Where is Linux???? - Linux

This is a discussion on Where is Linux???? - Linux ; Let us forget embeded systems and servers for a moment, and let us talk about desktops. For as long as I can remember, every year the advocate zealots have been pontificating that Linux is definately on the verge of taking ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Where is Linux????

  1. Where is Linux????

    Let us forget embeded systems and servers for a moment, and let us talk
    about desktops. For as long as I can remember, every year the advocate
    zealots have been pontificating that Linux is definately on the verge of
    taking over the desktop, whether it be the corporate or home user. And
    every year, it has totally failed to materialize, and has proved to be
    100 percent false. How many REAL people use Linux as a desktop
    operating system. I can tell you, almost no one. The people I know who
    have tried linux complain that is difficult to install, hardware is not
    detected properly or not supported at all and that software is often
    clunky and unstable. Is it any wonder people stick with Windows. It
    certainly has many problems, but its simple to maintain, simple to find
    drivers, simple to configure, simple to stay productive etc etc etc. In
    fact its EVERYTHING Linux is incapable of.

    3 very important facts are indisputable, all of which are a nail in the
    coffin:-

    1. A very good percentage of Linux software is beta version, often
    unstable, likely to crash. ie, NOT PRODUCTIVE.

    2. Linux hardware support is still pathetic. Often requires compiling or
    patching the kernel. USB PnP is hit and miss.

    3. Config files are numerous and over complicated. Different versions of
    linux locate config files in different locations. No consistancy.


    If linux has any use,then its in the server room, and off the
    desktop.Even then, and good BSD variant would be safer and more secure.

    The truth can sometimes hurt, but it needs to be said.

  2. Re: Where is Linux???? Filling the void, troll retard!

    *plonk*

    Stupid child-raping troll.

  3. Re: Where is Linux????

    ____/ Truth Hurtz on Friday 13 June 2008 01:21 : \____

    > zealots


    *plonk*

  4. Re: Where is Linux????

    On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:16:59 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > ____/ Truth Hurtz on Friday 13 June 2008 01:21 : \____
    >
    >> zealots

    >
    > *plonk*


    Your Ref header shows bt.com. The "kustomkomputer" troll nymshifted again?

    --
    "Must be worried about
    its shrinking business"


  5. Re: Where is Linux????

    * Truth Hurtz peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Let us forget embeded systems and servers for a moment, and let us talk
    > about desktops. For as long as I can remember, every year the advocate
    > zealots have been pontificating that Linux is definately on the verge of
    > taking over the desktop, whether it be the corporate or home user. And
    > every year, it has totally failed to materialize, and has proved to be
    > 100 percent false. How many REAL people use Linux as a desktop
    > operating system. I can tell you, almost no one. The people I know who
    > have tried linux complain that is difficult to install, hardware is not
    > detected properly or not supported at all and that software is often
    > clunky and unstable. Is it any wonder people stick with Windows. It
    > certainly has many problems, but its simple to maintain, simple to find
    > drivers, simple to configure, simple to stay productive etc etc etc. In
    > fact its EVERYTHING Linux is incapable of.


    Bull****.

    > 3 very important facts are indisputable, all of which are a nail in the
    > coffin:-
    >
    > 1. A very good percentage of Linux software is beta version, often
    > unstable, likely to crash. ie, NOT PRODUCTIVE.


    Bull****.

    > 2. Linux hardware support is still pathetic. Often requires compiling or
    > patching the kernel. USB PnP is hit and miss.


    Bull****.

    > 3. Config files are numerous and over complicated. Different versions of
    > linux locate config files in different locations. No consistancy.


    And handled in many cases by GUIs.

    > If linux has any use,then its in the server room, and off the
    > desktop.Even then, and good BSD variant would be safer and more secure.


    By a small amount.

    > The truth can sometimes hurt, but it needs to be said.


    Whatever, dude.

    You make a couple of reasonable points, but overall your post is
    bull****.

    My wife doesn't use Linux (or even OpenOffice) because she needs her
    system to be totally compatible with work, and in her mind that rules
    out anything but Windows. (She actually runs only one app that requires
    Windows, a niche scientific plotting program that, as far as I can tell,
    is no longer maintained.)

    My daughter doesn't use Linux because the law school "supports" only
    Windows, and, though my daughter will download malware (less so than
    before, since we've harped on it a lot) with confidence, she is deathly
    afraid of doing something "wrong". In fact, for a long time she was
    afraid to connect to our wireless router because she thought it would
    screw up her setup for her university wireless.

    As to why they won't listen to my explanations about things computing,
    well, that's a family-dynamics problem, partly rooted in the
    extraordinary stubborness of every member of our family.

    As for you, I don't know what the excuse is for your ignorance about the
    capabilities and stability of Linux.

    --
    Life is not fair; get used to it.
    -- Bill Gates

  6. Re: Where is Linux????

    Truth Hurtz wrote:

    >(snip lies)
    >
    >The truth can sometimes hurt, but it needs to be said


    OK, you should really consider growing-up and seeking healthier, more
    productive entertainment than being a ridiculous lying troll on
    usenet.

    There, I said it.

    *plonk*


  7. Re: Where is Linux????

    On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 01:21:34 +0100, Truth Hurtz wrote:

    > Let us forget embeded systems and servers for a moment, and let us talk
    > about desktops.


    Not a good idea in COLA because the Linux loons hate talking Linux desktop
    due to it's miserable market share despite being free.


    > For as long as I can remember, every year the advocate
    > zealots have been pontificating that Linux is definately on the verge of
    > taking over the desktop, whether it be the corporate or home user. And
    > every year, it has totally failed to materialize, and has proved to be
    > 100 percent false.


    Completely true.
    They have been claiming "this is the year of the Linux desktop" just about
    every single year since the mid 90s,

    You are correct, it hasn't materialized.

    Despite Microsoft screwing up over and over again, Linux STILL has not been
    able to even put a scratch on the surface of Microsoft's total dominence of
    the desktop market.

    With the release of Vista, people upset with Microsoft are moving to Apple
    and the Mac.
    They are NOT moving to free Linux.


    > How many REAL people use Linux as a desktop
    > operating system. I can tell you, almost no one. The people I know who
    > have tried linux complain that is difficult to install, hardware is not
    > detected properly or not supported at all and that software is often
    > clunky and unstable.


    Exactly, but in all fairness most people have pre-installed Windows so the
    install part is a little unfair.
    With FULLY SUPPORTED HARDWARE, the top tier Linux distributions are easier
    and faster to install than Windows is when considering applications and
    maybe a stray driver not included in the pre load because the hardware was
    purchased later.

    For upgrading,ie:adding hardware later, Windows is still so much easier.
    Especially for wireless nics and audio devices like control surfaces and
    MIDI input devices for which Linux has little or no support.




    > Is it any wonder people stick with Windows. It
    > certainly has many problems, but its simple to maintain, simple to find
    > drivers, simple to configure, simple to stay productive etc etc etc. In
    > fact its EVERYTHING Linux is incapable of.


    The need to run antivirus programs is a PITA for the average Joe but a good
    one can be had for free and once set up it pretty much works well.
    Savvy users have no need for this.

    Linux, if it ever makes inroads to the consumer desktop is going to be a
    target and it will be interesting to see how the community copes with this.

    Most compromises are due to user ignorance and switching to Linux isn't
    going to change that.


    > 3 very important facts are indisputable, all of which are a nail in the
    > coffin:-
    >
    > 1. A very good percentage of Linux software is beta version, often
    > unstable, likely to crash. ie, NOT PRODUCTIVE.


    Amarok is one of the worst.

    > 2. Linux hardware support is still pathetic. Often requires compiling or
    > patching the kernel. USB PnP is hit and miss.


    Kernel patch required for some very popular onboard RAID devices VIA for
    example as most distributions aren't set up default for support.


    > 3. Config files are numerous and over complicated. Different versions of
    > linux locate config files in different locations. No consistancy.


    Multiple config programs just confuse things.
    I've seen users constantly opening up the distribution configuration panel
    when what they really wanted to do was open the kde configuration program.

    It's confusing.

    Then you have things like SWAT and other browser based programs which
    confuses things even more.

    Who remembers the url to enter for these various programs?

    Geeks do.
    Common users don't.

    >
    > If linux has any use,then its in the server room, and off the
    > desktop.Even then, and good BSD variant would be safer and more secure.


    BSD is certainly more secure and it seems to be developed by a professional
    group of programmers who are organized and focused.

    Unlike Linux which is a fragmented mess of bouillabaisse where everyone is
    throwing something into the pot and ultimately the entire meal boils over
    and is totally ruined.

    > The truth can sometimes hurt, but it needs to be said.


    I see the denial already.

    These people don't want to hear the truth and obviously they have no
    intention of repairing Linux so it can compete.

    Some are out for personal and financial gain and they just use this and
    other groups like this as their morphine and playground.
    Others are freedom zealots who are wacky beyond normal comprehension.

    The one thing they all seem to have in common is that they won't accept the
    truth and the truth is, Linux on the desktop is pretty much on life
    support.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  8. Re: Where is Linux????

    On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:16:59 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > ____/ Truth Hurtz on Friday 13 June 2008 01:21 : \____
    >
    >> zealots

    >
    > *plonk*


    That's a perfect description of you Roy Schestowitz.
    The truth does hurt doesn't it?

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  9. Re: Where is Linux????

    On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:27:31 -0400, Linonut wrote:


    > My wife doesn't use Linux (or even OpenOffice) because she needs her
    > system to be totally compatible with work, and in her mind that rules
    > out anything but Windows. (She actually runs only one app that requires
    > Windows, a niche scientific plotting program that, as far as I can tell,
    > is no longer maintained.)


    You just proved his point.
    Add millions more people who are like your wife to that statement.


    > My daughter doesn't use Linux because the law school "supports" only
    > Windows, and, though my daughter will download malware (less so than
    > before, since we've harped on it a lot) with confidence, she is deathly
    > afraid of doing something "wrong". In fact, for a long time she was
    > afraid to connect to our wireless router because she thought it would
    > screw up her setup for her university wireless.


    Daughter in Law School you say.....
    Interesting.
    Very interesting.


    > As to why they won't listen to my explanations about things computing,
    > well, that's a family-dynamics problem, partly rooted in the
    > extraordinary stubborness of every member of our family.


    No it's not.
    It's the pure fact that Linux can't do what Windows can do and that is a
    primary reason why people don't use Linux.

    You are doing a great job of proving his points BTW.



    > As for you, I don't know what the excuse is for your ignorance about the
    > capabilities and stability of Linux.


    See the posts by DFS for stability and Linux's lack of it.

    As for the capabilities of Linux, you've just demonstrated with your family
    example why others don't use Linux.

    Welcome to the real world.

    While idiots like Willy Poaster sit behind leafnode playing with filters,
    people in real life need to go to school, work, entertain themselves, run
    business's and so forth and Linux just can't do the things that most people
    need to do.

    You guys should realize that a 0.6 percent of the desktop market, despite
    being free, something is seriously wrong with Linux.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  10. Re: Where is Linux????

    chrisv wrote:
    > Truth Hurtz wrote:
    >
    >> (snip lies)
    >>
    >> The truth can sometimes hurt, but it needs to be said

    >
    > OK, you should really consider growing-up and seeking healthier, more
    > productive entertainment than being a ridiculous lying troll on
    > usenet.
    >
    > There, I said it.
    >
    > *plonk*
    >


    Who cares! you are irrelevant!

  11. Re: Where is Linux????

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Truth Hurtz had the audacity to say that:

    > Let us forget embeded systems and servers for a moment, and let us talk
    > about desktops. For as long as I can remember, every year the advocate
    > zealots have been pontificating that Linux is definately on the verge of
    > taking over the desktop, whether it be the corporate or home user. And
    > every year, it has totally failed to materialize, and has proved to be
    > 100 percent false. How many REAL people use Linux as a desktop
    > operating system. I can tell you, almost no one. The people I know who
    > have tried linux complain that is difficult to install, hardware is not
    > detected properly or not supported at all and that software is often
    > clunky and unstable. Is it any wonder people stick with Windows. It
    > certainly has many problems, but its simple to maintain, simple to find
    > drivers, simple to configure, simple to stay productive etc etc etc. In
    > fact its EVERYTHING Linux is incapable of.
    >
    > 3 very important facts are indisputable, all of which are a nail in the
    > coffin:-
    >
    > 1. A very good percentage of Linux software is beta version, often
    > unstable, likely to crash. ie, NOT PRODUCTIVE.
    >
    > 2. Linux hardware support is still pathetic. Often requires compiling or
    > patching the kernel. USB PnP is hit and miss.
    >
    > 3. Config files are numerous and over complicated. Different versions of
    > linux locate config files in different locations. No consistancy.
    >
    >
    > If linux has any use,then its in the server room, and off the
    > desktop.Even then, and good BSD variant would be safer and more secure.
    >
    > The truth can sometimes hurt, but it needs to be said.


    The productivity factor is much higher in Linux. Once you get over that
    rather steep learning curve, the ability to do work without futzing over
    the OS is much higher with Linux, primarily due to the CLI.

    Also, Linux in all the time I've used it has been impervious to virii,
    spyware and assorted baddies. I don't use a firewall, virus checker or
    spyware program, and I have never encountered anything approaching the
    constant takeovers I experience when running Windows *with* all that added
    stuff!

    I'm not saying this because I'm a fan of Linux, I'm saying it because it is
    the truth, and I wouldn't switch to Windows if you paid me $5000.00. It's
    just not worth the hassle, IMO.

    *R* *H*
    --
    "For me, prayer is a surge of the heart; it is a simple look turned toward
    heaven, it is a cry of recognition and of love, embracing both trial and
    joy." - Saint Therese of Lisieux

  12. Re: Where is Linux????

    Rockinghorse Winner wrote:

    > I have never encountered anything approaching
    > the constant takeovers I experience when running Windows


    Before I prove this is a dumbass lie, clarify exactly what a "constant
    takeover" is.



    > I'm not saying this because I'm a fan of Linux,


    You're saying it because you know other Linux liars won't challenge the
    stupid lie.



    > I'm saying it because it is the truth,


    It's a big smelly lie.



    > and I wouldn't switch to Windows if you paid me
    > $5000.00.


    That's all? You sellout very cheaply.



    > It's just not worth the hassle, IMO.


    It's a good bit easier today than it was just a few years ago, but compared
    to Windows or Mac, Linux is still the OS with the hassles. You know it
    ("Once you get over that rather steep learning curve..."), I know it, and
    everyone who uses Linux knows it.




  13. Re: Where is Linux????

    On 15 Jun 2008 22:35:14 GMT, Rockinghorse Winner wrote:

    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Truth Hurtz had the audacity to say that:
    >
    >> Let us forget embeded systems and servers for a moment, and let us talk
    >> about desktops. For as long as I can remember, every year the advocate
    >> zealots have been pontificating that Linux is definately on the verge of
    >> taking over the desktop, whether it be the corporate or home user. And
    >> every year, it has totally failed to materialize, and has proved to be
    >> 100 percent false. How many REAL people use Linux as a desktop
    >> operating system. I can tell you, almost no one. The people I know who
    >> have tried linux complain that is difficult to install, hardware is not
    >> detected properly or not supported at all and that software is often
    >> clunky and unstable. Is it any wonder people stick with Windows. It
    >> certainly has many problems, but its simple to maintain, simple to find
    >> drivers, simple to configure, simple to stay productive etc etc etc. In
    >> fact its EVERYTHING Linux is incapable of.
    >>
    >> 3 very important facts are indisputable, all of which are a nail in the
    >> coffin:-
    >>
    >> 1. A very good percentage of Linux software is beta version, often
    >> unstable, likely to crash. ie, NOT PRODUCTIVE.
    >>
    >> 2. Linux hardware support is still pathetic. Often requires compiling or
    >> patching the kernel. USB PnP is hit and miss.
    >>
    >> 3. Config files are numerous and over complicated. Different versions of
    >> linux locate config files in different locations. No consistancy.
    >>
    >>
    >> If linux has any use,then its in the server room, and off the
    >> desktop.Even then, and good BSD variant would be safer and more secure.
    >>
    >> The truth can sometimes hurt, but it needs to be said.

    >
    > The productivity factor is much higher in Linux. Once you get over that
    > rather steep learning curve, the ability to do work without futzing over
    > the OS is much higher with Linux, primarily due to the CLI.


    Not when you need Dreamweaver, or AutoCad, or Protools, or the latest
    version of Phostoshop or....... "fill in the blank"

    With Linux ALL you DO is futz over the OS trying to make things work.

    Syncing common PDA's and Cell phones is a perfect example.

    > Also, Linux in all the time I've used it has been impervious to virii,
    > spyware and assorted baddies. I don't use a firewall, virus checker or
    > spyware program, and I have never encountered anything approaching the
    > constant takeovers I experience when running Windows *with* all that added
    > stuff!


    Better talk to Roy Schestowitz about that one.

    > I'm not saying this because I'm a fan of Linux, I'm saying it because it is
    > the truth, and I wouldn't switch to Windows if you paid me $5000.00. It's
    > just not worth the hassle, IMO.


    But it's not the truth, which is probably why you are saying it.


    > *R* *H*



    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  14. Re: Where is Linux????

    On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 19:13:04 -0400, DFS wrote:

    > Rockinghorse Winner wrote:
    >
    >> I have never encountered anything approaching
    >> the constant takeovers I experience when running Windows

    >
    > Before I prove this is a dumbass lie, clarify exactly what a "constant
    > takeover" is.
    >
    >
    >
    >> I'm not saying this because I'm a fan of Linux,

    >
    > You're saying it because you know other Linux liars won't challenge the
    > stupid lie.
    >
    >
    >
    >> I'm saying it because it is the truth,

    >
    > It's a big smelly lie.
    >
    >
    >
    >> and I wouldn't switch to Windows if you paid me
    >> $5000.00.

    >
    > That's all? You sellout very cheaply.
    >
    >
    >
    >> It's just not worth the hassle, IMO.

    >
    > It's a good bit easier today than it was just a few years ago, but compared
    > to Windows or Mac, Linux is still the OS with the hassles. You know it
    > ("Once you get over that rather steep learning curve..."), I know it, and
    > everyone who uses Linux knows it.


    I suspect we may have located someone who is more ignorant than HPT.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  15. Re: Where is Linux????

    Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    > On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 19:13:04 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >
    >> Rockinghorse Winner wrote:


    > I suspect we may have located someone who is more ignorant than HPT.


    cola attracts some doozies, doesn't it?




  16. Re: Where is Linux????

    On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:32:20 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

    > On 15 Jun 2008 22:35:14 GMT, Rockinghorse Winner wrote:
    >
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Truth Hurtz had the audacity to say that:
    >>
    >>> Let us forget embeded systems and servers for a moment, and let us
    >>> talk about desktops. For as long as I can remember, every year the
    >>> advocate zealots have been pontificating that Linux is definately on
    >>> the verge of taking over the desktop, whether it be the corporate or
    >>> home user. And every year, it has totally failed to materialize, and
    >>> has proved to be 100 percent false. How many REAL people use Linux as
    >>> a desktop operating system. I can tell you, almost no one. The people
    >>> I know who have tried linux complain that is difficult to install,
    >>> hardware is not detected properly or not supported at all and that
    >>> software is often clunky and unstable. Is it any wonder people stick
    >>> with Windows. It certainly has many problems, but its simple to
    >>> maintain, simple to find drivers, simple to configure, simple to stay
    >>> productive etc etc etc. In fact its EVERYTHING Linux is incapable of.
    >>>
    >>> 3 very important facts are indisputable, all of which are a nail in
    >>> the coffin:-
    >>>
    >>> 1. A very good percentage of Linux software is beta version, often
    >>> unstable, likely to crash. ie, NOT PRODUCTIVE.
    >>>
    >>> 2. Linux hardware support is still pathetic. Often requires compiling
    >>> or patching the kernel. USB PnP is hit and miss.
    >>>
    >>> 3. Config files are numerous and over complicated. Different versions
    >>> of linux locate config files in different locations. No consistancy.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> If linux has any use,then its in the server room, and off the
    >>> desktop.Even then, and good BSD variant would be safer and more
    >>> secure.
    >>>
    >>> The truth can sometimes hurt, but it needs to be said.

    >>
    >> The productivity factor is much higher in Linux. Once you get over
    >> that rather steep learning curve, the ability to do work without
    >> futzing over the OS is much higher with Linux, primarily due to the
    >> CLI.

    >
    > Not when you need Dreamweaver, or AutoCad, or Protools, or the latest
    > version of Phostoshop or....... "fill in the blank"


    If you specifically need something that doesn't run under Linux, then
    maybe a LInux system isn't for you. DUH.
    >
    > With Linux ALL you DO is futz over the OS trying to make things work.


    Maybe with a LInux system, all YOU do is futz trying to make things work.

    >
    > Syncing common PDA's and Cell phones is a perfect example.


    Syncing Palms is quite easy. I don't know about cell phones, I haven't
    tried to sync any of mine, yet.

    >
    >> Also, Linux in all the time I've used it has been impervious to virii,
    >> spyware and assorted baddies. I don't use a firewall, virus checker or
    >> spyware program, and I have never encountered anything approaching the
    >> constant takeovers I experience when running Windows *with* all that
    >> added stuff!

    >
    > Better talk to Roy Schestowitz about that one.
    >
    >> I'm not saying this because I'm a fan of Linux, I'm saying it because
    >> it is the truth, and I wouldn't switch to Windows if you paid me
    >> $5000.00. It's just not worth the hassle, IMO.

    >
    > But it's not the truth, which is probably why you are saying it.
    >

    Well, if you paid me %5000 I might switch to Windows. For a very, very
    short time. I could get by with Thunderbird, Firefox and OpenOffice on
    Windows for a few minutes.

    --
    Rick

+ Reply to Thread