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

This is a discussion on Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously? - Linux ; On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:07:57 -0500, alt wrote: > On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 05:59:06 -0400, Paul Montgumdrop wrote: > > >> What is your opinion worth in the grand scheme of things? > > I'm on the ground ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 61 to 73 of 73

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

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

    On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:07:57 -0500, alt wrote:

    > On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 05:59:06 -0400, Paul Montgumdrop wrote:
    >
    >
    >> What is your opinion worth in the grand scheme of things?

    >
    > I'm on the ground doing this work in the real world, so I think my opinion
    > is worth a lot. I'm not sitting in some board room making decisions based
    > on the four colour glossy some salesman gave me, I'm implementing these
    > systems on the fly as my customers and employers require. That's why my
    > opinion is actually worth something.


    "Paul Montgumdrop" aka "Mr Arnold" aka Duh-Inane Asshole.
    A troll who posts through earthlink.

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



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

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

    > On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:19:57 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> "DFS" writes:
    >>
    >>> alt wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> Aren't you Donovan Hill, Linux User and All Around Dumb Guy?

    >>
    >> Careful. He routes 1000s of people a day using mysql terminal on linux
    >> or something.

    >
    > No. I route 1000s of simultaneous channels of voice traffic using mysql
    > and postgresql as backends to other software. I'll give you a point for
    > attempting to pay attention though.


    Hadron is not worthy to wipe your pee-pee, alt.

    You give him too much credence.

    --
    http://bigpicture.typepad.com/commen...nkers-bai.html
    The rescue operation brings to mind John Kenneth Galbraith's dictum that
    in the United States, the only respectable form of socialism is
    socialism for the rich . . .

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

    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).


    Well, Apache is as general purpose as anything else you have cited. All
    of these 'cloud computing' initiatives could be implemented on LAMP
    architectures, for all you know.

    > I'm talking about interoperability--to communicate with everybody,
    > even Mac and Windows users, not just fellow Linux users.


    I'm trying to find people who use Windows for serious work. So
    demonstrating interoperability with Windows falls into the 'just
    screwing around' category, IMO.

    I use Star Office for spreadsheets and documents that have to go to poor
    suckers stuck with MS Office. I use gEDA or Sage for some simple
    electrical design problems. But all the heavy lifting is done with
    custom s/w. Which simply doesn't exist on Windows platforms. So there's
    no point in using interoperability with Windows as a test. Fortunately,
    output is available in PDF format, so all the poor Windows users aren't
    totally cut out of the loop.

    --
    Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    If everything is coming your way then you're in the wrong lane.

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

    On 2008-10-03, Paul Hovnanian P.E. claimed:
    > raylopez99 wrote:


    >> I'm talking about interoperability--to communicate with everybody,
    >> even Mac and Windows users, not just fellow Linux users.

    >
    > I'm trying to find people who use Windows for serious work. So
    > demonstrating interoperability with Windows falls into the 'just
    > screwing around' category, IMO.


    Dopehead99 only seems to want a one-way street. Zero effort is made by
    the monopoly to create an intercommunication environment with linux. In
    fact, a great deal of effort is expended by them the /ensure/ no
    interoperations can exist without a lot of work or a license violation.

    --
    Microsoft: The company that made online banking dangerous.


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

    Sinister Midget wrote:

    > Zero effort is made by
    > the monopoly to create an intercommunication environment with linux.
    > In fact, a great deal of effort is expended by them the /ensure/ no
    > interoperations can exist without a lot of work or a license
    > violation.


    Prove your lame assertions, dumbass. You can't, and you won't even try -
    'cause you're a true airhead cola idiot.

    Here's a single, simple example that proves everything you just said is
    bull****: MS Virtual PC has allowed Linux to be installed as the guest OS
    since at least 2004.

    And Linux will be or already can be installed as a guest in the upcoming
    WinServer Hypervisor. Not to mention Services for Unix and the work going
    on with Novell/Suse, and the Linux Interoperability lab, and OSS-specific
    job titles at MS.

    Also, not Linux-specific but there are AJAX controls developed by Microsoft
    and given to the freeloading open slopware "community", and they helped
    develop SQL Server drivers for php, and worked with Mozilla to help ensure
    Media Player runs in Firefox, and they created two open source licenses
    approved by the OSI, etc

    Note: I'm not defending MS, just stating the truth. I couldn't care less
    whether they play nice with Linux/OSS or not. It's financially to their
    advantage to do so, but it's their choice.

    Once again you're lazy and uninformed, Gidget. Most cola Linux "advocates*"
    are.




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

    On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 20:45:27 -0500, Sinister Midget wrote:

    > On 2008-10-03, Paul Hovnanian P.E. claimed:
    >> raylopez99 wrote:

    >
    >>> I'm talking about interoperability--to communicate with everybody, even
    >>> Mac and Windows users, not just fellow Linux users.

    >>
    >> I'm trying to find people who use Windows for serious work. So
    >> demonstrating interoperability with Windows falls into the 'just
    >> screwing around' category, IMO.

    >
    > Dopehead99 only seems to want a one-way street. Zero effort is made by the
    > monopoly to create an intercommunication environment with linux. In fact,
    > a great deal of effort is expended by them the /ensure/ no interoperations
    > can exist without a lot of work or a license violation.


    Personally I don't *need* windoze, don't *want* windoze, have no *use* for
    windows. Unless you mean those glass window things that let light into the
    house! :-)

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



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

    On 2008-10-03, William Poaster claimed:
    > On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 20:45:27 -0500, Sinister Midget wrote:
    >
    >> On 2008-10-03, Paul Hovnanian P.E. claimed:
    >>> raylopez99 wrote:

    >>
    >>>> I'm talking about interoperability--to communicate with everybody, even
    >>>> Mac and Windows users, not just fellow Linux users.
    >>>
    >>> I'm trying to find people who use Windows for serious work. So
    >>> demonstrating interoperability with Windows falls into the 'just
    >>> screwing around' category, IMO.

    >>
    >> Dopehead99 only seems to want a one-way street. Zero effort is made by the
    >> monopoly to create an intercommunication environment with linux. In fact,
    >> a great deal of effort is expended by them the /ensure/ no interoperations
    >> can exist without a lot of work or a license violation.

    >
    > Personally I don't *need* windoze, don't *want* windoze, have no *use* for
    > windows. Unless you mean those glass window things that let light into the
    > house! :-)


    I've been way too busy at work to get around to navigating logging onto
    the domain with linux. (They're a little sparse with information sharing
    downtown, so I'll have to figure some things out on my own.) Once I have
    the time and sort that out, Windross is over. That's the _only_ place I
    need to use it, and only because all of my work has to be done on
    proprietary crap that's loaded onto the domain. But I've already found
    that I can do it without using Windwoes (using Firefox and either wine
    or a Citrix client) provided I'm connected to the domain, since that's
    the only access point. It might be a few eeeks before I can get to it,
    but you can bet I will.

    As for the laptops I have to work on, I set those up for others to use
    in the field. I don't do anything with them except make sure they work
    (FSVO work when talking about XP). But thanks to the new Panasonic
    CF-30s we've been getting, "Designed for Vista" stickers are popping up
    all over the toilets, urinals and wastebaskets throughout the building
    where they were inadvertantly not included when the devices were
    installed or purchased.

    That still won't satisfy Dopey's "requirements" because he'll find some
    way to claim that it's not real interaction with WinDOS. And he's still
    not demanding the same in the other direction in his troll.

    --
    Windows: Malware that doesn't do what it's claimed it will do.


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

    DFS wrote:

    > ... the Linux Interoperability lab, and OSS-specific
    > job titles at MS...


    Yeah right. LOL!


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

    Firey Bird writes:

    > DFS wrote:
    >
    >> ... the Linux Interoperability lab, and OSS-specific
    >> job titles at MS...

    >
    > Yeah right. LOL!
    >


    http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/p...ellLabsPR.mspx


    "LOL" indeed.


    --
    "This year with the release of XP, they are actually behind. The end days
    are near for the BIOS reading inferior OS. It is inevitable."
    comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy

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

    Firey Bird wrote:
    > DFS wrote:
    >
    >> ... the Linux Interoperability lab, and OSS-specific
    >> job titles at MS...

    >
    > Yeah right. LOL!



    Another ignorant, silly cola moron. Who coulda guessed?

    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...evolution.mspx



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

    DFS wrote:

    > Firey Bird wrote:
    >> DFS wrote:
    >>
    >>> ... the Linux Interoperability lab, and OSS-specific
    >>> job titles at MS...

    >>
    >> Yeah right. LOL!

    >
    >
    > Another ignorant, silly cola moron. Who coulda guessed?
    >
    >

    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...evolution.mspx

    It's so easy to misinterpret what people say online. You think I doubted
    the existence of Microsoft's Linux Interoperability Lab and the OSS-related
    staff members. But that isn't what I meant.

    I don't doubt the existence of Linux/OSS-related projects at MS. What I
    doubt is the idea that MS genuinely want to work with Linux/OSS developers.
    Their deals with Novell and Xandros aren't about interoperability - they're
    about patent and intellectual property issues. And the Linux
    Interoperability Lab very likely spends a lot of time poring over Linux
    source code looking for possible patent "violations".

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

    Firey Bird writes:

    > DFS wrote:
    >
    >> Firey Bird wrote:
    >>> DFS wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> ... the Linux Interoperability lab, and OSS-specific
    >>>> job titles at MS...
    >>>
    >>> Yeah right. LOL!

    >>
    >>
    >> Another ignorant, silly cola moron. Who coulda guessed?
    >>
    >>

    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...evolution.mspx
    >
    > It's so easy to misinterpret what people say online. You think I doubted
    > the existence of Microsoft's Linux Interoperability Lab and the OSS-related
    > staff members. But that isn't what I meant.
    >
    > I don't doubt the existence of Linux/OSS-related projects at MS. What I
    > doubt is the idea that MS genuinely want to work with Linux/OSS developers.
    > Their deals with Novell and Xandros aren't about interoperability - they're
    > about patent and intellectual property issues. And the Linux
    > Interoperability Lab very likely spends a lot of time poring over Linux
    > source code looking for possible patent "violations".


    How ridiculous.

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

    Firey Bird wrote:
    > DFS wrote:
    >
    >> Firey Bird wrote:
    >>> DFS wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> ... the Linux Interoperability lab, and OSS-specific
    >>>> job titles at MS...
    >>>
    >>> Yeah right. LOL!

    >>
    >>
    >> Another ignorant, silly cola moron. Who coulda guessed?
    >>
    >>

    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...evolution.mspx
    >
    > It's so easy to misinterpret what people say online. You think I
    > doubted the existence of Microsoft's Linux Interoperability Lab and
    > the OSS-related staff members. But that isn't what I meant.


    Then you should say what you mean.


    > I don't doubt the existence of Linux/OSS-related projects at MS.
    > What I doubt is the idea that MS genuinely want to work with
    > Linux/OSS developers.


    You can doubt what you want, but I gave you about 10 pieces of solid
    evidence to the contrary.



    > Their deals with Novell and Xandros aren't
    > about interoperability - they're about patent and intellectual
    > property issues.


    ....and interoperability.



    > And the Linux Interoperability Lab very likely
    > spends a lot of time poring over Linux source code looking for
    > possible patent "violations".


    blah blah blah... like any of you cola fools has an inkling of what goes on
    inside Microsoft, or the terms of their deals with OEMs, etc.




+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4