http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1641114,00.asp


"Are the changes in the Longhorn road map really the "best chance ever" for 
desktop Linux, as some have suggested? Only if the difference in going from 
"teensy weensy" to merely "teensy" can be considered a big improvement. To 
the rest of us, either size is still just a speck."

"Using this sort of measurement, one might even say Longhorn's trouble 
improves desktop Linux's chances by 100, 1,000, or even 1,000,000 times. 
It's just that you're starting with such a tiny chance that even a big 
multiplier doesn't make it much larger in practical terms."


"If the desktop Linux people really cared about using a great operating 
system, they would stop trying to reinvent the wheel and rally around Mac OS 
X. It would be great if the contest were between two worthy operating 
systems, like Mac and XP/Longhorn. But Linux vs. Longhorn? You've got to be 
kidding."


-- 
"I want to make it clear that DRM is perfectly ok with Linux!" -Linus 

S.Heenan wrote:
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1641114,00.asp
> 
> 
> "Are the changes in the Longhorn road map really the "best chance ever" for 
> desktop Linux, as some have suggested? Only if the difference in going from 
> "teensy weensy" to merely "teensy" can be considered a big improvement. To 
> the rest of us, either size is still just a speck."
> 
> "Using this sort of measurement, one might even say Longhorn's trouble 
> improves desktop Linux's chances by 100, 1,000, or even 1,000,000 times. 
> It's just that you're starting with such a tiny chance that even a big 
> multiplier doesn't make it much larger in practical terms."
> 
> 
> "If the desktop Linux people really cared about using a great operating 
> system, they would stop trying to reinvent the wheel and rally around Mac OS 
> X. It would be great if the contest were between two worthy operating 
> systems, like Mac and XP/Longhorn. But Linux vs. Longhorn? You've got to be 
> kidding."
> 

You seem to be advocating M$ products.  You do know that none of their 
o/ses have security in mind.  So if you do not want identity theft, then 
do not use any M$ products.

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

S.Heenan wrote:

> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1641114,00.asp

Just a fluff piece, 20 years out of date.

By way of comparision, Sun has been making money on desktops for 20 years,
albeit with an underlying unix operating system, CDE, Gnome & KDE are the
standard Sun desktops, and Sun makes lots of money.

gtoomey

zuzu wrote:
> S.Heenan wrote:
>
>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1641114,00.asp
>
> Just a fluff piece, 20 years out of date.

Odd, it's dated Aug.31,2004


>
> By way of comparision, Sun has been making money on desktops for 20
> years, albeit with an underlying unix operating system, CDE, Gnome &
> KDE are the standard Sun desktops, and Sun makes lots of money.

That explains why I've not seen one. Using KDE and Gnome 20 years back. 
Hmmmm


Nice nymshift BTW.



-- 
"I want to make it clear that DRM is perfectly ok with Linux!" -Linus 

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:50:26 +0000, S.Heenan wrote:

> zuzu wrote:
>> S.Heenan wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1641114,00.asp
>>
>> Just a fluff piece, 20 years out of date.
> 
> Odd, it's dated Aug.31,2004
> 
> 
>>
>> By way of comparision, Sun has been making money on desktops for 20
>> years, albeit with an underlying unix operating system, CDE, Gnome &
>> KDE are the standard Sun desktops, and Sun makes lots of money.
> 
> That explains why I've not seen one. Using KDE and Gnome 20 years back. 
> Hmmmm
> 
> 
> Nice nymshift BTW.

CDE does indeed go back a long ways. I was introduced to it in about 1990
on a DECstation 4000.

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:50:26 +0000, S.Heenan wrote:

> zuzu wrote:
>> S.Heenan wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1641114,00.asp
>>
>> Just a fluff piece, 20 years out of date.
> 
> Odd, it's dated Aug.31,2004
> 
> 
>>
>> By way of comparision, Sun has been making money on desktops for 20
>> years, albeit with an underlying unix operating system, CDE, Gnome &
>> KDE are the standard Sun desktops, and Sun makes lots of money.
> 
> That explains why I've not seen one.

No, it's because you've been living under a rock.

> Using KDE and Gnome 20 years back. 
> Hmmmm
> 
> 
> Nice nymshift BTW.

Nobody said anything about using KDE and Gnome 20 years back, Heenan.

-- 
Mathew M. <mathew@spiesNOSPAMareus.yi.org>
GPG public key ID: 0x3DDC1413

This post contains a chemical or chemicals known to the state of California
to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. This (these) 
chemical(s) may be harmful to your health.

S.Heenan wrote:

> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1641114,00.asp
> 
> 
> "Are the changes in the Longhorn road map really the "best chance ever"
> for desktop Linux, as some have suggested? Only if the difference in going
> from "teensy weensy" to merely "teensy" can be considered a big
> improvement. To the rest of us, either size is still just a speck."
> 
> "Using this sort of measurement, one might even say Longhorn's trouble
> improves desktop Linux's chances by 100, 1,000, or even 1,000,000 times.
> It's just that you're starting with such a tiny chance that even a big
> multiplier doesn't make it much larger in practical terms."
> 
> 
> "If the desktop Linux people really cared about using a great operating
> system, they would stop trying to reinvent the wheel and rally around Mac
> OS X. It would be great if the contest were between two worthy operating
> systems, like Mac and XP/Longhorn. But Linux vs. Longhorn? You've got to
> be kidding."

"People who use Mac OS X and think about such things consider it to be
"Linux done right." Of course, it's Unix, not Linux, but that's a minor
point. As Linux fragments, as it must, the distinction will become even
more academic that it is already."

The guy who wrote the article is a complete prick.

M$ + Mac$ O$ X + Sun$ + Oracle$ = you have to pay + proprietory
GNU/Linux -> no need to pay + source code free to do with as you like.

begin  "S.Heenan" <sheenan@wahs.ac> dedi ki:

> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1641114,00.asp

By David Coursey, a pathetic babbler. Just look at the quality of
the article: it talks for its writer. I remember him also babbling a
couple of weeks ago, in favor of mostly Linux and partly Windows and
partly everything rolled into a single article, so vague and so filled
with self-inconfidence of ignorance, that I felt ashamed of his supposedly
Linux favoring article. No, thank you. We don't need that kind of ignorant
babblers to advocate Linux. And thank you again, for trying to use him for
Linux bashing. Clever of you, I should say...

Let them babble around, who cares. And when desktop Linux gets 1/4 market
share and zooming ever faster, they will still be babbling around, who
knows about which nonsense this time. I would expect an intelligent Linux
basher to *hide* him and his likes as his betes-noires, instead of touting
about what they have to mumble.

The fact is, Linux desktop, while admittedly still lagging Windows just a
centimeter in user friendly features for the time being, improves in
usability way too faster than Windows. It was only for gurus in 1995, it
was for power users in 2000, and it is for normal users now in 2004. And
looking at the past, present, and the direction, it will only be at least
as user friendly as Windows in a very short time. It is usable *now* by
an average user. This is the main reason why Linux is spreading with an
ever accelerating speed, and this is the main reason why Linux started to
spread like mushroom in governments and companies all around the world,
and this is the main reason why those ignorant babblers started about
mumbling vague ideas about Linux.

Just count the days for the time Linux will be actually more user friendly
than Windows, and started to rival against Mac in its own stronghold, user
friendliness.

The fact is, Linux is developing lightning fast, compared to commercial
dead wood, and it is already almost there.

Sorry S.Heenan, wrong tree.

-- 
Abdullah        | aramazan@ |
Ramazanoglu     | myrealbox |
________________| D.0.T c�m |__

Mathew M. wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:50:26 +0000, S.Heenan wrote:
>
>> zuzu wrote:
>>> S.Heenan wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1641114,00.asp
>>>
>>> Just a fluff piece, 20 years out of date.
>>
>> Odd, it's dated Aug.31,2004
>>
>>
>>>
>>> By way of comparision, Sun has been making money on desktops for 20
>>> years, albeit with an underlying unix operating system, CDE, Gnome &
>>> KDE are the standard Sun desktops, and Sun makes lots of money.
>>
>> That explains why I've not seen one.
>
> No, it's because you've been living under a rock.
>
>> Using KDE and Gnome 20 years back.
>> Hmmmm
>>
>>
>> Nice nymshift BTW.
>
> Nobody said anything about using KDE and Gnome 20 years back, Heenan.

Bzzzzzzt!  You're inability to read the post is not my problem.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

S.Heenan wrote:

>>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1641114,00.asp
>>
>> Just a fluff piece, 20 years out of date.
>
> Odd, it's dated Aug.31,2004

The date of the article has nothing to do with whether the content is
outdated or not.  I wouldn't say it was 20 years out of date, but at
least 5-10 years.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBQuN0d1ZThqotgfgRAn3vAKDFgMv3YARcwMTBHrs3TCmf3bGUIgCgo0pr
48/hhOQHPfuwPGw7fedMIdQ=
=3fdT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
PeKaJe

Sometimes I wonder if I'm in my right mind.  Then it passes off and I'm
as intelligent as ever.  -- Samuel Beckett, "Endgame"

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 11:21:23 +0000, S.Heenan wrote:

> Mathew M. wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:50:26 +0000, S.Heenan wrote:
>>
>>> zuzu wrote:
>>>> S.Heenan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1641114,00.asp
>>>>
>>>> Just a fluff piece, 20 years out of date.
>>>
>>> Odd, it's dated Aug.31,2004
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> By way of comparision, Sun has been making money on desktops for 20
>>>> years, albeit with an underlying unix operating system, CDE, Gnome &
>>>> KDE are the standard Sun desktops, and Sun makes lots of money.
>>>
>>> That explains why I've not seen one.
>>
>> No, it's because you've been living under a rock.
>>
>>> Using KDE and Gnome 20 years back.
>>> Hmmmm
>>>
>>>
>>> Nice nymshift BTW.
>>
>> Nobody said anything about using KDE and Gnome 20 years back, Heenan.
> 
> Bzzzzzzt!  You're inability to read the post is not my problem.

You're another sad example of the state of the western public education
systems.

-- 
Mathew M. <mathew@spiesNOSPAMareus.yi.org>
GPG public key ID: 0x3DDC1413

This post contains a chemical or chemicals known to the state of California
to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. This (these) 
chemical(s) may be harmful to your health.

S.Heenan wrote:
> zuzu wrote:
> 
>>S.Heenan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1641114,00.asp
>>
>>Just a fluff piece, 20 years out of date.
> 
> 
> Odd, it's dated Aug.31,2004
> 
> 
> 
>>By way of comparision, Sun has been making money on desktops for 20
>>years, albeit with an underlying unix operating system, CDE, Gnome &
>>KDE are the standard Sun desktops, and Sun makes lots of money.
> 
> 
> That explains why I've not seen one. Using KDE and Gnome 20 years back. 
> Hmmmm
> 

You wouldn't recognize any of these if they came up and bit you on the arse.

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 22:55:17 +1000, "Mathew M." <me@privacy.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 11:21:23 +0000, S.Heenan wrote:
> 
> > Mathew M. wrote:
> >> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:50:26 +0000, S.Heenan wrote:
> >>
> >>> zuzu wrote:
> >>>> S.Heenan wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1641114,00.asp
> >>>>
> >>>> Just a fluff piece, 20 years out of date.
> >>>
> >>> Odd, it's dated Aug.31,2004
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> By way of comparision, Sun has been making money on desktops for 20
> >>>> years, albeit with an underlying unix operating system, CDE, Gnome &
> >>>> KDE are the standard Sun desktops, and Sun makes lots of money.
> >>>
> >>> That explains why I've not seen one.
> >>
> >> No, it's because you've been living under a rock.
> >>
> >>> Using KDE and Gnome 20 years back.
> >>> Hmmmm
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Nice nymshift BTW.
> >>
> >> Nobody said anything about using KDE and Gnome 20 years back, Heenan.
> > 
> > Bzzzzzzt!  You're inability to read the post is not my problem.
> 
> You're another sad example of the state of the western public education
> systems.

That is in the COLA handbook, 

Rule #2. If you find yourself in a discussion for/against Linux and the
opposition has overwhelming anti-Linux information and you can't logically
or intelligently debate pro-Linux then attack the opponent personally.   It
won't matter that you make yourself look like a fool, (that has already been
decided) it only matters that of the thousands that read your response, the
laws of average dictate that one-half of one percent (.05) will side with
the fool based only on their comraderie with the lesser opponent.  Any
increase in the number of Linux supporters, regardless of reason or intent,
is a move in the right direction.


In case you were wondering what Rule # 1 is, 

Rule #1.  It's OK to tell white lies. Quote false or ambiguous statistics.
In the absence of statistics, quote personal successes regarding your distro
even if it means exaggeration. What's important here is swaying public
opinion by any means.


�ߩ

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 01:43:18 +0000, S.Heenan wrote:

> "If the desktop Linux people really cared about using a great operating
> system, they would stop trying to reinvent the wheel and rally around
> Mac OS X. It would be great if the contest were between two worthy
> operating systems, like Mac and XP/Longhorn. But Linux vs. Longhorn?
> You've got to be kidding."


The writer of this article and the person who quoted it are obviously cut
from the same cloth - moron fiber with a clueless pattern.

To suggest that a person move to a more expensive proprietary platform
that if anything has even less hardware and application support than
either Linux or Windows is just plain silly.

OS X is not a contender for the desktop.   Matter of fact, if you took
every reference to Linux in this ridiculous article and replaced it with
OS X and vice-versa, then it may come a little bit closer to reality.

Its really a no brainer, Linux is more versatile, runs on more hardware,
enjoys greater and better support, has more software, is practically
malware proof, and is cheaper to upgrade and maintain.  All this without
even going into the free and open aspects of it.  What's not to love about
it?

-- 
rapskat - 16:00:13 up 1 day, 19:59,  5 users,  load average: 0.26, 0.15, 0.10
Absence makes the heart go wander.

SunnyB� wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 22:55:17 +1000, "Mathew M." <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 11:21:23 +0000, S.Heenan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mathew M. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:50:26 +0000, S.Heenan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>zuzu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>S.Heenan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1641114,00.asp
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Just a fluff piece, 20 years out of date.
>>>>>
>>>>>Odd, it's dated Aug.31,2004
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>By way of comparision, Sun has been making money on desktops for 20
>>>>>>years, albeit with an underlying unix operating system, CDE, Gnome &
>>>>>>KDE are the standard Sun desktops, and Sun makes lots of money.
>>>>>
>>>>>That explains why I've not seen one.
>>>>
>>>>No, it's because you've been living under a rock.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Using KDE and Gnome 20 years back.
>>>>>Hmmmm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nice nymshift BTW.
>>>>
>>>>Nobody said anything about using KDE and Gnome 20 years back, Heenan.
>>>
>>>Bzzzzzzt!  You're inability to read the post is not my problem.
>>
>>You're another sad example of the state of the western public education
>>systems.
> 
> 
> That is in the COLA handbook, 
> 
> Rule #2. If you find yourself in a discussion for/against Linux and the
> opposition has overwhelming anti-Linux information and you can't logically
> or intelligently debate pro-Linux then attack the opponent personally.   It
> won't matter that you make yourself look like a fool, (that has already been
> decided) it only matters that of the thousands that read your response, the
> laws of average dictate that one-half of one percent (.05) will side with
> the fool based only on their comraderie with the lesser opponent.  Any
> increase in the number of Linux supporters, regardless of reason or intent,
> is a move in the right direction.
> 
> 
> In case you were wondering what Rule # 1 is, 
> 
> Rule #1.  It's OK to tell white lies. Quote false or ambiguous statistics.
> In the absence of statistics, quote personal successes regarding your distro
> even if it means exaggeration. What's important here is swaying public
> opinion by any means.
> 

So, how much money did you throw at M$ products?  Ever get the feeling 
that you've been had?  Ever wonder why you have to spend money on either 
Nortons or McAfee to keep viruses away?  Ever wonder why you have to 
spend money on a spybot removal program?

Ever wonder why UNIX/Linux doesn't have this problem?

Ever wonder why it cost the IT industry $billions in damages due to M$ 
monopoly crapware?


-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

GreyCloud wrote:
<yet another lame> 

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 15:28:53 -0600, GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> SunnyB� wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 22:55:17 +1000, "Mathew M." <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 11:21:23 +0000, S.Heenan wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Mathew M. wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:50:26 +0000, S.Heenan wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>zuzu wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>S.Heenan wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1641114,00.asp
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Just a fluff piece, 20 years out of date.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Odd, it's dated Aug.31,2004
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>By way of comparision, Sun has been making money on desktops for 20
> >>>>>>years, albeit with an underlying unix operating system, CDE, Gnome &
> >>>>>>KDE are the standard Sun desktops, and Sun makes lots of money.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>That explains why I've not seen one.
> >>>>
> >>>>No, it's because you've been living under a rock.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Using KDE and Gnome 20 years back.
> >>>>>Hmmmm
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Nice nymshift BTW.
> >>>>
> >>>>Nobody said anything about using KDE and Gnome 20 years back, Heenan.
> >>>
> >>>Bzzzzzzt!  You're inability to read the post is not my problem.
> >>
> >>You're another sad example of the state of the western public education
> >>systems.
> > 
> > 
> > That is in the COLA handbook, 
> > 
> > Rule #2. If you find yourself in a discussion for/against Linux and the
> > opposition has overwhelming anti-Linux information and you can't logically
> > or intelligently debate pro-Linux then attack the opponent personally.   It
> > won't matter that you make yourself look like a fool, (that has already been
> > decided) it only matters that of the thousands that read your response, the
> > laws of average dictate that one-half of one percent (.05) will side with
> > the fool based only on their comraderie with the lesser opponent.  Any
> > increase in the number of Linux supporters, regardless of reason or intent,
> > is a move in the right direction.
> > 
> > 
> > In case you were wondering what Rule # 1 is, 
> > 
> > Rule #1.  It's OK to tell white lies. Quote false or ambiguous statistics.
> > In the absence of statistics, quote personal successes regarding your distro
> > even if it means exaggeration. What's important here is swaying public
> > opinion by any means.
> > 
> 
> So, how much money did you throw at M$ products?  Ever get the feeling 
> that you've been had?  Ever wonder why you have to spend money on either 
> Nortons or McAfee to keep viruses away?  Ever wonder why you have to 
> spend money on a spybot removal program?
> 
> Ever wonder why UNIX/Linux doesn't have this problem?
> 
> Ever wonder why it cost the IT industry $billions in damages due to M$ 
> monopoly crapware?

I am not going to argue the point of cost between Linux to MS Windows.
Windows would lose.  I have a fortune invested in this computer and software
crap. If I could just cut my MS investment in half, I could take a nice
extended vacation.  But c'est la vie. That's not the point.

I run my Windows as administrator. I don't like the lost time "running as"
or switching users to do ordinary every day tasks. I can't spend my day
changing permissions for each of my people in order to get a job done. 
With the firewalls and AV software in place along with a Cisco nat router
and network security I don't run much risk of infection. 
If one of my Windows boxes gets hit by some stuuuupid user clicking an
infected email all I would lose is one machine down for a few hours. I worry
more about the Debian box that runs my accounting software getting rooted.
That would devastate my payroll system. 

One on one, if a Windows system is used as most Linux systems are used, with
users having only minimal permissions, virus and trojan issues would be less
prevalent.

begin  SunnyB� <sunnyb@srb.net> dedi ki:
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 15:28:53 -0600, GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
>> SunnyB� wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 22:55:17 +1000, "Mathew M." <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 11:21:23 +0000, S.Heenan wrote:
>>>>>Mathew M. wrote:
>>>>>>On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:50:26 +0000, S.Heenan wrote:
>>>>>>>zuzu wrote:
>>>>>>>>S.Heenan wrote:
 --8<--

>> So, how much money did you throw at M$ products?  Ever get the feeling 
>> that you've been had?  Ever wonder why you have to spend money on either 
>> Nortons or McAfee to keep viruses away?  Ever wonder why you have to 
>> spend money on a spybot removal program?
>> 
>> Ever wonder why UNIX/Linux doesn't have this problem?
>> 
>> Ever wonder why it cost the IT industry $billions in damages due to M$ 
>> monopoly crapware?
> 
> I am not going to argue the point of cost between Linux to MS Windows.
> Windows would lose.  I have a fortune invested in this computer and software
> crap. If I could just cut my MS investment in half, I could take a nice
> extended vacation.  But c'est la vie. That's not the point.

But yes. That *is* a point. Money is a liquiditation means. Anything
(well, mostly) can be translated into some cost. So reliability is
expressed in some cost, like availability, like performance, capacity,
customer satisfaction, business enabling, success...  Otherwise, you could
just as well be running a business based on AS/400 + Novell servers and
Wang workstations, if you were so dedicated to them. Anything is doable
provided that you pour enough funds into it. The question is, how to get
more for less. Efficiency, that is.

So yes, cost of success, that is *the* point.

> I run my Windows as administrator. I don't like the lost time "running as"
> or switching users to do ordinary every day tasks. I can't spend my day
> changing permissions for each of my people in order to get a job done. 
> With the firewalls and AV software in place along with a Cisco nat router
> and network security I don't run much risk of infection. 
> If one of my Windows boxes gets hit by some stuuuupid user clicking an
> infected email all I would lose is one machine down for a few hours. I worry
> more about the Debian box that runs my accounting software getting rooted.
> That would devastate my payroll system. 
> 
> One on one, if a Windows system is used as most Linux systems are used, with
> users having only minimal permissions, virus and trojan issues would be less
> prevalent.

Think about it. You can't fail to see why a Windows system is not used as
most Linux systems are used. As a hint, there are technical reasons.

-- 
Abdullah        | aramazan@ |
Ramazanoglu     | myrealbox |
________________| D.0.T c�m |__

SunnyB� wrote:

>>
>>So, how much money did you throw at M$ products?  Ever get the feeling 
>>that you've been had?  Ever wonder why you have to spend money on either 
>>Nortons or McAfee to keep viruses away?  Ever wonder why you have to 
>>spend money on a spybot removal program?
>>
>>Ever wonder why UNIX/Linux doesn't have this problem?
>>
>>Ever wonder why it cost the IT industry $billions in damages due to M$ 
>>monopoly crapware?
> 
> 
> I am not going to argue the point of cost between Linux to MS Windows.
> Windows would lose.  I have a fortune invested in this computer and software
> crap. If I could just cut my MS investment in half, I could take a nice
> extended vacation.  But c'est la vie. That's not the point.

What exactly did you pay for?  How big is your business in terms of 
employees?

> 
> I run my Windows as administrator. I don't like the lost time "running as"
> or switching users to do ordinary every day tasks. I can't spend my day
> changing permissions for each of my people in order to get a job done. 

That's what hiring an admin can do for you... and these can be outside 
services under contract.  A good systems analyst can do wonders.

> With the firewalls and AV software in place along with a Cisco nat router
> and network security I don't run much risk of infection.

But it can still happen under windows.

> If one of my Windows boxes gets hit by some stuuuupid user clicking an
> infected email all I would lose is one machine down for a few hours.

Not necessarily going to stay true for long.  Always expect the worst 
from any M$ product.

> I worry
> more about the Debian box that runs my accounting software getting rooted.

You'll get rooted faster under M$ windows than you will under any 
version of Linux.  If you are really worried... try an x86 UNIX flavor.
At least you'll save your investment... unless you bought into Compaq 
line... those are proprietary designs and a total waste of money.

> That would devastate my payroll system. 
> 
> One on one, if a Windows system is used as most Linux systems are used, with
> users having only minimal permissions, virus and trojan issues would be less
> prevalent.
>

How about non-existent under Linux.

Do you realize that M$ has cost the IT industry $billions in damages?
No other o/s in the history of computing has cost so much to maintain.

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

S.Heenan wrote:

> GreyCloud wrote:
> <yet another lame> 
> 

You are yet another wintroll.  If I wanted any lip from you I'd scrape 
it off my zipper.

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

GreyCloud wrote:

> 
> 
> S.Heenan wrote:
> 
>> GreyCloud wrote:
>> <yet another lame>
> 
> 
> You are yet another wintroll.  If I wanted any lip from you I'd scrape 
> it off my zipper.


I'd never dream of depriving a Linux user of full-time employment. That 
just wouldn't be right.

Funny stuff, from a Mac user.

S.Heenan wrote:

> GreyCloud wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> S.Heenan wrote:
>>
>>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>> <yet another lame>
>>
>>
>>
>> You are yet another wintroll.  If I wanted any lip from you I'd scrape 
>> it off my zipper.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd never dream of depriving a Linux user of full-time employment. That 
> just wouldn't be right.

Seems that you keep coming here for employment tho.

> 
> Funny stuff, from a Mac user.
> 

Even very wierd coming from a wintroll.  So, how's the SP2 working for 
you?  Get any new viruses?

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

On 2004-09-11, 7 <website_has_email@www.ecu.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> S.Heenan wrote:
>
>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1641114,00.asp
>> 
>> 
>> "Are the changes in the Longhorn road map really the "best chance ever"
>> for desktop Linux, as some have suggested? Only if the difference in going
>> from "teensy weensy" to merely "teensy" can be considered a big
>> improvement. To the rest of us, either size is still just a speck."
>> 
>> "Using this sort of measurement, one might even say Longhorn's trouble
>> improves desktop Linux's chances by 100, 1,000, or even 1,000,000 times.
>> It's just that you're starting with such a tiny chance that even a big
>> multiplier doesn't make it much larger in practical terms."
>> 
>> 
>> "If the desktop Linux people really cared about using a great operating
>> system, they would stop trying to reinvent the wheel and rally around Mac
>> OS X. It would be great if the contest were between two worthy operating
>> systems, like Mac and XP/Longhorn. But Linux vs. Longhorn? You've got to
>> be kidding."
>
> "People who use Mac OS X and think about such things consider it to be
> "Linux done right." Of course, it's Unix, not Linux, but that's a minor

	MacOS 10 is just NextStep.

	It predates Linux by a number of years.

	It was commercially available for PC's before Linux distros were
commonplace. It had appalling driver support and was rather expensive. So 
despite being available for x86 hardware 11 years ago, it didn't really
go anywhere.

	I would have bought it and ran it as my primary OS if not for the
appalling lack of PC hardware support.

> point. As Linux fragments, as it must, the distinction will become even
> more academic that it is already."
>
> The guy who wrote the article is a complete prick.
>
> M$ + Mac$ O$ X + Sun$ + Oracle$ = you have to pay + proprietory
> GNU/Linux -> no need to pay + source code free to do with as you like.



-- 

	vi isn't easy to use.				 |||
							/ | \
	vi is easy to REPLACE.