The Jury is in on Linux
rapskat
says BMC Software worldwide chief Bob Beauchamp. His company now rates Red
Hat a "tier one" operating system, meaning that it considers it obligatory
to provide the latest versions of all its products for the platform.
"A few years ago, we said we were 'watching' Linux's evolution," he says.
"Now the jury is in. There are so many CIOs (internationally) committed to
it in mission-critical applications."
http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;548290221;fp;2;fpid;1
The momentum of the Linux movement has achieved terminal velocity. There's
no stopping it now!
--
rapskat - 00:33:54 up 1 day, 6:53, 4 users, load average: 0.06, 0.03, 0.07
October. This is one of the peculiarly dangerous months to speculate in
stocks in. The others are July, January, September, April, November, May,
March, June, December, August, and February.
-- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"
Freeride
> The momentum of the Linux movement has achieved terminal velocity. There's
> no stopping it now!
Mafia$oft's IP, their puppet SCO are trying and their pet dog Sun are trying
their hardest.
Ralph
> "Linux is "going to become more and more important for the enterprise",
> says BMC Software worldwide chief Bob Beauchamp. His company now rates Red
> Hat a "tier one" operating system, meaning that it considers it obligatory
> to provide the latest versions of all its products for the platform.
>
> "A few years ago, we said we were 'watching' Linux's evolution," he says.
> "Now the jury is in. There are so many CIOs (internationally) committed to
> it in mission-critical applications."
>
> http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;548290221;fp;2;fpid;1
>
> The momentum of the Linux movement has achieved terminal velocity. There's
> no stopping it now!
>
Has there ever been any "stopping it"? Who was it that said "Linux is
inevitable"?
Linønut
> http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;548290221;fp;2;fpid;1
>
> The momentum of the Linux movement has achieved terminal velocity. There's
> no stopping it now!
http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,97618,00.html?nas=LIN-97618
Linux Unchained
Linux use is growing faster than the talent pool needed to support it.
Here's how IT managers see the problem and what they're doing about it.
Better start working on upgrading your resumes!
Of course, the article quotes the Yankee Group (with head idiot Laura
Didiot) to indicate that this makes Linux more expensive.
Can't win an argument with an idiot. First Linux is too unprofessional and
chintzy, then it's too professional and costly. Yeesh.
Hmmmm:
Agronow says he hasn't had any trouble finding staffers with Linux
skills, but those with both Linux expertise and Windows skills are rare.
"Most people aren't as broad as that," he says.
Maybe I should start scouting out my local area <grin>.
--
Tux: "If you bought a computer with Windows, sorry, you paid too much!"
Ballmer: "We need to get paid!"
billwg
"Ralph" <not...@doing.com> wrote in message
news:t5OdnVODfIS...@rcn.net...
mlw
>
> Agronow says he hasn't had any trouble finding staffers with Linux
> skills, but those with both Linux expertise and Windows skills are
> rare. "Most people aren't as broad as that," he says.
>
> Maybe I should start scouting out my local area <grin>.
*Every* qualified guy I know, knows Linux.
Roy Culley
"billwg" <bi...@twcf.rr.com> writes:
>
> Just look how far they've gone in just 12 years! LOL!!! LameUX.
It is amazing isn't it. From a such a tiny beginning Linux and OSS now
provide a more secure, scalable, stable, maintainable platform than
anything MS has to offer. Linux runs on the smallest embedded devices
to the fastest super computers in the world and just about everything
inbetween. Linux runs on most if not all processors in current use.
It is amazing just how far Linux has left MS behind. If it wasn't for
MS's illegally maintained monopoly they would be in a rapid decline
already. Not a rosy outlook for MS.
DFS
<snip>
> The momentum of the Linux movement has achieved terminal velocity.
> There's no stopping it now!
I like your enthusiasm, rapskat, however misplaced it is.
John Bailo
> It is amazing just how far Linux has left MS behind. If it wasn't for
> MS's illegally maintained monopoly they would be in a rapid decline
> already. Not a rosy outlook for MS.
Have you noticed how the m$ troll activity has declined ?
I think they realized they are a 75 year old runner, being chased by a 22
year old...and they've been over taken.
But as I keep saying: Microsoft died in 1995. The day the Internet became
the Killer Application.
M$ still can't do the Internet right.
The most used piece of software in the world is the Browser.
And yet Netscape continues to Clean Their Clocks with Firefox.
XP has one job: run Firefox.
It can't do it.
"XP, YOU'RE FIRED"
Lou Dobbs
I don't believe imaginary friends count, sparky.
billwg
"John Bailo" <jab...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:seJod.1962$NU3...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> But as I keep saying: Microsoft died in 1995. The day the Internet became
> the Killer Application.
>
You might note that Mr. Softee is larger at the end of 2004 than it was at
the beginning. And larger at the beginning of 2004 than it was at the
beginning of 2003. And so on back to the day Bill Gates and his friends had
the bright idea of founding a compnay.
> M$ still can't do the Internet right.
>
> The most used piece of software in the world is the Browser.
>
Poetic, but not really accurate. The most used piece of software in the
world is the Windows OS platform, in various flavors. Tens of millions of
Windows PCs are not even hooked to the internet and slave away in isolation
or as part of intranets running proprietary client server software.
> And yet Netscape continues to Clean Their Clocks with Firefox.
>
I thought Firefox was a Mozilla product. Weren't most of the Netscape folk
let go recently?
billwg
news:pan.2004.11.23....@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx:
> begin It was on or about Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:28:34 +0000, that billwg
> wrote:
>
>> Just look how far they've gone in just 12 years! LOL!!! LameUX.
>
> Yes, 64bit computing etc.. But how about Windwoes? Can you read this, or
> do you still have to jump through hoops because of the 'begin ' bug...
>
What is the "begin" bug?
Philip Callan
Only affects OE.
http://insideoe.tomsterdam.com/problems/bugs.htm#beginattach
Or for the official explanation:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=265230
[The body of the message starts with the word "begin" followed by two
spaces. This sequence of characters is identical to that of the header
for a file attachment that is encoded in UUencode format. For this
reason, the message is incorrectly interpreted as an encoded attachment.]
It is not 'identical' because a PROPERLY UUencoded attachment has more
information, specifically a mode, and a filename, and ends with the word
'end' on a line by itself.
For example a text file with just this line in it:
53.3° N 113.6° W
Becomes this when UUencoded :
Even OE should pick this one up, its not at the top :)
John Bailo
> Poetic, but not really accurate. The most used piece of software in the
> world is the Windows OS platform, in various flavors.
Correspondence does not imply causality as they say in science.
What people want is access to the Internet via a browser or cell phone or
other nodes.
What Firefox has shown is that there is natural selection for whatever gives
the fastest and best access to E-Bay.
Windos is a vestige, like the appendix, that is not subject to selective
pressure...it simply runs the browser.
At the point, which happened in 2002, where Windos becomes a burden to using
the browser - it will be replaced. As it is now.
Jesse F. Hughes
Microsoft Outlook decides that any line beginning with the string
"begin " (without the quotes) is the beginning of an attachment.
This makes the remainder of the post utterly unreadable.
It is a stupid assumption. Just another case of trying to make their
programs clever and failing miserably.
--
"So, at this time, I'd like to assure you that I am not interested in
making sure mathematicians worldwide get fired."--JSH Apr 28, 2003
"I'll have prosecutors knocking on your doors. I have no problem with
any number of mathematicians spending time in jail."--JSH Jun 10, 2003
billwg
> billwg wrote:
>
>> Poetic, but not really accurate. The most used piece of software in the
>> world is the Windows OS platform, in various flavors.
>
> Correspondence does not imply causality as they say in science.
>
> What people want is access to the Internet via a browser or cell phone or
> other nodes.
>
What is it about a browser that makes it so important to the user? The user
wants the information and/or the functionality of the data connectivity.
The user wants the music, the video, the scheduling of a service or the
ordering of merchandise, or the display of the information that is being
sought. That is just as satisfactorily presented in a conventional UI as in
a GP browser. Most people would prefer a focused, single purpose program,
say a connection to eBay that was marked "MyEBay" or such and did all the
things that one does with searching and bidding and checking without having
to first connect to eBay and click around the site.
> What Firefox has shown is that there is natural selection for whatever
> gives
> the fastest and best access to E-Bay.
>
I downloaded a copy of Firefox as soon as it was available and I can say
that it is a fully competent browser and I do not see anything particularly
wrong with it, but it doesn't do anything that is particularly charming
either. It makes the Mozilla products work the same as IE as far as I can
see. Whatever do you think will cause the legions of developers needed to
keep it up to date to spend their time and effort in keeping it current,
given that it took so long for them to get up to snuff? I know that the OSS
community seems to have such undying faith in the notion of infinitely
benevolent developers contributing tirelessly to the betterment of mankind,
as long as they lock it with the GPL, but such a thing has never stood the
test of time.
There appears to be no overt effort to promulgate Firefox to the masses,
either. Once the gearheads get a copy, who's gonna get the real people to
go to the trouble to mess with what doesn't seem to be broken?
> Windos is a vestige, like the appendix, that is not subject to selective
> pressure...it simply runs the browser.
>
A rather minimalistic view of personal computing, to be sure, and one
inconsistent with a rosy future for linux. The plethora of web forms and
connectivity to web services supported so effortlessly via the .NET
technologies would seem to validate Mr. Bill's reliance on the .NET
revolutions in new versions of Windows as being the engine that will keep
Microsoft at the top of the pyramid for the foreseeable future. What does
linux do with or without Firefox to counter that?
> At the point, which happened in 2002, where Windos becomes a burden to
> using
> the browser - it will be replaced. As it is now.
>
Consistency definitely is not your strong suit, eh? You originally asserted
1995 as the start of some demise of Microsoft. Is this a change in your
findings?
>
> --
> http://www.texeme.com
>
billwg
> begin It was on or about Wed, 24 Nov 2004 04:06:39 +0000, that billwg
> So you don't even know how to use Google either! Sad little wannabe
> troll.
>
Well, I do, sort of, and did find the information that others were so
kind to post without being so snotty. I find it curious that you would
go to the trouble to make all of your posts in a form intended to make
it not possible to be read by the most commonly used news readers. How
do you view that?
If you want to make an incisive comment to the folk who are motivated to
argue with you, why do you think it is an intelligent thing to do to
make your comments unreadable? I think you need some counseling.
LOL!!!
John Bailo
>>Correspondence does not imply causality as they say in science.
>>
> Oblique and mysterious, to be sure! Whatever does that actually mean?
It means that two things which appear together, ( correspondence ) does
not imply that one is linked or the result of the other ( causality ).
The fact that the most popular browser (IE) runs on the most popular OS
(Windows) does not mean that Windows is a requirement for the browser.
Firefox proves that the browser (IE) with all its OS /couplings/ can be
swapped out. One can then infer, that if the OS couplings are not
necessary, and the public will adopt a pure, standalone browser -- that
it is the *browser* not the OS-coupling that is most important.
Hence, the OS can potentially be swapped out -- if it improves or
enhances the services provided by the browser ( such as security and
stability, which Linux provides ).
> What is it about a browser that makes it so important to the user? The user
> wants the information and/or the functionality of the data connectivity.
> The user wants the music, the video, the scheduling of a service or the
> ordering of merchandise, or the display of the information that is being
> sought. That is just as satisfactorily presented in a conventional UI as in
> a GP browser. Most people would prefer a focused, single purpose program,
> say a connection to eBay that was marked "MyEBay" or such and did all the
> things that one does with searching and bidding and checking without having
> to first connect to eBay and click around the site.
Here I think the cell phone, PDA design is better adapted to what the
user /wants/
> I downloaded a copy of Firefox as soon as it was available and I can say
> that it is a fully competent browser and I do not see anything particularly
> wrong with it, but it doesn't do anything that is particularly charming
> either. It makes the Mozilla products work the same as IE as far as I can
> see. Whatever do you think will cause the legions of developers needed to
> keep it up to date to spend their time and effort in keeping it current,
> given that it took so long for them to get up to snuff? I know that the OSS
> community seems to have such undying faith in the notion of infinitely
> benevolent developers contributing tirelessly to the betterment of mankind,
> as long as they lock it with the GPL, but such a thing has never stood the
> test of time.
Ok, but you miss the point. Firefox is /less/ than IE. The legions of
developers are not client developers -- but SERVER developers who build
the Yahoo, Amazon and Googles of the world. They are far better served
by a standard, plain vanilla browser that does Intenet standards well
and fast, then by a M$ blunderbus that corrupts web pages, doesn't
follow standards, introduces unneeded complexity ( ActiveX ), subverts
real standards ( Java, XML, CSS ), causes security problems -- and so on.
Peter Köhlmann
> William Poaster <will...@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx> wrote in
> news:pan.2004.11.24....@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx:
>
>> begin It was on or about Wed, 24 Nov 2004 04:06:39 +0000, that billwg
>> wrote:
>>
>>> William Poaster <will...@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx> wrote in
>>> news:pan.2004.11.23....@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx:
>>>
>>>> begin It was on or about Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:28:34 +0000, that
>>>> billwg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just look how far they've gone in just 12 years! LOL!!! LameUX.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, 64bit computing etc.. But how about Windwoes? Can you read
>>>> this, or do you still have to jump through hoops because of the
>>>> 'begin ' bug...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> What is the "begin" bug?
>>
>> So you don't even know how to use Google either! Sad little wannabe
>> troll.
>>
>
> Well, I do, sort of, and did find the information that others were so
> kind to post without being so snotty. I find it curious that you would
> go to the trouble to make all of your posts in a form intended to make
> it not possible to be read by the most commonly used news readers. How
> do you view that?
>
Oh, no trouble at all. It is inserted /automatically/ by my newsreader
> If you want to make an incisive comment to the folk who are motivated to
> argue with you, why do you think it is an intelligent thing to do to
> make your comments unreadable? I think you need some counseling.
> LOL!!!
How do you come to the conclusion that it actually would be desirable to
argue with a stupid twit like you?
--
"Last I checked, it wasn't the power cord for the Clue Generator that
was sticking up your ass." - John Novak, rasfwrj
billwg
news:co2lvl$dpl$02$1...@news.t-online.com:
<snip>
>
>> If you want to make an incisive comment to the folk who are motivated to
>> argue with you, why do you think it is an intelligent thing to do to
>> make your comments unreadable? I think you need some counseling.
>> LOL!!!
>
> How do you come to the conclusion that it actually would be desirable to
> argue with a stupid twit like you?
Try to stay with me here, Pete. If you go to the effort to reply, it is
almost certain that you are expecting your reply to be read and your ever-
so-cool comments duly noted for their high zinger coefficient! But you hid
your comments from view with a mechanism that you fully expect to foil the
most commonly used mail readers. So you take some pride in being a member
of some inner circle of pork-pullers who are in on the joke? Kind of lame
in the real world, wouldn't you agree?
billwg
> begin It was on or about Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:38:16 +0000, that billwg
> wrote:
>
>> William Poaster <will...@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx> wrote in
>> news:pan.2004.11.24....@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx:
>>
>>> begin It was on or about Wed, 24 Nov 2004 04:06:39 +0000, that
>>> billwg wrote:
>>>
>>>> William Poaster <will...@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx> wrote in
>>>> news:pan.2004.11.23....@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx:
>>>>
>>>>> begin It was on or about Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:28:34 +0000, that
>>>>> billwg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just look how far they've gone in just 12 years! LOL!!! LameUX.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, 64bit computing etc.. But how about Windwoes? Can you read
>>>>> this, or do you still have to jump through hoops because of the
>>>>> 'begin ' bug...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> What is the "begin" bug?
>>>
>>> So you don't even know how to use Google either! Sad little wannabe
>>> troll.
>>>
>>>
>> Well, I do, sort of, and did find the information that others were so
>> kind to post without being so snotty. I find it curious that you
>> would go to the trouble to make all of your posts in a form intended
>> to make it not possible to be read by the most commonly used news
>> readers. How do you view that?
>
> Wrong, *most* commonly used newsreaders *can* read my posts, *except*
> for Outhosed Excess that is. Besides, I'm not the only person that
> does it!
>
>> If you want to make an incisive comment to the folk who are motivated
>> to argue with you, why do you think it is an intelligent thing to do
>> to make your comments unreadable?
>
> Only to idiot trolls using Outhosed Excess.
>
>> I think you need some counseling. LOL!!!
>
> You *think*? Does it hurt? Seems like you need a new spellchecker
> too...
>
Can you point to any misspelled words?
The Ghost In The Machine
<je...@phiwumbda.org>
wrote
on Wed, 24 Nov 2004 10:41:51 +0100
<871xejp...@phiwumbda.org>:
> billwg <bil...@twcf.rr.com> writes:
>
>> William Poaster <will...@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx> wrote in
>> news:pan.2004.11.23....@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx:
>>
>>> begin It was on or about Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:28:34 +0000, that billwg
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just look how far they've gone in just 12 years! LOL!!! LameUX.
>>>
>>> Yes, 64bit computing etc.. But how about Windwoes? Can you read this, or
>>> do you still have to jump through hoops because of the 'begin ' bug...
>>>
>>
>> What is the "begin" bug?
>
> Microsoft Outlook decides that any line beginning with the string
> "begin " (without the quotes) is the beginning of an attachment.
> This makes the remainder of the post utterly unreadable.
Until the "end", presumably. (If there is one.)
>
> It is a stupid assumption. Just another case of trying to make their
> programs clever and failing miserably.
>
It's even more braindead since they could have at least tried
to parse an octal number after the first space.
The proper method (if one can call it such; uuencode is not
standard, merely widely used) of structuring "begin" is along
the lines of:
begin 600 testit.txt
M5&AI<R!I<R!O;FQY(&$@=&5S="X@($AA9"!T:&ES(&)E96X@86X@86-T=6%L
M('9I<G5S("@N4T-2(&9I;&4I+`IY;W5R(%=I;F1O=W,@;6%C:&EN92!W;W5L
<9"!H879E('1R:65D('1O(&5X96-U=&4@:70N"@``
`
end
where '600' is the Unix permissions (in octal) and every line but
the last begins with an 'M' (the first byte indicates the length
of the line, though I forget the details). I've indented it here
to make it (hopefully) more visible.
MIME-encoding is far more flexible so uuencoding is probably not
used all that often anymore. Then again, I've not been in the
alt.sex.binaries hierarchy lately... :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Philip Callan
> this is *.advocacy, get used to it. Along with the windiot foamers, we
> have some who like to poke them with sticks.
> wield stick
You wield a stick firmly with both hands.
> kill troll
The stick breaks into slivers upon striking the troll's stone-like skull.
Damn.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:38:16 GMT,
billwg <bil...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
> William Poaster <will...@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx> wrote in
> news:pan.2004.11.24....@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx:
>
>> begin It was on or about Wed, 24 Nov 2004 04:06:39 +0000, that billwg
>> wrote:
>>
>>> William Poaster <will...@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx> wrote in
>>> news:pan.2004.11.23....@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx:
>>>
>>>> begin It was on or about Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:28:34 +0000, that
>>>> billwg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just look how far they've gone in just 12 years! LOL!!! LameUX.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, 64bit computing etc.. But how about Windwoes? Can you read
>>>> this, or do you still have to jump through hoops because of the
>>>> 'begin ' bug...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> What is the "begin" bug?
>>
>> So you don't even know how to use Google either! Sad little wannabe
>> troll.
>>
>
> Well, I do, sort of, and did find the information that others were so
> kind to post without being so snotty. I find it curious that you would
> go to the trouble to make all of your posts in a form intended to make
> it not possible to be read by the most commonly used news readers. How
> do you view that?
>
"most commonly used news readers" have no problem with the post. Only
one does. It sucks for other reasons as well.
> If you want to make an incisive comment to the folk who are motivated to
> argue with you, why do you think it is an intelligent thing to do to
> make your comments unreadable? I think you need some counseling.
> LOL!!!
this is *.advocacy, get used to it. Along with the windiot foamers, we
have some who like to poke them with sticks.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBpOUtd90bcYOAWPYRApKaAJ9ernuZJIKxKfp1om2AZvQ7ZC+Y2wCghLVg
WB5Jgg3Agb2cL6XCeFXFFaA=
=lVvR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Your present plans will be successful.
Sinister Midget
> begin It was on or about Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:08:13 +0100, that Peter
> Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> begin billwg wrote:
>>> Well, I do, sort of, and did find the information that others were so
>>> kind to post without being so snotty. I find it curious that you would
>>> go to the trouble to make all of your posts in a form intended to make
>>> it not possible to be read by the most commonly used news readers. How
>>> do you view that?
>>>
>>>
>> Oh, no trouble at all. It is inserted /automatically/ by my newsreader
>
> possible to be read by the most commonly used news readers."
>
>
><snip>
I'll start the list for him:
1. Outhouse Excess
2.
Fill it in from there, BWG. If you need more, which I doubt you will,
just numbers, ask. I have several more laying around.
A local store had a pre-Thanksgiving sale on them. So I picked up about
a cotillion cotillion.
--
Linux: Because life is too short to spend it rebooting.
B Gruff
>
> Try to stay with me here, Pete. If you go to the effort to reply,
> it is almost certain that you are expecting your reply to be read
> and your ever- so-cool comments duly noted for their high zinger
> coefficient! But you hid your comments from view with a mechanism
> that you fully expect to foil the most commonly used mail readers.
> So you take some pride in being a member of some inner circle of
> pork-pullers who are in on the joke? Kind of lame in the real
> world, wouldn't you agree?
Whether it's lame or not rather depends how the majority see it.
The way that I see it, you came into this thread with a comment of,
"Just look how far they've gone in just 12 years! LOL!!! LameUX.",
- which took 28 lines, and was TOP POSTED!
You might not be too worried about top posting.
To me, it is symptomatic of what you are discussing, and that is the
inability of Microsoft to comply with any standard other than their
own - prior to patenting it, of course!
There is a whole range of standards, protocols and conventions over
which they have consistently trampled. You top posting (presumably
in your e-mail as well?) is just one of them. Another is their
infliction of HTML on e-mail. There are many other and more serious
examples.
You posted originally using IE 6.
As has been explained to you, one of the many (and long-standing) bugs
that IE has is the "begin" bug.
As you rightly noted, people using IE would not have been able to read
the response. I suspect that the poster was actually cheered at that
thought. For a long time, the MS attitude to standards etc. has
inconvenienced many. A point was being made - that the "MS way" has
become something of a de-facto standard due to the sheer volume of
sales. This doesn't make their attitude right - far from it. It
just shows that they have enjoyed considerable success amongst people
to whom "take it or leave it" represents a good deal.
I think that the message to you (albeit that it was hidden from you!)
roughly translates as "Many believe that those days are over, and
none more so than people here".
Finally, although you state that IE is the most commonly used reader,
you might find it educational to check the proportion of people in
this group using it. As far as the poster was concerned, the only
people from whom his reply would be hidden would be the clueless!
Bill
Hamilcar Barca
2004 19:45:50 +0000), William Poaster wrote:
> begin It was on or about Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:41:40 +0000, that billwg
> wrote:
>
>> the most commonly used mail readers.
>
> Name *them*!
Is this a good opportunity to bring up Mutt again?
If it isn't, then never mind.
billwg
news:30km57F...@uni-berlin.de:
Far from it. Microsoft's view of the market is that there are hundreds
of millions of people who would be willing to buy and use a personal
computer if they knew how to do it. Over the past two decades, they
have managed to successfully address that market and provide enough easy
to use capability such that the internet has flourished and become a
commonplace activity for everyone. Imagine the state of the internet if
its usage were restricted to you clowns with your little gimmicks!
>
> I think that the message to you (albeit that it was hidden from you!)
> roughly translates as "Many believe that those days are over, and
> none more so than people here".
>
I have no doubt that you believe that, but I also have no doubt that you
will remain forever frustrated with a lack of vindication of that
belief. Consider how fruitless it is to try to convert the general
market customers from their expectation of Windows on their personal
computers to an expectation of something else when your attitude is that
the user should be abused and mocked for her use of Windows.
> Finally, although you state that IE is the most commonly used reader,
> you might find it educational to check the proportion of people in
> this group using it. As far as the poster was concerned, the only
> people from whom his reply would be hidden would be the clueless!
>
Even though the response was directed at the "clueless" poster? LOL!!!
B Gruff
> Consider how fruitless it is to try to convert the general
> market customers from their expectation of Windows on their personal
> computers to an expectation of something else when your attitude is
> that the user should be abused and mocked for her use of Windows.
Not at all:-)
For example, what am I to make of somebody eating at McDonalds?
It is quite possible that 95% of the U.S. public do it at least once a
year?
It is quite possible that it sells more "food" than any other
cooked-food outlet?
This is no cause for me to mock, surely? Rather to try to educate,
and to explain that there are better and healthier ways?
HOWEVER, if any Big-Mac addict were to invade (say) a cookery or
gourmet group, suggesting that their diet was the best because 95% do
it, because it's so easy and so fast, and because McDonalds is so
"successful", would you really be surprised if such claims were
greeted with scorn and ridicule?
>> Finally, although you state that IE is the most commonly used
>> reader, you might find it educational to check the proportion of
>> people in this group using it. As far as the poster was concerned,
>> the only people from whom his reply would be hidden would be the
>> clueless!
>
> Even though the response was directed at the "clueless" poster?
> LOL!!!
Yes, you are getting the idea:-)
If YOU continued to use I.E., you would not see the response, though
others in the group (and it was to the group that it was posted)
would be smiling that you were hoist by your own petard.
Other newcomers (perhaps also IE users, but genuinly seeking advice)
would not have been at all insulted - it would have appeared as an
empty posting, or one containing an attachment which would not open.
How do you like Xnews, btw? Don't look now, but you might just have
taken the first step - congratulations:-)
Bill
rapskat
at address <Xns95AB8AB8C762...@65.32.5.122>, details...
> Well, I do, sort of, and did find the information that others were so
> kind to post without being so snotty. I find it curious that you would
> go to the trouble to make all of your posts in a form intended to make
> it not possible to be read by the most commonly used news readers. How
> do you view that?
OE is replete with issues that have plagued it. Just off the top of my
head, there is/was...
Horrible quoting
Terrible wrapping (if at all)
HTML posting
Top posting positioning default
Inadequate filter implementation
Lack of yEnc encoding support
Open vs. Execute issue
The "begin " bug
Plus it inherits most, if not all, of the vulnerabilities of IE as well.
Without a doubt, IE and OE are the worst, most insecure and buggy internet
applications in use today. If they were banned from general use, it would
probably result in malware infections being reduced by 80% or more.
> If you want to make an incisive comment to the folk who are motivated to
> argue with you, why do you think it is an intelligent thing to do to
> make your comments unreadable? I think you need some counseling. LOL!!!
Those who need really counseling are people that insist on using insecure,
buggy software even when they are aware of just how buggy and insecure it
is and there are better and free alternatives available to them!
--
rapskat - 23:10:35 up 3 days, 5:30, 2 users, load average: 0.01, 0.05, 0.11
Be careful of reading health books, you might die of a misprint.
-- Mark Twain
rapskat
Fault at address <pan.2004.11.25....@rapskat.com>, details...
> OE is replete with issues that have plagued it. Just off the top of my
> head, there is/was...
>
> Horrible quoting
> Terrible wrapping (if at all)
> HTML posting
> Top posting positioning default
> Inadequate filter implementation
> Lack of yEnc encoding support
> Open vs. Execute issue
> The "begin " bug
Oh yeah, can't forget about this doozie...
<HTML><input type crash></HTML>
--
rapskat - 18:15:47 up 4 days, 35 min, 2 users, load average: 0.12, 0.12, 0.09
Your talents will be recognized and suitably rewarded.
David Barnsdale
>> At the point, which happened in 2002, where Windos becomes a burden to
>> using
>> the browser - it will be replaced. As it is now.
>>
> Consistency definitely is not your strong suit, eh? You originally asserted
> 1995 as the start of some demise of Microsoft. Is this a change in your
> findings?
His point was, as I suspect you well know, that
in 1975 Windows became a dinosaur facing extinction.
Quite rightly you point out that Windows has
been growing since 1975 but dinosaurs are often
very good at surviving past their sell by date.
Everyone knows that the Qwerty keyboard is broken
but do you know anyone who uses the Dvorak
keyboard? The English Spelling system has
been broken since the Normans messed things
up but how often do you see anyone using reform
spelling?
The system that everyone uses will always have
a huge advantage even when broken.
The reason I've switched to Linux is because
Windows can't handle a virus infested Internet.
I would not have made the switch had I not realized
that I knew people who were using Linux.
I don't say that the inertia of numbers is the
sole reason for Windows dominance but it is
the necessary one and it is being eroded.
David
billwg
"David Barnsdale" <daivi...@spamfree.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.11.26....@spamfree.yahoo.com...
>
> His point was, as I suspect you well know, that
> in 1975 Windows became a dinosaur facing extinction.
>
hit as software platforms went and was marked by tens of thousands of
interested buyers lining up at midnight to get their first copy. Quite a
feat for an operating system and a sort of belweather for noting the
transcending of personal computer software from the province of the techie
to the common man.
> Quite rightly you point out that Windows has
> been growing since 1975 but dinosaurs are often
> very good at surviving past their sell by date.
> Everyone knows that the Qwerty keyboard is broken
> but do you know anyone who uses the Dvorak
> keyboard? The English Spelling system has
> been broken since the Normans messed things
> up but how often do you see anyone using reform
> spelling?
>
So your evidence of Microsoft's demise is their continued growth? Quite a
plan! LOL!!!
> The system that everyone uses will always have
> a huge advantage even when broken.
>
Quite correct. In marketing terms its called "mature market" and "market
leadership".
> The reason I've switched to Linux is because
> Windows can't handle a virus infested Internet.
> I would not have made the switch had I not realized
> that I knew people who were using Linux.
>
> I don't say that the inertia of numbers is the
> sole reason for Windows dominance but it is
> the necessary one and it is being eroded.
>
What you fail to understand is that a number like 51% share is HUGE. Just
ask the prez what he thinks about 51%!!! A number like 95+% is essentially
everything. Start defining the other 5% or so as a separate market with
nothing to do with the first and start worrying about market share, product
differentiation, etc., within that 5%. Or just forget about marketing at
all and pretend that a better mousetrap will create its own market. Your
choice.
David Barnsdale
>
> "David Barnsdale" <daivi...@spamfree.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.11.26....@spamfree.yahoo.com...
>>
>> His point was, as I suspect you well know, that
>> in 1975 Windows became a dinosaur facing extinction.
>>
> Presumably you meant 1995.
<blush> yes
> But, no, I did not know that. Win95 was a big
> hit as software platforms went and was marked by tens of thousands of
> interested buyers lining up at midnight to get their first copy.
> Quite a
> feat for an operating system and a sort of belweather for noting the
> transcending of personal computer software from the province of the
> techie
> to the common man.
I remember listening to the BBC describe exactly that. They also asked
one of those queuing why. He answered "Well I reckon it will sort out
some of the problems I'm having with Windows 3.2". That is they were
queuing because Windows was already dominant and Windows held that
position because of DOS.
> So your evidence of Microsoft's demise is their continued growth? Quite a
> plan! LOL!!!
No, my point was a little different.
John said (as I read him) that the advent of the Internet
as the death knell for Windows.
You countered it by what at first sight seems a killer
counter argument - how come Microsoft has such large
sales if it is facing demise.
In the main I did not offer evidence of Microsoft's
demise but gave examples of where totally broken
systems can survive as examples of the living dead.
I was countering your counter argument not adding
to John's
>> The system that everyone uses will always have
>> a huge advantage even when broken.
>>
> Quite correct. In marketing terms its called "mature market" and "market
> leadership".
You are probably more up on marketing theory than me but
computing software is clearly not a classic market. For
most people the important question is not. "Which
word processor is the best?" but "Can my word processor
read files that my colleges send me."
The survival of Mac in the Graphics and Music
field demonstrates the point. In these fields
Windows can't get a look in because it Macs are the
industry standard and that's that.
>> The reason I've switched to Linux is because
>> Windows can't handle a virus infested Internet.
>> I would not have made the switch had I not realized
>> that I knew people who were using Linux.
>>
>> I don't say that the inertia of numbers is the
>> sole reason for Windows dominance but it is
>> the necessary one and it is being eroded.
>>
> What you fail to understand is that a number like 51% share is HUGE. Just
> ask the prez what he thinks about 51%!!! A number like 95+% is essentially
> everything. Start defining the other 5% or so as a separate market with
> nothing to do with the first and start worrying about market share, product
> differentiation, etc., within that 5%. Or just forget about marketing at
> all and pretend that a better mousetrap will create its own market. Your
> choice.
Here you seem to be saying the same thing as me. The dominance of
Microsoft is huge. Software naturally tends to a monopoly position
and so Linux has a hard up hill struggle even if it is the
better mousetrap. Didn't I give an example of English spelling
which has remained dominant tho it has been a broken
system since the Saxon spelling standard broke down
800 years ago?
But I'd like to remind you of catastrophe theory. This
is the situation when a system can have more that one stable
state. Imagine a flat surface with two deep dips. A ball
will happily roll into either dip but once in it will stay
there. Tip up the surface and the ball will stay in the
one it's in even tho the other dip is far lower. Tip it
yet further and the ball will,
quite suddenly, "catastrophically", slip
out of the first into the second.
If Linux is growing, as it is, despite all the advantages
Microsoft has from a near monopoly position,
then things must have got tipped quite far.
David
billwg
>
> I remember listening to the BBC describe exactly that. They also asked
> one of those queuing why. He answered "Well I reckon it will sort out
> some of the problems I'm having with Windows 3.2". That is they were
> queuing because Windows was already dominant and Windows held that
> position because of DOS.
>
still had a double digit market share, albeit of a much, much smaller
overall market, and IBM was still proudly pushing OS/2. People using
Windows on DOS were finding it highly useful and much more affordable than
the alternatives and those using it were very interested in a more stable
Windows. Like it or not, and in spite of everyone's chortles, Windows
platforms gain in stability, security, and functionality with each passing
version. Win95 was a long way from perfect, but today's WinXP is a very
long way from Win95, just as linux has evolved over the same period of time.
Microsoft has made more money from Windows, though.
>
>
>> So your evidence of Microsoft's demise is their continued growth? Quite
>> a
>> plan! LOL!!!
>
> No, my point was a little different.
> John said (as I read him) that the advent of the Internet
> as the death knell for Windows.
> You countered it by what at first sight seems a killer
> counter argument - how come Microsoft has such large
> sales if it is facing demise.
> In the main I did not offer evidence of Microsoft's
> demise but gave examples of where totally broken
> systems can survive as examples of the living dead.
> I was countering your counter argument not adding
> to John's
>
You have an odd definition of "dead" then. You would seem to argue that
dead means having fallen out of favor of the fringe users.
>
>>> The system that everyone uses will always have
>>> a huge advantage even when broken.
>>>
>> Quite correct. In marketing terms its called "mature market" and "market
>> leadership".
>
> You are probably more up on marketing theory than me but
> computing software is clearly not a classic market. For
> most people the important question is not. "Which
> word processor is the best?" but "Can my word processor
> read files that my colleges send me."
>
Believe what you will, but the smart money will back the notion that
everything that is purchased by someone else is a classic market and thus
obeys the laws of marketing science. If you try to promote a product and do
not follow the conventional marketing wisdom these days, you are a fool and
doomed at the outset.
> The survival of Mac in the Graphics and Music
> field demonstrates the point. In these fields
> Windows can't get a look in because it Macs are the
> industry standard and that's that.
>
Macintosh systems are sold into a marketing niche as well defined as
anything in the industry. It has many limiting factors and will never grow
to a mass market comparable to Wintel PCs, but it is a classic market
nonetheless.
>
It is hard to say that linux is "growing" because it is getting more and
more difficult to define just what linux consists of. Certainly the PC
vendors have chopped into the Unix server market with PC powered machines
offering linux as the OS platform. Is this a "linux" shift or is it a cheap
unix? It has dulled the progress of Windows somewhat, since the server
market growth for Windows was fueled somewhat by the price differentials
obtained without loss of functionality. But the same thing could have been
done by Sun, et al, simply by lowering or eliminating the price for their
native Unix. There seems to be some confusion as to just what linux is in
this regard.
On the desktop the picture is a little more clear, but other than some
highly touted initiative to convert from Windows clients to linux clients,
for example the Munich effort, the general perceptions are that linux has
not really taken hold in any real market. Remember, there are 200 million
or so PCs being built and sold annually throughout the world and even a 2
million unit buy, i.e. 50 times as many as Munich, only register as 1%. I
don't think I have seen 50 stories like Munich. Or even 5. Have you?
Philip Callan
> Like it or not, and in spite of everyone's chortles, Windows
> platforms gain in stability, security, and functionality with each passing
> version.
I think you mean in spite of all the Wintrolls /LIES/ the Windows
platform has gained only MORE vulnerabilities and security flaws.
You show me one exploit for Windows 3.11 that could OWN your box and
turn you into a spam spewing zombie.
The stability of the 'code' may have increased, but as they push more
and more 'user-friendly functions' into it, it has gotten WORSE AND
WORSE security wise, especially in regards to any networked situation.
Hamilcar Barca
2004 19:41:06 +0000), billwg wrote:
> Like it or not, and in spite of everyone's chortles, Windows
> platforms gain in stability, security, and functionality with each passing
> version.
You mean "gained", as Microsoft's versions Windows peaked at Windows 2000.
Each of these measures has been declining since the foisting of Windows
XP on a gullible public.
> Microsoft has made more money from Windows, though.
There can be no denying of that fact.
> You have an odd definition of "dead" then. You would seem to argue that
> dead means having fallen out of favor of the fringe users.
Microsoft clearly isn't dead. The real question is whether any of their
demonstrated illnesses will be fatal.
> Believe what you will, but the smart money will back the notion that
> everything that is purchased by someone else is a classic market and
> thus obeys the laws of marketing science. If you try to promote a
> product and do not follow the conventional marketing wisdom these days,
> you are a fool and doomed at the outset.
You couldn't have any smart money. Linux and the BSD systems are clear
proof of this fact.
> Macintosh systems are sold into a marketing niche as well defined as
> anything in the industry. It has many limiting factors [...]
Macintosh has no limiting factors. Apple Computer limits it in only two
ways: price and availability.
> [...] and will never grow to a mass market comparable to Wintel PCs,
> but it is a classic market nonetheless.
This claim is without merit, as Microsoft has demonstrated to everyone who
ever used Win ME, Win 98SE, Win 95, Win 3.1, Win 3.0, or Win 386.
Sometimes, of all the competing products available on the market, the very
worst one wins.
--
"We think our software is far more secure than open-source software.
It is more secure because we stand behind it, we fixed it, because
we built it."
-- Steve Ballmer. CEO, Microsoft. 11/19/2004
billwg
"Philip Callan" <call...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:t05qd.369478$%k.302871@pd7tw2no...
> billwg wrote:
>> Like it or not, and in spite of everyone's chortles, Windows platforms
>> gain in stability, security, and functionality with each passing version.
>
> I think you mean in spite of all the Wintrolls /LIES/ the Windows platform
> has gained only MORE vulnerabilities and security flaws.
>
> You show me one exploit for Windows 3.11 that could OWN your box and turn
> you into a spam spewing zombie.
>
needed to support the hackers and the concepts were not yet mature. The
social misfits had not yet glommed onto this new pasttime and were still out
in the parking lots keying Beamers.
> The stability of the 'code' may have increased, but as they push more and
> more 'user-friendly functions' into it, it has gotten WORSE AND WORSE
> security wise, especially in regards to any networked situation.
>
I have a lot of computers and I write code for a major software company. I
have gotten exactly one virus due to a lapse of judgement in running an EXE
that was sent to me by a person I knew and had been sent by me to him
originally. I was investigating a problem and it did not occur to me that
he may have gotten the EXE infected on his own computer. Since then, I am
more careful and the several hours spent in eradicating the virus from my
home systems reinforced that concern. It is fairly easy to avoid viruses in
the main and, while I might concede that there are many users who cannot be
helped, the problem is not exclusive to Windows code. There are plenty of
instances of linux compatible viruses to be found and the great majority of
people do not care so much because they simply do not use linux for
anything.
I am more inclined to blame the vandals for their antisocial acts. Many are
eventually caught and their lives are rightfully ruined by a harsh public
that is totally nonsupportive of their deeds.
billwg
"Hamilcar Barca" <hami...@tld.always.invalid> wrote in message
news:20041128001948.182$1...@news.newsreader.com...
> In article <mL4qd.75015$8G4....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com> (Sat, 27 Nov
> 2004 19:41:06 +0000), billwg wrote:
>
>> Like it or not, and in spite of everyone's chortles, Windows
>> platforms gain in stability, security, and functionality with each
>> passing
>> version.
>
> You mean "gained", as Microsoft's versions Windows peaked at Windows 2000.
> Each of these measures has been declining since the foisting of Windows
> XP on a gullible public.
>
>> Microsoft has made more money from Windows, though.
>
> There can be no denying of that fact.
>
>> You have an odd definition of "dead" then. You would seem to argue that
>> dead means having fallen out of favor of the fringe users.
>
> Microsoft clearly isn't dead. The real question is whether any of their
> demonstrated illnesses will be fatal.
>
It has been known for some time that "In the long term, we are all dead!",
but that is not an operative philosophy in business today. Microsoft has no
"demonstrated illnesses" in spite of what you say. Merely opportunities to
correct some deficiency and thus please their customers in the future.
Market dynamics assures us that the consumers will stick with the devil they
know almost forever on the expectation that things will improve. The only
way to knock the market leader off its horse is to establish a comparatively
new market that provides some different set of features, functions, and
benefits that marginalize the old market and allow for shares to shift to
the new producer while the old leader is prevented from adapting by
limitations in the old leaders product infrastructure. Unfortunately for
would-be competitors of Mr. Softee, the Redmondites have shown an ability to
adapt to just about everything coming down the line. Coupled with the
inability of the OSSers to innovate and their propensity to simply copycat
the product characteristics of the market leaders, we are ensured that no
OSS product will ever really replace a commercial product in any useful way.
>> Believe what you will, but the smart money will back the notion that
>> everything that is purchased by someone else is a classic market and
>> thus obeys the laws of marketing science. If you try to promote a
>> product and do not follow the conventional marketing wisdom these days,
>> you are a fool and doomed at the outset.
>
> You couldn't have any smart money. Linux and the BSD systems are clear
> proof of this fact.
>
Linux and BSD are clones/copies of commercial Unix platforms and not proof
of anything other than the ease of cloning Unix functions and utilities.
Somewhere at its core Windows has cloned the same stuff. The value of the
product, however, is in the expectations of the consumers and the degree to
which those expectations are fulfilled. Microsoft has a history of being
able to meet those expectations on a large scale sooner than its
competition.
>> Macintosh systems are sold into a marketing niche as well defined as
>> anything in the industry. It has many limiting factors [...]
>
> Macintosh has no limiting factors. Apple Computer limits it in only two
> ways: price and availability.
>
And breath of functionality, I might add. Apple is not so developer
friendly as Windows and its applicability has suffered tremendously from
that lack.
>> [...] and will never grow to a mass market comparable to Wintel PCs,
>> but it is a classic market nonetheless.
>
> This claim is without merit, as Microsoft has demonstrated to everyone who
> ever used Win ME, Win 98SE, Win 95, Win 3.1, Win 3.0, or Win 386.
> Sometimes, of all the competing products available on the market, the very
> worst one wins.
>
You don't seem to understand the mechanisms at work here.
Hamilcar Barca
2004 18:51:24 +0000), billwg wrote:
> "Hamilcar Barca" <hami...@tld.always.invalid> wrote in message
> news:20041128001948.182$1...@news.newsreader.com...
>> In article <mL4qd.75015$8G4....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com> (Sat, 27 Nov
>> 2004 19:41:06 +0000), billwg wrote:
>>
>> Microsoft clearly isn't dead. The real question is whether any of their
>> demonstrated illnesses will be fatal.
>
> Microsoft has no "demonstrated illnesses" in spite of what you say.
Exactly as I say, Microsoft was convicted in a US District Court, the
conviction was upheld in a US Appeals Court, and now the EU is after them.
Microsoft's travails parallel those of other organized crime families.
> Unfortunately for would-be competitors of Mr. Softee, the Redmondites
> have shown an ability to adapt to just about everything coming down the
> line.
They have, but through actions now judged unlawful in the US.
> Coupled with the inability of the OSSers to innovate and their
> propensity to simply copycat the product characteristics of the market
> leaders, we are ensured that no OSS product will ever really replace a
> commercial product in any useful way.
This claim is the sort of ignorance (and for the most part lies)
propounded only by companies like Microsoft who are actually threatened.
Even if it were true, a free product which can "simply copycat [sic] the
product characteristics [sic] of market leaders", it will be difficult for
some unnamed monopoly to maintain its 80% profit margins.
This is just another symptom of the diseases suffered by Microsoft.
Either their press releases are untrue, or they represent an internal
illness.
>>> If you try to promote a product and do not follow the conventional
>>> marketing wisdom these days, you are a fool and doomed at the outset.
>>
>> You couldn't have any smart money. Linux and the BSD systems are clear
>> proof of this fact.
>>
> Linux and BSD are clones/copies of commercial Unix platforms and not
> proof of anything other than the ease of cloning Unix functions and
> utilities.
In contrast to your original claim, and as I said, they are succeeding
without having to "follow conventional marketing wisdom". Your Funkenlike
change of subject indicates you are unable to defend your point and must
attempt another in its stead.
> Somewhere at its core Windows has cloned the same stuff.
At its very core, Microsoft and its Windows products are clones. They
always have been.
> The value of the product, however, is in the expectations of the consumers
> and the degree to which those expectations are fulfilled.
Still another Microsoft disease is the falling expectations of consumers
and the degree to which Microsoft has failed to satisfy even those.
> And breath of functionality, I might add. Apple is not so developer
> friendly as Windows and its applicability has suffered tremendously from
> that lack.
Your point is entirely without foundation.
>> This claim is without merit, as Microsoft has demonstrated to everyone
>> who ever used Win ME, Win 98SE, Win 95, Win 3.1, Win 3.0, or Win 386.
>> Sometimes, of all the competing products available on the market, the
>> very worst one wins.
>>
> You don't seem to understand the mechanisms at work here.
Is there anyone who does "understand the mechanism [sic] at work here"?
Why did the worst product(s) on the market succeed at the expense of their
betters? Could there be any explanation other than Microsoft's continuing
unlawful activity?
--
Q: Speaking of security, Internet Explorer has had well-publicized holes.
Gates: Understand those are cases where you are downloading third-party
software.
-- Bill Gates. Chairman, Microsoft. USA Today interview. 13 Oct 2004.
billwg
"B Gruff" <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:30kv8qF...@uni-berlin.de...
So you think that someone who types "begin<sp>" in front of all his messages
so as to exercise some known bug in the IE reader is a sensible person? I
would rather think of such a person as warped beyond practical use! LOL!!!
You would have to admit that his conduct is juvenile at best and antisocial
at its most likely. Would you approve of his babysitting your 6 year old
daughter? I think not!
> If YOU continued to use I.E., you would not see the response, though
> others in the group (and it was to the group that it was posted)
> would be smiling that you were hoist by your own petard.
> Other newcomers (perhaps also IE users, but genuinly seeking advice)
> would not have been at all insulted - it would have appeared as an
> empty posting, or one containing an attachment which would not open.
>
> How do you like Xnews, btw? Don't look now, but you might just have
> taken the first step - congratulations:-)
I had been using Xnews for quite a while, but mainly for downloading from
the MP3 newsgroups. There is no doubt that it is more functional than
Outlook for such things. That's what makes Windows so great, i.e. the
availability of scads of apps to do things that you want done. But Outlook
is ever so much more useful with Exchange than anything else.
Hamilcar Barca
2004 19:16:25 +0000), William Poaster wrote:
> begin It was on or about Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:59:21 +0000, that Philip
> Callan wrote:
>
>> billwg wrote:
>>> [Microsoft press release rehash]
>
> I find it....odd...that a claim "I have a lot of computers and I write
> code for a major software company." by the "billwg" troll, & yet he
> *didn't* know about the OE 'begin' bug, & *still* continues to use an
> unsafe & insecure newsreader/email client..
It's similar to a researcher warning of the dangers of E. coli infection
while floating freely in foamy's feces-filled fishpond.
--
"Rather than blowing smoke about the bazaar model, I think [Sun's]
Mr. Schwartz's time would be better spent explaining why he thinks
those reasons don't apply to Java [...]"
-- Eric S. Raymond
Hamilcar Barca
2004 19:19:54 +0000), billwg wrote:
> So you think that someone who types "begin<sp>" in front of all his messages
> so as to exercise some known bug in the IE reader is a sensible person?
Such a person is far more sensible than an Outhouse Excess user,
especially one who claims to be a "software developer."
> I would rather think of such a person as warped beyond practical use!
OE users demonstrate themselves as stupid beyond practical use!
> LOL!!!
LOL!!!boi must be an AOL refugee.
Sinister Midget
> There are plenty of instances of linux compatible viruses to be found
> and the great majority of people do not care so much because they
> simply do not use linux for anything.
Name some, why don't you. While you're at it, maybe you can shed some
light on the cost of cleanup for a few of these, or the losses caused
directly that are separate from the costs of fixing the problem(s).
--
Nimda - Innovative Microsoft peer-to-peer software.
Robert Newson
...
> So you think that someone who types "begin<sp>" in front of all his messages
> so as to exercise some known bug in the IE reader is a sensible person? I
> would rather think of such a person as warped beyond practical use! LOL!!!
> You would have to admit that his conduct is juvenile at best and antisocial
> at its most likely. Would you approve of his babysitting your 6 year old
> daughter? I think not!
Errrm, isn't the lookout bug when a line begins with begin<sp><sp> - ie is
followed by 2 spaces?
Sinister Midget
> begin It was on or about Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:59:21 +0000, that Philip
> Callan wrote:
>
> code for a major software company." by the "billwg" troll, & yet he
> *didn't* know about the OE 'begin' bug, & *still* continues to use an
> unsafe & insecure newsreader/email client..
If you didn't know this, learn it. If you did, it needs to be repeated
from time to time lest we all forget. I know I do sometimes.
Every Windwoes troll who has come to COLA to troll has been a liar.
No exceptions to date. Some who have come here and claimed only to
be supporting the other side have turned out to be Wintrolls and,
therefore, liars. A few who honestly wanted to support the other
side have moved on, usually without evidence of their ever
deliberately lying. Maybe only because they left before it happened.
Of course, it helps that most of the trolls have been Flatfish,
Flatfish wannabes or stupid. A couple of smarter ones have come and
gone.
--
Microsoft: The company that made web browsing dangerous.
billwg
"Hamilcar Barca" <hami...@tld.always.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <pan.2004.11.28....@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx> (Sun, 28 Nov
> 2004 19:16:25 +0000), William Poaster wrote:
>
>> begin It was on or about Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:59:21 +0000, that Philip
>> Callan wrote:
>>
>>> billwg wrote:
>>>> [Microsoft press release rehash]
>>
>> I find it....odd...that a claim "I have a lot of computers and I write
>> code for a major software company." by the "billwg" troll, & yet he
>> *didn't* know about the OE 'begin' bug, & *still* continues to use an
>> unsafe & insecure newsreader/email client..
>
there is some compelling reason to switch to something else, most all the
real people simply use it for their e-mail, if they are not using a web
based mail system such as Hotmail. We develop Windows (and Unix)
application software for a living and don't really think all that much about
it. I've never had any problems traceable to Outlook and it's standard
almost everywhere for accessing Exchange.
billwg
"Hamilcar Barca" <hami...@tld.always.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <M6pqd.47408$Oc.2...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com> (Sun, 28 Nov
> 2004 18:51:24 +0000), billwg wrote:
>
>> "Hamilcar Barca" <hami...@tld.always.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:20041128001948.182$1...@news.newsreader.com...
>>> In article <mL4qd.75015$8G4....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com> (Sat, 27 Nov
>>> 2004 19:41:06 +0000), billwg wrote:
>>>
>>> Microsoft clearly isn't dead. The real question is whether any of their
>>> demonstrated illnesses will be fatal.
>>
>> Microsoft has no "demonstrated illnesses" in spite of what you say.
>
> Exactly as I say, Microsoft was convicted in a US District Court, the
> conviction was upheld in a US Appeals Court, and now the EU is after them.
> Microsoft's travails parallel those of other organized crime families.
>
purpose? Microsoft was found to be in violation of antitrust statutes for
actions taken in prior years that had no particular effect other than to be
an attempt to maintain a monopoly position in "Intel processor, desk top
operating system software". Significantly, the courts did not find that the
conduct had any causual effect, i.e. there was no need for any corrective
action and there was no fines levied as a result of the conduct. Rather,
Microsoft was enjoined to cease the practices that had not already been
stopped and to provide various assurance during a probationary period that
such conduct did not recur.
>> Unfortunately for would-be competitors of Mr. Softee, the Redmondites
>> have shown an ability to adapt to just about everything coming down the
>> line.
>
> They have, but through actions now judged unlawful in the US.
>
Hardly. Microsoft has continued to prosper for several years now absent any
of the actions found to be in violation. How do you reckon that can be?
>> Coupled with the inability of the OSSers to innovate and their
>> propensity to simply copycat the product characteristics of the market
>> leaders, we are ensured that no OSS product will ever really replace a
>> commercial product in any useful way.
>
> This claim is the sort of ignorance (and for the most part lies)
> propounded only by companies like Microsoft who are actually threatened.
> Even if it were true, a free product which can "simply copycat [sic] the
> product characteristics [sic] of market leaders", it will be difficult for
> some unnamed monopoly to maintain its 80% profit margins.
>
LOL!!! Mr Softee has some handsome profit margins, but hardly anything
approaching 80%. 25% was the IBITA value for 2004.
Well, one explanation is that your assessment that their products are the
worst on the market is false! LOL!!! However did they obtain a monopoly?
Microsoft's "unlawful" activity was mainly to offer OEMs and others
significant discounts for brand loyalty, i.e. use Windows exclusively and
get a big price break that you can either pass to your customers or else
keep as a profit source. The courts found that such a practice was only
useful in maintaining a "barrier to entry" against potential competitors.
Of course the barrier consists of not being able to make a profit since
prices are too low, but no one seems to worry about that at the DOJ.
Curiously enough, at some point in time that practice was not illegal, since
Microsoft did not have a monopoly and a number of other products, OS/2 for
example or SCO Unix for Intel, were available. Apple had a much larger
market share of the PC market as well. Your position is that people
rejected these superior solutions and embraced the "worst product(s) on the
market" instead. If that is so, what chance do you have for the future?
Are not the same people still the potential customers for these products?
>
billwg
"Edward Horseman" <ed_ho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:30uqt0F...@uni-berlin.de...
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 19:07:59 +0000, William Poaster wrote:
>
>
>> Really? How come linux has used 64bit computing for a while now, &
>> windows
>> is *still* only 32bit? How come windows can *still* crash, & Sir Billy
>> Buttcrust *expects* it to at *least* one a week? All I can say is M$
>> "customers" are easily satisfied.
>
> The problem is that Windows users have been fooled into thinking that
> computers are inherently buggy beasts that need TLC and constant
> re-booting.
> What I usually do when engaged in a discussion of Windows instability is
> to offer up the question that what if automobile computers crashed as much
> as the typical Windows desktop did?
> How about mainframes running the various Fortune 1000 companies?
> Computers controlling life support systems in the typical hospital's ICU?
> This usually results in the other person getting this look on their face
> like a light bulb has finally gone off in their head.
> Then I follow up with my sermon on the *mount* about Linux and OSX and how
> those systems are extremely reliable and so forth.
>
>
>
>
>> I think we understand it *very* well. The graat majority use windwoes
>> because of sheer *ignorance*. It's on the PC when they *buy* it, & they
>> just put up with it.
>
> Yes it is ignorance but we must be very careful not to confuse ignorance
> with stupidity.
> There are some things that quite frankly Windows does better than Linux in
> the hands of desktop Phil!
> No brainer hardware support is one. Tight integration with the latest ink
> wasting all for one printer, camera, scanner, washing machine (only
> kidding) is another.
> Is this a good thing? Somewhat, but I'm a bit old fashioned so I prefer
> less whiz bang and more basic function type equipment. I suppose I am not
> typical in that respect though. I can't see the purpose of wasting cartons
> of very expensive ink when I can have the photo's printed professionally
> for what amounts to less money in the long run.
>
> There is no doubt that Linux and OSX are far superior systems and it is
> only a matter of time before Windows really starts to crumble. It's
> happening right now one user at a time and it will only accelerate as more
> people become informed about Windows/Linux and why computing doesn't have
> to be a daily battle of good vs evil just to keep their data safe.
>
> Edward Horseman
>
Just for the sake of an argument, let us say that all your observations are
true, i.e. Windows is a real POS compared with linux or even OSX and all the
world's users are fooled. Now that is exactly what Microsoft intended, i.e.
that all the world's users have a positive perception regarding Windows and
Microsoft in general and are thus persuaded to look askance at any attempt
to substitute an unknown platform into their upcoming PC replacement
purchase. What is going to change all that?
Will it be the smug Poaster with his silly "begin" preface spitting in their
face? Or will it be the Midget's relentless insistance on belittling and
disrespecting the Windows users? Hardly. To the world, the linux advocates
come across as smelly fanatics with a mantra comprised of nonsense. The
only way to change the world is to pay the price to reeducate the consumer
and demonstrate that there is a better choice to be made and then being able
to prove that assertion. Linux fails on all counts. It is really not any
better and, given Microsoft's ability to shape perceptions, most observers
can readily see where linux is inferior, particularly in terms of the
completeness, fit, and finish of application software available for it.
Consider how the linux games blow chunks! LOL!!!
Until the day, which will probably never come, that linux can demonstrate
clearcut advantages over Windows and that advantage is presented to the
consumer, it will be the Unix server copycat, force-fit into a client world
with nothing to reccommend it.
billwg
"Sinister Midget" <sini...@stinkfoot.biz> wrote in message
news:slrncqk8nk....@home.harry.net...
>
> Every Windwoes troll who has come to COLA to troll has been a liar.
LOL!!! And you smurfs wonder why the world doesn't jump on linux! You are,
of course, far too close to the trees to see the forrest and so cannot
appreciate the comical front that you present to the rest of the world with
your sage adherence to out of date anecdotes and paranoic attitudes.
Hamilcar Barca
2004 02:02:04 +0000), billwg wrote:
> LOL!!! And you smurfs wonder why the world doesn't jump on linux!
Linux doesn't have enough LOL!!! for the borg!
Sinister Midget
LOL!!! You've added yourself to the list through no effort on my part.
I wasn't the one making claims about how big mine is and followed it up
with publicly not being able to locate it.
I don't see any effort on your part to counter the evidence that _you_
presented about yourself that shows you: a) are a troll; and, b) are a
liar.
--
MS could solve all their problems tomorrow regarding security and
stability and I wouldn't use them more than I have to now because for
years they fed me cow shit and told me it was cake.
Kadaitcha Man
> begin It was on or about Mon, 29 Nov 2004 02:02:04 +0000, that billwg
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Sinister Midget" <sini...@stinkfoot.biz> wrote in message
>> news:slrncqk8nk....@home.harry.net...
>>>
>>> Every Windwoes troll who has come to COLA to troll has been a liar.
>>
>> LOL!!! And you smurfs wonder why the world doesn't jump on linux! You
>> are, of course, far too close to the trees to see the forrest and so
>
> Your spellchecker is b0rked again.
On the subject of spelling, grammar, and comprehension in general,
fucktard...
>> cannot appreciate the comical front that you present to the rest of the
>> world with your sage adherence to out of date anecdotes and paranoic
>> attitudes.
>
> Soooo, LOLboi - China, Munich, UK police forces, the worlds fastest
> supercomputers etc, present a "comical front to the rest of the world" eh?
> Funny that people engaged in *serious* computing regard M$ as a joke, & a
> very *bad* joke at that. BTW when's it going to catch up with 64bit linux?
The poster used the words "your" and "you". There was no reference to
"people engaged in *serious* computing", only a reference to you and your.
Get it, you total fucktard? No? That figures.
Kadaitcha Man
> You obviously don't know much about linux games
Stop bragging.
Sinister Midget
> Will it be the smug Poaster with his silly "begin" preface spitting in their
> face? Or will it be the Midget's relentless insistance on belittling and
> disrespecting the Windows users?
Umm. For the record, that's _some_ WinDOS users. Those, such as
yourself, who make it their business to come to a linux advocacy group
to annoy those of who have already used Winders and know it's crap are
the targets. In furtherance of that goal I often paint with a very wide
brush.
To ordinary Windwoes users I'm usually a nice guy. But ordinary WinDoze
users don't try to "rescue me" from linux.
I'm particularly fond of those of you who claim overwhelming knowledge
of Winders and feel they have a solemn duty to "save us" from
something, then turn around and leave hints showing how limited their
knowledge actually is.
You, for example, and your claims wrt Outhouse. Sorry Mr. Knowledgable
Winshill. You'll have to figure out what I mean on your own. Or wait.
I'll simply save it for another time.
You painted the target, expect to be targetted.
And just remember that a lot of us have /USED/ Windoze. Some of us
still do so, either by choice or force. It certainly helps explain why
we use linux where we can, though.
--
CodeRed: An original Microsoft web crawler.
billwg
"John Bailo" <jab...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Txvqd.2962$u81....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
the greater reality! If it's in the box, it's part of Windows. I got a new
SUV last week and the trailer hitch electrical connection adapter was in the
glove compartment. Is it just "bundled" with my car, or is it "built in"?
When a consumer gets Windows, he expects IE and OE to be there. They are
built in.
>
>
>
billwg
> On 2004-11-29, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> sputtered:
>
>> Will it be the smug Poaster with his silly "begin" preface spitting in
>> their
>> face? Or will it be the Midget's relentless insistance on belittling and
>> disrespecting the Windows users?
>
> Umm. For the record, that's _some_ WinDOS users. Those, such as
> yourself, who make it their business to come to a linux advocacy group
> to annoy those of who have already used Winders and know it's crap are
> the targets. In furtherance of that goal I often paint with a very wide
> brush.
>
> To ordinary Windwoes users I'm usually a nice guy. But ordinary WinDoze
> users don't try to "rescue me" from linux.
>
anything else! LOL!!!
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> Jim Richardson wrote:
>> this is *.advocacy, get used to it. Along with the windiot foamers, we
>> have some who like to poke them with sticks.
> > wield stick
> You wield a stick firmly with both hands.
> > kill troll
> The stick breaks into slivers upon striking the troll's stone-like skull.
> Damn.
say "lux"
a machine flies into view carrying sunlamps and shines on the trolls, they
instantly turn to soft putty.
</the boggit>
:)
Robert Newson
> begin It was on or about Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:47:57 +0000, that billwg
> wrote:
>
>
>>There you go with some stupid techie pilpul, splitting hairs while
>>ignoring the greater reality! If it's in the box, it's part of Windows.
>>I got a new SUV last week and the trailer hitch electrical connection
>>adapter was in the glove compartment. Is it just "bundled" with my car,
>>or is it "built in"?
>>
>>When a consumer gets Windows, he expects IE and OE to be there. They are
>>built in.
>>
>
> And *there* you have it, Ladies & Gentlemen of the jury! So when a
> wintroll says that M$ doesn't force anyone to upgrade their system, just
> remind them that M$ will *only* issue security upgrades for eX-Pee IE. And
> as IE is "built into Windows", other Windwoes OSs are going to be left
> vulnerable. Ergo M$ are...erm..."ecouraging" people to upgrade (& I use
> the word loosely - for a windows upgrade is NO upgrade at all!) to
> eX-Pee.
I have refused to downgrade (sic) my Win98, and my Win 3.1 machine in
particular, to Win ME, Win 2k, WIn XP etc as I can't justify the cost and
benefits (more prone to virus attack, etc).
>
> Q.E.D
>
>
Robert Newson
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 19:07:59 +0000, William Poaster wrote:
...
> The problem is that Windows users have been fooled into thinking that
> computers are inherently buggy beasts that need TLC and constant
> re-booting.
> What I usually do when engaged in a discussion of Windows instability is
> to offer up the question that what if automobile computers crashed as much
> as the typical Windows desktop did?
Someone already did, take a look at: http://wordscapes.net/microsoft-gm.htm
> How about mainframes running the various Fortune 1000 companies?
> Computers controlling life support systems in the typical hospital's ICU?
I have a feeling at Windoze may actually already be in Hospitals in
monitoring equipment.
Robert Newson
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:41:06 +0000, billwg wrote:
...
> In 1995 Windows was already sufficiently dominant that
> it was inconvenient to have anything else. It was
> already inconvenient to have out of date Microsoft
> software because people would send you files you couldn't
> read.
I find strings(1) is my friend. ^_^
David Barnsdale
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:41:06 +0000, billwg wrote:
> Windows, at that point in time was nowhere near as dominant as today. Apple
> still had a double digit market share, albeit of a much, much smaller
> overall market, and IBM was still proudly pushing OS/2.
In 1995 Windows was already sufficiently dominant that
it was inconvenient to have anything else. It was
already inconvenient to have out of date Microsoft
software because people would send you files you couldn't
read.
> People using
> Windows on DOS were finding it highly useful and much more affordable than
> the alternatives and those using it were very interested in a more stable
> Windows. Like it or not, and in spite of everyone's chortles, Windows
> platforms gain in stability, security, and functionality with each passing
> version. Win95 was a long way from perfect, but today's WinXP is a very
> long way from Win95, just as linux has evolved over the same period of time.
> Microsoft has made more money from Windows, though.
How many people really tried all the alternatives in 1995
before deciding on Windows? People chose windows because
it was what their friends used and because it was
what they would be expected to use at work.
>> No, my point was a little different.
>> John said (as I read him) that the advent of the Internet
>> as the death knell for Windows.
>> You countered it by what at first sight seems a killer
>> counter argument - how come Microsoft has such large
>> sales if it is facing demise.
>> In the main I did not offer evidence of Microsoft's
>> demise but gave examples of where totally broken
>> systems can survive as examples of the living dead.
>> I was countering your counter argument not adding
>> to John's
>>
> You have an odd definition of "dead" then. You would seem to argue that
> dead means having fallen out of favor of the fringe users.
No, I did not say Windows was dead. I did use the
the phrases "living dead" and "death knell" but
the whole thrust of my argument is how Windows
can survive despite it being fatally flawed.
> Believe what you will, but the smart money will back the notion that
> everything that is purchased by someone else is a classic market and thus
> obeys the laws of marketing science. If you try to promote a product and do
> not follow the conventional marketing wisdom these days, you are a fool and
> doomed at the outset.
Come on, marketing science has taken things a little further
than Adam Smith. When I buy carrots it is irrelevant to
me what other people do. Hence I am concerned with price and quality.
For most people it is far more important to use an operating system
that friends and colleagues use than to have the best.
It is just not sustainable to say that the market for operating
systems is the same kind of market as the market for carrots.
Did VHS beat Betamax because it was better? Consumers
wanted one system but didn't mind which. Once
it was clear which of the two had the edge
no one wanted a system that was clearly going to be
obsolete. Why did hard headed businessmen succeed
in agreeing on a standard for CDs? Because they
knew that one standard would win out and they would
be damn fools to try and buck the trend.
Hence they, in this case, followed Nash rather than
Adam Smith.
> Macintosh systems are sold into a marketing niche as well defined as
> anything in the industry. It has many limiting factors and will never grow
> to a mass market comparable to Wintel PCs, but it is a classic market
> nonetheless.
As far as I know there is no fundamental reason why
graphics designers could not use software on a
Windows platform. They don't because
all the studios use Macs and all Graphic designers
are trained on Macintosh systems. Go for a
job as a graphic designer and say you have only used
windows and they will show you the door.
It is *not* a niche market but a local monopoly.
A niche product is constantly being evaluated
by it's niche customers and will be dropped if
something more suited to their needs comes along.
> It is hard to say that linux is "growing" because it is getting more and
> more difficult to define just what linux consists of. Certainly the PC
> vendors have chopped into the Unix server market with PC powered machines
> offering linux as the OS platform. Is this a "linux" shift or is it a cheap
> unix? It has dulled the progress of Windows somewhat, since the server
> market growth for Windows was fueled somewhat by the price differentials
> obtained without loss of functionality. But the same thing could have been
> done by Sun, et al, simply by lowering or eliminating the price for their
> native Unix. There seems to be some confusion as to just what linux is in
> this regard.
>
> On the desktop the picture is a little more clear, but other than some
> highly touted initiative to convert from Windows clients to linux clients,
> for example the Munich effort, the general perceptions are that linux has
> not really taken hold in any real market. Remember, there are 200 million
> or so PCs being built and sold annually throughout the world and even a 2
> million unit buy, i.e. 50 times as many as Munich, only register as 1%. I
> don't think I have seen 50 stories like Munich. Or even 5. Have you?
Yes the picture is far from unclear. Linux has a niche
market amongst the techees and the growth may be in
specific sectors like you say.
Microsoft need be afraid only to the extent that your average punter is
switching to Linux. Your average punter does not care about the
flexibility of Linux but if they have just had a serious virus problem
they can grasp the security advantages of system that is, to all intents
and purposes, virus free.
The things that make me think that maybe a shift
is just round the corner are things like
that two years ago my local newsagents had no
Linux mags but now it stocks three. Not very scientific
I admit.
However what I am sure about is that *should* there
be a shift then it will be dramatic. Either
Linux will stay as it is with 1% of the market
or it will in a very short space of time wipe
Windows out. What is impossible is a situation
in which Linux climbs gradually to 10%
of the market and you have a prolonged period
in which the two compete on equal basis.
If you can't grasp this then you have clearly
never had the experience of someone sending you
a file you can't read.
David
Dejvid
What makes me think that Linux growth is of the
sort that threatens Windows are things like
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> begin It was on or about Mon, 29 Nov 2004 02:02:04 +0000, that billwg
> wrote:
>>
>> "Sinister Midget" <sini...@stinkfoot.biz> wrote in message
>> news:slrncqk8nk....@home.harry.net...
>>>
>>> Every Windwoes troll who has come to COLA to troll has been a liar.
>>
>> LOL!!! And you smurfs wonder why the world doesn't jump on linux! You
>> are, of course, far too close to the trees to see the forrest and so
> Your spellchecker is b0rked again.
You sure? Maybe Mr Gump's on the other side of the wood?
:)
Amorphous Androgynous
> Linux Unchained
>
> Linux use is growing faster than the talent pool needed to support it.
> Here's how IT managers see the problem and what they're doing about it.
>
> Better start working on upgrading your resumes!
How come none of this "experts" complain about the lack of SAP skills for
example?
By their logic, companies should stick with Excel and MS Access, as the
number of SAP experts is very few and they command huge salaries.
Idiots.
Robert Newson
> In 1995 Windows was already sufficiently dominant that
> it was inconvenient to have anything else. It was
> already inconvenient to have out of date Microsoft
> software because people would send you files you couldn't
> read.
strings(1) is my friend ^_^
...
...
> Did VHS beat Betamax because it was better? Consumers
> wanted one system but didn't mind which. Once
> it was clear which of the two had the edge
> no one wanted a system that was clearly going to be
> obsolete. Why did hard headed businessmen succeed
> in agreeing on a standard for CDs? Because they
> knew that one standard would win out and they would
> be damn fools to try and buck the trend.
Except now they ARE trying to with "copy-protected" CDs which don't match
the standard and don't play in some players and Phillips says can't be
called CDs.
