Only hope for Linux: virtualization
raylopez99
compatibility problems. The only hope for Linux is that
virtualization takes off--and only then will Linux be adopted.
But there's a rub. The money will flow to the company that develops
the best virtualization software. MSFT wants it to be them, but EMC
has a better product, VMware (for now--but MSFT has a habit of
stealing from their competition), see below.
It's all about the Benjamins. When will you commie-loving Linux users
understand that?
RL
VMware makes software that allows a computer to run different
operating systems, or several versions of the same operating system,
at the same time. So in corporate data centers more chores can be
juggled on fewer computers, reducing the spending on hardware,
electricity and maintenance.
The cost and energy savings are a big deal. But the impact of the
technology is broader. Virtualization enables all kinds of server-
based computing. A Windows operating system, for example, can be
delivered as a virtual machine off a server to a person's desktop
screen on a so-called thin-client computer. That kind of scenario
could be quite disruptive to the PC software and hardware business.
Microsoft, of course, is aware and responding. It has its own virtual
machine software (VMware also faces open-source rivals like XenSource
and Virtual Iron). But, according to Mr. Sacconaghi of Bernstein,
VMware has 85 percent of the market and its technology is "as much as
five years ahead of the competition."
Microsoft also says it embraces virtual machine software. A lot more
Windows than Linux runs in VMware's virtual machines. But the rub is
pricing. Microsoft's message to corporate customers is that you can
run our software any way you like as long as you pay for each copy. Or
with its alternative licensing plan, you can pay once - a lot - and
not pay per copy.
Kier
> Nobody in their right mind wants to run Linux alone--too many
I do. Nn working Windows box in the house.
> compatibility problems. The only hope for Linux is that
> virtualization takes off--and only then will Linux be adopted.
>
> But there's a rub. The money will flow to the company that develops
> the best virtualization software. MSFT wants it to be them, but EMC
> has a better product, VMware (for now--but MSFT has a habit of
> stealing from their competition), see below.
>
> It's all about the Benjamins. When will you commie-loving Linux users
> understand that?
Maybe you should get your facts right. We are not communist, we do not
love communism. Linux advocacy is not a political system. 'Community' does
not equal 'communism. Only the ignorant think so.
--
Kier
raylopez99
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:38:22 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:
> > Nobody in their right mind wants to run Linux alone--too many
>
> I do. Nn working Windows box in the house.
I said, nobody IN THEIR RIGHT MIND Kier.
RL
Peter Köhlmann
For the little you have of that?
--
Howe's Law: Everyone has a scheme that will not work.
Kier
So, on zero acquaintance with me, you assume I'm some sort of nut merely
because i don't want ot use Windows? Hardly sound practice if you wish to
be taken seriously. Perhaps you should start using *your* brain for more
than keeping your ears apart.
I am 100% normal and sane, and I have no working Windows box. I use Linux
and nothing but Linux. And I very much doubt I am the only person to do
so, in or out of COLA.
Please refrain from making unsubstantiated assumptions about Linux and its
users.
--
Kier
William Poaster
halfway through a large jam doughnut, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> raylopez99 wrote:
>
>> On Aug 14, 2:05 am, Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:38:22 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:
>>> > Nobody in their right mind wants to run Linux alone--too many
>>>
>>> I do. Nn working Windows box in the house.
>>
>> I said, nobody IN THEIR RIGHT MIND Kier.
>>
>> RL
>
> For the little you have of that?
This "raylopez99" is obviously an idiot. Millions run ONLY linux in their
work & home, & have *no* need of windoze. I suppose they're not in their
right collective minds either. What a jerk.
--
The universe exploded out of nothingness 14 billion years ago.
14 billion years later, & some of us have 100 trillion
interconnected cells, & a self-aware consciousness.
Others post through GoogleGroups, & insist on installing Vista.
ray
> Nobody in their right mind wants to run Linux alone--too many
> compatibility problems. The only hope for Linux is that
> virtualization takes off--and only then will Linux be adopted.
I hadn't notices. Compatibility problems with what??
DFS
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:38:22 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:
>
>> Nobody in their right mind wants to run Linux alone--too many
>> compatibility problems. The only hope for Linux is that
>> virtualization takes off--and only then will Linux be adopted.
>
> I hadn't notices. Compatibility problems with what??
Practically everything the world outside of cola uses everyday:
Windows apps and games, and lots of hardware.
Linonut
Wrong again, tinkerbell!
You greatly overstate the magnitude of the problem.
--
Tux rox!
yakety yak
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:38:22 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:
>
>> Nobody in their right mind wants to run Linux alone--too many
>> compatibility problems. The only hope for Linux is that virtualization
>> takes off--and only then will Linux be adopted.
>
> I hadn't notices. Compatibility problems with what??
WPA, WGA, DRM...
Ramon F Herrera
raylopez99 wrote:
> Nobody in their right mind wants to run Linux alone--too many
> compatibility problems.
Now we all know why you never made a penny from Google (and never will
in similar ventures), Ray.
Google: some 200,000 Linux servers, and counting.
Oracle bet its future on Linux.
And that's just 2 examples.
Microsoft is now following our (the Penguin's) lead. They claim to be
OSS, they even allow their employees to post in the Usenet these days.
-Ramon
DFS
OK. Let me know when anyone from the Linux/OSS "community" figures out how
to overcome MS\Windows. I've got another 55 years or so.
ray
I don't need any ms apps - I have Linux apps for everything I want to do.
I don't play games on the computer. That's what game systems are for.
I check my hardware first.
ray
I don't recall having a need for those.
ray
I have overcome. At the local library a count of public access internet
computers shows: Linux 9; ms 2. I my home it is 5 to 0.
ed
> Nobody in their right mind wants to run Linux alone--too many
> compatibility problems.
Like what?
If anything UNIX variants have *BETTER* compatibility as most things
are derived from source builds. Granted, a package on debian is not
directly compatible with a fedora package, but there is alien which
translates.
C is very portable, especially when people keep to the standards,
and where standards are not flexible enough, there are Makefiles, so
the author can include from whatever.
Take a look at qmail-1.03, and other work from Dan, it's very portable.
I think you need to do some better research.
--
The OC48 to your cube is resetting because of a mistake.
OneMain.com is reorganizing into small business units.
:: http://www.s5h.net/ :: http://www.s5h.net/gpg
bob
> Nobody in their right mind wants to run Linux alone--too many
> compatibility problems.
I haven't had any compatibility problems.
>The only hope for Linux is that
> virtualization takes off--and only then will Linux be adopted.
Why do you say that? Linux is quite capable of doing anything and
everything that I want or need to do. I don't need another operating
system.
>
> But there's a rub. The money will flow to the company that develops
> the best virtualization software.
What does that have to do with wether or not Linux users need another OS?
> MSFT wants it to be them, but EMC
> has a better product, VMware (for now--but MSFT has a habit of
> stealing from their competition), see below.
>
> It's all about the Benjamins. When will you commie-loving Linux users
> understand that?
I do that understand that , that's why I use Linux. I haven't paid a penny
for software on any of my machines since I dumped windows.
>
> RL
>
>
William Poaster
And SoBig, Nimbda, Sober, MyDoom, & numerous other trojans & viruses that
won't run on linux machines.
Ramon F Herrera
> > Nobody in their right mind wants to run Linux alone--too many
> > compatibility problems.
>
> Like what?
>
> If anything UNIX variants have *BETTER* compatibility
We should also remind Ray that real, interoperable standards such as:
- HTML
- XML
- Java
- C/C++
- SQL
- ODF
Have been subverted by Microsoft in their attempt to "expand, embrace,
destroy".
One of the latest standards in Microsoft's crosshairs (yeah, good
luck, Ballmer!) is PDF.
-Ramon
ed
There's also some image format that they're dealing with, I don't
remember the name, but I think from one of the reports I was reading it
might actually have some technical merit this time.
--
The Telegraph to the trailer park is going off like a car alarm because
of TK421 not being at his post. US West is practising the jedi mind
trick. :: http://www.s5h.net/ :: http://www.s5h.net/gpg
Linonut
Shifting the goal posts?
I don't care if Linux overcomes MS/Windows. Live and let live.
I don't care toooo much if Linux overcomes all of the few remaining
hardware and software incompatibilities. Almost all of these
incompatibilties can be worked around. The small handful that remain?
If realllllllly important, sure, run a Billy Box or a VM session.
Alternatively, consider simply doing without.
It isn't much of a sacrifice in most cases.
I'm quite content with what I can do with a Linux box.
I'm quite content that there are so many people using and supporting it
that I shall not want.
I'm even quite content that nothing short of outlawing the internet will
will be able to put a damper on Linux.
Even if Microsoft breaks its word, and starts suing people, there will
be an alternate universe of people who don't give a crap what Big
Brother does, and they will run Linux.
--
Tux rox!
alt
>
>> Nobody in their right mind wants to run Linux alone--too many
>
> I do. Nn working Windows box in the house.
I wish I could say the same. I have to use Windows because my stupid
printer needs firmware loaded on boot. I also have a little bit of legacy
software I use. Some works under Wine, but others does not.
Except for that stuff, I use Linux exclusively.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:44:33 -0500, DFS wrote:
> OK. Let me know when anyone from the Linux/OSS "community" figures out
> how to overcome MS\Windows. I've got another 55 years or so.
You know, if one focuses on examining only, oh, televisions made for the
North American market between 1990 and 1995, one might be led to conclude
that the only TV specs of note are 4:3, 110v, NTSC.
The problem with such a conclusion is it ignores too many other factors:
differences in TVs made in other regions, changes in specs over time and
so forth.
Expanding that to current systems and global scope, those specs will
include 4:3 and 16:9, 220v, NTSC, PAL and possibly others, plus now SDTV,
EDTV and HDTV and who knows what else?
Such a cursory and limited examination as the first might suggest that
the only TVs making much impact are those meeting a specific set of
specs; others may exist, but are basically irrelevant.
For some as-yet unexplained reason, you do exactly the same thing when
examining Windows. Out of the whole world of computing, you focus in on
one tiny portion of it and remain blind to the rest.
It's sort of amusing, actually. It's sort of like a kid standing atop a
sandhill proclaiming himself the king of the mountain, never realizing
that the people around him really don't even know he exists, let alone
care.
The only reason anyone really pays any attention at all is, occasionally
the kid gets upset being ignored, so starts throwing rocks.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:20:53 -0600, ray wrote:
>> OK. Let me know when anyone from the Linux/OSS "community" figures out
>> how to overcome MS\Windows. I've got another 55 years or so.
>
> I have overcome. At the local library a count of public access internet
> computers shows: Linux 9; ms 2. I my home it is 5 to 0.
Linux is such a non-existent problem that MS themselves are now in it.
They care so little, it's so insignificant, that they felt compelled to
do something about it, or with it, rather than simply ignore it. Yes, a
very compelling argument made about how irrelevant Linux is.
One may contemplate _why_ they did it. Was it for PR reasons? Was it to
attempt to gobble up more IP they could call their own and use to try to
shut Linux down? Was it to get into the growing Linux market?
Ultimately the reason doesn't matter; the fact is, MS got themselves
involved. They've been saying for some time that Linux is a serious
threat to them, which gives lie to the Wintrolls' incessant proclamations
of how insignificant Linux is, but now MS has gone beyond merely talking
about Linux and actually joined the party.
One wonders how these folks rationalize their thinking. Why would MS buy
into Linux, if Linux were so insignificant, so little potential threat,
so little potential gain? There are boatloads of alternative OSen, some
which legitimately only have a dozen or so users; MS doesn't seem
interested in them - so obviously MS isn't interested in non-threatening,
low-usage OSen with limited expansion potential.
Odd, then, that this is how the Wintrolls portray Linux, yet MS _is_
interested in - even threatened by - it.
Just doesn't wash, does it?
DFS
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:21:16 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>> ray wrote:
>>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:38:22 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nobody in their right mind wants to run Linux alone--too many
>>>> compatibility problems. The only hope for Linux is that
>>>> virtualization takes off--and only then will Linux be adopted.
>>>
>>> I hadn't notices. Compatibility problems with what??
>>
>> Practically everything the world outside of cola uses everyday:
>>
>> Windows apps and games, and lots of hardware.
>
> I don't need any ms apps - I have Linux apps for everything I want to
> do.
Bully for you, fella. Tens of millions of Windows users don't.
> I don't play games on the computer. That's what game systems are
> for.
That's also what Windows PCs are for. Plus all manner of work.
> I check my hardware first.
Why?
DFS
> For some as-yet unexplained reason, you do exactly the same thing when
> examining Windows. Out of the whole world of computing, you focus in
> on one tiny portion of it and remain blind to the rest.
The only reason any cola wacks (including you) are here is because of Linux
on the desktop.
You and Linonut can make up nebulous terms like "whole world of computing"
and "MS represents 10% of computing" but the reality is the number of
embedded devices running Linux or vxWorks elicits a big fat "who cares?", as
does the percent of data centers running PostgreSQL vs MS SQL Server. It's
boring. If you want to discuss Windows/Linux usage in the data center
(where Windows rulez handily, by the way), sit your dog down and explain
what a data center is.
Most people are interested in personal computers, and in the apps and games
and hardware they have access to and what they can do with them.
Gregory Shearman
> I am 100% normal and sane, and I have no working Windows box. I use Linux
> and nothing but Linux. And I very much doubt I am the only person to do
> so, in or out of COLA.
I haven't had a windows box since 1997, after installing linux. I've no need
for them.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
Gregory Shearman
> ray wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:38:22 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:
>>
>>> Nobody in their right mind wants to run Linux alone--too many
>>> compatibility problems. The only hope for Linux is that
>>> virtualization takes off--and only then will Linux be adopted.
>>
>> I hadn't notices. Compatibility problems with what??
>
> Practically everything the world outside of cola uses everyday:
Really? What?
> Windows apps and games, and lots of hardware.
So, Linux isn't compatible with windows binaries.... well, well!
Gregory Shearman
> Most people are interested in personal computers, and in the apps and
> games and hardware they have access to and what they can do with them.
"most people".
What would YOU know?
Most people wouldn't even know that windows is an operating system, separate
from the computer they buy.
Kier
> Kier wrote:
>
>> I am 100% normal and sane, and I have no working Windows box. I use Linux
>> and nothing but Linux. And I very much doubt I am the only person to do
>> so, in or out of COLA.
>
> I haven't had a windows box since 1997, after installing linux. I've no need
> for them.
I might get mine workiong again some day - it needs a new power supply. It
has a fairly expensive video capture card in it that I'd like to be able
to use again (not Linux-compatible, unfortunately). Right now I've no
space for it anyway.
--
Kier
graeme
(snips)
> If you want to discuss Windows/Linux usage
> in the data center (where Windows rulez handily, by the way), sit your
> dog down and explain what a data center is.
http://www.top500.org/stats/list/29/osfam
Lets see... Linux supercomputers at 77.8%, Windows at 0.4%. Whoops.
William Poaster
halfway through a large jam doughnut, Gregory Shearman wrote:
> Kier wrote:
>
>> I am 100% normal and sane, and I have no working Windows box. I use
>> Linux and nothing but Linux. And I very much doubt I am the only person
>> to do so, in or out of COLA.
>
> I haven't had a windows box since 1997, after installing linux. I've no
> need for them.
Same here. I've not used windoze or it's applications since '97, & I've
not needed them or missed them.
Hadron
Hadron
Good way to support DFS's point. Is your dog asleep yet?
Linonut
> You and Linonut can make up nebulous terms like "whole world of computing"
> and "MS represents 10% of computing" but the reality is ..."
... that you need to read "From Airline Reservations to Sonic The
Hedgehog: A History of the Software Industry" by Martin Campbell-Kelly,
because that's where I got that number, dude.
IBM even has a review of this book:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/2811.html
with their own special emphasis:
IBM: More influential than Microsoft
Chapter 8, "Not Only Microsoft: The Maturing of the Personal Computer
Software Industry," makes one of the book's most interesting points:
that Microsoft's impact on the industry has been greatly exaggerated.
Bill Gates' fame as the richest man in the world and Microsoft's
stellar financial record account in part for the disproportionate
amount of press on Microsoft. Another reason is that Microsoft just
happens to dominate the particular part of the market in which most
non-technical consumers encounter software: the desktop operating
system. As the author writes:
If this book serves no other purpose, I hope it will serve as a
corrective to the common misconception that Microsoft is the
center of the software universe around which all else revolves.
Historically, Campbell-Kelly points out, IBM has had much more
influence overall on the software industry than Microsoft -- more
than I ever realized before reading this book. In fact, without the
IBM PC, Microsoft might not be what it is today. IBM and the IBM PC
gave Microsoft the opportunity and the platform to develop the near
monopoly it has today in the desktop operating system market. In an
ironic turn of events, Microsoft has become to the PC software market
what IBM was to the mainframe software market in the 1960s. And that
is not where the similarities end.
In the late 1960s, IBM enjoyed an incredible 70 percent share of the
domestic computer market. However, in 1967, the Antitrust Division of
the US Department of Justice began investigating IBM practices,
particularly that of "bundling" hardware and software. The
allegations were that this unfair trade practice allowed IBM to sell
software at below cost. On December 6, 1968, under growing pressure
from the Department of Justice and a private lawsuit from a
competitor, IBM announced its intention to un-bundle its prices. This
landmark decision became a turning point in the development and
viability of an independent software industry.
Sound familiar? This historical case seems amazingly similar to the
recent Department of Justice case against Microsoft for bundling its
Internet Explorer browser with the Windows operating system. Still,
IBM's overall influence on the software industry was -- and still is
-- much broader than that of Microsoft.
> Most people are interested in personal computers, and in the apps and games
> and hardware they have access to and what they can do with them.
So what? Most people are even more interested in beer and football.
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
> I might get mine workiong again some day - it needs a new power supply. It
> has a fairly expensive video capture card in it that I'd like to be able
> to use again (not Linux-compatible, unfortunately). Right now I've no
> space for it anyway.
You sure it is incompatible? Check the chipset.
--
Tux rox!
Hadron
Kier
I'm fairly sure. I haven't re-checked lately to see if the situation has
changed, though, so I might be lucky, I suppose. It's one of the Pinnacle
cards, cost about 400 quid when I had it (though I didn't buy it myself, a
friend gave it to me as a gift).
--
Kier
Kier
Why? So you can make sneering comments?
If you have nothing useful to contribute, how about you keep silent?
--
Kier
DFS
> It was on, or about, Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:46:21 +1000, that as I was
> halfway through a large jam doughnut, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>
>> Kier wrote:
>>
>>> I am 100% normal and sane, and I have no working Windows box. I use
>>> Linux and nothing but Linux. And I very much doubt I am the only
>>> person to do so, in or out of COLA.
>>
>> I haven't had a windows box since 1997, after installing linux. I've
>> no need for them.
>
> Same here. I've not used windoze or it's applications since '97, &
> I've not needed them or missed them.
But you sure do like to whine about them:
* 1/3 of your boring, worthless, talentless posts are about MS\Windows
* 2/3 of your boring, worthless, talentless posts are about killfiles
DFS
HA! He quit mentioning he did the installs (tho he did like to hear me ring
the bell).
Now he just talks about the systems being in place, and new readers probably
assume somone else did the installs.
Don't you want all the credit, ray?
Gregory Shearman
A power supply shouldn't really be the problem should it? I've installed a
fair few of them. Just unplug the old one and plug the new one in. They're
dirt cheap too.
Linonut
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:42:36 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> Linonut <lin...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>>
>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Kier belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>>
>>>> I might get mine workiong again some day - it needs a new power supply. It
>>>> has a fairly expensive video capture card in it that I'd like to be able
>>>> to use again (not Linux-compatible, unfortunately). Right now I've no
>>>> space for it anyway.
>>>
>>> You sure it is incompatible? Check the chipset.
>>
>> I look forward to this thread developing.
>
> Why? So you can make sneering comments?
>
> If you have nothing useful to contribute, how about you keep silent?
Nad-hor /is/ a sneering idiot. That's his job, that's what he does.
--
Help me Rhonda! Help help me Rhonda!
DFS
> Kier wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:46:21 +1000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>
>>> Kier wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am 100% normal and sane, and I have no working Windows box. I use
>>>> Linux and nothing but Linux. And I very much doubt I am the only
>>>> person to do so, in or out of COLA.
>>>
>>> I haven't had a windows box since 1997, after installing linux.
>>> I've no need for them.
>>
>> I might get mine workiong again some day - it needs a new power
>> supply. It has a fairly expensive video capture card in it that I'd
>> like to be able to use again (not Linux-compatible, unfortunately).
>> Right now I've no space for it anyway.
>
> A power supply shouldn't really be the problem should it? I've
> installed a fair few of them. Just unplug the old one and plug the
> new one in. They're dirt cheap too.
But don't buy a dirt cheap one, 'cause you get what you pay for (as you know
from working with Linux).
Buy a decent power supply, like these:
http://www.pcpower.com/products/viewproduct.php?show=S31ATX
http://www.pcpower.com/products/viewproduct.php?show=S47ATX
Hadron
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Kier belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:42:36 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> Linonut <lin...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Kier belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>>>
>>>>> I might get mine workiong again some day - it needs a new power supply. It
>>>>> has a fairly expensive video capture card in it that I'd like to be able
>>>>> to use again (not Linux-compatible, unfortunately). Right now I've no
>>>>> space for it anyway.
>>>>
>>>> You sure it is incompatible? Check the chipset.
>>>
>>> I look forward to this thread developing.
>>
>> Why? So you can make sneering comments?
No. So I can see the usual suspects call you an idiot and a troll
because your HW is not supported. Always good to see the loonies blame
everyone and everything except for Linux and/or poor HW support.
>>
>> If you have nothing useful to contribute, how about you keep silent?
>
> Nad-hor /is/ a sneering idiot. That's his job, that's what he does.
I do? No I don't. I laugh at your pompous sneering at Windows
actually. But nice try.
"Sneering" is what Kelsey, yourself and Peter do.
waterskidoo
> [snips]
>
> One wonders how these folks rationalize their thinking. Why would MS buy
> into Linux, if Linux were so insignificant, so little potential threat,
> so little potential gain? There are boatloads of alternative OSen, some
> which legitimately only have a dozen or so users; MS doesn't seem
> interested in them - so obviously MS isn't interested in non-threatening,
> low-usage OSen with limited expansion potential.
Microsoft, whatever anyone thinks of them, is a very smart and shrewd
company. They have noticed Linux displacing them in the server room and
I personally believe that the ever increasing popularity of Ubuntu
as a desktop alternative to Windows has them very scared.
Add the fact that Vista's reception has been lukewarm at best,
companies are not upgrading Office as often because their
current version fills their needs fine and you have
a few reasons why Microsoft is worried.
In it's favor, Microsoft does have lock in and the preloaded
market in it's back pocket, for the moment.
Should Dell and the others find success, or at the least
a growing demand for Linux preloads, then Microsoft is
going to be in serious trouble.
At this point I'm not sure if Microsoft wants to actually
*kill* Linux or if they have figured out a way to make
money from Linux. Currently it appears that they are going
full steam at discrediting Linux, however this just might
be a test to see if they *can* kill Linux and if it fails
they could possibly have a plan B which is to make
income from Linux.
Total speculation on my part, but just a thought.
waterskidoo
> DFS wrote:
>
>> Most people are interested in personal computers, and in the apps and
>> games and hardware they have access to and what they can do with them.
>
> "most people".
>
> What would YOU know?
>
> Most people wouldn't even know that windows is an operating system, separate
> from the computer they buy.
A valid statement.
Sad, but valid.
Rick
> Linonut <lin...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Kier belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:42:36 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>> Linonut <lin...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Kier belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I might get mine workiong again some day - it needs a new power
>>>>>> supply. It has a fairly expensive video capture card in it that I'd
>>>>>> like to be able to use again (not Linux-compatible, unfortunately).
>>>>>> Right now I've no space for it anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> You sure it is incompatible? Check the chipset.
>>>>
>>>> I look forward to this thread developing.
>>>
>>> Why? So you can make sneering comments?
>
> No. So I can see the usual suspects call you an idiot and a troll
> because your HW is not supported. Always good to see the loonies blame
> everyone and everything except for Linux and/or poor HW support.
How is "Linux" to blame? Why aren't the hardware developers to blame?
>
>
>>> If you have nothing useful to contribute, how about you keep silent?
>>
>> Nad-hor /is/ a sneering idiot. That's his job, that's what he does.
>
> I do? No I don't. I laugh at your pompous sneering at Windows actually.
> But nice try.
>
> "Sneering" is what Kelsey, yourself and Peter do.
No.. you're a lying troll.
--
Rick
Hadron
> On 2007-08-14, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [snips]
>>
>> One wonders how these folks rationalize their thinking. Why would MS buy
>> into Linux, if Linux were so insignificant, so little potential threat,
>> so little potential gain? There are boatloads of alternative OSen, some
>> which legitimately only have a dozen or so users; MS doesn't seem
>> interested in them - so obviously MS isn't interested in non-threatening,
>> low-usage OSen with limited expansion potential.
>
> Microsoft, whatever anyone thinks of them, is a very smart and shrewd
> company. They have noticed Linux displacing them in the server room and
> I personally believe that the ever increasing popularity of Ubuntu
Err,
Hadron
Err, so you are both agreeing with DFS. People don't give a shit about
the OS so long as it supports the apps and games they want to use. And
there, ladies and gents, lies the rub.
Peter Köhlmann
Nope, "true linux advocate", "kernel hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile
expert", "X specialist", "CUPS guru", "USB-disk server admin" and "hardware
maven" Hadron Quark, aka Hans Schneider, aka Damian O'Leary. It is not as
simple.
/Maybe/ people don't care what OS they use, as long as their apps are
supported, although I highly doubt that.
But people very much care if their system starts to act up because it is
infested yet again by the next round of viruses.
--
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
Hadron
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:50:47 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> Linonut <lin...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>>
>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Kier belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:42:36 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Linonut <lin...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Kier belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I might get mine workiong again some day - it needs a new power
>>>>>>> supply. It has a fairly expensive video capture card in it that I'd
>>>>>>> like to be able to use again (not Linux-compatible, unfortunately).
>>>>>>> Right now I've no space for it anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You sure it is incompatible? Check the chipset.
>>>>>
>>>>> I look forward to this thread developing.
>>>>
>>>> Why? So you can make sneering comments?
>>
>> No. So I can see the usual suspects call you an idiot and a troll
>> because your HW is not supported. Always good to see the loonies blame
>> everyone and everything except for Linux and/or poor HW support.
>
> How is "Linux" to blame? Why aren't the hardware developers to blame?
"Linux" in this instance is the community et al.
Here's a question then : if we created a distro and REMOVED all the
drivers from the Kernel, would Linux be to blame then? Lets say the
authors withdrew the right to use them under the GPL.
But get a clue. No one really cares whose fault it is. if it doesn't
work it doesn't work.
So "Doesn't work under Linux" is the end result.
>>
>>
>>>> If you have nothing useful to contribute, how about you keep silent?
>>>
>>> Nad-hor /is/ a sneering idiot. That's his job, that's what he does.
>>
>> I do? No I don't. I laugh at your pompous sneering at Windows actually.
>> But nice try.
>>
>> "Sneering" is what Kelsey, yourself and Peter do.
>
> No.. you're a lying troll.
Where am I a lying troll Ricky?
Rick
> Rick <no...@nomail.com> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:50:47 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> Linonut <lin...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Kier belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:42:36 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Linonut <lin...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Kier belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I might get mine workiong again some day - it needs a new power
>>>>>>>> supply. It has a fairly expensive video capture card in it that
>>>>>>>> I'd like to be able to use again (not Linux-compatible,
>>>>>>>> unfortunately). Right now I've no space for it anyway.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You sure it is incompatible? Check the chipset.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I look forward to this thread developing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why? So you can make sneering comments?
>>>
>>> No. So I can see the usual suspects call you an idiot and a troll
>>> because your HW is not supported. Always good to see the loonies blame
>>> everyone and everything except for Linux and/or poor HW support.
>>
>> How is "Linux" to blame? Why aren't the hardware developers to blame?
>
> "Linux" in this instance is the community et al.
>
> Here's a question then : if we created a distro and REMOVED all the
> drivers from the Kernel, would Linux be to blame then?
... the hardware developers?
> Lets say the authors withdrew the right to use them under the GPL.
>
> But get a clue.
You are the one that needs a clue.
> No one really cares whose fault it is. if it doesn't
> work it doesn't work.
>
> So "Doesn't work under Linux" is the end result.
The go bitch at the hardware developers, and praise the OSS developers.
>
>
>>>
>>>>> If you have nothing useful to contribute, how about you keep silent?
>>>>
>>>> Nad-hor /is/ a sneering idiot. That's his job, that's what he does.
>>>
>>> I do? No I don't. I laugh at your pompous sneering at Windows
>>> actually. But nice try.
>>>
>>> "Sneering" is what Kelsey, yourself and Peter do.
>>
>> No.. you're a lying troll.
>
> Where am I a lying troll Ricky?
Where are you right now?
--
Rick
William Poaster
halfway through a large jam doughnut, Rick wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:50:47 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> Linonut <lin...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>>
>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Kier belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:42:36 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Linonut <lin...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Kier belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I might get mine workiong again some day - it needs a new power
>>>>>>> supply. It has a fairly expensive video capture card in it that
>>>>>>> I'd like to be able to use again (not Linux-compatible,
>>>>>>> unfortunately). Right now I've no space for it anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You sure it is incompatible? Check the chipset.
>>>>>
>>>>> I look forward to this thread developing.
>>>>
>>>> Why? So you can make sneering comments?
>>
>> No. So I can see the usual suspects call you an idiot and a troll
>> because your HW is not supported. Always good to see the loonies blame
>> everyone and everything except for Linux and/or poor HW support.
>
> How is "Linux" to blame? Why aren't the hardware developers to blame?
Good grief, Quack's unbelievable!
What he is saying is, blame the OS, (& that would include his precious
windoze too) for not having HW drivers, & *not* the hardware
manufacturers for NOT supplying linux drivers for *their* hardware.
I wonder, *who* does *he* blame for lack of 64-bit drivers in Vista, M$
or the hardware manufacturers? [1]
And there *are* a lack of 64-bit HW drivers for Vista!
"But hardware vendors and application developers haven't wanted to take
the time and effort to develop new software for an operating system
(Vista) that very few people use. As a result, 64-bit Windows software is
hard to find, although Microsoft says the situation is improving."
August 6th 2007 -
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Device-drivers-wanted-for-64-
bit-PCs/0,130061733,339280942,00.htm
[ Note it says for 64-bit Windows software. I've got a machine which ran
64-bit SuSE 9.3 way back in late 2004 !]
>>>> If you have nothing useful to contribute, how about you keep silent?
>>>
>>> Nad-hor /is/ a sneering idiot. That's his job, that's what he does.
>>
>> I do? No I don't. I laugh at your pompous sneering at Windows actually.
>> But nice try.
>>
>> "Sneering" is what Kelsey, yourself and Peter do.
>
> No.. you're a lying troll.
He certainly is.
[1]
The real answer is:
<quote>
Microsoft is requiring those device manufacturers to develop 64-bit
drivers if they want their devices to work with the 64-bit edition of
Windows Vista, in an effort to ensure that device drivers are written to
proper standards.
August 6th 2007 -
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Device-drivers-wanted-for-64-
bit-PCs/0,130061733,339280942,00.htm
Which Quack may have got right. Yet it's funny how winidiots blame linux
for lack of drivers...."go figure".
Peter Kai Jensen
Hash: SHA1
raylopez99 wrote:
>>> Nobody in their right mind wants to run Linux alone--too many
>>
>> I do. Nn working Windows box in the house.
>
> I said, nobody IN THEIR RIGHT MIND Kier.
Ah, the classical "No true Scotsman" fallacy. It was a very obvious
set-up, and I would have been a little disappointed if you hadn't made
it. Stupid and predictable is just the way I like you trolls. Shows
how few actual arguments you have.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGw0Urd1ZThqotgfgRAvyDAJ9+hn2xd5Ua2N0ybqeYsxsobzFmIACeJSKB
RaSOVECqgsTYYj7QdfshGMM=
=Y/77
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe
Chris Griffin: Alright, dad! Fight the machine!
Stewie Griffin: How does he know about the machine?
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:03:03 +0000, waterskidoo wrote:
> At this point I'm not sure if Microsoft wants to actually
> *kill* Linux or if they have figured out a way to make
> money from Linux. Currently it appears that they are going
> full steam at discrediting Linux, however this just might
> be a test to see if they *can* kill Linux and if it fails
> they could possibly have a plan B which is to make
> income from Linux.
> Total speculation on my part, but just a thought.
Who knows for sure, other than MS? Still, either way it leaves us in the
same boat: with MS themselves regarding Linux as not merely annoying, but
a serious threat to them, and the Wintrolls telling us that Linux is a
mere nothing, with no market share, no presence, no apps, nothing to see
here folks, all just a pipe dream.
When it comes to what is significant enough to pose a threat to MS, who
are *you* going to believe? MS? Or someone such as DFS?
Kelsey Bjarnason
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
>> For some as-yet unexplained reason, you do exactly the same thing when
>> examining Windows. Out of the whole world of computing, you focus in
>> on one tiny portion of it and remain blind to the rest.
>
> The only reason any cola wacks (including you) are here is because of Linux
> on the desktop.
Really? How odd. Last I checked, Linux on the server was a very
important aspect of computing to folks such as myself. Oh, and Linux on
embedded. And Linux on supercomputers. And on and on and on.
I guess you don't recall some of the olden days, when many folks - myself
included - were more than happy to use Linux on servers```, even advocate
it on servers, but didn't consider it quite ready - in our opinions - for
the desktop.
Oh, but wait... how could we possibly have been here advocating Linux if
we didn't think it was ready for the desktop, if the only reason we're
here is *because* of Linux on the desktop?
Of course, if we were only here because of Linux on the desktop, we'd
never discuss issues such as, oh, Apache versus IIS... SQL versus MySQL
and Postgres... or the use of Linux in embedded devices... or on big
iron... or all sorts of other non-Linux-on-the-desktop topics.
Funny then that such topics keep coming up, and have done since the
origins of COLA.
I guess such discussions actually don't exist, they're all just magically
created for me, personally, by my local news server, so that it simply
_appears_ as if such discussions actually happen.
I must check the code on that server; it shouldn't be doing such things.
> You and Linonut can make up nebulous terms like "whole world of
> computing"
Nothing nebulous about that. *You* persist in focusing on desktops, we
don't. We examine all forms of digital computing, from the ABS system on
cars to the most powerful computers on the planet... and computers off
planet, too, for that matter.
I may tend a little further towards a global view than most, thanks to my
long association with C and many of the more clueful C users out there;
there is an ever-present undercurrent of correcting false presumptions in
places such as CLC, presumptions such as bytes being 8 bits, ints being
32, pointers and ints being interchangeable, constructs such as void
main() being viable, etc, etc, etc. Sure, most of these work on _some_
systems, but there are systems where those things are manifestly not true
- many of those systems being embedded machines or higher-end systems.
20+ years of exposure to machines and environments _other_ than "All the
world's a 32-bit X86 box" tends to make you aware that, well, all the
world is *not* a 32-bit X86 box... and thus not draw conclusions based
solely on examining one comparatively tiny portion of the global computer
landscape.
> and "MS represents 10% of computing"
Less, actually, as the systems Windows runs on are, in toto, only about
10% of the computing landscape, and Windows doesn't run on all of them, by
any means.
> but the reality is the
> number of embedded devices running Linux or vxWorks elicits a big fat
> "who cares?"
Er... we do? As does anyone even pretending to be honest when saying
things such as, oh, "Windows is on 90% of computers" and the like, or
"Windows is the dominant OS out there", that sort of thing. Turns out
it's not... it's barely even a bit player.
A more interesting question would be examining "Windows is more popular
than Linux", then examining _all_ the places where Linux and Windows are
used. While Linux may be less popular on one small subset of that - the
desktops - are you so certain it is less popular than Windows _all told_?
> , as does the percent of data centers running PostgreSQL vs
> MS SQL Server. It's boring.
To you, perhaps, but then who cares? You've never shown any particular
interest in Linux advocacy - or in Linux, for that matter. Why would you
care what Linux is used in or on, or what Linux-based or
Linux-supported apps and servers are being used out there?
To us - the fans and users and likers of Linux - such things are
interesting, whereas things such as, oh, whether Vista supports virtual
desktops and tabbed interfaces for apps or not isn't really all that
interesting for us. If we wanted to be inundated with such stuff, we'd
hang out in the Windows advocacy groups - which, you'll note, many of us,
myself included, don't.
> Most people are interested in personal computers, and in the apps and
> games and hardware they have access to and what they can do with them.
Who is "most people"? Presumably not the folks here in COLA, because a)
we're simply not numerous enough to qualify, and b) there's something of a
selection mechanism involved which keeps out "most" people (they've never
even heard of COLA, kinda keeps 'em from joining) so the only really
relevant metrics on what gets examined in _here_ are what the majority in
_here_ consider worthy of examination.
Funny thing... our side keeps discussing Linux across the board...
severs... desktops... embedded... supercomputers... consoles... etc...
etc... etc... where your side persists on focusing on desktops, almost to
the exclusion of all else.
Not really surprising, because if we examine just the desktop market, then
the notion of "Windows as leader" might stand up to a degree of scrutiny,
but when we expand the examination to computing as a whole, well, Windows
barely even shows up on the horizon: the big fish in the _very_ small pond.
And that is something your side cannot bear to deal with... the notion
that even if every single thing you say about Windows is true... even if
it owns 90+ percent of the desktop market... even if Linux is only 0.3%
of that same dekstop market... this *still* leaves Windows an
insignificant bit player in the world of computing as a whole... and it
*still* leaves Windows fighting it out for that one little pond, where
Linux is merrily marching across that entire landscape and fitting in
virtually everywhere it goes.
You have 90+ percent of the desktop? Bully for you. And we should care
_why_? Oh, right, because it's somehow important to you that your OS of
choice be recognized as king. Well, fine; it's king. It can be king of
its little hill all it wants, we're more than happy to let it be so.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:47:16 -0500, DFS wrote:
> ray wrote:
>>>>> Nobody in their right mind wants to run Linux alone--too many
>>>>> compatibility problems.
>>>> I hadn't notices. Compatibility problems with what??
>>>
>>> Windows apps and games, and lots of hardware.
>>
>> I don't need any ms apps - I have Linux apps for everything I want to
>> do.
>
> Bully for you, fella. Tens of millions of Windows users don't.
No, hold on, you're moving goalposts.
The reason, you assert, not to use Linux (alone) is compatibility
problems. Thus the question is what compatibility problems, not what apps
Windows users are using.
Can you do personal finances? Yes, with Linux apps - this is, after all,
Linux, not Windows.
Can you do word processing? Yes, with Linux apps - this is, after all,
Linux, not Windows.
Can you do spreadsheets? Yes, with Linux apps - this is, after all,
Linux, not Windows.
Can you do media editing? Yes, with Linux apps - this is, after all,
Linux, not Windows.
Can you do email? Yes, with Linux apps - this is, after all,
Linux, not Windows.
Can you do web browsing? Yes, with Linux apps - this is, after all,
Linux, not Windows.
Can you play media files? Yes, with Linux apps - this is, after all,
Linux, not Windows.
Can you interchange data with other users, even Windows users? Yes, with
Linux apps - this is, after all, Linux, not Windows.
And on and on and on.
Only someone like you would think that switching to a new OS and expecting
to use the same apps somehow relates to compatibility.
Kier
> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>> Kier wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:46:21 +1000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kier wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am 100% normal and sane, and I have no working Windows box. I use
>>>>> Linux and nothing but Linux. And I very much doubt I am the only
>>>>> person to do so, in or out of COLA.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't had a windows box since 1997, after installing linux.
>>>> I've no need for them.
>>>
>>> I might get mine workiong again some day - it needs a new power
>>> supply. It has a fairly expensive video capture card in it that I'd
>>> like to be able to use again (not Linux-compatible, unfortunately).
>>> Right now I've no space for it anyway.
>>
>> A power supply shouldn't really be the problem should it? I've
>> installed a fair few of them. Just unplug the old one and plug the
>> new one in. They're dirt cheap too.
>
> But don't buy a dirt cheap one, 'cause you get what you pay for (as you know
> from working with Linux).
No, I don't kjnow that. Linux works excellently well.
>
> Buy a decent power supply, like these:
>
> http://www.pcpower.com/products/viewproduct.php?show=S31ATX
> http://www.pcpower.com/products/viewproduct.php?show=S47ATX
Ta. I'll probably get around to it sometime. Right now, it's not a really
high priority, and like I said, I've nowhere to put the damn thing just
now.
--
Kier
Kier
> Linonut <lin...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Kier belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:42:36 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>> Linonut <lin...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Kier belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I might get mine workiong again some day - it needs a new power supply. It
>>>>>> has a fairly expensive video capture card in it that I'd like to be able
>>>>>> to use again (not Linux-compatible, unfortunately). Right now I've no
>>>>>> space for it anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> You sure it is incompatible? Check the chipset.
>>>>
>>>> I look forward to this thread developing.
>>>
>>> Why? So you can make sneering comments?
>
> No. So I can see the usual suspects call you an idiot and a troll
Funny I don't see it happening, then. See, I had that card for Windows
only - I bought the PC for it to go in, pretty much exclusively to be used
for video capture. I wasn't expecting it to be Linux compatible, though
that would have been a nice bonus.
> because your HW is not supported. Always good to see the loonies blame
> everyone and everything except for Linux and/or poor HW support.
Sorry, I see nothing of the kind.
>
>>>
>>> If you have nothing useful to contribute, how about you keep silent?
>>
>> Nad-hor /is/ a sneering idiot. That's his job, that's what he does.
>
> I do? No I don't. I laugh at your pompous sneering at Windows
> actually. But nice try.
>
> "Sneering" is what Kelsey, yourself and Peter do.
No, it's also what *you* do.
--
Kier
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:31:41 -0500, DFS wrote:
> But don't buy a dirt cheap one, 'cause you get what you pay for (as you know
> from working with Linux).
Exactly!
With Linux, I pay little if anything, and what do I get?
No viruses.
No spyware.
No trojans.
No browser hijacking.
No nagging about registering.
No randomly expiring authentication.
No significant concerns that applying an update is going to hose my system.
No pointless "server" versus "desktop" versions.
No pointless reboots to update trivial software.
No need to either reboot servers or forgo updates.
No pointless GUI on my servers.
No need to hunt the net - or the stores - for software that should be
bundled.
No time wasted with stupid install wizards and other such annoying crap.
No need to run AV apps sucking up resources for no benefit.
No need to wonder what my machine is doing, particularly in the case of a
failing system - I have logs.
No need to worry about whether the software I want to run is compatible
with the "server" or "desktop" version of the OS, and whether this means
replacing the software or replacing the OS.
No need to wonder where my config data is stored, how to back it up or how
to replicate it.
No need to wonder where my personal data is stored, how to back it up or
how to replicate it.
No need to worry if I'm violating some license by moving my drive into a
new machine... or copying its contents to 10 new machines.
No need to worry if my machine can run the new version of the OS.
No need to worry about my documents not being readable by others.
No need to worry if I'm violating some license agreement by sharing data,
using authorized internet connections and so forth.
No need to worry that trying out new apps is going to, over time, cause
the system to slow down due to registry bloat or corruption.
No need to worry I can't figure out what the settings are for my apps and
servers; they're in plain text, usually in English - and mostly commented.
No need to dick around trying to find apps on the net; with 30,000
packages in the package manager, chances are what I want is ready to
install.
No need to worry about running all over the net to get updates from every
one of a dozen vendors, I get 'em all in my package manager.
No need to wait until Update Tuesday for updates; I get 'em when they're
ready, not when some arbitrary timer expires somewhere.
No need to worry about spam; there's a dozen or so tools to fight it,
whether I'm doing so for my desktop or for an entire ISP, all included.
No need to waste all day installing; an OS install which takes an hour or
so - about what Windows takes - also includes everything up to and
including an entire office suite.
No need to worry about using the system while updating it; unlike that
other OS, I can keep right on using my apps, even while they're
being upgraded.
No need to waste time with that other OS's silly one-install-at-a-time
nonsense; if I want to install 30 things, I click 30 things, kick off the
install and go for coffee.
I could go on, of course, but you're absolutely right... with Linux, I can
get it paying nothing... and look at all the things I don't get. Yes, I
get what I pay for... and damn, I am *so* glad that's the case.
waterskidoo
That's basically it.
It's not that people don't *care* what OS they are running, it's more
that they don't *know* there is a difference between the OS and
the applications. To many average Janes
Windows is just another application.
And they certainly don't realize that the OS is seperate from
the computer they buy.
As Peter said, people *do care* when their system
has problems and if you look at Windows as a whole, it's the
OS with the problems, not the applications.
graeme
> graeme <www.ril...@no.spam.wanted> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:07:07 -0500, DFS wrote: (snips)
>>> If you want to discuss Windows/Linux usage in the data center (where
>>> Windows rulez handily, by the way), sit your dog down and explain what
>>> a data center is.
>>
>> http://www.top500.org/stats/list/29/osfam
>>
>> Lets see... Linux supercomputers at 77.8%, Windows at 0.4%. Whoops.
>
>
> Good way to support DFS's point. Is your dog asleep yet?
Has your dog eaten your brain? Bet he barfed.
Hadron
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:39:56 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>> Here's a question then : if we created a distro and REMOVED all the
>> drivers from the Kernel, would Linux be to blame then?
>
> ... the hardware developers?
>
No one cares. It works or it does'nt.
>> Lets say the authors withdrew the right to use them under the GPL.
>>
>> But get a clue.
>
> You are the one that needs a clue.
>
>> No one really cares whose fault it is. if it doesn't
>> work it doesn't work.
>>
>> So "Doesn't work under Linux" is the end result.
>
> The go bitch at the hardware developers, and praise the OSS developers.
>
Why would new Linux users do that? You should go and talk to the
developers who count. Here's a hint : no monetary return == no effort.
So instead of sitting here saying "Windows Sucks" convince the people
who matter that its a good idea to support Linux. Easy eh?
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>> If you have nothing useful to contribute, how about you keep silent?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nad-hor /is/ a sneering idiot. That's his job, that's what he does.
>>>>
>>>> I do? No I don't. I laugh at your pompous sneering at Windows
>>>> actually. But nice try.
>>>>
>>>> "Sneering" is what Kelsey, yourself and Peter do.
>>>
>>> No.. you're a lying troll.
>>
>> Where am I a lying troll Ricky?
>
> Where are you right now?
Sat here laughing at you.
Hadron
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:07:07 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>
>>> For some as-yet unexplained reason, you do exactly the same thing when
>>> examining Windows. Out of the whole world of computing, you focus in
>>> on one tiny portion of it and remain blind to the rest.
>>
>> The only reason any cola wacks (including you) are here is because of Linux
>> on the desktop.
>
> Really? How odd. Last I checked, Linux on the server was a very
> important aspect of computing to folks such as myself. Oh, and Linux on
> embedded. And Linux on supercomputers. And on and on and on.
>
> I guess you don't recall some of the olden days, when many folks - myself
> included - were more than happy to use Linux on servers```, even
> advocate
"olden days with Linux". Chuckle. Linux <> Unix.
> it on servers, but didn't consider it quite ready - in our opinions - for
> the desktop.
>
> Oh, but wait... how could we possibly have been here advocating Linux if
> we didn't think it was ready for the desktop, if the only reason we're
> here is *because* of Linux on the desktop?
That makes no sense. The Only reason? You really thin Linux was "desktop
ready" years ago? No chance. Now it is. 10 years ago? Come off it?
>
> Of course, if we were only here because of Linux on the desktop, we'd
> never discuss issues such as, oh, Apache versus IIS... SQL versus
> MySQL
And look whats happening there.
> and Postgres... or the use of Linux in embedded devices... or on big
> iron... or all sorts of other non-Linux-on-the-desktop topics.
Yes. You mentioned that before.
>
> Funny then that such topics keep coming up, and have done since the
> origins of COLA.
>
> I guess such discussions actually don't exist, they're all just magically
> created for me, personally, by my local news server, so that it simply
> _appears_ as if such discussions actually happen.
>
> I must check the code on that server; it shouldn't be doing such things.
>
>> You and Linonut can make up nebulous terms like "whole world of
>> computing"
>
> Nothing nebulous about that. *You* persist in focusing on desktops, we
> don't. We examine all forms of digital computing, from the ABS system
> on
"we examine" LOL.
> cars to the most powerful computers on the planet... and computers off
> planet, too, for that matter.
>
> I may tend a little further towards a global view than most, thanks to my
> long association with C and many of the more clueful C users out
> there;
Yes. Sure. C programmers are two a penny. They are no more "Linux" than
they are "windows".
> there is an ever-present undercurrent of correcting false presumptions in
> places such as CLC, presumptions such as bytes being 8 bits, ints being
> 32, pointers and ints being interchangeable, constructs such as void
I just googled you up. I see you are playing the " pure programmer
role".
> main() being viable, etc, etc, etc. Sure, most of these work on _some_
> systems, but there are systems where those things are manifestly not true
> - many of those systems being embedded machines or higher-end systems.
Waffle. 99% of code is written for x86 type processors. No one cares
about systems that have 9 bit bytes when writing Open Office type apps.
>
> 20+ years of exposure to machines and environments _other_ than "All the
> world's a 32-bit X86 box" tends to make you aware that, well, all the
> world is *not* a 32-bit X86 box... and thus not draw conclusions based
> solely on examining one comparatively tiny portion of the global computer
> landscape.
Actually, most of the world is.
>
>> and "MS represents 10% of computing"
>
> Less, actually, as the systems Windows runs on are, in toto, only about
> 10% of the computing landscape, and Windows doesn't run on all of them, by
> any means.
So who is earning the 90% of money that MS is missing out on?
>
>> but the reality is the
>> number of embedded devices running Linux or vxWorks elicits a big fat
>> "who cares?"
>
> Er... we do? As does anyone even pretending to be honest when saying
> things such as, oh, "Windows is on 90% of computers" and the like, or
> "Windows is the dominant OS out there", that sort of thing. Turns out
> it's not... it's barely even a bit player.
LOL.
>
> A more interesting question would be examining "Windows is more popular
> than Linux", then examining _all_ the places where Linux and Windows are
> used. While Linux may be less popular on one small subset of that - the
> desktops - are you so certain it is less popular than Windows _all told_?
>
>> , as does the percent of data centers running PostgreSQL vs
>> MS SQL Server. It's boring.
>
> To you, perhaps, but then who cares? You've never shown any particular
> interest in Linux advocacy - or in Linux, for that matter. Why would you
> care what Linux is used in or on, or what Linux-based or
> Linux-supported apps and servers are being used out there?
>
> To us - the fans and users and likers of Linux - such things are
> interesting, whereas things such as, oh, whether Vista supports virtual
> desktops and tabbed interfaces for apps or not isn't really all that
> interesting for us. If we wanted to be inundated with such stuff, we'd
> hang out in the Windows advocacy groups - which, you'll note, many of us,
> myself included, don't.
>
>> Most people are interested in personal computers, and in the apps and
>> games and hardware they have access to and what they can do with them.
>
> Who is "most people"? Presumably not the folks here in COLA, because
> a)
Err, "most people". Easy enough.
> we're simply not numerous enough to qualify, and b) there's something of a
> selection mechanism involved which keeps out "most" people (they've never
> even heard of COLA, kinda keeps 'em from joining) so the only really
> relevant metrics on what gets examined in _here_ are what the majority in
> _here_ consider worthy of examination.
>
> Funny thing... our side keeps discussing Linux across the board...
> severs... desktops... embedded... supercomputers... consoles... etc...
> etc... etc... where your side persists on focusing on desktops, almost to
> the exclusion of all else.
>
> Not really surprising, because if we examine just the desktop market, then
> the notion of "Windows as leader" might stand up to a degree of
> scrutiny,
chuckle.
> but when we expand the examination to computing as a whole, well, Windows
> barely even shows up on the horizon: the big fish in the _very_ small
> pond.
snigger
>
> And that is something your side cannot bear to deal with... the notion
> that even if every single thing you say about Windows is true... even if
> it owns 90+ percent of the desktop market... even if Linux is only
> 0.3%
"if"
> of that same dekstop market... this *still* leaves Windows an
> insignificant bit player in the world of computing as a whole... and it
> *still* leaves Windows fighting it out for that one little pond, where
> Linux is merrily marching across that entire landscape and fitting in
> virtually everywhere it goes.
>
> You have 90+ percent of the desktop? Bully for you. And we should care
> _why_? Oh, right, because it's somehow important to you that your OS of
> choice be recognized as king. Well, fine; it's king. It can be king of
> its little hill all it wants, we're more than happy to let it be so.
Yet it bugs the shit out of you.
--
Hadron
Hahahahahhaha. 3/10 for COLA humour.
DFS
A bullshit statement - one of many ridiculous claims cola wacks use to
excuse the miserable failure of desktop Linux to gain traction over the last
10 years, despite being free or very cheap.
Windows has been around for 16 years, and practically everyone older than 8
knows exactly what an operating system is.
Rick
> Rick <no...@nomail.com> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:39:56 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>> Here's a question then : if we created a distro and REMOVED all the
>>> drivers from the Kernel, would Linux be to blame then?
>>
>> ... the hardware developers?
>>
>>
> No one cares. It works or it does'nt.
Then why did you ask?
>
>>> Lets say the authors withdrew the right to use them under the GPL.
>>>
>>> But get a clue.
>>
>> You are the one that needs a clue.
>>
>>> No one really cares whose fault it is. if it doesn't work it doesn't
>>> work.
>>>
>>> So "Doesn't work under Linux" is the end result.
>>
>> The go bitch at the hardware developers, and praise the OSS developers.
>>
>>
>
> Why would new Linux users do that?
... because they bought hardware that "doesn't work"? Who else should
they bitch to?
> You should go and talk to the
> developers who count. Here's a hint : no monetary return == no effort.
Buying video cards = monetary return. Buying sound cards = monetary
return. It seems nVidia realizes this, ATI is learning, and Creative
doesn't yet get it.
>
> So instead of sitting here saying "Windows Sucks" convince the people
> who matter that its a good idea to support Linux. Easy eh?
I get several a year to switch to Linux, and more to use OSS.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> If you have nothing useful to contribute, how about you keep
>>>>>>> silent?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nad-hor /is/ a sneering idiot. That's his job, that's what he
>>>>>> does.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do? No I don't. I laugh at your pompous sneering at Windows
>>>>> actually. But nice try.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Sneering" is what Kelsey, yourself and Peter do.
>>>>
>>>> No.. you're a lying troll.
>>>
>>> Where am I a lying troll Ricky?
>>
>> Where are you right now?
>
> Sat here laughing at you.
Idiot.
--
Rick
DFS
> [snips]
>
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:31:41 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>> But don't buy a dirt cheap one, 'cause you get what you pay for (as
>> you know from working with Linux).
>
> Exactly!
>
> With Linux, I pay little if anything, and what do I get?
>
> No viruses.
None here.
> No spyware.
None here.
> No trojans.
None here.
> No browser hijacking.
I did have one, 7 years ago. Cleaned it out in a few minutes. Never looked
back.
> No nagging about registering.
Over in about 30 seconds.
Then there's this nagging, every time you download OpenOffice:
"Please contribute!
Before starting the download, we would like to remind you of some
opportunities for contribution. OpenOffice.org is provided to you at no
charge,..."
http://download.openoffice.org/2.2.1/contribute.html?product=OpenOffice.org&os=win&lang=en-US&version=2.2.1
> No randomly expiring authentication.
Never happened here.
> No significant concerns that applying an update is going to hose my
> system.
Despite the reality of one Linux patch after another causing various
breakages.
> No pointless "server" versus "desktop" versions.
Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop
Suse Linux Enterprise Server
Red Hat Enterprise Desktop
Red Hat Enterprise Server
Ubuntu Desktop Edition
Ubuntu Server Edition
Mandriva Corporate Desktop
Mandriva Corporate Server
Xandros Desktop Home
Xandros Desktop Premium
Xandros Desktop Professional
Xandros Desktop Open Circulation
Xandros Server
> No pointless reboots to update trivial software.
http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/Mepis_reboot.png
> No need to either reboot servers or forgo updates.
Only some Windows updates need reboots.
> No pointless GUI on my servers.
No pointless "operating systems" on my servers.
> No need to hunt the net - or the stores - for software that should be
> bundled.
"should be bundled"? Sez who?
> No time wasted with stupid install wizards and other such annoying
> crap.
Are you freakin' kidding? 90% of Linux distro installs are nothing but
wizard-driven.
> No need to run AV apps sucking up resources for no benefit.
None running here. But maybe you should: "F-PROT Antivirus for Linux was
especially developed to effectively eradicate viruses threatening
workstations running Linux."
> No need to wonder what my machine is doing, particularly in the case
> of a failing system - I have logs.
Same here.
> No need to worry about whether the software I want to run is
> compatible with the "server" or "desktop" version of the OS, and
> whether this means replacing the software or replacing the OS.
"The supported operating systems for DB2 on Linux include:
* Novell Open Enterprise Server 9
* Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 4
* SUSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES) 9 and 10"
Let us know how well DB2 runs on a default install of DamnSmallLinux. We
won't hold our breath.
> No need to wonder where my config data is stored, how to back it up
> or how to replicate it.
It's in 30 different text files, all over the hard drive.
> No need to wonder where my personal data is stored, how to back it up
> or how to replicate it.
All my personal data is on my D:\ partition.
> No need to worry if I'm violating some license by moving my drive
> into a new machine... or copying its contents to 10 new machines.
This goes back to Linux users being cheap. If you're comfortable with
making 10 copies [of something you probably didn't pay for in the first
place], be my guest.
> No need to worry if my machine can run the new version of the OS.
Lie. My P1-166-32mb system ran RedHat 4.2 in 1997, but it won't even boot a
current Linux distro.
> No need to worry about my documents not being readable by others.
This is true - you don't have to worry - because there's about a 98% chance
that your .odf documents can't be read by anyone else.
> No need to worry if I'm violating some license agreement by sharing
> data, using authorized internet connections and so forth.
huh?
> No need to worry that trying out new apps is going to, over time,
> cause the system to slow down due to registry bloat or corruption.
Not an issue here. I've been installing and uninstalling dozens of apps for
3 years on this WinServer system, and it still blazes, and has never crashed
(other than Half-Life 2 w/ onboard video), and has never seen Registry
corruption.
Same for the XP system I use at a client's office.
Results 1 - 10 of about 226,000 for Linux uninstall leaves files behind.
> No need to worry I can't figure out what the settings are for my apps
> and servers; they're in plain text, usually in English - and mostly
> commented.
Usually poorly documented, and scattered in 30 places on your hard drive,
with undecipherable explanations and settings.
> No need to dick around trying to find apps on the net;
You sure seem to be incompetent. I have never heard anyone whine so much
about being unable to find Windows apps on the net.
www.microsoft.com
www.oracle.com
www.ibm.com
www.adobe.com
www.download.com
etc
etc
> with 30,000 packages in the package manager, chances are what I want
> is ready to install.
I like Linux package managers. It's what they install that worries me.
> No need to worry about running all over the net to get updates from
> every one of a dozen vendors, I get 'em all in my package manager.
Explain again why your slopware has to be upgraded so often? And explain
why it has to be upgraded so often that you consider it an issue? Oh,
that's because the crud was slop at version 2.3.x and it's still slop at
version 8.3.x.
> No need to wait until Update Tuesday for updates; I get 'em when
> they're ready, not when some arbitrary timer expires somewhere.
Linux update schedules are nothing but arbitrary, mostly revolving around
"when I get to it. I do this at night, part-time."
> No need to worry about spam; there's a dozen or so tools to fight it,
You don't need to worry about spam, because someone else worried about it
for you. Who worried about it for them?
I see.
> whether I'm doing so for my desktop or for an entire ISP, all
> included.
And tell us again why you\your business is not paying a reasonable amount
for that code you find so valuable and useful?
> No need to waste all day installing; an OS install which takes an
> hour or so - about what Windows takes -
http://secure.newegg.com/app/CustratingReview.asp?DEPA=0&item=22-144-160
* 13.5 minute XP install, 20 second boot
* 6.5 minute install
* 9 minute install
* 5 minute install
* 5 minute install
* 7 minute install
> also includes everything up
> to and including an entire office suite.
You said open source office suite!!!! Good one! Glad you haven't lost your
sense of humor, even after Fedora Core wiped out your /home directory and
wouldn't install after 5 tries.
> No need to worry about using the system while updating it; unlike that
> other OS, I can keep right on using my apps, even while they're
> being upgraded.
I must be imagining this:
http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/OO_cant_install_while_running.PNG
and this:
http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/OO_cant_install_while_running2.PNG
I better get my eyes checked.
> No need to waste time with that other OS's silly one-install-at-a-time
> nonsense; if I want to install 30 things, I click 30 things, kick off
> the install and go for coffee.
And when you come back your system is still sitting there at an error
screen, like this one:
http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/Syncraptic.png
> I could go on, of course, but you're absolutely right... with Linux,
> I can get it paying nothing... and look at all the things I don't
> get.
You forgot to whine about Windows Server CALs. But that's 'cause you don't
know your crapware:
"You may purchase additional Premium User licenses for your Xandros Scalix
Server. Licenses are available in increments of 5, 10, 25, 50 and 100."
Whoops...
> Yes, I get what I pay for... and damn, I am *so* glad that's
> the case.
And here I thought Windows "simply didn't cross your mind".
DFS
> [snips]
>
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:47:16 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>> ray wrote:
>>>>>> Nobody in their right mind wants to run Linux alone--too many
>>>>>> compatibility problems.
>
>>>>> I hadn't notices. Compatibility problems with what??
>>>>
>>>> Windows apps and games, and lots of hardware.
>>>
>>> I don't need any ms apps - I have Linux apps for everything I want
>>> to do.
>>
>> Bully for you, fella. Tens of millions of Windows users don't.
>
> No, hold on, you're moving goalposts.
No, I'm conversing with ray. He says he has Linux apps for everything he
wants. But many millions of Windows users don't have Linux apps for
everything we\they want.
> The reason, you assert, not to use Linux (alone) is compatibility
> problems. Thus the question is what compatibility problems, not what
> apps Windows users are using.
>
> Can you do personal finances? Yes, with Linux apps - this is, after
> all, Linux, not Windows.
>
> Can you do word processing? Yes, with Linux apps - this is, after
> all, Linux, not Windows.
>
> Can you do spreadsheets? Yes, with Linux apps - this is, after all,
> Linux, not Windows.
>
> Can you do media editing? Yes, with Linux apps - this is, after all,
> Linux, not Windows.
>
> Can you do email? Yes, with Linux apps - this is, after all,
> Linux, not Windows.
>
> Can you do web browsing? Yes, with Linux apps - this is, after all,
> Linux, not Windows.
>
> Can you play media files? Yes, with Linux apps - this is, after all,
> Linux, not Windows.
>
> Can you interchange data with other users, even Windows users? Yes,
> with Linux apps - this is, after all, Linux, not Windows.
>
> And on and on and on.
>
> Only someone like you would think that switching to a new OS and
> expecting to use the same apps somehow relates to compatibility.
Oh, you can claim all day and night you can do personal finances, word
processing, spreadsheets, media editing, email, web browsing, etc on Linux
just like you can on Windows. But there's Windows apps for those things,
and then there are Linux apps for those things, and often (not always)
there's a huge gap between them in quality, features, polish, speed,
documentation, and usability. And on and on and on.
chrisv
>As Peter said, people *do care* when their system
>has problems and if you look at Windows as a whole, it's the
>OS with the problems, not the applications.
What? You don't like getting an email from your ISP saying that
they've identified your PC as a SPAM zombie, and that you have to fix
it or they'll shut-down your account?
chrisv
Great advocacy!
Linonut
> "Please contribute!
> Before starting the download, we would like to remind you of some
> opportunities for contribution. OpenOffice.org is provided to you at no
> charge,..."
> http://download.openoffice.org/2.2.1/contribute.html?product=OpenOffice.org&os=win&lang=en-US&version=2.2.1
What the hell app are you using to download it? I've never been nagged.
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
> A bullshit statement - one of many ridiculous claims cola wacks use to
> excuse the miserable failure of desktop Linux to gain traction over the last
> 10 years, despite being free or very cheap.
I see no failure. All too many people measure it in market share, or
think that it matters only if consumers use Linux.
However, when you look into the technical population, you see a
completely different story. I wouldn't be surprised if told that 20% of
computer literate people use Linux.
> Windows has been around for 16 years, and practically everyone older than 8
> knows exactly what an operating system is.
I think you would be surprised at how many people don't know what an OS
is.
Of course, of those who do know, all too many don't know what a good OS
can do for them. Or why it matters that there is an alternative to
Windows.
--
Windows rots!
Linonut
> 20+ years of exposure to machines and environments _other_ than "All the
> world's a 32-bit X86 box" tends to make you aware that, well, all the
> world is *not* a 32-bit X86 box... and thus not draw conclusions based
> solely on examining one comparatively tiny portion of the global computer
> landscape.
They used to say "All the world's a VAX", too.
> Funny thing... our side keeps discussing Linux across the board...
> severs... desktops... embedded... supercomputers... consoles... etc...
> etc... etc... where your side persists on focusing on desktops, almost to
> the exclusion of all else.
Because that is just about the only remaining realm where Linux cannot
completely supplant the functionality.
> And that is something your side cannot bear to deal with... the notion
> that even if every single thing you say about Windows is true... even if
> it owns 90+ percent of the desktop market... even if Linux is only 0.3%
> of that same dekstop market... this *still* leaves Windows an
> insignificant bit player in the world of computing as a whole... and it
> *still* leaves Windows fighting it out for that one little pond, where
> Linux is merrily marching across that entire landscape and fitting in
> virtually everywhere it goes.
>
> You have 90+ percent of the desktop? Bully for you. And we should care
> _why_? Oh, right, because it's somehow important to you that your OS of
> choice be recognized as king. Well, fine; it's king. It can be king of
> its little hill all it wants, we're more than happy to let it be so.
Live and let live.
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
> Oh, you can claim all day and night you can do personal finances, word
> processing, spreadsheets, media editing, email, web browsing, etc on Linux
> just like you can on Windows. But there's Windows apps for those things,
> and then there are Linux apps for those things, and often (not always)
> there's a huge gap between them in quality, features, polish, speed,
> documentation, and usability.
True. Some of the Windows apps are absolutely unusable.
--
Tux rox!
Hadron
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Kelsey Bjarnason belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> 20+ years of exposure to machines and environments _other_ than "All the
>> world's a 32-bit X86 box" tends to make you aware that, well, all the
>> world is *not* a 32-bit X86 box... and thus not draw conclusions based
>> solely on examining one comparatively tiny portion of the global computer
>> landscape.
>
> They used to say "All the world's a VAX", too.
Yes but 80% of houses didn't have a Vax in the office and hundreds of
dollars of entertainment and office application SW.
Hadron
> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> A bullshit statement - one of many ridiculous claims cola wacks use to
>> excuse the miserable failure of desktop Linux to gain traction over the last
>> 10 years, despite being free or very cheap.
>
> I see no failure. All too many people measure it in market share, or
> think that it matters only if consumers use Linux.
>
> However, when you look into the technical population, you see a
> completely different story. I wouldn't be surprised if told that 20% of
> computer literate people use Linux.
I am not surprised that you would not be surprised. What a crazy
figure. Most computer literate people use Windows because that is where
the money is.
>
>> Windows has been around for 16 years, and practically everyone older than 8
>> knows exactly what an operating system is.
>
> I think you would be surprised at how many people don't know what an OS
> is.
Rubbish. Of course they know.
>
> Of course, of those who do know, all too many don't know what a good OS
> can do for them. Or why it matters that there is an alternative to
> Windows.
Most dont care because they dont need an alternative to Windows because
Windows works for them. Linux needs people to advocate it and explain
WHY it is better. Screaming at people that "Windows Sux" is a sure way
to alienate new recruits.
Kelsey Bjarnason
> William Poaster wrote:
>> It was on, or about, Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:46:21 +1000, that as I was
>> halfway through a large jam doughnut, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>
>>> Kier wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am 100% normal and sane, and I have no working Windows box. I use
>>>> Linux and nothing but Linux. And I very much doubt I am the only
>>>> person to do so, in or out of COLA.
>>>
>>> I haven't had a windows box since 1997, after installing linux. I've
>>> no need for them.
>>
>> Same here. I've not used windoze or it's applications since '97, &
>> I've not needed them or missed them.
>
>
> But you sure do like to whine about them:
>
> * 1/3 of your boring, worthless, talentless posts are about MS\Windows
>
> * 2/3 of your boring, worthless, talentless posts are about killfiles
And zero percent of your postings are advocating Linux, meaning that
you are in violation of the newsgroup charter virtually every time you
post something.
Doesn't seem to bother you that you're being a pestilential little
nuisance with no justification for his existence, so you're hardly in a
position to criticize anyone else.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:53:19 -0500, DFS wrote:
>> No viruses.
>
> None here.
And no anti-malware software sucking up resources, either, right? Sure.
Wait a sec...
>> No need to run AV apps sucking up resources for no benefit.
>
> None running here.
You claim to have no viruses... and don't run the very software you'd need
to know.
Yes, well, you've just firmly demonstrated that any subsequent comments you
have on anything more technical than how to use a spoon are simply not
worth the time to listen to. Not that there was ever much doubt of this,
but thanks for the confirmation.
Kelsey Bjarnason
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:38:22 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:
>
>> Nobody in their right mind wants to run Linux alone--too many
>> compatibility problems. The only hope for Linux is that
>> virtualization takes off--and only then will Linux be adopted.
>
> I hadn't notices. Compatibility problems with what??
The 200,000 most popular Windows apps? You know, the ones that are *so*
user friendly they install themselves, no need for user prompts,
downloads, wizards, accepting license agreements and the rest?
Yeah, I can accept those compatibility "problems".
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 02:11:33 -0500, DFS wrote:
> No, I'm conversing with ray. He says he has Linux apps for everything he
> wants. But many millions of Windows users don't have Linux apps for
> everything we\they want.
The vast majority of Windows users *do* have Linux apps available to do
the things they want - word processing, finances, web browsing, media
playback, email, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
> Oh, you can claim all day and night you can do personal finances, word
> processing, spreadsheets, media editing, email, web browsing, etc on
> Linux just like you can on Windows. But there's Windows apps for those
> things, and then there are Linux apps for those things, and often (not
> always) there's a huge gap between them in quality, features, polish,
> speed, documentation, and usability. And on and on and on.
Indeed - Windows apps, on the whole, just can't compare. The occasional
one can - firefox being a good example - but then, those ones are
generally cross platform, not just Windows apps.
Hadron
You are joking? What desktop apps for Linux are better than their
commercial Windows counterparts?
The Ghost In The Machine
<hadro...@googlemail.com>
wrote
on Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:33:44 +0200
<mbhcmzx...@homelinux.net>:
None, of course, if the terms are properly defined. :-)
- Desktop: a proprietary Windows concept, enhancing
the user's experience by enforcing exactly one per
computer -- at least until some version of Windows 2003,
perhaps. X doesn't have desktops as such, although the
Gnome or KDE graphical environment looks a bit like one.
However, one can run both Gnome and KDE from the same
user's home directory, if one gets clever with XNest,
multiple displays or screens, and/or ssh port forwarding.
Windows will have this capability in Vista, and of course
"innovated" it.
- Application: a program that works using the Windows API.
Of course, Unix didn't have any applications -- or did it?
Oh wait, maybe it did...and then there was WABI, for Solaris,
way back when (and WinE now).
- Better: Another proprietary Windows concept. After all,
Microsoft innovated so many things on the PC everything
they do just has to be better. Just look at the
beautiful and slightly stale GUI that Aero offers on
those PCs that have more than 1 GB of RAM. Pay no
attention to that XGL stuff which looks like your
windows are burning up, wobbling, and whatnot! Also,
Windows can draw icons that actually look like boring
manila folders and dog-eared documents.
- Commercial: We'll be right back after these important
messages from our overlords^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hsponsors...
Ob:-P: :-P~
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #110309238:
item * f(item *p) { if(p = NULL) return new item; else return p; }
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:44:08 -0500, DFS wrote:
> Windows has been around for 16 years, and practically everyone older than 8
> knows exactly what an operating system is.
No, they don't, unless they're in the IT field or otherwise particularly
computer literate - not computer *users*, computer *literate*.
Simple example: mention Linux to them. Tell them it's a different
operating system. Far more than you'd expect will ask something along the
lines of "Does it run in Windows?"
Virtualization aside, this is not how an OS works, this is not what an OS
is - yet that's often what they ask.
waterskidoo
> [snips]
>
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:44:08 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>> Windows has been around for 16 years, and practically everyone older than 8
>> knows exactly what an operating system is.
>
> No, they don't, unless they're in the IT field or otherwise particularly
> computer literate - not computer *users*, computer *literate*.
>
> Simple example: mention Linux to them. Tell them it's a different
> operating system. Far more than you'd expect will ask something along the
> lines of "Does it run in Windows?"
This is exactly the experiences that I have all the time.
It used to be *AOL* was the Internet, or the computer was
an *AOL* computer, now it's *Windows*.
DFS is somewhat correct though in that the newest generation of
users, say the Junior High School level and up into college,
starting out in business now, are pretty computer savvy compared
to the generation that missed the start of the PC, but came in
around Windows 98 and never learned for example how to build
their own system.
That *notch* generation is the worst of the lot in terms of
knowledge.
BTW I use generation not as a true generation, but more
as a time period.
> Virtualization aside, this is not how an OS works, this is not what an OS
> is - yet that's often what they ask.
I have no clue how that stuff works.
I'm proud of myself for getting Linux and Windows XP to co-exist nicely.
DFS
Their website now nags you before you download it.
DFS
> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> A bullshit statement - one of many ridiculous claims cola wacks use
>> to excuse the miserable failure of desktop Linux to gain traction
>> over the last 10 years, despite being free or very cheap.
>
> I see no failure. All too many people measure it in market share, or
> think that it matters only if consumers use Linux.
I suppose I shouldn't word it so harshly, but this here cola is war!
> However, when you look into the technical population, you see a
> completely different story. I wouldn't be surprised if told that 20%
> of computer literate people use Linux.
As their only or primary system? I would. I would even be very surprised
if that large a share of computer science majors were Linux-only users.
>> Windows has been around for 16 years, and practically everyone older
>> than 8 knows exactly what an operating system is.
>
> I think you would be surprised at how many people don't know what an
> OS is.
>
> Of course, of those who do know, all too many don't know what a good
> OS can do for them. Or why it matters that there is an alternative to
> Windows.
And that's a very important point. Much as I like working with MS Office
and using various non-MS Windows apps and games, I sometimes feel "guilty"
about supporting only Windows. I'm stuck in the middle, between earning a
handsome living developing Windows apps with MS tools, and really, really
disliking Linux/OSS apps and lack of games and spotty hardware support.
To really support Linux, I may have to slap myself into some kind of web
development career. I probably could make it happen, but it really doesn't
excite me.
I wanna play golf for a living!
DFS
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:08:41 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>> William Poaster wrote:
>>> It was on, or about, Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:46:21 +1000, that as I was
>>> halfway through a large jam doughnut, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kier wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am 100% normal and sane, and I have no working Windows box. I
>>>>> use Linux and nothing but Linux. And I very much doubt I am the
>>>>> only person to do so, in or out of COLA.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't had a windows box since 1997, after installing linux.
>>>> I've no need for them.
>>>
>>> Same here. I've not used windoze or it's applications since '97, &
>>> I've not needed them or missed them.
>>
>>
>> But you sure do like to whine about them:
>>
>> * 1/3 of your boring, worthless, talentless posts are about
>> MS\Windows
>>
>> * 2/3 of your boring, worthless, talentless posts are about killfiles
>
> And zero percent of your postings are advocating Linux, meaning that
> you are in violation of the newsgroup charter virtually every time you
> post something.
Doesn't the charter contain the word "compare"? Don't I compare Linux to
Windows, often if not most of the time? I do indeed.
> Doesn't seem to bother you that you're being a pestilential little
> nuisance
Thus fitting right in to cola's pit of wormy "advocates".
> with no justification for his existence,
I was put on Earth to write end-user database applications for large
American corporations.
> so you're hardly in a position to criticize anyone else.
With a history of dozens of boring posts about his killfiles, Dumb Willie is
the worst poster on cola, and probably on Usenet. flyer and 7 are towering
advocates by comparison.
DFS
> [snips]
>
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:53:19 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>>> No viruses.
>>
>> None here.
>
> And no anti-malware software sucking up resources, either, right?
> Sure.
>
> Wait a sec...
>
>>> No need to run AV apps sucking up resources for no benefit.
>>
>> None running here.
>
> You claim to have no viruses... and don't run the very software you'd
> need to know.
hmmmm... didn't you claim the exact same thing about your Linux systems?
Yes you did.
I haven't ever kept an AV program running full-time, real-time, for more
than a few days over the last 10 years. Every 4 months or so I'll do a scan
and they always show no viruses.
> Yes, well, you've just firmly demonstrated that any subsequent
> comments you have on anything more technical than how to use a spoon
> are simply not worth the time to listen to. Not that there was ever
> much doubt of this, but thanks for the confirmation.
Getting lazy I see.
And beaten down badly. I trounced one after another of your bogus,
uninformed points in this thread. I especially enjoyed showing how clueless
you were about:
> "Linux has "no pointless "server" versus "desktop" versions".
Then I named 13.
> "Linux requires "no pointless reboots to update trivial software".
Then I showed you a pointless reboot to update trivial software.
> "No need to worry about whether the software I want to run is compatible
> with the "server" or "desktop" version of the OS".
Then I showed you the reality.
> [With Linux] I can keep right on using my apps, even while they're being
> upgraded.
Then I showed you an OO 2.2 install choking because OO 2.1 and Firefox was
running.
Whereas you ignorantly thought Linux was *perfect* as so many cola nutcases
do, I showed it suffers from a variety of problems you lamers attribute only
to Windows.
And now you're too lazy and chickenshit to respond (doesn't surprise me -
you've always been too immature to admit Windows strengths and Linux'
weaknesses)
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
Emacs for one.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGxSKHd90bcYOAWPYRAtmCAKCUWSL0jYWE4pMqywuwRrAprjvfUQCg3LJf
OWzk9fb6OgLEvEoQsRs91/o=
=fsN+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change ready.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 23:15:59 -0500, DFS wrote:
>> And no anti-malware software sucking up resources, either, right?
>> Sure.
>>
>> Wait a sec...
>>
>>>> No need to run AV apps sucking up resources for no benefit.
>>>
>>> None running here.
>>
>> You claim to have no viruses... and don't run the very software you'd
>> need to know.
>
> hmmmm... didn't you claim the exact same thing about your Linux systems?
> Yes you did.
Of course I did - but then, Linux isn't designed to be a swiss cheese of
security holes like Windows is. Oh, you conveniently forgot that bit,
didn't you?
> I haven't ever kept an AV program running full-time, real-time, for more
> than a few days over the last 10 years. Every 4 months or so I'll do a
> scan and they always show no viruses.
And again you demonstrate your fundamental cluelessness.
I'll give you a tip, since you seem unaware of security - or, rather, the
lack of it - in the Windows world.
There exist viruses which have code in them to detect several of the more
popular virus scanners... and then either disable or bypass those scans,
while giving the appearance of successful scanning.
Such a virus can be in the system, active, and running the scanner won't
report a damned thing; the virus is built to avoid it.
The only reliable way to detect such a virus is to have the AV app running
ahead of time, to catch the initial execution of the compromising code,
*before* it infiltrates and disables the detection of subsequent runs.
In short, you cannot guarantee you have no virus even with AV running at
all times, but if you *ever* let your AV apps stop running while other
code runs, your system can be compromised and no subsequent AV scan will
detect it, as long as you're using one of the AV tools the virus is coded
to work around.
And they wonder why viruses are such a problem... it's because even people
who should know better don't.
Kier
Most of us get it through a package manager.
--
Kier
Kier
> And that's a very important point. Much as I like working with MS Office
> and using various non-MS Windows apps and games, I sometimes feel "guilty"
> about supporting only Windows. I'm stuck in the middle, between earning a
> handsome living developing Windows apps with MS tools, and really, really
> disliking Linux/OSS apps and lack of games and spotty hardware support.
So who says you need to earn your living entirely using Windows? Use it
only when you absolutely must. Or use it for work and use Linux at home.
Or stop whining about feeling guilty, and slagging Linux to make yourself
fee better.
>
> To really support Linux, I may have to slap myself into some kind of web
> development career. I probably could make it happen, but it really doesn't
> excite me.
Do a bit on the side. Or contribute code to a distro - that would be far
more useful. You could improve that hardware support you're complaining of.
>
> I wanna play golf for a living!
Some hopes.
--
Kier
Kier
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>> [snips]
>
>> [With Linux] I can keep right on using my apps, even while they're being
>> upgraded.
> Then I showed you an OO 2.2 install choking because OO 2.1 and Firefox was
> running.
>
> Whereas you ignorantly thought Linux was *perfect* as so many cola nutcases
> do, I showed it suffers from a variety of problems you lamers attribute only
> to Windows.
Linux is perfect? Funny, I don't seem to remember where we all agreed on
that. Nope, not perfect, just generally better than Windows.
--
Kier
Hadron
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:33:44 +0200,
> Hadron <hadro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjar...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> [snips]
>>>
>>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 02:11:33 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, I'm conversing with ray. He says he has Linux apps for everything he
>>>> wants. But many millions of Windows users don't have Linux apps for
>>>> everything we\they want.
>>>
>>> The vast majority of Windows users *do* have Linux apps available to do
>>> the things they want - word processing, finances, web browsing, media
>>> playback, email, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
>>>
>>>> Oh, you can claim all day and night you can do personal finances, word
>>>> processing, spreadsheets, media editing, email, web browsing, etc on
>>>> Linux just like you can on Windows. But there's Windows apps for those
>>>> things, and then there are Linux apps for those things, and often (not
>>>> always) there's a huge gap between them in quality, features, polish,
>>>> speed, documentation, and usability. And on and on and on.
>>>
>>> Indeed - Windows apps, on the whole, just can't compare. The occasional
>>> one can - firefox being a good example - but then, those ones are
>>> generally cross platform, not just Windows apps.
>>
>> You are joking? What desktop apps for Linux are better than their
>> commercial Windows counterparts?
>
>
> Emacs for one.
In what way? (Although I do agree :-;)
The only real issue I know of is not so much the app as opposed to the
stupid file system and the drive letters.
AFAIK, once you're past the hurdle of setup, it all works pretty much
perfectly. Certainly I know a few Emacs eLisp developers who do most if
not all their work under Windows.
Gregory Shearman
> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>> Kier wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:46:21 +1000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kier wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am 100% normal and sane, and I have no working Windows box. I use
>>>>> Linux and nothing but Linux. And I very much doubt I am the only
>>>>> person to do so, in or out of COLA.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't had a windows box since 1997, after installing linux.
>>>> I've no need for them.
>>>
>>> I might get mine workiong again some day - it needs a new power
>>> supply. It has a fairly expensive video capture card in it that I'd
>>> like to be able to use again (not Linux-compatible, unfortunately).
>>> Right now I've no space for it anyway.
>>
>> A power supply shouldn't really be the problem should it? I've
>> installed a fair few of them. Just unplug the old one and plug the
>> new one in. They're dirt cheap too.
>
> But don't buy a dirt cheap one, 'cause you get what you pay for (as you
> know from working with Linux).
>
> Buy a decent power supply, like these:
>
> http://www.pcpower.com/products/viewproduct.php?show=S31ATX
> http://www.pcpower.com/products/viewproduct.php?show=S47ATX
As I said, they're dirt cheap.
Power supply quality becomes less critical when your network receives
filtered and stable power from a decent Uninterruptible Power Supply.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
Gregory Shearman
> I was put on Earth to write end-user database applications for large
> American corporations.
This has got to be the saddest thing I've read in this newsgroup.
Gregory Shearman
> Of course, if we were only here because of Linux on the desktop, we'd
> never discuss issues such as, oh, Apache versus IIS... SQL versus MySQL
> and Postgres... or the use of Linux in embedded devices... or on big
> iron... or all sorts of other non-Linux-on-the-desktop topics.
....or even MySQL versus Postgresql
![[H]omer's profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjWMQWyYwHeIwxhG3nGUeGWmLQD0R8TeZrvdWDiv5-2S_z3rHg=s40-c)
[H]omer
> DFS wrote:
>
>> I was put on Earth to write end-user database applications for large
>> American corporations.
>
> This has got to be the saddest thing I've read in this newsgroup.
Especially since he creates said "applications" in a manner befitting a
kindergarten kid - with pointy clicky toys (and probably crayons too).
Of course, this is quite an appropriate development model for a toy OS.
And if he is so devoted to his "calling", then why does he spend so much
of his time in a GNU/Linux newsgroup?
Maybe he's not as convinced about his own bullshit as he pretends.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "Proprietary licenses, the crack cocaine of software finance."
| - Matt Asay, CNET
`----
Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.22.1-41.fc7
11:50:30 up 8 days, 10:45, 2 users, load average: 0.41, 0.49, 0.31