Linux hits 6.1% on March!
OK
APRIL'S FOOL!!!!!!!!!!
Actually, is DECREASED to 0.61%, down from 0.65% in February:
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=9&qpcustom=Linux
The future looks bright :-)
Meanwhile, Vista reached 14.05% in a steady linear growth:
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=11&qpcustom=Windows+Vista
RonB
> Actually, is DECREASED to 0.61%, down from 0.65% in February:
And yet Ballmer considers Linux the biggest threat to Vista ME. Odd, huh?
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
OK
wrote:
>OK wrote:
>
>> Actually, is DECREASED to 0.61%, down from 0.65% in February:
>
>And yet Ballmer considers Linux the biggest threat to Vista ME. Odd, huh?
Only in your dreams, you fool.
RonB
Don't you mean, only in the fool Ballmer's dreams? No, he said it out
loud -- and I think shortly afterwards he threw a chair to punctuate the
point.
Seemed a little upset to me.
William Poaster
And there you have an other wintroll disputing M$ *own* figures, which put Linux
users at 17% of all Internet users & a growth rate of more than 3% per annum.
This was in a sworn testimony before Courts by Microsoft Executives, & is also
in every quarterly SEC filing by them.
And as for the trolls reply of: "Only in your dreams, you fool"
Ballmer: Linux Is Top Threat To Windows
http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20010110S0006
Guess techweb-Network must have been dreaming too, huh...
So who's the fool, M$ or the wintroll... I'll vote for the "OK" wintroll, who
didn't do its homework before opening it's stupid mouth.
--
Mandriva - 2008.1 - RC2 - 64bit OS.
COLA trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/
OK
<w...@leafnode.amd64.eu> wrote:
>RonB wrote:
>
>> OK wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 03:48:53 -0500, RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>OK wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Actually, is DECREASED to 0.61%, down from 0.65% in February:
>>>>
>>>>And yet Ballmer considers Linux the biggest threat to Vista ME. Odd, huh?
>>>
>>> Only in your dreams, you fool.
>
>> Don't you mean, only in the fool Ballmer's dreams? No, he said it out
>> loud -- and I think shortly afterwards he threw a chair to punctuate the
>> point.
>>
>> Seemed a little upset to me.
>>
>And there you have an other wintroll disputing M$ *own* figures, which put Linux
>users at 17% of all Internet users & a growth rate of more than 3% per annum.
>This was in a sworn testimony before Courts by Microsoft Executives, & is also
>in every quarterly SEC filing by them.
>
>And as for the trolls reply of: "Only in your dreams, you fool"
>
>Ballmer: Linux Is Top Threat To Windows
>http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20010110S0006
>
"janvier 10, 2001"
BWahahaha.. you *REALLY* are an idiot.
Hadron
> RonB wrote:
>
>> OK wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 03:48:53 -0500, RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>OK wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Actually, is DECREASED to 0.61%, down from 0.65% in February:
>>>>
>>>>And yet Ballmer considers Linux the biggest threat to Vista ME. Odd, huh?
>>>
>>> Only in your dreams, you fool.
>
>> Don't you mean, only in the fool Ballmer's dreams? No, he said it out
>> loud -- and I think shortly afterwards he threw a chair to punctuate the
>> point.
>>
>> Seemed a little upset to me.
>>
> And there you have an other wintroll disputing M$ *own* figures, which put Linux
> users at 17% of all Internet users & a growth rate of more than 3% per
> annum.
Which is why all the hit count stats say 0.6-1% eh Willy?
You are one stupid man.
17% ?!?!?!? LOL. Can you really be that clueless to believe that.
Do you REALLY believe Ballmer meant that when he said Linux is the #1
competitor? Look at the figures.
amicus_curious
"William Poaster" <w...@leafnode.amd64.eu> wrote in message
news:53j9c5-...@mandriva2008.archimedes.eu...
>
> So who's the fool, M$ or the wintroll... I'll vote for the "OK" wintroll,
> who
> didn't do its homework before opening it's stupid mouth.
>
a major competitor. As it turns out, these were a series of false alarms
and Linux has proven to be a paper tiger with no real bite. You have a
problem in that you seem to see things in terms of your favorite snapshots
in time and fail to understand that time marches on. You need to stop
posting and start reading.
Ezekiel
"OK" <ot...@kaiser.de> wrote in message
news:hms3v3d1k7te1lmt1...@4ax.com...
>
> APRIL'S FOOL!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Actually, is DECREASED to 0.61%, down from 0.65% in February:
>
> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=9&qpcustom=Linux
>
> The future looks bright :-)
Maybe linux really is at 6.1%. But only 0.6% access the internet because the
remaining 5.5% don't have linux drivers to support their network card.
> Meanwhile, Vista reached 14.05% in a steady linear growth:
>
> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=11&qpcustom=Windows+Vista
Looks very much like the path that XP took when it was first released. The
release of XP was supposed to signal the start of linux domination on the
desktop because XP was so slow, required activation, MS was treating their
customers like thieves, the UI was Fisher Price, it was slow and needed lots
of RAM.
Today the linux nuts have the same dream once again, but this time it's
Vista that's giving them a glimmer of hope.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Matt
> And there you have an other wintroll disputing M$ *own* figures, which put Linux
> users at 17% of all Internet users
Well now that is news to me. Actually I think you are the only one who
knows that. Please provide a link.
Hadron
> "OK" <ot...@kaiser.de> wrote in message
> news:hms3v3d1k7te1lmt1...@4ax.com...
>>
>> APRIL'S FOOL!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Actually, is DECREASED to 0.61%, down from 0.65% in February:
>>
>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=9&qpcustom=Linux
>>
>> The future looks bright :-)
>
> Maybe linux really is at 6.1%. But only 0.6% access the internet because the
> remaining 5.5% don't have linux drivers to support their network card.
>
Hmm. God point. Maybe Willy Filters is right after all.
--
* Joey should not write changelog entries at 5:30am
<Joey> * DFSC Free cgi library
<Joey> What's that? DFSC?
<jim> Debian Free Software mroooooCows
-- Seen on #Debian
Hadron
> William Poaster wrote:
>
>> And there you have an other wintroll disputing M$ *own* figures, which put Linux
>> users at 17% of all Internet users
>
> Well now that is news to me. Actually I think you are the only one
> who knows that. Please provide a link.
Willy Boaster is a taker not a giver. Expect nothing to support his
absurd, dated claims.
>
>> & a growth rate of more than 3% per annum.
>> This was in a sworn testimony before Courts by Microsoft Executives, & is also
>> in every quarterly SEC filing by them.
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Linux seems to be losing no matter where you look.
The ODF vs OOXML debates.
Market Share.
So if you want to be on the losing team, go with Linux.
At least you can say Linux is consistent.
After 10+ years it still is hovering around 0.6 percent of desktop market
share.
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Moshe Goldfarb
Poaster must be using "Ballard Math" .
Matt
> APRIL'S FOOL!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Actually, is DECREASED to 0.61%, down from 0.65% in February:
>
> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=9&qpcustom=Linux
Here are the numbers from that page right now:
(((((
> Month Linux
> May, 2007 0.43%
> June, 2007 0.43%
> July, 2007 0.46%
> August, 2007 0.47%
> September, 2007 0.49%
> October, 2007 0.50%
> November, 2007 0.57%
> December, 2007 0.63%
> January, 2008 0.64%
> February, 2008 0.65%
> March, 2008 0.61%
)))))
Those numbers were changed by markeshare.hitslink.com.
The January, 2008 Linux number originally appearing on or about Feb 1
was 0.67%.
Witness this COLA+COMA thread entitled "New Marketshare Numbers - OSX
7.57% / Linux 0.67%" started by Oxford at 02/01/2008 02:16 PM:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/9fbe2d1fb302565a/cc58d5defcc5d761?lnk=st&q=#cc58d5defcc5d761
(((((
> New, true Marketshare Numbers are in... and it appears even the iPhone
> will surpass Linux share in the next 16 months.
>
> Wow! the hugely successful iPhone will totally eclipse the Linux
> installed "user base" in less than 16 months, no wonder Linus has given
> up!
>
> Congrats to people that still want QUALITY in their lives!
>
> ---
>
> As of Feb 1st:
>
> Windows 91.46%
> Mac 7.57%
> Linux 0.67%
> iPhone 0.13%
> Playstation 0.03%
> SunOS 0.01%
>
> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
>
> -
)))))
This is the site always mentioned by Linux deniers because this site
always reports less Linux usage than any other site.
The discrepancy described above throws into doubt all
data appearing on markeshare.hitslink.com.
Hadron
Yes. But unless you are a dribbling moron like, say, chrisv, the numbers
give enough of an indication about relative install base. No one claims
they are 100% correct. It's an indicator. And a pretty reliable one at
that. It certainly correlates strongly with what I see in the wild.
--
X-Manoj-Position-Advisory: Please note that Manoj Srivastava likely doubts
any facts posited and opposes any conclusions reached in this message.
-- Seen in the headers of a mail from Branden Robinson
OK
<brick....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:34:38 +0200, OK wrote:
>
>> APRIL'S FOOL!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Actually, is DECREASED to 0.61%, down from 0.65% in February:
>>
>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=9&qpcustom=Linux
>>
>> The future looks bright :-)
>>
>> Meanwhile, Vista reached 14.05% in a steady linear growth:
>>
>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=11&qpcustom=Windows+Vista
>
>Linux seems to be losing no matter where you look.
>The ODF vs OOXML debates.
>Market Share.
>
>So if you want to be on the losing team, go with Linux.
>At least you can say Linux is consistent.
>
>After 10+ years it still is hovering around 0.6 percent of desktop market
>share.
Yeah, even the Linux Counter is regressing: http://counter.li.org/
(141K users, how silly is that?)
The Ghost In The Machine
<ronb02...@gmail.com>
wrote
on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 03:48:53 -0500
<AMmIj.377$wa5...@newsfe07.lga>:
> OK wrote:
>
>> Actually, is DECREASED to 0.61%, down from 0.65% in February:
>
> And yet Ballmer considers Linux the biggest threat to Vista ME. Odd, huh?
>
Linux must be contained, obviously, as there's a
"slippery slope". Today, Linux, tomorrow FreeBSD, HURD
next Wednesday, another OS in a week or so that sounds
neat, and pretty soon Microsoft has lost the entire market
to a fragmented bunch of Johnny-come-oldies, whose sole
salvation is that they actually *gasp* work together
because they all hew to standards.
Can't have that, now, can we? ;-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux makes one use one's mind.
Windows just messes with one's head.
Moshe Goldfarb
Add to that the fact that most of these sites come up with pretty much the
same numbers.
Darth Chaos
Ah, nothing like corporate shills shilling for the corporate pigs.
Here's a big "oink oink" to you, piggy. Now squeal like a pig.
Besides, you're probably more of a sow than a boar.
ysdywmf
It's taking over the world
DanS
news:uy2hq7s6xjve.179n07vhmvxqq$.d...@40tude.net:
> On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:34:38 +0200, OK wrote:
>
>> APRIL'S FOOL!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Actually, is DECREASED to 0.61%, down from 0.65% in February:
>>
>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=9&qpcustom=Linux
Or Linux @ 3.8 % from this source:
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
With Vista @ 7.6%, not 14%
Of course, you will say these stats mean nothing, because they don't say
what you want them to say.
Ignoramus3733
Matt
Around March 1, that website changed their reported January Linux number
from 0.67% to 0.64% with no explanation. They have put all of their
data in doubt.
Matt
I hope you'll post your Linux numbers regularly.
Clogwog
news:qip4v3le2rc14jpdc...@4ax.com...
"Linux users: Twenty-nine million" worldwide
Seems fair to me, I'm one of them.
--
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Hadron
So are you a dribbling moron then Matt? I didn't think so until your
last post. You think a variation of 0.04% on a 0.65%ish market share
means something in any way positive for Linux?
--
I was attacked by dselect as a small child and have since avoided
debian.
-- Andrew Morton
Moshe Goldfarb
Yea.
At the rate of one molecule per year.
Matt
> Meanwhile, Vista reached 14.05% in a steady linear growth:
>
> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=11&qpcustom=Windows+Vista
Just so they don't get away from us, I cut and paste the Vista numbers
from that link minutes ago:
(((((
> Month Windows Vista
> May, 2007 3.75%
> June, 2007 4.54%
> July, 2007 5.43%
> August, 2007 6.29%
> September, 2007 7.41%
> October, 2007 7.94%
> November, 2007 9.19%
> December, 2007 10.48%
> January, 2008 11.97%
> February, 2008 12.92%
> March, 2008 14.02%
)))))
Now here are the 02/29/08 OS usage figures taken minutes ago from
http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php
(((((
> Operating Systems
> 1 Windows XP 79.12%
> 2 Windows Vista 6.48%
> 3 Mac OS X 4.95%
> 4 Windows 2000 3.29%
> 5 Linux 2.01%
> 6 Windows 98 1.05%
> 7 Windows 2003 0.73%
> 8 Windows ME 0.38%
> 9 Windows NT 0.06%
> 10 WAP 0.03%
)))))
Hmmm ... one site puts February Vista usage share at 12.92% and the
other reports 6.48%.
Obviously at least one of the sites is doing some cooking.
Maybe Red Hat, Novell, Canonical, and Patrick Volkerding have gotten
together and paid w3counter to under-report the Vista numbers.
Hadron
Why?
--
"Its obvious Micoshaft sponsored frauds and net stalkers are now attacking individuals directly in organised gangs in linux advocacy newsgroups as predicted since it is known micoshaft is failing in the market place."
7, COLA Linux "advocate" and nutjob.
The Ghost In The Machine
<ma...@themattfella.xxxyyz.com>
wrote
on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 21:05:16 GMT
<DsxIj.995$Cn4...@news02.roc.ny>:
Why would one assume anything of the sort? Every site has
its own clientele, and that clientele is not orthogonal
to OS, especially if the site has any sort of bias
regarding OS.
Bear also in mind that w3counter.com is probably biased
high for Linux, as Linux browsers hew to standards
(including the World Wide Web Consortium's), unlike certain
other browsers.
However...
Since Vista was released Jan 2007, that 6.48% adoption rate
after 13 1/2 months suggests that Vista will take over
all desktops after the depressingly long (for Microsoft)
interval of about 17 1/3 years (linear projection). The more
optimistic HitsLink figure of 14.02% after 14 1/2 months
suggests only 8 1/2 years.
Where do you want to go slowly today?
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux. Because vaporware only goes so far.
Matt
As I understand it, these sites are supposed to get their numbers by
getting many thousands of sites to run their little
browser/OS-query/logging programs. The programs report to each site the
stats on hits to that site, and they report all the stats to the central
site. So the customer gets specific info about his own site and
statistical info about all participating sites. I don't see anything in
that product model that brings a bias toward one OS or another. I don't
see in such bias an advantage to the proprietors of the central site.
BTW, I don't see why the potential customer would run the proprietary
software instead of some FOSS equivalent.
NoStop
Then why do Wintards like you feel so threatened, Mr. Soap Suds?
Cheers.
--
A US president declared war on poverty. Poverty won.
Another US president declared a war on drugs. Drugs won.
This US president declared a war on terror. Terror won.
Next?
Josef Moellers
> Linux seems to be losing no matter where you look.
> The ODF vs OOXML debates.
> Market Share.
Not likely. Refer to http://www.groklaw.net/ and read all the articles
(also those they quote in the right column) about the way OOXML gets
approved.
Even if Linux is in the less-than-1%-area: each and every Linux-user
uses it because of its merits, not because it came bundeled with the
computer they bought or someone forces them to use it. Some people
(including me) even use it *against* pressure from higher places to use
another OS.
*That's* the difference.
--
These are my personal views and not those of Fujitsu Siemens Computers!
Josef Möllers (Pinguinpfleger bei FSC)
If failure had no penalty success would not be a prize (T. Pratchett)
Company Details: http://www.fujitsu-siemens.com/imprint.html
Moshe Goldfarb
> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>
>> Linux seems to be losing no matter where you look.
>> The ODF vs OOXML debates.
>> Market Share.
>
> Not likely. Refer to http://www.groklaw.net/ and read all the articles
> (also those they quote in the right column) about the way OOXML gets
> approved.
That's a Roy Schestowitz administered site so I will not go there for fear
of getting a virus or trojan or something.
As for OOXML vs ODF, all I see is a lot of conjecture, accusations and so
forth.
I see very little in the way of factual evidence.
Possibly it may turn out to be totally rigged I don't know and personally I
really don't care either way.
> Even if Linux is in the less-than-1%-area: each and every Linux-user
> uses it because of its merits, not because it came bundeled with the
> computer they bought or someone forces them to use it. Some people
> (including me) even use it *against* pressure from higher places to use
> another OS.
>
> *That's* the difference.
Noble, however most people just want to get work done not go on some
religious pilgrimage.
My advice to anyone is to use the OS that supports the applications you
need to run.
IOW choose your applications first and then your OS.
dennis@home
"NoStop" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:fsun0...@news3.newsguy.com...
> Then why do Wintards like you feel so threatened, Mr. Soap Suds?
Why do *you* need to troll the vista groups, you started there before people
like frank came here in retaliation.
In fact why do you need to lie, don't you know enough about linux to uses
its *advantages* to sell it.
You are more like a used car salesman who knows the product is cr@p and will
lie about anything to sell it.
You get all worked up when someone calls your lies too, you should quit,
stress is bad for you.
Your best bet to sell linux is to go away.
Rick
> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:10:53 +0200, Josef Moellers wrote:
>
>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>
>>> Linux seems to be losing no matter where you look. The ODF vs OOXML
>>> debates.
>>> Market Share.
>>
>> Not likely. Refer to http://www.groklaw.net/ and read all the articles
>> (also those they quote in the right column) about the way OOXML gets
>> approved.
>
> That's a Roy Schestowitz administered site so I will not go there for
> fear of getting a virus or trojan or something.(snip)
Oh well... more Roy obsessing.
--
Rick
Tony(UK)
> "OK" <ot...@kaiser.de> wrote in message
> news:qip4v3le2rc14jpdc...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 11:14:43 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb
>> <brick....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:34:38 +0200, OK wrote:
>>>
>>>> APRIL'S FOOL!!!!!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> Actually, is DECREASED to 0.61%, down from 0.65% in February:
>>>>
>>>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=9&qpcustom=Linux
>>>>
>>>> The future looks bright :-)
snip
>>>
>>>Linux seems to be losing no matter where you look. The ODF vs OOXML
>>>debates.
>>>Market Share.
>>>
>>>So if you want to be on the losing team, go with Linux. At least you
>>>can say Linux is consistent.
>>>
>>>After 10+ years it still is hovering around 0.6 percent of desktop
>>>market share.
>>
>> Yeah, even the Linux Counter is regressing: http://counter.li.org/
>> (141K users, how silly is that?)
>
(In response in a.o.l.ubuntu newsgroup, Market share thread, but also in
context in this thread, I thought).
Can someone explain to me how does Ubuntu, Dreamlinux (very nice new
version 3.0 out now, By the Bye), or anyone else actually know that I am
using their OS as my desktop if I don't tell them?
We know that companies in many countries are actually using Linux, and we
also know that when a new distribution is released, people flock to
download it, sometimes bringing servers down in the process, so surely no-
one really knows how many of us are using Linux on a day to day basis?
Red Hat's profits are up, Microsoft are 'talking' about Linux, but it is
the nature of Linux development that it will not make huge inroads into
the dominance's of the past unless it is promoted, advocated and marketed
in the right way, and even then, this progress will not be immediate.
Mark Shuttleworth and Ubuntu have made great strides into making Linux
popular to 'ordinary' computer users and as long as this continues, and
the software provides the qualities that people can use everyday, Linux
users will grow. How fast? who knows, but one thing that cannot be done is
to *force* people to use 'X' operating system over another. No-one has the
right to tell me what to do or how to use my computers. It is *my* choice,
along with the choice of thousands, if not millions, of others.
The aim of Linux users, to my mind anyway, is to raise awareness of the
alternatives to Windows, and to see all the bickering and outright abuse
makes me sad. No-one is going to change my mind. Maybe the Distro, but
never my mind.
If Linux has such a small market share, why isn't it just ignored? It is
worth mentioning that in the UK and most of Europe, Skoda cars were a
joke, the same as some see today's Linux. Volkswagen bought Skoda; no-one
is laughing now.
To me, infighting, personal attacks and insults are unnecessary and does
nothing to help the advocacy and progression of Linux at all. But I
suppose that's life, isn't it?
Tony(UK)
--
I am not a nym-shift, am quite passive and full with friendliness and
sincerity - till some bugger upsets me!
Josef Moellers
> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:10:53 +0200, Josef Moellers wrote:
>
>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>
>>> Linux seems to be losing no matter where you look.
>>> The ODF vs OOXML debates.
>>> Market Share.
>> Not likely. Refer to http://www.groklaw.net/ and read all the articles
>> (also those they quote in the right column) about the way OOXML gets
>> approved.
>
> That's a Roy Schestowitz administered site so I will not go there for fear
> of getting a virus or trojan or something.
Or worse: get some insight.
BTW: I use Linux and I don't get viri or trojans.
> As for OOXML vs ODF, all I see is a lot of conjecture, accusations and so
> forth.
> I see very little in the way of factual evidence.
What more evidence do you need than eye-witness reports of people who
have attended local standard bodies' meetings?
> Possibly it may turn out to be totally rigged I don't know and personally I
> really don't care either way.
Indeed, who cares whether the whole process is rigged if the outcome is
that which one desires and if one can, afterwards, claim that "market
share has led to the overwhelming success of OOXML", that OOXML was
elected a standard because it's a standard that everyone can use?
>> Even if Linux is in the less-than-1%-area: each and every Linux-user
>> uses it because of its merits, not because it came bundeled with the
>> computer they bought or someone forces them to use it. Some people
>> (including me) even use it *against* pressure from higher places to use
>> another OS.
>>
>> *That's* the difference.
>
> Noble, however most people just want to get work done not go on some
> religious pilgrimage.
>
> My advice to anyone is to use the OS that supports the applications you
> need to run.
> IOW choose your applications first and then your OS.
>
I 100% agree to you. Let everyone chose the OS that they want to use.
Let no-one interfere e.g. by making documents accessible only to those
using office systems of one manufacturer. Let no-one interfere e.g. by
making web sites accessible only to those using browsers of one
manufacturer. Let no-one interfere e.g. by making hardware accessible
only to those using OSes of one manufacturer.
chrisv
>Let everyone chose the OS that they want to use.
>Let no-one interfere e.g. by making documents accessible only to those
>using office systems of one manufacturer. Let no-one interfere e.g. by
>making web sites accessible only to those using browsers of one
>manufacturer. Let no-one interfere e.g. by making hardware accessible
>only to those using OSes of one manufacturer.
This is really all that some of us are after.
dennis@home
"Josef Moellers" <josef.m...@fujitsu-siemens.com> wrote in message
news:fsvprq$ns1$1...@nntp.fujitsu-siemens.com...
> I 100% agree to you. Let everyone chose the OS that they want to use. Let
> no-one interfere e.g. by making documents accessible only to those using
> office systems of one manufacturer. Let no-one interfere e.g. by making
> web sites accessible only to those using browsers of one manufacturer. Let
> no-one interfere e.g. by making hardware accessible only to those using
> OSes of one manufacturer.
Why do you want to remove choice from the people above?
What do you have against free choice?
Where does it say that if I want to build a site I should have to cater for
everyone?
Why do you want choice but deny it to others?
Josef Moellers
You do have a point there, but, personally speaking, if I have to choose
(pun intended) between *me* having access to information and *others*
choosing a feature (or maybe just using whatever they got when they
bought their PC), I'd rather settle for me having access.
Then there is the question whether people really choose to use DOC or
ActiveX controls or if this was pre-configured and they don't chnage this?
Maybe some of us think that someone who has so much power to force
technology onto people should have the moral obligation to make the
specification for such technology available, so that *all* people can
have access to the information available.
Why can't Microsoft use existing standards (ODF) but had to force yet
another standard (OOXML) which will continue to make documents
unaccessible to those *not* using their programs? Most likely, OOXML
will become the default file format when storing office documents and
most likeley people will just click "Save" rather than first select a
different format.
chrisv
>"Josef Moellers" wrote:
>>
>> I 100% agree to you. Let everyone chose the OS that they want to use. Let
>> no-one interfere e.g. by making documents accessible only to those using
>> office systems of one manufacturer. Let no-one interfere e.g. by making
>> web sites accessible only to those using browsers of one manufacturer. Let
>> no-one interfere e.g. by making hardware accessible only to those using
>> OSes of one manufacturer.
>
>Why do you want to remove choice from the people above?
>What do you have against free choice?
>Where does it say that if I want to build a site I should have to cater for
>everyone?
>Why do you want choice but deny it to others?
You are even more fsckwitted than I thought, dumbass.
He's not talking about "forcing" Joe Blow to make his little Web site
usable by the entire planet. However, important things, the things of
commerce and government and education, need to be reasonably available
to all who need to use them, without forcing them to go out and
purchase "product X".
NoStop
> That's a Roy Schestowitz administered site so I will not go there for fear
> of getting a virus or trojan or something.
>
Must be awful living in a constant state of fear of visiting websites
because of the possibility of getting "a virus or trojan or something". I
guess that is just part of the Windoze experience. It's very much like Bush
and the neocons, keeping everyone in fear of terrorist attacks as a way to
better control people. Does Vista have a gadget that presents homeland
security color-coded security alerts when surfing the web? If not, it
should.
Use Windoze and Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid.
Cheers.
--
The world can't afford the rich.
alt.os.linux.ubuntu - where the lunatic Hadron is a "Linux advocate"
Francis (Frank) adds a new "gadget" to his Vista box ...
Download it here: http://tinyurl.com/2hnof6
Linonut
> "Josef Moellers" <josef.m...@fujitsu-siemens.com> wrote in message
> news:fsvprq$ns1$1...@nntp.fujitsu-siemens.com...
>
>> I 100% agree to you. Let everyone chose the OS that they want to use. Let
>> no-one interfere e.g. by making documents accessible only to those using
>> office systems of one manufacturer. Let no-one interfere e.g. by making
>> web sites accessible only to those using browsers of one manufacturer. Let
>> no-one interfere e.g. by making hardware accessible only to those using
>> OSes of one manufacturer.
>
> Why do you want to remove choice from the people above?
How do you get /that/ interpretation of the above, dennis-at-home?
> What do you have against free choice?
Nothing. Yet you spin his words as if they mean the opposite.
Why are you doing this, dennis-at-home?
> Where does it say that if I want to build a site I should have to cater for
> everyone?
But, /now/ you are saying /you/ want the option of "removing choice".
Is it me that is confused, or you?
> Why do you want choice but deny it to others?
Ah, it is you that is confused.
--
Until we're educating every kid in a fantastic way, until every inner city
is cleaned up, there is no shortage of things to do.
-- Bill Gates
Hadron
> * dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> "Josef Moellers" <josef.m...@fujitsu-siemens.com> wrote in message
>> news:fsvprq$ns1$1...@nntp.fujitsu-siemens.com...
>>
>>> I 100% agree to you. Let everyone chose the OS that they want to use. Let
>>> no-one interfere e.g. by making documents accessible only to those using
>>> office systems of one manufacturer. Let no-one interfere e.g. by making
>>> web sites accessible only to those using browsers of one manufacturer. Let
>>> no-one interfere e.g. by making hardware accessible only to those using
>>> OSes of one manufacturer.
>>
>> Why do you want to remove choice from the people above?
>
> How do you get /that/ interpretation of the above, dennis-at-home?
>
>> What do you have against free choice?
>
> Nothing. Yet you spin his words as if they mean the opposite.
>
> Why are you doing this, dennis-at-home?
>
>> Where does it say that if I want to build a site I should have to cater for
>> everyone?
>
> But, /now/ you are saying /you/ want the option of "removing choice".
No. He wants the choice for who HE caters to. How is that so hard for
even a thicky like you to comprehend?
>
> Is it me that is confused, or you?
>
It's you. As usual.
>> Why do you want choice but deny it to others?
>
> Ah, it is you that is confused.
No. He makes perfect sense.
--
revision 1.17.2.7
date: 2001/05/31 21:32:44; author: branden; state: Exp; lines: +1 -1
ARRRRGH!! GOT THE G** D*** SENSE OF A F******* TEST BACKWARDS!
Josef Moellers
> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:10:53 +0200, Josef Moellers wrote:
>> Even if Linux is in the less-than-1%-area: each and every Linux-user
>> uses it because of its merits, not because it came bundeled with the
>> computer they bought or someone forces them to use it. Some people
>> (including me) even use it *against* pressure from higher places to use
>> another OS.
>>
>> *That's* the difference.
>
> Noble, however most people just want to get work done not go on some
> religious pilgrimage.
BTW I wasn't fishing for compliments, I was trying to say that even
without a multi-billion advertising campaign, even with the windo
ocasionally blowing right into our faces, at least one in 163 desktops
is running Linux!
NoStop
All the Wintards around here make perfect sense to you Hardon. Then again,
you're a Linux advocate - the principled kind - the non-COLA kind - the too
many distros kind - the attack FOSS kind. Anyway, you get the idea.
Moshe Goldfarb
> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:10:53 +0200, Josef Moellers wrote:
>
>>> Even if Linux is in the less-than-1%-area: each and every Linux-user
>>> uses it because of its merits, not because it came bundeled with the
>>> computer they bought or someone forces them to use it. Some people
>>> (including me) even use it *against* pressure from higher places to use
>>> another OS.
>>>
>>> *That's* the difference.
>>
>> Noble, however most people just want to get work done not go on some
>> religious pilgrimage.
>
> BTW I wasn't fishing for compliments, I was trying to say that even
> without a multi-billion advertising campaign, even with the windo
> ocasionally blowing right into our faces, at least one in 163 desktops
> is running Linux!
Linux desktop useage hovers areoun 0.6 percent.
The BBC pegged it at 0.8 percent, which I think is a little high.
After 10+ years and considering Linux is free, that's pathetic.
chrisv
>Quack puked:
>>
>>>> Why do you want choice but deny it to others?
>>>
>>> Ah, it is you that is confused.
>>
>> No. He makes perfect sense.
You are lying, Quack, as he does he NOT make "perfect" sense, Quack.
As explained, an unimportant Web-site is not the issue. If someone
wants to make a completely fscked-up Web-site, so that only some can
view it, that IS and SHOULD BE their choice.
However, if someone is making a Web site that I NEED to use, for
whatever reason, then they had better allow me, THE USER, the choice
of tools to access it.
Would you really like it if the government required Internet Explorer
to access tax documents, Quack? Don't answer - you probably would.
>All the Wintards around here make perfect sense to you Hardon. Then again,
>you're a Linux advocate - the principled kind - the non-COLA kind - the too
>many distros kind - the attack FOSS kind. Anyway, you get the idea.
Indeed, we all do, I think.
dennis@home
"Josef Moellers" <josef.m...@fujitsu-siemens.com> wrote in message
news:ft02v4$pg2$1...@nntp.fujitsu-siemens.com...
M$ decided it wasn't extensible enough AFAIK. I am not an expert so I
couldn't be sure.
> but had to force yet another standard (OOXML) which will continue to make
> documents unaccessible to those *not* using their programs? Most likely,
> OOXML will become the default file format when storing office documents
> and most likeley people will just click "Save" rather than first select a
> different format.
But as the OOXML format is an iso standard anyone can read or write it. If
other developers don't support it then blame them. All the other formats
have been published too.
dennis@home
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:rk37v35cl1picl9uh...@4ax.com...
> dumbass@home wrote:
Sod off!
dennis@home
"Linonut" <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote in message
news:JtMIj.160$DY1...@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> * dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> "Josef Moellers" <josef.m...@fujitsu-siemens.com> wrote in message
>> news:fsvprq$ns1$1...@nntp.fujitsu-siemens.com...
>>
>>> I 100% agree to you. Let everyone chose the OS that they want to use.
>>> Let
>>> no-one interfere e.g. by making documents accessible only to those using
>>> office systems of one manufacturer. Let no-one interfere e.g. by making
>>> web sites accessible only to those using browsers of one manufacturer.
>>> Let
>>> no-one interfere e.g. by making hardware accessible only to those using
>>> OSes of one manufacturer.
>>
>> Why do you want to remove choice from the people above?
>
> How do you get /that/ interpretation of the above, dennis-at-home?
>
>> What do you have against free choice?
>
> Nothing. Yet you spin his words as if they mean the opposite.
>
> Why are you doing this, dennis-at-home?
>
>> Where does it say that if I want to build a site I should have to cater
>> for
>> everyone?
>
> But, /now/ you are saying /you/ want the option of "removing choice".
>
> Is it me that is confused, or you?
>
>> Why do you want choice but deny it to others?
>
> Ah, it is you that is confused.
I bet you feel stupid that you posted that cr@p.
Linonut
> But as the OOXML format is an iso standard anyone can read or write it.
Perhaps, if the standard is truly complete.
However, if Microsoft decides to implement certain features differently
than is specified in the published standard, and the standard is not
updated in a timely fashion, consumers and developers using that
standard are back to where they are now: using MS Office itself, or
accepting formatting problems to appear when the document is loaded into
other word processors.
>If other developers don't support it then blame them.
Given Microsoft's long track record of breaking their own rules, and
their recent rumblings about patents, I sure would get a LOT of legal
advice before even considering writing a product to handle a Microsoft
format.
And, in fact, the Microsoft "promise" seems geared to require the usual
agreements and license fees for commercial development.
> All the other formats have been published too.
Wayyyyyy too late to be very helpful. Microsoft's need for those
formats to get its office stranglehold ended long ago. And yet they
still delayed and delayed until hit with huge fines.
--
I have to say that in 1981, making those decisions, I felt like I was
providing enough freedom for 10 years. That is, a move from 64k to 640k felt
like something that would last a great deal of time. Well, it didn't - it
took about only 6 years before people started to see that as a real problem.
-- Bill Gates, 1989 speech on the history of the microcomputer industry.
Linonut
>> Ah, it is you that is confused.
>
> I bet you feel stupid that you posted that cr@p.
What crap?
--
The finest pieces of software are those where one individual has a complete
sense of exactly how the program works. To have that, you have to really
love the program and concentrate on keeping it simple, to an incredible
degree.
-- Bill Gates
The Ghost In The Machine
<lin...@bollsouth.nut>
wrote
on Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:54:35 -0400
<MvRIj.14885$9O....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>:
> * dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>>> Ah, it is you that is confused.
>>
>> I bet you feel stupid that you posted that cr@p.
>
> What crap?
>
I would think that the question of whether a web designer
should have the choice of excluding 5% [*] or so of his
potential browsers is an interesting one. It may depend
on the competitiveness of his desired market; if he decides
to exclude non-Windows browsers and his competitors don't,
and he is not the market leader, he'll probably get some
rather bad press from it all.
[*] the actual number is very squirrelly.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
If your CPU can't stand the heat, get another fan.
dennis@home
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:136dc5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut
> <lin...@bollsouth.nut>
> wrote
> on Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:54:35 -0400
> <MvRIj.14885$9O....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>:
>> * dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>
>>>> Ah, it is you that is confused.
>>>
>>> I bet you feel stupid that you posted that cr@p.
>>
>> What crap?
>>
>
> I would think that the question of whether a web designer
> should have the choice of excluding 5% [*] or so of his
> potential browsers is an interesting one. It may depend
> on the competitiveness of his desired market; if he decides
> to exclude non-Windows browsers and his competitors don't,
> and he is not the market leader, he'll probably get some
> rather bad press from it all.
>
> [*] the actual number is very squirrelly.
However it should be the web site owners choice.
I wonder if lino (lino is an old fashioned oil based floor covering BTW) nut
understands why he wrote a load of cr@p yet?
Anonymous
> That's a Roy Schestowitz administered site so I will not go there for fear
> of getting a virus or trojan or something.
Run Linux. You won't have to worry. :)
> My advice to anyone is to use the OS that supports the applications you
> need to run.
Linux runs all the applications you need to run.
Except for "viruses or trojans or something".
*snicker*
> IOW choose your applications first and then your OS.
That's about the damned dumbest thing I've ever read. Like saying
"build a nice roof, then put a house under it".
Intelligent people start with a solid foundation. Being A Wintard
I'm sure that's a tough concept to wrap your brain around, but it's
true.
Moshe Goldfarb
> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>
>> That's a Roy Schestowitz administered site so I will not go there for fear
>> of getting a virus or trojan or something.
>
> Run Linux. You won't have to worry. :)
Sure.
Tell that to Roy Schestowitz who had his LINUX based website hacked and
0wned a couple of weeks ago.
>> My advice to anyone is to use the OS that supports the applications you
>> need to run.
>
> Linux runs all the applications you need to run.
No it doesn't.
And it doesn't for a vast number of people which is why virtually nobody is
using it as a desktop system.
> Except for "viruses or trojans or something".
>
> *snicker*
See Roy Schestowitz who had a trojan embedded in his website and was
infecting God knows how many users who visted him.
>> IOW choose your applications first and then your OS.
>
> That's about the damned dumbest thing I've ever read. Like saying
> "build a nice roof, then put a house under it".
Really?
You've obviously never worked in Information Technology.
Living in your mother's basement doesn't qualify BTW.
> Intelligent people start with a solid foundation. Being A Wintard
> I'm sure that's a tough concept to wrap your brain around, but it's
> true.
Wrong.
Intelligent people choose the applications they need to run and then pick
the OS.
Why?
What if a certain application you need doesn't have say a Linux version?
Then what Jack?
Duhhhhh...... You're not very good at trolling BTW...
Next..............
The Ghost In The Machine
<den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net>
wrote
on Wed, 2 Apr 2008 22:19:54 +0100
<ft0tad$fa$1...@news.datemas.de>:
>
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
> news:136dc5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut
>> <lin...@bollsouth.nut>
>> wrote
>> on Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:54:35 -0400
>> <MvRIj.14885$9O....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>:
>>> * dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>>
>>>>> Ah, it is you that is confused.
>>>>
>>>> I bet you feel stupid that you posted that cr@p.
>>>
>>> What crap?
>>>
>>
>> I would think that the question of whether a web designer
>> should have the choice of excluding 5% [*] or so of his
>> potential browsers is an interesting one. It may depend
>> on the competitiveness of his desired market; if he decides
>> to exclude non-Windows browsers and his competitors don't,
>> and he is not the market leader, he'll probably get some
>> rather bad press from it all.
>>
>> [*] the actual number is very squirrelly.
>
> However it should be the web site owners choice.
Indeed it should be, and the only caveat is that the
browser outside the market get an indication that there
will be malfunctions in his browser if he continues,
and that he does so at his own risk. Lockouts are also
acceptable (barely); one would assume the user would
go to the site's competitor in that case.
However, this also opens the door to an interesting
form of manipulation; Microsoft might very well want to
persuade popular sites to use its tools, and having them
make IE-specific changes.
>
> I wonder if lino (lino is an old fashioned oil based
> floor covering BTW) nut understands why he wrote a
> load of cr@p yet?
>
You'll have to ask him. Not my day to read his mind. ;-)
Confirmed on the "Lino", which is short for "linoleum"
in one disambiguation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lino
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linoleum
Unknown as to the use of linseed oil in dessert toppings
or floor waxes.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Is it cheaper to learn Linux, or to hire someone
to fix your Windows problems?
Gregory Shearman
> Would you really like it if the government required Internet Explorer
> to access tax documents, Quack? Don't answer - you probably would.
In Australia, the Tax Office developed a proprietary solution to online tax
returns (ETAX). It requires the use of Internet Explorer. I've written to
the politicians a number of times on this issue and now they are developing
a web-based online tax return system.
The disadvantage of using a paper return is that you can wait a month or
more for it to be processed, whereas the online tax return is processed
within a fortnight.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
Gregory Shearman
> I would think that the question of whether a web designer
> should have the choice of excluding 5% [*] or so of his
> potential browsers is an interesting one. It may depend
> on the competitiveness of his desired market; if he decides
> to exclude non-Windows browsers and his competitors don't,
> and he is not the market leader, he'll probably get some
> rather bad press from it all.
Yes, the Australian Tax Office took the line that because most people used
windows then a windows-base solution to online tax returns was adequate.
I wonder if they take the same line with their vision-impaired customers?
NoStop
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 23:20:32 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous wrote:
>
>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>
>>> That's a Roy Schestowitz administered site so I will not go there for
>>> fear of getting a virus or trojan or something.
>>
>> Run Linux. You won't have to worry. :)
>
> Sure.
>
> Tell that to Roy Schestowitz who had his LINUX based website hacked and
> 0wned a couple of weeks ago.
>
>
>>> My advice to anyone is to use the OS that supports the applications you
>>> need to run.
>>
>> Linux runs all the applications you need to run.
>
> No it doesn't.
> And it doesn't for a vast number of people which is why virtually nobody
> is using it as a desktop system.
>
>
>> Except for "viruses or trojans or something".
>>
>> *snicker*
>
> See Roy Schestowitz who had a trojan embedded in his website and was
> infecting God knows how many users who visted him.
>
Surely you mean Windoze users? If that is the case, maybe it was there on
purpose? So how many hours did it take for you to clean the virus off your
toy operating system? Was it fun Mr. Soap Suds?
Moshe Goldfarb
> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 23:20:32 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous wrote:
>>
>>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's a Roy Schestowitz administered site so I will not go there for
>>>> fear of getting a virus or trojan or something.
>>>
>>> Run Linux. You won't have to worry. :)
>>
>> Sure.
>>
>> Tell that to Roy Schestowitz who had his LINUX based website hacked and
>> 0wned a couple of weeks ago.
>>
>>
>>>> My advice to anyone is to use the OS that supports the applications you
>>>> need to run.
>>>
>>> Linux runs all the applications you need to run.
>>
>> No it doesn't.
>> And it doesn't for a vast number of people which is why virtually nobody
>> is using it as a desktop system.
>>
>>
>>> Except for "viruses or trojans or something".
>>>
>>> *snicker*
>>
>> See Roy Schestowitz who had a trojan embedded in his website and was
>> infecting God knows how many users who visted him.
>>
> Surely you mean Windoze users? If that is the case, maybe it was there on
> purpose? So how many hours did it take for you to clean the virus off your
> toy operating system? Was it fun Mr. Soap Suds?
>
> Cheers.
You're obviously a moron.
chrisv
> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 23:20:32 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous wrote:
>>
>>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's a Roy Schestowitz administered site so I will not go there
>>>> for fear of getting a virus or trojan or something.
>>>
>>> Run Linux. You won't have to worry. :)
>>
>> Sure.
>>
>> Tell that to Roy Schestowitz who had his LINUX based website hacked
>> and 0wned a couple of weeks ago.
>>
>>
>>>> My advice to anyone is to use the OS that supports the
>>>> applications you need to run.
>>>
>>> Linux runs all the applications you need to run.
>>
>> No it doesn't.
>> And it doesn't for a vast number of people which is why virtually
>> nobody is using it as a desktop system.
>>
>>
>>> Except for "viruses or trojans or something".
>>>
>>> *snicker*
>>
>> See Roy Schestowitz who had a trojan embedded in his website and was
>> infecting God knows how many users who visted him.
>>
> Surely you mean Windoze users? If that is the case, maybe it was
> there on purpose? So how many hours did it take for you to clean the
> virus off your toy operating system? Was it fun Mr. Soap Suds?
>
> Cheers.
Windows users wouldn't visit Roy's site for any reason.
It took Roy a few days to clean it up.
No Windows users were infected.
NoStop
Well obviously Mr. Soap Suds visited it and it runs Windoze.
Frank
His linux server got hacked!...LOL!
That's wonderful, don't you think so...LOL!
Frank
Josef Moellers
>> Why can't Microsoft use existing standards (ODF)
>
> M$ decided it wasn't extensible enough AFAIK. I am not an expert so I
> couldn't be sure.
MS has a long track record of having to invent new formats for their
files: audio formats (WMA) and video formats (WMV) spring to my mind.
And all these formats are kept secret, so interoperability is impossible.
Since Office is their bread-and-butter product (afaik, most of their
revenue comes from Office), there is concern that OOXML will follow in
their tracks.
>> but had to force yet another standard (OOXML) which will continue to
>> make documents unaccessible to those *not* using their programs? Most
>> likely, OOXML will become the default file format when storing office
>> documents and most likeley people will just click "Save" rather than
>> first select a different format.
>
> But as the OOXML format is an iso standard anyone can read or write it.
> If other developers don't support it then blame them. All the other
> formats have been published too.
This appears not to be true.
Apparently having a file format accepted as a standard does not mean
that everyone is free to use it, most of all to create files using it.
For one, Microsoft has chosen to specify MP3 as *the* audio format
within documents, and the MP3 format is still covered by patents
(http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080310153345250).
Josef
Josef Moellers
> However it should be the web site owners choice.
I really do wonder if web designers really choose to keep non-IE users
out or if this just comes with the tools they use. I doubt that my
cousin from down under deliberately uses DOC files to keep me from
reading her mails (or at least having to go into great lengths to do so).
Microsoft has a track record of trying everything to keep competitors
out. As long as there is *real* competition, this is OK: just chose
another vendor. However, with the market domination Microsoft has, even
official bodies worry about this and start antitrust investigations.
I just wish Microsoft would use their power with more conscience, or, as
someone in a move once said: "With great power comes great responsibility".
Josef Moellers
> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:20:54 +0200, Josef Moellers wrote:
>
>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:10:53 +0200, Josef Moellers wrote:
>>>> Even if Linux is in the less-than-1%-area: each and every Linux-user
>>>> uses it because of its merits, not because it came bundeled with the
>>>> computer they bought or someone forces them to use it. Some people
>>>> (including me) even use it *against* pressure from higher places to use
>>>> another OS.
>>>>
>>>> *That's* the difference.
>>> Noble, however most people just want to get work done not go on some
>>> religious pilgrimage.
>> BTW I wasn't fishing for compliments, I was trying to say that even
>> without a multi-billion advertising campaign, even with the windo
>> ocasionally blowing right into our faces, at least one in 163 desktops
>> is running Linux!
>
> Linux desktop useage hovers areoun 0.6 percent.
> The BBC pegged it at 0.8 percent, which I think is a little high.
>
> After 10+ years and considering Linux is free, that's pathetic.
>
And your counter-argument is?
Again: even without a multi-billion advertising campaign (how much did
Microsoft spend on advertising XP?) and some heavy bullying, Linux runs
on (at least) one in 166 desktops!
marksouth
> But as the OOXML format is an iso standard anyone can read or write it.
Anyone who has time to read, comprehend, and retain over 6000 pages of
specification.
Moshe Goldfarb
And how do you know that for sure?
You don't.
Another idiotic supposition.
Moshe Goldfarb
Wrong again Einstein.
All of Roy's sites are blocked in my hosts file.
I wouldn't go near a Schestowitz site if you paid me.
BTW I also run Linux.
PCLinuxOS in particular.
Another person put up screen shots of Symantec finding the trojan on the
site.
Do yourself a favor, don't come to a gun fight with a pocket knife.
Moshe Goldfarb
It was hysterical!
That arrogant SOB, Roy Schestowitz was actually WARNED, weeks prior to the
final assault on his schestowitz.com site, that something strange was going
on when people visited the site.
Of course being the arrogant, narcissistic dweeb that Roy Schestowitz is,
he ignored it because "nothing can happen to me, I am Roy Schestowitz".
Ultimately he got 0Wned and his home page was defaced.
Someone else put up a screen shot of the trojan that had been embedded in
Roy Schestowitz' site, www.schestowitz.com and that ws infecting users
stupid enough to visit that site.
Schestowitz also administers www.groklaw.com and a few other sites.
God knows what they are infected with due to his ineptness.
Moshe Goldfarb
> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:20:54 +0200, Josef Moellers wrote:
>>
>>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:10:53 +0200, Josef Moellers wrote:
>>>>> Even if Linux is in the less-than-1%-area: each and every Linux-user
>>>>> uses it because of its merits, not because it came bundeled with the
>>>>> computer they bought or someone forces them to use it. Some people
>>>>> (including me) even use it *against* pressure from higher places to use
>>>>> another OS.
>>>>>
>>>>> *That's* the difference.
>>>> Noble, however most people just want to get work done not go on some
>>>> religious pilgrimage.
>>> BTW I wasn't fishing for compliments, I was trying to say that even
>>> without a multi-billion advertising campaign, even with the windo
>>> ocasionally blowing right into our faces, at least one in 163 desktops
>>> is running Linux!
>>
>> Linux desktop useage hovers areoun 0.6 percent.
>> The BBC pegged it at 0.8 percent, which I think is a little high.
>>
>> After 10+ years and considering Linux is free, that's pathetic.
>>
>
> And your counter-argument is?
>
> Again: even without a multi-billion advertising campaign (how much did
> Microsoft spend on advertising XP?) and some heavy bullying, Linux runs
> on (at least) one in 166 desktops!
I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find people still using OS/2.....
And your counter argument is?
chrisv
>Windows users wouldn't visit Roy's site for any reason.
Ignore the forger.
Josef Moellers
Does OS/2 have 0,7% desktop market share?
IIRC, OS/2 was advertised way back when it was still actively developed.
(if necessary, I can dig through my back-copies of BYTE magazine).
> And your counter argument is?
Counter argument against what? If it has a 0.7% market share without
multi-billion-$ advertising campaigns, it must be a good OS. IIRC some
banking people still use it.
Moshe Goldfarb
After 10 years, .7 percent is pathetic.
Linonut
> However it should be the web site owners choice.
>
> I wonder if lino (lino is an old fashioned oil based floor covering BTW) nut
> understands why he wrote a load of cr@p yet?
I ask, again, what crap? The OP said nothing about restricting choice
in any shape, form, or fashion, yet dennis-the-menace claimed he did,
and I corrected him.
I guess the crap part dennis talks about is bothering to respond to a
bit-wit like him in the first place?
--
I'm sorry that we have to have a Washington presence. We thrived during our
first 16 years without any of this. I never made a political visit to
Washington and we had no people here. It wasn't on our radar screen. We were
just making great software.
-- Bill Gates
Linonut
> Microsoft has a track record of trying everything to keep competitors
> out. As long as there is *real* competition, this is OK: just chose
> another vendor. However, with the market domination Microsoft has, even
> official bodies worry about this and start antitrust investigations.
>
> I just wish Microsoft would use their power with more conscience, or, as
> someone in a move once said: "With great power comes great responsibility".
They use their power mainly to make money.
--
Intellectual property has the shelf life of a banana.
-- Bill Gates
chrisv
>"NoStop" wrote:
>
>> Then why do Wintards like you feel so threatened, Mr. Soap Suds?
>
>Why do *you* need to troll the vista groups, you started there before people
>like frank came here in retaliation.
Umm... You do know that it's anti-Linux Wintrolls who start these
cross-postings, right, dumbass?
>(snip dumbass lies and snot)
chrisv
>However it should be the web site owners choice.
It is their choice, you dumbshit, as long it's not an important
Web-site that "the people" need to use.
How many times does this need to be explained to you?
chrisv
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>> I would think that the question of whether a web designer
>> should have the choice of excluding 5% [*] or so of his
>> potential browsers is an interesting one. It may depend
>> on the competitiveness of his desired market; if he decides
>> to exclude non-Windows browsers and his competitors don't,
>> and he is not the market leader, he'll probably get some
>> rather bad press from it all.
>
>Yes, the Australian Tax Office took the line that because most people used
>windows then a windows-base solution to online tax returns was adequate.
Of course, that's downright stupid, lazy, and evil...
Linonut
And hope it doesn't become moot within the year.
--
There are people who don't like capitalism, and people who don't like PCs.
But there's no-one who likes the PC who doesn't like Microsoft.
-- Bill Gates
Hadron
It might surprise you mighty Mark, but that is what one has to do when
implementing things like standards. I realise that you and Gregory
Shearman probably see this as a waste of a programmers time and efforts
but, well, someone has to do the slog.
--
"There is no such thing as Intellectual Property"
Mark Kent
Head of Technology Strategy, BT Global
COLA Hypocrite
Hadron
> dumbass@home wrote:
>
>>However it should be the web site owners choice.
>
> It is their choice, you dumbshit, as long it's not an important
> Web-site that "the people" need to use.
Then "the people" can pay for their own one comrade.
>
> How many times does this need to be explained to you?
>
--
XP can't be selling well, or we'd have the wintrolls crowing about it all
over the advocacy newsgroups.
comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy
Julie
Rick
So what? Beeg Deel.
>
> BTW I also run Linux.
> PCLinuxOS in particular.
Why do you use an OS you say is so inferior?
>
> Another person put up screen shots of Symantec finding the trojan on the
> site.
>
> Do yourself a favor, don't come to a gun fight with a pocket knife.
>
Yada, yada, yada.
--
Rick
marksouth
> marksouth <m...@really.invalid> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:58:59 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>> But as the OOXML format is an iso standard anyone can read or write
>>> it.
>>
>> Anyone who has time to read, comprehend, and retain over 6000 pages of
>> specification.
>
> It might surprise you mighty Mark, but that is what one has to do when
> implementing things like standards. I realise that you and Gregory
> Shearman probably see this as a waste of a programmers time and efforts
> but, well, someone has to do the slog.
It might surprise you, Hadron, but most standards that get implemented
are of a comprehensible and readable length. The topmost ISO standard on
my desk is 18 pages long, and easy to read, comprehend, and retain.
Even the CORBA standard, which describes many concepts and solutions far
more complicated and subtle than mere documents, is a few pages short of
several thousand.
But as far as I'm concerned, anyone who wants to implement OOXML should
get on with it and do their best to enjoy it. I'm certainly not ever
going to give desk space to 6000 pages of anything.
Do let us know how you get on, won't you?
Ignoramus18496
If I asked myself, how can I come up with a "standard" that would be
impossible to implement, to pretent to be standard compliant but keep
competitors away, it would be something like OOXML. 6000
incomrehensible pages ought to be hard enough to implement.
The downside for MS here is that Microsoft is unlikely to implement
this standard very well, or support it, and, down the road, its
customers will find themselves very fucked by this standard.
i
Snit
GrKdnQredajShGja...@supernews.com on 4/3/08 11:52 AM:
>> BTW I also run Linux.
>> PCLinuxOS in particular.
>
> Why do you use an OS you say is so inferior?
Same reason, perhaps, you use it even though it does not do what have what
you say would be best for users.
--
When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how
to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not
beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller
The Ghost In The Machine
<chr...@nospam.invalid>
wrote
on Thu, 03 Apr 2008 08:30:18 -0500
<5sm9v31agor9kstu2...@4ax.com>:
Who determines a Website's importance? Certainly not
me, except as 1 voice in hundreds of thousands...if not
millions. I doubt it's you, unless it's your website
or blog, or a corporate website you've been contracted
to maintain or modify.
Best I can hope for here is that dualbooters who have
problems using Mozilla will complain vociferously to the
website's contact point, which may or may not be the same
as the website's maintainer (spamtraps necessitate that
sort of thinking).
Of course .gov websites might have mandates by law to
allow accessibility to all comers -- which leads into
interesting territory, but that's not quite the same as
a commercial affair.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #12995733:
bool f(bool g, bool h) { if(g) h = true; else h = false; return h;}
The Ghost In The Machine
<chr...@nospam.invalid>
wrote
<c0n9v3l1vkdo1c7mg...@4ax.com>:
I agree that it's lazy. I'm inclined to agree on the
stupidity as well. As for evil -- well, evil's hard to
pinpoint, though one could make a case that the more
people are stupid and lazy, the more evil ensues.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".
- Thomas Jefferson
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
- Wendell Phillips
>
>>I wonder if they take the same line with their vision-impaired customers?
>
The Ghost In The Machine
<chr...@nospam.invalid>
wrote
<3om9v3l5v9s4sbqra...@4ax.com>:
Usually in the middle of a thread. :-/
Followups adjusted.
>
>>(snip dumbass lies and snot)
>
--
chrisv
>> Umm... You do know that it's anti-Linux Wintrolls who start these
>> cross-postings, right, dumbass?
>
>Usually in the middle of a thread. :-/
Sorry, I wanted him to see it.
chrisv
> chrisv wrote:
>>
>> dumbass@home wrote:
>>
>>>However it should be the web site owners choice.
>>
>> It is their choice, you dumbshit, as long it's not an important
>> Web-site that "the people" need to use.
>>
>> How many times does this need to be explained to you?
>
>Who determines a Website's importance? Certainly not
>me, except as 1 voice in hundreds of thousands...if not
>millions. I doubt it's you, unless it's your website
>or blog, or a corporate website you've been contracted
>to maintain or modify.
There are shades of gray, but it's really not so difficult to
figure-out when "the line has been crossed", and you have an
obligation or a desire to facilitate "universal access", whether
you're a provider of a public service or you don't want to turn-away
customers.
dennis@home
"Josef Moellers" <josef.m...@fujitsu-siemens.com> wrote in message
news:ft212q$v59$1...@nntp.fujitsu-siemens.com...
> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Josef Moellers" <josef.m...@fujitsu-siemens.com> wrote in message
>
>
>>> Why can't Microsoft use existing standards (ODF)
>>
>> M$ decided it wasn't extensible enough AFAIK. I am not an expert so I
>> couldn't be sure.
>
> MS has a long track record of having to invent new formats for their
> files: audio formats (WMA) and video formats (WMV) spring to my mind. And
> all these formats are kept secret, so interoperability is impossible.
> Since Office is their bread-and-butter product (afaik, most of their
> revenue comes from Office), there is concern that OOXML will follow in
> their tracks.
They would not be standards compliant then and people would start to
question the product.
>
>>> but had to force yet another standard (OOXML) which will continue to
>>> make documents unaccessible to those *not* using their programs? Most
>>> likely, OOXML will become the default file format when storing office
>>> documents and most likeley people will just click "Save" rather than
>>> first select a different format.
>>
>> But as the OOXML format is an iso standard anyone can read or write it.
>> If other developers don't support it then blame them. All the other
>> formats have been published too.
>
> This appears not to be true.
> Apparently having a file format accepted as a standard does not mean that
> everyone is free to use it, most of all to create files using it.
> For one, Microsoft has chosen to specify MP3 as *the* audio format within
> documents, and the MP3 format is still covered by patents
> (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080310153345250).
That hasn't stopped OSS using mp3, so I don't suppose it will stop OO using
OOXML.
dennis@home
"Linonut" <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote in message
news:uU4Jj.26103$dT.1...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> * Josef Moellers peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> Microsoft has a track record of trying everything to keep competitors
>> out. As long as there is *real* competition, this is OK: just chose
>> another vendor. However, with the market domination Microsoft has, even
>> official bodies worry about this and start antitrust investigations.
>>
>> I just wish Microsoft would use their power with more conscience, or, as
>> someone in a move once said: "With great power comes great
>> responsibility".
There are an awful lot of people better off because of M$. Just imagine how
much extra tax you would have to pay if you had to support the people that
make cash from M$.
You might think OSS is free, but not if it kills a large part of the IT
industry.
I suppose you hate Cisco too as they monopolize networking and create new
standards for themselves whenever they feel it will be an advantage.
>
> They use their power mainly to make money.
They are legally obliged to do that.
They would be in court if they didn't.
You are just upset that they are better at it than you.
dennis@home
"marksouth" <m...@really.invalid> wrote in message
news:47f4bba2$1...@news.bluewin.ch...
> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:58:59 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>
>> But as the OOXML format is an iso standard anyone can read or write it.
>
> Anyone who has time to read, comprehend, and retain over 6000 pages of
> specification.
I thought all linux users did that sort of thing with the source code.. its
always claimed that there can be no nasties hidden as anyone can read the
source which requires far more effort. 8-)
dennis@home
"Moshe Goldfarb" <brick....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lzni2o8376pv$.bth47xrczgoq$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> His linux server got hacked!...LOL!
>> That's wonderful, don't you think so...LOL!
>> Frank
>
> It was hysterical!
>
> That arrogant SOB, Roy Schestowitz was actually WARNED, weeks prior to the
> final assault on his schestowitz.com site, that something strange was
> going
> on when people visited the site.
>
> Of course being the arrogant, narcissistic dweeb that Roy Schestowitz is,
> he ignored it because "nothing can happen to me, I am Roy Schestowitz".
What do you expect when he believes the linux is invulnerable lie that all
the advocates use?
>
> Ultimately he got 0Wned and his home page was defaced.
> Someone else put up a screen shot of the trojan that had been embedded in
> Roy Schestowitz' site, www.schestowitz.com and that ws infecting users
> stupid enough to visit that site.
>
> Schestowitz also administers www.groklaw.com and a few other sites.
>
> God knows what they are infected with due to his ineptness.
Well if he ran windows he could get kaspersky to scan it for him.. its
pretty good and would probably find most of the hacks and is constantly
updated.
Some people are too stupid to use anything other than windows, and Roy
Schestowitz is one of them.