[rant] Windows "professional"? My @$$!
rapskat
installing Windows vs. installing some distro of Linux is that installing
Windows is a big long arduous process entailing multiple reboots and lots
of user interaction (agreeing to EULA's, typing in keys, confirming,
etc). We're talking hours here, and that's hoping that you don't have to
install drivers.
For what exactly? When it's all said and done, what exactly do you have
to show for all that effort? Pretty much nothing! The base system,
replete with many unneeded and insecure services activated chewing up
resources, a crappy web browser, a malware propogation engine masquarading
as an email client/newsreader, a media player that doesn't play much
media, some games (probably the best part), a basic and "advanced" text
editor, and a lot of useless stuff to enhance your "experience".
I can install a distro of Linux in a matter of minutes with only *one*
reboot, and when it's done it will have a whole slew of
fully featured and useful applications in almost any category the desktop
user could want or need. Most if not all peripherals and devices will be
configured and setup ready to use. Not only that, but Linux just looks and
feels better on the same hardware as Windows.
I just don't fathom it, the software that you go out and pay mucho dinero
for, the supposed "professional" software that touted to be so easy to use
and advanced, just keeps proving to be less so than the software that you
can legally download for free.
When I install Windows, the system is pretty much useless for anything
else. But I can be installing Mepis and using the same system
to surf the web, read email, play a game or whatever on another desktop at
the same time! How exactly is Windows so much more "advanced" than this,
please explain it to me.
And can we talk about the whole updating thing? OMG! On Windows it's
this whole constant mess of install updates, reboot, more updates, reboot,
yet even more updates, reboot, ad infinitum WTF? Why the hell can't it
just be like Linux where you get all the updates you need in one fell
swoop, maybe reboot once when there done, and you're good? How exactly is
this more "advanced"?
Don't even get me started on the friggin' malware. Pity the poor person
who connects directly to the internet to get updates or whatever the first
time. Chances are they'll be infected before they even load the M$ Update
site! That's really some "professional" software there, isn't it? A
firewall that leaves gaping holes open for services you'll probably never
ever use (can you say "remote assistance"?). How about the default cache
settings for that pig of a browser, IE? Why the hell does it need to keep
GIGS of web cache, can somebody tell me that? And how many rollback
points does one need? Damned near a fifth of your entire drive taken up
just to keep backups that you won't be able to use anyway because they'll
be so malware infested you'll be worse off than before! What's the deal
with the "advanced" firewall that only works one way, incoming? What type
of firewall is that? That's like having a security guard in a department
store that only checks people coming into the store! BRAINDEAD!
What's the deal with the resource useage? You would think that 512M of
RAM would be more than enough for the system considering the whole install
image less than 500M itself, but no, it's swapping right from first bootup
even before anything else is loaded! Linux doesn't even touch swap until
it absolutely needs it. That's another thing, Windows boots, loads the
desktop, and yet it's still chugging away in the background for minutes
even after it's supposedly "fully loaded", why? When Linux shows my
desktop, it's done, no grinding, no chugging away in the background like a
deranged choo-choo train! It's ready to work right away.
You know what, if this is supposedly "professional" software, give me my
"amateur" Linux and OSS anyday and I'll take the money I saved to buy
some nice hardware to run it on!
--
rapskat - 01:40:21 up 6 days, 3:51, 4 users, load average: 0.79, 0.50, 0.64
I'm waiting for their "...for Fucking Morons" series.
- Stump on Slashdot, referring to a "for dummies" trademark dispute.
billwg
"rapskat" <rap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.08.27....@rapskat.com...
: Since I've been using Linux, the one big difference I've noticed from
: installing Windows vs. installing some distro of Linux is that installing
: Windows is a big long arduous process entailing multiple reboots and lots
: of user interaction (agreeing to EULA's, typing in keys, confirming,
: etc). We're talking hours here, and that's hoping that you don't have to
: install drivers.
You need to take a course in how to do it more effectively, rapskat! It is
an automatic process, you know, if you do it the right way. You put the CD
in the slot, give the install program the license key and tell it a few
things like the name you want to give the computer and what admin name and
password you want to use and voila! It churns away for a while, depending
on the speed of the machine you're installing XP on, and, when you hear the
Windows theme, you're done. Nothing to it.
Dealing with all the sysadmin stuff you need to do for linux may have
blinded you to the easy way! Read the manual, rapskat! LOL!!!
: For what exactly? When it's all said and done, what exactly do you have
: to show for all that effort? Pretty much nothing! The base system,
: replete with many unneeded and insecure services activated chewing up
: resources, a crappy web browser, a malware propogation engine masquarading
: as an email client/newsreader, a media player that doesn't play much
: media, some games (probably the best part), a basic and "advanced" text
: editor, and a lot of useless stuff to enhance your "experience".
:
Well, you've got the world's most popular browser and news/mail reader.
AFAIK, WMP is the most used media player on the planet, too. Do you use
anything else? Why?
I use the RealPlayer stuff for their formats, since you are pretty much
stuck with that. Also, I have the Apple thing, although I don't remember
why.
: I can install a distro of Linux in a matter of minutes with only *one*
: reboot, and when it's done it will have a whole slew of
: fully featured and useful applications in almost any category the desktop
: user could want or need. Most if not all peripherals and devices will be
: configured and setup ready to use. Not only that, but Linux just looks and
: feels better on the same hardware as Windows.
Well, I don't doubt that you get a lot of stuff, rapskat, but it seems so
home-spun mostly and lacks that certain look and finished feel. Plus most
of it has such strange names. It kind of makes you wonder where it has
been, if you know what I mean!
:
: I just don't fathom it, the software that you go out and pay mucho dinero
: for, the supposed "professional" software that touted to be so easy to use
: and advanced, just keeps proving to be less so than the software that you
: can legally download for free.
That is your opinion, of course, and it is not shared by very many people
when measured as a percentage of the computer using population. Fortunately
for Bill Gates and his friends, people like you are few and far between and
can safely be dismissed as whiners and cranks. The rest of the world has
more useful things to occupy their thoughts than fawning and fussing over
their OS platform software. Why don't you try just using one or the other
for some practical purpose? You will quickly see that they really don't
matter and getting on with your work is more important than worrying about
the platform.
:
: When I install Windows, the system is pretty much useless for anything
: else. But I can be installing Mepis and using the same system
: to surf the web, read email, play a game or whatever on another desktop at
: the same time! How exactly is Windows so much more "advanced" than this,
: please explain it to me.
Where is it said that anyone claimed to be "advanced"? Windows is fully
functional in all these regards and there is simply no need to do anything
else. What is there that cannot be done by the Windows software that comes
with the computer? If there were a reason to change, then maybe you would
have a point, but so far, all you are talking about is change for change's
sake. Rational people are going to think you are a nut, rapskat, and they
may very well be correct.
:
: And can we talk about the whole updating thing? OMG! On Windows it's
: this whole constant mess of install updates, reboot, more updates, reboot,
: yet even more updates, reboot, ad infinitum WTF? Why the hell can't it
: just be like Linux where you get all the updates you need in one fell
: swoop, maybe reboot once when there done, and you're good? How exactly is
: this more "advanced"?
It you would bother to learn about it, you would see where the Windows
method is indeed much more advanced than that of the home made linux. For
starters, Microsoft Corporation has made a substantial investment in an
on-line update service that can be set up to automatically install updates.
That's what I do with all my machines, i.e. set it and forget it.
Periodically, it brings down updates and installs them effortlessly in the
background, usually in the middle of the night while I am asleep. Perhaps
once in a month or two it will update something that touches on the core
system and requires a reboot to activate, but this, too, is done
automatically. Why would you want to do it any other way?
I know this is an expensive thing to run and that the linux companies have
very little funding to operate and so cannot afford to match Microsoft's
efforts, but other successful software companies do. Symantec and Intuit,
for example, offer similar silent and comprehensive update services to their
customers. All it takes is a little money, rapskat. You should join the
good guys and avail yourself of the myriad benefits that are available in
the professional software world!
:
: Don't even get me started on the friggin' malware. Pity the poor person
: who connects directly to the internet to get updates or whatever the first
: time. Chances are they'll be infected before they even load the M$ Update
: site! That's really some "professional" software there, isn't it? A
: firewall that leaves gaping holes open for services you'll probably never
: ever use (can you say "remote assistance"?). How about the default cache
: settings for that pig of a browser, IE? Why the hell does it need to keep
: GIGS of web cache, can somebody tell me that? And how many rollback
: points does one need? Damned near a fifth of your entire drive taken up
: just to keep backups that you won't be able to use anyway because they'll
: be so malware infested you'll be worse off than before! What's the deal
: with the "advanced" firewall that only works one way, incoming? What type
: of firewall is that? That's like having a security guard in a department
: store that only checks people coming into the store! BRAINDEAD!
:
I have heard this over and over as a sort of mantra voiced by the linuxers.
I think it must be something that they tell themselves over and over again
in order to convince themselves that they have made the right choice! It
seems kind of silly to me, but I can understand where you have to have some
kind of belief in a higher reward in order to put up with the shabby and
unfinished kind of software that OSS typically represents. Personally, I
don't have any problems in this regard. I can understand that the Symantec
AV software I use does take some CPU cycles, but I have so many! If you
look at the usage in the performance monitor utility applet, you are almost
always looking at a very low, if not zero, value.
There is certainly not any reason to go out of one's way to correct any such
problem, regardless of how vociferous the linux advocates are in asserting
this notion.
: What's the deal with the resource useage? You would think that 512M of
: RAM would be more than enough for the system considering the whole install
: image less than 500M itself, but no, it's swapping right from first bootup
: even before anything else is loaded! Linux doesn't even touch swap until
: it absolutely needs it. That's another thing, Windows boots, loads the
: desktop, and yet it's still chugging away in the background for minutes
: even after it's supposedly "fully loaded", why? When Linux shows my
: desktop, it's done, no grinding, no chugging away in the background like a
: deranged choo-choo train! It's ready to work right away.
:
But work on what, rapskat? It seems to me, from reading the COLA postings,
that linux fans are mostly occupied with replacing their one "distro" with
another in some never-ending search for some Holy Grail of kernels or
whatever. Windows XP Pro came with this IBM Intelllistation Z-Pro computer
that I am using at the moment and I have done nothing for a couple of years
beyond my originally checking the Autoupdate enable box. I did have to
re-OK the specific installation of the SP2 upgrade and I did have to disable
the integral firewall since I have a wireless router also, but that has been
the extent of my needs to adminster the machine.
If your hobby is being an ersatz unix sysadmin, I can see where this isn't
much fun for you, but it is sufficient to keep a Windows machine up and
running at peak efficiency. Nothing to it if you know how!
:
: You know what, if this is supposedly "professional" software, give me my
: "amateur" Linux and OSS anyday and I'll take the money I saved to buy
: some nice hardware to run it on!
:
Perhaps you can do that with what you are using for hardware, rapskat, but I
don't know how to get an IBM Intellistation Z-Pro without XP Pro to begin
with, since IBM wouldn't sell it piecemeal. The same thing holds true for
the Dell systems that I have at the office.
:
r.e.b...@usa.net
> Since I've been using Linux, the one big difference I've noticed from
> installing Windows vs. installing some distro of Linux is that installing
> Windows is a big long arduous process entailing multiple reboots and lots
> of user interaction (agreeing to EULA's, typing in keys, confirming,
> etc). We're talking hours here, and that's hoping that you don't have to
> install drivers.
Linux has forced Microsoft to improve these situtations. Microsoft has
also attempted to avoid direct comparisons between installing Windows
on a machine that might not be optimized for that version of Windows
and installing Linux on a machine that might at least be compatible.
Even here in COLA, one of the most popular attacks on Linux is to focus
on the difficulty of installing Linux on machines configurations which
were documented as being unsupported by Linux.
Windows NT was notorious for the need to completely reboot the
operating system everytime you reinstalled anything. Windows 2000 and
Windows XP have become progressively better, mostly because most
Microsoft products have the bulk of their support libraries
preinstalled. Of course, there are those frequent critical security
patches that insists on forcing you to reboot your system, but even
then, they at least let you know that you need to reboot and they let
you delay the reboot if necessary.
Personally, I prefer Windows 2000 to Windows XP, but like so many
others, I don't have the choice of which operating system comes with
the machine provided by my corporation or the one included by the OEM.
I'm not willing to spend $300 to put Windows 2000 into a laptop I
purchased for $700, especially since it may have hardware not supported
by Windows 2000 and may not have drivers for Windows 2000.
One thing I have been finding works very well is to use VMWare to ADD
Linux to my system. I have a 2 Ghz laptop with a low resolution
display which can run Linux. I can use Cygwin with X11 to run the
Linux applications from the Windows desktop platform. In addition, I
have many of the core functions of Linux with Cygwin.
The best thing about using VMWare is that I can move the VMWare Image
from machine to machine, and I can back up a fully configured image.
This is really important when I'm doing a bunch of third-party products
such as WebSphere, WBI, WebMethods, and other high-end software
packages. The other advantage is that I don't have to fuss with
compatibility issues. At the same time, I still have Windows when I
really need it. Unfortunately, I still have certain applications which
ONLY run under Windows and/or IE.
> For what exactly? When it's all said and done, what exactly do you have
> to show for all that effort? Pretty much nothing! The base system,
> replete with many unneeded and insecure services activated chewing up
> resources, a crappy web browser, a malware propogation engine masquarading
> as an email client/newsreader, a media player that doesn't play much
> media, some games (probably the best part), a basic and "advanced" text
> editor, and a lot of useless stuff to enhance your "experience".
I'm getting "acceptable" performance. Of course, I have 1.6 Ghz
processor and 1.5 GB of RAM. That's enough to make Windows XP perform
almost as well as Linux on a slower and smaller machine. Of course, I
shouldn't really tell you that, because you might switch to Linux and
decide you don't need a bigger faster computer. Of course, if you DO
have a 4 Ghz AMD-64 machine with 4G of RAM, you can be pretty happy
with Linux.
The biggest problem with both Linux and Windows is that the initial
launch of an application requires many disk I/O operations to read from
configuration files into the registry whether that is the Windows
registry or the xrdb resource database registry. This makes reboot
VERY undesirable for either system.
> I can install a distro of Linux in a matter of minutes with only *one*
> reboot, and when it's done it will have a whole slew of
> fully featured and useful applications in almost any category the desktop
> user could want or need. Most if not all peripherals and devices will be
> configured and setup ready to use. Not only that, but Linux just looks and
> feels better on the same hardware as Windows.
The important qualifier here is that you have a machine that is "Linux
compatible" or "Linux Friendly". I'm very careful to make sure that
any machine I purchase is "Linux friendly". I'll often pass up some
DirectX based box and choose an OpenGL based display instead, because I
know that is MUCH better for running Linux.
> I just don't fathom it, the software that you go out and pay mucho dinero
> for, the supposed "professional" software that touted to be so easy to use
> and advanced, just keeps proving to be less so than the software that you
> can legally download for free.
What I like best about Linux is that I can get the best of both worlds.
I can get Eclipse for free, but when I'm doing a consulting gig and
need software that's acceptable for production environments, I can
install WebSphere and have full J2EE support. This is really nice when
I want to test and prototype on Linux and then deploy to Solaris,
HP_UX, or AIX.
> When I install Windows, the system is pretty much useless for anything
> else. But I can be installing Mepis and using the same system
> to surf the web, read email, play a game or whatever on another desktop at
> the same time! How exactly is Windows so much more "advanced" than this,
> please explain it to me.
Even better is when you install Windows on Bochs. You have to purchase
a machine that has an OEM Windows license, but you can install that
version of Windows (or an earier version if you have "downgrade"
media), and you end up with the best of both Windows and Linux. More
important, you can keep Windows from hogging all of your resources.
One of the down-sides to using Windows as the "core" or "host"
operating system is that you have a hard time keeping Windows from
grabbing all of your memory and hard drive.
> And can we talk about the whole updating thing? OMG! On Windows it's
> this whole constant mess of install updates, reboot, more updates, reboot,
> yet even more updates, reboot, ad infinitum WTF? Why the hell can't it
> just be like Linux where you get all the updates you need in one fell
> swoop, maybe reboot once when there done, and you're good? How exactly is
> this more "advanced"?
Microsoft is just trying to provide a service similar to the update
services that have been offered by Mandrake, SuSE, and Red Hat since
about the same time that Windows NT 4.0 was released. Microsoft tests
their upgrades and tests against only their own products. They don't
seem to care if their upgrades damage 3rd party products for which you
might have paid $hundreds or even $thousands. Microsoft seems to be
particularly fond of patches that have the undesirable side-effect of
disabling competitor products such as RealMedia player, QuickTime
player, Yahoo IM, Lotus Notes, Netscape, and some uncertified device
drivers.
I'm sure that Microsoft would never delibrately release software that
would sabotage such third party competitior software, especially since
there is supposed to be a compliance comittee policing for such
deliberate sabotage, but it seems that Microsoft is not required to
test it's patches either.
> Don't even get me started on the friggin' malware. Pity the poor person
> who connects directly to the internet to get updates or whatever the first
> time. Chances are they'll be infected before they even load the M$ Update
> site!
One report claims that it now takes less than 12 minutes to infect a PC
with some form of malware. Of course some of these are "Good" viruses
such as spyware and other "big brother" services which are installed by
corporate interests. These are installed using the same technology as
viruses and worms, but are ignored by antivirus software because they
have been "sponsored" or "signed".
Ironically, I've even seen spyware and malware installed by the
anti-spyware programs. What's really fun is to install two
anti-spyware packages and watch them try to remove each other's
"sponsored" spyware.
George Orwell would be completely vindicated. By 2004, his vision of
1984 was a reality. The irony is that Bill Gates outlined his plan to
create this reality at the end of 1984.
> That's really some "professional" software there, isn't it? A
> firewall that leaves gaping holes open for services you'll probably never
> ever use (can you say "remote assistance"?).
Microsoft won't close those holes because they want to make sure that
you aren't stealing their software. In addition, if they find out that
you have stolen someone else's software, such as WinZip, Acrobat, or
any other unregistered shareware, they can blackmail your CIO into
signing more "blank check" contracts. Microsoft recently decided that
they will be charging for an upgrade to Servers - because they want
more revenue. They just decided that instead of a free service pack,
they will charge for it as a release upgrade.
Looks to me like Linux is really cutting into Microsoft's revenue and
this is Microsoft's way of forcing OEMs and CIOs to keep paying the
same amount of annual revenue regardless of what service they are using
or not using.
> How about the default cache
> settings for that pig of a browser, IE? Why the hell does it need to keep
> GIGS of web cache, can somebody tell me that? And how many rollback
> points does one need? Damned near a fifth of your entire drive taken up
> just to keep backups that you won't be able to use anyway because they'll
> be so malware infested you'll be worse off than before!
Again, Microsoft had to provide a placebo to compete with the back-up
capabilities of Linux. Linux was designed to support reliable back-up
and restore, and can very predictably be restored. Microsoft has to at
least "claim" to be recoverable. Unfortunately, because backup is so
difficult and time consuming, a laptop crash and re-image will now
usually mean a loss of over 1 week of productivity. Fortunately, with
Windows XP, such reimages are only necessary 1-4 times per year
depending on how agressively the computer is used and how much
third-party software is installed and how many viruses and spyware have
installed themselves.
> What's the deal
> with the "advanced" firewall that only works one way, incoming? What type
> of firewall is that? That's like having a security guard in a department
> store that only checks people coming into the store! BRAINDEAD!
My understanding is that SP2 also blocks outbound connections as well,
especially connections that are outbound to competitors to Microsoft
products, such as alternative instant messaging, multimedia sites, and
other competitor sites to MSN. I'm sure this was not deliberate, after
all, the compliance committee is supposed to be preventing any
deliberate anticompetitive actions such as firewalls that block access
to competitors.
> What's the deal with the resource useage? You would think that 512M of
> RAM would be more than enough for the system considering the whole install
> image less than 500M itself, but no, it's swapping right from first bootup
> even before anything else is loaded! Linux doesn't even touch swap until
> it absolutely needs it. That's another thing, Windows boots, loads the
> desktop, and yet it's still chugging away in the background for minutes
> even after it's supposedly "fully loaded", why? When Linux shows my
> desktop, it's done, no grinding, no chugging away in the background like a
> deranged choo-choo train! It's ready to work right away.
This was one of the Windows XP strategic "features". Linux was booting
so much faster than Windows NT 4.0 that Microsoft redesigned the boot
sequence so that the display comes up as quickly as possible. You
can't actually do anything for several minutes, but because you see a
nice comforting display, it appears that Windows is booting faster than
Linux.
Much of what is happening after the first display of the desktop is
network configuration and loading of all of the DLLs required to run IE
and MS-Office.
Again, this is so that when you start MS-Office it will start almost
immediately, but if you try to start other Office software, such as
OpenOffice on Windows, you will have to wait for the app to install its
DLLs. I have about 26 "systems" that "pre-load" their libraries and
other utilities, even if I never actually start the services or launch
the application.
I can do something similar with Linux, for example preloading all of
the fonts into the X11 server, and loading all app-defaults into the
xrdb. In addition, I can set sticky bits on some applications that
will load most of the windows DLLs. That will force as much as
possible into memory, but it defeates the memory optimization built
into Linux.
The down-side of course, is that when I first start a new application,
I will need to wait several seconds while the libraries, resources, and
pretty scalable fonts get loaded.
> You know what, if this is supposedly "professional" software, give me my
> "amateur" Linux and OSS anyday and I'll take the money I saved to buy
> some nice hardware to run it on!
You have to remember, Linux has the "unfair" advantage of having the
experience of UNIX workstations that once cost as much as $50,000 for
the same resolution and quality now available on a $700 laptop.
Microsoft has always had to very carefully avoid too much exposure to
Linux and UNIX, which means that they didn't even have the social
culture that placed the emphasis on reliability, security,
recoverability, and remote support. These are new concepts to
Microsoft.
What Microsoft does very well, which Linux really needs to improve on,
is providing outstanding "help" capabilities and simplified
installation of 3rd party software. As much as we might joke about the
dancing paper clip, Windows users are used to being able to get
hand-holding at every level from the first attempt at installation to
the final stages of publication of a document.
Newer Linux applications have become much better at managing help, but
one of the advantages if Linux is that the "help" functions can be
decoupled from the application. I can run the "core" functions from
the command line, but I can purchase commercial software or shareware
that gives me a nice friendly graphical user interface, complete with
all of the context sensitive help I could ever want.
Microsoft needs to learn to package these "core" functions in a
streamlined form. One of the hardest parts about managing Windows
environments is the inability to script core functions, especially such
things as back-up, recovery, and configuration. To get a full
"snapshot" of a Windows configuration, you need to completely disable
the running system, and run something that can back up the core image.
This can be Norton Ghost or Knoppix image copies.
Of course, the core image can only be used on the machine for which it
was configured. This can be a serious problem if the machine to be
recovered has actually been replaced.
Neither Windows, nor Linux is a true panacea, each has advantages over
the other, but most people simply never have the opportunity to make an
informed choice. Microsoft is doing everything it possibly can, legal
or otherwise, to make sure that you never walk into CompUSA and see a
Linux machine sitting next to a Windows machine so that you can compare
and make an informed decision. Microsoft will use it's EULA,
Nondisclosure agreements, and numerous other legal handcuffs to make
sure that no one else can perform such a side-by-side comparison and
publish it in a form and forum readable by most of the world's
population (Germany has ruled that such restrictions on comparisons and
benchmarks is fraud, but the reports can only be published in German).
Kier
>
> "rapskat" <rap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.08.27....@rapskat.com...
> : Since I've been using Linux, the one big difference I've noticed from
> : installing Windows vs. installing some distro of Linux is that installing
> : Windows is a big long arduous process entailing multiple reboots and lots
> : of user interaction (agreeing to EULA's, typing in keys, confirming,
> : etc). We're talking hours here, and that's hoping that you don't have to
> : install drivers.
> :
> You need to take a course in how to do it more effectively, rapskat! It is
> an automatic process, you know, if you do it the right way. You put the CD
> in the slot, give the install program the license key and tell it a few
> things like the name you want to give the computer and what admin name and
> password you want to use and voila! It churns away for a while, depending
> on the speed of the machine you're installing XP on, and, when you hear the
> Windows theme, you're done. Nothing to it.
>
> Dealing with all the sysadmin stuff you need to do for linux may have
> blinded you to the easy way! Read the manual, rapskat! LOL!!!
You're an idiot.
>
> : For what exactly? When it's all said and done, what exactly do you have
> : to show for all that effort? Pretty much nothing! The base system,
> : replete with many unneeded and insecure services activated chewing up
> : resources, a crappy web browser, a malware propogation engine masquarading
> : as an email client/newsreader, a media player that doesn't play much
> : media, some games (probably the best part), a basic and "advanced" text
> : editor, and a lot of useless stuff to enhance your "experience".
> :
> Well, you've got the world's most popular browser and news/mail reader.
> AFAIK, WMP is the most used media player on the planet, too. Do you use
> anything else? Why?
Because they're better, more secure, more useful. Most used doesn't always
mean 'best'.
>
> I use the RealPlayer stuff for their formats, since you are pretty much
> stuck with that. Also, I have the Apple thing, although I don't remember
> why.
Linux users have RealPlayer, too, but we don't really need it, nor
Quicktime player, because you can get the same functions from several
Linux players. MPlayer will play just about anything you can throw at it,
and it takes up a good deal less space than WMP.
And to get the best out of WMP, you still have to know what to do with it.
A young workmate of mine can't even get his girlfriend's laptop install
of Windows Media Player to deal with Mp3s that he can put on his phone.
>
> : I can install a distro of Linux in a matter of minutes with only *one*
> : reboot, and when it's done it will have a whole slew of
> : fully featured and useful applications in almost any category the desktop
> : user could want or need. Most if not all peripherals and devices will be
> : configured and setup ready to use. Not only that, but Linux just looks and
> : feels better on the same hardware as Windows.
>
> Well, I don't doubt that you get a lot of stuff, rapskat, but it seems so
> home-spun mostly and lacks that certain look and finished feel. Plus most
> of it has such strange names. It kind of makes you wonder where it has
> been, if you know what I mean!
Yes, we know that you mean to insult us with this garbage. Produced by
non-professionals doesn't mean it it rubbish, or badly finished. And looks
aren't everything. In the end , function is what counts. The best-looking
program in the world is useless if it doesn't work.
>
> :
> : I just don't fathom it, the software that you go out and pay mucho dinero
> : for, the supposed "professional" software that touted to be so easy to use
> : and advanced, just keeps proving to be less so than the software that you
> : can legally download for free.
>
> That is your opinion, of course, and it is not shared by very many people
> when measured as a percentage of the computer using population. Fortunately
> for Bill Gates and his friends, people like you are few and far between and
> can safely be dismissed as whiners and cranks.
No, we're not few and far between, and we're not whiners and cranks. And
most particularly are we not safe to dismiss. Certainly MS doesn't think
so.
> The rest of the world has
> more useful things to occupy their thoughts than fawning and fussing over
> their OS platform software. Why don't you try just using one or the other
> for some practical purpose?
What do you think it is we do?
> You will quickly see that they really don't
> matter and getting on with your work is more important than worrying about
> the platform.
Then why are you here whining and crying about how poor Linux is? Why
aren't you out using your platform and leaving us to use and promote ours?
> :
> : When I install Windows, the system is pretty much useless for anything
> : else. But I can be installing Mepis and using the same system
> : to surf the web, read email, play a game or whatever on another desktop at
> : the same time! How exactly is Windows so much more "advanced" than this,
> : please explain it to me.
>
> Where is it said that anyone claimed to be "advanced"? Windows is fully
> functional in all these regards and there is simply no need to do anything
> else. What is there that cannot be done by the Windows software that comes
> with the computer?
Quite a lot. Can you develop on it, without installing or purchasing extra
software? Can you do any image manipulation, or maybe create videos.
Unless you have XP Pro, you can't even play a DVD without third party
software. Desktop publishing? Don't think so. There's plenty you can't do
on Windows that we can do on Linux, straight after installation. And if we
want more software, all we need to do is install it
> If there were a reason to change, then maybe you would
> have a point, but so far, all you are talking about is change for change's
> sake. Rational people are going to think you are a nut, rapskat, and they
> may very well be correct.
Don't be ridiculous. There *is* a reason to change, in fact, many reasons.
They may not apply to everyone, but they certainly apply to a good number
of users. You are trying to pretend that Linux users are not rational, but
of course you are lying.
> :
> : And can we talk about the whole updating thing? OMG! On Windows it's
> : this whole constant mess of install updates, reboot, more updates, reboot,
> : yet even more updates, reboot, ad infinitum WTF? Why the hell can't it
> : just be like Linux where you get all the updates you need in one fell
> : swoop, maybe reboot once when there done, and you're good? How exactly is
> : this more "advanced"?
>
> It you would bother to learn about it, you would see where the Windows
> method is indeed much more advanced than that of the home made linux.
Linux is not 'home made'. And perhaps you'd actually like to explain how
Windows is so much more advanced in this regard.
> For
> starters, Microsoft Corporation has made a substantial investment in an
> on-line update service that can be set up to automatically install updates.
> That's what I do with all my machines, i.e. set it and forget it.
Do you honestly imagine Linux users can't do the same?
> Periodically, it brings down updates and installs them effortlessly in the
> background, usually in the middle of the night while I am asleep. Perhaps
> once in a month or two it will update something that touches on the core
> system and requires a reboot to activate, but this, too, is done
> automatically. Why would you want to do it any other way?
Who says Linux users do?
>
> I know this is an expensive thing to run and that the linux companies have
> very little funding to operate and so cannot afford to match Microsoft's
> efforts, but other successful software companies do. Symantec and Intuit,
> for example, offer similar silent and comprehensive update services to their
> customers. All it takes is a little money, rapskat. You should join the
> good guys and avail yourself of the myriad benefits that are available in
> the professional software world!
You talk the most utter bilge. It seems you are far more ignorant than I
thought. Linux users can update their software easily and simply without
paying at all, if they wish.
> :
> : Don't even get me started on the friggin' malware. Pity the poor person
> : who connects directly to the internet to get updates or whatever the first
> : time. Chances are they'll be infected before they even load the M$ Update
> : site! That's really some "professional" software there, isn't it? A
> : firewall that leaves gaping holes open for services you'll probably never
> : ever use (can you say "remote assistance"?). How about the default cache
> : settings for that pig of a browser, IE? Why the hell does it need to keep
> : GIGS of web cache, can somebody tell me that? And how many rollback
> : points does one need? Damned near a fifth of your entire drive taken up
> : just to keep backups that you won't be able to use anyway because they'll
> : be so malware infested you'll be worse off than before! What's the deal
> : with the "advanced" firewall that only works one way, incoming? What type
> : of firewall is that? That's like having a security guard in a department
> : store that only checks people coming into the store! BRAINDEAD!
> :
> I have heard this over and over as a sort of mantra voiced by the linuxers.
> I think it must be something that they tell themselves over and over again
> in order to convince themselves that they have made the right choice!
No. Rapskat is right.
> It
> seems kind of silly to me, but I can understand where you have to have some
> kind of belief in a higher reward in order to put up with the shabby and
> unfinished kind of software that OSS typically represents.
You had better have so proof to offer, or you had better shut your trap.
Linux software is not shabby, and if it is unfinished, that is because it
is still in active development, not because it is bad.
> Personally, I
> don't have any problems in this regard. I can understand that the Symantec
> AV software I use does take some CPU cycles, but I have so many! If you
> look at the usage in the performance monitor utility applet, you are almost
> always looking at a very low, if not zero, value.
>
> There is certainly not any reason to go out of one's way to correct any such
> problem, regardless of how vociferous the linux advocates are in asserting
> this notion.
What the hell are you babbling about? Why don't you ever talk sensibly,
instead of spilling out this tripe?
>
> : What's the deal with the resource useage? You would think that 512M of
> : RAM would be more than enough for the system considering the whole install
> : image less than 500M itself, but no, it's swapping right from first bootup
> : even before anything else is loaded! Linux doesn't even touch swap until
> : it absolutely needs it. That's another thing, Windows boots, loads the
> : desktop, and yet it's still chugging away in the background for minutes
> : even after it's supposedly "fully loaded", why? When Linux shows my
> : desktop, it's done, no grinding, no chugging away in the background like a
> : deranged choo-choo train! It's ready to work right away.
> :
> But work on what, rapskat? It seems to me, from reading the COLA postings,
> that linux fans are mostly occupied with replacing their one "distro" with
> another in some never-ending search for some Holy Grail of kernels or
> whatever.
You must be reading a different group from me. So some Linux users like to
change around from time to time. Others pick out their distro, and stick
to it. There is also the factor that not all distros are for power users,
so when a user gets more experienced, they may wish to move up to a distro
which is more suited to their experience-level.
> Windows XP Pro came with this IBM Intelllistation Z-Pro computer
> that I am using at the moment and I have done nothing for a couple of years
> beyond my originally checking the Autoupdate enable box. I did have to
> re-OK the specific installation of the SP2 upgrade and I did have to disable
> the integral firewall since I have a wireless router also, but that has been
> the extent of my needs to adminster the machine.
And this proves exactly what?
>
> If your hobby is being an ersatz unix sysadmin, I can see where this isn't
> much fun for you, but it is sufficient to keep a Windows machine up and
> running at peak efficiency. Nothing to it if you know how!
What are you talking about? Where has he said anything about hobbies?
> :
> : You know what, if this is supposedly "professional" software, give me my
> : "amateur" Linux and OSS anyday and I'll take the money I saved to buy
> : some nice hardware to run it on!
> :
> Perhaps you can do that with what you are using for hardware, rapskat, but I
> don't know how to get an IBM Intellistation Z-Pro without XP Pro to begin
> with, since IBM wouldn't sell it piecemeal. The same thing holds true for
> the Dell systems that I have at the office.
So? What does that have to do with anything?
--
Kier
Linønut
> Personally, I prefer Windows 2000 to Windows XP, but like so many
> others, I don't have the choice of which operating system comes with
> the machine provided by my corporation or the one included by the OEM.
> I'm not willing to spend $300 to put Windows 2000 into a laptop I
> purchased for $700, especially since it may have hardware not supported
> by Windows 2000 and may not have drivers for Windows 2000.
This is where Billy and Balmy have the market by the balls. It is the
only reason morons like OK can claim that there are 750 million users
(how apt) of Windows.
> This was one of the Windows XP strategic "features". Linux was booting
> so much faster than Windows NT 4.0 that Microsoft redesigned the boot
> sequence so that the display comes up as quickly as possible. You
> can't actually do anything for several minutes, but because you see a
> nice comforting display, it appears that Windows is booting faster than
> Linux.
Ain't that the truth.
> Much of what is happening after the first display of the desktop is
> network configuration and loading of all of the DLLs required to run IE
> and MS-Office.
Ain't that the truth.
> Neither Windows, nor Linux is a true panacea, each has advantages over
> the other, but most people simply never have the opportunity to make an
> informed choice. Microsoft is doing everything it possibly can, legal
> or otherwise, to make sure that you never walk into CompUSA and see a
> Linux machine sitting next to a Windows machine so that you can compare
> and make an informed decision. Microsoft will use it's EULA,
> Nondisclosure agreements, and numerous other legal handcuffs to make
> sure that no one else can perform such a side-by-side comparison and
> publish it in a form and forum readable by most of the world's
> population (Germany has ruled that such restrictions on comparisons and
> benchmarks is fraud, but the reports can only be published in German).
Rex, what do you make of Martin Taylor (of Microsoft) attempting to
partner with the ODSL in some "realistic" comparisons?
Sounds to me like Microsoft wants to lure the ODSL into its favorite
wrestling arena -- highly-subsidized "benchmarks" slanted to favor
Microsoft software.
In other words, Microsoft, seeing that Linux is not a single competitor
that it can torpedo, wants to make it one.
--
Linux - A most satisfying eXPerience
billwg
"Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.08.27....@tiscali.co.uk...
No, Kier, you are an idiot. So there!
:
: >
: > : For what exactly? When it's all said and done, what exactly do you
have
: > : to show for all that effort? Pretty much nothing! The base system,
: > : replete with many unneeded and insecure services activated chewing up
: > : resources, a crappy web browser, a malware propogation engine
masquarading
: > : as an email client/newsreader, a media player that doesn't play much
: > : media, some games (probably the best part), a basic and "advanced"
text
: > : editor, and a lot of useless stuff to enhance your "experience".
: > :
: > Well, you've got the world's most popular browser and news/mail reader.
: > AFAIK, WMP is the most used media player on the planet, too. Do you use
: > anything else? Why?
:
: Because they're better, more secure, more useful. Most used doesn't always
: mean 'best'.
Well, Kier, I have tried these OSS things and I say they are not as good as
the freebies that come with Windows. The Thunderbird newsreader threads very
poorly and makes it difficult to follow a series of posts. The others are
worse.
Why do you schmoes waste so much time re-inventing the wheel anyway?
Firefox is a lot of work for no real gain. It would be far easier to add to
IE where you see a deficiency than to try to replace so much function that
does not affect anything. That seems wasteful and stupid to me. You use
the terms "more useful" and "better" alll the time, but you never provide a
standard of comparison. The only thing that I can see is that you OSSers,
as a community, are so damn cheap and so lacking of means that the little
bit of money that is charged for commercial products is a big issue with
you. You are a bunch of freeloaders dependent on the presumed vanity of a
few programmers who cannot satisfy their egos with a real job so they create
cults of people like you who are eager for the opportunity. I think you are
a bunch of silly geese.
:
: >
: > I use the RealPlayer stuff for their formats, since you are pretty much
: > stuck with that. Also, I have the Apple thing, although I don't
remember
: > why.
:
: Linux users have RealPlayer, too, but we don't really need it, nor
: Quicktime player, because you can get the same functions from several
: Linux players. MPlayer will play just about anything you can throw at it,
: and it takes up a good deal less space than WMP.
:
There are some many thousands of media players available in the OSS and
shareware and payware and adware environment, Kier. So what? WMP plays all
the MP3s that seem to be about. Why bother with any other player?
: And to get the best out of WMP, you still have to know what to do with it.
: A young workmate of mine can't even get his girlfriend's laptop install
: of Windows Media Player to deal with Mp3s that he can put on his phone.
:
Sounds contrived to me, Kier, but so what? Consider that this issue is not
very predominant.
: >
: > : I can install a distro of Linux in a matter of minutes with only *one*
: > : reboot, and when it's done it will have a whole slew of
: > : fully featured and useful applications in almost any category the
desktop
: > : user could want or need. Most if not all peripherals and devices will
be
: > : configured and setup ready to use. Not only that, but Linux just looks
and
: > : feels better on the same hardware as Windows.
: >
: > Well, I don't doubt that you get a lot of stuff, rapskat, but it seems
so
: > home-spun mostly and lacks that certain look and finished feel. Plus
most
: > of it has such strange names. It kind of makes you wonder where it has
: > been, if you know what I mean!
:
: Yes, we know that you mean to insult us with this garbage. Produced by
: non-professionals doesn't mean it it rubbish, or badly finished. And looks
: aren't everything. In the end , function is what counts. The best-looking
: program in the world is useless if it doesn't work.
:
Look at the vast wasteland of incomplete garbage in the OSS world, Kier.
You may try to take pride in it, but that is a fool's tactic.
: >
: > :
: > : I just don't fathom it, the software that you go out and pay mucho
dinero
: > : for, the supposed "professional" software that touted to be so easy to
use
: > : and advanced, just keeps proving to be less so than the software that
you
: > : can legally download for free.
: >
: > That is your opinion, of course, and it is not shared by very many
people
: > when measured as a percentage of the computer using population.
Fortunately
: > for Bill Gates and his friends, people like you are few and far between
and
: > can safely be dismissed as whiners and cranks.
:
: No, we're not few and far between, and we're not whiners and cranks. And
: most particularly are we not safe to dismiss. Certainly MS doesn't think
: so.
How do you know what MS thinks, Kier? Did some linuxer tell you? You
bumpkins tell one another that you strike fear in the hearts of Gates and
Ballmer, but you are just whistling past the graveyard, hoping there is no
such thing as a ghost. I realize that some such story is important to your
morale, but you are just fooling yourselves!
:
: > The rest of the world has
: > more useful things to occupy their thoughts than fawning and fussing
over
: > their OS platform software. Why don't you try just using one or the
other
: > for some practical purpose?
:
: What do you think it is we do?
Mostly sit around and bitch about MS, Kier.
:
: > You will quickly see that they really don't
: > matter and getting on with your work is more important than worrying
about
: > the platform.
:
: Then why are you here whining and crying about how poor Linux is? Why
: aren't you out using your platform and leaving us to use and promote ours?
I do this for sport and relaxation, Kier. Why do you?
:
: > :
: > : When I install Windows, the system is pretty much useless for anything
: > : else. But I can be installing Mepis and using the same system
: > : to surf the web, read email, play a game or whatever on another
desktop at
: > : the same time! How exactly is Windows so much more "advanced" than
this,
: > : please explain it to me.
: >
: > Where is it said that anyone claimed to be "advanced"? Windows is fully
: > functional in all these regards and there is simply no need to do
anything
: > else. What is there that cannot be done by the Windows software that
comes
: > with the computer?
:
: Quite a lot. Can you develop on it, without installing or purchasing extra
: software? Can you do any image manipulation, or maybe create videos.
: Unless you have XP Pro, you can't even play a DVD without third party
: software. Desktop publishing? Don't think so. There's plenty you can't do
: on Windows that we can do on Linux, straight after installation. And if we
: want more software, all we need to do is install it
Well, Kier, my PC came with all that stuff on it. Granted that some of it
was not made by Microsoft, but IBM provided a DVD burner package and other
odds and ends, including the Lotus Office suite. I uninstalled that. You
can, of course, use everything that I am aware of that is even remotely
worth using from the OSS pile under Windows as well as linux. I suspect
that there is a lot of OSS warez that only work with Windows.
Development software is not a problem for me, since I have an MSDN
subscription. If you don't write code, you don't need a development system
at all, which is pretty much the normal case and if you do, you would want
the more refined VS products. I have a copy of Delphi 2005, BTW. It is not
as good as VS.
:
: > If there were a reason to change, then maybe you would
: > have a point, but so far, all you are talking about is change for
change's
: > sake. Rational people are going to think you are a nut, rapskat, and
they
: > may very well be correct.
:
: Don't be ridiculous. There *is* a reason to change, in fact, many reasons.
: They may not apply to everyone, but they certainly apply to a good number
: of users. You are trying to pretend that Linux users are not rational, but
: of course you are lying.
:
I am saying no such thing, Kier. You are letting your biases color your
perceptions. In terms of percentages, "a good number of users" becomes
"next to no one". That's a fact.
:
: > :
: > : And can we talk about the whole updating thing? OMG! On Windows it's
: > : this whole constant mess of install updates, reboot, more updates,
reboot,
: > : yet even more updates, reboot, ad infinitum WTF? Why the hell can't
it
: > : just be like Linux where you get all the updates you need in one fell
: > : swoop, maybe reboot once when there done, and you're good? How
exactly is
: > : this more "advanced"?
: >
: > It you would bother to learn about it, you would see where the Windows
: > method is indeed much more advanced than that of the home made linux.
:
: Linux is not 'home made'. And perhaps you'd actually like to explain how
: Windows is so much more advanced in this regard.
:
: > For
: > starters, Microsoft Corporation has made a substantial investment in an
: > on-line update service that can be set up to automatically install
updates.
: > That's what I do with all my machines, i.e. set it and forget it.
:
: Do you honestly imagine Linux users can't do the same?
So how do you set up automatic updates for your favorite distribution? I've
loaded RHEL, RH9, Mandrake, Corel, and SUSE at various times and I have
never seen anything like it.
:
: > Periodically, it brings down updates and installs them effortlessly in
the
: > background, usually in the middle of the night while I am asleep.
Perhaps
: > once in a month or two it will update something that touches on the core
: > system and requires a reboot to activate, but this, too, is done
: > automatically. Why would you want to do it any other way?
:
: Who says Linux users do?
:
: >
: > I know this is an expensive thing to run and that the linux companies
have
: > very little funding to operate and so cannot afford to match Microsoft's
: > efforts, but other successful software companies do. Symantec and
Intuit,
: > for example, offer similar silent and comprehensive update services to
their
: > customers. All it takes is a little money, rapskat. You should join
the
: > good guys and avail yourself of the myriad benefits that are available
in
: > the professional software world!
:
: You talk the most utter bilge. It seems you are far more ignorant than I
: thought. Linux users can update their software easily and simply without
: paying at all, if they wish.
But can they do it automatically at night without being there?
:
: > :
: > : Don't even get me started on the friggin' malware. Pity the poor
You keep telling yourself that, Kier, maybe someday you will actually
believe it!
:
: > It
: > seems kind of silly to me, but I can understand where you have to have
some
: > kind of belief in a higher reward in order to put up with the shabby and
: > unfinished kind of software that OSS typically represents.
:
: You had better have so proof to offer, or you had better shut your trap.
: Linux software is not shabby, and if it is unfinished, that is because it
: is still in active development, not because it is bad.
:
Is there a finished one somewhere?
: > Personally, I
: > don't have any problems in this regard. I can understand that the
Symantec
: > AV software I use does take some CPU cycles, but I have so many! If you
: > look at the usage in the performance monitor utility applet, you are
almost
: > always looking at a very low, if not zero, value.
: >
: > There is certainly not any reason to go out of one's way to correct any
such
: > problem, regardless of how vociferous the linux advocates are in
asserting
: > this notion.
:
: What the hell are you babbling about? Why don't you ever talk sensibly,
: instead of spilling out this tripe?
:
I have no problem with malware, Kier. You are relying on a presumption that
Windows users will have such a bad experience that they will want to switch
to linux to avoid that problem. You are not correct as evidenced by the
fact that the consumer is not switching.
: >
: > : What's the deal with the resource useage? You would think that 512M
That there is no burden on the Windows user that would make him seek an
alternative solution.
:
: >
: > If your hobby is being an ersatz unix sysadmin, I can see where this
isn't
: > much fun for you, but it is sufficient to keep a Windows machine up and
: > running at peak efficiency. Nothing to it if you know how!
:
: What are you talking about? Where has he said anything about hobbies?
:
: > :
: > : You know what, if this is supposedly "professional" software, give me
my
: > : "amateur" Linux and OSS anyday and I'll take the money I saved to buy
: > : some nice hardware to run it on!
: > :
: > Perhaps you can do that with what you are using for hardware, rapskat,
but I
: > don't know how to get an IBM Intellistation Z-Pro without XP Pro to
begin
: > with, since IBM wouldn't sell it piecemeal. The same thing holds true
for
: > the Dell systems that I have at the office.
:
: So? What does that have to do with anything?
Are you paying attention, Kier? Rapskat says that he would "take the money"
saved, but there is no money to be saved.
:
:
:
Rick
No, billy, you're an idiot.
> :
> : >
> : > : For what exactly? When it's all said and done, what exactly do you
> have
> : > : to show for all that effort? Pretty much nothing! The base system,
> : > : replete with many unneeded and insecure services activated chewing up
> : > : resources, a crappy web browser, a malware propogation engine
> masquarading
> : > : as an email client/newsreader, a media player that doesn't play much
> : > : media, some games (probably the best part), a basic and "advanced"
> text
> : > : editor, and a lot of useless stuff to enhance your "experience".
> : > :
> : > Well, you've got the world's most popular browser and news/mail reader.
> : > AFAIK, WMP is the most used media player on the planet, too. Do you use
> : > anything else? Why?
> :
> : Because they're better, more secure, more useful. Most used doesn't always
> : mean 'best'.
>
> Well, Kier, I have tried these OSS things and I say they are not as good as
> the freebies that come with Windows. The Thunderbird newsreader threads very
> poorly and makes it difficult to follow a series of posts. The others are
> worse.
Well it seems your newsreader can't quote properly. Fix it.
>
> Why do you schmoes waste so much time re-inventing the wheel anyway?
> Firefox is a lot of work for no real gain.
It has the gain of of far fewer popups. It has the gain of better
security.
> It would be far easier to add to
> IE where you see a deficiency than to try to replace so much function that
> does not affect anything.
Why add fo IE when you can use FireFox and bot have to add?
> That seems wasteful and stupid to me.
That's because you're an idiot.
> You use
> the terms "more useful" and "better" alll the time, but you never provide a
> standard of comparison.
FireFox is more secure than IE. It is cross platform. It allows far fewerr
popups.
> The only thing that I can see is that you OSSers,
> as a community, are so damn cheap and so lacking of means that the little
> bit of money that is charged for commercial products is a big issue with
> you. You are a bunch of freeloaders
You are a liar.
> dependent on the presumed vanity of a
> few programmers who cannot satisfy their egos with a real job so they create
> cults of people like you who are eager for the opportunity. I think you are
> a bunch of silly geese.
More of your bigoted lies.
> : > I use the RealPlayer stuff for their formats, since you are pretty much
> : > stuck with that. Also, I have the Apple thing, although I don't
> remember
> : > why.
> :
> : Linux users have RealPlayer, too, but we don't really need it, nor
> : Quicktime player, because you can get the same functions from several
> : Linux players. MPlayer will play just about anything you can throw at it,
> : and it takes up a good deal less space than WMP.
> :
> There are some many thousands of media players available in the OSS and
> shareware and payware and adware environment, Kier. So what? WMP plays all
> the MP3s that seem to be about. Why bother with any other player?
... because he might want to use some other player? Or not put up with
adware?
>
> : And to get the best out of WMP, you still have to know what to do with it.
> : A young workmate of mine can't even get his girlfriend's laptop install
> : of Windows Media Player to deal with Mp3s that he can put on his phone.
> :
> Sounds contrived to me, Kier, but so what? Consider that this issue is not
> very predominant.
You are the one braying about the wide spread use of mp3. How can not
being able to play mp3s not be important in your world?
>
> : >
> : > : I can install a distro of Linux in a matter of minutes with only *one*
> : > : reboot, and when it's done it will have a whole slew of
> : > : fully featured and useful applications in almost any category the
> desktop
> : > : user could want or need. Most if not all peripherals and devices will
> be
> : > : configured and setup ready to use. Not only that, but Linux just looks
> and
> : > : feels better on the same hardware as Windows.
> : >
> : > Well, I don't doubt that you get a lot of stuff, rapskat, but it seems
> so
> : > home-spun mostly and lacks that certain look and finished feel. Plus
> most
> : > of it has such strange names. It kind of makes you wonder where it has
> : > been, if you know what I mean!
> :
> : Yes, we know that you mean to insult us with this garbage. Produced by
> : non-professionals doesn't mean it it rubbish, or badly finished. And looks
> : aren't everything. In the end , function is what counts. The best-looking
> : program in the world is useless if it doesn't work.
> :
> Look at the vast wasteland of incomplete garbage in the OSS world, Kier.
> You may try to take pride in it, but that is a fool's tactic.
You are showing your bigotry and stupidity.
> : > : I just don't fathom it, the software that you go out and pay mucho
> dinero
> : > : for, the supposed "professional" software that touted to be so easy to
> use
> : > : and advanced, just keeps proving to be less so than the software that
> you
> : > : can legally download for free.
> : >
> : > That is your opinion, of course, and it is not shared by very many
> people
> : > when measured as a percentage of the computer using population.
> Fortunately
> : > for Bill Gates and his friends, people like you are few and far between
> and
> : > can safely be dismissed as whiners and cranks.
> :
> : No, we're not few and far between, and we're not whiners and cranks. And
> : most particularly are we not safe to dismiss. Certainly MS doesn't think
> : so.
>
> How do you know what MS thinks, Kier? Did some linuxer tell you?
No. Gates and Ballmer have told the world.
> You
> bumpkins tell one another that you strike fear in the hearts of Gates and
> Ballmer, but you are just whistling past the graveyard, hoping there is no
> such thing as a ghost. I realize that some such story is important to your
> morale, but you are just fooling yourselves!
> :
> : > The rest of the world has
> : > more useful things to occupy their thoughts than fawning and fussing
> over
> : > their OS platform software. Why don't you try just using one or the
> other
> : > for some practical purpose?
> :
> : What do you think it is we do?
>
> Mostly sit around and bitch about MS, Kier.
More lies.
> :
> : > You will quickly see that they really don't
> : > matter and getting on with your work is more important than worrying
> about
> : > the platform.
> :
> : Then why are you here whining and crying about how poor Linux is? Why
> : aren't you out using your platform and leaving us to use and promote ours?
>
> I do this for sport and relaxation, Kier. Why do you?
Translation: you're a sorry excuse for a person.
> :
> : > :
> : > : When I install Windows, the system is pretty much useless for anything
> : > : else. But I can be installing Mepis and using the same system
> : > : to surf the web, read email, play a game or whatever on another
> desktop at
> : > : the same time! How exactly is Windows so much more "advanced" than
> this,
> : > : please explain it to me.
> : >
> : > Where is it said that anyone claimed to be "advanced"? Windows is fully
> : > functional in all these regards and there is simply no need to do
> anything
> : > else. What is there that cannot be done by the Windows software that
> comes
> : > with the computer?
> :
> : Quite a lot. Can you develop on it, without installing or purchasing extra
> : software? Can you do any image manipulation, or maybe create videos.
> : Unless you have XP Pro, you can't even play a DVD without third party
> : software. Desktop publishing? Don't think so. There's plenty you can't do
> : on Windows that we can do on Linux, straight after installation. And if we
> : want more software, all we need to do is install it
>
> Well, Kier, my PC came with all that stuff on it. Granted that some of it
> was not made by Microsoft, but IBM provided a DVD burner package and other
> odds and ends, including the Lotus Office suite. I uninstalled that. You
> can, of course, use everything that I am aware of that is even remotely
> worth using from the OSS pile under Windows as well as linux.
You show your stupidity and bigotry.
> I suspect that there is a lot of OSS warez that only work with Windows.
I suspect you are a dumbass... you may now show how OSS can be warez.
>
> Development software is not a problem for me, since I have an MSDN
> subscription. If you don't write code, you don't need a development system
> at all, which is pretty much the normal case and if you do, you would want
> the more refined VS products. I have a copy of Delphi 2005, BTW. It is not
> as good as VS.
> :
> : > If there were a reason to change, then maybe you would
> : > have a point, but so far, all you are talking about is change for
> change's
> : > sake. Rational people are going to think you are a nut, rapskat, and
> they
> : > may very well be correct.
> :
> : Don't be ridiculous. There *is* a reason to change, in fact, many reasons.
> : They may not apply to everyone, but they certainly apply to a good number
> : of users. You are trying to pretend that Linux users are not rational, but
> : of course you are lying.
> :
> I am saying no such thing, Kier. You are letting your biases color your
> perceptions. In terms of percentages, "a good number of users" becomes
> "next to no one". That's a fact.
ahaha ahahaha HAh ahH AHAha HAH aha ha... that's funny coming from you...
you encourage your bigotry to paint your whole world.
> :
> : > :
> : > : And can we talk about the whole updating thing? OMG! On Windows it's
> : > : this whole constant mess of install updates, reboot, more updates,
> reboot,
> : > : yet even more updates, reboot, ad infinitum WTF? Why the hell can't
> it
> : > : just be like Linux where you get all the updates you need in one fell
> : > : swoop, maybe reboot once when there done, and you're good? How
> exactly is
> : > : this more "advanced"?
> : >
> : > It you would bother to learn about it, you would see where the Windows
> : > method is indeed much more advanced than that of the home made linux.
> :
> : Linux is not 'home made'. And perhaps you'd actually like to explain how
> : Windows is so much more advanced in this regard.
> :
> : > For
> : > starters, Microsoft Corporation has made a substantial investment in an
> : > on-line update service that can be set up to automatically install
> updates.
> : > That's what I do with all my machines, i.e. set it and forget it.
> :
> : Do you honestly imagine Linux users can't do the same?
>
>
> So how do you set up automatic updates for your favorite distribution? I've
> loaded RHEL, RH9, Mandrake, Corel, and SUSE at various times and I have
> never seen anything like it.
Suse - YOU.
> :
> : > Periodically, it brings down updates and installs them effortlessly in
> the
> : > background, usually in the middle of the night while I am asleep.
> Perhaps
> : > once in a month or two it will update something that touches on the core
> : > system and requires a reboot to activate, but this, too, is done
> : > automatically. Why would you want to do it any other way?
> :
> : Who says Linux users do?
> :
> : >
> : > I know this is an expensive thing to run and that the linux companies
> have
> : > very little funding to operate and so cannot afford to match Microsoft's
> : > efforts, but other successful software companies do. Symantec and
> Intuit,
> : > for example, offer similar silent and comprehensive update services to
> their
> : > customers. All it takes is a little money, rapskat. You should join
> the
> : > good guys and avail yourself of the myriad benefits that are available
> in
> : > the professional software world!
> :
> : You talk the most utter bilge. It seems you are far more ignorant than I
> : thought. Linux users can update their software easily and simply without
> : paying at all, if they wish.
>
> But can they do it automatically at night without being there?
You mean you have to ask?
You show your dishonesty, bigotry and stupidity.
BTW, can you show any software from micro$oft that is 'finished'?
>
> : > Personally, I
> : > don't have any problems in this regard. I can understand that the
> Symantec
> : > AV software I use does take some CPU cycles, but I have so many! If you
> : > look at the usage in the performance monitor utility applet, you are
> almost
> : > always looking at a very low, if not zero, value.
> : >
> : > There is certainly not any reason to go out of one's way to correct any
> such
> : > problem, regardless of how vociferous the linux advocates are in
> asserting
> : > this notion.
> :
> : What the hell are you babbling about? Why don't you ever talk sensibly,
> : instead of spilling out this tripe?
> :
> I have no problem with malware, Kier. You are relying on a presumption that
> Windows users will have such a bad experience that they will want to switch
> to linux to avoid that problem. You are not correct as evidenced by the
> fact that the consumer is not switching.
Others are.
Where do you think Linux users are coming from?
> :
> : >
> : > If your hobby is being an ersatz unix sysadmin, I can see where this
> isn't
> : > much fun for you, but it is sufficient to keep a Windows machine up and
> : > running at peak efficiency. Nothing to it if you know how!
> :
> : What are you talking about? Where has he said anything about hobbies?
> :
> : > :
> : > : You know what, if this is supposedly "professional" software, give me
> my
> : > : "amateur" Linux and OSS anyday and I'll take the money I saved to buy
> : > : some nice hardware to run it on!
> : > :
> : > Perhaps you can do that with what you are using for hardware, rapskat,
> but I
> : > don't know how to get an IBM Intellistation Z-Pro without XP Pro to
> begin
> : > with, since IBM wouldn't sell it piecemeal. The same thing holds true
> for
> : > the Dell systems that I have at the office.
> :
> : So? What does that have to do with anything?
>
> Are you paying attention, Kier? Rapskat says that he would "take the money"
> saved, but there is no money to be saved.
And, AGAIN, fix your lousy quoting.
--
Rick
r.e.b...@usa.net
> "rapskat" <rap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.08.27....@rapskat.com...
> : Since I've been using Linux, the one big difference I've noticed from
> : installing Windows vs. installing some distro of Linux is that installing
> : Windows is a big long arduous process entailing multiple reboots and lots
> : of user interaction (agreeing to EULA's, typing in keys, confirming,
> : etc). We're talking hours here, and that's hoping that you don't have to
> : install drivers.
> :
> You need to take a course in how to do it more effectively, rapskat! It is
> an automatic process, you know, if you do it the right way. You put the CD
> in the slot, give the install program the license key and tell it a few
> things like the name you want to give the computer and what admin name and
> password you want to use and voila! It churns away for a while, depending
> on the speed of the machine you're installing XP on, and, when you hear the
> Windows theme, you're done. Nothing to it.
You do realize that we are comparing apples and oranges here.
You are describing the process for installing Windows XP into an OEM
machine using media designed specifically for that machine. You are
not installing any other third party applications, any of the common
core utilities available with Linux, and this does not include
configuration of network, user interface customization, and other
effort required to recover or replace a system back to the same level
of functionality as the machine previously used by a user.
The Linux system is not only installing the operating system and the
"core" functions, but also hundreds or even thousands of 3rd party
applications and software packages.
To be fair, most of the experience rapskat is describing is for Windows
NT 4.0, which was notorious for making you reboot for even the most
trivial changes. The new MSI Microsoft Software Installer is much
smarter about restarting only the services that actually need to be
stopped and/or restarted.
One of the critical differences between Linux and Windows is that a
file can be moved or even replaced while it is being used by an
application. This means that log files and configuration files can be
changed or copied without requiring a reboot.
In addition, most Linux services don't need to be restarted. A HUP
(hangup) signal tells the application to reload it's configuration
because one of the configuration files has changed. In many cases, the
service doesn't even need to stop doing what it is doing.
> Dealing with all the sysadmin stuff you need to do for linux may have
> blinded you to the easy way! Read the manual, rapskat! LOL!!!
Sysadmin stuff for most modern Linux distributions really isn't much
more complicated than Windows when using Linux-friendly hardware. To
be fair, it is a bit difficult to tell which OEM equipment comes "Linux
Friendly" compared to systems that are "Linux Hostile". It's not like
the OEMs can put a happy penguine or a penquin with a circle/slash to
let users know that they should not purchase that model if they want to
install Linux or that they should purchase a specific model or option
if they want to install Linux. This has something to do with the OEM
distribution agreement - doesn't it? ;-)
> : For what exactly? When it's all said and done, what exactly do you have
> : to show for all that effort? Pretty much nothing! The base system,
> : replete with many unneeded and insecure services activated chewing up
> : resources, a crappy web browser, a malware propogation engine masquarading
> : as an email client/newsreader, a media player that doesn't play much
> : media, some games (probably the best part), a basic and "advanced" text
> : editor, and a lot of useless stuff to enhance your "experience".
> :
> Well, you've got the world's most popular browser and news/mail reader.
> AFAIK, WMP is the most used media player on the planet, too. Do you use
> anything else? Why?
Because Microsoft has made the OEMs an offer they can't refuse, at
least not very easily. When the OEM get a price that is higher for 80%
of what he needs than for 120% of what he needs, he's likely to go
ahead and buy more licenses than he needs. Of course, this means that
every machine is licensed for Windows, even if it's later converted to
Linux. Of course, the OEM also has to agree to other terms to get that
lower price. If they promise to give Microsoft final approval
authority over all advertizing, including web pages, magazine ads, and
even packaging and documentation, they get huge reductions or
kickbacks, discounts as high as 30%. If they agree to use hardware
that is Linux hostile, unsupported by Linux and the Hardware maker has
agreed to sue anyone who tries to write a Linux driver, they can get
additional discounts. The cost of the licenses can be reduced to about
10% of the retail price, if the OEM is willing to accept all of the
terms Microsoft wants.
If the OEM is too uncooperative, Microsoft can simply say "all or
nothing" the way they did with IBM back in 1995.
> I use the RealPlayer stuff for their formats, since you are pretty much
> stuck with that. Also, I have the Apple thing, although I don't remember
> why.
It's called QuickTime. This is a very popular format for adult movies
;-)
> : I can install a distro of Linux in a matter of minutes with only *one*
> : reboot, and when it's done it will have a whole slew of
> : fully featured and useful applications in almost any category the desktop
> : user could want or need. Most if not all peripherals and devices will be
> : configured and setup ready to use. Not only that, but Linux just looks and
> : feels better on the same hardware as Windows.
>
> Well, I don't doubt that you get a lot of stuff, rapskat, but it seems so
> home-spun mostly and lacks that certain look and finished feel. Plus most
> of it has such strange names. It kind of makes you wonder where it has
> been, if you know what I mean!
It depends on which distribution you are getting, and which version you
are getting. Some such as Red Hat Enterprise and SuSE Professional
include quite a bit of commercial software and shareware as well as
upgradable 3rd party applications.
> : I just don't fathom it, the software that you go out and pay mucho dinero
> : for, the supposed "professional" software that touted to be so easy to use
> : and advanced, just keeps proving to be less so than the software that you
> : can legally download for free.
To be fair, there are many applications available for Linux which also
cost mucho dinero. WebSphere Application Server or DB2 are available,
and they aren't exactly cheap. An "express" version runs about $1500.
If you want to put it on a production server, the prices go up even
more.
There are CAD/CAM packages offered by Silicon Graphics that can cost
thousands of dollars. When you know what you want, and you consider it
really important, you probably don't mind paying a bit extra.
> That is your opinion, of course, and it is not shared by very many people
> when measured as a percentage of the computer using population.
Let's go back to 1980, when Microsoft was just a little third party
softaware company. Most users only used 3270 terminals attached to
mainframe computers, and a few used VT100 style terminals attached to
VMS, Unix, or RSTS. The closest thing to a "personal computer" as we
know it today, were machines based on CP/M.
Microsoft was very smart, they convinced IBM to let them sell the same
operating system they developed for the IBM-PC to other OEMs. The OEMs
had the perception that they were essentially getting IBM technology at
bargain prices. They were effectively "stealing" market from IBM. In
reality, IBM grossly underestimated the size and impact of the PC
market and really weren't prepared for the demand of the first 2-3
years.
Even in the early 1980s, IBM was still more focused on keeping users
attached to the Mainframe than on stand-alone PC users.
Microsoft was able to get these OEMs to sign contracts which were very
exclusive, and prevented them from marketing alternatives such as
DR-DOS, GEM, DesqView and other "brand-enhancing" packaging, especially
with the release of Windows 3.0.
Microsoft was able to get away with this until they began using their
leverage of the OEM OS market to force OEMs to exclude competitors such
as Lotus, WordPerfect, and Borland Sidekick. At that point, the Bush I
administration stepped in and pushed Microsoft to a settlement that
prevented formal prosecution. In fact, the judge refused to accept the
first 3 settlement attempts.
Back in 1980, IBM was the 400 pound gorilla and Microsoft gave the OEMs
the same technology.
25 years later, Microsoft is the 500 pound gorilla, and they are
looking at Linux and Open Source as the biggest threat EVER to
Microsoft's monopoly.
> Fortunately
> for Bill Gates and his friends, people like you are few and far between and
> can safely be dismissed as whiners and cranks.
It depends on what part of the world you live in. Some countries, such
as the United States, seem quite willing to look the other way as
Microsoft excludes competitiors using both legal and illegal means.
Even with a court judgement which has stated that Microsoft is not
allowed to use it's current monopoly power to exclude competitors such
as Linux and Open Source products, they seem to be able to ignore the
spirit and intent of the original settlement by using loopholes in the
language of the agreement. Of course, this has been Microsoft's
strategy for nearly 20 years. They avoid prosecution or unfavorable
rulings by offering a settlement in which they have drafted carefully
worded language which appears to be a huge concession, while the actual
languge of the settlment allows them to defy the spirit and intent of
the settlement.
In the slum neighborhoods, the gangs force merchants to pay protection
money, and they control the drug trade. When you have someone pointing
a gun or a knife at you, threatening to cripple you or those who are
important to you, and they demand money, you pay. If you see the
merchant next door mouth off to the gang, and the next morning you see
their store demolished, with all of the inventory removed, and not even
an attempt to prosecute, you learn to keep your mouth shut. You pay
the money, even though the extortion is illegal.
Microsoft does something very similar to the OEMs and CIOs. Bill Gates
even hijacked an airplane by telling them that unless he "fixed" the
computer on the airplane it would be infected and would crash. Today,
that would get him 5 years in a federal penetentary, but in the 1980s,
he actually got away with it.
The most dramatic examples are a matter of public record. When Compaq
installed Netscape on the Windows desktop and removed the IE icon,
Microsoft notified Compaq that their license would be revoked in 30
days. Compaq had to renegotiate and agree to even more restrictive
terms as a penalty for it's defiance.
In 1995, Microsoft told IBM that unless IBM agreed to stop selling
OS/2, they would get NO licenses for ANY version of Windows.
Remember, IBM had paid Microsoft nearly $2 billion after catching
Microsoft in the act of embezzling resources and source code. There
were even smoking gun memos in which Bill Gates personally authorized
the diversion of the resources and funds from OS/2 to Windows.
Microsoft has protected it's top executives through well-timed and
carefully drafted settlements which are used to seal the court reconds
so that they can only be used in criminal investigations. This doesn't
mean that what Microsoft did was legal, it just means that they were
able to avoid the consequences of breaking the law. In effect,
Microsoft executives have become racketeers who are above the law.
> The rest of the world has
> more useful things to occupy their thoughts than fawning and fussing over
> their OS platform software.
Actually, this is one of the reasons why many countries have switched
to Linux. They have found that putting Linux on their desktops has
reduced the amount of time spent dealing with security issues, software
conflicts, and recovery from software corruption caused failures.
Furthermore, they don't have to have Windows "gurus" physically located
at every office and branch.
Windows still has a huge segment of the market, but this is mostly
because the cost of UNIX and Linux systems has been going down
substantially and the performance and capabilities of each system has
gone up substantially. A single Z-Series machine running Linux images
can do the work of thousands of Windows machines at about $500/image.
Even though Windows machines are also getting faster and have more
memory, there are so many library conflicts in third party software.
As a result, you need to limit the number of functions each Windows
machine performs, and you need to maintain reduncy for each component,
along with the infrastructure to manage that redundancy.
> Why don't you try just using one or the other
> for some practical purpose? You will quickly see that they really don't
> matter and getting on with your work is more important than worrying about
> the platform.
Very true. This is one of the reasons that I still have both Windows
and Linux functionality on my machines. I need Windows for expense
reports (the expense reporting software requires an activeX control).
I Open Source for creating documents, presentations, browsing the web,
reading personal e-mail. I also have external Linux boxes in the form
of Netgear WiFi/Router and LinkSys Network Storage Link for firewall,
SAN storage, and other protections which I simply can't trust on
Windows XP.
> : When I install Windows, the system is pretty much useless for anything
> : else. But I can be installing Mepis and using the same system
> : to surf the web, read email, play a game or whatever on another desktop at
> : the same time! How exactly is Windows so much more "advanced" than this,
> : please explain it to me.
You can do the things you listed above on Windows XP. Windows NT had
terrible game functionality (no USB, no DirectX, no OpenGL, very
"course" scheduler).
You can certainly surf the web, read e-mail, and download and play a
game on XP. With Remote Access I can even use one machine to access
the other (a feature Linux has had since about the same time as Windows
3.11).
Of course, if the web page contains an ActiveX control virus, and
VbScript and ActiveX have been enabled, then you will probably have an
infected machine. If you are running Outlook with HTML preview enabled
along with VbScripting and ActiveX, it's likely that your machine will
be infected by dozens of viruses before you even open your first e-mail
(since the PREVIEW) can load the ActiveX control virus.
Of course, the virus could also be "spyware" which means that it is
properly signed and can collect anything from your browsing habits to
your quicken or money files and send it to someone without you ever
knowing.
> Where is it said that anyone claimed to be "advanced"?
Very few people use a Windows XP machine that contains ONLY Windows XP
standard distribution software. They might add Microsoft software,
such as MS-Office, MS-Money, and MSN, but those are "extras" and
Microsoft doesn't bundle versions of these applications and
functionality from multiple vendors. Microsoft bundles quite a bit for
the OEMs. Linux bundles a "shopping list" from which users can select
from multiple vendors. Many vendors offer "for fee" upgrades. For
example, if you like OpenOffice which is pretty basic, you can get
StarOffice which comes with Wizards, Templates, and better plugins and
translators.
> Windows is fully
> functional in all these regards and there is simply no need to do anything
> else. What is there that cannot be done by the Windows software that comes
> with the computer? If there were a reason to change, then maybe you would
> have a point, but so far, all you are talking about is change for change's
> sake. Rational people are going to think you are a nut, rapskat, and they
> may very well be correct.
This is a strange argument. We don't provide it therefore you don't
need it?
Perhaps you really should take the time to install a good commercial
version of Linux.
Remember, the purpose of a computer is to help people get the right
information, at the right time, in a form that is useful, and to do
this with a minimum amount of effort.
If you have to cut/paste thousands of form entries manually in order to
get routine tasks done, then you aren't using the computer as
effectively as you could.
If you have to wait until you can stop the machine, service, or
application before you can capture or read the most recent additions to
a log file, then you aren't using the computer effectively.
If you have to wait days, or weeks to get an up-to-date summary of your
organizations financial situation, and that summary is actually based
on last month's numbers, you aren't using your computer effectively.
If you have to pay $millions in consulting and software to get these
transformations when it could be done in a few hours with an awk or sed
script, you aren't using your computer effectively.
If it takes you longer to learn to use an application and IDE than it
takes to write a trivial script to perform core functions, you aren't
using your computer effectively.
If your MS-Project is assigning some people to work 200 hours/week
while others are working 4 hours/week because a detailed work breakdown
is too labor intensive to create, manage, and track, then you aren't
using your computer effectivly.
If the ONLY way to get information into a GUI based application is
through the GUI, and all other formats are undocumented or proprietary,
and you have to manually transfer more than 100 records, then you
aren't using your computer effectively.
> : And can we talk about the whole updating thing? OMG! On Windows it's
> : this whole constant mess of install updates, reboot, more updates, reboot,
> : yet even more updates, reboot, ad infinitum WTF? Why the hell can't it
> : just be like Linux where you get all the updates you need in one fell
> : swoop, maybe reboot once when there done, and you're good? How exactly is
> : this more "advanced"?
>
> It you would bother to learn about it, you would see where the Windows
> method is indeed much more advanced than that of the home made linux. For
> starters, Microsoft Corporation has made a substantial investment in an
> on-line update service that can be set up to automatically install updates.
Both SuSE and Mandrake have had far more effective and reliable update
services. Furthermore, because source is available for most of the
applications, if a fix does break a 3rd party application, the fix to
handle the fix can be handled pretty quickly. In addition, Linux has
some very strict and well defined standards for libararies and coding
for most of it's applications.
Microsoft's concept of a "standard" seems to be "whatever we're selling
this week". We've gone from WFC, to OLE, to COM to COM+ to MTS to
.NET.
Nothing wrong with evolving standards which expand on the existing
standards, but very often, Microsoft decides to "break" the older
standards, which means that applications written for Windows 3.1 or
Windows 95 won't run on Windows XP. Microsoft's official estimate is
that about 80% of the applications written for the previous OS will run
on the newest offering.
An even bigger problem is archives. I have documents I created with
MS-DOS and Office that I can't read today because the format is no
longer supported.
I have to keep a machine configured with Windows 95 so that I can
retrieve tax records that can't be retrieved with applications written
for Windows XP.
> That's what I do with all my machines, i.e. set it and forget it.
> Periodically, it brings down updates and installs them effortlessly in the
> background, usually in the middle of the night while I am asleep. Perhaps
> once in a month or two it will update something that touches on the core
> system and requires a reboot to activate, but this, too, is done
> automatically. Why would you want to do it any other way?
That is an option for Mandrake, Red Hat, and SuSE updates. Of course,
many users have been burned by "fixes" that broke critical functions
(just like Windows), so most users track what actually NEEDS to be
updated and prioritize those updates.
> I know this is an expensive thing to run and that the linux companies have
> very little funding to operate and so cannot afford to match Microsoft's
> efforts, but other successful software companies do.
Actually, Mandrake, SuSE, and Red Hat have all offered Superior
services since back when Windows NT 4 SP2 was breaking Cyrix 686 chips.
I fried two before it became public that Microsoft's "fix"
deliberately fried those chips. By the time SP3 came out, I had
already converted that machine to Linux.
> Symantec and Intuit,
> for example, offer similar silent and comprehensive update services to their
> customers. All it takes is a little money, rapskat. You should join the
> good guys and avail yourself of the myriad benefits that are available in
> the professional software world!
Many of us are consultants, and we're paid for the results we produce,
not just for the hours we put in. If I spend 40 hours rebuilding a
computer that has been trashed by some virus or some fixpack that
trashed 3rd party software, I don't get to bill for that. If I have to
spend 40 hours learning some new special GUI for configuring a
firewall, I don't get to bill for that. Furthermore, I have to
maintain a minimum number of billable hours.
I don't have time to futz with flakey bug fixes that trash my laptop
every year. I need two Windows machines to back each other up,
especially as we get close to moving a project into production. It
seems like one of them always crashes and burns just as we are doing
the rollout. At least with Linux, I have a pretty good chance of
having a backup that's useful for getting back to a working
configuration.
[re memory sucking applications and lib bindings ]
>
> There is certainly not any reason to go out of one's way to correct any such
> problem, regardless of how vociferous the linux advocates are in asserting
> this notion.
Classic Microsoft argument, memory is cheap, cpu cycles are cheap,
drives are cheap, and therefore, we can suck up as much of each as we
can get. Of course, Microsoft will even use MORE than it can get, and
then you have those 40 hour recovery cycles.
B Gruff
(snipping much of baa-lamb's diatribe):-
>
> "rapskat" <rap...@gmail.com> wrote
> that you don't have to install drivers.
>
> You need to take a course in how to do it more effectively, rapskat!
> It is
> an automatic process, you know, if you do it the right way. You put
> the CD in the slot, give the install program the license key and tell
> it a few things like the name you want to give the computer and what
> admin name and
> password you want to use and voila! It churns away for a while,
> depending on the speed of the machine you're installing XP on, and,
> when you hear the
> Windows theme, you're done. Nothing to it.
Sounds good.
I'm in the middle of doing this for W2K
I got a 640x480 screen in 16 colours, because it didn't recognise my
ATI-all-in card. No problem - the problem was finding the CD!
Then there was the on-board Ethernet, and the on-board sound.....
... and the hunt for the CD that came with the motherboard.....
... and now (at last!) I can start to wonder about AV software....
Naturally, there's a reboot after each step, all part of the
easy-to-install process....
> Dealing with all the sysadmin stuff you need to do for linux may have
> blinded you to the easy way! Read the manual, rapskat! LOL!!!
I'm sure that's true.
Certainly I'd been blinded by SuSE.
I just put the SuSE CD in the slot and you know what? It worked just as
you claim for Windows - sans registration code!
> Well, you've got the world's most popular browser and news/mail
> reader.
> AFAIK, WMP is the most used media player on the planet, too. Do you
> use
> anything else? Why?
Great logic, baa-lamb.
Perhaps you'll read this when you get back from your gourmet lunch at
Macdonalds then?
> Fortunately for Bill Gates and his friends, people like you are few
> and far between and
> can safely be dismissed as whiners and cranks.
That is perhaps the truest thing you've ever said here.
Fortunate indeed for Bill Gates!
> The rest of the world
> has more useful things to occupy their thoughts than fawning and
> fussing over
> their OS platform software.
True, so very true....
Norton? ... or should I go for a freebie?
What spyware-removal tool do you recommend for my W2K?
Sorry baa-lamb - can't be bothered with the rest - I take it that it's
in a similar vein?
Bill
B Gruff
> Well it seems your newsreader can't quote properly. Fix it.
It's not just me then?
He's surely not using..................????.........is he?
Bill
Kier
Why do you talk like a fool?
> :
> : >
> : > : For what exactly? When it's all said and done, what exactly do you
> have
> : > : to show for all that effort? Pretty much nothing! The base system,
> : > : replete with many unneeded and insecure services activated chewing up
> : > : resources, a crappy web browser, a malware propogation engine
> masquarading
> : > : as an email client/newsreader, a media player that doesn't play much
> : > : media, some games (probably the best part), a basic and "advanced"
> text
> : > : editor, and a lot of useless stuff to enhance your "experience".
> : > :
> : > Well, you've got the world's most popular browser and news/mail reader.
> : > AFAIK, WMP is the most used media player on the planet, too. Do you use
> : > anything else? Why?
> :
> : Because they're better, more secure, more useful. Most used doesn't always
> : mean 'best'.
>
> Well, Kier, I have tried these OSS things and I say they are not as good as
> the freebies that come with Windows. The Thunderbird newsreader threads very
> poorly and makes it difficult to follow a series of posts. The others are
> worse.
Thunderbird, like OE, isn't really a newsreader, it's a mail client that
can also read news. At least Thunderbird doesn't mangle quotes.
>
> Why do you schmoes waste so much time re-inventing the wheel anyway?
Why do you call us shmoes?
As far as we're concerned, we're not reinventing the wheel. Just
implementing software solutions on our chosen platform.
> Firefox is a lot of work for no real gain. It would be far easier to
> add to IE where you see a deficiency than to try to replace so much
> function that does not affect anything.
Why should anyone wish to add to IE, which is already a not-very-good, and
frequently insecure, application, which is also not a Linux application.
The idea is to get away from IE, not create more problems.
It is proprietary systems which reinvent the wheel.
> That seems wasteful and stupid
> to me. You use the terms "more useful" and "better" alll the time, but
> you never provide a standard of comparison. The only thing that I can
> see is that you OSSers, as a community, are so damn cheap and so lacking
> of means that the little bit of money that is charged for commercial
> products is a big issue with you. You are a bunch of freeloaders
> dependent on the presumed vanity of a few programmers who cannot satisfy
> their egos with a real job so they create cults of people like you who
> are eager for the opportunity. I think you are a bunch of silly geese.
I think you are a dishonest, hypocritical, supercilious idiot. The entire
paragraph above is full of your snobbish attitude towards hard-working OSS
programmers. We are not 'freeloaders', since you cannot freeload off
anything which is designed to be given away, and the programmers do their
work for a variety of reasons, of which vanity is very low on the list.
many do it for the sheer love of coding, the way many writers write, and
would do so even if no one ever read their stories or used their programs.
>
>
>
> : > I use the RealPlayer stuff for their formats, since you are pretty
> : > much stuck with that. Also, I have the Apple thing, although I
> : > don't
> remember
> : > why.
> :
> : Linux users have RealPlayer, too, but we don't really need it, nor
> : Quicktime player, because you can get the same functions from several
> : Linux players. MPlayer will play just about anything you can throw at
> : it, and it takes up a good deal less space than WMP.
> :
> There are some many thousands of media players available in the OSS and
> shareware and payware and adware environment, Kier. So what? WMP plays
> all the MP3s that seem to be about. Why bother with any other player?
Why then are there thousands of media players available for Windows, if
WMP is all anyone needs? The reason is, users don't all want to use WMP.
A great many people prefer other players - better players, that don't try
to restrict the music you rip off CDs *you own* with stupid 'licenses'. I
bought the CD, I don't want my PC telling me when and where I can listen
to the music. I don't want it assumed that I'm a thief.
>
> : And to get the best out of WMP, you still have to know what to do with
> : it. A young workmate of mine can't even get his girlfriend's laptop
> : install of Windows Media Player to deal with Mp3s that he can put on
> : his phone.
> :
> Sounds contrived to me, Kier, but so what? Consider that this issue is
> not very predominant.
You must not know many young people. Especially young men. They all have
the latest phones and gadgets which play music and video. I was speaking
only yesterday with the young workmate in question, and with another lad
even younger. He was showing me his phone, which could store music, video,
ringtones and the like on a memory card smaller than a postage stamp. The
kids these days may not know much about operating systems, but they all
have these gadgets, and they all want mp3s, not WMA.
>
>
> : > : I can install a distro of Linux in a matter of minutes with only
> : > : *one* reboot, and when it's done it will have a whole slew of
> : > : fully featured and useful applications in almost any category the
> desktop
> : > : user could want or need. Most if not all peripherals and devices
> : > : will
> be
> : > : configured and setup ready to use. Not only that, but Linux just
> : > : looks
> and
> : > : feels better on the same hardware as Windows.
> : >
> : > Well, I don't doubt that you get a lot of stuff, rapskat, but it
> : > seems
> so
> : > home-spun mostly and lacks that certain look and finished feel. Plus
> most
> : > of it has such strange names. It kind of makes you wonder where it
> : > has been, if you know what I mean!
> :
> : Yes, we know that you mean to insult us with this garbage. Produced by
> : non-professionals doesn't mean it it rubbish, or badly finished. And
> : looks aren't everything. In the end , function is what counts. The
> : best-looking program in the world is useless if it doesn't work.
> :
> Look at the vast wasteland of incomplete garbage in the OSS world, Kier.
> You may try to take pride in it, but that is a fool's tactic.
I don't see a vast wasteland of incomplete garbage. I see a lot of good
software, and some less good, which can always be improved on by anyone
with the will or the skill. There is a vaste amount of very good software
in the OSS world. And the OSS world is free to innovate and invent and do
all kinds of uncommercial things.
No, it is you who are the fool. MS is beginning to realise that Linux is a
force to be reckoned with, and they don't like it. They hate and fear
competition. All monopolies do, because it means they have to improve the
quality of their product or service in real-world terms.
Large parts of Brazil and China and many other countries are taking up
Linux. Are they whistling too?
> :
> : > The rest of the world has
> : > more useful things to occupy their thoughts than fawning and fussing
> over
> : > their OS platform software. Why don't you try just using one or the
> other
> : > for some practical purpose?
> :
> : What do you think it is we do?
>
> Mostly sit around and bitch about MS, Kier.
Wrong. Some may do that here from time to time, but otherwise, no doubt
they get on with their work or leisure activities. Whatever you fools
think, MS comes pretty low on the horizon, unless Windows is making itself
a nuisence.
> :
> : > You will quickly see that they really don't matter and getting on
> : > with your work is more important than worrying
> about
> : > the platform.
> :
> : Then why are you here whining and crying about how poor Linux is? Why
> : aren't you out using your platform and leaving us to use and promote
> : ours?
>
> I do this for sport and relaxation, Kier. Why do you?
I like to read and talk about Linux, and I'm not very up on the more
technical discussions in help groups. And I like to kick trolls.
> :
Why? As I recall, Lotus wasn't a bad suite, last time I looked. Mind, that
was several years ago.
As for all that 'coming with the PC', it only did because the vendor added
those things on. If Windows itself could do all those things, why did they
have to add it on? To make it seem like you're getting something?
> You can, of course, use everything that I am aware of that is
> even remotely worth using from the OSS pile under Windows as well as
> linux. I suspect that there is a lot of OSS warez that only work with
> Windows.
Warez? That's a Windows term.
>
> Development software is not a problem for me, since I have an MSDN
> subscription. If you don't write code, you don't need a development
> system at all, which is pretty much the normal case and if you do, you
> would want the more refined VS products.
Why? If I were a programmer, I'd probably use python
> I have a copy of Delphi 2005,
> BTW. It is not as good as VS.
> :
> : > If there were a reason to change, then maybe you would have a point,
> : > but so far, all you are talking about is change for
> change's
> : > sake. Rational people are going to think you are a nut, rapskat,
> : > and
> they
> : > may very well be correct.
> :
> : Don't be ridiculous. There *is* a reason to change, in fact, many
> : reasons. They may not apply to everyone, but they certainly apply to a
> : good number of users. You are trying to pretend that Linux users are
> : not rational, but of course you are lying.
> :
> I am saying no such thing, Kier. You are letting your biases color your
> perceptions. In terms of percentages, "a good number of users" becomes
> "next to no one". That's a fact.
No, it is a false supposition.
> :
Just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Yes. Just as a great many other tasks can be automated in Linux.
> :
Are you calling me a liar?
>
>
> : > It
> : > seems kind of silly to me, but I can understand where you have to
> : > have
> some
> : > kind of belief in a higher reward in order to put up with the shabby
> : > and unfinished kind of software that OSS typically represents.
> :
> : You had better have so proof to offer, or you had better shut your
> : trap. Linux software is not shabby, and if it is unfinished, that is
> : because it is still in active development, not because it is bad.
> :
> Is there a finished one somewhere?
Is any software ever truly finished? If so, why is MS Office always
changing? Why do we need new versions of Windows? A book, or a film is
finished, but good softwawre is nearly always in development.
>
> : > Personally, I
> : > don't have any problems in this regard. I can understand that the
> Symantec
> : > AV software I use does take some CPU cycles, but I have so many! If
> : > you look at the usage in the performance monitor utility applet, you
> : > are
> almost
> : > always looking at a very low, if not zero, value.
> : >
> : > There is certainly not any reason to go out of one's way to correct
> : > any
> such
> : > problem, regardless of how vociferous the linux advocates are in
> asserting
> : > this notion.
> :
> : What the hell are you babbling about? Why don't you ever talk
> : sensibly, instead of spilling out this tripe?
> :
> I have no problem with malware, Kier. You are relying on a presumption
> that Windows users will have such a bad experience that they will want
> to switch to linux to avoid that problem. You are not correct as
> evidenced by the fact that the consumer is not switching.
I'm not relying on anything.Some users *have* switched because of malware.
Some have swithced because of choice and freedom and other considerations.
I switched because I liked Linux better than Window, and more interestng,
and more affordable, and free from the stupidity of activation.
They why does anyone move to Linux? What do you think the majority of
Linux users used before they used Linux? They used Windows, most of them.
> :
> :
> : > If your hobby is being an ersatz unix sysadmin, I can see where this
> isn't
> : > much fun for you, but it is sufficient to keep a Windows machine up
> : > and running at peak efficiency. Nothing to it if you know how!
> :
> : What are you talking about? Where has he said anything about hobbies?
> :
> :
> : > : You know what, if this is supposedly "professional" software, give
> : > : me
> my
> : > : "amateur" Linux and OSS anyday and I'll take the money I saved to
> : > : buy some nice hardware to run it on!
> : > :
> : > Perhaps you can do that with what you are using for hardware,
> : > rapskat,
> but I
> : > don't know how to get an IBM Intellistation Z-Pro without XP Pro to
> begin
> : > with, since IBM wouldn't sell it piecemeal. The same thing holds
> : > true
> for
> : > the Dell systems that I have at the office.
> :
> : So? What does that have to do with anything?
>
> Are you paying attention, Kier? Rapskat says that he would "take the
> money" saved, but there is no money to be saved.
> :
> :
Clearly there is. Are you suggesting he lied? How do you make out that
there is no money to be saved, when he doesn't have to spend any money on
getting programs such as the GIMP or MPlayer or Gambas or whatever he
likes to use?
--
Kier
Rick
DOH!!!
He using Outlook .... Express.....
--
Rick
TheLetterK
> AFAIK, WMP is the most used media player on the planet, too. Do you use
> anything else? Why?
iTunes, because WMP doesn't support Ogg Vorbis but Quicktime does (with
a plugin--though that plugin breaks with QT7). For videos? VLC.
>
> I use the RealPlayer stuff for their formats, since you are pretty much
> stuck with that. Also, I have the Apple thing, although I don't remember
> why.
>
> : I can install a distro of Linux in a matter of minutes with only *one*
> : reboot, and when it's done it will have a whole slew of
> : fully featured and useful applications in almost any category the desktop
> : user could want or need. Most if not all peripherals and devices will be
> : configured and setup ready to use. Not only that, but Linux just looks and
> : feels better on the same hardware as Windows.
>
> Well, I don't doubt that you get a lot of stuff, rapskat, but it seems so
> home-spun
The software I use on Linux doesn't seem 'home-spun'. It's usually
better than similar commercial apps on Windows.
> mostly and lacks that certain look and finished feel.
Again, what are you talking about, specifically?
> Plus most
> of it has such strange names. It kind of makes you wonder where it has
> been, if you know what I mean!
Strange names like 'Rhythmbox' for a music player? 'Calculator' for a
calculator? 'OpenOffice'?
billwg
"Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.08.27....@nomail.com...
:
: It has the gain of of far fewer popups. It has the gain of better
: security.
:
Well, rick, IE has gotten rid of popups itself and there were freebie add-on
available for years that did that, long before Firefox came around. As to
security, what do you care? The worst that could happen to you is that
people might be able to view your fantasy collection! LOL!!! Other than
that, you are as secure as can be regardless.
: > It would be far easier to add to
: > IE where you see a deficiency than to try to replace so much function
that
: > does not affect anything.
:
: Why add fo IE when you can use FireFox and bot have to add?
:
Well, if you are a freeloader waiting for someone to do something for you as
you COLA folk mostly seem to be, there is no good reason, I'll admit. But
if you have to do the work, that is a lot to do for no gain.
: > That seems wasteful and stupid to me.
:
: That's because you're an idiot.
You don't see it because you do no work, rick.
:
: > You use
: > the terms "more useful" and "better" alll the time, but you never
provide a
: > standard of comparison.
:
: FireFox is more secure than IE. It is cross platform. It allows far fewerr
: popups.
Big whoopee!
:
: > The only thing that I can see is that you OSSers,
: > as a community, are so damn cheap and so lacking of means that the
little
: > bit of money that is charged for commercial products is a big issue with
: > you. You are a bunch of freeloaders
:
: You are a liar.
:
No, that is exactly what I see.
:
: > dependent on the presumed vanity of a
: > few programmers who cannot satisfy their egos with a real job so they
create
: > cults of people like you who are eager for the opportunity. I think you
are
: > a bunch of silly geese.
:
: More of your bigoted lies.
:
No, I really do think you are a silly goose.
:
: > : > I use the RealPlayer stuff for their formats, since you are pretty
much
: > : > stuck with that. Also, I have the Apple thing, although I don't
: > remember
: > : > why.
: > :
: > : Linux users have RealPlayer, too, but we don't really need it, nor
: > : Quicktime player, because you can get the same functions from several
: > : Linux players. MPlayer will play just about anything you can throw at
it,
: > : and it takes up a good deal less space than WMP.
: > :
: > There are some many thousands of media players available in the OSS and
: > shareware and payware and adware environment, Kier. So what? WMP plays
all
: > the MP3s that seem to be about. Why bother with any other player?
:
: ... because he might want to use some other player? Or not put up with
: adware?
No adware in WMP, rick. If you get one of those off-brand jobs, though, who
knows?
:
: >
: > : And to get the best out of WMP, you still have to know what to do with
it.
: > : A young workmate of mine can't even get his girlfriend's laptop
install
: > : of Windows Media Player to deal with Mp3s that he can put on his
phone.
: > :
: > Sounds contrived to me, Kier, but so what? Consider that this issue is
not
: > very predominant.
:
: You are the one braying about the wide spread use of mp3. How can not
: being able to play mp3s not be important in your world?
:
I play MP3's just fine, but then I don't need to make up any story about how
they don't work.
: >
: > : >
Well you don't believe them when they tell you that Windows is the world's
greatest software, rick! Why do you suddenly think they are telling you the
truth about being worried? Maybe they are just funning you and secretly
laughing to themselves behind your back. "Funny old coot, Steve!", says
Bill. "Damn straight!" says Steve, "Did you see the look on his face?".
LOL!!!
:
: > You
: > bumpkins tell one another that you strike fear in the hearts of Gates
and
: > Ballmer, but you are just whistling past the graveyard, hoping there is
no
: > such thing as a ghost. I realize that some such story is important to
your
: > morale, but you are just fooling yourselves!
: > :
: > : > The rest of the world has
: > : > more useful things to occupy their thoughts than fawning and fussing
: > over
: > : > their OS platform software. Why don't you try just using one or the
: > other
: > : > for some practical purpose?
: > :
: > : What do you think it is we do?
: >
: > Mostly sit around and bitch about MS, Kier.
:
: More lies.
Not at all, rick. I do believe that you folk just sit around and bitch.
:
: > :
: > : > You will quickly see that they really don't
: > : > matter and getting on with your work is more important than worrying
: > about
: > : > the platform.
: > :
: > : Then why are you here whining and crying about how poor Linux is? Why
: > : aren't you out using your platform and leaving us to use and promote
ours?
: >
: > I do this for sport and relaxation, Kier. Why do you?
:
: Translation: you're a sorry excuse for a person.
Only in the eyes of a surly curmudgeon, rick! No worries there!
:
: > :
: > : > :
: > : > : When I install Windows, the system is pretty much useless for
You sound like a broken record, rick! Is this as good for you as it is for
me? LOL!!!
:
: > I suspect that there is a lot of OSS warez that only work with Windows.
:
: I suspect you are a dumbass... you may now show how OSS can be warez.
:
Do you think that only stolen goods can be warez? I think any wares can be
warez!
: >
: > Development software is not a problem for me, since I have an MSDN
But I am right and you are deluded, rick. That is the difference and it
will haunt you forever!
:
: > :
: > : > :
: > : > : And can we talk about the whole updating thing? OMG! On Windows
We use Mono to test .NET stuff on unix and linux as well as the .NET 1.1
framwork, rick. You can never be too careful.
:
: > :
: > : > Periodically, it brings down updates and installs them effortlessly
The question was rhetorical, rick. Get a clue.
: > :
: > : > :
: > : > : Don't even get me started on the friggin' malware. Pity the poor
Name one, rick!
:
: >
: > : >
The unemployed mostly, rick. They used to be unix people.
: > :
: > : >
:
Not until you agree to respond substantively, rick.
TheLetterK
> I've
> loaded RHEL, RH9, Mandrake, Corel, and SUSE at various times and I have
> never seen anything like it.
I know RHEL and RH9 do (Redhat network), so does Fedora (yum). SuSE does
as well (YaST). Corel should follow the Debian instructions.
> :
> : > Periodically, it brings down updates and installs them effortlessly in
> the
> : > background, usually in the middle of the night while I am asleep.
> Perhaps
> : > once in a month or two it will update something that touches on the core
> : > system and requires a reboot to activate, but this, too, is done
> : > automatically. Why would you want to do it any other way?
> :
> : Who says Linux users do?
> :
> : >
> : > I know this is an expensive thing to run and that the linux companies
> have
> : > very little funding to operate and so cannot afford to match Microsoft's
> : > efforts, but other successful software companies do. Symantec and
> Intuit,
> : > for example, offer similar silent and comprehensive update services to
> their
> : > customers. All it takes is a little money, rapskat. You should join
> the
> : > good guys and avail yourself of the myriad benefits that are available
> in
> : > the professional software world!
> :
> : You talk the most utter bilge. It seems you are far more ignorant than I
> : thought. Linux users can update their software easily and simply without
> : paying at all, if they wish.
>
> But can they do it automatically at night without being there?
Yes.
> :
> : > :
> : > : Don't even get me started on the friggin' malware. Pity the poor
> person
> : > : who connects directly to the internet to get updates or whatever the
> first
> : > : time. Chances are they'll be infected before they even load the M$
> Update
> : > : site! That's really some "professional" software there, isn't it? A
> : > : firewall that leaves gaping holes open for services you'll probably
> never
> : > : ever use (can you say "remote assistance"?). How about the default
> cache
> : > : settings for that pig of a browser, IE? Why the hell does it need to
> keepn
No, why would there be. According to the OSS philosophy software is
never 'done'. Instead applications are 'release-ready' or
'production-ready'.
> untiln
> : > : it absolutely needs it. That's another thing, Windows boots, loads
> the
> : > : desktop, and yet it's still chugging away in the background for
> minutes
> : > : even after it's supposedly "fully loaded", why? When Linux shows my
> : > : desktop, it's done, no grinding, no chugging away in the background
> like a
> : > : deranged choo-choo train! It's ready to work right away.
> : > :
> : > But work on what, rapskat? It seems to me, from reading the COLA
> postings,
> : > that linux fans are mostly occupied with replacing their one "distro"
> with
> : > another in some never-ending search for some Holy Grail of kernels or
> : > whatever.
> :
> : You must be reading a different group from me. So some Linux users like to
> : change around from time to time. Others pick out their distro, and stick
> : to it. There is also the factor that not all distros are for power users,
> : so when a user gets more experienced, they may wish to move up to a distro
> : which is more suited to their experience-level.
Ubuntu fills the needs of most everyone on a 'PC' very well.
Sure there is. Windows XP Pro retails for $300. Debian retails for the
cost of bandwith and a disk. Shit, if you do anything other than
absolute basic usage you'll save money on apps too.
billwg
"Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:pan.2005.08.27....@tiscali.co.uk...
| On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 15:12:21 +0000,
billwg wrote:
|
|
| Why do you talk like a fool?
|
|
| I think you are a dishonest,
hypocritical, supercilious idiot. The
entire
| paragraph above is full of your
snobbish attitude towards hard-working
OSS
| programmers. We are not 'freeloaders',
since you cannot freeload off
| anything which is designed to be given
away, and the programmers do their
| work for a variety of reasons, of
which vanity is very low on the list.
| many do it for the sheer love of
coding, the way many writers write, and
| would do so even if no one ever read
their stories or used their programs.
|
If they don't do it for money and they
don't do it for the glory you say they
do it for the rush it gives them? I bet
you don't do it at all.
|
| Why then are there thousands of media
players available for Windows, if
| WMP is all anyone needs? The reason
is, users don't all want to use WMP.
| A great many people prefer other
players - better players, that don't try
| to restrict the music you rip off CDs
*you own* with stupid 'licenses'. I
| bought the CD, I don't want my PC
telling me when and where I can listen
| to the music. I don't want it assumed
that I'm a thief.
|
Well I've ripped a lot of CDs, Kier and
the MP3 files all work with WMP and
there is no hint of any license nags.
Where do you see this? Or have you just
read about it in COLA?
| >
| > : And to get the best out of WMP,
you still have to know what to do with
| > : it. A young workmate of mine can't
even get his girlfriend's laptop
| > : install of Windows Media Player to
deal with Mp3s that he can put on
| > : his phone.
| > :
| > Sounds contrived to me, Kier, but so
what? Consider that this issue is
| > not very predominant.
|
| You must not know many young people.
Especially young men. They all have
| the latest phones and gadgets which
play music and video. I was speaking
| only yesterday with the young workmate
in question, and with another lad
| even younger. He was showing me his
phone, which could store music, video,
| ringtones and the like on a memory
card smaller than a postage stamp. The
| kids these days may not know much
about operating systems, but they all
| have these gadgets, and they all want
mp3s, not WMA.
|
I don't disagree with that, Kier, but
you are saying that MP3s somehow do not
work with WMP and that is not the case.
||
| No, it is you who are the fool. MS is
beginning to realise that Linux is a
| force to be reckoned with, and they
don't like it. They hate and fear
| competition. All monopolies do,
because it means they have to improve
the
| quality of their product or service in
real-world terms.
|
Well you might give some thought to the
fact that Microsoft started out as a
very small company and had to compete
with Digital Research, Tandy, Apple, and
others in order to gain a foothold on
the platform market. Later on they were
opposed by IBM itself when Big Blue
tried to recapture the PC arena with
their PS/2 and Microchannel Architecture
and OS/2 initiatives. Microsoft won
through all that and have managed to get
themselves a major chunk of the server
market from the hands of IBM and Sun and
DEC who held it for a long time. Do you
think they actually fear the rag-tag
bunch who are applauding linux today?
| Large parts of Brazil and China and
many other countries are taking up
| Linux. Are they whistling too?
|
Begging the last time I looked, Kier.
Begging.
||
| Warez? That's a Windows term.
|
"Warez (pronounced "wares") is both a
derivative for the plural form of the
word "software" and a contraction of
warehouses meaning both the copyrighted
material traded in violation of its
copyright license and the places where
its traded." - wiki
|
| Just because you haven't seen it,
doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Have you seen it? Used it?
| >
| > But can they do it automatically at
night without being there?
|
| Yes. Just as a great many other tasks
can be automated in Linux.
|
I sense a hedge there, Kier. Can you
yourself do it? Certainly an adept
programmer could create a program to
look somewhere and find suitable updates
and even do some form of autoinstall,
but it comes with Windows, you don't
have to make it yourself.
|
| Clearly there is. Are you suggesting
he lied? How do you make out that
| there is no money to be saved, when he
doesn't have to spend any money on
| getting programs such as the GIMP or
MPlayer or Gambas or whatever he
| likes to use?
|
Well he plainly said "linux" was the
source of the savings, Kier. Maybe he
meant something different.
Kier
>
> "Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in
> message
> news:pan.2005.08.27....@tiscali.co.uk...
> | On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 15:12:21 +0000,
> billwg wrote:
> |
> |
> | Why do you talk like a fool?
> |
> So that you will understand, Kier!
I am not a fool. Therefore you effort is wasted. Personally, I think you
talk like a fool because that's what you are. You have the mistaken
impression that we in COLA are stupid, but you are incorrect. The
likelihood is that most genuine COLA posters are above the average in
intelligence or understanding, since they are using Linux.
>
> |
> | I think you are a dishonest,
> hypocritical, supercilious idiot. The
> entire
> | paragraph above is full of your
> snobbish attitude towards hard-working
> OSS
> | programmers. We are not 'freeloaders',
> since you cannot freeload off
> | anything which is designed to be given
> away, and the programmers do their
> | work for a variety of reasons, of
> which vanity is very low on the list.
> | many do it for the sheer love of
> coding, the way many writers write, and
> | would do so even if no one ever read
> their stories or used their programs.
> |
> If they don't do it for money and they
> don't do it for the glory you say they
> do it for the rush it gives them? I bet
> you don't do it at all.
No, I don't. Wish I had that skill. But what has that to do with anything?
I do write stories for my own pleasure, though, and would do so no matter
what. Many coders would do the same with their code. It's an artform to
them.
>
> |
> | Why then are there thousands of media
> players available for Windows, if
> | WMP is all anyone needs? The reason
> is, users don't all want to use WMP.
> | A great many people prefer other
> players - better players, that don't try
> | to restrict the music you rip off CDs
> *you own* with stupid 'licenses'. I
> | bought the CD, I don't want my PC
> telling me when and where I can listen
> | to the music. I don't want it assumed
> that I'm a thief.
> |
> Well I've ripped a lot of CDs, Kier and
> the MP3 files all work with WMP and
> there is no hint of any license nags.
> Where do you see this? Or have you just
> read about it in COLA?
You supercilous prick. Don't try to fool me that you don't know that WMP
defaults to ripping in WMA form, not mp3. And is you use WMA, it wants you
to create 'licenses' for your tracks. Like you don't have the right to
shift tracks from one PC to another. That's why most sensible people
prefer mp3. It's not Open, but it's better than WMA.
No, I'm saying WMP defaults to WMA, and my workmate can't work out how to
get it to do mp3s, which is the more used and popular format in the real
world. You seem to think 'popular' equals best, so you should understand,
shouldn't you?
Yes, they do. because that 'rag-tag bunch' are beyond their reach and
control. That's what they fear. What MS did as certainly impressive - but
they have gone too far. They don't just want a good and reasonable share
of the pie, they want it all. That's not acceptable to me or anyone else
with good sense.
>
> | Large parts of Brazil and China and
> many other countries are taking up
> | Linux. Are they whistling too?
> |
> Begging the last time I looked, Kier.
> Begging.
Lying arsehole.
>
> ||
> | Warez? That's a Windows term.
> |
> "Warez (pronounced "wares") is both a
> derivative for the plural form of the
> word "software" and a contraction of
> warehouses meaning both the copyrighted
> material traded in violation of its
> copyright license and the places where
> its traded." - wiki
I know what it means, you supercilous twat. But there is no need for the
term in OSS.
>
> |
> | Just because you haven't seen it,
> doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>
> Have you seen it? Used it?
> | >
> | > But can they do it automatically at
> night without being there?
> |
> | Yes. Just as a great many other tasks
> can be automated in Linux.
> |
> I sense a hedge there, Kier. Can you
> yourself do it?
Of course.
> Certainly an adept
> programmer could create a program to
> look somewhere and find suitable updates
> and even do some form of autoinstall,
> but it comes with Windows, you don't
> have to make it yourself.
You don't need to be an adept programmer to do it.
>
> |
> | Clearly there is. Are you suggesting
> he lied? How do you make out that
> | there is no money to be saved, when he
> doesn't have to spend any money on
> | getting programs such as the GIMP or
> MPlayer or Gambas or whatever he
> | likes to use?
> |
> Well he plainly said "linux" was the
> source of the savings, Kier. Maybe he
> meant something different.
No, he meant that using OSS/Linux software meant he didn't have to spend
as much money, so he had it to spare for better hardware. Perhaps you
don't understand English.
--
Kier
robert
>
> :
> : You know what, if this is supposedly "professional" software, give me my
> : "amateur" Linux and OSS anyday and I'll take the money I saved to buy
> : some nice hardware to run it on!
> :
> Perhaps you can do that with what you are using for hardware, rapskat, but I
> don't know how to get an IBM Intellistation Z-Pro without XP Pro to begin
> with, since IBM wouldn't sell it piecemeal. The same thing holds true for
> the Dell systems that I have at the office.
>
According to this:
http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/intellistation/pro/compare.html
The IBM Intellistation Z-Pro workstation has the following pre-install
options:
"Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional (32-bit)"
"Red Hat® Enterprise Linux® WS 3 (64-bit)"
This is *not* a pre-install option on the Z-Pro:
"Microsoft XP Professional x64 Edition (64-bit)"
As for Dell, the system I have here at the house had options for
No OS preinstalled, Red Hat preinstalled, or Windows preinstalled.
TheLetterK
> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.08.27....@nomail.com...
> :
> : It has the gain of of far fewer popups. It has the gain of better
> : security.
> :
> Well, rick, IE has gotten rid of popups itself and there were freebie add-on
> available for years that did that,
> long before Firefox came around. As to
> security, what do you care? The worst that could happen to you is that
> people might be able to view your fantasy collection! LOL!!! Other than
> that, you are as secure as can be regardless.
I just don't like supporting Microsoft's 'standards'. Neither does IE
really support anything other than Windows very well (the Mac version is
stuck at 5.2, and sucks out loud. Literally, Firefox has better
compatibility than IE on Mac).
This is like me saying 'OmniWeb 5 is the greatest browser ever'! Well,
do you really care? Not really, because it doesn't run on Windows. IE
could be the greatest shit since sliced bread and I wouldn't give a damn
because it doesn't run on the platforms I usually work with (Windows is
there for games, that's it).
>
> : > It would be far easier to add to
> : > IE where you see a deficiency than to try to replace so much function
> that
> : > does not affect anything.
> :
> : Why add fo IE when you can use FireFox and bot have to add?
> :
> Well, if you are a freeloader waiting for someone to do something for you as
> you COLA folk mostly seem to be, there is no good reason, I'll admit. But
> if you have to do the work, that is a lot to do for no gain.
Which is why Firefox has so much more in the way of extensions and add-ons.
>
> : > That seems wasteful and stupid to me.
> :
> : That's because you're an idiot.
>
> You don't see it because you do no work, rick.
>
> :
> : > You use
> : > the terms "more useful" and "better" alll the time, but you never
> provide a
> : > standard of comparison.
> :
> : FireFox is more secure than IE. It is cross platform. It allows far fewerr
> : popups.
>
> Big whoopee!
Being cross-platform is a huge advantage. So is support for
honest-to-god web standards. Site designers need to stop putting up with
Microsoft's bullshit and write sites that at least rougly conform to
standards. Even though they won't render properly on IE.
>
> :
> : > The only thing that I can see is that you OSSers,
> : > as a community, are so damn cheap and so lacking of means that the
> little
> : > bit of money that is charged for commercial products is a big issue with
> : > you. You are a bunch of freeloaders
> :
> : You are a liar.
> :
> No, that is exactly what I see.
I'm perfectly willing to pay money for decent products--after all I do
pay Apple's premium. However, I'm not happy to pay for the shit
Microsoft produces. It's simply overpriced.
No, he's saying YOU is the method by which automatic updates are
provided on SuSE.
IIRC, most are sys admins, hobbiests, or CS students. And while 'CS
student' is a decent euphamism for 'unemployed', they'll probably find a
job managing something.
B Gruff
Explains a lot:-)
- and on his principle of "All those people can't be wrong", he
presumably uses AOL and is learning Mandarin?
(Are there a lot like baa-lamb in the U.S., btw?)
Bill
B Gruff
That's it for me on this part of this thread at least, baa-lamb.
Your quoting is now so borked that it's unreadable.
- and why the hell do you need to do all that quoting anyway?
Are you too idle to snip, or doesn't your newsreader do a selective
quote, or both?
Get your newsreader fixed.
Better still, get a newsreader.
Bill
rapskat
> (Are there a lot like baa-lamb in the U.S., btw?)
Unfortunately, yes. Just consider that Country/Western is the most
popular genre in this nation and you understand the general mentality.
No offense to those that like Country/Western. I listen to mostly
Downtempo D&B, R&B, TripHop, Blues, Jazz and Classical, though I can
tolerate mostly anything. ;-)
--
rapskat - 18:02:13 up 6 days, 20:12, 8 users, load average: 2.87, 2.01, 1.25
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
-- SETI, the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence
William Poaster
wrote:
> On Saturday 27 August 2005 18:53 Rick wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:52:53 +0100, B Gruff wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday 27 August 2005 16:38 Rick wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well it seems your newsreader can't quote properly. Fix it.
>>>
>>> It's not just me then?
>>> He's surely not using..................????.........is he?
>>>
>> DOH!!!
>>
>> He using Outlook .... Express.....
>
> Explains a lot:-)
>
> - and on his principle of "All those people can't be wrong", he presumably
> uses AOL and is learning Mandarin?
>
> (Are there a lot like baa-lamb in the U.S., btw?)
It figures he's using Outhouse Excreta, & I wouldn't be at all surprised
if he's using AOHell too, it's about his level of mentality. As for
learning mandarin, I doubt he's got past "Dick & Jane" yet.
--
DFS -self confessed idiot:-
"Nothing wrong with laughing like an idiot. I do it all the time."
Wednesday 17 August 2005 5:03:19 am
Message-ID: <bGyMe.6989$F_7....@fe06.lga>
Rick
>
> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.08.27....@nomail.com...
> :
> : It has the gain of of far fewer popups. It has the gain of better
> : security.
> :
> Well, rick, IE has gotten rid of popups itself and there were freebie add-on
> available for years that did that,
That is an addon that people have to go look for. And.. did you pay for
it, freeloader?
> long before Firefox came around.
uh, no. Not --long-- before Firefox came along.
> As to security, what do you care?
I don't care to have my computer become a spam re-mailer.
> The worst that could happen to you is that
> people might be able to view your fantasy collection! LOL!!!
Look.. a lying stupid, braying ass.
> Other than
> that, you are as secure as can be regardless.
>
> : > It would be far easier to add to
> : > IE where you see a deficiency than to try to replace so much function
> that
Fix your quoting.
> : > does not affect anything.
> :
> : Why add fo IE when you can use FireFox and bot have to add?
> :
> Well, if you are a freeloader waiting for someone to do something for you as
> you COLA folk mostly seem to be,
You're a liar.
> there is no good reason, I'll admit. But
> if you have to do the work, that is a lot to do for no gain.
And, ONCE AGAIN... why waste time looking for IE addons (you do pay for
them, don't you, freeloader?) when you don't need to when using Firefox?
>
> : > That seems wasteful and stupid to me.
> :
> : That's because you're an idiot.
>
> You don't see it because you do no work, rick.
You're a liar.
>
> :
> : > You use
> : > the terms "more useful" and "better" alll the time, but you never
> provide a
> : > standard of comparison.
Fix your quoting.
> :
> : FireFox is more secure than IE. It is cross platform. It allows far fewerr
> : popups.
>
> Big whoopee!
Translation: you are a bigot. A liar. and quite stupid.
>
> :
> : > The only thing that I can see is that you OSSers,
> : > as a community, are so damn cheap and so lacking of means that the
> little
> : > bit of money that is charged for commercial products is a big issue with
> : > you. You are a bunch of freeloaders
> :
> : You are a liar.
> :
> No, that is exactly what I see.
No, you are a liar. Many have repeatedly told you they pay for Linux
distros. Many have told you they contribute money to projects.
>
> :
> : > dependent on the presumed vanity of a
> : > few programmers who cannot satisfy their egos with a real job so they
> create
> : > cults of people like you who are eager for the opportunity. I think you
> are
> : > a bunch of silly geese.
> :
> : More of your bigoted lies.
> :
> No, I really do think you are a silly goose.
Well, you are free to try to think.
> :
> : > : > I use the RealPlayer stuff for their formats, since you are pretty
> much
> : > : > stuck with that. Also, I have the Apple thing, although I don't
> : > remember
> : > : > why.
> : > :
> : > : Linux users have RealPlayer, too, but we don't really need it, nor
> : > : Quicktime player, because you can get the same functions from several
> : > : Linux players. MPlayer will play just about anything you can throw at
> it,
> : > : and it takes up a good deal less space than WMP.
> : > :
> : > There are some many thousands of media players available in the OSS and
> : > shareware and payware and adware environment, Kier. So what? WMP plays
> all
> : > the MP3s that seem to be about. Why bother with any other player?
> :
> : ... because he might want to use some other player? Or not put up with
> : adware?
>
> No adware in WMP, rick. If you get one of those off-brand jobs, though, who
> knows?
I don't get adware at all.
> : > : And to get the best out of WMP, you still have to know what to do with
> it.
> : > : A young workmate of mine can't even get his girlfriend's laptop
> install
> : > : of Windows Media Player to deal with Mp3s that he can put on his
> phone.
> : > :
> : > Sounds contrived to me, Kier, but so what? Consider that this issue is
> not
> : > very predominant.
> :
> : You are the one braying about the wide spread use of mp3. How can not
> : being able to play mp3s not be important in your world?
> :
> I play MP3's just fine, but then I don't need to make up any story about how
> they don't work.
They work fine under Linux based software.
look.. a lying, stupid, braying ass.
> : > You
> : > bumpkins tell one another that you strike fear in the hearts of Gates
> and
> : > Ballmer, but you are just whistling past the graveyard, hoping there is
> no
> : > such thing as a ghost. I realize that some such story is important to
> your
> : > morale, but you are just fooling yourselves!
> : > :
> : > : > The rest of the world has
> : > : > more useful things to occupy their thoughts than fawning and fussing
> : > over
> : > : > their OS platform software. Why don't you try just using one or the
> : > other
> : > : > for some practical purpose?
> : > :
> : > : What do you think it is we do?
> : >
> : > Mostly sit around and bitch about MS, Kier.
> :
> : More lies.
>
> Not at all, rick. I do believe that you folk just sit around and bitch.
More lies.
> :
> : > :
> : > : > You will quickly see that they really don't
> : > : > matter and getting on with your work is more important than worrying
> : > about
> : > : > the platform.
> : > :
> : > : Then why are you here whining and crying about how poor Linux is? Why
> : > : aren't you out using your platform and leaving us to use and promote
> ours?
> : >
> : > I do this for sport and relaxation, Kier. Why do you?
> :
> : Translation: you're a sorry excuse for a person.
>
> Only in the eyes of a surly curmudgeon, rick! No worries there!
Nope. You're a sorry excuse for a person.
Look... a lying, stupid, braying ass.
> :
> : > I suspect that there is a lot of OSS warez that only work with Windows.
> :
> : I suspect you are a dumbass... you may now show how OSS can be warez.
> :
> Do you think that only stolen goods can be warez? I think any wares can be
> warez!
You are free to try to think anything you want.
BTW:
<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=definition+warez&btnG=Google+Search>
Warex:
Commercial software that has been pirated and made available to the public
via an electronic Bulletin Board System (BBS) or the Internet.
<http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=warez>
warez:
/weirz/ n. Widely used in cracker subcultures to
denote cracked version of commercial software, that is versions from
which copy-protection has been stripped. Hackers recognize this
term but don't use it themselves.
Now, where is OSS mentioned?
You're an idiot. And a bigot. And you are not very bright. And your
newsreader sucks.
... um.. automatic updates... Linux... stick to the conversation.
Your attempt at tap dancing was noted. And it was bad.
I didn't think you could.
Me. I am a consumer.
You are a liar, a bigot, and you aren't very bright.
I have agreed substantively. Repeated.
... and I doubt you can fix your lousy newsreader.
--
Rick
billwg
"TheLetterK"
<thele...@nomail.spymac.com> wrote in
message
news:vn4Qe.9957$wb5....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
||
| ...(Windows is
| there for games, that's it).
|
loss yet for Mr. Softee!
| Being cross-platform is a huge
advantage. So is support for
| honest-to-god web standards. Site
designers need to stop putting up with
| Microsoft's bullshit and write sites
that at least rougly conform to
| standards. Even though they won't
render properly on IE.
|
Well site designers have it the way they
want it just designing to IE. That is
the standard, like it or not, and if you
don't comply with that standard, you are
only hurting yourself. You can cut off
your nose to spite your face, as they
say, but the conventional wisdom is that
such an act is foolish. Are you a fool?
|| I'm perfectly willing to pay money
for decent products--after all I do
| pay Apple's premium. However, I'm not
happy to pay for the shit
| Microsoft produces. It's simply
overpriced.
|
So you say, but you think Apple is not
overpriced? Quite a all-around fellow,
eh?
Tattoo Vampire
> Unfortunately, yes. Just consider that Country/Western is the most
> popular genre in this nation and you understand the general mentality.
I think if you look at album sales, the abomination known as rap/hip-hop would
be the most popular type of music in the U.S. today, and that's profoundly
depressing.
billwg
|
In all that bandwidth you wasted, rick,
you never once made a single substantive
statement! I have seen old guys with
feeble minds before, but you are setting
records for pointless behavior! LOL!!!
TheLetterK
> "TheLetterK"
> <thele...@nomail.spymac.com> wrote in
> message
> news:vn4Qe.9957$wb5....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> ||
> | ...(Windows is
> | there for games, that's it).
> |
> Well, at least it is there and so no
> loss yet for Mr. Softee!
>
> | Being cross-platform is a huge
> advantage. So is support for
> | honest-to-god web standards. Site
> designers need to stop putting up with
> | Microsoft's bullshit and write sites
> that at least rougly conform to
> | standards. Even though they won't
> render properly on IE.
> |
> Well site designers have it the way they
> want it just designing to IE. That is
> the standard, like it or not, and if you
> don't comply with that standard, you are
> only hurting yourself. You can cut off
> your nose to spite your face, as they
> say, but the conventional wisdom is that
> such an act is foolish. Are you a fool?
Feh, I'd follow standards--which means my web sites would be broken in IE.
>
> || I'm perfectly willing to pay money
> for decent products--after all I do
> | pay Apple's premium. However, I'm not
> happy to pay for the shit
> | Microsoft produces. It's simply
> overpriced.
> |
> So you say, but you think Apple is not
> overpriced? Quite a all-around fellow,
> eh?
Apple offers quality, Microsoft doesn't.
billwg
| likelihood is that most genuine COLA
posters are above the average in
| intelligence or understanding, since
they are using Linux.
|
You fancy yourself superior and point to
linux as your badge of office!
| > |
| > If they don't do it for money and
they
| > don't do it for the glory you say
they
| > do it for the rush it gives them? I
bet
| > you don't do it at all.
|
| No, I don't. Wish I had that skill.
But what has that to do with anything?
| I do write stories for my own
pleasure, though, and would do so no
matter
| what. Many coders would do the same
with their code. It's an artform to
| them.
|
Well, I think you are being truthful
about your own motivations, but you are
drawing the wrong conclusions due to
your inexperience.
| > Well I've ripped a lot of CDs, Kier
and
| > the MP3 files all work with WMP and
| > there is no hint of any license
nags.
| > Where do you see this? Or have you
just
| > read about it in COLA?
|
| You supercilous prick. Don't try to
fool me that you don't know that WMP
| defaults to ripping in WMA form, not
mp3. And is you use WMA, it wants you
| to create 'licenses' for your tracks.
Like you don't have the right to
| shift tracks from one PC to another.
That's why most sensible people
| prefer mp3. It's not Open, but it's
better than WMA.
|
Well, I use Nero for the ripping, Kier,
I've never tried it with WMP. And for
the burning, too. It came with my DVD
burner for free. WMP plays the things
just fine, though.
|
| No, I'm saying WMP defaults to WMA,
and my workmate can't work out how to
| get it to do mp3s, which is the more
used and popular format in the real
| world. You seem to think 'popular'
equals best, so you should understand,
| shouldn't you?
|
I just click on an MP3 and it plays,
nothing else needed.
|
| Yes, they do. because that 'rag-tag
bunch' are beyond their reach and
| control. That's what they fear. What
MS did as certainly impressive - but
| they have gone too far. They don't
just want a good and reasonable share
| of the pie, they want it all. That's
not acceptable to me or anyone else
| with good sense.
|
How is it that you are so certain that
the linuxers and OSSers are beyond MS
reach and control? One thing that the
OSSers complain about is software
patents and other IP restrictions. As a
hypothetical case, imagine that Sun and
Microsoft cross-license each other in
various technologies and collude with
Oracle to do the same. Now these
companies have a mutually licensed
method for interoperation that they
charge other companies, say IBM, Dell,
HP, etc., reasonable license fees to use
in their own products. And they have
asserted their patents in this regard.
Now where does that leave linux?
Certainly linux users cannot infringe on
the IP without becoming subject to
prosecution and commercial companies
will not touch the issue without
indemnification. Red Hat and Novell may
be willing to buy a license for their
enterprise products to use, but that is
counter to the GPL terms. It may be
impossible to eradicate the hobbyist
crowd who might continue to fool with
linux in spite of the loss of any
significant commercial business in this
scenario, but from a revenue protection
POV, I don't see why it wouldn't work to
the advantage of MS and Sun and the
rest. Do you think that these companies
are reluctant to cast linux adrift if
the expediency arises?
You can dismiss the thought out of hand
as you folk are wont to do, but can you
refute it with a plan of your own?
|
| Lying arsehole.
|
You really should examine the
applicability of the term "liar" in
these discussion, Kier. I think you are
misapplying it considering the contexts
that you seem to use it within. Just a
suggestion.
| I know what it means, you supercilous
twat. But there is no need for the
| term in OSS.
|
The plain and universal meaning is
simply "software" as I cited, Kier.
That can apply equally to OSS and
Windows products.
Rick
Are you retarded? He is saying that Apple's premium price is worth paying
because it is a decent product, as opposed to micro$oft's products. He
also said he pays for Apple's products.
--
Rick
Rick
>
> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in
> message
> news:pan.2005.08.28...@nomail.com...
> |
> In all that bandwidth you wasted, rick,
> you never once made a single substantive
> statement!
You're a liar. And that is a substantive statement!
> I have seen old guys with
> feeble minds before, but you are setting
> records for pointless behavior! LOL!!!
Look, a lying, stupid, bigoted, braying ass..
... and fix your newsreader.
--
Rick
Mark Kent
Rick <no...@nomail.com> espoused:
Probably true - but he's also sat at his terminal, laughing to himself
about how easy it is to get people to respond to his unbelievably crass
claims, I think. It would be far far better to ignore him, then he'd
a) go away and b) no longer get paid for doing this.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
"Flattery is all right -- if you don't inhale."
-- Adlai Stevenson
Kier
>
> "Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in
> message
> news:pan.2005.08.27....@tiscali.co.uk...
> | ... The
> | likelihood is that most genuine COLA
> posters are above the average in
> | intelligence or understanding, since
> they are using Linux.
> |
> Now we get to the nitty-gritty, Kier!
> You fancy yourself superior and point to
> linux as your badge of office!
No, I see that Linux is a superior OS in many ways, and that those who use
it are more likely to be intelligent enough to realise why.
>
> | > |
> | > If they don't do it for money and
> they
> | > don't do it for the glory you say
> they
> | > do it for the rush it gives them? I
> bet
> | > you don't do it at all.
> |
> | No, I don't. Wish I had that skill.
> But what has that to do with anything?
> | I do write stories for my own
> pleasure, though, and would do so no
> matter
> | what. Many coders would do the same
> with their code. It's an artform to
> | them.
> |
> Well, I think you are being truthful
> about your own motivations, but you are
> drawing the wrong conclusions due to
> your inexperience.
What inexperience would that be?
>
> | > Well I've ripped a lot of CDs, Kier
> and
> | > the MP3 files all work with WMP and
> | > there is no hint of any license
> nags.
> | > Where do you see this? Or have you
> just
> | > read about it in COLA?
> |
> | You supercilous prick. Don't try to
> fool me that you don't know that WMP
> | defaults to ripping in WMA form, not
> mp3. And is you use WMA, it wants you
> | to create 'licenses' for your tracks.
> Like you don't have the right to
> | shift tracks from one PC to another.
> That's why most sensible people
> | prefer mp3. It's not Open, but it's
> better than WMA.
> |
> Well, I use Nero for the ripping, Kier,
> I've never tried it with WMP. And for
> the burning, too. It came with my DVD
> burner for free. WMP plays the things
> just fine, though.
And? So?
>
>
> |
> | No, I'm saying WMP defaults to WMA,
> and my workmate can't work out how to
> | get it to do mp3s, which is the more
> used and popular format in the real
> | world. You seem to think 'popular'
> equals best, so you should understand,
> | shouldn't you?
> |
> I just click on an MP3 and it plays,
> nothing else needed.
Playing is not the issue, it's getting the player to *create* mp3s, rather
than useless WMA files which won't work on a phone.
>
>
> |
> | Yes, they do. because that 'rag-tag
> bunch' are beyond their reach and
> | control. That's what they fear. What
> MS did as certainly impressive - but
> | they have gone too far. They don't
> just want a good and reasonable share
> | of the pie, they want it all. That's
> not acceptable to me or anyone else
> | with good sense.
> |
> How is it that you are so certain that
> the linuxers and OSSers are beyond MS
> reach and control? One thing that the
> OSSers complain about is software
> patents and other IP restrictions. As a
> hypothetical case, imagine that Sun and
> Microsoft cross-license each other in
> various technologies and collude with
> Oracle to do the same. Now these
> companies have a mutually licensed
> method for interoperation that they
> charge other companies, say IBM, Dell,
> HP, etc., reasonable license fees to use
> in their own products. And they have
> asserted their patents in this regard.
And no doubt, there are many who would think this situation desirable. but
it isn't.
>
> Now where does that leave linux?
> Certainly linux users cannot infringe on
> the IP without becoming subject to
> prosecution and commercial companies
> will not touch the issue without
> indemnification. Red Hat and Novell may
> be willing to buy a license for their
> enterprise products to use, but that is
> counter to the GPL terms. It may be
> impossible to eradicate the hobbyist
> crowd who might continue to fool with
> linux in spite of the loss of any
> significant commercial business in this
> scenario, but from a revenue protection
> POV, I don't see why it wouldn't work to
> the advantage of MS and Sun and the
> rest. Do you think that these companies
> are reluctant to cast linux adrift if
> the expediency arises?
Quite probably not. *That* is why Linux is important. Because such
behaviour is unethical and in the end counter-productive and dangerous. I
do not what *my* private data held hostage by *any* computer platform. I
do not want that much control or power over such an important technology
as personal computing to be concentrated in the hands of only a few
proprietary companies.
But you are mistaken to suggest that Linux users are just some unimportant
'hobbyist crowd'. You should read Linux User and Developer and actually
find out who is using Linux, and what for.
>
> You can dismiss the thought out of hand
> as you folk are wont to do, but can you
> refute it with a plan of your own?
We already are. It's called the GPL.
>
> |
> | Lying arsehole.
> |
> You really should examine the
> applicability of the term "liar" in
> these discussion, Kier. I think you are
> misapplying it considering the contexts
> that you seem to use it within. Just a
> suggestion.
I suggest you stop lying.
>
>
> | I know what it means, you supercilous
> twat. But there is no need for the
> | term in OSS.
> |
> The plain and universal meaning is
> simply "software" as I cited, Kier.
> That can apply equally to OSS and
> Windows products.
Warez isn't simply software. It's cracked software.
--
Kier
billwg
"Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message news:pan.2005.08.28....@tiscali.co.uk...
| > Now we get to the nitty-gritty, Kier!
| > You fancy yourself superior and point to
| > linux as your badge of office!
|
| No, I see that Linux is a superior OS in many ways, and that those who use
| it are more likely to be intelligent enough to realise why.
|
Spin it the way you like, Kier, but you are trying to sell a standard of comparison that very few people, percentage wise, believe
to be true. The more conventional view is that linux advocates are smug little techno-dweebs who actually try to be weird as a way
of differentiating themselves from the rest of the population. The older ones try for an air of eccentricity and only seem to
achieve crustiness!
| > |
| > Well, I think you are being truthful
| > about your own motivations, but you are
| > drawing the wrong conclusions due to
| > your inexperience.
|
| What inexperience would that be?
|
You do not develop software. Yet you are implying motivations to these developers that you see as consistent with the behavior that
you desire them to have. There is a lot of satisfaction obtained in creating a useful application program or even in creating a
useful programming tool. There are a number of people doing this even in the "free" software world, but they don't hang all the
extra things on their work as do the GPLers. See www.boost.org for example.
|
| Playing is not the issue, it's getting the player to *create* mp3s, rather
| than useless WMA files which won't work on a phone.
|
Well, then feed your hate for MS in the satisfaction that those who play music on their phones may be driven into the clutches of
OSS thereby! I won't say that this is a nonsense, Kier, but I consider it close to that. I have a couple of cell phones, one is
kept in each car, and I even use them on occasion, but I cannot imagine using one for listening to music on anything but a very
infrequent basis. Too tinny of a sound although that may not affect the experience for a lot of new tunes that seem to appeal to
the youth. The same holds true for photographs, IMO.
How could that be effective against the hypothetical scenario I presented?
| Warez isn't simply software. It's cracked software.
|
Well, you may be the authority there, Kier!
Kier
>
> "Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message news:pan.2005.08.28....@tiscali.co.uk...
>
> | > Now we get to the nitty-gritty, Kier!
> | > You fancy yourself superior and point to
> | > linux as your badge of office!
> |
> | No, I see that Linux is a superior OS in many ways, and that those who use
> | it are more likely to be intelligent enough to realise why.
> |
> Spin it the way you like, Kier, but you are trying to sell a standard of comparison that very few people, percentage wise, believe
> to be true. The more conventional view is that linux advocates are smug little techno-dweebs who actually try to be weird as a way
> of differentiating themselves from the rest of the population. The older ones try for an air of eccentricity and only seem to
> achieve crustiness!
You are the one spinning. You are attributing an image to Linux users
which is patently false. You call Linux users 'smug little techno-dweebs'
as if this is what they are, when you are totally incorrect. Your
dishonesty is very obvious.
>
> | > |
> | > Well, I think you are being truthful
> | > about your own motivations, but you are
> | > drawing the wrong conclusions due to
> | > your inexperience.
> |
> | What inexperience would that be?
> |
> You do not develop software. Yet you are implying motivations to these developers that you see as consistent with the behavior that
> you desire them to have. There is a lot of satisfaction obtained in creating a useful application program or even in creating a
> useful programming tool. There are a number of people doing this even in the "free" software world, but they don't hang all the
> extra things on their work as do the GPLers. See www.boost.org for example.
What has my not developing software have to do with understanding why some
OSS developers do their developing? Many of them have *stated* publicly,
in forums and magazines and books and interviews that they code because
they love it, see it as a kind of artform, and would continue to do it
even if no one used the software beyond themselves. While most writers
want to be read, and most programmers would like their software used, many
gain satisfaction from the act of creation alone.
>
> |
> | Playing is not the issue, it's getting the player to *create* mp3s, rather
> | than useless WMA files which won't work on a phone.
> |
> Well, then feed your hate for MS in the satisfaction that those who play music on their phones may be driven into the clutches of
> OSS thereby! I won't say that this is a nonsense, Kier, but I consider it close to that. I have a couple of cell phones, one is
> kept in each car, and I even use them on occasion, but I cannot imagine using one for listening to music on anything but a very
> infrequent basis. Too tinny of a sound although that may not affect the experience for a lot of new tunes that seem to appeal to
> the youth. The same holds true for photographs, IMO.
Like I said, you don't know many young people, do you? Oh, and by the way,
i don't hate MS. I just don't like their business practices very much, and
I don't want them telling me what I can and cannot do on a PC *I* paid for.
The latest generation of phones with these capabilities are very much
improved in quality, and this trend is likely to continue.
Why? I don't use cracked software. If you are trying to imply that I do,
you are simply scum.
--
Kier
billwg
"TheLetterK" <thele...@nomail.spymac.com> wrote in message news:3h3Qe.9072$wb5....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
| > Are you paying attention, Kier? Rapskat says that he would "take the money"
| > saved, but there is no money to be saved.
| Sure there is. Windows XP Pro retails for $300. Debian retails for the
| cost of bandwith and a disk. Shit, if you do anything other than
| absolute basic usage you'll save money on apps too.
But Windows comes for free with almost any computer that you might want to buy, K! If you are buying a cheap computer that only has
WinXP Home, you can get XP Pro for $75 to $100 just for the asking. Nobody pays retail. If you want to base a strategy on that, it
is bound to fail.
billwg
<r.e.b...@usa.net> wrote in message news:1125157421.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| If the OEM is too uncooperative, Microsoft can simply say "all or
| nothing" the way they did with IBM back in 1995.
|
Of course Microsoft never said that, Rex. Your memory is faulty. The issue with IBM was the granting of a total of $7 worth of
discounts for various partnership initiatives such as exclusive use of Windows, exclusive offering of MS Office, internal use by IBM
to create a reference account, and co-marketing offsets for advertising "IBM Recommends Windows" kind of tags. Short of that, IBM
was qualified regardless for OEM price levels. Where IBM was caught cheating Microsoft on license payments, IBM faced a treasury
hold action from Microsoft's accounting department, which was a whole other issue.
Kier
No, it doesn't come free. One way or another it's paid for.
--
Kier
billwg
| more complicated than Windows when using Linux-friendly hardware. To
| be fair, it is a bit difficult to tell which OEM equipment comes "Linux
| Friendly" compared to systems that are "Linux Hostile". It's not like
| the OEMs can put a happy penguine or a penquin with a circle/slash to
| let users know that they should not purchase that model if they want to
| install Linux or that they should purchase a specific model or option
| if they want to install Linux. This has something to do with the OEM
| distribution agreement - doesn't it? ;-)
|
I think that it has more to do with the fact that there is no one to pay the OEM for the space, Rex. Linux suppliers are
financially marginal operations and they simply have no funds for advertising promotions like the "Designed for Windows" or "Intel
Inside" programs. More recently, I have seen where it is now the practice of Linus and his publicist company to actively discourage
the use of the name "Linux" by charging a $5000 fee for using the term and threatening those who would do so without paying with
lawsuits. That is going to make it difficult for linux advocacy in the future.
billwg
| NT 4.0, which was notorious for making you reboot for even the most
| trivial changes.
There is no need to be fair with rapskat, Rex. He is a known and vicious anti-MS troll. The fact that he would complain about a 10
year old, obsolete OS platform is typical of the false fronts presented by these people in their desperate attempts to influence
others to try linux. Very few are misled, though.
billwg
| even hijacked an airplane by telling them that unless he "fixed" the
| computer on the airplane it would be infected and would crash. Today,
| that would get him 5 years in a federal penetentary, but in the 1980s,
| he actually got away with it.
|
This would bear some further discussion, Rex! Any place where one could go to learn more?
| The most dramatic examples are a matter of public record. When Compaq
| installed Netscape on the Windows desktop and removed the IE icon,
| Microsoft notified Compaq that their license would be revoked in 30
| days. Compaq had to renegotiate and agree to even more restrictive
| terms as a penalty for it's defiance.
|
You seem to have this one sort of confused. It is true that some underling at Compaq exceeded his authority and negotiated a deal
with Netscape that violated Compaq's contract with Microsoft. However, once the Compaq executive team learned of the incident, it
was immediately corrected and the person was removed from that position. Things were smoothed over quickly, IIRC.
| In 1995, Microsoft told IBM that unless IBM agreed to stop selling
| OS/2, they would get NO licenses for ANY version of Windows.
| Remember, IBM had paid Microsoft nearly $2 billion after catching
| Microsoft in the act of embezzling resources and source code. There
| were even smoking gun memos in which Bill Gates personally authorized
| the diversion of the resources and funds from OS/2 to Windows.
|
| Microsoft has protected it's top executives through well-timed and
| carefully drafted settlements which are used to seal the court reconds
| so that they can only be used in criminal investigations. This doesn't
| mean that what Microsoft did was legal, it just means that they were
| able to avoid the consequences of breaking the law. In effect,
| Microsoft executives have become racketeers who are above the law.
|
Now this is all pure fantasy, Rex, there is nothing that even remotely resembles this story in the facts.
billwg
"robert" <ro...@wheel.invalid> wrote in message news:Ya-dnZ2dnZ2c3z7OnZ2dn...@ctc.net...
You seem to be missing the point, robert, which was that there was no way to save any money that way.
William Poaster
wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 17:00:57 +0000, billwg wrote:
<snip>
>> But Windows comes for free with almost any computer that you might want
>> to buy, K! If you are buying a cheap computer that only has WinXP Home,
>> you can get XP Pro for $75 to $100 just for the asking. Nobody pays
>> retail. If you want to base a strategy on that, it is bound to fail.
>
> No, it doesn't come free. One way or another it's paid for.
Can you believe the *stupidity* of that guy? Windows, FREE?
BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Say, you don't think he was *serious*...do
you?
billwg
| ;-)
|
I don't think that is true, Rex. All the ones I have use something called "DivX".
billwg
"TheLetterK" <thele...@nomail.spymac.com> wrote in message news:kW2Qe.8758$wb5....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
| > Well, you've got the world's most popular browser and news/mail reader.
| 'most widely used' is a better term.
|
Have it your way, K, but you look like a nitpicker.
| > AFAIK, WMP is the most used media player on the planet, too. Do you use
| > anything else? Why?
| iTunes, because WMP doesn't support Ogg Vorbis but Quicktime does (with
| a plugin--though that plugin breaks with QT7). For videos? VLC.
|
"Ogg Vorbis"? Is that more popular than WMA or MP3? I've never seen tunes for sale in that format.
| > Well, I don't doubt that you get a lot of stuff, rapskat, but it seems so
| > home-spun
| The software I use on Linux doesn't seem 'home-spun'. It's usually
| better than similar commercial apps on Windows.
|
Well, if you don't use Windows software, you will not know the difference, K! The Brits drink room temp beer, too, but once they
discover refrigeration, that will change radically.
| > mostly and lacks that certain look and finished feel.
| Again, what are you talking about, specifically?
|
It's hard to express in words, K. But if you see the two side by side, it is obvious which one is the finished product and which
one is homespun.
| > Plus most
| > of it has such strange names. It kind of makes you wonder where it has
| > been, if you know what I mean!
| Strange names like 'Rhythmbox' for a music player? 'Calculator' for a
| calculator? 'OpenOffice'?
|
No, names like Gimp and gambas.
billwg
"Linųnut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?="@bone.com> wrote in message news:j4Kdnfagmaf...@comcast.com...
|
| In other words, Microsoft, seeing that Linux is not a single competitor
| that it can torpedo, wants to make it one.
|
Do you think it will work in the market, nut?
Rick
Do you think it will, lying bigot?
--
Rick
Rick
First... your newsreader is crap.
Second.. You an idiot and liar. Linus is merely protecting his trademark.
--
Rick
Kier
No, he's a Linux advocate. You are the vicious troll.
--
Kier
Rick
Nobody pays retail? Then why are there retail boxes of window$?
BTW, your newsreader is crap.
--
Rick
Rick
>
> "TheLetterK" <thele...@nomail.spymac.com> wrote in message news:kW2Qe.8758$wb5....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> | > Well, you've got the world's most popular browser and news/mail reader.
> | 'most widely used' is a better term.
> |
> Have it your way, K, but you look like a nitpicker.
Most widely used is definitely NOT the same as 'most popular'.
>
> | > AFAIK, WMP is the most used media player on the planet, too. Do you use
> | > anything else? Why?
> | iTunes, because WMP doesn't support Ogg Vorbis but Quicktime does (with
> | a plugin--though that plugin breaks with QT7). For videos? VLC.
> |
> "Ogg Vorbis"? Is that more popular than WMA or MP3? I've never seen tunes for sale in that format.
I see your newsreader can't wrap text properly, either...
BTW, you asked which player he used and why. He answered. whether YOU have
seen music for sale in Ogg format was not relevant to the question.
>
>
> | > Well, I don't doubt that you get a lot of stuff, rapskat, but it seems so
> | > home-spun
> | The software I use on Linux doesn't seem 'home-spun'. It's usually
> | better than similar commercial apps on Windows.
> |
> Well, if you don't use Windows software, you will not know the difference, K! The Brits drink room temp beer, too, but once they
> discover refrigeration, that will change radically.
Idiot. Bigot.
>
>
>
> | > mostly and lacks that certain look and finished feel.
> | Again, what are you talking about, specifically?
> |
> It's hard to express in words, K. But if you see the two side by side, it is obvious which one is the finished product and which
> one is homespun.
Translation: you can't back up your lies.
>
> | > Plus most
> | > of it has such strange names. It kind of makes you wonder where it has
> | > been, if you know what I mean!
> | Strange names like 'Rhythmbox' for a music player? 'Calculator' for a
> | calculator? 'OpenOffice'?
> |
> No, names like Gimp and gambas.
I see you are too stupid to understand that GIMP stands for Gnu Image
Manipulation Program.
--
Rick
Kier
As usual, you twist the facts. Linus is *not* charging $5000 to discourage
the use of the term Linux, he is protecting the trademark. And he's not
threatening anyone. Any charges that are made are on a sliding scale. Some
may not be charged at all for the use of the trademark, if they are not
making money.
Nor is the money going directly to Linus, as far as I'm aware.
You should get your facts right, you prick.
--
Kier
Kier
S'funny, I always find criticism of the names of Linux/Gnu software rather
stupid. I *like* the unusual names of much of our software. They have
character.
--
Kier
GreyCloud
>
> "TheLetterK" <thele...@nomail.spymac.com> wrote in message news:3h3Qe.9072$wb5....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> | > Are you paying attention, Kier? Rapskat says that he would "take the money"
> | > saved, but there is no money to be saved.
> | Sure there is. Windows XP Pro retails for $300. Debian retails for the
> | cost of bandwith and a disk. Shit, if you do anything other than
> | absolute basic usage you'll save money on apps too.
>
> But Windows comes for free with almost any computer that you might want to buy, K!
It isn't free, you brain dead wintroll.
> If you are buying a cheap computer that only has
> WinXP Home, you can get XP Pro for $75 to $100 just for the asking. Nobody pays retail. If you want to base a strategy on that, it
> is bound to fail.
Your logic has already failed. Guffaw!!
Mark Kent
Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
For sure. 'Bundling' is only 'free' in the marketing man's world, in
the real world, it's just plain bundling. It's a clever marketing move
to obfuscate the price so the victim, sorry, customer, doesn't see what
they're really paying for Microsoft Windows, and then follow it up with
a claim that it's free, honest, guv!
William Poaster
wrote:
<snip>
> You should get your facts right, you prick.
Have you ever known 'billwg' bother about a little thing like facts?
Kier
> begin trojan.vbs It was on Sun, 28 Aug 2005 19:33:17 +0100, that Kier
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> You should get your facts right, you prick.
>
> Have you ever known 'billwg' bother about a little thing like facts?
Pigs fly the Atlantic more regularly than that!
--
Kier
TheLetterK
> "TheLetterK" <thele...@nomail.spymac.com> wrote in message news:3h3Qe.9072$wb5....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> | > Are you paying attention, Kier? Rapskat says that he would "take the money"
> | > saved, but there is no money to be saved.
> | Sure there is. Windows XP Pro retails for $300. Debian retails for the
> | cost of bandwith and a disk. Shit, if you do anything other than
> | absolute basic usage you'll save money on apps too.
>
> But Windows comes for free with almost any computer that you might want to buy, K!
machine. Rather than paying $450 for the $400 computer, you pay $550 but
Windows XP home is included 'at no additional cost'.
> If you are buying a cheap computer that only has
> WinXP Home, you can get XP Pro for $75 to $100 just for the asking. Nobody pays retail. If you want to base a strategy on that, it
> is bound to fail.
Strange, I wasn't aware thet Dell passed out free upgrades to later
releases. Besides, they can afford to give the updates for free since
they only have to pay $50 for a copy of Windows and have already anally
raped your wallet.
billwg
artificial and the net result is that a consumer obtains an OS platform along with sufficient support to get and keep it running and
obtains the result at an affordable price that the consumer agrees is a fair value. Otherwise the consumer would not buy the
product unless you want to postulate that the consumer is grossly illogical which a poor premise for forming a market.
Computers are sold as appliances today the same way as televisions, automobiles, and electric toasters. There are a few people who
like to build hot rods or do other customizing, but the main market is off the rack and all the parts are part of the one whole.
billwg
TheLetterK
> "TheLetterK" <thele...@nomail.spymac.com> wrote in message news:kW2Qe.8758$wb5....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> | > Well, you've got the world's most popular browser and news/mail reader.
> | 'most widely used' is a better term.
> |
> Have it your way, K, but you look like a nitpicker.
lazy to go to another browser.
>
> | > AFAIK, WMP is the most used media player on the planet, too. Do you use
> | > anything else? Why?
> | iTunes, because WMP doesn't support Ogg Vorbis but Quicktime does (with
> | a plugin--though that plugin breaks with QT7). For videos? VLC.
> |
> "Ogg Vorbis"? Is that more popular than WMA or MP3? I've never seen tunes for sale in that format.
No, it's not more popular--but I use it anyway. I don't like the thought
of a company getting $.50 a copy just to let me rip CDs I already own.
>
>
> | > Well, I don't doubt that you get a lot of stuff, rapskat, but it seems so
> | > home-spun
> | The software I use on Linux doesn't seem 'home-spun'. It's usually
> | better than similar commercial apps on Windows.
> |
> Well, if you don't use Windows software, you will not know the difference, K!
Except I have used Windows, and the software selection (for th emost
part) sucks out loud. It's why I primarily use Windows ports of Linux
apps on Windows.
> The Brits drink room temp beer, too, but once they
> discover refrigeration, that will change radically.
>
>
>
> | > mostly and lacks that certain look and finished feel.
> | Again, what are you talking about, specifically?
> |
> It's hard to express in words, K. But if you see the two side by side, it is obvious which one is the finished product and which
> one is homespun.
I do compare them side to side. That's why I prefer working on Linux.
>
> | > Plus most
> | > of it has such strange names. It kind of makes you wonder where it has
> | > been, if you know what I mean!
> | Strange names like 'Rhythmbox' for a music player? 'Calculator' for a
> | calculator? 'OpenOffice'?
> |
> No, names like Gimp and gambas.
'GIMP' is an acronym. 'WMP' is 'strange' by the same logic.
billwg
fact that a company that wants to sell a Linux computer and advertise it as such has to pay the whole $5K? I don't think you can
dispute that. Rex's post was in regard to OEMs who do not advertise their products to be linux compatible and surely if they did,
they would be exposed to making the trademark payment.
Linus owns the trademark, Kier, and money is being paid to use the trademark. You can protest that linus is not getting the money,
but then who is getting it? Is it just going to pile up in the corner of some forgotten mail drop? Someone is going to get the
money and if it is not linus, he is even dumber than he looks.
As to "only protecting the trademark" what exactly is different about that from Microsoft's insistence that the OEMs show Windows
exactly as Microsoft intended it to be shown. Microsoft was, after all, only protecting the Windows trademark.
Why do you feel such a need to be so uncivil? Ignorant old men and juveniles seem to do that a lot around here, but I understood
that you were neither of these. Was I wrong?
billwg
"Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message news:pan.2005.08.28....@nomail.com...
| On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 17:45:27 +0000, billwg wrote:
|
| >
| > |
| > | In other words, Microsoft, seeing that Linux is not a single competitor
| > | that it can torpedo, wants to make it one.
| > |
| > Do you think it will work in the market, nut?
|
| Do you think it will, lying bigot?
My personal belief is that the whole issue is a sham, rick. The struggle to obtain mindshare and thus incremental growth of the
Windows server market versus the unix/linux server market has been ongoing for almost a decade. Windows has created a multi-billion
dollar software market for its server products at the expense of IBM mainframe, Novell Netware, and traditional unix markets. I see
the linux evolution as mostly an internal adjustment in what was the unix market segment. Consumers and suppliers are dealing more
and more in generic linux in this segment, but the Windows market is still growing although slower than it has been. I think that
prospective server buyers will discriminate between Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Novell's SUSE brand, but they will continue to see
linux as a generic form of unix when contrasting unix with Windows. I really think that Sun Microsystems is more of a danger to
linux than Microsoft.
TheLetterK
> "Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message news:pan.2005.08.28....@tiscali.co.uk...
> | On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 17:00:57 +0000, billwg wrote:
> |
> | >
> | > "TheLetterK" <thele...@nomail.spymac.com> wrote in message news:3h3Qe.9072$wb5....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> | >
> | > | > Are you paying attention, Kier? Rapskat says that he would "take the money"
> | > | > saved, but there is no money to be saved.
> | > | Sure there is. Windows XP Pro retails for $300. Debian retails for the
> | > | cost of bandwith and a disk. Shit, if you do anything other than
> | > | absolute basic usage you'll save money on apps too.
> | >
> | > But Windows comes for free with almost any computer that you might want to buy, K! If you are buying a cheap computer that only
> has
> | > WinXP Home, you can get XP Pro for $75 to $100 just for the asking. Nobody pays retail. If you want to base a strategy on
> that, it
> | > is bound to fail.
> |
> | No, it doesn't come free. One way or another it's paid for.
> |
> Then say "at no additional charge", Kier. Either way you pay the same price and get the same result.
> The whole structure is
> artificial and the net result is that a consumer obtains an OS platform along with sufficient support to get and keep it running and
> obtains the result at an affordable price that the consumer agrees is a fair value.
I don't consider it fair value--almost no OEM allows the buyer to not
purchuse Windows.
> Otherwise the consumer would not buy the
> product unless you want to postulate that the consumer is grossly illogical which a poor premise for forming a market.
I say they're grossly ignorant and willing to be lead about by the wallet.
TheLetterK
Roy Culley
<pan.2005.08.28....@tiscali.co.uk>,
billwg vicious? More like a toothless shark. He's only here because
troll feeders like you keep responding. He just spouts lies. You
feed him. He spouts more lies. You feed him. ...
Often you reply to his posts point by point. Must take you quite a bit
of time. billwg just respnds with the same lies and you reply again
and again, Ad Nauseum.
--
Rich Bell in thread: Things I couldn't do if I switched to Linux
Message-ID: <tB7Oe.182$yo7...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>
I am connected to the Net using a Linksys WRT54G router. I don't
get hacked.
B. Kildow
> billwg wrote:
>
>> "TheLetterK" <thele...@nomail.spymac.com> wrote in message
>> news:3h3Qe.9072$wb5....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> | > Are you paying attention, Kier? Rapskat says that he would "take
>> the money"
>> | > saved, but there is no money to be saved.
>> | Sure there is. Windows XP Pro retails for $300. Debian retails for the
>> | cost of bandwith and a disk. Shit, if you do anything other than
>> | absolute basic usage you'll save money on apps too.
>>
>> But Windows comes for free with almost any computer that you might
>> want to buy, K!
>
> No, no it doesn't. The price of windows is built into the cost of the
> machine. Rather than paying $450 for the $400 computer, you pay $550 but
> Windows XP home is included 'at no additional cost'.
snippa-reno
When we ordered the computer that now has Suse on it, the place that
built it at least told us up front that XP Home with SP2 was going to
cost us $89, Pro with SP2 was $135, 2000 was $149, Media Center (OS
only) was $129 and Media Center with TV tuner and Phillips RC was $199.
Buying it formatted only saved us a minimum of $89 and a max of $199.
And saved me the trouble of having to wipe the drive and reformat so I
could put Suse on it. Although, now that I think on it, I would have
had the personal pleasure of exorcising an evil demon off the machine.
Shoot, probably some good karma there.
BK
Rick
Your newsreader sucks, billy. Set your word wrap properly.
> You say you are not exactly aware and then say I should get my facts correct? Seems a little two-faced, Kier! However, is it not a
> fact that a company that wants to sell a Linux computer and advertise it as such has to pay the whole $5K?
No, it is not.
> I don't think you can dispute that.
I just did. BTW:
<http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3529246>
" Fees range from $200 and go up to $5,000 for commercial firms with
revenue greater than $1 million."
> Rex's post was in regard to OEMs who do not advertise their products to
> be linux compatible and surely if they did,
> they would be exposed to making the trademark payment.
>
> Linus owns the trademark, Kier, and money is being paid to use the
> trademark. You can protest that linus is not getting the money, but
> then who is getting it?
You mean you do not know? It figures. You are just running your lying
mouth again.
> Is it just going to pile up in the corner of
> some forgotten mail drop? Someone is going to get the money and if it
> is not linus, he is even dumber than he looks.
>
> As to "only protecting the trademark" what exactly is different about
> that from Microsoft's insistence that the OEMs show Windows exactly as
> Microsoft intended it to be shown. Microsoft was, after all, only
> protecting the Windows trademark.
>
> Why do you feel such a need to be so uncivil?
Because you are a stupid, lying bigot.
> Ignorant old men and
> juveniles seem to do that a lot around here, but I understood that you
> were neither of these. Was I wrong?
You mean you are 10?
--
Rick
Rick
You are a lying, stupid bigot....
... and your newsreader sucks.
--
Rick
amosf
Only if they post on a windows forum maybe. This is a linux forum. It's the
'l' in cola.
--
-
I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
-
amosf
They will be an appliance soon, I hope, and we will know that when MS is no
longer an issue as an OS. At the moment that's not the case. It is with
most phones and dvd players and so forth. Nobody cares what the OS is. What
OS does a car have?
Mark Kent
TheLetterK <thele...@nomail.spymac.com> espoused:
A windows advocate should be in a windows advocacy group. It would
be really good if off topic postings were ignored here, then the noise
would go down hugely.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
T-shirt Of The Day:
I'm the person your mother warned you about.
Mark Kent
Kier
> "Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.08.28....@tiscali.co.uk... | On Sun, 28 Aug
|
> | No, he's a Linux advocate. You are the vicious troll. |
> I don't see it that way, Kier, I am a Windows advocate, you and rapskat
> are linux trolls.
You can see how you want, but in this group, *you* are the troll. Rapskat
and I and many others are *LINUX ADVOCATES*. I put it in capitals just so
the hard of understanding - i.e you - can get the point. You're a Windows
troll in a Linux group. When I come posting provocatove crap in a Windows
group, you can call me a troll, and not until then.
--
Kier
Kier
You said that Linus is charging $5000, and using threats to discourage
people from using the trademark, when that is untrue. Charges will vary
according to usage, and he is threatening no one. In fact, he took this
step only reluctantly, to prevent the unscrupulous from hijacking the name
Linux and misusing it to discredit the community, and by extension, his
reputation..
Get your facts right, you prick.
>
> Linus owns the trademark, Kier, and money is being paid to use the trademark. You can protest that linus is not getting the money,
> but then who is getting it? Is it just going to pile up in the corner of some forgotten mail drop? Someone is going to get the
> money and if it is not linus, he is even dumber than he looks.
No, it means he is not greedy. You implied it was going into his pocket
and that was his motivation.
>
> As to "only protecting the trademark" what exactly is different about that from Microsoft's insistence that the OEMs show Windows
> exactly as Microsoft intended it to be shown. Microsoft was, after all, only protecting the Windows trademark.
>
> Why do you feel such a need to be so uncivil?
Because your sneering arrogance soon becomes intolerable
Ignorant old men and juveniles seem to do that a lot around here, but I
understood
> that you were neither of these. Was I wrong?
That is just one example of your sneering arrogance.
And learn to wrap your posts correctly. Line-length should not exceed 75
to 80 characters. Can't you ever get anything right?
--
Kier
William Poaster
wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 22:58:59 +0000, billwg wrote:
>
>
>> "Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2005.08.28....@tiscali.co.uk... | On Sun, 28 Aug
>
>
>> | No, he's a Linux advocate. You are the vicious troll. |
>
>> I don't see it that way, Kier, I am a Windows advocate, you and rapskat
>> are linux trolls.
<Points & laughs> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Talk about delusional...
>
> You can see how you want, but in this group, *you* are the troll. Rapskat
> and I and many others are *LINUX ADVOCATES*. I put it in capitals just so
> the hard of understanding - i.e you - can get the point.
Perhaps you should have spelt it out, like: L-I-N-U-X ADVOCATES...
> You're a Windows troll in a Linux group.
That's right, & again for the brain impaired wintrolls, it's a L-I-N-U-X
group.
> When I come posting provocative crap in a Windows group, you can call me
> a troll, and not until then.
;-)
--
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 --
Senior consultant for Bryan Consulting Inc. in St. Louis
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
08/27/2005
at 06:48 AM, r.e.b...@usa.net said:
>As much as we might joke about the
>dancing paper clip, Windows users are used to being able to get
>hand-holding at every level from the first attempt at installation to
>the final stages of publication of a document.
The reason that *I* joke about the paper clip is that it *doesn't*
provide any help for anything beyond the basics.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
billwg
"TheLetterK" <thele...@nomail.spymac.com> wrote in message news:lLrQe.12024$2_....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
||
| > The whole structure is
| > artificial and the net result is that a consumer obtains an OS platform along with sufficient support to get and keep it running
and
| > obtains the result at an affordable price that the consumer agrees is a fair value.
| I don't consider it fair value--almost no OEM allows the buyer to not
| purchuse Windows.
|
| > Otherwise the consumer would not buy the
| > product unless you want to postulate that the consumer is grossly illogical which a poor premise for forming a market.
| I say they're grossly ignorant and willing to be lead about by the wallet.
|
You should be more charitable towards these unfortunates who are not as bright as you are, K! Educate them rather than criticizing.
billwg
"amosf" <use...@bcs4me.com> wrote in message news:4312...@news.comindico.com.au...
|
| They will be an appliance soon, I hope, and we will know that when MS is no
| longer an issue as an OS. At the moment that's not the case. It is with
| most phones and dvd players and so forth. Nobody cares what the OS is. What
| OS does a car have?
|
The computers are sold as integrated unit appliances and Windows is a characteristic that consumers have been educated into looking
for. You can carp about consumers being fools and being misled all you want, but it is an effective technique and is used in other
product markets.
billwg
"TheLetterK" <thele...@nomail.spymac.com> wrote in message news:xhrQe.11997$2_....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
| No, no it doesn't. The price of windows is built into the cost of the
| machine. Rather than paying $450 for the $400 computer, you pay $550 but
| Windows XP home is included 'at no additional cost'.
|
The cost of the hard drive is built into the price of the machine, too, K, so what? OEMs are not required by any law to offer
computers with any OS installed and there are a few that sell blank machines. There are no major brands doing that since the
majority of the market wants an out of the box product that meets their expectations for usage.
| ... Besides, they can afford to give the updates for free since
| they only have to pay $50 for a copy of Windows and have already anally
| raped your wallet.
You seem awful intense for a lousy $50 issue, K. Just this morning I paid $56 to fill up my gas tank. I will probably do that 100
times or more before I get another computer, I am sure. Microsoft's prices are a very minor part of the cost of living.
Jim
A bit like passenger-side airbags, antilock brakes, rear seatbelts and
roll cages. They don't make vehicles any safer; what does that is good
driving.
--
Cheers, http://www.dotware.co.uk
Jim http://www.dotware-entertainment.co.uk
The path to inner peace begins with letting go of everything you are
afraid to lose.
billwg
gospel according to William! Where else would an advocate go but to Heathen City?
Jim
> billwg wrote:
>
>> "amosf" <use...@bcs4me.com> wrote in message
>> news:4312...@news.comindico.com.au...
>> |
>> | They will be an appliance soon, I hope, and we will know that when
>> MS is no
>> | longer an issue as an OS. At the moment that's not the case. It is with
>> | most phones and dvd players and so forth. Nobody cares what the OS
>> is. What
>> | OS does a car have?
>> |
>> "Designed for Windows" and "Intel Inside" are characteristics that
>> Microsoft and Intel have established to enhance their branding. The
>> computers are sold as integrated unit appliances and Windows is a
>> characteristic that consumers have been educated into looking for.
>> You can carp about consumers being fools and being misled all you
>> want, but it is an effective technique and is used in other product
>> markets.
>>
>
> A bit like passenger-side airbags, antilock brakes, rear seatbelts and
> roll cages. They don't make vehicles any safer; what does that is good
> driving.
>
and all you had was a chassis with four wheels, an engine, a steering
wheel and a set of brakes, would that make you pay attention to the road
instead of your cellphone?
billwg
"Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message news:pan.2005.08.29....@tiscali.co.uk...
billwg
"Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message news:pan.2005.08.29....@nomail.com...
|
| > You say you are not exactly aware and then say I should get my facts correct? Seems a little two-faced, Kier! However, is it
not a
| > fact that a company that wants to sell a Linux computer and advertise it as such has to pay the whole $5K?
|
| No, it is not.
|
| > I don't think you can dispute that.
|
| I just did. BTW:
|
| <http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3529246>
|
| " Fees range from $200 and go up to $5,000 for commercial firms with
| revenue greater than $1 million."
|
rick! You should raise your sights! Or do you hold out no hope for these OEMs?
| > Rex's post was in regard to OEMs who do not advertise their products to
| > be linux compatible and surely if they did,
| > they would be exposed to making the trademark payment.
| >
| > Linus owns the trademark, Kier, and money is being paid to use the
| > trademark. You can protest that linus is not getting the money, but
| > then who is getting it?
|
| You mean you do not know? It figures. You are just running your lying
| mouth again.
|
Look up the word "rhetorical" in your Funk and Wagnall's, rick! LOL!!!
billwg
"Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message news:pan.2005.08.29....@tiscali.co.uk...
| On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 23:08:34 +0000, billwg wrote:
|
|
| You said that Linus is charging $5000, and using threats to discourage
| people from using the trademark, when that is untrue. Charges will vary
| according to usage, and he is threatening no one. In fact, he took this
| step only reluctantly, to prevent the unscrupulous from hijacking the name
| Linux and misusing it to discredit the community, and by extension, his
| reputation..
|
anyone contemplating using it without paying, too. Linus is asserting control of the trademark, pure and simple. You have to agree
to his terms to use it or else you will be sued. That is no different than Microsoft's insistence that OEMs use MS marks exactly
the way MS wants them used.
| Get your facts right, you prick.
|
You yourself might strive for a clearer understanding of the facts, Kier.
billwg
"Mark Kent" <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:2qnau2-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
|
| A windows advocate should be in a windows advocacy group. It would
| be really good if off topic postings were ignored here, then the noise
| would go down hugely.
|
says something extra silly. The last place that an advocate would want to be, it would seem to me, is in a group of people who
agree with him. If you are going to preach to the heathens, you must go to their dens. Advocating linux amongst the linux users is
a fruitless endeavor, however pleasant it may seem. You can see what that makes clark! LOL!!!
billwg
"TheLetterK" <thele...@nomail.spymac.com> wrote in message news:LLrQe.12027$2_....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
LOL!!!
billwg
"TheLetterK" <thele...@nomail.spymac.com> wrote in message news:mlrQe.11998$2_....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
| You make it seem like people actually like IE. Most don't, but are too
| lazy to go to another browser.
|
"Like" is a relative term, K. It is clear that they do not dislike it enough to bother to change.
| No, it's not more popular--but I use it anyway. I don't like the thought
| of a company getting $.50 a copy just to let me rip CDs I already own.
|
I have a copy of Nero 6.0 that came (for free) with my $75 DVD burner. It converts CD tracks to MP3 files MOL automatically and
even builds the little tags by downloading data from the internet. Doesn't cost a cent. The tracks play in WMP just fine. What
are you on about?
chrisv
>My personal belief is that the whole issue is a sham, rick. The struggle to obtain mindshare and thus incremental growth of the
Nice line length. Idiot.
Mark Kent
Tattoo Vampire <na...@nyet.nothing.zip.zilch> espoused:
> rapskat wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, yes. Just consider that Country/Western is the most
>> popular genre in this nation and you understand the general mentality.
>
> I think if you look at album sales, the abomination known as rap/hip-hop would
> be the most popular type of music in the U.S. today, and that's profoundly
> depressing.
Then I'm glad I'm not a resident of the US - given a choice of either
"mama told me not to let you see the kiiiiidssss" or
"uh, uh, I'll pistol-whip ya"
... I think I'd sell any radio, cd player, mp3 player or anything
else which could make a sound...
now, where're the eunuchs and the morris dancers... :-)
Mark Kent
Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> espoused:
> begin oe_protect.scr
> TheLetterK <thele...@nomail.spymac.com> espoused:
>> billwg wrote:
>>> "TheLetterK" <thele...@nomail.spymac.com> wrote in message news:kW2Qe.8758$wb5....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>>>
>>
>>> The Brits drink room temp beer, too, but once they
>>> discover refrigeration, that will change radically.
There are an amazing number of people who know precisely zero about beer.
Beer is properly served at approx 11 degrees C, this is the same across
Europe and the UK, and is independent of whether it's a top-fermented
'ale' or a bottom fermented 'pilsner' style of beer. The reason is that
ones taste-buds work very well at that temperature, so one can enjoy
the beer.
The mainstream beer industry introduced the process of pasteurisation
to beer production (not brewing - this is no longer brewing) many years
ago, but the result tastes disgusting, so the method adopted by the beer
industry is to chill it to a temperature where one's taste-buds no longer
work, and use marketing to persuade the ill- informed/ignorant public
that chilled beer is magically better, although the marketing is never
actually able to explain *why* it's better.
I brew a lot of beer myself, of various styles, and have visited
innumerable countries in the world, and drunk beer in many places. My own
experience is that the best beer in the main comes from Northern and
Central Europe, but there are exceptions. The US now has a significant
number of real-beer breweries (a result of huge exports from the UK in
the 1980s & 1990s), such that 'IPA' is readily available in many bars,
as an example. Australia certainly has at least one excellent brewery.
The UK and Belgium produce the largest number of different beers,
closely followed by Germany and the Czech Republic.
Don't imagine for one moment that the cr*p sold from flash-cooled pumps
out of giant tin-cans with CO2 added as it comes out is beer - it's not.
The closest description would be 'alcopop'. Many many people, (mainly
those under about 35 in the UK) who've been conned into drinking this
cr*p put lemonade or lime or something in it to try to cover up the
disgusting taste.
Most people, when given the opportunity to try real beer soon leave
the McBeer of so-called lager behind. In the US beers I'd include
Colt45, Miller, US Budweiser (not the real Budweiser from Czech),
Schlitz and related garbage where it belongs - in the can or bottle
it was supplied in. You can put it on the garden to water the plants,
or maybe cook in it, but the flavour isn't very good.
Of sales in the UK, flash-cooled "lager beer", ie. McBeer/alcopop
are falling, although they are served at the near freezing temp which
the marketing folks believe will let them get away with selling trash
in a tin.
Don't be conned so easily - if the beer you've bought tells you to
chill it below 11 degrees C - take it back and get some real beer -
you were conned.
Mark Kent
Jim <ja...@the-computer-shop.co.uk> espoused:
> Jim wrote:
>> billwg wrote:
>>
>>> "amosf" <use...@bcs4me.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4312...@news.comindico.com.au...
>>> |
>>> | They will be an appliance soon, I hope, and we will know that when
>>> MS is no
>>> | longer an issue as an OS. At the moment that's not the case. It is with
>>> | most phones and dvd players and so forth. Nobody cares what the OS
>>> is. What
>>> | OS does a car have?
>>> |
>>> "Designed for Windows" and "Intel Inside" are characteristics that
>>> Microsoft and Intel have established to enhance their branding. The
>>> computers are sold as integrated unit appliances and Windows is a
>>> characteristic that consumers have been educated into looking for.
>>> You can carp about consumers being fools and being misled all you
>>> want, but it is an effective technique and is used in other product
>>> markets.
>>>
>>
>> A bit like passenger-side airbags, antilock brakes, rear seatbelts and
>> roll cages. They don't make vehicles any safer; what does that is good
>> driving.
>>
> addendum: thought for the day - if car "safety" systems were removed,
> and all you had was a chassis with four wheels, an engine, a steering
> wheel and a set of brakes, would that make you pay attention to the road
> instead of your cellphone?
>
Driving is all about assessing risk on the fly, and staying with a
perceived 'acceptable' level. As safety systems of one kind or another,
be they power-assited disk brakes instead of drums, power steering, better
tyres, suspension, ABS or whatever, *all* serve to reduce the risk of any
given manoeuvre, then all of the training and experience any driver has
had will conspire to cause them to push their risk envelope to the same
level as before, taking into account the effect of the "safety" system
in question. Car manufacturers are highly adept at selling technical
advances which enable you to drive faster, halogen lights at night?,
traction control in the snow? as "safety" features, even thought they
are fully aware that if anything, the vehicle drive to its 'new' limits
will be even more dangerous to everyone else than before.
lqu...@uku.co.uk
I for one like cold beer, in a frosted mug if possible. Why? Most
likely because that is what I'm used to. To me warm beer is about as
appealing as a warm glass of water, a warm Pepsi or warm orange juice.
Having previously owned an Austin Healy I'll always remember - "Why do
Brits drink warm beer? Because Lucas builds refridgerators too."
Ray Ingles
Most of what you say here is content-free, but this one is actually
funny:
> It you would bother to learn about it, you would see where the Windows
> method is indeed much more advanced...
> Periodically, it brings down updates and installs them effortlessly in the
> background, usually in the middle of the night while I am asleep. Perhaps
> once in a month or two it will update something that touches on the core
> system and requires a reboot to activate, but this, too, is done
> automatically. Why would you want to do it any other way?
If you would bother to learn about it, you would see where the Linux
method does this for both the OS *and* the applications, and better.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Any code of your own that you haven't looked at for six or
more months, might as well have been written by someone else."
- Eagleson's Law
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@dmc22317.local> wrote in message news:slrndh68ap....@dmc22317.local...
| In article <0CYPe.66334$Oy2....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, billwg wrote:
|
| Most of what you say here is content-free, but this one is actually
| funny:
|
| > It you would bother to learn about it, you would see where the Windows
| > method is indeed much more advanced...
| > Periodically, it brings down updates and installs them effortlessly in the
| > background, usually in the middle of the night while I am asleep. Perhaps
| > once in a month or two it will update something that touches on the core
| > system and requires a reboot to activate, but this, too, is done
| > automatically. Why would you want to do it any other way?
|
| If you would bother to learn about it, you would see where the Linux
| method does this for both the OS *and* the applications, and better.
|
tell you without your having to bother?
Ray Ingles
> Why do you schmoes waste so much time re-inventing the wheel anyway?
> Firefox is a lot of work for no real gain. It would be far easier to add to
> IE where you see a deficiency than to try to replace so much function that
> does not affect anything.
The entire structure of IE is broken, and starting over's the right way
to fix it. Seems to have worked pretty darn well, too.
> Look at the vast wasteland of incomplete garbage in the OSS world, Kier.
I see you, and raise you download.com and tucows.com. Poorly-written
and incomplete programs can be, and are, written for any platform. I
remember reading a dissection of a freeware program for Windows that
just did an nslookup. It was 1MB in size.
>: Then why are you here whining and crying about how poor Linux is? Why
>: aren't you out using your platform and leaving us to use and promote ours?
>
> I do this for sport and relaxation, Kier. Why do you?
I'm almost sad for trolls. I mean, like I've said before, irritating
people is easy, it's trivial, you can do it by accident. Putting effort
into it is beyond pathetic, it's into pathological. When I see someone
doing that, it automatically tells me there's something very wrong with
them. They believe that other people are happier than them, and they
don't think they are capable of being that happy, so their only outlet
is to try to drag others down to the level of anger and frustration
they themselves feel.
It's a sign of unhappiness and laziness. The fact that the one may
have something to do with the other seldom occurrs to them.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Redundancy is good, and redundancy is even better! - Howard Tayler
Ray Ingles
>| > It you would bother to learn about it, you would see where the Windows
>| > method is indeed much more advanced...
>| > Periodically, it brings down updates and installs them effortlessly in the
>| > background, usually in the middle of the night while I am asleep. Perhaps
>| > once in a month or two it will update something that touches on the core
>| > system and requires a reboot to activate, but this, too, is done
>| > automatically. Why would you want to do it any other way?
>|
>| If you would bother to learn about it, you would see where the Linux
>| method does this for both the OS *and* the applications, and better.
>|
> I may take a look at what is there, Ray, but consider your statement "bother
> to learn about it" for a moment. Is there nothing to tell you without your
> having to bother?
Oh, you can't actually be *that* thick? I was quoting your text directly
for humorous effect, except I spelled "If" correctly. There's no more actual
"bother" in Linux than in Windows.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"...seek out the insects. There, you will see a state of warfare
which has existed for millions of years with never a truce. Man,
despite enormous shortcomings, is nevertheless possessed of a
greater number of kindly impulses than all the other beings..."
- Roger Zelazny
billwg
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:hi36h114kfo7oc8f3...@4ax.com...
| billwg wrote:
|
| >My personal belief is that the whole issue is a sham, rick. The struggle to obtain mindshare and thus incremental growth of the
|
| Nice line length. Idiot.
|
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
ditto.
We haven't brewed beer since we moved aboard a boat about 7 years ago.
But for about 5 years prior to that, we brewed our own beer, and only
bought the occasional 6 pack of something "interesting". It was much
more fun and rewarding to trade beer and recipies with other home
brewers. It's one of the few things I really miss about living ashore.
The space to brew beer. We drink a fair amount of beer, and we made it
by the 5gallon lot. It was nice for parties, we always knew what to
bring, and didn't have to stop by the store for anything :)
I have long pondered the possibilities in building a dual soda keg
fermentation system on board, it won't take up *that* much space....
Maybe I could use the space I was reserving for scuba gear? hmmm...
(good sigmonster!)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDE05Jd90bcYOAWPYRAmSyAKDAUQXmp94S8gcGc4qS/eTqS25oHgCeOweI
av1NC0h2rWzGJMBnNi2z9Yw=
=Mr9n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"Even if you can deceive people about a product through misleading
statements, sooner or later the product will speak for itself."
- Hajime Karatsu