Converting to Linux was a disaster for my company.
maria quansett
supposedly leaving Windows and converting to Linux. Do these people
even have a clue as to what they are in for?
Do they even realize the immense amount of retraining required to move
to Linux?
Do they realize that the chances of their vertical in house
applications working is nil?
Do they understand that much of their hardware will not be supported?
I suspect that the answer to all of these questions and many more will
be no because Linux looks like a great alternative, until one looks
closer and sees all of the holes and troublesome problems that Linux
introduces.
For my company, we would have had to replace over 2000 Brother
Multifunction printers with some model that worked with Linux. The
problem was that we could not find any equivilant.
We tried using the commercial version of Sun Openoffice and found it
buggy and totally incompatabile with Office. We tried sending
documents to our clients and they did not work too well.
It seems that Openoffice, even the pay for version has troubles being
read by Microsoft Office.
Another area that we had massive problems in was with video cards.
We were using ATI cards in our systems and it seems that Linux support
for ATI is pretty poor.
In conclusion, we have decided not to switch to Linux for the simple
reason that Linux does not offer us anything but headaches.
We don't want to downgrade out hardware to use Linux.
We don't wish to look like fools sends documents to clients and
suppliers that they cannot read.
Linux may be fine for some people, but it was a disaster for us.
Maria Quansett
maria quansett
Greg Copeland
> I have to laugh when I read about all of these countries that are
> supposedly leaving Windows and converting to Linux. Do these people
> even have a clue as to what they are in for?
Yes. The only point your post makes is that you're an idiot. ;)
Cheers,
Greg
Dave
maria quansett wrote:
<rest of BS deleted>
PROXY lists
... 62.61.195.34:80 anonymous ...
www.samair.ru/proxy/
Giorgio Takouhi
> <rest of BS deleted>
Ditto.
?? But you didn't post from Google.
Could it be that uni-berlin trolls are even more of a right pain than a
Google poster?
Dave
> Dave wrote:
>> <rest of BS deleted>
> Ditto.
Why are you posting through the kadaitcha childs news server ?
chrisv
> The Linoloonies have to find some way of discrediting the poster so they
> look at all sides of the coin.
> Of course they deny the number of google posters that post pro Linux
> articles.
Idiot. It's only the Wintrolls who use google for one-shot, hit-and-run
attacks such as this one. If someone has a posting history, that's a
whole different story and level of credibility.
Hamilcar Barca
2004 15:04:39 -0700), maria quansett wrote:
> I have to laugh when I read
another Flatfish sock puppet, posting through an anonymous open proxy at
221.8.13.171.
Hamilcar Barca
+0100), Dave wrote:
What's with the big increase of Flatfish and Bailo droppings in the last
few days? Is it that time of month again?
Kadaitcha Man
> Idiot. It's only the Wintrolls who use google for one-shot,
> hit-and-run attacks such as this one. If someone has a posting
> history, that's a whole different story and level of credibility.
Like me, for example? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
You fuckwit.
+iAn
^
|__________ Retard
--
A fatal exception 0E has occurred at 0028:C000BD1D in VXD VMM(01) +
0000AD1D. The current application will be terminated.
Tovma Poats
> |__________ Retard
Nice sig you have there, and highly appropriate for you too.
However Usenet Article Standard RFC 850 requires "-- " to appear
on the line preceeding a signature. RFC Usenet abuse report sent
to ab...@1usenet.com
Linux is dead
"Patricia" <patty_fitz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kFVNc.15292$09.20...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> look at all sides of the coin.
Attack the poster if you can't discredit the facts. Linux will eventually
go
away like OS/2 and other hobbyists OSes.
Bill Unruh
]I have to laugh when I read about all of these countries that are
]supposedly leaving Windows and converting to Linux. Do these people
]even have a clue as to what they are in for?
]Do they even realize the immense amount of retraining required to move
]to Linux?
]Do they realize that the chances of their vertical in house
]applications working is nil?
]Do they understand that much of their hardware will not be supported?
]I suspect that the answer to all of these questions and many more will
]be no because Linux looks like a great alternative, until one looks
]closer and sees all of the holes and troublesome problems that Linux
]introduces.
]For my company, we would have had to replace over 2000 Brother
So you never did use Linux. YOu just contemplated it.
And why did the printers not work. Or do you mean you never tried it.
]Multifunction printers with some model that worked with Linux. The
]problem was that we could not find any equivilant.
]We tried using the commercial version of Sun Openoffice and found it
]buggy and totally incompatabile with Office. We tried sending
]documents to our clients and they did not work too well.
Why the hell are you sending documents in Word? Word does not work with
Word, never mind with anything else. Send the docs in pdf or ps.
]It seems that Openoffice, even the pay for version has troubles being
]read by Microsoft Office.
So?
]Another area that we had massive problems in was with video cards.
]We were using ATI cards in our systems and it seems that Linux support
]for ATI is pretty poor.
?? ATI support is good. Again it sounds like you never tried it.
]In conclusion, we have decided not to switch to Linux for the simple
]reason that Linux does not offer us anything but headaches.
So you never did use it. Where was the disaster?
]We don't want to downgrade out hardware to use Linux.
]We don't wish to look like fools sends documents to clients and
]suppliers that they cannot read.
Then don't use Word. Use PDF or PS.
]Linux may be fine for some people, but it was a disaster for us.
But you never used it! How could it be a disaster?
David Efflandt
> For my company, we would have had to replace over 2000 Brother
> Multifunction printers with some model that worked with Linux. The
> problem was that we could not find any equivilant.
Our problem was that we either purchased or upgraded all of our office PCs
to XP, and there is no XP driver for our Brother multifunction device. So
even Windows became incompatible with it at that point.
So besides our HP2200dtn, we got an HP Officejet G85 and JetDirect that we
can print to from any OS, including our factory HP3000 via VPN (which only
prints HP PCL), and WinNT using an old Deskjet driver (crudely, but does
print color). Since either printer does common HP PCL (and 2200 also does
postscript), any OS can print to them. I even printed fine to the 2200dtn
(on parallel cable) by telling DOS WordPerfect 5.1 that it was an HP
Laserjet III. And way back before Linux had any support for my HP
Laserjet 4L at home, it worked fine using hplj3 filter.
When I was at Kinkos with my ols Linux laptop and wanted to print to a
Xerox printer that was not listed in Linux, I tried generic postscript and
it worked.
So good business practice is considering mainstream enough hardware and
protocols that will remain compatible if the operating system changes,
whether a new Windows version, or alternative OS.
--
David Efflandt - All spam ignored http://www.de-srv.com/
Roy Culley
Patricia <patty_fitz...@yahoo.com> writes:
As you are so prone to say, prove it? Show me any one-shot google post
that was pro-Linux. I'm sure there must have been one or two but prove
it flatfish.
Roy Culley
Patricia <patty_fitz...@yahoo.com> writes:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:52:54 +0200, Roy Culley wrote:
>
>> As you are so prone to say, prove it? Show me any one-shot google post
>> that was pro-Linux. I'm sure there must have been one or two but prove
>> it flatfish.
>
Obviously I can't. I only have circumstantial evidence. Seems pretty
conclusive to me though. I wonder what others think?
Jordan Abel
While clever, your alleged abuse report would be more credible if he
didn't have an actual sig (with a proper sig dash) at the bottom of his
post.
Diogenes
Idiot, he obviously had two sigs.
Harold Stevens
[Snip...]
> conclusive to me though. I wonder what others think?
Quit feeding the trolls. It's all Flatfish sewage, whatever the source.
--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
Kids jumping ship? Looking to hire an old-school type? Email me.
Roy Culley
Harold Stevens <woo...@deuce.localdomain> writes:
> In <5pslt1-...@nw8000.swissptt.ch>, Roy Culley:
>
> [Snip...]
>
>> conclusive to me though. I wonder what others think?
>
> Quit feeding the trolls. It's all Flatfish sewage, whatever the
> source.
I know I know, but it is just too much fun. And COLA needs its
fun. :-)
chrisv
> Exactly.
Yes, you're exactly an idiot, Flathead. The fact that trolls like
K-toddler exist does not make my point any less correct. Even a wanker
like him has more credibility than a one-shot google troll.
Heath Jaeggi
You fucking moronic cuntwart.
Verlie Presty
I always believe you admired Kadaitcha Man. It's good to admit it, huh.
Elmer Fud
a.k.a maria quansett wrote:
> I have to laugh ...
... when booting into Windows XP. Yes it is hysterical isn't it? The
funniest bit is when your machine repeatedly and uncontrollably reboots
because the RPC service has been compromised by a worm. Oh how that one
makes me laugh. I just laugh and laugh until I wet myself.
> when I read about all of these countries that are supposedly leaving
> Windows and converting to Linux ...
... you rush into Bill's office next door and scream "deploy the emergency
Astroturf missile, on full FUD setting, now Billy!"
Unfortunately for you 'Flatty', your 'missile' has gone limp and your FUD
is sterile.
> Do these people even have a clue as to what they are in for?
They don't need to; they've already had *years* of "clues" as to what
they've been *had* for.
> Do they even realize the immense amount of ...
... bullshit that MS has been spinning them over the years?
They do now, yes.
> retraining required to move to ...
... systems that don't fuck up if you just breath on them? Yes, it is a
bit of a culture shock.
> Do they realize that the chances of their vertical in house applications
> working is nil?
Do you realize that you had to spend two hours Googling corporate websites
to come up with that expression, you peanut-brained slut?
> Do they understand that much of their hardware will not be ...
... deactivated by the Borg hive whenever the RIAA, MPAA or some loony
politician calls Big Billy with a 'suggestion'?
> I suspect that the answer to all of these questions and many more will
> be ...
... that Flatfish has a new sock puppet.
> Linux looks like a great alternative
Having your toes gnawed off by giant rats is a great alternative to
running Windows.
> one looks closer and sees all of the holes and troublesome problems that
...
... affects the mind of a Microsoft paid Astroturfer like Flatfish.
> For my company, we would have had to replace over 2000 Brother
> Multifunction printers with some model that worked with Linux. The
> problem was that we could not find any equivilant.
Maybe if you'd looked for an 'equivalent' instead of an "equivilant"®
then you might have had more success. More success than trying to get it
to work on Windows XP, anyway.
> We tried using the commercial version of Sun Openoffice and found it
> buggy and totally incompatabile with Office.
ROTFLMAO!!!
Maybe it was just your speeling(sic) that was "incompatabile"®.
> We tried sending documents to our clients and they did not work too
> well. It seems that Openoffice, even the pay for version
Let's get this straight; you *paid* for this "pay for version"® but you
still don't know what it's called. You are a fucking half-breed spastic.
Mod minus 5 for lack of credibility.
> has troubles being read by Microsoft Office.
With grammar as incomprehensible as yours, I'm not surprised.
> Another area that we had massive problems in was with video cards. We
> were using ATI cards in our systems and it seems that Linux support for
> ATI is pretty poor.
I see, so you needed hardware acceleration for your 'Office Apps'. Hmmm.
So tell me, what's it like being a pathological liar with the IQ of a
cabbage?
> In conclusion, we have decided not to switch to Linux
You do realize that referring to yourself as "we" is the first sign of
schizophrenia.
> for the simple reason that Linux does not ...
. Crash
. Cost much - if anything
. Become infected with virii, worms, trojans, spyware and keyloggers
. Try to 0wn *your* data
. Covertly send your private data to Microsoft
. Have boardroom policies that prevents you from using your hardware
. Cause irrecoverable loss of data
. Force servers to have a GUI
. Break the law, according to the DOJ
. Lock customers into draconian upgrade policies
. Expand by stealing other companies IP, then break those companies
. Bribe OEMs to refuse to accept competing products
. Break every known industry standard, and then some
. Artificially maintain the stock price with dividend payments
. Use customers money to go on FUD-spreading bus tours
> We don't want to downgrade out hardware to use Linux.
No, you rather waste hundreds of thousands performing *mandatory* hardware
upgrades, in order to run Microsoft's future generations of massive
bloatware.
> We don't wish to look like fools
Too late.
> sends documents to clients and suppliers that they cannot read.
Like *this* one, you mean?
> Linux may be fine for some people, but it was a disaster for us ...
... because 'we' (a.k.a. Flatfish++++ and his imaginary girlfriends,
Patricia and Maria) are fucking Windows retards.
> Maria Quansett
Yeah, right.
-
Elmer
Arthur Hagen
Hit-and-run? I see numerous follow-ups, not that they add a whole lot.
Guys, "Patricia" does have one point, despite being (possibly deliberately)
provocative: When you start attacking the person instead of the ball,
you've already lost. You're harming the Linux cause more than helping it by
resorting to ad hominem attacks. Your actions reflect on the whole group.
Instead, it would be worthwhile to point out what the flaws are with the
*arguments*, not the persons who state them. And yes, there are flaws, and
yes, the postings are provocative, but that doesn't make names calling any
more tolerable.
--
*Art
GreyCloud
maria quansett wrote:
> I have to laugh when I read about all of these countries that are
> supposedly leaving Windows and converting to Linux. Do these people
> even have a clue as to what they are in for?
Yes. Security from worms and viruses. Can't say that for windows tho.
> Do they even realize the immense amount of retraining required to move
> to Linux?
Of course they do. Do you realize the immense amount of training that
already went into the windows environment?
> Do they realize that the chances of their vertical in house
> applications working is nil?
If they are trying to convert code to other o/ses it is always a steep
road. But after they've peaked, the road is smooth sailing.
> Do they understand that much of their hardware will not be supported?
It appears that XP has trouble as well in this area.
> I suspect that the answer to all of these questions and many more will
> be no because Linux looks like a great alternative, until one looks
> closer and sees all of the holes and troublesome problems that Linux
> introduces.
>
Such as?
> For my company, we would have had to replace over 2000 Brother
> Multifunction printers with some model that worked with Linux.
What are the model numbers? I bet they would run under linux just as
they would run under any UNIX.
> The
> problem was that we could not find any equivilant.
Hire a professional to do that.
> We tried using the commercial version of Sun Openoffice and found it
> buggy and totally incompatabile with Office.
FUD.
> We tried sending
> documents to our clients and they did not work too well.
> It seems that Openoffice, even the pay for version has troubles being
> read by Microsoft Office.
>
Do we really care if M$ can't do it.
> Another area that we had massive problems in was with video cards.
> We were using ATI cards in our systems and it seems that Linux support
> for ATI is pretty poor.
>
At this point, the troll has shot his foot off.
I have an ATI card and Linux ran just fine on it.
> In conclusion, we have decided not to switch to Linux for the simple
> reason that Linux does not offer us anything but headaches.
> We don't want to downgrade out hardware to use Linux.
> We don't wish to look like fools sends documents to clients and
> suppliers that they cannot read.
>
> Linux may be fine for some people, but it was a disaster for us.
>
> Maria Quansett
Did they fire you yet or did you just get laid off? Or maybe you just
haven't been laid yet, who knows.
--
---------------------------------
My other computer is a VAX.
GreyCloud
Patricia wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 23:01:29 +0000, Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>
>
> Exactly.
> These fools have to start scraping the belly of the beast when they are
> unable to refute the facts.
> Personally I think most of them are less than 18YO because they sure act
> like it.
>
You don't want to make friends with her do you? You'll regret it.
Juhan Leemet
> ...Linux will eventually go away like OS/2 and other hobbyists OSes.
Heheheh! (wiping a tear of mirth)
No, I don't think so. Not this time. OS/2 probably had the best O/S and/or
kernel (for PCs) at the time. It was stable, supported threads
(light-weight processes, which had only recently been introduced into
*nix), and all. Unfortunately, it also had to drag around all that MS-DOS
and Windoze compatability shit. That put it close enough to M$ that Mr.
Bill was able to knife his "friends" at IBM in the back (is this a
familiar refrain?). Then 3rd party software developers did not write/port
many OS/2 apps because OS/2 had a WinOS2 a compatability box, right?
So, Windoze apps will work, right?!? Except M$ was busy tweaking Windoze
"standards" and APIs to make sure that OS/2 would not be able to run any
Windoze apps in there. DOJ should have stepped in at that point!
Fast forward to now...
Linux inherits from *nix ancestry. There are lots of apps written for *nix
over almost 3 decades. In fact, there are probably apps written for *nix
that Windoze does not have, esp. in the rugged distributed networking
area. There are more "real" (as in industry and international) standards
in *nix than in Windoze (not just de facto Windoze stuff that is bundled
in, or perversions of established standards, trying to coopt them). Linux
WINE unfortunately is not as good as OS/2 (those developers were saints!)
WinOS2 was. It does not seem to me to run Windoze apps as well, but then
the goalposts have been moved also. This time, however, there is a large
groundswell of *nix afficionados that are using Linux (and other *nix),
that like Linux (and other *nix), and that are making things better,
largely because of the open source concept. If OS/2 had been released
"open source" that might have changed its fate? Dunno. Ancient history.
The present and future are exciting for *nix!
I don't know about the future of Windoze, and I don't much care.
--
Juhan Leemet
Logicognosis, Inc.
P.T. Breuer
> Do they even realize the immense amount of retraining required to move
> to Linux?
Retraining? Last time I was in a secretaries office, the only thing
they were talking about was how on earth to change the wallpaper in
windows. And when I asked to use their pc to connect out, they didn't
know how to o and find the telnet executable on their winDOS.
> Do they realize that the chances of their vertical in house
> applications working is nil?
What? What in-house apps? Any place that has "in-house apps" has
programmers, and they program just fine thanks.
> Do they understand that much of their hardware will not be supported?
All of it will be. That's because compmanies don't buy unsupported
hardare.
> I suspect that the answer to all of these questions and many more will
Uh uh.
Peter
e7
Psst! You really don't want to know this but this is really
that high heeled cross dresser by the name of flat fish again.
e7
Hamilcar Barca wrote:
> In article <917d9fdf.0407...@posting.google.com> (Wed, 28 Jul
> 2004 15:04:39 -0700), maria quansett wrote:
>
>> I have to laugh when I read
>
> another Flatfish sock puppet, posting through an anonymous open proxy at
> 221.8.13.171.
Why the surge in these M$ astro turfers disguising themselves
and little gurls and hiding their identities
now and posting all this rubbish all of a sudden?
Did they get a whole load of money?
If so, is the EU anti-monopoloy commission taking notes?
Also its not healthy if M$ the corporations is using
astro turfers through anonymous proxies
to create public opinion where none
exists - and we need the secret services and goverments
around the world to take note and to identify
the ring leaders and tell them where to shove it.
International All-Star Cast
> I have to laugh when I read about all of these countries that are
> supposedly leaving Windows and converting to Linux. Do these people
> even have a clue as to what they are in for?
No, please tell us...
> Do they even realize the immense amount of retraining required to move
> to Linux?
Oh, your points make so much sense. And you seem so *genuine* ...
> Do they realize that the chances of their vertical in house
> applications working is nil?
Vertical. You seem more like the horizontal type of chic to me.
> Do they understand that much of their hardware will not be supported?
Like your underwire bra? Which lifts, as well as /separates/ ?
> I suspect that the answer to all of these questions and many more will
> be no because Linux looks like a great alternative, until one looks
> closer and sees all of the holes and troublesome problems that Linux
> introduces.
Holes, yea, I bet the boys found your holes early on, sister.
> For my company, we would have had to replace over 2000 Brother
> Multifunction printers with some model that worked with Linux. The
> problem was that we could not find any equivilant.
Yep. It's hard to replace something obsolete with something that is
actually sold in the year 2004. Did you say 2000 printers? Surely we
must have heard of this company. Care to publish it? And your telephone
and fax number as well ?
> We tried using the commercial version of Sun Openoffice and found it
> buggy and totally incompatabile with Office. We tried sending
> documents to our clients and they did not work too well.
You tried to use the coffee machine and kept spilling the grounds on your
new shoes. Yes, it can happen.
> It seems that Openoffice, even the pay for version has troubles being
> read by Microsoft Office.
Woe is you. But sad is the life of a female impersonator! C'mon -- do
that famous scene from La Caux Au Folles again !!!
> Another area that we had massive problems in was with video cards.
> We were using ATI cards in our systems and it seems that Linux support
> for ATI is pretty poor.
Pretty swank office. 2000 printers, and ATI graphics in the desktops.
Since it's usually about 4 to 10 people a printer, that means no less than
10,000 workstations running high end 3-D graphics. Um, what was this
company's name again .... ?
> In conclusion, we have decided not to switch to Linux for the simple
> reason that Linux does not offer us anything but headaches.
Alternative: leave your crack pipes in the kitchen drawer before you come to
work.
> We don't want to downgrade out hardware to use Linux.
Yes, and you don't want the 10 foot high giants to attack your bag lunches.
> We don't wish to look like fools sends documents to clients and
> suppliers that they cannot read.
Can't use the grammar either, can ya ? Sure you're not imagining that you
are an /employee/ when in reality, they keep you in solitary and under
sedation. I'm thinking of those guys in the movie Sling Blade.
> Linux may be fine for some people, but it was a disaster for us.
Next patient. Now, tell me, my dear, about how the lime colored penguins
started stealing your newspapers....
> Maria Quansett
+++
Lalig the Beetle-bestower
> Psst! You really don't want to know this but this is really
> that high heeled cross dresser by the name of flat fish again.
Thanks for sharing, flatfish.
<aside>
Will fuckwits ever learn to use the word that?
Abdullah Ramazanoglu
This is approximately what I was about to write. While she has half-truths
blatantly exaggerated to put Linux under a dim light, they must be
addressed. Not because to win over a troll, but because there may be
readers out there who earnestly wonder how to switch (or coexist) to Linux
in a most convenient way possible. Calling names, inventing funny names
for companies and products, and generally behaving bitterly instead of
trying to clarify the issues, don't buy any friends to Linux. They just
strengthen the troller's point and aim: FUD
The main folly in the OP's story is that it talks about a hypotetical big
company trying to switch over to Linux -completely- overnight in a way a
personal user switches his platform.
This cannot be done, and any company IT would surely figure out a
migration plan before attempting it. I'm excepting those IT's who are
hostile to Linux and want to "prove" to boss that Linux is not fit to
company's needs. They would have figured out a plan for how *not* to
switch over to Linux. There are usually knee-deep office politics in
larger companies, a fact a CEO would have to tackle with.
Even with a sound plan, it is not usually possible to switch completely in
the short term. The two platforms would have to live together,
complementing each other for some time to some extent, and complete switch
is only possible in the long run. Even then there would always be some
non-Linux machines sparsed here and there in the company (for certain
vertical niches).
How to lay and work out the migration plan, this is another issue. How
about we work on a generic migration plan that is applicable, with minor
tunings, to most of the larger installations? I have quite a few ideas
about it and there should also be a page dedicated to this isssue in
groklaw. It would be great if only all this could be worked out to a
perfect Migration-Howto.
P.S. Manipulated NG list as my server does not host a.o.linux and
a.o.windows-xp
--
Abdullah | aramazan@ |
Ramazanoglu | myrealbox |
________________| D-O-T cöm |
Jesse F. Hughes
> begin <U8XNc.15984$09.23...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
> Patricia <patty_fitz...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:52:54 +0200, Roy Culley wrote:
>>
>>> As you are so prone to say, prove it? Show me any one-shot google post
>>> that was pro-Linux. I'm sure there must have been one or two but prove
>>> it flatfish.
>>
>> Prove I am Flatfish.nnn
>
> Obviously I can't. I only have circumstantial evidence. Seems pretty
> conclusive to me though. I wonder what others think?
I wouldn't call it conclusive, but I wouldn't call it important
either.
--
"It has been shown that no man can sit down to write without a very profound
design. Thus to authors in general trouble is spared. A novelist, for example,
need have no care of his moral. It is there -- that is to say, it is somewhere
-- and the moral and the critics can take care of themselves." --E.A. Poe
Jesse F. Hughes
Clever?
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Do not click any hyperlinks that you do not trust. Type them in the
Address bar yourself." -- Microsoft gives security advice.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> Woe is you. But sad is the life of a female impersonator! C'mon -- do
> that famous scene from La Caux Au Folles again !!!
I think he's more the "crap transvestite Emily Howard" type.
(from little britain)
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> chrisv wrote:
>> Idiot. It's only the Wintrolls who use google for one-shot,
>> hit-and-run attacks such as this one. If someone has a posting
>> history, that's a whole different story and level of credibility.
> Like me, for example? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
Yes, you have a posting history.
Which makes all claims about your absolute fuckwittery quite, quite
credible.
chrisv
>chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:21:04 +0000, Patricia (Flatfish) wrote:
>>
>>> The Linoloonies have to find some way of discrediting the poster so
>>> they look at all sides of the coin.
>>> Of course they deny the number of google posters that post pro Linux
>>> articles.
>>
>> Idiot. It's only the Wintrolls who use google for one-shot,
>> hit-and-run attacks such as this one. If someone has a posting
>> history, that's a whole different story and level of credibility.
>
>Hit-and-run? I see numerous follow-ups, not that they add a whole lot.
No you don't. Not from the hit-and-run google trolls, which is the
issue, you don't.
>Guys, "Patricia" does have one point, despite being (possibly deliberately)
>provocative:
True, Flatfish/Patricia does not hit-and-run. It's just a
nym-shifter.
>When you start attacking the person instead of the ball,
>you've already lost. You're harming the Linux cause more than helping it by
>resorting to ad hominem attacks. Your actions reflect on the whole group.
Bull. If some anonymous first-time-ever poster (a.k.a. google troll)
comes in here and complains, it's well worth pointing out that it's
almost certainly a stupid troll with zero credibility.
Brian Fellows
> I have to laugh when I read about all of these countries that are
> supposedly leaving Windows and converting to Linux. Do these people
> even have a clue as to what they are in for?
They don't have a clue, but they don't care. They do it for political
reasons, they go to Linux because they hate America and they see the
move away from Windows as an anti-american blockade. In the case of
American cities moving to Linux, they are (you guessed it) liberal
cities with typical liberal-democratic (tax-n-spend, pro-abortion,
pro-gay, anti-family-values, pro-drugs) agendas and, of course, a
liberal girly-man mayor.
> Do they even realize the immense amount of retraining required to move
> to Linux?
They don't care, their anti-american hatred is more intense than their
desire to use good software, thus, they are willing to downgrade to
Linux.
> Do they realize that the chances of their vertical in house
> applications working is nil?
They will probably switch to one of them buggy garage-grown
Windows-app look-alike imitation in the hope of dumping their good
american programs.
> Do they understand that much of their hardware will not be supported?
> I suspect that the answer to all of these questions and many more will
> be no because Linux looks like a great alternative, until one looks
> closer and sees all of the holes and troublesome problems that Linux
> introduces.
> For my company, we would have had to replace over 2000 Brother
> Multifunction printers with some model that worked with Linux. The
> problem was that we could not find any equivilant.
> We tried using the commercial version of Sun Openoffice and found it
> buggy and totally incompatabile with Office. We tried sending
> documents to our clients and they did not work too well.
> It seems that Openoffice, even the pay for version has troubles being
> read by Microsoft Office.
OpenOffice is a lame and buggy imitation of MS Office, the world's
flagship office suite. You get what you pay for.
> Another area that we had massive problems in was with video cards.
> We were using ATI cards in our systems and it seems that Linux support
> for ATI is pretty poor.
More than poor, it's horrible.
> In conclusion, we have decided not to switch to Linux for the simple
> reason that Linux does not offer us anything but headaches.
> We don't want to downgrade out hardware to use Linux.
> We don't wish to look like fools sends documents to clients and
> suppliers that they cannot read.
> Linux may be fine for some people, but it was a disaster for us.
Linux is horrible for 90% of the world's users, that's why Windows is
king (see marketshare).
> Maria Quansett
God Bless,
Brian Fellows
S.Heenan
> Why the surge in these M$ astro turfers disguising themselves
> and little gurls and hiding their identities
> now and posting all this rubbish all of a sudden?
> Did they get a whole load of money?
> If so, is the EU anti-monopoloy commission taking notes?
>
> Also its not healthy if M$ the corporations is using
> astro turfers through anonymous proxies
> to create public opinion where none
> exists - and we need the secret services and goverments
> around the world to take note and to identify
> the ring leaders and tell them where to shove it.
Uh-oh, talk of secret agents, again.
Mind Guard v0.0.0.4 http://zapatopi.net/mindguard.html
--
"In particular, c.o.l.advocacy had been created with explicit goal - to
keep these tossers out of the rest of c.o.l.*. It's a cesspit; no
wonder that you find the usual collection of coprophagous species
there." Alexander Viro
+iAn
><nothing>
Shove your abuse report up your winfuck arse.
--
A fatal exception 0E has occurred at 0028:C000BD1D in VXD VMM(01) +
0000AD1D. The current application will be terminated.
Isoshi Goode
> Tovma Poats wrote:
>><nothing>
> Shove your abuse report up your winfuck arse.
GreyCloud
e7 wrote:
I figured as much. Seeing that she can't get laid, it's obviously flat.
GreyCloud
Lalig the Beetle-bestower wrote:
What would an aussie bitch know about the proper use of english?
Bill Unruh
]On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:15:09 -0400, Arthur Hagen wrote:
]> Hit-and-run? I see numerous follow-ups, not that they add a whole lot.
]>
]> Guys, "Patricia" does have one point, despite being (possibly deliberately)
]> provocative: When you start attacking the person instead of the ball,
]> you've already lost. You're harming the Linux cause more than helping it by
]> resorting to ad hominem attacks. Your actions reflect on the whole group.
]>
]> Instead, it would be worthwhile to point out what the flaws are with the
]> *arguments*, not the persons who state them. And yes, there are flaws, and
]> yes, the postings are provocative, but that doesn't make names calling any
]> more tolerable.
]Thank you and that is all I asked for.
]I provided the data for my findings, and in my eyes it seems pretty clear.
]Go to a couple of major outlets and try and find a Linux compatible
]printer that doesn't cost an arm and a leg and fully works with Linux.
]It's not that easy, and that is my point.
]Some people posted helpful information, like PCL and certain current
]models that work, but most just posted gibberish and attacks.
Many printers, just like modems, are being designed to offload all of
the work to the computer. These winprinters will not be well supported by
Linux. The best idea is to get a printer which supports Postscript, and
then one that supports PCL.
Remember that most printer manufacturers are selling their printers at a
loss and thus making them as cheaply as possible-- software is far cheaper
to manufacture than hardware, so the more you can offload from the
hardware, the lower the costs-- and make money from the supplies (an inkjet
printer costs up to $1.00 a page in ink).
If you rarely print colour, get a laser printer. Far cheaper unless you
print only 10 pages a year or something.
If you print colour a lot, then an inkjet is almost the only option, but
again it is very expensive in supplies.
Linønut
> maria_q...@yahoo.com (maria quansett) wrote in message news:<917d9fdf.0407...@posting.google.com>...
>> I have to laugh when I read about all of these countries that are
>> supposedly leaving Windows and converting to Linux. Do these people
>> even have a clue as to what they are in for?
>
> They don't have a clue, but they don't care. They do it for political
> reasons, they go to Linux because they hate America and they see the
> move away from Windows as an anti-american blockade. In the case of
> American cities moving to Linux, they are (you guessed it) liberal
> cities with typical liberal-democratic (tax-n-spend, pro-abortion,
> pro-gay, anti-family-values, pro-drugs) agendas and, of course, a
> liberal girly-man mayor.
What a parochial fellow you are, Fellows!
JEDIDIAH
On 2004-07-28, maria quansett <maria_q...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[deletia]
> For my company, we would have had to replace over 2000 Brother
This just sounds totally lame. What is ANY company that has that
many printers doing not using something with a built in lpd server
or postscript support.
Workhorse business printers simply are not that lame.
> problem was that we could not find any equivilant.
> We tried using the commercial version of Sun Openoffice and found it
> buggy and totally incompatabile with Office. We tried sending
> documents to our clients and they did not work too well.
> It seems that Openoffice, even the pay for version has troubles being
> read by Microsoft Office.
Odd that none of my headhunters ever complained about this.
[deletia]
--
It is not true that Microsoft doesn't innovate.
They brought us the email virus.
In my Atari days, such a notion would have |||
been considered a complete absurdity. / | \
JEDIDIAH
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:17:43 +0000, Giorgio Takouhi wrote:
>
>> Dave wrote:
>>
>>> <rest of BS deleted>
>>
>> Ditto.
>>
>> ?? But you didn't post from Google.
>>
>> Could it be that uni-berlin trolls are even more of a right pain than a
>> Google poster?
>
> The Linoloonies have to find some way of discrediting the poster so they
> look at all sides of the coin.
Lies are better if they at least have the appearance of truth to them.
2000 "multifunction" printers in an enterprise?
This is either an obvious lie or simply an indication that the
Dilbert principle at this company is not merely limited to Linux.
[deletia]
Who here has ever seen a "multifunction" printer outside of a
10 person professional (doctor/lawyer) office?
JEDIDIAH
> Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:15:09 -0400 tarihinde, Arthur Hagen dedi ki:
>
>> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> This is approximately what I was about to write. While she has half-truths
> blatantly exaggerated to put Linux under a dim light, they must be
> addressed. Not because to win over a troll, but because there may be
> readers out there who earnestly wonder how to switch (or coexist) to Linux
If the story has fundemental flaws that make it apparent that the
person has never even been in the sort of office they are describing,
why should any of the other elements of the lie be taken at face
value?
[deletia]
JEDIDIAH
> Patricia <patty_fitz...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> ]On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:15:09 -0400, Arthur Hagen wrote:
> hardware, the lower the costs-- and make money from the supplies (an inkjet
> printer costs up to $1.00 a page in ink).
EEEK! I can get full page photo reprints from Costco for 2bux.
4x6 prints are 17 cents.
>
> If you rarely print colour, get a laser printer. Far cheaper unless you
> print only 10 pages a year or something.
You can get a Linux compatable laser for $180 or $99.
>
> If you print colour a lot, then an inkjet is almost the only option, but
> again it is very expensive in supplies.
>
Ringo Langly
> I have to laugh when I read about all of these countries that are
> supposedly leaving Windows and converting to Linux. Do these people
> even have a clue as to what they are in for?
> to Linux?
> applications working is nil?
> be no because Linux looks like a great alternative, until one looks
> closer and sees all of the holes and troublesome problems that Linux
> introduces.
>
> Multifunction printers with some model that worked with Linux. The
> We tried using the commercial version of Sun Openoffice and found it
> buggy and totally incompatabile with Office. We tried sending
> documents to our clients and they did not work too well.
> It seems that Openoffice, even the pay for version has troubles being
> read by Microsoft Office.
>
> We were using ATI cards in our systems and it seems that Linux support
> for ATI is pretty poor.
>
> reason that Linux does not offer us anything but headaches.
> We don't want to downgrade out hardware to use Linux.
> We don't wish to look like fools sends documents to clients and
> suppliers that they cannot read.
>
> Linux may be fine for some people, but it was a disaster for us.
>
> Maria Quansett
Hi Maria,
Linux is a great alternative for MANY companies, but not ALL. Of
course you're going to see hardware (like your Brother printers) and
software (mainly inhouse developed) that won't work under Linux, but
in cases where companies use the standard tools (file/print sharing,
desktop publishing, etc), the Linux solution is a good one.
You mentioned you had problems with Open Office documents not working
properly. Did you guys try saving documents as Rich Text Format? I
know of many companies that will ONLY accept RTF or TXT files -- no MS
Word, Word Perfect, etc because of potential virus and
incompatabilities.
You also mentioned retraining, but this is a common Microsoft ploy to
keep folks from moving. Linux can be configured to look and function
just like Windows. Most of our employees know they click this desktop
icon or Start > Programs > Application to get what they need. The
average corporate user needs to know NOTHING about setting-up
networking, printers, changing the clock, etc, and anyone with IT who
does need to know doesn't need to be in IT if they can't figure it out
in a matter of seconds. KDE and Gnome are a cake walk, just a
different type of cake from Windows.
As for hardware compatability, you guys should've researched various
distros and checked this from the get go. Same thing with Windows...
not all hardware works on all versions of Windows. You mentioned ATI
video cards so I assume you're using the 2.6 kernel, which I have
heard issues between 2.6 kernel and ATI video cards. In this case,
stick with a distro that uses 2.4 kernel and you're golden. I've used
a wide variety of ATI cards without a hitch on both the 2.4 and 2.6
kernel.
In closing, just remember that no single OS will work for ALL business
environments. For some Windows is a must (like yours apparently), but
for many Linux or even Mac are good choices -- depending on the needs.
Take care,
- Ringo -
George Peatty
>As you are so prone to say, prove it? Show me any one-shot google post
>that was pro-Linux. I'm sure there must have been one or two but prove
>it flatfish.
This is verbal abuse. Even if everything you think of her is true, her
conduct does not justify your treatment of her. You win no converts to
Linux with this attitude ..
George Peatty
wrote:
>Guys, "Patricia" does have one point, despite being (possibly deliberately)
>provocative: When you start attacking the person instead of the ball,
>you've already lost. You're harming the Linux cause more than helping it by
>resorting to ad hominem attacks. Your actions reflect on the whole group.
>
>Instead, it would be worthwhile to point out what the flaws are with the
>*arguments*, not the persons who state them. And yes, there are flaws, and
>yes, the postings are provocative, but that doesn't make names calling any
>more tolerable.
You said what I thought better than I thought it. Thank you.
Isoshi Goode
> begin <slrncgght...@deuce.localdomain>,
> Harold Stevens <woo...@deuce.localdomain> writes:
>> In <5pslt1-...@nw8000.swissptt.ch>, Roy Culley:
>>
>> [Snip...]
>>
>>> conclusive to me though. I wonder what others think?
>>
>> Quit feeding the trolls. It's all Flatfish sewage, whatever the
>> source.
> I know I know, but it is just too much fun. And COLA needs its
> fun. :-)
Since you're all faggots, have your fun with each other.
Roy Culley
Verbal abuse? Grief what planet are you from? By the way, I'm not here
to convert people to Linux. I advocate Linux. I also have no tolerance
of wintrolls who pollute COLA and cross post to other newsgroups with
the sole intention of starting cross group flame wars.
Roy Culley
Where did I say I was a bundle of sticks? Is English your native
language?
Juhan Leemet
> Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:15:09 -0400 tarihinde, Arthur Hagen dedi ki:
>> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Idiot. It's only the Wintrolls...
>>
>> Guys, "Patricia" does have one point, despite being (possibly
Hmm, and I suppose her use of "Linoloonies" is a term of affection?
OTOH, I do agree in principle to that idea. In fact, I remember someone
(somewhere) suggesting that you should always write all of your electronic
correspondence as if it were to be posted in a public place... er, it is,
isn't it? ...but that also goes for e-mails that might be subpoenaed...
>> ...resorting to ad hominem attacks...
I agree, not a good approach.
>> Instead, it would be worthwhile to point out what the flaws are with
>> the *arguments*... half-truths blatantly exaggerated to put Linux under
>> a dim light... may be readers out there who earnestly wonder...
If they're just trolling, looking for a fight, why bother? If someone's
*nix ideas don't work and they piss me off, AFAIC, they're on their own.
> inventing funny names for companies and products...
Oh, you mean like M$, Windoze, Mr. Bill? I'll agree they're excessively
"cute", but I prefer not to dignify them by promotion or advertising. They
do work as a form of shorthand, AFAIK, similar to IANAL, or some such. You
don't actually expect me to list out the trademarked names for all
Windoze? Besides the product name really SHOULD be distinct from our
common everyday word "windows". M$ cannot coopt our common language!
> ...trying to clarify the issues...
That should always be the aim, else why bother? There are better things in
life to do: read a book, take a hike, play a guitar, visit friends, etc.
> just strengthen the troller's point and aim: FUD
I've been wondering about these aims. At first I thought these are just
sad people who go into a public place and "moon everyone" just to get them
riled up. However, (turning down the gain of my conspiracy theory detector
a bit) I suspect they may also be doing research, and exercising their
"marketing?" chops, trying to figure out how to pitch other products
against Linux or *nix in general. These people might actually be paid to
rile us up, and seem to rather enjoy it. The best response might actually
be just to ignore a troll (don't feed them! so they leave the newsgroup).
> The main folly in the OP's story is that it talks about a hypotetical
> big company trying to switch over to Linux -completely- overnight in a
> way a personal user switches his platform.
Might be just a "strawman" setup, so they can knock everybody down. Why
bother with hypotheticals? Let's do something real, make real systems
work. If someone doesn't like that? Too bad! Do your own (paid for) work.
> This cannot be done, and any company IT would surely figure out a
> migration plan before attempting it. I'm excepting those IT's who are
> hostile to Linux and want to "prove" to boss that Linux is not fit to
> company's needs. They would have figured out a plan for how *not* to
> switch over to Linux. There are usually knee-deep office politics in
> larger companies, a fact a CEO would have to tackle with.
Unfortunately, I've come to the conclusion (you might say I'm biased
coming from an EE "tech" perspective, but I've also been consultant and
businessman) that there are an awful lot of bad managers ("boss", I
really hate that term) out there. Used to be that "you never get fired for
buying IBM". That has now been massaged into another herd mentality slogan
"everybody's doing it", with the implication: so it must be right. Really?
A buddy of mine summarizes this in a saying: "eat shit! 100B flies can't
all be wrong!" Seems that's the level of "thinking" going on.
It has been a mystery to me why bad decisions so often win, and why good
solutions are not absolutely "kicking someone's ass" out there in the
business world? Maybe people watched and believed "Dallas" and "Dynasty"
too much? Is business really about going all out to screw someone because
you don't like their shade of nail polish? How banal and superficial!
> Even with a sound plan, it is not usually possible to switch completely
> in the short term. The two platforms would have to live together,
> complementing each other for some time to some extent, and complete
> switch is only possible in the long run. Even then there would always be
> some non-Linux machines sparsed here and there in the company (for
> certain vertical niches).
From the earliest days of computing, I have never believed in the
homogeneous network/system as any kind of "solution". People choose
platforms for good reasons: CRAY for fast/parallel computing; PC for cheap
ease of use; workstation for network computing; mainframe for big
accounting; etc. It would be ridiculous to try to convince them that "one
size fits all". From the earliest days of Sun's slogan "the network is the
computer" it has been obvious to (some of) us that the "network" is
heterogenous by nature. Best learn to deal with it. That is one of my
biggest beefs with M$ approach: they refuse to "play nice" with others.
Even now, with Linux ascendent, every choice that is made should be well
informed and appropriately researched and/or qualified. I'm not talking
about spending $1K making a decision about a $500 machine. Hell, in that
case probably anything would do, more or less. But "horses for courses".
For example, if I could buy a Windoze application that would make me a
pile of money, and enable me to be more productive and profitable than
anything else, then I would be a fool not to do so! I just can't think
that there is anything like that (for me). I like many *nix apps.
> How to lay and work out the migration plan, this is another issue. How
> about we work on a generic migration plan that is applicable, with minor
> tunings, to most of the larger installations? I have quite a few ideas
> about it and there should also be a page dedicated to this isssue in
> groklaw. It would be great if only all this could be worked out to a
> perfect Migration-Howto.
Yes, well, I'm all for helping people that are genuinely searching for
help (not for others to do their work for them), but I'm getting bored
and even annoyed with 2 types of posts:
1) it doesn't work, tell me exactly what key to press, but don't bother me
with the details because I don't really want to know
2) my system is better than yours, nya-nya, pants on fire
The the 1st group I'm inclined to say: "get a clue, then RTFM"
To the 2nd group: "that's great! now go away and play with your system!"
> P.S. Manipulated NG list as my server does not host a.o.linux and
> a.o.windows-xp
Huh? What/why did I need to know any of this?
--
Juhan Leemet
Logicognosis, Inc.
Hamilcar Barca
+0200), Roy Culley wrote:
> begin <U8XNc.15984$09.23...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
> Patricia <patty_fitz...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> Prove I am Flatfish.
>
> Obviously I can't. I only have circumstantial evidence. Seems pretty
> conclusive to me though. I wonder what others think?
We can take a lesson from quantum mechanics. If it's indistinguishable
from a flatfish, it's a flatfish. "Patricia", "Joe Negron", and another
new proxy hijacker are completely indistinguishable from a flatfish, and
therefore they are the flatfish.
In fact, the sock puppetry and parrot-inspired behavior are so incompetent
and juvenile, they are by themselves enough to prove the equivalence
relation shown below.
Patricia = Flatricia = Flatfish = Joe Negron
N.B. An equivalence relation is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive.
Hamilcar Barca
17:30:35 -0500), George Peatty wrote:
> This is verbal abuse. Even if everything you think of her is true, her
> conduct does not justify your treatment of her.
There is no "Patricia FitzHenry". The poster in question is a "he" who
formerly called himself Flatfish and various other pseudonyms. He's
earned every bit of abuse he gets.
> You win no converts to Linux with this attitude ..
None of the groups to which you've cross-posted [follow-ups set] has
"convert" in its name. Further, this is a standard claim of Flatfish and
its sock puppets, although I have no reason to believe you are one.
ray
It's apparently because they had a group of idiots doint the conversion.
Kadaitcha Man
> It's apparently because they had a group of idiots doint the
> conversion.
LEXICAL PARSING ERROR ON "doint". PARSE-STACK, DUMP FOLLOWS:
FORTRAN ANALYSIS for RECURSIVE TROLLING
INPUT: C:\WINDOWS\Application
Data\Identities\{AA364E40-63C1-11D3-A004-BCBD02D7E46F}\Microsoft\Outlook
Express\alt.os.linux.dbx
OUTPUT: C:\My Documents\FART_OUT_040730_EAFB32.TXT
END MARK: NULL
IDENTITY: "ray" <r...@zianet.com>
RUN DATE: 040730, 14:13:32
OPTIONS ON:
WORD, CASE, STYLE, USE, GRAMMAR, SPELL, ANALYSIS, IGNORE SMTP, FUZZY,
CONCISE, ROGER, SYNTAX, REASSM, ADD, WORD, MEM, LIST ELEMENT, LIST ARRAY,
KEYWORD, ENGAGE, DISENGAGE, SUMMARY, TRIGGER, ECHO
SETTINGS:
RECURSION = 4, FOURIER = OFF, LIMIT = 15
Oint Dint Doit Joint Noint point Roint Daint
Doing
dint joint point
Point
point
Dent donet Docent Dolent Drent
dent docent
Dent
Doing Doings
doings
Dint
dint biont
GreyCloud
Bill Unruh wrote:
About the best I could do on inkjet printers for lowest cartridge costs
was the HP 970 and it also cuts down on paper usage due to the duplexer.
I almost splurged for the Xerox Phaser that uses the wax chunks. You
can keep printing and just open up the hopper and throw in another color
chunk. The color and black chunks of wax were pretty cheap at around 8
black pieces for around $10 and about the same for the color wax chunks
as well. When you buy one Xerox will throw in for free about a year
supply of wax. And they should for $2400.
Jesse F. Hughes
What verbal abuse? Where?
"Flatfish" isn't used here as an epithet, you know. It is a pseudonym
of a particular poster. Roy and others believe that Patricia is just
another pseudonym for the same poster. Whether that's warranted or
not, I wouldn't call the accusation "verbal abuse".
As far as winning converts to Linux, well, probably what goes on in
this thread won't matter much one way or another.
--
Jesse Hughes
"She moaned, in pain and pleasure, as, in a confused whirlwind, she
glimpsed an image of Saint Sebastian riddled with arrows, crucified
and impaled." --Mario Vargas Llosa on category theory
Bo Grimes
> As far as winning converts to Linux, well, probably what goes on in
> this thread won't matter much one way or another.
Well, I know I started with Linux in late '99, but it wasn't until sometime
in '00 that I was using it daily and began to lurk in COLA.
Keep in mind, I was just a regular home user, no programming experience, no
technical degree, no hobbyist. What I saw appalled me. I dumped Linux and
never looked back.
You bastards just don't understand that people who actually try a secure,
stable, flexible and downright fun OS will give up if someone says something
mean to them.
In fact, I quit driving because someone flipped me off.
--
Bo Grimes vcg...@earthlink.net
"If people could put rainbows in zoos, they'd do it." -Hobbes
ray
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 21:23:26 -0600, ray wrote:
>
>
>> It's apparently because they had a group of idiots doint the conversion.
> ^^^^^
> Like you for example?
It's not exceedingly difficult for a person with room temperature IQ to
successfully install and run Linux. The fact that they could not, and did
not do sufficient research beforehand to ascertain where the difficulties
might lie says more than I can.
Vudik the addlebrained
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 03:45:10 +0000, Patricia wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 21:23:26 -0600, ray wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It's apparently because they had a group of idiots doint the
>>> conversion.
>> ^^^^^
>> Like you for example?
>
> It's not exceedingly difficult for a person with room temperature IQ
> to successfully install and run Linux.
gentoo.
Bye.
JEDIDIAH
....that's not even getting into the issue of QA. Proper pilot
projects should have been undertaken before moving an entire
enterprise. This is SOP for PATCH SETS, nevermind moving to an
entirely different platform...
Hamilcar Barca
-0700), George Peatty wrote:
> In article <20040729214336.502$R...@news.newsreader.com>, Hamilcar Barca says...
>
> [snip]
>
>>There is no "Patricia FitzHenry". The poster in question is a "he" who
>>formerly called himself Flatfish and various other pseudonyms. He's
>>earned every bit of abuse he gets.
>
> No one deserves abuse.
Deserves? Probably not.
Earned? Absolutely.
> If he's a troll, he's doing this for the attention. Baiting and
> bantering with him only plays into his hands. Killfile him and be done.
You're absolutely correct. Usually, I do just that but I've made an
(unjustified) exception here.
> Advocacy, by the way, implies conversion, or at least, persuasion. If
> not, why are you advocating?
I advocate the downfall of the Evil Empire. I don't care if it's replaced
by Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, GNU Hurd, or any other free and open
operating system. Regardless of the outcome, I'm almost sure to continue
as a Linux user.
The Ghost In The Machine
<r...@nodomain.none>
wrote
on Fri, 30 Jul 2004 01:20:30 +0200
<uadot1-...@nw8000.swissptt.ch>:
Just be careful you don't get too deep in the mud and thereby
become "sticks in the mud". :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Jesse F. Hughes
> In fact, I quit driving because someone flipped me off.
There, there.
--
"Just because you're ... in a Ph.d program it does not mean that
you're up to the challenge of being a real mathematician. Only those
who have a purity of mind and dedication to the truth as the highest
ideal have a chance." --James Harris, as Sir Galahad the Pure.
Hamilcar Barca
2004 19:47:20 +0000), Patricia wrote:
> The Koolaid is right around the corner on the table.
Have as much as you like but please save some for your other socks,
Flatfish.
Charles Hizark
tool and should be utilized as such. There is are many cases where a
complete shift over to Linux or other OS does not make sense.
On the otherhand you should have done the proper planning before you
embarked on such a project.
maria_q...@yahoo.com (maria quansett) wrote in message news:<917d9fdf.0407...@posting.google.com>...
Roy Culley
Hehe, always thought it was stick in the mud. Happened to my brother
when he was little and really got stuck in the mud on my grandparents
farm. They always called him stick in the mud after that. :-)
Justin Stanczak
> I have to laugh when I read about all of these countries that are
> supposedly leaving Windows and converting to Linux. Do these people
> even have a clue as to what they are in for?
I'm guessing you don't. Figure in how many times you have to reinstall
Windows and it easily pays for it's self.
> Do they even realize the immense amount of retraining required to move
> to Linux?
Retraining??????? You need lesson on how to click a mouse? My god it's not
that big of a learning curve. I have may people change over with little to
no problem.
> Do they realize that the chances of their vertical in house applications
> working is nil?
What apps. I'm having a hard time find apps that don't work.
> Do they understand that much of their hardware will not be supported? I
What hardware is not supported? I've installed on may machines with little
hardware trouble. For hardware that's not there's people happy to create
it.
> suspect that the answer to all of these questions and many more will
be
> no because Linux looks like a great alternative, until one looks closer
> and sees all of the holes and troublesome problems that Linux
> introduces.
>
> For my company, we would have had to replace over 2000 Brother
> Multifunction printers with some model that worked with Linux. The
Well this is just stupid. 2000 printers. Brother would probably write one
just to keep you buying ink from them. What world do you live in. I'm
guessing the idiot that had you replace 2000 printers is not working
there anymore. What kind of retard would make this mistake? I just did a
google and found multiple drivers for Brother on Linux. Not sure what
model you using, but there is someone out there that would do this. If
you this stupid on *nix the just stay with Windows. I can't even count
how much time my development team has lost due to Windows. I'll never
make the mistake of Windows again. You are just so far off base with this
I just don't know what to say.
> problem was that we could not find any
equivilant. We tried using the
> commercial version of Sun Openoffice and found it buggy and totally
> incompatabile with Office. We tried sending documents to our clients and
> they did not work too well. It seems that Openoffice, even the pay for
> version has troubles being read by Microsoft Office.
Here's another stupid part. Even heard of PDF?????? I've never seen a MS
Office doc go from one machines office suite to another machine and look
the same. I had to support people with Office before. It has more then
it's share of problem. Especially when it comes to document exchanging.
That's what PDF and XML was made for. Again your just blowing smoke. I've
used OpenOffice for years with very little problems.
>
> Another area that we had massive problems in was with video cards. We
> were using ATI cards in our systems and it seems that Linux support for
> ATI is pretty poor.
Wow, this part is true. ATI stuff with work for general 2D, but 3D and
ATI's Linux drivers do blow. This is not Linux's fault. ATI is to blame
here. But with the continues grow of *nix's the are coming around now. It
can only get better. Bottom line your ATI will work for most use, it's
just the gamer and 3d stuff that suffers. If I can get Linux on a laptop
with WUXGA LCD and ATI 9700 then you can get a simple PC to work.
>
> In conclusion, we have decided not to switch to Linux for the simple
> reason that Linux does not offer us anything but headaches. We don't
> want to downgrade out hardware to use Linux. We don't wish to look like
> fools sends documents to clients and suppliers that they cannot read.
>
> Linux may be fine for some people, but it was a disaster for us.
In conclusion your wrong. In the long run any *nix will save you many
headaches. All you need to do is hire one *nix hacker and your set for
life. All this post tells me is you don't know *nix. Looks to me
like your just staffed with IT people that don't like change and have zero
ability to learn a simple new thing. Let's not forget that *nix has been
around since the turn of time running true multi-user, multi-tasking.
Windows was a toy and for the most part is a toy. An OS that can't even
make it on the security chart will never be a productive OS. I've had
many, many, many, many, many, many *nix and Windows machine running side
by side. The Windows machine couldn't even compete. We have multiple tech
that train year around to know how to admin Windows and they couldn't even
keep up with *nix. All this may sound like ranting, but it's not. Anyone
that give *nix/change a chance will see this as fact. This is base on
years and years of working with both OS's. Windows is simple a toy OS that
got poor IT people jobs. The only good thing Windows did was spread
computer use to people not willing to learn. Sorry to come off so rude,
but if you ever do a real comparison you will easily see what I'm saying.
Maybe if users demand a better Windows then it might not be to bad.
>
> Maria Quansett
Kadaitcha Man
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:04:39 -0700, maria quansett wrote:
>> Do they even realize the immense amount of retraining required to
>> move to Linux?
>
> Retraining??????? You need lesson on how to click a mouse? My god
> it's not that big of a learning curve. I have may people change over
> with little to no problem.
Kadaitcha Man's First Law of Linux Fuckwittery: If you claim that Linux can
be fully configured without recourse to the command line then not only are
you making a false claim, you have never installed any Linux other than one
that provides a dumbed down, default GUI installation with limited
functionality, eg Xandros, Red Hat, SuSE, Knoppix et al. Try installing a
real Linux, eg Debian, gentoo, etc, and see how far your fucking mouse gets
you.
Corollary #1: You may as well use Windows.
Corollary #2: Linux makes you stupid.
Abdullah Ramazanoglu
I believe using proper names for rivals don't add to their dignity, but
add to ours. Two examples:
"Microsoft fails to provide IE security patches timely, leaving Windows
users wide open to exploits for prolonged periods."
"Micro$haft fails to provide InternetExploder security kludges timely,
leaving Winpuppets wide open to exploits for prolonged periods."
One is information, with due credibility. The other is emotion, with due
credibility.
It is off topic but would like to say anyway while I'm talking about
emotion that I can't decide how to feel, laugh or weep, when I see a post
like:
"Hello gurus, I want to install Linux, a great OS, besides Microslop
Windosh, but I can't ..."
Obviously he is a veteran Windows user just trying out Linux. But he feels
compelled (intimidated?) to sublimize Linux and belittle Windows. We are
friendly, sensible, adult people. Not a bunch of dangerous hackers looking
out for an unlucky criticizer. They must feel free and easy to come here
and ask the most taboo questions without an ounce of intimidation. Sure
that trolls will just try to exploit it, but this is no excuse.
>> ...trying to clarify the issues...
>
> That should always be the aim, else why bother? There are better things
> in life to do: read a book, take a hike, play a guitar, visit friends,
> etc.
>
>> just strengthen the troller's point and aim: FUD
>
> I've been wondering about these aims. At first I thought these are just
> sad people who go into a public place and "moon everyone" just to get
> them riled up. However, (turning down the gain of my conspiracy theory
> detector a bit) I suspect they may also be doing research, and
> exercising their "marketing?" chops, trying to figure out how to pitch
> other products against Linux or *nix in general. These people might
> actually be paid to rile us up, and seem to rather enjoy it. The best
> response might actually be just to ignore a troll (don't feed them! so
> they leave the newsgroup).
Totally agreed. In fact there are signs of engineered team play between
them. In real life I have seen anti-Linux people. Nearly all of them were
so because either they are too lazy or incapable to learn new tricks, or
they have built a value (career, business, fame) upon MS platforms and
they see Linux as something that will rob some value off them. That is,
they were really sad people as you said, with emotional reasons. But most
of the trolls here show different patterns. I completely agree that they
must be orchestrated by some source(s). (Though I don't have any clue as
to whom on the earth that source could ever be ;)
Since I think that they're here for an orchestrated psycological teamplay,
the best approach as far as I can see (and try to do) is:
- Don't give in to emotions and keep calm. I just ignore obvious trolls.
As for the subtle ones, it's best to respond with something calm, polite,
distant, to-the-point, short and clear. It can be troll or may be not, you
never know. Even if it is troll, there are many people less experienced in
Linux who would see the subtle troll as a legitimate point. Keeping
distance with possible trolls (and obvious ones alike) is a good way to
stay immune from being drawn into heat of emotions.
- See those subtle trolls as an excuse, an opportunity to advocate Linux
better. Someone complains about converting to Linux? Complains about
finding a viable printer? We can use it as an excuse to start a deep and
enhancing thread. The thread might start with a single calm response to
the troller, and then go on among experts, ignoring all the followups from
the same troller or its other faces. The result would be a valuable thread
on a subtle point, free from noise, which would be really helpful for
those inexperienced users who might be confused over the issue. A thread
that really gives valuable insight to an issue.
- Give due credit to where it belongs. An objective, fair stance without
emotions is much more dignifying and credible than zealotism. The best
consultant is one without personal agendas, emotions, or bias (provided
that he has the wisdom in the first place :) Otherwise the consultant
might just be downgrading himself to a babbler, with due credibility.
- Considering that the trolls are playing an orchestrated pcychological,
rather than technical game, there must be a means to stay immune from
faltering off in the heat of a debate, which would constantly be tickled
by trolls. I believe the best defense is establishing well thought
behavioral patterns and principles and staying loyal to them, even when
one gets driven to the point of getting bitter. In fact, such principles
would protect one from getting driven to that point in the first place.
>> The main folly in the OP's story is that it talks about a hypotetical
>> big company trying to switch over to Linux -completely- overnight in a
>> way a personal user switches his platform.
>
> Might be just a "strawman" setup, so they can knock everybody down. Why
> bother with hypotheticals? Let's do something real, make real systems
> work. If someone doesn't like that? Too bad! Do your own (paid for)
> work.
>
>> This cannot be done, and any company IT would surely figure out a
>> migration plan before attempting it. I'm excepting those IT's who are
>> hostile to Linux and want to "prove" to boss that Linux is not fit to
>> company's needs. They would have figured out a plan for how *not* to
>> switch over to Linux. There are usually knee-deep office politics in
>> larger companies, a fact a CEO would have to tackle with.
>
> Unfortunately, I've come to the conclusion (you might say I'm biased
> coming from an EE "tech" perspective, but I've also been consultant and
> businessman) that there are an awful lot of bad managers ("boss", I
> really hate that term) out there. Used to be that "you never get fired
> for buying IBM". That has now been massaged into another herd mentality
> slogan "everybody's doing it", with the implication: so it must be
> right. Really? A buddy of mine summarizes this in a saying: "eat shit!
> 100B flies can't all be wrong!" Seems that's the level of "thinking"
> going on.
Oh, good! That 100B flies one. I've added that to my dictionary of
favorite answers. :)
I use the term "boss" because of my lack of good command of the English
language. For me, a boss is someone with all the incentives for the good
of the company, such as owner or someone whose success is directly related
to the well being of the company. With "manager" I mean someone with all
the incentives for the good of himself, rather than company (mostly office
politics machines with think-little-show-big talents). They are different,
but I don't know any better than "boss" and "manager" for them. I would
appreciate if someone comes up with precise terms.
> It has been a mystery to me why bad decisions so often win, and why good
> solutions are not absolutely "kicking someone's ass" out there in the
> business world? Maybe people watched and believed "Dallas" and "Dynasty"
> too much? Is business really about going all out to screw someone
> because you don't like their shade of nail polish? How banal and
> superficial!
I guess it is a triumph of politics and marketing over wisdom and
right-thing-to-do(TM).
>> Even with a sound plan, it is not usually possible to switch completely
>> in the short term. The two platforms would have to live together,
>> complementing each other for some time to some extent, and complete
>> switch is only possible in the long run. Even then there would always
>> be some non-Linux machines sparsed here and there in the company (for
>> certain vertical niches).
>
> From the earliest days of computing, I have never believed in the
> homogeneous network/system as any kind of "solution". People choose
> platforms for good reasons: CRAY for fast/parallel computing; PC for
> cheap ease of use; workstation for network computing; mainframe for big
> accounting; etc. It would be ridiculous to try to convince them that
> "one size fits all". From the earliest days of Sun's slogan "the network
> is the computer" it has been obvious to (some of) us that the "network"
> is heterogenous by nature. Best learn to deal with it. That is one of my
> biggest beefs with M$ approach: they refuse to "play nice" with others.
>
> Even now, with Linux ascendent, every choice that is made should be well
> informed and appropriately researched and/or qualified. I'm not talking
> about spending $1K making a decision about a $500 machine. Hell, in that
> case probably anything would do, more or less. But "horses for courses".
> For example, if I could buy a Windoze application that would make me a
> pile of money, and enable me to be more productive and profitable than
> anything else, then I would be a fool not to do so! I just can't think
> that there is anything like that (for me). I like many *nix apps.
Agree. And I think there are certain main strategies that would protect an
organization with minimal effort, from being victimized to bad choices. If
the strategy is wrong, then each and every decision should be scrutinized
for its correctness and side effects, just like Windows. If the strategy
is right, then it would be much easier to take fast decisions without
slipping, just like Linux. I believe one of those strategies is protecting
flexibility and openness jealously even when conditions tempt for a quick
and dirty shortcut, so that the future is saved and even further
heterogenity and complexities would be afforded easily. (Well, there are
exceptions of calculated trade-offs and compromises.)
>> How to lay and work out the migration plan, this is another issue. How
>> about we work on a generic migration plan that is applicable, with
>> minor tunings, to most of the larger installations? I have quite a few
>> ideas about it and there should also be a page dedicated to this isssue
>> in groklaw. It would be great if only all this could be worked out to a
>> perfect Migration-Howto.
>
> Yes, well, I'm all for helping people that are genuinely searching for
> help (not for others to do their work for them), but I'm getting bored
> and even annoyed with 2 types of posts:
>
> 1) it doesn't work, tell me exactly what key to press, but don't bother
> me
> with the details because I don't really want to know
> 2) my system is better than yours, nya-nya, pants on fire
>
> The the 1st group I'm inclined to say: "get a clue, then RTFM" To the
> 2nd group: "that's great! now go away and play with your system!"
>
>> P.S. Manipulated NG list as my server does not host a.o.linux and
>> a.o.windows-xp
>
> Huh? What/why did I need to know any of this?
I usually refrain from fiddling with parent's NG list, and prefer not to
respond, rather than manipulate the list if I see it inappropriate. This
was an exception so I felt I should explain why. Well I guess this doesn't
exactly answer your question... :)
BTW this Migration-Howto idea looks warmer and warmer to me. Seeing that
an avalanche of organizations migrating from Windows to Linux is coming
ahead, it might just be about the right time to craft such a howto. We had
an internal memo on this. Very crude and amateurish, but could be a
starting point for such a work. I would have liked to translate and post
it here but I'm not sure if it would be a fruitless toil. People here
mostly appear to be more eager on light issues and petty battles than real
hard work. A pity, because they have the gift, the qualities for valuable
constructive activity but most just wouldn't.
--
Abdullah | aramazan@ |
Ramazanoglu | myrealbox |
________________| D-O-T cöm |
Bill Unruh
?? real Linux? If you want to use the gui, get a distro that uses the gui.
If you are comfortable with command line use that. But this is all
irrelevant. He was talking about the users, not the sysadmins, who
presumably know how to type, and capable of using the command line.
]Corollary #1: You may as well use Windows.
??
]Corollary #2: Linux makes you stupid.
Must be true. I do not understand you post at all.
Gerardo Blatherson-Wegglestig
> "Kadaitcha Man" <nos...@kadaitcha.cx> writes:
> ]Corollary #2: Linux makes you stupid.
>
> Must be true. I do not understand you post at all.
There you go.
Justin Stanczak
Been there done that. I've installed most version of *nix. I have a couple
Solaris, Freebsd, several Linux servers and two Linux desktops. Thanks for
your stupid unless points. Maybe you should re-read my post. Why the hell
would you use a command line Linux for a Window replacement. It's fair to
assume this person is using an equal gui system to Windows. I didn't
figure there IT was having the learning curve. For the most part most
*nix's can be step up so any happy clicker can go to town.
There's two points here I'm making that you missed.
1. Your standard Windows end user should have no problem using Linux with
the proper IT support. I now support several users that know nothing about
Linux. They have not problem after I get them set up with all the stuff
they need. From there and can access there machine if they ever need
help. The only catch here for me is I don't support a huge group, but I
sure adjustments can be made.
2. Nix is not that hard for any competent IT department to pick up.
Any company that wants to make the switch can easily hire a good Nix
hacker and get the whole thing running smoothly. I mean get real none of
this stuff is that hard. I teach people every day how to do things on nix
they once did on Windows. I myself have found many apps that I can't get
on Windows that I would trade for anything that Windows has. Plus the fact
that I can do many things a once on my nix that Windows would just choke
on.
P.S. Slackware should have been the first on that list of real Linux.
Justin Stanczak
> "Kadaitcha Man" <nos...@kadaitcha.cx> writes:
>
> ]Justin Stanczak wrote:
> ]> On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:04:39 -0700, maria quansett wrote:
>
> ]>> Do they even realize the immense amount of retraining required to
> ]>> move to Linux?
> ]>
> ]> Retraining??????? You need lesson on how to click a mouse? My god
> ]> it's not that big of a learning curve. I have may people change over
> ]> with little to no problem.
>
> ]Kadaitcha Man's First Law of Linux Fuckwittery: If you claim that Linux can
> ]be fully configured without recourse to the command line then not only are
> ]you making a false claim, you have never installed any Linux other than one
> ]that provides a dumbed down, default GUI installation with limited
> ]functionality, eg Xandros, Red Hat, SuSE, Knoppix et al. Try installing a
> ]real Linux, eg Debian, gentoo, etc, and see how far your fucking mouse gets
> ]you.
>
> ?? real Linux? If you want to use the gui, get a distro that uses the gui.
> If you are comfortable with command line use that. But this is all
> irrelevant. He was talking about the users, not the sysadmins, who
> presumably know how to type, and capable of using the command line.
THANK YOU!!! Exactly. I regularly use ssh with X11 forwarding so I can use
a nice GUI myself. It's awesome. So even the most unskilled admin should
have no trouble.
Justin Stanczak
Here let's make it simple for you. Let me layout your setup. You have
users that know nothing about computers. You have IT who don't know much
more. Your IT doesn't like to read or learn. As a matter of fact they may
not be able to read.
SOLUTION:
Hire one true *nix hacker to your company. Tell him/her you'd like to
switch to *nix and he/she has a one year contract. Six months later your
company is running a *nix and is doubled in production. At the end of that
contract your company (IT) is well trained in *nix and can't understand
how they ever got along without it. Mean while your IT staff now stays
busy supporting (Here I mean reinstalling because it crashes every week)
the two or three obscure apps that have to use Window, because the Vendor
of those productions are lazy. Now your IT has time for R&D to help
advance your company instead of always playing catch-up. All this done and
your IT didn't have to pick up a book.
So, you can see my point now. Windows is just fun to play with, but I'd
never support my company on it. Windows is better for small computer
repair shops. It helps keep there customers coming back, and I don't mean
in a good way.
novelle.vague
> So, you can see my point now. Windows is just fun to play with, but I'd
> never support my company on it. Windows is better for small computer
> repair shops. It helps keep there customers coming back, and I don't mean
> in a good way.
windopes is good for propping up MSFT share prices.
that's about all.
Peter Bilt
> Justin Stanczak wrote:
>
> > So, you can see my point now. Windows is just fun to play with, but I'd
> > never support my company on it. Windows is better for small computer
> > repair shops. It helps keep there customers coming back, and I don't mean
> > in a good way.
>
>
> windopes is good for propping up MSFT share prices.
>
> that's about all.
You're absolutely incorrect, Windows is the world standard operating
system, it runs the planet, except for a handfull of idiots like you.
Justin Stanczak
Whatever. Unix was running the world long, long, long before Windows was
ever a thought. Windows is the best known toy OS. Any real work is left to
OS's that can handle it. Windows is the most popular desktop for now, but
on the server that's a whole other story.
DFS
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 17:10:22 -0700, Peter Bilt wrote:
>
>> "novelle.vague" <godda...@cahiers.du.fr.prix.mono> wrote in
>> message news:<7002309.L...@news.west.earthlink.net>...
>>> Justin Stanczak wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, you can see my point now. Windows is just fun to play with,
>>>> but I'd never support my company on it. Windows is better for
>>>> small computer repair shops. It helps keep there customers coming
>>>> back, and I don't mean in a good way.
>>>
>>>
>>> windopes is good for propping up MSFT share prices.
>>>
>>> that's about all.
>>
>> You're absolutely incorrect, Windows is the world standard operating
>> system, it runs the planet, except for a handfull of idiots like you.
>
> Whatever. Unix was running the world long, long, long before Windows
> was ever a thought.
The operative words being "was running" The world is dropping Unix, and
adopting Windows and Linux (a FREE! Unix clone).
> Windows is the best known toy OS.
If you're talking Win95/98, maybe, but Win2000/XP/Server2000/3 are solid
platforms.
> Any real work is left to OS's that can handle it.
What kind of work is that?
"Upon placing any heavy I/O load on any of the disks (dd if=devd
of=/dev/null) the screen flashes a few times, and then the system locks
hard -- no sysrq, no control-alt-del, no pings, no nothing.
It will also hang and lock hard on fscking corrupted filesystems under
2.4.0 and 2.4.1."
http://seclists.org/linux-kernel/2001/Feb/0235.html
(before you begin whining about old kernels, save your breath. I know
everything's been fixed in kernel 2.6.5.minutes.ago)
> Windows is the most popular
> desktop for now, but on the server that's a whole other story.
Windows servers have a larger market share than Unix/Linux combined on the
server side, too. See Wired Magazine, June 2004, page 154.
Justin Stanczak
> Justin Stanczak wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 17:10:22 -0700, Peter Bilt wrote:
>>
>>> "novelle.vague" <godda...@cahiers.du.fr.prix.mono> wrote in
>>> message news:<7002309.L...@news.west.earthlink.net>...
>>>> Justin Stanczak wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So, you can see my point now. Windows is just fun to play with,
>>>>> but I'd never support my company on it. Windows is better for
>>>>> small computer repair shops. It helps keep there customers coming
>>>>> back, and I don't mean in a good way.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> windopes is good for propping up MSFT share prices.
>>>>
>>>> that's about all.
>>>
>>> You're absolutely incorrect, Windows is the world standard operating
>>> system, it runs the planet, except for a handfull of idiots like you.
>>
>> Whatever. Unix was running the world long, long, long before Windows
>> was ever a thought.
>
> The operative words being "was running" The world is dropping Unix, and
Yes, true the nix people let to much water run under the bridge. They
should have woke up sooner. Now the beast is alive and kickin.
> adopting Windows and Linux (a FREE! Unix clone).
Wrong. People are dropping Windows for a new age of Unix. No matter which
way you slice it Linux is pretty much Unix. Like the mainframe era Unix
will crush Windows. Here get some real proof. Who's ranked number 17 on
that list? That ain't no Linux. http://www.distrowatch.com/
It's retro, Unix is on it's way back. 2004 is the year MS starts hurting.
Feel the pain MS, burn baby, burn. Woops, got evil all of a sudden.
>
>
>> Windows is the best known toy OS.
>
> If you're talking Win95/98, maybe, but Win2000/XP/Server2000/3 are solid
> platforms.
NOT. I've ran all the NT stuff side by side and Windows was down in six
months.
>
>
>> Any real work is left to OS's that can handle it.
>
> What kind of work is that?
>
> "Upon placing any heavy I/O load on any of the disks (dd if=devd
> of=/dev/null) the screen flashes a few times, and then the system locks
> hard -- no sysrq, no control-alt-del, no pings, no nothing.
Doesn't do that for me. Maybe you need someone that knows *nix to fix it
for you.
>
> It will also hang and lock hard on fscking corrupted filesystems under
> 2.4.0 and 2.4.1."
>
> http://seclists.org/linux-kernel/2001/Feb/0235.html
>
> (before you begin whining about old kernels, save your breath. I know
> everything's been fixed in kernel 2.6.5.minutes.ago)
>
>
>> Windows is the most popular
>> desktop for now, but on the server that's a whole other story.
>
> Windows servers have a larger market share than Unix/Linux combined on
> the server side, too. See Wired Magazine, June 2004, page 154.
Ya, I remember Wired calling me on that survey, NOT. It has to be correct,
MS put in a lot of money to make sure it was fair.
I know where your coming from. Back in my Windows days I though it was the
bomb. I never though I'd be using anything else. Now I can figure out what
in the hell was wrong with me back then.
Raise your hand if your tired of paying a fat hog (MS) for an OS that
get's cracked every other day. If you raised your hand then your probably
using *nix.
Justin Stanczak
install on your Unix/Linux machine. No one will even remember that it once
was an OS.