Appil Corproation asstroturfer O x f o r d wrote on behalf of Appil
corporation:

> N

Linux now distributed at a rate of 1 million+ desktops per month.
Embedded Linux now selling 1 million embedded Linux products PER DAY.
Linux and open source is winning compared to over priced underperforming
second rate appil crap products and marketing.

See for yourself why Linux is superior technology
compared to appil crap.
Go to http://www.youtube.com and search for compiz and beryl

Its all free.
Time you got a decent PC and installed Linux
and enjoyed the power of Linux flowing through your computer.
For speed, performance and bang for buck there is nothing
that beats it.

http://www.livecdlist.com
http://www.distrowatch.com

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, O x f o r d

wrote
on Mon, 07 Jan 2008 15:20:48 -0700
:
> No Great Surprise, but InfoWorld has now named Apple's OSX the best
> Platform of the year in 2008.

[rest snipped]

And we're supposed to care precisely...why?

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
GNU and improved.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

7 wrote:

> Linux now distributed at a rate of 1 million+ desktops per month.
> Embedded Linux now selling 1 million embedded Linux products PER DAY.
> Linux and open source is winning compared to over priced underperforming
> second rate appil crap products and marketing.

and 96% of them are "updates/patches" to previous distributions. Only
around 2,111 "new" installs with Linux on a day to day basis.

OSX completely dwarfs that number at 19,000 per day in purely "new"
machines being brought online, and just look, over 23,000 PER DAY in the
current 90 days alone.

Linux just can't keep pace with the more robust OSX, you and I both know
that. Linus is fine for dumb servers and terminals, don't get me wrong,
but it never will hold more than .8% of worldwide share on desktops or
laptops. That's a simple FACT.

(Apple's Laptops alone already have 22% worldwide share!, so the Linux
community really must rethink their goals)

> See for yourself why Linux is superior technology
> compared to appil crap.
> Go to http://www.youtube.com and search for compiz and beryl

didn't see anything, could you post a real example?

> Its all free.
> Time you got a decent PC and installed Linux
> and enjoyed the power of Linux flowing through your computer.
> For speed, performance and bang for buck there is nothing
> that beats it.

OSX is faster than Linux, that has been proven over and over. Linux was
a flash in the pan before Linus moved to OSX in the late 00's.

Now OSX is over 19 times the size of Linux when you look at the
"installed base", plus it has REAL profession software, not the hobby,
afterschool projects so often see when downloading Linux software.

Yes, I feel sorry for the poor regions of Europe that still hang on to
Linux even though Linus has moved to a purely Mac City. Linux is
basically dead in the big scheme of things. I'm just the messenger.

-

O x f o r d wrote:
> 7 wrote:
>

> OSX is faster than Linux, that has been proven over and over. Linux was
> a flash in the pan before Linus moved to OSX in the late 00's.
>

There are also a damn side larger number of decent apps that have
professional polish for OS X compared to Linux. It is all well and good
to run an OS, but that OS also needs quality apps to run on it. Linux
might have a gazillion apps, but that significant majority are amateur
hour by comparison to the apps designed to run on OS X

O x f o r d wrote:

< snip OxRetard garbage >

> OSX is faster than Linux, that has been proven over and over. Linux was
> a flash in the pan before Linus moved to OSX in the late 00's.
>

Only that Linus did never move to OSX

Sorry to burst your bubble, cretinous typical Mac user OxRetard, but you are
wrong as usual: He is /also/ using a Apple computer. He runs linux PPC on
it

Torvalds: OS X core a “piece of crap�
http://www.geek.com/torvalds-os-x-core-a-piece-of-crap/

Scuttlebutt: Torvalds Thinks OS X Is Crap
http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/ma...9/mac_dev.html

Torvalds rubbishes core of Apple's OS X
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1...2085525,00.htm


Do you need any more links why Linus Torvalds thinks that OSX is garbage,
utter, complete filth? You can have dozens of them. All telling you what
garbage your beloved toy-OS really is

You are really a typical Mac user, OxRetard. Nothing which remotely
resembles "facts" would be found anywhere near you

< snip more typical Mac users idiocy >
--
Avoid reality at all costs.

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 14:55:11 -0800, Tommy Tickler wrote
(in article ):

> O x f o r d wrote:
>> 7 wrote:
>>
>
>> OSX is faster than Linux, that has been proven over and over. Linux was
>> a flash in the pan before Linus moved to OSX in the late 00's.
>>
>
> There are also a damn side larger number of decent apps that have
> professional polish for OS X compared to Linux. It is all well and good
> to run an OS, but that OS also needs quality apps to run on it. Linux
> might have a gazillion apps, but that significant majority are amateur
> hour by comparison to the apps designed to run on OS X

That's true. Funny thing though, out of the box, a Mac can run just about
anything that Linux can run (as long as you install X11 too).

--
How come every time we get a "Major Tax Cut" I get maybe $0.30 more returned
to me, but every time there's a "Minor Tax Increase" it costs me $300.00?

> There are also a damn side larger number of decent apps that have
> professional polish for OS X compared to Linux. It is all well and good
> to run an OS, but that OS also needs quality apps to run on it. Linux
> might have a gazillion apps, but that significant majority are amateur
> hour by comparison to the apps designed to run on OS X

I will admit that many of the apps running in Linux are not as well
polished as those of MS or Apple, but given time they will improve. Apple
and MS spend literally millions in research in fine tuning their GUIs for
the average user, while apps in the Linux community are built by
relavtively small groups who are far more intent on ensuring a stable and
secure core. As Linux distros mature, the interfaces for the apps will also
greatly improve. At the present, you have various distros that appeal to
different sets of users. With MS and Apple you take it the way they want
you to have it.

O x f o r d wrote:

> No Great Surprise, but InfoWorld has now named Apple's OSX the best
> Platform of the year in 2008.

If you have to /buy/ plaudits like this, your product is worthless.

Next month, another "industry" rag will tell the world that MS Vista is the
best OS available - because MS will buy /lots/ of expensive advertising
space.

These silly "awards" are about as reliable a Hi-fi magazine reviews. (Clue:
the company that buys the most advertising space gets the best reviews!)

C.

O x f o r d writes:

> No Great Surprise, but InfoWorld has now named Apple's OSX the best
> Platform of the year in 2008.
>
> http://www.infoworld.com/slideshow/2...hnology-2.html

Huh? According to l33t MS hacker "Christopher Hunter", Apple have
neither the talent nor the resources to challenge Linux! No wonder
Microsoft fired him - he's clearly barking mad.

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 15:20:48 -0700, O x f o r d wrote:

.... nothing worth reading.


--
Rick

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 15:58:37 -0800, George Graves wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 14:55:11 -0800, Tommy Tickler wrote (in article
> ):
>
>> O x f o r d wrote:
>>> 7 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> OSX is faster than Linux, that has been proven over and over. Linux
>>> was a flash in the pan before Linus moved to OSX in the late 00's.
>>>
>>>
>> There are also a damn side larger number of decent apps that have
>> professional polish for OS X compared to Linux. It is all well and
>> good to run an OS, but that OS also needs quality apps to run on it.
>> Linux might have a gazillion apps, but that significant majority are
>> amateur hour by comparison to the apps designed to run on OS X
>
> That's true. Funny thing though, out of the box, a Mac can run just
> about anything that Linux can run (as long as you install X11 too).

.... as long as you install X11 too is not the same as out of the box.

--
Rick

Hadron wrote:

> O x f o r d writes:
>
>> No Great Surprise, but InfoWorld has now named Apple's OSX the best
>> Platform of the year in 2008.
>>
>> http://www.infoworld.com/slideshow/2...hnology-2.html
>
> Huh? According to l33t MS hacker "Christopher Hunter", Apple have
> neither the talent nor the resources to challenge Linux! No wonder
> Microsoft fired him - he's clearly barking mad.

If you knew my *real* name, you'd know why and when I (of my own
volition) /left/ MS.

It was actually quite a lot of fun at the time, but the endless meaningless
meetings, the retarded corporate structure (where a man's level of
*incompetence* determines how high in the company he gets) and the poor pay
(I can get three times as much for shorter hours elsewhere) persuaded me
and many of my collegues to leave. There was a mass migration to FOSS
projects!

As to Apple - they have a fairly competent core team of around eighty
programmers. There is *no* *way* that they have the amount of /resources/
or amount of /talent/ that's available to FOSS.

It's quite funny to have a machine running Beryl next to an OSX effort.
There's no longer any comparison. The Linux box wins in /every/ way, as
long as you make sensible choices about software (and don't just
install /everything/ that's included with a distro).

C.

In article <13o5gaj23tajm15@news.supernews.com>, Rick
wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 15:58:37 -0800, George Graves wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 14:55:11 -0800, Tommy Tickler wrote (in article
> > ):
> >
> >> O x f o r d wrote:
> >>> 7 wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> OSX is faster than Linux, that has been proven over and over. Linux
> >>> was a flash in the pan before Linus moved to OSX in the late 00's.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> There are also a damn side larger number of decent apps that have
> >> professional polish for OS X compared to Linux. It is all well and
> >> good to run an OS, but that OS also needs quality apps to run on it.
> >> Linux might have a gazillion apps, but that significant majority are
> >> amateur hour by comparison to the apps designed to run on OS X
> >
> > That's true. Funny thing though, out of the box, a Mac can run just
> > about anything that Linux can run (as long as you install X11 too).
>
> ... as long as you install X11 too is not the same as out of the box.

Uh, with Leopard, the default install is with X11...

Christopher Hunter writes:

> Hadron wrote:
>
>> O x f o r d writes:
>>
>>> No Great Surprise, but InfoWorld has now named Apple's OSX the best
>>> Platform of the year in 2008.
>>>
>>> http://www.infoworld.com/slideshow/2...hnology-2.html
>>
>> Huh? According to l33t MS hacker "Christopher Hunter", Apple have
>> neither the talent nor the resources to challenge Linux! No wonder
>> Microsoft fired him - he's clearly barking mad.
>
> If you knew my *real* name, you'd know why and when I (of my own
> volition) /left/ MS.

I take my hat off to you for picking a nym which so clearly matches your
views.

>
> It was actually quite a lot of fun at the time, but the endless meaningless
> meetings, the retarded corporate structure (where a man's level of
> *incompetence* determines how high in the company he gets) and the
> poor pay

You're misquoting the Peter principle which states that someone is
promoted to their first level of incompetence. I think ....

> (I can get three times as much for shorter hours elsewhere) persuaded me
> and many of my collegues to leave. There was a mass migration to FOSS
> projects!

3 x as much eh? Good to see you're after the cash. Nothing wrong with
that.

>
> As to Apple - they have a fairly competent core team of around eighty
> programmers. There is *no* *way* that they have the amount of /resources/
> or amount of /talent/ that's available to FOSS.

Bull****.

>
> It's quite funny to have a machine running Beryl next to an OSX
> effort.

if you think Beryl determines "quality" then good luck to you. Go and us
OSX or an iPhone to see how a UI should hang together.

> There's no longer any comparison. The Linux box wins in /every/ way, as
> long as you make sensible choices about software (and don't just
> install /everything/ that's included with a distro).

Linux IS great WHEN you get to know it. Unfortunately most of the OSS
GUI apps are simply atrocious.

Gimp, and now Amarok are the main exceptions IMO.

Hadron wrote:

> I take my hat off to you for picking a nym which so clearly matches your
> views.

HA!

>> It was actually quite a lot of fun at the time, but the endless
>> meaningless meetings, the retarded corporate structure (where a man's
>> level of *incompetence* determines how high in the company he gets) and
>> the poor pay
>
> You're misquoting the Peter principle which states that someone is
> promoted to their first level of incompetence. I think ....

You're /nearly/ right (that /was/ the Peter Principle), but at MS,
incompetence and sycophancy were the only real ways to progress.

>> (I can get three times as much for shorter hours elsewhere) persuaded me
>> and many of my collegues to leave. There was a mass migration to FOSS
>> projects!
>
> 3 x as much eh? Good to see you're after the cash. Nothing wrong with
> that.

Exactly! I want a comfortable old age, and want to be not too old to enjoy
it!

>> As to Apple - they have a fairly competent core team of around eighty
>> programmers. There is *no* *way* that they have the amount of
>> /resources/ or amount of /talent/ that's available to FOSS.
>
> Bull****.

Think. The sheer /numbers/ of FOSS developers guarantee that there's /more/
talent! Some mud always sticks to the wall!

>> It's quite funny to have a machine running Beryl next to an OSX
>> effort.
>
> if you think Beryl determines "quality" then good luck to you.

When properly configured on modern hardware, it's spectacular - it's the
"gold standard" for desktop offerings.

> Go and use OSX or an iPhone to see how a UI should hang together.

OSX is surprisingly slow - I've got a box next to me. It's pretty, but
inefficient. The iPhone is a poor joke. The software is easily crashed,
they missed out *3G* compatability, the transceiver is appalling (low
output power, poor receive sensitivity), and they're really easily broken!

>> There's no longer any comparison. The Linux box wins in /every/ way, as
>> long as you make sensible choices about software (and don't just
>> install /everything/ that's included with a distro).
>
> Linux IS great WHEN you get to know it. Unfortunately most of the OSS
> GUI apps are simply atrocious.

Not any more. That might have been true five years ago, but no longer.

> Gimp, and now Amarok are the main exceptions IMO.

Your opinions are almost right in this instance, but there's a /lot/ more
good software that you might have missed!

C.

Christopher Hunter writes:

> Hadron wrote:
>
>>> It's quite funny to have a machine running Beryl next to an OSX
>>> effort.
>>
>> if you think Beryl determines "quality" then good luck to you.
>
> When properly configured on modern hardware, it's spectacular - it's the
> "gold standard" for desktop offerings.

No. It's the gold standard for useless eye candy. I used it for a while
and got bored with it and removed it. It stopped my dual screen setup
showing full screen video on the second X display. A known bug I
believe.

It IS impressive though. No doubt. But a desktop is not application SW
for real work I am afraid.

>
>> Go and use OSX or an iPhone to see how a UI should hang together.
>
> OSX is surprisingly slow - I've got a box next to me. It's pretty, but
> inefficient. The iPhone is a poor joke. The software is easily crashed,
> they missed out *3G* compatability, the transceiver is appalling (low
> output power, poor receive sensitivity), and they're really easily
> broken!

I am talking about the UI SW. It is excellent.

>
>>> There's no longer any comparison. The Linux box wins in /every/ way, as
>>> long as you make sensible choices about software (and don't just
>>> install /everything/ that's included with a distro).
>>
>> Linux IS great WHEN you get to know it. Unfortunately most of the OSS
>> GUI apps are simply atrocious.
>
> Not any more. That might have been true five years ago, but no
> longer.

Rubbish.
>
>> Gimp, and now Amarok are the main exceptions IMO.
>
> Your opinions are almost right in this instance, but there's a /lot/ more
> good software that you might have missed!

Name it. And compare it to the professional Windows equivalents.

Christopher Hunter wrote:

> It's quite funny to have a machine running Beryl next to an OSX effort.
> There's no longer any comparison. The Linux box wins in /every/ way, as
> long as you make sensible choices about software (and don't just
> install /everything/ that's included with a distro).

not in terms of mass "usability", linux never has a chance.

linux is mainly the purview of the poor, inexperienced and uninformed.

osx is where the winners live, everyone in the unix community agrees
with that.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/

http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/

the big boys never even consider linux at this point in the game.

"Pixzl" wrote:

> Do you even know what the word "Retard" means? ( to hinder, delay, or slow
> the advance or progress of )
> Not the slang you seem to think it means.
> Look up the word asswhipe, oh wait, just look in the mirror.
> LOL

don't ever "top post", that is the TRUEST definition of "retard"...

posts on USENET go at the bottom so people in the future can read them
correctly.

learn how USENET works, don't be a RETARD.

you are still trying to use:

X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138

so it shows you are a pure fool.

REPLIES go at the BOTTOM... NEVER at the top.

Learn about how computing works, don't use Microsoft software, it will
make you look like an idiot every time.

-

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:18:27 -0800, Rick wrote
(in article <13o5gaj23tajm15@news.supernews.com>):

> On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 15:58:37 -0800, George Graves wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 14:55:11 -0800, Tommy Tickler wrote (in article
>> ):
>>
>>> O x f o r d wrote:
>>>> 7 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OSX is faster than Linux, that has been proven over and over. Linux
>>>> was a flash in the pan before Linus moved to OSX in the late 00's.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> There are also a damn side larger number of decent apps that have
>>> professional polish for OS X compared to Linux. It is all well and
>>> good to run an OS, but that OS also needs quality apps to run on it.
>>> Linux might have a gazillion apps, but that significant majority are
>>> amateur hour by comparison to the apps designed to run on OS X
>>
>> That's true. Funny thing though, out of the box, a Mac can run just
>> about anything that Linux can run (as long as you install X11 too).
>
> ... as long as you install X11 too is not the same as out of the box.
>
>

Well, since it comes with the computer and with each OSX upgrade, I'd say
that it too is "in the box".

--
How come every time we get a "Major Tax Cut" I get maybe $0.30 more returned
to me, but every time there's a "Minor Tax Increase" it costs me $300.00?