Re: Linux for Kids
From: Mxsmanic (mxsmanic_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 03/11/05
- Next message: julia: "DVD burning tool"
- Previous message: Mxsmanic: "Re: Linux for Kids"
- In reply to: chris: "Re: Linux for Kids"
- Next in thread: chris: "Re: Linux for Kids"
- Reply: chris: "Re: Linux for Kids"
- Reply: Ralph H. Stoos Jr.: "Re: Linux for Kids"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:29:47 +0100
chris writes:
> We don't "hate" him, just despise his business methods and don't like his
> "operating systems".
Why don't you hate Scott Neely, Larry Ellison, and Andy Groves? They're
just as bad.
> No. Windows is not a "good commercial product". It is unreliable,
> insecure, slow, and not "fit for purpose".
This is demonstrably and obviously untrue. Only those with a religious
attachment to other operating systems seriously believe it.
> There are several good reasons for hating his "enterprise". Microsoft has
> held back computing for over 15 years, and has bribed, stolen and forced
> its' way to the top of the heap.
No company (except perhaps Intel) has advanced microcomputing more than
Microsoft.
> Microsoft has NEVER innovated - they have
> just seen a technology that they think will suit their purpose and then
> stolen the code (like "Stacker" for example), or bought out the company
> that developed it.
Did Linus invent his kernel, or did he "steal" the concept from, say,
UNIX?
> There are even some significant parts of Windows that
> are directly stolen from BSD.
Whereas Linux looks nothing like any other OS.
> No. Modern, forward thinking schools in this country are using other
> operating systems, despite Bill Gates "buying" his way into the
> "government" with huge bribes.
No, they are not. Preparing students for the real world is important,
and raising them on operating systems that practically no one uses is
not a step in this direction.
> No it isn't. It's insecure, unstable, slow and bloated.
The usual baseless assertions. Show me the benchmarks.
> Unfortunately, the average domestic user sees Windows as "free" because it
> came "free" on their new computer.
So?
> Win 2003 has a mean time to crash of around 20
> minutes, and lasted just under four minutes on the 'net before it was
> compromised - it cost over $100 per minute of uptime!
Show me the benchmarks.
> Linux is now also better for the desktop - the kde is better integrated than
> much of Windows, and the "Office" options (OOo, Koffice) actually work
> properly without crashing.
Linux is lightyears away from Windows on the desktop, and even further
away from the Mac.
> Real computer users call Windows "GameOS" - it's all it's any good for. It
> certainly isn't fit for serious use.
With a quarter-million "serious" applications available only on Windows,
it's the only game in town for most people with serious work to do.
-- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
- Next message: julia: "DVD burning tool"
- Previous message: Mxsmanic: "Re: Linux for Kids"
- In reply to: chris: "Re: Linux for Kids"
- Next in thread: chris: "Re: Linux for Kids"
- Reply: chris: "Re: Linux for Kids"
- Reply: Ralph H. Stoos Jr.: "Re: Linux for Kids"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
