Does Microsoft fear Linux? Should it fear Linux? - Linux

This is a discussion on Does Microsoft fear Linux? Should it fear Linux? - Linux ; amicus_curious wrote: > > "RonB" wrote in message > news:ktCHj.69$v76.40@newsfe06.lga... >> amicus_curious wrote: >> >>> You could put it that way, but you would look like a silly dilletante. >>> There is not much of any consequence on usenet. The ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 46

Thread: Does Microsoft fear Linux? Should it fear Linux?

  1. Re: Does Microsoft fear Linux? Should it fear Linux?

    amicus_curious wrote:

    >
    > "RonB" wrote in message
    > news:ktCHj.69$v76.40@newsfe06.lga...
    >> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >>> You could put it that way, but you would look like a silly dilletante.
    >>> There is not much of any consequence on usenet. The Linux folk are
    >>> hardly evangelists and they are just hoping and wishing for a change
    >>> that never seems to come. The Windows fans are, of course, correct and
    >>> only trying to save the Linux folk from their sins. Think of us as
    >>> Christian missionaries to snake worshipers and other socially backward
    >>> heathens.

    >>
    >> Yep, 24/7 obsessed with Linux -- no worries about Linux in the Micro$haft
    >> camp at all. If you're going to make a career out of lying, you should at
    >> least get good at it, lying troll.
    >>

    > A trite and limp response.


    You're correct, so why did you bother?

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"

  2. Re: Does Microsoft fear Linux? Should it fear Linux?


    "JEDIDIAH" wrote in message
    news:slrnfv1rup.h4a.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
    >
    > Nope.
    >

    Well, that is a great start! You are much further down the road to
    redemption than many of the other COLA Linux fans!

    > Local Lemmings are just a good demonstration of the same mentality
    > that could be (and likely is) in effect in Redmond. You say it is
    > irrelevant and insignificant yet you lash out at it as if it was
    > about to slash your throat.
    >

    By "local lemming" I assume that you mean posters who have no official
    connectionss with Microsoft Corporation but hold opinions contrary to those
    of the Linux fans. You denegrate us with your presumed association of such
    opinions with mindless execution of some self-destructive behavior, but in
    doing so you make an obvious mistake in your logic.

    For one thing, you offer nothing to associate the independent "lemmings"
    with the characteristics of the actual policy and decision makers within
    Microsoft. Indeed, the conventional COLA wisdom is that the planners and
    marketers in Redmond are nefariously sly and conniving individuals who have
    used cunning rather than technology to further their aims. Since they have
    done so in a world class record way, it is hardly likely that they are
    suddenly thoughless and blind to circumstances.

    For another you classify my mild chiding of the shrill response of "RonB" as
    some heated "lashing out" which is more of an indictment of your own lack of
    a sense of balance than anything flawed in my makeup.


  3. Re: Does Microsoft fear Linux? Should it fear Linux?

    [snips]

    On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 12:02:04 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:

    > Well, whether they are morons or simply uninformed, nothing is going to
    > change as long as the Linux advocates chose to demean them rather than
    > assist.


    Have you been paying attention? No, apparently not.

    There are people *here*, people who *have* been informed, repeatedly, yet
    still choose to go pay for that same bug-ridden, insecure crud. The
    masses on the whole can likely be forgiven, as most of them simply do not
    know their options, yet there are several examples, right here, of people
    who *do* know the options, can't come up with a single compelling reason
    to choose as they do, yet do so anyways.

    Such people *deserve* contempt, as they refuse to apply the simplest of
    reasoning to their own actions. People who cannot think are one thing;
    those who *will not* think are less forgivable.

    >> note that there's a well-funded FUD campaign against such tools; why
    >> would that be, if they're so insignificant?


    > That smacks of an extreme paranoia


    Really? How odd. I guess you're completely oblivious to such things as
    the "get the facts" campaign, several benchmark shoot-offs and the like,
    all of which involved non-trivial resources and financing, the purpose of
    which was to make their product look better than the one we choose to use.

    How simply being aware of the real world qualifies as "paranoia" isn't
    clear. Is this some weird sort of muddle-headed nonsense that will clear
    up in the morning? Or is this sort of thing a regular habit with you?

    > characteristic of the Linux advocate. However do you arrive at the
    > notion that those who do not accept your quasi-moralistic nonsense about
    > the superiority of "the open source model" and the somehow superior
    > performance of the quaint code used therein are all in the pay of
    > Microsoft?


    Egads; it's worse than I thought. That you can go from MS funding a
    campaign to create FUD about Linux to "all in the pay of MS" is most
    unclear, nor does it have even the faintest passing resemblance to
    anything I said.

    Tell you what... how about you get over whatever illness is causing you
    to get such simple concepts so wildly wrong, then try asking your
    question again. Perhaps then your question will be relevant and possibly
    even based on something remotely related to what is actually being
    discussed.

    We'll wait.


  4. Re: Does Microsoft fear Linux? Should it fear Linux?

    Kelsey Bjarnason writes:

    > [snips]
    >
    > On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 12:02:04 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >> Well, whether they are morons or simply uninformed, nothing is going to
    >> change as long as the Linux advocates chose to demean them rather than
    >> assist.

    >
    > Have you been paying attention? No, apparently not.
    >
    > There are people *here*, people who *have* been informed, repeatedly, yet
    > still choose to go pay for that same bug-ridden, insecure crud. The
    > masses on the whole can likely be forgiven, as most of them simply do not
    > know their options, yet there are several examples, right here, of people
    > who *do* know the options, can't come up with a single compelling reason
    > to choose as they do, yet do so anyways.


    What reasons? No one believes your lies. You see it does work for
    them. People need a compelling reason to move. And losing the ability to
    run their entertainment SW, to run the apps they have already invested
    in and know is not a compelling reason.

    >
    > Such people *deserve* contempt, as they refuse to apply the simplest of
    > reasoning to their own actions. People who cannot think are one thing;
    > those who *will not* think are less forgivable.


    Christ on a bike you're a big headed arsehole.

    *snip self serving garbage*

  5. Re: Does Microsoft fear Linux? Should it fear Linux?


    "Kelsey Bjarnason" wrote in message
    news:u55ac5-qnu.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
    > [snips]
    >
    > On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 12:02:04 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >> Well, whether they are morons or simply uninformed, nothing is going to
    >> change as long as the Linux advocates chose to demean them rather than
    >> assist.

    >
    > Have you been paying attention? No, apparently not.
    >
    > There are people *here*, people who *have* been informed, repeatedly, yet
    > still choose to go pay for that same bug-ridden, insecure crud. The
    > masses on the whole can likely be forgiven, as most of them simply do not
    > know their options, yet there are several examples, right here, of people
    > who *do* know the options, can't come up with a single compelling reason
    > to choose as they do, yet do so anyways.
    >

    The facts may very well be that people have been "informed repeatedly" and
    still refused to change to OSS wares. I think the mistake being made here
    is that "informed repeatedly" is being confused with "informed effectively"
    and whatever the sales points being handed out, they are not being accepted
    by the target audience. Yet the poster continues to use the same
    ineffective arguments, cursing the audience for not being more receptive.
    As a pitcher in my youth, I found out early that one pitches to the umpire,
    not to the batter, in order to get called strikes. It is not enough to just
    play a game, you have to play the right game.

    > Such people *deserve* contempt, as they refuse to apply the simplest of
    > reasoning to their own actions. People who cannot think are one thing;
    > those who *will not* think are less forgivable.
    >

    A common belief held by the ineffective who need to blame someone or
    something other than themselves for their lack of success. In the end, it
    is the same thing, though.

    >>> note that there's a well-funded FUD campaign against such tools; why
    >>> would that be, if they're so insignificant?

    >
    >> That smacks of an extreme paranoia

    >
    > Really? How odd. I guess you're completely oblivious to such things as
    > the "get the facts" campaign, several benchmark shoot-offs and the like,
    > all of which involved non-trivial resources and financing, the purpose of
    > which was to make their product look better than the one we choose to use.
    >

    There is a decided advantage to being the market leader. This is not a
    charity event, this is business. "The fustest with the mustest" wins as the
    old general was reported to have said. Microsoft has a focus on getting
    customers to agree with them, signified by the opening of a wallet. If they
    find a prospect who "will not think" as above, they just try a different
    approach. You could learn from that.

    > How simply being aware of the real world qualifies as "paranoia" isn't
    > clear. Is this some weird sort of muddle-headed nonsense that will clear
    > up in the morning? Or is this sort of thing a regular habit with you?
    >

    For starters, you see the normal response of a competitive party as a "FUD
    campaign" rather than the simple presentation of the party's best selling
    points. Have you never heard the saying "Take your best shot!"? You can't
    fault someone for trying to do their best.



  6. Re: Does Microsoft fear Linux? Should it fear Linux?

    On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:28:28 -0400, "Ezekiel" wrote:

    >Re: Does Microsoft fear Linux? Should it fear Linux?


    Are you kidding?

  7. Re: Does Microsoft fear Linux? Should it fear Linux?

    [snips]

    On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 20:34:01 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:

    > The facts may very well be that people have been "informed repeatedly"
    > and still refused to change to OSS wares. I think the mistake being
    > made here is that "informed repeatedly" is being confused with "informed
    > effectively" and whatever the sales points being handed out, they are
    > not being accepted by the target audience.


    You cannot educate the ineducable. It's really as simple as that. We
    point out that from install to maintenance, updating and securing, Linux
    is consistently cheaper, safer, more reliable. We back this with by
    pointing out the most basic points, such as how a default install of a
    typical Linux desktop doesn't require a firewall, or AV software, anti-
    spyware and the like, because Linux is designed to be resilient to such
    things from the outset, rather than being a gaping wound needing an
    endless procession of bandages to staunch the flow.

    Or we point out the ease of keeping the machine up to date with the
    latest security patches and the like, something the Windows users by and
    large simply have _no_ equivalent of. (Yeah, find, you have MS Update -
    now where's the equivalent that updates apps from Borland and Adobe and
    Corel and...?)

    The arguments for the superiority of Linux over Windows are manifold, oft-
    expressed and simple enough for most folks to grasp. However, they
    require one thing that many people absolutely cannot (or will not) do:
    they require change.


    >> Such people *deserve* contempt, as they refuse to apply the simplest of
    >> reasoning to their own actions. People who cannot think are one thing;
    >> those who *will not* think are less forgivable.
    >>

    > A common belief held by the ineffective who need to blame someone or
    > something other than themselves for their lack of success. In the end,
    > it is the same thing, though.


    What lack of success? Are you so completely retarded you're oblivious to
    the ongoing progress of Linux? You must be, to suggest there's a lack of
    success.

    The fact that there's a lack of success with a hatful of mentally-
    challenged mutants in here really means nothing at all, other than to
    show that whatever their pet issues, they're incapable of coping with the
    real world, which *is* adopting Linux quite happily.


    > Microsoft has a focus on
    > getting customers to agree with them, signified by the opening of a
    > wallet. If they find a prospect who "will not think" as above, they
    > just try a different approach. You could learn from that.


    Learn what, to waste time on dysfunctional minds? Thanks, I've better
    things to do with my life.

    > For starters, you see the normal response of a competitive party as a
    > "FUD campaign"


    No, you screaming ****ing idiot, I see a well-funded campaign of *false*
    information and *unjustified* fears about a competitor as being a FUD
    campaign.

    I'm sorry, this is obviously too difficult for you. Let's bring it down
    to something you can cope with:

    "MS not play nice. Windows not work good. Linux work better."

    Happy?


  8. Re: Does Microsoft fear Linux? Should it fear Linux?


    "OK" wrote in message
    news:j6q6v3th8lefn42lgmqan0pcgoq7djqp8g@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:28:28 -0400, "Ezekiel" wrote:
    >
    >>Re: Does Microsoft fear Linux? Should it fear Linux?

    >
    > Are you kidding?


    It's the title of the article. Authors words... not mine.



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


  9. Re: Does Microsoft fear Linux? Should it fear Linux?


    "Kelsey Bjarnason" wrote in message
    news:lkdfc5-v16.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
    > [snips]
    >
    > On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 20:34:01 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >> The facts may very well be that people have been "informed repeatedly"
    >> and still refused to change to OSS wares. I think the mistake being
    >> made here is that "informed repeatedly" is being confused with "informed
    >> effectively" and whatever the sales points being handed out, they are
    >> not being accepted by the target audience.

    >
    > You cannot educate the ineducable. It's really as simple as that.


    Several of the "advocates" here in COLA are living proof.


    > We point out that from install to maintenance, updating and securing,
    > Linux is consistently cheaper, safer, more reliable.


    The same liars^h^h^h "advocates" also point out that Microsoft is going
    bankrupt, and that 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, .... are going to be "the year of
    linux", Microsoft Offices were searched for hookers and that linux is 50X
    faster than Windows XP and laptop batteries last 14 hours with linux.

    Once a liar always a liar.


    > We back this with by pointing out the most basic points,
    > such as how a default install of a
    > typical Linux desktop doesn't require a firewall, or AV software, anti-
    > spyware and the like, because Linux is designed to be resilient to such
    > things from the outset, rather than being a gaping wound needing an
    > endless procession of bandages to staunch the flow.


    Tell this to Canonical, the makers of Ubuntu. Their servers got infected and
    were attacking each other.



    > Or we point out the ease of keeping the machine up to date with the
    > latest security patches and the like, something the Windows users by and
    > large simply have _no_ equivalent of. (Yeah, find, you have MS Update -
    > now where's the equivalent that updates apps from Borland and Adobe and
    > Corel and...?)


    Yet updates seem to break things that used to work. And if it's so easy to
    update then why was the version of PHP that Schestowitz used on his
    hacked/owned trojan website running an ancient version. Too scared to
    "upgrade" a working installation because the upgrade might break it?



    > The arguments for the superiority of Linux over Windows are manifold, oft-
    > expressed and simple enough for most folks to grasp. However, they
    > require one thing that many people absolutely cannot (or will not) do:
    > they require change.


    Most of the arguments are irrelevant to normal computer users. They have to
    give up their games and the apps they've learned over the years and what do
    they get in return... "free as in freedom" and the ability to download the
    source code. People could care less about your so-called advantages. They
    just want to use their computer.



    >>> Such people *deserve* contempt, as they refuse to apply the simplest of
    >>> reasoning to their own actions. People who cannot think are one thing;
    >>> those who *will not* think are less forgivable.
    >>>

    >> A common belief held by the ineffective who need to blame someone or
    >> something other than themselves for their lack of success. In the end,
    >> it is the same thing, though.

    >
    > What lack of success? Are you so completely retarded you're oblivious to
    > the ongoing progress of Linux? You must be, to suggest there's a lack of
    > success.


    Lack of success on the desktop. Canabalizing existing Unix machines in the
    server room is no big deal.


    > The fact that there's a lack of success with a hatful of mentally-
    > challenged mutants in here really means nothing at all, other than to
    > show that whatever their pet issues, they're incapable of coping with the
    > real world, which *is* adopting Linux quite happily.


    Yet another reason why linux will never be accepted on the average desktop.
    It's because of retards like you calling people "mentally-challenged
    mutants" because they choose not to drink the same Kool-Aid as you.


    >> Microsoft has a focus on
    >> getting customers to agree with them, signified by the opening of a
    >> wallet. If they find a prospect who "will not think" as above, they
    >> just try a different approach. You could learn from that.

    >
    > Learn what, to waste time on dysfunctional minds? Thanks, I've better
    > things to do with my life.


    Like try to get Notepad running on Windows. Your disaster stories are
    legendary. Most people have better things to do with their life than edit
    linux config-files, tweak xorg.conf to get their monitor working, tweak
    something else to get any sort of sound on linux, download codecs in order
    to listen to MP3s and then try to compile a driver in order to get their
    wireless adapter working.


    >> For starters, you see the normal response of a competitive party as a
    >> "FUD campaign"

    >
    > No, you screaming ****ing idiot, I see a well-funded campaign of *false*
    > information and *unjustified* fears about a competitor as being a FUD
    > campaign.


    It's called advertising. Gee... did you know that they Chevy Malibu costs
    less than the Honda Accord, gets better mileage than the Toyota Camry and
    has more interior room than a BMW 5-series. It's how advertising works your
    mentally-challenged mutant. Companies point out areas where their product is
    better than the competitors.




    > I'm sorry, this is obviously too difficult for you. Let's bring it down
    > to something you can cope with:
    >
    > "MS not play nice. Windows not work good. Linux work better."


    In your opinion. Which is worth absolutely nothing since you have zero
    credibility.


    > Happy?


    Happy to have a fast Windows machine that simply works. Happy that I don't
    have to tweak crap all day long to get sound working on linux.

    Yeah - I'm very happy.





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


  10. Re: Does Microsoft fear Linux? Should it fear Linux?


    "Kelsey Bjarnason" wrote in message
    news:lkdfc5-v16.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
    > [snips]
    >
    > On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 20:34:01 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >> The facts may very well be that people have been "informed repeatedly"
    >> and still refused to change to OSS wares. I think the mistake being
    >> made here is that "informed repeatedly" is being confused with "informed
    >> effectively" and whatever the sales points being handed out, they are
    >> not being accepted by the target audience.

    >
    > You cannot educate the ineducable. It's really as simple as that. We
    > point out that from install to maintenance, updating and securing, Linux
    > is consistently cheaper, safer, more reliable. We back this with by
    > pointing out the most basic points, such as how a default install of a
    > typical Linux desktop doesn't require a firewall, or AV software, anti-
    > spyware and the like, because Linux is designed to be resilient to such
    > things from the outset, rather than being a gaping wound needing an
    > endless procession of bandages to staunch the flow.
    >
    > Or we point out the ease of keeping the machine up to date with the
    > latest security patches and the like, something the Windows users by and
    > large simply have _no_ equivalent of. (Yeah, find, you have MS Update -
    > now where's the equivalent that updates apps from Borland and Adobe and
    > Corel and...?)
    >
    > The arguments for the superiority of Linux over Windows are manifold, oft-
    > expressed and simple enough for most folks to grasp. However, they
    > require one thing that many people absolutely cannot (or will not) do:
    > they require change.
    >

    Well, duh! That's the whole idea. Your arguments need to be substantial
    enough to inspire the customer to change, but they are limp and impotent and
    never get considered. You make a lot of allegations, but you don't really
    substantiate them. You are probably viewed as a bag of wind.
    >
    >>> Such people *deserve* contempt, as they refuse to apply the simplest of
    >>> reasoning to their own actions. People who cannot think are one thing;
    >>> those who *will not* think are less forgivable.
    >>>

    >> A common belief held by the ineffective who need to blame someone or
    >> something other than themselves for their lack of success. In the end,
    >> it is the same thing, though.

    >
    > What lack of success? Are you so completely retarded you're oblivious to
    > the ongoing progress of Linux? You must be, to suggest there's a lack of
    > success.
    >

    I don't see much of a result for the efforts to date. IBM, HP, and Dell
    have been touting Linux servers for close to 10 years now and they account
    for less than 10% of the server package revenues overall. Windows accounts
    for almost 40% and Unix is close to 30%. IBM mainframe OS has most of the
    rest with a dab for Netware. Now these are not all the same thing, of
    course, but there is a lot of fungibility in those shares in terms of raw
    funtionality at least.

    On the desktop, Linux has yet to get off of low end peg for the market
    meter.

    > The fact that there's a lack of success with a hatful of mentally-
    > challenged mutants in here really means nothing at all, other than to
    > show that whatever their pet issues, they're incapable of coping with the
    > real world, which *is* adopting Linux quite happily.
    >

    But it would seem that the mentally challenged mutants make up almost 100%
    of the consumer population.
    >
    >> Microsoft has a focus on
    >> getting customers to agree with them, signified by the opening of a
    >> wallet. If they find a prospect who "will not think" as above, they
    >> just try a different approach. You could learn from that.

    >
    > Learn what, to waste time on dysfunctional minds? Thanks, I've better
    > things to do with my life.
    >
    >> For starters, you see the normal response of a competitive party as a
    >> "FUD campaign"

    >
    > No, you screaming ****ing idiot, I see a well-funded campaign of *false*
    > information and *unjustified* fears about a competitor as being a FUD
    > campaign.
    >
    > I'm sorry, this is obviously too difficult for you. Let's bring it down
    > to something you can cope with:
    >
    > "MS not play nice. Windows not work good. Linux work better."
    >
    > Happy?
    >

    You seem to have a problem with expressing your ideas without resorting to
    vulgarity and obscenity. Perhaps that is due to the constant frustration
    that you have in obtaining any traction in the market for your ideas. Or
    perhaps you are just not talented enough to compete effectively.


  11. Re: Does Microsoft fear Linux? Should it fear Linux?

    On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:17:14 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:


    > Tell this to Canonical, the makers of Ubuntu. Their servers got infected
    > and were attacking each other.


    No, the servers that got infected were community-maintained servers, not
    Canonical's. Canonical donated to their upkeep and bandwidth but did not
    own or maintain the machines themselves. Nobody knows how the hackers
    gained access because the servers had been so sloppily maintained,
    leaving a number of ways they could have gained access.

    Canonical's own servers were not affected by this attack.



  12. Re: Does Microsoft fear Linux? Should it fear Linux?

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

    On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:45:00 -0500,
    netcat wrote:
    > On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:17:14 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Tell this to Canonical, the makers of Ubuntu. Their servers got infected
    >> and were attacking each other.

    >
    > No, the servers that got infected were community-maintained servers, not
    > Canonical's. Canonical donated to their upkeep and bandwidth but did not
    > own or maintain the machines themselves. Nobody knows how the hackers
    > gained access because the servers had been so sloppily maintained,
    > leaving a number of ways they could have gained access.
    >
    > Canonical's own servers were not affected by this attack.
    >
    >



    Surely you didn't expect an honest and accurate post from "Ezekiel"?


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

    iD8DBQFH9UOxd90bcYOAWPYRApM7AKDuq2TKyCrYGp06dHWw9E YK0cSGdgCgqzIj
    ibDBFsUvPiri4o78hiCsmu4=
    =g3iz
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Gravity is unforgiving.

  13. Re: Does Microsoft fear Linux? Should it fear Linux?

    netcat wrote:

    > On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:17:14 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Tell this to Canonical, the makers of Ubuntu. Their servers got infected
    >> and were attacking each other.

    >
    > No, the servers that got infected were community-maintained servers, not
    > Canonical's. Canonical donated to their upkeep and bandwidth but did not
    > own or maintain the machines themselves. Nobody knows how the hackers
    > gained access because the servers had been so sloppily maintained,
    > leaving a number of ways they could have gained access.
    >
    > Canonical's own servers were not affected by this attack.


    The terranews troll got it wrong again.
    News at 10, film at 11..

    --
    Mandriva - 2008.1 - RC2 - 64bit OS.
    COLA trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/

  14. Re: Does Microsoft fear Linux? Should it fear Linux?

    On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:45:00 -0500, troll netcat said after being slapped:
    > On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:17:14 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Tell this to Canonical, the makers of Ubuntu. Their servers got infected
    >> and were attacking each other.

    >
    > No, the servers that got infected were community-maintained servers


    Was William Poaster the system administrator? He is a ****wit anyway.

    --
    William Poaster: I am a ****wit

  15. Re: Does Microsoft fear Linux? Should it fear Linux?

    Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

    > You cannot educate the ineducable. It's really as simple as that. We
    > point out that from install to maintenance, updating and securing,
    > Linux is consistently cheaper, safer, more reliable.


    Linux is cheaper (and you get what you pay for), arguably safer (and it will
    NEVER have the installed base of Windows that would attract thousands of
    obsessive malware writers), but it's totally, totally UNreliable.


    > We back this with by


    huh?

    "You cannot educate the ineducable." How ironic.



    > pointing out the most basic points, such as how a default
    > install of a typical Linux desktop doesn't require a firewall, or AV
    > software, anti- spyware and the like, because Linux is designed to be
    > resilient to such things from the outset,


    They can dream up and design all the "perfection" into Linux they want;
    doesn't mean it will work or protect the users.

    "The Ubuntu community had to yank five of the eight Ubuntu-hosted community
    servers sponsored by Canonical offline Aug. 6 after discovering that the
    servers had been hijacked and were attacking other machines."
    http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Ub...Launch-Attack/


    > rather than being a gaping
    > wound needing an endless procession of bandages to staunch the flow.


    You must not keep track of how many Linux security patches are issued every
    week.


    > Or we point out the ease of keeping the machine up to date with the
    > latest security patches and the like, something the Windows users by
    > and large simply have _no_ equivalent of. (Yeah, find, you have MS
    > Update


    uh oh. You just nuked yourself.


    > - now where's the equivalent that updates apps from Borland
    > and Adobe and Corel and...?)


    Why would I need to patch my apps all the time? That's a Linux thang,
    because the crap is in constant development.


    > The arguments for the superiority of Linux over Windows are manifold,
    > oft- expressed and simple enough for most folks to grasp.


    But they're not effective arguments, because either they're not true, or
    they don't address the issues important to people.


    > However,
    > they require one thing that many people absolutely cannot (or will
    > not) do: they require change.


    Most importantly, they require a gross degrading of your standards for
    quality software.



    >>> Such people *deserve* contempt, as they refuse to apply the
    >>> simplest of reasoning to their own actions. People who cannot
    >>> think are one thing; those who *will not* think are less forgivable.
    >>>

    >> A common belief held by the ineffective who need to blame someone or
    >> something other than themselves for their lack of success. In the
    >> end, it is the same thing, though.

    >
    > What lack of success?


    The incredibly low usage rate. The substandard apps and games and hardware
    support. The buggy, locking/hanging/freezing mess.


    > Are you so completely retarded you're
    > oblivious to the ongoing progress of Linux?


    What does that mean?


    > You must be, to suggest there's a lack of success.


    Linux and most open source products are a HUGE failure by any rational
    measure.



    > The fact that there's a lack of success with a hatful of mentally-
    > challenged mutants in here really means nothing at all, other than to
    > show that whatever their pet issues, they're incapable of coping with
    > the real world, which *is* adopting Linux quite happily.


    uh huh. You can barely give Linux away.


    >> For starters, you see the normal response of a competitive party as a
    >> "FUD campaign"

    >
    > No, you screaming ****ing idiot, I see a well-funded campaign of
    > *false* information and *unjustified* fears about a competitor as
    > being a FUD campaign.


    Go ahead and show us the false info.

    Besides which, nothing MS has ever said approaches the sheer idiocy and
    hatred slung by thousand of Linux "advocates" all over the world. If anyone
    is guilty of lying and FUDding, it's the lowlife Linux "community" of
    cheapskates and underachievers and woman-haters.


    > I'm sorry, this is obviously too difficult for you. Let's bring it
    > down to something you can cope with:
    >
    > "MS not play nice. Windows not work good. Linux work better."


    http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.p...ghlight=freeze



    > Happy?


    I know those Ubuntu users are *pissed* at the crappy system they heard was
    perfect.



  16. Re: Does Microsoft fear Linux? Should it fear Linux?

    [snips]

    On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:35:59 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:

    >> The arguments for the superiority of Linux over Windows are manifold,
    >> oft- expressed and simple enough for most folks to grasp. However,
    >> they require one thing that many people absolutely cannot (or will not)
    >> do: they require change.
    >>

    > Well, duh! That's the whole idea. Your arguments need to be
    > substantial enough to inspire the customer to change


    And they are.

    There are only four things keeping *anyone* using Windows:

    1) Cost of change.
    2) Name recognition.
    3) "Killer app" phenomenon.
    4) Fear of change.

    No matter how compelling the arguments for using Linux (or BSD, or
    Solaris, or...) may be, for many businesses, item 1 is a killer; they
    simply cannot afford to make the change, unless they can absolutely
    guarantee continued access to their data in a manner conducive to ongoing
    business.

    Point 2, of course, rules out many, both in business and at home. You
    may not *like* Ford or Chevy, but given a choice between buying one of
    those and buying a "Fritzgruber 3000", chances are you a) have never even
    heard of the Fritzgruber line and b) aren't likely to buy it in any case,
    at least until you see enough of 'em on the road to consider them a
    "sufficiently popular/viable" alternative.

    The killer app phenomenon happens with any OS, but we're examining it in
    terms of Windows to Linux migration specifically. This is the case where
    the user or company relies upon a particular app or group of apps where
    the apps are not available on the target platform. This is exacerbated
    by point 2, of course, as there may well be perfectly viable alternatives
    which do the same job, but if the user isn't aware of them, or familiar
    enough with them, the alternative apps, to him, effectively do not exist.

    And last but not least is point 4. Some folks simply will not change no
    matter what the arguments for change are, as change is a big, evil, scary
    sort of monster under the bed for such people. They'll happily agree
    that X is better than Y, but they know Y, so they'll stick with Y, even
    in the face of compelling reasons to change.

    Much of the business world is slowly but surely making its way out of
    point 1, overcoming the costs by converting, however slowly, to less
    locked in formats and the like. Much of the home world is overcoming
    point 2, if only because Linux is getting, however slowly, more exposure.

    That will to some degree also benefit point 3, both in terms of letting
    the users know there are effective equivalents to their software and in
    giving app developers reason to port, or offer functional equivalents.

    Point 4, however, nothing in the known universe can overcome. This is
    the apparent sticking point for most of the anti-Linux crowd we get in
    here. They *know* the benefits of switching. They *know* the equivalent
    apps. They *don't* have the costs of conversion to face (by and large,
    at least). Yet, despite this, they steadfastly refuse to even accept the
    possibility of change: it is *change*, and it scares the hell out of them.

    You *cannot* create an argument which will make such a person change, as
    their reasons for not changing are not, in fact, reasons at all; they are
    visceral emotional reactions, which no amount of reasoning will remove.

    >> What lack of success? Are you so completely retarded you're oblivious
    >> to the ongoing progress of Linux? You must be, to suggest there's a
    >> lack of success.


    > I don't see much of a result for the efforts to date.


    Then you're blind, lying or stupid, which is it? Almost daily, there are
    reports coming in of migrations going on. A school here. A post office
    there. A city government here. A business there. A quick estimate
    suggests something on the order of some 10,000 seats per month.

    While 10,000 seats is not much in terms of the total installed base,
    neither is it trivial: it means a million or more seats per year
    converting *despite* the factors listed above - it means a million or
    more a year have overcome those obstacles and have commenced the
    migration.

    There's something else to consider as well. We hear a newsbite when,
    say, company X chooses to migrate 10,000 seats to Linux and that's fine
    and dandy, but what we do not hear is when company Y decides to migrate a
    handful of servers and a few workstations as a trial run, then roll out a
    few more and a few more after that. Nor do we hear about the individuals
    who migrate: it may be news when one company migrates 10,000 desktops,
    but we never hear about 10,000 individuals who chose to change, as that
    would be 10,000 newsbites and not worth the print space.

    Quick: tell us exactly how many home desktop users switched to Linux last
    month. Can't do it? Why not? Oh, right, because you have no newsbite
    telling you that 10,000 users switched. Or 100,000. Or 10. Granted,
    neither do we, but that's kind of the point; all we have is the newsbites
    and the knowledge that Linux is being downloaded, discussed, developed
    for and so forth in numbers far beyond what those newsbites can account
    for.

    Let's try it this way. Vancouver has a population of some 600,000
    people. I think we can reasonably estimate there are fewer computers
    than people in the city; let's call it half as many, or 300,000. I
    suspect the number is high, but let's go with it.

    The local Windows user group claims a membership of some 1100 people.
    Call it 1000 for simplicity. That means about one user in 300 joins the
    WUG.

    If we assume that Linux and Windows users are about as likely to join a
    user group, and that Linux adoption is the usual claimed rate of
    something like 1%, we should expect to see the local LUG with a total
    membership of 1% of 1000, or about 10 people.

    Except it doesn't have that; it has a membership of 1000 people. Oh,
    well, we must have made a mistake. Let's do it backwards.

    1000 LUG members.
    1 in 300 users joins a user group.
    Meaning 300x1000 total Linux users, or 300,000.
    Linux is estimated as 1% of the computing usage, so, 300,000x100 users
    Total: 300,000 Linux users, out of a population of 30 million

    Hmm. 30 million Linux users in a population of 600,000 people. I see a
    problem, even if we assume each user has multiple machines: each would
    have to have 50 machines to make the numbers work.

    So let's assume Linux users are ten times as likely to join a user group
    as Windows users are. How's that help?

    1000 members
    1 in 30 joins the LUG
    Meaning 30x1000 Linux users, or 30,000
    At 1%, this means 30,000*100 machines, total, or
    Three million computers in an population of 300,000 total computers.

    Er... I still see a problem.

    Okay, let's try it this way. Let's assume *every* Vancouver Linux user
    joined the LUG. That means 1000 total Linux users (and about that many
    Linux machines) in town. At 1% adoption, this means 100,000 total
    computers.

    Okay, that works, except for the slight problem that it presumes 100% of
    Linux users join the local LUG, while only one in 300 Windows users join
    the equivalent WUG, an assumption I find wildly unlikely.

    Much more likely is that the 1% figure of Linux adoption is a crock.

    I can buy that Linux users, on the whole, may be more likely than Windows
    users to join a user group. I'm even willing to buy that they're as much
    as 10 times more likely to do so. What does this mean about usage, then?

    If WUG members, locally, account for some 1 in 300 Windows users, then
    LUG members, at 10:1, must account for some 1 in 30 Linux users, meaning
    the 1,000 LUG members represent some 30,000 Linux users... out of an
    estimated computer population of 300,000. To me that looks like 10%, not
    1%.

    Which means that locally, Linux usage is _at least_ 10% of Windows usage,
    and to get it _that_ low requires assuming Linux users are 10 times as
    likely to join a user group as Windows users are.

    10% adoption, for a product which is rarely advertised, little known to
    the common man, in the face of competition which spends hundreds of
    millions in advertising and is *very* well known to the common man,
    hardly strikes me as a failure.



    >> The fact that there's a lack of success with a hatful of mentally-
    >> challenged mutants in here really means nothing at all, other than to
    >> show that whatever their pet issues, they're incapable of coping with
    >> the real world, which *is* adopting Linux quite happily.
    >>

    > But it would seem that the mentally challenged mutants make up almost
    > 100% of the consumer population.


    See above. No, the only mentally challenged mutants I'm aware of are the
    nimrods we get in here and the presumably few others who let fear of
    change alone prevent them trying other options.

    > You seem to have a problem with expressing your ideas without resorting
    > to vulgarity and obscenity.


    When dealing with stupendous drooling morons, it is sometimes required to
    get the point across. It can also simply be cathartic, as in "Good
    suffering Christ, not *this* bull**** again."

    So, are you a stupendous moron, or are you simply spewing the same tired
    old bull**** again?


  17. Re: Does Microsoft fear Linux? Should it fear Linux?

    Mark Kent wrote:
    > William Poaster espoused:
    >> Charlie Wilkes wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:28:28 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/03/28...x-2008-should-
    >>> microsoft-be-afraid-of-linux/
    >>>>
    >>>> I tend to view Linux as two different animals, rightly or wrongly.
    >>>> There's Linux for the desktop, like Ubuntu, Gentoo, Knoppix and whatever
    >>>> flavor-of-the-month distro gets mentioned on this week's Tekzilla.
    >>>>
    >>>> But really, with a 0.65 percent market share, do you really think
    >>>> Microsoft is worried about losing out to Linux? Its biggest competitor
    >>>> is Mac OS X, and that's still only on 7.5 percent of all computers.
    >>> Microsoft's biggest competitive threat in the near term is its own
    >>> installed base of satisfied XP users who don't want to change over to
    >>> Vista. But over the longer term, Linux is a competitive threat. It is
    >>> improving all the time. And if people end up spending 99% of their time
    >>> in a web browser, they will eventually stop caring about the underlying
    >>> OS.

    >> So yet another idiot troll again pulls figures out of its arse. Even M$ Execs
    >> have admitted that (in sworn testimony before Courts, in 2005) Linux users made
    >> up over 17% of all Internet users with a growth rate of >3% per annum.
    >> They have also said this in every quarterly SEC filing.
    >> Who would know the competition better than Microsoft?
    >> Why, the idiot trolls would of course. Riiiiiiiiiight....
    >>

    >
    > The rate is rising fast - the current bestsellers for laptops at Amazon:
    >
    > 1. Asus Eee
    > 2. Macbook
    > 3. Asus Eee
    > 4. Asus Eee
    > 5. Macbook
    >
    > My suspicion is that 17% would be a singularly underestimated figure for
    > 2008.


    nuts

  18. Re: Does Microsoft fear Linux? Should it fear Linux?

    * Matt peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Mark Kent wrote:
    >> William Poaster espoused:
    >>> Charlie Wilkes wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/03/28...x-2008-should-
    >>>> microsoft-be-afraid-of-linux/
    >>>>>
    >>>>> But really, with a 0.65 percent market share, do you really think
    >>>>> Microsoft is worried about losing out to Linux?


    Ballmer seems to be, a little bit.

    >> My suspicion is that 17% would be a singularly underestimated figure for
    >> 2008.

    >
    > nuts


    I think Mark needs to find an independent link for that figure.

    It might mean 17% of developers, for example.

    --
    You see, antiquated ideas of kindness and generosity are simply bugs that
    must be programmed out of our world. And these cold, unfeeling machines will
    show us the way.
    -- Bill Gates

  19. Re: Does Microsoft fear Linux? Should it fear Linux?

    Linonut wrote:
    > * Matt peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>> William Poaster espoused:
    >>>> Charlie Wilkes wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/03/28...x-2008-should-
    >>>>> microsoft-be-afraid-of-linux/
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> But really, with a 0.65 percent market share, do you really think
    >>>>>> Microsoft is worried about losing out to Linux?

    >
    > Ballmer seems to be, a little bit.
    >
    >>> My suspicion is that 17% would be a singularly underestimated figure for
    >>> 2008.

    >> nuts

    >
    > I think Mark needs to find an independent link for that figure.


    Yes.

    > It might mean 17% of developers, for example.


    That wouldn't justify his post.

    To clarify: my post was not referring to Charlie.

  20. Re: Does Microsoft fear Linux? Should it fear Linux?

    Linonut espoused:
    > * Matt peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>> William Poaster espoused:
    >>>> Charlie Wilkes wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/03/28...x-2008-should-
    >>>>> microsoft-be-afraid-of-linux/
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> But really, with a 0.65 percent market share, do you really think
    >>>>>> Microsoft is worried about losing out to Linux?

    >
    > Ballmer seems to be, a little bit.
    >
    >>> My suspicion is that 17% would be a singularly underestimated figure for
    >>> 2008.

    >>
    >> nuts

    >
    > I think Mark needs to find an independent link for that figure.
    >
    > It might mean 17% of developers, for example.
    >


    eh? I just posted some *real numbers* of what's selling. You've
    deleted them (not sure why), but they were *real numbers*. The same
    figures have been used elsewhere, recently, showing that in the top-ten,
    there are only two vista-based machines. As these are *not in the top
    five*, then it's highly unlikely that they're getting anywhere near even
    1/5 of sales, whereas the linux machines are selling in far greater
    numbers.

    Matt's just confused about stats and what they mean.

    --
    | mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast