Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source? - Linux

This is a discussion on Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source? - Linux ; Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source? I always thought that competition was a good thing. So how can you hate open source? Isn't open source about knowledge or more to the point computer science? Saying ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 36

Thread: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

  1. Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

    Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source? I
    always thought that competition was a good thing. So how can you hate
    open source? Isn't open source about knowledge or more to the point
    computer science? Saying you hate open source seems to me like hating
    Math or Biology. Has this knowledge not in fact enriched our lives?

    Regards,

    Wad

  2. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?


    "Wad Gold" wrote in message
    news:fhccf101pq6@news2.newsguy.com...
    > Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source? I
    > always thought that competition was a good thing. So how can you hate
    > open source? Isn't open source about knowledge or more to the point
    > computer science? Saying you hate open source seems to me like hating
    > Math or Biology. Has this knowledge not in fact enriched our lives?
    >

    Where on earth do you get the notion that Windows users hate open source?
    Anyone and everyone is in favor of free stuff, even if it isn't so hot. It
    can be used in a pinch if you just need a quick job done.

    I think you are oversensitive. The only problem with OSS code is that it is
    unlikely to lead and is never going to stay in the lead. Improvements in
    applications have a commercial value, if they are really improvements, and
    OSS terms and conditions in general defeat any realization of this value for
    those who are innovative enough to create it in the first place. There are
    those who persist, but the thrill of creativity is there whether or not one
    is paid and paid is plainly better since you can spend more time creating
    without having to earn an outside living.


  3. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

    On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:30:57 +0000, Wad Gold wrote:

    > Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source? I
    > always thought that competition was a good thing. So how can you hate
    > open source? Isn't open source about knowledge or more to the point
    > computer science? Saying you hate open source seems to me like hating
    > Math or Biology. Has this knowledge not in fact enriched our lives?
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Wad


    They are absolutely scared spitless that MS will go down the tubes and
    they'll "have to learn something new". Meanwhile, they refuse to try
    anything else or they'd know there is very little new to 'learn' - just a
    few minor changes.


  4. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?



    >
    > They are absolutely scared spitless that MS will go down the tubes and
    > they'll "have to learn something new". Meanwhile, they refuse to try
    > anything else or they'd know there is very little new to 'learn' - just a
    > few minor changes.
    >


    ROFLMAO



  5. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

    On the off chance that you're not simply a troll...

    On 13 Nov 2007 14:30:57 GMT, Wad Gold wrote:

    > Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?


    I can't speak for others, but i'm not anti-open-source. I am
    "anti-open-source-zealots". I like, and use open source every day, however
    I don't pretend it's always better than commercial alternatives, like the
    zealots do.

    The problem I have with people like Roy is that he feels it's necessary to
    distort the facts to make his point. It's further compounded by the fact
    that he feels COLA is his personal venue to promote himself and his
    websites to receive advertising revenue.

    Make no mistake, Linux has come a long way, but there's still a lot of
    ridiculous inconsistencies and failures that should have been fixed by now.
    Linux will not likely EVER reach critical mass, for a lot of reasons. It's
    unfortunate that most Linux zealots can't see that.

    Don't confuse the trolls, whow are here only to stir up trouble, with
    actual windows advocates.

  6. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

    On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:03:57 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > Make no mistake, Linux has come a long way, but there's still a lot of
    > ridiculous inconsistencies and failures that should have been fixed by now.
    > Linux will not likely EVER reach critical mass, for a lot of reasons. It's
    > unfortunate that most Linux zealots can't see that.


    What do you regard as 'critcal mass', and why do you think Linux won't be
    able to achieve it?

    --
    Kier



  7. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    >I can't speak for others, but i'm not anti-open-source. I am
    >"anti-open-source-zealots".


    That's what all the worthless, lying trolls say, it seems.

    >I like, and use open source every day, however
    >I don't pretend it's always better than commercial alternatives, like the
    >zealots do.


    Maybe they can be considered "always better", from the viewpoint of
    someone who has a strong desire to avoid evilware. WTF do you care?

    >The problem I have with people like Roy is that he feels it's necessary to
    >distort the facts to make his point. It's further compounded by the fact
    >that he feels COLA is his personal venue to promote himself and his
    >websites to receive advertising revenue.


    A slimey, illogical, dip**** weasel like yourself has no business
    criticizing someone else's "distortions", Eric.

    Is security really binary , Eric?

    >Make no mistake, Linux has come a long way, but there's still a lot of
    >ridiculous inconsistencies and failures that should have been fixed by now.


    That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Now, why don't you just
    fsck off?

    >Linux will not likely EVER reach critical mass, for a lot of reasons. It's
    >unfortunate that most Linux zealots can't see that.


    It's unfortunate that you can't see that your predictions aren't worth
    a pile of dog crap.

    >Don't confuse the trolls, whow are here only to stir up trouble, with
    >actual windows advocates.


    I don't know what you are, Fuddie, but it's a lot more, and a lot
    worse, than just being a "windows advocate".


  8. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kier

    wrote
    on Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:23:17 +0000
    :
    > On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:03:57 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >> Make no mistake, Linux has come a long way, but there's
    >> still a lot of ridiculous inconsistencies and failures
    >> that should have been fixed by now. Linux will not
    >> likely EVER reach critical mass, for a lot of reasons.
    >> It's unfortunate that most Linux zealots can't see that.

    >
    > What do you regard as 'critcal mass', and why do you think Linux won't be
    > able to achieve it?
    >


    An interesting question, considering that the "why" could
    probably be extremely variable -- especially since the
    powers-that-be might simply decide that anything with
    "Linux" is disallowable.

    In other words, one might run into this scenario.

    Energetic Naive Young Executive: "OK, I have a brand new
    solution here! It's currently got about 5% of the desktop
    market but it's more reliable, faster, lighter footprint,
    and intuitive than Microsoft Windows Vista!"

    Boss: "Hm. Get back to us when it's 10%."



    E: "You remember Linux? It's now at 10.3%."

    B: "Hm. OK, 15%. Market changed slightly."

    E: "Uh, OK."



    E: "Look, Boss, it's now at 16.4% and gaining rapidly! It's all the
    rage in the trade rags and the buzz at the water cooler? What do you
    need??"

    B: "Oh, um...I'll get back to you when I've looked at our contract."



    B: "....mmm....hmmm....mmm....mmmm....hmm... 20%"

    E: "Look, Boss, how long do we
    have to wait for Linux?"

    Executive a copy of a lucrative contract with Microsoft,
    naming their firm as a primary vendor. The implied message
    is that Linux will be accepted in the firm when a certain
    mythological area reaches the freezing point of a common
    liquid substance usually stored within 5 gallon containers
    atop a dispenser in a small room nearby.>

    E: *thud*

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net -- insert random cynicism here
    Useless C++ Programming Idea #110309238:
    item * f(item *p) { if(p = NULL) return new item; else return p; }

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  9. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

    On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:22:44 -0800, HangEveryRepubliKKKan wrote:

    >
    > "Kier" wrote
    >> What do you regard as 'critcal mass', and why do you think Linux won't be
    >> able to achieve it?

    >
    > Linux hasn't achieved critical mass yet? **** man, according to the
    > Lintards it achieved critical mass in 1985 and then again in 1986, and then
    > again in 1987, and in 1988 critical mass was just around the corner.


    Who asked you to stick your snout in, twerp?

    --
    Kier

  10. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

    On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:23:17 +0000, Kier wrote:

    > On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:03:57 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >> Make no mistake, Linux has come a long way, but there's still a lot of
    >> ridiculous inconsistencies and failures that should have been fixed by now.
    >> Linux will not likely EVER reach critical mass, for a lot of reasons. It's
    >> unfortunate that most Linux zealots can't see that.

    >
    > What do you regard as 'critcal mass', and why do you think Linux won't be
    > able to achieve it?


    I should qualify that i'm referring to desktop critical mass.

    Critical Mass is when commercial desktop software vendors see it as a
    viable platform. It's true there are commercial software vendors for
    linux, but they tend to be niche (and usually quite expensive) products,
    primarily in the server market (where Linux has achieved critical mass many
    years ago).

    I don't think Linux will be able to achieve it because the people in charge
    of the development of Linux don't make the needs of commercial developers a
    priority (consistent installation across distro's, for instance) and they
    are actively hostile towards attracting the kinds of users they would need
    to make Linux attractive to those vendors.

    Without commercial software vendors, that means linux vendors have to
    attract customers almost entirely with open source software, which (with a
    few exceptions like Firefox) are largely not of the same calibre as their
    commercial alternatives.

  11. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > Make no mistake, Linux has come a long way, but there's still a lot of
    > ridiculous inconsistencies and failures that should have been fixed by now.
    > Linux will not likely EVER reach critical mass, for a lot of reasons. It's
    > unfortunate that most Linux zealots can't see that.


    Keep whistlin' in the dark, Erik, whilst Linux swells all around you.

    --
    Tux rox!

  12. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:22:04 -0600,
    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:23:17 +0000, Kier wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:03:57 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>
    >>> Make no mistake, Linux has come a long way, but there's still a lot of
    >>> ridiculous inconsistencies and failures that should have been fixed by now.
    >>> Linux will not likely EVER reach critical mass, for a lot of reasons. It's
    >>> unfortunate that most Linux zealots can't see that.

    >>
    >> What do you regard as 'critcal mass', and why do you think Linux won't be
    >> able to achieve it?

    >
    > I should qualify that i'm referring to desktop critical mass.
    >
    > Critical Mass is when commercial desktop software vendors see it as a
    > viable platform. It's true there are commercial software vendors for
    > linux, but they tend to be niche (and usually quite expensive) products,
    > primarily in the server market (where Linux has achieved critical mass many
    > years ago).
    >
    > I don't think Linux will be able to achieve it because the people in charge
    > of the development of Linux don't make the needs of commercial developers a
    > priority (consistent installation across distro's, for instance) and they
    > are actively hostile towards attracting the kinds of users they would need
    > to make Linux attractive to those vendors.
    >
    > Without commercial software vendors, that means linux vendors have to
    > attract customers almost entirely with open source software, which (with a
    > few exceptions like Firefox) are largely not of the same calibre as their
    > commercial alternatives.


    You notice the good commercial apps, because they are noticable, you
    ignore the great raft of crapware out there that is easily surpassed by
    OSS offerings. Even in areas that have good commercial offerings, the
    OSS stuff usually compares well. Consider Nero vs K3b for an example
    beyond firefox. Or Eclipse compared to many of the CSS offerings.

    Can you find a lot of crap OSS projects? duh! Same as CSS, the
    difference being that the crap CSS stuff vanishes below the waves soon
    after it fails, never to be heard of again, but the OSS stuff is out on
    an old ftp server somewhere, and occasionally gets picked up. Also,
    since the cost of including packages is low, many distros offer several
    options for one task or another, some better than others.

    Gnumeric compares very favourably with Excel and the like. Thunderbird
    and Evolution totally pwn outlook, and Rhythmbox has winamp beat hollow.

    Games is a major area where Linux has a large gap in first run stuff.
    The fact is though, that I have far more games I enjoy playing on Linux
    than I have time I can dedicate to them.

    (WoW plays great under Wine btw, which is the most recent game I have
    been playing)

    Of course, with most Linux distros, the apps are there, a mouseclick or
    two away. Wheras their CSS equivilents on MS-Windows are at best, a
    webpage login, enter CC data, pay the $ and eventually be able to
    download an installer, and there's no system level update akin to apt or
    yum. Even MS own update only handles some of the MS software. Lame.

    I'll stick to linux thanks.


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHOhk3d90bcYOAWPYRAoXSAJ9yiHfp6m44408L2U3scK Q0BZZXOwCfd3qb
    sW1F6fLEYoeRKJF7glcn6mw=
    =4yQZ
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    In Vino Veritas, In Cervesio Felicitas
    (In wine there is truth, in beer there is joy)

  13. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:23:17 +0000, Kier wrote:
    >
    >> What do you regard as 'critcal mass', and why do you think Linux won't be
    >> able to achieve it?

    >
    > I should qualify that i'm referring to desktop critical mass.
    >
    > Critical Mass is when commercial desktop software vendors see it as a
    > viable platform. It's true there are commercial software vendors for
    > linux, but they tend to be niche (and usually quite expensive) products,
    > primarily in the server market (where Linux has achieved critical mass many
    > years ago).
    >
    > I don't think Linux will be able to achieve it because the people in charge
    > of the development of Linux don't make the needs of commercial developers a
    > priority (consistent installation across distro's, for instance) and they
    > are actively hostile towards attracting the kinds of users they would need
    > to make Linux attractive to those vendors.


    Who is "they"?

    > Without commercial software vendors, that means linux vendors have to
    > attract customers almost entirely with open source software, which (with a
    > few exceptions like Firefox) are largely not of the same calibre as their
    > commercial alternatives.


    So, Eric, how did Windows reach "critical mass"?

    --
    Tux rox!

  14. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, HangEveryRepubliKKKan belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > "chrisv" wrote
    >> That's what all the worthless, lying trolls say, it seems.

    >
    > Linux is dying. This is a very good thing.


    (This guy is too stupid to abide.)

    Buh-bye, until your next low-lying yella-bellied nym-****.


  15. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

    On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:39:41 GMT, Linonut wrote:

    > Who is "they"?


    The Ransom Love's, Michael Robertsons, etc..

    >> Without commercial software vendors, that means linux vendors have to
    >> attract customers almost entirely with open source software, which (with a
    >> few exceptions like Firefox) are largely not of the same calibre as their
    >> commercial alternatives.

    >
    > So, Eric, how did Windows reach "critical mass"?


    It didn't have any competition. Mac's were pretty much excluded because of
    their high price tag (at the time) and inability to build enough machines
    to satisfy the market even if customers wanted them.

  16. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

    On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:38:00 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:

    >> Without commercial software vendors, that means linux vendors have to
    >> attract customers almost entirely with open source software, which (with a
    >> few exceptions like Firefox) are largely not of the same calibre as their
    >> commercial alternatives.

    >
    > You notice the good commercial apps, because they are noticable, you
    > ignore the great raft of crapware out there that is easily surpassed by
    > OSS offerings. Even in areas that have good commercial offerings, the
    > OSS stuff usually compares well. Consider Nero vs K3b for an example
    > beyond firefox. Or Eclipse compared to many of the CSS offerings.


    Nero does about 20x more than K3b. K3b is a nice, and does a lot of
    things, with a good interface, but nero does a lot more. For instance, it
    doesn't include a transcoder, or the tools to professional looking Video
    DVD's (a large selection of DVD menu's, for instance).

    Eclipse suffers from the classic problem of many open source tools, you
    have to "build" your toolset, it's not a complete package ready to run
    after install. There's a bunch of configuration you have to do, such as
    debuggers, toolchains, etc.. Certainly it's very flexible, but not what
    people come to expect from commercial software.

    > Can you find a lot of crap OSS projects? duh! Same as CSS, the
    > difference being that the crap CSS stuff vanishes below the waves soon
    > after it fails, never to be heard of again, but the OSS stuff is out on
    > an old ftp server somewhere, and occasionally gets picked up. Also,
    > since the cost of including packages is low, many distros offer several
    > options for one task or another, some better than others.


    You misunderstand. Take the leader in any given category, the compare it
    to the leader in OSS. In most cases, the OSS lacks features, completeness,
    polish, and maturity.

    > Gnumeric compares very favourably with Excel and the like.


    Only to a certain point. For instance, Gnumeric doesn't have anything like
    Excel's "Pivot Tables", and it's limited to 256 columns. Excel can have
    65536 columns and 1 million rows.

    > Thunderbird and Evolution totally pwn outlook


    No, they don't. And especially not Outlook 2007.

    > and Rhythmbox has winamp beat hollow.


    I don't use either, so I can't compare... however, just looking at the
    screenshots of both, Rhythmbox looks a bit weak. Can Rhythmbox be skinned
    like Winamp?

    Compare the feature list:
    http://www.winamp.com/player/features
    http://live.gnome.org/Rhythmbox/FAQ

    I mean, come on.. look at the FAQ:
    http://live.gnome.org/Rhythmbox/FAQ

    You have to create text files to do simple things? Subdirectories not
    supported?

    > Games is a major area where Linux has a large gap in first run stuff.
    > The fact is though, that I have far more games I enjoy playing on Linux
    > than I have time I can dedicate to them.
    >
    > (WoW plays great under Wine btw, which is the most recent game I have
    > been playing)


    Are you playing the most recent version, with the latest patches?

    > Of course, with most Linux distros, the apps are there, a mouseclick or
    > two away. Wheras their CSS equivilents on MS-Windows are at best, a
    > webpage login, enter CC data, pay the $ and eventually be able to
    > download an installer, and there's no system level update akin to apt or
    > yum. Even MS own update only handles some of the MS software. Lame.


    All of which is largely irrelevent to the average person. Seriously.

  17. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:39:41 GMT, Linonut wrote:
    >
    >>> Without commercial software vendors, that means linux vendors have to
    >>> attract customers almost entirely with open source software, which (with a
    >>> few exceptions like Firefox) are largely not of the same calibre as their
    >>> commercial alternatives.


    (Forgot to note that little bit of FUD.)

    >>
    >> So, Eric, how did Windows reach "critical mass"?

    >
    > It didn't have any competition.


    So, Eric, how did Windows achieve this "lack of competition"?

    > Mac's were pretty much excluded because of
    > their high price tag (at the time) and inability to build enough machines
    > to satisfy the market even if customers wanted them.


    So what about the Atari ST and Commodore Amiga, both of which made the
    Windows then current seem like crap in comparision?

    --
    Tux rox!

  18. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, HangEveryRepubliKKKan

    wrote
    on Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:52:00 -0800
    :
    >
    > "Linonut" wrote
    >> Buh-bye, until your next low-lying yella-bellied nym-****.

    >
    > So long **** Sucker. Have fun playing with yourself while
    > your OS dies a well deserved death.
    >


    So Vista and IIS are going to kill it? OK. I'll wait.

    In the meantime, do ensure that Windows viciously murders
    FreeBSD and FreeDOS as well, there's a good fellow.
    We can't have those solutions flitting about polluting
    the Windows server space, now, can we? Everything should
    be running either Windows Vista, Windows Server Edition,
    or Windows Embedded.

    And this includes the following.

    [1] Thumbnails. Babies will have silicon chips with
    Windows Embedded Edition installed therein. Prying the
    chip out (or cutting off one's arm or hand) will be a
    criminal offense. The chip will be used in lieu of a
    credit card, immigration card, ignition control key,
    and breathalyzer. While the chip is not capable of
    thought control (too far from the business end of the
    brain), it will allow for precise, economical tracking
    of all humans within the United States, and effective
    law enforcement. Since it is not explicitly mentioned
    in the Constitution it must be legal, no?

    [2] Coffee cups. Ever had one of those days where you
    couldn't find your drinking utensil? No longer
    a problem. Microsoft will embed a chip into the
    bottom of drinking utensils, including coffee cups,
    wine glasses, pans, and garbage disposals. This will
    also allow better coordination with drug enforcement
    agencies, especially where rohypnol and illegally
    distilled spirits are concerned. Deluxe versions
    will also play catching tunes, ringtones, and jingles.
    Just the thing for one's anniversary, especially when
    a beer commercial comes on while you're about to
    share a romantic moment.

    [3] Communications equipment. All phone, radio, and
    other such devices will be required by law to contain a
    R-chip. The R-chip, which is similar to a V-chip, will
    allow for the censoring of objectionable language when
    an identity chip (see [1]) is nearby that is underage
    and therefore can hear the language. Updates will
    be broadcast on a periodic basis, as government and
    company officials identify objectionable terms such
    as f**k, s**t, c**p, d**g, b**m, Che Guivera, Chang
    Kai Shek, Fleagle, Bingo, Linus Torvalds, and Jay Miner.

    [4] Food Chip. This chip would be embedded into
    potatoes for better tracking of an important staple
    of the US food supply. After ingestion, it can also
    be used for monitoring the interior of one's gut, as
    a backup for the thumbnail. Variants include the
    Potato Chip(tm), the Cow Chip(tm), the Corn Chip(tm),
    and the Wheat Thin(tm). Negotiations with Nabisco,
    regrettably, have broken off on the last; developers
    are frantically scrambling for a replacement.

    [5] Bugtracker(tm). An issue with humanity is its
    proximity to various pests and undesirable fauna;
    the Bugtracker will allow for efficient tracking of
    these animals and insects and eventual elimination.
    The deluxe version can also zap the pests. The
    technicians admittedly are working on how best to
    plant the chips, especially since the ant, which can
    carry 100 times its own weight, is dwarfed thereby.
    Negotiations with environmentalists are also continuing.

    [6] Weedwhacker(tm). A variant of the Bugtracker(tm) is
    to track undesirable plants in an area, for efficient
    disposal. One problem, of course, is that plants move
    very slowly; therefore convincing landowners that weed
    tracking chips might be necessary is a marketing
    issue that Microsoft is presumably working on.
    Fortunately for all concerned, the term "Weed*eater*"
    is trademarked, but "Weed*whacker*" apparently is not.

    [7] Shoes. One problem the TSA has is that the shoes might
    be used as an explosive device. With the new Shoechip,
    this should cease to be an issue, and will allow for
    a backup failsafe tracker as well. It should also
    monitor economic performance, as a person with more
    shoes will be considered better off, and therefore
    can be more efficiently targeted by advertising firms.
    Joggers will love the advertising jingles played
    through their soles, with matching rhythm, though
    there are concerns that the jingles might be related
    to potato chips and other such fattening foods.
    Negotiations with nutritionists are continuing.

    [8] Pens. A Penchip will be under development so that,
    on an occasional basis, the pen will vibrate under its
    own accord, allowing advertisers to insert messages
    into the output thereof. The messages can be tailored
    to the user (whose thumb is nearby), and will allow
    for the opening up of lucrative new markets. The
    deluxe version can also play ringtones and jingles.
    A larger variant, the DildoChip(tm), can presumably
    be programmed to vibrate in a special way to advertise
    various products. Research is continuing.

    [9] Flagstones and sidewalks. The general idea is to
    notify authorities when (a) a tree root is prying
    up a sidewalk, causing a dangerous condition, (b)
    a jogger is happening by that might be a person of
    interest, (c) blood trickles onto the chip, (d) an
    earthquake shakes the sidewalk, and (e) a UFO lands
    on the roadway and starts asking strange questions.
    Clearly, we need to handle all of these cases, and
    the Stonechip(tm) will be licensed to roadbuilders and
    landscapers for just such a purpose. Stonechips(tm)
    can also be placed on mountaintops and cliff sides.
    A variant, the Woodchip(tm), can be used to monitor
    trees in old-growth forests; when the tree is cut down
    and milled into logs the chip can be used to ensure
    that the result won't be illegally used.

    [10] Coal lumps. A massive but relatively unknown problem
    in the US is the tracking of coal lumps.
    The Coalchip(tm) will allow for the efficient
    tracking of such lumps to ensure that theft thereof
    is not happening. Miners will be responsible for
    tagging chips with the Coalchip(tm) during mining.
    The resulting ash can be recycled later to make
    more Coalchips(tm). Note that there are some minor
    technical issues relating to sintering; presumably
    these are being worked on. (The OilChip(tm) was
    considered but rejected.)

    [11] GeologyWare(tm). This software would be responsible
    for coordinating nuclear tests, fires, earthquakes,
    stolen coal lumps, and catastrophic floods. In
    conjunction with the Stonechip(tm) and Woodchip(tm),
    it will serve as an early warning system for such
    events. Windows Vista subscribers only.

    [12] Interplanetary Spacecraft Upgrade Packets. Clearly
    a vast, untapped market is out there, and chips
    with software will have to be distributed to, among
    other places, the Space Shuttles, the Rovers on Mars,
    and various satellites. (The Shuttles are probably
    the easiest, as they are landable.) Once installed
    by competent IT personell, the ISUAChip(tm) will
    periodically download updates from Redmond, Washington
    to stay up to date and defend against malware
    attacks (orbits, planetary positions, and rotations
    permitting). Later versions will go interstellar
    as well, to help our LGM friends at, among other
    locales, Sirius, Alpha Centari, and Betelgeuse, who
    may not be familiar with Microsoft Windows Vista,
    English, periodic updates, the concept of seconds,
    TCP/IP, or humanity in general, and the ISUAChip(tm)
    can gently introduce them to their friendly,
    helpful bipedal neighbors -- and their advertising
    ringtones and jingles. Other possibilities include
    the PentagramChip(tm) and the AbductionChip(tm);
    the former is very handy for those afraid of running
    into a witch, a magical elf, or both, and the latter
    can be used if one is afraid of a UFO beaming them
    up and taking them away to another world.

    Microsoft. Where did you want to go today?

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Linux. Because it's not the desktop that's
    important, it's the ability to DO something
    with it.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  19. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

    On Nov 13, 9:30 am, Wad Gold wrote:
    > Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source? I
    > always thought that competition was a good thing. So how can you hate
    > open source? Isn't open source about knowledge or more to the point
    > computer science? Saying you hate open source seems to me like hating
    > Math or Biology. Has this knowledge not in fact enriched our lives?
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Wad


    I'm not anti open source or anti Linux.
    I am against zealots, especially zealots like Roy Schestowitz who are
    hypocrites.

    Many true open source advocates, and many a news article has been
    written about nutcase Linux zealots.
    It does nothing for the cause but make the real Linux advocates look
    like idiots.

    My advice is to look beyond what appears to be Linux advocacy and look
    toward the real motive, using common sense.
    Doing that will reveal, rather quickly, that all in COLA is not what
    it may seem to be.


  20. Re: Why are the Window's users here in this forum so anti-open-source?

    On Nov 13, 7:39 pm, Linonut wrote:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    > > On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:39:41 GMT, Linonut wrote:

    >
    > >>> Without commercial software vendors, that means linux vendors have to
    > >>> attract customers almost entirely with open source software, which (with a
    > >>> few exceptions like Firefox) are largely not of the same calibre as their
    > >>> commercial alternatives.

    >
    > (Forgot to note that little bit of FUD.)
    >
    >
    >
    > >> So, Eric, how did Windows reach "critical mass"?

    >
    > > It didn't have any competition.

    >
    > So, Eric, how did Windows achieve this "lack of competition"?
    >


    Murder? Adultery? Why don't you tell us what you think? Let me guess,
    it involves some form of illegality that only the great Linonut has
    been able to prove.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast