Re: Is Linux even usable at this point in time?
From: Ian Amuhton (root_at_[127.0.0.1)
Date: 03/12/04
- Next message: Hamilcar Barca: "Re: LINUX IS NOT POPULAR. NOT EVEN CLOSE TO POPULAR."
- Previous message: Phillip Brown: "Re: LINUX IS NOT POPULAR. NOT EVEN CLOSE TO POPULAR."
- In reply to: Uncle Pockets: "Is Linux even usable at this point in time?"
- Next in thread: ray: "Re: Is Linux even usable at this point in time?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 04:02:07 GMT
Uncle Pockets wrote in <e11fee94.0403111835.51ae7647@posting.google.com> at
March 11, 2004 09:35 pm
> I see all kinds of messages in various groups about Linux's inability
> to fully support what would be considered common hardware.
>
I see all kinds of messaged in various groups about Windows's inability
to support _AT_ALL_ a whole range of hardware supported by Linux,
e.g. PPC, IBM mainframes, SGI MIPS-based workstations and servers,
various embedded devices etc.
> For example, why to Linux users have to purchase extra hardware like
> USB card readers in order to use USB based digital camera's?
> With Windows XP, I plugged my camera in and all the software that I
> installed from the CD that came with my camera worked great.
Why do poor Windows users have to install _ADDITIONAL_ software to use
a digital camera? Such an inconvenience is beyond me!
I can download the images and AVI movies from my digital camera no problem
with the _default_ install of my OS (Mandrake 9.2). Furthermore, just
a few days ago my relatives were visiting who had a different model digital
camera with them and they wished to share with us the pictures they made
during their trip. Of course, they do not travel with their original
installation CDs, manual and packaging of the camera - who would? Maybe a
windows user ?!?! It was no problem for my OS to download the pictures from
their camera either - again without any driver or software installation.
Linus Just Works (TM)! Right out of the box! No third-party CDs or drivers!
>
> So why doesn't this software work with Linux?
>
Because a better (more general) one is already in place, so no need for the
extra yet-another-software piece for every fricking kind of device on the
face of earth.
> I paid for this software in the total price of my camera so why do I
> have to buy extra hardware to use my camera with Linux.
I don't have to buy _OR_ install anything extra. It just works with the
provided cable and _default_ OS install!
> My scanner doesn't work with Linux.
Mine does.
> My 5:1 Dolby sound on my motherboard doesn't work with Linux.
Mine does.
> My Lexmark printer doesn't work with Linux.
My Epson Stylus Photo printer works fine. Why don't you buy quality hardware ?
> My mouse loses all of it's advanced functions with Linux.
Mine works with all its features.
> My Nvidia card can't run 32bpp/3d/1280x1024@85hz under Linux.
Mine can!
> So tell me, why should I give up my left tit just to use Linux?
You shouldn't ! That refers to both! I.e.,
1. do not give up your left tit, and
2. do not use Linux - you are not fit for it
> Seems to me that Linux is a tad behind Windows, in fact it's about 2
Yes, all my Linux machines are right behind windows - I do not like to use
them outdoors, because of all the noise and dust.
> So tell me why Linux should even be considered usable at this point?
It should not "be considered", it _IS_ usable. OTOH, M$ Windows is _not_
usable. On the contrary, it uses those lowlifes who sit in front of them, it
makes them read all kinds of Ad-ware, it gives away their information to
Spy-ware, it uses their machines to spread virii and spam, it frustrates the
hell out of them, it annoys them, it makes their life miserable so much that
they try everything to break away from the torture. Just like you do,
attempting to run Linux.
However, when you are faced with something unfamiliar, different, then you cry
foul and whine about Linux.
Don't! Just stay with Windows, keep getting used by it. You deserve it all.
-- Windows = A 32 bit extension to a GUI shell to a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit OS originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor and sold by a 2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition. LGX = A true 64 bit OS, running on HW from wrist-watch to mainframes.
- Next message: Hamilcar Barca: "Re: LINUX IS NOT POPULAR. NOT EVEN CLOSE TO POPULAR."
- Previous message: Phillip Brown: "Re: LINUX IS NOT POPULAR. NOT EVEN CLOSE TO POPULAR."
- In reply to: Uncle Pockets: "Is Linux even usable at this point in time?"
- Next in thread: ray: "Re: Is Linux even usable at this point in time?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
