Bryant University standardizes on Linux
Roy Culley
Bryant University in Rhode Island was ranked the the "second most
connected campus in America" by the Princeton Review in October
2004. The school offers a wide variety of Web services, including
online registration and course materials, a digital asset library,
and a large interconnected campus, and they're all powered by
Linux.
Today's common platform is a far cry from the situation a few
years ago. "We had a lot of everything and not much of anything,"
says Art Gloster, Bryant's vice president of information
services. "We had a mixture of multiple processors, vendors, and
operating systems." The mishmash of different systems combined
with inefficient use of server capacities made the IT department's
job more difficult. With 74 servers in three locations, sometimes
it was a matter of the right hand not knowing what the left was
doing.
To provide cutting-edge technology services to its students and
faculty, Bryant decided to standardize on Linux. "Our intent was
to really concentrate and build a single platform system," says
Gloster. "The idea was to consolidate as many servers as we could
and move toward [using] the same operating system." Gloster and
his staff knew they wanted to go with an open system that was both
economical and secure, and going with Red Hat Linux on IBM
hardware was an easy choice. "IBM's announcement about supporting
Linux across all its platforms made the decision easier from my
point of view," Gloster says.
--
Rich Bell in thread: Things I couldn't do if I switched to Linux
Message-ID: <tB7Oe.182$yo7...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>
I am connected to the Net using a Linksys WRT54G router. I don't
get hacked.
billwg
"Roy Culley" <r...@nodomain.none> wrote in message
news:651c33-...@dog.did.it...
> http://business.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/10/14/1656231
>
Well Bryant dumped its Solaris stuff for linux, accepting the freebie
from IBM, but they are sticking with Windows for the students:
"Bryant is sticking with Windows on the desktop for now, but Rich
Siedzik, Bryant's director of computing telecommunication, says that
could change. "We have talked about trialing Linux in some of our
classrooms with diskless workstations that download a small client
running a Citrix-type application." "
They do have to get through the day, eh? LOL!!!
Sinister Midget
This is clearly made up. I have it on good authority (Ewik) that there
are no stories about successes that are continuing. All (everybody,
100%, the entire population) of businesses, schools and government
agencies (according to my brilliant source) always report they are
/going/ to switch to linux. Afterward they blend into the woodwork and
remain forever silent about progress, successes, failures, etc. In
fact, it can be safely assumed that since they aren't singing the
praises of stability, low cost and freedom every minute of every day,
they probably changed back to Windwoes the day after announcing they
were changing to linux.
--
A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a
train stops. Windows is for work stations.
Kier
Which part of 'for now' don't you understand, dimwit?
--
Kier
High Plains Thumper
news:slrndm6n30....@laptop.harry.net:
> Roy Culley posted:
>
>> http://business.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/10/14/1656231
>
>> To provide cutting-edge technology services to its students and
>> faculty, Bryant decided to standardize on Linux. "Our intent was
>> to really concentrate and build a single platform system," says
>> Gloster. "The idea was to consolidate as many servers as we could
>> and move toward [using] the same operating system." Gloster and
>> his staff knew they wanted to go with an open system that was
>> both economical and secure, and going with Red Hat Linux on IBM
>> hardware was an easy choice. "IBM's announcement about supporting
>> Linux across all its platforms made the decision easier from my
>> point of view," Gloster says.
>
> This is clearly made up. I have it on good authority (Ewik) that there
> are no stories about successes that are continuing. All (everybody,
> 100%, the entire population) of businesses, schools and government
> agencies (according to my brilliant source) always report they are
> /going/ to switch to linux. Afterward they blend into the woodwork and
> remain forever silent about progress, successes, failures, etc. In
> fact, it can be safely assumed that since they aren't singing the
> praises of stability, low cost and freedom every minute of every day,
> they probably changed back to Windwoes the day after announcing they
> were changing to linux.
It's all Bush's fault.
--
HPT
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
Psst. Erik! here's another one...
Guess the MS Fud machine is losing it's touch.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDY1wkd90bcYOAWPYRAq7AAKDQ7qYTG1uuI2StDaDlqJ+8Or7NbgCg2Adx
pzRf+XPVJu69eL9nl1gvZEI=
=z0zL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
One man's 'magic' is another man's engineering. 'Supernatural' is a null
word.
-- Lazarus Long
Rick
Yes, and that's why they are still looking at Linux for classrooms.
> LOL!!!
... look, a braying ass.
--
Rick
John Bailo
John Bailo
>
> Psst. Erik! here's another one...
>
> Guess the MS Fud machine is losing it's touch.
Who is Erik?
John Bailo
> This is clearly made up. I have it on good authority (Ewik) that there
> are no stories about successes that are continuing. All (everybody,
> 100%, the entire population) of businesses, schools and government
> agencies (according to my brilliant source) always report they are
> /going/ to switch to linux. Afterward they blend into the woodwork and
> remain forever silent about progress, successes, failures, etc. In
> fact, it can be safely assumed that since they aren't singing the
> praises of stability, low cost and freedom every minute of every day,
> they probably changed back to Windwoes the day after announcing they
> were changing to linux.
You mean like that steady stream of progress reports coming out of Munich?
Linønut
Yes.
--
Treat yourself to the devices, applications, and services running on the
GNU/Linux® operating system!
billwg
"Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.10.29....@tiscali.co.uk...
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 11:22:11 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>
>> They do have to get through the day, eh? LOL!!!
>
> Which part of 'for now' don't you understand, dimwit?
>
They have no plan to switch from Windows. Period.
Now you schmoes can try to read between the lines and think that Bryant
is planning to dump Windows in favor of linux, but you are just wishing
and hoping. "Find a button and sew a shirt on it" is an apt description
for the desperate state of the linux advocate!
billwg
"Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.10.29....@nomail.com...
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 11:22:11 +0000, billwg wrote:
>
> Yes, and that's why they are still looking at Linux for classrooms.
>
and obviously are not doing anything "for now". You want to say that
means "still looking", but it does not mean that.
billwg
"Jim Richardson" <war...@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:4q2c33-...@fimbul.myth...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
All it says is that they switched from Sun Solaris to IBM and linux
after IBM gave them a freebie. BFD.
The only lesson to be learned is that Sun cannot compete with linux when
the linux provider throws in free hardware. Is that a widespread
threat? And they didn't change a single Windows machine.
billwg
"Sinister Midget" <sini...@noidshack.com> wrote in message
news:slrndm6n30....@laptop.harry.net...
> On 2005-10-29, Roy Culley <r...@nodomain.none> posted something
> concerning:
>> http://business.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/10/14/1656231
> they probably changed back to Windwoes the day after announcing they
> were changing to linux.
>
Not a Windows issue, midget! See:
"Siedzik says now that open source is proving itself on the Bryant
campus, some formerly Sun-centric IT staff are seeing the light. "There
was some reluctance, but now there's really been a cultural change with
them. They're more pro-Linux. They saw some of the capabilities, and
some of those barriers of having to deal with Sun support are no longer
there," he says. "There are many utilities for open source that just
aren't there for Solaris.""
Linux cannibalizes unix shops and does nothing to Windows.
Kier
>
> "Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.10.29....@tiscali.co.uk...
>> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 11:22:11 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>>
>>> They do have to get through the day, eh? LOL!!!
>>
>> Which part of 'for now' don't you understand, dimwit?
>>
> I understand all the parts, Kier! LOL!!!
I doubt it.
>
> They have no plan to switch from Windows. Period.
'For now'. Which means , 'may do in the future'. Get it now?
>
> Now you schmoes can try to read between the lines and think that Bryant
> is planning to dump Windows in favor of linux, but you are just wishing
> and hoping. "Find a button and sew a shirt on it" is an apt description
> for the desperate state of the linux advocate!
Pathetic windbag.
--
Kier
Rick
>
> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.10.29....@nomail.com...
>> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 11:22:11 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>
>> Yes, and that's why they are still looking at Linux for classrooms.
>>
> LOL,
... look.... a braying ass...
> Rick!!! You are not correct.
Yes, I am. You are a braying ass.
> They have "talked about" doing that
> and obviously are not doing anything "for now". You want to say that
> means "still looking", but it does not mean that.
Bryant is sticking with Windows on the desktop for now, but Rich Siedzik,
Bryant's director of computing telecommunication, says that could change.
"We have talked about trialing Linux in some of our classrooms with
diskless workstations that download a small client running a Citrix-type
application."
... sticking with windows .... for now ... that could change.
--
Rick
Rick
>
> "Jim Richardson" <war...@eskimo.com> wrote in message
> news:4q2c33-...@fimbul.myth...
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>
> All it says is that they switched from Sun Solaris to IBM and linux
> after IBM gave them a freebie. BFD.
"Gloster says the university has realized a "major" savings in personnel
costs since the project came online early in 2004."
How did the "IBM freebie" do that?
"We've become more efficient, we have a robust network which is the
foundation of our whole organization, and instead of buying services
externally, we've retrained our people, and they've been able to step up."
How did the "IBM freebie" do that?
'Gloster says of the "stealth servers" they've discovered around the
campus, where people had converted their workstations into servers in
order to circumvent some of the security controls. "They found out it was
better to go with the central systems because of the stability of the
network," he says.'
How did the "IBM freebie" do that?
>
> The only lesson to be learned is that Sun cannot compete with linux when
> the linux provider throws in free hardware. Is that a widespread
> threat? And they didn't change a single Windows machine.
Oh... what IBM freebie?
--
Rick
Rick
So tell us, with references, what OS(s) where the 'stealth servers'
running?
--
Rick
billwg
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 15:15:51 +0000, billwg wrote:
>
>>
>> "Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2005.10.29....@tiscali.co.uk...
>>> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 11:22:11 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>>>
>>>> They do have to get through the day, eh? LOL!!!
>>>
>>> Which part of 'for now' don't you understand, dimwit?
>>>
>> I understand all the parts, Kier! LOL!!!
>
> I doubt it.
>
>>
>> They have no plan to switch from Windows. Period.
>
> 'For now'. Which means , 'may do in the future'. Get it now?
>
hand me my income tax refund, too!
>>
>> Now you schmoes can try to read between the lines and think that
>> Bryant
>> is planning to dump Windows in favor of linux, but you are just
>> wishing
>> and hoping. "Find a button and sew a shirt on it" is an apt
>> description
>> for the desperate state of the linux advocate!
>
> Pathetic windbag.
>
Kier
>
> "Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.10.29...@tiscali.co.uk...
>> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 15:15:51 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2005.10.29....@tiscali.co.uk...
>>>> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 11:22:11 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> They do have to get through the day, eh? LOL!!!
>>>>
>>>> Which part of 'for now' don't you understand, dimwit?
>>>>
>>> I understand all the parts, Kier! LOL!!!
>>
>> I doubt it.
>>
>>>
>>> They have no plan to switch from Windows. Period.
>>
>> 'For now'. Which means , 'may do in the future'. Get it now?
>>
> LOL!!! And George Dubya Bush *may* show up on my porch in April and
> hand me my income tax refund, too!
Doubtful. Linux, on the other hand, may well get installed in the future
at Bryant.
>>>
>>> Now you schmoes can try to read between the lines and think that
>>> Bryant
>>> is planning to dump Windows in favor of linux, but you are just
>>> wishing
>>> and hoping. "Find a button and sew a shirt on it" is an apt
>>> description
>>> for the desperate state of the linux advocate!
>>
>> Pathetic windbag.
>>
> Hopless romantic!
Nope. Just someone with sense.
--
Kier
Sinister Midget
That, too.
--
Microsoft: The company that made online banking dangerous.
Ray Ingles
> Now you schmoes can try to read between the lines and think that Bryant
> is planning to dump Windows in favor of linux, but you are just wishing
> and hoping.
Bryant just *did* dump Windows (and Solaris) for Linux.
When you don't have Windows on the server, you don't need it on the
client. If you support open standards, you don't have to *care* what the
client is using. I will note that there's a lot of room for the
percentage of Windows desktops to decline, and I think it will, absent
artificial 'tying' pressure. (C.f. "genetic drift" in evolutionary
terms.)
Note that I don't care if Microsoft "dies" or "vanishes" or anything. I
just want them to have to actually compete fairly. Whether they fail or
succeed, the situation will improve.
Also note my .sig below. The trends are not in your favor.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
I remember when people said Linux would never be more than a toy. Then
they said it was capable of some neat things, but would never be used
in a business. Then they said it could be used for small things in a
business, but it'd never scale to the high end. Now, it's fine in a
server role, but will never be any good as a desktop...
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:slrndmc5lf....@localhost.localdomain...
>
> When you don't have Windows on the server, you don't need it on the
> client.
What else is there, Ray? Are you one of those dweebs who think that
running around with a server OS on his laptop is kewl? LOL!!!
>
> Note that I don't care if Microsoft "dies" or "vanishes" or anything.
> I
> just want them to have to actually compete fairly. Whether they fail
> or
> succeed, the situation will improve.
>
Well you can take out all the ads you want for linux machines yourself,
Ray. Microsoft won't stop you! They can't stop you. They don't have
any control over such things. Sell away to you heart's content!
Microsoft will not bother you at all. Your only problem will be a lack
of customers.
>
Ray Ingles
point of my post, which is impressive considering it's the subject of
the thread. But anyway...)
On 2005-10-31, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>> When you don't have Windows on the server, you don't need it on the
>> client.
>
> What else is there, Ray? Are you one of those dweebs who think that
> running around with a server OS on his laptop is kewl? LOL!!!
Nah, a desktop distribution is just fine. Ubuntu is pretty cool. A
lotta people like SUSE, too. Both fully open-source. Seem to work well
for quite a large number and variety of people. Haven't run into
anything I can't do just as well as, if not better and more reliably
than, on Windows.
Now, a server OS on a *PDA* is cool... :->
But, let's imagine for a moment that your backhanded implication were
correct, and desktop Linux were somehow impossible. Having open,
standards-compliant servers benefits the Mac crowd, too. And I think
even *you* would have a hard time saying that the Mac does not have a
mature desktop OS that is not Windows...
>> Note that I don't care if Microsoft "dies" or "vanishes" or anything.
>> I just want them to have to actually compete fairly. Whether they fail
>> or succeed, the situation will improve.
>
> Well you can take out all the ads you want for linux machines yourself,
> Ray. Microsoft won't stop you! They can't stop you. They don't have
> any control over such things. Sell away to you heart's content!
Well, I don't *need* to sell it, of course. I can be my own support
staff and so forth. Businesses and organizations can pay (and, it seems
increasingly, are paying) for support, but either way the costs favor
Linux in that regard.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Steve Ballmer: It's still ludicrous that nobody's ever made a run at
us by making UNIX a popular server platform on PCs.
It's almost too late now.
Bill Gates: It's too late.
-- Newsweek interview, June 23rd, 1997
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> (As an aside, I am completely unsurprised that you ignored the main
> point of my post, which is impressive considering it's the subject of
> the thread. But anyway...)
>
you had a point here, Ray! The article talks of linux replacing Solaris
due to the gift of server systems from IBM. It is not even new news,
having been aired out here some time ago. A very real point, which you
ignore, is that they did not even attempt to replace Windows on the
ThinkPads as the OS. Rather they chose to accept the IBM largess and
offer a few kind words as a reference site.
And you people hoot about MS funding companies that do marketing
research! LOL!!!
> On 2005-10-31, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>> When you don't have Windows on the server, you don't need it on the
>>> client.
>>
>> What else is there, Ray? Are you one of those dweebs who think that
>> running around with a server OS on his laptop is kewl? LOL!!!
>
> Nah, a desktop distribution is just fine. Ubuntu is pretty cool. A
> lotta people like SUSE, too. Both fully open-source. Seem to work well
> for quite a large number and variety of people. Haven't run into
> anything I can't do just as well as, if not better and more reliably
> than, on Windows.
>
Try Quicken!
> Now, a server OS on a *PDA* is cool... :->
>
> But, let's imagine for a moment that your backhanded implication were
> correct, and desktop Linux were somehow impossible. Having open,
> standards-compliant servers benefits the Mac crowd, too. And I think
> even *you* would have a hard time saying that the Mac does not have a
> mature desktop OS that is not Windows...
>
I don't have such a high regard for Apple, either, Ray. They do not
have much of a presence in corporations, seeming to be relegated to the
artsy crowd with their Photoshop and Quark and such. i've never been
any place where Apple machines were in widespread use.
>>> Note that I don't care if Microsoft "dies" or "vanishes" or
>>> anything.
>>> I just want them to have to actually compete fairly. Whether they
>>> fail
>>> or succeed, the situation will improve.
>>
>> Well you can take out all the ads you want for linux machines
>> yourself,
>> Ray. Microsoft won't stop you! They can't stop you. They don't
>> have
>> any control over such things. Sell away to you heart's content!
>
> Well, I don't *need* to sell it, of course. I can be my own support
> staff and so forth. Businesses and organizations can pay (and, it
> seems
> increasingly, are paying) for support, but either way the costs favor
> Linux in that regard.
>
Well your point seemed to be in relation to whether or not there were
artificial barriers placed by MS to competition. We know that is not the
case, so why do you see the need to mention it?
Thomas Wootten
>
> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> news:slrndmc5lf....@localhost.localdomain...
>
>>
>> When you don't have Windows on the server, you don't need it on the
>> client.
>
> What else is there, Ray? Are you one of those dweebs who think that
> running around with a server OS on his laptop is kewl? LOL!!!
That's what DFS says he does IIRC. He's KFed now so I can't/won't
doublecheck
<snip>
--
Tom Wootten, Fresher NatSci, Trinity Hall.
oof.trinhall.cam.ac.uk
There was only ever one valid use for the notorious <blink> tag:
Schrodinger's cat is <blink>not</blink> dead.
DFS
> billwg wrote:
>
>>
>> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>> news:slrndmc5lf....@localhost.localdomain...
>>
>>>
>>> When you don't have Windows on the server, you don't need it on the
>>> client.
>>
>> What else is there, Ray? Are you one of those dweebs who think that
>> running around with a server OS on his laptop is kewl? LOL!!!
>
> That's what DFS says he does IIRC. He's KFed now so I can't/won't
> doublecheck
hmmm... simultaneously killfiles me and wonders what I'm up to? Does not
compute.
Tim Smith
"billwg" <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
> I don't have such a high regard for Apple, either, Ray. They do not
> have much of a presence in corporations, seeming to be relegated to the
> artsy crowd with their Photoshop and Quark and such. i've never been
> any place where Apple machines were in widespread use.
Macs are well-represented in scientific and engineering computing.
--
--Tim Smith
billwg
"Tim Smith" <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
news:reply_in_group-47D...@news1.east.earthlink.net...
pretty much true. Apple was the choice of the high techies and IBM PC
was the machine for the clerks and other business folk. There were a
heck of a lot more clerks than techies, though, and the market has moved
in that direction.
Ray Ingles
> It is a sort of arrogance or else ignorance itself to even suggest that
> you had a point here, Ray! The article talks of linux replacing Solaris
> due to the gift of server systems from IBM.
Um, actually, they replaced Solaris, HP-UX, and Windows. Unless you
think either of the former OSes run on "Dell hardware"?
> A very real point, which you ignore, is that they did not even attempt
> to replace Windows on the ThinkPads as the OS.
"Thinkpads" aren't servers. And I explicitly noted that they didn't
forcibly change the clients - they don't require *anything* specific
about the clients except supporting the standards.
>> Nah, a desktop distribution is just fine. Ubuntu is pretty cool. A
>> lotta people like SUSE, too. Both fully open-source. Seem to work well
>> for quite a large number and variety of people. Haven't run into
>> anything I can't do just as well as, if not better and more reliably
>> than, on Windows.
>>
> Try Quicken!
Haven't wanted or needed it, but if I did, well, there's Crossover
Office. Or QEMU/VMware. (Already working on that for the kids games.)
But like Office, most people don't need the esoteric features of
Quicken; GnuCash or Moneydance or any number of open-source programs
work quite well.
However, what the heck, let's pretend that, for people who have
Quicken, it's a brick wall with no options if they want to switch. Okay,
so Linux is out. There's still OSX...
> I don't have such a high regard for Apple, either, Ray. They do not
> have much of a presence in corporations, seeming to be relegated to the
> artsy crowd with their Photoshop and Quark and such. i've never been
> any place where Apple machines were in widespread use.
That's not the point, Bill. If the servers aren't tied to
Microsoft-only protocols (like the bastardized Kerberos in Active
Directory) then Macs are perfectly viable clients for those who want
them. That's all I want, a free market with active competition. OSes
are not a natural monopoly and should not suffer the inefficiencies of a
monopoly.
> Well your point seemed to be in relation to whether or not there were
> artificial barriers placed by MS to competition. We know that is not the
> case, so why do you see the need to mention it?
No, you just don't *admit* that is the case. I just mentioned their
corruption of Kerberos, for example.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"...it's not a plain, ordinary steel nut: it's a 'hexiform rotatable
surface compression unit', which is why it cost $2,043 for just
one..." - William Lutz, on Pentagonese, in _Doublespeak_
Timo Pirinen
Well, if you are ever up to anything better that pushing buttons, Jetson,
we'll let him know.
--
Timo Pirinen
piri...@dlc.fi
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>
> No, you just don't *admit* that is the case. I just mentioned their
> corruption of Kerberos, for example.
>
want a Kerberos ticket to access a Windows server using the group/role
privileges used by Windows, you have to get it from a Windows Kerberos
server. If you want to use you unix and linux the old way, you have no
restriction.
Ray Ingles
>> No, you just don't *admit* that is the case. I just mentioned their
>> corruption of Kerberos, for example.
>>
> Tempest in a teapot, certainly. The only issue there is that, if you
> want a Kerberos ticket to access a Windows server using the group/role
> privileges used by Windows, you have to get it from a Windows Kerberos
> server. If you want to use you unix and linux the old way, you have no
> restriction.
Gee, Bill, you just paraphrased my words back at me:
Message-ID: <slrndmc5lf....@localhost.localdomain>
"When you don't have Windows on the server, you don't need it on the
client."
Of course, given your usual record... if you agree with me, I'm
probably wrong. :->
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really
good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change
their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really
do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are
human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot
recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion."
- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2005-11-01, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>> No, you just don't *admit* that is the case. I just mentioned their
>>> corruption of Kerberos, for example.
>>>
>> Tempest in a teapot, certainly. The only issue there is that, if you
>> want a Kerberos ticket to access a Windows server using the
>> group/role
>> privileges used by Windows, you have to get it from a Windows
>> Kerberos
>> server. If you want to use you unix and linux the old way, you have
>> no
>> restriction.
>
> Gee, Bill, you just paraphrased my words back at me:
>
> Message-ID: <slrndmc5lf....@localhost.localdomain>
>
> "When you don't have Windows on the server, you don't need it on the
> client."
>
> Of course, given your usual record... if you agree with me, I'm
> probably wrong. :->
>
frustration that surrounds being a linux advocate, so I can forgive your
misinterpretation! You always need Windows on the client, of course.
There is no other way to get any meaningful work done. None of the
homespun applets available for linux can really pull the load in the
commercial world.
What I said was, and it is clear from the words and the context, is that
you do not need a Windows Kerberos ticket if you just want to access the
old style unix servers. You only need the Windows Kerberos server if
you want to take advantage of the Windows server role definitions. If
your needs are simple and can be satisfied with the old Unix file
permissions, then you do not have to invest in a Windows server for the
Kerberos tickets. You will certainly need the Windows clients just as
before.
Jesse F. Hughes
> On 2005-11-01, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>> No, you just don't *admit* that is the case. I just mentioned their
>>> corruption of Kerberos, for example.
>>>
>> Tempest in a teapot, certainly. The only issue there is that, if you
>> want a Kerberos ticket to access a Windows server using the group/role
>> privileges used by Windows, you have to get it from a Windows Kerberos
>> server. If you want to use you unix and linux the old way, you have no
>> restriction.
>
> Gee, Bill, you just paraphrased my words back at me:
>
> Message-ID: <slrndmc5lf....@localhost.localdomain>
>
> "When you don't have Windows on the server, you don't need it on the
> client."
Well, more than a paraphrase. Notice how our clever lad refers to the
standards-honoring method as "the old way", implying that Microsoft
has given the world the new and improved method.
But honestly, I think that billwg's silly tactics are so transparent
that he must be having us on.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Well, I'm a pragmatist. I've been wrong MANY TIMES and it seems to
me that it would be simpler to be wrong with this paper."
--James S. Harris explains his latest paper
Ray Ingles
> You always need Windows on the client, of course.
> There is no other way to get any meaningful work done. None of the
> homespun applets available for linux can really pull the load in the
> commercial world.
It's a time warp! We just did this. I noted that you were completely
wrong about Linux, *and* pointed out that even if you were right there's
Mac OSX, and yet you act as though none of that ever happened. Are you
stuck in some kind of reverse "Groundhog's Day" effect?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Suffering is good for the soul, but it is usually best to wait until
the body has no choice in the matter." - Stephen Donaldson
Bob Hauck
> You always need Windows on the client, of course. There is no other
> way to get any meaningful work done.
Sure, if you define "meaningful work" as removing spyware and updating
virus definitions. LOL!!!
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| A proud member of the reality-based community.
-| http://www.haucks.org/
billwg
"Bob Hauck" <postm...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:slrndmg7qt.k...@robin.haucks.org...
> On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 17:51:25 GMT, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> You always need Windows on the client, of course. There is no other
>> way to get any meaningful work done.
>
> Sure, if you define "meaningful work" as removing spyware and updating
> virus definitions. LOL!!!
>
you look around the Bryant site or even go back and read the previous
COLA thread on this announcement, you see that there is no other
solution to their problem. Some totally independent company sold them a
ton of software that fits their needs. The authors of the software do
not offer a linux version, presumably because they don't see the wisdom
in trying to lead a shift that would not offer them any business
advantage. To get the work done in the future, somebody is going to
have to step up to the plate and eat the development cycle time and take
the risk that not enough consumers may follow the lead in order to make
up for the investment.
Linux is AFAICT fully capable of launching software that achieves these
ends, but that software does not exist and linux doesn't do any better
of a job at supporting it. Other than the OS price, which seems to be
paid in other ways anyway if you choose linux, there is no advantage
ever for linux.
It would be far better and much more efficient all around if the energy
being expended in reinventing the OS wheel were spent in simply
improving the one that everyone is using.
Ray Ingles
> Linux is AFAICT fully capable of launching software that achieves these
> ends, but that software does not exist and linux doesn't do any better
> of a job at supporting it.
That's an interesting statement. I think it's wrong, in several ways,
and I think it deserves its own subject.
To start with, I develop applications for many different operating
systems, including several versions of Unix as well as Windows. I
have written device drivers for both Linux and Windows.
I greatly prefer development on Linux to Windows.
One reason is that the basic API (generally POSIX with a few libraries
and extensions) is objectively simpler, and in my opinion more elegant
and orthogonal, than the Windows API. The Windows API has grown
exponentially and haphazardly in many ways, and is now a monster that
almost no one fully understands:
http://charlespetzold.com/etc/DoesVisualStudioRotTheMind.html
"Tabulating only MSCORLIB.DLL and those assemblies that begin with word
System, we have over 5,000 public classes that include over 45,000
public methods and 15,000 public properties, not counting those methods
and properties that are inherited and not overridden... If you wrote each
of those 60,000 properties and methods on a 3-by-5 index card with a
little description of what it did, you’d have a stack that totaled 40
feet."
Now, we have a printed copy of the POSIX standard here. In a set of
13 binders, it's about two and a half feet across. Now, 7 of those
binders actually cover the system interfaces (the equivalent of the
System API above), and the other 6 are introductions, rationales, and
descriptions of standard shell utilities. Note that this is the full
documentation suitable for reimplementing it, not just notes on a 3x5
card. I'd call that objectively simpler. (But not less powerful... note
that billwg himself, above, states that Linux is "fully capable" of
supporting the kinds of things Windows does as a client.)
I have noted that the various utility libraries on Linux (e.g. SDL,
ALSA, GTK, QT, etc.) are similarly well-designed and straightforward.
A reason I prefer Linux to other Unix variants, particularly the
commercial ones, is that the documentation is usually better, there tend
to be fewer bugs (Google for "fuzz test"), and, if I'm really stumped, I
can examine the code to see how a function is actually implemented.
Windows is hit-or-miss on the documentation, and good luck examining the
source.
So, we have a simpler, more straighforward, more reliable, and more
transparent platform to develop on. Are we done? By no means. The tools
are of excellent quality and support a wide variety of developer models,
from "old school" Makefiles to full-featured IDEs (e.g. Eclipse), and
the tools cost hundreds to thousands of dollars less. And you can extend
and fix the tools if you need to. And you don't have to worry about
paying royalties for libraries and so forth.
All in all, Linux is a very nice platform to develop for.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Computers let you make more mistakes faster than any other
invention in human history, with the possible exception of
handguns and tequila." - Mitch Radcliffe
Ray Ingles
> being expended in reinventing the OS wheel were spent in simply
> improving the one that everyone is using.
Improving how? Are you working on a reimplementatin of MSCORLIB.DLL?
Can I see your code?
That's leaving aside the fact that sometimes, something is so broken
that it costs less to chuck it and start over from scracth.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Rushing to pummel Iraq after 9/11, Bush officials ginned up links
between Saddam and Al Qaeda. They made it sound as if Islamic
fighters on a jihad against America were slouching toward Baghdad
to join forces with murderous Iraqis. There was scant evidence of
it then, but it's coming true now." - Maureen Dowd
Ray Ingles
> if you choose linux, there is no advantage ever for linux.
Wow, that's a bold statement - "no advantage ever". Linux is much more
secure and resistant to malware of all kinds, to name just one
advantage. Linux does not require any baroque activation schemes, to
name another. Installing and maintaining software is much easier on
Linux, to name a third. The prices of applications (it's not just the
"OS price") are better, to name a fourth. It doesn't suffer from
"bit-rot", to name a fifth. Etc., etc.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"A person is just about as big as the things that make them angry."
- Anonymous
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>
> All in all, Linux is a very nice platform to develop for.
>
can reach out to a couple of orders of magnitude more users than linux.
If you want to do some real good, provide your programs on Windows and
more people can use them. Sit in you ivory tower and look down your
nose at the "Wintards" and "Winidiot" and you are of no use to them and
little use to anyone else. "Pride goeth before the fall", Ray, and you
have a long way down!
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>
> Wow, that's a bold statement - "no advantage ever". Linux is much more
> secure and resistant to malware of all kinds, to name just one
> advantage. Linux does not require any baroque activation schemes, to
> name another. Installing and maintaining software is much easier on
> Linux, to name a third. The prices of applications (it's not just the
> "OS price") are better, to name a fourth. It doesn't suffer from
> "bit-rot", to name a fifth. Etc., etc.
>
think you have. Plus your list of advantages is hardly proven as such in
any environment.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On 2 Nov 2005 12:44:16 -0400,
Ray Ingles <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> All in all, Linux is a very nice platform to develop for.
>
A case in point.
Now, I am no Uber hacker, I can barely feel my way around in C. But I
was being bugged :) by an apparant memory leak in beagle (written in
mono) Actually, the leak appears to be in the mono runtim, and is being
triggered by beagle. but I digress...
Two commands
sudo apt-get build-dep beagle
and
apt-get source beagle
and not only do I have the current source for beagle (current as in the
exact same version that's installed on my system) but I have all the
required libraries and dev packages needed to compile beagle on my
system.
For a componant of the core desktop on my system... Now, how much
rigamarole would I have to go through with MS-Windows to get the same
result? a core componant of the desktop's source, and all the
dependencies? Assume for now, that I had access to the sources legally
in some way. How big of a pita is it to set up a dev environment for
something like this with all the dependencies and libs?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDaRBXd90bcYOAWPYRAt2CAJsEtJ4td8TXcMzyrdTEOe6Yxc7xJwCg8Zdf
SAd0zpRWBPs4EOWb9t0OBlE=
=pQyc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Any nitwit can claim to understand computers. Many do.
chrisv
(dishonestly-snipped context restored)
>"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>>
>>On 2005-11-02, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Other than the OS price, which seems to be paid in other ways anyway
>>> if you choose linux, there is no advantage ever for linux.
>>
>> Wow, that's a bold statement - "no advantage ever". Linux is much more
>> secure and resistant to malware of all kinds, to name just one
>> advantage. Linux does not require any baroque activation schemes, to
>> name another. Installing and maintaining software is much easier on
>> Linux, to name a third. The prices of applications (it's not just the
>> "OS price") are better, to name a fourth. It doesn't suffer from
>> "bit-rot", to name a fifth. Etc., etc.
>>
>But it is not in use by anyone, Ray,
Liar. Again.
>and that trumps any aces you may think you have.
The market share of Windows "trumps" nothing. You got caught in yet
another lie, billwg.
>Plus your list of advantages is hardly proven as such in
>any environment.
Bullsh*t.
Ray Ingles
> can reach out to a couple of orders of magnitude more users than linux.
How fortunate that Windows users have Cygwin, then. They can run Linux
apps fairly well; some reduction in performance, a few limitations, but
overall acceptably. I've got some ideas for a few graphical interface
utilities; I'm planning on using the SDL and OpenGL so Windows users can
benefit from them (though with reduced functionality - due to
limitations of Windows filesystem model, not SDL or OpenGL).
> Sit in you ivory tower and look down your
> nose at the "Wintards" and "Winidiot" and you are of no use to them and
> little use to anyone else.
How fortunate that I've never done that. I don't even *have* an ivory
tower. I'll send you a check for $100 if you can demonstrate that I've
ever used either of those terms. (I *have* used the term "wintroll", but
that's not a perjorative term for all Windows users... just that mostly
wretched subset on this newsgroup.)
> "Pride goeth before the fall", Ray, and you have a long way down!
Not so far as you, I think.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it;
to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it.
- Scott Granneman
Ray Ingles
> news:slrndmhv94....@localhost.localdomain...
>>
>> Wow, that's a bold statement - "no advantage ever". Linux is much more
>> secure and resistant to malware of all kinds, to name just one
>> advantage. Linux does not require any baroque activation schemes, to
>> name another. Installing and maintaining software is much easier on
>> Linux, to name a third. The prices of applications (it's not just the
>> "OS price") are better, to name a fourth. It doesn't suffer from
>> "bit-rot", to name a fifth. Etc., etc.
> But it is not in use by anyone
Judging by the accuracy of your *last* bold statement, I think we could
all tell how reliable this one is even *without* its patent mendacity.
> Plus your list of advantages is hardly proven as such in any
> environment.
Well, sure, if you've never opened your eyes you can disbelieve that
the sky is blue.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"[O]nce the soldiers are 'locked and cocked' I owe... unqualified
endorsement of their mission, no matter how immoral and ill-
advised it may seem to me... this woeful logic... mandates
unanimous civilian support for King Herod's soldiers smashing
Hebrew babies against doorposts." - Hal Crowther
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2005-11-02, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>> Perhaps it is, Ray, but Windows is a much more rewarding platform
>> that
>> can reach out to a couple of orders of magnitude more users than
>> linux.
>
> How fortunate that Windows users have Cygwin, then. They can run Linux
> apps fairly well; some reduction in performance, a few limitations,
> but
> overall acceptably. I've got some ideas for a few graphical interface
> utilities; I'm planning on using the SDL and OpenGL so Windows users
> can
> benefit from them (though with reduced functionality - due to
> limitations of Windows filesystem model, not SDL or OpenGL).
>
Kind of foolish of you, Ray! If the chances of someone having linux is
around .25% to 1% the chances of having Cygwin are about .0025% to
.01%! Good luck!
The Ghost In The Machine
<chr...@nospam.invalid>
wrote
on Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:59:20 -0600
<is9im1lbo0f5o57bn...@4ax.com>:
> billwg wrote:
>
> (dishonestly-snipped context restored)
>
>>"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>>>
>>>On 2005-11-02, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Other than the OS price, which seems to be paid in other ways anyway
>>>> if you choose linux, there is no advantage ever for linux.
>>>
>>> Wow, that's a bold statement - "no advantage ever". Linux
>>> is much more secure and resistant to malware of all kinds,
>>> to name just one advantage. Linux does not require any
>>> baroque activation schemes, to name another. Installing
>>> and maintaining software is much easier on Linux, to name
>>> a third. The prices of applications (it's not just the
>>> "OS price") are better, to name a fourth. It doesn't suffer
>>> from "bit-rot", to name a fifth. Etc., etc.
>>>
>>But it is not in use by anyone, Ray,
>
> Liar. Again.
I use it. Does that count? :-) (I gotta register at some point
at linuxcounter.org or something. I just haven't bothered. It
would be nice to get some Linux vs. Windows webserver usage stats;
the best I can do is
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html
which you've probably seen before. There's plenty of data
on Apache vs. IIS but little data here regarding Linux vs. Microsoft.
But "not in use by anyone" is easily disprovable by finding someone.)
>
>>and that trumps any aces you may think you have.
>
> The market share of Windows "trumps" nothing. You got caught in yet
> another lie, billwg.
It trumps other operating systems in that market, perhaps.
That's about it. :-) (And the trumping is by $ amount, not
by number of installations, presumably. Woo.)
>
>>Plus your list of advantages is hardly proven as such in
>>any environment.
>
> Bullsh*t.
>
Hmm...when was the last time Linux got a mention in the same
breath as "major security alert" on CNN? ;-)
No, I like Linux. Windows is OK if one can tolerate its many foibles.
But there sure are a lot of them.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Kleuskes & Moos
billwg schreef:
> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> news:slrndmhun4....@localhost.localdomain...
> >
> > All in all, Linux is a very nice platform to develop for.
> >
> Perhaps it is, Ray, but Windows is a much more rewarding platform that
> can reach out to a couple of orders of magnitude more users than linux.
A non-technical argumnt, but an argument, nevertheless. The credit,
however, goes to the windows users, not the windows platform
> If you want to do some real good, provide your programs on Windows and
> more people can use them.
Anyone can use linux, without paying licencing fees. Again, this is not
a achievement of the windows platform. The credit goes to the
M$-marketing department.
>Sit in you ivory tower and look down your
> nose at the "Wintards" and "Winidiot" and you are of no use to them and
> little use to anyone else.
I did not read a single instance of either word in the post you are
responding to. So you are now officially, buggering strawmen.
> "Pride goeth before the fall", Ray, and you have a long way down!
Yuo sound remarkably simular to the creationists we have in
talk.origins when they run out of arguments to put forward (which
happens pretty quickly, usually). Bible quotations have no place in
this n.g. Go to talk.origins if you want to quote the good book.
Kleuskes & Moos
billwg schreef:
> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> news:slrndmhv94....@localhost.localdomain...
> >
> > Wow, that's a bold statement - "no advantage ever". Linux is much more
> > secure and resistant to malware of all kinds, to name just one
> > advantage. Linux does not require any baroque activation schemes, to
> > name another. Installing and maintaining software is much easier on
> > Linux, to name a third. The prices of applications (it's not just the
> > "OS price") are better, to name a fourth. It doesn't suffer from
> > "bit-rot", to name a fifth. Etc., etc.
> >
> But it is not in use by anyone, Ray, and that trumps any aces you may
> think you have.
Hey! Don't I count for something? If nobody used it, where does all the
developent come from?
> Plus your list of advantages is hardly proven as such in any environment.
Mwoh... That's just your opinion. Having programmed both environments
(and MacOS 6.x to MacOS X, windows comes in last on my usability list.
Miles behind any Posix compliant platform I have used (IRIX, SunOS,
BDS-UNIX, OpenBSD, AIX), simply because the API is
a) a mess
b) a behemoth
c) a moving target
>From what i get from my social envoironment, more and more users are
considering a switch. Especially those that are more knowledgable than
Joe Sixpack. Linux has been my mainstay OS since 1993 and sofar I
haven't seen any reason to change to Windoze.
billwg
"Kleuskes & Moos" <kle...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:1130968940.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> billwg schreef:
>
>> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>> news:slrndmhun4....@localhost.localdomain...
>> >
>> > All in all, Linux is a very nice platform to develop for.
>> >
>> Perhaps it is, Ray, but Windows is a much more rewarding platform
>> that
>> can reach out to a couple of orders of magnitude more users than
>> linux.
>
> A non-technical argumnt, but an argument, nevertheless. The credit,
> however, goes to the windows users, not the windows platform
>
success. We are discussing reality and what might be the most rational
action to take.
>> If you want to do some real good, provide your programs on Windows
>> and
>> more people can use them.
>
> Anyone can use linux, without paying licencing fees. Again, this is
> not
> a achievement of the windows platform. The credit goes to the
> M$-marketing department.
>
The issue is that no one cares.
>>Sit in you ivory tower and look down your
>> nose at the "Wintards" and "Winidiot" and you are of no use to them
>> and
>> little use to anyone else.
>
> I did not read a single instance of either word in the post you are
> responding to. So you are now officially, buggering strawmen.
>
Not at all. To be on the side of linux in COLA is to embrace the snotty
boys who do use these terms and worse frequently. Ray has irretrievably
cast his lot with chris, and clark, and rick, and the others.
>> "Pride goeth before the fall", Ray, and you have a long way down!
>
> Yuo sound remarkably simular to the creationists we have in
> talk.origins when they run out of arguments to put forward (which
> happens pretty quickly, usually). Bible quotations have no place in
> this n.g. Go to talk.origins if you want to quote the good book.
>
Only a coincidence, dutch! I've never posted there.
billwg
>
> billwg schreef:
>
>> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>> news:slrndmhv94....@localhost.localdomain...
>> >
>> > Wow, that's a bold statement - "no advantage ever". Linux is much
>> > more
>> > secure and resistant to malware of all kinds, to name just one
>> > advantage. Linux does not require any baroque activation schemes,
>> > to
>> > name another. Installing and maintaining software is much easier on
>> > Linux, to name a third. The prices of applications (it's not just
>> > the
>> > "OS price") are better, to name a fourth. It doesn't suffer from
>> > "bit-rot", to name a fifth. Etc., etc.
>> >
>> But it is not in use by anyone, Ray, and that trumps any aces you may
>> think you have.
>
> Hey! Don't I count for something? If nobody used it, where does all
> the
> developent come from?
>
for the collections of fruits and nuts who actually do use it. They are
of no real consequence to any useful metric, however, so the practical
answer is no one. And you don't really count and the users are hardly
developers in most instances.
>> Plus your list of advantages is hardly proven as such in any
>> environment.
>
> Mwoh... That's just your opinion. Having programmed both environments
> (and MacOS 6.x to MacOS X, windows comes in last on my usability list.
> Miles behind any Posix compliant platform I have used (IRIX, SunOS,
> BDS-UNIX, OpenBSD, AIX), simply because the API is
>
> a) a mess
> b) a behemoth
> c) a moving target
>
>>From what i get from my social envoironment, more and more users are
> considering a switch. Especially those that are more knowledgable than
> Joe Sixpack. Linux has been my mainstay OS since 1993 and sofar I
> haven't seen any reason to change to Windoze.
>
As I said, small matter, dutch! The proof is in the quarterly and
annual sales figures and Mr. Softee rules the roost. How does it feel
to be so far behind such a clumsy effort (if your statements are valid)?
If I were suffering such a defeat in the market, I would want it to have
come at the hands of the finest product since the dawn of man.
billwg
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message news:f8nn33-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>
> I use it. Does that count? :-) (I gotta register at some point
> at linuxcounter.org or something. I just haven't bothered. It
> would be nice to get some Linux vs. Windows webserver usage stats;
> the best I can do is
> http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html
> which you've probably seen before. There's plenty of data
> on Apache vs. IIS but little data here regarding Linux vs. Microsoft.
> But "not in use by anyone" is easily disprovable by finding someone.)
>
the statistics on web servers with the usage rate of linux on the
desktop? The population of servers is only loosely attached to the
population of clients in terms of platform dominance. This thread
discusses the capture of yet another piece of the unix server market by
linux and highlights the failure of the BU IT department to mess with
the Windows-powered BU mandated IBM ThinkPad w/Windows client computers
in place at that institution.
>>
>>>and that trumps any aces you may think you have.
>>
>> The market share of Windows "trumps" nothing. You got caught in yet
>> another lie, billwg.
>
> It trumps other operating systems in that market, perhaps.
> That's about it. :-) (And the trumping is by $ amount, not
> by number of installations, presumably. Woo.)
>
LOL!!!
>>
>>>Plus your list of advantages is hardly proven as such in
>>>any environment.
>>
>> Bullsh*t.
>>
>
> Hmm...when was the last time Linux got a mention in the same
> breath as "major security alert" on CNN? ;-)
>
No widespread usage, ghost, ergo any threat to linux is a small potatoe.
> No, I like Linux. Windows is OK if one can tolerate its many foibles.
> But there sure are a lot of them.
>
Ah, but it is in fine shape for the shape that it is in!
Kleuskes & Moos
billwg schreef:
> "Kleuskes & Moos" <kle...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:1130968940.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > billwg schreef:
> >
> >> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> >> news:slrndmhun4....@localhost.localdomain...
> >> >
> >> > All in all, Linux is a very nice platform to develop for.
> >> >
> >> Perhaps it is, Ray, but Windows is a much more rewarding platform
> >> that
> >> can reach out to a couple of orders of magnitude more users than
> >> linux.
> >
> > A non-technical argumnt, but an argument, nevertheless. The credit,
> > however, goes to the windows users, not the windows platform
> >
> We are not discussing the ultimate merits of who shall be rewarded for
> success. We are discussing reality and what might be the most rational
> action to take.
Ah... Moving goal poost. I was waiting for it.
> >> If you want to do some real good, provide your programs on Windows
> >> and
> >> more people can use them.
> >
> > Anyone can use linux, without paying licencing fees. Again, this is
> > not
> > a achievement of the windows platform. The credit goes to the
> > M$-marketing department.
> >
> The issue is that no one cares.
One more lie. I care and so does a great number of others. Businesses
are switching t linux/UNIX solutions more and more frequently because
SW development in Windows is a pain in the ass.
> >>Sit in you ivory tower and look down your
> >> nose at the "Wintards" and "Winidiot" and you are of no use to them
> >> and
> >> little use to anyone else.
> >
> > I did not read a single instance of either word in the post you are
> > responding to. So you are now officially, buggering strawmen.
> >
>
> Not at all. To be on the side of linux in COLA is to embrace the snotty
> boys who do use these terms and worse frequently.
Ad hominem arguments in support of a trawman attack. Wow. You should
*really* consider postig in t.o. You would fit right in with the rest
of the creationists.
> Ray has irretrievably cast his lot with chris, and clark, and rick, and the others.
So what? That does not support any of your arguments. Another ad
hominem, by the way.
> >> "Pride goeth before the fall", Ray, and you have a long way down!
> >
> > Yuo sound remarkably simular to the creationists we have in
> > talk.origins when they run out of arguments to put forward (which
> > happens pretty quickly, usually). Bible quotations have no place in
> > this n.g. Go to talk.origins if you want to quote the good book.
> >
> Only a coincidence, dutch! I've never posted there.
My being ducth has nothing to do with it. Even if you have never posted
there, you employ the same style of reasoning. So far, i have yet to
see a single argument besides "windows has more users".
billwg
>
> Ah... Moving goal poost. I was waiting for it.
>
original idea! Congratulations.
>> The issue is that no one cares.
>
> One more lie. I care and so does a great number of others. Businesses
> are switching t linux/UNIX solutions more and more frequently because
> SW development in Windows is a pain in the ass.
>
Ah, but that has been discussed. Very few true businesses are
switching. A few dinks with their little fiefdoms may switch, but they
hardly register in the cash flow. IBM, after years of trying, has
itself not switched. Even the highly touted government efforts, for
example in Munich, have not actually switch, they are just perannually
"about to" switch. And even if they did, the aggregate number of
switchers reported is very small as a percentage of the overall flow.
There are over 200 million PCs shipping annually with Windows today. If
a million people switched, that would be .5%. Munich is 14,000 "about
to switch in the next two years" and that is .007%. How many Munichs
are there? I have heard of a couple, to be sure, but they are in the
"looking" at linux mode, too. You are just dreaming, dutch!
>>
>> Not at all. To be on the side of linux in COLA is to embrace the
>> snotty
>> boys who do use these terms and worse frequently.
>
> Ad hominem arguments in support of a trawman attack. Wow. You should
> *really* consider postig in t.o. You would fit right in with the rest
> of the creationists.
>
Well, you obviously do not understand what "ad hominem" means, dutch. I
am not criticizing Ray's ideas due to his lack of taste in associates, I
am criticizing his lack of taste.
>> Ray has irretrievably cast his lot with chris, and clark, and rick,
>> and the others.
>
> So what? That does not support any of your arguments. Another ad
> hominem, by the way.
>
Another misuse of the term, dutch! LOL!!!
>> >> "Pride goeth before the fall", Ray, and you have a long way down!
>> >
>> > Yuo sound remarkably simular to the creationists we have in
>> > talk.origins when they run out of arguments to put forward (which
>> > happens pretty quickly, usually). Bible quotations have no place in
>> > this n.g. Go to talk.origins if you want to quote the good book.
>> >
>> Only a coincidence, dutch! I've never posted there.
>
> My being ducth has nothing to do with it. Even if you have never
> posted
> there, you employ the same style of reasoning. So far, i have yet to
> see a single argument besides "windows has more users".
>
What other argument is needed? To my reasoning, that is the reason that
linux is doomed. The desktop PC market in its current form is some 25
years old and that is very mature in terms of tech products. To have
such a market capture at such a stage of maturity is a guarantee of
continued ownership of that kind of market. You would have to be
incredibly naive, as many here obviously are, to think that fussing
around with technical details could derail that kind of juggernaught.
Ray Ingles
> As I said, small matter, dutch! The proof is in the quarterly and
> annual sales figures and Mr. Softee rules the roost. How does it feel
> to be so far behind such a clumsy effort (if your statements are valid)?
> If I were suffering such a defeat in the market, I would want it to have
> come at the hands of the finest product since the dawn of man.
Here's something I posted back in August:
"Marketing will be necessary for Linux to 'take over' the desktop; in
this, billwg actually has a point. But the case of Firefox, for example,
shows that *huge* marketing campaigns are not necessarily required when
significant technical differences exist, even in the face of inertia
and a competitor with a large budget. Also note that Firefox doesn't
need to have a majority share to affect the way websites are coded,
tested, and deployed."
Note the recent thread that indicates that (well) over 10% of web users
are using Firefox-based browsers. (I recall how happy you were when
there was a brief dip in share at around 8%... Message ID:
EaLe.10067$Oy2....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com).
Linux distributors have only recently started actively pursuing the
desktop market. Windows took many years to work its way to its current
position, and it'll take Linux many years to depose Windows. But the
signs are favorable; Linux isn't going away, it already has many
superior featurs, and it improves faster than Windows can. The
historical barriers to switching from Windows (carefully built by
Microsoft) like application availability (e.g. Office, IE) are eroding
daily. Given that Microsoft has nowhere to go but down, anything that
eases switching must be worrisome to them. Look at how agressively they
are fighting in Massachusetts.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
It is not true that Microsoft doesn't innovate. They brought us
the email virus. - Jedidiah
chrisv
>If I were suffering such a defeat in the market, I would want it to have
>come at the hands of the finest product since the dawn of man.
Absurd statements like this prove that you are nothing but a stupid
troll, billwg (as if any more proof were needed).
Ray Ingles
>> How fortunate that Windows users have Cygwin, then.
> Kind of foolish of you, Ray! If the chances of someone having linux is
> around .25% to 1% the chances of having Cygwin are about .0025% to
> .01%! Good luck!
Interesting, you say that Windows is 99% of the market. (And as usual,
you offer no support whatsoever for this assertion. Of course, I can now
understand why you don't provide references; you're terrible at it. The
last time you provided a reference, it blew up in your face; see the
post with message ID "slrndmcsh6....@localhost.localdomain".)
Let's assume that your percentages were true. (They're not, of course,
and you know you can't substantiate them in any way.) How is this any
different from, say, forcing people to download, say, vbrun.dll to run
an application? That's been a common nuisance in the Windows world for a
long time. :->
In any case, that's entirely aside from the subject of this thread, the
"Advantages [Of Linux] For The Software Developer". Linux is much, much
easier to develop for, and I have limited time to spend on developing my
side projects. It's vastly better to actually complete several projects
than to never finish even one. You should try it sometime. :->
I also bring to your attention that you have *completely* ignored my
challenge to demonstrate that I've ever used the terms "wintard" or
"winidiot". Your concession of defeat is noted.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas
are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
- Howard Aiken
chrisv
>What other argument is needed? To my reasoning, that is the reason that
>linux is doomed. The desktop PC market in its current form is some 25
>years old and that is very mature in terms of tech products. To have
>such a market capture at such a stage of maturity is a guarantee of
>continued ownership of that kind of market. You would have to be
>incredibly naive, as many here obviously are, to think that fussing
>around with technical details could derail that kind of juggernaught.
Straw man. Open source offers a superior product, and VASTLY lower
cost. This undoubtedly will result in OSS dominating price-sensative
markets (i.e. most of the world). In more mature markets, M$ will not
go easily, using their marketing, their money, and their dirty tricks
to maintain a good deal of the market for some time. However, the
viable OSS presense in the market will offer consumer choice, and
force M$ to "play nice" in ways that they otherwise would not.
Ray Ingles
>> > I did not read a single instance of either word in the post you are
>> > responding to. So you are now officially, buggering strawmen.
>>
>> Not at all. To be on the side of linux in COLA is to embrace the snotty
>> boys who do use these terms and worse frequently.
>
> Ad hominem arguments in support of a trawman attack. Wow. You should
> *really* consider postig in t.o. You would fit right in with the rest
> of the creationists.
It's true, Bill Weisgerber's an inexhaustible font of fallacies,
unsupported assertions, and snide and dismissive but substance-free
comments. It's been a while since I was in talk.origins but I recognized
the type right off.
>> Ray has irretrievably cast his lot with chris, and clark, and rick,
>> and the others.
>
> So what? That does not support any of your arguments. Another ad
> hominem, by the way.
Yeah, but it does open up new areas. After all, if he's right, it also
means that Bill has "irretrievably cast his lot" with the vulgar,
incoherent (flatfish), racist (DFS) wintroll ilk. And, as a Windows
developer, he's "irretrievably cast his lot" with virus, worm, and
spyware authors too. :->
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith
does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2005-11-02, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>> How fortunate that Windows users have Cygwin, then.
>
>> Kind of foolish of you, Ray! If the chances of someone having linux
>> is
>> around .25% to 1% the chances of having Cygwin are about .0025% to
>> .01%! Good luck!
>
> Interesting, you say that Windows is 99% of the market. (And as usual,
> you offer no support whatsoever for this assertion. Of course, I can
> now
> understand why you don't provide references; you're terrible at it.
> The
> last time you provided a reference, it blew up in your face; see the
> post with message ID "slrndmcsh6....@localhost.localdomain".)
>
use terms that do have some absolute meaning, i.e. no one or everyone,
and certainly there are exceptions to the statement. But your focus on
the inconsequential exceptions is a clue to your lack of effective
results. I am looking at the situation, as I have said before, as a
marketing situation and making statements based on the results that I
expect to see. Linux-based apps have no effect on the market because so
few people use linux that whatever effect they do have is totally lost
in the the major effect from those who do not use linux. Whether there
is one or a million linux users is of no real consequence. The
marketing dynamics end up in the same end position. You want to quibble
with 1% vs some other number, fine, go ahead and quibble, but it makes
no difference. Somewhere in the recent threads is a CNet report of IDC
saying that linux has some 1.4% (IIRC). That is no different from .25%
or 1% or 0% when it comes to what is going to happen in the market this
year.
> Let's assume that your percentages were true. (They're not, of course,
> and you know you can't substantiate them in any way.) How is this any
> different from, say, forcing people to download, say, vbrun.dll to run
> an application? That's been a common nuisance in the Windows world for
> a
> long time. :->
>
I don't know that anyone ever did download vbrun.dll to run an app.
Most people expect it to run out of the box. If computers are your
hobby, you might go to some lengths to get something to work, but you
are not in the mainstream. I don't think that these dlls are needed
anymore, at least with XP. In any event you will need to supply the
necessary environment if it differes from the Windows default.
> In any case, that's entirely aside from the subject of this thread,
> the
> "Advantages [Of Linux] For The Software Developer". Linux is much,
> much
> easier to develop for, and I have limited time to spend on developing
> my
> side projects. It's vastly better to actually complete several
> projects
> than to never finish even one. You should try it sometime. :->
>
I have a lot of side projects, too, Ray. Some of them are even
complete!
> I also bring to your attention that you have *completely* ignored my
> challenge to demonstrate that I've ever used the terms "wintard" or
> "winidiot". Your concession of defeat is noted.
>
See the story elsewhere, Ray!
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>
> It's true, Bill Weisgerber's an inexhaustible font of fallacies,
> unsupported assertions, and snide and dismissive but substance-free
> comments. It's been a while since I was in talk.origins but I
> recognized
> the type right off.
>
conventional wisdom, Ray!
>>> Ray has irretrievably cast his lot with chris, and clark, and
>>> rick,
>>> and the others.
>>
>> So what? That does not support any of your arguments. Another ad
>> hominem, by the way.
>
> Yeah, but it does open up new areas. After all, if he's right, it also
> means that Bill has "irretrievably cast his lot" with the vulgar,
> incoherent (flatfish), racist (DFS) wintroll ilk. And, as a Windows
> developer, he's "irretrievably cast his lot" with virus, worm, and
> spyware authors too. :->
>
You may be right in that regard, Ray. As to "flatfish" I am not so sure
that label is being applied correctly to the variety of posts that are
being accused of coming from that source. However, I do note that they
are mostly discomfort to the linux fan, wherein they almost always
describe in detail some shortcoming of a linux installation in some
application area and then the issue is dismised with the derisive cry of
"Flatfish!". Curiously, the issue is left to stand since it appears to
be true. I can't say for sure without a huge and useless expenditure of
effort, but it seems likely that the stories have a true core even
though they may very well be contrived as an embarassment to the linux
fan.
DFS goes over the top frequently, to be sure, but he has a heart of
gold.
The virus, worm, and spyware authors are sociopathic linux fans, IMO,
and not "Windows developers" in any useful sense of the term. I put
them in your camp.
billwg
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:7u5km153lgf2vus4m...@4ax.com...
How much more "mature" do you think the PC operating system software
market will become, chris? And why? For that matter, why do you think
that the consumer even wants a choice? I think the consumer merely
wants progress. A choice is something to be avoided. Remember the
Simon and Garfunkel observation "...when you have to choose, no matter
how you look at it you lose..."?
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>
> Note the recent thread that indicates that (well) over 10% of web
> users
> are using Firefox-based browsers. (I recall how happy you were when
> there was a brief dip in share at around 8%... Message ID:
> EaLe.10067$Oy2....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com).
>
> Linux distributors have only recently started actively pursuing the
> desktop market. Windows took many years to work its way to its current
> position, and it'll take Linux many years to depose Windows. But the
> signs are favorable; Linux isn't going away, it already has many
> superior featurs, and it improves faster than Windows can. The
> historical barriers to switching from Windows (carefully built by
> Microsoft) like application availability (e.g. Office, IE) are eroding
> daily. Given that Microsoft has nowhere to go but down, anything that
> eases switching must be worrisome to them. Look at how agressively
> they
> are fighting in Massachusetts.
>
Are you claiming a victory in MA? I think it has a few rounds to go
yet.
billwg
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
You make a value judgment, chris, without offering a counter. Would
you, too, prefer to be beaten by a poor opponent?
Kier
Appearances, in the case of flatfish, are always deceptive, since flatfish
is a serial liar, nymshifter and complete moron of the worst possible
kind. Flatfish has been corrected hundreds if not thousands of times.
> I can't say for sure without a huge and useless expenditure of
> effort, but it seems likely that the stories have a true core even
> though they may very well be contrived as an embarassment to the linux
> fan.
Very rarely indeed - virtually never - do they have any truth in them.
>
> DFS goes over the top frequently, to be sure, but he has a heart of
> gold.
Then God knows what you class as a villain. DFS is a racist idiot. If you
approve of that, you are as bad as he is.
>
> The virus, worm, and spyware authors are sociopathic linux fans, IMO,
> and not "Windows developers" in any useful sense of the term. I put
> them in your camp.
Got any proof that most viruses and worms are written by Linux users, you
liar? Or that Linux fans are sociopaths, for that matter. Else keep quiet.
--
Kier
Ray Ingles
> use terms that do have some absolute meaning, i.e. no one or everyone,
> and certainly there are exceptions to the statement. But your focus on
> the inconsequential exceptions is a clue to your lack of effective
> results.
Of course, we've only your bare, unsupported assertion that the
"exceptions" *are* in fact "inconsequential", and that the "results" are
not "effective".
> I am looking at the situation, as I have said before, as a
> marketing situation and making statements based on the results that I
> expect to see.
Your marketing insights have proven spectacularly inaccurate with
respect to Firefox; why should anyone trust them with respect to Linux?
> Linux-based apps have no effect on the market because so
> few people use linux that whatever effect they do have is totally lost
> in the the major effect from those who do not use linux.
But that, of course, is not the strategy. Many of the key apps
(Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice) are available for Windows as well.
And once people switch over to them (as they are increasingly doing -
the most recent numbers for Firefox are quite impressive, and we're all
familiar with the news about OpenOffice), there's far less reason to
stay with Windows and its cost, security headaches, and arbitrary
restrictions.
In a way, I'm okay with the Xbox selling well. Aside from that fact
that they sell it as a loss, the fewer people using their PC for games,
the weaker the hold Windows has on that market. Microsoft has a real
balancing act to do there.
> Somewhere in the recent threads is a CNet report of IDC
> saying that linux has some 1.4% (IIRC).
That was back in June. And it was 1.1-1.7%, and that was Australia
only, it's hard to extrapolate those numbers to other areas of the
world. But, if you believe IDC, here's a note:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=285 (January 2005):
"On the desktop side, IDC sees Linux' share more than doubling, from 3%
today to 6% in 2007, while Windows loses a bit of ground."
> That is no different from .25% or 1% or 0% when it comes to what is
> going to happen in the market this year.
Why arbitrarily limit it to this year? IDC doesn't. Linux is a
long-term threat to Microsoft, though not as long as you hope. Web
developers are increasingly adjusting their practices to make sure
their sites work with Firefox; as Linux's desktop share increases (as
well as Apple's) other developers will increasingly be directing
attention to working with those platforms, too.
> I don't know that anyone ever did download vbrun.dll to run an app.
Ah, yes, an absolute word like "anyone" again. Google for "need to
download vbrun" to see how many people your kind of "anyone" does not
include.
>> Linux is much, much easier to develop for, and I have limited time
>> to spend on developing my side projects. It's vastly better to
>> actually complete several projects than to never finish even one.
>> You should try it sometime. :->
>>
> I have a lot of side projects, too, Ray. Some of them are even
> complete!
Ah, but my claims are far more believable, since I've actually
substantiated them. I've made no secret about where my website is.
You, on the other hand... (hint hint).
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"There are two kinds of people; those who finish what they
start and so on." - Anonymous
Ray Ingles
>> means that Bill has "irretrievably cast his lot" with the vulgar,
>> incoherent (flatfish), racist (DFS) wintroll ilk. And, as a Windows
>> developer, he's "irretrievably cast his lot" with virus, worm, and
>> spyware authors too. :->
> I can't say for sure without a huge and useless expenditure of
> effort, but it seems likely that the stories have a true core even
> though they may very well be contrived as an embarassment to the linux
> fan.
"Likely" why?
> DFS goes over the top frequently, to be sure, but he has a heart of
> gold.
Here's how he got into my killfile:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=&num=10&scoring=r&hl=en&as_epq=&as_oq=
&as_eq=&as_ugroup=soc.culture.african.american&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=dfs&
r=&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=3&as_maxm=11&
as_maxy=2005&safe=off
To make it easy enough even for you:
Now you've *really* "cast your lot" with him. Best of luck.
> The virus, worm, and spyware authors are sociopathic linux fans, IMO,
You've mentioned this before, and never provided *any* evidence to back
up your unique "O" - any evidence at all. The rest of the universe
thinks they are organized criminals out for cash:
http://www.techweb.com/wire/security/160403632
http://www.cisc.gc.ca/annual_reports/annualreport2005/technology_and_
crime_2005_e.htm
http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2034337/mafia-muscles-
spam-viruses
http://www.csoonline.com/analyst/report3896.html
http://www.mimesweeper.com/support/threatlab/resources/ThreatLabRetro2003.pdf
and on and on:
http://www.google.com/search?q=malware+organized+crime
Come on, surely you've got *something* besides, "I wish it were true,
therefore it must be"?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"A mother raising children is not considered 'a worker.' She
is treated as if she has no input or productivity to
contribute to the 'real economy'." - R.D. Green
Ray Ingles
>> users are using Firefox-based browsers.
> Are you citing the post by Rick?
I'll just cite this:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/applications/0,39020384,39235378,00.htm
(It's interesting that you claim not to see anyone using Firefox, while
the above report indicates around 14% of US websurfers are using it.)
>> (I recall how happy you were when
>> there was a brief dip in share at around 8%... Message ID:
>> EaLe.10067$Oy2....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com).
I can't help but leave this in here... it's just a perfect example of
how wrong you usually are when you are pinned down to any kind of
concrete statement.
>> Given that Microsoft has nowhere to go but down, anything that
>> eases switching must be worrisome to them. Look at how agressively
>> they are fighting in Massachusetts.
>>
> Are you claiming a victory in MA? I think it has a few rounds to go
> yet.
No, I'm not claiming victory, but Microsoft is sure putting a lot of
effort into something you regard as inconsequential. What do they know
that you (pretend you) don't?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
[Y]ou notice he said "do not destroy oil wells" before "do not
use weapons of mass destruction"? - Tom Tomorrow, on Bush's
ultimatum to Saddam Hussein
chrisv
>"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>
>> billwg wrote:
>>>
>>>If I were suffering such a defeat in the market, I would want it to
>>>have
>>>come at the hands of the finest product since the dawn of man.
>>
>> Absurd statements like this prove that you are nothing but a stupid
>> troll, billwg (as if any more proof were needed).
>
>You make a value judgment, chris, without offering a counter. Would
>you, too, prefer to be beaten by a poor opponent?
I'm sorry, billwg, I misinterpreted your comment. You are right. If
you are defeated, it is best to be defeated by the superior product -
much better than being defeated by a bunch of dirty-tricksters
peddling an inferior product, like M$ and Windwoes.
chrisv
>(snip claptrap)
Idiot.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>
> Of course, we've only your bare, unsupported assertion that the
> "exceptions" *are* in fact "inconsequential", and that the "results"
> are
> not "effective".
>
To be fair I often provide an argument as well. You only seem to want
some third party's acknowledgement.
>> I am looking at the situation, as I have said before, as a
>> marketing situation and making statements based on the results that I
>> expect to see.
>
> Your marketing insights have proven spectacularly inaccurate with
> respect to Firefox; why should anyone trust them with respect to
> Linux?
>
Where do you get your info on Firefox?
>> Linux-based apps have no effect on the market because so
>> few people use linux that whatever effect they do have is totally
>> lost
>> in the the major effect from those who do not use linux.
>
> But that, of course, is not the strategy. Many of the key apps
> (Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice) are available for Windows as well.
> And once people switch over to them (as they are increasingly doing -
> the most recent numbers for Firefox are quite impressive, and we're
> all
> familiar with the news about OpenOffice), there's far less reason to
> stay with Windows and its cost, security headaches, and arbitrary
> restrictions.
>
I think that is proof of my concept more than yours, Ray. I said that
you had to program for Windows to reach the people and you were on about
how it is easier in linux. Now you say that, since these apps are
available for Windows and may be doing well, although I'm not ready to
concede that, you are vindicated, but the only reason that they are
popular is because they are available for Windows as well. You are
still stuck in the chute as far as getting someone to convert to linux.
Going through the conversion process so that they can do the same thing
with the same apps is not going to be a motivation.
> In a way, I'm okay with the Xbox selling well. Aside from that fact
> that they sell it as a loss, the fewer people using their PC for
> games,
> the weaker the hold Windows has on that market. Microsoft has a real
> balancing act to do there.
>
>> Somewhere in the recent threads is a CNet report of IDC
>> saying that linux has some 1.4% (IIRC).
>
No, this very day. See
http://news.com.com/Linux+PCs+Customer+service+or+lip+service/2100-1042_3-5926949.html?tag=nefd.lede
They say 94.4 vs 1.4. Who knows for exactly sure? Do you think that a
company that has 70 times as much business as their competitor is going
to treat the market any differently if they have 99 times as much
business? Harvard wouldn't think so.
> That was back in June. And it was 1.1-1.7%, and that was Australia
> only, it's hard to extrapolate those numbers to other areas of the
> world. But, if you believe IDC, here's a note:
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=285 (January 2005):
>
> "On the desktop side, IDC sees Linux' share more than doubling, from
> 3%
> today to 6% in 2007, while Windows loses a bit of ground."
>
How much would you pay for an IDC study, Ray? They seem to be all over
the lot.
>> That is no different from .25% or 1% or 0% when it comes to what is
>> going to happen in the market this year.
>
> Why arbitrarily limit it to this year? IDC doesn't. Linux is a
> long-term threat to Microsoft, though not as long as you hope. Web
> developers are increasingly adjusting their practices to make sure
> their sites work with Firefox; as Linux's desktop share increases (as
> well as Apple's) other developers will increasingly be directing
> attention to working with those platforms, too.
>
>> I don't know that anyone ever did download vbrun.dll to run an app.
>
> Ah, yes, an absolute word like "anyone" again. Google for "need to
> download vbrun" to see how many people your kind of "anyone" does not
> include.
I just did that and I got exactly one hit, Ray, from
... 98. Completely Free Software They remind you that you might need to
download VBRun files to run some of the programmer's software. ...
www.100megsfree3.com/aletaaa/sftwr.html - 7k - Supplemental Result -
Did you forget to use the quote marks?
>
Ray Ingles
>> are switching t linux/UNIX solutions more and more frequently because
>> SW development in Windows is a pain in the ass.
>>
> Ah, but that has been discussed. Very few true businesses are
> switching.
Well, in the server area, that is categorically false. It's worth
noting this because you never qualify your statements along these lines,
attempting to blur the issue.
> If a million people switched, that would be .5%.
On the desktop, IDC says about 3% have switched, and that's expected to
more than double in the next two years. (It's also worth noting that IDCs
estimates have pretty much always trended upward; they've tended to be
underestimates.) So you're already nearly an order of magnitude low.
> Well, you obviously do not understand what "ad hominem" means, dutch. I
> am not criticizing Ray's ideas due to his lack of taste in associates, I
> am criticizing his lack of taste.
Um, no, you specifically accused *me* of... let's see... 'Sit[ting] in
you [sic] ivory tower and look[ing] down your nose at the "Wintards"
and "Winidiot"[sic]'. (Don't worry about my feelings, though. Somewhere
there may be something I care less about than what you say about me, but
I can't imagine what that might be.)
>> So far, i have yet to see a single argument besides "windows has more
>> users".
>>
> What other argument is needed? To my reasoning, that is the reason that
> linux is doomed.
Even if the trends point to a different outcome.
> To have such a market capture at such a stage of maturity is a
> guarantee of continued ownership of that kind of market.
"Disruptive technologies" affect mature markets like that.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
If you find yourself in a fair fight,
you didn't plan your mission properly.
Kleuskes & Moos
billwg schreef:
> "Kleuskes & Moos" <kle...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:1131003048....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Ah... Moving goal poost. I was waiting for it.
> >
> Not at all, dutch! You have just come to an understanding of the
> original idea! Congratulations.
So moving the goal posts is your idea of "the original idea"? The term
'logical fallacy' does not ring any bells?
> >> The issue is that no one cares.
> >
> > One more lie. I care and so does a great number of others. Businesses
> > are switching t linux/UNIX solutions more and more frequently because
> > SW development in Windows is a pain in the ass.
> >
> Ah, but that has been discussed.
So you offer no counter arguments.
> Very few true businesses are switching.
And the ones that *do* switch are not real businesses. That is the 'no
true scotssman' fallacy.
> A few dinks with their little fiefdoms may switch, but they
> hardly register in the cash flow.
So Boeing, Northrop Grumman, the US navy and Army, DaimlerChrysler,
Mercedes Benz and the The US postal service to name but a few linux
users at random, are just 'little fiefdoms'? You have weird ideas.
See http://mtechit.com/linux-biz/ for some details.
> IBM, after years of trying, has itself not switched.
Are you suggesting the BlueGene (fastest computer on the face of the
earth and an IBM product) runs Windows?
http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/19772.html
They do not support Linux anymore?
See http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/va_4066.shtml
"Why Linux at IBM? Top 10 solution benefits"
ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/linux/pdfs/LinuxTop10March2005Final-S32809.pdf
>After years
> Even the highly touted government efforts, for
> example in Munich, have not actually switch, they are just perannually
> "about to" switch.
Switching software solutions takes time. And from the homepage of the
munich city, the project is right on track. You'd have to be braindead
to expect that it is no more than just using another web-browser.
http://www.muenchen.de/Rathaus/dir/limux/ueberblick/147193/status.html
So that's lie #2, in this post only.
> And even if they did, the aggregate number of
> switchers reported is very small as a percentage of the overall flow.
Maybe, but it's one more high-profile client M$ lost.
> There are over 200 million PCs shipping annually with Windows today.
Of course. But how many still run windblows after a year?
> If a million people switched, that would be .5%. Munich is 14,000 "about
> to switch in the next two years" and that is .007%.
But 0.007 very high profile percent. They are developng a base for
other german cities to use, and judging from their website, the iterest
is high. You bet your ass all of europe i watching. The system had it's
opening show at SYSTEMS-2005 conference. The reactions from other
authorities and businesses was enthousiastical.
> How many Munichs are there?
How many German, nay, European cities are there? That' is quite a chunk
of business and a BIG DENT in M$ usual FUD.
GET THE FACTS!
> I have heard of a couple, to be sure, but they are in the
> "looking" at linux mode, too. You are just dreaming, dutch!
Oh, yes. They look. And when they see linux runs faster, with less
costs and problems, and actually implements the standards so programs
are interoperable, the'll make the change too. If one sheep goes over
the dam, the rest will follow, as they say here.
Wasn't OpenOffice trashed in Ohio lately for not sticking to the XML
standard?
>
> >>
> >> Not at all. To be on the side of linux in COLA is to embrace the
> >> snotty
> >> boys who do use these terms and worse frequently.
> >
> > Ad hominem arguments in support of a trawman attack. Wow. You should
> > *really* consider postig in t.o. You would fit right in with the rest
> > of the creationists.
> >
> Well, you obviously do not understand what "ad hominem" means, dutch.
I do. You don't seem to understand. Look it up, boy.
> I am not criticizing Ray's ideas due to his lack of taste in associates, I
> am criticizing his lack of taste.
And using that in a debate in lieu of any real arguments. That's an 'ad
hominem' fallacy. I sugget you look it up, before you amke an even
bigger fool of yourself.
>
> >> Ray has irretrievably cast his lot with chris, and clark, and rick,
> >> and the others.
> >
> > So what? That does not support any of your arguments. Another ad
> > hominem, by the way.
> >
> Another misuse of the term, dutch! LOL!!!
Not at all. LOL. Yu argue by critisising a personal rait which has
nothing to do with the ebate at hand. Still an ad hominem logical
fallacy, boy.
> >> >> "Pride goeth before the fall", Ray, and you have a long way down!
> >> >
> >> > Yuo sound remarkably simular to the creationists we have in
> >> > talk.origins when they run out of arguments to put forward (which
> >> > happens pretty quickly, usually). Bible quotations have no place in
> >> > this n.g. Go to talk.origins if you want to quote the good book.
> >> >
> >> Only a coincidence, dutch! I've never posted there.
> >
> > My being ducth has nothing to do with it. Even if you have never
> > posted
> > there, you employ the same style of reasoning. So far, i have yet to
> > see a single argument besides "windows has more users".
> >
> What other argument is needed?
Many if M$ wants to *keep* those users. People are becoming more
computer-savvy than they were 25 years ago. The market is growing up
and realizing there is better suff around than M$ can ever produce.
They've been fooled long enough.
> To my reasoning, that is the reason that linux is doomed.
The rest of the world seems to think differently, and since 'your
reasoning' depends on bald faced lies and misinformation, my reasoning
is that your reasoning sucks big time.
M$ allready lot the server market, which it said would never happen,
now it's on the right track to loose the desktop market, too.
> The desktop PC market in its current form is some 25
> years old and that is very mature in terms of tech products.
And in those 25 years M$ has developed the biggest disasters in
GUI-land. If they hadn't bought Aplle's graphical system, we'd still
see icons falling though the windows, as they did in the bad old days
of 3.1. I can sill hear the cries of indignation from my fellow
mac-developers.
> To have
> such a market capture at such a stage of maturity is a guarantee of
> continued ownership of that kind of market.
In your (wet) dreams, pal.
> You would have to be incredibly naive, as many here obviously are, to think that fussing
> around with technical details could derail that kind of juggernaught.
Ah, yes... They said the same thing at IBM in the 80's. Sweet dreams.
They are loosing developers fast, and that is jut the first step. No
developers, no new products. No new products, no more customers. People
are not all as blind as you seem to be.
And now Munich has made the transition, more will follow. Lnux is
cheaper, more stable, less malware infested, it scales better, runs on
more hardware platforms, has a better API, fewer security alerts, and
bugs are fixed a hell of a lot faster than M$ will ever manage.
"You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the
people all of the time, but you can't fool mom."
-- Captain Penny's law.
billwg
"Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.11.03....@tiscali.co.uk...
>
> Appearances, in the case of flatfish, are always deceptive, since
> flatfish
> is a serial liar, nymshifter and complete moron of the worst possible
> kind. Flatfish has been corrected hundreds if not thousands of times.
>
"Flatfish!".
>
> Then God knows what you class as a villain. DFS is a racist idiot. If
> you
> approve of that, you are as bad as he is.
>
Where do you draw the notion that he is a racist? There was a bogus
post once, but it came from Eastern Europe, not DFS.
>>
>
> Got any proof that most viruses and worms are written by Linux users,
> you
> liar? Or that Linux fans are sociopaths, for that matter. Else keep
> quiet.
>
Who else is there that would fit the bill, Kier? By process of
elimination, they are the linux folk. As to your reverse logic, you
should be aware that the statement is not claimed to be bilateral. All
linux fans are not sociopaths, just the ones that write the malware.
William Poaster
Ingles console, was as follows:
And, as has been said by some software security firms, they are *more*
likely to be windows users which know windows *backwards*, in order to
make these trojans & viruses.
--
Lie of the 70's = The check is in the mail
Lie of the 80's = Trickle down economics
Lie of the 90's = I have not had sex with that woman/man/computer/etc.
Lie of the 00's = Monopoly promotes innovation.
Ray Ingles
See the story elsewhere! LOL!
(I've posted a link, go actually read it.)
>> But that, of course, is not the strategy. Many of the key apps
>> (Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice) are available for Windows as well.
> Now you say that, since these apps are
> available for Windows and may be doing well, although I'm not ready to
> concede that, you are vindicated, but the only reason that they are
> popular is because they are available for Windows as well. You are
> still stuck in the chute as far as getting someone to convert to linux.
Um, no. I said:
>> And once people switch over to them (as they are increasingly doing -
>> the most recent numbers for Firefox are quite impressive, and we're all
>> familiar with the news about OpenOffice), there's far less reason to
>> stay with Windows and its cost, security headaches, and arbitrary
>> restrictions.
And you replied:
> Going through the conversion process so that they can do the same thing
> with the same apps is not going to be a motivation.
I agree.
But going through the conversion process so that they can do the same
things less expensively, more securely, and more easily *is* a
motivation. A strong one. And I said so, not that you read it or
anything.
> No, this very day. See
> http://news.com.com/Linux+PCs+Customer+service+or+lip+service/2100-
> 1042_3-5926949.html?tag=nefd.lede
>
> They say 94.4 vs 1.4.
Well, actually, they say "About 94.4 percent of all the PCs and other
handheld devices shipped in 2003 run Windows". That's two-year-old data,
Bill. And there's the link I posted:
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=285 (January 2005):
>>
>> "On the desktop side, IDC sees Linux' share more than doubling, from
>> 3% today to 6% in 2007, while Windows loses a bit of ground."
Of course, this is much more recent data.
> How much would you pay for an IDC study, Ray? They seem to be all over
> the lot.
Well, as I've noted, they tend to underestimate when they make future
projections. But the main point is you're comparing old data to new data
and claiming that they are inconsistent. That's pretty funny, because
what they actually indicate is that Linux's desktop share is rising.
>> Ah, yes, an absolute word like "anyone" again. Google for "need to
>> download vbrun" to see how many people your kind of "anyone" does not
>> include.
>
> I just did that and I got exactly one hit, Ray, from
>
> ... 98. Completely Free Software They remind you that you might need to
> download VBRun files to run some of the programmer's software. ...
> www.100megsfree3.com/aletaaa/sftwr.html - 7k - Supplemental Result -
>
> Did you forget to use the quote marks?
I didn't forget, I quoted them in my post because we're using English.
Try it without the quotes. Or just try "need vbrun" (without the
quotes).
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Redundancy is good, and redundancy is even better! - Howard Tayler
billwg
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> billwg wrote:
>
>>(snip claptrap)
>
> Idiot.
>
Is that your final answer? LOL!!!
billwg
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
linux and other OSS initiatives, chris? What are these dirty tricks
that you speak of?
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2005-11-03, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Note the recent thread that indicates that (well) over 10% of web
>>> users are using Firefox-based browsers.
>
>> Are you citing the post by Rick?
>
> I'll just cite this:
>
> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/applications/0,39020384,39235378,00.htm
>
> (It's interesting that you claim not to see anyone using Firefox,
> while
> the above report indicates around 14% of US websurfers are using it.)
>
about US activity from a UK flack, Ray. It sort of says what you want
it to say, but doesn't offer any of the extensive "proof" that you are
so fond of. Why take Ingrid's statements at face value and discredit
mine? I at least live in the US.
>>> (I recall how happy you were when
>>> there was a brief dip in share at around 8%... Message ID:
>>> EaLe.10067$Oy2....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com).
>
> I can't help but leave this in here... it's just a perfect example of
> how wrong you usually are when you are pinned down to any kind of
> concrete statement.
>
>>> Given that Microsoft has nowhere to go but down, anything that
>>> eases switching must be worrisome to them. Look at how agressively
>>> they are fighting in Massachusetts.
>>>
>> Are you claiming a victory in MA? I think it has a few rounds to go
>> yet.
>
> No, I'm not claiming victory, but Microsoft is sure putting a lot of
> effort into something you regard as inconsequential. What do they know
> that you (pretend you) don't?
>
How much effort are they putting into it, Ray? They, of course, do have
a lot of money involved in their contracts and they are going to respond
to customer requests and react to decisions, favorable or not. That is
the way business is done. It's like all the COLA folk being so certain
that MS is living in fear and dread of linux rather than just regarding
that market as another tempting morsel. In either case, the MS
activities are the same, but the linux advocate has to attribute some
characteristic to MS to convince himself that he has a chance. I think
you are just kidding yourselves.
Kier
>
> "Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.11.03....@tiscali.co.uk...
>>
>> Appearances, in the case of flatfish, are always deceptive, since
>> flatfish
>> is a serial liar, nymshifter and complete moron of the worst possible
>> kind. Flatfish has been corrected hundreds if not thousands of times.
>>
> I've never seen the allegations corrected, Kier. Only the cries of
> "Flatfish!".
You may claim not to have seen them, but I know they are made. I know
because I have made some of them myself, as have many others. So often, in
fact, that some posters have grown tired of bothering and will simply
'out' flatfish as soon as another nym appears.
>
>>
>> Then God knows what you class as a villain. DFS is a racist idiot. If
>> you
>> approve of that, you are as bad as he is.
>>
> Where do you draw the notion that he is a racist? There was a bogus
> post once, but it came from Eastern Europe, not DFS.
He has made racist statements, repeatedly and unrepentantly, and continues
to do so. That's how. You are either lying or disingenuous if you claim
not to know this.
>>>
>>
>> Got any proof that most viruses and worms are written by Linux users,
>> you
>> liar? Or that Linux fans are sociopaths, for that matter. Else keep
>> quiet.
>>
> Who else is there that would fit the bill, Kier? By process of
> elimination, they are the linux folk.
By what twisted imagination do you come up with that ludicrous and lying
idea? Perhaps you woulds like to clarify how you work that elimination out?
> As to your reverse logic, you
> should be aware that the statement is not claimed to be bilateral. All
> linux fans are not sociopaths, just the ones that write the malware.
You have not yet proved they write any malware. In fact, crackers of this
type - serious ones, not script kiddies - as as likely to use any and
every platform they can find. They are OS agnostic. They'll use Windows,
UNIX, Linux, MacOS and anything else they can get. Script kiddies, on the
other hand, are almost always Windows users - they're too dumb to be
anything else.
--
Kier
chrisv
>"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>news:c3jkm1hkibcsdp579...@4ax.com...
>> billwg wrote:
>>
>>>"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> billwg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>If I were suffering such a defeat in the market, I would want it to
>>>>>have
>>>>>come at the hands of the finest product since the dawn of man.
>>>>
>>>> Absurd statements like this prove that you are nothing but a stupid
>>>> troll, billwg (as if any more proof were needed).
>>>
>>>You make a value judgment, chris, without offering a counter. Would
>>>you, too, prefer to be beaten by a poor opponent?
>>
>> I'm sorry, billwg, I misinterpreted your comment. You are right. If
>> you are defeated, it is best to be defeated by the superior product -
>> much better than being defeated by a bunch of dirty-tricksters
>> peddling an inferior product, like M$ and Windwoes.
>>
>So how is it that these buffoons consistently ruin the opportunities for
>linux and other OSS initiatives, chris?
I didn't say that they were buffoons, troll. They are quite clever at
dirty tricks, for example.
>What are these dirty tricks that you speak of?
Already been covered, ad nauseum. Google is your friend. Hint: My
name and "blue". I don't want to rehash the obvious again, especially
with a troll as worthless as yourself. M$ dirty tricks were proven in
court.
Ray Ingles
>> the above report indicates around 14% of US websurfers are using it.)
>>
> It is interesting to see your confidence in this conflicting report
> about US activity from a UK flack, Ray.
It summarizes a report by an international company. No Googling needed,
just look up "onestat.com", and you'll swiftly get to:
http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressbox40_browser_market_firefox_
growing.html
http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus.html
"OneStat.com has more than 50,000 subscribers in more than one hundred
countries worldwide."
> Why take Ingrid's statements at face value and discredit mine?
Are you suggesting that Ingrid, a reporter at ZDNet, lied, and Onestat
didn't actually post those results? Then why does Onestat's website
also list those figures? What exactly is it you're trying to imply?
The numbers aren't so far out of line with other figures, even ones in
the UK. For example, the BBC itself is reporting that 9.7% of the users
of their website are using Firefox.
http://www.currybet.net/articles/user_agents/4.php
> I at least live in the US.
And you study international browser share with... um... what, exactly?
>> No, I'm not claiming victory, but Microsoft is sure putting a lot of
>> effort into something you regard as inconsequential. What do they know
>> that you (pretend you) don't?
>>
> How much effort are they putting into it, Ray? They, of course, do have
> a lot of money involved in their contracts and they are going to respond
> to customer requests and react to decisions, favorable or not.
They lobby senators for all their customers?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"I can write programs that control air traffic, intercept ballistic
missiles, reconcile bank accounts, control production lines."
"So can I, and so can any man, but do they *work* when you do write them?"
- Fred Brooks, after Shakespeare, "The Mythical Man-Month"
Beowulf Trollshammer
> DFS goes over the top frequently, to be sure, but he has a heart of
> gold.
*SNORT* Yeah right. The only decent windoze advocates here are Tom and Larry.
DumbFuckStain and all the rest are vermin, including you loltard.
The Ghost In The Machine
<chr...@nospam.invalid>
wrote
on Thu, 03 Nov 2005 13:35:17 -0600
<osokm1tuuo0hljq70...@4ax.com>:
"chrisv blue" in Google dredged up
http://www.gravett.org/yobbo, which appears to have some
text hidden among the Girl Fridays (presumably these are
women willing to be photographed by yobbo; most of them
are in swimsuits, except for 21/10/2005 who has a whistle,
tank top, cap, and outstretched hands for the camera --
go fig). Today's article in particular discusses "[John]
Howard The Real Terrorist". I wil have to study the, erm,
page in more detail later...
There is also a page on UT2004 stats
http://ut2004stats.epicgames.com/matchstats.php?match=16268027
(yes, there's a girl there -- but she's quite heavily
armed with a rocket launcher)
and an anti-uniform advocacy page, written by someone named
Ashley:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/ashleyscoolhomepage/unif.html
On Groups one gets 20 pages referring to blue, chrisv, or
(somewhere) both...
:-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
The Ghost In The Machine
<bi...@twcf.rr.com>
wrote
on Thu, 03 Nov 2005 18:55:36 GMT
<I2taf.31111$kd.2...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>:
Lately, I'm not sure there have been any dirty tricks, but the
past appears littered with wreckage therefrom:
[1] the AARD issue with that mysterious code in an old version of MS-DOS.
I frankly forget the details.
[2] the beta "scare 'em because they're not using MS-DOS" dialog
that vanished in the final product.
[3] "cut off their air supply!". (And they did. No one uses Netscape
any more, really; Firefox, however, is doing fairly well.)
[4] OEMs not allowed to install Netscape as it damages their desktop.
[5] IE4 replacing a fair number of system DLLs -- is it just
a browser or ... ?
[6] Lying about not needing DOS in Win95. (Andrew Schullman shows
in his book _Unauthorized Windows 95_ that DOS and Win95 -- or
the beta version he was testing -- knew each other darned well.)
[7] The Kerberos fiasco. Microsoft is not wholly to blame for this
one -- apparently the spec had holes in it -- but they sure took
advantage of it.
[8] "License all CPUs" instead of "license all copies". Basically,
MS offered a cheaper price, but only on the proviso that the
OEM either paid MS for every unit shipped (as opposed for every
unit shipping with MS's product) or, if the OEM shipped a unit
that didn't have MS's stuff on it, the OEM's contract was
invalidated and the OEM would have to pay a higher price per
license. I don't know which at this time.
[9] Splitting with IBM and taking over the OS/2 market. I'm not sure
if this is a dirty trick or just being beaten up market wise,
but I doubt IBM liked Windows taking over what had to have
looked like a reasonably lucrative desktop market at the time.
[10] The replacement of <APPLET> by <OBJECT>. How dirty this is,
I'm not entirely sure -- there are some advantages to <OBJECT>.
However, there wasn't really all that much wrong with <APPLET>.
And yet, as of 4.01, <APPLET> is deprecated. Strange.
[11] The J++ fiasco. Everyone would probably have been happier had
Microsoft been a little more faithful to Java, but 'delegate'
was not legitimate.
[12] Another maybe-dirty-or-not issue is the IE-only website. I'm
not sure really whose fault this is, but ideally Microsoft
tools would generate HTML that could be viewed with Any
Browser(tm). (They might be viewable faster or better with
IE, of course.) Of course ideally Webadministrators wouldn't
be so lazy as to shut off access to non-IE browsers, either.
But never mind the past; Microsoft has turned over a new leaf, will
be a good, kindly company from now on, and is offering Vista, the
newest Windows which will do everything and then some for the
home user.
(And if one believes that ... well, OK, one believes it. Just don't
expect *me* to, at least not without a little more time being
"Mister Nice Guy Microsoft". Say, about 10-15 years.)
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2005-11-03, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Yeah, but it does open up new areas. After all, if he's right, it
>>> also
>>> means that Bill has "irretrievably cast his lot" with the vulgar,
>>> incoherent (flatfish), racist (DFS) wintroll ilk. And, as a Windows
>>> developer, he's "irretrievably cast his lot" with virus, worm, and
>>> spyware authors too. :->
>
>> I can't say for sure without a huge and useless expenditure of
>> effort, but it seems likely that the stories have a true core even
>> though they may very well be contrived as an embarassment to the
>> linux
>> fan.
>
> "Likely" why?
>
as accurately as the defect reports that I see from our QA department in
that regard. My suspicion would be that they derive from some similar
source, i.e. the files of some linux support activity logging customer
complaints.
>> DFS goes over the top frequently, to be sure, but he has a heart of
>> gold.
>
> Here's how he got into my killfile:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=&num=10&scoring=r&hl=en&as_epq=&as_oq=
> &as_eq=&as_ugroup=soc.culture.african.american&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=dfs&
> r=&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=3&as_maxm=11&
> as_maxy=2005&safe=off
>
> To make it easy enough even for you:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/b3zkt
>
> Now you've *really* "cast your lot" with him. Best of luck.
>
Do you think that is the same DFS as posts here about linux? From what
I can tell, the email addresses are different
Ray Ingles
>> "Likely" why?
>>
> Because they have so much detail so as to allow replication. They read
> as accurately as the defect reports that I see from our QA department in
> that regard. My suspicion would be that they derive from some similar
> source, i.e. the files of some linux support activity logging customer
> complaints.
Ah, yes, like these:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/90ee2c8fbe0876fd
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/dae1c4cbd652c95a
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/a8420fd1dfd32823
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/3befa179f20bb6e9
>>> DFS goes over the top frequently, to be sure, but he has a heart of
>>> gold.
>>
>> Here's how he got into my killfile:
>> http://tinyurl.com/b3zkt
>>
>> Now you've *really* "cast your lot" with him. Best of luck.
>>
> Do you think that is the same DFS as posts here about linux? From what
> I can tell, the email addresses are different
The Path, Newsreader and Message ID format, and presence of the X-Trace
header are the same. DFS has changed his email address several times in
cola. Oh, and the content is the same, as well:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/d81f95c5313058d1
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"The computing industry is given 12 months to deploy a technology
that does not exist and whose sole purpose is to protect profits.
The car industry was allowed decades to deploy safety features such
as seat belts and air bags that were designed to save lives."
- Zeinfeld, on the SSSCA, a proposed law that would mandate all
computers to prevent any file copying whatsoever unless explicitly
approved by the entertainment conglomerates
Ray Ingles
Bill, you totally ignored this portion of my post in your reply. Why?
Do you really have no justification at all and are loath to admit it?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Bush is complaining about a lack of intelligence, which seems
sort of redundant." - Robin Williams
William Poaster
Ingles console, was as follows:
> The Path, Newsreader and Message ID format, and presence of the X-Trace
> header are the same. DFS has changed his email address several times in
> cola. Oh, and the content is the same, as well:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/d81f95c5313058d1
If DFS is doing that in order to try & avoid killfiles, it ain't
working...here at least.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2005-11-04, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>> "Likely" why?
>>>
>> Because they have so much detail so as to allow replication. They
>> read
>> as accurately as the defect reports that I see from our QA department
>> in
>> that regard. My suspicion would be that they derive from some
>> similar
>> source, i.e. the files of some linux support activity logging
>> customer
>> complaints.
>
> Ah, yes, like these:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/90ee2c8fbe0876fd
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/dae1c4cbd652c95a
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/a8420fd1dfd32823
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/3befa179f20bb6e9
>
I'm sure you have seen the kind that I was referring to, wherein someone
has a terrible time with some specific model of display adapter or
device, for example the Brother printer mentioned in one of the above.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2005-11-03, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>> One more lie. I care and so does a great number of others.
>>> Businesses
>>> are switching t linux/UNIX solutions more and more frequently
>>> because
>>> SW development in Windows is a pain in the ass.
>>>
>> Ah, but that has been discussed. Very few true businesses are
>> switching.
>
> Well, in the server area, that is categorically false. It's worth
> noting this because you never qualify your statements along these
> lines,
> attempting to blur the issue.
>
laptops, Ray. Why do you keep flopping back to servers? I think that
the context of the thread is enough to qualify my statements.
>> If a million people switched, that would be .5%.
>
> On the desktop, IDC says about 3% have switched, and that's expected
> to
> more than double in the next two years. (It's also worth noting that
> IDCs
> estimates have pretty much always trended upward; they've tended to be
> underestimates.) So you're already nearly an order of magnitude low.
>
That wasn't an estimate at all, just a comparison. What do you do if
you have .5% of a mature market? Answer: Quit. What do you do if you
have 3% of a mature market? Answer: Quit. What do you do if you have
a 95% share of a mature market? Answer: Extract cash and defend. What
do you do if you have 99% of a mature market? Answer: Extract cash and
defend.
>> Well, you obviously do not understand what "ad hominem" means, dutch.
>> I
>> am not criticizing Ray's ideas due to his lack of taste in
>> associates, I
>> am criticizing his lack of taste.
>
> Um, no, you specifically accused *me* of... let's see... 'Sit[ting] in
> you [sic] ivory tower and look[ing] down your nose at the "Wintards"
> and "Winidiot"[sic]'. (Don't worry about my feelings, though.
> Somewhere
> there may be something I care less about than what you say about me,
> but
> I can't imagine what that might be.)
>
First, that is applicable only if you are so arrogant as to assume that
"If you..." means you, yourself. I often mean "If a person...".
Second, it was not a criticism of any idea at all, just a criticism of
the practice.
>>> So far, i have yet to see a single argument besides "windows has
>>> more
>>> users".
>>>
>> What other argument is needed? To my reasoning, that is the reason
>> that
>> linux is doomed.
>
> Even if the trends point to a different outcome.
>
What trends? Moving from 0 to 1, 2, 3 or even 5% in 10 years is hardly
a trend in the PC market. Most would see it as proof of a dead end.
>> To have such a market capture at such a stage of maturity is a
>> guarantee of continued ownership of that kind of market.
>
> "Disruptive technologies" affect mature markets like that.
>
True, but linux/unix is no such thing. They cannot even attempt to lead
the market with their business model and organization.
Ray Ingles
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/90ee2c8fbe0876fd
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/dae1c4cbd652c95a
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/a8420fd1dfd32823
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/3befa179f20bb6e9
>>
>
> I'm sure you have seen the kind that I was referring to, wherein someone
> has a terrible time with some specific model of display adapter or
> device, for example the Brother printer mentioned in one of the above.
Ah, yes, and those lies make it all better?
Thanks for conceding defeat re: DFS, I appreciate it.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"If PacMan had affected us as kids we'd be running around in
dark rooms, munching pills and listening to electronic music."
- iso
Ray Ingles
>> noting this because you never qualify your statements along these
>> lines, attempting to blur the issue.
>>
> The whole thread started in regard to BU not switching their student
> laptops, Ray. Why do you keep flopping back to servers?
Um, I didn't. "Kleuskes & Moos" did, sort of. His comments about
servers *are* relevant to the subject of this branch. It's cleverly
hidden in the "Subject:" line above.
> I think that the context of the thread is enough to qualify my
> statements.
If you look back you'll see that I altered the Subject: line and said,
in the post itself, that I was starting another subject. I didn't post
an entirely new thread because I wanted to make it easier to follow the
history of how this (separate) subject came up, but I find it rather
surprising that you couldn't follow that obvious context.
>> On the desktop, IDC says about 3% have switched, and that's expected
>> to more than double in the next two years. (It's also worth noting
>> that IDCs estimates have pretty much always trended upward; they've
>> tended to be underestimates.) So you're already nearly an order of
>> magnitude low.
>>
> That wasn't an estimate at all, just a comparison.
Um, no, actually its an estimate of future switching - a prediction.
> What do you do if you have .5% of a mature market? Answer: Quit.
Why should Linux quit? We don't *need* the money, per se. Microsoft
can't undersell us, and we don't need to switch a huge bulk of people
over short-term to cover capital expenditures. We can afford to think
long-term. "Linux" can't go out of business, and money and investment is
assured because of its secure footholds in the server and embedded
markets.
But, even with that, we're doing pretty well. The standard tools that
Microsoft's been working to maintain their grip are losing purchase -
OEM contracts, non-standard protocols, the former dominance of IE, OE,
and Office, etc. It's now possible to move people onto Linux with
minimal fuss. Given Linux's natural advantages of security, reliability,
flexibility, *and* cost, well, growth is natural.
>> Um, no, you specifically accused *me* of... let's see... 'Sit[ting] in
>> you [sic] ivory tower and look[ing] down your nose at the "Wintards"
>> and "Winidiot"[sic]'. (Don't worry about my feelings, though.
>> Somewhere there may be something I care less about than what you say
>> about me, but I can't imagine what that might be.)
>>
> First, that is applicable only if you are so arrogant as to assume that
> "If you..." means you, yourself.
Gosh, how could I possibly think about a reply directed to me?
> Second, it was not a criticism of any idea at all, just a criticism of
> the practice.
If you're not accusing me of engaging in the practice, then why even
put it in a reply to me?
> What trends? Moving from 0 to 1, 2, 3 or even 5% in 10 years is hardly
> a trend in the PC market. Most would see it as proof of a dead end.
Actually, Linux has only been seriously going after the desktop for the
last two years or so. Look how well Linux did in the server area when it
really started going for that market back in 1999. Actually, your
mentors made a mistake in that regard; see my .sig...
> They cannot even attempt to lead the market with their business model
> and organization.
I know, democracy must be confusing when you're used to totalitarian
autocracy. There, there.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Steve Ballmer: It's still ludicrous that nobody's ever made a run at
us by making UNIX a popular server platform on PCs.
It's almost too late now.
Bill Gates: It's too late.
-- Newsweek interview, June 23rd, 1997
billwg
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>
> Already been covered, ad nauseum. Google is your friend. Hint: My
> name and "blue". I don't want to rehash the obvious again, especially
> with a troll as worthless as yourself. M$ dirty tricks were proven in
> court.
>
dirty trick that they pulled?
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2005-11-04, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/90ee2c8fbe0876fd
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/dae1c4cbd652c95a
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/a8420fd1dfd32823
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/3befa179f20bb6e9
>>>
>>
>> I'm sure you have seen the kind that I was referring to, wherein
>> someone
>> has a terrible time with some specific model of display adapter or
>> device, for example the Brother printer mentioned in one of the
>> above.
>
> Ah, yes, and those lies make it all better?
>
underlying issue, for example that there is no printer driver for the
Brother printer available. So they chant "Flatfish" as some kind of
mantra that lets them off the hook.
> Thanks for conceding defeat re: DFS, I appreciate it.
>
Well I don't read all of what DFS posts on COLA either, Ray, but I guess
if you have to suffer Rick and chris and cloud and clark and such as
being linux advocates,, I'll have to suffer the notion that some MS fans
have racial biases. LOL!!!
billwg
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message news:609q33-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>
> Lately, I'm not sure there have been any dirty tricks, but the
> past appears littered with wreckage therefrom:
>
> [1] the AARD issue with that mysterious code in an old version of
> MS-DOS.
> I frankly forget the details.
An artificial issue. Beta testers for Win3.1 had to agree to use MS-DOS
exclusively as part of the qualifications for being a beta tester. The
AARD test was to ensure that there were no false negatives from the test
code. It displayed a hex code to be reported to the beta test manager
during the Win3.1 beta install process, nothing more. No one ever
reported anything during the beta test, the code was discovered a year
or so later after the product release. It never had any effect
whatsoever on DR-DOS sales.
> [2] the beta "scare 'em because they're not using MS-DOS" dialog
> that vanished in the final product.
Part of [1] and it never happened. MS discussed it, but decided not to
do it.
> [3] "cut off their air supply!". (And they did. No one uses Netscape
> any more, really; Firefox, however, is doing fairly well.)
MS picked a course of action that made the browser forever free, as in
beer. Lowering prices is not such a dirty trick unless you are a
competitor hoping to rip off the public.
> [4] OEMs not allowed to install Netscape as it damages their desktop.
OEMs were disallowed removing IE. As a part of an otherwise legitimate
exclusivity arrangement, they were not allowed to show competing logos,
after all, they were being paid to be partners on an exclusive basis,
just like Coke and Pepsi have deals with fast food and other
restaurants. The amount of exclusive dealing in effect did not violate
antitrust laws. Judge Jackson ruled that to be the case.
> [5] IE4 replacing a fair number of system DLLs -- is it just
> a browser or ... ?
The WinInetAPIs were distributed as part of IE. That made sense in
those days and even makes sense today. Linux distributions offer a lot
of APIs that are provided by non-kernel applications. If you want to
use them, you have to install the application. Windows guarantees the
presence of these APIs and for the WinInetAPIs, that means that IE
needed to be installed.
> [6] Lying about not needing DOS in Win95. (Andrew Schullman shows
> in his book _Unauthorized Windows 95_ that DOS and Win95 -- or
> the beta version he was testing -- knew each other darned well.)
Seems like another tempest in a teapot, ghost. MS puts their Windows
together with their DOS and adds a bunch of new 32-bit glue to make the
Win95 package. What else are they going to do? They can hardly make
DR-DOS provide all the new interfaces and hope to synchronize them with
the rest of the package. I think the main issue here is that MS wrote
Windows themselves and made it work with the DOS that they wrote
themselves. Why shouldn't they be allowed to come up with a new product
by themselves? The courts agreed to that, BTW.
> [7] The Kerberos fiasco. Microsoft is not wholly to blame for this
> one -- apparently the spec had holes in it -- but they sure took
> advantage of it.
They want to make it more attractive to the buyer to stick with all MS
software. I think that everyone else does the same thing, it is just
that no one else does it as well.
> [8] "License all CPUs" instead of "license all copies". Basically,
> MS offered a cheaper price, but only on the proviso that the
> OEM either paid MS for every unit shipped (as opposed for every
> unit shipping with MS's product) or, if the OEM shipped a unit
> that didn't have MS's stuff on it, the OEM's contract was
> invalidated and the OEM would have to pay a higher price per
> license. I don't know which at this time.
This was one of exclusivity deals. MS offered a lower price for DOS to
OEMs that would agree to only offer DOS on all the machines in some
specified product line. That was a lower price to the the OEM which
should translate to either a higher profit for the OEM or a lower price
to the end user or both. Again, the dirty trick is offering a lower
price.
> [9] Splitting with IBM and taking over the OS/2 market. I'm not sure
> if this is a dirty trick or just being beaten up market wise,
> but I doubt IBM liked Windows taking over what had to have
> looked like a reasonably lucrative desktop market at the time.
IBM didn't want Windows on the street at all, since it competed with
OS/2 and they gave MS an ultimatim, too. It is hard to find fault with
MS for choosing to oppose Big Blue in the market. Who else is going to
stand up to them?
> [10] The replacement of <APPLET> by <OBJECT>. How dirty this is,
> I'm not entirely sure -- there are some advantages to <OBJECT>.
> However, there wasn't really all that much wrong with <APPLET>.
> And yet, as of 4.01, <APPLET> is deprecated. Strange.
???
> [11] The J++ fiasco. Everyone would probably have been happier had
> Microsoft been a little more faithful to Java, but 'delegate'
> was not legitimate.
The Java extensions that touched off the brougha were never documented,
BTW. All they did was allow java developers to get access to Windows
system settings for color and such. BFD.
> [12] Another maybe-dirty-or-not issue is the IE-only website. I'm
> not sure really whose fault this is, but ideally Microsoft
> tools would generate HTML that could be viewed with Any
> Browser(tm). (They might be viewable faster or better with
> IE, of course.) Of course ideally Webadministrators wouldn't
> be so lazy as to shut off access to non-IE browsers, either.
>
If IE is non-standard, that is not a requirment that anyone else follow
unless they want to duplicate the feature.
> But never mind the past; Microsoft has turned over a new leaf, will
> be a good, kindly company from now on, and is offering Vista, the
> newest Windows which will do everything and then some for the
> home user.
>
> (And if one believes that ... well, OK, one believes it. Just don't
> expect *me* to, at least not without a little more time being
> "Mister Nice Guy Microsoft". Say, about 10-15 years.)
>
MS tries to offer things that people will continue to want to buy. Pure
and simple.
chrisv
You and I have already discussed this issue, troll. I'm not going to
repeat it every few months.