Seriously, Linpus Linux--is it any good?
in [Setup]
|
From: Aragorn on 31 May 2010 00:09 On Sunday 30 May 2010 17:33 in comp.os.linux.setup, somebody identifying as RayLopez99 wrote... > [...] since Linux does not have a Office suite, [... That's a flagrant lie. OpenOffice, KOffice and Lotus Notes are all office suites for GNU/Linux (and other UNIX systems) - which are also available to Windows, by the way. And they were /ported/ to Windows, because they were originally developed for UNIX. > ...] only OpenOffice which is not 100% compatible with Office). That's a strawman argument: "not 100% compatible with Office"... Not compatible with *what* "Office"? Yes, yes, I know you mean *Microsoft* Office, but that's irrelevant, since Microsoft Office is only one out of a whole range of office productivity suites, and a proprietary one with only limited compatibility of its own, for that matter. OpenOffice is _*fully*_ compatible with Open Document Format, which is an internationally agreed-upon standard document format, and *that* is what matters, not a 100% compatibility with some proprietary product from only one software developer. Hint #2: If you're going to lie through your teeth, then kindly refrain from any serious debating, and instead seek a career as a PR spin doctor at Microsoft Inc., or in politics for that matter. -- *Aragorn* (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
From: Aragorn on 31 May 2010 00:23 On Sunday 30 May 2010 21:56 in comp.os.linux.setup, somebody identifying as The Natural Philosopher wrote... > RayLopez99 wrote: > >> Seriously, Linpus Linux--is it any good? Serious replies only, >> though I am copying COLA. > > More fool you, unless this is a deliberate troll. Of course it is. As with his previous threads, it is full of flamebait and bias, and the fact that it is crossposted to C.O.L.A. *and* totally off-topic for C.O.L.S. only underscores that. -- *Aragorn* (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
From: Aragorn on 31 May 2010 00:53 On Monday 31 May 2010 02:05 in comp.os.linux.setup, somebody identifying as RayLopez99 wrote... > On May 31, 2:33 am, Matt Giwer <jul...(a)tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >> On 05/30/2010 06:25 PM, RayLopez99 wrote: >> >> > This is the fabled "Linux community"? >> >> Legendary perhaps but not fabled. > > Yes, these people are legends in their own mind. With their 1% market > share. Market shares are irrelevant with regard to the quality of an operating system. Alleged market shares represent commercially representative statistics. GNU/Linux, although commercially available, is not a commercial product. It is still available as a freely downloadable system - and is primarily acquired as such - and does not have to rely on aggressive and monopolistic marketing tactics and deceitful advertising in order to actually get used. There is also no required registration or activation procedure to allow keeping track of the actual deployment and userbase. Ergo, invoking alleged market shares as an argument is in itself already an unreliable argument. That said, I personally use GNU/Linux because I like it very much, for all that it is and all that it offers. I have no problem with you wanting to use Windows, but apparently you Windiots do have a problem with the fact that not everyone wants to fall in line with your fascist drive for conformity and Microsoft's even so fascist drive for world domination of the IT landscape. > The one time in a decade I'm maybe interested in Linux I can't > get a straight answer (it's happened before). *You* aren't and so far haven't even been remotely interested in GNU/Linux. All you are interested in is getting on the nerves of people who actually *do* use GNU/Linux with strawman arguments, outright lies and an unfounded loathing for something your limited consciousness cannot even possibly begin to understand. And the main reason for this is exactly that: you cannot understand it or grasp it, and you feel inadequate and stupid, and so instead of hating yourself over your incompetence and your inability to read the instructions, you project this hatred onto the very people who *do* understand. You hate us because we're smarter than you. You're a schoolyard bully, looking for a fight against what your pea brain considers a weak opponent, and you're crossposting this to C.O.L.A. so that your Windroid buddies can have a good laugh at the anticipated defeat of that presumed-to-be-weaker opponent. Only, your plan didn't quite work out so well, because first of all the people here in C.O.L.S. actually know what they're talking about, and secondly because you've already built up such a longstanding reputation as a troll that people also recognize you for what you are. No more, no less. As I have told you before, if you have an honest question - and you are yet to display any shred of honesty so far - and you can overcome your psychopathic need to offend the very people you seek advice from[1], then people will be more than willing to give you such honest advice. If on the other hand you feel the compelling need to behave like a jerk, then logic dictates that you cannot expect anything other than to be regarded and treated as one. > You freetards are your own worst enemy. Well, you Windiots certainly aren't. At most, you're just a nuissance to us. Not even at the annoyance level of a mosquito. [1] The very off-topic nature for comp.os.linux.setup of the "question" you were asking clearly suggests that the question in itself and the "background story" were not even serious or truthful to begin with, so you have forfeited any rights to a serious reply. -- *Aragorn* (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
From: Aragorn on 31 May 2010 00:55 On Monday 31 May 2010 03:34 in comp.os.linux.setup, somebody identifying as felmon wrote... > On Sun, 30 May 2010 17:05:49 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote: > >> The one time in a decade I'm maybe interested in Linux I can't get a >> straight answer (it's happened before). > > are you saying the other times these last months you said you were > genuinely interested, you were just trying to pull people's chain? are > you admitting to trolling? Yes he is, but like all trolls, his arrogance prevented him from realizing that he had just typed a confession before he clicked the "send" button. ;-) -- *Aragorn* (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
From: James Westwood on 31 May 2010 01:02
On Mon, 31 May 2010 06:53:49 +0200, Aragorn wrote: > On Monday 31 May 2010 02:05 in comp.os.linux.setup, somebody identifying > as RayLopez99 wrote... > >> On May 31, 2:33�am, Matt Giwer <jul...(a)tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> >>> On 05/30/2010 06:25 PM, RayLopez99 wrote: >>> >>> > This is the fabled "Linux community"? >>> >>> Legendary perhaps but not fabled. >> >> Yes, these people are legends in their own mind. With their 1% market >> share. > > Market shares are irrelevant with regard to the quality of an operating > system. True, however one can not deny that Linux has for some reason not caught on with the general public. It just hasn't. > Alleged market shares represent commercially representative > statistics. True, in terms of items sold. > GNU/Linux, although commercially available, is not a > commercial product. It is still available as a freely downloadable > system - and is primarily acquired as such - and does not have to rely > on aggressive and monopolistic marketing tactics and deceitful > advertising in order to actually get used. Yet every single unbiased or even slightly biased source shows Linux to be hovering around 1 percent. That's pretty bad and why do all these numbers seem to agree, within reason? > There is also no required registration or activation procedure to allow > keeping track of the actual deployment and userbase. Ergo, invoking > alleged market shares as an argument is in itself already an unreliable > argument. Openoffice makes claims of x number of downloads yet how many people have actually seen Openoffice in the wild? I have not. I suspect people download it, try it and remove it. So does that mean it sucks? Of course not. In fact Openoffice is excellent IMHO. To claim it's taking over Microsoft Office is another thing however. It's not, IMHO. -- James Westwood Remove'spamo' to reply. Microsoft? Not on my watch. 5/31/2010 12:55:59 AM |