Desktop/Laptop Linux is a great SUCCESS - How to get started

[Mark S Bilk]

Desktop/Laptop Linux is a great SUCCESS - How to get started

On Mar 14, 3:56 pm, Torre Starnes <torre.star...@gmail.org> wrote:
> 1. Organization.
> 2. Realizing early on that fragmentation will kill the project
> quickly and reacting to bring the community together.

See below.

> 3. Providing what the consumer wants to pay for.
> 4. High quality applications.
> 5. Ease of use.
> 6. Filling a void instead of creating one.
> 7. Quality.
> 8. Financial backing.
> 9. Accountability.
> 10. Pride in the product.

Desktop Linux satisfies all of these criteria. Tens of millions
of people around the world are using it. It provides security,
power, multiple virtual desktops, flexible file systems,
modularity, processor independence, open source code, and zero
cost. Most of these advantages are not available in Microsoft
Windows or Apple Macintosh.

The only reason why Linux is not the most popular operating system
is that Microsoft has used many different coercive and deceptive
operations for 15 years to try to destroy it:

http://cosmicpenguin.com/linux/MICROSOFTS_WAR_AGAINST_LINUX.html

Regarding alleged "fragmentation", Linux offers lots of choices
in distributions [distros] and desktop environments [DEs]. This
doesn't "kill" anything, but some choices are much more powerful
and useful than others.

I've been using the SuSE (now OpenSuse) distro and KDE (now
specifically KDE3, _not_ KDE4) for ten years, because in my
evaluation, they are the best organized and maintained, and
the most powerful.

If you decide to use the Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, Redhat, or
Slackware distro instead of OpenSuse, you can get KDE3 as the
Trinity Desktop Environment:

http://www.trinitydesktop.org/

http://www.trinitydesktop.org/releases/3.5.13/

OpenSuse has a very helpful IRC channel, if you run into any
difficulties.

To avoid even the possibility of problems, you can ask someone
to install Linux on your computer for you! Simply find the
Linux User Group nearest you from one of the following lists,
and contact them. They will usually do it, for free of course,
if you bring your computer to one of their meetings. This makes
Linux as easy to use as buying the computer with it pre-installed.
No problems -- guaranteed!

http://www.linuxlinks.com/UserGroups/

http://dmoz.org/Computers/Software/Operating_Systems/Linux/User_Groups/

http://dir.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/Software/Operating_Systems/Unix/Linux/User_Groups/

Here's some additional information:

20 Reasons You Should Switch To Linux
http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/20-reasons-you-should-switch-to-linux-912294

20 Linux Alternatives for Common Windows Applications
http://www.datamation.com/open-source/20-linux-alternatives-for-common-windows-applications-1.html

67 Free Open Source Replacements for Really Expensive Applications
http://www.datamation.com/open-source/67-open-source-replacements-for-really-expensive-applications-1.html

With the correct choices, Desktop/Laptop Linux provides the best
computing environment by far, as a result of following the
principles of its parent Unix -- simplicity and modularity,

Try it -- you'll love it!

[-hh]

On Mar 15, 3:39 pm, Mark S Bilk <m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
> ...

> Try it -- you'll love it!

Already did. And again. I don't see any rational reason to ever
consider Linux for my main desktop ever again.

YMMV,

-hh

[Mark S Bilk]

Interesting. In the article that "-hh" is responding to,
I stated many rational reasons for using Linux:

>> [Linux] provides security, power, multiple virtual desktops,

>> flexible file systems, modularity, processor independence,
>> open source code, and zero cost. Most of these advantages
>> are not available in Microsoft Windows or Apple Macintosh.

>> With the correct choices, Desktop/Laptop Linux provides
>> the best computing environment by far, as a result of
>> following the principles of its parent Unix -- simplicity
>> and modularity,

But in his response, "-hh" deleted all those rational reasons
for using Linux and then said that he "[doesn't] see any".

Why would "-hh" do that?

I looked at about 20 of his recent posts to COLA, and when
he mentioned Linux, it was almost always to attack Linux
advocates. For example, he criticized them several times for
making personal attacks, but didn't criticize any anti-Linux
propagandists for anything, despite their copious use of personal
attacks, often employing obscenities. He also referred to
Linux users as being "the herd", which is a term used only by
Microsoft's lying anti-Linux propaganda gang.

I have to conclude that "-hh" is also an anti-Linux
propagandist. So why did he delete all the rational reasons
I gave for using Linux?

My article, adjudged excellent by a well-informed Linux advocate
to whom I showed it, went without a response for more than
three hours. Microsoft always tries to censor or negate
any positive information about Linux, wherever it appears,
and has done so for 15 years:

http://cosmicpenguin.com/linux/MICROSOFTS_WAR_AGAINST_LINUX.html

But the best the anti-Linux propagandists could come up with in
response to my article was a followup with all of my reasons
to use Linux deleted, and with the poster then saying that he
doesn't see any rational reason to use Linux. Totally lame,
but that's all they could think of.

Microsoft's anti-Linux department must be hoping that some
visitors to COLA will see the "-hh" article but not mine,
and so will be influenced against using Linux.

It's the visitors to COLA who come here to learn about
Linux that Microsoft has tried to influence with its 500,000
lying anti-Linux propaganda posts over more than ten years.
Linux users here are immune to Microsoft's lies, and almost
all of the anti-Linux propagandists are being paid by the
corporation to post those lies.

No other entity besides Microsoft has the motivation or
the resources to post 500,000 lying anti-Linux propaganda
articles to COLA, nor the 15-year history of vicious attacks
against Linux:

http://cosmicpenguin.com/linux/MICROSOFTS_WAR_AGAINST_LINUX.html

Linux advocates should stop talking to Microsoft's propaganda
posters. Talk to the audience -- the visitors -- and refute
the lies, but don't talk to the propagandists as if they were
people. They're not. They are sociopaths, which means that
they harm others in order to benefit themselves, they have no
conscience, and they lie constantly. They are no longer human,
just as a rabid dog is no longer a friendly pet. Both have
been transformed by a virus, cultural/memetic and biological,
respectively. Arguing with them is useless; they have never
changed their minds and never will. They are paid agents of
an evil corporation, which is trying to put all Internet
information and communication under government (fascist)
control -- previously with the "Palladium" firmware/software,
and now with the "secure boot" that will prevent computers
from running Linux.

This is real, deadly evil we're dealing with here: a gradual
plan to enslave every human being to the will and profit of
the few thousand ultra-wealthy psychopaths who are creating
what they call the New World Order. Recently Obama requested
and signed a law that allows the US government to kidnap and
murder anyone they want, anywhere in the world, without a trial.

After they stage a few false-flag terror operations involving
the Internet, they will pass a law putting all computers under
government control. No one will be able to access websites
like mine that tell the truth about what's going on, and how
world fascism has spread throughout the entire 20th and now
21st centuries, mostly from the United States.

http://cosmicpenguin.com

Linux folks, it's agents of these monsters that call you "turds"
and "the herd" and attack your families with obscenities. Have
you ever accomplished _anything_ by descending to their level
and arguing with them? No, you only make yourselves look bad
to the only audience that matters -- people who visit COLA
looking for information about Linux. The sociopaths bait you
into acting like they do, so that visitors won't be able to
tell the difference.

Heads up, people. This is not a drill.

[DFS]

Classic!

Where do all the cola nutcases come from? What attracts them to Linux?

Bilk, back on your meds before Pres. Obama has you kidnapped and murdered.

[Mark S Bilk]

Here's an antidote to the poison from Microsoft/DFS:

John Stewart -- Mother Country
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDIQcigvgrE

[DFS]

Here's an antidote to the lunacy from cola/Bilk:

"Chlorpromazine (aka Thorazine) is used to treat the symptoms of
schizophrenia (a mental illness that causes disturbed or unusual
thinking, loss of interest in life, and strong or inappropriate
emotions) and other psychotic disorders (conditions that cause
difficulty telling the difference between things or ideas that are real
and things or ideas that are not real) and to treat the symptoms of
mania (frenzied, abnormally excited mood) in people who have bipolar
disorder (manic depressive disorder; a condition that causes episodes of
mania, episodes of depression, and other abnormal moods)."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0000553/

[Mark S Bilk]

On Mar 15, 9:11 pm, Microsoft/DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
> On 3/15/2012 11:56 PM, Mark S Bilk wrote:
>
> > Here's an antidote to the poison from Microsoft/DFS:
>
> > John Stewart -- Mother Country
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDIQcigvgrE
>
> Here's an antidote to the lunacy from cola/Bilk:
> "Chlorpromazine (aka Thorazine) is used to treat the symptoms of
> schizophrenia (a mental illness that causes disturbed or unusual

http://cosmicpenguin.com/linux/MICROSOFTS_WAR_AGAINST_LINUX.html

MICROSOFT WROTE A SECRET MANUAL FOR ITS PROPAGANDA AGENTS
TELLING THEM TO LIE ABOUT COMPETING PRODUCTS AND TO CALL THEIR
USERS INSANE

A Microsoft document called "Effective Evangelism" and stamped
"HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL" on every page was obtained in the Comes
vs. Microsoft case. It's available at these locations -- PDF,
and HTML with a few comments:

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Comes-3096.pdf

http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071023002351958

Here's an excerpt from it:

[quote] [Microsoft's] Evangelism's goal is to put the final
nail into the competing technology's coffin, and bury it in
the burning depths of the earth. Ideally, use of the competing
technology becomes associated with mental deficiency, as in,
"he believes in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and OS/2." Just
keep rubbing it in, via the [bribed] press, [bribed] analysts,
[Usenet] newsgroups, whatever. Make the complete failure of
the competition's technology part of the mythology of the
computer industry. [/quote]

[Kari Laine]

When you take such a strong attitude on something and lead people
against a good choice, you really should give out your reasoning.
Otherwise you are just paid Microsoft chill.

Linux is free. Free to use free to develop. Windows and OS X are totally
closed proprietary money cows for the corporates.

This week alone if have cleaned and reinstalled several Windows machines
because of malware and other symptoms which were not correctable without
reinstall. Linux does not have these problems.

One of them had also lost Windows media and serial number. That person
have to now buy Windows AGAIN or accept to start using Linux. Which
would be the best solution to the problem.

I personally use both Windows and Linux and I very much prefer Linux. It
is stable, fast and effective OS. With Windows machines I seem always to
have issues, which are not solvable.

Kari

[Kari Laine]

This is right out of the The Top Secret Propaganda book of Microsoft.
Getting out in the court case "Comes versus Microsoft". Sorry I don't
have the link handy.

Shortly: Microsoft instructs Windows platform advocates attack the the
users of competing products as stupid and nut people.

So DFS you have properly indoctrinated.


Kari

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Mark S Bilk wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> <weird mixture ranging from truth to paranoia>

>
> http://cosmicpenguin.com
>
> Linux folks, it's agents of these monsters that call you "turds"
> and "the herd" and attack your families with obscenities. Have
> you ever accomplished _anything_ by descending to their level
> and arguing with them? No, you only make yourselves look bad
> to the only audience that matters -- people who visit COLA
> looking for information about Linux. The sociopaths bait you
> into acting like they do, so that visitors won't be able to
> tell the difference.

Yup. Even Lusotec is succumbing to the temptation to bite back.

> Heads up, people. This is not a drill.

No, it is a "drill down" :-D

microsoft drill down

--
I see you're still having reading comprehension problems. I didn't make
any mention of Bose stereo or audio equipment. I'm very familiar with
Bose... they're just down the road from me in xxxxxxxxxx, XX and I've
worked with and know several Bose employees.
-- Larry "Message-ID" Qualig

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Mark S Bilk wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Mar 15, 9:11 pm, Microsoft/DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:

-------------

<chuckle>

> http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Comes-3096.pdf
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071023002351958
>
> Here's an excerpt from it:
>
> [quote] [Microsoft's] Evangelism's goal is to put the final
> nail into the competing technology's coffin, and bury it in
> the burning depths of the earth. Ideally, use of the competing
> technology becomes associated with mental deficiency, as in,
> "he believes in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and OS/2." Just
> keep rubbing it in, via the [bribed] press, [bribed] analysts,
> [Usenet] newsgroups, whatever. Make the complete failure of
> the competition's technology part of the mythology of the
> computer industry. [/quote]

A sample of such provided below.

--
Certainly Office is an order better than Open Office.
All new products have issues. The PS3 had oodles.
What HAS amazed me (and I was anti x-box before) was how well it has
scaled.
As for MS : they dont make HW. They stick their logo on it. Or do they?
They fabricate nylon/plastic shells and the like? I dont know 100% for
sure.
The fact is their SW works for people. Over 90% of the PC users in the
world use it. And it works for them. Yes there are idiots like WronG who
claim they spend 90% of their day fighting malware. But I also believe
it takes him 4 hours to open the fridge door.
-- "Hadron" <if2ffi$si3$1...@news.eternal-september.org>

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Kari Laine wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> I personally use both Windows and Linux and I very much prefer Linux. It
> is stable, fast and effective OS. With Windows machines I seem always to
> have issues, which are not solvable.

Similar here, though most of my Windows usage is in VMs these days, so
the problems are minimized. It's the only way to run Windows as far as
I am concerned.

--
They're not thank god. But Rasker IS probably a liar. Not always. But I
used to think he was just a bit incompetent. But as his stories become more
and more far fetched one has to consider the fact that like Peter he's an
out and out liar.
-- "Hadron", pot-kettle-black

[Hadron]

Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> writes:

> Mark S Bilk wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> <weird mixture ranging from truth to paranoia>
>>
>> http://cosmicpenguin.com
>>
>> Linux folks, it's agents of these monsters that call you "turds"
>> and "the herd" and attack your families with obscenities. Have
>> you ever accomplished _anything_ by descending to their level
>> and arguing with them? No, you only make yourselves look bad
>> to the only audience that matters -- people who visit COLA
>> looking for information about Linux. The sociopaths bait you
>> into acting like they do, so that visitors won't be able to
>> tell the difference.
>
> Yup. Even Lusotec is succumbing to the temptation to bite back.
>
>> Heads up, people. This is not a drill.
>
> No, it is a "drill down" :-D
>
> microsoft drill down

Yegods! Creepy is sucking up to Mark S Bilk now!

[-hh]

On Mar 16, 5:44 am, Kari Laine <karitla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 03/16/2012 01:01 AM, -hh wrote:
>
> > On Mar 15, 3:39 pm, Mark S Bilk<m...@cosmicpenguin.com>  wrote:
> >> ...
> >> Try it -- you'll love it!
>
> > Already did.  And again.  I don't see any rational reason to ever
> > consider Linux for my main desktop ever again.
>
> > YMMV,
>
> > -hh
>
> When you take such a strong attitude on something and lead people
> against a good choice, you really should give out your reasoning.

I already have; its in the archives.

> Otherwise you are just paid Microsoft chill.

Once again, the default assumption of Linux advocacy is that all of
their woes can only be due to how evil Microsoft is, and no other
possibility. Since you've not comprehended my prior comments, but
chosen to misinterpret them as shilling for MS, I'll make it simple to
understand:

Fuck Microsoft. Strong language to follow.


> Linux is free.

From a lifecycle cost management perspective, it is most certainly NOT
free.

> Free to use ...

False. It is only free to download.

> ... free to develop.

False. It is only free to download.

> Windows and OS X are totally
> closed proprietary money cows for the corporates.

Even if true, that doesn't make them technically unsuitable for
everyone's IT needs, nor does it automatically make them have the
highest lifecycle management cost.

> This week alone if have cleaned and reinstalled several Windows machines
> because of malware and other symptoms which were not correctable without
> reinstall. Linux does not have these problems.

False. Linux also has these cost risks ... they're just not
necessarily of the same general magnitude of Windows. See reasonably
objective information resources, such as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware

> One of them had also lost Windows media and serial number. That person
> have to now buy Windows AGAIN or accept to start using Linux.

Human error is to blame, not the product. If you lost your car keys,
do you think that the automaker should replace them for you for free
too?

> Which would be the best solution to the problem.

Only from the shortsighted perspective of someone who clearly only
looks at "initial purchase price" and doesn't have a clue about how to
even start to do a lifecycle cost assessment.

> I personally use both Windows and Linux and I very much prefer Linux. It
> is stable, fast and effective OS. With Windows machines I seem always to
> have issues, which are not solvable.

And I've used all three of the major OSs, which means that I also have
insights as well as preferences.

For speed, I simply buy faster hardware.
For stability, I don't fuck around with inviting problems through
stupid system hacks/mods.
For solving, I've not lost any of my personal data .. or key desired
capabilities .. since before Linux was born.

So where are there any issues?

Oh, let me guess: if I were to jump through a different set of hoops,
I would have saved the $100 expense of an OS license on my upfront IT
costs.

Golly, a **hundred** bucks!! Applied across a typical three year
lifecycle, which means that the magnitude of this whine works out to
less than a buck a week.

So just what other things are you **currently** doing just to save $1/
week? Never buy a soda from a soda machine? Making a point to only
poop at work so as to use less of your own toiletpaper at home?
Scrimp on the tip for the waitress at that dinner out? FYI, do keep
in mind that not eating out at all (or as much) will save a lot more
than $1/week, so it is above this threshold.


-hh

[Hadron]

You pretty much own "Kari" at the moment. She's not too bright.

[Foster]

And how!
Where do these kooks come from?

I think it's the other losers and loser community at large that is
the attraction to Linux.
The unwashed bearded masses always seem to find each other and join
the comfort of the fold where there is no accountability.

The short answer is "foul" like to travel in flocks....

[Foster]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 06:12:48 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Mark S Bilk wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On Mar 15, 9:11 pm, Microsoft/DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
> -------------
>
> <chuckle>
>
>> http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Comes-3096.pdf
>>
>> http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071023002351958
>>
>> Here's an excerpt from it:
>>
>> [quote] [Microsoft's] Evangelism's goal is to put the final

>

> A sample of such provided below.

You're really sinking to below low when you start sucking up to Mark
S. Bilk.

Even your former master Shitzferwitz agrees that Mark has a few
loose screws and a few over tightened bolts.

[Foster]

Incredible.

Liarmutt has no self worth or pride.

[Foster]

And that is the experience of 99 percent of everyone who tries
Linux.

They hate it.

[DFS]

On 3/16/2012 12:27 AM, Mark S Bilk wrote:
> On Mar 15, 9:11 pm, Microsoft/DFS<nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 3/15/2012 11:56 PM, Mark S Bilk wrote:
>>
>>> Here's an antidote to the poison from Microsoft/DFS:
>>
>>> John Stewart -- Mother Country
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDIQcigvgrE
>>
>> Here's an antidote to the lunacy from cola/Bilk:
>> "Chlorpromazine (aka Thorazine) is used to treat the symptoms of
>> schizophrenia (a mental illness that causes disturbed or unusual
>
> http://cosmicpenguin.com/linux/MICROSOFTS_WAR_AGAINST_LINUX.html
>
> MICROSOFT WROTE A SECRET MANUAL FOR ITS PROPAGANDA AGENTS
> TELLING THEM TO LIE ABOUT COMPETING PRODUCTS AND TO CALL THEIR
> USERS INSANE

The propaganda manual Microsoft gave me said to hang around cola
(cesspool.of.lying.advocates) and keep an eye on the loons. It said
they were drawn to Linux like flies to shit.

You look like a fly, Bilk.

The fact is, nothing MS has ever said approaches the sheer vitriol,
lunacy, idiocy, and dishonesty spewed by you and a thousand other Linux
assholes day after day after day for 20 years.

[Foster]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 10:46:24 -0400, DFS wrote:

> On 3/16/2012 12:27 AM, Mark S Bilk wrote:
>> On Mar 15, 9:11 pm, Microsoft/DFS<nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/15/2012 11:56 PM, Mark S Bilk wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here's an antidote to the poison from Microsoft/DFS:
>>>
>>>> John Stewart -- Mother Country
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDIQcigvgrE
>>>
>>> Here's an antidote to the lunacy from cola/Bilk:
>>> "Chlorpromazine (aka Thorazine) is used to treat the symptoms of
>>> schizophrenia (a mental illness that causes disturbed or unusual
>>
>> http://cosmicpenguin.com/linux/MICROSOFTS_WAR_AGAINST_LINUX.html
>>
>> MICROSOFT WROTE A SECRET MANUAL FOR ITS PROPAGANDA AGENTS
>> TELLING THEM TO LIE ABOUT COMPETING PRODUCTS AND TO CALL THEIR
>> USERS INSANE
>
>
> The propaganda manual Microsoft gave me said to hang around cola
> (cesspool.of.lying.advocates) and keep an eye on the loons. It said
> they were drawn to Linux like flies to shit.
>
> You look like a fly, Bilk.

Yea.

A fruit fly :)

[DFS]

You're under the impression cola "advocates" are not nuts? Fact is,
it's almost impossible to find an "advocate" who doesn't run around
muttering stupidity and craziness under their breath.



7: "Linux markets its cheaper products while appil trolls who promote
products to milk wimmin out of money with their money milking debt
creating iPiddys, and MP3 players such as ipod will happily side with
appil and their milking maidens targeting wimmin to milk wimmin dry and
putting them into debt."


Chris Ahlstrom: acts like a sashaying nancy-boy, tells us how his wife
runs his life and gave him a weekly allowance, uses Windows to make a
living but says Microsoft is "evil" and "cancer", says his wife is
probably physically stronger than males, defends moronic congenital
liars like Rex Ballard and 7 and chrisv, cataloged 660 Hadron posts but
labels others 'stalkers'...


chrisv: in 6 consecutive days posted this litany of ranting:

* What a piece of shit *liar* you are, "Ezekiel".
* You're a piece of shit, "Ezekiel".
* You sure are a shitty and transparent liar, "Ezekiel".
* lying fsckwit Ezekiel
* Hey Ezekiel, you stupid piece of shit.
* What you can expect from lying assholes like "Ezekiel"
* bald-faced liars like "Ezekiel"
* Even his shitty pals, like "Ezekiel".
* that POS hypocrite "Ezekiel"
* Are you mentally retarded, cc?
* Apple is slimey. As are you, "Lloyd".
* You are indeed slimey, "Lloyd", as is your beloved Apple Corp.
* "Ezekiel" is a piece of shit, DumFSck
* "Ezekiel" You shameless fscking liar.
* "Ezekiel", You are a filthy liar.
* "Ezekiel", You shameless fscking liar.
* "Ezekiel", You shameless fscking liar.
* "Lloyd" is simply a lying piece of shit,
* What transparent, idiotic, lying, immoral assholes, "Lloyd"
and "Ezekiel" are. What filth!
* How fscking obtuse do you want to be, "Ezekiel", you piece of shit?
* The trolling jackass filth "Lloyd" displays his ignorance again.
* Sounds like you're a piece of shit who attacks people for no reason,
"GreyCloud".... you fscking asshole?
* What a fscking asshole, you are, "GreyCloud".
* "GreyCloud" you piece of shit
* Having fun sucking-off that vile troll, "GreyCloud?
* You're a piece of shit again "GreyCloud"
* Poor "Ezekiel". You are a filthy liar, a dumbshit, and a fscking
asshole who makes a jackass of himself on a regular basis.
* fscking *filth* like Flatfish
* "GreyCloud" You piece of shit.
* "Ezekiel" you stupid piece of shit?


Rex Ballard: claimed he helped write the GPL, the specs for https,
designed SSL (secure sockets layer), designed Java and Java RMI, fixed
the FedEx package tracker and generated new $1 million/day for FedEx,
early cluster/grid programmer, early UNIX programmer, among the first
Internet users, early adopter of the Mac, first VCR salesman, created
the web browsing industry, contributed to MS-DOS and Win2000, are the
unrecognized Cisco Network Engineer #5, created one of the first
digitized voice response systems, wrote operating systems, saved IBM
tens of millions, told Yahoo, Amazon, and Lycos how to take it to the
next level, designed military weaponry while in high-school, have a
3-octave singing voice, inspired Robin William's character Mork, and was
the basis for Nicholas Negroponte's book "Being Digital".


Homer: "And the best excuse Intellectual Monopolists can muster for this
racket, is "it's the only way we can make any money", which is a bit
like a bank robber claiming he "needs" to rob banks, or a narcotics
peddler claiming he "needs" to sell narcotics, or slave owners
claiming the "need" to own slaves, whilst conveniently ignoring the
million other less corrupt ways to make a living. Meanwhile, anyone
who criticises this morally bankrupt mentality is stigmatised as a
"commie" or a "pirate", by those same nuts who think they have some
God-given "right" to monopolise knowledge, that they blatantly stole
/themselves/ from countless others who came before."



JEDIDIAH: "[Ezekiel] is a pro-monopoly zealot. He's only notion of
"success" is where you crush all rivals, grind them into dust, and force
everyone to use your product against their will."


Sinister Midget and Homer: "If Windows were the only choice I wouldn't
use computers."


Goblin: "boycottnovell.com [now techrights.org] is the most entertaining
and informative site on the Internet"



Roy Schestowitz: "I sense Microsoft hounded Hans Reiser until Hans
killed his wife"

> So DFS you have properly indoctrinated.

And you, Kari, have been properly and willingly fooled by the maniacal
idiots that call themselves "Linux advocates".



> Kari

[Kari Laine]

Well I happen to know Mark S. Bilk. We have discussed a lot lately. I
probably don't agree on everything with him but most of things I do - at
least the important ones, like human rights, wars are evil, 9/11 was
some kind of orchestrated plot, where goverment or at lest the secret
circles of it were involved. Mark is very intelligent person. He has a
wast knowledge on different things and has a very good procedure to get
to the root of things.

So instead posting this typical bullshit try to argue with him. You will
loose without Mark breaking a sweat. Why you will loose is not only that
he is more intelligent than you but because truth is on his side. That
is pretty hard proposition to win.

Best Regards
Kari

[chrisv]

>--

>The fact is their SW works for people. Over 90% of the PC users in the
>world use it. And it works for them. Yes there are idiots like WronG who
>claim they spend 90% of their day fighting malware. But I also believe
>it takes him 4 hours to open the fridge door.
> -- "Hadron" <if2ffi$si3$1...@news.eternal-september.org>

Such a shameless Winshill.

[Kari Laine]

On 03/16/2012 02:38 PM, -hh wrote:
> On Mar 16, 5:44 am, Kari Laine<karitla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 03/16/2012 01:01 AM, -hh wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 15, 3:39 pm, Mark S Bilk<m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> Try it -- you'll love it!
>>
>>> Already did. And again. I don't see any rational reason to ever
>>> consider Linux for my main desktop ever again.
>>
>>> YMMV,
>>
>>> -hh
>>
>> When you take such a strong attitude on something and lead people
>> against a good choice, you really should give out your reasoning.
>
> I already have; its in the archives.

Well you could maybe list 10 lines as a list so readers don't have to
scourge the archives for these.

>
>
>> Otherwise you are just paid Microsoft chill.
>
> Once again, the default assumption of Linux advocacy is that all of
> their woes can only be due to how evil Microsoft is, and no other
> possibility. Since you've not comprehended my prior comments, but
> chosen to misinterpret them as shilling for MS, I'll make it simple to
> understand:
>
> Fuck Microsoft. Strong language to follow.
>

Well many people whose Linux also use Windows and OS X. Fact is MS is
using it's power on the market to kill other options. There are lot of
cases where they were successful.
1. Gem
2. other dos versions
3. Lotus 1-2-3
4. OS/2
5. BeOS
6. NetScape

They are ugly cases. Even sabotaging a competitor is among them. They
modified Windows so that it wont't run on competing DOS product(I don'ẗ
remember the name of it for the moment).

Other method is withholding information on the APIs so the other guy can
not program for the Windows platform.

Microsoft is totally predatory company, which buys influence with money
to crush competition. They bribe decision makers and so on.
For example what happened to One Laptop for Each Child project. I
remember faintly that MS somehow sidetracked it. Does anyone know the facts?

Read the Comes versus Microsoft pdf.

MS office is a viral product because people send those documents as
email attachment and you have to have office and even newest version to
open them. This is the circle which must be demolished.

>
>> Linux is free.
>
> From a lifecycle cost management perspective, it is most certainly NOT
> free.
>

How much corporates use to solve problems with Windows or other MS
products. Patching and testing patching. Paying for anti-virus solution.
Windows is pretty expensive platform to keep running.

I am sure that big Linux based installation with right tools is very
cost effective to MS platform. Problem is managers think it is the risk
to be first on the desktop and nowadays "Nobody get fired for buying
Microsoft" is the saying.

A smart company could have a support department to keep Linux based
infrastructure going and practically pay 0 for the software. Naturally
they must have clever people in the support department. A mouse clinking
drone with Microsoft certificate won't do.

>> Free to use ...
>
> False. It is only free to download.
>

Well how it is not free to use? I don't pay anything for it and I have
all the needed software for free. I even though donate time to time
money to FOSS projects. And it is simple. Installation takes less than
hour and installation of new programs max few minutes. Hardware is found
without the typical Google for the driver, try to find right version,
install, reboot, what it is in Windows.

>> ... free to develop.
>
> False. It is only free to download.
>

If the whole environment is free. All the programming languages are free
so how it is not free?

>> Windows and OS X are totally
>> closed proprietary money cows for the corporates.
>
> Even if true, that doesn't make them technically unsuitable for
> everyone's IT needs, nor does it automatically make them have the
> highest lifecycle management cost.
>
>

You seem to like this concept of lifecycle. You should define it and
give an example how to calculate one. Otherwise it is just an empty
word, which sound impressive.

My sound personal opinion.
Lifecycle costs from lowest to highest
1. Linux
2. OS X
3. Windows

>> This week alone if have cleaned and reinstalled several Windows machines
>> because of malware and other symptoms which were not correctable without
>> reinstall. Linux does not have these problems.
>
> False. Linux also has these cost risks ... they're just not
> necessarily of the same general magnitude of Windows. See reasonably
> objective information resources, such as:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware
>
>

"There has not yet been a widespread Linux malware threat of the type
that Microsoft Windows software faces; this is commonly attributed to
the small number of users running Linux as a desktop operating
system[1], the malware's lack of root access and fast updates to most
Linux vulnerabilities.[2]"

Please send me a copy of Linux malware. It would be interesting to see.

>> One of them had also lost Windows media and serial number. That person
>> have to now buy Windows AGAIN or accept to start using Linux.
>
> Human error is to blame, not the product. If you lost your car keys,
> do you think that the automaker should replace them for you for free
> too?
>

I have seen these problems numerous times. And nowadays when new
machines does not come with DVDs - problem is very real.

Well when I loose my car keys I just buy new keys not the whole fucking
car.

>> Which would be the best solution to the problem.
>
> Only from the shortsighted perspective of someone who clearly only
> looks at "initial purchase price" and doesn't have a clue about how to
> even start to do a lifecycle cost assessment.
>

Now define the term.

>
>> I personally use both Windows and Linux and I very much prefer Linux. It
>> is stable, fast and effective OS. With Windows machines I seem always to
>> have issues, which are not solvable.
>
> And I've used all three of the major OSs, which means that I also have
> insights as well as preferences.
>
> For speed, I simply buy faster hardware.

Not all people can afford that.

> For stability, I don't fuck around with inviting problems through
> stupid system hacks/mods.

Windows is know to deteriorate simply by itself. You have to be prepared
to reinstall it 1-2 times a year to keep it slick.
Today I tried to fix a problem. When computer went to sleep and come
back it always lost wired network connection and had to be rebooted to
work again.

> For solving, I've not lost any of my personal data .. or key desired
> capabilities .. since before Linux was born.

Thanks to Linux many Windows users have not lost their data.

>
> So where are there any issues?
>
> Oh, let me guess: if I were to jump through a different set of hoops,
> I would have saved the $100 expense of an OS license on my upfront IT
> costs.
>

How you earn the money with the computer if you just buy the OS. A
typical worker on computer needs applications. And there are several
good ones free. Naturally many of those are available to Windows and OS
X also.

But MOST people don't prefer Linux because it is FREE but because it is
BETTER !

> Golly, a **hundred** bucks!! Applied across a typical three year
> lifecycle, which means that the magnitude of this whine works out to
> less than a buck a week.
>

See above. Add anti-virus and 3-6 reinstall in those three years.

> So just what other things are you **currently** doing just to save $1/
> week? Never buy a soda from a soda machine? Making a point to only
> poop at work so as to use less of your own toiletpaper at home?
> Scrimp on the tip for the waitress at that dinner out? FYI, do keep
> in mind that not eating out at all (or as much) will save a lot more
> than $1/week, so it is above this threshold.

You seem to be fixed with this ONLY buying OS. Tell me now which
programs you use for you work and how much they cost.


>
>
> -hh

Kari

[chrisv]

> "-hh" wrote:
>>
>> Once again, the default assumption of Linux advocacy is that all of
>> their woes can only be due to how evil Microsoft is, and no other
>> possibility.

Started reading this exchange, just for fun, and "surprise", I see
"-hh" leading-off with the above *shameless, ridiculous lie*.

So, I read no further.

It's good to be occasionally reminded of why some of these filthy
fscking liars, like "-hh", are allocated space in my bozo bin.

[DFS]

On 3/16/2012 12:59 PM, Kari Laine wrote:
> On 03/16/2012 03:14 PM, Foster wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 06:12:48 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> Mark S Bilk wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 15, 9:11 pm, Microsoft/DFS<nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>> -------------
>>>
>>> <chuckle>
>>>
>>>> http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Comes-3096.pdf
>>>>
>>>> http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071023002351958
>>>>
>>>> Here's an excerpt from it:
>>>>
>>>> [quote] [Microsoft's] Evangelism's goal is to put the final
>>
>>>
>>> A sample of such provided below.
>>
>> You're really sinking to below low when you start sucking up to Mark
>> S. Bilk.
>>
>> Even your former master Shitzferwitz agrees that Mark has a few
>> loose screws and a few over tightened bolts.
>
> Well I happen to know Mark S. Bilk. We have discussed a lot lately. I
> probably don't agree on everything with him but most of things I do - at
> least the important ones, like human rights, wars are evil, 9/11 was
> some kind of orchestrated plot, where goverment or at lest the secret
> circles of it were involved.

heh!

> Mark is very intelligent person.

Bilk is a brain-addled moron.

Read some of his idiocy at http://cosmicpenguin.com/linux/

* "Microsoft has written the software (called "Palladium") to implement
total government censorship of the Internet."

* "Linux and other Open Source software ... has its defects corrected as
soon as possible..."

* "Microsoft also threatens to withdraw its profitable ads from computer
magazines if the magazines run favorable articles about Linux."


Most of what he says on that page is bullshit anti-Microsoft lies and
stupidity along the lines of what Rex Ballard says.

> He has a
> wast knowledge on different things and has a very good procedure to get
> to the root of things.

Yes he does:

1) proclaim something happened or is true
2) offer no proof
3) accept no arguments against his idiocy

> So instead posting this typical bullshit try to argue with him. You will
> loose without Mark breaking a sweat. Why you will loose is not only that
> he is more intelligent than you but because truth is on his side. That
> is pretty hard proposition to win.

What "truth" is that?

You mean like this hooey: "Microsoft also threatens to withdraw its
profitable ads from computer magazines if the magazines run favorable
articles about Linux."?

Fact: Just the other day the MSNBC website recommended putting Linux on
older computers.
http://www.gadgetbox.msnbc.msn.com/technology/gadgetbox/10-ways-make-best-old-crappy-computer-388004


Fact: Bilk is a lying idiot.

[Foster]

Bilk is a truther who takes statements out of context, uses dubious
"evidence" and "sources" as factual and basically keeps changing the
story when confronted with the holes in his theories.

IOW a real nut.

[DFS]

chrisv: X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572 (Windows only)

chrisv: "I buy a lot of Windows PC's to use as test stations, and I've
been buying refurbished XP machines and have no plans to change."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/540e8d3903f1e9cd?hl=en

chrisv: "Home Premium OEM is available for $100 online... My daughter
runs it"
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/80f7d039e11e8e4f?hl=en

[DFS]

* Zeke: "chrisv responds to all my posts"
* chrisv: "Zeke is a filthy liar"

* chrisv: "All Snit does is lie"
* chrisv: "I am 100% honest."

* chrisv Jul 2010: "[The iPad] is, clearly, an expensive toy,
and one that I have little desire for. The vast majority of
the populace sees it the way that I do, I'm sure."
* chrisv: Dec 2010: "I thought all-along that the iPad
would be a success."
* chrisv: "I don't lie."

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2012-03-16, -hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> On Mar 16, 5:44 am, Kari Laine <karitla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 03/16/2012 01:01 AM, -hh wrote:
>>
>> > On Mar 15, 3:39 pm, Mark S Bilk<m...@cosmicpenguin.com>  wrote:
>> >> ...
>> >> Try it -- you'll love it!
>>
>> > Already did.  And again.  I don't see any rational reason to ever
>> > consider Linux for my main desktop ever again.
>>
>> > YMMV,
>>
>> > -hh
>>
>> When you take such a strong attitude on something and lead people
>> against a good choice, you really should give out your reasoning.
>
> I already have; its in the archives.
>
>
>> Otherwise you are just paid Microsoft chill.
>
> Once again, the default assumption of Linux advocacy is that all of
> their woes can only be due to how evil Microsoft is, and no other

No. Just basic rhetoric.

[deletia]

--
Nothing quite gives you an understanding of mysql's |||
popularity as does an attempt to do some simple date / | \
manipulations in postgres.

[OldGoat]

On 3/16/2012 4:12 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Mark S Bilk wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On Mar 15, 9:11 pm, Microsoft/DFS<nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
> -------------
>
> <chuckle>
>
>> http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Comes-3096.pdf
>>
>> http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071023002351958
>>
>> Here's an excerpt from it:
>>
>> [quote] [Microsoft's] Evangelism's goal is to put the final
>> nail into the competing technology's coffin, and bury it in
>> the burning depths of the earth. Ideally, use of the competing
>> technology becomes associated with mental deficiency, as in,
>> "he believes in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and OS/2." Just
>> keep rubbing it in, via the [bribed] press, [bribed] analysts,
>> [Usenet] newsgroups, whatever. Make the complete failure of
>> the competition's technology part of the mythology of the
>> computer industry. [/quote]
>
> A sample of such provided below.
>

Are you trying to suck up the bottom of the bilge now?

[OldGoat]

Get out those old fashioned fly tapes that have the glue on them.
Then we can all watch him flapping away.

[OldGoat]

Looks like someone hung up some fly paper called Linux.
They're all stuck on it.

[OldGoat]

Everything in the world is a lie in your diseased mind, turd.

[OldGoat]

And it smells like fly paper too.

[Homer]

Verily I say unto thee that Kari Laine spake thusly:

> On 03/16/2012 02:38 PM, -hh wrote:
>> On Mar 16, 5:44 am, Kari Laine<karitla...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Fuck Microsoft.
[...]

> They are ugly cases. Even sabotaging a competitor is among them. They
> modified Windows so that it wont't run on competing DOS product(I
> don'ẗ remember the name of it for the moment).

DR-DOS.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/11/05/how_ms_played_the_incompatibility/

> Other method is withholding information on the APIs so the other guy
> can not program for the Windows platform.
>
> Microsoft is totally predatory company, which buys influence with
> money to crush competition. They bribe decision makers and so on. For
> example what happened to One Laptop for Each Child project. I remember
> faintly that MS somehow sidetracked it. Does anyone know the facts?

http://news.softpedia.com/news/One-Laptop-Per-Child-Sabotaged-by-Microsoft-and-Intel-71941.shtml
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS7642674933.html

> Read the Comes versus Microsoft pdf.

http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/assets/attachments/Petition.pdf

Summary (Microsoft's Predatory Response to GNU/Linux):

http://jeremy.linuxquestions.org/2007/07/15/comes-vs-microsoft-petition-shows-how-microsoft-blocked-linux-sales

Microsoft's infamous "Evangelism is WAR!" training brief:

http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03096.pdf

Summary (How to Get Your Platform Accepted as a Standard - Microsoft
Style):

http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071023002351958

>>> Free to use ...
>>
>> False. It is only free to download.
>>
> Well how it is not free to use? I don't pay anything for it and I have
> all the needed software for free. I even though donate time to time
> money to FOSS projects.

Personally I don't care about GNU/Linux's low/zero cost. It's completely
irrelevant to me. I only care that it's Free, and that whatever money I
do spend on it doesn't go anywhere near Microsoft and Apple. Microsoft's
OEM racket and (their and Apple's) patent extortion make that goal
unnecessarily difficult, though.

> Please send me a copy of Linux malware. It would be interesting to
> see.

The rare examples of GNU/Linux "Malware" typically comprise OS-agnostic
attacks that usually involve stolen passwords and/or social engineering,
and therefore have no bearing on the security of GNU/Linux itself.
Actual /viral infections/ and /exploited/ privilege escalation
vulnerabilities have mostly been limited to untested hypotheses and lab
experiments. In practice this means the vast majority of GNU/Linux users
will never suffer a security breach of any kind, provided they use
GNU/Linux the way it was meant to be, and keep it updated. This
contrasts with Windows, where security breaches are an accepted
inevitability and daily occurrence.

IMO the biggest threat to GNU/Linux security comes from those within the
community itself, who wish to undermine its inherent security for the
sake of "convenience" (e.g. PolicyKit). IOW the further once gets from
having a clear policy of privilege separation (and therefore the closer
one gets to Microsoft's single user, zero-security paradigm) the more
vulnerable one's system becomes.

--
K. | "You see? You cannot kill me. There is no flesh
http://slated.org | and blood within this cloak to kill. There is
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | only an idea. And ideas are bulletproof."
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 38 days | ~ V for Vendetta.

[Rockinghorse Winner]

* It may have been the liquor talking, but

-hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> On Mar 15, 3:39 pm, Mark S Bilk <m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
>> ...
>> Try it -- you'll love it!
>
>
> Already did. And again. I don't see any rational reason to ever
> consider Linux for my main desktop ever again.
>
> YMMV,
>
> -hh

Just the convenience of not having to think twice about spyware or virii is
major. When I come on a malicious web site I just snicker. Sometimes I'll
poke around just to see how depraved it's creators are: no worries! For
that alone, I treasure my linux machine.

I remember all too well the times I used to have to shut down my browser or
Windows itself due to a web site causing my hd to spin endlessly, or
wouldn't let me leave or some such thing. True, I was running less than the
ideal h/w configuration, but I didn't see why I was being compelled to spend
money to overcome inherent faults in the Windows browser experience, when I
could switch to linux and be done with it!

I was being shook down for the privelege of an inferior browsing experience.
I just didn't see the logic of it, and still don't.

Not to mention all the other reasons to switch to linux.

Terry
--
"There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats."
-Albert Schweitzer

badass linux - gentoo 3.2.1

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Rockinghorse Winner wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> * It may have been the liquor talking, but
> -hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 15, 3:39 pm, Mark S Bilk <m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Try it -- you'll love it!
>>
>>
>> Already did. And again. I don't see any rational reason to ever
>> consider Linux for my main desktop ever again.
>>
>> YMMV,
>>
>> -hh
>
> Just the convenience of not having to think twice about spyware or virii is
> major. When I come on a malicious web site I just snicker. Sometimes I'll
> poke around just to see how depraved it's creators are: no worries! For
> that alone, I treasure my linux machine.

Indeed.

> I remember all too well the times I used to have to shut down my browser or
> Windows itself due to a web site causing my hd to spin endlessly, or
> wouldn't let me leave or some such thing. True, I was running less than the
> ideal h/w configuration, but I didn't see why I was being compelled to spend
> money to overcome inherent faults in the Windows browser experience, when I
> could switch to linux and be done with it!
>
> I was being shook down for the privelege of an inferior browsing experience.
> I just didn't see the logic of it, and still don't.
>
> Not to mention all the other reasons to switch to linux.

Started up a Jabber client for Windows today. It dropped one of my
contacts, and spun forever trying to connect to the Windows-based XMPP
server.

Gajim on Linux? No problemo.

I would suffer greatly if Linux suddenly disappeared.

But then I'm a "nasty piece of work". :-D

--
Yet you don't answer his question. Where did he lie you dishonest little
"advocate" you? Come on. You're telling lies again to suck up to the
"advocates" again aren't you? Why do you do it?
You're a nasty piece of work, no two ways about that.
-- "Hadron" <1hag67-...@news.eternal-september.org>

[Rockinghorse Winner]

* It may have been the liquor talking, but

Mark S Bilk <ma...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:

> On Mar 15, 4:01 pm, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 15, 3:39 pm, Mark S Bilk <m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
>> > ...
>> > Try it -- you'll love it!
>>
>> Already did. And again. I don't see any rational reason to ever
>> consider Linux for my main desktop ever again. YMMV, -hh
>

...snip

That is a mouthful! No, I don't think the trolls are paid shills or even
sociopaths. Well, *maybe* sociopaths.

Mostly, I think they are simply immature and like bringing attention to
themselves by throwing verbal grenades. Almost universally, their claims
are untrue or exaggerated, and hardly worth debating except perhaps as an
exercise. I killfile all except the entertaining ones.

[Ezekiel]

"Homer" <use...@slated.org> wrote in message
news:fpkc39-...@sky.matrix...

> Verily I say unto thee that Kari Laine spake thusly:
>> On 03/16/2012 02:38 PM, -hh wrote:
>>> On Mar 16, 5:44 am, Kari Laine<karitla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Fuck Microsoft.
> [...]
>> They are ugly cases. Even sabotaging a competitor is among them. They
>> modified Windows so that it wont't run on competing DOS product(I

>> don'? remember the name of it for the moment).
>
> DR-DOS.
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/11/05/how_ms_played_the_incompatibility/

And which product version of Windows was incompatible with DR-DOS?

Answer - None. This was in a developer preview beta copy of Windows and was
never shipped in any release or to any customer.

>> Please send me a copy of Linux malware. It would be interesting to
>> see.
>
> The rare examples of GNU/Linux "Malware" typically comprise OS-agnostic
> attacks that usually involve stolen passwords and/or social engineering,
> and therefore have no bearing on the security of GNU/Linux itself.
> Actual /viral infections/ and /exploited/ privilege escalation
> vulnerabilities have mostly been limited to untested hypotheses and lab
> experiments.

Your memory is failing old man. This is barely 6 months old.

<quote>
Kernel.org Linux repository rooted in hack attack
Rootkit not detected for 17 days
Posted in Enterprise Security
August 31st 2011

Multiple servers used to maintain and distribute the Linux operating system
were infected with malware that gained root access, modified system
software, and logged passwords and transactions of the people who used them,
the official Linux Kernel Organization has confirmed.
</quote>
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/31/linux_kernel_security_breach/

--

"Share price is a measure of market confidence based on current performance.
The market is apparently twice as confident of Google as it is of Apple, and
20 times more confident than it is of Microsoft.

So what Google is doing today is apparently better than what others are
doing."

Homer - failing badly at finance 101.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Rockinghorse Winner wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> That is a mouthful! No, I don't think the trolls are paid shills or even
> sociopaths. Well, *maybe* sociopaths.
>
> Mostly, I think they are simply immature and like bringing attention to
> themselves by throwing verbal grenades. Almost universally, their claims
> are untrue or exaggerated, and hardly worth debating except perhaps as an
> exercise. I killfile all except the entertaining ones.

Which are entertaining?

--
Tell me you sycophantic little suck up and liar, where is all your self
righteous indignation and whining about being nice when you slag off
"fuckheads" who are REAL OSS developers? You know , where you got
carried away like a puppy chasing its tails and started to lecture Joerg
Schilling? Or when Willy Poaster and his gang post about Snits wife and
family? I will tell you : no where to be seen because you are a
hypocritical little arse with an agenda to show off and proclaim
yourself the group techy. Which is a laugh and a half because you're as
transparent as a window pane.
-- "Hadron". Copied from Google Groups.

[DFS]

On 3/16/2012 8:30 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Rockinghorse Winner wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> That is a mouthful! No, I don't think the trolls are paid shills or even
>> sociopaths. Well, *maybe* sociopaths.
>>
>> Mostly, I think they are simply immature and like bringing attention to
>> themselves by throwing verbal grenades. Almost universally, their claims
>> are untrue or exaggerated, and hardly worth debating except perhaps as an
>> exercise. I killfile all except the entertaining ones.
>
> Which are entertaining?

All. Absent us "trolls", this group would implode in a huge fart of
boredom as you sit around and lie to each other about the "evil"
Microsoft and Apple.

[-hh]

On Mar 16, 1:36 pm, Kari Laine <karitla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 03/16/2012 02:38 PM, -hh wrote:
> > On Mar 16, 5:44 am, Kari Laine<karitla...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
> >> On 03/16/2012 01:01 AM, -hh wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 15, 3:39 pm, Mark S Bilk<m...@cosmicpenguin.com>    wrote:
> >>>> ...
> >>>> Try it -- you'll love it!
>
> >>> Already did.  And again.  I don't see any rational reason to ever
> >>> consider Linux for my main desktop ever again.
>
> >>> YMMV,
>
> >>> -hh
>
> >> When you take such a strong attitude on something and lead people
> >> against a good choice, you really should give out your reasoning.
>
> > I already have; its in the archives.
>
> Well you could maybe list 10 lines as a list so readers don't have to
> scourge the archives for these.

The same value applies for the OP when they made their unsubstantiated
claims. Get the OP to substantiate and others will follow ... but
don't give them a free ride by asking others to do better.

> >> Otherwise you are just paid Microsoft chill.
>
> > Once again, the default assumption of Linux advocacy is that all of
> > their woes can only be due to how evil Microsoft is, and no other
> > possibility.   Since you've not comprehended my prior comments, but
> > chosen to misinterpret them as shilling for MS, I'll make it simple to
> > understand:
>
> > Fuck Microsoft.  Strong language to follow.
>
> Well many people whose Linux also use Windows and OS X. Fact is MS is
> using it's power on the market to kill other options. There are lot of
> cases where they were successful.
> 1. Gem
> 2. other dos versions
> 3. Lotus 1-2-3
> 4. OS/2
> 5. BeOS
> 6. NetScape
>
> They are ugly cases.

They're also ancient history. How about keeping the discussion
relevant by keeping it to recent sins?

> Even sabotaging a competitor is among them. They
> modified Windows so that it wont't run on competing DOS product(I don'ẗ
> remember the name of it for the moment).
>
> Other method is withholding information on the APIs so the other guy can
> not program for the Windows platform.
>
> Microsoft is totally predatory company, which buys influence with money
> to crush competition. They bribe decision makers and so on.
> For example what happened to One Laptop for Each Child project. I
> remember faintly that MS somehow sidetracked it. Does anyone know the facts?
>
> Read the Comes versus Microsoft pdf.
>
> MS office is a viral product because people send those documents as
> email attachment and you have to have office and even newest version to
> open them. This is the circle which must be demolished.

It only will get demolished if it illegal.

> >> Linux is free.
>
> >  From a lifecycle cost management perspective, it is most certainly NOT
> > free.
>
> How much corporates use to solve problems with Windows or other MS
> products. Patching and testing patching. Paying for anti-virus solution.
> Windows is pretty expensive platform to keep running.

That observation doesn't have any relevance to Linux's costs.

> I am sure that big Linux based installation with right tools is very
> cost effective to MS platform. Problem is managers think it is the risk
> to be first on the desktop and nowadays "Nobody get fired for buying
> Microsoft" is the saying.

Amazing how we are all "so sure" of the outcome that is not being
exploited by businesses. Ocham's Razor would suggest simpler
explanations than that every IT manager is a coward.

> A smart company could have a support department to keep Linux based
> infrastructure going and practically pay 0 for the software. Naturally
> they must have clever people in the support department. A mouse clinking
> drone with Microsoft certificate won't do.

The financial expense model is pretty simple: it is to compare costs
of (software + support labor) for each. The key observation is that
software is basically a one-time expense whereas support labor is
ongoing.

> >> Free to use ...
>
> > False.  It is only free to download.
>
> Well how it is not free to use?

Because "use" includes the cost of your time, as well as how it
creates value.

> I don't pay anything for it and I have
> all the needed software for free. I even though donate time to time
> money to FOSS projects. And it is simple. Installation takes less than
> hour and installation of new programs max few minutes. Hardware is found
> without the typical Google for the driver, try to find right version,
> install, reboot, what it is in Windows.

Wrong observation. What you want to look at is the cost of your time
and the productivity it can be employed with. For an example by
analogy, you can dig a hole for "free" by using your bare hands, but
it will take hours to make a hole that's 2ft deep ... but if you were
willing to buy a shovel, that hole can be dug in a few minutes.
Factor in the value of your time and you can calculate how much each
hole cost you to dig. You can also calculate how many holes you have
to dig before the shovel pays for itself.

For example, if your time is worth $10/hr, buying a shovel costs $20
and it takes 1 hour to dig a hole by hand vs 5 minutes by shovel:

First hole: $10 by hand ... vs .. ($20 + 5/60*$10) = $20.83
Second hole: $20 ... vs ... $21.67
Third hole: $30 ... vs $22.50
etc

Now looking at these same numbers again, as a productivity metric:

Average Cost per Hole

By hand: always $10

By Shovel: starts at $20.83 ... then is $10.84/hole, and drops to
$7.50/hole by the third ... etc.

Conclusion: if you're digging more than two holes, it is cost-
advantageous to buy a shovel.

> >> ... free to develop.
>
> > False.  It is only free to download.
>
> If the whole environment is free. All the programming languages are free
> so how it is not free?

Your time is not free.

> >> Windows and OS X are totally
> >> closed proprietary money cows for the corporates.
>
> > Even if true, that doesn't make them technically unsuitable for
> > everyone's IT needs, nor does it automatically make them have the
> > highest lifecycle management cost.
>
> You seem to like this concept of lifecycle. You should define it and
> give an example how to calculate one. Otherwise it is just an empty
> word, which sound impressive.

Already done in part above with the simple "Should I buy a shovel?"
example. For the rest, Google is your friend, although taking some
professional training in the field would go a long ways in learning
how to apply.

> My sound personal opinion.
> Lifecycle costs from lowest to highest
> 1. Linux
> 2. OS X
> 3. Windows

Which lacks any substantiative quantification. Given that you claim
to not even know what life cycle cost analysis even is, your opinion
is effectively indistinguishable from random guessing.

> >> This week alone if have cleaned and reinstalled several Windows machines
> >> because of malware and other symptoms which were not correctable without
> >> reinstall. Linux does not have these problems.
>
> > False.  Linux also has these cost risks ... they're just not
> > necessarily of the same general magnitude of Windows.   See reasonably
> > objective information resources, such as:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware
>
> "There has not yet been a widespread Linux malware threat of the type
> that Microsoft Windows software faces; this is commonly attributed to
> the small number of users running Linux as a desktop operating
> system[1], the malware's lack of root access and fast updates to most
> Linux vulnerabilities.[2]"
>
> Please send me a copy of Linux malware. It would be interesting to see.

Sorry, I don't distribute malware.

> >> One of them had also lost Windows media and serial number. That person
> >> have to now buy Windows AGAIN or accept to start using Linux.
>
> > Human error is to blame, not the product.  If you lost your car keys,
> > do you think that the automaker should replace them for you for free
> > too?
>
> I have seen these problems numerous times. And nowadays when new
> machines does not come with DVDs - problem is very real.

How does what change this from being a human error?

> Well when I loose my car keys I just buy new keys not the whole fucking
> car.

Irrelevant for as you pointed out, you have to **BUY** the keys.

> >> Which would be the best solution to the problem.
>
> > Only from the shortsighted perspective of someone who clearly only
> > looks at "initial purchase price" and doesn't have a clue about how to
> > even start to do a lifecycle cost assessment.
>
> Now define the term.

http://www.google.com/search?&q=life+cycle+cost+analysis+example

> >> I personally use both Windows and Linux and I very much prefer Linux. It
> >> is stable, fast and effective OS. With Windows machines I seem always to
> >> have issues, which are not solvable.
>
> > And I've used all three of the major OSs, which means that I also have
> > insights as well as preferences.
>
> > For speed, I simply buy faster hardware.
>
> Not all people can afford that.

You're falling into the "Penny Wise and Pound Foolish" fallacy.

> > For stability, I don't fuck around with inviting problems through
> > stupid system hacks/mods.
>
> Windows is know to deteriorate simply by itself. You have to be prepared
> to reinstall it 1-2 times a year to keep it slick.

Which is a cost, although 1-2x/year isn't anywhere near the typical
experiences I've seen. Based on my observations, I'd say that the
reinstalls occur more like once every 2 years. Granted, this doesn't
include hardware failures or purposeful upgrades, but naturally,
neither of these logically apply to this modality's cost.

> Today I tried to fix a problem. When computer went to sleep and come
> back it always lost wired network connection and had to be rebooted to
> work again.

Yes, that's technically a 'cost'. Now quantify how significant it is,
such as on an annualized basis. That means you at least need to know
what the per-occurrence loss function is, and its frequency to
quantify.

> > For solving, I've not lost any of my personal data .. or key desired
> > capabilities .. since before Linux was born.
>
> Thanks to Linux many Windows users have not lost their data.

Because they have all of their data backed up onto a Linux
fileserver? What's the hierarchy of factor significance here...be
sure to address how the OS choice of a backup system more significant
than deciding to have a backup in the first place.

> > So where are there any issues?
>
> > Oh, let me guess:  if I were to jump through a different set of hoops,
> > I would have saved the $100 expense of an OS license on my upfront IT
> > costs.
>
> How you earn the money with the computer if you just buy the OS. A
> typical worker on computer needs applications. And there are several
> good ones free. Naturally many of those are available to Windows and OS
> X also.

And there's commercial products that may offer even higher
productivity. See the "Shovel" analogy.

> But MOST people don't prefer Linux because it is FREE but because it is
> BETTER !

And you've quantified this ... how?

> > Golly, a **hundred** bucks!!  Applied across a typical three year
> > lifecycle, which means that the magnitude of this whine works out to
> > less than a buck a week.
>
> See above. Add anti-virus and 3-6 reinstall in those three years.

You still haven't done the math. For example, assuming that a modern
IT knowledge worker earning $100K/year and is in an enterprise with
100% overhead, the implications are that each 1% change in their
productivity is equal to $2,000 per year. As such, if a Windows PC
has an extra $900 in IT hassles per year to keep it running, but the
user's use of that tool results in him being a mere 1% more
productive, then it is in the financial best interest of the
enterprise to use windows anyway, because they have a net gain of
$1100.

> > So just what other things are you **currently** doing just to save $1/
> > week?  Never buy a soda from a soda machine?  Making a point to only
> > poop at work so as to use less of your own toiletpaper at home?
> > Scrimp on the tip for the waitress at that dinner out?    FYI, do keep
> > in mind that not eating out at all (or as much) will save a lot more
> > than $1/week, so it is above this threshold.
>
> You seem to be fixed with this ONLY buying OS. Tell me now which
> programs you use for you work and how much they cost.

No, not at all: the costs of every tool goes into the life cycle
equation. An extension of the above example would be that that $1100/
year 'advantage' would be decremented by the initial & recurring
software license expenses too. For example, if there's an annualized
upgrade cost to MS-Office of $100 and a similar annualized average
upgrade cost to Adobe of $300, then the advantage would be reduced by
$400 to $700/year.


-hh

[Rex Ballard]

On Thursday, March 15, 2012 7:01:20 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> On Mar 15, 3:39 pm, Mark S Bilk <m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > Try it -- you'll love it!

I have been using Linux for about 19 years now, and as one of my primary desktop operating systems.

> Already did. And again. I don't see any rational reason to ever
> consider Linux for my main desktop ever again.
>
> YMMV,
>
> -hh

On Thursday, March 15, 2012 7:01:20 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> On Mar 15, 3:39 pm, Mark S Bilk <m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > Try it -- you'll love it!

I've been using Linux for 19 years, and as a primary operating system for at least one of my computers for the last 10.

The evolution from SLS to Slackware and Yddragsil and then Mandrake, Red Hat, and Suse has taken us from systems that struggled to work on Monochrome monitors with

> Already did. And again. I don't see any rational reason to ever
> consider Linux for my main desktop ever again.
>
> YMMV,
>
> -hh

On Thursday, March 15, 2012 7:01:20 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> On Mar 15, 3:39 pm, Mark S Bilk <m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > Try it -- you'll love it!
>
>
> Already did. And again. I don't see any rational reason to ever
> consider Linux for my main desktop ever again.
>
> YMMV,
>
> -hh

On Thursday, March 15, 2012 7:01:20 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> On Mar 15, 3:39 pm, Mark S Bilk <m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > Try it -- you'll love it!
>
>
> Already did. And again. I don't see any rational reason to ever
> consider Linux for my main desktop ever again.
>
> YMMV,
>
> -hh

On Thursday, March 15, 2012 7:01:20 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> On Mar 15, 3:39 pm, Mark S Bilk <m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > Try it -- you'll love it!
>
>
> Already did. And again. I don't see any rational reason to ever
> consider Linux for my main desktop ever again.
>
> YMMV,
>
> -hh

On Thursday, March 15, 2012 7:01:20 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> On Mar 15, 3:39 pm, Mark S Bilk <m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > Try it -- you'll love it!
>
>
> Already did. And again. I don't see any rational reason to ever
> consider Linux for my main desktop ever again.
>
> YMMV,
>
> -hh

On Thursday, March 15, 2012 7:01:20 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> On Mar 15, 3:39 pm, Mark S Bilk <m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > Try it -- you'll love it!
>
>
> Already did. And again. I don't see any rational reason to ever
> consider Linux for my main desktop ever again.
>
> YMMV,
>
> -hh

On Thursday, March 15, 2012 7:01:20 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> On Mar 15, 3:39 pm, Mark S Bilk <m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > Try it -- you'll love it!
>
>
> Already did. And again. I don't see any rational reason to ever
> consider Linux for my main desktop ever again.
>
> YMMV,
>
> -hh

On Thursday, March 15, 2012 7:01:20 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> On Mar 15, 3:39 pm, Mark S Bilk <m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > Try it -- you'll love it!

I've been using Linux for 19 years. We've come a long way from TAMU and SLS Linux to Mandrake, Red Hat, SUSE, then Ubuntu, and Android.

In those early days, it took a lot of shell scripting to get it working on a monochrome monitor, where you could push the resolution almost to a Sun, but if you pushed it too far, the monitor would catch fire.

And to think it took almost 18 years for the combination of Apple and Google and other Linux/Unix advocates to finally break into a "niche" market that Microsoft couldn't block. And now the OEMs are seeing far more profit from Android devices than for laptops that have been discounted into oblivion, because Windows 7 seems to just keep slowing down more and more from when you buy it, while Android devices just keep getting more and more applications, and iPads are going out the door as fast as Apple can make them.

Now we are seeing the "convertable" tablets, tablets with keyboards that look and act like Laptops when you want them to, and look and act like tablets when that's what you want.

> Already did. And again. I don't see any rational reason to ever
> consider Linux for my main desktop ever again.

How does that go? Never say never?

Have you considered an iPad? or an Android Tablet?

What if it came with a 15 or 17 inch monitor or a Full HD output to a 1080p monitor? And what if you could attach a keyboard or use a bluetooth keyboard, and what if that tablet had all that power in either a 7 inch or 10 inch display of it's own?

Android tablet customers choose between 16 and 32 gigabyte SSD storage because 16 Gigabytes is plenty, especially when you have external devices for back-up storage, SDHC removable storage up to 64 gb, and you can upload/download your information with Windows using the tablet as a hard drive.

And you are probably using Linux even if your core operating system is Windows. If you are running FireFox, Chrome, or Eclipse based application, Symphony, Lotus Notes, or most Java applications, then it's a pretty good chance that the application was originally created and tested on a Linux machine, which assures developers that it will run equally well on Linux, Windows, and Mac, without needing custom code for each system.

Microsoft has had to give up it's proprietary hooks just to stay in the game, and many corporate customers are STILL installing Windows XP rather than Windows 7 because there is no significant productivity gain on Windows 7 and Windows 7 machines in default configuration get slower and slower over time, and disk I/O is horrible because Windows users have to check everything with Antivirus AND Microsoft Indexing - even if it's just a web page being loaded into the local cache.

MS-Office 2010 had to have ODF support, and had to comply with the standards set and now controlled by Oracle and IBM, who hold a lot more clout in corporate IT shops than Microsoft has ever held - especially in server and enterprise environments.

Many corporations are now requiring that ANY upgrades to Windows 7 or Office 2010, and even MS-Project or Visio - be justified and funded by the organization requesting the MS Software rather than being standard items provided by the corporate umbrella at the cost of jobs in divisions that neither want nor need the newer software.

Today, if you want to do have the latest upgrades for 10 people, you have to cut one employee from your OWN staff to get it.

Meanwhile, these companies have formally adopted Linux and Open Source for the desktop. Even Windows users are encouraged to select items from the free catalog of 100 to 200 applications available for Linux AND Windows, and are given the names of comparable commercial products. Employees can earn incentives, such as memory upgrades and hard drive upgrades in exchange for switching from the high priced software to the Open Source software.

Switch to 64 bit Linux and the company will offer you upgrades to 8GB and 500 gigabyte hybrid drives, which will be loaded with Linux as the main OS, and if you still need Windows XP to communicate with a client, you can use a VMWare image, or the client has to pay for their own laptop, and pay the extra expenses of maintaining the second laptop


> YMMV,

> -hh

[Mark S Bilk]

On Mar 17, 6:57 pm, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> > >> On 03/16/2012 01:01 AM, -hh wrote:
> > >>> On Mar 15, 3:39 pm, Mark S Bilk<m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
> > >>>> ...

> > >>>> Try [Linux] -- you'll love it!

>
> > >>> Already did. And again. I don't see any rational reason to ever
> > >>> consider Linux for my main desktop ever again.
>

> The same value applies for the OP when they made their unsubstantiated
> claims. Get the OP to substantiate and others will follow ... but
> don't give them a free ride by asking others to do better.

I'm the OP, and here's part of what I wrote in the article
that started this thread, which can be seen here:

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/412b619ba778cd7f/2229a0149c77c9dc?hl=en#2229a0149c77c9dc

>Desktop Linux provides security, power, multiple virtual

>desktops, flexible file systems, modularity, processor
>independence, open source code, and zero cost. Most of
>these advantages are not available in Microsoft Windows or
>Apple Macintosh.

SECURITY -- Virtually no successful Linux malware exists.
Unlike Microsoft Windows, Linux doesn't require anti-malware
programs that have to be continually updated. That's because
Linux follows the principles of Unix, which was designed for
security from its beginning because it's a multi-user OS.

The rare invasions of Linux systems have only been the result
of long tardiness in upgrades or human engineering (stealing
passwords offline, etc.) Whereas Microsoft Windows malware
has cost businesses many tens of billions of dollars in lost
productivity and system repair.

Google for: computer viruses billions dollars

MULTIPLE VIRTUAL DESKTOPS -- Linux KDE3 gives you 20 screens
(desktops) in which you can set up programs for 20 different
tasks, like mail, website, programming, music, etc. In each
full-screen desktop your display shows only the programs you've
set up in it, plus any that you've specified to appear in all
desktops. Of course, each program can be minimized or returned
to normal size as usual. You can leave the programs set up and
running in each desktop, because they use negligible CPU cycles
when you're not actively using them. To switch between these
desktops, all you do is click on the name of the desired desktop
(task) in the little pager applet that's displayed in all the
desktops, and you're there.

How would you do this in Microsoft Windows? Suppose you want to
set up about 5 programs for each task. If all you have is Windows'
single screen, you would have about 100 programs in the taskbar,
which would therefore occupy about a third of your display. To
switch to another task, you would have to minimize all the programs
of the current task, find the programs for the new task among the
100 in the taskbar, and maximize them. Or you could kill all the
programs of the current task, and restart all the programs of the
new task, positioning their windows on the screen the way you need
them, and initializing them to the desired directories, etc.
Either of these methods forces you to do substantial extra work.

If you are a power user, and employ your computer for lots of
different tasks, the multiple desktop facility of Linux KDE3 will
save you enormous amounts of time and work that are wasted with
Microsoft Windows.

FLEXIBLE FILE SYSTEMS -- Linux has soft-links. Say you have ten
directories containing music, separated according to performer.
You can soft-link all those directories into one directory and
search them all by searching that single directory. You can
also soft-link them into another set of directories by type --
rock, jazz, etc. All without moving or affecting the original
files. The soft-links only take up a few bytes each.

Linux can mount filesystems -- hard disk partitions, DVDs, USB
flash drives etc. -- anywhere in the directory tree, and they
can be moved easily.

Linux can also read file systems of non-Linux operating systems.
Windows can't read non-Windows file systems (unless some other
OS is using a Windows format).

MODULARITY -- By separating various OS functions and minimizing
their interaction, stability is greatly enhanced, and configuring
is made much easier. For example, in Linux the kernel is separate
from the graphic system, while in Microsoft Windows they are one
big mess. Can you say "Blue Screen Of Death" ?

PROCESSOR INDEPENDENCE -- The same open-source programs can be
recompiled to run in Linux on many different processors, from
tablets to desktops to mainframes.

OPEN SOURCE CODE -- Allows users to add or modify features of
programs (or pay someone else to do it).

ZERO COST -- Zero initial cost and zero upgrade cost for Linux
and its application and development software.

"-hh" deleted and ignored _all_ of these advantages of Linux
except zero cost, to which he responded with a long-winded series
of phony examples employing entirely made-up numbers! Does he
get paid by the word for posting lying anti-Linux propaganda?

A survey of recent "-hh" posts shows him criticizing Linux users
for personal attack, but never criticizing anti-Linux posters
for theirs, which are much worse and more numerous.

"-hh" also calls Linux users "The Herd" which is an anti-Linux
propaganda term used only by Microsoft's anti-Linux gang.

So we see that "-hh" shows all the signs of being a dedicated
anti-Linux propagandist, and that he deceptively deletes
pro-Linux information.

Summing up:

Linux has many proven advantages over Microsoft Windows.

"-hh" exhibits all the signs of being a dedicated anti-Linux
propagandist.

"-hh" deletes and ignores information about the advantages of
Linux. He says that he will never use Linux, but doesn't give
any reason for that assertion. Apparently he hopes that people
will accept his ideas on faith, but since he is a dedicated
anti-Linux propagandist, they certainly should _not_ believe
what he says.

[-hh]

On Mar 18, 10:39 am, Rex Ballard <rex.ball...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 15, 2012 7:01:20 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> > On Mar 15, 3:39 pm, Mark S Bilk <m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
> > > ...
> > > Try it -- you'll love it!
>
> I've been using Linux for 19 years, and as a primary operating
> system for at least one of my computers for the last 10.
>
> The evolution from SLS to Slackware and Yddragsil and then
> Mandrake, Red Hat, and Suse has taken us from systems that
> struggled to work on Monochrome monitors with

Thanks, but I'd be more interested in hearing what the other OSs are
that you just revealed you're using on those "non primary" systems,
and why that is.

Wow, something on your system is broken in your quoting software. By
any chance, were you posting from your 'primary' system?

> I've been using Linux for 19 years. We've come a long way
> from TAMU and SLS Linux to Mandrake, Red Hat, SUSE, then Ubuntu,
> and Android.
>
> In those early days, it took a lot of shell scripting to get
> it working on a monochrome monitor, where you could push the
> resolution almost to a Sun, but if you pushed it too far,
> the monitor would catch fire.

IIRC, I ditched monochrome 29 years ago. Perhaps we could discuss
something that's a quarter century closer to topical?

> And to think it took almost 18 years for the combination
> of Apple and Google and other Linux/Unix advocates to finally
> break into a "niche" market that Microsoft couldn't block.

On the desktop, the break into MS's dominance was entirely due to
Apple...and half of the reasons why it took so long probably have to
do with how severely Apple stumbled after Jobs left.

> And now the OEMs are seeing far more profit from Android devices
> than for laptops that have been discounted into oblivion,
> because Windows 7 seems to just keep slowing down more and
> more from when you buy it, while Android devices just keep
> getting more and more applications, and iPads are going out
> the door as fast as Apple can make them.

"Post PC Era" transition would be one set of tea leaves. That MS
hasn't been able to transform themselves into this segment - - despite
billions spent trying - - is one factor; another is just how netbooks
got run over like an armadillo in Texas.

> Now we are seeing the "convertable" tablets, tablets with
> keyboards that look and act like Laptops when you want them
> to, and look and act like tablets when that's what you want.

A throwback to ten years ago; time will tell if these tablet hybrids
get any traction, but I'd not make any wager on that saggy horse: I'd
personally suspect that the 2012 & 13 market leader by at least a 3:1
margin will be as an accessory to the iPad.

> > Already did.  And again.  I don't see any rational reason to ever
> > consider Linux for my main desktop ever again.
>
> How does that go? Never say never?

It goes "Fool me once ... fool me twice". Linux hasn't really
changed.

> Have you considered an iPad?  or an Android Tablet?

For some productivity tasks, some of these have been adopted.
However, Android simply is not Linux: it is a trademarked product of
Google...who has simply hidden how they make people pay for that
product.

> What if it came with a 15 or 17 inch monitor or a Full HD
> output to a 1080p monitor?  And what if you could attach a
> keyboard or use a bluetooth keyboard, and what if that tablet
> had all that power in either a 7 inch or 10 inch display of it's own?

What if we stopped making speculations about what other peoples' use
cases are?

> Android tablet customers choose between 16 and 32 gigabyte
> SSD storage because 16 Gigabytes is plenty, especially when
> you have external devices for back-up storage, SDHC removable
> storage up to 64 gb, and you can upload/download your information
> with Windows using the tablet as a hard drive.

A claim that utterly ignores what the diversity in customer use case
needs can be. For example, when I head out on the road with my
camera gear, I'm often carrying over 100GB worth of CF memory cards.
Feel free to humor me by explaining to me how I'd plug a CF into an SD
slot...just as the first step in an intellectual exercise that will
then have to next figure out how 100GB is going to fit into the 16GB
internal memory.

> And you are probably using Linux even if your core operating
> system is Windows.



>  If you are running FireFox, Chrome, or Eclipse based application,
> Symphony, Lotus Notes, or most Java applications, then it's a pretty
> good chance that the application was originally created and tested
> on a Linux machine, which assures developers that it will run
> equally well on Linux, Windows, and Mac, without needing custom
> code for each system.

I can personally recall running Lotus Notes and Lotus Symphony back in
the 1980s, before Linux even existed. I can also recall that Java
started at SUN, and those workstations ran on Unix...not Linux.
Insofar as Firefox & Chrome, they're just "Johnny Come Lately"
applications .. I can recall running NCSA Mosaic ... hey, I still have
version 2.0.1, including its documentation file:

"NCSA Mosaic for the Macintosh 2.0.0 Beta 12 NCSA Mosaic for the
Macintosh Beta 12 for the 68K Macintosh was released Wednesday, May
31, 1995. for the Power Macintosh was released Wednesday, May 31,
1995. Please read the following information regarding this release,
before downloading the software using the links on this page. Since
this is a BETA release, there are many new features or bugs that you
will need to be aware of to make your use of the new release a
pleasant experience. For best results, please remove the preferences
file and allow the latest Beta to create its own preference file. We
will continue to keep the comprehensive Known Bugs page as up-to-date
as possible. To help us do this, please email us with any problems you
find that are not related to those listed on the known bugs page. Use
the Mail Developers feature from the Balloon Help menu, or email to
mosai...@ncsa.uiuc.edu. If you are seeing huge characters here....
Please go to the styles dialog and reset the style for BLOCKQUOTE and
TYPEWRITER to the default. This is the result of a leftover bug from
version 1.0.3..."

Which of course was followed by Netscape Navigator.

> Microsoft has had to give up it's proprietary hooks just to
> stay in the game, and many corporate customers are STILL
> installing Windows XP rather than Windows 7 because there

> is no significant productivity gain on Windows 7 ...

Agreed; perhaps you can take a moment to explain to poor "Kari Laine"
how things like productivity factor into Life Cycle Cost Management
analysis and the like :-)


> ... and Windows 7 machines in default configuration get slower

> and slower over time, and disk I/O is horrible because Windows
> users have to check everything with Antivirus AND Microsoft Indexing
> - even if it's just a web page being loaded into the local cache.

Of course, in an Enterprise environment, there's also sluggish
performance that's a necessary evil which is coming from the Linux-
based Firewall that's also doing malware checking.

> MS-Office 2010 had to have ODF support, and had to comply with
> the standards set and now controlled by Oracle and IBM, who
> hold a lot more clout in corporate IT shops than Microsoft has
> ever held - especially in server and enterprise environments.

Merely examples of competing interests ... and I do note the
conspicuous absence of crediting Linux with creating any of this use
of open standards.

> Many corporations are now requiring that ANY upgrades to
> Windows 7 or Office 2010, and even MS-Project or Visio - be
> justified and funded by the organization requesting the MS
> Software rather than being standard items provided by the
> corporate umbrella at the cost of jobs in divisions that
> neither want nor need the newer software.
>
> Today, if you want to do have the latest upgrades for 10 people,
> you have to cut one employee from your OWN staff to get it.

Given that the fully burdened cost for one good white collar knowledge
worker is easily around $200K/year, you're suggesting that those ten
(10) sets of upgrades are costing you $20K per seat. While that's
possible with some products, it doesn't sound particularly credible
for general "Office" applications.

> Meanwhile, these companies have formally adopted Linux and
> Open Source for the desktop.  Even Windows users are encouraged
> to select items from the free catalog of 100 to 200 applications
> available for Linux AND Windows, and are given the names of
> comparable commercial products.  Employees can earn incentives,
> such as memory upgrades and hard drive upgrades in exchange
> for switching from the high priced software to the Open Source software.

Those hard drives must still cost $10,000 each too ;-)

It is impossible to generalize to a generic "companies". For example,
my local employer's policy is that free software is explicitly
prohibited on any device on their network. This includes your desktop
PC if you want to attach it to the network for any service: email,
servers, printers, internet, etc.

> Switch to 64 bit Linux and the company will offer you
> upgrades to 8GB and 500 gigabyte hybrid drives, which
> will be loaded with Linux as the main OS, and if you
> still need Windows XP to communicate with a client,
> you can use a VMWare image, or the client has to pay
> for their own laptop, and pay the extra expenses
> of maintaining the second laptop

Haven't seen that at all where I'm at, although based on other
posters' comments, I suspect that what you're describing is the
workgroup that is where all of the software programmers are kept
locked up, and generally not expected (or allowed) to interact with
the living.

There's a lot more professions out there in the big wide world other
than just programming, and it is dangerous to try to generalize to
'all' based upon the status in any one niche ... no matter how much
one may be personally invested in that particular one:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalizability_theory



-hh

[-hh]

On Mar 18, 9:36 pm, the sockpuppet "Mark S Bilk"
<m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
>
> {deleted without reading}

>
> "-hh" deletes and ignores information about the advantages of
> Linux.  He says that he will never use Linux, but doesn't give
> any reason for that assertion.

Mark S Bilk is lying.

Because as I stated up front as my first line of comment:

"Already did. And again."

In addition, I've repeatedly stated that I've previously used linux,
and have already stated that based on my firsthand experiences and
user applications, it has offered no material advantages. I've
previously articulated some specific use case examples.

Proof of this is in the archives ... and still in this thread, as just
illustrated.


Believe who you will.




-hh

[OldGoat]

On 3/18/2012 7:36 PM, Mark S Bilk wrote:
> On Mar 17, 6:57 pm, -hh<recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 03/16/2012 01:01 AM, -hh wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 15, 3:39 pm, Mark S Bilk<m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Try [Linux] -- you'll love it!
>>
>>>>>> Already did. And again. I don't see any rational reason to ever
>>>>>> consider Linux for my main desktop ever again.
>>
>> The same value applies for the OP when they made their unsubstantiated
>> claims. Get the OP to substantiate and others will follow ... but
>> don't give them a free ride by asking others to do better.
>
> I'm the OP, and here's part of what I wrote in the article
> that started this thread, which can be seen here:
>
> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/412b619ba778cd7f/2229a0149c77c9dc?hl=en#2229a0149c77c9dc
>
>> Desktop Linux provides security, power, multiple virtual
>> desktops, flexible file systems, modularity, processor
>> independence, open source code, and zero cost. Most of
>> these advantages are not available in Microsoft Windows or
>> Apple Macintosh.
>
> SECURITY -- Virtually no successful Linux malware exists.

That is because Linux has a hard time executing anything before it croaks.

[OldGoat]

On 3/18/2012 8:39 AM, Rex Ballard wrote:
> On Thursday, March 15, 2012 7:01:20 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
>> On Mar 15, 3:39 pm, Mark S Bilk<m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Try it -- you'll love it!
>
> I have been using Linux for about 19 years now, and as one of my primary desktop operating systems.
>

Go out and find a used microVAX with VMS on it.
You'll find it a more sophisticated system to work with.
Best OS I've ever used.
Life is short, so you are wasting time on linux.

[Mark S Bilk]

What nonsense! I leave my Linux desktop running
for months at a time (currently 47 days), interrupted
only by a power failure or a need to modify the
hardware.

Microsoft is really scraping the bottom of the barrel
when it pays whoever is hiding behind the "OldGoat"
false identity.

[Peter Köhlmann]

Whenever you think that this senile old fool could not possibly come up with
dumber "arguments", he does.

Doing the "flatfish lunacy" isn't exactly the way to be credible, GreyCloud

[Hadron]

What total and utter nonsense. Linux servers have been hacked on
numerous occasions.

[Hadron]

VMS was an overengineered monster.

[High Plains Thumper]

Mark S Bilk wrote:

> OldGoat wrote:
>> Mark S Bilk wrote:
>>
>>> SECURITY -- Virtually no successful Linux malware exists.
>>
>> That is because Linux has a hard time executing anything before it
>> croaks.
>
> What nonsense! I leave my Linux desktop running for months at a time
> (currently 47 days), interrupted only by a power failure or a need to
> modify the hardware.
>
> Microsoft is really scraping the bottom of the barrel when it pays
> whoever is hiding behind the "OldGoat" false identity.

Mark, I think you'll find that reply from none other than the GreyCloud
nymthief.

--
HPT

[chrisv]

Peter K�hlmann wrote:

> some piece of shit that used to call itself "GeryCloud" wrote:
>>
>> Mark S Bilk wrote:
>>>

>>> SECURITY -- Virtually no successful Linux malware exists.
>>
>> That is because Linux has a hard time executing anything before it croaks.

Wow. The "GreyCloud" POS isn't a totally worthless troll , eh?

"*guffaw*"

[chrisv]

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>Started up a Jabber client for Windows today. It dropped one of my
>contacts, and spun forever trying to connect to the Windows-based XMPP
>server.
>
>Gajim on Linux? No problemo.
>
>I would suffer greatly if Linux suddenly disappeared.

Not good enough! (according to the "true Linux advocate")

>But then I'm a "nasty piece of work". :-D

You're about as "nasty" as "Hadron" is "nice".

[OldGoat]

On 3/19/2012 2:59 AM, Mark S Bilk wrote:
> On Mar 18, 11:47 pm, OldGoat<o...@farmerbrowns.com> wrote:
>> On 3/18/2012 7:36 PM, Mark S Bilk wrote:
>>
>>> SECURITY -- Virtually no successful Linux malware exists.
>>
>> That is because Linux has a hard time executing anything
>> before it croaks.
>
> What nonsense!

Yes, linux is nonsensical.

> I leave my Linux desktop running
> for months at a time (currently 47 days), interrupted
> only by a power failure or a need to modify the
> hardware.
>

You are wasting electricity.
Shut it off when you are done.

> Microsoft is really scraping the bottom of the barrel
> when it pays whoever is hiding behind the "OldGoat"
> false identity.
>

Guffaw!!! Your tin-foil hat is on too tight again.

[OldGoat]

Guffaw!!! Is senility striking you, Peter?

>
> Doing the "flatfish lunacy" isn't exactly the way to be credible, GreyCloud

Neither is your knee-jerk reaction to peoples posts. Pretty pathetic.

[OldGoat]

On 3/19/2012 6:58 AM, chrisv wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> some piece of shit that used to call itself "GeryCloud" wrote:
>>>
>>> Mark S Bilk wrote:
>>>>
>>>> SECURITY -- Virtually no successful Linux malware exists.
>>>
>>> That is because Linux has a hard time executing anything before it croaks.
>
> Wow. The "GreyCloud" POS isn't a totally worthless troll , eh?
>
> "*guffaw*"
>

Still tasting others to see which dick is sweeter, chrisv?

[OldGoat]

Another lie documented.

[OldGoat]

But it was very secure. Once a PHP exploit happened, but it never got
to the o/s. I've got two vaxstation 4000s that use a vax on a chip.
About the size of a pizza box.

[Hadron]

LOL : please.

VMS was invariably tucked away on sites with zero external access.

[-hh]

On Mar 18, 10:16 pm, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> ...

> Mark S Bilk is lying.

> ...

> Proof of this is in the archives ... and still in this thread, as just
> illustrated.
>
> Believe who you will.
>
> -hh

And as an update, to preempt Bilk from more whining about "selective"
quotes, Mk2:

On Mar 18, 9:36 pm, Mark S Bilk <m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
> On Mar 17, 6:57 pm, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> On 03/16/2012 01:01 AM, -hh wrote:
> > > >>> On Mar 15, 3:39 pm, Mark S Bilk<m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
> > > >>>> ...
> > > >>>> Try [Linux] -- you'll love it!
>
> > > >>> Already did. And again. I don't see any rational reason to ever
> > > >>> consider Linux for my main desktop ever again.
>
> > The same value applies for the OP when they made their unsubstantiated
> > claims. Get the OP to substantiate and others will follow ... but
> > don't give them a free ride by asking others to do better.
>
> I'm the OP, and here's part of what I wrote in the article
> that started this thread, which can be seen here:
>

> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/browse_frm/thr...

Yes, that’s the post that I was referring to when I said to Kari Laine
that they shouldn’t ask me to substantiate details when they’ve first
given the OP (you) a “free ride” on proving documentation. And after
having read everything you've now provided, the outcome is unchanged:
you've still not quantitatively substantiated your claims.

>Desktop Linux provides security, power, multiple virtual
>desktops, flexible file systems, modularity, processor
>independence, open source code, and zero cost. Most of
>these advantages are not available in Microsoft Windows or
>Apple Macintosh.

Clearly, many of these things add additional complexity which incurs a
cost, so how they actually end up being advantageous is not clear.
As such, these things that are being claimed to be “advantages” are an
unsubstantiated claim.

In addition, I’ve already pointed out the fallacy of the claim of
“zero cost”. While FOSS does have the attribute of having a zero
initial purchase price, that doesn’t make its lifecycle costs to be
free - - or even necessarily cheaper than “expensive” commercial
software. Versus a commercial product, having free software doesn’t
do you any favors when it results in lower productivity…unless the
value of your time is always zero.

If that’s the line of reasoning that you’re going to pursue, then say
so so that I can repeat my old cliché: WELL THEN GET OVER HERE AND
MOW MY LAWN FOR FREE TOO.

If you don't want to spend your time mowing my lawn, then guess what?
Your time *is* worth something to you afterall!

> SECURITY -- Virtually no successful Linux malware exists.
> Unlike Microsoft Windows, Linux doesn't require anti-malware
> programs that have to be continually updated.

False. Since there is admitted to be some level of vulnerability, a
non-zero investment in protection (risk management & mitigation) must
be made.

> That's because
> Linux follows the principles of Unix, which was designed for
> security from its beginning because it's a multi-user OS.

Golly, isn't it interesting how UNIX here is being hoisted up as the
reason for the claim, while the previous statement literally less
than a dozen lines earlier criticized an OS that is *Certified UNIX*
as being unacceptably insecure. A blatant self-contradiction in
Bilk's claims.

> The rare invasions of Linux systems have only been the result
> of long tardiness in upgrades or human engineering (stealing
> passwords offline, etc.) Whereas Microsoft Windows malware
> has cost businesses many tens of billions of dollars in lost
> productivity and system repair.

And silence on the certified Unix OS that was previously derided.

> Google for: computer viruses billions dollars

Around 1.7 million hits ... but there's 27.7 million hits on Bilk+Child
+Molester - - which makes it all quite clear that either Bilk is
{Part A}, or that Bilk's attempted "Appeal to Popularity" is a
fallacy.

Either way, he belongs in jail :-)

> MULTIPLE VIRTUAL DESKTOPS -- Linux KDE3 gives you 20 screens
> (desktops) in which you can set up programs for 20 different
> tasks, like mail, website, programming, music, etc. In each
> full-screen desktop your display shows only the programs you've
> set up in it, plus any that you've specified to appear in all
> desktops. Of course, each program can be minimized or returned
> to normal size as usual. You can leave the programs set up and
> running in each desktop, because they use negligible CPU cycles
> when you're not actively using them. To switch between these
> desktops, all you do is click on the name of the desired desktop
> (task) in the little pager applet that's displayed in all the
> desktops, and you're there.
>
> How would you do this in Microsoft Windows?

It is premature to ask. The prerequisite is "Why" would this be
desirable, and what is the net magnitude of the benefit, after its
costs have been quantified?

> Suppose you want to
> set up about 5 programs for each task. If all you have is Windows'
> single screen, you would have about 100 programs in the taskbar,
> which would therefore occupy about a third of your display. To
> switch to another task, you would have to minimize all the programs
> of the current task, find the programs for the new task among the
> 100 in the taskbar, and maximize them. Or you could kill all the
> programs of the current task, and restart all the programs of the
> new task, positioning their windows on the screen the way you need
> them, and initializing them to the desired directories, etc.
> Either of these methods forces you to do substantial extra work.
>
> If you are a power user, and employ your computer for lots of
> different tasks, the multiple desktop facility of Linux KDE3 will
> save you enormous amounts of time and work that are wasted with
> Microsoft Windows.

And if you’re not a power user, it is of no meaningful benefit then,
correct?

Of course, the fallacy that’s present here in Bilk's (lack of) logical
train is to infer that something that may be beneficial for one niche
segment is sufficient justification for everyone in the general use
case to have to invest in it.

Of course even here, the niche's supposed benefit is merely a vague
hand-waiving of ‘better’. Plus it also utterly ignores other
alternative solutions, such as using a physical second display instead
of a virtual one, for but one possible example.

> FLEXIBLE FILE SYSTEMS -- Linux has soft-links. Say you have ten
> directories containing music, separated according to performer.
> You can soft-link all those directories into one directory and
> search them all by searching that single directory. You can
> also soft-link them into another set of directories by type --
> rock, jazz, etc. All without moving or affecting the original
> files. The soft-links only take up a few bytes each.

This claim infers that there’s no other practical way to provide this
type of utility, which is false since there are software applications
that manage data instead just the desktop operating system. Here, the
data example is music and a software application that can provide this
same capability is Apple’s iTunes (amongst others). Of course, this
approach may very well consume a bit more data storage but at current
retail prices, where a penny buys 100Megabytes, more work needs to be
done to show how this is a meaningful expense that merits
differentiation. Until that occurs, this too is a claim with its
benefit potential not made tangible.

> Linux can mount filesystems -- hard disk partitions, DVDs, USB
> flash drives etc. -- anywhere in the directory tree, and they
> can be moved easily.

So how does this result in a quantifiable value-added factor for the
general application user to give a damn? To what degree is this
'feature of flexibility' being used to obscure the lack of suitably
desirable tools, such as iTunes for Linux?

> Linux can also read file systems of non-Linux operating systems.
> Windows can't read non-Windows file systems (unless some other
> OS is using a Windows format).

Unlikely that this is a literal “Can not”: it is probably a half-
truth claim that is being silently constrained by an assumption that
is based on what the OEM provides in their OS, purposefully ignoring
the possibility of other 3rd Party products that are in the
marketplace that could satisfy the capability desire.

In addition, this claim has once again failed to articulate and
quantify what the value of this is to the general use case. This is
particularly relevant for Windows, since MS has roughly a ~90%
presence which prevents its default of non-compatibility with non-MS
OSs from being an issue for the majority (~0.9^2 = 80%) of the
generalized use case.

> MODULARITY -- By separating various OS functions and minimizing
> their interaction, stability is greatly enhanced, and configuring
> is made much easier.

Configuring for the general use case would be an overhead expense ...
which happens with what degree of infrequency? Well, this PC was set
up back in September 2010, so that's roughly 1.5 years. I figure
that it is no more than halfway through its lifecycle and that setup
expense ... let's be rediculously overconservative and call it 20
hours at $100/hour ... represents less than a 0.3% contribution to its
lifecycle costs - - so while this might cross your personal threshhold
for significance, it doesn't for me.

> For example, in Linux the kernel is separate
> from the graphic system, while in Microsoft Windows they are one
> big mess. Can you say "Blue Screen Of Death" ?

Sure, I’ve seen BSODs … but this ‘feature’ claim is trying to infer
that their current frequency rate is still a meaningful hit to
productivity, as well as what the downtime significance is.
Personally, my BSODs have become sufficiently rare that I’d swag my
productivity loss function to be <<1 hour per year, although I
literally can't recall having any of them so far on this 1.5 year old
machine.

> PROCESSOR INDEPENDENCE -- The same open-source programs can be
> recompiled to run in Linux on many different processors, from
> tablets to desktops to mainframes.

Something to remember if x86 desktops ever stop being the dominant
architecture. ;-) In the meantime, there's been major architecture
shifts performed before, and the world didn't exactly end. Better
luck next time!

> OPEN SOURCE CODE -- Allows users to add or modify features of
> programs (or pay someone else to do it).

Pay for a programmer to fix things? But weren’t we previously told
that it is all “Free”?

> ZERO COST -- Zero initial cost and zero upgrade cost for Linux
> and its application and development software.

Considering that the fully burdened hourly rate for a good white
collar knowledge worker in the West at an Enterprise with a 100%
overhead works out to roughly $100/hour, the initial purchase price
and even upgrade prices for their OS & Apps rapidly becomes
insignificant relative to what the product selection can do for their
productivity. For example, a software tool that costs $500 (eg,
Photoshop) that’s able to result in a +5% productivity gain (my gains
have been higher) will have an investment payback rate of $5/hour,
which means that taht $500 expense will pay for itself in a mere 100
hours (2.5 weeks) and will result in a net cost advantage savings to
the company of $9,500 in just its very first year of use.

> "-hh" deleted and ignored _all_ of these advantages of Linux
> except zero cost,

-hh has heard all of this nonsense before … and point-by-point has
once again beaten the living crap out of your lame argument and
unsubstantiated claims. If you really wanted to do something to be a
benefit society, what you should do is to STFU.

> to which he responded with a long-winded series
> of phony examples employing entirely made-up numbers!

I provided quanitatively precise yet easy to understand examples of
the principles, which are applied in the real world by businesses
(both mine as well as millions of others) to evaluate these alleged
‘advantages’ of Linux. The real proof is in the numbers of adopters
of Linux in aggregate. Since that still has not been adopted on the
desktop beyond a ~1% niche, the simplest solution (Occham's Razor) is
that there's something wrong with the product.

> Does he get paid by the word for posting lying anti-Linux propaganda?

“Have you stopped beating your wife? “ - - yes, you're committing
the same logical fallacy as in the above.

I do not get paid to post here. Nor have I ever.
Do you get paid to post here?

> A survey of recent "-hh" posts shows him criticizing Linux users
> for personal attack, but never criticizing anti-Linux posters
> for theirs, which are much worse and more numerous.
>
> "-hh" also calls Linux users "The Herd" which is an anti-Linux
> propaganda term used only by Microsoft's anti-Linux gang.
>
> So we see that "-hh" shows all the signs of being a dedicated
> anti-Linux propagandist, and that he deceptively deletes
> pro-Linux information.

A particularly humorous gaggle of unsubstantiated claims, considering
the utter lack of substantiation in response to my post that pointed
out Bilk's lack of substantiation…as well as that this whine is coming
from someone who has purposefully falsified their domain name data:

314 Tsiolkovsky Way
Dome 6
Mars City, Elysium Planitia EP178R51
US

You’re in violation of ICANN registration standards.

> Summing up:
>
> Linux has many proven advantages over Microsoft Windows.

Unsubstantiated claim.

> "-hh" exhibits all the signs of being a dedicated anti-Linux
> propagandist.

An unsubstaniated claim being made by someone who has demonstrably
lied and who has knowingly violated ICANN registration standards by
knowingly providing them with a lie (purposefully falsified data).

> "-hh" deletes and ignores information about the advantages of
> Linux.

First,
Posters complain when I address every point as being “long winded”,
and Poster complain when I don't. It is now your respnosibility to
provide the citation to the authoritative source for what amount of
quotation and response is optimal.

Second,
The number of adequately substantiated and quantified Advantages of
Linux distributed in this subject thread has numbered zero. And
despite me pointing this out, your response has been to still deliver
no quantified proof. Instead, you’ve made false statements such as
these two:

> He says that he will never use Linux, but doesn't give

> any reason for that assertion. Apparently he hopes that people
> will accept his ideas on faith, but since he is a dedicated
> anti-Linux propagandist, they certainly should _not_ believe
> what he says.

As I pointed out to IIRC JEDDIDIAH a few months ago, how many **more**
times am I somehow obligated to go test-drive Linux before I’m allowed
to finally say “Enough of this bullshit!”, and my decision to go use
something else will be considered acceptable? Ten more times?
Twenty more? All 321 distros?

Or will it be what I really expect, which is a "Never"? Be
specific.


-hh

[Foster]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 05:43:07 -0600, High Plains Thumper wrote:


> Mark, I think you'll find that reply from none other than the GreyCloud
> nymthief.

Still can't face the fact that greycloud left the herd can you.

[OldGoat]

Some were and some weren't. The old 785s and 780s needed plenty of air
conditioning in those days and required 3-phase power. Not something I
could ever own or want to own.

http://www.mcmanis.com/chuck/computers/vaxen/vax4000-vlc.html

This is the one I was referring to. Later on there were the PC sized
boxes that used the later Alphas. Nice machines, but pricey.

[Peter Köhlmann]

*That* must have been the reason why the machines came at first with DECNet.
To make use of the integrated networking hardware. And why it was multi-user

Your lack of any clue is legendary, Hadron Snit Larry

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

Pretty funny. At one medical college with which I was loosely affiliated,
I asked for an account on a VMS system so that I could try the system
out. I got the access, dial-up modem, no suspicious questioning.

--
Where do you find me "loving Microsoft" you nasty little creep? One link
will do.
-- "Hadron" <3jtlb7-...@news.eternal-september.org>

[Gregory Shearman]

Back in 1990, my university allowed me access to their VAX/VMS via an
80286 and a dial-up modem from my home. I thought it was amazing... and
it was.. for the time.

--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Re: "greycloud left the herd" −− Foster

Old⋅Goat is Grey⋅Cloud; they have the same IP address and all that.

From my settings file, <A href="http://Jeff-Relf.Me/X.TXT">X.TXT</A>:

( Grey⋅Cloud ⌃GreyCloud ⌃OldGoat )
( Hadron⋅ ⌃Hadron<hadronquark )
( Quirk⋅ ⌃Hardon<hardon⋅quirk )
( DFS⋅ ⌃DFS< ) ( Big⋅Steel ⌃Big⋅Steel )

[ "⌃Pat" matches the start of a (modified) "From:" Line.
"( Nic ⌃Pat1 ⌃Pat2 )" renames ⌃Pat1 and ⌃Pat2 to Nic. ]

[Peter Köhlmann]

@Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:

>
> Re: "greycloud left the herd" −− Foster
>
> Old⋅Goat is Grey⋅Cloud; they have the same IP address and all that.

Fine. And now tell us something which wasn't obvious from the very first
post

Are you really *that* clueless and retarded?

[Rex Ballard]

On Monday, March 19, 2012 2:50:42 AM UTC-4, OldGoat wrote:
> On 3/18/2012 8:39 AM, Rex Ballard wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 15, 2012 7:01:20 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> >> On Mar 15, 3:39 pm, Mark S Bilk<m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> Try it -- you'll love it!

> > I have been using Linux for about 19 years now, and as one of my primary desktop operating systems.

> Go out and find a used microVAX with VMS on it.
> You'll find it a more sophisticated system to work with.
> Best OS I've ever used.

I've used VMS. It's really great and running long-running OLTP services, not so great at starting new processes and swapping between processes, because each new process needs a completely independent memory image and memory map.

Unix does a much better job of managing memory between processes as well as starting new processes and managing shared memory between the processes.

Linux does a better job of strategic memory mapping, eliminating the need to move or copy large blocks of memory, making interprocess communications, services, and I/O operations much faster, freeing up the main processor(s) for more important things.

Linux 2.6 makes use of technology used on IBM mainframes such as queue based scheduling and interrupt handling, as well as virtualization capabilities, eliminating many of the bottlenecks that plagued Linux 2.2 and early versions of 2.4.

Embedded Linux on ARM chips has reduced the production cost of a Linux computer with video circuitry to a few dollars, less that the cost of a Windows XP license for a NetBook.

> Life is short, so you are wasting time on linux.

I've had a really good career based on my knowledge of Linux and Unix, which, when added to knowledge of Windows, gives me a very high demand skill set. I also work with Enterprise Integration and Business to Business integration, as well as Business Process Management.

In the 20 years since I started using Linux, I've been "on the bench" 3 weeks at the longest, and more often, I have had to request that time, just to recover, so that I can re-image my Windows PC so that it will be ready for the next engagement.

Since I started using Linux as the host OS and using Windows VMs, I can have a new image up and running in about an hour.

I could have made a higher income by being independent, but I like that I don't have to do all that "overhead" - sales, marketing, bill collection, and legal, that I would have to deal with if I were an independent.

The demand for people with solid Linux/Unix skills is higher than ever, largely because most of the strategic enterprise servers run UNIX and/or Linux. Corporations like Linux because it takes fewer administrators to manage more servers, the total cost within the enterprise is 80-90% lower.

The big resistance to Linux on the Desktop for non-technical PC users has usually been retraining, as well as the need to exchange information with Windows users who insist on exchanging documents in MS-Office formats.

Lately, however, MS-Office formats have become a liability. Microsoft is now saving documents as OpenXML documents (xlsx, docx, pptx,...) and at the same time, many corporations have observed LOWER productivity with Office 2010, as well as becoming aware of the problem of managing millions of documents being passed as e-mails, with no real control over versions. Even SharePoint makes it too easy for someone to make changes, accept their own changes, and slip something nasty under the door, and then legal, management, and others end up not realizing until it's too late, that they've made a one-sided commitment, even though others in the legal department have been arguing about it in supporting e-mail and documents for days or even weeks.

The sad thing is that it is often because a junior person has been convinced to do this without knowing the consequences.

With more and more business activity being regulated, and more need to store and manage documents that must be accessible for decades, more and more corporations are moving as much corporate information as possible AWAY from MS-Office formats, which are "subject to change without notice", and moving toward storing business information on databases running Linux or Unix, interfaced to users through web application servers running Linux or Unix.

There is also more demand to put information that used to be managed using MS-Office "in the cloud", using applications like Google Docs, Zoho, and LotusLive Symphony to provide real-time shared information, making it much easier for large teams to update status via the web.

Even more information is going away from the "spreadsheet" format entirely. Rather than trying to figure out how to manage "Ransom Notes", documents in lots of pretty formats that have to be parsed for content and may contain dozens of incompatible fonts, more and more organizations are moving this information to smaller databases which can be provisioned "in the cloud" much more quickly than traditional enterprise databases. The records can be extracted into XML, which can then be dynamically formatted using XSLT style sheets that can be used to generate "snapshots" in HTML, ODF, or even formatted into "cache" versions of MS-Office using Apache POI.

Of course, Microsoft doesn't like the idea of being marginalized, and has tried to compete with products like Office 365, but this market is much more competitive and needs to be dynamically integrated with other content, content often managed and stored on Linux/Unix systems.

Sadly, the Windows PC or Laptop has still been a plague ship when it comes to carrying malware, viruses, worms, and security problems, and Microsoft still struggles with the inability to effectively manage the information stored on larger hard drives.

As users put more and more information on their PCs, Windows 7, for example, has to index every file being put on the PC, has to check them for viruses, has to allocate storage for both the files and the indexes. A Windows system might have to do 20-30 disk rotations just to store one 4K cluster. And then we have the problem of disk fragmentation. NTFS was clunky for 4 gigabyte drives with NT 4.0, but with 500 gigabyte drives and even 1 terabyte drives, it's almost intolerable.

Linux manages storage more efficiently, can manage how and when content is indexed (since directories are stored more efficiently), and since Linux itself doesn't even understand most malware, the anti-malware can be targeted to drives shared with Windows. However, since Linux makes it much easier to share structured data, even blobs, using databases like MySQL, Derby, or PostgreSQL, and to make friendly interfaces using PHP/Ajax/Dojo, or JSP/Ajax/Dojo, the Web 2.0 applications do a better job of protecting Windows users from the malware in the first place.

Because the databases can track who made changes to which records, it's also much easier to track how systems where hacked, when they were hacked, and who did the hacking, and get criminal convictions of the hackers.

All of these wonderful features have been a part of UNIX for about 30 years, but Linux just makes it available on devices ranging in price from as little as $10 (OEM quantities) to supercomputers and mainframe clusters and clouds. And performance ranging from a digital picture frame or MP3 player, to Google, Amazon, and E-Trade.

Not so surprising then, that Google and Amazon might create Linux based devices to make optimal use of their Linux based servers. And the devices are very easy to use, very easy to write programs for, and can even be used with on-device databases using SQL-Lite, rather than depending on proprietary spreadsheets that can only be used by one code-base for one purpose.

Linux makes business information manageable, and when we buy things, we interface with businesses. When we are thinking of buying something, we interface with businesses. And even when we are managing our on information, we benefit when we interface with it like a business.

Windows dominates the desktop "Personal Computer" market, but this is a market which is doomed to become a shrinking niche. Even Windows machines are more likely these days to run browsers like Chrome, and applications based on Eclipse and Java, which are designed to interface with external Linux systems, and to make information more manageable.

We've already seen a the refresh cycle for PCs extended from 2 years to nearly 5 years, we've seen the transition from PC as primary interface to the Internet, to Smartphones based on Unix and Linux (iPhone, Android, Blackberry), and Tablets based on Unix and Linux (iPad, Android, Kindle, Nook, Sony E-book...), and even Television is brought to you by Unix or Linux, many TVs are now "Smart TVs" and most cable boxes run Linux or Unix.

Even your phone is likely to be a Linux or Unix device, or connected through one. At the office I have a Cisco phone (Linux), at home, the cable connection connects to a UNIX device that gives me phone, ethernet, and video.

And of course, the network connection is expanded using a Linksys router, powered by Linux, which then provides a WiFi connection to others in the house, as well as Ethernet connections to back-up storage devices which are also powered by Linux, as well as an HP Printer which is also powered by Linux or Unix.

Quite simply, without a whole bunch of Linux and Unix devices, my PC would be practically useless. I wouldn't even be able to exchange floppy disks anymore, because most PCs, don't have floppy disks anymore. I could use a USB memory stick or USB drive, but even many of these are now powered by Linux or Unix.

VMS was created by DEC, a company that was on the verge of bankruptcy when HP bought them. Even HP has put most of it's R&D efforts into leveraging Linux and Unix (HP_UX), and has moved away from the VAX family to multi-core AMD and Intel based blade arrays. HP is also a big supporter of Linux, the HP branded printers, scanners, and all-in-ones all work with Linux. The HP branded PCs (vs Compaq) are also "Linux Ready".

IBM now offers it's employees the option of "Open Client" - a Linux configuration designed for enterprise level interaction and security. When these employees need Windows XP or Windows 7, they can generate a KVM image that is ready to run, and much more secure, and FASTER than Windows run on the native machine. Linux functions like a high speed SAN controller, providing better disk I/O performance, Linux also manages the memory more efficiently, and Linux manages network I/O more efficiently. As a result, the few extra cycles spent in virtualization are more than recovered by the performance and security features of Linux.

Many other companies are adopting similar strategies. The cost of provisioning a new PC can be thousands of dollars, especially if you need to provide a new PC to a consultant who will be working on a corporate project for a few months. It can take 2-3 weeks to procure and provision the PC, get the security configured, grant access - all while the consultant is billing at anywhere from $100 to $300 per hour, or $4,000 to $12,000 per week. Multiply that times 10-12 people per year, and the costs of Windows can be staggering.

Use a Linux native system, load a VM image that is "bridged", and the same laptop could run 2-3 "Windows" systems, each with it's own security, it's own VPN connections, and it's own permissions.

Alternatively, you can run a VM image in NAT mode, and have the additional firewall and security protections of Linux, while still having the benefits of VPN access.

What is unusual about Linux is not that Microsoft has tried so hard to kill it. Microsoft has used similar tactics and triumphed over Apple, IBM, CP/M, BeOS, DR-DOS, GEM, and several flavors of UNIX.

What makes Linux unusual is that even after 20 years of constant attack by Microsoft, Linux is not only surviving, but thriving in the marketplace, and has helped expand the reach of UNIX variants such as BSD and QNX.

Most people see the Windows logo on the bottom left corner of the screen, and assume that it's Windows doing all that "magic", thinking that nobody else could do it as well. Because they were never able to make an INFORMED choice before.

But now, millions of iPads, iPhones, and Macs are showing users the power of UNIX, and millions of Android, Kindle, Nook, and SmartTV devices are showing users the power of Linux. People now know that Linux is NOT too hard to use, that it's NOT too complicated, that it is NOT limited in applications.

In fact, quite the opposite is true. More and more of there favorite newest applications are written for Java and run as Chrome and FireFox plug-ins rather than depending on the proprietary Microsoft interfaces and APIs.

Windows is being marginalized, MS-Office is losing favor, and many corporate IT managers are now refusing to fund upgrades to Windows 7 or MS-Office. Employees who want these upgrades have to get management approval from their own managers, who must now FUND these upgrades out of their OWN budgets, rather than out of the corporate IT budget. This has made managers far more reluctant to trade upgrades for 10 workers for 1 worker, especially since productivity is LOWER with Windows 7 and Office 2010 (too many bells and whistles taking up too much screen real estate).

And when an employee says he wants Windows 7 so that he can have 8 gig of RAM - and get about the same performance he got out of XP, you can guess how well that goes over with management.

An IT manager can spend $1200 to $1800 for a PC upgrade, plus corporate IT costs, configuration costs, and loss of productivity that can go as high as $20,000 per person, or he can allow employees to bring their iPads and Android tablets to work. They can use XP for the MS-Office (2003) documents, but they have the full power of UNIX/Linux available through that tablet, which has a screen and user interface that are optimized for reading documents, accessing corporate and public data via Web 2.0 and Dojo interfaces, and can run Java applications much more efficiently than Windows.

Linux is a GREAT career choice!

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Re: "Windows 7 [ has to check ] for viruses" −− Rex⋅Ballard

No, it's been years since I ( a Win7 user ) last checked for viruses.
Unlike you, Rex, I walk unafraid.

"with 500 gigabyte drives [...] it's almost intolerable."
−− Rex⋅Ballard

Not so, my ( 1 year old ) terabyte hard disk works like a charm;
Win7 is fast and reliable.

"we've seen the transition from PC as primary interface
 to the Internet, to Smartphones based on Unix and Linux"
−− Rex⋅Ballard

That's closed source; Google Play ( Android Marketplace ),
Google Maps and gMail are closed, same as Win7.

If you're poor and afraid of Win7 ( like Rex ), you buy an Android.
No one alters Androids, no one compiles any of its source code.

« And when an employee says he wants Windows 7 so that he can have 8
  gig of RAM - and get about the same performance he got out of XP, you
  can guess how well that goes over with management. » −− Rex⋅Ballard

Win7 is cheap, 8 gigs of RAM is cheap.
No IT worker is so poor that he wouldn't pay for it himself.

Bria 3.3.2 ( CounterPath, Win7 ) and a cordless phone
( attached to a router via an ATA, the PAP2T ) are my phones.

My USB gaming⋅class headphones, the Logitech G35,
is Windows⋅only, no Mac or Linux drivers.

  The left earpiece has a volume control and buttons set to:

    G1: Pause/Resume; G2: Skip Song; G3: Rewind [to repeat a song ].



My programmable, gamming⋅class, Windows⋅only keyboard, the Logitech G110.



My 14⋅button (programmable), gamming⋅class, corded, Windows⋅only mouse,
the Logitech G700. [ it does wireless, but I keep it corded ]

  One button toggles the wheel between
  slowly notching and fast spinning.

  Tilting the wheel left pages⋅up; tilting right pages down.
  I could program it to do something else.

  One button is a Ctrl key; another types a space ( ASCII 32 ).

  I've a button that types a new line ( ASCII 13 ),
  one for undo ( Ctrl⋅Z ), one for exiting an App ( Alt⋅F4 ),
  one for closing a tab/window ( Ctrl⋅F4 ), one deletes ( ASCII 8 ).

  One of my mouse buttons types Ctrl⋅D;
  in Visual Studio, Ctrl⋅D runs my VBA macro* that
  marks a post "Was Read" and moves on to the next post.
  [ *: All Cola posts are in a 5 meg text file ]

[Hadron]

@Jeff-Relf.Me writes:

> 

Hilarious! How inefficient!

[Hadron]

Clearly things need spelling out to you Kohlkopf : in many cases they
were used as multi user on closed sites. I know : I used one in just
such a secure site. Secondly they were connected by dedicated lines and
not open to what we now call the "internet".

You really are a dick.

[Hadron]

It was. But there was no where NEAR the potential for disaster there is
not with open access paths.

[Rex Ballard]

On Thursday, March 15, 2012 3:39:01 PM UTC-4, Mark S Bilk wrote:
> Desktop/Laptop Linux is a great SUCCESS - How to get started

> On Mar 14, 3:56 pm, Torre Starnes <torre.star...@gmail.org> wrote:
> > 1. Organization.

Linux development, and OSS development are considered business models that IT departments in many corporations and consulting organizations have been trying to emulate. Linux developers have been able to collaborate more efficiently, coordinate more efficiently, and develop more software in less time, with more flexibility than more traditional "waterfall" approaches used in more traditional Microsoft style "New release every 3-7 years" approaches.

Linux development has been organized so that kernel, libraries, user interfaces, and application development can all be done independent of each other, with each component being enhanced and improved, often dramatically, while maintaining backward compatibility and consistent user interfaces. The practice of "publish early and often" has made it possible for the product to evolve more quickly as well, even if there are changes at the binary interface, the availability of source code for libraries and API "wrappers" has made it much easier to release applications for newer systems, even new processors, without any more effort than a recompile.

> > 2. Realizing early on that fragmentation will kill the project
> > quickly and reacting to bring the community together.

> See below.

> > 3. Providing what the consumer wants to pay for.

The irony is that the Linux/FOSS community has been able to produce things that consumers might pay for, and then "Give it away", rather than demanding huge "up front" royalty payments that can total up to thousands of dollars per user, and then offer support plans for an additional 10-20% per year, thousands of Linux applications are provided in a Linux distribution, with customers being able to try the various applications and tools, and then fund the support for the products they like the most. Many Linux users purchase support contracts from companies like Red Hat, and many corporate customers purchase these support contracts "in bulk" getting very competitive pricing.

> > 4. High quality applications.

The common WinTroll tactic is to compare a free application like GIMP to a $1500 product such as Adobe Photoshop Creative Studio and try to claim that GIMP is poor quality software - because it has to be compared to a $1500 commercial product to appear to be inferior.

GIMP has features that Microsoft ShovelWare wouldn't think of including, and has features that you wouldn't find on the $40-$100 versions similar products.

> > 5. Ease of use.

WinTrolls love to point to the command line interface and claim that this is the "real" Linux interface. They will cite complex shell scripts and claim that these are too difficult to use.

One area where Linux has traditionally been weak is the difficulty of CONFIGURATION. Most WinTrolls who pan Linux don't actually USE Linux, they rant and rave about how hard it is to install Linux and get some chip for which you much download a proprietary driver from Broadcom or ATI or NVidia, knowing that the specific chips in question are covered by nondisclosure agreements with Microsoft - which means the vendors can offer binary-only drivers and support software, but can't provide source code, even if they wanted to.

For years, Linux advocates have suggested that if Linux were pre-installed, or if the WinTroll had been able to find out - by reading the product description, which machines were "Linux Ready" or "Linux Compatible", they could have easily installed Linux and had a working system without all that pain. Microsoft was aware of this, and worked very hard to limit the availability of such information - especially in the retail setting and the product descriptions used in media advertising and vendor web sites.

When companies like ASUS and Acer started shipping NetBooks with Linux preinstalled, they were remarkably easy to use. Furthermore, they were inexpensive, and because they didn't need as much storage, could use solid state disk and run for several hours on a very small and light battery. Furthermore, the netbooks could be plugged into a full sized monitor and keyboard and used like a full sized computer.

Microsoft contacted ASUS and Acer and suggested that it could prove that at least 10% of these "Linux Netbooks" were now running Windows XP, and that unless these companies could PROVE that the customers had purchased appropriate licenses (at $300/machine for FULL versions), Microsoft would expect them to pay for all of the licenses being used by these "pirates". Microsoft offered to "settle" by offering them a price 5% of the price of a full license, on condition that ALL future Intel devices be shipped with OEM licenses, which required that Windows be preinstalled prior to shipment.

Of course, since Windows XP needed more storage and memory than Linux, Acer and ASUS, as well as HP and Dell, had to sell netbooks that had magnetic hard drives, and extra batteries, which not only increased the cost, but meant that the laptops could only run about 2 hours on battery, or that bigger and heavier batteries were needed.

When Microsoft began insisting that Windows 7 be installed on NetBooks, it pretty much killed the market. There was no profit left, the costs were higher than the retail prices, and prices were eroding. OEMs and Retailers fought to make a little profit by offering AntiVirus software, and trying to get customers to pay THEM for the MS-Office licenses, as well as offering support contracts and extended warrenties. A $250 Netbook could end up costing a customer as much as $700 with all the "extras", and many customers just opted not to get the "extras".

Android has flipped that on it's head. With Android, OEMs could use a chip that COULDN'T run Windows, assuring that pirates would not be able to install Windows on it. Furthermore, since the hardware was known (part of the ARM modular fabrication), the drivers could be compiled in, reducing the amount of "probing" - which meant that the Linux system could be fully powered up in as little as 10 seconds, rather than the more typical 3 minutes for a fully functional Windows system.

Since there was no configuration required, Android devices had all the best features of Linux, virtual desktops, true preemptive multitasking, client/server based applications with servers either on-device or via the net, and the reliability and security of Linux. Furthermore, Google offered a secured repository from which users could download both free and purchased applications without fear of viruses and malware.

Eventually, some Trojan horse applications were written and distributed through "direct" channels, but even these could be detected and the user could be alerted that they were taking a risk. In most cases, the applications were limited in the damage they could do, because most users didn't even know HOW to "root" their machines. They didn't need to.

> > 6. Filling a void instead of creating one.

Not sure where that is going. Linux has created many new markets and industries. Linux helped power the early internet servers, POPs, dial-up servers, and still powers many of the servers provided by Internet site providers. Microsoft still maintains a presence in the server market, but has never been able to deliver as much "Bang for the Buck" as Linux or UNIX. The UNIX market has been shrinking in terms of number of servers, but that's because the server market has shifted from hundreds of 2 processor or 4 processor stand-alone servers to servers with as many as 128 cores connected to SAN storage with 32 drive modules buffered by gigabytes of cache memory, and configured into virtual machines which can share resources. A single UNIX server of today can do the work of as many as a thousand of the old 4 processor Solaris servers with directly attached SCSI drives.

Linux has also shifted to "The Cloud" - with virtual machines being strategically distributed across blades that can have as many as a thousand processor cores in a 19 inch rack, connected to storage arrays of hundreds or even thousands of drives, with cache sufficient to read a gigabyte - 7200 times per second.

Linux on the "Desktop" or Tablet, or SmartTV, has created new demand for new applications. Applications like Google Desktop have made it possible to share spreadsheets in real-time, making it possible for many users to make updates as often as needed, and to always know, immediately, what the current status is, and to maintain accurate statistics. IBM, Amazon, and Zoho have similar products which can be used in either public or private clouds.

> > 7. Quality.

Quality has always been a cornerstone of Linux. When Linus first published his 10,000 line kernel, and said, "take a look and tell me what you think", he got a LOT of feedback, and very often, comparing the tiny little kernel which ran on an 80386/SX processor with as little as 1 megabyte of memory, with Sun SPARCStations and SPARCServers. Linux had to compete with BSD, AT&T System V, and OSF/1. Tannenbaum and Linus held a very public discussion of the Mach Microkernel vs the Linux kernel.

What Linux had that the others didn't was the ability to debug and test a kernel using an inexpensive PC, and running the kernel to be debugged an a stable kernel as an application. Linux had made extensive use of the Memory Management Unit, which made it much easier to switch between the host kernel and the target kernel without needing $millions worth of complex test and diagnostic equipment. In addition, when the kernel did crash, it was possible to capture everything in a core dump, and debug the crash, tracing back to the root cause of the problem - all using cheap hardware and free software.

Also important was that Linus and the Linux kernel team realized that they needed to provide API compatibility with ALL variants of UNIX even if their internal implementations of those APIs were radically different. Because of the way Linux used the MMU, operations that used to take milliseconds could be done in nanoseconds. By managing how libraries were mapped into the MMU, and using position independent code, more of the libraries could be shared from process to process, meaning less memory was needed and/or much more could be done with the amount of memory available.

Linux also realized that the biggest bottleneck to performance wasn't the CPU or the Memory, but the hard drive. As a result, he encouraged the development of more efficient storage file systems, ext2, ext3, Reiser, ext4, all designed to take advantage of superior memory mapping and the ability of Linux to use the "free pool" of memory dynamically, using it for disk cache, reading whole i-nodes a cylinder at a time rather than a 4k "cluster" at a time, managing "fragments" of 1 megabyte or more at a time, and reducing the fragmentation as storage was freed up.

This made Linux a very powerful server platform, and often competed favorably with smaller UNIX systems.

Linux also had to compete with the UNIX Security model, but contributors had already seen a gap between the Unix security model and the demands of a secure Internet server. Linux adopted "Pluggable Authentication Modules", allowing a range of security options that could efficiently scale from a few users, such as a desktop environment, to direct integration with corporate LDAP servers which could be configured to securely manage thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of individually identifiable users. As a result, new server applications could simply use the Linux security model to extend their own security, rather than having to create custom security models. By using LDAP servers, users could be organized into groups that could be given more restricted access, and new customers could self-register and be given controlled access - rather than just having to make everything public to everybody.

Of course, that efficiency, stability, and security meant that Linux systems could be scaled down to smaller systems as well. Linux was easily ported to PPC, MIPS, and ARM chips, making it possible to implement "system on a chip" technologies. Modern "Linux on a Chip" technologies can cost as little as $2 per device in OEM quantities, making Linux on a Chip a viable alternative to discreet electronics. We are now seeing Linux on a Chip even in SDHC formats, allowing your camera to send pictures to your tablet or cell phone via WiFi.

Linux "Appliances" based on the "Linux on a Chip" technology began to proliferate into many new devices. GPS devices, MP3 players, digital picture frames, WiFi hubs, Routers, IP-Phones, DVRs, Cable Modems, Cable Boxes, Digital converters for conventional TVs, Smart TVs, even several of the computers in cars, now run Linux. Even places where BSD is preferred, libraries, tools, services, drivers, and applications originally developed for Linux are an integral part of more and more UNIX systems including BSD, AIX, Solaris, and HP_UX systems. Other vendors, such as Silicon Graphics, have switched to the Linux core kernel and libraries, and added their own User Interfaces on top of these.

Mac OS/X is BSD based, but uses many of the same code elements used on modern Linux systems. In many cases, the Linux code has been enhanced and security hardened, but since the Linux enhancements are often only released under GPL or LGPL licenses, Apple has to negotiate to get these upgrades and fixes into their own product, which can often get a bit expensive.

Ironically, Linux often exists on Windows systems as well. Many applications now make use of the Cygwin libraries, which allows programmers to use a standard API that can then permit them to use the same source code on Windows, Linux, and Mac, as well as Android, iPhone, and iPad devices.

Even many Java based applications are now developed and tested on Linux first, because Linux distributors offer VMs that are free of Native Mode code, assuring that any code written to run on the Linux JVM will run on any other Java JVM, including Linux, Android, Windows, Mac, iPhone, iPad, BlackBerry, or WebOS.

> > 8. Financial backing.

In 1996, when NT 4.0 was first released, InfoWorld gave Red Hat Linux version 4.0 the nod as product of the year. Suggested that it was a "Tie" between Red Hat and NT 4.0, probably to keep from losing Microsoft's economic support. Later that year, Red Hat released 4.1 and 4.2, which passed NT 4.0 very quickly in terms of performance, security, stability, and even ease of configuration.

In 1997, Linus Torvalds suggested, at the prodding of Caldera CEO Ransom Love, that "Linux take the Desktop". Linus and the kernel team, as well as the library teams, worked on ways to improve support for desktop and laptop systems, with better shutdown, recovery, sleep, and hibernate capabilities. Linux had had many of these features even in the early 1990s, but they not been emphasized because of the focus on Linux as a server.

Meanwhile, Linux as a server had shifted from "that little box hiding in the corner, with not screen attached", to a very strategic part of the corporate IT infrastructure. In January of 1997, most CIOs didn't even know they had Linux running in their data centers, about 17% said they had Linux servers. One year later, the number was more like 90%, and many of those who had tried to get rid of Linux discovered that their e-mail, intranet, web servers, and security - stopped working, or became very buggy when they tried to run the same functions on Windows.

By the end of 1998, even IBM was realizing that they could not compete head-to-head with Linux, and decided to "join them". IBM invested $1 billion in Linux support, promotion, and support. IBM had tried to get 64 bit UNIX from SCO, but even after $millions in seed capital and giving them thousands of lines of kernel code from their UNIX and Mainframe systems, SCO couldn't get a working version. Meanwhile, Linux was running on 64 bit chips, including SPARC, PPC, MIPS, Alpha, and the prototype Itanium chips. Linux was delivering the goods, and doing it brilliantly well.

The final push for IBM's adoption of Linux was when some IBM employees in the research lab had created a mainframe emulation package called Hercules, and some Linux hackers, for grins and giggles, ported Linux to run on Hercules. IBM found that the code also worked on REAL IBM Mainframes, and in 1999, began tweaking VM into ZVM, which was able to very efficiently run Linux images, without some of the overhead traditionally needed to support MVS images and OS/390 UNIX Images. By the end of 1999, IBM was showing a Mainframe that could run over 10,000 Linux servers, all handling the load of a 2 processor PC.

IBM had been trying to figure out how they were going to phase out the mainframe, especially since there where still thousands of corporate customers who were still using MVS, CICS, IMS, and other "legacy" applications. Linux had not only made it much easier to very efficiently interface to these applications, it had also created a whole new market for the mainframe.

That investment has come back at least a hundredfold, and IBM now considers Linux a strategic part of it's product offerings and product line.

HP, Sun, and Dell have also come around to embracing Linux, and Oracle, prior to purchasing Sun, had also not only adopted Linux, but had made Oracle Linux a strategic part of it's own offerings.

Linux applications and services were also designed to use smaller components that could be combined on a single PC, or distributed across a broad array of servers, into clusters. The NASA Beowulf Cluster, originally based on 5 servers, had begin to grow into hundreds or even thousands of servers. Distributed databases and distributed applications, servers that could search other servers, extended the ability of Linux to handle very large and complex environments. Google's search engine has expanded to thousands of servers all over the world, and can provide the most relevant results in less than a second.

Using Web Services, Dynamic Discovery, message passing interfaces, and other distributed computing, JMS Publish/Subscribe, and so on, Linux has made it possible to achieve unimaginable performance and remarkably low cost.

> > 9. Accountability.
> > 10. Pride in the product.
>
> Desktop Linux satisfies all of these criteria. Tens of millions
> of people around the world are using it. It provides security,

> power, multiple virtual desktops, flexible file systems,
> modularity, processor independence, open source code, and zero
> cost. Most of these advantages are not available in Microsoft
> Windows or Apple Macintosh.
>

> The only reason why Linux is not the most popular operating system
> is that Microsoft has used many different coercive and deceptive
> operations for 15 years to try to destroy it:
>
> http://cosmicpenguin.com/linux/MICROSOFTS_WAR_AGAINST_LINUX.html

Microsoft as a long and well documented history of using every means necessary to keep ALL competitors off the desktop. They have successfully managed to beat Apple, Mac, DR-DOS, GEM, several variants of UNIX, Sun, HP, Dec, IBM, OS/2, Warp, BeOS, and hundreds more that never even made the papers. Byte magazine used to cover the rise and fall of hundreds of would-be competitiors to Microsoft.

Microsoft has often gone to the very edges of the law to defend it's control of the desktop market, especially the OEM distribution channel. Starting in it's second year, in 1977, Microsoft realized that they could not count on retail consumers purchasing their product, especially when superior products were available at lower cost from more aggressive competitors. Bill Gates quickly realized that the only way he could be assured of a reliable source of revenue, was to insist that the OEM pay for the licenses, in advance, based on a substantial but predictable increase over previous year's sales.

But getting the OEM to pay wouldn't be easy. It would require a bit of extortion, threatening to sell the strategic product to a competitor, along with enhancements that the competitor offered, that wouldn't be available in your product. To get Altair to pay $150,000 ($50 per machine for 3,000 machines - expected sales), Bill threatened that if they did NOT pay, he would port Micro-Soft BASIC to the SWTP machine - which supported a bootstrap ROM. Altair paid, but insisted that Gates agree not to port to the 6800 chip used by the SWTP machine. - Extortion. The same tactic still goes on today, with Microsoft threatening to put one OEM out of business by offering technology to competitors and excluding the reluctant or uncooperative OEM. Ultimately, they have to surrender. Without the OEM license, the OEM can't sell the line, but the OEM license mandates that the software be installed on EVERY machine.

Of course, as we know, Gates DID port to another machine, the Commodore PET, which had to run a 6502, similar to what Apple used. This allowed Gates to get around the agreement not to port to the 6800, but at the same time, gave him the ability to put his own customer, Altair, out of business, in exchange for an OEM license agreement with Commodore. It was fraud, Altair had assumed that Microsoft (Gates) could be trusted, and soon found that Gates had outmaneuvered them in the contract negotiations. Would they have agreed if they had know that Gates was planning on bankrupting them - even as they were signing the contract?

Microsoft pulled similar maneuvers when they stiffed Commodore to get Radio Shack, then stiffed Radio Shack to get IBM, and several years later, stiffed IBM to produce Windows under their own name.

And the extortion didn't stop either. Dell was threatened with bankruptcy when he began offering PCs powered by SCO Unix. AST, ALR, and NEC were busted when they attempted to offer both OS/2 and Windows machines.

And when the Mac came out, Microsoft began making vaporware announcements of Windows. It would take nearly 8 years for Microsoft to deliver a marginally functional version of Windows, Windows 3.1, and even that was inferior to Apple's Mac offering in terms of stability.

When Sun threatened to capture Desktop market share - capturing almost 15% of the corporate desktop market as "Workstations" using both Sun consoles and X11 terminals, Microsoft again used VaporWare - announcing Windows "New Technology" which would be "A Better UNIX than UNIX". Microsoft wouldn't actually deliver the goods until about 9 years later, with Windows 2000, ironically one of Microsoft's most successful product launches- in terms of units deployed, but a failure financially - because Microsoft had to give it away to keep corporate customers from switching from NT 4.0 to Linux on desktops.

In 1994, Microsoft was more worried about OS/2 Warp than Linux, but Microsoft was also acutely aware of Linux, and concerned that a PC doing the same things that had previously only been possible with a $35,000 workstation, could be a big threat to Microsoft. Microsoft could compete against Sun, but a freely distributed operating system that could give PC owners the capabilities of a SUN, using a PC that couldn't even run the latest versions of Windows anymore - that was a big problem.

Microsoft used the Windows NT Hype for most of 1993 and early 1994, but when NT was released, and NT 3.1 and NT 3.5 sales never materialized, Gates scrambled to announce "Chicago" as "NT Lite". He announced that it would be out "Real Soon Now" and then announced it as "Windows 95", indicating that it would be out in early 1995. Linux was getting better and better, the Internet had gone from a research network to a key strategic offering, and more and more people were finding out about Linux through the Internet.

When Microsoft finally release Windows 95, it wouldn't run on most existing PCs, those who tried to upgrade found it to be a waste of money. Far more memory was needed (from 4 meg to 16 meg), more drive was needed (30 megabyte to 90 megabytes minimum), and plug-and-play only worked with the PCI bus.

This meant that a LOT of companies had a LOT of PCs in the back alleys of Manhattan, in the back of the buildings, or being shipped off to "recyclers", who couldn't GIVE them away as Windows machines. But 12-16 year old kids were more than happy to pick up a "free computer" and install a "free Operating System" - Linux, to come up with a PC that would not only work as a web browser, but could also work like a web server.

By the time Windows 95B was in full swing, there were so many surplus computers that Dell, IBM, HP, and many others were offering "Lease Return service" and shipping the PCs off to India, Africa, and South America, where Red Hat had trained high school and college students in how to install Linux on the machines. By the end of 1997, an NGO was shipping 10 million PCs per year, which were converted to Linux.

As was shown in the Combs vs Microsoft exhibits, as well as exhibits in the DOJ vs Microsoft case, Microsoft responded with a "Win at all cost" strategy. In some cases, they offered free Windows, and even memory upgrades - in hopes of keeping customers on Windows. But in many of these countries, where the Linux PCs were being given away, Microsoft didn't see the threat, or didn't care, because they didn't see cash money in it.

OF course, a few years later, these kids who had been using Linux all these years were looking to upgrade. They had skills, they had knowledge, and they were willing to pay for used computers, or pay for desktop machines using motherboards made by ASUS and Acer. And if it didn't run Linux easily, they sent it back. Linux hostile machines would rot on the shelves, while Linux ready machines were selling as fast as they could be obtained.

In many of these countries, these smart kids had moved into government and business, and were recommending Linux rather than Windows. They were recommending Linux servers and Linux desktops.

Microsoft's tactics are well documented, in court cases, in print media, and in court transcripts. Microsoft has faced trial and sanctions in the United States, Europe, South Korea, Brazil, Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe.

What has made Linux the remarkable competitor is that even with Microsoft using around $10 billion a year in legal fees, marketing, promotions, licensing restrictions, advertising control, and so on, Linux has not only survived, but has thrived, opening up new markets, new devices, new technologies, and new industries.

Microsoft has spent 30 years bleeding corporations, OEMs, and software vendors dry. They soak up the lion's share of the profits, and retaliate brutally when challenged.

Meanwhile, Linux has created companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook, and so on. Linux has given us the Internet, Digital Television, DVRs, and given us high speed connections to internet and digital media, and taken a token payment, usually a tenth of a percent, in exchange for service and support from non-profit organizations which are immune from corporate take-overs and incapable of extortion tactics such as those used by Microsoft.

Linux doesn't rely on vapor-ware, in fact, often, new products are released with little or no marketing and are discovered and popularized by the user base, who often promote it via blogs, e-mail, newsgroups, FaceBook, and word of mouth.

Give the extraordinary amount of resources Microsoft has deployed to "Kill Linux", and the remarkable success of Linux in so many markets, Linux must be doing something right.

The only question is when the Laptop makers decide that they are tired of paying Microsoft's extortion money, tired of being locked into a Single Platform solution, tired of selling products at a loss, hoping for a few "table scraps" in the form of marketing gimmicks.

These days, a laptop sells for about $429 at Best Buy. An Android tablet sells for about $329. The Android does more, has thousands of applications available for free or very low cost, most under $15, many under $5, hundreds of nice tools and applications for under $2.

With the Windows Laptop, I have to buy AntiVirus - $70. MS-Office - $150 for personal edition, but since I'm a consultant - more like $400. Extended Warranty - voided if I install Linux - $300, replacement plan - voided unless returned with Windows - $300. Visio - $300, MS-Project $500, Adobe Acrobat $100, Photoshop CS 5 - $1500. Visual Studio $300....

It wouldn't be so bad if Microsoft just "nickled and dimed" me to death, but with Windows, it's "Buy a TV, or MS-Office", "fix my car, or MS-Project", New refrigerator, or Visio...

How much longer will consumers stay with Windows on Laptops?

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Re: « ( Hadron⋅ ⌃Hadron<hadronquark )
( Quirk⋅ ⌃Hardon<hardon⋅quirk ) »
[ renaming (pseudo)nyms ]

You ( Hadron ) wrote, "Hilarious! How inefficient!".

Updating a newsgroup, including renaming, is nearly instant.

My NNTP server ( Glorb.COM, unfiltered version )
is the fastest and most reliable.
I know because I test a lot of servers; it's a hobby.

When downloading an article, the start of the (modified) "From:" line
is compred with "Hadron<hadronquark", "Hardon<hardon⋅quirk"
and few other patterns.

It's too fast to notice, of course.
When I right⋅click my "Cola" button, all nyms are checked
for potential renaming. Again, it's too quick to notice.

Every (non⋅expired) post from Cola is in a single,
5 mega⋅byte UTF⋅16 text file. Up to 30 posts/nym are retained.

[DFS]

On 3/20/2012 5:50 AM, Rex Ballard wrote:

> Linux is a GREAT career choice!

Funny then that you don't have a Linux job.

Nor does turd chrisv, nutjob Joe Michael (7), Creepy Chris Ahlstrom,
RonG, HPT, JeffMoron, Dumbkopf Kohlmann, etc.

What is it about you cola frauds who promote Linux and open source and
"Free" software but refuse to actually use it to make a living? Oh,
it's the money.

[DFS]

On 3/20/2012 8:45 AM, Rex Ballard wrote:


> How much longer will consumers stay with Windows on Laptops?

That's a rhetorical question, of course. And the answer, as you know,
is: "For as long as Microsoft keeps developing and selling Windows."

[Peter Köhlmann]

Your words. Naturally you are trying now to weasel word yourself out of your
idiocy

> You really are a dick.

Fine. Much better than a stupid lying twit like you are

[-hh]

On Mar 20, 8:45 am, Rex Ballard <rex.ball...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 15, 2012 3:39:01 PM UTC-4, Mark S Bilk wrote:
> > Desktop/Laptop Linux is a great SUCCESS - How to get started
> > On Mar 14, 3:56 pm, Torre Starnes <torre.star...@gmail.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > 4. High quality applications.
>
> The common WinTroll tactic is to compare a free application like GIMP
> to a $1500 product such as Adobe Photoshop Creative Studio and try
> to claim that GIMP is poor quality software - because it has to be
> compared to a $1500 commercial product to appear to be inferior.

I don't dispute that this doesn't happen, but I also don't believe
that it is looking at the use case problem with the appropriate
perspective. My perspective is that the commercial tool (Adobe
Photoshop is my baseline) is what it is, which incurs a certain
expense and provides a certain capability. Particularly once it has
become a sunk cost investment, the challenge for GIMP is that it has
to offer something better to make it compelling to transition away
from it as the Status Quo. Sure, some of this can be "cost", but the
cost of maintaining a Photoshop license is less than $100/year, which
as a cost factor is insignificant noise in comparison to the cost
differences in productivity ("value added") factor. Overall, the
implications of this is that GIMP can't be merely 'as good as'
Photoshop, but must actually be better.

> GIMP has features that Microsoft ShovelWare wouldn't think of including, and
> has features that you wouldn't find on the $40-$100 versions similar products.

Such as what? How specifically do these features improve workflow &
productivity? And while we're at it, precisely why is MS's name
being invoked when the benchmark is Photoshop, which is an Adobe
product? Or is this trying to infer that GIMP doesn't compare to
Photoshop, but only really is able to compete in the sub-$100
market?

> When companies like ASUS and Acer started shipping NetBooks with
> Linux preinstalled, they were remarkably easy to use. Furthermore,
> they were inexpensive, and because they didn't need as much storage,
> could use solid state disk and run for several hours on a very small and

> light battery. Furthermore...
>
> [Then,] Microsoft contacted ASUS and Acer and suggested that it

> could prove that at least 10% of these "Linux Netbooks" were now
> running Windows XP, and that unless these companies could PROVE
> that the customers had purchased appropriate licenses (at $300/machine
> for FULL versions), Microsoft would expect them to pay for all of the
> licenses being used by these "pirates". Microsoft offered to "settle"
> by offering them a price 5% of the price of a full license, on condition
> that ALL future Intel devices be shipped with OEM licenses, which
> required that Windows be preinstalled prior to shipment.
>
> Of course, since Windows XP needed more storage and memory
> than Linux, Acer and ASUS, as well as HP and Dell, had to sell
> netbooks that had magnetic hard drives, and extra batteries,
> which not only increased the cost, but meant that the laptops
> could only run about 2 hours on battery, or that bigger and
> heavier batteries were needed.

An interesting claim, since what you're saying is that the original
hardware specifications lacked the memory or storage to run Windows,
yet MS was somehow nevertheless able to leverage the manufacturers
into a "Piracy Enabler" claim. Sounds like the real tragedy was that
ASUS/Acer had lousy lawyers who didn't understand that you can't put
10lbs of shit in a 5lb box.

> Android has flipped that on it's head. With Android,
> OEMs could use a chip that COULDN'T run Windows,
> assuring that pirates would not be able to install Windows on it.

Just like how one can't put 10lbs of shit in a 5lb box.

> > > 6. Filling a void instead of creating one.
>
> Not sure where that is going. Linux has created many
> new markets and industries. Linux helped power the
> early internet servers, POPs, dial-up servers, and still
> powers many of the servers provided by Internet site providers.

Your timeline is off, since Linux wasn't created until the 1990s.

> Microsoft still maintains a presence in the server market,
> but has never been able to deliver as much "Bang for the Buck"
> as Linux or UNIX. The UNIX market has been shrinking in

> terms of number of servers, but that's because...

The leader on smaller PC based servers actually had been Novell
NetWare, with a ~90% marketshare prior to MS shipping of WinNT Server
in 1993. Novell also made some strategic mistakes and were slow to
support certain technologies (TCP/IP) which provided competitive
opportunities. I vaguely recall MS doing something unpleasant with
Nameservers too, although the details escape me.

> When Microsoft finally release Windows 95, it wouldn't run
> on most existing PCs, those who tried to upgrade found it
> to be a waste of money. Far more memory was needed
> (from 4 meg to 16 meg), more drive was needed (30 megabyte
> to 90 megabytes minimum), and plug-and-play only worked
> with the PCI bus.
>
> This meant that a LOT of companies had a LOT of PCs in
> the back alleys of Manhattan, in the back of the buildings,
> or being shipped off to "recyclers", who couldn't GIVE them

> away as Windows machines...

This is neglecting a big part of this equasion, which was that CPUs
were doubling in performance every 9 months...the 60MHz PCs were being
replaced with 133Mz ones and those with 200MHz and so forth: it
didn't pay to upgrade these systems because the CPUs were changing too
fast. For the power users of the day, the rule was an entirely new
box every 6 months and the old one would trickle down once to someone
else before it then went out the door as scrap.

> With the Windows Laptop, I have to buy AntiVirus - $70.

There's free versions available.

> MS-Office - $150 for personal edition, but since
> I'm a consultant - more like $400.

Buy the older revision of the personal version at a discount, then buy
the $99 upgrade, which makes it into a fully unrestricted version.

> Extended Warranty - voided if I install Linux - $300,
> replacement plan - voided unless returned with Windows - $300.
> Visio - $300, MS-Project $500, Adobe Acrobat $100,
> Photoshop CS 5 - $1500. Visual Studio $300....

Photoshop isn't $1500. That's the entire 'Creative Suite' bundle
that includes stuff like Acrobat which you've priced out separately.
And again, once you've bought the basic license, you're looking at
upgrades to maintain it. There's also ways to minimize & distribute
the upfront cost, just like was shown above for MS-Office.

> It wouldn't be so bad if Microsoft just "nickled and dimed"
> me to death, but with Windows, it's "Buy a TV, or MS-Office",
>"fix my car, or MS-Project", New refrigerator, or Visio...

Sounds like you need to be a more financially successful consultant;
for example, my annual budget just for personal vacations is well
north of $10K/year.

> How much longer will consumers stay with Windows on Laptops?

Good question. It does appear that the iPad is putting a dent into
things, although most of that dent right now appears to be that
segment growth has stopped. It will become far more interesting if it
starts to actually shrink...my personal guess is that we're still a
few years away from seeing that, particularly if you put a
significance band requirement on it (say, -10%).


-hh

[Hadron]

Rex Ballard <rex.b...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thursday, March 15, 2012 3:39:01 PM UTC-4, Mark S Bilk wrote:
>> Desktop/Laptop Linux is a great SUCCESS - How to get started
>
>> On Mar 14, 3:56 pm, Torre Starnes <torre.star...@gmail.org> wrote:
>> > 1. Organization.
>
> Linux development, and OSS development are considered business models that IT
> departments in many corporations and consulting organizations have been trying
> to emulate. Linux developers have been able to collaborate more efficiently,
> coordinate more efficiently, and develop more software in less time, with more
> flexibility than more traditional "waterfall" approaches used in more
> traditional Microsoft style "New release every 3-7 years" approaches.

What total bullshit. Not least that that you refer to "Linux
developers". OSS is *NOT* Microsoft v Linux you idiot. How many more
times do you have to be told this Rexxford?

Provide ONE link of an internal IT development department trying to copy
the "business model" (your words) of external OSS "for free" teams.

You wont, you cant.

This is NOT to say OSS can not be developed efficiently or better than
other closed source set ups : of course it can.

Eacht time you post you end up looking a bigger idiot.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

Well, once we called him on it, I'm sure he went googling to drum
up a better story. Otherwise he might accidentally make the same
claim ("zero external access") about Compuserve's PDP-10/11/15
computers.

Naturally. Because, for "Hadron" (and for DFS), networked computer did
not begin until Microsoft started it.

--
Good clean code IS like commenting. It is not the competent programmers
job to comment standard language patterns so someone unfamiliar with the
language can read it.
-- "Hadron" <7qhb912...@news.eternal-september.org>

[Kari Laine]

You said that you have tried Linux and never will use it again.
You did not mention any details which is stupid. Or I could think you do
it on purpose hoping that people would take your comment as a face
value.....

>
> >Desktop Linux provides security, power, multiple virtual
> >desktops, flexible file systems, modularity, processor
> >independence, open source code, and zero cost. Most of
> >these advantages are not available in Microsoft Windows or
> >Apple Macintosh.
>
> Clearly, many of these things add additional complexity which incurs a
> cost, so how they actually end up being advantageous is not clear.
> As such, these things that are being claimed to be “advantages” are an
> unsubstantiated claim.
>

Well Linux distros are as easy to use as Windows or even OS X these
days. But in Linux you could use power features with little studying.
Same cannot be said about Windows. I don't know about OS X.
The benefits listed above does not come with additional complexity. What
are trying to fish here?

> In addition, I’ve already pointed out the fallacy of the claim of
> “zero cost”. While FOSS does have the attribute of having a zero
> initial purchase price, that doesn’t make its lifecycle costs to be
> free - - or even necessarily cheaper than “expensive” commercial
> software. Versus a commercial product, having free software doesn’t
> do you any favors when it results in lower productivity…unless the
> value of your time is always zero.
>

If one uses a computer one has to be prepared to put some time to keep
system running. I have used both Windows and Linux for years and Windows
takes much more hand holding than Linux. Linux typically keeps running
the hardware below it rots. Windows needs all the time fixing and
typically a reinstall quite often. Then you have to pay for an
anti-virus/firewall package, registry cleaner, spyware cleaner and so
on. Quite typically one has issues with drivers. Try to install Windows
7 to an older machine. Naturally ones time is not free but with Linux
the work is minimized compared to Windows. Again I don't do OS X - yet.
I am tempted to buy an Mac. Problem is I can get 2,5 laptos with an OS
with a price of one Mac...

> If that’s the line of reasoning that you’re going to pursue, then say
> so so that I can repeat my old cliché: WELL THEN GET OVER HERE AND
> MOW MY LAWN FOR FREE TOO.
>

You seem to have problem to understand that mowing a lawn and
distributing a FOSS program are totally different things. You make a
program once and millions of people can take the benefit without the
author having to do anything more per user. It would be same thing that
me being able to mowing lawn's of millions of properties without
actually doing more than mowing a SINGLE lawn......are you just thick?

> If you don't want to spend your time mowing my lawn, then guess what?
> Your time *is* worth something to you afterall!
>

How come you think that keeping a Windows machine running does not take
users time? Linux typically does take less.

>
>> SECURITY -- Virtually no successful Linux malware exists.
>> Unlike Microsoft Windows, Linux doesn't require anti-malware
>> programs that have to be continually updated.
>
> False. Since there is admitted to be some level of vulnerability, a
> non-zero investment in protection (risk management& mitigation) must
> be made.
>

Well time might come when one needs an anti-virus for Linux but it has
not arrived yet and probably newer will. If it will I am sure there will
be solutions. Malware that exist for Linux are mostly proof of concepts
and there is proabably less than 50 of them. NONE in the wild. For
Windows there must be more than 500.000 of which probably 100.000 are in
the wild. Don't you get it ?

>> That's because
>> Linux follows the principles of Unix, which was designed for
>> security from its beginning because it's a multi-user OS.
>
> Golly, isn't it interesting how UNIX here is being hoisted up as the
> reason for the claim, while the previous statement literally less
> than a dozen lines earlier criticized an OS that is *Certified UNIX*
> as being unacceptably insecure. A blatant self-contradiction in
> Bilk's claims.
>

UNIX has always been secure compared to anything which comes from MS.
UNIX philosophy is quite different from Windows, which is like a cheese
from the security point of view. Linux is not certified as UNIX because
it would require quite a hefty payment to Open Group and would require
some of the Linux distributors to do the work. I don't know why it has
not been done. It would be easy for the RedHat or Attachmate. MS has all
the time implemented ideas it "stole" from UNIX.

>
>> The rare invasions of Linux systems have only been the result
>> of long tardiness in upgrades or human engineering (stealing
>> passwords offline, etc.) Whereas Microsoft Windows malware
>> has cost businesses many tens of billions of dollars in lost
>> productivity and system repair.
>
> And silence on the certified Unix OS that was previously derided.
>
>
>> Google for: computer viruses billions dollars
>
> Around 1.7 million hits ... but there's 27.7 million hits on Bilk+Child
> +Molester - - which makes it all quite clear that either Bilk is
> {Part A}, or that Bilk's attempted "Appeal to Popularity" is a
> fallacy.
>
> Either way, he belongs in jail :-)
>
>

This is disgusting even from you. You seem to loose argument and only
way you find to continue is to try with dirt.

>> MULTIPLE VIRTUAL DESKTOPS -- Linux KDE3 gives you 20 screens
>> (desktops) in which you can set up programs for 20 different
>> tasks, like mail, website, programming, music, etc. In each
>> full-screen desktop your display shows only the programs you've
>> set up in it, plus any that you've specified to appear in all
>> desktops. Of course, each program can be minimized or returned
>> to normal size as usual. You can leave the programs set up and
>> running in each desktop, because they use negligible CPU cycles
>> when you're not actively using them. To switch between these
>> desktops, all you do is click on the name of the desired desktop
>> (task) in the little pager applet that's displayed in all the
>> desktops, and you're there.
>>
>> How would you do this in Microsoft Windows?
>
> It is premature to ask. The prerequisite is "Why" would this be
> desirable, and what is the net magnitude of the benefit, after its
> costs have been quantified?
>

Empty impressive sounding words. But fact is Linux (or KDE) has multiple
desktops and one can use that effectively to organize ones work. I don't
know whether you can get that feature to Windows with some addons.



Rest of the bullshit deleted. I don't want to waste my time.


Kari

[Kari Laine]

On 03/20/2012 04:09 PM, -hh wrote:
> On Mar 20, 8:45 am, Rex Ballard<rex.ball...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 15, 2012 3:39:01 PM UTC-4, Mark S Bilk wrote:
>>> Desktop/Laptop Linux is a great SUCCESS - How to get started
>>> On Mar 14, 3:56 pm, Torre Starnes<torre.star...@gmail.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> 4. High quality applications.
>>
>> The common WinTroll tactic is to compare a free application like GIMP
>> to a $1500 product such as Adobe Photoshop Creative Studio and try
>> to claim that GIMP is poor quality software - because it has to be
>> compared to a $1500 commercial product to appear to be inferior.
>
> I don't dispute that this doesn't happen, but I also don't believe
> that it is looking at the use case problem with the appropriate
> perspective. My perspective is that the commercial tool (Adobe
> Photoshop is my baseline) is what it is, which incurs a certain
> expense and provides a certain capability. Particularly once it has
> become a sunk cost investment, the challenge for GIMP is that it has
> to offer something better to make it compelling to transition away
> from it as the Status Quo. Sure, some of this can be "cost", but the
> cost of maintaining a Photoshop license is less than $100/year, which
> as a cost factor is insignificant noise in comparison to the cost
> differences in productivity ("value added") factor. Overall, the
> implications of this is that GIMP can't be merely 'as good as'
> Photoshop, but must actually be better.
>

You seem to forget that not anyone will be prepared shell out that kind
of money for a quick edit of a photo or something. I think it would be
stupid use of money. I have never used Photoshop except few edits on
others machines. I certainly would be prepared to pay that kind of a
money for it if it was not needed in my mainline of work which it is
not. The little I have for edit - GIMP is enough.

Most photoshop users outside company use pirated versions....

What comes to whether photoshop is better than Gimp - I don't know I am
not artist.

>> GIMP has features that Microsoft ShovelWare wouldn't think of including, and
>> has features that you wouldn't find on the $40-$100 versions similar products.
>
> Such as what? How specifically do these features improve workflow&
> productivity? And while we're at it, precisely why is MS's name
> being invoked when the benchmark is Photoshop, which is an Adobe
> product? Or is this trying to infer that GIMP doesn't compare to
> Photoshop, but only really is able to compete in the sub-$100
> market?
>
>

This statement means that you must be a PRO of both Photoshop and GIMP.
Now tell me please how GIMP is not adequate?

Well either you are stupid or can not read. Original netbook concept
which was using Linux was a success. Smaller hardware, longer battery
life, lot's of apps for free - what more can required.

Then MS destroyed it by insisting that ASUS and Acer are not allowed to
sell netbooks with Linux anymore. They had to beef up the hardware to be
able to run monster Windows. Out went battery life and availability of
apps. Again I have to ask are you stupid or what?

>> Android has flipped that on it's head. With Android,
>> OEMs could use a chip that COULDN'T run Windows,
>> assuring that pirates would not be able to install Windows on it.
>
> Just like how one can't put 10lbs of shit in a 5lb box.
>
>
>>>> 6. Filling a void instead of creating one.
>>
>> Not sure where that is going. Linux has created many
>> new markets and industries. Linux helped power the
>> early internet servers, POPs, dial-up servers, and still
>> powers many of the servers provided by Internet site providers.
>
> Your timeline is off, since Linux wasn't created until the 1990s.
>
>> Microsoft still maintains a presence in the server market,
>> but has never been able to deliver as much "Bang for the Buck"
>> as Linux or UNIX. The UNIX market has been shrinking in
>> terms of number of servers, but that's because...
>
> The leader on smaller PC based servers actually had been Novell
> NetWare, with a ~90% marketshare prior to MS shipping of WinNT Server
> in 1993. Novell also made some strategic mistakes and were slow to
> support certain technologies (TCP/IP) which provided competitive
> opportunities. I vaguely recall MS doing something unpleasant with
> Nameservers too, although the details escape me.
>

Linux will own the server market.

>
>> When Microsoft finally release Windows 95, it wouldn't run
>> on most existing PCs, those who tried to upgrade found it
>> to be a waste of money. Far more memory was needed
>> (from 4 meg to 16 meg), more drive was needed (30 megabyte
>> to 90 megabytes minimum), and plug-and-play only worked
>> with the PCI bus.
>>
>> This meant that a LOT of companies had a LOT of PCs in
>> the back alleys of Manhattan, in the back of the buildings,
>> or being shipped off to "recyclers", who couldn't GIVE them
>> away as Windows machines...
>
> This is neglecting a big part of this equasion, which was that CPUs
> were doubling in performance every 9 months...the 60MHz PCs were being
> replaced with 133Mz ones and those with 200MHz and so forth: it
> didn't pay to upgrade these systems because the CPUs were changing too
> fast. For the power users of the day, the rule was an entirely new
> box every 6 months and the old one would trickle down once to someone
> else before it then went out the door as scrap.
>
>
>> With the Windows Laptop, I have to buy AntiVirus - $70.
>
> There's free versions available.
>

Which sucks...

>> MS-Office - $150 for personal edition, but since
>> I'm a consultant - more like $400.
>
> Buy the older revision of the personal version at a discount, then buy
> the $99 upgrade, which makes it into a fully unrestricted version.
>
>> Extended Warranty - voided if I install Linux - $300,
>> replacement plan - voided unless returned with Windows - $300.
>> Visio - $300, MS-Project $500, Adobe Acrobat $100,
>> Photoshop CS 5 - $1500. Visual Studio $300....
>
> Photoshop isn't $1500. That's the entire 'Creative Suite' bundle
> that includes stuff like Acrobat which you've priced out separately.
> And again, once you've bought the basic license, you're looking at

> upgrades to maintain it. There's also ways to minimize& distribute

> the upfront cost, just like was shown above for MS-Office.
>

Fact is with Windows one needs software which cost easily $2500
With Linux $0

>
>> It wouldn't be so bad if Microsoft just "nickled and dimed"
>> me to death, but with Windows, it's "Buy a TV, or MS-Office",
>> "fix my car, or MS-Project", New refrigerator, or Visio...
>
> Sounds like you need to be a more financially successful consultant;
> for example, my annual budget just for personal vacations is well
> north of $10K/year.
>

How much you use for the Windows software ?
I am not interested of your vacations :-)

>
>> How much longer will consumers stay with Windows on Laptops?
>
> Good question. It does appear that the iPad is putting a dent into
> things, although most of that dent right now appears to be that
> segment growth has stopped. It will become far more interesting if it
> starts to actually shrink...my personal guess is that we're still a
> few years away from seeing that, particularly if you put a
> significance band requirement on it (say, -10%).
>

Kari

[Kari Laine]

Do you do scrum?

Kari

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Kari Laine wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

Of course he does! He works overtime at it!

"Hadron" puts the "OT" in "scrum".

He's a real "scrumbag"! :-D

--
ATI cards have been excellent for gaming. On windows.
The 9800pro was groundbreaking. And since then they have kept NVidia
honest.
-- "Hadron", http://www.webservertalk.com/archive230-2007-4-1853959.html

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2012-03-16, Ezekiel <ze...@nosuchemail.com> wrote:
> "Homer" <use...@slated.org> wrote in message
> news:fpkc39-...@sky.matrix...
>> Verily I say unto thee that Kari Laine spake thusly:
>>> On 03/16/2012 02:38 PM, -hh wrote:
>>>> On Mar 16, 5:44 am, Kari Laine<karitla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Fuck Microsoft.
>> [...]
>>> They are ugly cases. Even sabotaging a competitor is among them. They
>>> modified Windows so that it wont't run on competing DOS product(I
>>> don'? remember the name of it for the moment).
>>
>> DR-DOS.
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/11/05/how_ms_played_the_incompatibility/
>
> And which product version of Windows was incompatible with DR-DOS?

If some major 3rd party product was demonstrated to be incompatable
with the current Win 8 preview are you saying that people would completely
ignore that?

Of course not. Your rationale regarding DR-DOS is equally silly.

[deletia]

Once the FUD is spread, the damage is done.

One cannot "un-poo".

--
The difference between a monopoly and a "market leader" is |||
that you can simply ignore a "market leader" and be no worse / | \
for it.

[RonB]

On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 19:30:03 +0200, Kari Laine wrote:

> Empty impressive sounding words. But fact is Linux (or KDE) has multiple
> desktops and one can use that effectively to organize ones work. I don't
> know whether you can get that feature to Windows with some addons.

I use multiple desktops constantly. So it's a very important feature to
me. It's funny how unimportant features for Windows and OSX can be to
WinTrolls and iCultists *until* these OSes get the same features that
Linux has had for years. Than suddenly they're very important and
"revolutionary." Take for example the notification panel in iOS -- of
course Android already had it (as did webOS). But, now that iOS has it,
it's a "great" feature.

--
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.7 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0
or Linux Mint 10

[-hh]

Except that I did follow-up and provide details which referenced past
use case examples. In the meantime, you've continued to give the OP
a "free ride" for his lack of details.

> >   >Desktop Linux provides security, power, multiple virtual
> >   >desktops, flexible file systems, modularity, processor
> >   >independence, open source code, and zero cost.  Most of
> >   >these advantages are not available in Microsoft Windows or
> >   >Apple Macintosh.
>
> > Clearly, many of these things add additional complexity which incurs a
> > cost, so how they actually end up being advantageous is not clear.
> > As such, these things that are being claimed to be “advantages” are an
> > unsubstantiated claim.
>
> Well Linux distros are as easy to use as Windows or even OS X these
> days. But in Linux you could use power features with little studying.
> Same cannot be said about Windows. I don't know about OS X.
> The benefits listed above does not come with additional complexity.

Sorry, but things like running multiple virtual desktops are
undoubtedly an additional complexity.

> What are trying to fish here?

Observing that a link between a feature and its capability outcome has
not been achieved, let alone been quantified.

For example, does having a 'power feature' of multiple virtual
desktops result in a productivity gain? And if it does do so, of what
quantified magnitude? If you can't measure it, then how can we be so
sure that it exists?

> > In addition, I’ve already pointed out the fallacy of the claim of
> > “zero cost”.  While FOSS does have the attribute of having a zero
> > initial purchase price, that doesn’t make its lifecycle costs to be
> > free - - or even necessarily cheaper than “expensive” commercial
> > software.  Versus a commercial product, having free software doesn’t
> > do you any favors when it results in lower productivity…unless the
> > value of your time is always zero.
>
> If one uses a computer one has to be prepared to put some time to keep
> system running. I have used both Windows and Linux for years and Windows
> takes much more hand holding than Linux. Linux typically keeps running
> the hardware below it rots. Windows needs all the time fixing and
> typically a reinstall quite often. Then you have to pay for an
> anti-virus/firewall package, registry cleaner, spyware cleaner and so
> on. Quite typically one has issues with drivers. Try to install Windows
> 7 to an older machine. Naturally ones time is not free but with Linux
> the work is minimized compared to Windows.

If Windows really was that horrifically expensive to maintain, then
Enterprise would have had the financial incentive to have bailed on
Windows a long time ago. They're all running a business, not a
religion.

Of course, the counterpoint to this is that they very well may put up
with all of these expenses because the net effective productivity of
the end user makes it worth doing so.

> Again I don't do OS X - yet.

Perhaps you should consider it.

> I am tempted to buy an Mac. Problem is I can get 2,5 laptos with an OS
> with a price of one Mac...

Granted, one certainly can buy a low-specifications laptop that's
cheaper than an Apple laptop. However, when one looks to general
hardware parity, the difference in retail price isn't anywhere near
2.5x

> > If that’s the line of reasoning that you’re going to pursue, then say
> > so so that I can repeat my old cliché:  WELL THEN GET OVER HERE AND
> > MOW MY LAWN FOR FREE TOO.
>
> You seem to have problem to understand that mowing a lawn and
> distributing a FOSS program are totally different things.

Not at the level I'm looking at: both require a non-zero amount of
labor.

> You make a
> program once and millions of people can take the benefit without the
> author having to do anything more per user.

Or you can get a customer like "Homer" that demands that you maintain
that product forever, and at no additional compensation, as other
hardware & software change around your product (whatever it is). Your
time still isn't free.

> It would be same thing that
> me being able to mowing lawn's of millions of properties without
> actually doing more than mowing a SINGLE lawn......are you just thick?
>
> > If you don't want to spend your time mowing my lawn, then guess what?
> > Your time *is* worth something to you afterall!
>
> How come you think that keeping a Windows machine running does not take
> users time?

I don't think that. **ALL** of them require a non-zero amount of
time.

> Linux typically does take less.

I'd like to believe that ... but where's the quantitative proof?

The proof is missing. It is always missing despite this all-too-
frequently-repeated claim.

> >> SECURITY -- Virtually no successful Linux malware exists.
> >> Unlike Microsoft Windows, Linux doesn't require anti-malware
> >> programs that have to be continually updated.
>
> > False.  Since there is admitted to be some level of vulnerability, a
> > non-zero investment in protection (risk management&  mitigation) must
> > be made.
>
> Well time might come when one needs an anti-virus for Linux but it has
> not arrived yet and probably newer will.

But just how do you know that to be the case?

Oh, that's right: you invested your ***TIME*** to research it.

Since TIME = expense, it isn't possible for Linux to be free here.

> If it will I am sure there will
> be solutions. Malware that exist for Linux are mostly proof of concepts
> and there is proabably less than 50 of them. NONE in the wild. For
> Windows there must be more than 500.000 of which probably 100.000 are in
> the wild. Don't you get it ?

Neither risk is zero. Neither one's expenses of monitoring those
risks are zero. Granted, Linux might be cheaper today, but that's (a)
not free; (b) not quantified; (c) not an assurance of future
performance (cost containment). FWIW, the same is true for OS X.

> >> That's because
> >> Linux follows the principles of Unix, which was designed for
> >> security from its beginning because it's a multi-user OS.
>
> > Golly, isn't it interesting how UNIX here is being hoisted up as the
> > reason for the claim, while the previous  statement literally less
> > than a dozen lines earlier criticized an OS that is *Certified UNIX*
> > as being unacceptably insecure.  A blatant self-contradiction in
> > Bilk's claims.
>
> UNIX has always been secure compared to anything which comes from MS.
> UNIX philosophy is quite different from Windows, which is like a cheese
> from the security point of view. Linux is not certified as UNIX because
> it would require quite a hefty payment to Open Group and would require
> some of the Linux distributors to do the work. I don't know why it has
> not been done. It would be easy for the RedHat or Attachmate. MS has all
> the time implemented ideas it "stole" from UNIX.

All true, but you avoided addressing the point. Try again.

> >> The rare invasions of Linux systems have only been the result
> >> of long tardiness in upgrades or human engineering (stealing
> >> passwords offline, etc.)  Whereas Microsoft Windows malware
> >> has cost businesses many tens of billions of dollars in lost
> >> productivity and system repair.
>
> > And silence on the certified Unix OS that was previously derided.
>
> >> Google for: computer viruses billions dollars
>
> > Around 1.7 million hits ... but there's 27.7 million hits on Bilk+Child
> > +Molester  - - which makes it all quite clear that either Bilk is
> > {Part A}, or that Bilk's attempted "Appeal to Popularity" is a
> > fallacy.
>
> > Either way, he belongs in jail :-)
>
> This is disgusting even from you. You seem to loose argument and only
> way you find to continue is to try with dirt.

Once again, you avoided addressing the point.

The point was that "Bilk" attempted to use Google as an appeal to
popularity which is a fallacy. I used an obviously false outrageous
premise to illustrate just how wrong his premise was. It was thus
illstrated that what "Bilk" provided doesn't come anywhere close to
being anything close to proof of his claim.

> >> MULTIPLE VIRTUAL DESKTOPS -- Linux KDE3 gives you 20 screens
> >> (desktops) in which you can set up programs for 20 different
> >> tasks, like mail, website, programming, music, etc.  In each
> >> full-screen desktop your display shows only the programs you've
> >> set up in it, plus any that you've specified to appear in all
> >> desktops.  Of course, each program can be minimized or returned
> >> to normal size as usual.  You can leave the programs set up and
> >> running in each desktop, because they use negligible CPU cycles
> >> when you're not actively using them.  To switch between these
> >> desktops, all you do is click on the name of the desired desktop
> >> (task) in the little pager applet that's displayed in all the
> >> desktops, and you're there.
>
> >> How would you do this in Microsoft Windows?
>
> > It is premature to ask.  The prerequisite is "Why" would this be
> > desirable, and what is the net magnitude of the benefit, after its
> > costs have been quantified?
>
> Empty impressive sounding words. But fact is Linux (or KDE) has multiple
> desktops and one can use that effectively to organize ones work.

Speaking of empty, you still didn't answer the key questions:

"What?" - What was the attribute that changed?
"Where?" - Where did the workflow see improvement?
"Why?" - Why is the change resulting in a better outcome?
"How?" - By how much did the improvement change the bottom line ($$)?

> I don't know whether you can get that feature to Windows with some addons.

You can, but I've not used it.

> Rest of the bullshit deleted. I don't want to waste my time.

Oh, you've subsequently replied to another of my posts, so you're
clearly willing to "waste" your time. What's more likely to be the
truth is that you didn't want to confront what followed, so let's go
see what that was:

Oh, here it is:

"And if you’re not a power user, it is of no meaningful benefit then,
correct? ... Of course, the fallacy that’s present here in Bilk's
(lack of) logical train is to infer that something that may be
beneficial for one niche segment is sufficient justification for
everyone in the general use case to have to invest in it."

In other words, even if virtual desktops are beneficial to one use
case - - and quantifiably proven to be so - - that observation isn't
necessarily automatically generalizable.

"Of course even here, the niche's supposed benefit is merely a vague
hand-waiving of ‘better’. Plus it also utterly ignores other
alternative solutions, such as using a physical second display
instead
of a virtual one, for but one possible example."

FWIW, I have virtual desktop available off of three of my systems - -
I don't bother to use it. The reason why is because the one has a
dual 24" display setup which is what VDs are trying to emulate and the
other two aren't used for the same activities for which the dual
display setup works to some positive effect. I had a spare display
and ran a dual setup on one of these systems for a year to make
sure...that monitor's sitting next to this machine right now, turned
off.

"> FLEXIBLE FILE SYSTEMS -- ...

This claim infers that there’s no other practical way to provide this
type of utility, which is false since there are software applications
that manage data instead just the desktop operating system...."

Simple summary: Homer has to rationalize using Linux to do database
functions because Apple didn't port iTunes over to Linux...."a claim
with its benefit potential not made tangible."

"> Linux can mount filesystems...anywhere...

So how does this result in a quantifiable value-added factor for the
general application user to give a damn?"

Again, a claim without a clearly articulated and quantified benefit to
the bottom line.


"> Linux can also read file systems...

In addition, this claim has once again failed to articulate and
quantify what the value of this is to the general use case..."

Strike Five? Ouch!

"> MODULARITY -- ...

Configuring for the general use case would be an overhead expense ...
which happens with what degree of infrequency? Well, this PC was
set
up back in September 2010, so that's roughly 1.5 years."

Oh, and it is not suffering from any 'Windows Rot' yet, either. And
even if it was:

" ... let's be rediculously overconservative and call it 20
hours at $100/hour ... represents less than a 0.3% contribution to
its
lifecycle costs - - so while this might cross your personal
threshhold
for significance, it doesn't for me."

"> ...Can you say "Blue Screen Of Death" ?

Sure, I’ve seen BSODs … but this ‘feature’ claim is trying to infer
that their current frequency rate is still a meaningful hit to
productivity, as well as what the downtime significance is."

Again, fearmongering instead of hard data that details what the bottom
line financial cost is of this downtime.

"> PROCESSOR INDEPENDENCE -- ..."

I'm going to refine my comment here: so long as I can move my data,
why should I care?

"> OPEN SOURCE CODE -- Allows users to add or modify features of
> programs (or pay someone else to do it).

Pay for a programmer to fix things? But weren’t we previously told
that it is all “Free”?"

Don't forget that you claimed that you could write once and never
touch it again.

"> ZERO COST -- Zero initial cost and zero upgrade cost for Linux
> and its application and development software.

Considering that the fully burdened hourly rate for a good white
collar knowledge worker in the West at an Enterprise with a 100%
overhead works out to roughly $100/hour, the initial purchase price
and even upgrade prices for their OS & Apps rapidly becomes
insignificant relative to what the product selection can do for their
productivity..."


{more stuff deleted}

"First,
Posters complain when I address every point as being “long winded”,
and Poster complain when I don't..."

Which just happened yet again here. Golly, I do wish that the COLA
President could make sure that his citizens are self-consistant :-)


-hh

[Snit]

RonB stated in post jkakhi$7a7$1...@dont-email.me on 3/20/12 12:07 PM:

> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 19:30:03 +0200, Kari Laine wrote:
>
>> Empty impressive sounding words. But fact is Linux (or KDE) has multiple
>> desktops and one can use that effectively to organize ones work. I don't
>> know whether you can get that feature to Windows with some addons.
>
> I use multiple desktops constantly.

Maybe you will some day find a single one that serves your needs well. :)

> So it's a very important feature to me.

And that is fine for you. I have no problem with that.

> It's funny how unimportant features for Windows and OSX can be to WinTrolls
> and iCultists *until* these OSes get the same features that Linux has had for
> years. Than suddenly they're very important and "revolutionary."

Huh? Multiple desktops, as done by most managers, is a useless and perhaps
even detrimental feature for many users. Does not mean it should be banned
or that I do not doubt you and others finding value in it.

When Apple first introduced Spaces, it was not quite the same as the
"standard" method but it was not much better. In some ways it was worse
(pulling you to desktops that were "demanding" attention). I made this very
clear and in no way acted as you describe above... though I am also not an
"iCultist" (is there even such a thing... do you have any examples at all?)

In Lion Apple re-did Spaces to make it better tie into the system... and it
now is quite useful, esp. in terms of full screen apps. Even there, though,
there are some significant weaknesses (esp. for people with multiple *real*
desktops). But it is likely the best implementation of virtual desktops I
have seen (for the general user - of course there will be some who prefer
other solutions - and other solutions exist on Linux and on OS X)

> Take for example the notification panel in iOS -- of course Android already
> had it (as did webOS). But, now that iOS has it, it's a "great" feature.

Who was putting it down on Android (or claiming it was not important)? And
do you understand that while Apple's notification system is similar to
Android's (and likely inspired by it) that it is not the same? Also, a
little off topic, it is also coming to Mountain Lion in a similar form -
something I am looking forward to. I use the third party system Growl and
it is great - but what Mountain Lion offers looks even better. And Growl
just moved to pay-ware... so I am now using an aging version (esp. with
Mountain Lion coming I am not going to pay for the feature).

I have long ago understood the value of a notification system... and the
weakness of some (such as the one on, esp., older versions of Windows that
just popped up and got in the way. Apple did some of the same with theirs
on iOS and have now made it better. Good. Android did some of that first
(in terms of the "race" between iOS and Android). Good there, too... about
time Android developers show some signs of doing more than just copying iOS.
They are bringing in ideas from elsewhere and even making their own
innovations. This is what they should have done from the start... not just
based their idea on what Apple was doing. Weak minded and wrong of them...
hopefully they grow past it.

--
🙈🙉🙊

[Peter Köhlmann]

What "cost"?
And for myself, any OS without *decent* virtual desktops is basically
unuseable

> Empty impressive sounding words. But fact is Linux (or KDE) has multiple
> desktops and one can use that effectively to organize ones work. I don't
> know whether you can get that feature to Windows with some addons.
>

You can. But even the best ones are shitty.
Also the OSX one is extremely primitive compared to the linux virtual
desktops.
It is much better than the windows ones, but feels like an oxen cart
compared to a maserati

[Gregory Shearman]

On 2012-03-20, Peter Köhlmann <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:

> Hadron wrote:
>>
>> Clearly things need spelling out to you Kohlkopf : in many cases they
>> were used as multi user on closed sites. I know : I used one in just
>> such a secure site. Secondly they were connected by dedicated lines and
>> not open to what we now call the "internet".
>
> "VMS was invariably tucked away on sites with zero external access"
>
> Your words. Naturally you are trying now to weasel word yourself out of your
> idiocy

The university VAX/VMS I had access to was connected to the internet, or
ARPANET as it was called then. It was just turning into the "internet"
at that time.

[-hh]

On Mar 20, 2:14 pm, Kari Laine <karitla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 04:09 PM, -hh wrote:

> > [...]

> > I don't dispute that this doesn't happen, but I also don't believe
> > that it is looking at the use case problem with the appropriate
> > perspective. My perspective is that the commercial tool (Adobe
> > Photoshop is my baseline) is what it is, which incurs a certain
> > expense and provides a certain capability. Particularly once it has
> > become a sunk cost investment, the challenge for GIMP is that it has
> > to offer something better to make it compelling to transition away
> > from it as the Status Quo. Sure, some of this can be "cost", but the
> > cost of maintaining a Photoshop license is less than $100/year, which
> > as a cost factor is insignificant noise in comparison to the cost
> > differences in productivity ("value added") factor. Overall, the
> > implications of this is that GIMP can't be merely 'as good as'
> > Photoshop, but must actually be better.
>
> You seem to forget that not anyone will be prepared shell out that kind
> of money for a quick edit of a photo or something.

No, I'm not forgetting that factor at all: I'm merely using the
"expensive" tool as a comparison baseline, since the classical COLA
paradigm is that one should never have to pay for any commercial
software.

> I think it would be
> stupid use of money. I have never used Photoshop except few edits on
> others machines. I certainly would be prepared to pay that kind of a
> money for it if it was not needed in my mainline of work which it is
> not. The little I have for edit - GIMP is enough.

Yes, not making a significant investment in a tool that you don't (or
only very rarely) use makes sense. All you've really done is to
conduct a business analysis of your needs which is all that I've been
talking about doing with my "life cycle cost analysis" phrase. All
you've done is to apply through the observation that you don't have
sufficient utilization to merit buying the tool...in fact, by doing
your edits on someone else's machine you've effectively performed the
equivalent of "renting", in a manner of speaking.

> Most photoshop users outside company use pirated versions...

I've heard claims to this effect but I've never seen numbers. In any
case, it wouldn't apply here anyway: I'm only looking at this from
the perspective of having legitimately obtained the product(s).

> What comes to whether photoshop is better than Gimp - I don't know I am
> not artist.

Understood. It is one of the specific use cases that I use as an
example because it closely alligns with my specific productivity
needs. One would have expected that by now there would be at least
one COLA poster who knows it well, but every time that I push for
details as to how it is "As Good" (let alone "better"), details are
never forthcoming. I'd not mind dropping Adobe, but I need to know
what the benefits are - - and how much - - since I'm not about to go
mess up my whole workflow based on empty speculation for something
whose potential upside is a mere $100/year.

> >> GIMP has features that Microsoft ShovelWare wouldn't think of including, and
> >> has features that you wouldn't find on the $40-$100 versions similar products.
>
> > Such as what? How specifically do these features improve workflow&
> > productivity? And while we're at it, precisely why is MS's name
> > being invoked when the benchmark is Photoshop, which is an Adobe
> > product? Or is this trying to infer that GIMP doesn't compare to
> > Photoshop, but only really is able to compete in the sub-$100
> > market?
>
> This statement means that you must be a PRO of both Photoshop and GIMP.

Not really: I'm asking why MS was being invoked when Photoshop isn't
an MS product. I'm fine with comparing GIMP to some lightweight stuff
if the agreement is that that's the market segment it belongs in. Of
course, someone's going to then have to convince a bunch of the
COLAites that anyone who says "I use/need Photoshop" becomes a free
pass that automatically negates all possible advocacy of Linux OS to
that consumer segment.

> Now tell me please how GIMP is not adequate?

For awhile, GIMP didn't support CMYK for printing, nor a couple of
other things with layers; I think both have since been rectified. To
re-research it today, I'd pay close attetntion to RAW compatibility
and how universal its non-lossy formats are as a start. I'd also have
to gage the productivity hit from not having integration into
Lightroom.

Insofar as for a "lightweight" tool, I'd not know. I've been using
Photoshop for a long time and have little interest in that product
segment

Calling me stupid doesn't reconcile the contradiction: it was claimed
that the Netbooks lacked the capacity to run Windows - - the Netbook
was the "5lb bag" part of my analogy, wheras XP was the "10lbs of
shit" part.

If XP could be made to fit, then the Netbook wasn't a "5lb bag"
afterall. So just which is the ground truth?


> > [...]

> Linux will own the server market.

I expect so, at least the servers that are outwardly facing. I've
previously alluded to watching to key off of what happens with the OS
of the MS-Exchange servers.

> >> With the Windows Laptop, I have to buy AntiVirus - $70.
>
> > There's free versions available.
>
> Which sucks...

It very well may be so, but this is just a repeat of the same
"Photoshop -vs- GIMP" comparison again: there's a determination to be
made for if a particular tool is a worthwhile value (or not), as well
as cost analysis techiques with which it all can be quantified.

> Fact is with Windows one needs software which cost easily $2500
> With Linux $0

But just like with the AntiVirus program, what do you do if it
"sucks"?

Each piece of software can undergo its own "cost efffectiveness"
assessment. Sometimes, the commercial product is worth buying, and
sometimes the FOSS does just fine because it costs less both upfront
and over the lifecycle.

> >> It wouldn't be so bad if Microsoft just "nickled and dimed"
> >> me to death, but with Windows, it's "Buy a TV, or MS-Office",
> >> "fix my car, or MS-Project", New refrigerator, or Visio...
>
> > Sounds like you need to be a more financially successful consultant;
> > for example, my annual budget just for personal vacations is well
> > north of $10K/year.
>
> How much you use for the Windows software ?

Separate budget line when its for the business. This 'vacations' lbit
is part of the 'Personal Discretionary line'.

> I am not interested of your vacations :-)

I'm renting a 3BR house in the Caribbean for a half month later this
spring and there's a bedroom available...if you're cute, provide a
photo and see if you get an invitation. :-)

In any case, the real reason I mentioned it at all was from the prior
poster who had a bag of bravado about how 'prosperous' they were,
which was followed by a bag of whining about the cost of a few
software titles. The latter just kinda contradicts the former.


-hh

[-hh]

On Mar 20, 4:33 pm, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlm...@t-online.de>
wrote:

> Kari Laine wrote:
> > On 03/19/2012 08:28 PM, -hh wrote:
>
> >>> How would you do this in Microsoft Windows?
>
> >> It is premature to ask.  The prerequisite is "Why" would this be
> >> desirable, and what is the net magnitude of the benefit, after its
> >> costs have been quantified?
>
> What "cost"?

Everything has a cost.

> And for myself, any OS without *decent* virtual desktops is basically
> unuseable
>
> > Empty impressive sounding words. But fact is Linux (or KDE) has multiple
> > desktops and one can use that effectively to organize ones work. I don't
> > know whether you can get that feature to Windows with some addons.
>
> You can. But even the best ones are shitty.
> Also the OSX one is extremely primitive compared to the linux virtual
> desktops.
> It is much better than the windows ones, but feels like an oxen cart
> compared to a maserati

If it works for you, great. However, even for your niche application,
a question that's just as important is if having multiple physical
monitors would be an even better solution for your needs.


Yes, I know that a second display costs money - - but that's part of
the trade-off "cost effectiveness" question that comes later. The
first part of the question is if real desktops provides productivity/
workflow benefits that are the same or greater than what's being
allegedly provided by virtual desktops.


-hh

[Peter Köhlmann]

I *do* have multi-monitors. And each one of those with virtual desktops

>
> Yes, I know that a second display costs money

And here we go again: The cretinous apple fanboi insinuating that apple
users spend their money, while linux users are poor.

Idiotic and dumb bastard

Your snittish behaviour is the very one why so many apple fanbois are
thought of as bullshit artists

[-hh]

On Mar 20, 6:16 pm, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlm...@t-online.de>
wrote:

> -hh wrote:
> >
> > If it works for you, great.  However, even for your niche application,
> > a question that's just as important is if having multiple physical
> > monitors would be an even better solution for your needs.
>
> I *do* have multi-monitors. And each one of those with virtual desktops

To what purpose, and to what effect (benefit) on productivity?

> > Yes, I know that a second display costs money
>
> And here we go again: The cretinous apple fanboi insinuating that apple
> users spend their money, while linux users are poor.

Well, there is the "Linux Cheapskate" stereotype, but not what I had
in mind this time: it is more one of the classical refusal to look
beyond initial purchase price, which invariably results in a "Penny
Wise But Dollar Foolish" way of doing business, otherwise known as
shortsightedness.


> Idiotic and dumb bastard

But according to you, rich. Since a fool & his money are soon parted,
try to solve your self-created problem set without further
frustration.

> Your snittish behaviour is the very one why so many apple fanbois are
> thought of as bullshit artists

You're just afraid of committing to facts.


-hh

[Snit]

Peter Köhlmann stated in post jkavlr$htg$1...@dont-email.me on 3/20/12 3:16 PM:

And none of the herd will call Peter out on this.


--
🙈🙉🙊

[-hh]

On Mar 20, 8:04 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> And none of the herd will call Peter out on this.

That the rest are acting like lemmings doesn't really matter, because
he has been called on it.

The irony is that his action is one of:

"Hooty Hoo! I got a neat-o feature!"

And when he's asked what good it is, he can't articulate why its a
good thing. It just "is".


It is the very same 'feature creep' that made Microsoft products into
bloatware.

Yet no one can see this, let alone admit falling into it.


-hh