it switched places
with Linux tomorrow it would still have more virus problems because
it's shoddy design is nothing but a petri dish for teh script kiddies.
It actually takes soem effort to own a Linux box, and when a hole is
found it's fixed up within days, if not hours. Unlike Winblows boxes,
which sometimes wait YEARS fro a fix.
*snicker*
> > Only Windows, it seems, requires AV software.
>
> Only Windows? Looks like I have to repeat myself, since you tried to
> slink away the first time. These Ubuntu guys
> needed some kind of protection:
>
> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18880277-Ubuntu-servers-hacked-to-attack-others
Uh, dimbulb... what does this have to do with viruses? Poor little
strawgrabbing Wintard monkey. Just can't STAND the fact that Linux is
so much more secure and rock solid stable than your pathetic Winblows
that it just doesn't need the band aids you Wintards couldn't survive
10 minutes without.
ROTFLMAO!
High Plains Thumper
> These lintards like flyer and High Plains Rafael are really
> pathetic.
That is rather hilarious coming from Bruno Mallie, Bucky
Bretwood, Capt. James Pike, Capt Morgan, Capt. Morgan,
Christopher Hurst, Colonel Ichabod Conk, Cpl. Kronk, David Putty,
Dirk Diggler, Dr Gang Green, Dr. Disco, Dr. Fafoofnik, Dr.
Feelgood, Dr. GroundAxe, Dr. Hungwell, Dr. Hurt, Dr. Livingston,
Dr. McGillicudy, Dr. Pain, Dr. Seymour Butts, Dr. Shlongwell, Dr.
Shlongwell (aka your Boss), Dr. Smooth, Dr. Zhivago, Gustavo
Vasquez, Hans Koenig, Hattori Hanzo, High Priest O'Murphy, Hot
Lemonade, Ivan Drago, Kavoorka, Ken Dorfmann, Lenny, Lintard
Luser, Lt. Stardust, Meat Plow, Michael Scofield, Mr. X, Murphy
Douglas, Nedd Ludd, Pedro Menendez, Peter North, Prickley Pete,
rafael (you couldn't leave poor Rafael alone, could you ....),
Ricky Lake, roger reeves, Ruben Kincaid, Sam Malone, Sgt. Bilko,
Sgt. Wannacker, Sonny Crockett, Sophie Kowalski, Sophie Kowalski,
Sponge Worthy, Stephan Kronig, Steven Triccoli, Steven Triccoli,
Thurston Howell and Vincent Vega.
--
HPT
Mark Kent
> Verily I say unto thee, that Kelsey Bjarnason spake thusly:
>
>> I find it amusing he said "people who can afford it". Again, these
>> guys just aren't smart enough to figure out the difference between
>> being able to afford something and wanting to buy something for the
>> simple sake of spending money.
>
> The Trolls simply refuse to accept that there could be any legitimate
> reason for not /wanting/ Windows or other proprietary software, and that
> therefore we must be skinflints. They're brainwashed beyond reason.
>
I have a problem with your last sentence, and I think that it should
read like this:
... They're trying _to_ _brainwash_ people beyond reason.
The trolls here do not believe the arguments they espouse, rather, they
are replaying a corporate line for which they are being paid, either
directly or indirectly, to do.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
Peter Köhlmann
> [H]omer <sp...@uce.gov> espoused:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Kelsey Bjarnason spake thusly:
>>
>>> I find it amusing he said "people who can afford it". Again, these
>>> guys just aren't smart enough to figure out the difference between
>>> being able to afford something and wanting to buy something for the
>>> simple sake of spending money.
>>
>> The Trolls simply refuse to accept that there could be any legitimate
>> reason for not /wanting/ Windows or other proprietary software, and that
>> therefore we must be skinflints. They're brainwashed beyond reason.
>>
>
> I have a problem with your last sentence, and I think that it should
> read like this:
>
> ... They're trying _to_ _brainwash_ people beyond reason.
>
> The trolls here do not believe the arguments they espouse, rather, they
> are replaying a corporate line for which they are being paid, either
> directly or indirectly, to do.
Oh, some of them are certainly dumb enough to believe their own bullshit
--
Yield to Temptation ... it may not pass your way again.
-- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love"
Hadron
Well, well, lookee here. I see a post from Willy Boaster and it#s about
what? Yuss, Sirree!!!!!!!!!! His amazing kill files again. He *must* be
the most boring poster in the history of Usenet.
amicus_curious
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:22:12 -0400, amicus_curious enriched the soil
> thusly:
>
>> "Richard Rasker" <spam...@linetec.nl> wrote in message
>> news:wvadnZeV5adALHrb...@fiberworld.nl...
>>>
>>> I don't quite follow you here. Are you suggesting that I actually would
>>> have saved time and money if I had bought a new computer every three or
>>> four years or so, even though my old one still did everything I wanted?
>>>
>> I think that I was perfectly clear. You held onto your computer for a
>> substantially longer time than the average person. That puts you in the
>> lower fringe of a bell curve based on frequency of purchase of a new
>> computer system and so hardly qualifies you to state an opinion about
>> the upper half of the curve.
>
> I asked you if *I* would probably have saved money and time by buying new
> stuff much more often than I did. You didn't answer that question. Then
> again, I know the answer, and it's "no".
>
latest developments in Windows and Office did not justify the expense of
acquiring these new versions. I did not dispute that, in your case, that
was true on your assertion. I pointed out that your practices were well
outside the norm and so cannot be used to describe the habits and economics
of the mainstream user.
>> You lack the experience and understanding of what motivates the
>> consumers who do replace their computers often.
>
> I have 25+ years of experience in the repairs business, including
> computer repairs, and I understand perfectly well what motivates people
> to go out and buy new stuff:
You claim that but your conclusions are not occurring in the real world and
your own actions are well outside the normal range.
> - Their old stuff is "broken" -- read: infected by malware for the
> umpteenth time, and the sales droid comes up with the suggestion that
> "it's an old beastie, and you're probably better off buying a new one."
> Without any improvement, of course, with regard to productivity, user
> experience, or malware immunity. But *with* a shitload of work and a
> hefty bill to get their favourite apps, settings and files on their
> new machine. This is nothing less than a con job.
In your opinion, sure. But your opinion is not generally held and does not
describe what actually happens in the retail market.
> - They're the kind of people who always want the latest stuff. OK, fine
> with me. These are the people who don't come to my doorstep anyway, as
> they never have stuff repaired. They just buy new stuff.
>
And so it is. That is part of the process and a very real part of the
market.
>
>> They obviously do not have the same values as you do and so behave
>> differently. You are arrogant to think that your attitude is superior
>> when it is just different. People involved in the commerce of computers
>> and personal computer software are much more interested in the attitudes
>> and motivations of the group that does buy more often.
>
> Sure, and they'll do anything to tell the poor sods that they need a new
> computer, complete with Vista crapware and all. A true con artist
> mentality. Every so often, I come across people I can "save" -- as with
> quite a number of my current Linux users, who were told that they'd
> better scrap their old machines and buy new preinstalled Windows boxes.
> Now they still use their old, "obsolete" machines, with Linux installed,
> and they're perfectly happy. And, of course, they'll never use Windows
> again.
From your prior admission of being a computer tinker, it is obviously in
your own self interest to foster repairs rather than replacement. If you
can persuade enough people to pay you for incremental repairs, you can
survive whereas if everyone has a replacement mentality, that is a bad thing
for your buisness.
> But Microsoft really has turned forced obsolescence plus upgrading into
> an art form. And of course they have to, because their whole business
> model is based on it.
>
And yours is based on trumped up values of obsolete equipment and getting
people to incrementally pay you rather than periodically replacing an entire
system and getting more up to date functionality. This is not a new
evolution. The notion of thrift shops versus sales emporiums have been
around since poverty was invented.
> [snip]
>
>>> Are you really that stupid? So whatever a company spends on software
>>> has no impact whatsoever on either employees' wages or product pricing
>>> (and therefore competitive strength)? You are just as big a liar as
>>> Microsoft, trying to make people believe that their crapware is somehow
>>> automatically included in everything, so you never know that you're
>>> actually paying for it, one way or another.
>>>
>> So you suspect, I believe, but do you really think that, if you said
>> "Boss, don't buy me a copy of MS Office, I'll bring in my own copy of
>> Open Office and save you the cash. You can split it with me 50-50."
>> that he would hand over a couple of hundred bucks and smile? You are
>> misinformed as to how things work.
>
> You haven't addressed my remark, i.e. that higher operational costs lead
> to lower wages and/or lower profits. This economic principle holds true,
> regardless of the way "how things work".
>
You are, of course, wrong and you have the bull by the wrong horn. A
business is established by determining what revenues can be obtained at what
market prices at some particular chosen service level and then determining
if on can make a satisfactory profit if the business is run efficiently. A
higher price will generally result in a lower volume level, but wages and
profits are not factors.
>>> It is, because buying a computer with Windows preinstalled is the
>>> easiest way -- in fact, to the ordinary public, Windows is an
>>> inevitable part of any computer.
>>>
>> And that is what makes the world go around. You pay for the comfort and
>> ease of a service that saves you effort.
>
> Ah, the art of circular reasoning. "This is the way it works in this
> world, and therefore it is the right way, because it is the way it
> works."
That is not circular reasoning. It is not reasoning at all. It is, rather,
observation of the process that is in effect. You don't like the process
and wish it would change, but wishing only worked for Tinker Bell and no so
well even then.
> So, people pay every three or four years or so for the "comfort" of
> getting a completely new machine, on which they (who else?) will have to
> install all the apps they need, plus their old files and stuff, just
> because with Windows, it is not a viable option to keep a machine in
> service for much longer.
>
Installation of software and transfer of data files to a new machine is a
simple process and highly automated today, but it does require some
understanding that many people do no possess in regard to computers. The
price that they pay for that lack of understanding is the amount they would
pay to Geek Squad or similar service as provided by the computer retailer or
by the IT weenie employed by the commercial user. It is a cost that
everyone expects to pay.
>> Someone comes every Wednesday morning to cut my grass and trim my trees
>> and bushes, saving me a couple of hours in the hot outdoors and I pay
>> for that. Someone else cleans the pool. And someone else washes the
>> windows. Etc. They collectively save me substantial effort and so I
>> have extra time to write software that I am paid to write. I make more
>> money writing software than I can save cutting grass.
>
> So? People pay me to install Linux. And if they ask me whether they
> should buy a new computer, I give an honest answer, based on what they
> want from their computer. Most of the time, the answer is "no". Although
> I usually advise to get a bit more RAM (older Windows XP machines often
> have a mere 64 or 128MB), and perhaps a spiffier graphics card.
>
We have already established where your self-interest lies. "Pay me now or
pay me later" is a popular sales tactic. How much do you charge for this
service? What is your profit on the RAM chips and graphics adapter?
DFS
> If you don't visit the porn sites and install the porn viewers, then
> why own a computer?
Where do you think I am when I'm prompted to install the porn viewers :)
chrisv
>"Richard Rasker" wrote:
>>
>> I have 25+ years of experience in the repairs business, including
>> computer repairs, and I understand perfectly well what motivates people
>> to go out and buy new stuff:
>>
>> - Their old stuff is "broken" -- read: infected by malware for the
>> umpteenth time, and the sales droid comes up with the suggestion that
>> "it's an old beastie, and you're probably better off buying a new one."
>> Without any improvement, of course, with regard to productivity, user
>> experience, or malware immunity. But *with* a shitload of work and a
>> hefty bill to get their favourite apps, settings and files on their
>> new machine.
>You claim that but your conclusions are not occurring in the real world
Liar.
>and your own actions are well outside the normal range.
"Well outside the normal range" meaning that he's not a hapless, but
typical, Windows user, who, when his machine inevitably becomes
problematic, has little choice but to replace the machine*, unless
he's lucky-enough to know someone who will fix it for free.
*Sure, you could have "The Geek Squad" re-install Windowoes for you,
for a price. But then, that decision must be made - why dump money
into an "old" machine, when you can buy a "new and improved" one for a
bit more $$?
Richard Rasker
this:
> "Richard Rasker" <spam...@linetec.nl> wrote in message
[big snip]
>> So? People pay me to install Linux. And if they ask me whether they
>> should buy a new computer, I give an honest answer, based on what they
>> want from their computer. Most of the time, the answer is "no".
>> Although I usually advise to get a bit more RAM (older Windows XP
>> machines often have a mere 64 or 128MB), and perhaps a spiffier
>> graphics card.
>>
> We have already established where your self-interest lies. "Pay me now
> or pay me later" is a popular sales tactic. How much do you charge for
> this service?
I charge $20 for an installation + configuration, when people bring their
stuff over here.
> What is your profit on the RAM chips and graphics adapter?
Zero, because I only tell people what they should buy, and (sometimes)
where to buy it. Neither do I charge for the minute or two it takes to
install the hardware.
nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu
> DFS wrote:
> > ness...@wigner.berkeley.edu wrote:
> > > On Sep 11, 9:58 pm, "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>
> > >> I doubt very seriously you can provide a cite for that claim.
>
> > > And you will, of course, apologize when and if I do?
>
> > Of course not - there's nothing to apologize for. You still haven't
> > delivered on the "$75/year on antivirus software".
>
> Of course he did. You're just too big a cunt to admit it.
>
> > You're not a liar,
>
> You are. The sort of village idiot breed that lies even when the truth
> sounds better.
>
> > >> not:http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18880277-Ubuntu-servers-hacked-to-at...
>
> > Can't answer this one, eh? Why?
>
> What's to answer? A couple unmaintained servers administered by
> independent community members were hacked. Nothing of consequence in a
> vacuum, let alone compared to the roughly 4 in 10 Wintard's boxes that
> are owned every single day of the week.
>
>
> Uh, dimbulb... what does this have to do with viruses? Poor little
> strawgrabbing Wintard monkey. Just can't STAND the fact that Linux is
> so much more secure and rock solid stable than your pathetic Winblows
> that it just doesn't need the band aids you Wintards couldn't survive
> 10 minutes without.
>
> ROTFLMAO!
Dear N.N.
Thanks for answering DFS for me. I think my original post was pretty
moderately stated. I didn't claim Linux was perfect, and I didn't
claim that I knew that AV costs $75/year on Windows, only that some
Windows advocate had said so. And he did. Actually I believe DFS
that he doesn't get malware infestations, but millions of people have
the opposite experience, most of them technophobes and innocents.
Personally I think Linux would have a problem with malware too if it
had the market share of Windows, it would just be a lot less than the
one Windows currently has. That's because you can do anything with
sufficiently stupid users and sufficiently clever social engineering.
As for porn, there's no danger in looking at it on Linux. You do run
the risk of having your email address become a target for every
spammer in the world if you don't guard it, even on Linux. And of
course spam itself is a continuing reflection of poor security in
Windows (because of millions of Windows spambots and zombies). The
old argument that Windows only gets attacked because of its market
share is so tiring, and how convenient for Microsoft, which has never
been interested in technical excellence! The best rebuttals of this
argument I have seen are in roughlydrafted, whose biting sarcasm and
wit are most entertaining. He's Mac-centric, however.
Regards, N.
nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:32:15 -0400, amicus_curious enriched the world with
> this:
>
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:03:14 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
> The only thing wrong with Linux is that it is a me-too kind of platform that
> has shown up years after people have made their decision. It is not 100%
> compatible with Windows applications and is not even 100% as functional as
> Windows.
100% as functional as Windows? Do you have *any* idea how much we'd have
to limit and cripple Linux to reduce it to a mere "100% as functional as
Windows"?
Good goat, who would want that?
Nomen Nescio
> > We have already established where your self-interest lies. "Pay me
> > now or pay me later" is a popular sales tactic. How much do you
> > charge for this service?
>
> I charge $20 for an installation + configuration, when people bring
> their stuff over here.
I charge $0 and supply the OS myself. That's for new and used machines,
and repairs.
But I don't do Windoze so it takes me a grand total of a couple minutes
actual hands on to install and configure the OS, and about a quarter
for the media if that's even necessary. I make my money on the hardware
end, and through the happy thoughts of my customers who are so
overjoyed with finally having stable, working machines that they send so
much business my way I have to turn much of it down. :)
Barmy Bob.
says...
CLI to perform basic tasks.
And does Wifi work without having to resort to using Windows drivers?
--
Conor
I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
Barmy Bob.
says...
cc
Ohh, very nice, I misunderstood. And were you at www.hotgirlsoflinux.com?
quake...@hotmail.com
> On Sep 13, 9:58 am, "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>
> > cc wrote:
> > > why own a computer?
>
> > Where do you think I am when I'm prompted to install thepornviewers :)
Mark Kent
I suppose if you were to say something often enough, maybe you would
come to believe it. I think psychologists and/or psychiatrists call
this process "auto-suggestion".
William Poaster
<nothing>
Just another windoze (l)user who doesn't know WTF he's talking about.
--
Operating systems:
FreeBSD 6.2, Debian 4.0
PCLinuxOS 2007, (K)Ubuntu 7.04
Ubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" alpha - Tribe 5
Kier
> In article <b4mor4-...@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason
> says...
>> [snips]
>>
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:03:14 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>> > The only thing wrong with Linux is that it is a me-too kind of platform that
>> > has shown up years after people have made their decision. It is not 100%
>> > compatible with Windows applications and is not even 100% as functional as
>> > Windows.
>>
>> 100% as functional as Windows? Do you have *any* idea how much we'd have
>> to limit and cripple Linux to reduce it to a mere "100% as functional as
>> Windows"?
>>
> Linux will never be as functional as Windows. FFS, you lot still use
> CLI to perform basic tasks.
Not very often, if at all, depending on the circumstances. But there's
really a lot less mystery to the CLI than people think. In my own case, I
usually only use it to SSH into other machines on my network, because it's
easy and secure, or to start the occasional program.
>
> And does Wifi work without having to resort to using Windows drivers?
Depends on the hardware. But why blame Linux for what is beyond the
developers' control?
--
Kier
Gregory Shearman
> In article <b4mor4-...@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason
> says...
>> [snips]
>>
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:03:14 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>> > The only thing wrong with Linux is that it is a me-too kind of platform
>> > that
>> > has shown up years after people have made their decision. It is not
>> > 100% compatible with Windows applications and is not even 100% as
>> > functional as Windows.
>>
>> 100% as functional as Windows? Do you have *any* idea how much we'd have
>> to limit and cripple Linux to reduce it to a mere "100% as functional as
>> Windows"?
>>
> Linux will never be as functional as Windows. FFS, you lot still use
> CLI to perform basic tasks.
Yep, and I love it.
I grew up with MS-DOS and even used the CLI on my last windows installation
(Windows 95).
Tell you what... you stick to your "functional" gui and I'll enjoy my CLI.
That's diversity and diversity is good.
> And does Wifi work without having to resort to using Windows drivers?
I'm typing this right now using Madwifi to run my Atheros wifi, so that's a
big YES.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
Barmy Bob.
> Tell you what... you stick to your "functional" gui and I'll enjoy my CLI.
> That's diversity and diversity is good.
The corporate sector disagrees with you.
chrisv
>Linux will never be as functional as Windows. FFS, you lot still use
>CLI to perform basic tasks.
You mean to do thing that can't even be done with Windows, right?
Ignorant cretin. *plonk*
amicus_curious
"[H]omer" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message news:fgemr4-...@sky.matrix...
>
> Want to play the latest game? You'll need the latest graphics card.
> Oh, but guess what? It only works with the latest version of Windows
> (a proven lie). Want the latest version of Windows? You'll need a faster
> processor, more memory, a Protected Media Path compatible monitor
> (HDMI), a bigger HDD ... essentially a new PC.
>
> So consumers are doomed to run like hamsters on the Upgrade Treadmill,
> under the /pretext/ of new software requiring new hardware requiring new
> software. But the key word, and the /lie/, is the word "require". The
> /need/ is imaginary ... imposed by an act of manipulation. It's nothing
> more than greedy extortion.
>
> The boiler room deals between Microsoft and the hardware manufacturers
> are more than mere suppositions ... it's bloody obvious. They're the
> Mafia of the software industry, and I don't mean metaphorically either.
>
You have a warped view of things, in my opinion. Companies manufacture
goods and services and vend them to the consumers on an ongoing basis and
offer new, improved, or merely different versions intended to appeal to some
group or other. You don't want to pay for the hardware and software to run
some new version of a game? Fine. You probably don't want to spend a few
hundred thousand bucks for a Lamborghini either. Maybe you don't even want
to spend $40K for a Lincoln and think that it is too much money for the
result. So don't do it. Just say no. Soothe your pride and snicker at the
fools who do in spite of your sage advice.
The latest games, or any game at all, is not vital to survival, they only
pertain to someone's personal choice.
Kelsey Bjarnason
> In article <b4mor4-...@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason
> says...
>> [snips]
>>
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:03:14 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>> > The only thing wrong with Linux is that it is a me-too kind of platform that
>> > has shown up years after people have made their decision. It is not 100%
>> > compatible with Windows applications and is not even 100% as functional as
>> > Windows.
>>
>> 100% as functional as Windows? Do you have *any* idea how much we'd have
>> to limit and cripple Linux to reduce it to a mere "100% as functional as
>> Windows"?
>>
> Linux will never be as functional as Windows.
It is vastly more functional than Windows, for me at least. Windows just
cannot cut it for my home use _or_ my use at work.
> FFS, you lot still use CLI to perform basic tasks.
Only tasks which are most efficiently performed at the CLI. Why use a GUI
to do things which simply are not efficient to do in a GUI? That's stupid.
> And does Wifi work without having to resort to using Windows drivers?
Depends on the card.
Then again, you can't really harp on hardware support much, as there are
umpteen cases of hardware which *did* work in Windows, but no more. I've
still got an old webcam kicking around here somewhere which worked in a
Windows box of the time, but after upgrading Windows, the cam worked no
more - no new drivers for it.
Perfectly good hardware, rendered useless through closed-source drivers
and greed. Yeah, a real win there.
SgtMajor Gansevoort
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nbhqr4-...@spanky.localhost.net...
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 00:34:25 +0100, Barmy Bob. wrote:
>
>> In article <b4mor4-...@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason
>> says...
>>> [snips]
>>>
>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:03:14 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
>>>
>>> > The only thing wrong with Linux is that it is a me-too kind of
>>> > platform that
>>> > has shown up years after people have made their decision. It is not
>>> > 100%
>>> > compatible with Windows applications and is not even 100% as
>>> > functional as
>>> > Windows.
>>>
>>> 100% as functional as Windows? Do you have *any* idea how much we'd
>>> have
>>> to limit and cripple Linux to reduce it to a mere "100% as functional as
>>> Windows"?
>>>
>> Linux will never be as functional as Windows.
>
> It is vastly more functional than Windows, for me at least. Windows just
> cannot cut it for my home use _or_ my use at work.
It seems to be more than capable for 100's of millions of users. Exactly
what functionality does linux give you that is impossible to do with
Windows?
>> FFS, you lot still use CLI to perform basic tasks.
>
> Only tasks which are most efficiently performed at the CLI. Why use a GUI
> to do things which simply are not efficient to do in a GUI? That's
> stupid.
Windows lets you do most anything through a CLI as well. But there's also a
GUI "clicky-pointy" interface that makes it easy for casual users to do
something occasionally. Take creating Samba shares and permissions. Windows
has a GUI that creates shares, sets permissions and everything rather
nicely. Linux - get ready to edit some samba.conf file and stop/start the
samba server after each edit so that it picks up the latest edits. Not
exactly a model of efficiency.
>> And does Wifi work without having to resort to using Windows drivers?
>
> Depends on the card.
>
> Then again, you can't really harp on hardware support much, as there are
> umpteen cases of hardware which *did* work in Windows, but no more. I've
> still got an old webcam kicking around here somewhere which worked in a
> Windows box of the time, but after upgrading Windows, the cam worked no
> more - no new drivers for it.
Oh look - Kelsey fabricates yet another tall tale of how Windows let him
down. Somehow he claims out of one side of his mouth that he doesn't use
Windows because it's too limiting for him while at the same time spewing
horror stories about his Windows problems out the other side of his mouth.
> Perfectly good hardware, rendered useless through closed-source drivers
> and greed. Yeah, a real win there.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Johan Lindquist
SgtMajor Gansevoort was all like, "Dude,
> Take creating Samba shares and permissions. Windows has a GUI that
> creates shares, sets permissions and everything rather nicely. Linux
> - get ready to edit some samba.conf file and stop/start the samba
> server after each edit so that it picks up the latest edits. Not
> exactly a model of efficiency.
Yeah, it's not actually required to do either, but you wouldn't know
since you've never tried.
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
16:32:11 up 16 days, 6:33, 2 users, load average: 0.19, 0.19, 0.12
Linux 2.6.22.5 x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729
SgtMajor Gansevoort
"Johan Lindquist" <sp...@smilfinken.net> wrote in message
news:9miqr4-...@news.smilfinken.net...
> So anyway, it was like, 16:27 CEST Sep 14 2007, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
> SgtMajor Gansevoort was all like, "Dude,
>
>> Take creating Samba shares and permissions. Windows has a GUI that
>> creates shares, sets permissions and everything rather nicely. Linux
>> - get ready to edit some samba.conf file and stop/start the samba
>> server after each edit so that it picks up the latest edits. Not
>> exactly a model of efficiency.
>
> Yeah, it's not actually required to do either, but you wouldn't know
> since you've never tried.
Well searching Google for "linux configure samba" generates 2,120,000 hits.
Nearly all of them talk about editing the smb.conf file, running testparam
to make sure the edits are correct and bouncing the samba server. Here's
just one example from the first page of hits Google returns.
http://www.linux.com/articles/58593
[quote]
The first step is to create a share folder on your hard drive; for instance,
/disk2/data. After that, you need to edit the smb.conf file, found in
/etc/samba, and make it look something like this:
You can copy and paste this into your conf file or make changes to your
existing one.
The next step is to add users by the following command:
# useradd -c "Joel Nahrgang" joel
# smbpasswd -a joel
New SMB password: secret
Reenter SMB password: secret
Added user joel
Next, run the testparm command to ensure that the conf file is valid. If it
returns no errors, restart Samba with the command /etc/rc.d/rc.samba restart
Now you're ready to test Samba.
[-quote]
Peter Köhlmann
>
> "Johan Lindquist" <sp...@smilfinken.net> wrote in message
> news:9miqr4-...@news.smilfinken.net...
>> So anyway, it was like, 16:27 CEST Sep 14 2007, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
>> SgtMajor Gansevoort was all like, "Dude,
>>
>>> Take creating Samba shares and permissions. Windows has a GUI that
>>> creates shares, sets permissions and everything rather nicely. Linux
>>> - get ready to edit some samba.conf file and stop/start the samba
>>> server after each edit so that it picks up the latest edits. Not
>>> exactly a model of efficiency.
>>
>> Yeah, it's not actually required to do either, but you wouldn't know
>> since you've never tried.
>
> Well searching Google for "linux configure samba" generates 2,120,000
> hits. Nearly all of them talk about editing the smb.conf file, running
> testparam
> to make sure the edits are correct and bouncing the samba server. Here's
> just one example from the first page of hits Google returns.
Well, that you are unable to do it does not mean that what you tell us is
true.
In fact, *all* of it is wrong. You *can* do it that way. But that is only
*one* way to do it. There exist GUI ways to configure samba, too. Several,
even. That "choice thingy" again
That you are unaware of them makes your "arguments" even more ridiculous,
since you are apparently too dimwitted to correctly search google
< snip >
--
Microsoft software doesn't get released - it escapes, leaving
a trail of destruction behind it.
SgtMajor Gansevoort
"Peter Köhlmann" <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:fce7n6$b7n$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
> SgtMajor Gansevoort wrote:
>
>>
>> "Johan Lindquist" <sp...@smilfinken.net> wrote in message
>> news:9miqr4-...@news.smilfinken.net...
>>> So anyway, it was like, 16:27 CEST Sep 14 2007, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
>>> SgtMajor Gansevoort was all like, "Dude,
>>>
>>>> Take creating Samba shares and permissions. Windows has a GUI that
>>>> creates shares, sets permissions and everything rather nicely. Linux
>>>> - get ready to edit some samba.conf file and stop/start the samba
>>>> server after each edit so that it picks up the latest edits. Not
>>>> exactly a model of efficiency.
>>>
>>> Yeah, it's not actually required to do either, but you wouldn't know
>>> since you've never tried.
>>
>> Well searching Google for "linux configure samba" generates 2,120,000
>> hits. Nearly all of them talk about editing the smb.conf file, running
>> testparam
>> to make sure the edits are correct and bouncing the samba server. Here's
>> just one example from the first page of hits Google returns.
>
> Well, that you are unable to do it does not mean that what you tell us is
> true.
So you're saying that the instructions at linux.com, redhat.com, etc are
wrong and they are liars. Nice to know.
> In fact, *all* of it is wrong.
Not my instructions. Complain to gentoo.com, redhat.com, linux.com and
everyone else who posts these "wrong" instructions.
> You *can* do it that way. But that is only
> *one* way to do it. There exist GUI ways to configure samba, too. Several,
> even. That "choice thingy" again
So how many hundred of links that Google returns do you have to search
through before you find the first one that shows a GUI way of doing it?
> That you are unaware of them makes your "arguments" even more ridiculous,
> since you are apparently too dimwitted to correctly search google
I did a google search for how to configure samba. Because 99% of the
instructions out there use the CLI method of editing the smb.conf file is
not my problem. It's yet another LIENUX problem.
Peter Köhlmann
>
< snip >
>> You *can* do it that way. But that is only
>> *one* way to do it. There exist GUI ways to configure samba, too.
>> Several, even. That "choice thingy" again
>
> So how many hundred of links that Google returns do you have to search
> through before you find the first one that shows a GUI way of doing it?
Not my problem. Yours, and entirely yours
Xou are that stupid twit claiming that Samba has to be configured that way
you described.
Which is blatantly wrong, since it is only *one* of *several* ways to do it.
That you are too inept (well, you are a windows user, that explains quite a
lot) to show us the easy way(s) is not our problem. Linux users know that
there exist several tools to configure Samba, and that you are simply full
of it
>
>> That you are unaware of them makes your "arguments" even more ridiculous,
>> since you are apparently too dimwitted to correctly search google
>
> I did a google search for how to configure samba.
Apparantly in your typical, totally inept way. Again, *your* problem, not
ours. If you don't want to appear as the dimwitted windows user you really
are, simply refrain from commenting on things you know absolutely nothing
of. Which includes all of linux, as it seems
> Because 99% of the
> instructions out there use the CLI method of editing the smb.conf file is
> not my problem. It's yet another LIENUX problem.
>
Oh, what a witty retort
--
Warning: You have moved the mouse.
Windows will reboot now to make the change permanent
SgtMajor Gansevoort
Translation - There is no "official" GUI to configure Samba shares. What
exists are a bunch of various 3rd party add-ons in various state of
completion that lag behind the official Samba release. There is no common UI
in each of these 3rd party add-ons and the features they support or don't
support vary from one add-on to the next. Since they all lag behind the
official releases users need to manually configure options that haven't been
added to the GUI yet.
Yeah, that about sums it up. If you want to configure Samba use the CLI like
95% of the online documentation and the Samba.org website says or pick one
of the GUIs hope it does what you need.
Anonymous
On the contrary my wishfully unthinking friend, not only do they remain
Linux boxes, their owners do more to help convert others than I could
ever hope to have time for. :)
Nomen Nescio
> >> Linux will never be as functional as Windows.
> >
> > It is vastly more functional than Windows, for me at least.
> > Windows just cannot cut it for my home use _or_ my use at work.
>
> It seems to be more than capable for 100's of millions of users.
No, it doesn't. It seems more popular at the moment. The two have
nothing at all to do with each other in most cases, in fact what's
popular is almost always not the most efficient choice. People
naturally choose appearance and comfort over the stark reality of
efficiency.
> Exactly what functionality does linux give you that is impossible to
> do with Windows?
Oh dear, where to begin.
Let's start with the bullshit Winblows networking stack's inability to
create certain types of packets, completely disallowing entire classes
of network connections. Forget its uncountable deficiencies and the way
they define Winblows as unusable incidentally, there's real world
scenarios out there in which Winblows will *NEVER* be able to function
as a matter of design.
http://searchwincomputing.techtarget.com/tip/0,289483,sid68_gci1246889,00.html
> >> FFS, you lot still use CLI to perform basic tasks.
> >
> > Only tasks which are most efficiently performed at the CLI. Why
> > use a GUI to do things which simply are not efficient to do in a
> > GUI? That's stupid.
>
> Windows lets you do most anything through a CLI as well.
Nope. Almost every setting or adjustment made to Winblows is stored
in your goofy "registry", which in Wintard-ese means using a GUI based
application to make changes.
> But there's
> also a GUI "clicky-pointy" interface that makes it easy for casual
> users to do something occasionally. Take creating Samba shares and
> permissions. Windows has a GUI that creates shares,
Sorry Wintard, but if you want a pretty GUI to manage Samba shares
under Linux there's several available. It's simply more efficient to
manage them using command line tools.
You see Wintard, your handlers have convinced you not only of teh
falsehood that your GUI is more efficient, but that you actually have
choices where others do not. Both misconceptions are exactly 180
degrees out of sync with reality.
> sets permissions
> and everything rather nicely. Linux - get ready to edit some
> samba.conf file and stop/start the samba server after each edit so
> that it picks up the latest edits. Not exactly a model of efficiency.
Winblows doesn't set proper permissions at ALL you incompetent git.
That's one of the reasons Wintard's boxes are so frequently owned by
virus writers and script kiddies, and employed as spam bots by Internet
bottom feeders.
>
> >> And does Wifi work without having to resort to using Windows
> >> drivers?
> >
> > Depends on the card.
> >
> > Then again, you can't really harp on hardware support much, as
> > there are umpteen cases of hardware which *did* work in Windows,
> > but no more. I've still got an old webcam kicking around here
> > somewhere which worked in a Windows box of the time, but after
> > upgrading Windows, the cam worked no more - no new drivers for it.
>
> Oh look - Kelsey fabricates yet another tall tale of how Windows let
> him down. Somehow he claims out of one side of his mouth that he
I have two webcams that aren't supported on Winblows any more, and
haven't been since Win98. They both work famously under Linux. Lets see
if you're bright enough to figure out which brand they are, and why
they no longer work.
Don't worry, nobody will be holding their breath.
I also have a perfectly functional TV/Video capture card that's no
longer supported under Winblows. Which also works marvelously under
Ubuntu.
And of course with Vista and it's bizarre "DRM" horse shit the numbers
of pieces of hardware and software that simply refuse to work has grown
exponentially. Your master Billy has really stepped on his dick this
time around by trying to force feed Winblows "certification" down the
throats of hardware vendors. In truth, Billy and company are doing more
to further the Linux cause than any LInux advocate could ever dream of.
> doesn't use Windows because it's too limiting for him while at the
> same time spewing horror stories about his Windows problems out the
> other side of his mouth.
Sorry about your luck and all, but sometimes the truth hurts. It's not
our fault that you've allowed yourself to be so thoroughly hoodwinked
by the Winblows way of doing business that you've degraded into a state
of Wintardedness. We can only lead you to the lake sonny, it's you who
has to do the drinking. And the longer you resist the more painful it
becomes.
> > Perfectly good hardware, rendered useless through closed-source
> > drivers and greed. Yeah, a real win there.
There's a HUGE body of hardware that windows has left in the dust, and
it's not all so called "obsolete" hardware either.
http://www.nvidia.com/object/vista_driver_news_022207.html
http://www.support.xerox.com/go/results.asp?Xtype=download&prodID=WC250&Xlang=en_US&Xcntry=USA
And let's not forget the fact that *all* GDI hardware acceleration
support has been dropped from Vista, along with support for the
DirectSound hardware acceleration layer. Which means that anything and
everything using EAX or HRTF is is toast, unless of course you migrate
to OpenAL. <snicker>
Nomen Nescio
> >> Well searching Google for "linux configure samba" generates
> >> 2,120,000 hits. Nearly all of them talk about editing the smb.conf
> >> file, running testparam
> >> to make sure the edits are correct and bouncing the samba server.
> >> Here's just one example from the first page of hits Google returns.
> >
> > Well, that you are unable to do it does not mean that what you tell
> > us is true.
>
> So you're saying that the instructions at linux.com, redhat.com, etc
> are wrong and they are liars. Nice to know.
No dimbulb, they're saying exactly what they're saying. That those
instructions are one way of doing things, the most efficient way as a
matter of fact, but that in spite of your astounding lack of knowledge
and ability to find something, and your peurile attempts to prove
otherwise, there exists alternate methods of doing the job you're
whining like a prison bitch about. That unlike your precious Windoze,
you aren't locked into whatever crapware tool Micro$lop force feeds
you. That in fact the exact opposite of what you're blubbering is the
truth. :)
> > You *can* do it that way. But that is only
> > *one* way to do it. There exist GUI ways to configure samba, too.
> > Several, even. That "choice thingy" again
>
> So how many hundred of links that Google returns do you have to
> search through before you find the first one that shows a GUI way of
> doing it?
Exactly zero hundreds if your not such a thoroughly dull witted
Wintard you lack the ability to craft simple search terms.
This is a painful example of just how incompetent a Wintard like you
really is...
http://www.google.com/search?q=Linux+samba+%22graphical+configuration
The very first hit, laughably ironic as it may be, is a link to a
page at redhat.com detailing the use of their default GUI Samba
management tool. Complete with pictures even a Wintard can understand.
That's right Wintard extraordinaire, a page at a site you were just a
couple paragraphs ago claiming had only console based instructions,
found using a search that didn't even need to be wrapped for mailing.
ROTFLMAO!
> > That you are unaware of them makes your "arguments" even more
> > ridiculous, since you are apparently too dimwitted to correctly
> > search google
>
> I did a google search for how to configure samba. Because 99% of the
> instructions out there use the CLI method of editing the smb.conf
> file is not my problem. It's yet another LIENUX problem.
The only problem here is the empty space between your ears Wintard.
You're clueless. Winbloze has you so completely clueless you couldn't
get a clue in a room full of horny, drunken clues doing the clue mating
dance in the middle of clue mating season, with clue musk rubbed all
over your clueless ass. You're a pathetic, clueless joke. Hardly worth
the time it takes to kick you around like a football, with the single
exception that you're so clueless and pathetic you cross the line into
hilarious to watch. :)
[H]omer
> So anyway, it was like, 16:27 CEST Sep 14 2007, you know? Oh, and,
> yeah, SgtMajor Gansevoort was all like, "Dude,
>> Take creating Samba shares and permissions. Windows has a GUI that
>> creates shares, sets permissions and everything rather nicely.
>> Linux - get ready to edit some samba.conf file and stop/start the
>> samba server after each edit so that it picks up the latest edits.
>> Not exactly a model of efficiency.
Stupid, ignorant Troll:
http://media.slated.org/albums/userpics/file-shares.png
> Yeah, it's not actually required to do either, but you wouldn't know
> since you've never tried.
As shown above, there most certainly are GUIs available for Samba, NFS,
and pretty much every other server component, and they are trivially
easy to use. So much so, in fact, that even cabbage-brains like SgtMajor
flatty could use them.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "OOXML is a superb standard"
| - GNU/Linux traitor, Miguel de Icaza.
`----
Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.22.1-41.fc7
18:32:16 up 36 days, 17:27, 0 users, load average: 0.21, 0.28, 0.33
Anonymous
> Linux will never be as functional as Winblows.
We can certainly take comfort in that. The last bit of functionality
anyone wants is a breeding ground for malware and zombies, fiscally
driven encroachment on privacy and usability, a platform that forces
the tossing of money at problems that could be solved with a modicum of
design competence, and a gross reduction on productivity via
unacceptable stability issues.
Thank GOD Linux will never be as functional as Winblows. :)
chrisv
> some nym-shifting cretin wrote:
>>
>> So how many hundred of links that Google returns do you have to
>> search through before you find the first one that shows a GUI way of
>> doing it?
>
> Exactly zero hundreds if your not such a thoroughly dull witted
> Wintard you lack the ability to craft simple search terms.
>
> This is a painful example of just how incompetent a Wintard like you
> really is...
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=Linux+samba+%22graphical+configuration
>
> The very first hit, laughably ironic as it may be, is a link to a
> page at redhat.com detailing the use of their default GUI Samba
> management tool. Complete with pictures even a Wintard can understand.
LOL The Widiots just *never* seem to tire of making complete asses of
themselves. Amazing.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
That's nice, Meanwhile, in 2007, all I have to do is rt click on a
folder, and select "Share Folder" or System->Administration->Shared
Folders and fill in the widget.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFG6tdRd90bcYOAWPYRAtReAJ9BnTAQbTsTsqlTpN9Z0vJX7MN+WwCeMC74
gnDCFacei5xT54mS/YrZ7Nk=
=3lY9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Who was the sick-minded SOB who called it a "lisp"?
"What's wrong with you?" "I litthhp."
"You what?" "I *litthhp* ."
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
no, you *can* do it that way. You can also do it from the clicky pointy
way you seem to like.
>
>> In fact, *all* of it is wrong.
> Not my instructions. Complain to gentoo.com, redhat.com, linux.com and
> everyone else who posts these "wrong" instructions.
>
>> You *can* do it that way. But that is only
>> *one* way to do it. There exist GUI ways to configure samba, too. Several,
>> even. That "choice thingy" again
>
> So how many hundred of links that Google returns do you have to search
> through before you find the first one that shows a GUI way of doing it?
>
Why bother? all I have to do is rt click on the folder, select share,
and fill in some simple data (like if I want it to be read only, etc)
>> That you are unaware of them makes your "arguments" even more ridiculous,
>> since you are apparently too dimwitted to correctly search google
>
> I did a google search for how to configure samba. Because 99% of the
> instructions out there use the CLI method of editing the smb.conf file is
> not my problem. It's yet another LIENUX problem.
>
You're retarded, but we new that.
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFG6te5d90bcYOAWPYRApPKAKCXglR3z/l6QPePYpf7AljVjJb0mgCgtTwA
vV1yfhfzJ1bb5KQBxTOydsM=
=c12d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"The way NT mounts filesystems is something I'd expect to find
in a barnyard or on a stock-breeding farm."
--Mike Andrews in the Monastery
Johan Lindquist
SgtMajor Gansevoort was all like, "Dude,
> "Johan Lindquist" <sp...@smilfinken.net> wrote in message
> news:9miqr4-...@news.smilfinken.net...
>> So anyway, it was like, 16:27 CEST Sep 14 2007, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
>> SgtMajor Gansevoort was all like, "Dude,
>>> Take creating Samba shares and permissions. Windows has a GUI that
>>> creates shares, sets permissions and everything rather nicely.
>>> Linux - get ready to edit some samba.conf file and stop/start the
>>> samba server after each edit so that it picks up the latest edits.
>>> Not exactly a model of efficiency.
>>
>> Yeah, it's not actually required to do either, but you wouldn't
>> know since you've never tried.
>
> Well searching Google for "linux configure samba" [..]
So I guessed right then, you have never done it. Go me.
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
22:18:45 up 16 days, 12:20, 3 users, load average: 0.11, 0.11, 0.09
Nomen Nescio
> Translation - There is no "official" GUI to configure Samba shares.
Translation: SgtMajor is dumber than a sack of hamers...
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-9-Manual/custom-guide/s1-samba-configuring.html
In Ubuntu it's "Applications > System > Administration > Shared
Folders". And if you don't have NFS or Samba services installed, it
prompts you and installs/configures your choices graphically.
Not only an official UI for both Wintard, they're better designed and
more capable than any cruddy Winblows File Sharing configuration tool.
Third party or otherwise. *snicker*
And you can still configure shares from a command line if you have
to, unlike your average Wintard who can't even get to a terminal
without suffering spontaneous nasal bleeding, let alone accomplish
anything useful.