Re: Linux Death Watch
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> "Builder" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote
> \> I have a theory: all you Linux/OSS numbnuts are just guzzling sour grapes[color=green]
>> because "forced" really means the world chooses Windows over Linux
>> every time. At virtually any price.[/color]
> That's no theory. That is a simple fact.
> Unix has never been able to cut it in the OS marketplace, and this is
> because Unix is just to brain dead.[/color]
WTF? Unix was the computing market place before IBM/DOS packaging.
> The fatal problem of Linux is that < LINUX IS UNIX > but with some
> friendly wallpaper glued on top.[/color]
Linux is not UNIX.
Linux, is a kernel, GNU is not UNIX. GIYF.
> Underneath though, it's stilll Pure Command Line Driven Unix.[/color]
And that's the beauty of it. In fact though, Windows underneath is just
syscalls. But you don't have the option really of using command line
tools to do stuff, everything is focused on the GUI. This is painful if
you ever have to do bulk operations. How does one iterate over a set of
commands to SQL, without having to compile something?
Don't bother replying OP, I'm sure it wont be constructive.
> Now LinTards believe that they can put enough layers of wallpaper over the
> OS so that no one will notice.
> However - as Linux user knows - after a short while every Linux user finds
> that the wallpaper starts falling off and you have to start tinkering with
> the decreped UNIX machine below just so that you can put the wallpaper back[/color]
Oh yes, outook doesn't have a spell checker does it.
> in place. And no one wants to service a wooden machine that's covered in
> goose grease and cemented together with Cattle Dung.[/color]
WTF - again? Your posts speak volumes of your character. If you want to
talk about wallpapering over, why don't you look at the GUI for windows,
that's wallpaper over rubbish code.
> Now the LinTard Community thinks that there will soon be a day when the
> wallpaper won't fall of the Linux OS. But after 20 years of continual
> effort, that day hasn't arrived, and looks to be a long... long... way off.
> And that's why the public isn't buying Linux.[/color]
No, yet again you think Linux distros are something that have to be
bought. How can you make this mistake so many times over - have you
failed to read everything about the distribution process.
> Linux makes you stupid.[/color]
Hah. You make yourself stupid for failing 24 times now.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - [url]http://enigmail.mozdev.org[/url]
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Linux Death Watch
On Nov 18, 2:19 pm, ed <e...@example.test> wrote:[color=blue]
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> HangEveryRepubliKKKan wrote:[color=green]
> > "Builder" <nosp...@builder.com> wrote
> > \> I have a theory: all you Linux/OSS numbnuts are just guzzling sour grapes[color=darkred]
> >> because "forced" really means the world chooses Windows over Linux
> >> virtually
> >> every time. At virtually any price.[/color][/color][/color]
The "World" doesn't choose anything. The choice to pre-install
Windows is made by 2 groups of people. The OEM usually has some top
ranking executive in charge of the PC division who is responsible for
negotiating license agreements with Microsoft. Microsoft does it's
best to make this person "Look Good" by offering a rediculously high
initial price, then negotiating the price down in exchange for
numerous technological concessions and other terms favorable to
Microsoft, most of which preclude the OEM from installing Linux as a
The OEM has the option of paying a premium price for more flexibility,
but even then there are loop-holes which give Microsoft a great deal
of control over what goes onto the OEM's PCs, how they can be
advertized, and how benchmarks can be published. Remember, to
Microsoft ANY comparison between a Microsoft product and any
competitor's product is a benchmark. Microsoft must give prior
written permission before any benchmark can be published, before any
change in configuration can be shipped, and before any new advertizing
"zinc" can be published.
> > That's no theory. That is a simple fact.[/color]
> > Unix has never been able to cut it in the OS marketplace, and this is
> > because Unix is just to brain dead.[/color][/color]
Unix is so pervasive it's almost invisible. Unix controls everything
from routers to telephone switching equipment, to railroad routing, to
air traffic control systems to computers within the aircraft itself.
In fact, a significant "break" in UNIX usually results in front-page
You can't browse the web without going through Unix systems. Nearly
all web sites have UNIX systems providing various applications and
business rules engines as well as most of the database engines.
Microsoft has tried to replace Unix and BSD Mail packages with Windows
and Exchange in HotMail for years. As I understand it, Microsoft
still has not been able to provide a cost-effective solution as
reliable, stable, and secure as those available for Unix/Linux.
Microsoft has been able to fabricate carefully optimized benchmarks in
which custom configured Windows systems to give better benchmarks in a
single domain, against a generically configured Linux system. Linux
and Unix still provide more functionality, at a lower cost, with
better performance and higher reliability and lower staffing
requirements - than Windows systems required to implement a complete
> WTF? Unix was the computing market place before IBM/DOS packaging.[/color]
This is correct. In fact, prior to the PC, the most popular computer
chip was the Z-80 processor made by Zilog. Zilog then made a 16 bit
chip which ran Unix beautifully. Motorola, who had been making the
6800 processor, made a 32 bit chip called the 68000 chip which also
became a very popular UNIX processor. National Semiconductor
introduced the NS-32000 processor which was also a very popular Unix
chip. Eventually, Unix and it's variants beat out nearly all of the
minicomputer operating systems. Eventually, even mainframe systems
had more and more functionality previously done by CICS and MVS
transferred to UNIX based functionality. OS/390 offered both the MVS
interface and the Unix interface, and Z/OS offers MVS, Unix, and Linux
virtual machines as part of their solution suite.
These days, there are actually only a very limited number of machines
that DON'T run some form of Unix or Linux, and are incapable of
running them. This includes Windows and Linux.
> > The fatal problem of Linux is that < LINUX IS UNIX > but with some
> > friendly wallpaper glued on top.[/color]
> Linux is not UNIX.[/color]
Linux is designed to be Unix compatible. However, from the very
beginning Linux was designed based on a very different set of
assumptions from the traditional "Unix" systems. Linux was very
interested in the MMU of the 80386 and exploited it very efficiently
along with additional memory management features of the successor
On the other hand, Linux is library compatible with Unix, which is why
the glibc library and numerous other libraries originally developed
for the Unix kernel are supported by Linux. As a result, many of the
applications written for Unix also work under Linux. Libraries and
applications written for the BSD application programmer interfaces and
released under the BSD libraries are the most popular. There is also
a System V compatibility library designed to emulate a traditional
Unix API, but these are not as widely used. The emulation library is
unique to Linux because although the API is Unix compatible, it's
implemented using the Linux kernel and glibc libraries.
> Linux, is a kernel, GNU is not UNIX. GIYF.[/color]
This is an important point. Linux is only the kernel portion of the
system. On the other hand, the Linux kernel, GNU Libraries, BSD
Libraries, GNU applications, BSD applications, and huge assortment of
additional Open Source applications have become so closely linked to
the Linux kernel that Linux "Distributions" have become almost
synonymous with "Linux". If you are talking about Ubuntu, SUSE, Red
Hat, or any other version of "Linux", you are actually talking about
the Linux Distributions, not just the kernel. In fact, the kernels
and glibc libraries in all of these distributions are all the same
> > Underneath though, it's stilll Pure Command Line Driven Unix.[/color][/color]
Pure Command Line Driven Unix hasn't existed since the development of
the termcap library for BSD 4.0 Linux back in 1982. The shell is a
very effective tool for integrating a number of very simple
applications in much the way one would combine tinker-toys to create a
ferris wheel or any of hundreds of other "applications".
On the other hand, Unix has had graphics since before the Mac was
released. AT&T offered "red" which was a basic graphics editors.
Unix also supported the phigs graphic standard which was the basis for
some of the earliest CAD/CAM packages in the early 1980s. The early
Unix machines used Textronix 4010 graphics terminals and even today
the X11 graphics package offers the Xterm package which offers the
In fact, by the time Microsoft introduced Windows 3.1, the first
widely used version of Windows which was still unreliable and
marginally functional with non-preemptive multitasking, UNIX had
already established X11R5 as the best of several competing GUI
interfaces including Sun's NeWS which was based on PostScript
(Postscript is also the basis for PDF), Aegis, and other proprietary
versions and solutions offered by HP, Apollo, IBM, Sun, Dec, and
In fact, by the time Windows 3.0 was released, X11R4 had already
provided a standardized graphics platform which was supported by all
of the major Unix vendors.
> And that's the beauty of it. In fact though, Windows underneath is just
> syscalls. But you don't have the option really of using command line
> tools to do stuff, everything is focused on the GUI. This is painful if
> you ever have to do bulk operations. How does one iterate over a set of
> commands to SQL, without having to compile something?[/color]
Microsoft had a real problem with the GUI-Only configuration and
management tools. When you need standard configurations maintenance
procedures, it is much easier to have an automated script that can
easily be modified do the work as opposed to manually executing a
complex series of mouse and windows operations in a GUI environment.
Microsoft added scripting capabilities with .NET and attempted to
improve the ability to automate administration functions with Windows
2003, and this has increased the acceptance of Windows for certain
"interface servers", including many web server "front-ends". Even so,
most of the "heavy lifting" is still done by Unix and more and more,
by Linux. Oracle has excellent support for Linux, as does IBM and
Sun, HP, Dell, and just about everybody else.
> Don't bother replying OP, I'm sure it wont be constructive.
> > Now LinTards believe that they can put enough layers of wallpaper over the
> > OS so that no one will notice.[/color][/color]
Not really. The Linux support organizations offer very competitive
graphical interfaces, and competition tends to drive each of the
players to be more aggressive and supportive than they would be if
they had a monopoly. Linux GUI builders don't just have to compete
with each other, they also have to compete with Microsoft and Apple.
Apple makes a more visually appealing interface, but Linux interfaces
such as KDE and Beryl are more functional and more effective at
helping the user organize huge numbers of Linux.
> > However - as Linux user knows - after a short while every Linux user finds
> > that the wallpaper starts falling off and you have to start tinkering with
> > the decreped UNIX machine below just so that you can put the wallpaper back[/color][/color]
That is sometimes true. If you have an unsupported WiFi card, or a
peculiar graphics card that runs ONLY DirectX, you have some work to
do that those who purchase "Linux Ready" hardware don't have. On the
other hand, for those who do have Linux-ready hardware, the scripting
languages just provide additional power and capabilities that aren't
even accessible on Windows.
The big fundamental difference between Windows and Linux is that
Windows is based almost entirely on huge propriatery monolithic
applications. Linux on the other hand uses small building blocks and
source available applications. If you don't like the rules imposed by
a huge, monolithic, GUI application, too bad, you're screwed. If you
don't like the fact that you application eats 300 megabytes of code
that doesn't get used, too bad, you're screwed.
With Linux, if you don't like the way an application works, you can
customize it to your needs. If you don't like the KDE version of an
application, you can run the GNOME version, or the Java version. If
Open Office or KDE Office doesn't cut it, you can go for StarOffice or
Microsoft maintains monopoly control of the OEM distribution channel.
If you don't like Microsoft Office, too bad, you're on your own. If
you don't like IE, tough beans, hope you have a fast modem and lots of
time. If you don't like Vista anti-virus, you are out of luck. If
you want some software that Microsoft doesn't ship with Windows, I
hope you have a big limit on your credit card, because you are going
to probably max it out. Project? Vista? Corel Draw? Autocad?
Visual Studio? Get ready to fork over some big bucks.
Oh, you might be able to find some shareware that you can install for
free, but you will have to pay the registration fee after a short
time, if you don't you could be facing copyright violations and up to
5 years in federal prison per application. If you install it on the
company computer you could end up being the cause of a very expensive
You might be able to get some "free" software from some back-woods
site, but it is probably infested with viruses, spambots, and other
fun "features" that are guaranteed to make you very popular with your
> Oh yes, outook doesn't have a spell checker does it.[/color]
Mahcrosahft spel chekur, werks gud.
> > in place. And no one wants to service a wooden machine that's covered in
> > goose grease and cemented together with Cattle Dung.[/color][/color]
Oh,h Windows isn't that bad. It has it's uses. It's a great training
tool for novice users who haven't been able to learn to use any other
kind of computer. Of course, more experienced users tend to like the
OS/X interfaces, and many like the fact that Linux gives them very
nice interfaces without having to purchase a brand new highly priced
desktop or laptop machine.
> > And that's why the public isn't buying Linux.[/color][/color]
The public may not be buying PCs configured exclusively for Linux, but
there seem to be millions of users who are willing to purchase PCs
configured with XP and then install Linux themselves. There are many
ways to get Linux distributions. If you have high-speed internet
access, you can download a DVD sized distribution in about an hour.
You can go to your local Borders, Barnes & Noble, or other major
bookstore and get a book with a Linux distribution, or a magazine such
as Linux Format, which includes a DVD containing a complete Linux
distribution that can be booted or installed.
Since most of these distributions generate revenue through support
contracts, it's not uncommon for users to "test drive" a distribution
before choosing one and then getting a support subscription. Often,
the support package includes automatic updates of tested upgrades to
software, drivers, and even kernel upgrades without upgrading from one
major release to the next.
Often, commercial distributions will automate the installation of
proprietary drivers such as NVidia or ATI OpenGL extension supporting
drivers designed to be compatible with XGL or GLX.
Nobody knows how many millions of Linux users there are. Microsoft
may have a better view than many, along with companies like Google and
Yahoo which offer web services to registered users who must sign-in to
be counted. Most of these companies are playing those numbers very
close to the cuff, but it's telling that most of these companies have
stopped producing "IE-Only" pages.
According to court transcripts, Microsoft claimed that Linux had 140
million users in 1999 during the Antitrust lawsuit, and about 2 years
later, they claimed the number was over 170 million. To be precise
they claimed that Linux had 14% of the market in the US Antitrust
trial, and 17% in the EU antitrust trial.