Em Terça, 8 de Julho de 2008 23:33, Moshe Goldfarb. escreveu:

> Linux has been around for 15+ years.
> Linux is free.
> Linux applications are free.
>
> So, the question is why is Linux still sitting at below 1 percent of the
> desktop market?
Market? do you mean how much are selled? very few, linux is free and most
distros have there "free as free beer" version too.


> Something that is free is used by so little of the population?
if you would have access to statistics of blog visitors like i have, you
would see that the percentage of linux users on the internet is now over
30%, much higher than vista users, and way way higher than Mac users...
the only system that is still over linux is WinXP.

> Something is seriously wrong with Linux....
Something is seriously wrong with you... you're a blind ignorant that can't
see that everybody is changing to alternatives, running from Ms Windows.

bye asshole

On 2008-07-09, thufir wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 10:06:24 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>
>>> Depends on your definition of 'market'. Most of these surveys consider
>>> only the US and Northern Europe. If you were to include South America,
>>> China and Africa I think you would find the figure is much higher.
> [...]
>> Well it's been reported already that inexpensive Linux preloaded
>> machines in China are quickly converted to Windows XP machines.
>>
>> Why would that happen if Linux is so great?
>
>
> Linux is great, it's the better mousetrap.
>
> In a utopia, sure, Linux would be the dominant OS *because* it's better.
> Instead, ask *why* an inferior OS is dominant.

....better yet.

Let's contemplate MS-DOS 5 vs. the original Macintosh.

All the 68K machines blew away kludge clones in any technical criteria.

--

The social cost of suing/prosecuting individuals |||
for non-commercial copyright infringement far outweighs / | \
the social value of copyright to begin with.



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

Andy Jacobs wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:04:43 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>
>> I could go on for hours demonstrating what Linux can't do that average
>> Joe needs or wants to do, but the above should keep you busy for a
>> while.
>
Mmhm. Who is feeding the googlegroopers or trolls or c.o.l.a crossposters
here ... I would never have seen the OPs drivel.

"thufir" stated in post
p29dk.60506$kx.9105@pd7urf3no on 7/9/08 1:18 PM:

> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 10:06:24 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>
>>> Depends on your definition of 'market'. Most of these surveys consider
>>> only the US and Northern Europe. If you were to include South America,
>>> China and Africa I think you would find the figure is much higher.
> [...]
>> Well it's been reported already that inexpensive Linux preloaded
>> machines in China are quickly converted to Windows XP machines.
>>
>> Why would that happen if Linux is so great?
>
>
> Linux is great, it's the better mousetrap.

I am not disagreeing - bit what do you think Linux offers over other common
alternatives ... other than price?
>
> In a utopia, sure, Linux would be the dominant OS *because* it's better.
> Instead, ask *why* an inferior OS is dominant.
>
>
>
> -Thufir



--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Feel free to ask for the recipe.

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 10:00:02 -0400, Bob Eyster wrote:

> One reason why it's not at 1%. No one is writing major apps for it. I
> for one do not like open source apps, at present that's all that seems
> available. I put Linux in the same boat as OS-2, there was no interest
> in it plus no one wrote apps for it.

From the Beeb website:

By BBC News Online internet reporter Mark Ward

SNIP

Interest in Linux is growing fast. Technology research firm IDC estimates
that during the past year 24% of the sales for server software were for
Linux. By contrast 38% of the sales were for Microsoft products.


During 1999 only 4% of desktop machines ran Linux compared to 87% running
versions of Microsoft Windows.

(posted at the end of 2000 - it'd be interesting to see the equivalent
figures now!)

Keith

Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 12:08:24 +0100, Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:
>
>> Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>> Linux has been around for 15+ years.
>>> Linux is free.
>>> Linux applications are free.
>>>
>>> So, the question is why is Linux still sitting at below 1 percent of the
>>> desktop market?
>>>
>> Depends on your definition of 'market'. Most of these surveys consider
>> only the US and Northern Europe. If you were to include South America,
>> China and Africa I think you would find the figure is much higher.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Ian
>
> Well it's been reported already that inexpensive Linux preloaded machines
> in China are quickly converted to Windows XP machines.
>

Where is this reported?

> Why would that happen if Linux is so great?
>

You obviously never heard of Yellow Dog Linux.

Cheers

Ian

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:
>> Well it's been reported already that inexpensive Linux preloaded machines
>> in China are quickly converted to Windows XP machines.
>>
>
> Where is this reported?
>
>> Why would that happen if Linux is so great?
>>
>
> You obviously never heard of Yellow Dog Linux.

Think you man red flag linux.
Yellowdog's the one for PowerPC, isn't it?
--
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |

"Bob Eyster" wrote in
news:#6a5awc4IHA.3396@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:

> One reason why it's not at 1%. No one is writing major apps for it. I
> for one do not like open source apps, at present that's all that seems
> available. I put Linux in the same boat as OS-2, there was no interest
> in it plus no one wrote apps for it.

Here's the problem.....for some reason, many people think that just
because many Linux flavours are free (some aren't), that the only
available s/w is free OSS. This is not the case. Here's a short list of
commercial Linux apps, and a few larger players are represented......

AccRev Enterprise v4.5.4
Active State Komodo IDE v4.0.1
AdventNet ManageEngine PasswordManager Pro v4.8
AdventNet ManageEngine ServiceDesk Enterprise Plus v7.0
AdventNet ManageEngine SNMP Utilities v5.0
Anthemion DialogBlocks v4.20
Blitz Max v1.26
Studio Suite v2008
DataRescue IDA Pro Advanced v5.2
DialLogic Host Media Processing Software v3.1.SP157
Dolphin SMASH v5.9.3
Dolphin SoC GDS v6.0.1
DTSearch Engine v7.5.7515
Fintronic SuperFinSim v9.2.9
Fledermus Pro v6.5.1c.261
FullRecall v1.3.3
Heartsome Translation Suite v6.2-10
LimeWire Pro v4.12.11
Maple
Massive Jet v3.0.0
Massive Prime v3.0.3
My Eclipse Enterprise Workbench v6.0.1
Nero Linux v3.0.2.1_x86_64
Objecteering v6.0 SP2 Enterprise Edition
PerForce v2007.3
PhotoBlender_v3.0_Multilingual_Linux
Pro E Wildfire v3.0.M030
Project Engine Server and Client Enterprise Edition v2007.12
Purebasic v4.10
RageWork v2.9
Runtime DiskExplorer v1.0
SlickEdit 2007
TimeBox v5.7.6
TrueSec Security Toolkit LiveCD v2.0
VariCAD 2007
VueScan Pro v8.4.09
Writers Cafe v1.26
Xilinx ChipScope Pro v9.2i x64
Xilinx ChipScope Pro v9.2i x86
Xilinx PlanAhead v9.2.7

I'd also like to add RealBASIC 2007 to the list also. The 'Lite' version
is free. But no the 'Pro' version. Additionally, in the 'Pro' version, if
you stick with intrinsic functions and subs, the same source code can be
used to compile for Windows, MAC, and Linux, with very little change.

DanS wrote:
> "Bob Eyster" wrote in
> news:#6a5awc4IHA.3396@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
>
>> One reason why it's not at 1%. No one is writing major apps for it. I
>> for one do not like open source apps, at present that's all that
>> seems available. I put Linux in the same boat as OS-2, there was no
>> interest in it plus no one wrote apps for it.
>
> Here's the problem.....for some reason, many people think that just
> because many Linux flavours are free (some aren't), that the only
> available s/w is free OSS. This is not the case. Here's a short list
> of commercial Linux apps, and a few larger players are
> represented......
>
> AccRev Enterprise v4.5.4
> Active State Komodo IDE v4.0.1
> AdventNet ManageEngine PasswordManager Pro v4.8
> AdventNet ManageEngine ServiceDesk Enterprise Plus v7.0
> AdventNet ManageEngine SNMP Utilities v5.0
> Anthemion DialogBlocks v4.20
> Blitz Max v1.26
> Studio Suite v2008
> DataRescue IDA Pro Advanced v5.2
> DialLogic Host Media Processing Software v3.1.SP157
> Dolphin SMASH v5.9.3
> Dolphin SoC GDS v6.0.1
> DTSearch Engine v7.5.7515
> Fintronic SuperFinSim v9.2.9
> Fledermus Pro v6.5.1c.261
> FullRecall v1.3.3
> Heartsome Translation Suite v6.2-10
> LimeWire Pro v4.12.11
> Maple
> Massive Jet v3.0.0
> Massive Prime v3.0.3
> My Eclipse Enterprise Workbench v6.0.1
> Nero Linux v3.0.2.1_x86_64
> Objecteering v6.0 SP2 Enterprise Edition
> PerForce v2007.3
> PhotoBlender_v3.0_Multilingual_Linux
> Pro E Wildfire v3.0.M030
> Project Engine Server and Client Enterprise Edition v2007.12
> Purebasic v4.10
> RageWork v2.9
> Runtime DiskExplorer v1.0
> SlickEdit 2007
> TimeBox v5.7.6
> TrueSec Security Toolkit LiveCD v2.0
> VariCAD 2007
> VueScan Pro v8.4.09
> Writers Cafe v1.26
> Xilinx ChipScope Pro v9.2i x64
> Xilinx ChipScope Pro v9.2i x86
> Xilinx PlanAhead v9.2.7
>
> I'd also like to add RealBASIC 2007 to the list also. The 'Lite'
> version is free. But no the 'Pro' version. Additionally, in the 'Pro'
> version, if you stick with intrinsic functions and subs, the same
> source code can be used to compile for Windows, MAC, and Linux, with
> very little change.


With such a tiny installed linux base, makes you wonder how long any of them
will remain on the market. You can't stay in business long even if all 7
linux users buy it.

the wharf rat wrote:
> In article ,
> John O. Kopf wrote:
>> In Linux, you're asked to MOUNT the floppy - What is "MOUNT"? When
>
> Oh, horse****. (Troll****? Anyway...) Every Linux since 2001
> runs a volume manager when the graphical desktop is up. Damned things
> are in the way, but if you can't handle a mount command then they'll
> make it all work just like Windows.
>
> Geeez. I'm responding to trolls. Is there a doctor in the house?
>


My point is that the casual user inflicted with a mount insistence has
NO idea where to turn to determine what to do next. What does the
"volume manager" look like? Which icon brings it up?

You snipped out my main point:

"Unfortunately, Ubunto/Linux is an OS for people already familiar with
Ubunto/Linux; and there are few places where one can become familiar
with it."

John Kopf

In article , thufir wrote:
>On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 10:06:24 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>
>>> Depends on your definition of 'market'. Most of these surveys consider
>>> only the US and Northern Europe. If you were to include South America,
>>> China and Africa I think you would find the figure is much higher.
>[...]
>> Well it's been reported already that inexpensive Linux preloaded
>> machines in China are quickly converted to Windows XP machines.
>>
>> Why would that happen if Linux is so great?
>Linux is great, it's the better mousetrap.
>
>In a utopia, sure, Linux would be the dominant OS *because* it's better.
>Instead, ask *why* an inferior OS is dominant.

Easy. Marketing. The classic triumph of form over substance

In article , "John O. Kopf" wrote:
>the wharf rat wrote:
> > In article ,
> > John O. Kopf wrote:
> >> In Linux, you're asked to MOUNT the floppy - What is "MOUNT"? When
> >
> > Oh, horse****. (Troll****? Anyway...) Every Linux since 2001
> > runs a volume manager when the graphical desktop is up. Damned things
> > are in the way, but if you can't handle a mount command then they'll
> > make it all work just like Windows.
> >
> > Geeez. I'm responding to trolls. Is there a doctor in the house?
>My point is that the casual user inflicted with a mount insistence has
>NO idea where to turn to determine what to do next. What does the
>"volume manager" look like? Which icon brings it up?
>
>You snipped out my main point:
>
>"Unfortunately, Ubunto/Linux is an OS for people already familiar with
>Ubunto/Linux; and there are few places where one can become familiar
>with it."

... possibly because your "main point", while not new, is still wrong

On 2008-07-09, John O. Kopf wrote:
> the wharf rat wrote:
> > In article ,
> > John O. Kopf wrote:
> >> In Linux, you're asked to MOUNT the floppy - What is "MOUNT"? When
> >
> > Oh, horse****. (Troll****? Anyway...) Every Linux since 2001
> > runs a volume manager when the graphical desktop is up. Damned things
> > are in the way, but if you can't handle a mount command then they'll
> > make it all work just like Windows.
> >
> > Geeez. I'm responding to trolls. Is there a doctor in the house?
> >
>
>
> My point is that the casual user inflicted with a mount insistence has

Is this a criticism of Windows or Linux?

You could apply the same criticism equally on either platform.

> NO idea where to turn to determine what to do next. What does the
> "volume manager" look like? Which icon brings it up?
>
> You snipped out my main point:
>
> "Unfortunately, Ubunto/Linux is an OS for people already familiar with
> Ubunto/Linux; and there are few places where one can become familiar
> with it."

s/ubuntu/vista/g

--

The social cost of suing/prosecuting individuals |||
for non-commercial copyright infringement far outweighs / | \
the social value of copyright to begin with.



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

chrisv wrote:
> F Oh'Ff vist- A wrote:
>
>> linux has become very easy to use.
>
> We know. Don't feed the mentally-ill, lying troll.

Please try to make a habit of always setting 'Followup-To' to a
single newsgroup for any articles that are crossposted to more than
two newsgroups. See this post. This has two major advantages:

1. It suppresses much of the spam.
2. It prevents trying to send a message to a newsgroup your
server does not handle, and the associated errors.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]:
Try the download section.

DanS wrote:
> "Bob Eyster" wrote:
>
>> One reason why it's not at 1%. No one is writing major apps for
>> it. I for one do not like open source apps, at present that's
>> all that seems available. I put Linux in the same boat as OS-2,
>> there was no interest in it plus no one wrote apps for it.
>
> Here's the problem.....for some reason, many people think that
> just because many Linux flavours are free (some aren't), that
> the only available s/w is free OSS. This is not the case. Here's
> a short list of commercial Linux apps, and a few larger players
> are represented......
>
> AccRev Enterprise v4.5.4
.... snip about 50 ids ...
> Xilinx PlanAhead v9.2.7

Linux is released under GPL. All those groups must make the source
code available if they make the binaries available. Failure to
comply has stiff potential penalties.

>
> I'd also like to add RealBASIC 2007 to the list also. The 'Lite'
> version is free. But no the 'Pro' version. Additionally, in the
> 'Pro' version, if you stick with intrinsic functions and subs,
> the same source code can be used to compile for Windows, MAC,
> and Linux, with very little change.

Assuming that you own it, how you release it is up to you. But
Linus owns Linux.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]:
Try the download section.

John O. Kopf wrote:
> My point is that the casual user inflicted with a mount insistence has
> NO idea where to turn to determine what to do next. What does the
> "volume manager" look like? Which icon brings it up?

It doesn't "look like" anything.
IT brings up the icons that represent the media that's inserted.
Put a CD in, and a CD icon appears on the desktop.
Put a memory stick in, and a hard disk icon appears on the desktop.
Put a memory card in, and a memory card icon appears on the desktop

It may also pop up the file browser or (in the case of a digital camera
or digicam memory card) a graphics viewer.

--
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
| in | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
| Computer Science | - Father Jack in "Father Ted" |

Damian wrote:
> With such a tiny installed linux base, makes you wonder how long any of them
> will remain on the market. You can't stay in business long even if all 7
> linux users buy it.

Idiot.
Oh, hang on, that's Peter's line... Sorry Peter.
--
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:25:53 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:

>> In a utopia, sure, Linux would be the dominant OS *because* it's
>> better. Instead, ask *why* an inferior OS is dominant.
>
> ...better yet.
>
> Let's contemplate MS-DOS 5 vs. the original Macintosh.
>
> All the 68K machines blew away kludge clones in any technical criteria.


I have no idea what you're talking about, but that's ok

You're comparing hardware to hardware, or OS?



-Thufir

Andrew Halliwell wrote:
> Damian wrote:
>> With such a tiny installed linux base, makes you wonder how long any
>> of them will remain on the market. You can't stay in business long
>> even if all 7 linux users buy it.
>
> Idiot.
> Oh, hang on, that's Peter's line... Sorry Peter.

You can't take the truth very well, huh.