Hello Everyone!
in [General Linux]
|
From: TJ on 30 Nov 2009 11:54 ray wrote: > On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:46:56 +0100, Aragorn wrote: A whole lot of stuff that doesn't need to be quoted yet again. Be careful, Aragorn. We have Microsoft right where we want it, but if you reveal too much, there could be consequences from our higher-ups. We cannot show our hand too soon. The time is not yet right. Trust no one. > > I see. And since Linux is so obviously superior in each and every way, > that explains why it rules the world. And the obvious fact that you don't think it does means that we continue to be successful. TJ
From: Aragorn on 30 Nov 2009 12:13 On Monday 30 November 2009 16:49 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody identifying as ray wrote... > On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:46:56 +0100, Aragorn wrote: > >> On Monday 30 November 2009 05:14 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody >> identifying as ray wrote... >> >>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 05:04:06 +0100, Aragorn wrote: >>> >>>> On Sunday 29 November 2009 16:44 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody >>>> identifying as ray wrote... >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:03:07 -0800, Jarrno wrote: >>>> >>>>>> so. which is better linux or vista? >>>>> >>>>> Neither is 'better' - they are different. >>>> >>>> Of course one is better than the other. One is a state of the art >>>> computer operating system designed to Just Work (TM), the other is >>>> a binary blob of beta-grade code that you don't even get to own, >>>> based upon an archaic design from the days when microcomputers >>>> didn't have hard disks or network adapters and were solely used by >>>> a single operator, an bloated to such an extent that you basically >>>> need hardware that would still constitute a decent minicomputer or >>>> a small mainframe only one decade ago, just to give you lots of >>>> eyecandy with nothing underneath and the performance of an archaic >>>> microcomputer that didn't have hard disks or network adapters and >>>> was solely used... and so on. >>> >>> That does not necessarily make it 'better'. 'Better' for what? >> >> Better at being an *operating* *system* - which is what GNU/Linux >> _*is*_ and what MICROS~1 Wintendo (in all guises) purports (and >> fails) to be. >> >> [...] > > I see. And since Linux is so obviously superior in each and every way, > that explains why it rules the world. Outside of the x86 market, it almost does, yes - GNU/Linux runs on more hardware platforms than any other operating system in the world - and had you bothered to read what I had expounded upon with regard to Microsoft's tactics, then you would also have gathered that the *only* reason that Windows is so "successful" is because of Microsoft's monopolist tactics. Concretely, computer vendors who want to ship one of their computers with Windows pre-installed must pay a *much* higher fee for their bulk-purchases of Windows OEM licenses if they also choose to offer part of their machines with other operating systems installed, or without an operating system installed. It is still only recent - i.e. no more than five years - that certain computer brands have also started offering their computers with GNU/Linux, and for a long time, Dell was the only brand in the consumergrade market that ostensibly defied Microsoft's extortionism. Certain computer brands even revoke their warranty if you install anything other on it than the OEM Windows license it came with. In addition to that, when a potential customer walks into a computer shop, they are not informed of any other operating systems even existing. And add to that the fact that commercial GNU/Linux distributions - I'm not even counting the not-for-profit distributions like Gentoo or Debian - just don't have the financial resources to advertise their distros all over the place, while almost every computer magazine I've had in my hands the last ten years has full-page (if not longer) Microsoft ads in them. Not all that hard, considering that Microsoft makes a pure 80% profit off of every sale of any of their software licenses (and that's documented). And then there's the ignorance of the media. When Microsoft announces a "new" version of Windows, the whole assembled press is there, including TV news crews, while nobody of those "professional reporters" even gives a damn when a new GNU/Linux version comes out, because they don't even *know* it. About two months ago, I was literally told by someone at the helpdesk for my ISP "that I had to call Linux" - I presume she was very blonde - and my problem didn't even have anything to do with GNU/Linux but with their own screw-ups while performing system updates. That's helpdesk personnel at a major ISP - with the monopoly on cable internet over here - for ya. Unknown is unloved. It has nothing to do with the quality of GNU/Linux, but all the more with flash, money, hype and plain old human stupidity, not to mention malice. Hell, a survey of a few years ago even showed that if two identical amounts of software code were compared, one being proprietary and the other being Open Souce, then the Open Source code contained 600 times less bugs than the proprietary code. And back in the days of Windows 2000, Microsoft even admitted that there were still some 60'000 bugs in Windows, of which approximately one third was potentially fatal. You know, Ray, once upon a time, you were a GNU/Linux advocate - yes, I remember you well from my C.O.L.A. days, and even from the Mandr* groups - welcome to my virtually eidetic memory. I guess that somewhere along the line you must have switched sides then, because now you're talking FUD... P.S.: As you've been told by Dan C, Netiquette requires that you trim your posts. But then again, perhaps you were afraid to cut out any of my arguments, as you know deep down inside that everything I wrote was the truth... (Just as in this one here...) -- *Aragorn* (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
From: Bit Twister on 30 Nov 2009 12:33 On 30 Nov 2009 15:49:16 GMT, ray wrote: > I see. And since Linux is so obviously superior in each and every way, No way. Windows is head and shoulders above any other Operating System in the category of Best Damn Manlware Magnet and voted easiest OS to crack into, hands down, bar none by the cyber criminals of the world. > that explains why it rules the world. Not hardly. Just shows what a monopolistic vendor can do when nobody can rein them in.
From: Rikishi42 on 30 Nov 2009 13:42 On 2009-11-30, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: > I see. And since Linux is so obviously superior in each and every way, > that explains why it rules the world. I wouldn't claim it is, not in _every_ way. But who said quality ruled the world? -- Any time things appear to be going better, you have overlooked something.
From: Rikishi42 on 30 Nov 2009 13:46
On 2009-11-30, Bit Twister <BitTwister(a)mouse-potato.com> wrote: >> I see. And since Linux is so obviously superior in each and every way, > > No way. Windows is head and shoulders above any other Operating System > in the category of Best Damn Manlware Magnet and voted easiest OS to > crack into, hands down, bar none by the cyber criminals of the world. And some more good news: I read somewhere 8 out of 10 virus programs are compatible with Windows 7. :-) >> that explains why it rules the world. > > Not hardly. Just shows what a monopolistic vendor can do when nobody > can rein them in. And that something can be made for other motivations than business. Or maybe I should say: some things are _not_ made following the demands of marketing people, who wouldn't recognise a computer if it fell on their big toe. -- Any time things appear to be going better, you have overlooked something. |