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 ; Sinister Midget writes: > 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? ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 126

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

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

    Sinister Midget writes:

    > 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


    So you liked it? Then you didnt like it? What did it do? Ask your
    girlfriend for a date?

    > 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.


    Will they also convince YOU to do all the work in rewriting all the
    dependencies and to maintain the libraries for your new format? Can you
    then describe exactly WHY you use that one over another and justify the
    work that went into rebuilding wheel?

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

    On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 08:19:14 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "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!


    The significance is that Linux systems offer the user so much, and
    adoption of Linux systems is growing so slowly compared to the total
    number of users.

    Linux systems and FOS are not generally know by the general using
    population. Other proprietary systems are, and still Microsoft has a 90%+
    marketshare.

    --
    Rick

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

    Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

    > FWIW too much choice is exactly what is holding Linux back.


    Spoken like a true Communist.
    --
    Facts are sacred ... but comment is free

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

    On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 09:02:54 -0500, chrisv wrote:

    >>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.


    Nice snip job again...
    BTW I thought you plonked me like years ago, chrisv?

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

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

    "Rick" stated in post
    0qKdncYtqPgVVQDVnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@supernews.com on 8/9/08 9:40 AM:

    > On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 08:19:14 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "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!

    >
    > The significance is that Linux systems offer the user so much, and
    > adoption of Linux systems is growing so slowly compared to the total
    > number of users.


    But there are many things Linux does not offer: the choice of a
    non-fractured user experience, direct support from Microsoft and Adobe
    software (and some other big venders), support for niche businesses (OS X is
    in the same boat there), etc.

    > Linux systems and FOS are not generally know by the general using
    > population. Other proprietary systems are, and still Microsoft has a 90%+
    > marketshare.


    You repeat claims that are not under contention a lot.

    --
    .... something I'm committed to work on, focusing increasing amounts of
    resources of Canonical on figuring out on how we actually move the desktop
    experience forward to compete with Mac OS X.
    - Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)


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

    * Moshe Goldfarb. peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > You're kidding right?
    > Linux has 15 different sound systems, none of which actually fully work.


    You may now name them all.

    ALSA works fine. Arts is a KDE thing. OSS is for oldies. Maybe some
    apps still use esd.

    That's about it, really.

    > Windows has one (two if you consider professional sound ASIO vs WDM)


    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...18(VS.85).aspx

    This documentation describes the core audio APIs in Windows Vista.
    These APIs serve as the foundation for the following higher-level
    APIs:

    * DirectSound
    * DirectMusic
    * Windows multimedia waveXxx and mixerXxx functions
    * Media Foundation

    Those are the higher-level APIs. That same link then talks about the
    legacy audio API (Win32?):

    An application that uses a legacy audio API to play or record audio
    might require additional capabilities that are not supported by the
    legacy audio API, but that are supported by the core audio APIs. In many
    cases, the application can access these capabilities directly through
    the core audio APIs, which can be used in conjunction with the legacy
    audio API.

    The "core" audio APIs are:

    * Multimedia Device (MMDevice) API. Clients use this API to
    enumerate the audio endpoint devices in the system.
    * Windows Audio Session API (WASAPI). Clients use this API to
    create and manage audio streams to and from audio endpoint
    devices.
    * DeviceTopology API. Clients use this API to directly
    access the topological features (for example, volume
    controls and multiplexers) that lie along the data
    paths inside hardware devices in audio adapters.
    * EndpointVolume API. Clients use this API to directly
    access the volume controls on audio endpoint devices.
    This API is primarily used by applications that manage
    exclusive-mode audio streams.

    I've used the Windows waveXxxx API to implement a networked audio player
    as part of a project that also uses ALSA to implement the same
    application on Linux.

    I found that the waveXxxx and ALSA were easy to wrapper with very few
    real implementation differences; they were relatively similar in how
    they worked.

    > Linux has how many windowing environments?


    Nah, just one. X Windows.

    > Maybe 20? Why? Windows has one and maybe a couple of add ons like
    > Stardock.


    There are two main windowing environments (Gnome and Kwin). There are a
    multiplicity of GUI frameworks, but most of them also work on Windows.

    > Linux has how many package mangers? Maybe 5 ?


    Nah, each major distro has their own.

    > Why?


    Because, in package management, one size does not fit all.

    > Windows has Windows update and the manufacturers have FTP etc....


    No, each manufacturers has a choice of Installshield, Wyse, Microsoft
    MSI, and probably some others. And if you install enough software on
    Windows, you'll probably end up using just about all of them.

    > Linux has how many file systems?
    > Maybe 10 or more?
    > Why?


    Because one size does not fit all. In fact, the Debian installer will
    ask you what you are going to use your partition for -- lots of little
    files? Lots of large files? A server? A user's /home partition.

    The sad thing is, bozos like you can make stuff up, and fool a lot of
    people who are googling for information about Linux.

    --
    The boss returned from lunch in a good mood and called the whole staff
    in to listen to a couple of jokes he had picked up. Everybody but one girl
    laughed uproariously. "What's the matter?" grumbled the boss. "Haven't you
    got a sense of humor?"
    "I don't have to laugh," she said. "I'm leaving Friday anyway.

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

    Linonut wrote:
    > * Moshe Goldfarb. peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> You're kidding right?
    >> Linux has 15 different sound systems, none of which actually fully work.

    >
    > You may now name them all.
    >
    > ALSA works fine. Arts is a KDE thing. OSS is for oldies. Maybe some
    > apps still use esd.
    >
    > That's about it, really.
    >
    >> Windows has one (two if you consider professional sound ASIO vs WDM)

    >
    > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...18(VS.85).aspx
    >
    > This documentation describes the core audio APIs in Windows Vista.
    > These APIs serve as the foundation for the following higher-level
    > APIs:
    >
    > * DirectSound
    > * DirectMusic
    > * Windows multimedia waveXxx and mixerXxx functions
    > * Media Foundation
    >
    > Those are the higher-level APIs. That same link then talks about the
    > legacy audio API (Win32?):
    >
    > An application that uses a legacy audio API to play or record audio
    > might require additional capabilities that are not supported by the
    > legacy audio API, but that are supported by the core audio APIs. In many
    > cases, the application can access these capabilities directly through
    > the core audio APIs, which can be used in conjunction with the legacy
    > audio API.
    >
    > The "core" audio APIs are:
    >
    > * Multimedia Device (MMDevice) API. Clients use this API to
    > enumerate the audio endpoint devices in the system.
    > * Windows Audio Session API (WASAPI). Clients use this API to
    > create and manage audio streams to and from audio endpoint
    > devices.
    > * DeviceTopology API. Clients use this API to directly
    > access the topological features (for example, volume
    > controls and multiplexers) that lie along the data
    > paths inside hardware devices in audio adapters.
    > * EndpointVolume API. Clients use this API to directly
    > access the volume controls on audio endpoint devices.
    > This API is primarily used by applications that manage
    > exclusive-mode audio streams.
    >
    > I've used the Windows waveXxxx API to implement a networked audio player
    > as part of a project that also uses ALSA to implement the same
    > application on Linux.
    >
    > I found that the waveXxxx and ALSA were easy to wrapper with very few
    > real implementation differences; they were relatively similar in how
    > they worked.
    >
    >> Linux has how many windowing environments?

    >
    > Nah, just one. X Windows.
    >
    >> Maybe 20? Why? Windows has one and maybe a couple of add ons like
    >> Stardock.

    >
    > There are two main windowing environments (Gnome and Kwin). There are a
    > multiplicity of GUI frameworks, but most of them also work on Windows.
    >
    >> Linux has how many package mangers? Maybe 5 ?

    >
    > Nah, each major distro has their own.
    >
    >> Why?

    >
    > Because, in package management, one size does not fit all.
    >
    >> Windows has Windows update and the manufacturers have FTP etc....

    >
    > No, each manufacturers has a choice of Installshield, Wyse, Microsoft
    > MSI, and probably some others. And if you install enough software on
    > Windows, you'll probably end up using just about all of them.
    >
    >> Linux has how many file systems?
    >> Maybe 10 or more?
    >> Why?

    >
    > Because one size does not fit all. In fact, the Debian installer will
    > ask you what you are going to use your partition for -- lots of little
    > files? Lots of large files? A server? A user's /home partition.
    >
    > The sad thing is, bozos like you can make stuff up, and fool a lot of
    > people who are googling for information about Linux.
    >


    Hence the reason for the unending negative posts and cross posts.

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

    On Aug 8, 5:44*am, "Hans" wrote:
    > http://www.whylinuxsucks.org/why-lin...a-view-experie...
    > 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.


    I read the article, and I disagree. Linux is not for developers.
    Linux developers programming interface, from what I've been able to
    see (though I've never tried it) must (has to) pale in comparison to
    Visual Studio by Microsoft, which independent experts agree is the
    best developer's platform out there. Even I, a hobbiest, can build a
    very professional looking program that looks just like anything a
    professional can do, in a matter of days (ok, weeks, but still that's
    pretty good).

    RL

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

    Linonut writes:

    > * Moshe Goldfarb. peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> You're kidding right?
    >> Linux has 15 different sound systems, none of which actually fully work.

    >
    > You may now name them all.
    >
    > ALSA works fine. Arts is a KDE thing. OSS is for oldies. Maybe some
    > apps still use esd.


    More lies and fraud.

    Gnome system sounds use ESD if you want system sounds to mix.

    Why do YOU think Pulse Audio is in development? And try to answer before
    your pull your usual stunt of posting some stuff you googled up. We can
    all use Google.

    >
    > That's about it, really.


    Even a casual glance around show thats total nonsense.

    >
    >> Windows has one (two if you consider professional sound ASIO vs WDM)

    >
    > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...18(VS.85).aspx
    >
    > This documentation describes the core audio APIs in Windows Vista.
    > These APIs serve as the foundation for the following higher-level
    > APIs:
    >
    > * DirectSound
    > * DirectMusic
    > * Windows multimedia waveXxx and mixerXxx functions
    > * Media Foundation


    Erm, these are APIs not replacement sound systems.

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

    * raylopez99 peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > I read the article, and I disagree. Linux is not for developers.


    Now I've heard it all.

    > Linux developers programming interface, from what I've been able to
    > see (though I've never tried it) must (has to) pale in comparison to
    > Visual Studio by Microsoft, which independent experts agree is the
    > best developer's platform out there. Even I, a hobbiest, can build a
    > very professional looking program that looks just like anything a
    > professional can do, in a matter of days (ok, weeks, but still that's
    > pretty good).


    Heard that one before. I actually had a guy tell me, all smiles and
    pride, that he made a web browser, by dragging a component onto a
    canvas.

    Like Hadron says, the coding is but a small part of the job.

    And...

    http://www.charlespetzold.com/etc/Do...otTheMind.html

    Does Visual Studio Rot the Mind?
    Ruminations on the Psychology and Aesthetics of Coding
    By Charles Petzold

    Who's Charles Petzold?

    He's the noted Windows author with the Windows tattoo:

    http://www.charlespetzold.com/PetzoldTattoo.jpg

    --
    A diplomat is man who always remembers a woman's birthday but never her age.
    -- Robert Frost

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

    Linonut writes:

    > Like Hadron says, the coding is but a small part of the job.
    >
    > And...
    >
    > http://www.charlespetzold.com/etc/Do...otTheMind.html
    >
    > Does Visual Studio Rot the Mind?
    > Ruminations on the Psychology and Aesthetics of Coding
    > By Charles Petzold
    >
    > Who's Charles Petzold?
    >
    > He's the noted Windows author with the Windows tattoo:
    >
    > http://www.charlespetzold.com/PetzoldTattoo.jpg


    His Windows API book was the de facto Bible back in the mid
    90s. Indispensable and well written.

    http://www.charlespetzold.com/pw5/index.html

    --
    BOY is Microsoft doomed! LOL!
    comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy

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

    * Hadron peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Linonut writes:
    >
    >> * Moshe Goldfarb. peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>
    >>> You're kidding right?
    >>> Linux has 15 different sound systems, none of which actually fully work.

    >>
    >> You may now name them all.
    >>
    >> ALSA works fine. Arts is a KDE thing. OSS is for oldies. Maybe some
    >> apps still use esd.

    >
    > More lies and fraud.


    The "lies and fraud" schtick is getting old, Hadron. Put up or shut up.

    > Gnome system sounds use ESD if you want system sounds to mix.


    You don't need ESD for mixing. I /never/ use it. Ever. ALSA is
    enough.

    > Why do YOU think Pulse Audio is in development? And try to answer before
    > your pull your usual stunt of posting some stuff you googled up. We can
    > all use Google.


    Then do so, and list all of the sound systems and their usage.

    Pulse audio is a sound /server/. And it runs on Win32 systems as well.

    A quick Google would have told you that.

    >> That's about it, really.

    >
    > Even a casual glance around show thats total nonsense.


    Then post the proof. After all, a casual glance should be enough.

    >>> Windows has one (two if you consider professional sound ASIO vs WDM)

    >>
    >> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...18(VS.85).aspx
    >>
    >> This documentation describes the core audio APIs in Windows Vista.
    >> These APIs serve as the foundation for the following higher-level
    >> APIs:
    >>
    >> * DirectSound
    >> * DirectMusic
    >> * Windows multimedia waveXxx and mixerXxx functions
    >> * Media Foundation

    >
    > Erm, these are APIs not replacement sound systems.


    So what? You try to pick one off the top of your head to code, hmmm?

    Right now, in Linux, you have only /two/ choices of sound system to
    build in the kernel: ALSA and OSS. You're a clever guy -- download
    the kernel source and check the configurator out for yourself. That is
    all you will find.

    The rest are APIs or frameworks at various levels -- just like the
    Window system that Moshe was trying to paint as a simple one-choice
    item.

    The fact is, this abundance is a natural consequence of wanting to
    achieve varying kinds of tasks, in both Linux and Windows.

    To use it to denigrate one platform or the other is simply silly.

    --
    My mother is a fish.
    -- William Faulkner

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

    * Hadron peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Linonut writes:
    >
    >> Like Hadron says, the coding is but a small part of the job.
    >>
    >> Who's Charles Petzold?
    >>
    >> He's the noted Windows author with the Windows tattoo:
    >>
    >> http://www.charlespetzold.com/PetzoldTattoo.jpg

    >
    > His Windows API book was the de facto Bible back in the mid
    > 90s. Indispensable and well written.
    >
    > http://www.charlespetzold.com/pw5/index.html


    Indeed. I used it quite a bit. I like the guy's writing, very clear.

    Jeffrey Richter's "Advanced Windows" also helped me through many a
    pickle early on in my career writing Win NT apps. Unfortunately, I had
    to dig around on my own to learn about sockets.

    (And all that old code I wrote for sockets? It is coming back to haunt
    me. Not so many bugs, considering how long its been in use, but plenty
    of design limitations are coming to light as people try to stretch what
    it does. I hate my old code.)

    --
    The surest sign that a man is in love is when he divorces his wife.

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

    On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 12:35:30 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > 0qKdncYtqPgVVQDVnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@supernews.com on 8/9/08 9:40 AM:
    >
    >> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 08:19:14 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>> "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!

    >>
    >> The significance is that Linux systems offer the user so much, and
    >> adoption of Linux systems is growing so slowly compared to the total
    >> number of users.

    >
    > But there are many things Linux does not offer: the choice of a
    > non-fractured user experience,


    Will you give the fracture BS a rest? It is inconsequential when talking
    about FOSS adoption.

    > direct support from Microsoft and Adobe
    > software (and some other big venders),


    If Microsoft could get away with it, it would probably drop support for
    the Mac, in fact Apple was threatened with that, and was one of the
    things Microsoft was found guilty in court.

    > support for niche businesses (OS X is in the same boat there), etc.
    >
    >> Linux systems and FOS are not generally know by the general using
    >> population. Other proprietary systems are, and still Microsoft has a
    >> 90%+ marketshare.

    >
    > You repeat claims that are not under contention a lot.





    --
    Rick

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

    "Rick" stated in post
    0qKdnf4tqPhGhAPVnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@supernews.com on 8/9/08 3:27 PM:

    ....
    >>> The significance is that Linux systems offer the user so much, and
    >>> adoption of Linux systems is growing so slowly compared to the total
    >>> number of users.

    >>
    >> But there are many things Linux does not offer: the choice of a
    >> non-fractured user experience,

    >
    > Will you give the fracture BS a rest? It is inconsequential when talking
    > about FOSS adoption.


    Repetition: the best Rick can do!

    >> direct support from Microsoft and Adobe
    >> software (and some other big venders),

    >
    > If Microsoft could get away with it, it would probably drop support for
    > the Mac, in fact Apple was threatened with that, and was one of the
    > things Microsoft was found guilty in court.


    Are you now saying Microsoft has an obligation to support Linux? How about
    Adobe? Apple? Intuit? Semantic? Corel? Nero? Roxio?

    On and on... who do you think *owes* the Linux community to support them by
    creating software for it?

    >> support for niche businesses (OS X is in the same boat there), etc.
    >>
    >>> Linux systems and FOS are not generally know by the general using
    >>> population. Other proprietary systems are, and still Microsoft has a
    >>> 90%+ marketshare.

    >>
    >> You repeat claims that are not under contention a lot.

    >
    >
    >




    --
    The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
    --Albert Einstein


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

    Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser blubbered incoherently:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > 0qKdnf4tqPhGhAPVnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@supernews.com on 8/9/08 3:27 PM:
    >
    > ...
    >>>> The significance is that Linux systems offer the user so much, and
    >>>> adoption of Linux systems is growing so slowly compared to the total
    >>>> number of users.
    >>>
    >>> But there are many things Linux does not offer: the choice of a
    >>> non-fractured user experience,

    >>
    >> Will you give the fracture BS a rest? It is inconsequential when talking
    >> about FOSS adoption.

    >
    > Repetition: the best Rick can do!
    >


    The irony!!!
    --
    Avoid reality at all costs.


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

    Moshe Goldfarb is a Troll of the worst kind. A real POS. Does more damage to
    the reputation of Windows than any million Linux users could.

    Which makes me believe that you're really a Linux user, Moshe.

    --
    Gary S. Terhune
    MS-MVP Shell/User
    http://grystmill.com




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

    Gary S. Terhune wrote:
    > Moshe Goldfarb is a Troll of the worst kind. A real POS. Does more
    > damage to the reputation of Windows than any million Linux users
    > could.
    > Which makes me believe that you're really a Linux user, Moshe.


    Hush child. We consider Moshe a bit of a hero.



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

    On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 17:21:00 -0700, Gary S. Terhune wrote:

    > Moshe Goldfarb is a Troll of the worst kind. A real POS. Does more damage to
    > the reputation of Windows than any million Linux users could.
    >
    > Which makes me believe that you're really a Linux user, Moshe.


    There really isn't much that anyone can do to make Vista's reputation any
    worse than it is.
    Face it, Vista is a piker.


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

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

    On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 08:48:51 -0400, Linonut 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?



    If they were searching for better ways of doing things then there would
    be, eventually, consensus that one is better then the other. Instead,
    they both give every indication of being entrenched just for the sake of
    being entrenched, none of them are going anywhere.

    So far as I know, they don't actively compare notes -- although they
    could.



    -Thufir

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast