Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously? - Linux

This is a discussion on Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously? - Linux ; On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:47:56 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote: > On 2008-09-28, ray wrote: >> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 06:59:12 -0700, raylopez99 wrote: >> >>> I'm interested in finding out who uses Linux for serious work, >>> seriously--let's put ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 73

Thread: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

  1. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:47:56 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:

    > On 2008-09-28, ray wrote:
    >> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 06:59:12 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:
    >>
    >>> I'm interested in finding out who uses Linux for serious work,
    >>> seriously--let's put our partisan hats aside (I personally like Windows
    >>> OS--not because of its x86 architecture so much as the economies of
    >>> scale that come from everybody adopting a common standard).
    >>>
    >>> I define "serious" work as work that is not specialized, which rules out
    >>> Apache immediately, and includes stuff like interoperable documents
    >>> exchange (i.e. Word), spreadsheets (i.e. Excel), and presentations (i.e.
    >>> PowerPoint), as well as email (i.e. Outlook).
    >>>
    >>> I'm talking about interoperability--to communicate with everybody, even
    >>> Mac and Windows users, not just fellow Linux users.
    >>>
    >>> Who wants to take the first bite of this troll thread?

    >
    > I've been using OO for years in this capacity.


    You are also clue less and 10 years behind in life.
    You can't even see the difference between multiple monitors and virtual
    desktops.
    Probably because you are still tied to an amber screen DEC, or better yet a
    DecWriter.
    Where do you get ribbons for that thing anyway?


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

  2. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    On Sep 28, 9:59*am, raylopez99 wrote:
    > I'm interested in finding out who uses Linux for serious work,
    > seriously--let's put our partisan hats aside (I personally like
    > Windows OS--not because of its x86 architecture so much as the
    > economies of scale that come from everybody adopting a common
    > standard).
    >
    > I define "serious" work as work that is not specialized, which rules
    > out Apache immediately, and includes stuff like interoperable
    > documents exchange (i.e. Word), spreadsheets (i.e. Excel), and
    > presentations (i.e. PowerPoint), as well as email (i.e. Outlook).
    >


    That's a pretty ****ty definition of "serious" work.

  3. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:35:22 +0000, ray wrote:


    > Those would seem to fit your definition of 'serious' work even though
    > scientific analysis to defend our country (which I've done using Linux)
    > seems not to - interesting concept of 'serious'.


    It's a straw man. It's easier for him to define "serious" using an
    extremely limited criterion than to address the fact that truly serious
    work is done on unix-like platforms and Microsoft platforms are relegated
    to handling mundane office work and file sharing.


  4. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    alt wrote:
    > On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:35:22 +0000, ray wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Those would seem to fit your definition of 'serious' work even though
    >> scientific analysis to defend our country (which I've done using Linux)
    >> seems not to - interesting concept of 'serious'.

    >
    > It's a straw man. It's easier for him to define "serious" using an
    > extremely limited criterion than to address the fact that truly serious
    > work is done on unix-like platforms and Microsoft platforms are relegated
    > to handling mundane office work and file sharing.
    >


    What is your opinion worth in the grand scheme of things?

  5. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    Paul Montgumdrop wrote:

    > alt wrote:
    >> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:35:22 +0000, ray wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Those would seem to fit your definition of 'serious' work even though
    >>> scientific analysis to defend our country (which I've done using Linux)
    >>> seems not to - interesting concept of 'serious'.

    >>
    >> It's a straw man. It's easier for him to define "serious" using an
    >> extremely limited criterion than to address the fact that truly serious
    >> work is done on unix-like platforms and Microsoft platforms are relegated
    >> to handling mundane office work and file sharing.
    >>

    >
    > What is your opinion worth in the grand scheme of things?


    Indefinately more than yours.
    You are just a nymshifter, too dumb to use linux and bitter because of that.
    Did you actually think anyone would buy your "30 years of experience with
    computers" idiocy?
    --
    Linux is for people who want to know why it works.
    Mac is for people who don't want to know why it works.
    DOS is for people who want to know why it does not work.
    Windows is for people who don't want to know why it does not work.


  6. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:



    - that's a soft logical .

    Do you actually think I give **** about what you need to post about,
    Petey -- you lapdog?

  7. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    raylopez99 wrote:

    > I'm interested in finding out who uses Linux for serious work,
    > seriously


    Is it me, or do all these Wintrolls have the long-term memory of the common
    housefly? DooFuS keeps trotting out the same dozen or so "Linux freezes"
    tales of woe, and now mr. 99 reposts his "Serious Linux" for what must be
    the tenth time within six months. I wonder what's causing this rather
    serious mental condition.

    > I define "serious" work as work that is not specialized,


    Ah yes. The stupidest definition of "Serious Work", ever. Again.

    OK, people who type letters, sell products and collate sales and inventory
    figures are doing useful work too, but only an narrow-minded idiot would
    define their daily occupation as the only "serious work" there is.
    Without specialists who actually design and produce stuff, or who provide
    essential services in the medical or technical field, they would have
    nothing to do at all -- and in my opinion, this means that specialized jobs
    are much more entitled to be called "serious work" than the supporting
    areas of work.

    Richard Rasker
    --
    http://www.linetec.nl

  8. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    Richard Rasker wrote:



    Are the regulars in this NG this stupid? Can't you *clowns* tell when
    you are being played?

  9. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    Paul Montgumdrop wrote:

    > Richard Rasker wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > Are the regulars in this NG this stupid? Can't you *clowns* tell when
    > you are being played?


    Well, you clown certainly don't detect when you are played with. Do you ever
    realize that your totally bogus posts are the best linux advocacy? You
    morons display windows users as what they often are: Dumb, idiotic and
    generally obnoxious clowns. Fitting to use such a toy like windows
    --
    Law of Probable Dispersal:
    Whatever it is that hits the fan will not be evenly distributed.


  10. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:





    I am NOT reading any of your crap. I stopped reading your bark and whine
    long ago, Petey.

  11. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:37:25 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > Paul Montgumdrop wrote:
    >
    >> Richard Rasker wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Are the regulars in this NG this stupid? Can't you *clowns* tell when
    >> you are being played?


    Ah, the Earthlink troll chimes in (References: earthlink.com)

    > Well, you clown certainly don't detect when you are played with. Do you
    > ever realize that your totally bogus posts are the best linux advocacy?
    > You morons display windows users as what they often are: Dumb, idiotic and
    > generally obnoxious clowns. Fitting to use such a toy like windows


    Indeed.

    --
    "If it weren't for Windows, you wouldn't
    be posting anything right now."
    DFS - comp.os.linux.advocacy
    Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004



  12. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:52:51 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > Paul Montgumdrop wrote:
    >
    >> alt wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:35:22 +0000, ray wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Those would seem to fit your definition of 'serious' work even though
    >>>> scientific analysis to defend our country (which I've done using
    >>>> Linux) seems not to - interesting concept of 'serious'.
    >>>
    >>> It's a straw man. It's easier for him to define "serious" using an
    >>> extremely limited criterion than to address the fact that truly serious
    >>> work is done on unix-like platforms and Microsoft platforms are
    >>> relegated to handling mundane office work and file sharing.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> What is your opinion worth in the grand scheme of things?

    >
    > Indefinately more than yours.
    > You are just a nymshifter, too dumb to use linux and bitter because of
    > that. Did you actually think anyone would buy your "30 years of experience
    > with computers" idiocy?


    The wintrolls must think everyone is a dumb as they are.

    --
    "If it weren't for Windows, you wouldn't
    be posting anything right now."
    DFS - comp.os.linux.advocacy
    Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004



  13. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    amicus_curious wrote:
    >> Was there a point here?

    >
    > Well, if you put it in the framework of Newtonian mechanics, i.e. f =
    > ma, you can see where there will never be any motion towards Linux if
    > there is nothing to push the users in tht direction. If you modifiy the
    > theory slightly to account for friction losses, you can see that there
    > will never be any motion towards Linux.


    And a prisoner shackled to the walls in irons can't escape either. That
    doesn't mean it's the best wall ever built.

  14. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    Paul Montgumdrop wrote:
    > Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > I am NOT reading any of your crap. I stopped reading your bark and whine
    > long ago, Petey.


    And yet you still reply to it...
    You wouldn't be any relation to Alan Connor would you?
    --
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
    | in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
    | Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |

  15. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    Paul Montgumdrop wrote:

    > Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > I am NOT reading any of your crap. I stopped reading your bark and whine
    > long ago, Petey.


    Certainly. After all, I use words much too big for you. You would not
    understand them. They are not those grunts you clowns "communicate" with
    --
    "Last I checked, it wasn't the power cord for the Clue Generator that
    was sticking up your ass." - John Novak, rasfwrj


  16. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?


    "Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
    news:48e0bdf5$0$16895$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net...
    > Paul Montgumdrop wrote:
    >
    >> Richard Rasker wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Are the regulars in this NG this stupid? Can't you *clowns* tell when
    >> you are being played?

    >
    > Well, you clown certainly don't detect when you are played with. Do you
    > ever
    > realize that your totally bogus posts are the best linux advocacy? You
    > morons display windows users as what they often are: Dumb, idiotic and
    > generally obnoxious clowns. Fitting to use such a toy like windows


    That is only being fair. Someone has to rescue Linux from your whining
    posts. You show the Linux advocate as a stereotyped moron who is dumb,
    idiotic, fanatical, and generally obnoxious.


  17. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    > "Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
    > news:48e0bdf5$0$16895$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net...
    >> Paul Montgumdrop wrote:
    >>
    >>> Richard Rasker wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Are the regulars in this NG this stupid? Can't you *clowns* tell when
    >>> you are being played?

    >>
    >> Well, you clown certainly don't detect when you are played with. Do
    >> you ever
    >> realize that your totally bogus posts are the best linux advocacy? You
    >> morons display windows users as what they often are: Dumb, idiotic and
    >> generally obnoxious clowns. Fitting to use such a toy like windows

    >
    > That is only being fair. Someone has to rescue Linux from your whining
    > posts. You show the Linux advocate as a stereotyped moron who is dumb,
    > idiotic, fanatical, and generally obnoxious.


    Amen!


  18. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Paul Montgumdrop belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > I am NOT reading any of your crap.


    Hmmm.

    > I stopped reading your bark and whine
    > long ago, Petey.


    But you reply nonetheless.

    --
    Check me if I'm wrong, Sandy, but if I kill all the golfers...
    they're gonna lock me up and throw away the key!

  19. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Paul Montgumdrop belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I am NOT reading any of your crap.

    >
    > Hmmm.
    >
    >> I stopped reading your bark and whine
    >> long ago, Petey.

    >
    > But you reply nonetheless.
    >

    So?

  20. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    On 2008-09-29, Hadron wrote:
    > alt writes:
    >
    >> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:37:11 +0100, Phil Da Lick! wrote:
    >>
    >>> raylopez99 wrote:
    >>>> I'm interested in finding out who uses Linux for serious work,
    >>>> seriously--let's put our partisan hats aside (I personally like Windows
    >>>> OS--not because of its x86 architecture so much as the economies of
    >>>> scale that come from everybody adopting a common standard).
    >>>>
    >>>> I define "serious" work as work that is not specialized, which rules
    >>>> out Apache immediately, and includes stuff like interoperable documents
    >>>> exchange (i.e. Word), spreadsheets (i.e. Excel), and presentations
    >>>> (i.e. PowerPoint), as well as email (i.e. Outlook).
    >>>>
    >>>> I'm talking about interoperability--to communicate with everybody, even
    >>>> Mac and Windows users, not just fellow Linux users.
    >>>>
    >>>> Who wants to take the first bite of this troll thread?
    >>>

    >>
    >> I could've sworn we already went through this straw man.
    >>
    >> The primary question is, "who uses Linux for serious work" and then
    >> creates the criteron of what raylopez99 considers "serious work".
    >>
    >> So, I'll step up to the podium.
    >>
    >> My Name is Donovan Hill and I am a Linux User. I use it at home and at
    >> work to do mundane work (which raylopez99 calls "serious") with the
    >> following products:
    >>
    >> Firefox.
    >> Thunderbird and Evolution.
    >> OpenOffice.org
    >>
    >> I use firefox to browse the web. (simple enough).
    >> I use Thunderbird and Evolution to exchange emails with my coworkers,
    >> clients and carriers.
    >> I use OpenOffice.org to create documents required for my work, save those
    >> documents in both ISO:IEC 26300:2006 and in Microsoft proprietary
    >> formats. I also use OOo to open documents created in Microsoft
    >> Proprietary formats which I am able to read 99% of the time. (Note: I
    >> NEVER use PowerPoint or its Presenter.)

    >
    > All of which can be done on Windows too. So nothing compelling here if
    > that was your objective.


    That was never the required criteria.

    Goalpost moving noted.

    [deletia]

    The real question (even the one that started this thread) is
    can you treat Linux as a drop in replacement for Linux in
    corporations. A number of us have done just that.

    Some of the issues you have are...

    a) data compatability
    b) binary compatability (vertical apps and such)
    c) initial cost
    d) ongoing costs
    e) administration overhead
    f) stability of features & configuration (that whole debian thing)


    --
    NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club! |||
    / | \
    That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!

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

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