Re: Linux no threat to Microsoft


"Unruh" <unruh-spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ebl69o$g75
Piggybacked? No it uses both the BSD and the GNU open source software
originally developed for Unix.

That's called piggybacking you *** Licking moron.


"Unruh" <unruh-spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ebl69o$g75
No. They use X windows. That is the amazing thing about open source
software. Others can use it.

No, they don't use X windows, they have modified X-windows and hooked into
it. It ain't X no more. But it still is networkable, which is both a
benefit and a limitation. But given the sluggish nature of the OS, it's
clear that the bottleneck of networkability is not without some rather large
speed penalty.



*Why hasn't growth of Linux been equally strong in both the server market
and in the desktop market?*


"Unruh" <unruh-spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ebl69o$g75
Because Windows is preinstalled on all machines sold, and people do not
have the technical knowhow to appreciate that changing to something else
would be advantageous. People running servers do.

Windows has't come on any of the machines I've ever purchased. Further,
Linux has been available preinstalled on machines from Dell, HP, IBM and
even Wallmart for *** sakes, for several years.

Yet over those years Linux Market Share on the desktop has actually
DECLINED.

Hahahahahahaha..... Why is that?

I'll tell you why... Because Linux is a user hostile ShitSickle.


The answer is simple. Linux, like Unix, has always been, and remains
user
hostile, and unsuitable for the desktop market.



"Unruh" <unruh-spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ebl69o$g75
Hostile to what user? Not me, not my family (none of whom are "computer
literate").

Hostile to any user who needs to install it, maintain it, install
appliations onto it, or develop for it.



The server market is different because the server market is maintained by
trained experts who largely enjoy the challenge of dealing with
complexity.


"Unruh" <unruh-spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ebl69o$g75
No, they enjoy NOT having to deal with complexity. Install it and forget
about it. That leaves them time to do what they actually enjoy-- helping
users.

No It professional enjoys "helping users". Users are the dumbest people
alive with the only exception being the current crew occupying the U.S.
White House, and Republican Controlled congress, and C/C++ pushers.


The desktop market, on the other hand, consists of people trying to get
real
work done.

"Unruh" <unruh-spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ebl69o$g75
The word is trying.

And mostly succeeding as history shows. But with Linux, life suddenly
becomes a long stream of installs and uninstalls as you move from one
nonfunctioning distro of Linux to another.


Now lets be clear, SIGNIFICANT improvements have been made in the way
Linux
operates over the last decade, and the GUI has matured to the point where
it
is almost as good as the GUI provided by Windows 2000 and XP. Yet Linux
continues to be rejected by 98% of desktop users and 75% of those
implementing web servers.

*Why?*

This answer is also clear. Unix has always been an extremely user
hostile
OS. The fundamental design philosophy behind Unix and therefore Linux
has


"Unruh" <unruh-spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ebl69o$g75
You are repeating yourself.

"Sometimes you have to repeat yourself in order to catapult the
propaganda" - George W. Bush


always been extremely flawed, and hopelessly inferior to the design
philosophy of Apple - later adopted by Microsoft. The Unix and by

"Unruh" <unruh-spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ebl69o$g75
You are joking aren't you? Microsoft adopted Apple's philosophy?

In spades, all the way down to the garbage can icon. Microsoft went as
far as to hire Apple programmers away from Apple to work on Windows. In
general structure, Microsoft windows was very much Mac Like, including the
placement of applcation components in the Mac/Windows system directory.

Billy was inspired by the Mac.


As an example, while looking over a random snippit from a Linux driver
file
the other day I found a setting called "HappyMeal". Professional
programmers do not engage in such puerile behavior.


"Unruh" <unruh-spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ebl69o$g75
Have you ever looken inside Microsoft source, or Apple?

Microsoft yes, Apple no. I actually disassembled and documented a good
portion of DOS back in the mid to late 80's. I uncovered some interesting
tidbits that made it impossible to compete with Microsoft on one level or
another if you followed Microsoft's own programming guidelines.


In the early days of Microsoft, when machine cycles were relatively
scarce,
and time was measured in microseconds, not the picoseconds measure that
is
used today, Microsoft too used relatively cryptic commands typed from a
keyboard to command the OS. But while the Unix computing universe was
busy
suing itself into near oblivion and issuing commands like grep, yak, ls,
chron, and building tarballs, Microsoft was busy listing directories,
finding files, and building file archives.

Microsoft won the war for the desktop, even when the desktop was a
command
line interface because in part, Microsoft recognized that nomenclature
matters. Ease of use matters. Clarity of design matters. Consistency
matters, and yes, documentation matters.


"Unruh" <unruh-spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ebl69o$g75
You must be joking again.

It's a simple fact of history. Unix was around long before DOS. It was
present and available while DOS was being developed. It was present and
available with increasing interest while DOS peaked in popularity and was
replaced with Windows.

Through that entire period, UNIX in various forms, Xenix, Coherent, SCO,
BSD, etc, were available for IBM PC's and more readily available for
superior machines some of which were portable 68,000 based machines. Even
desktop machines like the Tandy's Xenix PC obviously had Xenix (A Unix
derrivative) available to it.

Yet every version of Unix that was available at the time is now defunct and
only SCO - partly owned by Microsoft - survives as a shell company that is
more parasite on the Unix community rather than producer of product.

Why did Unix fail on the desktop even when it had to compete against DOS?

Simple answer. It was inferior to DOS because it was too difficult to
operate, didnt' provide adequate screen control for sophisticated text
manipulations, supported graphics much more poorly than did DOS, - which
didn't support graphics at all (ha), and required more expensive hardware
to run <slower> than DOS.

Unix/Linux is the Operating system who's time has never come.



5 years ago, Microsoft saw Linux in it's rearview mirror and saw it is a
potential threat. 5 years later, Microsoft has developed DotNet
programming
paradigm, and now it has a completely new VISTA API set to stave off the



"Unruh" <unruh-spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ebl69o$g75
They may have it. Noone else does, nor can anyone else use it.

It's in beta and thousands of people are using it as I write this
sentence. There are tens of thousands of installs of Vista.


Linux challenge. During this time, Linux has matured, but at the same
time
stagnated at a point where it can no longer offer a serious challenge to
Microsoft.

Indeed, not only has Linux stagnated, but has actually declined in
functionality. I have been told by several people that Mandrake Linux
was
significantly more functional and manageable, than current versions of
Linux.

"Unruh" <unruh-spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ebl69o$g75
?? It is a "current version of Linux"?

I know many people who claim that Mandrake - 2 years was much more usable
than any of the current Linux Distro's.



The hope of Linux was that it could provide interoperability with Windows
through the Wine emulation layer, support for NTFS, MACos, etc. This is
no
longer possible with Vista of course. Proprietary interfaces can be

"Unruh" <unruh-spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ebl69o$g75
Nor wanted.

___
Eric Raymond, one of the high priests of open source, has told the
community
that painful compromises are needed to the way it deals with closed source
platforms and formats to avoid losing ground on desktops and new media
players.

Raymond said the community is not moving fast enough to engage with
non-technical users whose first-choice platform is either an iPod, MP3
player or Microsoft desktop running Windows Media Player.

....

Raymond, a champion of all things open, said it is vital to the future
uptake of Linux that the community compromise to win the new generation of
non-technical users aged younger than 30. This group is more interested in
having Linux "just work" on their iPod or MP3 player and "don't care about
our notions of doctrinal purity",
___

What you want is for Linux to continue to be destroyed by Microsoft.



developed faster than they can be reverse engineered. Where is Linux
NTFS
support? Further, Wine has taken 15 years to develop, and the new Vista

"Unruh" <unruh-spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ebl69o$g75
Where is VISTA?

Sitting on 10,000 hard drives all around the world, and 4 months from
general release.

Meanwhile Linux continues to Lose Marketshare to Windows on the desktop.


interfaces are large and complex enough that it will take considerably
longer to clone. Where will Windows be in 30 to 40 years when viable
clones of Vista might be coming available?

"Unruh" <unruh-spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ebl69o$g75
Why in world would one want to clone vista?

Why would anyone want to clone Windows?

Simple reason. To provide a way to run Windows programs. You might have
noticed that most Linux applications are crap.

Ahahahahahahahahah.....



*I and a circle of friends, collectively represent about 200 years worth
of
computing experience, and we are all looking to jump from the bloated
Microsoft Windows platform, and have been for years. Yet we are all


"Unruh" <unruh-spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ebl69o$g75
??? I thought windows was wonderful?

The UI is great, but the innards are crap.

But rather than create a clean and superior competator to Windows, you
Linux *** Lickers have wasted your time reinventing every Unix Failure
possible and then thrown in some new ones of your own.


absolutely disgusted by the equally bloated, still buggy and incomplete
state of the Linux/Unix environment. Linux/Unix is today as Unix has
always
been, user hostile and inferior, which is a shame, and a shame that is
directly attributable to the underlying design philosophy of C/C++. and
by


"Unruh" <unruh-spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ebl69o$g75
And Windows is programmed in Basic?

Some parts on the periphery are ya. Installers, some database interfaces,
some tools. But mostly it's written in C or C++, and that is why it has
suffered (as Unix/Linux) does, from exploits caused primarily by buffer
overflows that can be traced back to either the standard C programming
Library or to the same *** stained philosophy that produced that library.

C is by far one of the worst programming languages ever created. Brain
dead from start to finish, just like Unix


.