Linux

On 02/04/2011 13:42, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
Gordon wrote:
On 02/04/2011 12:15, Dave "Crash" Dummy wrote:


Marketing is a factor, sure, but that alone doesn't explain why a
system costing $100 to $300 overwhelms one that is free. Progress in
Linux seems to be a measure of how closely it imitates Windows.

So can you explain why Linux netbooks, that were OUTSELLING the
equivalent Windows ones, suddenly disappeared from the shelves?

That is an easy answer. As I have four of those netbooks that came with
Linux on them. Because none of them came with Windows at first

Not so. Linux Netbooks were being sold alongside XP Netbooks at about
the same cost. At least they were here. And Linux netbooks were
outselling the Windows ones even so. And suddenly they disappeared...


only came with Linux on them. You couldn't buy a netbook back then with
Windows on it. As there just wasn't any.


Oh yes there were. I bought one of the very fist Netbooks - a Toshiba
NB100 and there were Windows netbooks being sold alongside it...

On 04/02/2011 02:49 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 02/04/2011 13:42, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
Gordon wrote:
On 02/04/2011 12:15, Dave "Crash" Dummy wrote:


Marketing is a factor, sure, but that alone doesn't explain why a
system costing $100 to $300 overwhelms one that is free. Progress in
Linux seems to be a measure of how closely it imitates Windows.

So can you explain why Linux netbooks, that were OUTSELLING the
equivalent Windows ones, suddenly disappeared from the shelves?

That is an easy answer. As I have four of those netbooks that came with
Linux on them. Because none of them came with Windows at first

Not so. Linux Netbooks were being sold alongside XP Netbooks at about
the same cost. At least they were here. And Linux netbooks were
outselling the Windows ones even so. And suddenly they disappeared...


only came with Linux on them. You couldn't buy a netbook back then with
Windows on it. As there just wasn't any.


Oh yes there were. I bought one of the very fist Netbooks - a Toshiba
NB100 and there were Windows netbooks being sold alongside it...




Bill eats MS FUD for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

--
Alias

On 4/2/2011 8:23 AM, Alias wrote:
On 04/02/2011 01:38 PM, Big Steel wrote:
On 4/2/2011 7:21 AM, Alias wrote:
On 04/02/2011 01:15 PM, Dave "Crash" Dummy wrote:
ray wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 09:40:37 +0100, Gordon wrote:

On 01/04/2011 05:00, Student wrote:
Linux has always intrigued me and I have tried many distros.

I now have a computer with eSATA. I had a spare hard disk and
eSata enclosure.

To pass my time I tried Linux again tonight.

I tried Ubuntu, Mint gnome and Mint debian based.

Honestly Linux missed the boat just as IBM missed the boat with
OS2.

I am firmlly entrenched in windows 7 at home and xp at my office.


xxx
Missed the boat with WHAT?

Evidently, marketing. IMHO, that was IBM's shortcoming with OS2 -
they had a better product.

Marketing is a factor, sure, but that alone doesn't explain why a
system
costing $100 to $300 overwhelms one that is free. Progress in Linux
seems to be a measure of how closely it imitates Windows.


Sorry, but it's the other way round. Beryl and Compiz came out before
Aero and is much more configurable. A mini view from the task bar of
open apps came out in Linux long before Vista had it. Linux has had
multiple imaging programs long before Windows 7 had it. Linux had a UAC
long before Vista. Windows has yet to have multiple desktops without
third party programs. Windows has yet to have one source for updates.
Windows has yet to have the architecture that Linux has to prevent
malware. The reason that Windows is number one is not quality but
marketing and FUD, FUD which you seemed to have swallowed whole.


You can keep that little pipe dream going about how Linux as an
architecture to prevent malware. I no more belive than I believe you.


And the reason you think I would care what someone who has some big
steel stuck up his ass believes?


I don't care what you care or believe in -- you are nothing, zero, not
worth anything.

On 04/02/2011 03:22 PM, Big Steel wrote:
On 4/2/2011 8:23 AM, Alias wrote:
On 04/02/2011 01:38 PM, Big Steel wrote:
On 4/2/2011 7:21 AM, Alias wrote:
On 04/02/2011 01:15 PM, Dave "Crash" Dummy wrote:
ray wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 09:40:37 +0100, Gordon wrote:

On 01/04/2011 05:00, Student wrote:
Linux has always intrigued me and I have tried many distros.

I now have a computer with eSATA. I had a spare hard disk and
eSata enclosure.

To pass my time I tried Linux again tonight.

I tried Ubuntu, Mint gnome and Mint debian based.

Honestly Linux missed the boat just as IBM missed the boat with
OS2.

I am firmlly entrenched in windows 7 at home and xp at my office.


xxx
Missed the boat with WHAT?

Evidently, marketing. IMHO, that was IBM's shortcoming with OS2 -
they had a better product.

Marketing is a factor, sure, but that alone doesn't explain why a
system
costing $100 to $300 overwhelms one that is free. Progress in Linux
seems to be a measure of how closely it imitates Windows.


Sorry, but it's the other way round. Beryl and Compiz came out before
Aero and is much more configurable. A mini view from the task bar of
open apps came out in Linux long before Vista had it. Linux has had
multiple imaging programs long before Windows 7 had it. Linux had a UAC
long before Vista. Windows has yet to have multiple desktops without
third party programs. Windows has yet to have one source for updates.
Windows has yet to have the architecture that Linux has to prevent
malware. The reason that Windows is number one is not quality but
marketing and FUD, FUD which you seemed to have swallowed whole.


You can keep that little pipe dream going about how Linux as an
architecture to prevent malware. I no more belive than I believe you.


And the reason you think I would care what someone who has some big
steel stuck up his ass believes?


I don't care what you care or believe in -- you are nothing, zero, not
worth anything.


Then why do you keep replying to my posts?

--
Alias

On 4/2/2011 8:27 AM, Alias wrote:
On 04/02/2011 01:49 PM, Big Steel wrote:
On 4/2/2011 7:45 AM, Gordon wrote:
On 02/04/2011 12:38, Big Steel wrote:


You can keep that little pipe dream going about how Linux as an
architecture to prevent malware. I no more belive than I believe you.


Pipedream eh? So that's why well over 50% of the world's web servers are
Linux and yet, strange to seem, they don't get infected - the Windows
ones DO?

Bull****, the Linux Web servers are being compromised all of the time.

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/141651/attack_against_linux_apache_servers_intensifying.h tml



Puhlease, the above article is three years old.


I don't care if it was last week. If you think something made by man
can't be attacked by another man, you are really are a big time fool.

On 4/2/2011 9:24 AM, Alias wrote:

snipped a fool's babble

You fool.....

On 04/02/2011 03:25 PM, Big Steel wrote:
On 4/2/2011 8:27 AM, Alias wrote:
On 04/02/2011 01:49 PM, Big Steel wrote:
On 4/2/2011 7:45 AM, Gordon wrote:
On 02/04/2011 12:38, Big Steel wrote:


You can keep that little pipe dream going about how Linux as an
architecture to prevent malware. I no more belive than I believe you.


Pipedream eh? So that's why well over 50% of the world's web servers
are
Linux and yet, strange to seem, they don't get infected - the Windows
ones DO?

Bull****, the Linux Web servers are being compromised all of the time.

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/141651/attack_against_linux_apache_servers_intensifying.h tml




Puhlease, the above article is three years old.


I don't care if it was last week. If you think something made by man
can't be attacked by another man, you are really are a big time fool.

Never said that. What I *have* said is that Linux is bulletproof
*compared* to Windows. Having said that, those vulnerabilities were
patched long ago, please try to keep up or can you with that big steel
shoved up your sorry ass?

--
Alias

In ,
Gordon wrote:
On 02/04/2011 13:42, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
Gordon wrote:
On 02/04/2011 12:15, Dave "Crash" Dummy wrote:


Marketing is a factor, sure, but that alone doesn't explain why a
system costing $100 to $300 overwhelms one that is free. Progress
in Linux seems to be a measure of how closely it imitates Windows.

So can you explain why Linux netbooks, that were OUTSELLING the
equivalent Windows ones, suddenly disappeared from the shelves?

That is an easy answer. As I have four of those netbooks that came
with Linux on them. Because none of them came with Windows at first

Not so. Linux Netbooks were being sold alongside XP Netbooks at about
the same cost. At least they were here. And Linux netbooks were
outselling the Windows ones even so. And suddenly they disappeared...

No, no! I was watching all of this very carefully. And you could see it
on eBay clear as a bell. The Linux ones were not selling and the Windows
ones sold like hotcakes. You also saw a lot of them that originally had
Linux on them, but was selling on eBay with Windows installed. You could
tell them from the keyboard (no Windows key, just the Linux Home key
instead) and the missing Windows stickers.

only came with Linux on them. You couldn't buy a netbook back then
with Windows on it. As there just wasn't any.

Oh yes there were. I bought one of the very fist Netbooks - a Toshiba
NB100 and there were Windows netbooks being sold alongside it...

Your first netbook doesn't count (as Toshiba was a late comer). The
first netbooks were made by Asus and nobody else back in 2007. And they
only came with Xandros Linux and Windows XP drivers and nothing else.
There were no other options. Yes I bought a few of them.

Even though they didn't include Windows, many users were putting Windows
on them anyway. And many other manufactures realized they missed the
boat (most experts said netbooks would never sell) and virtually all of
them scrambled to come out with their own netbooks. Which started to
appear in early 2008. About this same time, Windows also started to
appear on some of the netbooks.

And when people had a real choice between Windows netbooks and Linux
netbooks, Windows ones were far outselling Linux ones. I know, I was
there. The only reason why Linux ones sold so well at first is because
Linux netbooks were very easy to find. And Windows ones were hard to
find since they sold out very fast. So many bought Linux ones (including
me) and put on their own Windows on them.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era)
Centrino Core Duo 1.83G - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

On 4/2/2011 9:32 AM, Alias wrote:

snipped a fool's babble

You fool.....

On 4/2/2011 9:36 AM, Alias wrote:

snipped a fool's babble

You foolish fool......

On 04/02/2011 03:35 PM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
Gordon wrote:
On 02/04/2011 13:42, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
Gordon wrote:
On 02/04/2011 12:15, Dave "Crash" Dummy wrote:


Marketing is a factor, sure, but that alone doesn't explain why a
system costing $100 to $300 overwhelms one that is free. Progress
in Linux seems to be a measure of how closely it imitates Windows.

So can you explain why Linux netbooks, that were OUTSELLING the
equivalent Windows ones, suddenly disappeared from the shelves?

That is an easy answer. As I have four of those netbooks that came
with Linux on them. Because none of them came with Windows at first

Not so. Linux Netbooks were being sold alongside XP Netbooks at about
the same cost. At least they were here. And Linux netbooks were
outselling the Windows ones even so. And suddenly they disappeared...

No, no! I was watching all of this very carefully. And you could see it
on eBay clear as a bell. The Linux ones were not selling and the Windows
ones sold like hotcakes. You also saw a lot of them that originally had
Linux on them, but was selling on eBay with Windows installed. You could
tell them from the keyboard (no Windows key, just the Linux Home key
instead) and the missing Windows stickers.

only came with Linux on them. You couldn't buy a netbook back then
with Windows on it. As there just wasn't any.

Oh yes there were. I bought one of the very fist Netbooks - a Toshiba
NB100 and there were Windows netbooks being sold alongside it...

Your first netbook doesn't count (as Toshiba was a late comer). The
first netbooks were made by Asus and nobody else back in 2007. And they
only came with Xandros Linux and Windows XP drivers and nothing else.
There were no other options. Yes I bought a few of them.

Even though they didn't include Windows, many users were putting Windows
on them anyway. And many other manufactures realized they missed the
boat (most experts said netbooks would never sell) and virtually all of
them scrambled to come out with their own netbooks. Which started to
appear in early 2008. About this same time, Windows also started to
appear on some of the netbooks.

And when people had a real choice between Windows netbooks and Linux
netbooks, Windows ones were far outselling Linux ones. I know, I was
there. The only reason why Linux ones sold so well at first is because
Linux netbooks were very easy to find. And Windows ones were hard to
find since they sold out very fast. So many bought Linux ones (including
me) and put on their own Windows on them.


I have nuked Windows on net books and installed Linux on dozens of net
books for people unhappy with Windows and all the malware it gets. You,
as usual, don't know what the **** you're talking about.

--
Alias

On 4/2/2011 9:39 AM, Alias wrote:
On 04/02/2011 03:35 PM, BillW50 wrote:

snipped

Can you stop yanking the clown Alias' chain BillW50? He is not talking
about anything but Linux being parked up his John Brown behind parts.

In ,
Alias wrote:
Never said that. What I *have* said is that Linux is bulletproof
*compared* to Windows.

A Linux virus gains root control by a simple buffer overflow. So how is
it bulletproof compared to Windows? Gee that is how Windows viruses does
it too. Maybe Linux should try another bulletproof vest? ;-)

Having said that, those vulnerabilities were patched long ago, please
try to keep up or can you with that big steel shoved up your sorry
ass?

Gee Windows doesn't get patches too? Funny that is what I thought those
Windows Updates are for. ;-)

So when did Linux become Gold and there is no more holes in Linux to be
found? I missed that announcement, so can you show it to us? Because the
last I heard is that Linux had holes in it since the beginning, three
years ago, today and long into the future.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era)
Centrino Core Duo 1.83G - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

In ,
Alias wrote:
I have nuked Windows on net books and installed Linux on dozens of net
books for people unhappy with Windows and all the malware it gets.
You, as usual, don't know what the **** you're talking about.

The truth is the pot is calling the kettle black again. Okay Alias, show
us the data that supports your claim? As the last data I saw Linux was
still less than 1% of desktop users.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era)
Centrino Core Duo 1.83G - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

On 04/02/11 06:09 am, BillW50 wrote:

Evidently, marketing. IMHO, that was IBM's shortcoming with OS2 - they
had a better product.

No way! I ran OS/2 v2.x and I was a beta tester for OS/2 v3. And the
beta testing things were doing just fine. But just like in IBM's style,
they screwed up in the released version. They changed many of the
drivers and a huge amount of beta testers couldn't even get it to
install (including myself).

Better product, my eye! I have at least a dozen computers right in this
room alone. And I can take that Warp install CD and I can guarantee you
that it will not install on any of them. Then there was all of those
FixPaks! Most of them broke more than they fixed. And old bugs were
coming back to haunt OS/2. That is because every time IBM tried to fix
something, they made it worse than ever before. Then they would plug
back the old code that had the old bugs.

It wasn't a failure of IBM's marketing! Hell IBM spent 2 billion dollars
on OS/2 alone. It was a failure of IBM's programmers couldn't program
their way out of a wet paper bag. And IBM made promises they couldn't
keep. This later became well known as FUD.

I used Warp 3 and Warp 4 on many different machines, and for many years
now I have been using its OEM successor, eComStation, on modern
hardware. (Why be surprised that Warp4, released in 1996, doesn't have
drivers for much-newer hardware?) The machine on which I am typing this
is running eComStation 2.0 on a 3GHz dual-core machine with a mixture of
SATA and SCSI drives; the on-board sound and Gigabit networking work. It
also runs fine on a ThinkPad T61. The only trouble I've ever had
installing it was from an IDE optical drive on a machine with a weird
combo IDE/FireWire chip, but once I installed an SATA optical drive eCS
installed and ran just fine -- on a 3.4GHz quad-core machine (OS/2 had
support for 64 CPUs from way back).

Perce