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

On 2008-08-19, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>>[color=darkred]
>>> 4) Linux doesn't really run on old hardware.[/color]
>>
>> har har har har har har har har har har har...
>>
>> Have we stepped into "opposite land"?[/color]
>
> Depends on what he means by "Linux". I've run a basic
> system on a 4 MB 386/20. It's *extremely* basic, of
> course; little more than a kernel, shell, libraries,
> and utilities such as mv, cp, and vi. Lots of paging,
> too.
>
> A modern GUIfied Linux system, though, might have some
> quibbles if run in less than 256 MB RAM. If one adds
> compiz, one will probably want no less than 512 MB, and
> plenty of graphics card power for the OpenGL transformations.
> In fact, one will probably want as much RAM as one can
> get one's hands no (and his system can handle).[/color]

A modern GUIfied system yes, but there are plenty of cheap and fast
machines for that purpose. Linux will run on old hardware though. I
rescued an old Pentium3 with 128MB of RAM and a 6G HD.. used it as a
router/firewall/HTTPproxy for a couple of years... It runs Gentoo of
course... ;-) Unfortunately, the HD is sick and I'm having trouble
getting a small drive for it. I'm not sure, but I think I'd need a BIOS
update to fix it in order to run the HD sizes of today... and really,
I've got enough resources here at the moment... so I don't need it.

--
Regards,

Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

On 2008-08-19, thufir <hawat.thufir@gmail.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:20:49 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> 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).[/color]
>>
>> Pig's arse!
>>
>> There are NO "independent experts"... just different likes and dislikes.[/color]
>
>
> These "independent" experts ever fire up a Linux box?[/color]

Knowing the source of these comments (the lopez00 troll) I'd suspect the
"independent" experts would have trouble firing up a barbie.

--
Regards,

Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Gregory Shearman had the audacity to say that:
[color=blue]
> On 2008-08-08, Hans <hans@hotmail.com> wrote:[color=green]
>> [url]http://www.whylinuxsucks.org/why-linux-won039t-succeed-a-view-experienced-user[/url]
>> 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.[/color]
>
> Schizophrenia is not the word you are looking for. It is a "schism" from
> reality... where you hear voices or see hallucinations. It's a hideous
> illness.
>
> What you are really talking about is MPD (Multiple Personality
> Disorder).[/color]

Don't mean to be picky but as I learned it at University, the schizo- part
of the term refers to the split between affect and reason. The personality
is effectively blasted to pieces. The central ego, which normally acts as
referee to thought and emotion is MIA in the schizophrenic. Ideas and
emotions assume an independent character, seem to exist outside the person,
and this accounts for the hallucinations, etc. I believe the key term is
depersonalization.

Multiple personality disorder is indeed a different illness. Although a
schizophrenic can have MPD, usually they are too disorganized in their
thought patterns for *any* personality at all to emerge.

*R* *H*

--
"His one secret thought, became like a chain, binding down his spirit, and,
like a serpent, gnawing into his heart; and he was transformed into a sad
and downcast, yet irritable man."

Nathaniel Hawthorne, "Roger Malvin's Burial"

[color=blue]
>
> Spoken like a true Communist.[/color]

Do you even know what the words "Communist" or "Communism" really mean ?
You ****ing thick bastard.
Im not talking stalinism or leninism Im talking real communism. Maybe you
should try reading a book, or try google before you comeout with dribble.
You can read ? Cant you ?

"Communism is the idea of a free society with no division or alienation,
where mankind is free from oppression and scarcity. A communist society
would have no governments, countries, or class divisions."

On 2008-08-25, Mr Spock <spock@warty.invalid> wrote:[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>>
>> Spoken like a true Communist.[/color]
>
> Do you even know what the words "Communist" or "Communism" really mean ?
> You ****ing thick bastard.[/color]

....can you point to any implementation of Communism with a group of
people larger than what you might find in the stone age that DIDN'T
devolve into something like "Communism"?

Communists were responsible for the rise of Stalinist regimes. It
doesn't really matter if those Stalinist regimes aren't "really
communist". That's what Communism lead to.

The fact that it "really isn't communism" doesn't matter. If
you can't manage to start "building communism" without turning
into something that completely suppresses the individual then
it doesn't really matter what the initial advertising copy says.
[color=blue]
> Im not talking stalinism or leninism Im talking real communism. Maybe you
> should try reading a book, or try google before you comeout with dribble.
> You can read ? Cant you ?
>
> "Communism is the idea of a free society with no division or alienation,
> where mankind is free from oppression and scarcity. A communist society
> would have no governments, countries, or class divisions."
>[/color]

....and the violent overthrow of the status quo.


--
If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either. / | \

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
[url]http://www.usenet.com[/url]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:06:11 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
[color=blue]
> On 2008-08-25, Mr Spock <spock@warty.invalid> wrote:[color=green]
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Spoken like a true Communist.[/color]
>>
>> Do you even know what the words "Communist" or "Communism" really mean
>> ? You ****ing thick bastard.[/color]
>
> ...can you point to any implementation of Communism with a group of
> people larger than what you might find in the stone age that DIDN'T
> devolve into something like "Communism"?
>
> Communists were responsible for the rise of Stalinist regimes. It
> doesn't really matter if those Stalinist regimes aren't "really
> communist". That's what Communism lead to.
>
> The fact that it "really isn't communism" doesn't matter. If
> you can't manage to start "building communism" without turning into
> something that completely suppresses the individual then it doesn't
> really matter what the initial advertising copy says.
>[color=green]
>> Im not talking stalinism or leninism Im talking real communism. Maybe
>> you should try reading a book, or try google before you comeout with
>> dribble. You can read ? Cant you ?
>>
>> "Communism is the idea of a free society with no division or
>> alienation, where mankind is free from oppression and scarcity. A
>> communist society would have no governments, countries, or class
>> divisions."
>>
>>[/color]
> ...and the violent overthrow of the status quo.[/color]

I totally agree with you 100%.

Your saying it starts off as one and turns into the other. Fine, thats a
good point. But I feel that if it starts as one and turns into the other,
then its no longer the original.
Just because Russia had leninism / stalinism (or what ever it was), they
called it communism, which was wrong. I was making the point that pure
communism is great, or was great 200 years ago when it probably worked
better than it would now. Plus your forgetting that Russia is now sort of
getting toward capitalism, especially as you have the oil barons etc.
Capitalism is another reason why pure communism wont work long term.