Apple's "keep-them-dumb" overpriced devices lose luster in Americanclassrooms

On 2017-03-07 14:50, chrisv wrote:
nospam wrote:

chrisv wrote:

Some people like to be part of a herd, some people prefer freedom.

Desktop Linux is for those who prefer freedom.

freedom of having the least amount of software from which to choose.

There is no question that the apps advantage of Windows (and, to a
lesser extent, Mac) is important, in many situations. But not 98% of
situations. With so much computing now being Web-based, many would be
better-served by GNU/Linux, but do not know it.

The monopolists keep the Free alternative out of the public eye, so
that it remains "obscure". The sheep are kept in the flock largely by
fear of the unknown.

What a laugh. This is the era of social media impact - if Linux desktop
had any strong appeal the word would spread like wildfire and the uptake
would be tremendous.

--
"If war is God's way of teaching Americans geography, then
recession is His way of teaching everyone a little economics."
..Raj Patel, The Value of Nothing.

On 3/7/17, 12:50 PM, in article ,
"chrisv" wrote:

nospam wrote:

chrisv wrote:

Some people like to be part of a herd, some people prefer freedom.

Desktop Linux is for those who prefer freedom.

freedom of having the least amount of software from which to choose.

There is no question that the apps advantage of Windows (and, to a
lesser extent, Mac) is important, in many situations. But not 98% of
situations. With so much computing now being Web-based, many would be
better-served by GNU/Linux, but do not know it.

I would love to see examples of how they would be better served -- or do you
mean just that it would be less expensive (which IS a form of serving people
better).

The monopolists keep the Free alternative out of the public eye, so
that it remains "obscure". The sheep are kept in the flock largely by
fear of the unknown.

Nobody has an obligation to advertise for Linux... not sure what else you
mean by keeping it out of the public eye.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

nospam wrote:

In article , chrisv
wrote:

Some people like to be part of a herd, some people prefer freedom.

Desktop Linux is for those who prefer freedom.

freedom of having the least amount of software from which to choose.

There is no question that the apps advantage of Windows (and, to a
lesser extent, Mac) is important, in many situations.

exactly why linux has failed on the desktop. if someone can't run the
apps they need to run, linux is not an option. at all.

and macs have the *most* options for software, given that a mac can
natively run all mac/windows/linux apps, all on the same box.

Mac hardware is too costly and way too slow to be any viable choice to run
anything but OSX normally. Noone in his right mind would buy Mac hardware to
run only windows on it, he would be much better off buying a much more
powerful windows machine for the same price. This is even more true for
linux. Linux machines run rings around Macs, even if only costing a third of
the apple price

So Macs /can/ run windows or linux nativly (thats what I do with them,
because OSX is so incredibly crappy), but thats only viable when people want
OSX. They are able to install windows/linux additionally then

I need OSX to build my applications for apple using clients, but if that was
not the case I would *never* buy any Mac. *Any* other machine would server
me better, faster and at much lower cost

nospam wrote:

nonsense. nobody is keeping anything out of the public eye.

people are well aware of all of the options.

LOL What a liar. This guy's denials, idiocy, and dodging of the
issues speaks volumes.

Just another asshole who ignores all of the monopolist's dirty deeds,
and pretends not to understand that, once this type of market tilts
too far to one vendor, an obscure alternative has no chance, no matter
how good it is.

--
"The HUGE majority use MSO and are happy." - "True Linux advocate"
Hadron Quark

Alan Baker wrote:

On 2017-03-07 11:50 AM, chrisv wrote:
nospam wrote:

chrisv wrote:

Some people like to be part of a herd, some people prefer freedom.

Desktop Linux is for those who prefer freedom.

freedom of having the least amount of software from which to choose.

There is no question that the apps advantage of Windows (and, to a
lesser extent, Mac) is important, in many situations. But not 98% of
situations. With so much computing now being Web-based, many would be
better-served by GNU/Linux, but do not know it.

The monopolists keep the Free alternative out of the public eye, so
that it remains "obscure". The sheep are kept in the flock largely by
fear of the unknown.


How do these "monopolists" do that, exactly?


Simple. The OS is preinstalled, ready to use. This is true for windows and
OSX.
Most of the users would not dare to install /any/ OS (no matter which one)
on their computer, they are only able to use them, but not to install the
OS.

This fact alone keeps linux off those computers in most cases.

My wife has used a linux machine for more than 10 years without missing
anything (and she is a teacher). She would never attempt to install a OS.

On 2017-03-07 15:22, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
nospam wrote:

In article , chrisv
wrote:

Some people like to be part of a herd, some people prefer freedom.

Desktop Linux is for those who prefer freedom.

freedom of having the least amount of software from which to choose.

There is no question that the apps advantage of Windows (and, to a
lesser extent, Mac) is important, in many situations.

exactly why linux has failed on the desktop. if someone can't run the
apps they need to run, linux is not an option. at all.

and macs have the *most* options for software, given that a mac can
natively run all mac/windows/linux apps, all on the same box.

Mac hardware is too costly and way too slow to be any viable choice to run
anything but OSX normally. Noone in his right mind would buy Mac hardware to
run only windows on it, he would be much better off buying a much more
powerful windows machine for the same price. This is even more true for
linux. Linux machines run rings around Macs, even if only costing a third of
the apple price

So Macs /can/ run windows or linux nativly (thats what I do with them,
because OSX is so incredibly crappy), but thats only viable when people want
OSX. They are able to install windows/linux additionally then

I need OSX to build my applications for apple using clients, but if that was
not the case I would *never* buy any Mac. *Any* other machine would server
me better, faster and at much lower cost

Petey, you've really drunk the Kool-Aid hard.

Economics is staring those arguments in the face and laughing.

--
"If war is God's way of teaching Americans geography, then
recession is His way of teaching everyone a little economics."
..Raj Patel, The Value of Nothing.

Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2017-03-07, nospam wrote:
In article , chrisv
wrote:

Linux has no unified UX strategy

Some people like to be part of a herd, some people prefer freedom.

Desktop Linux is for those who prefer freedom.

freedom of having the least amount of software from which to choose.

Freedom to spend hours of your "free" time hacking your system,
twiddling this or that, recompiling this or that, installing laborious
updates, and so on, just so your computer will do what you wanted in the
beginning. ; )


Idiot

Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2017-03-07, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2017-03-07, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

Idiot

I own a MacBook, a iMac, a windows machine and several linux machines.

Your Macs likely get more abuse, misuse, and disuse than any other. So
that's not saying anything.

Given the fact that OSX is

Troll.


Unfortunately, no.

For my tastes OSX is crap. I even like windows better than that ****e.

On 2017-03-07 12:22 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
nospam wrote:

In article , chrisv
wrote:

Some people like to be part of a herd, some people prefer freedom.

Desktop Linux is for those who prefer freedom.

freedom of having the least amount of software from which to choose.

There is no question that the apps advantage of Windows (and, to a
lesser extent, Mac) is important, in many situations.

exactly why linux has failed on the desktop. if someone can't run the
apps they need to run, linux is not an option. at all.

and macs have the *most* options for software, given that a mac can
natively run all mac/windows/linux apps, all on the same box.

Mac hardware is too costly and way too slow to be any viable choice to run
anything but OSX normally. Noone in his right mind would buy Mac hardware to
run only windows on it, he would be much better off buying a much more
powerful windows machine for the same price. This is even more true for
linux. Linux machines run rings around Macs, even if only costing a third of
the apple price

So Macs /can/ run windows or linux nativly (thats what I do with them,
because OSX is so incredibly crappy), but thats only viable when people want
OSX. They are able to install windows/linux additionally then

I need OSX to build my applications for apple using clients, but if that was
not the case I would *never* buy any Mac. *Any* other machine would server
me better, faster and at much lower cost


If the Mac hardware is so crappy...

....why do you have any?

On 2017-03-07 12:26 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
Alan Baker wrote:

On 2017-03-07 11:50 AM, chrisv wrote:
nospam wrote:

chrisv wrote:

Some people like to be part of a herd, some people prefer freedom.

Desktop Linux is for those who prefer freedom.

freedom of having the least amount of software from which to choose.

There is no question that the apps advantage of Windows (and, to a
lesser extent, Mac) is important, in many situations. But not 98% of
situations. With so much computing now being Web-based, many would be
better-served by GNU/Linux, but do not know it.

The monopolists keep the Free alternative out of the public eye, so
that it remains "obscure". The sheep are kept in the flock largely by
fear of the unknown.


How do these "monopolists" do that, exactly?


Simple. The OS is preinstalled, ready to use. This is true for windows and
OSX.

And that prevents Linux from getting in the public eye in other ways...

....how?

Most of the users would not dare to install /any/ OS (no matter which one)
on their computer, they are only able to use them, but not to install the
OS.

This fact alone keeps linux off those computers in most cases.

My wife has used a linux machine for more than 10 years without missing
anything (and she is a teacher). She would never attempt to install a OS.

In article , Peter Köhlmann
wrote:


Mac hardware is too costly and way too slow to be any viable choice to run
anything but OSX normally. Noone in his right mind would buy Mac hardware to
run only windows on it, he would be much better off buying a much more
powerful windows machine for the same price. This is even more true for
linux. Linux machines run rings around Macs, even if only costing a third of
the apple price

nonsense.

nothing comes close to an imac 5k in price or quality. dell's 5k
display (just a display, no computer) sells for about what the entire
imac 5k does.

microsoft's surface studio is *more* expensive than the imac 5k, but
with slower components. however, it pivots, which is rather slick.

So Macs /can/ run windows or linux nativly (thats what I do with them,
because OSX is so incredibly crappy), but thats only viable when people want
OSX. They are able to install windows/linux additionally then

nonsense.

I need OSX to build my applications for apple using clients, but if that was
not the case I would *never* buy any Mac. *Any* other machine would server
me better, faster and at much lower cost

if only your alleged clients realized how incompetent you truly are.

On 2017-03-07 12:28 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2017-03-07, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2017-03-07, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

Idiot

I own a MacBook, a iMac, a windows machine and several linux machines.

Your Macs likely get more abuse, misuse, and disuse than any other. So
that's not saying anything.

Given the fact that OSX is

Troll.


Unfortunately, no.

For my tastes OSX is crap. I even like windows better than that ****e.


For your tastes, fine.

Alan Browne wrote:

On 2017-03-07 13:14, vallor wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2017 11:29:53 -0600, chrisv wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:

On 2017-03-07 09:52, chrisv wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote:

Someone's butt hurt. : )

Obviously. Yours. : )

Wow. And I thought you were at grade 11 debating level. This is not
even junior high level.

Hey everyone, check-out the hypocrisy from "Alan Browne". Even though
fellow Apple fan "Jolly Roger" started with the "butt hurt" talk, it is
I who get attacked.

I will rise above it: Due to his grade-school debating level, all
"Jolly Roger" posts in this thread are being deleted, unread.

Seen him in other groups. Another poster has made the observation that
he doesn't do anything _but_ troll -- no non-trolling content appears in
his posts.

If it keeps him off the streets, let him show everyone just the kind of
person he is.

And there's a lot more to do in this world than just (re)posting debunked
cliches...you'd think they'd get tired of that.

Hmm, liars too. Where do you trolls come from anyway?



Look up the groups. The dizum coward wanted to install a flame war, being
fully aware that apple users are generally stupid beyond imagination, too
dumb to use any real OS and incredibly jealous about linux users.

So he included windows and linux groups in his crosspost

See how he succeeded. Dimbulbs like "nospam" and other assorted scum come
along and post their idiotic garbage. The Mac users in this thread combined
have less smarts than superheated dirt

On 2017-03-07 15:24, chrisv wrote:
nospam wrote:

nonsense. nobody is keeping anything out of the public eye.

people are well aware of all of the options.

LOL What a liar. This guy's denials, idiocy, and dodging of the
issues speaks volumes.

Just another asshole who ignores all of the monopolist's dirty deeds,
and pretends not to understand that, once this type of market tilts
too far to one vendor, an obscure alternative has no chance, no matter
how good it is.

As I said earlier, this is the age of the alternative's advantage
because big companies have 0 control over the myriad communications
channels over social media.

If Linux desktop were really so good and saving so much money for people
they would be getting the message from a hundred different sources.

Android dominates mobile because Android phones (generally) are cheaper
than iOS phones. The monopolists advantage has failed there for some
reason. (MS did buy Nokia to strengthen its position - but that failed
miserably).

--
"If war is God's way of teaching Americans geography, then
recession is His way of teaching everyone a little economics."
..Raj Patel, The Value of Nothing.

Alan Baker wrote:

On 2017-03-07 12:22 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
nospam wrote:

In article , chrisv
wrote:

Some people like to be part of a herd, some people prefer freedom.

Desktop Linux is for those who prefer freedom.

freedom of having the least amount of software from which to choose.

There is no question that the apps advantage of Windows (and, to a
lesser extent, Mac) is important, in many situations.

exactly why linux has failed on the desktop. if someone can't run the
apps they need to run, linux is not an option. at all.

and macs have the *most* options for software, given that a mac can
natively run all mac/windows/linux apps, all on the same box.

Mac hardware is too costly and way too slow to be any viable choice to
run anything but OSX normally. Noone in his right mind would buy Mac
hardware to run only windows on it, he would be much better off buying a
much more powerful windows machine for the same price. This is even more
true for linux. Linux machines run rings around Macs, even if only
costing a third of the apple price

So Macs /can/ run windows or linux nativly (thats what I do with them,
because OSX is so incredibly crappy), but thats only viable when people
want OSX. They are able to install windows/linux additionally then

I need OSX to build my applications for apple using clients, but if that
was not the case I would *never* buy any Mac. *Any* other machine would
server me better, faster and at much lower cost


If the Mac hardware is so crappy...

...why do you have any?


You prove nicely that OSX user generally are way too stupid to correctly
spill a bucket of water

I wrote it just above your so incredibly stupid answer. Now be a good guy,
fetch your little sister to read it for you and explain it, too