M$ at it again...

[Marshmallowman]

thump....thats me fainting.

Gurm actually said something nice about linux.

I like's me linux ye likes yer windows.

Thats the good bit....choice

[Dogbert]

I think we should appeal to Apple asking them to port OS-X to our Intel PCs.

[Jammrock]

Gurm,

I think everyone here understands that point, you just don't want to stop hammering it. How much is M$ paying you to troll anyway?

There are apps for other OS's, you simply do not deem them worthy. Once again I remind you that your needs are not everyone's needs, so even if you do not deem something worthy, that doesn't mean everyone should. So stop jumping on Linux's case!

As for Linux's future...patients gr****opper. With the number of talented people working on it, it's only a matter of time before it matures enough to a competative consumer level. Right now it isn't ready on the consumer level, but time changes a lot of things.

My personal favorite failed OS is BeOS. Light years ahead of its time in usability, features and programming. No app support. Apple should have bought them instead of Next. I guess Palm owns them now, so that will hopefully boost them somewhat.

Jammrock

PS - 100% M$ Office compatability is BS and you know it, but I already covered that.

[KeiFront]

It's like the chicken and egg problem.

Nobody is going to use your OS until there's good software that runs on it, and nobody is going to write software until you have a big installed base.

Every company creates (writes) software for Windows because they can make profit with it, unlike Linux and other operating systems.

We may just hope that some companies see that there is a demand for good software for Mac OS-X, Linux, etc.

Jammrock, BeOS was (is) great, the best OS I ever worked with, maybe the fastest and most efficient operating systems ever designed . It would have been great if apple had bought BeOS instead of NeXT.

[Gurm]

I keep hammering because there's always someone who sticks their neck out and says "It's viable! Honest it is!"

As for whether I deem apps "worthy" or not, that's hardly the point.

I have to be able to hand off Page Layouts in 100% perfect Quark format. That means, unfortunately, that I have to run Quark. I don't LIKE Quark, but that's the way it is. Until someone writes Quark for Linux (never happen, for economic reasons covered by Keifront) I can't use Linux on this machine.

It has nothing to do with how "worthy" I feel an application is, and everything to do with the fact that like it or not, the people on the other end are using Windows (or Macs, which creates a whole new world of compatibility nightmares).

I resent the implication that I've been bribed. I'm simply not an indiscriminate pessimist. I don't honestly believe that MS has some great world-domination agenda, as many of the Lusers seem to think.

And it irks me that every time some idiot at some "news" site decides to write up something else inflammatory about MS, these Lusers come to every site I frequent, trumpeting about the latest "attempt to dominate" by MS.

So maybe I get a bit vitriolic in my defense of MS. Hey, their apps aren't perfect. But they're better than the competition. Did they get that way by killing off the competition? Quite possibly. Am I going to use some third-rate app on a second-rate OS just out of spite, and on principle? Umm... no.

See, there's the rub. How many Linux users are honestly doing more, better, and faster with Linux... and how many are using it because it isn't Windows?

And before you answer, you need to remember that very few will admit that they're using it just out of spite. They'll talk about how much better it is (debatable), and how cool Open Source is (it isn't, but that's another entire argument), and how it has "pretty darn good" hardware support (which means that they only had to hunt, beg, and sell their limbs to get 5 drivers for their machine, instead of ALL of them like it was a couple years back).

But in the end, I'd say it's about 50/50. And the most vitriolic of the Linux crowd is HIGHLY suspect of being spite-only users.

Add to that the fact that ANYONE such as myself who bothers to point out that everyone is being paranoid, spiteful, and pretending to have principles that they really don't have... gets branded as a TROLL, or gets accused of taking a payoff.

How absurd!

- Gurm

[Jammrock]

STAY OUT OF THE SUN, GURM! YOU MAY TURN TO STONE!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....

Talk about uptight...you try and make one little joke in your post and people get all fired up!

Note: I have NEVER said Winblows OS's are total garbage and without worth. M$ and Winblows is fun to poke fun at, and easy to tease since they do have so many problems. I don't even have Linux installed on ANY of my computers. I'm merely pointing out that one person's opinion/needs do not fit everyone. I'm talking about M$'s dirty business (which they learned very well from IBM I might add).

It's a legal fact that M$ has a monopoly on desktop OS's. You can argue left and right about this and that, but what is boils down to is a federal judge said guilty and hit the gavel. It's a know fact, which several points came up in the DOJ trial, that M$ uses illegal business tactics to keep it as such. Thus M$ is a dirty company and deserve every bit of ridicule they recieve.

M$ wants the monopoly in a capitolist environment, so they have to put up with everyone's little grips and moans, like all the other big companies do. It's how things are, the bigger you are, the more visible you are to damage from the outside. If M$ pays trolls (which I was joking about you, Gurm....sheesh) to bash people who rag on their stuff, then I think M$ needs to be ridiculed even more!

You can post about this survey or that to prove your point, but who paid for those survey's? Who ran those survey's? Survey's are too easily bent to the purposes of the person paying for it to be legit these days, unless it comes from a truely independent source.

What it boils down to is, what works best for you! Winblows works best for me, so I use it. Linux works best for several people I know who run web servers. Linux works best for IBM and their servers, so they use it. Winblows works best for Dell, so they use that. There is no clearly better OS, because no two users do the same things on their computer. And that's the whole truth!

Jammrock

[KeiFront]

Off Topic:

---

Originally posted by Gurm I don't LIKE Quark, but that's the way it is.

<img src="images/icons/icon14.gif">

Quark definatly sucks.

---

[Joel]

The main problem with the DOJ case againist M$ is that you have a bunch of politicians and bureaucrates, that know nothing about computers except to do e-mail and browse the Interent, making the decisions. Rather you should have a group of computer software engineers who can understand the underhanded coding that M$ has done to make anything that is not a M$ product incompatible, unless you pay M$ big bucks for the access to the code, then they own you.

Joel

[Technoid]

Woulden't it be great to have "Windows" "Clones" in the same way as we have "IBM" "Clones"?

A OS that can nativly run Win apps and drivers etc etc.....

That way MS would actualy have to optimise their code and bug stomp!

Competition is the reason why we can buy our computers without going poor.

Lack of competition is the reason that the OS is ridicoulosly expensive!

[Wombat]

I think one of the big problems with the DOJ case is Ashcroft. I'll admit I don't like the guy at all, but his record stands regardless of my opinion.

Ashcroft's biggest campaign contributors (this is true):

1. Enron (recused himself from case)
2. Microsoft (hmm, pretty much giving them what they want)

[Gurm]

Yes. Quark is 100% back-asswards. I don't understand it at all. It doesn't use Windows standard controls. It ALSO doesn't use Mac-standard controls. Nothing is where it ought to be. The menus are all confusing, and everything in it is completely counter-intuitive.

When I called up the graphics gurus at the place that needed a certain layout from me, and asked them "how do I do <thing x>", and they said "you don't".

ARGH!

- Gurm

[KvHagedorn]

I don't honestly believe that MS has some great world-domination agenda, as many of the Lusers seem to think.

I don't think that either.. and don't call me a Luser.. I don't use Linux. I am critical of Microsoft because I see the problem that many of you don't. Microsoft is just like Godzilla.. a mindless, gargantuan destruction machine. They are just so much bigger than everyone else that the people they step on are inconsequential to them. They are nothing but a big menace and have to be destroyed.

Ashcroft's biggest campaign contributors (this is true):

How can it be true when Ashcroft was appointed?

If you mean GWB, then say it. I will say this once (this hour.. maybe again every hour on the hour but anyhow.. ) All politicians are corrupt. If they aren't they are corruptible. It's only a matter of degree. True, some are almost incorruptible (McCain with his campaign finance reform bill.. where's that lately? Killed by the 99% of congress that is made up of greedy bastards, because the corporations that own them told them to kill it. )

[Wombat]

Ashcroft (formerly Senator Ashcroft) was appointed to AG, but only after he lost a Senate race <B>to a dead guy</B>. Here is a <A HREF="http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:ZuUhphNoCF0C:www.startribune.com/stories/587/1404139.html+contributions+ashcroft+enron+microsof t&ie=ISO-8859-1">Google cache</A> of an article with financial details.

And actually, the finance reform bill was due to be passed...today. I think as of last night it passed the House.


Edited for URL issues.

[Gurm]

I concur that something needs to be done about MS, the problem is that I don't really know what - none of the ideas I've heard would be anything but counterproductive.

- Gurm

[Wombat]

Campaign finance reform bill passed the Senate 60-40. Dissenters are saying they will take it to court.