response 37 of 203:

Jan 31 20:49 UTC 2007

Re: #35.

Maybe because people WANT the gazillion apps o one platform even if they don't
 NEED them, and so far the instability isn't of enough proportion to trash
the
 product yet.

Well if people want to use an operating system because it has a gazillion apps
they don't need, that's just retarded. Not that it wouldn't gel with my
impression of the vast majority of the human race. As for instability, it's
getting better, but when you take into account that it was once even MORE
laughable...


 I'm not defending Microsoft's products. I'm just pointing out a market
 reality. Dan could well be right, M$ could be setting themselves up for an
 implosion. But as long a sa majority of the user base is still using Windows,
 it may be some time comig.

Not necessarily. I can see their control-freakishness ending  up where they
will force all users to pay up, so in a world where 1 out of every 5 copies
of Windows is pirated (and some estimates say up to 90% of copies in the
developing world), that will force those who can't or won't pay or who will
junk the OS on principle because of it to move to other platforms.

Wouldn't that be a shame.

Don't think it can happen? It happened before, when DEC dropped all its
various operating systems on the PDP-11, and its entire PDP-10 platform, in
favour of VMS on the VAX. Of course, people who felt betrayed by this marched
straight into Unix without passing go or collecting UKP200.

response 39 of 203:

Jan 31 20:58 UTC 2007

On the question of Linux's elitism - I've used computers a long time - hell
 worked with them even. Installing and configuring Linux is not a piece of
 cake, at least it wasn't abut 6 years ago, when I was gung ho about it. 

Are you serious? That's like me having an opinion of India based on reports
about it from the British East India Company. And then you walk into Delhi and
people have got cars, omg.

Too
 many tweaks and changes needed to be made. compared to a Windows installation
 which usually just meant popping in hte CD and almost everything works - not
 everything, I'll admit.

Actually I find it's usually Windows that needs to be punched and kicked into a
usable state, but maybe that's just me. And the reason why "everything works"
in Windows is because (a) everyone writes drivers for it and (b)  Windows
developers just LOVE the kitchen sink.

 I don't know if Linux has changed enough to make it easier to install, I gave
 up trying - but expecting a lay person to be a "geek" to use your application
 isn't going to help you. If they've made changes in the last 8 years to make
 things easier, well more power to them, but maybe they just missed the boat.
 Linux may not be elitist anymore, but maybe too little too late.

And you keep missing the point that the Windows (or at least Microsoft)
monopoly existed BEFORE Linux came along.

 Simple lesson - give the user what he wants and in a manner he can use it.
 The easier the better. Ease of use is appreciated over functionality most
 times.                              

Which is exactly why I refuse to be patronised by Microsoft crap. "Do you want
to put this in the trash?" "No, I just moved the pointer over to the icon,
clicked on it, dragged it over to the recycle bin and let go FOR A LAUGH!"

For fuck's sake.

response 41 of 203:

Jan 31 21:04 UTC 2007

There are so many distributions because it's free. People can create
distros to meet as wide or as specific goals as necessary. There are
home firewall distros, VoIP distros, desktop distros, LAMP distros
(That's Linux Apache MySQL PHP for daemon9), the list goes on.

I'm not going to bash anybody on questioning Linux's place, but just
that Jeff's frustration is with having to deal with all of the FUD that
has been spread about Linux.

response 43 of 203:

Jan 31 21:12 UTC 2007

If ease of use were the determining factor, Mac OS X would be giving 
Windows a real drubbing.

Speaking personally - I've used Windows, Linux, and OS X to try to get 
serious work done, and in the ease of use department Windows comes in a 
poor third.

Windows may (currently) have overwhelming dominance in the desktop/laptop 
world, but in the server world it's a different story.

response 45 of 203:

Jan 31 21:19 UTC 2007

Windows works well enough that an average person can buy a computer at
Wal-Mart, and get an Internet connection set up by a trainee from
Comcast, and be able to use the Internet, type and print papers, play
games, and watch movies.

The Macintosh works just as well for these purposes, but it costs more
and it isn't available at Wal-Mart.

I have been a Unix hobbyist and Unix professional for around 20 years. 
I pretty well understand the uses and advantages of Linux.  I would not
say an average person can do what they want to do, without much
assistance, using Linux.  Not yet.

response 47 of 203:

Jan 31 21:25 UTC 2007

Re: #45. I would disagree but, whether I would or wouldn't is not the point.
What I have been trying to get over is the fact that, just as you can walk
into any high street store and buy from a number of pc vendors, without
problems, you should be able to have your pc of choice installed with your
*os* of choice, or at least supplied with none so that you can install your
own later, WITHOUT hassles, WITHOUT being fed rubbish like "it's illegal to
supply a pc without an OS", and preferably (though one must make allowances
for the mental capacity of the staff in such places) WITHOUT being bloody-well
laughed at.

Not that the last point is one I insist on, however. I just laugh back at
them behind their backs, louder and harder.

response 49 of 203:

Jan 31 21:45 UTC 2007

Regarding #46; Sure!  Link it over; you're a fairwitness there.  :-)

response 51 of 203:

Jan 31 21:46 UTC 2007

Perhaps.  Actually, I've seen Gates speak.  I was, honestly, quite impressed
with his philanthropic activities.  He was also quite an engaging speaker,
even if I disagree with his interpretation of technology.

response 53 of 203:

Jan 31 21:51 UTC 2007

Re: #49. Good point!

Re: #50, #51. I have taken the rather unpopular stance that since I consider
most of Gates's gains ill-gotten, I cannot support his "philanthropic" work.

response 55 of 203:

Jan 31 22:41 UTC 2007

re #53 oh c'mon twenex, you don't support Gates' philanthropic work 
because he's a flaming liberal.  He and his buddy, the world's second 
richest man warren buffett, are both supporting Barack Obama in fact  

response 57 of 203:

Jan 31 23:20 UTC 2007

Re #48: It's kind of hard to get features that the end-user wants without
getting the "kitchen sink" mentality -- particularly, it seems to me, because
what one end user wants will be useless (and "kitchen sink" material) to
another.

response 59 of 203:

Feb 1 01:19 UTC 2007

 re #56:  Bad news, twenex.  Richard knows your secret about all that
 fundraising work you do for the National Front.   It's just like how
 he figured out I am a far-right libertarian.  He's uncanny..