Not using desktop Linux? You're wasting your money
in [Freeware]
|
Prev: alt.comp.freeware links at Mon Jun 14 21:20:02 2010
Next: Article] Lifehacker Pack for Mac: Our List of the Best Free Mac Downloads
From: za kAT on 16 Jun 2010 20:36 On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:41:24 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote: > za kAT <zakAT(a)super-secret-IPaddress.invalid> wrote in > news:hvbhhi$nmv$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: > >> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 21:10:32 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote: >> >>> What's in a Name? <maxpro4u(a)hotmail.com> wrote in >>> news:20100614144306.7671e424.maxpro4u(a)hotmail.com: >>> >>>> Most users use whatever OS came on their PC. Most PCs come with some >>>> flavor of windows. >>> >>> There is good reason for that. For the most part when the Internet >>> took off (even a bit before), there was Windows or Mac (who was too >>> market dumb to capture the market). Linux wasn't even born >> >> More waffle. When did the Internet take off bumhole? >> >> Linus first post was 1991. HTML 1.0 formally published 1993. >> >> Windows 3.11 1993. Did that have a browser. I don't remember one. BBS >> maybe. >> >> If you are going to play the elder statesman, at least check your >> facts. >> >> Cretinous. >> > > Linux was in it's infancy and had no hope to compete. You need to accept > it. It still can't compete. You need to accept that too. Listen dickbrain, you don't set the criteria. Linux competes on many levels. You don't win a rally with a formula one car. Your assumptions are brainless, you still can't get into that stupid head of yours that not everybody here is interested in desktop organisers, and that stupid VoIP dongle bollocks you keep plugging. -- zakAT(a)pooh.the.cat - Sergeant Tech-Com, DN38416. Assigned to protect you. You've been targeted for denigration!
From: »Q« on 16 Jun 2010 22:43 In <news:Xns9D99BD7D34FD1bearbottoms1gmaicom(a)news.albasani.net>, Bear Bottoms <bearbottoms1(a)gmai.com> wrote: > =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars(a)gmx.net> wrote in > news:20100616163750.299d769a(a)bellgrove.remarqs.net: > > > In <news:Xns9D99A490C31F1bearbottoms1gmaicom(a)news.albasani.net>, > > Bear Bottoms <bearbottoms1(a)gmai.com> wrote: > > > >> Now even today, Linux is not nearly ready to usurp either one of > >> them on the mass market scale. > > > > It's not the goal of GNU/Linux users or developers to "usurp" Apple > > or Microsoft. AFAICT from the drivel you post, you either think > > that is the goal or should be the goal. Your misconceptions > > (probably deliberate) allow you to dismiss a good desktop systems > > without knowing anything about them. That's very handy for a > > Microsoft fanboy like you, but it makes all of your posts about > > operating systems worthless. > > I would think that anything I posted would be worthless Yes, that's right, but I only meant that your thousands of posts about GNU/Linux, computer security, and other topics you know nothing about are useless. If you also make posts about things you do know about, perhaps they are not worthless; not having seen any, it's tough to say. > to you because you are a sore loser. You seem to be clinging to your strange notion that someone was trying to "usurp" something and has failed. Surely you can do better than cheap name-calling in this case, though -- tell us a story about the imaginary would-be usurpers and how they were so handily defeated by your heros, fanboy. The more details you can give of these figments of your imagination, the better. > Do you think I really care about what you think? Yes, you care enough to reply with name-calling.
From: POKO on 17 Jun 2010 00:00 In article <hvc0oo$fg4$4(a)news.eternal-september.org>, F.Reeware2010 @invalid.invalid says... > Bear Bottoms <bearbottoms1(a)gmai.com> wrote: > > > Heh, I had Win 3.0 in 1990. > > Congratulations, Mr Bottoms. I had a Honeywell 316 in 1969. > > F. Reeware > Jeez - reminds me of my days operating a Honeywell 400, -- POKO Manitoulin Island, Canada
From: za kAT on 17 Jun 2010 08:03 On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 00:54:00 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote: > za kAT <zakAT(a)super-secret-IPaddress.invalid> wrote in > news:hvbqmt$ooq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: > >> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:41:24 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote: >> >>> za kAT <zakAT(a)super-secret-IPaddress.invalid> wrote in >>> news:hvbhhi$nmv$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: >>> >>>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 21:10:32 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote: >>>> >>>>> What's in a Name? <maxpro4u(a)hotmail.com> wrote in >>>>> news:20100614144306.7671e424.maxpro4u(a)hotmail.com: >>>>> >>>>>> Most users use whatever OS came on their PC. Most PCs come with >>>>>> some flavor of windows. >>>>> >>>>> There is good reason for that. For the most part when the Internet >>>>> took off (even a bit before), there was Windows or Mac (who was too >>>>> market dumb to capture the market). Linux wasn't even born >>>> >>>> More waffle. When did the Internet take off bumhole? >>>> >>>> Linus first post was 1991. HTML 1.0 formally published 1993. >>>> >>>> Windows 3.11 1993. Did that have a browser. I don't remember one. >>>> BBS maybe. >>>> >>>> If you are going to play the elder statesman, at least check your >>>> facts. >>>> >>>> Cretinous. >>>> >>> >>> Linux was in it's infancy and had no hope to compete. You need to >>> accept it. It still can't compete. You need to accept that too. >> >> Listen dickbrain, you don't set the criteria. Linux competes on many >> levels. You don't win a rally with a formula one car. Your assumptions >> are brainless, you still can't get into that stupid head of yours that >> not everybody here is interested in desktop organisers, and that >> stupid VoIP dongle bollocks you keep plugging. >> > > The market is in desktop computers (PC's) for the desktop OS. Linux has > failed miserably there. That is where Linux wants to be but can't get. What is Linux? I'll have a go at describing what you choose to misunderstand. Linux isn't a single entity with a desire to conquer the desktop. It's a loose confederation of thousands of different interests. It's a big kit. Take from it what you will. Contribute what you will. There is no common soul that wants to conquer the desktop. There are some parties who aim to grab a share, and who are doing so for various motives. Some more altruistic than others. You are fixated on the desktop. Many of us are not. Some seem to like it as a desktop. I don't use it as one, but I do use it and FreeBSD for other things. This is alt.comp.freeware. I don't see desktop, or windows, or any other delimiter based on market share that restricts what can be discussed here in that title. > Face up to it. > I'm not interested in what companies are doing, though most of them > aren't running Linux either. This newsgroup is not just about your interests. It's about freeware. Any freeware. Face up to it. -- zakAT(a)pooh.the.cat - Sergeant Tech-Com, DN38416. Assigned to protect you. You've been targeted for denigration!
From: H-Man on 17 Jun 2010 10:20
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:57:21 +0100, za kAT wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:29:51 -0600, H-Man wrote: > >> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:00:11 +0100, za kAT wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 21:10:32 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote: >>> >>>> What's in a Name? <maxpro4u(a)hotmail.com> wrote in >>>> news:20100614144306.7671e424.maxpro4u(a)hotmail.com: >>>> >>>>> Most users use whatever OS came on their PC. Most PCs come with some >>>>> flavor of windows. >>>> >>>> There is good reason for that. For the most part when the Internet took >>>> off (even a bit before), there was Windows or Mac (who was too market >>>> dumb to capture the market). Linux wasn't even born >>> >>> More waffle. When did the Internet take off bumhole? >>> >>> Linus first post was 1991. HTML 1.0 formally published 1993. >>> >>> Windows 3.11 1993. Did that have a browser. I don't remember one. BBS >>> maybe. >>> >>> If you are going to play the elder statesman, at least check your facts. >>> >>> Cretinous. >> >> Spyglass Mosaic was released in '93, and IE1 was released in '95. AFAIK, >> Win3.11 didn't get IE until like '96. Not sure if Mosaic was released for >> Win3 in '93 or if that was later, but I remember having internet access for >> Windows '95 first. That was when dial up became affordable in my area. I >> got Win95 the day after the official release. Had a 75MHz pentium machine >> with 16MB of memory and I had to upgrade to a 2MB video card. High tech at >> the time. The really fast machines were 90 or 100MHz machines, man those >> really cooked! ..... >> >> Sorry, kinda went off onto memory lane. I'd say it took off in the second >> half of '95 in my area anyway. If I remember correctly, by '96 or '97, I >> was dual booting a RH linux version with Win95. > > Sounds about right. I had to pull a very old copy of the GNU testament of > the shelf. 1994. I was messing with Win 3.11 and a Linux [no idea what. I > remember something about Walnut Creek?] on a 486 DX2. I think you are right > win 95 was my first Internet experience, on a P75, but I vaguely remember > using a DOS browser Arachne, shortly before or after, canny remember. > > Not sure you would call that the time the Internet took off though. It was > still pretty geeky. I remember how excited I was the first time I used a > BBS. Funny. Yeah, I remember the whole getting online experience. There were enough people that didn't know how to go about getting online that I actually worked many evenings setting up PCs for people to get them connected. That was the time I discovered Usenet as well and it's still my favorite way to engage in a forum. Although, most specific (special interest) forums tend to be online (web based) now. Like my motorbike forums and my programming language forums. Memory lane, I love it. |