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.

[Victor Vatamanescu]

What you don't have a clue about is always at least ten times more costly
compared to what you use day by day. I have no idea why M$ tries so much
these days to demonstrate this rather obvious thing and manipulates other
people to repeat this (otherwise true) thesis over and over.
Linux is free. Linux skills are not. Of course neither Windows skills are
free, but who cares?! If you are really to compare you realize that Linux
skills are realistically speaking only 5-10% more expensive than Windows
skills but who cares about reality?! Who cares anymore about computer
science, about an engineering perspective or such things?! Or even about
pursuing the TRUTH! We dont care, we have Microsoft and great courses and
certification programs that replace our need to think for ourselves as
rational human beings!
Who says Linux is hard never touched a Linux. I was a Visual C programmer
once upon a time, swearing Linux at all time and saying everyone who cared to
listen me how hard and unproductive is to develop on Linux until one day when
I had to do some Linux programming. WOW! The ease of use, the logic and
simplicity of Linux design really amazed me. Ever since I am a member of The
OSS community and I must say that I learned a lot and I had the honor to work
with great developers in great projects. I use Windows very rarely, not
because I would hate it (in the end both Windows and Linux are tools, what is
really important is to gain perspective from my point of view, this is what
defines you as a developer), but because I dont need it. Linux has everything
I need, of course with the notable exception of a browser that implements IE
stupidities.

"Jeff_Relf" wrote:

Hi Andrew_DeFaria ( ¿ ¿ K-Unit ),

You informed me: << My Linux was soggy. MySQL was extra krispy.
Perl was al-dente. Apache was charbroiled. My jock itch was free.
Hell the treadmill I am running Linux on was given to me. Need I go on ?
Effectively, I'm addicted to free software and it hurts a lot.
Mathematically... >>

Oh good... here comes the math: <<
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 ! >>

Ergo you missed my point entirely ( and intentionally ).

Every breath you takes costs you,
even when no one is paying you to do it.

The common man/woman is not about to reprogram Linux
just so he/she can display the family photo album.
Open source... ha !

Re: How the common man can only affort Micro-Soft's products,

You observed: <<
IMHO, computer professionals are not the same as common men. >>

Right, they're people who either code for themselves,
their friends... or to pay the rent.

[Peter Weaver]

Jeff_Relf wrote:

Hi John, To this from me: <<
Sam Walton didn't create a bunch of spoiled brats ( billionaires )
by overpaying his employees... neither did Bill Gates. >>

You commented: << People forget.
The reason these companies are successful
are that they deliver low costs to the consumer.
For every pissed off programmer, there are 1000 happy customers,
making $30,000 a year, who can afford cheap goods.
Now Linux/WalMart are taking on that role.
Linux does what Microsoft does
-- but it doesn't have to pay a Bill Gates.
That's why its better. >>

Linux is ten times the price of Micro-Soft.

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.

Only idiots find linux hard to use.
I've built linux computers for computer illiterate friends, and they
cope without difficulties, and most of all they are happy their computer
cannot be affected by the hundreds of M$ compatable viri around.

[Peter Weaver]

Jeff_Relf wrote:

Hi John, Re: The typical techno-phobe housewife badly in need
of the ease of use and economies of scale provided only by Micro-Soft,
not by open source,

You wrote: << Microsoft is the staid husband,
no longer vital, that goes off to work everyday.
Linux is the young penguin,
who sneaks in the the backdoor and Satisfies the customer. >>

I hate to pop your bubble John,
but she's not using open source, much less Linux.

Which brings up an interesting question...
Does your ex use Linux ?

Yes.

Also Most websites are hosted on linux, e-mail services are generally
linux based, plus i would be amazed if this nntp server was operating on
a linux platform when linux based nntp services are cheaper more
resiliant and generally regarded as bullet proof.

Many women use linux, I find your comments are even more sexist and
ignorant and silly, than "Holiday On The Busses".

Don't knock linux untill you have properly used it.

[chrisv]

Peter Weaver <no*@all-wanting-spam.ok> wrote:

Jeff_Relf wrote:

Don't feed the troll.

[Nick Malik [Microsoft]]

"Peter Weaver" <no*@all-wanting-spam.ok> wrote in message
news:cq**********@sparta.btinternet.com...

Which brings up an interesting question...
Does your ex use Linux ?
Yes.

Also Most websites are hosted on linux,

I'd venture that Solaris and Windows both account for more sites, especially
if you include Intranet sites. While Lunix is popular, you'd be hard
pressed to show that "most" web sites are hosted on one operating system.
Some of the largest ISPs in the world run inside the corporate firewall.
e-mail services are generally linux based,
Sure, SENDMAIL runs on a lot of machines, but most non-spam e-mail is
handled behind company and corporate firewalls by Lotus and Exchange, and
never sees the open Internet. Linux-based SMTP servers are a relatively
small portion of the overall e-mail server count, even counting Google and
AOL, who both apparently have embraced Lunix. (can't speak for Hotmail... I
really don't know. I suppose I should ;-} In summary, your statement was a
simple exaggeration that can only be justified from a narrow point of view.
plus i would be amazed if this nntp server was operating on
a linux platform when linux based nntp services are cheaper more
resiliant and generally regarded as bullet proof.
Except for the logical error in your statement, which I will attribute to
fast typing, this is probably a true statement. NNTP services largely run
on cheap devices because (1) the protocol is open source and has been since
the beginning, (2) most of the internet code to handle Usenet was written on
Unix and therefore translates well to a Linux platform, and (3) Usenet is
valuable to the users of these newsgroups, but it is not mission critical.
No one will die if a message is lost. (4) Administration on NNTP is largely
automated, so there's very little need for nice U/I features. (all of this
applies to SMTP as well, but not necessarily to "endpoint" mail servers).

Therefore, there is no need to spend a bunch of money to get a managable
general-purpose server when a cheaper appliance will do the trick. That
said, these statements apply to Unix in general, not necessarily Linux, and
primarily to the open internet, not corporate or governmental networks. My
point: The NNTP appliance could just as well be running BSD or one of the
other unix-based operating systems.

Many women use linux, I find your comments are even more sexist and
ignorant and silly, than "Holiday On The Busses".
I didn't read the other post, so I can't comment. I do think that it would
be fair to say that the percentage of women using Linux is probably
proportional to the percentage of women using any computing equipment. I
see no reason to believe that _being female_ makes you any more or less
likely to use a particular operating system, especially as an end-user,
which appears to be the thrust of your argument. I don't think that the
previous poster meant "as an end-user" though. "Users of the Linux command
line" make up a smaller fraction of the total population of "users of
computing equipment," frequently as server administrators, CS students, and
computing hobbyists. Those groups have, in my unscientific observation,
exhibited a tendency to be more than 60% male. Perhaps the previous poster
was trying to get there, albeit in an odd and perhaps indefensible way.
Don't knock linux untill you have properly used it.

Not sure what qualifications I would need to have to say I've properly used
it. Does this apply only to people who've typed at a Linux command line?
Your message thread seems to imply that most of us use Linux already (quite
possibly true, in some way or another) when performing Internet-based tasks
like surfing the web, searching, sending e-mail, using a TiVo, and reading
our newsgroups. Does this count as properly using it? If so, I have the
right to knock it... :-).

Before the days of Linux, I spent a few years writing C code on Unix (AT&T
System V). This was probably the most intensely geeky period of my career.
I'm no enemy to the OS. That said, until someone can get a much wider
distribution of Linux to the desktop (perhaps by selling PCs with Linux
preinstalled at Walmart, or something like that), then you will end up
having arguments about "housewives" and what it means to "use Unix."

Competition makes everyone stronger. Keep it coming.
--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--

[Conor]

In article Peter Weaver says...

Jeff_Relf wrote:

Hi John, Re: The typical techno-phobe housewife badly in need
of the ease of use and economies of scale provided only by Micro-Soft,
not by open source,

You wrote: << Microsoft is the staid husband,
no longer vital, that goes off to work everyday.
Linux is the young penguin,
who sneaks in the the backdoor and Satisfies the customer. >>

I hate to pop your bubble John,
but she's not using open source, much less Linux.

Which brings up an interesting question...
Does your ex use Linux ?

Yes.

Also Most websites are hosted on linux, e-mail services are generally
linux based,

Really?

http://www.internetnews.com/stats/article.php/3448561

While Microsoft Windows currently commands a 90 percent share of the
total market, the report suggests that Linux will chip away at Redmond's
(Quote, Chart) grasp in the relative short term, running in about 25.7
percent of all servers shipped vs. 63 percent for Windows-based systems
by 2008.

And...

"Just about every major hardware vendor concedes that Linux is the No. 2
operating system based on new server shipments,"

Final footnote of the article..

The Linux evangelist said the reverse is true in places like China where
some consumers purchase Linux systems and wipe out the OS in favor of
some pirated Windows software.

--
Conor

An imperfect plan executed violently is far superior to a perfect plan.
-- George Patton

[Jeff_Relf]

Hi Pete, You told me: << Only idiots find linux hard to use.
I've built linux computers for computer illiterate friends,
and they cope without difficulties,
and most of all they are happy their computer cannot be affected by
the hundreds of M$ compatable viri around. >>

Linux is also unaffected by
all the people/vendors who target WinXP exclusively.

I use WinXP exclusively and I get no spam or malware.
I use no firewall or antivirus software either.
All one has to do it this:
1. Use on-the-fly e-mail aliases
( e.g. Cotse.NET, which also has SMTP-AUTH which works from any LAN ).
2. Browse with FireFox 1.0 ( IE automation like GuruNet is no problem ).
3. Use 40tude Dialog instead of Outlook,
or, better yet, write your own client, as I did ( X.CPP ).

[Octopussy]

Jeff_Relf wrote:

Linux is also unaffected by
all the people/vendors who target WinXP exclusively.

Not true.

Linux people are plagued by WinXP machines infected by spam trojans that
spew email to their accounts.

By law, every Linux user should be able to sue WinXP users for putting
hazardous material on the Internet.

[General Protection Fault]

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 03:12:00 GMT, Octopussy wrote:

Jeff_Relf wrote:

Linux is also unaffected by
all the people/vendors who target WinXP exclusively.

Not true.

Linux people are plagued by WinXP machines infected by spam trojans that
spew email to their accounts.

By law, every Linux user should be able to sue WinXP users for putting
hazardous material on the Internet.

Not true. You're only liable if you *know* you're doing it.
--
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
8:50AM up 37 days, 14:12, 1 user, load averages: 0.04, 0.02, 0.00

[nev]

many people today are spending $5000 on wide screen tv's and $30-60,000 on
vans, SUVs etc.

in case you haven't noticed, the average buying power of americans has been
steadily climbing.

what it shows is that the general public, is willing to pay for personal
support for technology.

Arnt we talking about low cost of ownership and running a (computer) system
here... anyways having to spend nothing on an OS.. but 300 bucks to fix
anything negates the whole point of getting a free OS ...atleast for the
folks paying for such a service.

[nev]

when I googled with "micro-soft" it replied with "Did you mean Microsoft?"
so what Jeff was probably trying to tell you was that when he types
"Micro-Soft" he means Microsoft ... cos there could be little else that he
could mean or want to say on this Microsoft forum debating Microsoft products
and Microsoft's competitors.
Maybe he pronouces it that way ...Micro-Soft :)
"Scott M." wrote:

What exactly is your point? I can get the wikipedia.org data by typing
Microsoft the correct way as well.

Why would someone who see's you write "Micro-Soft" inherantly think to try
to Google that, or better yet, think to go to some obscure web site and do a
search there?

Is there something you want to say, but are assuming we all know when you
say "Micro-Soft"?
"Jeff_Relf" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:Je***********************@Cotse.NET...

Hi Scott, You asked me: <<
You know that Microsoft is not hyphenated ( Micro-Soft ), right ? >>

You do know how to Google, Right ?

Try this: << Micro-Soft site:wikipedia.org >>

[sam f]

You guys keep on thinking linux is mainstream. Linux is to software as
Walmart is to retail, except it hasn't built one "store" yet. And the whole
idea that linux is cheap is crap. Using linux is just like having a Walmart
built next door to you. Looks like cheap shopping until you have to deal with
everything else that goes with having walmart as your neighbor. Yeah, Walmart
and Linux, that sounds about right.

"John Bailo" wrote:

Jeff_Relf wrote:

Sam Walton didn't create a bunch of spoiled brats ( billionaires )
by overpaying his employees... neither did Bill Gates.

People forget.

The reason these companies is successful are that they deliver low costs
to the consumer.

For every pissed off programmer, there are 1000 happy customers, making
$30,000 a year, who can afford cheap goods.

Now Linux/WalMart are taking on that role.

Linux does what Microsoft does -- but it doesn't have to pay a Bill
Gates.

That's why its better

[Moe Green]

Linux is like WalMart when it was a small single store, and all the big
stores laughed at it and it's low prices.

Then middle America saw the bargain and snapped it up in droves.

Then the intellectuals such as yourself embrace it.
sam f wrote:

You guys keep on thinking linux is mainstream. Linux is to software as
Walmart is to retail, except it hasn't built one "store" yet. And the whole
idea that linux is cheap is crap. Using linux is just like having a Walmart
built next door to you. Looks like cheap shopping until you have to deal with
everything else that goes with having walmart as your neighbor. Yeah, Walmart
and Linux, that sounds about right.

"John Bailo" wrote:

Jeff_Relf wrote:

Sam Walton didn't create a bunch of spoiled brats ( billionaires )
by overpaying his employees... neither did Bill Gates.

People forget.

The reason these companies is successful are that they deliver low costs
to the consumer.

For every pissed off programmer, there are 1000 happy customers, making
$30,000 a year, who can afford cheap goods.

Now Linux/WalMart are taking on that role.

Linux does what Microsoft does -- but it doesn't have to pay a Bill
Gates.

That's why its better

[Brandon Potter]

Wal-Mart rocks.

:)

Sorry,
Brandon

"sam f" <sam [e-mail]> wrote in message
news:93**********************************@microsof t.com...

You guys keep on thinking linux is mainstream. Linux is to software as
Walmart is to retail, except it hasn't built one "store" yet. And the whole idea that linux is cheap is crap. Using linux is just like having a Walmart built next door to you. Looks like cheap shopping until you have to deal with everything else that goes with having walmart as your neighbor. Yeah, Walmart and Linux, that sounds about right.

"John Bailo" wrote:

Jeff_Relf wrote:

Sam Walton didn't create a bunch of spoiled brats ( billionaires )
by overpaying his employees... neither did Bill Gates.

People forget.

The reason these companies is successful are that they deliver low costs
to the consumer.

For every pissed off programmer, there are 1000 happy customers, making
$30,000 a year, who can afford cheap goods.

Now Linux/WalMart are taking on that role.

Linux does what Microsoft does -- but it doesn't have to pay a Bill
Gates.

That's why its better

[nev]

There are some people for Linux and then again some for Microsoft.
The pro linux guys argue that linux is better because its a better operating
system and its cheap/open source/free. While all agree that it is a better
server than Windows(those who feel windows is better, may respond
appropriately), not many will say the same for linux as a desktop ..yeah I
heard some saying that the new releases are good but are they windows XP good
in terms of ease of use.. maybe they will get there someday..but until then...
Linux is more secure ..its got lesser bugs ..yes it will have to .. cos it
was built from unix .. and unix has been around far longer than windows ..
many man hours have been spent testing it (some through normal usage) and
working on fixing its bugs .. and as we developers all know ..the longer a
piece of code is tested the more secure it gets. Also unix was built and
tested through the times when there wern't as many secuirty concerns
around... and by the time there were ..it had already gotten secure enough to
withstand most such security threats.. building a nice reputation for itself
as against windows that was just about getting itself together at that time.

The main thing that Linux has going for it is that its a good and cheap OS.
The only thing that will appeal here to the common man is the 'cheap' part...
good is what he sees in front of him... and windows does well there for a
first time user decieding between a windows and a Linux box on the shelf at
the computer store. Now what a developer/sys admin type of a person would
consider good is a system that doesnt have too many security flaws, doesnt
crash too often, etc. ..cos they are the kind of guys who are capable of
challenging the OS enough to do that. What windows has going against it is
it licensing and pricing system and its strong arm tactics in the market...
playing the big bully as people would call that.

Linux is what it is today because of unix(unix has had a ten year headstart
over windows) .. it hasn't made as many leaps and bounds as windows has since
its inception. The windows OS of today is no where close to the Dirty
Operating System it was in the 80's.. and it will get better with time.. with
every major release like from win3.1 to Win95... win95 to winXP.. winXP to
Longhorn there will be some serious flaws no doubt... but they will get fixed
too. Microsoft will just need to pay a little more attention to the way it
behaves in the market around and with its competitors and users... because
that in the end will deciede which one of the two is better.

Well these were just my thoughts... your comments/rants are welcome.

Thanks.

[nev]

"Pokeweed" wrote:

Only if one is an idiot and refuses to learn anything new...or in other words
'most M$ users' careful man

It costs money to make things 'dumb' for 'dummies'?

who is the dummy and how are things made getting dumb ..please be specific
with a few known examples... we would consider agreeing with you ;)

[nev]

"john bailo" wrote:

The point is that the code /can/ be changed -- it can always be tailored
to the man/woman's specific machine.

You can never do that with Windows

what kind of changes are we talking about?...or is it settings really?..
arent these being managed already by windows using the control panel
...without changin or recompiling the source code.

[nev]

"Renegade" wrote:

Oh come on! How many man hours of design and testing were required to
produce a suitable BSoD? Or a browsable exploiter...er.. exploitable
browser? Pre-installed spyware registry keys? NSA backdoors?

What about the expense to users and businesses for AV, firewalls, and the
constant removal of malware that keeps circulating?

lets talk about viruses ..these are written by groups of people who get a
kick out of breaking into some computer system and "owning" it .. they like
to brag about it too... they want to be known for their "skills" in being
able to crack into a computer system.. it makes them feel good about
themselves.
Spyware is written for/by people who want to get to your personal
information for their own ulterior motives.
Adware is written by people that want to, well, advertise their products.

For all of these groups of people it will be worth their time and effort in
writing such *ware only if they can get to as many other people as possible..
Now we all know that as far as desktops are concerned ..there is no rival for
windows as of today... if you do the math right it makes sense to write *ware
for the windows platform... more returns you see.. you think its impossible
to write adware/malware/spyware/viruses for Linux.. it isnt.. its just not
worth the effort.
What ? ..you didn't think about it that way.. oh come on!! :)

[nev]

"Slackware User" wrote:

You say linux is ten times the price of Microsoft. Well, lets assume that
is true (which it isnt, but anyway). You get your copy of Windows XP and
you're ohh so happy. Now, what do you want to do with it? Edit images?
First, go to the software store and BUY some software. Now, you want to make
a webpage, and you don't know HTML well enough to use notepad. Go back to
the store and BUY some software.

The fact is, everything you want to do, it costs $$$. These software
packages aren't cheap either, we're talkin about a hundred dollars each time.

hey microsoft would love to package all those into its windows operating
system so you wouldnt have to run to the store every time... but wouldnt
that invite some lawsuits like the onces its already going through??

[nev]

"Rick" wrote:

And AGAIN, why does the 'common man' nead to 'tweak the source code'?

so in that case the advantage/benefit/plus point/flexibility of open source
is lost to the 'common man'.. whats the ratio of the 'common man' to the
'technical man' again? :)

[nev]

"General Protection Fault" wrote:

By law, every Linux user should be able to sue WinXP users for putting
hazardous material on the Internet.

Not true. You're only liable if you *know* you're doing it.

generally speaking.. does this also hold up when you dont know something
that you should be knowing ;)

[Nick Malik [Microsoft]]

May I recommend a slim business book called "Crossing the Chasm" about how
software adoption cycles work?

You may find that your opinion of the Linux software adoption process is not
on par with reality.

Linux, like any new software package, is not "snapped up" by value seekers
first. It is first taken on by early adopters who are motivated by features
or non-economic concerns. For a software package to make the jump to
middle-market acceptance is very difficult, even more so for an open source
system like Linux. It has not made that jump yet.

While you appear to disdain the intellectuals of the world, they are the
primary reason that Linux exists as an alternative to anything at all.
Intellectuals are your early adopters.

--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--
"Moe Green" <mo*@green.vegas> wrote in message
news:33*************@individual.net...

Linux is like WalMart when it was a small single store, and all the big
stores laughed at it and it's low prices.

Then middle America saw the bargain and snapped it up in droves.

Then the intellectuals such as yourself embrace it.
sam f wrote:

You guys keep on thinking linux is mainstream. Linux is to software as
Walmart is to retail, except it hasn't built one "store" yet. And the whole idea that linux is cheap is crap. Using linux is just like having a Walmart built next door to you. Looks like cheap shopping until you have to deal with everything else that goes with having walmart as your neighbor. Yeah, Walmart and Linux, that sounds about right.

"John Bailo" wrote:

Jeff_Relf wrote:
Sam Walton didn't create a bunch of spoiled brats ( billionaires )
by overpaying his employees... neither did Bill Gates.

People forget.

The reason these companies is successful are that they deliver low costs
to the consumer.

For every pissed off programmer, there are 1000 happy customers, making
$30,000 a year, who can afford cheap goods.

Now Linux/WalMart are taking on that role.

Linux does what Microsoft does -- but it doesn't have to pay a Bill
Gates.

That's why its better

[Rune T.S.]

"Jeff_Relf" wrote:

Hi unruh_string_physics, You admitted: <<
And why in the world would they or anyone
just running either Windows or Linux " tweak source code " ?
If they want to in the Linux world they can [ a-a-ah ha ha ha ].
Most do not want to, or need to [ a-a-ah ha ha ha ]. >>

Being able to tweak the source code is, as you just admited,
not an advantage to the common man/womand,
as they typically can't/won't do it.

So where is the open-source advantage then ?
The advantage is that you don't have to pay a lot of money to use it, as it
is free!
You can only argue that the entire package is superior ( for the common man ),
from installation/configuration to daily use to the next upgrade.
This is a aspect of open source software which has been made significantly
better durring the last years. It is no harder to do than it is on windows,
you just have to learn how to do it as it is not allways done in the same
way...
Yet, if that is true, you have to explain why the common man/woman
rejects this free " solution " in favor of a product that costs money.

It's better, but few want it ? Why is that ? Marketing ?

Oh wait... don't tell me... it's a conspiracy... headed by Bill Gates et al.

No, not a conspiracy, just the result of a lack in advetising.
The main reason why the common user doesn't change to *nix,
is that they are used to working with windows, and the thought of
shiftng to another OS "scares" them. This is partly because the common
user has an idea of the *nix systems being very complicated and, as you
keep argumenting, you have to fiddel with the source codes to make it work
probably, but this is just an option the more advaned user can make use of,
if he/she wants to.
For 99% of the open source programs out there you also have the option of
downloading a self-installing binary version of the program. The major
distro's
even make RPM's, which is the *nix eqivalent to the Windows MSI, for many
of the most common programs, which makes installition and upgrading someting
everyone can do with a little practice.

[The Ghost In The Machine]

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick
<no**@none.com>
wrote
on Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:36:13 GMT
<pa****************************@none.com>:

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:52:54 +0000, Jeff_Relf wrote:

Hi Rick, You squeaked to me: << Your quoting non-style is crap. >>

I'm surprised you even know how to breathe, Rick, You're so mindless.
AHah HAHA haha HAHahah HAHaha HAHahh...

Re: Second-level quoting ( " > > " ) being spam,

You replied: <<
that is the way is done... by convention... by etiquette by RFC 2646 >>

If true, then RFC 2646, and you, are wrong.
You'll never drag me down to your level, Rick... so why don't
you give it up ?

That's right Relf... everyone is wrong but you.
Go take some more Thorazine.

I'm mildly surprised someone's codified it, but it's clear
that someone did -- and even mentions (in Section 3.2)
two "stupid line wrap" problems; the first one has to do
with chevron inclusion, the second with too-wide text on
a PDA or even on a standard newsreader if the poster was
using a variable-width font such as New Times Roman.

It's not clear to me whether the
header Content-Type: text/plain; Format=Flowed parameter
is processed properly by SLRN. (Does it need to be? It
would save me some work... :-) )

You concluded: << you just do things the way you want to and custom,
ettiquette and rfc be damned. >>

You're the damned one, Rick... not me, not ettiquette or RFCs.

... more of your psychoses.

--
#191, ew****@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

[The Ghost In The Machine]

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Scott M.
<s-***@nospam.nospam>
wrote
on Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:35:46 GMT
<OK**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>:

The figures are a little hard to come by, especially with dual-boots.
Actually, they are not. Read my other post on where the numbers come from.

OK, over 90%, probably as high as 95%, if not even higher.

But there is a problem. Opera is probably the best known browser
for its ability to impersonate Internet Explorer, but other
browsers should also have that ability as well, to combat
stupid websites. While the number of those who need to
make that adjustment is small, one has to wonder how many of
those user agents reporting Internet Explorer actually *are*
using Internet Explorer, or somebody else trying to hack around
a website that insists that Internet Explorer is the only
browser worth using on said website. (I suspect another
fraction of a percent, though I'd have to look.)

So how does one actually determine the number of desktops
actually *using* Linux?

I've seen 80%; I've seen 95%+. In my household it's 33%
(1 server system, 1 pure Linux game system, 1 dual-boot system
which might become SMP if anyone still has an 866 MHz PIII (not likely!),
and 1 dead dual-boot system which I may have to resurrect to
get my DOOM, Heretic, and Hexen off the Win95 disk there).

You do realize that you and others who have dual boots
make up less that .1 percent (that's < 1/10%) when we
are talking about world-wide numbers, right?

Wouldn't surprise me.

Standard Windows Starter Configuration:

[1] One (1) disk drive.
[2] One (1) partition on that drive.
[3] One (1) license to use Microsoft Windows on the system.

This is of course a crap configuration for many reasons (chiefly
because the user's data is on the same disk as the system is;
if one botches the system for some reason the data's gone too).

To do a dual-boot one has to do some work, unless one simply
slips in another disk and modifies the system disk to use GRUB,
which for Win98 is extremely simple. (I've not tried it with
WinNT.)

On Linux, it's actually pretty simple:

[1] Backup existing Linu xsystem somewhere. Ideally,
this would be done *after* rebooting to a spare
system or floppy, though it can be done "hot",
with some care.
[2] Repartition and reformat.
[3] Restore system.
[4] If necessary, adjust GRUB/LILO parameters and /etc/fstab
on the about-to-be-rebooted system. If LILO, rerun
LILO using the -r option. GRUB will read the
/boot/grub/grub.conf file upon startup.
[5] Reboot.

I don't know if Windows is quite that accommodating,
though I've not tried it lately. However, my Kayak
is being very annoying (the second drive wants to play
"spin down and die" after sitting idle for some time) and
I might have to shuffle things a bit, so it might become
a pure Windows system again for awhile. Feh.

[irrelevant stuff snipped]

--
#191, ew****@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

[Jeff_Relf]

Hi Spooky, You mentioned: <<
It's not clear to me whether the header
Content-Type: text/plain; Format=Flowed
parameter is processed properly by SLRN.
( Does it need to be ? It would save me some work... :-) ) >>

I never auto-wrap anything,
Cola.TXT, generated by X.CPP, has no automatically wrapped lines.

Hand wrapping lines is just part of the reading process.

[Hamilcar Barca]

In article <OW**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl> (Mon, 17 Jan 2005
15:35:57 +0000), Scott M. wrote:

Just a tad sensitive about the name are we?

Not at all. Actually, I think you are making more out of this than anyone
else.

You've already posted three semi-literate corrections, so it's you who is
"making more out of this than anyone else". How hypocritical of you.

[Hamilcar Barca]

In article <cs**********@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net> (Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:00:47
+0200), Sean Hederman wrote:

Fair enough comment. An awful lot of Microsofts security woes have come
from the open security on install.

True. Another problem is Microsoft's seeming inability to repair defects
at an obvious point where security needs to be excellent: Internet Explorer.

--
"We are very much on track for a 2007 delivery [of 'Longhorn']."
-- Bob Muglia. Director, Windows Servers. Microsoft Corporation.
3 January 2004

[Hamilcar Barca]

In article <es**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl> (Mon, 17 Jan 2005
15:36:01 +0000), Scott M. wrote:

Microsoft is guilty of breaking *some* laws
*Yes*, *it* *certainly* *is*. *It* *has* *also* *been* *breaking*
*anti-trust* *laws* *for* *over* *15* *years* *and* *continues* *to* *do*
*so*.
but it got where it is mainly by doing what is perfectly legal.
It got where it is by criminal actions and it maintains its monopoly
illegally.
that you have somehow mistaken a single person with a company.

Those who participate knowingly, whether directly or indirectly, in
criminal activity are also guilty. This include Microsoft's executives,
employees, and customers.

--
"We think our software is far more secure than open-source software.
It is more secure because we stand behind it, we fixed it, because
we built it."
-- Steve Ballmer. CEO, Microsoft. 11/19/2004

[Hamilcar Barca]

In article <uo**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl> (Mon, 17 Jan 2005
15:35:55 +0000), Scott M. wrote:

Why would someone who see's you write "Micro-Soft" inherantly think to try

Why would someone who writes "see's" and "inherantly" criticize the
spelling of others? You're quite hypocritical.

[tab]

>Mainstream America. Mainstream OS: Linux.

Correction. The thing all these Companies you have named, have in
common, is a bunch of GEEKS working for them. Thus, the server market.
Not the Desktop Market. His is not mom and pop business, nor average
gaming joe, nor shopping sally, nor grandma sharing files.

And if you want a phone, hmmm, bad news., Microsoft is in that market
and sales are growning. You can get Windows on your cell phone.

But a phone talking to the web is very hard to TYPE into. Most people
may start, but soon give up. Takes to long.

[JEDIDIAH]

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On 2005-01-17, C-Services Holland b.v. <cs*@REMOVEcsh4u.nl> wrote:

John Bailo wrote:

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

Why is it that people falling over themselves to badmouth microsoft

Intense hatred is usually formed from close personal experience.
always use Windows themselves :P
from the header of your post:

"User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913)"

--
....as if the ability to run Cubase ever made or broke a platform.
|||
/ | \

[Sean Hederman]

That's a bit unfair. IE is *much* more secure with SP2 than it was before
(admittedly off a pretty low base). That said, I still think it's insane
that the next release of IE will only come out with Longhorn. If anything
was an attack against integrating code with the OS, then IE should be.

"Hamilcar Barca" <ha******@tld.always.invalid> wrote in message
news:20*******************@news.newsreader.com...

In article <cs**********@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net> (Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:00:47
+0200), Sean Hederman wrote:

Fair enough comment. An awful lot of Microsofts security woes have come
from the open security on install.

True. Another problem is Microsoft's seeming inability to repair defects
at an obvious point where security needs to be excellent: Internet
Explorer.

--
"We are very much on track for a 2007 delivery [of 'Longhorn']."
-- Bob Muglia. Director, Windows Servers. Microsoft Corporation.
3 January 2004

[Jeff_Relf]

Hi T.A.B.,
You made me laugh when you mentioned: << Grandma sharing files. >>

Who's your grandma BlackBeard ? Arrrgh !
Does she have a parrot, a wooden leg and a hook for a hand ?

Re: Mobile keyboards,

I'd rather just use my desktop at home,
a notebook in a coffee house might be nice,
but a cell phone sized device wouldn't cut it for me.