Why I Prefer Linux. - Linux

This is a discussion on Why I Prefer Linux. - Linux ; > Linux is cheap. > IOW Linux is low cost. > I don't care how much pain my employees must endur, I am interested in > pure profit, or as most people put it, bottom line., I know this is ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 34 of 34

Thread: Why I Prefer Linux.

  1. Re: Why I Prefer Linux.

    > Linux is cheap.
    > IOW Linux is low cost.
    > I don't care how much pain my employees must endur, I am interested in
    > pure profit, or as most people put it, bottom line.,


    I know this is a piss-poor troll, but for argument's sake, I'd say just the
    amount of time your employees will have to spend on re-training and dealing
    with incompatibilities between document formats (if you deal with customers
    at all) will have a far larger impact on your bottom line than you stand to
    benefit from using a "free" OS.

    But I suppose this is a moot point if your employees also work for free, and
    you happen to have an endless supply of time.



  2. Re: Why I Prefer Linux.

    Shenan Stanley wrote:

    > goldfarb44 wrote:
    >> Linux is cheap.
    >> IOW Linux is low cost.
    >> I don't care how much pain my employees must endur, I am interested in
    >> pure profit, or as most people put it, bottom line., Linux gives me a
    >> low cost, positive cash flow, ie: bottom line. That's all that counts.
    >> Go cheap and you will sleep..
    >> That's my motto.

    >
    > So, you think that if your employees cannot produce the same quality
    > work in the same amount of time or less than your competition due to
    > "how much pain (they) must endure" due to your inflexibility and
    > possible incompatibilities, etc - you will still actually *make* a
    > profit?


    Your troll detector is in need of repair. It can't be much more obvious
    that the OP is a ****wit troll who is trying to make Linux advocates seem
    unreasonable.




  3. Re: Why I Prefer Linux.

    goldfarb44 wrote:

    > Linux is


    *plonk*

  4. Re: GEEZ! Why I Prefer Linux.


    "DP" wrote in message
    news:%239RcuJICIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
    > Geez, I'm suprised at how many people thought this guy was serious.
    > Have the OS wars blinded us to humor and irony?
    > Come on, people, use your head before answering.


    You begin to see the source of many of the "problems" encountered here

    Rich


  5. Re: GEEZ! Why I Prefer Linux.

    Rich wrote:

    >
    > "DP" wrote in message
    > news:%239RcuJICIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
    >> Geez, I'm suprised at how many people thought this guy was serious.
    >> Have the OS wars blinded us to humor and irony?
    >> Come on, people, use your head before answering.

    >
    > You begin to see the source of many of the "problems" encountered here
    >


    Do you actually think that flatfish uses humor and irony?

    That guy is a racist asshole and liar
    --
    Linux: Because rebooting is for adding new hardware


  6. Re: Why I Prefer Linux.

    Translator French - English - Creole wrote:
    > your the stupid one IQ is spelled I Q Not IG. idiot
    >


    You really should keep up before you call names:

    "Ig Noble award winners announced"
    http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/22...-award-winners

    P.S.
    "your" should be "You're" and "idiot" should be capitalized. "Both "I Q" and
    "IQ" should have periods.



  7. Re: Why I Prefer Linux.

    that's why i made a mistake and apologied. as far as my typing i didn't know
    i had gone back to school, i fail to see why you think it's so important for
    me to write properly, it's not like people can't get what i'm saying. and
    beside i don't really care, i'm trying to save time, that's why i type like
    this.

    --
    Capt. Jonathan Perreault

    Personnal Advice To You:
    #1: Do Not Undermine Windows's Work, Or It'll Undermine You As A User.
    #2: Torture Windows (Any) Now Before It Tortures You
    #3: Windows Is Bad Enough In English, Why Get It In Another Language

    Best Comments From Users:
    No Matter The Problem Even With Linux, It's Microsoft's And Windows's Faults

    A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely
    foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.
    "HeyBub" wrote in message
    news:%23xieNETCIHA.4836@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
    > Translator French - English - Creole wrote:
    >> your the stupid one IQ is spelled I Q Not IG. idiot
    >>

    >
    > You really should keep up before you call names:
    >
    > "Ig Noble award winners announced"
    > http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/22...-award-winners
    >
    > P.S.
    > "your" should be "You're" and "idiot" should be capitalized. "Both "I Q"
    > and "IQ" should have periods.
    >



  8. Re: Why I Prefer Linux.

    goldfarb44@gmail.com wrote:
    > Linux is cheap.
    > IOW Linux is low cost.
    > I don't care how much pain my employees must endur, I am interested in
    > pure profit, or as most people put it, bottom line.,
    > Linux gives me a low cost, positive cash flow, ie: bottom line.
    > That's all that counts.
    > Go cheap and you will sleep..
    > That's my motto.
    >
    > Saul Goldfarb
    >


    Hi,

    Linux is a much more powerful, much more stable OS than MS-Windows.
    There is enough opensource software, IMHO, to run a business
    comfortably. I, personally, would prefer to run on Linux, rather than
    Microsoft. Too many "cash registers" in the way of developing software.
    Though there are some wonderful applications running on the MS platform,
    I would much rather trust a stable opensource OS that actually has its
    bugs fixed, over the "bottom-line" impaired OS.


    Just a singular opinion,

    John

  9. Re: Why I Prefer Linux.

    i knew i like you from the moment i read your post. lol ha ha ha

    --
    New Boating Capt. Jonathan Perreault

    Personnal Advice To You:
    #1: Do Not Undermine Windows's Work, Or It'll Undermine You As A User.
    #2: Torture Windows (Any) Now Before It Tortures You
    #3: Windows Is Bad Enough In English, Why Get It In Another Language

    Best Comments From Users:
    No Matter The Problem Even With Linux, It's Microsoft's And Windows's Faults

    A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely
    foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.
    "John" wrote in message
    news:fem4jf01ld6@enews4.newsguy.com...
    > goldfarb44@gmail.com wrote:
    >> Linux is cheap.
    >> IOW Linux is low cost.
    >> I don't care how much pain my employees must endur, I am interested in
    >> pure profit, or as most people put it, bottom line.,
    >> Linux gives me a low cost, positive cash flow, ie: bottom line.
    >> That's all that counts.
    >> Go cheap and you will sleep..
    >> That's my motto.
    >>
    >> Saul Goldfarb
    >>

    >
    > Hi,
    >
    > Linux is a much more powerful, much more stable OS than MS-Windows. There
    > is enough opensource software, IMHO, to run a business comfortably. I,
    > personally, would prefer to run on Linux, rather than Microsoft. Too many
    > "cash registers" in the way of developing software. Though there are some
    > wonderful applications running on the MS platform, I would much rather
    > trust a stable opensource OS that actually has its bugs fixed, over the
    > "bottom-line" impaired OS.
    >
    >
    > Just a singular opinion,
    >
    > John



  10. Re: Why I Prefer Linux.


    "John" wrote in message
    news:fem4jf01ld6@enews4.newsguy.com...
    > goldfarb44@gmail.com wrote:
    >> Linux is cheap.
    >> IOW Linux is low cost.


    In my opinion, Linux is worth what you pay for it. As a hobbyist OS its fun,
    but for serious work, it just isn't there. I have tried Fedora, SuSE, and
    SLED 10 and none of them are really ready for the workplace. Plus Linux is
    just too darn hard for the average user to administer. Want to download
    software on Vista? Double click and done. On Linux? Dependency failures,
    wrong software repositories, endless headache.


  11. Re: Why I Prefer Linux.

    On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:13:21 -0700, Titus Pullo wrote:

    >
    > "John" wrote in message
    > news:fem4jf01ld6@enews4.newsguy.com...
    >> goldfarb44@gmail.com wrote:
    >>> Linux is cheap.
    >>> IOW Linux is low cost.

    >
    > In my opinion, Linux is worth what you pay for it. As a hobbyist OS its fun,


    I hear this bollocks all too often. 'Free' does not equal 'rubbish'. Got
    that? If Linux were a physical object, you might have an argument, but
    since it is not, there is nothing whatever to prevent iot from being just
    as good or better than something you've paid for. It's all code, all
    writtne in much the same way, by much the same people.

    > but for serious work, it just isn't there. I have tried Fedora, SuSE,
    > and SLED 10 and none of them are really ready for the workplace. Plus


    Strange, since my brother, whoi works for a whigh-powered Linux using
    company, seems to manage to do his work without difficulty using Fedora
    and CentOS

    > Linux is just too darn hard for the average user to administer. Want to
    > download software on Vista? Double click and done. On Linux? Dependency
    > failures, wrong software repositories, endless headache.


    Nonsense. With the modern Linux packaging systems, that rarely happens.
    And since most Linux software can be found in centralised repositories,
    there's no need to go looking for it. Fire up your package manager and
    pick what you want.

    --
    Kier


  12. Re: Why I Prefer Linux.

    On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:36:06 +0100, Kier wrote:

    >On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:13:21 -0700, Titus Pullo wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "John" wrote in message
    >> news:fem4jf01ld6@enews4.newsguy.com...
    >>> goldfarb44@gmail.com wrote:
    >>>> Linux is cheap.
    >>>> IOW Linux is low cost.

    >>
    >> In my opinion, Linux is worth what you pay for it. As a hobbyist OS its fun,

    >
    >I hear this bollocks all too often. 'Free' does not equal 'rubbish'. Got
    >that? If Linux were a physical object, you might have an argument, but
    >since it is not, there is nothing whatever to prevent iot from being just
    >as good or better than something you've paid for. It's all code, all
    >writtne in much the same way, by much the same people.
    >
    >> but for serious work, it just isn't there. I have tried Fedora, SuSE,
    >> and SLED 10 and none of them are really ready for the workplace. Plus

    >
    >Strange, since my brother, whoi works for a whigh-powered Linux using
    >company, seems to manage to do his work without difficulty using Fedora
    >and CentOS
    >
    >> Linux is just too darn hard for the average user to administer. Want to
    >> download software on Vista? Double click and done. On Linux? Dependency
    >> failures, wrong software repositories, endless headache.

    >
    >Nonsense. With the modern Linux packaging systems, that rarely happens.
    >And since most Linux software can be found in centralised repositories,
    >there's no need to go looking for it. Fire up your package manager and
    >pick what you want.


    If I may point out too, the average user in the workplace would not
    normally be installing software anyway. They don't to the 40 or so
    windows machines in our offices and would not if they were linux
    either. That's my job and my neck if anything goes wrong.

    There is little difference in installation of WinXpPro and a modern
    Linux system like Ubuntu except the Linux system is more likely to
    have drivers. I've installed two XpPro, one win98 and one Linux system
    this week and the linux system went in the smoothest. Both Linux and
    XP needed a big download of updates though.

    The basic applications supplied with linux also mean one can start up
    immediately instead of having to load office suites and comms
    packages. It's really down to what you need. If it were not for the
    need to run specialist wintel applications we would likely have gone
    over to Linux at the time of the last major upgrade. I'd like to see
    more open source out there especially on taxpayer funded sites but it
    isn't going to happen overnight.

  13. Re: Why I Prefer Linux.


    "Kier" wrote in message
    newsan.2007.10.12.08.35.59.909386@tiscali.co.uk...
    > On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:13:21 -0700, Titus Pullo wrote:
    > I hear this bollocks all too often. 'Free' does not equal 'rubbish'. Got
    > that?


    Start thinking like the average consumer instead of a computer geek. In many
    people's minds, free = valueless. How can Linux overcome that marketing
    perception?

    > Nonsense. With the modern Linux packaging systems, that rarely happens.
    > And since most Linux software can be found in centralised repositories,
    > there's no need to go looking for it. Fire up your package manager and
    > pick what you want.
    >


    My experience has been different. You must be better at using Linux than me.
    I am good with a computer. My mother can barely turn a computer on. Do you
    think she could just fire up her package manager, select the correct
    repository, and download the software she'd need to run Linux? Again, for
    geeks, Linux is a blast, but it isn't for the average joe. They've been
    saying since 1999 that "this is the year Linux gets big on the desktop."
    Never gonna happen.


  14. Re: Why I Prefer Linux.

    On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:27:10 -0700, Titus Pullo wrote:

    >
    > "Kier" wrote in message
    > newsan.2007.10.12.08.35.59.909386@tiscali.co.uk...
    >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:13:21 -0700, Titus Pullo wrote:
    >> I hear this bollocks all too often. 'Free' does not equal 'rubbish'. Got
    >> that?

    >
    > Start thinking like the average consumer instead of a computer geek. In many
    > people's minds, free = valueless. How can Linux overcome that marketing
    > perception?


    It may have escaped your notice, but Linux can also be bought. Though it's
    still considerably cheaper than Windows,, and much better value.

    >
    >> Nonsense. With the modern Linux packaging systems, that rarely happens.
    >> And since most Linux software can be found in centralised repositories,
    >> there's no need to go looking for it. Fire up your package manager and
    >> pick what you want.
    >>

    >
    > My experience has been different. You must be better at using Linux than me.
    > I am good with a computer. My mother can barely turn a computer on. Do you
    > think she could just fire up her package manager, select the correct
    > repository, and download the software she'd need to run Linux? Again, for


    Can't be much harder than searching the internet for what you want or
    need, downloading it, trying to remember where you put it, and getting it
    to install correctly.

    --
    Kier

    > geeks, Linux is a blast, but it isn't for the average joe. They've been
    > saying since 1999 that "this is the year Linux gets big on the desktop."
    > Never gonna happen.


    Never is a long time. SO I wouldn't make any bets on that.

    --
    Kier


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2