Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user - Linux

This is a discussion on Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user - Linux ; "Rick" stated in post wJKdnZbWCsMecAHVnZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@supernews.com on 8/8/08 6:06 PM: > On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:30:24 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> "Rick" stated in post >> wJKdnZ_WCsPzfAHVnZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@supernews.com on 8/8/08 5:14 PM: >> >>> The charter of comp.os.linux.advocacy is: >>> >>> ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 126

Thread: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

  1. Re: Why Vista won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    "Rick" stated in post
    wJKdnZbWCsMecAHVnZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@supernews.com on 8/8/08 6:06 PM:

    > On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:30:24 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Rick" stated in post
    >> wJKdnZ_WCsPzfAHVnZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@supernews.com on 8/8/08 5:14 PM:
    >>
    >>> The charter of comp.os.linux.advocacy is:
    >>>
    >>> For discussion of the benefits of Linux compared to other
    >>> operating systems.

    >>
    >> And yet you call me all sorts of names, fabricate stories about my
    >> views, etc. I wish you were better able to stay on topic.
    >>
    >> The place where one could complain about my going off topic, if one were
    >> pedantic, is that I often talk not just about benefits Linux has but
    >> places where Linux could improve and *become* better than the
    >> alternatives in those areas.
    >>
    >> Then again, you have often whined about others being "topic police" when
    >> you go off topic.

    >
    >
    > ... For discussion of the BENEFITS OF LINUX compared to other operating
    >
    > system, not for pushing other operating systems.
    >

    Right. OK.


    --
    "If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson




  2. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:44:01 +0200, Hans wrote:

    > http://www.whylinuxsucks.org/why-lin...ucceed-a-view-

    experienced-user
    > The fundamental issue with Linux seems to be the developers and the
    > hackers who write the programs. Quite simply, they hold a rather
    > schizophrenic view of Linux. They see Linux as an opportunity to play,
    > develop, which is fine, but also want Linux to become dominant, or at
    > least far more prevalent. Most computer users do NOT want a 'developers
    > OS', they want an OS which does what THEY want.
    > 1) Developers don't listen or understand what ordinary users want.


    nonsense

    > 2)> There are too many software projects which duplicate effort.


    Right....we know that in Windows, there is only a single app for any
    function.....

    What an asinine attempt at a put down.

    3)> Hackers/Zealots have screwed priorities.

    This has what to do with Linux?

    4) Linux doesn't really run on
    > old hardware.


    Wow! You really are ignorant. It certainly runs better then Vista or XP
    on old hardware

    5) Hackers/Zealots have unrealistic expectations from
    > users.


    What does this have to do with Linux


  3. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    bob wrote:

    >On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:44:01 +0200, Hans wrote:
    >>
    >> 2)> There are too many software projects which duplicate effort.

    >
    >Right....we know that in Windows, there is only a single app for any
    >function.....
    >
    >What an asinine attempt at a put down.


    What these wintards have trouble understanding is that *far* more
    effort is "wasted" in the closed-source world. The OSS model is *far*
    more efficient, allowing people to build-upon the work of others,
    instead of re-inventing the wheel all the time.


  4. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 22:40:16 -0500, chrisv wrote:

    > bob wrote:
    >
    >>On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:44:01 +0200, Hans wrote:
    >>>
    >>> 2)> There are too many software projects which duplicate effort.

    >>
    >>Right....we know that in Windows, there is only a single app for any
    >>function.....
    >>
    >>What an asinine attempt at a put down.

    >
    > What these wintards have trouble understanding is that *far* more
    > effort is "wasted" in the closed-source world. The OSS model is *far*
    > more efficient, allowing people to build-upon the work of others,
    > instead of re-inventing the wheel all the time.


    You're kidding right?
    Linux has 15 different sound systems, none of which actually fully work.
    Windows has one (two if you consider professional sound ASIO vs WDM)
    Linux has how many windowing environments?
    Maybe 20?
    Why?
    Windows has one and maybe a couple of add ons like Stardock.
    Linux has how many package mangers?
    Maybe 5 ?
    Why?
    Windows has Windows update and the manufacturers have FTP etc....
    Linux has how many file systems?
    Maybe 10 or more?
    Why?

    and so forth.....

    It's LINUX that keeps re-inventing the wheel, only in the Linux world the
    wheel turns out square, every single time.

    You guys really need to pool your resources.

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

  5. Re: Why Linux is Succeeding - A view from an experienced user

    Sinister Midget wrote:
    > On 2008-08-08, chrisv claimed:
    >
    >> Hell, I was just reading the Ubuntu requirements - something like a
    >> 1GHz CPU with 256M RAM. That's *ancient*. Hell, the 5-year-old PC
    >> my daughter uses is a 3GHz P4 with a GB of RAM - obviously quite
    >> sufficient to run any OS out there (except Visduh, of course).


    You're a liar, of course.



    > I ran Clarkconnect, 3.0 or thereabouts, on a Pentium laptop, P-133,
    > 48M. It handled usenet. I ran the same thing on another identical
    > laptop. It did mail.
    >
    > Both could have handled more. Not the full-fledged deal, but I could
    > have easily put both mail and news on one machine, then used the other
    > for proxying, if I hadn't already set up another machine to handle
    > that part of things.
    >
    > At one time I ran an early Mepis (circa 1999/2000, running KDE as a
    > desktop) on one of those beasts. It wasn't pretty, but it worked.
    > Puppy was much more capable. Even a Puppy from today would run on one
    > of those.
    >
    > NT 4.0 was too crippled to run on anything that lowly unless you
    > were/are willing to put up with the disk thrashing constantly. And
    > that garbage is more than 10 years old already, not far from the age
    > of the machine. In fact, about the last Windross that wouldn't drag a
    > machine with those specs to a grinding halt was 98. That was only
    > slightly less crappy than 95.


    Here the Gidget hypocrite talks from the left side of his mouth about
    Windows from 13 years ago, but continues to lie out of the right side of his
    mouth that I'm the one that does it.

    You're a lying luser, Gidget.





  6. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    AZ Nomad wrote:

    > Fortunately, the software on my linux box kept working perfectly.


    That's a joke, right? hahahaha!!!



    > There are tons of people with hardware less than a year old who were
    > ****ed over by microsoft's vista. Buy a new computer, ain't that
    > lovely. Then
    > you discover that your shiny new all-in-one fax/copier/printer won't
    > work etc.


    Wait 'till they try Linux.

    Besides which, whoever promised Vista would run their older hardware?
    Nobody, that's who.

    So what's your point?




  7. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

    > On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 22:40:16 -0500, chrisv wrote:
    >
    >> What these wintards have trouble understanding is that *far* more
    >> effort is "wasted" in the closed-source world. The OSS model is
    >> *far* more efficient, allowing people to build-upon the work of
    >> others, instead of re-inventing the wheel all the time.


    Is that right? Then why does OpenOffice Base suck so bad, year after year?
    In 2008 it's not even close to the level of functionality and feature that
    MS Access had in 1995.



    > You're kidding right?
    > Linux has 15 different sound systems, none of which actually fully
    > work. Windows has one (two if you consider professional sound ASIO vs
    > WDM) Linux has how many windowing environments?
    > Maybe 20?
    > Why?
    > Windows has one and maybe a couple of add ons like Stardock.
    > Linux has how many package mangers?
    > Maybe 5 ?
    > Why?
    > Windows has Windows update and the manufacturers have FTP etc....
    > Linux has how many file systems?
    > Maybe 10 or more?
    > Why?
    >
    > and so forth.....
    >
    > It's LINUX that keeps re-inventing the wheel, only in the Linux world
    > the wheel turns out square, every single time.
    >
    > You guys really need to pool your resources.


    Their resources and $2.75 will get them a cup of coffee...



  8. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    AZ Nomad wrote:
    > On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 05:58:10 -0700 (PDT), Llanzlan Klazmon
    > wrote:
    >> On Aug 9, 12:44 am, "Hans" wrote:

    >
    >>> 4) Linux doesn't really run on old hardware.

    >
    >> Okay I'd better install Vista on my 256Mb PII. Does that make you
    >> feel better?

    >
    > That was a hilarious statement considering how much hardware won't
    > work for
    > vista, how much hardware from the win9x days won't work for win2K/XP,
    > and how
    > much hardware from the dos/win31 days won't work with win95 while all
    > that
    > hardware all works perfectly with linux, hardware going back twenty
    > years!


    The OS that nobody wants runs well on the hardware that nobody wants.

    Last time I tried to boot Knoppix on my old P-166 system, it refused to.
    Win98 ran well, though.




  9. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 22:40:16 -0500, chrisv wrote:

    >>> 2)> There are too many software projects which duplicate effort.

    [...]
    > What these wintards have trouble understanding is that *far* more effort
    > is "wasted" in the closed-source world. The OSS model is *far* more
    > efficient, allowing people to build-upon the work of others, instead of
    > re-inventing the wheel all the time.



    There is duplication in FOSS, though

    While choice is good, binary package management comes to mind as
    something which needs to get straightened out.


    -Thufir


  10. Re: Why Vista won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:31:49 -0700, Snit wrote:


    > The fact that OS X is growing and Linux isn't, tells you that OS X is
    > offering things that Linux is not.
    > - Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)



    It doesn't matter who said that, there's no causal link. The "why" of
    linux's low desktop growth is a complex topic.


    -Thufir

  11. Re: Why Vista won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    In article ,
    thufir wrote:
    > > The fact that OS X is growing and Linux isn't, tells you that OS X is
    > > offering things that Linux is not.
    > > - Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)

    >
    >
    > It doesn't matter who said that, there's no causal link. The "why" of
    > linux's low desktop growth is a complex topic.


    I don't see Shuttleworth implying a causal link there.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  12. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    Moshe Goldfarb. schreef:
    > On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 22:40:16 -0500, chrisv wrote:
    >
    >> bob wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:44:01 +0200, Hans wrote:
    >>>> 2)> There are too many software projects which duplicate effort.
    >>> Right....we know that in Windows, there is only a single app for any
    >>> function.....
    >>>
    >>> What an asinine attempt at a put down.

    >> What these wintards have trouble understanding is that *far* more
    >> effort is "wasted" in the closed-source world. The OSS model is *far*
    >> more efficient, allowing people to build-upon the work of others,
    >> instead of re-inventing the wheel all the time.

    >
    > You're kidding right?
    > Linux has 15 different sound systems, none of which actually fully work.
    > Windows has one (two if you consider professional sound ASIO vs WDM)
    > Linux has how many windowing environments?
    > Maybe 20?
    > Why?
    > Windows has one and maybe a couple of add ons like Stardock.
    > Linux has how many package mangers?
    > Maybe 5 ?
    > Why?
    > Windows has Windows update and the manufacturers have FTP etc....
    > Linux has how many file systems?
    > Maybe 10 or more?
    > Why?
    >
    > and so forth.....
    >
    > It's LINUX that keeps re-inventing the wheel, only in the Linux world the
    > wheel turns out square, every single time.
    >
    > You guys really need to pool your resources.
    >

    Why?
    Limiting the diversity of your DNA is not good for survival.
    A good example is Windows which has tens of thousands of
    viruses/exploits out in the wild, Linux has none.

    Did your mom make you come in early that you are here again Moshe?

  13. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 10:19:05 +0200, Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:

    >> It's LINUX that keeps re-inventing the wheel, only in the Linux world
    >> the wheel turns out square, every single time.
    >>
    >> You guys really need to pool your resources.
    >>

    > Why?
    > Limiting the diversity of your DNA is not good for survival. A good
    > example is Windows which has tens of thousands of viruses/exploits out
    > in the wild, Linux has none.



    The DNA of Linux would be, err, Linux -- the kernel! In that sense
    there's almost no variation between the distros, unless they're modifying
    the kernel.



    -Thufir

  14. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    for some thing you don't have to pay for and you have a choice of what you
    use you can't complain about linux.


  15. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    * thufir peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 22:40:16 -0500, chrisv wrote:
    >
    >>>> 2)> There are too many software projects which duplicate effort.

    > [...]
    >> What these wintards have trouble understanding is that *far* more effort
    >> is "wasted" in the closed-source world. The OSS model is *far* more
    >> efficient, allowing people to build-upon the work of others, instead of
    >> re-inventing the wheel all the time.

    >
    > There is duplication in FOSS, though


    Duplication? Or searching for still better ways of doing things?

    > While choice is good, binary package management comes to mind as
    > something which needs to get straightened out.


    Why?

    Which "best" way of doing things are you going to pick?

    How are you going to "force" people to do it the one "best" way?

    --
    Another goal is to establish a relationship "in which it is OK for everybody
    to do their best. There are an awful lot of people in management who really
    don't want subordinates to do their best, because it gets to be very
    threatening. But we have found that both internally and with outside
    designers if we are willing to have this kind of relationship and if we're
    willing to be vulnerable to what will come out of it, we get really good
    work."
    -- Max DePree, chairman and CEO of Herman Miller Inc., "Herman Miller's
    Secrets of Corporate Creativity", The Wall Street Journal, May 3, 1988

  16. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    * thufir peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 10:19:05 +0200, Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:
    >
    >>> It's LINUX that keeps re-inventing the wheel, only in the Linux world
    >>> the wheel turns out square, every single time.
    >>>
    >>> You guys really need to pool your resources.
    >>>

    >> Why?
    >> Limiting the diversity of your DNA is not good for survival. A good
    >> example is Windows which has tens of thousands of viruses/exploits out
    >> in the wild, Linux has none.

    >
    > The DNA of Linux would be, err, Linux -- the kernel! In that sense
    > there's almost no variation between the distros, unless they're modifying
    > the kernel.


    Or the ".config" file.

    --
    What is now proved was once only imagin'd.
    -- William Blake

  17. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 10:19:05 +0200, Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:

    > Moshe Goldfarb. schreef:
    >> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 22:40:16 -0500, chrisv wrote:
    >>
    >>> bob wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:44:01 +0200, Hans wrote:
    >>>>> 2)> There are too many software projects which duplicate effort.
    >>>> Right....we know that in Windows, there is only a single app for any
    >>>> function.....
    >>>>
    >>>> What an asinine attempt at a put down.
    >>> What these wintards have trouble understanding is that *far* more
    >>> effort is "wasted" in the closed-source world. The OSS model is *far*
    >>> more efficient, allowing people to build-upon the work of others,
    >>> instead of re-inventing the wheel all the time.

    >>
    >> You're kidding right?
    >> Linux has 15 different sound systems, none of which actually fully work.
    >> Windows has one (two if you consider professional sound ASIO vs WDM)
    >> Linux has how many windowing environments?
    >> Maybe 20?
    >> Why?
    >> Windows has one and maybe a couple of add ons like Stardock.
    >> Linux has how many package mangers?
    >> Maybe 5 ?
    >> Why?
    >> Windows has Windows update and the manufacturers have FTP etc....
    >> Linux has how many file systems?
    >> Maybe 10 or more?
    >> Why?
    >>
    >> and so forth.....
    >>
    >> It's LINUX that keeps re-inventing the wheel, only in the Linux world the
    >> wheel turns out square, every single time.
    >>
    >> You guys really need to pool your resources.
    >>

    > Why?
    > Limiting the diversity of your DNA is not good for survival.
    > A good example is Windows which has tens of thousands of
    > viruses/exploits out in the wild, Linux has none.


    None of which has anything to do with what I replied to.
    FWIW too much choice is exactly what is holding Linux back.
    It's called confusion and fragmentation.

    > Did your mom make you come in early that you are here again Moshe?


    Grow up.

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

  18. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    >Mentally-ill loser moshe/flat**** wrote:
    >>
    >> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 22:40:16 -0500, chrisv wrote:
    >>>
    >>> What these wintards have trouble understanding is that *far* more
    >>> effort is "wasted" in the closed-source world. The OSS model is *far*
    >>> more efficient, allowing people to build-upon the work of others,
    >>> instead of re-inventing the wheel all the time.

    >>
    >> You're kidding right?


    Not at all, fsckwit. Code re-use makes all those things you
    bicker-about much less "wasteful" than closed-source apps, which need
    to be developed from the ground-up.


  19. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    On 2008-08-09, Linonut claimed:
    > * thufir peremptorily fired off this memo:


    >> While choice is good, binary package management comes to mind as
    >> something which needs to get straightened out.

    >
    > Why?
    >
    > Which "best" way of doing things are you going to pick?
    >
    > How are you going to "force" people to do it the one "best" way?


    Sounds like something that needs to be submitted to the Hadron Quirk
    One Standard Linux Dsitribution Committee for incorporation in the only
    authorized linux release.

    I used to love rpm to the exclusion of anything else (except source).
    Then I didn't like rpm and liked deb, almost to the exclusion of
    anything else (except source). Now I prefer deb, but I can live with
    rpm, and I'm willing to try others if someone can convince me that I
    can make it fit with whetever I have installed at the moment.

    Since source fits all, I've never been a purist (needing to have only
    one type of package on the system, no exceptions) as I've seen some
    people be. As long as it works and doesn't interfere, I don't care how
    it's packaged.

    --
    VISTA: Venereal Infections/Sexually-Transmitted Ailments

  20. Re: Why Vista won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    "thufir" stated in post
    NBank.169911$gc5.117868@pd7urf2no on 8/8/08 11:15 PM:

    > On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:31:49 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >
    >> The fact that OS X is growing and Linux isn't, tells you that OS X is
    >> offering things that Linux is not.
    >> - Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)

    >
    >
    > It doesn't matter who said that, there's no causal link.


    I disagree: I think there is very much a causal link between what Linux
    offers and who uses it. The association, of course, is not 100% but it is
    significant.

    > The "why" of
    > linux's low desktop growth is a complex topic.


    It is not as simple as that one variable, but clearly the variable of what
    Linux offers is significant!


    --
    I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.





+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast