It has to be Linux or BSD....or something, just get rid of Windows.
mlw
guessed it, XP. With a sigh, I started it up, logged in, (was able to
administer the system with no password, BTW.)
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/......./run was LOADED with crap. Settings were wide open
for any malware to take over.
The windopes can't have it both ways, you can't argue that "a properly
administered machine" wouldn't have this problem, and turn around and say
Linux is "too hard" or "why do I need to know how to administer my system."
I have been using linux since 1995/1996, in this time, I have not lost any
data or work time due to Linux crashing or being unstable. I don't
personally know of a single Windows user that can say the same thing.
Currently I have a Linux box in my living room, it is part of m home
entertainment system. It has a TV card, sound card, video output, etc. It
is wired to my netork, but during a remodel, I decided to include a CAT5
cable. I really is a fun system, it plays all my digital media, I have all
my music ripped to MP3 and available all a once. My 200G hard disk also
doubles as a video recorder.
My HP laptop runs Linux, eerything works and the only thing I have ever
needed to do is make sure I keep NDIS wrapper up to date.
In my lab, I have half a dozen SMP systems wired as a cluster for
enginerring work, yes they run Linux.
I am working on a robot, and it too runs Linux.
In short, I neither need nor want to use Windows, and strongly suggest you
don't ether. Your time is worth something, do you want to spend a little
time larning something beter and more stable, or do you want to add up all
the time you spend dealing with viruses, instability, upgrade treadmil,
morning and afternon reboots, and the time lost when you lose data.
Linux saves time and money. Everyone that has earnestly made the switch will
agree. Linux is cheaper, faster, more secure, and generally more fun.
The same can probably be said about most posix type systems, MacOS/X and the
BSD systems have common structures and run mny of the same packages that a
Linux system will.
It doesn't matter, Mac, BSD, or Linux, geez, ANYTHING but Windows!
DFS
> My wife brought home a coworker's laptop. It was having problems.
> Yup, you guessed it, XP. With a sigh, I started it up, logged in,
> (was able to administer the system with no password, BTW.)
>
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/......./run was LOADED with crap. Settings were
> wide open for any malware to take over.
>
>
> The windopes can't have it both ways, you can't argue that "a properly
> administered machine" wouldn't have this problem, and turn around and
> say Linux is "too hard" or "why do I need to know how to administer
> my system."
>
> I have been using linux since 1995/1996, in this time, I have not
> lost any data or work time due to Linux crashing or being unstable.
I'm just about 100% sure you're lying, or you don't use many Linux apps, or
you're lucky.
* I recently upgraded (not new install) Mandrake CE to Mandriva LE 2005, and
now KNode will occasionally close a message reply window with no warning.
Bam! it's gone, along with whatever I've typed.
* recently, cola wacko Kelsey Bjarnason lost an entire partition to the FC4
installer
* ext3 filesystems had a journaling data loss problem at one point
* KPilot 4.4.1 was reported to lose PDA data.
* OpenOffice has a problem in its macro recorder that can overwrite your
data without warning
* bad video drivers can lock Linux (and Windows) and cause data loss
problems - even if it's just game savepoints.
> I don't personally know of a single Windows user
> that can say the same thing.
I can't. I've lost a handful of email and Usenet replies to OE crashes, a
few Access
database records to corrupt dbs, probably 8 hours of lost development time
to corrupt Access forms or code modules (arrrgggghhhhh!!!!!!!!!)... and
that's about
it.
I don't remember Word ever causing me any problems (I don't use it that
much). Excel has been a rock through the years. VB hasn't ever lost
anything. Nor SQL Server. Nor MS Project. Nor Visio.
> I am working on a robot, and it too runs Linux.
> In short, I neither need nor want to use Windows, and strongly
> suggest you don't ether.
But you can't stop thinking about Windows? That's damn good marketing by
MS.
> Your time is worth something, do you want to
> spend a little time larning something beter and more stable, or do
> you want to add up all the time you spend dealing with viruses,
> instability, upgrade treadmil, morning and afternon reboots, and the
> time lost when you lose data.
* Linux doesn't have viruses to speak of, Windows can be easily protected
* Linux the OS is stable but some apps definitely are not, same for Windows
* Linux suffers from a far, far worse upgrade treadmill than Windows - but
it costs little or nothing to upgrade. There is no forced upgrade on either
platform.
* there are no morning and afternoon Windows reboots
* data loss due to the Windows OS is insignificant
Your claims are less truthful and important than you think and would have us
believe.
> Linux saves time and money. Everyone that has earnestly made the
> switch will agree. Linux is cheaper, faster, more secure, and
> generally more fun.
Linux is cheaper, slower, more secure by default, and is definitely more fun
if you like to tweak and learn about OS's.
If you're an office worker who needs the advanced capabilities of MS Office,
an analyst who needs the astounding connectivity and query/reporting
features of a tool like Access, an accountant who absolutely has to have
Excel, a high schooler who plays lots of games, a music pro who needs good
tools, and in many, many other situations....
....Linux is UNACCEPTABLE.
> The same can probably be said about most posix type systems, MacOS/X
> and the BSD systems have common structures and run mny of the same
> packages that a Linux system will.
>
> It doesn't matter, Mac, BSD, or Linux, geez, ANYTHING but Windows
The world voted. You lost.
DFS
<snip>
> It doesn't matter, Mac, BSD, or Linux, geez, ANYTHING but Windows!
I forget to tell you in my first reply: Windows will never die. Neither
will Microsoft.
They're far, far too entrenched and valuable and pervasive and ubiquitous.
You've got hundreds of millions of users who know/want/depend on/grudgingly
accept Windows. You've got huge corporate accounting systems built up over
10 years running on Excel. Literally hundreds of thousands of VB apps
running the corporate world. Word processing now generally means an MS Word
.doc file is involved. Then there's that enormous universe of excellent
apps and games and development tools. On top of that, much open source code
runs on Windows.
MS and Windows really, really, really needs some competition, but they're
here to stay.
Enjoy.
amosf
> mlw wrote:
>> I have been using linux since 1995/1996, in this time, I have not
>> lost any data or work time due to Linux crashing or being unstable.
>
> I'm just about 100% sure you're lying, or you don't use many Linux apps,
> or you're lucky.
Or you are DFS with a knack for trivialities and googling old bugs.
> * I recently upgraded (not new install) Mandrake CE to Mandriva LE 2005,
> and now KNode will occasionally close a message reply window with no
> warning. Bam! it's gone, along with whatever I've typed.
Find a beta and dig out the bugs. Old betas are best, but any will do. Keep
up the good work.
> * recently, cola wacko Kelsey Bjarnason lost an entire partition to the
> FC4 installer
Recently installed windows and it wiped everything.
> * ext3 filesystems had a journaling data loss problem at one point
Google time.
> * bad video drivers can lock Linux (and Windows) and cause data loss
> problems - even if it's just game savepoints.
Bad drivers in windows screws games and corrupts disk as usual.
>> I don't personally know of a single Windows user
>> that can say the same thing.
>
> I can't. I've lost a handful of email and Usenet replies to OE crashes, a
> few Access
> database records to corrupt dbs, probably 8 hours of lost development time
> to corrupt Access forms or code modules (arrrgggghhhhh!!!!!!!!!)... and
> that's about
> it.
He forgets that many of us use both systems and know better.
> I don't remember Word ever causing me any problems (I don't use it that
> much). Excel has been a rock through the years. VB hasn't ever lost
> anything. Nor SQL Server. Nor MS Project. Nor Visio.
Doesn't use the PC much? I use the linux box constantly.
>> I am working on a robot, and it too runs Linux.
>> In short, I neither need nor want to use Windows, and strongly
>> suggest you don't ether.
>
> But you can't stop thinking about Windows? That's damn good marketing by
> MS.
It's the wintrolls that mention windows. MS does do good marketting. It's
one of the few things they do well.
>> Your time is worth something, do you want to
>> spend a little time larning something beter and more stable, or do
>> you want to add up all the time you spend dealing with viruses,
>> instability, upgrade treadmil, morning and afternon reboots, and the
>> time lost when you lose data.
>
> * Linux doesn't have viruses to speak of, Windows can be easily protected
Easily? Install several apps that get most of the malware... Sort of a
bandaid solution...
> * Linux the OS is stable but some apps definitely are not, same for
> Windows
Those windows apps unfortunately include all the apps and applets that come
with the OS, like scandisk, media player, IE, OE, etc...
> * Linux suffers from a far, far worse upgrade treadmill than
> Windows - but
> it costs little or nothing to upgrade. There is no forced upgrade on
> either platform.
Linux, upgrade to a brand new OS every six months if you like. Can just
about skip updates completely and just upgrade for features...
> * there are no morning and afternoon Windows reboots
If you don't swith the PC on.
> * data loss due to the Windows OS is insignificant
You never really get the time to collect much data between reinstalls.
> Your claims are less truthful and important than you think and would have
> us believe.
Wintrolls are not paid to believe anything pro linux, of course.
>> Linux saves time and money. Everyone that has earnestly made the
>> switch will agree. Linux is cheaper, faster, more secure, and
>> generally more fun.
>
> Linux is cheaper, slower, more secure by default, and is definitely more
> fun if you like to tweak and learn about OS's.
Yep, linux is cheaper, faster, more secure and stable and fun - as it
doesn't come with the pain windows brings. Glad we agree.
> If you're an office worker who needs the advanced capabilities of MS
> Office, an analyst who needs the astounding connectivity and
> query/reporting features of a tool like Access, an accountant who
> absolutely has to have Excel, a high schooler who plays lots of games, a
> music pro who needs good tools, and in many, many other situations....
If you are an office worker that needs all those advanced features, like a
delete button, copy and paste, a spell checker... Oh and the spreadsheet
has to be able to add up the columns!
>> The same can probably be said about most posix type systems, MacOS/X
>> and the BSD systems have common structures and run mny of the same
>> packages that a Linux system will.
>>
>> It doesn't matter, Mac, BSD, or Linux, geez, ANYTHING but Windows
>
> The world voted. You lost.
The world voted on metric as well, and you lost. Do you mind being in a
little minority of non-metric users while 95% of the world is metric?
Just because the US wants to stick with MS or metric does not mean everyone
has to follow like a sheep, whether it's a minority or not.
DOS rules forever. Lotus 1-2-3 will never die!
--
-
I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
-
amosf
> mlw wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> It doesn't matter, Mac, BSD, or Linux, geez, ANYTHING but Windows!
>
>
> I forget to tell you in my first reply: Windows will never die. Neither
> will Microsoft.
DOS will never die! Lotus 1-2-3 forever! Wordperfect rulz!
> They're far, far too entrenched and valuable and pervasive and ubiquitous.
IBM has the desktop market totally sewn up.
> You've got hundreds of millions of users who know/want/depend
> on/grudgingly
> accept Windows. You've got huge corporate accounting systems built up
> over
> 10 years running on Excel. Literally hundreds of thousands of VB apps
> running the corporate world. Word processing now generally means an MS
> Word
> .doc file is involved. Then there's that enormous universe of excellent
> apps and games and development tools. On top of that, much open source
> code runs on Windows.
The OSS apps on win are leverage for the future. The OS boundary will be
very unclear in the future, with win running most OSS apps and linux
running most win apps. The choice of OS becomes less important. This is bad
for a OS dependent on market share. It matters little to an OS that is not
dependent on market share.
> MS and Windows really, really, really needs some competition, but they're
> here to stay.
And even if true, so what. You have a need to be part of a majority, part of
the in crowd (tho you still use cubits for some reason). You are hung up on
appearances even tho your self image is hardly quite reality.
Some people are quite happy using a better minority product rather than go
with the mass produced trash - produced with the primary goal as making
money rather than a quality product. No competition means they don't have
to worry about that, just about maintaining the monopoly by any and all
means. Then they can keep repackaging the same old products and fixpacks
and making fat margins.
Donn Miller
> Linux saves time and money. Everyone that has earnestly made the switch will
> agree. Linux is cheaper, faster, more secure, and generally more fun.
>
> The same can probably be said about most posix type systems, MacOS/X and the
> BSD systems have common structures and run mny of the same packages that a
> Linux system will.
>
> It doesn't matter, Mac, BSD, or Linux, geez, ANYTHING but Windows!
I think that's pretty much a good idea: pick your poison, and stick with
it! I've always been a BSD type up till this point, but Linux has some
very nice features. We can still have our individual tribes, yet we can
have our commonalities.
Do individual Indian tribes respect each other?
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 05:07:05 -0400,
Donn Miller <hac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> mlw wrote:
>
>> Linux saves time and money. Everyone that has earnestly made the switch will
>> agree. Linux is cheaper, faster, more secure, and generally more fun.
>>
>> The same can probably be said about most posix type systems, MacOS/X and the
>> BSD systems have common structures and run mny of the same packages that a
>> Linux system will.
>>
>> It doesn't matter, Mac, BSD, or Linux, geez, ANYTHING but Windows!
>
> I think that's pretty much a good idea: pick your poison, and stick with
> it! I've always been a BSD type up till this point, but Linux has some
> very nice features. We can still have our individual tribes, yet we can
> have our commonalities.
>
> Do individual Indian tribes respect each other?
>
does "respect each other" include wars and raids? :/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFC14Cpd90bcYOAWPYRAh6cAKCaohZRr4dOBIYxqMyMA0Wcef5vCACfe0N+
2YSMPbjfVzY0rT0FROwUm4Y=
=B7bk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
We aim to please. Ourselves, mostly, but we do aim to please.
Anthony DeBoer
mlw
> mlw wrote:
>> My wife brought home a coworker's laptop. It was having problems.
>> Yup, you guessed it, XP. With a sigh, I started it up, logged in,
>> (was able to administer the system with no password, BTW.)
>>
>> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/......./run was LOADED with crap. Settings were
>> wide open for any malware to take over.
>>
>>
>> The windopes can't have it both ways, you can't argue that "a properly
>> administered machine" wouldn't have this problem, and turn around and
>> say Linux is "too hard" or "why do I need to know how to administer
>> my system."
>>
>> I have been using linux since 1995/1996, in this time, I have not
>> lost any data or work time due to Linux crashing or being unstable.
>
> I'm just about 100% sure you're lying, or you don't use many Linux apps,
> or you're lucky.
I'm not lying at all, a lier's first impression is typically that everyone
else is lying.
In my case, I used applix, then star office, an now open office. Never once
did I lose data or work. In the early days (pre-2000) there were issues
with flaky X servers and Netscape, but I had not been bitten by that while
working. In that respect, perhaps I was luck 5 or so years ago.
>
> * I recently upgraded (not new install) Mandrake CE to Mandriva LE 2005,
> and now KNode will occasionally close a message reply window with no
> warning. Bam! it's gone, along with whatever I've typed.
I've been using Knode for a while and have NEVER seen that behavior.
>
> * recently, cola wacko Kelsey Bjarnason lost an entire partition to the
> FC4 installer
I never mentioned installers. By their nature, the have the ability to wipe
out a system. Every OS that has an installer that can edit or change
partitions has the ability to wipe out a system -- including Windows. One
bad mouse click and an OK box later, you're old systm is toast. The rules
always apply, backup before you install.
As for what Kelsey may or may not have done, it doesn't matter.
>
> * ext3 filesystems had a journaling data loss problem at one point
Yes, as had NTFS and FAT as well, these problems are typically very obscure.
>
> * KPilot 4.4.1 was reported to lose PDA data.
Well, I used KPilot for a while, while I didn't like it all that much, I
never lost data.
>
> * OpenOffice has a problem in its macro recorder that can overwrite your
> data without warning
Generally speaking, OO is not Linux, but again ALL SOFTWARE has "obscure"
bugs that the vast majority of people never see. One need not be lucky, one
only need be normal not to see them.
>
> * bad video drivers can lock Linux (and Windows) and cause data loss
> problems - even if it's just game savepoints.
Well, I don't play games on a computer. I had my fill of that in the '80s,
and I (being a software developer who has written video device drivers)
tend to buy solid hardware. The hardware has a great deal to do with the
quality of the device drivers.
>
>
>> I don't personally know of a single Windows user
>> that can say the same thing.
>
> I can't. I've lost a handful of email and Usenet replies to OE crashes, a
> few Access
> database records to corrupt dbs, probably 8 hours of lost development time
> to corrupt Access forms or code modules (arrrgggghhhhh!!!!!!!!!)... and
> that's about
> it.
And you, no doubt, have all the service packs, right? Have always kept up
with software patches and etc. Exactly my point.
A video driver crashing, I can see that. Can you explain to me why a mere
news reader or database would crash?
>
> I don't remember Word ever causing me any problems (I don't use it that
> much). Excel has been a rock through the years. VB hasn't ever lost
> anything. Nor SQL Server. Nor MS Project. Nor Visio.
I think you should hop on over to the Microsoft KB, and chck out ALL the
bugs with these very applications. HINT: The bugs you sited for OpenOffice
are nothing compared to those for Word, Excel, and the bugiest software
ever produced: project. (Note: I have owned all these software packages at
some point.)
>
>
>> I am working on a robot, and it too runs Linux.
>> In short, I neither need nor want to use Windows, and strongly
>> suggest you don't ether.
>
> But you can't stop thinking about Windows? That's damn good marketing by
> MS.
Tobacco, soda, and velvita cheese are all well marketed, it doesn't mean
anything regarding quality or usabiliy.
>
>
>> Your time is worth something, do you want to
>> spend a little time larning something beter and more stable, or do
>> you want to add up all the time you spend dealing with viruses,
>> instability, upgrade treadmil, morning and afternon reboots, and the
>> time lost when you lose data.
>
> * Linux doesn't have viruses to speak of, Windows can be easily protected
Windows will *never* be protected. It is designed to be unstable --
especially as it is intended to be used.
> * Linux the OS is stable but some apps definitely are not, same for
> Windows * Linux suffers from a far, far worse upgrade treadmill than
> Windows - but
> it costs little or nothing to upgrade. There is no forced upgrade on
> either platform.
Really? You're kidding, right?
> * there are no morning and afternoon Windows reboots
Tell that to all the people I know personally that use Windows. I am
skeptical of people who claim Windows is stable because I have not seen it,
and I understand why it is not. I develop software, including software for
Windows -- including device drivers. I am even a published author on the
subject.
> * data loss due to the Windows OS is insignificant
Really? I think IDC quotes that number in the insignificant "billions" of US
dollars.
>
> Your claims are less truthful and important than you think and would have
> us believe.
Anyone who has been reading this newsgroup for any period of time will have
an opinion about me. Some don't like me. I am typically opinionated and
outspoken and have a very dim iew of MySQL, but I don't think anyone
(besides you) who would say I intentionally lie. I don't.
I have related my experiences with Linux and they are true.
>
>
>> Linux saves time and money. Everyone that has earnestly made the
>> switch will agree. Linux is cheaper, faster, more secure, and
>> generally more fun.
>
> Linux is cheaper, slower, more secure by default, and is definitely more
> fun if you like to tweak and learn about OS's.
Here it is, the windoz nonsense about "not tweaking" or tuning your system,
but previously, you said viruses are "preventable," impossibility asside,
you can't hav it both ways. "Preventable" means action to "prevent" must be
taken.
Video in Linux is slower, and for a good reason, it is more robust. All
other things, Linux is faster.
>
> If you're an office worker who needs the advanced capabilities of MS
> Office, an analyst who needs the astounding connectivity and
> query/reporting features of a tool like Access, an accountant who
> absolutely has to have Excel, a high schooler who plays lots of games, a
> music pro who needs good tools, and in many, many other situations....
>
> ....Linux is UNACCEPTABLE.
That's funny, your "gaming" claim is the only one that has any truth behind
it. Video under X is slightly slower than under Windows, but for 99% of the
applications X, with its remote capabilities is a better choice.
As for "astounding connectivity" and "query/reporting" features, I'm
lauging. "Connectivity?" Please elaborate. "Query/reporting?" have you not
seen the various SQL databases available in Linux? Have you not seen the
ODBC and JDBC drivers? Have you not used OpenOffice?
>
>
>
>
>> The same can probably be said about most posix type systems, MacOS/X
>> and the BSD systems have common structures and run mny of the same
>> packages that a Linux system will.
>>
>> It doesn't matter, Mac, BSD, or Linux, geez, ANYTHING but Windows
>
> The world voted. You lost.
The world didn't vote and no one has lost anything. Microsoft will evenually
fail like Wang, DEC, CP/M, PanAM, and all the others. delta T is good
thing.
win_not_lin
> Some people are quite happy using a better minority product rather than go
> with the mass produced trash - produced with the primary goal as making
> money rather than a quality product.
Linux is built for quality all right. Just look at the care and
attention that goes into Linux fonts and user interfaces:
Rick
Open IE. Got to slasdot.org. Compare that screen with one from a browser
running under almost any Linux distro. When you stop crying, come back.
mlw
> mlw wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> It doesn't matter, Mac, BSD, or Linux, geez, ANYTHING but Windows!
>
>
> I forget to tell you in my first reply: Windows will never die. Neither
> will Microsoft.
Nor will DEC, Doma1n, DataGeneral, LTX, VMS, Wang, CP/M, WordStar, Brief,
Lotus, or any of these companies/products. They are far too entrenched to
go out of business.
>
> They're far, far too entrenched and valuable and pervasive and ubiquitous.
Yup.
>
> You've got hundreds of millions of users who know/want/depend
> on/grudgingly
> accept Windows.
The #1 operating system, by installed base, in 1984 was CP/M.
> You've got huge corporate accounting systems built up
> over
> 10 years running on Excel.
15 years ago, one could not get into the banking industry without OS/2
support.
> Literally hundreds of thousands of VB apps
> running the corporate world.
Isn't M$ end of lifing VB? Replacing it?
> Word processing now generally means an MS
> Word
> .doc file is involved.
Word processing used to mean WordStar, then WordPerfect, see what I mean?
Nothing lasts for ever. OpenOffice.org is free and works great.
> Then there's that enormous universe of excellent
> apps and games and development tools.
And a much larger universe of crap for Windows.
> On top of that, much open source
> code runs on Windows.
Yup, and once adopted, why pay for Windows? We are already seeing Windows
losing to the paradigm shift away from the "desktop."
>
> MS and Windows really, really, really needs some competition, but they're
> here to stay.
That's what everyone said about DEC, DataGeneral, LTX, Doma1n, etc. Delta T
is a good thing.
amosf
Hmm. And they say linux has ugly fonts...
mlw
> mlw wrote:
>
>> Linux saves time and money. Everyone that has earnestly made the switch
>> will agree. Linux is cheaper, faster, more secure, and generally more
>> fun.
>>
>> The same can probably be said about most posix type systems, MacOS/X and
>> the BSD systems have common structures and run mny of the same packages
>> that a Linux system will.
>>
>> It doesn't matter, Mac, BSD, or Linux, geez, ANYTHING but Windows!
>
> I think that's pretty much a good idea: pick your poison, and stick with
> it! I've always been a BSD type up till this point, but Linux has some
> very nice features. We can still have our individual tribes, yet we can
> have our commonalities.
>
> Do individual Indian tribes respect each other?
A lot of people like to confuse the whole history of primitive peoples on
the american continent as one time. The americas (IMHO) seemed a whole lot
less violent than europe or asia in similar time periods. There was social
eveolution on this continent just as much as there was on europe.
There were wars, there was blood shed, but I can hardly say as bad as europe
at similar periods in history. While europe was killing people about thier
particular imaginary friend and fighting great land wars of attrition, the
native americans of the north west were just fighting about hunting rights
and honor.
tab
Selling Linux today are we?
You remind me a mattress sales person, that
takes a competitors mattress and runs it over
with a truck, and then tells the world how lumpy
the competitor's mattress is with wear and tear.
TheLetterK
> My wife brought home a coworker's laptop. It was having problems. Yup, you
> guessed it, XP. With a sigh, I started it up, logged in, (was able to
> administer the system with no password, BTW.)
>
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/......./run was LOADED with crap. Settings were wide open
> for any malware to take over.
>
>
> The windopes can't have it both ways, you can't argue that "a properly
> administered machine" wouldn't have this problem, and turn around and say
> Linux is "too hard" or "why do I need to know how to administer my system."
>
> I have been using linux since 1995/1996, in this time, I have not lost any
> data or work time due to Linux crashing or being unstable. I don't
> personally know of a single Windows user that can say the same thing.
Usually when I do something stupid. 2000 and XP have both been
acceptably stable. Win9x, however, was a pile of dog shit.
>
> Currently I have a Linux box in my living room, it is part of m home
> entertainment system. It has a TV card, sound card, video output, etc. It
> is wired to my netork, but during a remodel, I decided to include a CAT5
> cable. I really is a fun system, it plays all my digital media, I have all
> my music ripped to MP3 and available all a once. My 200G hard disk also
> doubles as a video recorder.
I'd be using Linux on my HTPC if a US-legal DVD decoder was available.
>
> My HP laptop runs Linux, eerything works and the only thing I have ever
> needed to do is make sure I keep NDIS wrapper up to date.
I've tried playing with ndiswrapper, and decided it's too much trouble.
Will be holding off using Linux on this desktop until I can pick up a
wireless bridge.
>
> In my lab, I have half a dozen SMP systems wired as a cluster for
> enginerring work, yes they run Linux.
Not surprising. Linux seems to be the Lord of the Beowulf Cluster.
>
> I am working on a robot, and it too runs Linux.
> In short, I neither need nor want to use Windows, and strongly suggest you
> don't ether. Your time is worth something, do you want to spend a little
> time larning something beter and more stable, or do you want to add up all
> the time you spend dealing with viruses, instability, upgrade treadmil,
> morning and afternon reboots, and the time lost when you lose data.
I don't run Linux for any of these reasons--I run it because it provides
the tools I want in an environment I can control, on a system that's
fairly stable.
TheLetterK
TheLetterK
> mlw wrote:
>
>>My wife brought home a coworker's laptop. It was having problems.
>>Yup, you guessed it, XP. With a sigh, I started it up, logged in,
>>(was able to administer the system with no password, BTW.)
>>
>>HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/......./run was LOADED with crap. Settings were
>>wide open for any malware to take over.
>>
>>
>>The windopes can't have it both ways, you can't argue that "a properly
>>administered machine" wouldn't have this problem, and turn around and
>>say Linux is "too hard" or "why do I need to know how to administer
>>my system."
>>
>>I have been using linux since 1995/1996, in this time, I have not
>>lost any data or work time due to Linux crashing or being unstable.
>
>
> I'm just about 100% sure you're lying, or you don't use many Linux apps, or
> you're lucky.
been using GNU/Linux since late 2002).
>
> * I recently upgraded (not new install) Mandrake CE to Mandriva LE 2005, and
> now KNode will occasionally close a message reply window with no warning.
> Bam! it's gone, along with whatever I've typed.
I don't use Knode. Typically I'll use Thunderbird.
>
> * recently, cola wacko Kelsey Bjarnason lost an entire partition to the FC4
> installer
Yes, a buggy installer definitely applies to all Linux distributions.
>
> * ext3 filesystems had a journaling data loss problem at one point
Which is why you don't move production machines to new filesystems for a
long time.
>
> * KPilot 4.4.1 was reported to lose PDA data.
Again, singluar application. Funny, how this is also a KDE app. I don't
use KDE, so I've never encountered these problems.
>
> * OpenOffice has a problem in its macro recorder that can overwrite your
> data without warning
'Can' and 'does' are two different things. I've never had a problem with it.
>
> * bad video drivers can lock Linux (and Windows) and cause data loss
> problems - even if it's just game savepoints.
I use Nvidia cards on Linux boxes, thus the problems are resolved. Your
probably talking about the ATI drivers--which are shit on Windows too.
>
>
>
>>I don't personally know of a single Windows user
>>that can say the same thing.
>
>
> I can't. I've lost a handful of email and Usenet replies to OE crashes, a
> few Access
> database records to corrupt dbs, probably 8 hours of lost development time
> to corrupt Access forms or code modules (arrrgggghhhhh!!!!!!!!!)... and
> that's about
> it.
I've lost... maybe a handful of e-mails to Thunderbird crashes. Over
three years.
>
> I don't remember Word ever causing me any problems (I don't use it that
> much). Excel has been a rock through the years. VB hasn't ever lost
> anything. Nor SQL Server. Nor MS Project. Nor Visio.
I've lost more data to Word than I care to recall. Word after 2000 is
alright, though horribly bloated and cumbersome to work with.
>
>
>
>>I am working on a robot, and it too runs Linux.
>>In short, I neither need nor want to use Windows, and strongly
>>suggest you don't ether.
>
>
> But you can't stop thinking about Windows? That's damn good marketing by
> MS.
Well, considering the wintrolls like you who keep pushing it in our faces...
>
>
>
>>Your time is worth something, do you want to
>>spend a little time larning something beter and more stable, or do
>>you want to add up all the time you spend dealing with viruses,
>>instability, upgrade treadmil, morning and afternon reboots, and the
>>time lost when you lose data.
>
>
> * Linux doesn't have viruses to speak of, Windows can be easily protected
Linux clearly wins this battle.
> * Linux the OS is stable but some apps definitely are not, same for Windows
I've not found XP to be as stable as Linux. The apps I use definitely
aren't as stable as their Linux counterparts.
> * Linux suffers from a far, far worse upgrade treadmill than Windows - but
> it costs little or nothing to upgrade. There is no forced upgrade on either
> platform.
'far, far worse'? Explain. Upgrading my Debian installation is trivial.
'apt-get dist-upgrade'. If I need to keep a package back, I can lock it
just as easily.
> * there are no morning and afternoon Windows reboots
No, but there are monthly reboots--which is more than my Linux server
experiences.
> * data loss due to the Windows OS is insignificant
I disagree. I've lost quite a bit more data on Window sthan I have
Linux, in a comparable time period. Consider that, save for the last 3
weeks, the vast majority of my real work was done on GNU/Linux.
>
> Your claims are less truthful and important than you think and would have us
> believe.
>
>
>
>>Linux saves time and money. Everyone that has earnestly made the
>>switch will agree. Linux is cheaper, faster, more secure, and
>>generally more fun.
>
>
> Linux is cheaper, slower, more secure by default, and is definitely more fun
> if you like to tweak and learn about OS's.
GNU/Linux outperforms Windows in every example I can think of.
Particularly on a desktop box.
>
> If you're an office worker who needs the advanced capabilities of MS Office,
> an analyst who needs the astounding connectivity and query/reporting
> features of a tool like Access, an accountant who absolutely has to have
> Excel, a high schooler who plays lots of games, a music pro who needs good
> tools, and in many, many other situations....
>
> ....Linux is UNACCEPTABLE.
Explain the people who use it for those situations then.
>
>
>
>
>
>>The same can probably be said about most posix type systems, MacOS/X
>>and the BSD systems have common structures and run mny of the same
>>packages that a Linux system will.
>>
>>It doesn't matter, Mac, BSD, or Linux, geez, ANYTHING but Windows
>
>
> The world voted. You lost.
Much like the 'votes' in Iraq when Saddam was still in power.
>
>
>
>
TheLetterK
> mlw wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>It doesn't matter, Mac, BSD, or Linux, geez, ANYTHING but Windows!
>
>
>
> I forget to tell you in my first reply: Windows will never die. Neither
> will Microsoft.
trends continue. There's no indicateion tha tLinux adoption will greatly
slow over the next few years, and every reason to believe Linux adoption
will explode after it reaches critical mass.
>
> They're far, far too entrenched and valuable and pervasive and ubiquitous.
I disagree.
>
> You've got hundreds of millions of users who know/want/depend on/grudgingly
> accept Windows.
And within the decade you'll have hundreds of millions of users who
know/want/depend on/happily accept Linux.
> You've got huge corporate accounting systems built up over
> 10 years running on Excel.
Which will be moved eventually, to save long-term costs.
> Literally hundreds of thousands of VB apps
> running the corporate world.
Which will be phase dout and replaced with (probably) something like
Python. Cross-platform compatibility will become an issue, and Python is
on-par with VB when it comes to RAD.
> Word processing now generally means an MS Word
> .doc file is involved.
Which will probably shift to OOo .sxw files.
> Then there's that enormous universe of excellent
> apps and games and development tools.
At exorbinant cost.
> On top of that, much open source code
> runs on Windows.
Right. So why pay Microsoft for nothing?
>
> MS and Windows really, really, really needs some competition, but they're
> here to stay.
They'll probably hang around. Much like Apple does.
>
> Enjoy.
>
>
mlw
>>Tons of lies from MLW.
Not a single lie.
>
> Selling Linux today are we?
Nope.
> You remind me a mattress sales person, that
> takes a competitors mattress and runs it over
> with a truck, and then tells the world how lumpy
> the competitor's mattress is with wear and tear.
LOL, that is more representative of M$'s "facts" site.
TheLetterK
really quite impressive that a *volunteer* project can seriously compete
with Microsoft.
TheLetterK
when compared with Windows, though not great compared with OS X. It'll
get better whenever Cairo really gains acceptance.
mlw
> mlw wrote:
>> My wife brought home a coworker's laptop. It was having problems. Yup,
>> you guessed it, XP. With a sigh, I started it up, logged in, (was able to
>> administer the system with no password, BTW.)
>>
>> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/......./run was LOADED with crap. Settings were wide
>> open for any malware to take over.
>>
>>
>> The windopes can't have it both ways, you can't argue that "a properly
>> administered machine" wouldn't have this problem, and turn around and say
>> Linux is "too hard" or "why do I need to know how to administer my
>> system."
>>
>> I have been using linux since 1995/1996, in this time, I have not lost
>> any data or work time due to Linux crashing or being unstable. I don't
>> personally know of a single Windows user that can say the same thing.
> I haven't had much of a problem with Windows NT or later crashing.
> Usually when I do something stupid. 2000 and XP have both been
> acceptably stable. Win9x, however, was a pile of dog shit.
That doesn't agree with *any* first and experiences I have had, nor does it
agree with *any* of the people that I know personally that use Windows. It
doesn't even agree with articles in trade magazines. In short, I'm
skeptical.
>
>>
>> Currently I have a Linux box in my living room, it is part of m home
>> entertainment system. It has a TV card, sound card, video output, etc. It
>> is wired to my netork, but during a remodel, I decided to include a CAT5
>> cable. I really is a fun system, it plays all my digital media, I have
>> all my music ripped to MP3 and available all a once. My 200G hard disk
>> also doubles as a video recorder.
> I'd be using Linux on my HTPC if a US-legal DVD decoder was available.
Fact: It is legal to have an use CSS in the US. I have legal licence to the
media that I use.
>
>>
>> My HP laptop runs Linux, eerything works and the only thing I have ever
>> needed to do is make sure I keep NDIS wrapper up to date.
> I've tried playing with ndiswrapper, and decided it's too much trouble.
> Will be holding off using Linux on this desktop until I can pick up a
> wireless bridge.
ndiswrapper works quite well for me and everyone else I know who uses it.
>
>>
>> In my lab, I have half a dozen SMP systems wired as a cluster for
>> enginerring work, yes they run Linux.
> Not surprising. Linux seems to be the Lord of the Beowulf Cluster.
And service cluster.
>
>>
>> I am working on a robot, and it too runs Linux.
>> In short, I neither need nor want to use Windows, and strongly suggest
>> you don't ether. Your time is worth something, do you want to spend a
>> little time larning something beter and more stable, or do you want to
>> add up all the time you spend dealing with viruses, instability, upgrade
>> treadmil, morning and afternon reboots, and the time lost when you lose
>> data.
> I don't run Linux for any of these reasons--I run it because it provides
> the tools I want in an environment I can control, on a system that's
> fairly stable.
Excellent reasons as well.
TheLetterK
> TheLetterK wrote:
>
>
>>mlw wrote:
>>
>>>My wife brought home a coworker's laptop. It was having problems. Yup,
>>>you guessed it, XP. With a sigh, I started it up, logged in, (was able to
>>>administer the system with no password, BTW.)
>>>
>>>HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/......./run was LOADED with crap. Settings were wide
>>>open for any malware to take over.
>>>
>>>
>>>The windopes can't have it both ways, you can't argue that "a properly
>>>administered machine" wouldn't have this problem, and turn around and say
>>>Linux is "too hard" or "why do I need to know how to administer my
>>>system."
>>>
>>>I have been using linux since 1995/1996, in this time, I have not lost
>>>any data or work time due to Linux crashing or being unstable. I don't
>>>personally know of a single Windows user that can say the same thing.
>
>
>>I haven't had much of a problem with Windows NT or later crashing.
>>Usually when I do something stupid. 2000 and XP have both been
>>acceptably stable. Win9x, however, was a pile of dog shit.
>
>
> That doesn't agree with *any* first and experiences I have had, nor does it
> agree with *any* of the people that I know personally that use Windows. It
> doesn't even agree with articles in trade magazines. In short, I'm
> skeptical.
anything of marginal importance. But what I told you is the
honest-to-god truth of what I've experienced with 2000 and XP. Proper
administration is the key to any system's stability. Windows has a quite
solid foundation, it's the userspace that's the problem. If I could use
'GNU/Windows NT' and X11, I'd go there in a heartbeat.
>
>
>
>>>Currently I have a Linux box in my living room, it is part of m home
>>>entertainment system. It has a TV card, sound card, video output, etc. It
>>>is wired to my netork, but during a remodel, I decided to include a CAT5
>>>cable. I really is a fun system, it plays all my digital media, I have
>>>all my music ripped to MP3 and available all a once. My 200G hard disk
>>>also doubles as a video recorder.
>>
>>I'd be using Linux on my HTPC if a US-legal DVD decoder was available.
>
>
> Fact: It is legal to have an use CSS in the US. I have legal licence to the
> media that I use.
It's not legal after the DMCA. Even if you own a licence to use a
product, it's illegal to circumvent the protection. Since no native DVD
decoders on Linux operate without first decrypting the media... it's
illegal in the US.
>
>
>>>My HP laptop runs Linux, eerything works and the only thing I have ever
>>>needed to do is make sure I keep NDIS wrapper up to date.
>>
>>I've tried playing with ndiswrapper, and decided it's too much trouble.
>>Will be holding off using Linux on this desktop until I can pick up a
>>wireless bridge.
>
>
> ndiswrapper works quite well for me and everyone else I know who uses it.
That's fine for them. I'll wait for a wireless bridge, thanks.
mlw
> mlw wrote:
>> TheLetterK wrote:
>>
>>
>>>mlw wrote:
>>>
>>>>My wife brought home a coworker's laptop. It was having problems. Yup,
>>>>you guessed it, XP. With a sigh, I started it up, logged in, (was able
>>>>to administer the system with no password, BTW.)
>>>>
>>>>HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/......./run was LOADED with crap. Settings were wide
>>>>open for any malware to take over.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The windopes can't have it both ways, you can't argue that "a properly
>>>>administered machine" wouldn't have this problem, and turn around and
>>>>say Linux is "too hard" or "why do I need to know how to administer my
>>>>system."
>>>>
>>>>I have been using linux since 1995/1996, in this time, I have not lost
>>>>any data or work time due to Linux crashing or being unstable. I don't
>>>>personally know of a single Windows user that can say the same thing.
>>
>>
>>>I haven't had much of a problem with Windows NT or later crashing.
>>>Usually when I do something stupid. 2000 and XP have both been
>>>acceptably stable. Win9x, however, was a pile of dog shit.
>>
>>
>> That doesn't agree with *any* first and experiences I have had, nor does
>> it agree with *any* of the people that I know personally that use
>> Windows. It doesn't even agree with articles in trade magazines. In
>> short, I'm skeptical.
> Of what, my personal experiences?
In short, this is usenet. Everything is suspect, verify everything for
factul correctness.
<snip>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Currently I have a Linux box in my living room, it is part of m home
>>>>entertainment system. It has a TV card, sound card, video output, etc.
>>>>It is wired to my netork, but during a remodel, I decided to include a
>>>>CAT5 cable. I really is a fun system, it plays all my digital media, I
>>>>have all my music ripped to MP3 and available all a once. My 200G hard
>>>>disk also doubles as a video recorder.
>>>
>>>I'd be using Linux on my HTPC if a US-legal DVD decoder was available.
>>
>>
>> Fact: It is legal to have an use CSS in the US. I have legal licence to
>> the media that I use.
> It's not legal after the DMCA. Even if you own a licence to use a
> product, it's illegal to circumvent the protection. Since no native DVD
> decoders on Linux operate without first decrypting the media... it's
> illegal in the US.
There is "fair use" involved, and the DMCA has been struck down in these
instances.
>>
>>
>>>>My HP laptop runs Linux, eerything works and the only thing I have ever
>>>>needed to do is make sure I keep NDIS wrapper up to date.
>>>
>>>I've tried playing with ndiswrapper, and decided it's too much trouble.
>>>Will be holding off using Linux on this desktop until I can pick up a
>>>wireless bridge.
>>
>>
>> ndiswrapper works quite well for me and everyone else I know who uses it.
> That's fine for them. I'll wait for a wireless bridge, thanks.
Use a WAP if you don't like ndiswrapper.
Linønut
A nice, simple, clean desktop with nice fonts.
Cool!
The menu, though, is almost as large as XP's hellish menu.
--
Tux rox!
TheLetterK
trouble. I've already got an extra copy of Windows 2000, and software to
drive it all.
Besides, I prefer SageTV to MythTV. If I ever need to add a media
extender, I'll probably go to Linux. Hopefully my DeCSS quandry will be
solved by then.
>
>
>>>
>>>>>My HP laptop runs Linux, eerything works and the only thing I have ever
>>>>>needed to do is make sure I keep NDIS wrapper up to date.
>>>>
>>>>I've tried playing with ndiswrapper, and decided it's too much trouble.
>>>>Will be holding off using Linux on this desktop until I can pick up a
>>>>wireless bridge.
>>>
>>>
>>>ndiswrapper works quite well for me and everyone else I know who uses it.
>>
>>That's fine for them. I'll wait for a wireless bridge, thanks.
>
>
> Use a WAP if you don't like ndiswrapper.
Yes--which I don't have on hand. That's what I said originally.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:05:35 +0000,
mlw <m...@nospam.no> wrote:
> Donn Miller wrote:
>
>> mlw wrote:
>>
>>> Linux saves time and money. Everyone that has earnestly made the switch
>>> will agree. Linux is cheaper, faster, more secure, and generally more
>>> fun.
>>>
>>> The same can probably be said about most posix type systems, MacOS/X and
>>> the BSD systems have common structures and run mny of the same packages
>>> that a Linux system will.
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter, Mac, BSD, or Linux, geez, ANYTHING but Windows!
>>
>> I think that's pretty much a good idea: pick your poison, and stick with
>> it! I've always been a BSD type up till this point, but Linux has some
>> very nice features. We can still have our individual tribes, yet we can
>> have our commonalities.
>>
>> Do individual Indian tribes respect each other?
>
> A lot of people like to confuse the whole history of primitive peoples on
> the american continent as one time. The americas (IMHO) seemed a whole lot
> less violent than europe or asia in similar time periods. There was social
> eveolution on this continent just as much as there was on europe.
>
> There were wars, there was blood shed, but I can hardly say as bad as europe
> at similar periods in history. While europe was killing people about thier
> particular imaginary friend and fighting great land wars of attrition, the
> native americans of the north west were just fighting about hunting rights
> and honor.
>
are you seriously trying to compare through dates, rather than social
organization?
Are you seriously trying to compare late neolithic hunter gatherers with
cultures of the industrial age?
Have you enirely ignored the Mexica with their "war of the flowery way"
ripping out the hearts of a few thousand sacrifices in a day or two?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFC1/axd90bcYOAWPYRAiyIAJ9hRDkRQlL2UKtoAk5DJjls8QlxxACdHtLD
EQHq5Xt91WWrcPpnD8UwCso=
=avXV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Chaos, panic, & disorder - my work here is done
B Gruff
> MS and Windows really, really, really needs some competition, but
> they're here to stay.
Getting there......
...so much more rewarding to travel hopefully than to arrive, do you
not think?
.... Damascus is merely the aiming point - 'tis on the journey there
that the light will be seen....;-)
Bill
mlw
What social organizations would those be?
>
> Are you seriously trying to compare late neolithic hunter gatherers with
> cultures of the industrial age?
Also remember that there is no single native american culture, there
were/are a large number of different societies. Much Europe of the time
with different nations, languages, and practices.
"cultures?" Interesting, in europe, "culture" was largely the privilage of
the wealth and royalty. The rank and file human's life was not all that
great.
>
> Have you enirely ignored the Mexica with their "war of the flowery way"
> ripping out the hearts of a few thousand sacrifices in a day or two?
There are incidents of utter brutality in every cuture's history. Europe had
things like trial by fire, conversion by sword, witch burning, crusades,
etc. When ever religion is involved, you just know that there is a horrific
death in the name of a all loving and forgiving figment.
The Ghost In The Machine
<m...@nospam.no>
wrote
on Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:27:08 +0000
<UrWdnXVSJY2...@comcast.com>:
> My wife brought home a coworker's laptop. It was having problems. Yup, you
> guessed it, XP. With a sigh, I started it up, logged in, (was able to
> administer the system with no password, BTW.)
>
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/......./run was LOADED with crap. Settings were wide open
> for any malware to take over.
>
>
> The windopes can't have it both ways, you can't argue that "a properly
> administered machine" wouldn't have this problem, and turn around and say
> Linux is "too hard" or "why do I need to know how to administer my system."
>
> I have been using linux since 1995/1996, in this time, I have not lost any
> data or work time due to Linux crashing or being unstable. I don't
> personally know of a single Windows user that can say the same thing.
>
> entertainment system. It has a TV card, sound card, video output, etc. It
> is wired to my netork, but during a remodel, I decided to include a CAT5
> cable. I really is a fun system, it plays all my digital media, I have all
> my music ripped to MP3 and available all a once. My 200G hard disk also
> doubles as a video recorder.
>
> needed to do is make sure I keep NDIS wrapper up to date.
>
> enginerring work, yes they run Linux.
>
> In short, I neither need nor want to use Windows, and strongly suggest you
> don't ether. Your time is worth something, do you want to spend a little
> time larning something beter and more stable, or do you want to add up all
> the time you spend dealing with viruses, instability, upgrade treadmil,
> morning and afternon reboots, and the time lost when you lose data.
>
> agree. Linux is cheaper, faster, more secure, and generally more fun.
>
> The same can probably be said about most posix type systems, MacOS/X and the
> BSD systems have common structures and run mny of the same packages that a
> Linux system will.
>
> It doesn't matter, Mac, BSD, or Linux, geez, ANYTHING but Windows!
Pedant Point: I should note that Microsoft Windows NT was
POSIX-compliant (presumably, so are all following variants,
if only as a tick in a marketing form to highlevel exec
types) and can run X. How well, of course, is one of the
questions best left unanswered -- if one is a Winvocate.
Look, a puppy! :-) (Start>Search)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Sinister Midget
Good.
"The next one will be better than the current one. The old one is trash
compared to the current one."
They keep saying that. Someday it might come true if they wish hard
enough.
--
Windows? WINDOWS?!? Hahahahahahehehe.....
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
agriculture for one, the whole concept of nation states, and pretty much
anything larger than a tribe
>>
>> Are you seriously trying to compare late neolithic hunter gatherers with
>> cultures of the industrial age?
>
> Also remember that there is no single native american culture, there
> were/are a large number of different societies. Much Europe of the time
> with different nations, languages, and practices.
agreed, and with a far greater level of technology, and political/social
awareness.
>
> "cultures?" Interesting, in europe, "culture" was largely the privilage of
> the wealth and royalty. The rank and file human's life was not all that
> great.
are you deliberately being obtuse?
>
>>
>> Have you enirely ignored the Mexica with their "war of the flowery way"
>> ripping out the hearts of a few thousand sacrifices in a day or two?
>
> There are incidents of utter brutality in every cuture's history. Europe had
(back to using the word culture in the sense I used I see.)
> things like trial by fire, conversion by sword, witch burning, crusades,
> etc. When ever religion is involved, you just know that there is a horrific
> death in the name of a all loving and forgiving figment.
>
not relevent to the point. Were the Europeans barbarians? hell yes, were
the first nations any better? hell no.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFC2Cg8d90bcYOAWPYRAjATAKDb6XPgHI8mOfhq1N/GV7UetJ63igCgoJ2k
XK2aWoWv7V3kVyPjN+L1uKk=
=eVbb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Microsoft - because god hates us
mlw
Then you *REALLY* don't know anything about the native american peoples. The
Iroquois had representative government, the notion of confederated nations,
and had a very effective agriculture.
>
>>>
>>> Are you seriously trying to compare late neolithic hunter gatherers with
>>> cultures of the industrial age?
>>
>> Also remember that there is no single native american culture, there
>> were/are a large number of different societies. Much Europe of the time
>> with different nations, languages, and practices.
>
> agreed, and with a far greater level of technology, and political/social
> awareness.
>
>>
>> "cultures?" Interesting, in europe, "culture" was largely the privilage
>> of the wealth and royalty. The rank and file human's life was not all
>> that great.
>
> are you deliberately being obtuse?
Not at all, but it has to be stated that what many people read about as
"culture" was not available to the average human being. The the great works
of art, the great musical scores, the great knowledge was only available to
a privilaged few.
So,when you say "they had culture," you are not speaking of the eneral
populus. The difference is that the people who *could* write wrote about a
primitive people, but in fact, they were not as primitive (socially) as
initialy reported.
Read up on the Iroquois, really interesting.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Have you enirely ignored the Mexica with their "war of the flowery way"
>>> ripping out the hearts of a few thousand sacrifices in a day or two?
>>
>> There are incidents of utter brutality in every cuture's history. Europe
>> had
>
> (back to using the word culture in the sense I used I see.)
To have "culture" and one's "culture" is two dfferent things, yes, and I'm
not sure why you think I'm being inconsistent.
>
>> things like trial by fire, conversion by sword, witch burning, crusades,
>> etc. When ever religion is involved, you just know that there is a
>> horrific death in the name of a all loving and forgiving figment.
>>
>
> not relevent to the point. Were the Europeans barbarians? hell yes, were
> the first nations any better? hell no.
So why do you say that the brutality of one people makes them primitive, but
the brutality of another does not?
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 10:26:37 +0000,
and wars.... don't forget that part.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you seriously trying to compare late neolithic hunter gatherers with
>>>> cultures of the industrial age?
>>>
>>> Also remember that there is no single native american culture, there
>>> were/are a large number of different societies. Much Europe of the time
>>> with different nations, languages, and practices.
>>
>> agreed, and with a far greater level of technology, and political/social
>> awareness.
>>
>>>
>>> "cultures?" Interesting, in europe, "culture" was largely the privilage
>>> of the wealth and royalty. The rank and file human's life was not all
>>> that great.
>>
>> are you deliberately being obtuse?
>
> Not at all, but it has to be stated that what many people read about as
> "culture" was not available to the average human being. The the great works
> of art, the great musical scores, the great knowledge was only available to
> a privilaged few.
yet that wasn't what I used the term as, nor is it the meaning of the
term *you* used it as.
>
> So,when you say "they had culture," you are not speaking of the eneral
> populus. The difference is that the people who *could* write wrote about a
> primitive people, but in fact, they were not as primitive (socially) as
> initialy reported.
>
now you switch the uses of the word "culture" *again*
> Read up on the Iroquois, really interesting.
yes, and not really relevent to your bullshit point.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Have you enirely ignored the Mexica with their "war of the flowery way"
>>>> ripping out the hearts of a few thousand sacrifices in a day or two?
>>>
>>> There are incidents of utter brutality in every cuture's history. Europe
>>> had
>>
>> (back to using the word culture in the sense I used I see.)
>
> To have "culture" and one's "culture" is two dfferent things, yes, and I'm
> not sure why you think I'm being inconsistent.
sorry you miss it.
>>
>>> things like trial by fire, conversion by sword, witch burning, crusades,
>>> etc. When ever religion is involved, you just know that there is a
>>> horrific death in the name of a all loving and forgiving figment.
>>>
>>
>> not relevent to the point. Were the Europeans barbarians? hell yes, were
>> the first nations any better? hell no.
>
> So why do you say that the brutality of one people makes them primitive, but
> the brutality of another does not?
I don't. I point out that brutality on a large scale, requires a large
scale society, and that small scale societies are not somehow more
noble, but simply unable to bring their brutality up in scale.
As individuals, the first peoples, were just as brutal as their
conquerors. As a society, they failed, not because of the quality of
their brutality, but because of their quantity. They were unable to
fight wars in the european sense, since they lacked the industry and
population to do so. But they did quite well (and brutally) with what
they had.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFC2WpUd90bcYOAWPYRAsERAJ0blzdWWLy/Kwh+0PkhGc6qiLNfpgCfd2rM
aRoT70e3wFjUroPsjjHd9ZA=
=6GnZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Rule 1: You can't cure stupid
mlw
Who's forgetting? Name one human society that has not had war.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you seriously trying to compare late neolithic hunter gatherers
>>>>> with cultures of the industrial age?
>>>>
>>>> Also remember that there is no single native american culture, there
>>>> were/are a large number of different societies. Much Europe of the time
>>>> with different nations, languages, and practices.
>>>
>>> agreed, and with a far greater level of technology, and political/social
>>> awareness.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "cultures?" Interesting, in europe, "culture" was largely the privilage
>>>> of the wealth and royalty. The rank and file human's life was not all
>>>> that great.
>>>
>>> are you deliberately being obtuse?
>>
>> Not at all, but it has to be stated that what many people read about as
>> "culture" was not available to the average human being. The the great
>> works of art, the great musical scores, the great knowledge was only
>> available to a privilaged few.
>
>
> yet that wasn't what I used the term as, nor is it the meaning of the
> term *you* used it as.
Perhaps it was a misunderstanding.
>
>>
>> So,when you say "they had culture," you are not speaking of the eneral
>> populus. The difference is that the people who *could* write wrote about
>> a primitive people, but in fact, they were not as primitive (socially) as
>> initialy reported.
>>
>
> now you switch the uses of the word "culture" *again*
>
>
>
>> Read up on the Iroquois, really interesting.
>
>
> yes, and not really relevent to your bullshit point.
Sorry, what? You are the one that tred to paint 500 nations of ative
americans as "hunter gatherers" which, by and large they were/are not.
The white man likes to call any non-european culture primitive. Perhaps
technology is lacking, but social order and structure were very advanced.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you enirely ignored the Mexica with their "war of the flowery
>>>>> way" ripping out the hearts of a few thousand sacrifices in a day or
>>>>> two?
>>>>
>>>> There are incidents of utter brutality in every cuture's history.
>>>> Europe had
>>>
>>> (back to using the word culture in the sense I used I see.)
>>
>> To have "culture" and one's "culture" is two dfferent things, yes, and
>> I'm not sure why you think I'm being inconsistent.
>
>
> sorry you miss it.
>>>
>>>> things like trial by fire, conversion by sword, witch burning,
>>>> crusades, etc. When ever religion is involved, you just know that there
>>>> is a horrific death in the name of a all loving and forgiving figment.
>>>>
>>>
>>> not relevent to the point. Were the Europeans barbarians? hell yes, were
>>> the first nations any better? hell no.
>>
>> So why do you say that the brutality of one people makes them primitive,
>> but the brutality of another does not?
>
>
> I don't. I point out that brutality on a large scale, requires a large
> scale society, and that small scale societies are not somehow more
> noble, but simply unable to bring their brutality up in scale.
And you say my points are bullshit. What point are you trying to make?
>
> As individuals, the first peoples, were just as brutal as their
> conquerors.
Perhaps so, maybe even more so.
> As a society, they failed, not because of the quality of
> their brutality, but because of their quantity.
They "failed" as you say, because the white man had steal.
> They were unable to
> fight wars in the european sense, since they lacked the industry and
> population to do so.
They only "lacked popultion" because of the diseases brought by the
europeans. And they damn fine against the europeans.
> But they did quite well (and brutally) with what
> they had.
It is very easy to disregard the accomplishments of the native americans.
They may not have had "great art and science," but they had skills and
knowledge. They had a very efficient language and a fairly impressive
ability to pass down knowledge from generation to generation with little
variation.
They hould have let the pilgrams die. It would have been the best all
around.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:51:12 +0000,
mlw <m...@nospam.no> wrote:
> Jim Richardson wrote:
>
<snip>
>> I don't. I point out that brutality on a large scale, requires a large
>> scale society, and that small scale societies are not somehow more
>> noble, but simply unable to bring their brutality up in scale.
>
> And you say my points are bullshit. What point are you trying to make?
>>
the silly nature of your idea that the first peoples just "got along"...
>> As individuals, the first peoples, were just as brutal as their
>> conquerors.
>
> Perhaps so, maybe even more so.
>
>> As a society, they failed, not because of the quality of
>> their brutality, but because of their quantity.
>
> They "failed" as you say, because the white man had steal.
steel was a big deal, but not the reason.
Numbers were the reason, and the numbers, are what led to steel. (and
more important than steel, was the iron plow. Prior to that, there was
no significant agriculture on the great plains, the grass was too tough,
burning it off, left the roots behind, and without metal tools,
epecially iron, it's just about impossible to farm on a large scale
there)
>
>> They were unable to
>> fight wars in the european sense, since they lacked the industry and
>> population to do so.
>
> They only "lacked popultion" because of the diseases brought by the
> europeans. And they damn fine against the europeans.
and they damn fine *what* against the euros?
Disease was a big deal, no argument there. But guess what! the europeans
resistance to disease, came from agriculture, or rather, livestock
handling, and high population densities. Relative resistance to
smallpox, from infections of cowpox for one.
>
>> But they did quite well (and brutally) with what
>> they had.
>
> It is very easy to disregard the accomplishments of the native americans.
> They may not have had "great art and science," but they had skills and
> knowledge. They had a very efficient language and a fairly impressive
> ability to pass down knowledge from generation to generation with little
> variation.
I am not disregarding squat. Many of the tribes had great art, and great
other things. But they didn't "get along" unless you consider war,
slavery, torture, and cannibalism, "getting along"
>
> They hould have let the pilgrams die. It would have been the best all
> around.
wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference. There were more coming.
Many of the early settlements *did* die out, and it didn't matter,
because the rest kept coming. Ship after ship. "As numerous as the
leaves of the trees"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFC2Yfwd90bcYOAWPYRArkyAJ4hgODcCls5zflbXUcNUgppBSETbwCg0AqG
8RtSnMSa7BLZxq4zZbNKAP0=
=YGRR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Life is too short to be taken seriously.
-- Oscar Wilde
TheLetterK
improve on a 20-year-old font rendering technology.
>
> They keep saying that. Someday it might come true if they wish hard
> enough.
Just keep telling yourself they're not right.
mlw
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:51:12 +0000,
> mlw <m...@nospam.no> wrote:
>> Jim Richardson wrote:
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> I don't. I point out that brutality on a large scale, requires a large
>>> scale society, and that small scale societies are not somehow more
>>> noble, but simply unable to bring their brutality up in scale.
>>
>> And you say my points are bullshit. What point are you trying to make?
>>>
>
> the silly nature of your idea that the first peoples just "got along"...
Well, I think you *REALY* need to read up. Yes, there were long standing
wars, there were raiders, and there was hostility. Just like europe and
asia. There were also long standing peace agreements and confederations of
nations.
I would say that the various "POSIX" nations could very well be similar to
the various nations in the Iroquois.
Being part Mohawk, I have spent some time researching the history. Stuff
that they don't teach in schools. The governments, the society, the art,
the archecture.
Yes, my ancestors were savage warriors, but counter to what they teach in
schools, they were also civilized with rights, justice, government,
commerce and gaming. Even gambling.
It was a totally different society from the white man at the time and there
was a great deal of misunderstanding. Unfortunately, the misunderstandings
became the popular conventional wisdom.
>
>
>>> As individuals, the first peoples, were just as brutal as their
>>> conquerors.
>>
>> Perhaps so, maybe even more so.
>>
>>> As a society, they failed, not because of the quality of
>>> their brutality, but because of their quantity.
>>
>> They "failed" as you say, because the white man had steal.
>
>
> steel was a big deal, but not the reason.
I forget the name of the book, but there is a new anthopology book that
argues otherwise.
>
> Numbers were the reason, and the numbers, are what led to steel. (and
> more important than steel, was the iron plow. Prior to that, there was
> no significant agriculture on the great plains, the grass was too tough,
> burning it off, left the roots behind, and without metal tools,
> epecially iron, it's just about impossible to farm on a large scale
> there)
Again, you are confusing all of the indian nations as one homogenous entity.
The plains indians didn't need agriculture, thus didn't have it. The
Indians of the eastern part of the continent had great agriculture.
You are, in effect, saying that because the swiss didn't have a navy, none
of europe had a navy. The northern american continent is MUCH MUCH larger
than europe and a much more diverse population.
It is almost imposible to characterize all of them, because some tribes were
hunters, some were farmers, there were different religions and languages,
you are being too simplistic.
>
>>
>>> They were unable to
>>> fight wars in the european sense, since they lacked the industry and
>>> population to do so.
>>
>> They only "lacked popultion" because of the diseases brought by the
>> europeans. And they damn fine against the europeans.
>
> and they damn fine *what* against the euros?
Fending them off. It it weren't for the revolver and gatling gun, the indian
wars would have been much different.
>
> Disease was a big deal, no argument there. But guess what! the europeans
> resistance to disease, came from agriculture, or rather, livestock
> handling, and high population densities. Relative resistance to
> smallpox, from infections of cowpox for one.
Bullshit, the european resisance to the disease was because varous plagues
decimated the population generations prior. The survivors were, by nature,
more immune to the diseases.
>
>>
>>> But they did quite well (and brutally) with what
>>> they had.
>>
>> It is very easy to disregard the accomplishments of the native americans.
>> They may not have had "great art and science," but they had skills and
>> knowledge. They had a very efficient language and a fairly impressive
>> ability to pass down knowledge from generation to generation with little
>> variation.
>
>
> I am not disregarding squat. Many of the tribes had great art, and great
> other things. But they didn't "get along" unless you consider war,
> slavery, torture, and cannibalism, "getting along"
You are making "absolute" arguments, which are by their nature strawmen. As
I said before, of course there was war, of course there were raiders and
criminals, but you neglect the long standing peace agreements and
confederations of tribes.
The Iroquois has confederation of independent nations before the USA, and
far before th EU.
GreyCloud
Interesting read. Funny that no one notices the statue on
top of the Nations capitol building...
Sacajawea.
The American indians had a great influence on how our
government was formed.
A book titled "Indian Givers" is a very good read as well.
While reading the book, it mentioned that the South american
indians were experts at plant husbandry. There are over
24,000 varieties of potatoes and this country only uses
about 5 or 6 of those varieties. The american indians were
quite adept at medicine as well. If it weren't for their
help, most of those with scurvy would have died.
Small Pox was the leading cause of death of most native
americans in the past.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 22:54:39 +0000,
mlw <m...@nospam.no> wrote:
> Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:51:12 +0000,
>> mlw <m...@nospam.no> wrote:
>>> Jim Richardson wrote:
>>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> I don't. I point out that brutality on a large scale, requires a large
>>>> scale society, and that small scale societies are not somehow more
>>>> noble, but simply unable to bring their brutality up in scale.
>>>
>>> And you say my points are bullshit. What point are you trying to make?
>>>>
>>
>> the silly nature of your idea that the first peoples just "got along"...
>
> Well, I think you *REALY* need to read up. Yes, there were long standing
> wars, there were raiders, and there was hostility. Just like europe and
> asia. There were also long standing peace agreements and confederations of
> nations.
>
just like Europe...
> I would say that the various "POSIX" nations could very well be similar to
> the various nations in the Iroquois.
or the nations of Europe.
>
> Being part Mohawk, I have spent some time researching the history. Stuff
> that they don't teach in schools. The governments, the society, the art,
> the archecture.
so ?
>
> Yes, my ancestors were savage warriors, but counter to what they teach in
> schools, they were also civilized with rights, justice, government,
> commerce and gaming. Even gambling.
so?
>
> It was a totally different society from the white man at the time and there
> was a great deal of misunderstanding. Unfortunately, the misunderstandings
> became the popular conventional wisdom.
>
so?
I have no beef with the acomplishments of the native peoples, merely
pointing out that your attempt to compare stone age cultures, with
industrial age cultures in the way you did, is silly.
>>
>>
>>>> As individuals, the first peoples, were just as brutal as their
>>>> conquerors.
>>>
>>> Perhaps so, maybe even more so.
>>>
>>>> As a society, they failed, not because of the quality of
>>>> their brutality, but because of their quantity.
>>>
>>> They "failed" as you say, because the white man had steal.
>>
>>
>> steel was a big deal, but not the reason.
>
> I forget the name of the book, but there is a new anthopology book that
> argues otherwise.
Guns germs and Steel. By Jarod Diamond, Worth the read, have a well
thumbed copy here. Covers a lot more than the european conquest of the
americas.
>>
>> Numbers were the reason, and the numbers, are what led to steel. (and
>> more important than steel, was the iron plow. Prior to that, there was
>> no significant agriculture on the great plains, the grass was too tough,
>> burning it off, left the roots behind, and without metal tools,
>> epecially iron, it's just about impossible to farm on a large scale
>> there)
>
> Again, you are confusing all of the indian nations as one homogenous entity.
> The plains indians didn't need agriculture, thus didn't have it. The
> Indians of the eastern part of the continent had great agriculture.
No, you were, with your
"A lot of people like to confuse the whole history of primitive peoples
on the american continent as one time. The americas (IMHO) seemed a
whole lot less violent than europe or asia in similar time periods.
There was social eveolution on this continent just as much as there was
on europe. "
Compared to the beaker peoples (google for details) the amerinds were no
better, and no worse, in violence, war, whatever. They were just people,
like everyone else.
>
> You are, in effect, saying that because the swiss didn't have a navy, none
> of europe had a navy. The northern american continent is MUCH MUCH larger
> than europe and a much more diverse population.
I am saying nothing of the kind.
>
> It is almost imposible to characterize all of them, because some tribes were
> hunters, some were farmers, there were different religions and languages,
> you are being too simplistic.
then why did you *try* and "characterize all of them"?
>
>>
>>>
>>>> They were unable to
>>>> fight wars in the european sense, since they lacked the industry and
>>>> population to do so.
>>>
>>> They only "lacked popultion" because of the diseases brought by the
>>> europeans. And they damn fine against the europeans.
>>
>> and they damn fine *what* against the euros?
>
> Fending them off. It it weren't for the revolver and gatling gun, the indian
> wars would have been much different.
by the time the gatling gun showed up, it was all over. The revolver was
useful, but again, didn't show up in significant numbers until the civil
war, it was a done deal by then. All over but the wailing and gnashing
of teeth.
>
>>
>> Disease was a big deal, no argument there. But guess what! the europeans
>> resistance to disease, came from agriculture, or rather, livestock
>> handling, and high population densities. Relative resistance to
>> smallpox, from infections of cowpox for one.
>
> Bullshit, the european resisance to the disease was because varous plagues
> decimated the population generations prior. The survivors were, by nature,
> more immune to the diseases.
>
well duh!
where do you think those plagues came from? they came from overcrowding,
poor sanitation, and in many cases, from contact with domesticated
animals. Foot and mouth disease, is anthrax, influenza B and C types
are carried by domestic pigs, a varient of which, was the 1918 flu
epidemic. As I mentioned above, smallpox immunity can be had from
contracting cowpox, which in the absence of domesticated cattle, is
rather rare. You really should read Guns germs and Steel,
>>
>>>
>>>> But they did quite well (and brutally) with what
>>>> they had.
>>>
>>> It is very easy to disregard the accomplishments of the native americans.
>>> They may not have had "great art and science," but they had skills and
>>> knowledge. They had a very efficient language and a fairly impressive
>>> ability to pass down knowledge from generation to generation with little
>>> variation.
>>
>>
>> I am not disregarding squat. Many of the tribes had great art, and great
>> other things. But they didn't "get along" unless you consider war,
>> slavery, torture, and cannibalism, "getting along"
>
> You are making "absolute" arguments, which are by their nature strawmen. As
> I said before, of course there was war, of course there were raiders and
> criminals, but you neglect the long standing peace agreements and
> confederations of tribes.
which went to war with other confederations of tribes... Just like
Europeans. Your attempt to paint them as "noble savages" better than the
Europeans is amusing, but little more.
>
> The Iroquois has confederation of independent nations before the USA, and
> far before th EU.
yes, and long after the Hanseatic league, or the Peloponnesian League,
your point?
My point is simple, the native americans, were no better, and no worse,
that the rest of humanity.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFC2ew5d90bcYOAWPYRAp25AJsGrMulG/pnOMuCQDqFGyagj1u7qQCg1jTQ
J1Z8ggta8fi/dpv6iri5UrQ=
=TKHd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Homo sapiens, isn't
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 21:59:04 -0600,
GreyCloud <cum...@mist.com> wrote:
> A book titled "Indian Givers" is a very good read as well.
> While reading the book, it mentioned that the South american
> indians were experts at plant husbandry. There are over
> 24,000 varieties of potatoes and this country only uses
> about 5 or 6 of those varieties. The american indians were
> quite adept at medicine as well. If it weren't for their
> help, most of those with scurvy would have died.
>
bullshit. Scurvy has a simple cure, and it's almost impossible to get
unless you are at sea for months, living on a diet of salted meat and
weevilly biscuits. Pretty much any green plant you can eat, will knock
of scurvy.
> Small Pox was the leading cause of death of most native
> americans in the past.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFC2e0Zd90bcYOAWPYRAmiGAKCAunA4XBKG3qC4BFPUOEkr43CN8ACgkeSS
6wQmojF3Y4sCg6JpW7OFgp8=
=qGGM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Ahhh... I see the fuck-up fairy has visited us again.
Liam Slider
>
> I have no beef with the acomplishments of the native peoples, merely
> pointing out that your attempt to compare stone age cultures, with
> industrial age cultures in the way you did, is silly.
I would hardly call the Europeans as they arrived in what became the USA
industrial age...very nearly industrial age perhaps. On the cusp of it
definately. But they stuff functioned under systems of craftsmen and their
apprentices as the way to provide their goods and services.
As for stone age....most were definately stone age, no doubt about that.
But some tribes *did* work metal before the Europeans arrived. The
Mississipian culture for example, worked in copper. Mainly for
ornamentation for the rich nobles and some of their religious items. It's
true that the average joe worked with stone, wood, and bone.....but that
was true in many metal age cultures around the world actually. Even Egypt
and Greece, where the common man got by with stone tools because they
couldn't afford metal. That was for the rich. In the city of Cahokia, and
various smaller cities and villages of the Mississippian culture likewise,
metal was for the rich. But they did have it. Well crafted too.
Prehistoric peoples...sure, as none of these people had any written
language before the Europeans showed up and gave them one, all they had
was what was passed down. But not all Native Americans in what is now the
USAwere stone age people. They built well populated cities with enormous
temples and stonehenge-like solar observatories made out of wood, vast
stockaded walls, large public marketplaces where the goods from all over
North America could be traded, had organised sports in courts prepared for
such events, worked metal, and all the signs of having made the leap from
simple stone age hunter-gatherers to civilised culture similar to other
ancient cultures.
Kier
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 22:27:22 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I have no beef with the acomplishments of the native peoples, merely
>> pointing out that your attempt to compare stone age cultures, with
>> industrial age cultures in the way you did, is silly.
>
>
> I would hardly call the Europeans as they arrived in what became the USA
> industrial age...very nearly industrial age perhaps. On the cusp of it
> definately. But they stuff functioned under systems of craftsmen and their
> apprentices as the way to provide their goods and services.
>
> As for stone age....most were definately stone age, no doubt about that.
> But some tribes *did* work metal before the Europeans arrived. The
> Mississipian culture for example, worked in copper. Mainly for
> ornamentation for the rich nobles and some of their religious items. It's
> true that the average joe worked with stone, wood, and bone.....but that
> was true in many metal age cultures around the world actually. Even Egypt
> and Greece, where the common man got by with stone tools because they
> couldn't afford metal. That was for the rich. In the city of Cahokia, and
> various smaller cities and villages of the Mississippian culture likewise,
> metal was for the rich. But they did have it. Well crafted too.
Also, ore for metal-working may not have been widely available, which
would limit the working of it. Cultures are limited by their environment
as much as other things, I would say.
Metal doesn't have to be iron or steel - copper and bronze had their day
before that, as with the Mississipian's you mention.
>
> Prehistoric peoples...sure, as none of these people had any written
> language before the Europeans showed up and gave them one, all they had
> was what was passed down. But not all Native Americans in what is now the
> USAwere stone age people. They built well populated cities with enormous
> temples and stonehenge-like solar observatories made out of wood, vast
> stockaded walls, large public marketplaces where the goods from all over
> North America could be traded, had organised sports in courts prepared for
> such events, worked metal, and all the signs of having made the leap from
> simple stone age hunter-gatherers to civilised culture similar to other
> ancient cultures.
Look at the Aztecs. They had only stone tools, no horses, and no wheel (if
I recall my history correctly) yet their society was very complex.
Left alone, who can say what each of these cultures would have developed
into? it just happened that Norther and Western Europe were ahead of them.
Why? Possibly climate-related. Harsh conditions forced innovations. And
plenty of natural resources, just suited to industrial development. No
doubt many other factors, but those are a couple I can think of.
Persnoally, I don't believe there is any culture, past or present, which
can be considered universally bad. Or universally good. We could all learn
things from each other, IMO.
--
Kier
--
Kier
Liam Slider
<snip>
>> Prehistoric peoples...sure, as none of these people had any written
>> language before the Europeans showed up and gave them one, all they had
>> was what was passed down. But not all Native Americans in what is now
>> the USAwere stone age people. They built well populated cities with
>> enormous temples and stonehenge-like solar observatories made out of
>> wood, vast stockaded walls, large public marketplaces where the goods
>> from all over North America could be traded, had organised sports in
>> courts prepared for such events, worked metal, and all the signs of
>> having made the leap from simple stone age hunter-gatherers to civilised
>> culture similar to other ancient cultures.
>
> Look at the Aztecs. They had only stone tools, no horses, and no wheel (if
> I recall my history correctly) yet their society was very complex.
Actually, they knew about the *concept* of the wheel. They simply refused
to use it for religious reasons. They had some sort of prophecy that the
wheel would lead to the downfall of civilization or somesuch.
>
> Left alone, who can say what each of these cultures would have developed
> into? it just happened that Norther and Western Europe were ahead of
> them. Why? Possibly climate-related. Harsh conditions forced
> innovations. And plenty of natural resources, just suited to industrial
> development. No doubt many other factors, but those are a couple I can
> think of.
The main reason...the Germanic tribes. After the Celts were wiped out by
the Romans, the Germans moved in. And these people were definately
barbarians by both Roman and modern standards. They filled into Europe,
and quickly found themselves in a place with lots of natural boundry
lines, cutting them off into nice little natural nation-states, and while
there were plentiful natural resources....they were not evenly
distributed. Some people had different resources than others. This lead to
almost *constant* warfare between different tribal kings, later feudal
kings, as well as warfare among the noble classes as they struggled for
resources and rulership. Furthermore, Europe is rather small, compared to
other great regions of the world, and it's population was swelling. Lots
of pressures. Add on top of that the arrival of Christianity (brought by
those overthrown by the barbarians in the first place) and yet another
pressure, first with forced conversions, then later with bloody crusade
after crusade...but also bringing the spark of education and keeping
historical information alive during the darkest time in Europe. The near
constant warfare, in a small continent, pushed tech development fairly
well. Then those warring nobles found a taste for the exotic, and ended up
paying people to bring the exotic home to them...hence the beginnings of
trade and building-rebuilding of cities, which lead to increased numbers
of middle class people who pushed for power, and education....and then one
of these rich merchants brought back this black stuff from the East that
tended to explode...
The fact is, Europe getting "ahead" happened in a relatively short, and
violent period, thanks to just the right conditions. In a sense, the
*collapse* of a classical civilization (the Romans) was the spark that
allowed an *extremely* rapid change in technology level once the survivors
and the conquerors dug themselves out of the darkness they plunged
themselves into. Classical civilizations just tend to become static unless
there is an outside force acting upon them. Most often that outside force
causes their collapse or changes them so radically they become a
different civilization entirely, traditionally anyway. Romans, Aztecs,
Arab, Persian, Byzantine, Greek, Egyptian, Mississippian....but what build
up in post Roman-collapse Europe was different, dynamic, continued to
adapt, change, and grow at a rate never really seen before.
Of course, even *that* changed, radically, and for the better, and we have
our *modern* civilization that has arisen out of that. Which takes some of
the best elements out of it, some of the best of the classical as well,
and some wildly new concepts and ideas.
>
> Persnoally, I don't believe there is any culture, past or present, which
> can be considered universally bad. Or universally good. We could all
> learn things from each other, IMO.
I agree, but then I am a bit of a student of history.
Kier
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 15:54:51 +0100, Kier wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>> Prehistoric peoples...sure, as none of these people had any written
>>> language before the Europeans showed up and gave them one, all they had
>>> was what was passed down. But not all Native Americans in what is now
>>> the USAwere stone age people. They built well populated cities with
>>> enormous temples and stonehenge-like solar observatories made out of
>>> wood, vast stockaded walls, large public marketplaces where the goods
>>> from all over North America could be traded, had organised sports in
>>> courts prepared for such events, worked metal, and all the signs of
>>> having made the leap from simple stone age hunter-gatherers to civilised
>>> culture similar to other ancient cultures.
>>
>> Look at the Aztecs. They had only stone tools, no horses, and no wheel (if
>> I recall my history correctly) yet their society was very complex.
>
> Actually, they knew about the *concept* of the wheel. They simply refused
> to use it for religious reasons. They had some sort of prophecy that the
> wheel would lead to the downfall of civilization or somesuch.
Interesirting; I didn't know that, thanks. If so, it did come true, in a
way - as the invaders had the wheel.
Pretty rich stuff, isn't it? I wish I had five or so years to spare just
reading in depth about it all. Trade is a particularly interesting
subject. Think of tea, that most English of beverages - completely
dependent on trading with China and India. It's been suggested that
tea-drinking nations had a natural advantge in industrial terms above
non-tea drinking ones, because tea has a mild protective quality - it
helped to keep disease at bay, and made it easier to survive in crowded
cities (partly no doubt due to the need to boil water for the preparation
of it).
>
> The fact is, Europe getting "ahead" happened in a relatively short, and
> violent period, thanks to just the right conditions. In a sense, the
> *collapse* of a classical civilization (the Romans) was the spark that
> allowed an *extremely* rapid change in technology level once the survivors
> and the conquerors dug themselves out of the darkness they plunged
> themselves into. Classical civilizations just tend to become static unless
> there is an outside force acting upon them. Most often that outside force
> causes their collapse or changes them so radically they become a
> different civilization entirely, traditionally anyway. Romans, Aztecs,
> Arab, Persian, Byzantine, Greek, Egyptian, Mississippian....but what build
> up in post Roman-collapse Europe was different, dynamic, continued to
> adapt, change, and grow at a rate never really seen before.
Wars are bad... but. They bring about change, and sometimes, good comes
from the change. Even happens now, though we don't really see it yet.
> Of course, even *that* changed, radically, and for the better, and we
> have our *modern* civilization that has arisen out of that. Which takes
> some of the best elements out of it, some of the best of the classical
> as well, and some wildly new concepts and ideas.
Yes, exactly. Taking what's good from each culture.
>
>>
>> Persnoally, I don't believe there is any culture, past or present, which
>> can be considered universally bad. Or universally good. We could all
>> learn things from each other, IMO.
>
> I agree, but then I am a bit of a student of history.
As I say, I wish I had more time to study it in depth. Hell, if you just
stick to the history of my own British Isles, there's tons and tons of
fascinating stuff. My personal favourite period is the Dark Ages.
--
Kier
Grug
mlw wrote:
> My wife brought home a coworker's laptop. It was having problems. Yup, you
> guessed it, XP. With a sigh, I started it up, logged in, (was able to
> administer the system with no password, BTW.)
On no!!! Call the geek police!!
Windows gives you a choice to have a password or not. A lot of people
that work on their PCs don't wish to have a password. So they don't.
Windows gives you the option. Don't whine about it.
Besides, most people use weak passwords anyways (on any OS), which can
all be easily cracked. It doesn't really matter if you use 4096 bit
encryption if your password is 'rat'.
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/......./run was LOADED with crap.
This is generally the case for Dell machines... they load anything and
everything on your PC.
Best way to do this is to delete most things in RUN key or run MSCONFIG
and do it there.
It's not MS' fault if Dell chooses to do this. If it were up to MS, no
PC makers would be allowed to deliver Windows with add-ons.
Don't blame MS, it's up to the hardware providers.
> Settings were wide open
> for any malware to take over.
As of SP2 (when MS got serious about this stuff), settings are very
closed.
Firewall is on full protection, auto-updates are auto, security to
other directories is activated, etc.
If they are not up-to-date on their patches, don't blame MS.
Even Linux powered sites are being hacked now... because they didn't
update their machines.
Again, don't blame MS.
> The windopes can't have it both ways, you can't argue that "a properly
> administered machine" wouldn't have this problem,
This has nothing to do with a 'properly administered machine'.
For one, typical users aren't administrators, nor do they know how to
do it.
Secondly, Dell or other PC mfrs. loading programs onto *their* machines
does not constitute 'bad administration'... given that there are no
administrators in the first place. It's a PC for a user.
> and turn around and say
> Linux is "too hard"
This is unrelated.
Linux is too difficult for most people. That won't change until the
nerds around Linux admit that normal people don't even know (or want to
know) what a file is.
However, most nerds would never want Linux to be *that* easy, or most
things in Linux would disappear or be hidden.
There are just soooo many things in Linux that makes it hard for the
average person.
Notice why 'notepad' is named as it is? It implies that you can 'take
notes'.
WTF is gimp? Does that give you *any* information about what it does?
It's *that* kind of thinking that Linux does *the opposite* of.
> or "why do I need to know how to administer my system."
For easy-to-use systems, hopefully there isn't much administration to
do.
Linux has a looooooooooooooooooong way to go. The mindset of its users
(nerds/geeks) will keep it from getting there.
Windows is barely there. Still has a way to go.
OSX is getting there... slowly.
> I have been using linux since 1995/1996, in this time, I have not lost any
> data or work time due to Linux crashing or being unstable.
Good for you.
I've had quite a few calculators that booted up a lot faster than
Linux, never crashed, help me out a lot.
But they didn't run the apps. I needed.
Only Windows does.
> I don't
> personally know of a single Windows user that can say the same thing.
I can't say Windows has *never* crashed on me.
Pre Windows 2000? Of course.
Windows 2000? Very few times... maybe once a month I had a blue
screen. (At the time, I didn't have very good hardware. Who knows
what it was.)
XP? I've never had a blue screen or a crash.
Linux doesn't do what I need it to, and it's way to hard to even start
trying. It wouldn't matter to me if Linux *really* didn't crash *at
all*, *ever*, because it simply isn't worth my investment of time.
> Currently I have a Linux box in my living room, it is part of m home
> entertainment system. It has a TV card, sound card, video output, etc. It
> is wired to my netork, but during a remodel, I decided to include a CAT5
> cable. I really is a fun system, it plays all my digital media, I have all
> my music ripped to MP3 and available all a once. My 200G hard disk also
> doubles as a video recorder.
Typical geek :)
> My HP laptop runs Linux, eerything works and the only thing I have ever
> needed to do is make sure I keep NDIS wrapper up to date.
>
> In my lab, I have half a dozen SMP systems wired as a cluster for
> enginerring work, yes they run Linux.
Well, you certainly fit the 'average user' profile.
> I am working on a robot, and it too runs Linux.
Cool.
> In short, I neither need nor want to use Windows, and strongly suggest you
> don't ether.
So, I guy who has clusters for engineering in his basement, builds
robots, recommends the 'average user' don't run Windows.
Wow. God I'm so convinced! Thanks for that!
Can you see why, given that Linux is *free*, that people *still*
haven't used it?
The only viable general purpose OSes out there for the home are Windows
XP and OSX.
> Your time is worth something, do you want to spend a little
> time larning something beter and more stable,
XP is as stable as Linux. Linux is 'better' than XP if you like a free
OS that comes with source code. Don't expect it to be 'better' in ways
*normal* people would like.
Maybe you should take your time and 'learn' english, or type 'better'
in the future instead of nerding out on Linux.
:)
> or do you want to add up all
> the time you spend dealing with viruses,
Hmmm... I don't use AV... never did. Normal people simply let it run
in the background.
> instability,
Almost everybody that uses XP reports excellent stability. (Except
Linux users in COLA, of course)
> upgrade treadmil,
?
When was the last OS upgrade? More than 3 years ago??
The next upgrade won't be for at least a year...
Where is the treadmill??
> morning and afternon reboots,
Isn't this the same as 'instability', above?
Again, XP doesn't crash. If it does, chances are you've got some
hardware issues (same with Linux, for that matter.)
> and the time lost when you lose data.
Application stability? Linux apps. are, for the most part, buggy and
incomplete.
More time is wasted trying to figure out how to do something.
> Linux saves time and money.
It wastes time and money.
> Everyone that has earnestly made the switch will
> agree.
So some nerds that made the switch will agree? Not surprising.
> Linux is cheaper
Really? So you can get RedHat for free? Oh wait... you can't... some
versions cost *more* than Windows *server*. Egads.
TCO? Not really proven one way or another... some say it's higher than
Windows installations.
Ease of use/learning? No way.
>, faster,
Faster? Such as running Doom 25% *slower* than on the *same exact*
hardware as Windows XP?
I've seen benchmarks both ways.
Unless you're talking about Rapskats ability to run 96 videos at the
same time on a 386... or whatever. lol.
> more secure,
Only because you don't have *most* of the world's hackers targeting
Linux.
And even when a few do, you have security problems. (See mozilla's
break-in problem they had)
So I highly doubt it's more secure.
MS has had the *benefit* of being under constant attack - and they've
since made massive changes to the OS. SP2 anyone?
> and generally more fun.
More fun?
If you love looking for drivers, trying to figure out how things work,
compiling kernels, etc., then yes, I'd agree, it'd be more fun.
But those are things that nerds/geeks like to do, not normal people.
> The same can probably be said about most posix type systems, MacOS/X and the
> BSD systems have common structures and run mny of the same packages that a
> Linux system will.
>
> It doesn't matter, Mac, BSD, or Linux, geez, ANYTHING but Windows!
So you are simply stating that *you* don't like Windows.
Next time, just say you are a hater, instead of a post with
inaccuracies everywhere.
-Grug
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:22:37 GMT,
Liam Slider <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 22:27:22 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I have no beef with the acomplishments of the native peoples, merely
>> pointing out that your attempt to compare stone age cultures, with
>> industrial age cultures in the way you did, is silly.
>
>
> I would hardly call the Europeans as they arrived in what became the USA
> industrial age...very nearly industrial age perhaps. On the cusp of it
> definately. But they stuff functioned under systems of craftsmen and their
> apprentices as the way to provide their goods and services.
>
In 1580, this was true, by 1680, it was much less so. By 1780,
definately industrial age.
> As for stone age....most were definately stone age, no doubt about that.
> But some tribes *did* work metal before the Europeans arrived. The
> Mississipian culture for example, worked in copper. Mainly for
> ornamentation for the rich nobles and some of their religious items. It's
> true that the average joe worked with stone, wood, and bone.....but that
> was true in many metal age cultures around the world actually. Even Egypt
> and Greece, where the common man got by with stone tools because they
metal wasn't available for tools, and for weapons to the amerind tribes,
prior to the arrival of the europeans, cost of jewlry is irrelevent to
that.
> couldn't afford metal. That was for the rich. In the city of Cahokia, and
> various smaller cities and villages of the Mississippian culture likewise,
> metal was for the rich. But they did have it. Well crafted too.
for jewlry, yes, in small amounts. For weapons and tools? no. No metal
harvesting blades, no metal axes, no metal sheathed plows. No metal
arrowheads, or lance tips.
>
> Prehistoric peoples...sure, as none of these people had any written
> language before the Europeans showed up and gave them one, all they had
not entirely true. There was the Incan knotted cord system, and the
Mayans had a rather complex writing system, with hundreds of glyphs.
> was what was passed down. But not all Native Americans in what is now the
> USAwere stone age people. They built well populated cities with enormous
except that yes, they were.
> temples and stonehenge-like solar observatories made out of wood, vast
> stockaded walls, large public marketplaces where the goods from all over
> North America could be traded, had organised sports in courts prepared for
> such events, worked metal, and all the signs of having made the leap from
> simple stone age hunter-gatherers to civilised culture similar to other
> ancient cultures.
stone age, has little to do with whether you are a hunter gatherer, or
an agricultural culture, although the latter is hard to pull off without
metal, it can be done.
To say some culture was stone age says little about it's social
complexity, only it's technology level, in one area.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFC2pWLd90bcYOAWPYRAgbRAJ0YbRgeZOodUQd2d6n4m16pj8wVjQCdFS0g
cCvS8IhQsjq8aCL8nRtRRfo=
=IJCj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
I wasn't born Republican, Democrat, or yesterday.
Liam Slider
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:22:37 GMT,
> Liam Slider <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 22:27:22 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I have no beef with the acomplishments of the native peoples, merely
>>> pointing out that your attempt to compare stone age cultures, with
>>> industrial age cultures in the way you did, is silly.
>>
>>
>> I would hardly call the Europeans as they arrived in what became the USA
>> industrial age...very nearly industrial age perhaps. On the cusp of it
>> definately. But they stuff functioned under systems of craftsmen and
>> their apprentices as the way to provide their goods and services.
>>
>>
> In 1580, this was true, by 1680, it was much less so. By 1780, definately
> industrial age.
True, but that was primarily restricted to England itself. America took
longer to industrialise in any significant fashion, it in fact, took the
Revolutionary War and our independence to do that.
>
>> As for stone age....most were definately stone age, no doubt about
>> that. But some tribes *did* work metal before the Europeans arrived.
>> The Mississipian culture for example, worked in copper. Mainly for
>> ornamentation for the rich nobles and some of their religious items.
>> It's true that the average joe worked with stone, wood, and
>> bone.....but that was true in many metal age cultures around the world
>> actually. Even Egypt and Greece, where the common man got by with stone
>> tools because they
>
> metal wasn't available for tools, and for weapons to the amerind tribes,
> prior to the arrival of the europeans, cost of jewlry is irrelevent to
> that.
To the vast majority of ancient Egyptian....same thing. Egyptian farmers
used *stone* tools because they could not afford metal. Most Egyptian
craftsmen used stone and wooden tools as well, unless they were doing
their government service (taxes were paid in labor) in which case, as
government workers they might have access to metal tools. And sure, the
Egyptian Army "modernised" into metal tools quickly...but the point is
that mostly, to most of ancient Egypt, metal wasn't avaliable for tools.
It was simply too expensive. Same for the ancient Sumerians, the ancient
Greeks, and numerous other cultures. Your point?
>
>> couldn't afford metal. That was for the rich. In the city of Cahokia,
>> and various smaller cities and villages of the Mississippian culture
>> likewise, metal was for the rich. But they did have it. Well crafted
>> too.
>
>
> for jewlry, yes, in small amounts.
And religious icons. And examples can be seen everywhere the Mississipians
lived, and they had numerous settlements.
> For weapons and tools? no. No metal
> harvesting blades, no metal axes, no metal sheathed plows.
This wasn't common in any ancient culture, aside from the weapons.
>No metal
> arrowheads, or lance tips.
True enough here, but interestingly, molded and beaten copper would have
made an inferior choice for an arrowhead or other sharp tool. It's a soft
metal, and doesn't keep it's edge very well, unlike flaked stone. In fact,
certain types of flaked stone and ceramics make incredibly sharp weapons
even by today's standards. It's quite likely they didn't use metal for
weapons because they hadn't discovered bronze yet, and the stone and
ceramics (they did manufacture excellant ceramics) they already possessed
were superior materials than the copper they knew about.
>
>
>> Prehistoric peoples...sure, as none of these people had any written
>> language before the Europeans showed up and gave them one, all they had
>
> not entirely true. There was the Incan knotted cord system, and the
> Mayans had a rather complex writing system, with hundreds of glyphs.
True, I was speaking of those cultures in the area we now call the United
States.
>
>> was what was passed down. But not all Native Americans in what is now
>> the USAwere stone age people. They built well populated cities with
>> enormous
>
> except that yes, they were.
>
>> temples and stonehenge-like solar observatories made out of wood, vast
>> stockaded walls, large public marketplaces where the goods from all
>> over North America could be traded, had organised sports in courts
>> prepared for such events, worked metal, and all the signs of having
>> made the leap from simple stone age hunter-gatherers to civilised
>> culture similar to other ancient cultures.
>
>
> stone age, has little to do with whether you are a hunter gatherer, or
> an agricultural culture, although the latter is hard to pull off without
> metal, it can be done.
>
> To say some culture was stone age says little about it's social
> complexity, only it's technology level, in one area.
From what I can see they were just barely at the earliest levels of the
technology level you are talking about, and then the Europeans showed up.
Tukla Ratte
< snip >
> now KNode will occasionally close a message reply window with no warning.
> Bam! it's gone, along with whatever I've typed.
I'd like to extend my thanks to the KNode developers for adding this
terrific new feature!
< snip >
--
Tukla, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism
There are too many stupid people and nobody to eat them.
- Carlos Mencia
Sinister Midget
> "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> writes:
>
>< snip >
>
>> now KNode will occasionally close a message reply window with no warning.
>> Bam! it's gone, along with whatever I've typed.
>
> I'd like to extend my thanks to the KNode developers for adding this
> terrific new feature!
It still needs some work. It allowed one to get out.
--
Mydoom: Innovative Microsoft peer-to-peer software.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 18:42:36 GMT,
Liam Slider <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 10:29:47 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:22:37 GMT,
>> Liam Slider <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 22:27:22 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I have no beef with the acomplishments of the native peoples, merely
>>>> pointing out that your attempt to compare stone age cultures, with
>>>> industrial age cultures in the way you did, is silly.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would hardly call the Europeans as they arrived in what became the USA
>>> industrial age...very nearly industrial age perhaps. On the cusp of it
>>> definately. But they stuff functioned under systems of craftsmen and
>>> their apprentices as the way to provide their goods and services.
>>>
>>>
>> In 1580, this was true, by 1680, it was much less so. By 1780, definately
>> industrial age.
>
> True, but that was primarily restricted to England itself. America took
> longer to industrialise in any significant fashion, it in fact, took the
> Revolutionary War and our independence to do that.
>
and then we rapidly outstripped England. But that is another issue.
The issue at hand remains, that the native tribes had little chance to
compete since they were outnumbered, had limited resistances to diseases
that the europeans carried, and were technologically (especially wrt
food production and weapons) far behind the european settlers. Which was
the whole point of the discussion.
>>
>>> As for stone age....most were definately stone age, no doubt about
>>> that. But some tribes *did* work metal before the Europeans arrived.
>>> The Mississipian culture for example, worked in copper. Mainly for
>>> ornamentation for the rich nobles and some of their religious items.
>>> It's true that the average joe worked with stone, wood, and
>>> bone.....but that was true in many metal age cultures around the world
>>> actually. Even Egypt and Greece, where the common man got by with stone
>>> tools because they
>>
>> metal wasn't available for tools, and for weapons to the amerind tribes,
>> prior to the arrival of the europeans, cost of jewlry is irrelevent to
>> that.
>
> To the vast majority of ancient Egyptian....same thing. Egyptian farmers
> used *stone* tools because they could not afford metal. Most Egyptian
> craftsmen used stone and wooden tools as well, unless they were doing
> their government service (taxes were paid in labor) in which case, as
> government workers they might have access to metal tools. And sure, the
> Egyptian Army "modernised" into metal tools quickly...but the point is
> that mostly, to most of ancient Egypt, metal wasn't avaliable for tools.
> It was simply too expensive. Same for the ancient Sumerians, the ancient
> Greeks, and numerous other cultures. Your point?
which is why, when the iron wielding Hyksos came, they swarmed over the
bronze using Ægyptians, and conquered them (until thrown out in their
turn, by a revolt of the Ægyptians using iron weapons, anc chariots that
the Hyksos also brought it)
You comparison would have some merit, if the stone age cultures you
mentioned, had triumphed, or even survived, against the metal age
cultures that overcame them.
Look at the Aryan invasion of the Indus and south west asia, and the
Celts pretty much all over europe and most of south asia.
>
>>
>>> couldn't afford metal. That was for the rich. In the city of Cahokia,
>>> and various smaller cities and villages of the Mississippian culture
>>> likewise, metal was for the rich. But they did have it. Well crafted
>>> too.
>>
>>
>> for jewlry, yes, in small amounts.
>
> And religious icons. And examples can be seen everywhere the Mississipians
> lived, and they had numerous settlements.
not much good in battle, unless you plan on praying your enemies to
death... :)
>
>> For weapons and tools? no. No metal
>> harvesting blades, no metal axes, no metal sheathed plows.
>
> This wasn't common in any ancient culture, aside from the weapons.
Iron age Celts, yes, it was. Iron weapons, armour, axes, spades,
harvesting blades, wheel rims, fitments, and ods and sods.
Iron is cheaper than bronze, and is more available, it requires slightly
higher heat, but nothing that you can't produce with forced draught
charchoal fires. Cultures that start working Iron, spread it around
fast. In many cases, it's cheaper than the stone alternative, when there
is one (bladed tools and weapons) and of course, does many things that
stone can't.
>
>>No metal
>> arrowheads, or lance tips.
>
> True enough here, but interestingly, molded and beaten copper would have
> made an inferior choice for an arrowhead or other sharp tool. It's a soft
> metal, and doesn't keep it's edge very well, unlike flaked stone. In fact,
> certain types of flaked stone and ceramics make incredibly sharp weapons
> even by today's standards. It's quite likely they didn't use metal for
> weapons because they hadn't discovered bronze yet, and the stone and
> ceramics (they did manufacture excellant ceramics) they already possessed
> were superior materials than the copper they knew about.
>
Yes, and both were inferior to iron. Which was the point.
>>
>>
>>> Prehistoric peoples...sure, as none of these people had any written
>>> language before the Europeans showed up and gave them one, all they had
>>
>> not entirely true. There was the Incan knotted cord system, and the
>> Mayans had a rather complex writing system, with hundreds of glyphs.
>
> True, I was speaking of those cultures in the area we now call the United
> States.
Writing comes with agriculture, and trade. Without them, with small
groups, especially with hunter-gatherer bands, there's little reason for
it.
>
>>
>>> was what was passed down. But not all Native Americans in what is now
>>> the USAwere stone age people. They built well populated cities with
>>> enormous
>>
>> except that yes, they were.
>>
>>> temples and stonehenge-like solar observatories made out of wood, vast
>>> stockaded walls, large public marketplaces where the goods from all
>>> over North America could be traded, had organised sports in courts
>>> prepared for such events, worked metal, and all the signs of having
>>> made the leap from simple stone age hunter-gatherers to civilised
>>> culture similar to other ancient cultures.
>>
>>
>> stone age, has little to do with whether you are a hunter gatherer, or
>> an agricultural culture, although the latter is hard to pull off without
>> metal, it can be done.
>>
>> To say some culture was stone age says little about it's social
>> complexity, only it's technology level, in one area.
>
> From what I can see they were just barely at the earliest levels of the
> technology level you are talking about, and then the Europeans showed up.
>
yes, and the Europeans were way ahead. Why? many reasons, Jarod
Diamond's book is a good one to read for this.
As I pointed out earlier, the native americans, were no better, and no
worse than the Europeans. Their level of brutality was commensurate with
the Europeans at the same technological level. Limited as it was by
population limits, and tech limits.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFC2ubTd90bcYOAWPYRAs+rAKCzG5o8t2AjFF7DMFkHYId1n+r9PACg6lMR
IJ3VHHPmiVRqFTU01PiSmAM=
=A6s9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Nine out of ten of the voices in my head say "Don't shoot!"
Liam Slider
I never claimed that they were not far behind technologically. I was
disputing the claim that these people weren't even civilised in the first
place.
I'm merely pointing out that copper was widely used, simply not in weapons
and cutting/farming tools. It was ill suited anyway.
>
>
>>> For weapons and tools? no. No metal
>>> harvesting blades, no metal axes, no metal sheathed plows.
>>
>> This wasn't common in any ancient culture, aside from the weapons.
>
> Iron age Celts, yes, it was. Iron weapons, armour, axes, spades,
> harvesting blades, wheel rims, fitments, and ods and sods.
>
> Iron is cheaper than bronze, and is more available, it requires slightly
> higher heat, but nothing that you can't produce with forced draught
> charchoal fires. Cultures that start working Iron, spread it around
> fast. In many cases, it's cheaper than the stone alternative, when there
> is one (bladed tools and weapons) and of course, does many things that
> stone can't.
Well true, in pre-Iron Age cultures then, and some Iron Age and even a
few post Iron Age cultures.
>
>
>
>
>>>No metal
>>> arrowheads, or lance tips.
>>
>> True enough here, but interestingly, molded and beaten copper would
>> have made an inferior choice for an arrowhead or other sharp tool. It's
>> a soft metal, and doesn't keep it's edge very well, unlike flaked
>> stone. In fact, certain types of flaked stone and ceramics make
>> incredibly sharp weapons even by today's standards. It's quite likely
>> they didn't use metal for weapons because they hadn't discovered bronze
>> yet, and the stone and ceramics (they did manufacture excellant
>> ceramics) they already possessed were superior materials than the
>> copper they knew about.
>>
>>
> Yes, and both were inferior to iron.
Iron isn't the technology level at which a people are recognised as not
being stone age.
> Which was the point.
Um...no it wasn't.
>
>
>
>
>>>> Prehistoric peoples...sure, as none of these people had any written
>>>> language before the Europeans showed up and gave them one, all they
>>>> had
>>>
>>> not entirely true. There was the Incan knotted cord system, and the
>>> Mayans had a rather complex writing system, with hundreds of glyphs.
>>
>> True, I was speaking of those cultures in the area we now call the
>> United States.
>
> Writing comes with agriculture, and trade. Without them, with small
> groups, especially with hunter-gatherer bands, there's little reason for
> it.
But the Mississipians were anything but small groups of hunter-gatherer
bands. They built cities, farmed extensively, engaged in a vast network of
long range trade.....and had not yet developed a written language.
>
>
>
>
>>>> was what was passed down. But not all Native Americans in what is now
>>>> the USAwere stone age people. They built well populated cities with
>>>> enormous
>>>
>>> except that yes, they were.
>>>
>>>> temples and stonehenge-like solar observatories made out of wood,
>>>> vast stockaded walls, large public marketplaces where the goods from
>>>> all over North America could be traded, had organised sports in
>>>> courts prepared for such events, worked metal, and all the signs of
>>>> having made the leap from simple stone age hunter-gatherers to
>>>> civilised culture similar to other ancient cultures.
>>>
>>>
>>> stone age, has little to do with whether you are a hunter gatherer, or
>>> an agricultural culture, although the latter is hard to pull off
>>> without metal, it can be done.
>>>
>>> To say some culture was stone age says little about it's social
>>> complexity, only it's technology level, in one area.
>>
>> From what I can see they were just barely at the earliest levels of the
>> technology level you are talking about, and then the Europeans showed
>> up.
>>
>>
>>
> yes, and the Europeans were way ahead. Why? many reasons, Jarod
> Diamond's book is a good one to read for this.
>
> As I pointed out earlier, the native americans, were no better, and no
> worse than the Europeans. Their level of brutality was commensurate with
> the Europeans at the same technological level. Limited as it was by
> population limits, and tech limits.
Again, I never once stated anything about the Europeans being more or less
technologically advanced than the Native Americans. Only correcting the
impression that they were just a bunch of stone age, uncivilised tribes of
hunter-gatherers.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On 17 Jul 2005 17:07:19 -0500,
Tukla Ratte <tukla...@tukla.net> wrote:
> "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> writes:
>
>< snip >
>
>> now KNode will occasionally close a message reply window with no warning.
>> Bam! it's gone, along with whatever I've typed.
>
> I'd like to extend my thanks to the KNode developers for adding this
> terrific new feature!
>
>snrk<
Ah well, I needed a new keyboard anyway.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFC2veMd90bcYOAWPYRApNtAJ9SNUIxy96oD1Pm1Vwthq72Qg5QMQCghVRj
473seRlheEcwAqmZrg5Bjkw=
=33YF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.
-- Lazarus Long
GreyCloud
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 21:59:04 -0600,
> GreyCloud <cum...@mist.com> wrote:
>
> > A book titled "Indian Givers" is a very good read as well.
> > While reading the book, it mentioned that the South american
> > indians were experts at plant husbandry. There are over
> > 24,000 varieties of potatoes and this country only uses
> > about 5 or 6 of those varieties. The american indians were
> > quite adept at medicine as well. If it weren't for their
> > help, most of those with scurvy would have died.
> >
>
> bullshit. Scurvy has a simple cure, and it's almost impossible to get
> unless you are at sea for months, living on a diet of salted meat and
> weevilly biscuits. Pretty much any green plant you can eat, will knock
> of scurvy.
Your grasp of history is alarmingly dim.
Go read a history book. The british sailors that had
arrived on the eastern seaboard of america
had scurvy. The american indians had shown them that by
making tea from pine needles solved the problem.
And it took a couple of months to get here on sailing ships
from England.
GreyCloud
Maybe the term civilized should be defined first.
Technology is one thing, but does it make a culture
civilized?
In oddities around the world we find metals used in the B.C
era. On such oddity is a very tall stainless steel obelisk
in India. In Egypt there have been found copper cylinders
with carbon rods inside. The history channel did an
experiment with one by putting inside the copper cylinders
citric acid. The voltage was around a bit higher than 1
volt. They have speculated that maybe these ancient
batteries were used to plate objects with various metals.
Another oddity is inside the great pyramid where the main
sarcophagus on the inside shows distinct tool marks from a
circular saw.
Another oddity is in south america where the large stone
structures were linked together with "I" metal links to hold
the giant stones together. So it is hard to ascertain when
metal was really first used.
The main thing tho is to keep an open mind about what has
been found from the past.
Liam Slider
>
> Maybe the term civilized should be defined first. Technology is one thing,
> but does it make a culture civilized?
I believe the primary definition of a civilised culture is one that has
advanced beyond the "small bands of people" stage and has moved on to
building cities and taking on the various trappings of what we call a
"civilization" such a the construction of large temples, conducting large
scale trade, complex social orders (moving beyond simple tribal structures
to having definite class lines, such as royalty and nobility, merchants
and crasftsmen (middle class), and finally the masses of simple farmers
and other common folk), etc...
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 00:47:15 GMT,
who made such a claim?
agreed, which is all to the point.
>
>>
>>
>>>> For weapons and tools? no. No metal
>>>> harvesting blades, no metal axes, no metal sheathed plows.
>>>
>>> This wasn't common in any ancient culture, aside from the weapons.
>>
>> Iron age Celts, yes, it was. Iron weapons, armour, axes, spades,
>> harvesting blades, wheel rims, fitments, and ods and sods.
>>
>> Iron is cheaper than bronze, and is more available, it requires slightly
>> higher heat, but nothing that you can't produce with forced draught
>> charchoal fires. Cultures that start working Iron, spread it around
>> fast. In many cases, it's cheaper than the stone alternative, when there
>> is one (bladed tools and weapons) and of course, does many things that
>> stone can't.
>
>
> Well true, in pre-Iron Age cultures then, and some Iron Age and even a
> few post Iron Age cultures.
>
not sure I follow what you mean here.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>No metal
>>>> arrowheads, or lance tips.
>>>
>>> True enough here, but interestingly, molded and beaten copper would
>>> have made an inferior choice for an arrowhead or other sharp tool. It's
>>> a soft metal, and doesn't keep it's edge very well, unlike flaked
>>> stone. In fact, certain types of flaked stone and ceramics make
>>> incredibly sharp weapons even by today's standards. It's quite likely
>>> they didn't use metal for weapons because they hadn't discovered bronze
>>> yet, and the stone and ceramics (they did manufacture excellant
>>> ceramics) they already possessed were superior materials than the
>>> copper they knew about.
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, and both were inferior to iron.
>
>
>
> Iron isn't the technology level at which a people are recognised as not
> being stone age.
There is a broad overlap between tech ages, it's not as if flint usage
stops on a tuesday, and wednesday, everyone is carrying bronze axes.
>
>> Which was the point.
>
> Um...no it wasn't.
>
then you must have missed my original reply...
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Prehistoric peoples...sure, as none of these people had any written
>>>>> language before the Europeans showed up and gave them one, all they
>>>>> had
>>>>
>>>> not entirely true. There was the Incan knotted cord system, and the
>>>> Mayans had a rather complex writing system, with hundreds of glyphs.
>>>
>>> True, I was speaking of those cultures in the area we now call the
>>> United States.
>>
>> Writing comes with agriculture, and trade. Without them, with small
>> groups, especially with hunter-gatherer bands, there's little reason for
>> it.
>
> But the Mississipians were anything but small groups of hunter-gatherer
> bands. They built cities, farmed extensively, engaged in a vast network of
> long range trade.....and had not yet developed a written language.
and?
I said that writing comes with.. not that it's guaranteed to happen
if...
who made that claim?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFC20U/d90bcYOAWPYRAgucAJ9UaFElwFMy1csyAKf1wrBbYmyxPgCgnBq9
Sn+nw9F6AuIpHsW9PrR/Y40=
=uvhE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Ignore the propaganda, focus on what you see
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
and many other things will also solve the problem, including,
surprisingly enough, limes...
> And it took a couple of months to get here on sailing ships
> from England.
It takes about 5 months of vitimin C deficiency for scurvy to be a
problem. Scurvy is nasty, and yes, spruce needles contain enough ascorbic
acid to cure it, but you'd better not boil them in water, as the boiling
will quickly break down the ascorbic acid.
The incident you are referring to was probably a voyage to Newfoundland
by a Jacques Cartier,
Other good sources of ascorbic acid are leafy green vegetables, and of
course, citrus fruits.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFC20gQd90bcYOAWPYRAv/4AJ9EzdAbUWZbmt7Li/FhzYa2REl3SwCfTEbl
EXEe6+r+2DIyAFQiqksZ3Ls=
=qm5r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Those who live by the sword are shot by those who don't.
William Poaster
Richardson wrote:
In the 17th and 18th centuries, sailors onboard Royal Navy ships suffered
very badly from scurvy. Fruits & vegetables weren't come by easily, & so
the Navy carried limes to combat scurvy. However they took up a lot of
valauble room, & thus the Royal Navy later prescribed lime *juice* for all
sailors to help ward off scurvy. The term "limey" eventually lost it's
original context & became a term applied to all UK people, whether sailors
or landlubbers. As to whether it's used as an insult, depends on whom you
ask...
--
My wish is to NEVER have to correct another
Microsoft astroturfer because it wastes my
time and that's they're goal.
I shall, however, point & laugh! ;-)
William Poaster
Midget wrote:
> On 2005-07-17, Tukla Ratte <tukla...@tukla.net> posted something concerning:
>> "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> writes:
>>
>>< snip >
>>
>>> now KNode will occasionally close a message reply window with no warning.
>>> Bam! it's gone, along with whatever I've typed.
>>
>> I'd like to extend my thanks to the KNode developers for adding this
>> terrific new feature!
>
> It still needs some work. It allowed one to get out.
I blame the "home" that allowed dooFu$ to get out.
BTW, do you use M$ Office at work? As dooFu$ bangs on about how buch
"better" it is than OpenOffice, I wonder if he knows that it collects more
temp files than bees round a honeypot. Try this with windblows eX-Pee &
M$ Office. Open folder options in Control Panel. On the view tab, under
hidden files and folders, click show hidden files and folders. Your
desktop will now fill up with M$ Office .tmp files.
(Thanks to my SO for telling me that).
Sinister Midget
> begin trojan.vbs It was on Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:44:17 +0000, that Sinister
> Midget wrote:
>
>> On 2005-07-17, Tukla Ratte <tukla...@tukla.net> posted something concerning:
>>> "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> writes:
>>>
>>>< snip >
>>>
>>>> now KNode will occasionally close a message reply window with no warning.
>>>> Bam! it's gone, along with whatever I've typed.
>>>
>>> I'd like to extend my thanks to the KNode developers for adding this
>>> terrific new feature!
>>
>> It still needs some work. It allowed one to get out.
>
> I blame the "home" that allowed dooFu$ to get out.
>
> BTW, do you use M$ Office at work? As dooFu$ bangs on about how buch
> "better" it is than OpenOffice, I wonder if he knows that it collects more
> temp files than bees round a honeypot. Try this with windblows eX-Pee &
> M$ Office. Open folder options in Control Panel. On the view tab, under
> hidden files and folders, click show hidden files and folders. Your
> desktop will now fill up with M$ Office .tmp files.
> (Thanks to my SO for telling me that).
I use Office when I have to. I mostly use Abiword or OOo.
Word does more than collect temp files. It's been shown to include all
sorts of things you've previously worked on showing up in distributed
documents. Things like trade secrets, private communications (love
letters to the boss' wife, nasty correspondence that you may have hoped
would end up being anonymous, etc), things you may go on a rampage
about which you'd hoped could only be sent as private rantings between
you and someone else, etc. Oh, and crash reports to the illegal
monopoly, too. Basically, anything you might *not* want someone to read
could be contained in a document you *do* want them to read, unless you
take some unintuitive precautions.
One has to be insane to use that junk. Or ignorant. Or stupid (you said
DooFu$, right?).
--
Stubbot: Innovative Microsoft peer-to-peer software.
S.Heenan
> I use Office when I have to. I mostly use Abiword or OOo.
> One has to be insane to use that junk. Or ignorant. Or stupid (you said
> DooFu$, right?).
>
linux makes you stupid.
Liam Slider
>> Again, I never once stated anything about the Europeans being more or
>> less technologically advanced than the Native Americans. Only correcting
>> the impression that they were just a bunch of stone age, uncivilised
>> tribes of hunter-gatherers.
>>
>>
> who made that claim?
You did. Or at least you seriously gave that impression.
DFS
> On 2005-07-18, William Poaster <will...@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx> posted
> something concerning:
>> begin trojan.vbs It was on Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:44:17 +0000, that
>> Sinister Midget wrote:
>>
>>> On 2005-07-17, Tukla Ratte <tukla...@tukla.net> posted something
>>> concerning:
>>>> "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> < snip >
>>>>
>>>>> now KNode will occasionally close a message reply window with no
>>>>> warning. Bam! it's gone, along with whatever I've typed.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to extend my thanks to the KNode developers for adding
>>>> this terrific new feature!
>>>
>>> It still needs some work. It allowed one to get out.
>>
>> I blame the "home" that allowed dooFu$ to get out.
>>
>> BTW, do you use M$ Office at work? As dooFu$ bangs on about how buch
>> "better" it is than OpenOffice, I wonder if he knows that it
>> collects more temp files than bees round a honeypot. Try this with
>> windblows eX-Pee & M$ Office. Open folder options in Control Panel.
>> On the view tab, under hidden files and folders, click show hidden
>> files and folders. Your desktop will now fill up with M$ Office .tmp
>> files. (Thanks to my SO for telling me that).
LOL! Did he hold your little hand and show you how to color inside the
lines, too? It's 2005 and you're just now learning how to show hidden files
and folders - quite the superuser, eh!
Even Windows can't overcome stupidity and a lack of ability to organize your
files.
Here, educate yourself
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;en-us;211632&#top
And look into Tools | Options.
Another Linux user who has two left thumbs when confronted with Windows.
How does it work out with two clowns in the household? Do you argue every
morning over who gets the red nose?
> I use Office when I have to. I mostly use Abiword or OOo.
>
> Word does more than collect temp files. It's been shown to include all
> sorts of things you've previously worked on showing up in distributed
> documents.
Only if you're stupid enough - and you and No-Talent Willie definitely are -
to
use the same base document every time you create a new one. Get a clue.
> Things like trade secrets, private communications (love
> letters to the boss' wife, nasty correspondence that you may have
> hoped
> would end up being anonymous, etc), things you may go on a rampage
> about which you'd hoped could only be sent as private rantings between
> you and someone else, etc. Oh, and crash reports to the illegal
> monopoly, too. Basically, anything you might *not* want someone to
> read
> could be contained in a document you *do* want them to read, unless
> you
> take some unintuitive precautions.
How truly naive and dumb do you have to be to reuse a document that
previously contained information you want to keep private?
Gidget and Poaster: we want Windows to compensate for our stupidity.
DFS
> DFS wrote:
>
>> mlw wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> It doesn't matter, Mac, BSD, or Linux, geez, ANYTHING but Windows!
>>
>>
>> Neither will Microsoft.
>
> Nor will DEC, Doma1n, DataGeneral, LTX, VMS, Wang, CP/M, WordStar,
> Brief, Lotus, or any of these companies/products. They are far too
> entrenched to go out of business.
>>
>> They're far, far too entrenched and valuable and pervasive and
>> ubiquitous. Yup.
You're right: MS is. Those others weren't.
None of them had anything like the installed base units and market share
MS\Windows\Office has.
>> You've got hundreds of millions of users who know/want/depend
>> on/grudgingly accept Windows.
>
> The #1 operating system, by installed base, in 1984 was CP/M.
So?
The #1 operating system, by installed base, in 1994 was Windows.
The #1 operating system, by installed base, in 1999 was Windows.
The #1 operating system, by installed base, in 2004 was Windows.
The #1 operating system, by installed base, in 2005 is Windows.
The #1 operating system, by installed base, in 2006 will be Windows.
...
The #1 operating system, by installed base, in 2010 will be Windows.
...
>> You've got huge corporate accounting systems built up
>> over 10 years running on Excel.
>
> 15 years ago, one could not get into the banking industry without OS/2
> support.
OK. IBM just announced OS/2 is officially dead next year (they've just been
keeping its corpse warm for almost 10 years).
>> Literally hundreds of thousands of VB apps
>> running the corporate world.
> Isn't M$ end of lifing VB? Replacing it?
Yes. Which has NOTHING to do with whether the hundreds of thousands of VB
apps already in existence will be replaced. And when or if they are
replaced, they will almost universally be replaced by more VB code. Not
open source.
>> Word processing now generally means an MS
>> Word .doc file is involved.
>
> Word processing used to mean WordStar, then WordPerfect, see what I
> mean? Nothing lasts for ever. OpenOffice.org is free and works great.
But nobody is using it (nobody = few in case you want to get pedantic on
me).
>> Then there's that enormous universe of excellent
>> apps and games and development tools.
> And a much larger universe of crap for Windows.
What does bad Windows software nobody uses have to do with good Windows
software everyone uses?
>> On top of that, much open source
>> code runs on Windows.
>
> Yup, and once adopted, why pay for Windows?
Because you need a platform to run that open source: ie Firefox on Windows
is better than Firefox on Linux.
> We are already seeing
> Windows losing to the paradigm shift away from the "desktop."
Who's we? I don't see MS\Windows losing anything.
>> MS and Windows really, really, really needs some competition, but
>> they're here to stay.
>
> That's what everyone said about DEC, DataGeneral, LTX, Doma1n, etc.
They weren't one tenth of one percent the organization MS is.
> Delta T is a good thing.
"Delta T"? Is that some Linux jargon?
Mixed metaphors aside, change for change sake (ie Windows to Linux because
cola wants it) isn't good.
DFS
> DFS wrote:
>> mlw wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> It doesn't matter, Mac, BSD, or Linux, geez, ANYTHING but Windows!
>>
>>
>>
>> I forget to tell you in my first reply: Windows will never die.
>> Neither will Microsoft.
> trends continue. There's no indicateion tha tLinux adoption will
> greatly slow over the next few years, and every reason to believe
> Linux adoption will explode after it reaches critical mass.
Maybe. What market share is critical mass? And where do you get your
"trends" information from?
If we look here http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp under
OS platform statistics, the July 2003 non-MS market share was 4.2%, and the
July 2005 non-MS market share was 6.5%. And nearly half that growth was in
Macs.
So Linux isn't growing much at all (being a cola nut, you can label 1.2%
growth over 2 years fast if you want, but outside this bizarro world it's
laughable).
>> They're far, far too entrenched and valuable and pervasive and
>> ubiquitous. I disagree.
The world doesn't.
>> You've got hundreds of millions of users who know/want/depend
>> on/grudgingly accept Windows.
> And within the decade you'll have hundreds of millions of users who
> know/want/depend on/happily accept Linux.
Very doubtful. If Linux hasn't gained more than 3.5% market share by now, I
can't see where it will ever be 20% to 30% or more.
>> You've got huge corporate accounting systems built up over
>> 10 years running on Excel.
> Which will be moved eventually, to save long-term costs.
But the cost isn't in Excel - it's in the expertise captured and coded in
the macros and VBA programs. And it probably could be moved (I'd have to
look more into OO Basic and the UNO model), but it won't be.
>> Literally hundreds of thousands of VB apps
>> running the corporate world.
>
> Which will be phase dout and replaced with (probably) something like
> Python. Cross-platform compatibility will become an issue, and Python
> is on-par with VB when it comes to RAD.
LOL! The hell it is. There's NOTHING in the open source world on par with
VB, or MS Access, when it comes to RAD.
>> Word processing now generally means an MS Word
>> .doc file is involved.
> Which will probably shift to OOo .sxw files.
Which will definitely not.
>> Then there's that enormous universe of excellent
>> apps and games and development tools.
> At exorbinant cost.
exorbinant = exorbitant
That depends on the app and the game. Most are not high priced.
>> On top of that, much open source code
>> runs on Windows.
> Right. So why pay Microsoft for nothing?
So you'll have an OS to run that open source on.
>> MS and Windows really, really, really needs some competition, but
>> they're here to stay.
> They'll probably hang around. Much like Apple does.
It's Linux that will only ever hang around like Apple - low market share,
fringe users, etc.
>> Enjoy.
TheLetterK
> TheLetterK wrote:
>
>>DFS wrote:
>>
>>>mlw wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>It doesn't matter, Mac, BSD, or Linux, geez, ANYTHING but Windows!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I forget to tell you in my first reply: Windows will never die.
>>>Neither will Microsoft.
>>
>>Windows' marketshare stranglehold will be dissipated by ~2012 if the
>>trends continue. There's no indicateion tha tLinux adoption will
>>greatly slow over the next few years, and every reason to believe
>>Linux adoption will explode after it reaches critical mass.
>
>
> Maybe. What market share is critical mass?
are enough users to justify commercial development--it's actually a
function of userbase, not marketshare), but exactly where that is
remains to be seen. It's a safe bet that "More desktop Linux users than
Mac users" would be a good start, and this point will be reached by 2008
or 2009, again assuming the current trends continue for the upcoming
years (it also ignores non-major distros, and anyone sharing disks).
> And where do you get your
> "trends" information from?
Historical differences in platform marketshare, and overall global PC
sales (along with historical trends in this respect). Besides, it
doesn't take 50% to dissove Micrsoft's hold on the market. 20% would be
sufficient. By that point, OOo would be in sufficient use to justify a
wide-scale shift away from MS Office, even on Windows.
>
> If we look here http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp under
> OS platform statistics, the July 2003 non-MS market share was 4.2%, and the
> July 2005 non-MS market share was 6.5%. And nearly half that growth was in
> Macs.
This segment of users is not indicitive of the broader sense. In that
particular place, you get a lot of web designers checking it out. People
who'll tend to use Macs or Linux.
>
> So Linux isn't growing much at all (being a cola nut, you can label 1.2%
> growth over 2 years fast if you want, but outside this bizarro world it's
> laughable).
Well, considering Apple's marketshare growth is negative, and so is
Microsoft's... Yeah, I'd consider it pretty fast. But in reality it's
gained about 1.5% over last year, assuming you ignore non-major
distributions and shared disks. Judging Linux marketshare in a concrete
way is virtually, thus we try to keep to concervative estimates (such as
major vendor sales).
>
>
>
>
>>>They're far, far too entrenched and valuable and pervasive and
>>>ubiquitous. I disagree.
>
>
> The world doesn't.
A huge number of businesses have been taking a real long, hard look at
GNU/Linux lately. If it weren't for MS Office, they wouldn't be using
Windows at all. If OOo can ever get 100% compatibility with Office 2000,
Microsoft is toast.
>
>
>
>
>>>You've got hundreds of millions of users who know/want/depend
>>>on/grudgingly accept Windows.
>>
>>And within the decade you'll have hundreds of millions of users who
>>know/want/depend on/happily accept Linux.
>
>
> Very doubtful. If Linux hasn't gained more than 3.5% market share by now, I
> can't see where it will ever be 20% to 30% or more.
Because the growth has been accelerating. For many years now, desktop
Linux marketshare has been growing, at an ever faster rate. If you had
suggested two years ago, that Linux would have 3.5% of the global
desktop marketshare, most people would have laughed in your face.
TheLetterK
be. Apple controlled the market at one point too--see where they are today?
>
>
>
>
>
>>>You've got huge corporate accounting systems built up
>>>over 10 years running on Excel.
>>
>>15 years ago, one could not get into the banking industry without OS/2
>>support.
>
>
> OK. IBM just announced OS/2 is officially dead next year (they've just been
> keeping its corpse warm for almost 10 years).
Your missing the point. Windows is in much the same position as all
these other dominant forces from the past. It's reign might be longer
than most, but only because they've had more practice. To learn from the
mistakes of their predecessors. However, GNU/Linux is something they
can't fight, and can't win againt. It might take 30 years, but Microsoft
is going to lose this fight.
>
>
>
>
>>>Literally hundreds of thousands of VB apps
>>>running the corporate world.
>>
>>Isn't M$ end of lifing VB? Replacing it?
>
>
> Yes. Which has NOTHING to do with whether the hundreds of thousands of VB
> apps already in existence will be replaced. And when or if they are
> replaced, they will almost universally be replaced by more VB code. Not
> open source.
I can imagine quite a few companies are going to look at this and wonder
why exactly they chose to go with Microsoft for RAD situations.
>
>
>
>
>>>Word processing now generally means an MS
>>>Word .doc file is involved.
>>
>>Word processing used to mean WordStar, then WordPerfect, see what I
>>mean? Nothing lasts for ever. OpenOffice.org is free and works great.
>
>
> But nobody is using it (nobody = few in case you want to get pedantic on
> me).
Flew right over your head didn't it? In 25 years, people will say the
same thing of MS Office.
>
>
>
>
>>>Then there's that enormous universe of excellent
>>>apps and games and development tools.
>>
>>And a much larger universe of crap for Windows.
>
>
> What does bad Windows software nobody uses have to do with good Windows
> software everyone uses?
>
>
>
>
>
>>>On top of that, much open source
>>>code runs on Windows.
>>
>>Yup, and once adopted, why pay for Windows?
>
>
> Because you need a platform to run that open source: ie Firefox on Windows
> is better than Firefox on Linux.
Are you insane? Firefox is much, much better on Linux than it is
Windows. Firefox on Windows is a *port job*, even if it is very well done.
>
>
>
>
>>We are already seeing
>>Windows losing to the paradigm shift away from the "desktop."
>
>
> Who's we? I don't see MS\Windows losing anything.
Anything except marketshare.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>MS and Windows really, really, really needs some competition, but
>>>they're here to stay.
>>
>>That's what everyone said about DEC, DataGeneral, LTX, Doma1n, etc.
>
>
> They weren't one tenth of one percent the organization MS is.
DEC was, in their time.
>
>
>
>
>>Delta T is a good thing.
>
>
> "Delta T"? Is that some Linux jargon?
>
> Mixed metaphors aside, change for change sake (ie Windows to Linux because
> cola wants it) isn't good.
Companies are moving to Linux because it's cheaper and offers greater
flexibility for them.
William Poaster
Midget wrote:
Yup! ;-)
TuxSux
>--
>My wish is to NEVER have to correct another
>Microsoft astroturfer because it wastes my
>time and that's they're goal.
>I shall, however, point & laugh! ;-)
Not before I do.
"they're goal"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
You illiterate, queer, linux fucktard.
Now, correct your sig.
DFS
> DFS wrote:
>> So?
>>
>> The #1 operating system, by installed base, in 1994 was Windows.
> > The #1 operating system, by installed base, in 1999 was Windows.
> > The #1 operating system, by installed base, in 2004 was Windows.
> > The #1 operating system, by installed base, in 2005 is Windows.
> > The #1 operating system, by installed base, in 2006 will be
> Windows. > ...
> > The #1 operating system, by installed base, in 2010 will be
> Windows. >
>
> ...That's because Microsoft is the dominant OS *today*. It won't
> always be. Apple controlled the market at one point too--see where
> they are today?
See who displaced them? When people had a choice between Windows on PCs and
Macs, they overwhelmingly chose Windows PCs. When people have a choice
between Windows and Linux, they overwhelmingly choose Windows.
>> OK. IBM just announced OS/2 is officially dead next year (they've
>> just been keeping its corpse warm for almost 10 years).
>
> Your missing the point. Windows is in much the same position as all
> these other dominant forces from the past. It's reign might be longer
> than most, but only because they've had more practice. To learn from
> the mistakes of their predecessors. However, GNU/Linux is something
> they can't fight, and can't win againt. It might take 30 years, but
> Microsoft is going to lose this fight.
Linus Torvalds said much the same thing, along the lines of "you can't
sanely compete with open source"
I just don't agree. All MS has to do to completely decimate Linux is drop
their prices across the board by 50%. Windows effectively costs nothing
already, if you buy pre-built systems (that is, the cost for me to buy
hardware components and add Windows is about the same). Office Pro at $150
will stop OO dead in its tracks.
>> Yes. Which has NOTHING to do with whether the hundreds of thousands
>> of VB apps already in existence will be replaced. And when or if
>> they are replaced, they will almost universally be replaced by more
>> VB code. Not open source.
> I can imagine quite a few companies are going to look at this and
> wonder why exactly they chose to go with Microsoft for RAD
> situations.
The fact that you imagine this means you probably never built VB or Access
programs, and don't understand the amount of productivity you gain by the
ability to, say, drop a db connection component on a form, connect it, and
run it to be able to see and update data. It takes about 2 minutes!
>>>> Word processing now generally means an MS
>>>> Word .doc file is involved.
>>>
>>> Word processing used to mean WordStar, then WordPerfect, see what I
>>> mean? Nothing lasts for ever. OpenOffice.org is free and works
>>> great.
>>
>>
>> But nobody is using it (nobody = few in case you want to get
>> pedantic on me).
> Flew right over your head didn't it? In 25 years, people will say the
> same thing of MS Office.
You keep repeating yourself.
Various versions of OO have been around for years. It's going nowhere fast.
OO is never going to replace MS Office. Never. MS Office is too good, too
big, and too entrenched.
>>> We are already seeing
>>> Windows losing to the paradigm shift away from the "desktop."
>>
>>
>> Who's we? I don't see MS\Windows losing anything.
> Anything except marketshare.
True, they might have lost a few percent desktop marketshare over the last 6
or 8 years, but where else but down are they going to go from 96% share?
>> They weren't one tenth of one percent the organization MS is.
>
> DEC was, in their time.
You need to read up on the breadth of products and markets MS sells and
serves.
>> Mixed metaphors aside, change for change sake (ie Windows to Linux
>> because cola wants it) isn't good.
> Companies are moving to Linux because it's cheaper and offers greater
> flexibility for them.
Linux can be cheaper, and does offer greater flexibility. The issue is, is
it worth the cost to migrate? So far, no.
DFS
> DFS wrote:
>> TheLetterK wrote:
>>
>>> DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> mlw wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't matter, Mac, BSD, or Linux, geez, ANYTHING but Windows!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I forget to tell you in my first reply: Windows will never die.
>>>> Neither will Microsoft.
>>>
>>> Windows' marketshare stranglehold will be dissipated by ~2012 if the
>>> trends continue. There's no indicateion tha tLinux adoption will
>>> greatly slow over the next few years, and every reason to believe
>>> Linux adoption will explode after it reaches critical mass.
>>
>>
>> Maybe. What market share is critical mass?
> Probably around ~5%. We know such a point exists (the point where
> there are enough users to justify commercial development--it's
> actually a function of userbase, not marketshare), but exactly where
> that is remains to be seen.
Linux: it remains to be seen.
> It's a safe bet that "More desktop Linux
> users than Mac users" would be a good start, and this point will be
> reached by 2008 or 2009, again assuming the current trends continue
> for the upcoming years (it also ignores non-major distros, and anyone
> sharing disks).
I don't think betting on Linux/OSS displacing MS/closed source is a safe
bet. Anytime. Over any period. In any market.
>> And where do you get your
>> "trends" information from?
> Historical differences in platform marketshare, and overall global PC
> sales (along with historical trends in this respect). Besides, it
> doesn't take 50% to dissove Micrsoft's hold on the market. 20% would
> be sufficient. By that point, OOo would be in sufficient use to
> justify a wide-scale shift away from MS Office, even on Windows.
>
>>
>> If we look here http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
>> under OS platform statistics, the July 2003 non-MS market share was
>> 4.2%, and the July 2005 non-MS market share was 6.5%. And nearly
>> half that growth was in Macs.
> This segment of users is not indicitive of the broader sense. In that
> particular place, you get a lot of web designers checking it out.
> People who'll tend to use Macs or Linux.
So you think w3schools 3.5%/3.0% estimates overstate the actual Mac/Linux
marketshares? I always felt it did as well, and w3 kind of supports it,
but absent other sources I went with them.
>> So Linux isn't growing much at all (being a cola nut, you can label
>> 1.2% growth over 2 years fast if you want, but outside this bizarro
>> world it's laughable).
> Well, considering Apple's marketshare growth is negative,
? I think you're very wrong about that.
> and so is
> Microsoft's... Yeah, I'd consider it pretty fast. But in reality it's
> gained about 1.5% over last year,
Says who?
> assuming you ignore non-major
> distributions and shared disks. Judging Linux marketshare in a
> concrete way is virtually, thus we try to keep to concervative
> estimates (such as major vendor sales).
RedHat sales are up more than 50% over last year
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=RHAT&annual
Only someone like Rex Ballard would correlate that with desktop growth.
>> The world doesn't.
>
> A huge number of businesses have been taking a real long, hard look at
> GNU/Linux lately. If it weren't for MS Office, they wouldn't be using
> Windows at all. If OOo can ever get 100% compatibility with Office
> 2000, Microsoft is toast.
You greatly underestimate the MS marketing powerhouse. Price discounts plus
the cost of migrating to Linux are plenty enough to keep most businesses on
Windows - maybe indefinitely.
>> Very doubtful. If Linux hasn't gained more than 3.5% market share
>> by now, I can't see where it will ever be 20% to 30% or more.
> Because the growth has been accelerating. For many years now, desktop
> Linux marketshare has been growing, at an ever faster rate. If you had
> suggested two years ago, that Linux would have 3.5% of the global
> desktop marketshare, most people would have laughed in your face.
Directly above you imply 3.5% is overstated.
I personally don't think that nearly 4 in 100 PC users run Linux. But since
I can't prove it I'll go with a number like w3schools, or rely on estimates
from independent research organizations.
TheLetterK
> TheLetterK wrote:
>
>>DFS wrote:
>>
>>>So?
>>>
>>>The #1 operating system, by installed base, in 1994 was Windows.
>>
>> > The #1 operating system, by installed base, in 1999 was Windows.
>> > The #1 operating system, by installed base, in 2004 was Windows.
>> > The #1 operating system, by installed base, in 2005 is Windows.
>> > The #1 operating system, by installed base, in 2006 will be
>> Windows. > ...
>> > The #1 operating system, by installed base, in 2010 will be
>> Windows. >
>>
>>...That's because Microsoft is the dominant OS *today*. It won't
>>always be. Apple controlled the market at one point too--see where
>>they are today?
>
>
> See who displaced them? When people had a choice between Windows on PCs and
> Macs, they overwhelmingly chose Windows PCs.
superiority or sanity.
> When people have a choice
> between Windows and Linux, they overwhelmingly choose Windows.
Right now, yes. Mostly because GNU/Linux lacks commercial support.
However, when there are more GNU/Linux users than Mac users (~2008 with
current trends)... that situation will likely change.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>OK. IBM just announced OS/2 is officially dead next year (they've
>>>just been keeping its corpse warm for almost 10 years).
>>
>>Your missing the point. Windows is in much the same position as all
>>these other dominant forces from the past. It's reign might be longer
>>than most, but only because they've had more practice. To learn from
>>the mistakes of their predecessors. However, GNU/Linux is something
>>they can't fight, and can't win againt. It might take 30 years, but
>>Microsoft is going to lose this fight.
>
>
> Linus Torvalds said much the same thing, along the lines of "you can't
> sanely compete with open source"
>
> I just don't agree. All MS has to do to completely decimate Linux is drop
> their prices across the board by 50%.
It'll still be more epxnsive, and Microsoft would lose money in the
process. Microsoft only survives on the insane margins of Windows and
Office.
> Windows effectively costs nothing
> already, if you buy pre-built systems (that is, the cost for me to buy
> hardware components and add Windows is about the same).
Incorrect. It drives up the cost about $50. Linux in the same situation
would be about $15 or $20.
> Office Pro at $150
> will stop OO dead in its tracks.
$150 a seat, or $0 a seat. Hmm, I wonder which is cheaper?
>
>
>
>
>>>Yes. Which has NOTHING to do with whether the hundreds of thousands
>>>of VB apps already in existence will be replaced. And when or if
>>>they are replaced, they will almost universally be replaced by more
>>>VB code. Not open source.
>>
>>I can imagine quite a few companies are going to look at this and
>> wonder why exactly they chose to go with Microsoft for RAD
>>situations.
>
>
> The fact that you imagine this means you probably never built VB or Access
> programs,
I've worked a little with VB Express. I've never felt compelled to pay
Microsoft's insane costs for such garbage. Why pay a lot more to limit
myself to one platform, for a language with no appreciable benefits?
> and don't understand the amount of productivity you gain by the
> ability to, say, drop a db connection component on a form, connect it, and
> run it to be able to see and update data. It takes about 2 minutes!
I don't see how it makes a difference. We're talking about 10 minutes
instead of '2' (and I seriously doubt you can do it in two minutes).
Python is every bit as capable as VB is, and cross-platfom. Let's not
forget the most important part--free.
But, of course, wintrolls will always ignore OSS options that do what
they're asking.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>>Word processing now generally means an MS
>>>>>Word .doc file is involved.
>>>>
>>>>Word processing used to mean WordStar, then WordPerfect, see what I
>>>>mean? Nothing lasts for ever. OpenOffice.org is free and works
>>>>great.
>>>
>>>
>>>But nobody is using it (nobody = few in case you want to get
>>>pedantic on me).
>>
>>Flew right over your head didn't it? In 25 years, people will say the
>>same thing of MS Office.
>
>
> You keep repeating yourself.
I'm reassuring myself with adoption statistics.
>
> Various versions of OO have been around for years.
And gaining in popularity ever since release, at an increasing rate.
> It's going nowhere fast.
If by 'nowhere' you mean 'being seriously evaluated by a huge number of
large enterprises as an alternative to MS Office'. Companies *hate*
Microsoft Office. They use it only because almost everyone else does.
> OO is never going to replace MS Office. Never. MS Office is too good, too
> big, and too entrenched.
As we've been saying throught this subthread--people said that about so
many other dead products, it would make your head spin.
>
>
>
>
>>>>We are already seeing
>>>>Windows losing to the paradigm shift away from the "desktop."
>>>
>>>
>>>Who's we? I don't see MS\Windows losing anything.
>>
>>Anything except marketshare.
>
>
> True, they might have lost a few percent desktop marketshare over the last 6
> or 8 years, but where else but down are they going to go from 96% share?
You see my point? If they ever drop to 85% or so, thier monopoly will
collapse.
>
>
>
>
>>>They weren't one tenth of one percent the organization MS is.
>>
>>DEC was, in their time.
>
>
> You need to read up on the breadth of products and markets MS sells and
> serves.
You need to stop forgetting the times. DEC was a lot like IBM was,
selling everything.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>Mixed metaphors aside, change for change sake (ie Windows to Linux
>>>because cola wants it) isn't good.
>>
>>Companies are moving to Linux because it's cheaper and offers greater
>>flexibility for them.
>
>
> Linux can be cheaper, and does offer greater flexibility. The issue is, is
> it worth the cost to migrate? So far, no.
To many companies it is. Last upgrade cycle, a large number of companies
examined it very closely. We'll see when it comes time again. I think
Microsoft is making a strategic error with Longhorn. It'll require
companies to upgrade their hardware. Linux won't. Linux has had a lower
TCO for years now, but initial cost scares a lot of customers away. This
will greatly mask the cost of transition.
amosf
> I just don't agree. All MS has to do to completely decimate Linux is drop
> their prices across the board by 50%. Windows effectively costs nothing
> already, if you buy pre-built systems (that is, the cost for me to buy
> hardware components and add Windows is about the same). Office Pro at
> $150 will stop OO dead in its tracks.
Is this the superior white intelligence at work? Since most people get
windows and office for 'free' already - ie it comes with the machine or
they steal it - how then will a price drop change anything at all?
> The fact that you imagine this means you probably never built VB or Access
> programs, and don't understand the amount of productivity you gain by the
> ability to, say, drop a db connection component on a form, connect it, and
> run it to be able to see and update data. It takes about 2 minutes!
Hmmm. You think we haven't done this. VB is easy, especially if you want to
do it the way MS wants you to do things. I'm sure even a less advanced type
human of a non-white race could handle it, right? Of course you get more
freedom and control with other systems...
> Various versions of OO have been around for years. It's going nowhere
> fast.
> OO is never going to replace MS Office. Never. MS Office is too good,
> too big, and too entrenched.
If you say it enough it makes it true in your mind. It's the same as
continually saying that you are the superior race, just like your pop told
you under the cosy light of your first cross burning...
--
-
I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
-
TheLetterK
> TheLetterK wrote:
>
>>DFS wrote:
>>
>>>TheLetterK wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>DFS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>mlw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>It doesn't matter, Mac, BSD, or Linux, geez, ANYTHING but Windows!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I forget to tell you in my first reply: Windows will never die.
>>>>>Neither will Microsoft.
>>>>
>>>>Windows' marketshare stranglehold will be dissipated by ~2012 if the
>>>>trends continue. There's no indicateion tha tLinux adoption will
>>>>greatly slow over the next few years, and every reason to believe
>>>>Linux adoption will explode after it reaches critical mass.
>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe. What market share is critical mass?
>>
>>Probably around ~5%. We know such a point exists (the point where
>>there are enough users to justify commercial development--it's
>>actually a function of userbase, not marketshare), but exactly where
>>that is remains to be seen.
>
>
> Linux: it remains to be seen.
and this is readily evidenced by the sheer number of companies seriously
evaluating it on their desktops.
>
>
>
>
>>It's a safe bet that "More desktop Linux
>>users than Mac users" would be a good start, and this point will be
>>reached by 2008 or 2009, again assuming the current trends continue
>>for the upcoming years (it also ignores non-major distros, and anyone
>>sharing disks).
>
>
> I don't think betting on Linux/OSS displacing MS/closed source is a safe
> bet. Anytime. Over any period. In any market.
I do. It's the inevitable conclusion. It's too hard for traditional
commercial models to compete with no-cost software that you can do
anything with.
>
>
>
>
>
>>> And where do you get your
>>>"trends" information from?
>>
>>Historical differences in platform marketshare, and overall global PC
>>sales (along with historical trends in this respect). Besides, it
>>doesn't take 50% to dissove Micrsoft's hold on the market. 20% would
>>be sufficient. By that point, OOo would be in sufficient use to
>>justify a wide-scale shift away from MS Office, even on Windows.
>>
>>
>>>If we look here http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
>>>under OS platform statistics, the July 2003 non-MS market share was
>>>4.2%, and the July 2005 non-MS market share was 6.5%. And nearly
>>>half that growth was in Macs.
>>
>>This segment of users is not indicitive of the broader sense. In that
>>particular place, you get a lot of web designers checking it out.
>>People who'll tend to use Macs or Linux.
>
>
> So you think w3schools 3.5%/3.0% estimates overstate the actual Mac/Linux
> marketshares?
I think it overstates the Mac bias.
> I always felt it did as well, and w3 kind of supports it,
> but absent other sources I went with them.
I'm sure it is indicitive of the ratio of platforms hitting their site.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>So Linux isn't growing much at all (being a cola nut, you can label
>>>1.2% growth over 2 years fast if you want, but outside this bizarro
>>>world it's laughable).
>
>
>>Well, considering Apple's marketshare growth is negative,
>
>
> ? I think you're very wrong about that.
Down to 2.3% from ~3% in 2003. They've sold more machines, but not in
relation to the increase in PC sales globally. It's very possible to
sell more computers, but lose marketshare.
>
>
>
>>and so is
>>Microsoft's... Yeah, I'd consider it pretty fast. But in reality it's
>>gained about 1.5% over last year,
>
>
> Says who?
IDC, Gartner group, and some others.
>
>
>
>
>>assuming you ignore non-major
>>distributions and shared disks. Judging Linux marketshare in a
>>concrete way is virtually, thus we try to keep to concervative
>>estimates (such as major vendor sales).
>
>
> RedHat sales are up more than 50% over last year
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=RHAT&annual
>
> Only someone like Rex Ballard would correlate that with desktop growth.
We're talking about Redhat WS sales, Novell Desktop sales, Mandriva
sales, etc. But, of course, you seem to take some figure about Redhat
sales to mean we're including all REdhat sales. We aren't able to
account for things like Slackware, Fedora, etc because it's just too
hard to keep track of them.
>
>
>
>
>>>The world doesn't.
>>
>>A huge number of businesses have been taking a real long, hard look at
>>GNU/Linux lately. If it weren't for MS Office, they wouldn't be using
>>Windows at all. If OOo can ever get 100% compatibility with Office
>>2000, Microsoft is toast.
>
>
> You greatly underestimate the MS marketing powerhouse.
Not at all.
> Price discounts plus
> the cost of migrating to Linux
They can only discount so far, and the cost of migrating to Linux drops
every three months or so.
> are plenty enough to keep most businesses on
> Windows - maybe indefinitely.
Again I'll point out, there's a limit to how low Microsoft can go.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>Very doubtful. If Linux hasn't gained more than 3.5% market share
>>>by now, I can't see where it will ever be 20% to 30% or more.
>>
>>Because the growth has been accelerating. For many years now, desktop
>>Linux marketshare has been growing, at an ever faster rate. If you had
>>suggested two years ago, that Linux would have 3.5% of the global
>>desktop marketshare, most people would have laughed in your face.
>
>
> Directly above you imply 3.5% is overstated.
*understated*. It's not including non-major distributions, only sales of
'major' distrubutions. You can't track the free distributions accurately.
>
> I personally don't think that nearly 4 in 100 PC users run Linux.
I do.
> But since
> I can't prove it I'll go with a number like w3schools, or rely on estimates
> from independent research organizations.
Ok, go pay for the IDC or Gartner research into it. Or are they not
independent market research firms?
>
>
>
DFS
> DFS wrote:
>> See who displaced them? When people had a choice between Windows on
>> PCs and Macs, they overwhelmingly chose Windows PCs.
>
> For a variety of reasons, that had little to do with technical
> superiority or sanity.
I can't disagree that a company switching to Linux/OSS could be labeled
"insane."
>> When people have a choice
>> between Windows and Linux, they overwhelmingly choose Windows.
>
> Right now, yes. Mostly because GNU/Linux lacks commercial support.
> However, when there are more GNU/Linux users than Mac users (~2008
> with current trends)... that situation will likely change.
I doubt it, very much. The same predictions have been made about Linux for
5 years, at least.
>> Linus Torvalds said much the same thing, along the lines of "you
>> can't sanely compete with open source"
>>
>> I just don't agree. All MS has to do to completely decimate Linux
>> is drop their prices across the board by 50%.
>
> It'll still be more epxnsive, and Microsoft would lose money in the
> process. Microsoft only survives on the insane margins of Windows and
> Office.
Which means they can drop prices and easily survive on the mildly insane
prices. Sure it will be a smaller company, but it will still rule the
desktop, and I think it would totally decimate Linux/OSS adoption.
>> Windows effectively costs nothing
>> already, if you buy pre-built systems (that is, the cost for me to
>> buy hardware components and add Windows is about the same).
>
> Incorrect. It drives up the cost about $50.
Like I said, buying the components and Windows separately costs about the
same as buying a prebuilt machine with Windows already installed. Probably
a little more, actually.
> Linux in the same
> situation would be about $15 or $20.
Linux in the same situation is $90 at this company:
>> Office Pro at $150
>> will stop OO dead in its tracks.
>
> $150 a seat, or $0 a seat. Hmm, I wonder which is cheaper?
It's not price that matters, it's sales and adoption. MS Office Pro at $300
is a huge seller. OO at $0 is not.
>> The fact that you imagine this means you probably never built VB or
>> Access programs,
>
> I've worked a little with VB Express. I've never felt compelled to pay
> Microsoft's insane costs for such garbage. Why pay a lot more to limit
> myself to one platform, for a language with no appreciable benefits?
The problem with your arguments is:
1) it's not garbage
2) the one platform is "the one platform"
3) the appreciable benefits are numerous, but you have to learn that
yourself.
>> and don't understand the amount of productivity you gain by the
>> ability to, say, drop a db connection component on a form, connect
>> it, and run it to be able to see and update data. It takes about 2
>> minutes!
>
> I don't see how it makes a difference. We're talking about 10 minutes
> instead of '2' (and I seriously doubt you can do it in two minutes).
Less than 2 minutes, if you know what you're doing (and have a datasource
already available, of course). It's just a barebone system-layout form that
shows data, but you got there fast.
> Python is every bit as capable as VB is, and cross-platfom.
Python the language may be capable, but Python the environment is nowhere
near the development system VB.Net (or previous versions) is.
> Let's not forget the most important part--free.
Thanks for admitting it. Most cola nuts deny this.
> But, of course, wintrolls will always ignore OSS options that do what
> they're asking.
When the open source world creates a good VB replacement, come back to the
party. Gambas isn't it.
>>>> But nobody is using it (nobody = few in case you want to get
>>>> pedantic on me).
>>>
>>> Flew right over your head didn't it? In 25 years, people will say
>>> the same thing of MS Office.
>>
>> You keep repeating yourself.
>
> I'm reassuring myself with adoption statistics.
You're going to need a lot of patience.
>> Various versions of OO have been around for years.
> And gaining in popularity ever since release, at an increasing rate.
>
>> It's going nowhere fast.
>
> If by 'nowhere' you mean 'being seriously evaluated by a huge number
> of large enterprises as an alternative to MS Office'.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
> Companies *hate* Microsoft Office. They use it
> only because almost everyone else does.
Lie.
>> OO is never going to replace MS Office. Never. MS Office is too
>> good, too big, and too entrenched.
>
> As we've been saying throught this subthread--people said that about
> so many other dead products, it would make your head spin.
But none of the other products were MS\Office.
>> True, they might have lost a few percent desktop marketshare over
>> the last 6 or 8 years, but where else but down are they going to go
>> from 96% share?
>
> You see my point? If they ever drop to 85% or so, thier monopoly will
> collapse.
85% sounds like a monopoly to me.
>>>> They weren't one tenth of one percent the organization MS is.
>>>
>>> DEC was, in their time.
>>
>>
>> You need to read up on the breadth of products and markets MS sells
>> and serves.
>
> You need to stop forgetting the times.
I had forgotten how big they were - 100,000 employees at one point. And
innovative: they created AltaVista, the first 'Net search engine I ever
used. They were even the primary sponsor of what became the X Window
system.
> DEC was a lot like IBM was, selling everything.
Yes, they did eventually sell everything: their employees and their
business.
They were no MS.
>> Linux can be cheaper, and does offer greater flexibility. The issue
>> is, is it worth the cost to migrate? So far, no.
> To many companies it is.
Many? Can you name five? How about three?
And installing 10 servers doesn't count. You said migrate, which implies
desktop migration as well.
> Last upgrade cycle, a large number of
> companies examined it very closely. We'll see when it comes time
> again. I think Microsoft is making a strategic error with Longhorn.
> It'll require companies to upgrade their hardware.
I think hardware upgrades won't be a requirement - they will be an option.
> Linux won't. Linux
> has had a lower TCO for years now, but initial cost scares a lot of
> customers away. This will greatly mask the cost of transition.
You're saying 2008 is when a confluence of events - a critical mass of
adoption and market share and commercial support - will propel Linux to sky
high usage?
Hopefully by then Munich will have finished installing 14,000 Linux seats.
DFS
> DFS wrote:
>>> Probably around ~5%. We know such a point exists (the point where
>>> there are enough users to justify commercial development--it's
>>> actually a function of userbase, not marketshare), but exactly where
>>> that is remains to be seen.
>>
>>
>> Linux: it remains to be seen.
>
> That's a load of BS and you know it.
You just said it.
> It's a perfectly viable platform,
> and this is readily evidenced by the sheer number of companies
> seriously evaluating it on their desktops.
You've been repeating this to yourself quite a bit. How much longer do they
have to evaluate Linux? It's been desktop-useful [for some people] for at
least 2-3 years. What's stopping these companies from wholesale adoption?
>> I don't think betting on Linux/OSS displacing MS/closed source is a
>> safe bet. Anytime. Over any period. In any market.
>
> I do. It's the inevitable conclusion. It's too hard for traditional
> commercial models to compete with no-cost software that you can do
> anything with.
Free sure sounds good on paper. In practice, I can't think of a single free
program that replaced a commercial system which had a large installed base
and market share.
>>> Well, considering Apple's marketshare growth is negative,
>>
>>
>> ? I think you're very wrong about that.
>
> Down to 2.3% from ~3% in 2003. They've sold more machines, but not in
> relation to the increase in PC sales globally. It's very possible to
> sell more computers, but lose marketshare.
Again, where do your numbers come from? I thought Apple market share was
increasing.
>>> and so is
>>> Microsoft's... Yeah, I'd consider it pretty fast. But in reality
>>> it's gained about 1.5% over last year,
>>
>>
>> Says who?
>
> IDC, Gartner group, and some others.
Don't let cola hear you saying that. They think IDC and Gartner are MS
shills.
>> RedHat sales are up more than 50% over last year
>> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=RHAT&annual
>>
>> Only someone like Rex Ballard would correlate that with desktop
>> growth.
>
> We're talking about Redhat WS sales, Novell Desktop sales, Mandriva
> sales, etc. But, of course, you seem to take some figure about Redhat
> sales to mean we're including all REdhat sales. We aren't able to
> account for things like Slackware, Fedora, etc because it's just too
> hard to keep track of them.
Yes. So anecdotal experience is interesting. Do you know any home users
who use Linux - besides yourself?
>> You greatly underestimate the MS marketing powerhouse.
>
> Not at all.
So you don't underestimate them, but you insist they will be replaced? I
think you're wrong on both accounts.
>> Price discounts plus
>> the cost of migrating to Linux
> They can only discount so far, and the cost of migrating to Linux
> drops every three months or so.
>
>> are plenty enough to keep most businesses on
>> Windows - maybe indefinitely.
>
> Again I'll point out, there's a limit to how low Microsoft can go.
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe they go as low as open source - all the way to
free - and turn themselves into a support/subscription model?
>> I personally don't think that nearly 4 in 100 PC users run Linux.
> I do.
Based on what evidence?
>> But since
>> I can't prove it I'll go with a number like w3schools, or rely on
>> estimates from independent research organizations.
>
> Ok, go pay for the IDC or Gartner research into it. Or are they not
> independent market research firms?
I thought IDC and Gartner did support 3% to 3.5% Linux desktop marketshare?
DFS
> DFS wrote something like:
>
>> I just don't agree. All MS has to do to completely decimate Linux
>> is drop their prices across the board by 50%. Windows effectively
>> costs nothing already, if you buy pre-built systems (that is, the
>> cost for me to buy hardware components and add Windows is about the
>> same). Office Pro at $150 will stop OO dead in its tracks.
>
> Is this the superior white intelligence at work? Since most people get
> windows and office for 'free' already - ie it comes with the machine
> or they steal it - how then will a price drop change anything at all?
I'll let you figure that one out.
>> The fact that you imagine this means you probably never built VB or
>> Access programs, and don't understand the amount of productivity you
>> gain by the ability to, say, drop a db connection component on a
>> form, connect it, and run it to be able to see and update data. It
>> takes about 2 minutes!
>
> Hmmm. You think we haven't done this. VB is easy, especially if you
> want to do it the way MS wants you to do things.
What way do you want to do things that MS doesn't let you do?
> I'm sure even a less advanced type human of
> a non-white race could handle it, right?
But that doesn't mean you can.
> Of course you get more freedom and control with other systems...
Being able to sell to 94% of the market IS freedom and control.
>> Various versions of OO have been around for years. It's going
>> nowhere fast.
>> OO is never going to replace MS Office. Never. MS Office is too
>> good, too big, and too entrenched.
>
> If you say it enough it makes it true in your mind. It's the same as
> continually saying that you are the superior race, just like your pop
> told you under the cosy light of your first cross burning...
amosf, you're going to have to quit lying. It makes you sound inferior.
That's what my Dad taught me, in the cozy light of his office.
amosf
> amosf wrote:
>> DFS wrote something like:
>>
>>> I just don't agree. All MS has to do to completely decimate Linux
>>> is drop their prices across the board by 50%. Windows effectively
>>> costs nothing already, if you buy pre-built systems (that is, the
>>> cost for me to buy hardware components and add Windows is about the
>>> same). Office Pro at $150 will stop OO dead in its tracks.
>>
>> Is this the superior white intelligence at work? Since most people get
>> windows and office for 'free' already - ie it comes with the machine
>> or they steal it - how then will a price drop change anything at all?
>
> I'll let you figure that one out.
I already did, thanks.
>>> The fact that you imagine this means you probably never built VB or
>>> Access programs, and don't understand the amount of productivity you
>>> gain by the ability to, say, drop a db connection component on a
>>> form, connect it, and run it to be able to see and update data. It
>>> takes about 2 minutes!
>>
>> Hmmm. You think we haven't done this. VB is easy, especially if you
>> want to do it the way MS wants you to do things.
>
> What way do you want to do things that MS doesn't let you do?
See, this is the windows mentality.
>> I'm sure even a less advanced type human of
>> a non-white race could handle it, right?
>
> But that doesn't mean you can.
Have you taken that IQ test yet?
>> Of course you get more freedom and control with other systems...
>
> Being able to sell to 94% of the market IS freedom and control.
Ah, yes. But that's MS's control and freedom to charge what they want and do
what they want... I was more worried about my own freedom, thanks.
>>> Various versions of OO have been around for years. It's going
>>> nowhere fast.
>>> OO is never going to replace MS Office. Never. MS Office is too
>>> good, too big, and too entrenched.
>>
>> If you say it enough it makes it true in your mind. It's the same as
>> continually saying that you are the superior race, just like your pop
>> told you under the cosy light of your first cross burning...
>
> amosf, you're going to have to quit lying. It makes you sound inferior.
> That's what my Dad taught me, in the cozy light of his office.
That's actually satire, but what the heck. So he taught you racism in his
office. Whatever.
Kier
You do know what the phrase 'significant other' means in this context,
don't you? In William's case, it means his lady - wife/girlfriend - spouse
- as in member of the opposite sex. Unless you are trying to suggest
William is gay.
And you call *him* stupid...
<snip insulting nonsense>
--
Kier
DFS
Isn't he? Seems like every other cola nut is talking spouse, SO, partner,
etc, using sexually neutral language intended to obfuscate that fact.
> And you call *him* stupid...
He is.
> <snip insulting nonsense>
Why didn't you snip his insulting nonsense, hypocrite?
Kier
Sorry? WTF? William has mentioned his partner a number of times before,
and I had not difficulty in discerning he meant his
wife/girlfriend/spouse. This isn't the first time you've been too stupid
to work it out, either.
>
>
>
>> And you call *him* stupid...
>
> He is.
Prove it.
>
>
>> <snip insulting nonsense>
>
> Why didn't you snip his insulting nonsense, hypocrite?
No one could day anything bad enough about you to insult you - you have
zero decency or credibility, and you are a disgusting and unrepentant
racist, so pretty much anything you are called is likely to be too good
for what you are. You are also a stupid, arrogant, lying troll. Scum,
basically.
--
kier
TheLetterK
> TheLetterK wrote:
>
>>DFS wrote:
>
>
>>>>Probably around ~5%. We know such a point exists (the point where
>>>>there are enough users to justify commercial development--it's
>>>>actually a function of userbase, not marketshare), but exactly where
>>>>that is remains to be seen.
>>>
>>>
>>>Linux: it remains to be seen.
>>
>>That's a load of BS and you know it.
>
>
> You just said it.
>
>
>
>
>>It's a perfectly viable platform,
>>and this is readily evidenced by the sheer number of companies
>>seriously evaluating it on their desktops.
>
>
> You've been repeating this to yourself quite a bit. How much longer do they
> have to evaluate Linux?
PRobably quite awhile.
> It's been desktop-useful [for some people] for at
> least 2-3 years. What's stopping these companies from wholesale adoption?
Microsoft Office. There's nothing else keeping them on Windows. If
Office or Windows lose their domination of the market (and Windows is
rapidly losing ground here), then both of them will fall through the
floor. Linux and Windows costs are hovering about even right now (even
with the insane discounts Microsoft offers large corportations), with
Linux eding Window out after a few years.
>
>
>
>
>>>I don't think betting on Linux/OSS displacing MS/closed source is a
>>>safe bet. Anytime. Over any period. In any market.
>>
>>I do. It's the inevitable conclusion. It's too hard for traditional
>>commercial models to compete with no-cost software that you can do
>>anything with.
>
>
> Free sure sounds good on paper. In practice, I can't think of a single free
> program that replaced a commercial system which had a large installed base
> and market share.
Apache (NCSA httpd), PostgreSQL (DB2), Linux (replacing a wide range of
propriatary Unixes), and I'm sure other huge OSS successes exist. But
these should suffice for now.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>Well, considering Apple's marketshare growth is negative,
>>>
>>>
>>>? I think you're very wrong about that.
>>
>>Down to 2.3% from ~3% in 2003. They've sold more machines, but not in
>>relation to the increase in PC sales globally. It's very possible to
>>sell more computers, but lose marketshare.
>
>
> Again, where do your numbers come from? I thought Apple market share was
> increasing.
Now that I look at it, Gartner is claiming 1.8% for Q3 of this year.
3.2% in the US. It's widely known that Apple's marketshare has been in
decline for awhile. They ship more computers year-over-year, but their
growth is less than the rest of the industry.
>
>
>
>
>>>>and so is
>>>>Microsoft's... Yeah, I'd consider it pretty fast. But in reality
>>>>it's gained about 1.5% over last year,
>>>
>>>
>>>Says who?
>>
>>IDC, Gartner group, and some others.
>
>
> Don't let cola hear you saying that. They think IDC and Gartner are MS
> shills.
No one else is really doing research into this.
>
>
>
>
>>>RedHat sales are up more than 50% over last year
>>>http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=RHAT&annual
>>>
>>>Only someone like Rex Ballard would correlate that with desktop
>>>growth.
>>
>>We're talking about Redhat WS sales, Novell Desktop sales, Mandriva
>>sales, etc. But, of course, you seem to take some figure about Redhat
>>sales to mean we're including all REdhat sales. We aren't able to
>>account for things like Slackware, Fedora, etc because it's just too
>>hard to keep track of them.
>
>
> Yes. So anecdotal experience is interesting. Do you know any home users
> who use Linux - besides yourself?
Two others locally. Quite a few across the 'net.
>
>
>
>
>>>You greatly underestimate the MS marketing powerhouse.
>>
>>Not at all.
>
>
> So you don't underestimate them, but you insist they will be replaced? I
> think you're wrong on both accounts.
Their replacement is *inevitable* there is no other outcome here. They
*are* going to lose this fight. When they lose it, we can't be sure.
Though I'm thinking they'll start to really collapse in 2012.
>
>
>
>
>
>>> Price discounts plus
>>>the cost of migrating to Linux
>>
>>They can only discount so far, and the cost of migrating to Linux
>>drops every three months or so.
>>
>>
>>>are plenty enough to keep most businesses on
>>>Windows - maybe indefinitely.
>>
>>Again I'll point out, there's a limit to how low Microsoft can go.
>
>
> Maybe, maybe not. Maybe they go as low as open source - all the way to
> free - and turn themselves into a support/subscription model?
They still have higher development costs, higher marketing costs, and
would no longer be able to compete with Linux offerings. They've got an
inferior product, and would no longer have the funds to sustain it's
monopoly at that point. Also consider the portion of their market that
gets support from third parties. Every Dell customer is getting support
from Dell, not Microsoft. Every HP customer is getting support from HP,
not Microsoft. They wouldn't be able to support themselves as they have
been with such a model. They *rely* on Windows and Office turning huge
margins, without which they'll collapse.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>I personally don't think that nearly 4 in 100 PC users run Linux.
>>
>>I do.
>
>
> Based on what evidence?
Analysis from a few portions. Most of the places I see have Linux
hovering at around 3-4% marketshare. That indicates that at least 3 out
of every 100 users is using Linux.
>
>
>
>
>
>>> But since
>>>I can't prove it I'll go with a number like w3schools, or rely on
>>>estimates from independent research organizations.
>>
>>Ok, go pay for the IDC or Gartner research into it. Or are they not
>>independent market research firms?
>
>
> I thought IDC and Gartner did support 3% to 3.5% Linux desktop marketshare?
They're the ones generating these figures.
William Poaster
wrote:
<snip>
> You do know what the phrase 'significant other' means in this context,
> don't you? In William's case, it means his lady - wife/girlfriend - spouse
> - as in member of the opposite sex. Unless you are trying to suggest
> William is gay.
DFS/doS dribbling again? Shows how ignorant & stupid he his. Furthermore
it shows how hypocritical he is & lying too, because didn't he say he'd
killfiled people using the 'begin' bug?
Of course this *is* DFS, so we already know he's both of those things.
> And you call *him* stupid...
I suppose he's demonstrating his superior white intelligence.
(To spell it out for the terminally stupid, that's s-a-r-c-a-s-m)
--
The troll proves how dumb he is with every post.
DFS
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 18:30:34 -0400, DFS wrote:
>> Isn't he? Seems like every other cola nut is talking spouse, SO,
>> partner, etc, using sexually neutral language intended to obfuscate
>> that fact.
>
> Sorry? WTF? William has mentioned his partner a number of times
> before, and I had not difficulty in discerning he meant his
> wife/girlfriend/spouse. This isn't the first time you've been too
> stupid to work it out, either.
Unless he used gender-specific terms, it's impossible for you to have
discerned anything. So, either you're lying, or he previously said
wife/girlfriend. Which?
>>> And you call *him* stupid...
>>
>> He is.
>
> Prove it.
Read his posts.
>>> <snip insulting nonsense>
>>
>> Why didn't you snip his insulting nonsense, hypocrite?
>
> No one could day anything bad enough about you to insult you - you
> have zero decency or credibility,
You sure do expend a lot of energy responding to and trying to dispel my
credibility. Why?
> and you are a disgusting and unrepentant racist,
We still haven't heard about all the diversity in your family, your friends,
your doctors, etc. C'mon Kier.
> so pretty much anything you are called is likely
> to be too good for what you are. You are also a stupid, arrogant,
> lying troll. Scum, basically.
Yet here you are, day after day, corresponding with Scum? What does that
make you?
Kier
He's a ghastly little tit. He's so stupid at times I wonder he can tie his
own shoelaces.
--
Kier
Kier
> Kier wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 18:30:34 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>
>>> Isn't he? Seems like every other cola nut is talking spouse, SO,
>>> partner, etc, using sexually neutral language intended to obfuscate
>>> that fact.
>>
>> Sorry? WTF? William has mentioned his partner a number of times
>> before, and I had not difficulty in discerning he meant his
>> wife/girlfriend/spouse. This isn't the first time you've been too
>> stupid to work it out, either.
>
> Unless he used gender-specific terms, it's impossible for you to have
> discerned anything. So, either you're lying, or he previously said
> wife/girlfriend. Which?
I'm not lying, and I have brains enough to tell when someone means their
female partner. You evidently have not. You couldn't even figure out he
meant his life-partner, not his business partner, the first time you make
that error. What an idiot!
>>>> And you call *him* stupid...
>>>
>>> He is.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
> Read his posts.
That's proof? Ahhahahhahahhahah!
>
>>>> <snip insulting nonsense>
>>>
>>> Why didn't you snip his insulting nonsense, hypocrite?
>>
>> No one could day anything bad enough about you to insult you - you
>> have zero decency or credibility,
>
> You sure do expend a lot of energy responding to and trying to dispel my
> credibility. Why?
What credibiltiy? I slap a troll around, that's what I do to you.
>
>> and you are a disgusting and unrepentant racist,
>
> We still haven't heard about all the diversity in your family, your friends,
> your doctors, etc. C'mon Kier.
What does my doctor have to do with this? FYI, the last doctor I saw was
an Asian. This is some kind of big deal to you?
>
>> so pretty much anything you are called is likely
>> to be too good for what you are. You are also a stupid, arrogant,
>> lying troll. Scum, basically.
>
> Yet here you are, day after day, corresponding with Scum? What does that
> make you?
Someone who smacks scumbags around for kicks.
You did once seem to have some merit as an opponant. But anyone so racist,
and so proud of it, is worthless, IMO. You continue to repeat your lies
about Linux, so I'll continue to slap your ugly trolling face for you.
--
Kier
TheLetterK
> TheLetterK wrote:
>
>>DFS wrote:
>
>
>>>See who displaced them? When people had a choice between Windows on
>>>PCs and Macs, they overwhelmingly chose Windows PCs.
>>
>>For a variety of reasons, that had little to do with technical
>>superiority or sanity.
>
>
> I can't disagree that a company switching to Linux/OSS could be labeled
> "insane."
towards Linux... It does require the user to read quite a bit, and since
you appear to be lacking such a critical skill...
>
>
>
>
>>> When people have a choice
>>>between Windows and Linux, they overwhelmingly choose Windows.
>>
>>Right now, yes. Mostly because GNU/Linux lacks commercial support.
>>However, when there are more GNU/Linux users than Mac users (~2008
>>with current trends)... that situation will likely change.
>
>
> I doubt it, very much. The same predictions have been made about Linux for
> 5 years, at least.
Most of the sane estimates I've seen have been putting Linux hitting
critical mass at around 2008 (give or take a year). However, I've only
been paying attention for the last 5 years.
>
>
>
>
>>>Linus Torvalds said much the same thing, along the lines of "you
>>>can't sanely compete with open source"
>>>
>>>I just don't agree. All MS has to do to completely decimate Linux
>>>is drop their prices across the board by 50%.
>>
>>It'll still be more epxnsive, and Microsoft would lose money in the
>>process. Microsoft only survives on the insane margins of Windows and
>>Office.
>
>
> Which means they can drop prices and easily survive on the mildly insane
> prices.
They can't drop it 90%, which is what it would take.
> Sure it will be a smaller company, but it will still rule the
> desktop, and I think it would totally decimate Linux/OSS adoption.
I don't think so. Their product is inferior, and they would no longer be
able to sustain their strongarm tactics with such a price war going on.
Without their their monopoly would collapse. They cannot survive without
the insane margins they take in off those two products, and only because
they're sold in conjunction. Remove any of these elements and you'll see
Microsoft be reduced to an Apple-like state in 3 or 4 years.
>
>
>
>
>>> Windows effectively costs nothing
>>>already, if you buy pre-built systems (that is, the cost for me to
>>>buy hardware components and add Windows is about the same).
>>
>>Incorrect. It drives up the cost about $50.
>
>
> Like I said, buying the components and Windows separately costs about the
> same as buying a prebuilt machine with Windows already installed. Probably
> a little more, actually.
At $500, yes. At $800 it's cheaper to build it yourself. A lot cheaper.
>
>
>
>
>>Linux in the same
>>situation would be about $15 or $20.
>
>
> Linux in the same situation is $90 at this company:
>
> http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=M&Product_Code=80307&Category_Code=furiacustomworkstations
Linux isn't in the same situation at all. These companies don't move
anyhwere near the volume that Microsoft does. If Linux were in the
position Microsoft is in right now (E.G 'in the same situation') the
cost would be around $15 or $20. Are you capable of analysing data in
the context it's presented? Or so you just think "Ungh; see cheep, cheep
bad!"
>
>
>
>
>>> Office Pro at $150
>>>will stop OO dead in its tracks.
>>
>>$150 a seat, or $0 a seat. Hmm, I wonder which is cheaper?
>
>
> It's not price that matters, it's sales and adoption. MS Office Pro at $300
> is a huge seller. OO at $0 is not.
Which has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Nothing seems to support
your assertion that 'OpenOffice will never compete with Microsoft
Office'. There are two primary reasons companies still use Microsoft
Office. The first reason is: They have it already, and it works well
enough. The second reason is: Everyone else already has it, so we should
too. There's no technical reason for it. It's horribly expensive
compared with OOo, and offers nothing for it. It's this corporate mob
mindset that keeps Microsoft Office dominant. However, this *is*
changing. Companies *are* looking at it, and some are even making the
jump. Today. When *enough* companies are willing to make this leap,
there will be enough 'mindshare support' for the second reason (and
since you have trouble with reading comprehension, that means 'second
reason to use Microsoft Office') to no longer be valid. This is what is
known as 'critical mass' when using the term in relation to computing
platforms/products.
>
>
>
>
>>>The fact that you imagine this means you probably never built VB or
>>>Access programs,
>>
>>I've worked a little with VB Express. I've never felt compelled to pay
>>Microsoft's insane costs for such garbage. Why pay a lot more to limit
>>myself to one platform, for a language with no appreciable benefits?
>
>
> The problem with your arguments is:
>
> 1) it's not garbage
In your opinion. Mine differs.
> 2) the one platform is "the one platform"
No it's not. I use two others on a daily basis. Up until recently I was
using them more often than I did 'the one platform'. Once I get a
wireless bridge, I'll be using 'th eother platforms' more often than I
do 'the one platform', because they're much better.
> 3) the appreciable benefits are numerous, but you have to learn that
> yourself.
Like what? I can't think of any. Being fully cross-platform is a lot
more important than such miniscule time savings.
>
>
>
>
>>>and don't understand the amount of productivity you gain by the
>>>ability to, say, drop a db connection component on a form, connect
>>>it, and run it to be able to see and update data. It takes about 2
>>>minutes!
>>
>>I don't see how it makes a difference. We're talking about 10 minutes
>>instead of '2' (and I seriously doubt you can do it in two minutes).
>
>
> Less than 2 minutes, if you know what you're doing (and have a datasource
> already available, of course). It's just a barebone system-layout form that
> shows data, but you got there fast.
And it's less than 10 if you know what your doing with python. That's
was a very conservative estimate.
>
>
>
>
>>Python is every bit as capable as VB is, and cross-platfom.
>
>
> Python the language may be capable, but Python the environment is nowhere
> near the development system VB.Net (or previous versions) is.
In your opinion. I seriously disagree.
>
>
>
>
>>Let's not forget the most important part--free.
>
>
> Thanks for admitting it. Most cola nuts deny this.
Yes, price is a huge part of what platform companies choose to use for
their products.
>
>
>
>
>>But, of course, wintrolls will always ignore OSS options that do what
>>they're asking.
>
>
> When the open source world creates a good VB replacement, come back to the
> party. Gambas isn't it.
But Python is a very capable RAD language ('VB replacement'). Fast, easy
to work with, and extensible as all hell.
>
>
>
>
>>>>>But nobody is using it (nobody = few in case you want to get
>>>>>pedantic on me).
>>>>
>>>>Flew right over your head didn't it? In 25 years, people will say
>>>>the same thing of MS Office.
>>>
>>>You keep repeating yourself.
>>
>>I'm reassuring myself with adoption statistics.
>
>
> You're going to need a lot of patience.
Not really. I'm using OOo today, and don't plan on going back to
Microsoft Office.
>
>
>
>
>>>Various versions of OO have been around for years.
>>
>>And gaining in popularity ever since release, at an increasing rate.
>>
>>
>>> It's going nowhere fast.
>>
>>If by 'nowhere' you mean 'being seriously evaluated by a huge number
>>of large enterprises as an alternative to MS Office'.
>
>
> The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
An 'Hell' is using Microsoft products in place of their cheaper and
superior alternatives.
>
>
>
>
>
>>Companies *hate* Microsoft Office. They use it
>>only because almost everyone else does.
>
>
> Lie.
How do you figure? They don't like dropping several hundred dollars a
seat for basic functionality. Neither do they enjoy Microsoft's
strongarm tactics used to lock them into it.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>OO is never going to replace MS Office. Never. MS Office is too
>>>good, too big, and too entrenched.
>>
>>As we've been saying throught this subthread--people said that about
>>so many other dead products, it would make your head spin.
>
>
> But none of the other products were MS\Office.
WordStar and WordPerfect were both as entrenched as Microsoft Office is
today. See where they are now?
>
>
>
>
>
>>>True, they might have lost a few percent desktop marketshare over
>>>the last 6 or 8 years, but where else but down are they going to go
>>>from 96% share?
>>
>>You see my point? If they ever drop to 85% or so, thier monopoly will
>>collapse.
>
>
> 85% sounds like a monopoly to me.
At that point there will be enough support for alternatives to crumble
their domination of the corporate mindshare.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>>They weren't one tenth of one percent the organization MS is.
>>>>
>>>>DEC was, in their time.
>>>
>>>
>>>You need to read up on the breadth of products and markets MS sells
>>>and serves.
>>
>>You need to stop forgetting the times.
>
>
> I had forgotten how big they were - 100,000 employees at one point. And
> innovative: they created AltaVista, the first 'Net search engine I ever
> used. They were even the primary sponsor of what became the X Window
> system.
>
>
>
>
>>DEC was a lot like IBM was, selling everything.
>
>
> Yes, they did eventually sell everything: their employees and their
> business.
>
> They were no MS.
They were bigger. And actually produced a decent product.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>Linux can be cheaper, and does offer greater flexibility. The issue
>>>is, is it worth the cost to migrate? So far, no.
>
>
>>To many companies it is.
>
>
> Many? Can you name five? How about three?
IBM, Amazon, Novell, Autozone, Daimler-Chrylser...
>
> And installing 10 servers doesn't count. You said migrate, which implies
> desktop migration as well.
>
>
>
>>Last upgrade cycle, a large number of
>>companies examined it very closely. We'll see when it comes time
>>again. I think Microsoft is making a strategic error with Longhorn.
>>It'll require companies to upgrade their hardware.
>
>
> I think hardware upgrades won't be a requirement - they will be an option.
Well, I did assume these companies would like a graphical user interface
on their desktops--and for Longhorn to actually *install*. I might be
mistaken in this assumption, but it seemed reasonable to me.
>
>
>
>
>>Linux won't. Linux
>>has had a lower TCO for years now, but initial cost scares a lot of
>>customers away. This will greatly mask the cost of transition.
>
>
> You're saying 2008 is when a confluence of events - a critical mass of
> adoption and market share and commercial support - will propel Linux to sky
> high usage?
No, I'm thinking adoption rates will skyrocket. It'll take several years
after that for the userbase to switch over. But it will be the point
where Microsoft will no longer hold a monopoly.
>
> Hopefully by then Munich will have finished installing 14,000 Linux seats.
They initially planned to have the migration done by *2006*, it was
never supposed to be instant. Because of the software patent snafu,
we're probably going to see it done in 2007.
>
>
>
TuxSux
> Furthermore it shows how hypocritical he is & lying too, because
> didn't he say he'd killfiled people using the 'begin' bug?
Actually, he's showing what a waste of oxygen you are for using the "begin"
bug, which has been patched.
TuxSux
>--
>The troll proves how dumb he is with every post.
Poser changes sigs.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
GreyCloud
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 20:53:24 -0600,
> GreyCloud <cum...@mist.com> wrote:
> > Jim Richardson wrote:
> >>
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 21:59:04 -0600,
> >> GreyCloud <cum...@mist.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > A book titled "Indian Givers" is a very good read as well.
> >> > While reading the book, it mentioned that the South american
> >> > indians were experts at plant husbandry. There are over
> >> > 24,000 varieties of potatoes and this country only uses
> >> > about 5 or 6 of those varieties. The american indians were
> >> > quite adept at medicine as well. If it weren't for their
> >> > help, most of those with scurvy would have died.
> >> >
> >>
> >> bullshit. Scurvy has a simple cure, and it's almost impossible to get
> >> unless you are at sea for months, living on a diet of salted meat and
> >> weevilly biscuits. Pretty much any green plant you can eat, will knock
> >> of scurvy.
> >
> > Your grasp of history is alarmingly dim.
> >
> > Go read a history book. The british sailors that had
> > arrived on the eastern seaboard of america
> > had scurvy. The american indians had shown them that by
> > making tea from pine needles solved the problem.
>
> and many other things will also solve the problem, including,
> surprisingly enough, limes...
>
> > And it took a couple of months to get here on sailing ships
> > from England.
>
> It takes about 5 months of vitimin C deficiency for scurvy to be a
> problem. Scurvy is nasty, and yes, spruce needles contain enough ascorbic
> acid to cure it, but you'd better not boil them in water, as the boiling
> will quickly break down the ascorbic acid.
>
> The incident you are referring to was probably a voyage to Newfoundland
> by a Jacques Cartier,
>
> Other good sources of ascorbic acid are leafy green vegetables, and of
> course, citrus fruits.
Yes.
And scurvy was a problem for most of those that were
seafaring. They stayed in port long enough to unload and
load cargo and then they were off again. The symptoms were
loose teeth that eventually fell out.
Finally, they wised up and started carrying limes with
them. They didn't call them limeys for nothing.
GreyCloud
>
> begin trojan.vbs It was on Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:11:28 -0700, that Jim
> very badly from scurvy. Fruits & vegetables weren't come by easily, & so
> the Navy carried limes to combat scurvy. However they took up a lot of
> valauble room, & thus the Royal Navy later prescribed lime *juice* for all
> sailors to help ward off scurvy. The term "limey" eventually lost it's
> original context & became a term applied to all UK people, whether sailors
> or landlubbers. As to whether it's used as an insult, depends on whom you
> ask...
>
I do have a question about the early british Navy tho:?
How much was the allotted Rum per day per sailor??
I've heard stories but haven't bothered to look it up.
William Poaster
wrote:
They probably don't allow him to have shoelaces at "home".
amosf
Projecting? I don't really care what someone's sexual preferences are.
William Poaster
wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:04:32 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> Kier wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 18:30:34 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Isn't he? Seems like every other cola nut is talking spouse, SO,
>>>> partner, etc, using sexually neutral language intended to obfuscate
>>>> that fact.
>>>
>>> Sorry? WTF? William has mentioned his partner a number of times
>>> before, and I had not difficulty in discerning he meant his
>>> wife/girlfriend/spouse.
Quite right.
>>>This isn't the first time you've been too stupid to work it out, either.
I saw that in replies to him, & I wasn't going to bother correcting the
ignorant prat.
>> Unless he used gender-specific terms, it's impossible for you to have
>> discerned anything. So, either you're lying, or he previously said
>> wife/girlfriend. Which?
>
> I'm not lying, and I have brains enough to tell when someone means their
> female partner. You evidently have not. You couldn't even figure out he
> meant his life-partner, not his business partner, the first time you make
> that error. What an idiot!
He hasn't got the first frigging clue, & doesn't understand english.
>>>>> And you call *him* stupid...
>>>>
>>>> He is.
>>>
>>> Prove it.
>>
>> Read his posts.
>
> That's proof? Ahhahahhahahhahah!
Boy, how lame can he get...<shaking head>
>>>>> <snip insulting nonsense>
>>>>
>>>> Why didn't you snip his insulting nonsense, hypocrite?
Him, calling someone hypocrite! When he "claimed" to have killfiled people
using the 'begin' bug.
>>> No one could day anything bad enough about you to insult you - you
>>> have zero decency or credibility,
>>
>> You sure do expend a lot of energy responding to and trying to dispel my
>> credibility.
Jeez, he thinks he's still got credibility? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA....etc.
>> Why?
>
> What credibiltiy? I slap a troll around, that's what I do to you.
Funny how he plays the innocent...sheesh.
<snip>
William Poaster
GreyCloud wrote:
A tot of rum per day. A standard naval tot of rum consisted of an eighth
of a pint of rum. Once a rating reached the age of twenty he was entitled
to draw his tot. Senior Rates were entitled to drink this neat, however
Junior Rates had "2 in 1" which meant that it was mixed with two parts
water to one part rum. The reason for this was so that the rum could not
be stored and saved for another day.
The practice was stopped in 1970.
DFS
>> DFS/doS dribbling again? Shows how ignorant & stupid he his.
>> Furthermore it shows how hypocritical he is & lying too, because
>> didn't he say he'd killfiled people using the 'begin' bug?
I do, fool. All of them - in OE.
Did you not notice my response was to a Gidget reply?
Kelsey Bjarnason
DFS wrote:
>> You do know what the phrase 'significant other' means in this context,
>> don't you? In William's case, it means his lady - wife/girlfriend -
>> spouse - as in member of the opposite sex. Unless you are trying to
>> suggest William is gay.
>
> Isn't he? Seems like every other cola nut is talking spouse, SO, partner,
> etc, using sexually neutral language intended to obfuscate that fact.
Assuming he *is* in fact gay... so freakin' what? Are you looking for a
date with him? If not, then what possible concern is it to *you* whether
he's gay, straight, or bent?
DFS
Don't make me go and find examples of your hypocrisy on this issue, too...
I'm quite sure I can.
Besides which, what concern of it is yours if I am looking for a date, or if
I just want to know?