IS IBM snubbing open Linux foir Mac's closed source? - Linux

This is a discussion on IS IBM snubbing open Linux foir Mac's closed source? - Linux ; If so, this will be the death knell for Linux. http://www.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9920531-16.html?tag=bl You people should have listened to me and made Linux as easy to program for noobs as VB made it for Windows. Hell, Mac programming is easier than Linux ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 55

Thread: IS IBM snubbing open Linux foir Mac's closed source?

  1. IS IBM snubbing open Linux foir Mac's closed source?

    If so, this will be the death knell for Linux.

    http://www.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9920531-16.html?tag=bl

    You people should have listened to me and made Linux as easy to program for
    noobs as VB made it for Windows. Hell, Mac programming is easier than Linux
    programming and Macs are kicking Linux's ass as a result.

    The ONLY thing that will save Linux's dreams of desktop acceptance (much
    less domination) is adoption by the masses. The only thing that the masses
    will adopt is something that is EASY to mold into what they want it to be.

    No VB for Linux = no hope for the Linux desktop.

    I don't care whether you agree or even like it. This is the cold hard
    truth. Now, adapt or die.

    jim



  2. Re: IS IBM snubbing open Linux foir Mac's closed source?

    * jim peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > If so, this will be the death knell for Linux.
    >
    > http://www.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9920531-16.html?tag=bl
    >
    > You people should have listened to me and made Linux as easy to program for
    > noobs as VB made it for Windows. Hell, Mac programming is easier than Linux
    > programming and Macs are kicking Linux's ass as a result.
    >
    > The ONLY thing that will save Linux's dreams of desktop acceptance (much
    > less domination) is adoption by the masses. The only thing that the masses
    > will adopt is something that is EASY to mold into what they want it to be.


    Lemme guess here. You're thinking that what Joe Sixpack and Granny
    Gusterfluster are pining for most in Linux is ...

    .... a programming language?

    > No VB for Linux = no hope for the Linux desktop.


    (This guy never heard of Perl, Python, or Tcl/Tk, apparently.)

    > I don't care whether you agree or even like it. This is the cold hard
    > truth. Now, adapt or die.


    Oh boy. Yet another arrogant dude who stomps in with a ridiculous
    statement presented baldly as The Cold Hard Truth.

    Get outa town, man.

    --
    It turns out Luddites don't know how to use software properly, so you should
    look into that. -- The reason we come up with new versions is not to fix
    bugs. It's absolutely not. It's the stupidest reason to buy a new version I
    ever heard. When we do a new version we put in lots of new things that
    people are asking for. And so, in no sense, is stability a reason to move to
    a new version. It's never a reason.
    -- Bill Gates, http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html

  3. Re: IS IBM snubbing open Linux foir Mac's closed source?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, jim

    wrote
    on Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:36:40 -0400
    <12SNj.44646$Er2.39701@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:
    > If so, this will be the death knell for Linux.
    >
    > http://www.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9920531-16.html?tag=bl
    >
    > You people should have listened to me and made Linux as easy to program for
    > noobs as VB made it for Windows.


    OK, one more time, with feeling:

    LINUX DOES NOT SUPPORT PROGRAMMING!

    Hell, it barely supports operating system functions and
    can't even boot without something like GRUB or LILO --
    at least not off a hard drive.

    If you want to complain, kick KDE/Qt and or Gnome/GTK for
    better development tools. Don't blame the house foundation
    for the flimsy cardboard walls.

    > Hell, Mac programming is easier than Linux
    > programming and Macs are kicking Linux's ass as a result.
    >
    > The ONLY thing that will save Linux's dreams of desktop acceptance (much
    > less domination) is adoption by the masses. The only thing that the masses
    > will adopt is something that is EASY to mold into what they want it to be.
    >
    > No VB for Linux = no hope for the Linux desktop.


    Absolutely correct. Visual Basic is a powerful, intuitive
    GUIfied piece of crap -- but it is useful and most people
    are familiar with it. It can also be adapted to .NET
    webservers with ease. It also doesn't have annoying blue shrimp.

    Granted, one might question how good these webservers will
    scale (but PHP isn't much better).

    >
    > I don't care whether you agree or even like it. This is the cold hard
    > truth. Now, adapt or die.


    Microsoft should just buy out Apple and have done with it.

    >
    > jim
    >


    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Linux. Because vaporware only goes so far.

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


  4. Re: IS IBM snubbing open Linux foir Mac's closed source?


    "Linonut" wrote in message
    news:4sSNj.13434$3v1.1377@bignews3.bellsouth.net.. .
    >* jim peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> If so, this will be the death knell for Linux.
    >>
    >> http://www.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9920531-16.html?tag=bl
    >>
    >> You people should have listened to me and made Linux as easy to program
    >> for
    >> noobs as VB made it for Windows. Hell, Mac programming is easier than
    >> Linux
    >> programming and Macs are kicking Linux's ass as a result.
    >>
    >> The ONLY thing that will save Linux's dreams of desktop acceptance (much
    >> less domination) is adoption by the masses. The only thing that the
    >> masses
    >> will adopt is something that is EASY to mold into what they want it to
    >> be.

    >
    > Lemme guess here. You're thinking that what Joe Sixpack and Granny
    > Gusterfluster are pining for most in Linux is ...
    >
    > ... a programming language?


    No. What I am thinking here is that people dont buy OS's because they
    "want" an OS. They buy an OS because they want to run the software that
    runs on it. Software sells operating systems. Microsoft learned this years
    ago. Linux still hasn't caught on.

    That being said, you have to make it so damned easy to write software for
    your OS that any idiot can do it AND PROFIT FROM DOING SO. When you do, the
    idiots will come and they will code.

    Will the idiots' software be stellar, enterprise applications? No. Not at
    first. Just as it was with VB, people will write simple apps. Then, they
    will write more complex applications as RealBASIC (or whatever tool you give
    them) matures.

    First, the geeks will use it. Then, seeing how cheap and easy it is to
    write applications for a small business, small businesses will adopt it.
    Then, seeing as how people use at home what they use at work, people will
    take Linux home and use it.

    The portal to the desktop is via small business. It's how Microsoft
    started - on the small business desktops. To get small businesses, Linux
    use and development has to be both cheaper and easier than staying with
    Microsoft.

    The cheap part is done.....now you have to make it so easy to code a Linux
    app that the mailroom clerk can become a Linux programmer in 30 days or less
    (like he could using VB on Windows).

    >
    >> No VB for Linux = no hope for the Linux desktop.

    >
    > (This guy never heard of Perl, Python, or Tcl/Tk, apparently.)


    Compared to VB, they suck. Add to that the possibility of turning the
    MILLIONS of VB programmers that Microsoft abandoned with Fred.Net into Linux
    coders, and something akin to RealBASIC is a much better bet. (BTW, that's
    now free for Linux - thanks to Geoff Perlman listening to me rant for a
    month or two about how great it would be if he made RealBASIC free for
    Linux.)

    >
    >> I don't care whether you agree or even like it. This is the cold hard
    >> truth. Now, adapt or die.

    >
    > Oh boy. Yet another arrogant dude who stomps in with a ridiculous
    > statement presented baldly as The Cold Hard Truth.


    Sorry. I must have missed how well your current strategy is paying off.
    Maybe I wouldn't have though if the % of Linux desktops could be measured in
    whole numbers.

    >
    > Get outa town, man.


    I'm all too happy to go. This ship of Linux has no rudder, no compass and
    no hope of ever seeing the new world until the people onboard can stop
    hating Microsoft enough to learn from them the lessons of success that
    Microsoft has long forgot and then use those lessons to kill the beast.

    jim



  5. Re: IS IBM snubbing open Linux foir Mac's closed source?

    jim wrote:
    > If so, this will be the death knell for Linux.
    >
    > http://www.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9920531-16.html?tag=bl
    >
    > You people should have listened to me and made Linux as easy to program for
    > noobs as VB made it for Windows.
    >...
    > No VB for Linux = no hope for the Linux desktop.


    Gosh that must be why M$ is discontinuing VB in Office!!! No hope for
    the Windoze desktop.

    > I don't care whether you agree or even like it. This is the cold hard
    > truth. Now, adapt or die.


    Twerp.

    --
    Ron House
    rhouse@smartchat.net.au

  6. Re: IS IBM snubbing open Linux foir Mac's closed source?

    jim wrote:

    > No. What I am thinking here is that people dont buy OS's because they
    > "want" an OS. They buy an OS because they want to run the software that
    > runs on it. Software sells operating systems. Microsoft learned this years
    > ago. Linux still hasn't caught on.
    >
    > That being said, you have to make it so damned easy to write software for
    > your OS that any idiot can do it AND PROFIT FROM DOING SO. When you do, the
    > idiots will come and they will code.


    I wrote an app some years ago. Developed in Linux. Worked to perfection.
    Came time for the Doze version. Dear oh dear!

    Simple matter like printing the report. '98, NT, and XP all had mutually
    inconsistent ways to print. Fixes to get round a bug in 98 caused a new
    bug in XP, and so on, and on... Example: Doze filenames contain
    unavoidable blanks ("Documents and settings") so the name had to be
    quoted. But quotes told the system the string was a comment. Leave out
    the quotes, so it gets taken as a filename, and the blanks break it.
    Smart M$, real smart! In the end I got something that worked for 98 and
    XP. As for the rest, had to just wait for the NT folks to all upgrade.

    Is that the sort of thing you mean when you say "so damned easy"?

    Oh, and you remind me of my backup script. Simple way to make it
    recursive: execute it again from within itself. Linux: perfect
    operation, fast and efficient. Doze: some versions only allow three
    nested invocations, and the ones that allow more are over 15 times
    slower overall because of molasses-like spawning of the recursive
    processes, making the practical use of the script impossible. Is that
    what M$ 'learned years ago'?

    --
    Ron House
    rhouse@smartchat.net.au

  7. Re: IS IBM snubbing open Linux foir Mac's closed source?

    ____/ jim on Friday 18 April 2008 01:36 : \____

    > If so, this will be the death knell for Linux.
    >
    > http://www.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9920531-16.html?tag=bl
    >
    > You people should have listened to me and made Linux as easy to program for
    > noobs as VB made it for Windows. Hell, Mac programming is easier than Linux
    > programming and Macs are kicking Linux's ass as a result.
    >
    > The ONLY thing that will save Linux's dreams of desktop acceptance (much
    > less domination) is adoption by the masses. The only thing that the masses
    > will adopt is something that is EASY to mold into what they want it to be.
    >
    > No VB for Linux = no hope for the Linux desktop.
    >
    > I don't care whether you agree or even like it. This is the cold hard
    > truth. Now, adapt or die.


    Huh?

    No, IBM is doing both platforms. Don't ever trust CNET, whose writers mainly
    use Macs.

    Lotus Notes 8.5 to fully support Ubuntu Linux 7.0 in mid-2008

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | "We're doing pilots with customers now," Satyadas said. "Some of the requests
    | came from big companies" with as many as 100,000 users that are interested in
    | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    | moving to Ubuntu Linux on the desktop.
    |
    | [...]
    |
    | "Linux is cool now," he said. "We use it ourselves. We are able to offer a
    | secure, rich and cost-effective Microsoft alternative."
    `----

    http://computerworld.com/action/arti...&intsrc=kc_top

    What do Mac users say? They conveniently pretend Linux hardly exists. Yesterday
    in a Mac site:

    IBM Confirms Internal Mac (and Linux) Migration Project

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | IBM has engaged in an internal research project to evaluate Macs and Linux
    | systems and compare them to the PCs they're using now for potential
    | migration. Currently, its' just a pilot, research project, according to IBM.
    |
    | [...]
    |
    | "A one size fits all client computing platform no longer provides IBM's
    | global employees with the flexibility to innovate and be productive while
    | containing I/T expenses. Many parts of the business will remain on WinXP.
    | Some will migrate to Linux. There are some requirements for Mac. Our client
    | offerings are successful because of our commitment to interoperability
    | through open standards."
    |
    | Despite the low key response, it's no secret that IBM has been a strong
    | proponent of open source software and Linux as strategic weapons against
    | Microsoft. Much as Apple and others believe that adherence to open standards
    | and open source source software can benefit themselves and their customers,
    | IBM looks to be thinking along the same lines for its internal operations.
    `----

    http://www.macobserver.com/article/2008/04/17.11.shtml

    Apple ignoring Linux? No poop, Sherlock. Last week:

    Where are the Mac to Linux ports?

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | I'm not talking about Apple's own apps. Apple would surely like to pretend
    | Linux doesn't exist. No, wait, scratch that. Apple DOES pretend Linux doesn't
    | exist. And they have good reason to. Just like Microsoft, they don't want to
    | offer aid and comfort to the enemy; and what with OS X being based on BSD,
    | they probably think it would open the door to someone figuring out how to run
    | Leopard's GUI on the Linux kernel. And they might be right. * *
    `----

    http://www.dwasifar.com/2008/04/wher...nux-ports.html

    Apple knows very well that everywhere at a national level (NOT HOME USERS OR
    WEALTHY COUNTRIES) people only consider GNU/Linux and FOSS. Recent example:

    EU: Europarlement testing Ubuntu, OpenOffice and Firefox

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | The European Parliament's IT department is testing the use of GNU/Linux
    | distribution Ubuntu, OpenOffice, Firefox and other Open Source applications,
    | the British MEP James Nicholson explained last week in a letter to Italian
    | MEP Marco Cappato. *
    `----

    http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/7565



    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | Wintendo O/S: which virus do fancy today?
    http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    03:05:01 up 3 days, 1:17, 3 users, load average: 1.20, 0.92, 1.09
    http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project

  8. Re: IS IBM snubbing open Linux foir Mac's closed source?

    jim wrote:

    > If so, this will be the death knell for Linux.


    Has absolutely *nothing* to do with IBM's Linux markets. It would be
    replacing IBM's office PCs, currently running Windows, with Mac computers.

    Get a grip.

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

  9. Re: IS IBM snubbing open Linux foir Mac's closed source?


    "Ron House" wrote in message
    news:4808011F.2060409@smartchat.net.au...
    > jim wrote:
    >
    >> No. What I am thinking here is that people dont buy OS's because they
    >> "want" an OS. They buy an OS because they want to run the software that
    >> runs on it. Software sells operating systems. Microsoft learned this
    >> years ago. Linux still hasn't caught on.
    >>
    >> That being said, you have to make it so damned easy to write software for
    >> your OS that any idiot can do it AND PROFIT FROM DOING SO. When you do,
    >> the idiots will come and they will code.

    >
    > I wrote an app some years ago. Developed in Linux. Worked to perfection.
    > Came time for the Doze version. Dear oh dear!
    >
    > Simple matter like printing the report. '98, NT, and XP all had mutually
    > inconsistent ways to print. Fixes to get round a bug in 98 caused a new
    > bug in XP, and so on, and on... Example: Doze filenames contain
    > unavoidable blanks ("Documents and settings") so the name had to be
    > quoted. But quotes told the system the string was a comment. Leave out the
    > quotes, so it gets taken as a filename, and the blanks break it. Smart M$,
    > real smart! In the end I got something that worked for 98 and XP. As for
    > the rest, had to just wait for the NT folks to all upgrade.
    >
    > Is that the sort of thing you mean when you say "so damned easy"?


    Not exactly. I don't know you personally or professionally, so for me to
    assume that you didn't know what you were doing coding in "Doze" would
    simply be an assumption on my part.

    If you were coding in VB, you were definitely missing something. Printing
    in VB 2.0 - 6.0 is as easy as it gets.

    If you were not coding in VB....well, you completely lost the whole point of
    my post.

    > Oh, and you remind me of my backup script. Simple way to make it
    > recursive: execute it again from within itself. Linux: perfect operation,
    > fast and efficient. Doze: some versions only allow three nested
    > invocations, and the ones that allow more are over 15 times slower overall
    > because of molasses-like spawning of the recursive processes, making the
    > practical use of the script impossible. Is that what M$ 'learned years
    > ago'?


    No. MS learned how to take over the desktop.

    I never said VB coding was perfect. In fact, it was far from perfect. But,
    it was easy.

    And, much like a guy will put up with a lot of **** from an "Easy" chick, he
    will also put up with a lot of crap from an easy OS and/or programming
    language.

    Now, take your beak out of your ass and look at the actual history of
    Windows. Windows took off as VB took off. VB made Windows.

    Linux has no VB.

    Linux's VB must be EASY to learn and use. To hell with speed or even
    functionality at first. Sacrifice EVERYTHING for ease of use and correct
    the rest as soon as you can. You can make it faster, more powerful and
    whatever in later versions....make it easy to use NOW.

    Make it extensible. VB allowed 3rd parties to develop (and profit from)
    components that made VB easier and more powerful. Do that too.

    Make it profitable. VB apps could be sold. The source code could be kept
    secret and the people that did all of that hard work to produce the apps and
    third party components could also make a profit.

    People like food and heat and homes and cars. If they can get those things
    coding for Linux, they will. If they can't they will code for Microsoft
    OSs.

    Everyone has bills to pay. Help them pay their bills and they will help you
    pay yours.

    jim



  10. Re: IS IBM snubbing open Linux foir Mac's closed source?

    The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

    > OK, one more time, with feeling:
    >
    > LINUX DOES NOT SUPPORT PROGRAMMING!


    Yelling doesn't make bull**** golden.

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

  11. Re: IS IBM snubbing open Linux foir Mac's closed source?


    "Roy Schestowitz" wrote in message
    news:1310951.oi5Tnzg0Jt@schestowitz.com...
    > ____/ jim on Friday 18 April 2008 01:36 : \____
    >
    >> If so, this will be the death knell for Linux.
    >>
    >> http://www.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9920531-16.html?tag=bl
    >>
    >> You people should have listened to me and made Linux as easy to program
    >> for
    >> noobs as VB made it for Windows. Hell, Mac programming is easier than
    >> Linux
    >> programming and Macs are kicking Linux's ass as a result.
    >>
    >> The ONLY thing that will save Linux's dreams of desktop acceptance (much
    >> less domination) is adoption by the masses. The only thing that the
    >> masses
    >> will adopt is something that is EASY to mold into what they want it to
    >> be.
    >>
    >> No VB for Linux = no hope for the Linux desktop.
    >>
    >> I don't care whether you agree or even like it. This is the cold hard
    >> truth. Now, adapt or die.

    >
    > Huh?
    >
    > No, IBM is doing both platforms. Don't ever trust CNET, whose writers
    > mainly
    > use Macs.


    For now they are...but what if the end users say they like easy better than
    cheap (and they will - they always do)?

    As far as not trusting CNET....Ok....How about trusting the IBM documents
    themselves?

    http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/0...ating-to-macs/


    >
    > Lotus Notes 8.5 to fully support Ubuntu Linux 7.0 in mid-2008
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    > | "We're doing pilots with customers now," Satyadas said. "Some of the
    > requests
    > | came from big companies" with as many as 100,000 users that are
    > interested in
    > |
    > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > | moving to Ubuntu Linux on the desktop.
    > |
    > | [...]
    > |
    > | "Linux is cool now," he said. "We use it ourselves. We are able to offer
    > a
    > | secure, rich and cost-effective Microsoft alternative."
    > `----
    >
    > http://computerworld.com/action/arti...&intsrc=kc_top



    Welcome to the Lotus Notes 8.5 for Mac Beta program....

    http://www-10.lotus.com/ldd/notesmac...9?OpenDocument

    jim



  12. Re: IS IBM snubbing open Linux foir Mac's closed source?


    "RonB" wrote in message
    news:ZJTNj.52$vj3.45@newsfe07.lga...
    > jim wrote:
    >
    >> If so, this will be the death knell for Linux.

    >
    > Has absolutely *nothing* to do with IBM's Linux markets. It would be
    > replacing IBM's office PCs, currently running Windows, with Mac computers.
    >
    > Get a grip.


    Get your beak out of the snow and learn something about how this affects how
    Linux is viewed.

    People get spooked when (if) companies like RedHat and IBM opt NOT to put
    Linux on the desktop. This affects how many people are willing to test or
    try Linux as an OS alternative to Windows.

    If you can't see this, please don't waste our time here.

    jim



  13. Re: IS IBM snubbing open Linux foir Mac's closed source?

    On 2008-04-18, Ron House wrote:
    > jim wrote:
    >> If so, this will be the death knell for Linux.
    >>
    >> http://www.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9920531-16.html?tag=bl
    >>
    >> You people should have listened to me and made Linux as easy to program for
    >> noobs as VB made it for Windows.
    > >...
    >> No VB for Linux = no hope for the Linux desktop.

    >
    > Gosh that must be why M$ is discontinuing VB in Office!!! No hope for
    > the Windoze desktop.
    >


    No it's not. Only on the Mac. And that isn't VB, it's VB Script. A
    similar - but not quite the same scripting language


    --
    Tom Shelton

  14. Re: IS IBM snubbing open Linux foir Mac's closed source?

    Ron House wrote:

    > Gosh that must be why M$ is discontinuing VB in Office!!!


    Did an imaginary penguin whisper that bad info in your ear?



    > Twerp.


    luser.



  15. Re: IS IBM snubbing open Linux foir Mac's closed source?

    jim wrote:

    > Get your beak out of the snow and learn something about how this affects
    > how Linux is viewed.
    >
    > People get spooked when (if) companies like RedHat and IBM opt NOT to put
    > Linux on the desktop. *This affects how many people are willing to test or
    > try Linux as an OS alternative to Windows.
    >
    > If you can't see this, please don't waste our time here.


    What I know is that Linux was growing before IBM got involved, and it will
    continue to grow if they ever got out of Linux. That's the whole point of
    Linux -- it's not dependent on any one monopoly wannabe.

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

  16. Re: IS IBM snubbing open Linux foir Mac's closed source?


    "RonB" wrote in message
    news:XAUNj.65$vj3.31@newsfe07.lga...
    > jim wrote:
    >
    >> Get your beak out of the snow and learn something about how this affects
    >> how Linux is viewed.
    >>
    >> People get spooked when (if) companies like RedHat and IBM opt NOT to put
    >> Linux on the desktop. This affects how many people are willing to test or
    >> try Linux as an OS alternative to Windows.
    >>
    >> If you can't see this, please don't waste our time here.

    >
    > What I know is that Linux was growing before IBM got involved, and it will
    > continue to grow if they ever got out of Linux. That's the whole point of
    > Linux -- it's not dependent on any one monopoly wannabe.


    Growing?

    Where the hell is the growth? Other than stories posted here, what third
    party can attest to the adoption of Linux on the desktop in any substantial
    numbers?

    From March-2003 to March-2008 Firefox went from 4.2% market share to 37%
    market share. In that same time period, Linux went from 2.2% to 3.9%.

    That's 0.3% growth per year VS Firefox's 6.5% annual growth.

    Something is very wrong with the way Linux is being marketed to the masses.
    Something free (if it is useful) should not be adopted so damned slowly.

    As K's Choice puts it.........

    "Something's wrong...
    Something's wrong...
    Something's wrong...
    Something's wrong..."

    jim




  17. Re: IS IBM snubbing open Linux foir Mac's closed source?

    jim wrote:

    > Where the hell is the growth? *Other than stories posted here, what third
    > party can attest to the adoption of Linux on the desktop in any
    > substantial numbers?


    Did I say anything about "desktop." Read with comprehension, than go on to
    one of your rants.

    Could Linux's relatively small desktop presence have something to do with
    the fact that Micro$haft has a monopoly on OEM OSs?

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

  18. Re: IS IBM snubbing open Linux foir Mac's closed source?

    RonB wrote:
    > jim wrote:
    >
    >> If so, this will be the death knell for Linux.

    >
    > Has absolutely *nothing* to do with IBM's Linux markets. It
    > would be replacing IBM's office PCs, currently running
    > Windows, with Mac computers.
    >
    > Get a grip.


    It's another Wintroll. IBM embraced Linux by replacing a goodly
    portion of Windows computers already with Linux in its offices.
    I put little faith in the truthfulness of the article.

    --
    HPT

  19. Re: IS IBM snubbing open Linux foir Mac's closed source?


    "Ron House" wrote in message
    news:4808011F.2060409@smartchat.net.au...
    > jim wrote:
    >
    >> No. What I am thinking here is that people dont buy OS's because they
    >> "want" an OS. They buy an OS because they want to run the software that
    >> runs on it. Software sells operating systems. Microsoft learned this
    >> years ago. Linux still hasn't caught on.
    >>
    >> That being said, you have to make it so damned easy to write software
    >> for your OS that any idiot can do it AND PROFIT FROM DOING SO. When you
    >> do, the idiots will come and they will code.

    >
    > I wrote an app some years ago. Developed in Linux. Worked to perfection.
    > Came time for the Doze version. Dear oh dear!
    >


    > Simple matter like printing the report. '98, NT, and XP all had mutually
    > inconsistent ways to print.


    Nonsense. All versions of Windows from 3.1 have basically the exact same
    printing system. It's nearly identical to drawing on the screen except that
    you have to worry about pagination.


    > Fixes to get round a bug in 98 caused a new bug in XP, and so on, and
    > on... Example: Doze filenames contain unavoidable blanks ("Documents and
    > settings") so the name had to be quoted. But quotes told the system the
    > string was a comment.


    Nonsense and bull****. Do show any place in Windows where "quotes" are
    treated as comments.

    > Leave out the quotes, so it gets taken as a filename, and the blanks
    > break it.


    That's why you need to "quote" long filenames. No way does the OS treat a
    quote as a comment.


    > Smart M$, real smart!


    Bull****. Simply bull****.



    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  20. Re: IS IBM snubbing open Linux foir Mac's closed source?


    "RonB" wrote in message
    news:ZJTNj.52$vj3.45@newsfe07.lga...
    > jim wrote:
    >
    >> If so, this will be the death knell for Linux.

    >
    > Has absolutely *nothing* to do with IBM's Linux markets. It would be
    > replacing IBM's office PCs, currently running Windows, with Mac
    > computers.


    Which is even more damning. IBM still sells PC hardware but they'd rather
    buy hardware and software from another vendor than use their own stuff with
    linux.

    > Get a grip.


    Get a grip on reality. Even the biggest corporate sponsor of linux would
    rather use Windows or OSX.


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



    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

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