Why Windows Lost The Battle for the Desktop

[John Bailo]

The war of the OSes was won a long time ago.

Unix has always been, and will continue to be, the Server OS in the form
of Linux.

Microsoft struggled mightily to win that battle -- creating a poor man's
DBMS, a broken email server and various other /application/ servers to
try and crack the Internet and IS markets.

In the case where they didn't spend their own money to get companies to
install servers, they failed miserably, and the 1 Billion per quarter
Linux market is testament to that.

But, what M$ didn't want you to know, is that the only reason they
wanted to dominate the server, is to protect their desktop and office
applications market.

Seal up the server, and the desktop is safe; cede the server, and the
desktop will fall.

And so it is...falling into the hands of Linux.

[Phil Da Lick!]

Jeff_Relf wrote:

Hi Phil, Re: Rinze's reading problems, You suggested to me: <<
You've completely misunderstood his post.
He says he finds it difficult to read English
* in the piss poor format you post it in * . >>

Did he really ? ! Oh, thanks for elucidating me like that, Phil.
You're welcome. However I can't help but feel that it is falling on deaf
ears, seeing as everyone is telling you the same thing.

My guess is that Rinze is a better reader than you are... what a pity.

Your other guesses include readability of your shitty quoting style and
your source code so I guess your "guess" doesn't really mean much.

[Peter Köhlmann]

begin Phil Da Lick! wrote:

C-Services Holland b.v. wrote:

Jeff_Relf uttered the following jibberish:

I told you :

I do have a problem with the weird way you're quoting !

Am I not indenting ? Why do you so absolutely Require chevrons ?

Indenting makes it clear who replied to what and when. I assume you also
don't indent your sourcecode?

Have you not seen his source code?

That is no "source" and especially no "code"

The correct wording would be "Relf garbage"

< snip >
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
It could be worse, but it'll take time.

[chrisv]

"Phil Da Lick!" <ph***********@ hotmail.nospam. com> wrote:

Jeff_Relf wrote:

*plonk* again.

[Phil Da Lick!]

chrisv wrote:

"Phil Da Lick!" <ph***********@ hotmail.nospam. com> wrote:

Jeff_Relf wrote:

*plonk* again.

yawn. tosser.

[Arthur M.]

Why don’t you call up Redhat and try to get an enterprise support contract?
You will quickly discover they will charge over 1400 per year per system.
When you stop feeling amazed, why not hop over to your legal department and
ask them to read fine print, if you can re-distribute Redhat free patches and
associated software throughout your enterprise by signing up only one server
(after all, the GPL states that you can distribute it without cost....) when
you will get an answer from your legal department that technically you can
not do it because of the fine print on Redhat initial support contract; you
will finally come back to your mathematical senses and quit promoting the
'free' concept of Linux. But wait a minute, you are a lone user and not an
enterprise...

To get sarcastic hat off ... I'm all for mixed environment, both have their
merits and pitfalls. But lets take systems for what they are - NOT FREE.

Linux has never been free to anyone other then a lone individual that
understands how system(s) function. When you move into environment with 1000s
of servers, the perspective changes a bit

"Andrew DeFaria" wrote:

Jeff_Relf wrote:

Linux is ten times the price of Micro-Soft.

My Linux was free. MySQL was free. Perl was free. Apache was free. Hell
the system I am running Linux on was given to me. Need I go on?
Effectively I have a free system with free software and it does a lot
for me. Mathematically, the only way Linux (L) could be ten times the
price of MS (IOW: L = 10*MS) and L=$0 then MS must be $0 too! We all
know that MS <> 0 rather MS = M$. Ergo your statement is mathematically
false!

Just in terms of difficulty to use alone.

Why do you have to pay for MS products ? Because the code is
Designed/Tested for the common man, and that costs money.

IMHO, computer professionals are not the same as common men. If you wish
to run your business on an MS OS and utilize common men to run it then
that goes a long way to describing the state of MS only shops!
--
Today I dialed a wrong number....The other side said, "Hello?" and I
said, "Hello, could I speak to Joey?" They said," Uh, I don't think
so...He's only two months old." I said, "I'll wait..

[Blatant]

"JamesB" wrote:

"Joe Cipale" <jo**@aracnet.c om> wrote in message
news:41******** *******@aracnet .com...

...

MS have always been anti-competative OR successful, it depends on if you're
a cynic or not what view you take.

I think MS has also been either anti-competitive OR successful in terms of
product design. The built-in anticompetitive features are also those that IMO
often cause their SW designs to suX0r. The cryptic M$ Office file format
designed to lock in their own customers to an eternal upgrade cycle and scare
off ppl trying to build parsers for them for example is obviously
technologically inferior to the XML format used by OOo. Their attempts to
make W3 microsoft-only by inventing their own html standard for IE and
forcing all web developers to test on multiple platforms and by the .Net
scheme that requires the client side to implement Windows APIs are both bad
designs that weaken what already works instead of contributing to it. In
general, M$ design successes lie where they have 'forgot?' to put the
anti-competitive aspect into some design so that they have accidentally built
a product that can be used creatively.

The reason for which anti-competitive software design is bad is that it
breaks the KISS imperative. Making a SW design complex only to make it harder
to interface from 3rd party products also makes it complex to implement and
maintain. Building vendor-lock-ins into products inevitably increases their
complexity - the problem that the most of the latest design paradigms SW
engineering field are trying to mitigate. In the field of SW, simplicity
implies beauty. Anti-competitive design excludes simplicity.

[Jeff_Relf]

Hi Phil, Re: Rinze's reading problems, You mentioned to me: <<
...readability of your shitty quoting style and your source code... >>

If you can't read English or C++ then it's your loss, not mine.

[Jeff_Relf]

Hi Rinze,
Re: My newsreader, X.CPP, killing second-level quoting ( " > > " ) spam,
along with HTML, PGP signatures, etc.,

You told me: << It's obvious you're living
in your own private little world where everyone is crazy except you.
I hope you're happy there. I'm done throwing food down your pit. >>

Of course you're done, because you never started.
Don't worry about me, I'm doing fine.

You pretended: << My reading capabilities are just fine.
It's you who's messing things up what that idiot quoting style. >>

You're the one with all the complaints dude, not me.
Quite unlike you, I can read damn near anything.

You told me: <<
You just need to learn to quote like the rest of the world does. >>

No, you need that... not me, because you're such a poor reader.

You told me: << Indenting makes it clear who replied to what and when.
I assume you also don't indent your sourcecode ?
You're also using chevrons, you're just putting them at the end of the line,
where they are useless. >>

I am indenting... Can't you see it ?
Perhaps your newsreader is stripping it out.
I bet your not using a monospaced font either,
....so who's the idiot here ?

Re: If second-level quoting ( " > > " ) is spam,

You replied: << Not if it clarifies the conversation. >>

It doesn't, not compared to plain English, that's why it's spam.

[John Bailo]

Jeff_Relf wrote:

Hi Phil, Re: Rinze's reading problems, You mentioned to me: <<
...readability of your shitty quoting style and your source code... >>

If you can't read English or C++ then it's your loss, not mine.

Jeff,

All it says is that you really do not know c/c++ or c#

The premise of the *c's* is: elegance, simplicity, efficiency.

Jeff -- You are a person who wants to throw in the /Kitchen/ /Sink/ in
your code, to show just "how much c you know".

You cram together mounds of 'c' code into a mush, and then slam it in
people's faces, and then when they say, what is this crap, you whine and
kick your feet.

Jeff, there is a difference between dumbfounding them with brilliance,
the way a Brancusi status invites derision via it's simplicity, and your
code, which invites derision the way a dog, pooping on a street corner
might.

Jeff, you have already shown you do not even know what recursion is.

Look at this Jeff..look:

public class Elegance
{
public static int Fibonacci(int n)
{
if(n == 0||n == 1)
return n;
else
return Fibonacci(n - 1) + Fibonacci(n - 2);
}
}

[John Bailo]

Jeff_Relf wrote:

You told me: << Indenting makes it clear who replied to what and when.
I assume you also don't indent your sourcecode ?
You're also using chevrons, you're just putting them at the end of the line,
where they are useless. >>

Not only that, but a quality newsreader, such as Thunderbird, puts color
lines next to each previous respondents text, makeing it much easier to
discern quotes.