"Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft."
DFS
Linus Torvalds, New York Times interview, 2003
He's failed. Miserably.
Rick
How can you fail at something that you are not trying to do, dickhead?
Jeremy Fisher
Failed Miserably, at what, destroying Microsoft? Linux is not about
competing with M$, If the Linux community had it mind to destroy M$ then it
would not be that difficult, but the effort in starting such a fight would
deflect from core values that have built Linux into the world beating OS
that it has become today.
Jem..
Ramon F Herrera
Failed? How come in the reports to the SEC Microsoft states that its
main competitor is Linux, followed by IBM? How come M$ is trying to do
some sort of "open sourcing"?
How come Microsoft speakpeople have said: "we have a lot to learn from
the Open Source movement"?
-RFH
John Bailo
> Failed Miserably, at what, destroying Microsoft? Linux is not about
> competing with M$, If the Linux community had it mind to destroy M$ then
> it would not be that difficult, but the effort in starting such a fight
> would deflect from core values that have built Linux into the world
> beating OS that it has become today.
Torvalds wants to keep Microsoft around so he doesn't get convicted of
running a monopoly.
billwg
"Ramon F Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in message
news:1138557957....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Sig Sauer
What?.........this statement makes no sense. How can Open Source EVER be
considered a monopoly. Linus made Linux free to the whole world. Even a
moron like you is allowed to take the source, hack it, modify it,
change it to something else, package it, sell it....so long as you make
a version of it freely available to the rest of the community. How can
something FREE be part of a monopoly?
Sig
--
"Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely
unintentional side effect."
--- Linus Torvalds
John Bailo
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:26:25 -0800, John Bailo wrote:
>
>> Jeremy Fisher wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Failed Miserably, at what, destroying Microsoft? Linux is not about
>>> competing with M$, If the Linux community had it mind to destroy M$ then
>>> it would not be that difficult, but the effort in starting such a fight
>>> would deflect from core values that have built Linux into the world
>>> beating OS that it has become today.
>>
>> Torvalds wants to keep Microsoft around so he doesn't get convicted of
>> running a monopoly.
>
> What?.........this statement makes no sense. How can Open Source EVER be
> considered a monopoly. Linus made Linux free to the whole world. Even a
> moron like you is allowed to take the source, hack it, modify it,
> change it to something else, package it, sell it....so long as you make
> a version of it freely available to the rest of the community. How can
> something FREE be part of a monopoly?
>
> Sig
http://www.dictionary.net/joke
"Joke \Joke\, n. [L. jocus. Cf Jeopardy, Jocular, Juggler.]
1. Something said for the sake of exciting a laugh; something witty or
sportive (commonly indicating more of hilarity or humor than jest); a jest;
a witticism; as, to crack good-natured jokes.
And gentle dullness ever loves a joke. --Pope.
Or witty joke our airy senses moves To pleasant laughter. --Gay.
2. Something not said seriously, or not actually meant; something done in
sport.
Inclose whole downs in walls, 't is all a joke. --Pope.
In joke, in jest; sportively; not meant seriously.
Practical joke. See under Practical.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"
Sig Sauer
Ahhhhhh.
Looks like the jokes on me. Sorry, I'm a LOT slow on the take today.
Cheers...
DFS
> DFS wrote:
>
>
>>"That will just be a completely unintentional side effect."
>>
>>Linus Torvalds, New York Times interview, 2003
>>
>>
>>He's failed. Miserably.
>
> Failed Miserably, at what, destroying Microsoft?
> Linux is not about competing with M$,
That's obvious.
> If the Linux community had it mind to destroy M$ then it
> would not be that difficult,
heh! So you're all just sparing MS from destruction out of the kindness
of your little hearts?
It's humorous to listen to a pipsqueak Linux "advocate" with more balls
than brains make silly comments like this. Tens of thousands of Linux
developers working on OSS year-round, and literally giving it away for
free, yet it's barely made a dent on the desktop after 8 or so years of
dedicated pursuit?
You make sure and let the world know when the "community" becomes
serious about destroying MS.
> but the effort in starting such a fight would
> deflect from core values that have built Linux into the world beating OS
> that it has become today.
Good post. I got 3 chuckles.
> Jem..
DFS
>>He's failed. Miserably.
>
> Failed?
Yes. Failed.
> How come in the reports to the SEC Microsoft states that its
> main competitor is Linux, followed by IBM? How come M$ is trying to do
> some sort of "open sourcing"?
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying. MS just reported
Q405 revenue growth of 9.4% over Q404. Where's the destruction?
> How come Microsoft speakpeople have said: "we have a lot to learn from
> the Open Source movement"?
Just making conservative PR statements while their revenue rises at
close to or double digit rates each year.
Again, where's the destruction you seem to be questioning?
> -RFH
>
Rick
> Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>>>He's failed. Miserably.
>>
>> Failed?
>
> Yes. Failed.
>
and, AGAIN, how can you fail at something you have not tried to do?
(snip)
--
Rick
Sig Sauer
and out came:
> than brains make silly comments like this. Tens of thousands of Linux
> developers working on OSS year-round, and literally giving it away for
> free, yet it's barely made a dent on the desktop after 8 or so years of
> dedicated pursuit?
>
> You make sure and let the world know when the "community" becomes
> serious about destroying MS.
Linux has never been about destroying MS. Conversely, MS seems to be the
entity that is bent on destroying competitors. Law suits in both the US
and the EU for monopoly are testament to that. Linux is about open
source in an open community computing project. You speak of MS like it is
the do all and end all of operating systems. Yet for all of it's glory, it
remains the biggest joke in the computer industry when it comes to
security. If you are into paying for all of the MS created necessities
like Spyware blocking, malware removal tools, over bloated anti-virus
detection and removal tools.......keep on using Windows. I advocate for
Linux because it is a good, secure and stable operating environment. It
takes a higher level of computer based knowledge to use Linux. I see this
as it's strength, not it's weakness. By it's nature, Linux breeds
knowledgeable user, where Windows by it's ease of use, breeds less
computer knowledgeable people. Not to say that Windows users are stupid,
they just don't have to know as much about the computer they are operating
to get by........not until they have to hire a geek like me to fix their
computers and remove the infestation of malware, spyware, virii and other
little goodies that Windows lets in. Then they wish they knew more.
You state that Linux has not put a dent in the desktop industry......
If an estimated 20 to 30 million users isn't a dent, I don't know what is.
Another thing about Linux, since it is free, there is no real way to track
how many users there really are. Could be more, could be less. I suspect
the former.
Yep, MS's earning keep rising, growth is a good thing for ANY commercial
entity. As long as it keeps growing, I will keep my MS stock and bank the
growth. :-)
Sig
--
"Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely
unintentional side effect."
--- Linus Torvalds
Jeremy Fisher
Its always nice to raise a laugh.
I think you miss the point about OSS, its not trying to compete with
commercial software, its not about competing for market share, it is about
giving freedom from constraints that commercial software brings.
Linux for me offers a better computer environment, less stress, it just
works, I find M$ irritating, even when it is well set up, it is still high
maintance.
Jem..
Au79
Au79
Don't waste your time with this retarded Dumb F**ck S***head, his agenda
includes seeking inflamatory reactions from this NG and complete distortion
of the truth.
It is evident that part of Microsoft's efforts in monitoring this group is
to provoke ill will.
--
--
DFS
> On Sunday, 29 Jan, 2006 DFS (DuFuS less the U puked all over his
> keyboard and out came:
>> It's humorous to listen to a pipsqueak Linux "advocate" with more
>> balls than brains make silly comments like this. Tens of thousands
>> of Linux developers working on OSS year-round, and literally giving
>> it away for free, yet it's barely made a dent on the desktop after 8
>> or so years of dedicated pursuit?
>>
>> You make sure and let the world know when the "community" becomes
>> serious about destroying MS.
>
> Linux has never been about destroying MS.
Its proponents sure do say differently.
> Conversely, MS seems to be
> the entity that is bent on destroying competitors.
Good. That's partly why they're the most successful corporation in history.
> Law suits in both the US and the EU
> for monopoly are testament to that.
There's nothing illegal or unethical about building or maintaining an
enterprise with a monopoly position in one or more product lines.
> Linux is about open source in an open community computing project.
And the reason they clone closed-source products and develop tools to read
and write MS file formats is?
> You speak of MS like it is the do all
> and end all of operating systems.
It works fine for me and the rest of the world. I'm actually more
interested in applications than anything else.
I know the Linux architecture has advantages over Windows, but Windows
combination of speed and stability and apps and hardware compatibility
easily overcomes those advantages.
> Yet for all of
> it's glory, it remains the biggest joke in the computer industry when
> it comes to security. If you are into paying for all of the MS
> created necessities like Spyware blocking, malware removal tools,
> over bloated anti-virus detection and removal tools.......keep on
> using Windows.
I will. But I don't have to pay for any of that stuff. A router, the
Windows firewall, and an occasional scan have kept me essentially virus- and
malware-free for most of a decade.
> I advocate for Linux because it is a good, secure and
> stable operating environment. It takes a higher level of computer
> based knowledge to use Linux.
Probably, though it depends on the distro. Installing Ubuntu is about as
easy as it gets, but getting KDE up on Slackware could be problematic for a
beginner.
> I see this as it's strength, not it's
> weakness. By it's nature, Linux breeds knowledgeable user, where
> Windows by it's ease of use, breeds less computer knowledgeable
> people. Not to say that Windows users are stupid, they just don't
> have to know as much about the computer they are operating to get
> by
From what I've seen, many Linux distros nowadays doesn't require any more
knowledge than Windows for "day to day" use: web browsing, emailing, photo
editing, etc. It's really no more difficult to configure KNode than Outlook
Express, for instance.
> ..not until they have to hire a geek like me to fix their
> computers and remove the infestation of malware, spyware, virii and
> other little goodies that Windows lets in. Then they wish they knew
> more.
Yeah, I'm kind of surprised to see computer stores advertising virus removal
services. They're easy to protect from, and easy to remove.
> You state that Linux has not put a dent in the desktop
> industry...... If an estimated 20 to 30 million users isn't a dent, I
> don't know what is.
More than the 3% or so that Linux supposedly has.
> Another thing about Linux, since it is free,
> there is no real way to track how many users there really are. Could
> be more, could be less. I suspect the former.
I don't. How many exclusively Linux users do you know?
> Yep, MS's earning keep rising, growth is a good thing for ANY
> commercial entity. As long as it keeps growing, I will keep my MS
> stock and bank the growth. :-)
Playing both sides, eh?
Shouldn't you be supporting the company by purchasing their products?
Ramon F Herrera
and the job of Steve Jobs, and Sony, and IBM, and HP, and Sun, and
Java, and Oracle,
and the State of Massachusetts, and the EC...
but fundamentaly, that's our job.
In sum: that is a job of any company or individual that believes that
fair competition
is the best for *everyone*
-RFH
Sig Sauer
> Sig Sauer wrote:
>> On Sunday, 29 Jan, 2006 DFS (DuFuS less the U puked all over his
>> keyboard and out came:
>
>>> It's humorous to listen to a pipsqueak Linux "advocate" with more
>>> balls than brains make silly comments like this. Tens of thousands
>>> of Linux developers working on OSS year-round, and literally giving
>>> it away for free, yet it's barely made a dent on the desktop after 8
>>> or so years of dedicated pursuit?
>>>
>>> You make sure and let the world know when the "community" becomes
>>> serious about destroying MS.
>>
>> Linux has never been about destroying MS.
>
> Its proponents sure do say differently.
My portfolio says that I'm not.
>> Conversely, MS seems to be
>> the entity that is bent on destroying competitors.
>
> Good. That's partly why they're the most successful corporation in history.
Competition in the market is a healthy, it spurs development and gives
people options. It also keeps the players honest to a certain extent. I
guess Bill Gates missed the ethics course when he dropped out of college.
>> Law suits in both the US and the EU
>> for monopoly are testament to that.
>
> There's nothing illegal or unethical about building or maintaining an
> enterprise with a monopoly position in one or more product lines.
The SEC and the EU think differently. Being competitive in a market and
and destroying the competition are two totally different approaches to
trade. I can think of another organizaion that operates the way MS has in
the past. The name of that organization is Mafia. If you can't compete,
run them out. It works, but just because it works, doesn't make it
ethically correct.
>> Linux is about open source in an open community computing
project.
>
> And the reason they clone closed-source products and develop tools to
> read and write MS file formats is?
That is for interoperability. It gives people choices and options. Unlike
MS's "use this or we will break it so you can't.
>> You speak of MS like it is the do all and end all of operating systems.
>
> It works fine for me and the rest of the world. I'm actually more
> interested in applications than anything else.
Linux works fine for me and many others. I like the idea of choice and
OSS provides many more choices than MS ever thought of offering.
> I know the Linux architecture has advantages over Windows, but Windows
> combination of speed and stability and apps and hardware compatibility
> easily overcomes those advantages.
Speed, ...pfffft. Take Unreal Tournament 2004. Written for windows, ported
for Linux, on the same machine it runs 20-30% faster under Linux than
Windows. This has to do with the crippled implementation of OpenGL in
Windows and the poor Windows scheme for handling memory. Stability?
Change your workgroup name or your computer name and you have to reboot
windows. I would NEVER use the term stability and Windows in the same
sentance no more than I would use the term SECURITY and Windows in the
same sentance. Not so in Linux. I havn't had to reboot in over 2 months.
Hows that for stability. I am MS certified. It is from the knowledge I
obtained in working on and in Windows systems that drove me to the
conclusion that Linux is a superior operating system. I have used both, I
actually know more about Windows than Linux and I choose Linux for my home
system. That should speak volumes.
>> Yet for all of it's glory, it remains the biggest joke in the
>> computer industry when it comes to security. If you are into paying for
>> all of the MS created necessities like Spyware blocking, malware
>> removal tools, over bloated anti-virus detection and removal
>> tools.......keep on using Windows.
>
> I will. But I don't have to pay for any of that stuff. A router, the
> Windows firewall, and an occasional scan have kept me essentially virus-
> and malware-free for most of a decade.
OK, so you are an above average user that is savvy to the dangers of the
web. Most Windows users aren't.
>> I advocate for Linux because it is a good, secure and stable operating
>> environment. It takes a higher level of computer based knowledge to use
>> Linux.
>
> Probably, though it depends on the distro. Installing Ubuntu is about
> as easy as it gets, but getting KDE up on Slackware could be problematic
> for a beginner.
True, Ubuntu is a cakewalk....aren't you arguing against yourself here?
>
>> I see this as it's strength, not it's weakness. By it's nature, Linux
>> breeds knowledgeable user, where Windows by it's ease of use, breeds
>> less computer knowledgeable people. Not to say that Windows users are
>> stupid, they just don't have to know as much about the computer they
>> are operating to get by
>
> From what I've seen, many Linux distros nowadays doesn't require any
> more knowledge than Windows for "day to day" use: web browsing,
> emailing, photo editing, etc. It's really no more difficult to
> configure KNode than Outlook Express, for instance.
There you go again, proving my arguement for me..:-)
>> ..not until they have to hire a geek like me to fix their computers and
>> remove the infestation of malware, spyware, virii and other little
>> goodies that Windows lets in. Then they wish they knew more.
>
> Yeah, I'm kind of surprised to see computer stores advertising virus
> removal services. They're easy to protect from, and easy to remove.
Easy for you, easy for me, most average users can't do it. I have removed
spyware that no scanner caught and took editing the registry to remove.
There are some VERY nasty bytes of code out there. Just another reason to
use Linux. The Linux user doesn't have to worry as much.
>> You state that Linux has not put a dent in the desktop
>> industry...... If an estimated 20 to 30 million users isn't a dent, I
>> don't know what is.
>
> More than the 3% or so that Linux supposedly has.
OK, considering that Apple has only 5% market penetration, I will consider
that as a victory for Linux.
>> Another thing about Linux, since it is free, there is no real way to
>> track how many users there really are. Could be more, could be less. I
>> suspect the former.
>
> I don't. How many exclusively Linux users do you know?
Many, a Linux user group here in my town.
>
>> Yep, MS's earning keep rising, growth is a good thing for ANY
>> commercial entity. As long as it keeps growing, I will keep my MS stock
>> and bank the growth. :-)
>
> Playing both sides, eh?
Hey, I like Linux, I like money. What's the problem. It seems that it
makes me smarter than the average bear. Playing both sides. You bet.
>Shouldn't you be supporting the company by purchasing their products?
Not necessarily, I support MS by supporting their customers and buying
their stock. $x2= more $ earned and less $ spent. I consider it taking
advantage of my talents and the situation at hand. I also use what I
consider to be a superior operating system. That being Linux. Nothing
personal. It's good to have choice. Choice that MS seems bent on taking
away from it's users.
billwg
"Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.01.29....@nomail.com...
yourselves on the back and tell each other how dedicated you all are and
how you give so much to the community etc, but you are really just
copping out. You choose a low stress, no-brainer kind of career where
you don't have to compete with others for a living. That's OK with me,
but you never really learn about success and failure and what makes them
different from one another.
The OSSers, including linus himself, continually hope for an outcome
whereby the MS Borg is defeated and sent off, but they do not know how
to do that, hence linus' remarks at the start of this thread. "If you
fail to plan, you plan to fail", is the old saw and the linux folk have
certainly done that. In spades. Doubled and redoubled. IBM took up
the load and showed them how to play the game, but they have not really
learned anything, simply making it a part of their mantra that their
destiny is great since IBM even believes in them! Wait until IBM sees a
different avenue to success.
Liam Slider
> "If you fail
> to plan, you plan to fail", is the old saw and the linux folk have
> certainly done that.
No we haven't. We aren't even playing the same game, so why should we use
the same playbook (plan)?
billwg
"Liam Slider" <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.01.30....@nospam.liamslider.com...
generally programmer wannabes who do what they do out of the enthusiasm
they have for doing it. OSS users are generally folk who cannot afford
the real stuff and who hang around hoping for something better to fall
out of the tree. They talk of community and service and giving and
freedom, but they are just hoping for a better handout.
Madhusudan Singh
I paid nearly $400 for a new copy of Mathematica a month ago, and will
probably be spending $2000 sometime within the next 2 months for LabView.
Now tell me again why would I spend that money on poor quality M$
windows/office when I have Linux and OpenOffice available ?
You look like an idiot when you make statements of the kind you made. The
OSS / Linux user is even more selective than a typical losedoze user. I
will pay money for good stuff, but won't shell out one rotten penny for
something as substandard as windows/office. And since I do not waste money
on the OS or the office suite, I have more money available for really great
applications like Mathematica, Matlab, LabView, etc.
For a proprietary solution to succeed on Linux, it has to be a lot better
than anything OSS throws out. And that is, version after version, a
narrowing performance margin. More competition => better products.
Sig Sauer
>
> "Liam Slider" <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.01.30....@nospam.liamslider.com...
>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 00:19:44 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>
>>> "If you fail
>>> to plan, you plan to fail", is the old saw and the linux folk have
>>> certainly done that.
>>
>> No we haven't. We aren't even playing the same game, so why should we
>> use
>> the same playbook (plan)?
>>
> IMO you folk are not playing any game at all!
Not considered a game here..
> OSS developers are generally programmer wannabes who do what they do
> out of the enthusiasm they have for doing it.
This may be true in some cases. I also think that you would be surprised
as to the number of professional/commercial software designers that
contribute to the OSS/Linux community in their spare time.
>OSS users are generally folk who cannot afford the real stuff and who
>hang around hoping for something better to fall out of the tree. They
>talk of community and service and giving and freedom, but they are just
>hoping for a better handout.
I can afford MS or win32 based software. I have an entire shelf full of
that junk. The wife uses it. I used to use it. Then I discovered the
beauty of the Linux operating system. The stability, the damned near
bulletproof security, the speed of it, the way it handles memory, the way
my games run on it, the great functionality/configurablity of the OSS
software packages that are offered for it...all superior to Windows. What
is not to like?
Handout no, I just know a good thing when I see it. Sure it took some
effort on my part to deborg my brain from the windoze way of doing things,
but over time, I learned it and I have to say I have no regrets in leaving
windows OFF of my computer. I think you bash OSS/Linux because you have
NOT given yourself a chance to learn/try OSS/linux, and you blame linux
for that. That is not fair to OSS/Linux, and it is not fair to yourself.
So go play somewhere else. This by the way is a Linux ADVOCACY group, and
you posting anti OSS/linux opinion is off topic inflamatory, provacative
trolling and you know it. Give Bill Gates my regards. His crappy, bug
ridden, fully exploitable, screen door security based Operating System
keeps me in repair work and the money from that keeps me in new latest
greatest hardware for my Linux ONLY box.
:-)
Sig
--
"Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely
unintentional side effect."
--- Linus Torvalds
billwg
"Madhusudan Singh" <spammers...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:N4idnThrzYZd70De...@comcast.com...
and you seem to have gotten by cheaply at $400! Did you lie about your
status? Regardless, you claim to have the means, so you buy a
commercial product. That fits my theorem precisely. Isn't there some
Mathematica clone in the OSS world? Is it not as good?
billwg
"Sig Sauer" <s...@bang.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.01.30....@bang.com...
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 01:33:31 +0000, billwg wrote:
>
>>
>> "Liam Slider" <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2006.01.30....@nospam.liamslider.com...
>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 00:19:44 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>>
>>>> "If you fail
>>>> to plan, you plan to fail", is the old saw and the linux folk have
>>>> certainly done that.
>>>
>>> No we haven't. We aren't even playing the same game, so why should
>>> we
>>> use
>>> the same playbook (plan)?
>>>
>> IMO you folk are not playing any game at all!
> Not considered a game here..
>> OSS developers are generally programmer wannabes who do what they do
>> out of the enthusiasm they have for doing it.
>
> This may be true in some cases. I also think that you would be
> surprised
> as to the number of professional/commercial software designers that
> contribute to the OSS/Linux community in their spare time.
>
developers who contributed to linux as a way to jab at Mr. Softee whose
PC products were invading unix territory. Now a lot of them have extra
time on their hands due to cutbacks by the unix companies due to the
huge invasion of unix product areas by lower cost hardware and linux.
A fitting end to their schemes!
>>OSS users are generally folk who cannot afford the real stuff and who
>>hang around hoping for something better to fall out of the tree. They
>>talk of community and service and giving and freedom, but they are
>>just
>>hoping for a better handout.
>
> I can afford MS or win32 based software. I have an entire shelf full
> of
> that junk. The wife uses it. I used to use it. Then I discovered the
> beauty of the Linux operating system. The stability, the damned near
> bulletproof security, the speed of it, the way it handles memory, the
> way
> my games run on it, the great functionality/configurablity of the OSS
> software packages that are offered for it...all superior to Windows.
> What
> is not to like?
Perhaps you are not the common case or perhaps you are just saying that
because of the shame that you have about your status.
>
> Handout no, I just know a good thing when I see it. Sure it took some
> effort on my part to deborg my brain from the windoze way of doing
> things,
> but over time, I learned it and I have to say I have no regrets in
> leaving
> windows OFF of my computer. I think you bash OSS/Linux because you
> have
> NOT given yourself a chance to learn/try OSS/linux, and you blame
> linux
> for that. That is not fair to OSS/Linux, and it is not fair to
> yourself.
>
Handout = Good Thing? Sure it is! And that is what I said. I bash
OSS/Linux because I disagree with the proposition and cannot see it
going anywhere useful in the long run. Handouts are good, but they
cannot last. Slavery was good for a certain class of society as well,
but it eventually went away. When push comes to shove, linux will
crumble as well. Too many people with their hands out and nobody
feeding the golden goose.
> So go play somewhere else. This by the way is a Linux ADVOCACY group,
> and
> you posting anti OSS/linux opinion is off topic inflamatory,
> provacative
> trolling and you know it. Give Bill Gates my regards. His crappy, bug
> ridden, fully exploitable, screen door security based Operating System
> keeps me in repair work and the money from that keeps me in new latest
> greatest hardware for my Linux ONLY box.
>
You are a repair man?
Madhusudan Singh
No one is confused. I am contending your stupid statement that reads :
"OSS users are generally folk who cannot afford
the real stuff and who hang around hoping for something better to fall
out of the tree. "
I am an OSS user, and I can afford more than most windows users do, because
I spend my money wisely. I do not shell out $100 odd for an insecure and
buggy OS like windows XP and $375 odd for Office, which until its next
update cannot do something as simple as exporting PDF, something OpenOffice
has had since version 0.1. That leaves me with nearly $500 extra on
applications that matter to me (not counting the extra $100 or so on
anti-virus tools and other crutches without which you cannot venture out on
the internet with windows XP).
The performance gap between Maxima (which is strictly not a clone since its
programming language is different) and Mathematica has narrowed sharply in
the last 3 years (I am proficient in using both) and in a few years, there
might be no need for me to buy Mathematica (and Mathematica is cheap for me
because of academic discount) unless people at Wolfram come up with
compelling reasons for me to invest in their products. This is the kind of
competition that applications that have no OSS alternative, do not have to
face, and quality suffers.
So your "theorem" is wildly out of step with reality.
There is room for both OSS and proprietary solutions, as long as they are
the best solutions, and budgetary decision on the second are often dictated
by how much you deploy in OSS. However, there is no room for proprietary
crappy products like windows XP and M$ office. Windows is so much
technically inferior to Linux, BSD and Mac OSX that only market inertia is
keeping it afloat.
Rick
>
> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.01.29....@nomail.com...
>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 16:14:49 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>>>>>He's failed. Miserably.
>>>>
>>>> Failed?
>>>
>>> Yes. Failed.
>>>
>> and, AGAIN, how can you fail at something you have not tried to do?
>>
> Heavens, rick! That's the easiest way to fail! You academic types pat
> yourselves on the back and tell each other how dedicated you all are and
... and we are dedicated.
> how you give so much to the community etc, but you are really just
> copping out.
You are a liar. Just so you know, I also spent over 15 years on the street
in EMS prior to becoming a full time public school teacher.
> You choose a low stress, no-brainer kind of career where
> you don't have to compete with others for a living. That's OK with me,
> but you never really learn about success and failure and what makes them
> different from one another.
You show your stupidity.
>
> The OSSers, including linus himself, continually hope for an outcome
> whereby the MS Borg is defeated and sent off, but they do not know how
> to do that, hence linus' remarks at the start of this thread. "If you
> fail to plan, you plan to fail", is the old saw and the linux folk have
> certainly done that. In spades. Doubled and redoubled. IBM took up
> the load and showed them how to play the game, but they have not really
> learned anything, simply making it a part of their mantra that their
> destiny is great since IBM even believes in them! Wait until IBM sees a
> different avenue to success.
And, AGAIN, Linus was quoted as saying he was not trying to kill Microsoft.
--
Rick
JEDIDIAH
Billy boy can get JAILED for that kind of "lip service".
Claims to the SEC are no joke.
--
If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either. / | \
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Ramon F Herrera
> technically inferior to Linux, BSD and Mac OSX that only market inertia is
> keeping it afloat.
I disagree with you, Madhusudan. I would say that market inertia is
the only *legal* reason keeping Windows afloat. There are plenty of
illegal reasons helping the convicted monopolist.
-Ramon
Ramon F Herrera
> This may be true in some cases. I also think that you would be surprised
> as to the number of professional/commercial software designers that
> contribute to the OSS/Linux community in their spare time.
You should also mention the number of professionals that contribute to
the OSS community in their employer's time.
Just as an example: Google employees are allowed to spend up to 25% of
their time in projects of their own, and the company could pick some of
those projects and dedicate some serious resources to advance them.
-Ramon
Skeets
100 years, alrighty now? -lol-
point 2: Tens of thousands of Windows developers working on Windows
year-round, and literally, yet it's barely made a dent in desktop
security when confronted with a script kiddie? after 20+ years of
dedicated pursuit?
point 3: microsoft can market the socks off of the linux community
they just can't fix their malware magnet nor educate their average user.
Sig Sauer
> Perhaps you are not the common case or perhaps you are just saying that
> because of the shame that you have about your status.
Ashamed of my status..not hardly. Financially comfortable (not
totally liquid yet) , farmhouse on 20 acres, I get to travel out of the
country (U.S), to S.E. Asia primarily Thailand and Vietnam year before
last, Thailand and Laos this year, went to Romania last year. You would be
surprised at exactly what TYPE of status I seek. It is not in the world of
men.
> Handout = Good Thing? Sure it is! And that is what I said. I bash
> OSS/Linux because I disagree with the proposition and cannot see it
> going anywhere useful in the long run.
Which proposition can't you see going anywhere? The proposition where
Linus Torvalds had an idea, developed it, made it a seed, planted the seed
and watched in awe as it spread as wildfire across the world via the
internet? The proposition of creating a community of developers and
contributors dedicated to feeding and breathing life into that same fire?
I have some bad news for you pal: Not only has it gone anywhere, it has
ARRIVED! So use it or not, like it or not, bash it or not, it is here, it
will keep growing and it will keep getting better. It has done just that
since it began. To a greater extent than Windows IMHO.
>Handouts are good, but they cannot last. Slavery was good for a
>certain class of society as well, but it eventually went away.
>When push comes to shove, linux will crumble as well.
>Too many people with their hands out and nobody feeding the golden goose.
Hmm, Linux seems to have lasted THIS long and it keeps getting better
and better, (to the chagrin of Uncle Billy G. I am sure) more market
share......which to me is a mis-measurement of Linux considering it is
free. (I guess market is as good as any other yardstick to measure it by.)
The support is better now both inside the community and commercially
available and the documentation is a far stretch better than what it used
to be. If you want to see Linux in it's element, go to any major web
hosting service that offers dedicated servers, you will see Linux offered
right along side windows. The hosting services (server farms) do this
because they HAVE to offer Linux servers to stay competitive in the
hosting market. I co-host several websites for friends and business
associates. All from a linux server. I used a windows server for a long
time, after a couple of hack attempts, I saw the light of Linux. Now,
security is much less an issue. I'm not alone in this. Apache running on
Linux serves up a pretty good chunk of the web. I know it is an apple and
oranges comparison of server environment to desktop. Not trying to
compare, just trying to continue on a point. Linux is here to stay.
> You are a repair man?
Repair man among other things as a sideline endeavor. I make my services
and talents available to many people for a fee. I work in a lab full time.
I have a couple of questions. If you are such a huge advocate for windows,
why are you trolling in a linux group? Unless it is just to troll,
provoke and inflame. You seem to have some level of higher brain function
so why do you continue to punish yourself and your wallet by using windows?
Sig Sauer
> There is room for both OSS and proprietary solutions, as long as they are
> the best solutions, and budgetary decision on the second are often dictated
> by how much you deploy in OSS. However, there is no room for proprietary
> crappy products like windows XP and M$ office. Windows is so much
> technically inferior to Linux, BSD and Mac OSX that only market inertia is
> keeping it afloat.
Awesome answer!!
Sig Sauer
Good points. I didn't know that about Google. That is one hell of a perk.
Sig Sauer
HAHAHAHA
DFS
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 22:14:04 -0500, Madhusudan Singh wrote:
>
>> There is room for both OSS and proprietary solutions, as long as
>> they are the best solutions, and budgetary decision on the second
>> are often dictated by how much you deploy in OSS. However, there is
>> no room for proprietary crappy products like windows XP and M$
>> office. Windows is so much technically inferior to Linux, BSD and
>> Mac OSX that only market inertia is keeping it afloat.
>
> Awesome answer!!
Except for the first 3 sentences and all the lies they contain.
Kier
>
>> Perhaps you are not the common case or perhaps you are just saying that
>> because of the shame that you have about your status.
>
> Ashamed of my status..not hardly. Financially comfortable (not
> totally liquid yet) , farmhouse on 20 acres, I get to travel out of the
> country (U.S), to S.E. Asia primarily Thailand and Vietnam year before
> last, Thailand and Laos this year, went to Romania last year. You would be
> surprised at exactly what TYPE of status I seek. It is not in the world of
> men.
>
>
>> Handout = Good Thing? Sure it is! And that is what I said. I bash
>> OSS/Linux because I disagree with the proposition and cannot see it
>> going anywhere useful in the long run.
>
> Which proposition can't you see going anywhere? The proposition where
> Linus Torvalds had an idea, developed it, made it a seed, planted the seed
> and watched in awe as it spread as wildfire across the world via the
> internet? The proposition of creating a community of developers and
> contributors dedicated to feeding and breathing life into that same fire?
> I have some bad news for you pal: Not only has it gone anywhere, it has
> ARRIVED! So use it or not, like it or not, bash it or not, it is here, it
> will keep growing and it will keep getting better. It has done just that
> since it began. To a greater extent than Windows IMHO.
billwg is too dishonest to admit any of that. He just sings the same old
lying tune no matter what evidence is placed before him.
>
>>Handouts are good, but they cannot last. Slavery was good for a
>>certain class of society as well, but it eventually went away.
>>When push comes to shove, linux will crumble as well.
>>Too many people with their hands out and nobody feeding the golden goose.
>
> Hmm, Linux seems to have lasted THIS long and it keeps getting better
> and better, (to the chagrin of Uncle Billy G. I am sure) more market
> share......which to me is a mis-measurement of Linux considering it is
> free. (I guess market is as good as any other yardstick to measure it by.)
Unfortunately billwg seems incapable of recognising the quality of
anything unless there's a dollar sign attached to it.
> The support is better now both inside the community and commercially
> available and the documentation is a far stretch better than what it used
> to be. If you want to see Linux in it's element, go to any major web
> hosting service that offers dedicated servers, you will see Linux offered
> right along side windows. The hosting services (server farms) do this
> because they HAVE to offer Linux servers to stay competitive in the
> hosting market. I co-host several websites for friends and business
> associates. All from a linux server. I used a windows server for a long
> time, after a couple of hack attempts, I saw the light of Linux. Now,
> security is much less an issue. I'm not alone in this. Apache running on
> Linux serves up a pretty good chunk of the web. I know it is an apple and
> oranges comparison of server environment to desktop. Not trying to
> compare, just trying to continue on a point. Linux is here to stay.
>
>> You are a repair man?
> Repair man among other things as a sideline endeavor. I make my services
> and talents available to many people for a fee. I work in a lab full time.
>
> I have a couple of questions. If you are such a huge advocate for windows,
> why are you trolling in a linux group? Unless it is just to troll,
> provoke and inflame. You seem to have some level of higher brain function
> so why do you continue to punish yourself and your wallet by using windows?
Stupidity, probably.
--
Kier
spi...@freenet.co.uk
>
>
> Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>>>He's failed. Miserably.
>>
>> Failed?
>
Failed at what?
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.01.29....@nomail.com...
>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 16:14:49 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>>>>>He's failed. Miserably.
>>>>
>>>> Failed?
>>>
>>> Yes. Failed.
>>>
>> and, AGAIN, how can you fail at something you have not tried to do?
>>
> Heavens, rick! That's the easiest way to fail! You academic types pat
> yourselves on the back and tell each other how dedicated you all are and
> how you give so much to the community etc, but you are really just
> copping out. You choose a low stress, no-brainer kind of career where
> you don't have to compete with others for a living. That's OK with me,
> but you never really learn about success and failure and what makes them
> different from one another.
Oh darn, I've failed to destroy the earth again today...
I never TRIED of course, but that also means I've failed to get a diploma in
juggling and failed to perform a neural reconstruction on george w bush to
cure his congenital stupidity...
Looks like everything I don't try I fail at, pooh eh?
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon F Herrera
I read it recently in a non-computer media (Business Week or
something).
Can you even imagine Microsoft doing something similar? It is simply
unthinkable. A programmer writing bugless, beautiful code. Code that
could be picked up by the corporation and made into a product.
Obviosuly the programmer in question should be remunerated accordingly
(after all, we're not communists here). I am not even talking about
open source. But heck, I must be daydreaming, now I remember that the
whole purpose of Microsoft revolves about making rich a single person
(or a very small group of people)...
-RFH
spi...@freenet.co.uk
>
>
> point 1: i don't recall linus ever giving a date. get back to us in
> 100 years, alrighty now? -lol-
>
> point 2: Tens of thousands of Windows developers working on Windows
> year-round, and literally, yet it's barely made a dent in desktop
> security when confronted with a script kiddie? after 20+ years of
> dedicated pursuit?
Now now... be fair...
don't be cruel...
Microsoft didn't give a stuff about security until about 5 years ago, and
even then didn't take it seriously until the bad press got so bad he had to
back in 2004.
They're amateurs when it comes to security, they've not even been at it for
2 years. And they have a terrible codebase to start worrying about security
on. They'd be better off starting from a ground up rewrite.
--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
| spi...@freenet.co.uk |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| in |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|
Ray Ingles
> IMO you folk are not playing any game at all! OSS developers are
> generally programmer wannabes who do what they do out of the enthusiasm
> they have for doing it.
They were among the first, but open-source makes too much economic
sense to ignore and many companies are using the technique now, too:
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2006/01/12/no_oss_community.html
There are flaws in that article, but it makes some valid points you
habitually ignore.
> OSS users are generally folk who cannot afford the real stuff and who
> hang around hoping for something better to fall out of the tree.
Oh, yeah, all those server sales fit that model beautifully. :->
I don't know what universe you're describing, Bill, but it isn't the
one everyone else is living in.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Personally, I've been hearing all my life about the Serious
Philosophical Issues posed by life extension, and my attitude
has always been that I'm willing to grapple with those issues
for as many centuries as it takes." - Patrick Nielsen Hayden
chrisv
>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 17:27:23 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Linux has never been about destroying MS.
>>
>> Its proponents sure do say differently.
>
>My portfolio says that I'm not.
You do releaize that you are arguing with a worthless, lying, POS
troll, right?
Take the above - an obvious lie from the DumbFsckingShit. Linux'
proponents in general just want a viable alternative to M$, so that we
(the world) are not at the mercy of one company.
rex.b...@gmail.com
marketplace. According to official sources, roughly 95% of these PCs
are sold with Windows preinstalled. The remaining 5% are typically
machines configured to run Linux or FreeBSD.
Of course, Linux has tried very hard to "play nice" with Windows, and
Linux is often installed on an existing windows system without
displacing it. For example, dual-boot machines have been popular since
the early 1990s. Most modern machines have more than enough RAM, Disk,
and CPU Speed to run Windows and Linux concurrently.
Windows users can have Linux in the form of cygwin, MS-Virtual PC/Linux
VMWare/Linux, or VMWarePlayer/Linux.
Linux users can have Windows in the form of WINE, Xen/Windows,
VMWare/Windows, VMWPlayer/Windows.
No one really has a clue how many Linux machines there are out there
because most of the "counters" are either only counting IP addresses
(will bias toward Windows dhcp), or those that count cookies are
closely guarded.
The total of ALL Linux licenses, including appliances, routers, TiVo,
VMs, downloads, and other distribution channels deployed during Year
Ending 2/2006 - actually EXCEEDS the number of PCs sold with Windows
preinstalled during their year ending 8/2005.
Linux has enjoyed market revenue growth of over 40%/year, and is
continuing to grow at 10-15%/quarter.
Some good indicators include the popularity of OpenOffice and FireFox,
both of which have been deployed to nearly 1/4 billion customers.
The Microsoft advocates would tell you, this is only 25% of the total
established user base, which is based on sales over the last 10-15
years - since the release of Windows.
On the other hand, actual number of Microsoft licenses DEPLOYED this
year were down this year, and even indicated a reduction in the overall
net user base. Most of these were merely replacement of one older and
slower machine with a newer faster machine. But in many cases the
machine being replaced was converted to Linux.
Many of the new AMD-64 based PCs have been engineered for Linux, but
shipped with Windows. This eliminates any legal issues with a
co-resident Window/Linux configuration, but most users of these AMD-64
machines want to use Linux as the primary operating system and Windows
as the client.
Estimates are that Linux driven revenues across the industry will
exceed $24 billion dollars next year. This includes hardware,
software, services, consulting, and support.
If Vista turns out to be another overhyped unusable solution - similar
to Windows NT 3.x, it could open the door for a huge Linux breakout.
Even if Vista is everything Microsoft has promised it would be, and
pricing remains competitive, many customers will insist that Windows
"play nice" with Linux, or Windows will be the one to go.
Most large organizations have already implimented a "quick switch"
Linux migration strategy. All of the hardware being purchased has been
tested with Linux. Software such as OpenOffice and FireFox has been
deployed to staff. Most "linux hostile" software and sites are being
bypassed or replaced. Linux knowledgable staff is being recruited and
retained, and Linux servers are being deployed across the enterprise.
The Bamboo tree is a tiny plant for almost 5 years, building a huge
root structure, growing DOWN into the ground. In the 5th year, it
grows incredibly fast, often as much as 6-8 inches per day until it
reaches a height of 90 feet or more.
Microsoft is acutely aware of all of this activity, which may be one of
the reasons why they have focused so much attention on their XBox/360
and XBox lines. Ironically, this has cost them dearly in terms of
their relationships with traditional PC OEMs. Most of these OEMs are
now insisting that the "Microsoft Platform" be "Linux Friendly". Many
OEMs are also now insisting on concessions which include the ability to
reccomend a specific Linux distribution or version, the ability to
publish their own benchmarks, and the ability to publish the fact that
their machines ARE Linux Friendly.
Microsoft is still very much in the game, and they will continue to
flex their muscles where they can, but they may find that people are
far less tolerant of this behavior than they were in the past.
rex.b...@gmail.com
press and the public in hopes of getting leniency in the courts?
They are lying to the trade press in hopes of winning back customers
who have already begun the switch to Linux?
They are lying to investors in hopes of maintaining their stock price?
Nice to know!
Thanks for setting the record streight Bill
Rex Ballard
billwg
"JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:sah0b3-...@nomad.mishnet...
> On 2006-01-29, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Ramon F Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in message
>> news:1138557957....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>> He's failed. Miserably.
>>>
>>> Failed? How come in the reports to the SEC Microsoft states that
>>> its
>>> main competitor is Linux, followed by IBM? How come M$ is trying to
>>> do
>>> some sort of "open sourcing"?
>>> How come Microsoft speakpeople have said: "we have a lot to learn
>>> from
>>> the Open Source movement"?
>>>
>> Does the term "lip service" come to mind?
>
> Billy boy can get JAILED for that kind of "lip service".
>
> Claims to the SEC are no joke.
>
corporate mattress in every annual report ever filed.
billwg
"Madhusudan Singh" <spammers...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
>
> No one is confused. I am contending your stupid statement that reads :
>
> "OSS users are generally folk who cannot afford
> the real stuff and who hang around hoping for something better to fall
> out of the tree. "
>
>
> So your "theorem" is wildly out of step with reality.
>
you out of the general user of OSS category, singh! Since you obviously
have no experience as a general user, your comments are immaterial.
> There is room for both OSS and proprietary solutions, as long as they
> are
> the best solutions, and budgetary decision on the second are often
> dictated
> by how much you deploy in OSS. However, there is no room for
> proprietary
> crappy products like windows XP and M$ office. Windows is so much
> technically inferior to Linux, BSD and Mac OSX that only market
> inertia is
> keeping it afloat.
Well the "inferiority" of Windows is just your unsupported bias, singh,
but it certainly is true that market inertia is important to the
continuing success of Windows in the market. They have ALL the momentum
on the desktop and the puny efforts by the linuxers cannot change that
one whit.
Ramon F Herrera
> Billy boy can get JAILED for that kind of "lip service".
> Claims to the SEC are no joke.
Not to mention class action lawsuits from his own stockholders.
-Ramon
Edwin
> Jeremy Fisher wrote:
>
>
>> Failed Miserably, at what, destroying Microsoft? Linux is not about
>> competing with M$, If the Linux community had it mind to destroy M$ then
>> it would not be that difficult, but the effort in starting such a fight
>> would deflect from core values that have built Linux into the world
>> beating OS that it has become today.
>
> Torvalds wants to keep Microsoft around so he doesn't get convicted of
> running a monopoly.
LOL
Edwin
> considered a monopoly. Linus made Linux free to the whole world. Even a
> moron like you is allowed to take the source, hack it, modify it,
> change it to something else, package it, sell it....so long as you make
> a version of it freely available to the rest of the community. How can
> something FREE be part of a monopoly?
It's a troll. It wasn't supposed to make sense, it was supposed to
draw an outraged response from you for the amusement of its author.
Mission accomplished. ;-)
JEDIDIAH
> [Sig Sauer:]
>> This may be true in some cases. I also think that you would be surprised
>> as to the number of professional/commercial software designers that
>> contribute to the OSS/Linux community in their spare time.
>
> You should also mention the number of professionals that contribute to
> the OSS community in their employer's time.
Nevermind Google. Oracle has a number of projects. They are
all relevant to Oracle's interests of course. However, this highlights
the fact that software is merely a shared resource that typically just
enables a company to do it's own business. This business may or may not
have anything to do with selling software. Infact, it likely will not.
Either way, most companies are large enough that they can help contribute
resources to the common pool without putting themselves at a strategic
disadvantage.
Most problems that software solves are not in areas that will
distinguish you from your competition. You might as well cooperate, it
certainly wont hurt you and it might just allow you to eliminate a cost
center.
>
> Just as an example: Google employees are allowed to spend up to 25% of
> their time in projects of their own, and the company could pick some of
> those projects and dedicate some serious resources to advance them.
>
> -Ramon
>
Madhusudan Singh
>
> "Madhusudan Singh" <spammers...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:JbKdnR8XfPi...@comcast.com...
>>
>> No one is confused. I am contending your stupid statement that reads :
>>
>> "OSS users are generally folk who cannot afford
>> the real stuff and who hang around hoping for something better to fall
>> out of the tree. "
>>
>> I am an OSS user, and I can afford more than most windows users do,...
>>
>> So your "theorem" is wildly out of step with reality.
>>
> All you are saying is that you have a lot of bucks to spend, which takes
> you out of the general user of OSS category, singh! Since you obviously
> have no experience as a general user, your comments are immaterial.
>
The reason I have a lot bucks to spend is directly related to the fact that
I am an OSS user. I do not have to pay a dime for a far superior OS,
nothing on anti-virus tools or even firewall solutions. Not to mention, no
productivity downtime due to malware recovery / removal / what have you.
I do not have to waste my money on such things. That is why I have bucks to
spend.
>> There is room for both OSS and proprietary solutions, as long as they
>> are
>> the best solutions, and budgetary decision on the second are often
>> dictated
>> by how much you deploy in OSS. However, there is no room for
>> proprietary
>> crappy products like windows XP and M$ office. Windows is so much
>> technically inferior to Linux, BSD and Mac OSX that only market
>> inertia is
>> keeping it afloat.
>
> Well the "inferiority" of Windows is just your unsupported bias, singh,
I have used both and work in an environment that is close to 60% windows. I
see people suffering the ravages of windows and sometimes I help a user
switch (some of those switches are to Linux, others to Mac OSX). These are
all highly educated, and intelligent people who are my colleagues.
Yes, I have a bias, just like I have a strong bias against going out on a
rainy winter night without an umbrella.
Ray Ingles
> you out of the general user of OSS category, singh!
Remember, billwg considers himself a 'commentator', and doesn't feel
any responsibility to quote actual facts or verify his claims.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/a9a849128916267b
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Kids cost nothing to make, and what with the Internet,
they practically raise themselves!" - Homer Simpson
billwg
"Sig Sauer" <s...@bang.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.01.30....@bang.com...
>
>> Perhaps you are not the common case or perhaps you are just saying
>> that
>> because of the shame that you have about your status.
>
> Ashamed of my status..not hardly. Financially comfortable (not
> totally liquid yet) , farmhouse on 20 acres, I get to travel out of
> the
> country (U.S), to S.E. Asia primarily Thailand and Vietnam year before
> last, Thailand and Laos this year, went to Romania last year. You
> would be
> surprised at exactly what TYPE of status I seek. It is not in the
> world of
> men.
>
posted to a newsgroup, but you sit here and complain of Microsoft with
the rest of the COLA nuts, so you must have some interest in the notion
of commercial success or else why bother to complain of Microsoft? Are
you just irrational?
>
>> Handout = Good Thing? Sure it is! And that is what I said. I bash
>> OSS/Linux because I disagree with the proposition and cannot see it
>> going anywhere useful in the long run.
>
> Which proposition can't you see going anywhere? The proposition where
> Linus Torvalds had an idea, developed it, made it a seed, planted the
> seed
> and watched in awe as it spread as wildfire across the world via the
> internet? The proposition of creating a community of developers and
> contributors dedicated to feeding and breathing life into that same
> fire?
That's the one, sig! The seed was to copy unix and run it on i386
architecture so that they could play with unix without having to be able
to afford a real one. There were a lot of goofy people with some need
to pretend they were OS developers and MMORPGs hadn't caught on yet, so
it spread around.
> I have some bad news for you pal: Not only has it gone anywhere, it
> has
> ARRIVED! So use it or not, like it or not, bash it or not, it is here,
> it
> will keep growing and it will keep getting better. It has done just
> that
> since it began. To a greater extent than Windows IMHO.
>
Well, sig, I don't know what your humble opinion uses as a measuring
stick, but it sure as hell ain't what everyone else uses! LOL!!! Linux
is in fourth or fifth place in the server market and running dead last
in the client market based on generally accepted metrics. The confusion
over the server market is due to my not feeling like looking to see if
linux has gotten ahead of Netware yet.
>>Handouts are good, but they cannot last. Slavery was good for a
>>certain class of society as well, but it eventually went away.
>>When push comes to shove, linux will crumble as well.
>>Too many people with their hands out and nobody feeding the golden
>>goose.
>
> Hmm, Linux seems to have lasted THIS long and it keeps getting better
> and better, (to the chagrin of Uncle Billy G. I am sure)
Gates has to be proud of the fact that Windows has gained market share
in all of its markets continually since its introduction a couple of
years before linux.
more market
> share......which to me is a mis-measurement of Linux considering it is
> free. (I guess market is as good as any other yardstick to measure it
> by.)
> The support is better now both inside the community and commercially
> available and the documentation is a far stretch better than what it
> used
> to be. If you want to see Linux in it's element, go to any major web
> hosting service that offers dedicated servers, you will see Linux
> offered
> right along side windows. The hosting services (server farms) do this
> because they HAVE to offer Linux servers to stay competitive in the
> hosting market. I co-host several websites for friends and business
> associates. All from a linux server. I used a windows server for a
> long
> time, after a couple of hack attempts, I saw the light of Linux. Now,
> security is much less an issue. I'm not alone in this. Apache running
> on
> Linux serves up a pretty good chunk of the web. I know it is an apple
> and
> oranges comparison of server environment to desktop. Not trying to
> compare, just trying to continue on a point. Linux is here to stay.
>
As a don't care kind of OS for web serving, maybe, but only as long as
the other stuff, Apache and MySQL, can hold onto any edge.
>> You are a repair man?
> Repair man among other things as a sideline endeavor. I make my
> services
> and talents available to many people for a fee. I work in a lab full
> time.
>
> I have a couple of questions. If you are such a huge advocate for
> windows,
> why are you trolling in a linux group? Unless it is just to troll,
> provoke and inflame. You seem to have some level of higher brain
> function
> so why do you continue to punish yourself and your wallet by using
> windows?
>
Well, sig, if you want to argue about Windows vs linux on a continuing
basis, this is one of the places where you have to go, didn't you know
that? If you want to hunt a bear, you have to go to Alaska, too.
Now the next question, "Why Windows?", is equally obvious. Windows is
the lead dog, the front runner, the pace setter, the market leader. In
order to move the market ahead, it is much, much more efficient to just
convince the leader to go off in your chosen direction. The leader has
the time and the interest to see just where he might want to go next so
as to keep the lead. And he has the proven vision and the ability as
well. Do you want a safer internet? Invent something that works with
Windows that gets you to that condition. Everyone wants better, but to
be better than Windows, you have to be equal to Windows everywhere else
and that is just too much work. You will bust your pick trying to get
anywhere near the coverage of Windows long before you will excel.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:slrndts6vk....@localhost.localdomain...
>
> I don't know what universe you're describing, Bill, but it isn't the
> one everyone else is living in.
>
there is the hard part and the easy part. The hard part is at the
leading edge and costs you money to get in the game. The easy part is
free no matter where you go. You can get OSS code to do the easy part
or you can use MSDN or many other sources for sample Windows code. You
can do the easy part on linux or on Windows, but the hardest parts are
not available for Linux and are sold for Windows by hundreds of top line
suppliers.
JEDIDIAH
The SEC is no joke. They are the single most draconian arm of the US
government. They make both the ATF and FBI look like a bunch of pansies. The
IRS even pales by comparison. The fact that companies even have to make
representations to them rather handily demonstrates this.
You are confusing the SEC with stockholdrs. The SEC expects
accurate information. It's the stockholders that will sue you at the drop
of the hat unless you have all of your disclaimers in a row.
And no, there is not always a "bogeyman" in an annual report.
However, a company is criminally and civilally liable if they fail
to disclose what real dangers they face.
chrisv
>Well, sig, it is not so easy to be sure of anything on the internet and
>posted to a newsgroup, but you sit here and complain of Microsoft with
>the rest of the COLA nuts, so you must have some interest in the notion
>of commercial success or else why bother to complain of Microsoft? Are
>you just irrational?
Those are not the only options, you stupid fscking troll. Maybe he
just wants a viable alternative to M$. You know - choice. Duh!
>There were a lot of goofy people with some need
>to pretend they were OS developers
How "goofy" do you have to be to parade your stupidity and lack of
morals like you do, billwg? LOL!!!
billwg
<spi...@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:me21b3-...@ridcully.fsnet.co.uk...
>
> Oh darn, I've failed to destroy the earth again today...
> I never TRIED of course, but that also means I've failed to get a
> diploma in
> juggling and failed to perform a neural reconstruction on george w
> bush to
> cure his congenital stupidity...
>
> Looks like everything I don't try I fail at, pooh eh?
Including amusing satire! Much too over the top, spike! Boring and
lifeless.
Nigel Feltham
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 11:38:13 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>> "That will just be a completely unintentional side effect."
>>
>> Linus Torvalds, New York Times interview, 2003
>>
>>
>> He's failed. Miserably.
>
> How can you fail at something that you are not trying to do, dickhead?
And why would any individual waste time on trying to destroy MS when they're
doing a good job of destroying their own company in the EU courts.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
Yup. You just failed to recognise sarcasm, and I failed at amusing satire..
Just as well neither of us were trying, eh?
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Ingles
> news:slrndts6vk....@localhost.localdomain...
>>
>> I don't know what universe you're describing, Bill, but it isn't the
>> one everyone else is living in.
>>
> Perhaps you only have a problem with your perception, Ray! In software
> there is the hard part and the easy part.
But, of course, you have no examples or indeed, even definitions of
"hard" and "easy". Your entire post is, as usual, 'dismissive, yet
content-free'.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Sooner or later the first system is finished, and the architect, with
firm confidence and a demonstrated mastery of that class of system, is
ready to build a second system. This second system is the most
dangerous system a man ever designs." - Fred Brooks
chrisv
>proven liar billwg wrote:
>>
>> (snip claptrap)
>
> But, of course, you have no examples or indeed, even definitions of
>"hard" and "easy". Your entire post is, as usual, 'dismissive, yet
>content-free'.
It's claptrap.
Ray Ingles
> to pretend they were OS developers and MMORPGs hadn't caught on yet, so
> it spread around.
You can see he's really slipping. There were times when billwg would
try to make his tolls sound at least semi-plausible on first blush, but
this isn't even a decent joke.
> Linux is in fourth or fifth place in the server market...
Nope. It's very close to tied for second. Here's a fact from this page:
http://h71028.www7.hp.com/ERC/cache/107846-0-0-0-121.html
"Across all vendors Linux on x86 outshipped Sun's Solaris on x86
shipments by a approximately 78.9 to 1 on a worldwide unit basis.
Sun's Solaris on x86 had a 0.27% unit market share of the worldwide
x86-32 and x86-64 market."
So, of the 32 and 64-bit x86 market, Sun's Solaris on x86 had a .27%
share, and Linux was 78.9 times that. That works out to Linux having a
21.3% share of the total x86 market. And growing by double-digit
percentatges every *quarter*.
> and running dead last in the client market based on generally
> accepted metrics.
Haven't really seen any data on that. Windows is top there (assuming
you're using the normal definitions of client) but Linux is generally
accepted as beating the former second-place runner, the Macintosh, in
that regard. I'd like to see you substantiate this. (I know I won't ever
see you substantiate anything, but it'd be nice for a change of pace.)
> Do you want a safer internet? Invent something that works with
> Windows that gets you to that condition.
The right way to get a safer house is not to find a way to make sand
more stable. It's to build it on solid ground. You assume Windows *can*
be made safer, and so far the evidence is against you.
> Everyone wants better, but to be better than Windows, you have to be
> equal to Windows everywhere else
Um, no. You just have to be better enough in the areas people care most
about. Windows certainly won plenty of market share by being 'good
enough (not better), and cheaper'.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"The function of laws to protect children cannot be to
force adults to act like them." - Irvu
billwg
"Madhusudan Singh" <spammers...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
>
> The reason I have a lot bucks to spend is directly related to the fact
> that
> I am an OSS user. I do not have to pay a dime for a far superior OS,
> nothing on anti-virus tools or even firewall solutions. Not to
> mention, no
> productivity downtime due to malware recovery / removal / what have
> you.
>
> I do not have to waste my money on such things. That is why I have
> bucks to
> spend.
>
vs XP Home, if you buy a cheap PC. You cannot use money "saved" by not
buying MS Office to buy Mathematica and LabView, for one thing they are
an order of magnitude more expensive than that.
>>
>> Well the "inferiority" of Windows is just your unsupported bias,
>> singh,
>
> I have used both and work in an environment that is close to 60%
> windows. I
> see people suffering the ravages of windows and sometimes I help a
> user
> switch (some of those switches are to Linux, others to Mac OSX). These
> are
> all highly educated, and intelligent people who are my colleagues.
>
Baloney. What "ravage" is suffered by an XP user that is cured by
getting a Macintosh? Or installing linux?
billwg
<spi...@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ll32b3-...@ridcully.fsnet.co.uk...
>
> Yup. You just failed to recognise sarcasm, and I failed at amusing
> satire..
> Just as well neither of us were trying, eh?
Not at all, spike. You produced a failed attempt at satire. You failed
to produce any sarcasm whatsoever! Of course the latter wasn't at all
apparent. LOL!!!
Madhusudan Singh
>>
> All you can point to with any accuracy is the $100 upcharge for XP Pro
> vs XP Home, if you buy a cheap PC. You cannot use money "saved" by not
> buying MS Office to buy Mathematica and LabView, for one thing they are
> an order of magnitude more expensive than that.
>
I save about $100 on windows XP, about $50 on various anti-virus / malware
removal packages, and about $375 for M$ office. That is more than $500
right there.
So, that has already paid for Mathematica (cost me a little less than $400)
and left a little pocket change towards an investment in LabView if and
when I finally go for that.
Mathematica + pocket change vs a crappy bug ridden OS and its
accompaniments ? No brainer.
>> I have used both and work in an environment that is close to 60%
>> windows. I
>> see people suffering the ravages of windows and sometimes I help a
>> user
>> switch (some of those switches are to Linux, others to Mac OSX). These
>> are
>> all highly educated, and intelligent people who are my colleagues.
>>
> Baloney. What "ravage" is suffered by an XP user that is cured by
> getting a Macintosh? Or installing linux?
Malware ? Not having to reinstall your operating system every few months ?
Not having to worry about the latest and greatest worm floating about on
the net and the panic rush towards microsoft's website it inevitably
entails. The rate at which Microsoft is forced to keep patching its OS is
very reminiscent of someone who keeps placing wood chips in a dyke that is
in slow collapse. Nothing professional about the toy OS at all.
I do not know about you, but I like to install an OS on a machine once, and
keep updating it if and as I see fit (apt-get) and not have to pay either
in lost time or money for the deficiencies of the OS. Of course, I do not
expect you to stop throwing up gas for M$ but your personal choices in
self-flagellation are of little interest to me.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-01-30, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>
> But, of course, you have no examples or indeed, even definitions of
> "hard" and "easy". Your entire post is, as usual, 'dismissive, yet
> content-free'.
>
thinking, eh? Let us say you are a supplier of commercial backup
software. The hard part could be connecting to the open system files
that establish a Windows server system state and capturing them in a
snapshot that is consistent with itself on the fly without pausing
server operations. The easy part is writing a backup set catalog and
data section to a tape for a group of files. You can find sample code
to do the latter, but none to do the former.
JEDIDIAH
> news:43de49e9$0$564$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
>>
>> The reason I have a lot bucks to spend is directly related to the fact
>> that
>> I am an OSS user. I do not have to pay a dime for a far superior OS,
>> nothing on anti-virus tools or even firewall solutions. Not to
>> mention, no
>> productivity downtime due to malware recovery / removal / what have
>> you.
>>
>> I do not have to waste my money on such things. That is why I have
>> bucks to
>> spend.
>>
> All you can point to with any accuracy is the $100 upcharge for XP Pro
> vs XP Home, if you buy a cheap PC. You cannot use money "saved" by not
> buying MS Office to buy Mathematica and LabView, for one thing they are
> an order of magnitude more expensive than that.
Yes, but he can point to all of the management software that he
doesn't need and all of the resultant headaches and update subscriptions
that he doesn't have to bother with. More of his hardware can go to running
Mathematica. So he doesn't have to buy as much hardware to acheive the
same computational result. He also doesn't have to worry about the extra
crap that runs on XP to guard against malware. He doesn't have to worry about
the lost cpu cycles or the stupid nag screens.
There's also msoffice to consider.
THEN there's the upgrades to everything to consider. Maybe you didn't
have to pay for XP when you bought the machine but maybe you need to buy
anotherl version of the OS to stay current, get security patches, get current
driver support and such.
[deletia]
>> switch (some of those switches are to Linux, others to Mac OSX). These
>> are
>> all highly educated, and intelligent people who are my colleagues.
>>
> Baloney. What "ravage" is suffered by an XP user that is cured by
> getting a Macintosh? Or installing linux?
Getting a Macintosh has always been a pretty good cure for PC.
--
NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club! |||
/ | \
That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!
Sig Sauer
Thanks Ray, I was at work when he responded and didn't so I couldn't
reply. Consider the source. billwg is a Windows user after all. I
guess using a dummied down OS has effected his IQ. :-)
Cheers,
Sig
--
"Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely
unintentional side effect."
--- Linus Torvalds
Sig Sauer
statements in the reply I just snipped were so far off base that I can't
really see a productive end to it. So, you like windows, use it. Keep
buying it, my stock value will appreciate it. I try to offer good sound
arguement based on current facts and figures but you OBVIOUSLY have no
actual interest in the truth, and you just blindly blither away typing
your dribble and trolling this group.
I apologize to the group for feeding this troll.
DFS
> Consider the source. billwg is a Windows user after all. I
> guess using a dummied down OS has effected his IQ. :-)
effected = affected
(DFS hits his Staples button: That Was Easy!)
DFS
> I save about $100 on windows XP, about $50 on various anti-virus /
> malware removal packages, and about $375 for M$ office. That is more
> than $500 right there.
Your savings?
XP Pro academic upgrade: $78 www.pricewatch.com
malware stuff: free (MS AntiSpyware, Spybot Search and Destroy, AVG
anti-virus)
OpenOffice: free (you don't need the superior capabilities of MS Office)
Total: $78
Of course, then you can't run... snicker... Texmacs, Emacs, aucTeX, Python,
xmms, dia, etc.
(well, there's cygwin, but why bother?)
> So, that has already paid for Mathematica (cost me a little less than
> $400) and left a little pocket change towards an investment in
> LabView if and when I finally go for that.
>
> Mathematica + pocket change vs a crappy bug ridden OS and its
> accompaniments ? No brainer.
And you call yourself an 'academic'?
> Malware ?
Why do you have to worry about malware?
> Not having to reinstall your operating system
> every few months ?
Lie.
> Not having to worry about the latest and greatest worm
> floating about on the net and the panic rush towards microsoft's
> website it inevitably entails.
Lie.
> The rate at which Microsoft is forced
> to keep patching its OS is very reminiscent of someone who keeps
> placing wood chips in a dyke that is in slow collapse.
Absurd. Linux suffers far, far, far more frequent episodes of spastic
patching than Windows could ever dream of.
> Nothing professional about the toy OS at all.
Well, except that:
* it usually outperforms the amateur OS
* everyone is willing to pay for the professional OS but very few are
willing to pay ANYTHING (that means $0) for the amateur OS
* few vendors produce versions of their apps for the amateur OS
> I do not know about you, but I like to install an OS on a machine
> once, and keep updating it if and as I see fit (apt-get) and not have
> to pay either in lost time or money for the deficiencies of the OS.
What you really like to do is gloss over the deficiencies of the amateur OS
as if they don't take hours and hours of your time. Who knows how many
hassles and literally days of wasted time it took you to get past the setup
problems and bugs to finally get your amateurish system running as you want
it.
billwg
"Madhusudan Singh" <spammers...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
>
> I save about $100 on windows XP, about $50 on various anti-virus /
> malware
> removal packages, and about $375 for M$ office. That is more than $500
> right there.
>
> So, that has already paid for Mathematica (cost me a little less than
> $400)
> and left a little pocket change towards an investment in LabView if
> and
> when I finally go for that.
>
that unless you are qualifying as a student or teacher. If that is the
case, you can get the Microsoft stuff a lot cheaper, too.
> Mathematica + pocket change vs a crappy bug ridden OS and its
> accompaniments ? No brainer.
>
What's the worst bug that you see with XP Pro?
>>>
>> Baloney. What "ravage" is suffered by an XP user that is cured by
>> getting a Macintosh? Or installing linux?
>
> Malware ?
You are not certain?
> Not having to reinstall your operating system every few months ?
I don't have to do that. Who told you that they had to do that?
> Not having to worry about the latest and greatest worm floating about
> on
> the net and the panic rush towards microsoft's website it inevitably
> entails. The rate at which Microsoft is forced to keep patching its OS
> is
> very reminiscent of someone who keeps placing wood chips in a dyke
> that is
> in slow collapse. Nothing professional about the toy OS at all.
>
Well, singh, if you just deleted the emails from strangers that offer a
peep show or cheap drugs, you can avoid all that in any event. Of
course you might miss out on legitimate peep shows.
> I do not know about you, but I like to install an OS on a machine
> once, and
> keep updating it if and as I see fit (apt-get) and not have to pay
> either
> in lost time or money for the deficiencies of the OS. Of course, I do
> not
> expect you to stop throwing up gas for M$ but your personal choices in
> self-flagellation are of little interest to me.
I don't like to install one at all, singh. Good thing that new
computers come with new copies of Windows! Then you just set the update
manager on automatic and no worries!
billwg
> reply. Consider the source. billwg is a Windows user after all. I
> guess using a dummied down OS has effected his IQ. :-)
>
billwg
"JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
>>>
>> All you can point to with any accuracy is the $100 upcharge for XP
>> Pro
>> vs XP Home, if you buy a cheap PC. You cannot use money "saved" by
>> not
>> buying MS Office to buy Mathematica and LabView, for one thing they
>> are
>> an order of magnitude more expensive than that.
>
> Yes, but he can point to all of the management software that he
> doesn't need and all of the resultant headaches and update
> subscriptions
> that he doesn't have to bother with. More of his hardware can go to
> running
> Mathematica. So he doesn't have to buy as much hardware to acheive the
> same computational result. He also doesn't have to worry about the
> extra
> crap that runs on XP to guard against malware. He doesn't have to
> worry about
> the lost cpu cycles or the stupid nag screens.
>
buying an aircraft carrier, too, but he still has to come up with $6K
for the Mathematica and LabView. Now that's pretty specialized stuff
and it runs on Windows, Mac, and, now, linux. It is not in the
"general" classification, which was the subject of my earlier remark. I
do have some interest in linux, if only because it exists in the same
environment where I get my income, and I subscribe to a couple of local
LUG email threads wherein the members are constantly chatting about how
to wring a few more cycles out of P2 or P3 hardware. They use all the
same terms of endearment as the COLA bunch, i.e. Windoze, Microshaft,
M$, etc., and would fit right in here. There are so many more of that
type of linux fan, it would seem, than there are researchers coupling
LabView and Mathematica to some instrumentation of their own concoction.
Do you believe that the users of Mathematica and LabView on Windows are
continually beset with all sorts of problems that prevent them from
doing their jobs?
> There's also msoffice to consider.
>
> THEN there's the upgrades to everything to consider. Maybe you didn't
> have to pay for XP when you bought the machine but maybe you need to
> buy
> anotherl version of the OS to stay current, get security patches, get
> current
> driver support and such.
>
I can only say that MS has never charged for a service pack and they
have supported their various releases for a long time relative to the
normal service life of a personal computer.
>> Baloney. What "ravage" is suffered by an XP user that is cured by
>> getting a Macintosh? Or installing linux?
>
> Getting a Macintosh has always been a pretty good cure for PC.
>
But it is going to cut into the budget for the Mathematica and LabView a
hell of a lot more than upgrading to XP Pro! LOL!!!
As an aside, how long will it be before the Apple fans get to wondering
about why they are paying so much more? You could take up a lot of
slack asserting the magic surrounding the Power PC, but with all on
Intel, it's going to take some fast talking.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>
>> Linux is in fourth or fifth place in the server market...
>
> Nope. It's very close to tied for second. Here's a fact from this
> page:
>
> http://h71028.www7.hp.com/ERC/cache/107846-0-0-0-121.html
>
> "Across all vendors Linux on x86 outshipped Sun's Solaris on x86
> shipments by a approximately 78.9 to 1 on a worldwide unit basis.
> Sun's Solaris on x86 had a 0.27% unit market share of the worldwide
> x86-32 and x86-64 market."
>
> So, of the 32 and 64-bit x86 market, Sun's Solaris on x86 had a .27%
> share, and Linux was 78.9 times that. That works out to Linux having a
> 21.3% share of the total x86 market. And growing by double-digit
> percentatges every *quarter*.
>
Linux is huffing and puffing along behind Windows, IBM mainframe, and
real Unix. Has it even passed Netware? Even using your distorted
figures which only describe unit volume on Intel machines used as
servers and are not even the latest figures from IDC (which you are well
aware of), linux at 21.3 puts Windows at 78.5%. And Windows share is
growing faster than the market by a substantial amount.
>> and running dead last in the client market based on generally
>> accepted metrics.
>
> Haven't really seen any data on that. Windows is top there (assuming
> you're using the normal definitions of client) but Linux is generally
> accepted as beating the former second-place runner, the Macintosh, in
> that regard. I'd like to see you substantiate this. (I know I won't
> ever
> see you substantiate anything, but it'd be nice for a change of pace.)
>
Well the linuxers claim all sorts of things, but they, too, are relying
on a unit volume kind of argument and that mostly based on aftermarket
sales. Apple has a few percent of the dollar volume and MS has almost
all of the rest. Less than 1%, from what I have heard. There are few
figures on this that are widely available because MS essentially has
100% of its market, Wintel, and AAPL has 100% of its market which is not
very much the same thing when you factor in the customer images.
>> Do you want a safer internet? Invent something that works with
>> Windows that gets you to that condition.
>
> The right way to get a safer house is not to find a way to make sand
> more stable. It's to build it on solid ground. You assume Windows
> *can*
> be made safer, and so far the evidence is against you.
>
What evidence? It's just code, Ray, and a bunch of jamokes coding
around and kidding one another about how brilliant they are are no
better at it than the thousands that MS pays to do the same job,
regardless of how much herring they can eat.
>> Everyone wants better, but to be better than Windows, you have to be
>> equal to Windows everywhere else
>
> Um, no. You just have to be better enough in the areas people care
> most
> about. Windows certainly won plenty of market share by being 'good
> enough (not better), and cheaper'.
>
Windows created the market, Ray. That's the real story. The market
grew and grew based on the beneficial use that people discovered for the
products being sold into that market. As the capabilities expanded,
other markets disappeared, but there has only been the one Wintel market
since MS knocked off OS/2 decades ago.
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> More than the 3% or so that Linux supposedly has.
My estimates put it a few points higher than that based
on data from my ISP clients. My sample is limited to
the southern Wisconsin and northern Illinois area, so
take it with a grain of salt. I would be interested in
seeing stats from other nationwide telecoms, but most
don't collect client stats or don't make them available
if they do. The closest you can get is web stats
collected by some major marketing firms, but even that
has recently become near impossible to obtain without
shelling out money.
The really interesting thing is that, no matter what
measure you use, Linux desktop usage is definitely
increasing, and very strongly when measured against
its own user base. It is still small compared to
Windows, but it has likely already passed the Mac and
certainly has more momentum.
> I don't. How many exclusively Linux users do you know?
>
Are we talking about just personal use, or must they also
use only Linux at work also to count as 'exclusive'? If
the former I know about seven, but if the latter it drops
to about two. I've worked in a few diehard Linux shops
that still had to occasionally dance with the beast from
Redmond because of some legacy timesheet app or some
such.
Cheers,
Thad
The Ghost In The Machine
<s...@bang.com>
wrote
on Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:06:59 -0500
<pan.2006.01.30....@bang.com>:
It probably has! The reason why Windows users are so
smart is because they're chasing after all of the latest
antibugware... :-)
The reason why Linux users are so dumb are because we are
actually done already and are now loafing. :-) (But don't
tell our bosses that.)
>
> Cheers,
> Sig
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Madhusudan Singh
>>
> Something just doesn't add up, singh. Mathematica costs a lot more than
> that unless you are qualifying as a student or teacher. If that is the
> case, you can get the Microsoft stuff a lot cheaper, too.
The last time I checked, Microsoft Office Professional was about $375 with
academic discounts. However, upon your indicating that it might not be so
any longer, I went to microsoft's website and found :
http://www.microsoft.com/office/editions/howtobuy/professional.mspx
Its $199.
That is still $199 more than zero that I pay for a superior product -
OpenOffice 2.0.
So, the amount of money I saved is $120 (for windows XP Professional tax if
you buy a machine from a M$-blackmailed vendor - assuming that professional
costs the same as Home edition - it would cost more and that would further
skew the equation against Microsoft) + $50 for the anti-virus program +
$200 for Microsoft Office Professional. That is $370. Mathematica under
academic pricing is about $390. So not going the Microsoft route + the cost
of a pizza paid for my copy of Mathematica.
There is just no way you can avoid the implication that I am getting a far
superior and infinite more secure operating system + a far superior office
suite + Mathematica for what I would spend on buying two crappy products
and their crutches and one good pizza.
And all the above ignores the fact that Mathematica on windows costs the
same as it does on Linux, which means that if I wanted a setup with an
Office suite and Mathematica, it would cost me :
Linux solution : $0+$390 = $390.
Windows solution : $370 + $390 = $760 (assuming that windows XP professional
costs the same as windows XP home edition, if it does not, add the
difference to this total).
You just cannot beat (superior performance and security + zero cost) by
(inferior performance and insecurity + fairly heavy cost) no matter how
much you and your paymasters at Microsoft twist in the wind.
>
>> Mathematica + pocket change vs a crappy bug ridden OS and its
>> accompaniments ? No brainer.
>>
> What's the worst bug that you see with XP Pro?
Lack of security, instability, viruses, limits of customization, possibility
of installed backdoors that any closed source product has, absence of unix
power tools, etc.
>
>>>>
>>> Baloney. What "ravage" is suffered by an XP user that is cured by
>>> getting a Macintosh? Or installing linux?
>>
>> Malware ?
>
> You are not certain?
Are you now so desperate that you have to repaint sarcasm as doubt ?
>
>> Not having to reinstall your operating system every few months ?
>
> I don't have to do that. Who told you that they had to do that?
My colleagues have to, every time spyware slows their machines to a crawl.
Average time between reinstalls - 3-6 months, depending upon exposure to
the Net.
>
>> Not having to worry about the latest and greatest worm floating about
>> on
>> the net and the panic rush towards microsoft's website it inevitably
>> entails. The rate at which Microsoft is forced to keep patching its OS
>> is
>> very reminiscent of someone who keeps placing wood chips in a dyke
>> that is
>> in slow collapse. Nothing professional about the toy OS at all.
>>
> Well, singh, if you just deleted the emails from strangers that offer a
> peep show or cheap drugs, you can avoid all that in any event. Of
> course you might miss out on legitimate peep shows.
Most of microsoft's worms do not even require user interaction. So, the only
ones playing bo-peep are the vulnerable ports on a typical windows machine.
>
>
>> I do not know about you, but I like to install an OS on a machine
>> once, and
>> keep updating it if and as I see fit (apt-get) and not have to pay
>> either
>> in lost time or money for the deficiencies of the OS. Of course, I do
>> not
>> expect you to stop throwing up gas for M$ but your personal choices in
>> self-flagellation are of little interest to me.
>
> I don't like to install one at all, singh. Good thing that new
> computers come with new copies of Windows! Then you just set the update
> manager on automatic and no worries!
Until you need to rush to microsoft's website for urgent updates to prevent
your computer from becoming a bot, or malware kills the speed to a point
that reinstallation is the only solution, or the latest worm waltzes
through the papier mache defences of Windows to make merry with your files,
data, CPU power, and your bandwidth.
And btw., I did not *need to* install anything either. My laptop came
preinstalled with Fedora Core 1. I switched to Debian because I greatly
prefer it. I am told that since then my vendor has started installing
Debian as well.
Sinister Midget
> I apologize to the group for feeding this troll.
I didn't look to see which troll, but it doesn't really matter that
much.
We all have/will/do feed trolls now and again. Some more than others
(that part would apply to both trolls and feeders). The important thing
is to eventually recognize the futility of doing so and begin the
healing process.
--
Jupillites: Innovative Microsoft peer-to-peer software.
Ray Ingles
What's *really* funny is that you replied to *him* with a grammar
nitpick without actually responding to my post.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"We've got no place in this outfit for good losers.
We want tough hombres who will go in there and win!"
- Admiral Jonas Ingram, 1926
Ray Ingles
> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> news:slrndtsru7....@localhost.localdomain...
>> share, and Linux was 78.9 times that. That works out to Linux having a
>> 21.3% share of the total x86 market. And growing by double-digit
>> percentatges every *quarter*.
>>
> Oh, Ray, you lie like a rug! LOL!!!
What's the saying? "Figures don't lie, but liars figure"? Let's check
your figures...
> Linux is huffing and puffing along behind Windows, IBM mainframe, and
> real Unix.
Actually, its wind and color are pretty good. It started from further
back but it's catching up, after all.
Nice that you note the server market doesn't just include x86. It's the
biggest portion at this point, true, but it's not the only one. Oh, hey,
Linux runs on more than x86, doesn't it?
> Has it even passed Netware?
First, a Socratic question for you, Bill. On what hardware platform
does Netware run? Take your time, I'll answer below.
> Even using your distorted
> figures which only describe unit volume on Intel machines used as
> servers and are not even the latest figures from IDC (which you are well
> aware of),
Really? I wasn't aware that the IDC had released figures for 4Q 2005.
Can you point me to them?
> linux at 21.3 puts Windows at 78.5%.
But wait a minute, that doesn't follow. After all, Netware runs on x86,
and you say that Linux adoption is on a par with Netware. Let's assume
they are tied. So, that gives...
100 - 21.3 (Linux) - 21.3 (Netware) - .27 (Solaris) = 57.1%.
So, either you admit that Linux has vastly outstripped Netware, or else
you admit you totally fudged the Windows numbers. Which will it be? (I
know, neither! You'll totally ignore this and pretend it never
happened!)
> And Windows share is growing faster than the market by a substantial
> amount.
Not nearly as fast as Windows. And, yes, Linux is expanding faster than
the market, too, and faster than the Unix market is shrinking.
>> Haven't really seen any data on that. Windows is top there (assuming
>> you're using the normal definitions of client) but Linux is generally
>> accepted as beating the former second-place runner, the Macintosh, in
>> that regard. I'd like to see you substantiate this. (I know I won't
>> ever see you substantiate anything, but it'd be nice for a change of
>> pace.)
>>
> Well the linuxers claim all sorts of things, but they, too, are relying
> on a unit volume kind of argument and that mostly based on aftermarket
> sales. Apple has a few percent of the dollar volume and MS has almost
> all of the rest. Less than 1%, from what I have heard.
The most recent figures I can find put the Mac at 4.3% in the U.S.:
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/10/18/idc/index.php
And slightly older figures put Apple at 1.75% worldwide:
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/03/20/marketshare/index.php
Sources for Linux either beating Apple soon, or already doing so:
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/35688.html
I sourced my figures. Where are yours from? (Remember what I said about
'subtantiation'?)
> There are few
> figures on this that are widely available because MS essentially has
> 100% of its market, Wintel, and AAPL has 100% of its market which is not
> very much the same thing when you factor in the customer images.
What a solipsistic definition of 'market'! I'm almost tempted to "LOL"!
If you really thought this way, of course, you'd never bother comparing
Linux and Windows market share at all. They would be completely different
markets...
>> The right way to get a safer house is not to find a way to make sand
>> more stable. It's to build it on solid ground. You assume Windows
>> *can* be made safer, and so far the evidence is against you.
>>
> What evidence? It's just code, Ray, and a bunch of jamokes coding
> around and kidding one another about how brilliant they are are no
> better at it than the thousands that MS pays to do the same job,
> regardless of how much herring they can eat.
Again, objective tests say you're wrong. And the fact that Windows has
continuous ongoing security problems, both by mistake and design (WMF,
wifi handling), says you're wrong. You always ignore this point, too.
>> Um, no. You just have to be better enough in the areas people care
>> most about. Windows certainly won plenty of market share by being
>> 'good enough (not better), and cheaper'.
>>
> Windows created the market, Ray. That's the real story.
By your arbitrarily-redfined version of 'market', sure. One can prove
anything with circular logic.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Microsoft Windows - You'll envy the dead.
Ray Ingles
>> But, of course, you have no examples or indeed, even definitions of
>> "hard" and "easy". Your entire post is, as usual, 'dismissive, yet
>> content-free'.
>>
> You are afraid to imagine along those lines because it will upset your
> thinking, eh? Let us say you are a supplier of commercial backup
> software. The hard part could be connecting to the open system files
> that establish a Windows server system state and capturing them in a
> snapshot that is consistent with itself on the fly without pausing
> server operations.
Unix has been doing that for years before Windows existed. Much of that
problem is "hard" because of design decisions by Microsoft. Try again.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it,
have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no
cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works,
or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer."
- J.R.R. Tolkien, on critics
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-01-30, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>> But, of course, you have no examples or indeed, even definitions of
>>> "hard" and "easy". Your entire post is, as usual, 'dismissive, yet
>>> content-free'.
>>>
>> You are afraid to imagine along those lines because it will upset
>> your
>> thinking, eh? Let us say you are a supplier of commercial backup
>> software. The hard part could be connecting to the open system files
>> that establish a Windows server system state and capturing them in a
>> snapshot that is consistent with itself on the fly without pausing
>> server operations.
>
> Unix has been doing that for years before Windows existed. Much of
> that
> problem is "hard" because of design decisions by Microsoft. Try again.
>
anything about backup on unix or Windows?
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-01-31, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>> news:slrndtsru7....@localhost.localdomain...
>>> So, of the 32 and 64-bit x86 market, Sun's Solaris on x86 had a .27%
>>> share, and Linux was 78.9 times that. That works out to Linux having
>>> a
>>> 21.3% share of the total x86 market. And growing by double-digit
>>> percentatges every *quarter*.
>>>
>> Oh, Ray, you lie like a rug! LOL!!!
>
> What's the saying? "Figures don't lie, but liars figure"? Let's check
> your figures...
>
>> Linux is huffing and puffing along behind Windows, IBM mainframe, and
>> real Unix.
>
> Actually, its wind and color are pretty good. It started from further
> back but it's catching up, after all.
>
catching up? What does it mean to catch up? If you are falling further
behind the leader, but are catching the third place runner, is that
really catching up?
Well maybe your useless attitude is due to your lack of understanding,
Ray. Marketing is not just gathering stats on where you are, it is
using stats to decide where you want to be.
Apple and Wintel do not compete in any meaningful way. Afficianados of
each may take potshots at one another over the fence, but neither camp
has much of an urge to switch. They would rather fight as it goes.
Apple is pretty hard core and it is more useful to MS to think about
whether they really want the third world markets and at what rate of
capture makes any business sense.
> If you really thought this way, of course, you'd never bother
> comparing
> Linux and Windows market share at all. They would be completely
> different
> markets...
>
Not true for servers, true for desktops. That is not to say that MS can
ignore events and happenings in its stronghold positions. The leader
can control the market, but it has to be aware to effect control.
>>> The right way to get a safer house is not to find a way to make sand
>>> more stable. It's to build it on solid ground. You assume Windows
>>> *can* be made safer, and so far the evidence is against you.
>>>
>> What evidence? It's just code, Ray, and a bunch of jamokes coding
>> around and kidding one another about how brilliant they are are no
>> better at it than the thousands that MS pays to do the same job,
>> regardless of how much herring they can eat.
>
> Again, objective tests say you're wrong. And the fact that Windows has
> continuous ongoing security problems, both by mistake and design (WMF,
> wifi handling), says you're wrong. You always ignore this point, too.
>
All of these "security flaws" can be cured by removing the functionality
being exploited, Ray. Or, in the case of linux, not having the
funtionality to start with. You can certainly lock down Windows systems
to the same degree as linux systems if you are willing to put up with
the inconveniences.
>>> Um, no. You just have to be better enough in the areas people care
>>> most about. Windows certainly won plenty of market share by being
>>> 'good enough (not better), and cheaper'.
>>>
>> Windows created the market, Ray. That's the real story.
>
> By your arbitrarily-redfined version of 'market', sure. One can prove
> anything with circular logic.
>
Works for MS.
Edwin
billwg wrote:
> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> news:slrndtuq3k....@localhost.localdomain...
> > On 2006-01-31, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
> >> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> >> news:slrndtsru7....@localhost.localdomain...
> Apple and Wintel do not compete in any meaningful way.
So Photoshop on Mac doesn't compete with Photoshop on Windows?
MS-Office on Mac is not used for what MS-Office on Windows is used for?
You're sure about these things?
> Afficianados of
> each may take potshots at one another over the fence, but neither camp
> has much of an urge to switch.
I switched from the Mac, and I know many others who have switched,
including the sole remaining Mac user at my company.
> They would rather fight as it goes.
Unless they'd rather remain employed. ;-)
> Apple is pretty hard core and it is more useful to MS to think about
> whether they really want the third world markets and at what rate of
> capture makes any business sense.
MS goes after any and all markets. If it's got a processor, they want
MS software on it. Apple is for snobs. They appeal only to an
elitist market, not due to intrinsic value, but due to prestige pricing
and marketing that panders to the egos of snobs.
[snip]
Ray Ingles
> anything about backup on unix or Windows?
Educate me. (This should be interesting...)
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"It's possible to make Windows secure, in much the same way as it's
possible to make a bullet-proof vest out of cheese - you just need
an awful lot of cheese and the end result doesn't smell good."
-- Jim in the Monastery
The Ghost In The Machine
<bi...@twcf.rr.com>
wrote
on Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:28:58 GMT
<_mLDf.9608$Fw6....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>:
He's right, you know. That seach doggie makes all the
difference during backup operations. Never mind the more
technical stuff, such as locking files versus reading
inodes, careful design of the things to be backed up
(/home versus /var, one might say), and multiple-volume
tape support still in 'tar' today. It's the doggie...
;-)
JEDIDIAH
Yup. On Unix you don't have to worry about system files being
"open and inconsistent".
--
...as if the ability to run Cubase ever made or broke a platform.
|||
/ | \
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Linønut
> MS goes after any and all markets. If it's got a processor, they want
^^^ Intel
> MS software on it.
--
Wean yourself from the Microsoft teat!
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> Many of the new AMD-64 based PCs have been engineered for Linux, but
> shipped with Windows. This eliminates any legal issues with a
> co-resident Window/Linux configuration, but most users of these AMD-64
> machines want to use Linux as the primary operating system and Windows
> as the client.
Does Windows even fully utilize the AMD-64 yet? Or does it run in
the 32 bit compatibility mode? My girlfriend's 64 bit system was
built up from parts, so their was no OEM Windows to scrub off the
disk when we installed 64 bit Linux on it. I'm guessing you are
correct... AMD is probably shipping a lot of these to happy Linux
users.
:)
Thad
Ray Ingles
>> So, either you admit that Linux has vastly outstripped Netware, or
>> else
>> you admit you totally fudged the Windows numbers. Which will it be? (I
>> know, neither! You'll totally ignore this and pretend it never
>> happened!)
On 2006-01-31, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
[Nothing.]
Gosh, I must be psychic.
>> Again, objective tests say you're wrong. And the fact that Windows has
>> continuous ongoing security problems, both by mistake and design (WMF,
>> wifi handling), says you're wrong. You always ignore this point, too.
>
> All of these "security flaws" can be cured by removing the functionality
> being exploited, Ray.
Yup, turn off your ability to serve web pages, and your web server
can't be hacked. You can't take orders then, either, but, well...
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Apparently the Bush Administration was seriously considering cutting
back the federal air marshals program because they didn't want to
spend money on lodging for the marshals.
Billion dollars a week in Iraq, which still has no provable links to al
Qaeda? No problem. Hundred bucks a night for a hotel room so there's a
chance that there might be a federal marshall on board the next plane
hijacked by psychotic fundamentalists? Sorry, can't afford it.
- Tom Tomorrow
Liam Slider
There *is* a 64-bit Windows...it's incredibly buggy, lacking in any
drivers whatsoever, and has no software to speak of. But it does exist
last I heard. Nobody *wants* it because anyone who wanted 64-bit had
already been moving to Linux long before, and now that there's a 64-bit
Windows that's incredibly horrible, only a fool would choose it over
64-bit Linux.
The Ghost In The Machine
<linøn...@bone.com>
wrote
on Tue, 31 Jan 2006 11:14:24 -0600
<ppidncyZH9l...@comcast.com>:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Edwin belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> MS goes after any and all markets. If it's got a processor, they want
> ^^^ Intel
>> MS software on it.
>
Pedant Point: Or a clone thereof, such as AMD. (Or Cyrix, if
they're still wandering about.)
Intel & Intel clones are probably the most prevalent numerically,
at least on desktop units. I have no idea what microprocessors
are used in such things as mobile phones, "boom boxes" (something's
gotta wiggle all of those lights :-) ), TVs, car ignition systems,
microwave ovens, medical equipment, etc.
(Car ignition systems in particular are challenging because
they're very noisy, electrically speaking. They also need
to be responsive and reliable.)
billwg
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1138723994....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> billwg wrote:
>> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>> news:slrndtuq3k....@localhost.localdomain...
>> > On 2006-01-31, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>> >> news:slrndtsru7....@localhost.localdomain...
> [snip]
>
>> Apple and Wintel do not compete in any meaningful way.
>
> So Photoshop on Mac doesn't compete with Photoshop on Windows?
> MS-Office on Mac is not used for what MS-Office on Windows is used
> for?
> You're sure about these things?
>
"compete", ed. Does Dell compete with Apple? Certainly Adobe doesn't
compete with themselves.
Who sits at their desk pondering whether to buy an Apple or a Dell (or
any other Wintel brand)? That decision is made long before the buying
decision takes place.
>> Afficianados of
>> each may take potshots at one another over the fence, but neither
>> camp
>> has much of an urge to switch.
>
> I switched from the Mac, and I know many others who have switched,
> including the sole remaining Mac user at my company.
>
>> They would rather fight as it goes.
>
> Unless they'd rather remain employed. ;-)
>
>> Apple is pretty hard core and it is more useful to MS to think about
>> whether they really want the third world markets and at what rate of
>> capture makes any business sense.
>
> MS goes after any and all markets. If it's got a processor, they want
> MS software on it. Apple is for snobs. They appeal only to an
> elitist market, not due to intrinsic value, but due to prestige
> pricing
> and marketing that panders to the egos of snobs.
>
I don't place Apple in a true luxury good class, ed, but they sell their
style and grace as much as they sell their performance.
> [snip]
>
The Ghost In The Machine
<je...@nomad.mishnet>
wrote
on Tue, 31 Jan 2006 10:22:05 -0600
<def4b3-...@nomad.mishnet>:
> On 2006-01-31, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>> news:slrndtus30....@localhost.localdomain...
>>> On 2006-01-30, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>> But, of course, you have no examples or indeed, even definitions of
>>>>> "hard" and "easy". Your entire post is, as usual, 'dismissive, yet
>>>>> content-free'.
>>>>>
>>>> You are afraid to imagine along those lines because it will upset
>>>> your
>>>> thinking, eh? Let us say you are a supplier of commercial backup
>>>> software. The hard part could be connecting to the open system files
>>>> that establish a Windows server system state and capturing them in a
>>>> snapshot that is consistent with itself on the fly without pausing
>>>> server operations.
>>>
>>> Unix has been doing that for years before Windows existed. Much of
>>> that
>>> problem is "hard" because of design decisions by Microsoft. Try again.
>>>
>> I think you are looking a little silly there, Ray! LOL!!! Do you know
>> anything about backup on unix or Windows?
>
> Yup. On Unix you don't have to worry about system files being
> "open and inconsistent".
>
Actually, one does, after a fashion; there are several
scenarios, none of which are quite as bad as Windows,
and none of them even all that specific to Linux:
[1] NFS files used as "append-only" logs are problematic,
as NFS has no such notion (it converts append to a write
to a particular spot). Fortunately, there are better solutions
available, e.g. a write-only LAN-accessible syslog.
[2] An application may want to save a series of interrelated
files during exiting, and crash while doing so. Presumably,
the better-designed ones write to a scratch area first.
[3] An application may want to lock a dataset. There are a
number of ways to lock a dataset; the most common
(and the crudest) is arguably a hidden file (".lock")
somewhere, although lockf() and flock() are also
available. I don't know how well lockf() and flock()
work through NFS, and ".lock" has a similar problem
on NFS that append does; it's not guaranteed to be an
atomic operation. But then, it's a network problem if
NFS gets involved anyway. Also, the occasional crash
might leave a file hanging about -- but that's easily
dealt with by sysadmin types.
[4] Stale data can bedevil anybody, but that's an application
level problem. Basically, once a file's contents (or
the interesting part thereof) are transferred into memory,
they could become quite stale in a hurry.
[5] ld.so.cache has to be kept up to date. Typically this is
updated whenever a new package is installed and possibly
when the system is rebooted.
[6] Databases such as PostgreSQL have their own quirks.
The good news:
[1] Linux (and Unix) keep state in /tmp and /var/tmp,
neither of which are backed up. Of course, the state
is not backed up either, but there are other spots
to keep state... and who'd really want to back up a
process or lock ID anyway? It's a dumb idea to
begin with.
[2] .<package> saves more persistent state, such as one's
bookmarks. .<package> tends to be low-traffic (as
opposed to /var/tmp), and therefore a backup during
normal use isn't too harmful.
[3] There is no registry, unless one counts the
Gnome-specific stuff which I'd have to research.
One hopes that it's split into two parts: the highly
transient non-persistent part ([1]) and the more
persistent but slower-changing part ([2]).
[4] Data caching is done at a page level, not at a file
level, making things (IMO) far more uniform. Also,
it makes Windows-style DLL preloading/caching largely
unnecessary.
[5] Unix -- and Linux -- tend to partition the problem.
Essential libraries are in /lib; other libraries reside
in /usr/lib or /usr/local/lib; essential binaries
sit in /bin or /sbin; other binaries are placed in
/usr/sbin or /usr/local/sbin. There is also stuff
in /opt, which tends to be packaged software such as
OpenOffice. (Microsoft is getting better but they do
still seem to like to dump everything into System or
System32 directory.)
Evidence once again that "old" Unix technology is the better. :-)
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 01:08 AM, tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com said:
>Are we talking about just personal use, or must they also use only
>Linux at work also to count as 'exclusive'?
What about users with a home PC that runs only[1] Linux and another
that runs only OS/2? You might not want to count that user as only
Linux, but you should certainly mot count him as a windoze user.
What about a user that runs Linux on one box and *bsd on another?
Linux and Mac OS-X? Is see "runs Linux and doesn't run windoze" as far
more relevant than "runs on ly Linux".
[1] I'm not counting the DOS partitions that are only used a few
times a year.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
billwg
"JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
careful consideration.
Linønut
I'll bet your teacher never called on you for answers after the first
day. <grin>