Re: Even Mark Shuttleworth admits - "It would be reasonable to say that this (Linux) is not ready for the mass market." - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Re: Even Mark Shuttleworth admits - "It would be reasonable to say that this (Linux) is not ready for the mass market." - Ubuntu ; "Ezekiel" writes: > "Nomen Nescio" wrote in message > news:9874ca557d6d73495fecc6472b1b8c0e@dizum.com... >> Hadron wrote: >> >>> > My parents have Windows and it is a total disaster. (they got >>> > ****ed and were sold "Windows ME"). >>> >>> That is ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 50 of 50

Thread: Re: Even Mark Shuttleworth admits - "It would be reasonable to say that this (Linux) is not ready for the mass market."

  1. Re: Even Mark Shuttleworth admits - "It would be reasonable to say that this (Linux) is not ready for the mass market."

    "Ezekiel" writes:

    > "Nomen Nescio" wrote in message
    > news:9874ca557d6d73495fecc6472b1b8c0e@dizum.com...
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> > My parents have Windows and it is a total disaster. (they got
    >>> > ****ed and were sold "Windows ME").
    >>>
    >>> That is ANCIENT. Ubuntu didn't even exist then. So fair is fair.

    >>
    >> Your bias is showing. You have no way of knowing that because you
    >> don't know how many copies of ME might still be in circulation or
    >> sold pre-installed on "garage sale" equipment.
    >>
    >>> > I do not think that it is losing ground. Maybe I am missing
    >>> > something.
    >>>
    >>> You are : the figures. IIS is growing as Apache is falling. And
    >>> this considering that Apache runs on Windows too.

    >>
    >> Now you hold up your dishonesty for everyone to see.
    >>
    >> Netcraft and Port80 not only consistently contradict each other, but
    >> also themselves when it comes to their "big picture" of what runs
    >> the WWW. And they both admit their methods are horribly flawed.

    >
    > So a couple of years ago when Apache usage was growing these stats were all
    > and good and touted as a testiment for OSS and Apache. But now that the same
    > stats from the same companies using the same methodology show otherwise they
    > are suddenly "horribly flawed."


    Nobrain Nescio has thrown his hat into the ring for the stupidest poster
    in COLA. You can actually see the strings Roy pulls to make him talk.

    --
    "At BT Global, our crown jewels are the services we supply to our
    customers. With jNetX we own the intellectual property for our
    services, allowing us to evolve the services as and when required."

    Mark Kent
    Head of Technology Strategy

  2. Re: Even Mark Shuttleworth admits - "It would be reasonable to say that this (Linux) is not ready for the mass market."

    On 2008-03-19, Ezekiel wrote:
    >
    > "Ignoramus30927" wrote in message
    > news:zL6dnY6LiK1ug3zanZ2dnUVZ_s6mnZ2d@giganews.com ...
    >> Ubuntu is the best distro out there, and yes, it is not fully ready
    >> for desktop. (meaning for dumb users who don't know what is bash or
    >> CMD.EXE)
    >>
    >> Windows Vista is not really ready either.

    >
    > Interesting claim since about 10% of the desktops in the world are running
    > Vista.


    Once upon a time, a whole lot more than a mere 10% of "desktops"
    in the world were running some version of MS-DOS.

    [deletia]

    The fact that someone can engage in channel stuffing doesn't
    mean that their product is suitable or fit for any particular
    purpose or end user.

    --
    The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
    if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  3. Re: Even Mark Shuttleworth admits - "It would be reasonable to say that this (Linux) is not ready for the mass market."

    JEDIDIAH writes:

    > On 2008-03-19, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>
    >> "Ignoramus30927" wrote in message
    >> news:zL6dnY6LiK1ug3zanZ2dnUVZ_s6mnZ2d@giganews.com ...
    >>> Ubuntu is the best distro out there, and yes, it is not fully ready
    >>> for desktop. (meaning for dumb users who don't know what is bash or
    >>> CMD.EXE)
    >>>
    >>> Windows Vista is not really ready either.

    >>
    >> Interesting claim since about 10% of the desktops in the world are running
    >> Vista.

    >
    > Once upon a time, a whole lot more than a mere 10% of "desktops"
    > in the world were running some version of MS-DOS.


    You don't say? Would this be prior to 98/NT and XP?

    --
    - "Actually XP *is* getting press, but most of it is along the lines of
    "we're going to wait and see", in other words not very good."
    comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy

  4. Re: Even Mark Shuttleworth admits - "It would be reasonable to say that this (Linux) is not ready for the mass market."

    Ezekiel wrote:

    >
    > "Nomen Nescio" wrote in message
    > news:9874ca557d6d73495fecc6472b1b8c0e@dizum.com...
    > > Hadron wrote:
    > >
    > >> > My parents have Windows and it is a total disaster. (they got
    > >> > ****ed and were sold "Windows ME").
    > >>
    > >> That is ANCIENT. Ubuntu didn't even exist then. So fair is
    > >> fair.

    > >
    > > Your bias is showing. You have no way of knowing that because
    > > you don't know how many copies of ME might still be in
    > > circulation or sold pre-installed on "garage sale" equipment.
    > >
    > >> > I do not think that it is losing ground. Maybe I am missing
    > >> > something.
    > >>
    > >> You are : the figures. IIS is growing as Apache is falling. And
    > >> this considering that Apache runs on Windows too.

    > >
    > > Now you hold up your dishonesty for everyone to see.
    > >
    > > Netcraft and Port80 not only consistently contradict each
    > > other, but also themselves when it comes to their "big picture"
    > > of what runs the WWW. And they both admit their methods are
    > > horribly flawed.

    >
    > So a couple of years ago when Apache usage was growing these
    > stats were all and good and touted as a testiment for OSS and
    > Apache. But now that the same stats from the same companies using
    > the same methodology show otherwise they are suddenly "horribly
    > flawed."


    I never said that, but the fact that you're compelled to such a
    laughable depth of revisionism in order to further your quibbling
    speaks volumes about you personally.




























  5. Re: Even Mark Shuttleworth admits - "It would be reasonable to saythat this (Linux) is not ready for the mass market."

    Ezekiel wrote:

    >
    > "Nomen Nescio" wrote in message
    > news:9874ca557d6d73495fecc6472b1b8c0e@dizum.com...
    > > Hadron wrote:
    > >
    > >> > My parents have Windows and it is a total disaster. (they got
    > >> > ****ed and were sold "Windows ME").
    > >>
    > >> That is ANCIENT. Ubuntu didn't even exist then. So fair is
    > >> fair.

    > >
    > > Your bias is showing. You have no way of knowing that because
    > > you don't know how many copies of ME might still be in
    > > circulation or sold pre-installed on "garage sale" equipment.
    > >
    > >> > I do not think that it is losing ground. Maybe I am missing
    > >> > something.
    > >>
    > >> You are : the figures. IIS is growing as Apache is falling. And
    > >> this considering that Apache runs on Windows too.

    > >
    > > Now you hold up your dishonesty for everyone to see.
    > >
    > > Netcraft and Port80 not only consistently contradict each
    > > other, but also themselves when it comes to their "big picture"
    > > of what runs the WWW. And they both admit their methods are
    > > horribly flawed.

    >
    > So a couple of years ago when Apache usage was growing these
    > stats were all and good and touted as a testiment for OSS and
    > Apache. But now that the same stats from the same companies using
    > the same methodology show otherwise they are suddenly "horribly
    > flawed."


    I never said that, but the fact that you're compelled to such a
    laughable depth of revisionism in order to further your quibbling
    speaks volumes about you personally.


  6. Re: Even Mark Shuttleworth admits - "It would be reasonable to saythat this (Linux) is not ready for the mass market."

    Hadron wrote:

    > Nomen Nescio writes:
    >
    > > Hadron wrote:
    > >
    > >> > My parents have Windows and it is a total disaster. (they got
    > >> > ****ed and were sold "Windows ME").
    > >>
    > >> That is ANCIENT. Ubuntu didn't even exist then. So fair is
    > >> fair.

    > >
    > > Your bias is showing. You have no way of knowing that because
    > > you don't know how many copies of ME might still be in
    > > circulation or sold pre-installed on "garage sale" equipment.

    >
    > Wow. You really are as stupid as I first guessed. If I buy a
    > Picasso, is that new? No? What about a shrink wrapped copy of
    > MS-DOS?


    Irrelevant blithering. You assumed, by virtue of your limited
    thinking abilities no doubt, that someone bought their copy of ME
    before Ubuntu existed.

    I merely pointed at your limited synaptic abilities add chuckled.
    So don't blame me for your continued embarrassment, place that
    squarely on your own shoulders where it belongs.

    And, coward, here's what you snipped and ran from because you know
    as well as everyone else reading this that it too makes you look
    like a drooling imbecile...

    Netcraft and Port80 not only consistently contradict each other, but
    also themselves when it comes to their "big picture" of what runs
    the WWW. And they both admit their methods are horribly flawed.

    Why that's a fact is obvious even to someone like you, but you'll
    never admit it because it flies in the fact of your Windroid
    agenda. The problem is, as anyone can read in the literature
    provided by the aforementioned organizations themselves, that it's
    next to impossible to get a valid sampling of the web itself let
    alone poll it accurately for any significant results in this
    context. About the only semi-truthful conclusion that can be drawn
    from their surveys, according to both of them as a matter of fact,
    is that Apache servers probably oughtnumber IIS servers by about
    3.5 to 1, and that this statistic mysteriously fluctuates in a
    seemingly random fashion every time it's compiled.

    On the odd chance that readers may be taken in by your nonsense,
    here's a couple references to help clear things up. Enjoy!

    http://www.port80software.com/survey...vers/relevance

    http://4sysops.com/archives/apache-v...re-statistics/


  7. Re: Even Mark Shuttleworth admits - "It would be reasonable to say that this (Linux) is not ready for the mass market."

    "Non scrivetemi" writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Nomen Nescio writes:
    >>
    >> > Hadron wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> > My parents have Windows and it is a total disaster. (they got
    >> >> > ****ed and were sold "Windows ME").
    >> >>
    >> >> That is ANCIENT. Ubuntu didn't even exist then. So fair is
    >> >> fair.
    >> >
    >> > Your bias is showing. You have no way of knowing that because
    >> > you don't know how many copies of ME might still be in
    >> > circulation or sold pre-installed on "garage sale" equipment.

    >>
    >> Wow. You really are as stupid as I first guessed. If I buy a
    >> Picasso, is that new? No? What about a shrink wrapped copy of
    >> MS-DOS?

    >
    > Irrelevant blithering.


    You become increasingly more boring.

  8. Re: Even Mark Shuttleworth admits - "It would be reasonable to say that this (Linux) is not ready for the mass market."

    Hadron wrote:

    > "Non scrivetemi" writes:
    >
    > > Hadron wrote:
    > >
    > >> Nomen Nescio writes:
    > >>
    > >> > Hadron wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >> > My parents have Windows and it is a total disaster. (they
    > >> >> > got ****ed and were sold "Windows ME").
    > >> >>
    > >> >> That is ANCIENT. Ubuntu didn't even exist then. So fair is
    > >> >> fair.
    > >> >
    > >> > Your bias is showing. You have no way of knowing that because
    > >> > you don't know how many copies of ME might still be in
    > >> > circulation or sold pre-installed on "garage sale" equipment.
    > >>
    > >> Wow. You really are as stupid as I first guessed. If I buy a
    > >> Picasso, is that new? No? What about a shrink wrapped copy of
    > >> MS-DOS?

    > >
    > > Irrelevant blithering.

    >
    > You become increasingly more boring.


    I'm sorry if being thoroughly trounced bores you.

    Almost as "sorry" as I am that I've exposed you as a pathetic four
    year old pretending to cover its ears and scream rather than
    listening to his parents.

    Yes Quack, I see how it's frustrating to you to have your idiocy
    so thoroughly dissected that you're compelled to renege on your
    empty killfile resolutions just to proffer up a desperately,
    deflective reply with no substance what so ever. So frustrating in
    fact, that you're forced to feign "boredom".

    Now take me out of your killfile just long enough to reply, and
    then quickly put me back in it.









  9. Re: Even Mark Shuttleworth admits - "It would be reasonable to saythat this (Linux) is not ready for the mass market."

    Ignoramus30927 wrote:

    >>> XP and Mac arethe only two things ready for desktop, but XP is bring
    >>> phased out.

    >> "XP is being phased out" - I wouldn't count on it. It's actually 'more
    >> work' for MS to phase out XP then to keep things the way they are. Sure
    >> they've sent some floaters out to the press saying it would be phased out
    >> to see what the public reaction would be. But MS didn't get to where they
    >> are by being stupid and there's no way they are going to phase out XP. You
    >> can count on it.

    >
    > I believe they are going to stop selling it by summer.


    That would shut them out of the flood of low-performance diskless Eee
    and XO knockoffs. Those are already selling at a rate of probably
    hundreds of thousands per month. It would also shut them out of
    third-world schools that have only old hardware that isn't good enough
    for Vista. I doubt strongly they are actually going to do that.

  10. Re: Even Mark Shuttleworth admits - "It would be reasonable to say that this (Linux) is not ready for the mass market."

    On 2008-03-23, Matt wrote:
    > Ignoramus30927 wrote:
    >
    >>>> XP and Mac arethe only two things ready for desktop, but XP is bring
    >>>> phased out.
    >>> "XP is being phased out" - I wouldn't count on it. It's actually 'more
    >>> work' for MS to phase out XP then to keep things the way they are. Sure
    >>> they've sent some floaters out to the press saying it would be phased out
    >>> to see what the public reaction would be. But MS didn't get to where they
    >>> are by being stupid and there's no way they are going to phase out XP. You
    >>> can count on it.

    >>
    >> I believe they are going to stop selling it by summer.

    >
    > That would shut them out of the flood of low-performance diskless Eee
    > and XO knockoffs. Those are already selling at a rate of probably
    > hundreds of thousands per month. It would also shut them out of
    > third-world schools that have only old hardware that isn't good enough
    > for Vista. I doubt strongly they are actually going to do that.


    We'll see how it goes. Perhaps they are going to discontinue it for
    some markets, such as new desktops, but would keep it available for,
    say, third world and tiny laptops, as you say.

    i

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