5 reasons NOT to use linux :)

[Ext User(amosf (Tim Fairchild))]

Uncle Bully wrote something like:

>
> "amosf (Tim Fairchild)" <usenet@bcs4me.com> wrote in message
> news:t4en93-v47.ln1@shiva.home...
>> Uncle Bully wrote something like:
>>> It's harder than Windows. Even Linux people admit that
>>
>> It is not harder to use. A KDE interface is simple point and click. I've
>> put
>> complete computer novices behind both windows and linux boxes and there
>> is no difference in there use of the PC.
>
> True to certain extent, but when the user eventually gathers the
> confidence to expand their system, the Windows road is strewn with far
> less obstacles.

Well, different obstacles anyway. People get stuffed up with PC's no matter
the OS and end up calling in people like me to fix it. The linus obstacles
in hardware are always an issue as manufacturers like the easy road...

>> The points where linux can be seem to
>> be harder is the install and particular hardware - not an issue on a
>> preinstall system. Also perhaps the setting up of some services, like
>> samba
>> perhaps in a mixed network. Not an issue for the ordinary person. The
>> difficulties do arrise when trying to use windows software and games with
>> linux, but crossover and cedega have made these easier. Installation of
>> software is seen as difficult, but smart online package management has
>> made
>> this far easier - and more secure. Linux doesn't have the double click
>> install any exe type install yet. I hope it never does as that's a
>> security
>> issue with windows that causes more trouble than it's worth.
>
> This is a phlosphical difference. There will always be a trade off between
> usability and security. I prefer (and I think most other people do to) the
> Windows usability bias the Linux's security.

If the security involved more hassle than typing in a passord then I would
probably agree, but I don't see the admin password as a big hassle... These
days the online updates with linux are very smooth and easy, so the gap has
narrowed. And we will see (and are seeing) more security being introduced
to MS systems as they realise the need for it. But it will take time for
people to come to terms with that.

>>> Not just different, it's not as easy. It may do similar things, but it
>>> doesn't do them nearly as easily.
>>
>> Such as? Sure there are some things that you can do easier in windows.
>> That's because certain software, say video editing, comes in windows
>> format... But that is changing and there is more software available.
>> There are some things that are easier to do with linux as well. They are
>> just different.
>
> The whole multimedia/entertainment thing (DVD, MP3, HT, gaming etc) is the
> biggest struggle from my point of view.

Well, playing mp3's and dvd's is no issue in linux. You just install the
software, same as windows. Many games also play, but windows is certainly
the games platform.

>>> Every Linux/Unix guy I've met or worked with admit this. They love the
>>> flexibility of Linux/Unix for production systems, but when you just want
>>> your desktop to work, they all pick Windows everytime.
>>
>> I use a linux desktop exclusively and have done for many years. I have
>> the opposite point of view. I like it because it does 'just work'. I can
>> leave the PC up 24/7 and know it won't have any problems, doesn't need
>> virus scans or defrags and won't crash unexpectedly. Windows XP has now
>> come close to this sort of stability for the normal desktop user, but I
>> get the same with linux for free.
>>
>> People don't really pick windows so much as it's what always came with
>> the PC and most think that it's a bit like a Mac. A PC just runs windows.
>
> A good analogy is cars. Even if a Hyundai is as good as a Toyota, People
> will always choose Toyota more often.

But people still drive Hyundai and probably like them. It's all in the
marketting, and MS has always been good at that.

>>> Our cases are not typical. Your average Joe family wants what is easy
>>> and works (and what most of everyone else has).
>>
>> The average person would do best with an appliance PC. And we will see
>> these
>> more and more in the future. The funny thing is that a lot of appliances
>> are likely to run linux or some other non-windows OS. It will be
>> transparent and people won't know or care what OS it runs. The idea of a
>> brand name OS is really kind of strange when you think of it.
>
> I think that Windows Media Centre is heading in the right direction. I'm
> sure there are/will be Linux equivalents. Branding is all part of
> marketing, and marketing is how companies make lots of money (unfortunate
> but true). Linux already has a nerd/geek/hard to use image which even if
> this isn't reality, will be almost impossible to shake off without some
> massive centralised marketing effort (which won't happen due to the nature
> of open source)

I think we will see more black boxes in the future that will have a brand
name, but the OS will not be an issue. Much like the tivo and it's linux
inside. It's just the tivo (brand) box that does the job. Linux what? Linux
is already inside all sorts of embedded systems and people don't know or
care. It just works. It flexible and free to modify for any use. Great for
many applications and no license fees.

>>> Good for some people who can live with the quirkyness and 'cool' factor
>>> of
>>> not being so mainstream. Window's uniformity is one of it's strengths.
>>> Linux will never have this.
>>
>> Of course the uniformity is also it's weakness. It's a monoculture, which
>> is
>> led to the malware problem. And MS has trained users to use their PC as
>> administrator rather than user, so they are even more open to malware
>> attack. Heck of a social engineering problem ahead.
>
> User's will adapt.. I learnt more about security from the various Windows
> outbreaks than any text book :)

Well, this is true :)

> 'Monoculture' is not all bad. It has it's weaknesses, but so does
> variation. There's a long discussion that could start just over this
> topic.

Monoculture is not all bad. Indeed it also exists in the linux world in some
ways as there is really only one linux kernel tree. But there is a variety
of packaging which helps diversity. Linux is odd in that it's all the same
and yet all different.

>> It's certainly not the coolness or quirkiness for me. It's just a
>> reliable tool that allows me to get on the net, do email, usenet, web,
>> blog, tax, whatever.
>>
>> Mainstream? Who cares.
>
> Shouldn't matter, but we all know it does.

Apple have done okay for years in a minority position. They fill a
particular niche and it works. Linux may end up just filling it's own
little niche. It doesn't really matter except that a slightly bigger market
share means more hardware and software support. That's a good thing, but it
doesn't mean the end of linux if it doesn't happen.

>> Linux doesn't need a market share and it's users
>> don't care what market share it has. More market share does help a little
>> in hardware and commercial software support, but the last 15 years have
>> shown that linux can thrive without that.
>
> And that model will only ever have limited success. Depends on how
> 'successful' Linux wants to be I guess.

Yep. Of course it's already successful. It just doesn't look like much when
compared to the long running windows monopoly. It's common in server apps
and has a good 'market share' in normal terms.

>> Even if you use XP you are better off as a limitted user. Any security
>> tech
>> will advise this.
>
> Security advice is not always good advice.

There should really be no issue with running XP as a limitted user. It's
designed that way. Works fine for me. Some apps seem to be not playing the
game tho... Security is the major issue these days. People generally use
their PC on the net and the majority of threads on the help groups seem to
be security related. No big issue running windows or linux as a user IMO.

>> Sure it does. I can just as easily say that windows is no good. I tried
>> windows and MS office the other day. Windows couldn't open my kmail
>> folder and MS office couldn't open my openoffice docs. What rubbish this
>> windows is. It's not even openoffice or kmail compatible.
>
> But I've never seen a Windows ad that says it is. Linux is selling as
> alternative to Windows, but i doesn't live it up to expectation. Evolution
> advertsies easy Echange compatibility, but it's not easy. (Easy to me
> means you dick about for a bit and you should be able to figure it out.
> Even if you can't figure it out the answer should found in a manual or
> google in less than 15 minutes or so)

It /is/ an alternative OS. You can use it to do computing tasks on your PC.
You can do email, usenet, browse, play mp3's and dvd's, do office work,
etc. What linux is not is a windows clone. It's different.

>>> I may just be Linux illiterate, but I've given it a fair go over the
>>> years
>>> (started with Linux in 94).
>>
>> So did I (tho used OS/2 tho the period as well). I stuck with it :)
>>
>>> And when Linux guys still prefer Windows, that tells me Linux isn't
>>> quite at the same level yet.
>>
>> I don't know any 'linux guys' that prefer windows - and I know a LOT of
>> linux guys :)
>
> It's a philosophy thing I guess. I prefer convenience over security. I
> think 21st century society is heading the same way, as much the Bush
> cartel would like us to think otherwise :)

Security is an issue regardless of OS these days. There are security issues
with linux, but with linux I tend to have a new version of the OS every 6 -
12 months. Packages update. Same with windows. The convenience is part of
the problem, as the WMF exploit has shown. Features are being trimmed for
security reasons. New versions of windows will have more security. It's
just the way things are going anyway... I just worried over it a long time
ago... Maybe I'm more paranoid :)

As for Bush... nuff said I guess :) Security in the real world can go over
the top, tho it tends to be an excuse for some other agenda...

--
-
Leafnode. Making usenet a better place.
-

[Ext User(Dogfart)]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, at 14:30:35 [GMT GMT] (01:30:35 Sunday, 15 January 2006
where I live) "amosf (Tim Fairchild)" wrote:

>> "You want an operating system that works out of the box, without frigging
>> around and wasting time trying to get things to work?"

> I just installed mandriva 2006 the other day and it just worked. Complete
> with 3d acceleration... Out of the box.

Of course it works, but when you want that little extra without frigging
around for hours trying to recompile software, I honestly (unfortunately)
think Windoze has the lead.

I had dual boot Windoze / Linux for years; in the end because of available
software on Windows (and policy at work and refusal of vendors to supply
Linux versions (not commercial for them)) finally dumped the dual boot bit.

Must confess, my computing life is much simpler now!

When I look back at Linux, it was like wearing a crown of thorns, and
flogging myself with a cat o' nine tails compared to Windoze.

I know Linux has dedicated followers (some of whom seem to have an
irrational hatred of Billy Bob Gates and Windoze), but it would appear that
it will never been commercially successful at the same rate as Windoze.

Just my honest opinion, and not a troll.

(Flame retardant gear now on!).

[Ext User(Oldus Fartus)]

Uncle Bully wrote:
> "Sandgroper" <steveray@KNICKERSiinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:43c78ba6$0$24739$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>>"amosf (Tim Fairchild)" <usenet@bcs4me.com> wrote in message
>>news:sj4k93-v47.ln1@shiva.home...
>>
>>>http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8124627492.html
>>
>>
>>Five Reasons Not To Use Linux
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>1) You are too stupid to operate a computer
>
>
> Close to half of the population, by definition, are of below average
> intelligence. These people are allowed computers too.
>
>

Being a pedant, which definition says "close to half the population are
below average intelligence"?


--
Cheers
Oldus Fartus

[Ext User(Ernest)]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 12:03:42 +1100, "Uncle Bully"
<wakeupcall@optushome.com.au.Remove> wrote:

>
>"amosf (Tim Fairchild)" <usenet@bcs4me.com> wrote in message
>news:t4en93-v47.ln1@shiva.home...
>> Uncle Bully wrote something like:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> 1) You are too stupid to operate a computer
>>>>>
>>>>> Close to half of the population, by definition, are of below average
>>>>> intelligence. These people are allowed computers too.
>>>>
>>>> Even my wife can use linux.
>>>
>>> How would she fare if she wasn't married to a Linux guy?
>>
>> The same as any housewife. She would have to call in a tech if it broke.
>> Up
>> until last year I did that as a job, going to fix PC's belonging to
>> housewives. They were running windows. They called when it didn't go any
>> more and the majority of calls involved very trivial things. Modem setups,
>> software installs. Mostly malware problems.
>>
>>>> It's a common misconception that it is hard.
>>>
>>> It's harder than Windows. Even Linux people admit that
>>
>> It is not harder to use. A KDE interface is simple point and click. I've
>> put
>> complete computer novices behind both windows and linux boxes and there is
>> no difference in there use of the PC.
>
>True to certain extent, but when the user eventually gathers the confidence
>to expand their system, the Windows road is strewn with far less obstacles.
>
Wrong, it is harder to do anything but basic actions in
Windows as it will automatically override what you want;
I have lost count of the number of different items of
hardware I have used where Windows has killed the
manufacturer'sd drivers to replace them with default
Windows drivers that do NOT have the capabilities
of the manufacturer's drivers - their only fault being that
the manufacturer did not pay MS big dollars to have
the driver MS certified and a special 'leave me alone'
code inserted by MS.
>
>> The points where linux can be seem to
>> be harder is the install and particular hardware - not an issue on a
>> preinstall system. Also perhaps the setting up of some services, like
>> samba
>> perhaps in a mixed network. Not an issue for the ordinary person. The
>> difficulties do arrise when trying to use windows software and games with
>> linux, but crossover and cedega have made these easier. Installation of
>> software is seen as difficult, but smart online package management has
>> made
>> this far easier - and more secure. Linux doesn't have the double click
>> install any exe type install yet. I hope it never does as that's a
>> security
>> issue with windows that causes more trouble than it's worth.
>
>This is a phlosphical difference. There will always be a trade off between
>usability and security. I prefer (and I think most other people do to) the
>Windows usability bias the Linux's security.
>
Most Linux installations are more usable than MS nowdays and
you get the better security.
>>
>>>> Once installed on a PC (just as the normal user gets windows
>>>> pre-installed)
>>>> anyone can sit at the keyboard and use it. Just put any 8 year old on a
>>>> linux box and watch.
>>>>
>>>>>> 2) You can only point and click a mouse to use a computer
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is what most people want
>>>>
>>>> All you need do on a linux, mac or windows box. They are all just point
>>>> and
>>>> click these days. My wife wouldn't know what a command line was.
>>>>
>>>>>> 3) You are too lazy to learn a real operating system
>>>>>
>>>>> A 'real' operating system. The catchcry of the desperate. Get a real
>>>>> Operating system. How do you define real and pretend?
>>>>> If it supports all the hardware and applications you need, that's real
>>>>> enough.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing to learn anyway. Just sit and point and click. People that have
>>>> trouble with linux are usually tinkerers that are used to tinkering with
>>>> windows and then move to linux and then find it is different. An
>>>> ordinary
>>>> person can just sit in front of a linux box these days and use it the
>>>> same as a windows box or a mac. Same thing, just different.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not just different, it's not as easy. It may do similar things, but it
>>> doesn't do them nearly as easily.
>>
>> Such as? Sure there are some things that you can do easier in windows.
>> That's because certain software, say video editing, comes in windows
>> format... But that is changing and there is more software available. There
>> are some things that are easier to do with linux as well. They are just
>> different.
>
>The whole multimedia/entertainment thing (DVD, MP3, HT, gaming etc) is the
>biggest struggle from my point of view.
>
Yep because they are propriatary code items and even Windows
has stopped providing usability for some due to concerns re being
sued under the latest USA laws re proprietary code violations.
>>
>>> Every Linux/Unix guy I've met or worked with admit this. They love the
>>> flexibility of Linux/Unix for production systems, but when you just want
>>> your desktop to work, they all pick Windows everytime.
>>
>> I use a linux desktop exclusively and have done for many years. I have the
>> opposite point of view. I like it because it does 'just work'. I can leave
>> the PC up 24/7 and know it won't have any problems, doesn't need virus
>> scans or defrags and won't crash unexpectedly. Windows XP has now come
>> close to this sort of stability for the normal desktop user, but I get the
>> same with linux for free.
>>
>> People don't really pick windows so much as it's what always came with the
>> PC and most think that it's a bit like a Mac. A PC just runs windows.
>
>A good analogy is cars. Even if a Hyundai is as good as a Toyota, People
>will always choose Toyota more often.
>
Most of the people using Windows do so simply because the
hardware came with it preloaded and the seller gets to make
a bigger profit if he can sell the hardware with MS Windows,
than if he sells it with Linux.

>>
>>>>>> 4) You are too lazy to read anything on the Linux operating system
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would you want to?
>>>>
>>>> My wife has never read an instruction in her life. She just sits at the
>>>> linux pc and clicks. If it breaks (rarely), she calls the tech guy (me).
>>>> Same as any housewife windows user...
>>>
>>> Our cases are not typical. Your average Joe family wants what is easy and
>>> works (and what most of everyone else has).
>>
>> The average person would do best with an appliance PC. And we will see
>> these
>> more and more in the future. The funny thing is that a lot of appliances
>> are likely to run linux or some other non-windows OS. It will be
>> transparent and people won't know or care what OS it runs. The idea of a
>> brand name OS is really kind of strange when you think of it.
>
>I think that Windows Media Centre is heading in the right direction. I'm
>sure there are/will be Linux equivalents. Branding is all part of marketing,
>and marketing is how companies make lots of money (unfortunate but true).
>Linux already has a nerd/geek/hard to use image which even if this isn't
>reality, will be almost impossible to shake off without some massive
>centralised marketing effort (which won't happen due to the nature of open
>source)
>
Speaking of marketting, I think it is important to note how
scared of Linux Microsoft is as that is what is driving their
multi million dollar anti-linux campaign.
>>
>>>>>> 5) You want somebody to hold your hand every time you use a computer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or you want to be able to figure it out reasonably easily without
>>>>> having
>>>>> to read a manual.
>>>>>
>>>>> The main point is, why should you have to. If you like tinkering then
>>>>> good
>>>>> for you. A lot of people want a computer like a toaster. turn it on,
>>>>> push the button, it works. Sure windows isn't perfect, but it's a whole
>>>>> lot closer to the mark than Linux will ever get.
>>>>
>>>> My wife demanded linux on her PC. She was sick of the crashing and the
>>>> malware (this was back in 9x days). I put it on for her and added
>>>> (win4lin then) crossover to run the couple of win apps she uses. People
>>>> can use whatever OS they like. Linux is as good an option as any and has
>>>> the bonus of being free and relatively malware safe and stable.
>>>>
>>>> My wife uses it like the toaster, although it's switched on 27/7. She
>>>> just sits and clicks. Mail, browsing, openoffice, breedmate database,
>>>> frozen bubble, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Use it or not. It's an option and a good one at that.
>>>
>>> It is an option, but you can't honestly say Linux is a better overall
>>> desktop OS than WinXP.
>>
>> Well, yes I do. I find windows difficult and really quite a pain to use...
>> And they still use the same old ancient filesystem structures..
>>
>>> Good for some people who can live with the quirkyness and 'cool' factor
>>> of
>>> not being so mainstream. Window's uniformity is one of it's strengths.
>>> Linux will never have this.
>>
>> Of course the uniformity is also it's weakness. It's a monoculture, which
>> is
>> led to the malware problem. And MS has trained users to use their PC as
>> administrator rather than user, so they are even more open to malware
>> attack. Heck of a social engineering problem ahead.
>
>User's will adapt.. I learnt more about security from the various Windows
>outbreaks than any text book :)
>'Monoculture' is not all bad. It has it's weaknesses, but so does variation.
>There's a long discussion that could start just over this topic.
>
>>
>> It's certainly not the coolness or quirkiness for me. It's just a reliable
>> tool that allows me to get on the net, do email, usenet, web, blog, tax,
>> whatever.
>>
>> Mainstream? Who cares.
>
>Shouldn't matter, but we all know it does.
>
>> Linux doesn't need a market share and it's users
>> don't care what market share it has. More market share does help a little
>> in hardware and commercial software support, but the last 15 years have
>> shown that linux can thrive without that.
>
>And that model will only ever have limited success. Depends on how
>'successful' Linux wants to be I guess.
>
A telling point about this whole discussion is that the
people who are responsible for ensuring that the Internet
works, and that their servers and gateways work go to
great lengths NOT to use Windows servers as they find
that they are to unsafe and use Unix or Linux. If everyone
had Windows only the Internet would be down more
often than up.
>
>>
>>>> There are pros and
>>>> cons. The malware situation favours linux. Application and hardware
>>>> vendor support favours windows.
>>>
>>> Malware is a misleading topic always raised by Linux people. Malware
>>> isn't
>>> that big a problem. I've been through all the big ones and I've still
>>> spent less time on them than I have figuring out how to get simple things
>>> to work in Linux.
>>
>> As I say, up until last year I spent many hours with client PC's riddled
>> with malware. I quit as I was sick of it. I used to like PC repair, but it
>> can to a point where it was the same old trogan week in and week out. So I
>> know the malware problem out in Joe Sixpack land.
>>
>>> In my experience it is better to have root access and greater exposure to
>>> Malware (but know how to avoid it), than to be locked down and always
>>> struggle when you need to modify or reconfigure your system.
>>
>> That is the windows attitude that MS created. I use this PC as a user.
>> This
>> is not a struggle. All it means is that I type in a password when I use a
>> config tool. But 99% of the time I am on here as a normal user and it I
>> use
>> the PC without any issue and couldn't tell the difference for a root user.
>>
>> Even if you use XP you are better off as a limitted user. Any security
>> tech
>> will advise this.
>
>Security advice is not always good advice.
>
>>
>>>> Dual boot. Or run multiple machines. Windows has the edge on games
>>>> numbers so the kids keep a win box running here, tho a large nuber of
>>>> games also run on linux - I think I have (major size games) wolfenstien,
>>>> UT, UT2004, Doom3, quake 1 & 2 & 3, CS:condition zero, Jedi knight 1 & 2
>>>> & academy, HL 1 & 2 (plus many smaller) on this box at the moment...
>>>> Only
>>>> so much disk space...
>>>
>>> I imagine every OS released it the last 5 years is better than Win95. XP
>>> is a whole other kettle of fish.
>>
>> XP is better than the 9x series. It's not quite 2000, but it's okay. I
>> still
>> prefer linux, esp a mandriva distro. With a good linux distro I install
>> pretty much all the software I will use off the one dvd. Finished.
>>
>>> I used Ubuntu 5.1 which was voted best Linux desktop distro last year. It
>>> is better than Windows95, but it blows incomparison to XP.
>>
>> That's an opinion. You tend to prefer what you are used to. I have used
>> linux a long time and prefer it.
>>
>>> After touting
>>> Windows-like usabilty it didn't come with an MP3 player as default, and
>>
>> There are legal problems with mp3 and dvd software. Most distros will not
>> carry them these days, but they are easy to get.
>>
>>> even though Evolution is touted as Exchange compatible, it still wasn't
>>> working at the end of the day. Even after perusing the Google cache for
>>> solutions all I got was that lots of other people who couldn't get it to
>>> work either, and there was no common solution.
>>>
>>> This type of thing doesn't happen in Windows world.
>>
>> Sure it does. I can just as easily say that windows is no good. I tried
>> windows and MS office the other day. Windows couldn't open my kmail folder
>> and MS office couldn't open my openoffice docs. What rubbish this windows
>> is. It's not even openoffice or kmail compatible.
>
>But I've never seen a Windows ad that says it is. Linux is selling as
>alternative to Windows, but i doesn't live it up to expectation. Evolution
>advertsies easy Echange compatibility, but it's not easy. (Easy to me means
>you dick about for a bit and you should be able to figure it out. Even if
>you can't figure it out the answer should found in a manual or google in
>less than 15 minutes or so)
>
I have used, and still do use, both Windows and Linux
systems and Office software - all the versions of Linux
based word processors open all the MS Word document
types that existed at the time that version of the software
was released, as well as Word Perfect and several others.
Yet my latest version of Word will not open some of the
early version of MS Word documents I have in archived
files. Funny how Linux software will open old MS apps
whilst current MS software wont - I see this as a difference
in attitude. Linux looks at client usability and lets that
drive what they do, whilst MS try to drive the client usability
and will only support what they want to do.

>>
>>> I may just be Linux illiterate, but I've given it a fair go over the
>>> years
>>> (started with Linux in 94).
>>
>> So did I (tho used OS/2 tho the period as well). I stuck with it :)
>>
>>> And when Linux guys still prefer Windows, that tells me Linux isn't quite
>>> at the same level yet.
>>
>> I don't know any 'linux guys' that prefer windows - and I know a LOT of
>> linux guys :)
>
>It's a philosophy thing I guess. I prefer convenience over security. I think
>21st century society is heading the same way, as much the Bush cartel would
>like us to think otherwise :)
>
>
>

Regards,

Deadly Ernest
(all typos fault of server or
other gremlins)

[Ext User(Jollyrodgers)]

"Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote in message
news:42sc0uF1i261cU1@individual.net...
> Dogfart wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, at 19:17:21 [GMT +0800] (22:17:21 Friday, 13 January
>> 2006 where I live) "Sandgroper" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>4) You are too lazy to read anything on the Linux operating system
>>
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> "You want an operating system that works out of the box, without frigging
>> around and wasting time trying to get things to work?"
>>
> So, you ring up Sun and you order an Ultra 20 running Solaris 10.
>
> Works like a dream.
>
> Or, for that matter, you go and buy a barebones PC at the corner computer
> shop, download Solaris 10 (or order a media kit from Sun) and install it.
>
> Yes, I am posting from a box running XP, it's a laptop, and I haven't been
> able to find a Conexant modem driver for Solaris. The wifi, however,
> works fine under Solaris 10, and it's just that I'm away from home at the
> moment and dialled in that means I'm using it.

mmmm modem works on XP with default install.

[Ext User(amosf (Tim Fairchild))]

Oldus Fartus wrote something like:

> Uncle Bully wrote:
>> "Sandgroper" <steveray@KNICKERSiinet.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:43c78ba6$0$24739$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>>>"amosf (Tim Fairchild)" <usenet@bcs4me.com> wrote in message
>>>news:sj4k93-v47.ln1@shiva.home...
>>>
>>>>http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8124627492.html
>>>
>>>
>>>Five Reasons Not To Use Linux
>>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>>1) You are too stupid to operate a computer
>>
>>
>> Close to half of the population, by definition, are of below average
>> intelligence. These people are allowed computers too.
>>
>>
>
> Being a pedant, which definition says "close to half the population are
> below average intelligence"?

The definition of 'average' :) Average = middle. Half below and half
above :)

--
-
Leafnode. Making usenet a better place.
-

[Ext User(The Old Bloke)]

I tried a dual boot Windows/Linux, and decided that Linux simply wasn't
worth all the stuffing around. So Dogfart, I agree.

I also believe in "top posting". There's some ammo


"Dogfart" <flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:7930567262$20060115193203@dontbotherspamming. com...
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, at 14:30:35 [GMT GMT] (01:30:35 Sunday, 15 January
> 2006
> where I live) "amosf (Tim Fairchild)" wrote:
>
>>> "You want an operating system that works out of the box, without
>>> frigging
>>> around and wasting time trying to get things to work?"
>
>> I just installed mandriva 2006 the other day and it just worked. Complete
>> with 3d acceleration... Out of the box.
>
> Of course it works, but when you want that little extra without frigging
> around for hours trying to recompile software, I honestly (unfortunately)
> think Windoze has the lead.
>
> I had dual boot Windoze / Linux for years; in the end because of
> available
> software on Windows (and policy at work and refusal of vendors to supply
> Linux versions (not commercial for them)) finally dumped the dual boot
> bit.
>
> Must confess, my computing life is much simpler now!
>
> When I look back at Linux, it was like wearing a crown of thorns, and
> flogging myself with a cat o' nine tails compared to Windoze.
>
> I know Linux has dedicated followers (some of whom seem to have an
> irrational hatred of Billy Bob Gates and Windoze), but it would appear
> that
> it will never been commercially successful at the same rate as Windoze.
>
> Just my honest opinion, and not a troll.
>
> (Flame retardant gear now on!).
>

[Ext User(Oldus Fartus)]

amosf (Tim Fairchild) wrote:
> Oldus Fartus wrote something like:
>
>
>>Uncle Bully wrote:
>>
>>>"Sandgroper" <steveray@KNICKERSiinet.net.au> wrote in message
>>>news:43c78ba6$0$24739$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"amosf (Tim Fairchild)" <usenet@bcs4me.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:sj4k93-v47.ln1@shiva.home...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8124627492.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Five Reasons Not To Use Linux
>>>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>
>>>>1) You are too stupid to operate a computer
>>>
>>>
>>>Close to half of the population, by definition, are of below average
>>>intelligence. These people are allowed computers too.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Being a pedant, which definition says "close to half the population are
>>below average intelligence"?
>
>
> The definition of 'average' :) Average = middle. Half below and half
> above :)
>

Aah, but playing the devil's advocate, average does not *necessarily*
mean that half the sample are below the mean, and half above. Play
around with some figures, and you will see what I mean (no pun intended
:-) )

--
Cheers
Oldus Fartus

[Ext User(amosf (Tim Fairchild))]

The Old Bloke wrote something like:

> I tried a dual boot Windows/Linux, and decided that Linux simply wasn't
> worth all the stuffing around. So Dogfart, I agree.

I have the same attitude with windows some days :) I dual boot windows on
here sometimes, but it gets broken do easy I delete it.

> I also believe in "top posting". There's some ammo

Uh oh. Top posting. You are screwed now :)

> "Dogfart" <flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote in message
> news:7930567262$20060115193203@dontbotherspamming. com...
>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, at 14:30:35 [GMT GMT] (01:30:35 Sunday, 15 January
>> 2006
>> where I live) "amosf (Tim Fairchild)" wrote:
>>
>>>> "You want an operating system that works out of the box, without
>>>> frigging
>>>> around and wasting time trying to get things to work?"
>>
>>> I just installed mandriva 2006 the other day and it just worked.
>>> Complete with 3d acceleration... Out of the box.
>>
>> Of course it works, but when you want that little extra without frigging
>> around for hours trying to recompile software, I honestly (unfortunately)
>> think Windoze has the lead.

Get a precompiled binary? Of course with windows you often don't have the
option of compiling...

>> I had dual boot Windoze / Linux for years; in the end because of
>> available
>> software on Windows (and policy at work and refusal of vendors to supply
>> Linux versions (not commercial for them)) finally dumped the dual boot
>> bit.

I dump the windows dual now and then too. If you don't use it then it's a
waste of disk space. Linux or windows.

>> Must confess, my computing life is much simpler now!

I think the same when I don't use windows :)

>> When I look back at Linux, it was like wearing a crown of thorns, and
>> flogging myself with a cat o' nine tails compared to Windoze.

Transpose linux and windows and I feel much the same. Depends on what you
are used to, huh. The first year was a little tough perhaps as I had to
unlearn all the crappy old C: drive floppy architecture of winDOS world...

>> I know Linux has dedicated followers (some of whom seem to have an
>> irrational hatred of Billy Bob Gates and Windoze), but it would appear
>> that
>> it will never been commercially successful at the same rate as Windoze.

People get shitty when crooks, liars and general assholes get to the top,
whether it's bill gates or gw bush... It happens all the time tho...

--
-
Leafnode. Making usenet a better place.
-

[Ext User(amosf (Tim Fairchild))]

Oldus Fartus wrote something like:

> amosf (Tim Fairchild) wrote:
>> Oldus Fartus wrote something like:
>>
>>
>>>Uncle Bully wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Sandgroper" <steveray@KNICKERSiinet.net.au> wrote in message
>>>>news:43c78ba6$0$24739$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"amosf (Tim Fairchild)" <usenet@bcs4me.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:sj4k93-v47.ln1@shiva.home...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8124627492.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Five Reasons Not To Use Linux
>>>>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>
>>>>>1) You are too stupid to operate a computer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Close to half of the population, by definition, are of below average
>>>>intelligence. These people are allowed computers too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Being a pedant, which definition says "close to half the population are
>>>below average intelligence"?
>>
>>
>> The definition of 'average' :) Average = middle. Half below and half
>> above :)
>>
>
> Aah, but playing the devil's advocate, average does not *necessarily*
> mean that half the sample are below the mean, and half above. Play
> around with some figures, and you will see what I mean (no pun intended
> :-) )

Obviously. I was only talking about the literal average of a group of
numbers. In the real world 'most' people are 'average' with a few classed
in the extremes. Just depends on which warped definition you want to use :)

--
-
Leafnode. Making usenet a better place.
-

[Ext User(The Old Bloke)]

"amosf (Tim Fairchild)" <usenet@bcs4me.com> wrote in message
news:8ukp93-v47.ln1@shiva.home...
> The Old Bloke wrote something like:
>
>> I tried a dual boot Windows/Linux, and decided that Linux simply wasn't
>> worth all the stuffing around. So Dogfart, I agree.
>
> I have the same attitude with windows some days :) I dual boot windows on
> here sometimes, but it gets broken do easy I delete it.
>
>> I also believe in "top posting". There's some ammo
>
> Uh oh. Top posting. You are screwed now :)

hehehe
>
>> "Dogfart" <flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote in message
>> news:7930567262$20060115193203@dontbotherspamming. com...
>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, at 14:30:35 [GMT GMT] (01:30:35 Sunday, 15 January
>>> 2006
>>> where I live) "amosf (Tim Fairchild)" wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "You want an operating system that works out of the box, without
>>>>> frigging
>>>>> around and wasting time trying to get things to work?"
>>>
>>>> I just installed mandriva 2006 the other day and it just worked.
>>>> Complete with 3d acceleration... Out of the box.
>>>
>>> Of course it works, but when you want that little extra without frigging
>>> around for hours trying to recompile software, I honestly
>>> (unfortunately)
>>> think Windoze has the lead.
>
> Get a precompiled binary? Of course with windows you often don't have the
> option of compiling...
>
>>> I had dual boot Windoze / Linux for years; in the end because of
>>> available
>>> software on Windows (and policy at work and refusal of vendors to supply
>>> Linux versions (not commercial for them)) finally dumped the dual boot
>>> bit.
>
> I dump the windows dual now and then too. If you don't use it then it's a
> waste of disk space. Linux or windows.
>
>>> Must confess, my computing life is much simpler now!
>
> I think the same when I don't use windows :)
>
>>> When I look back at Linux, it was like wearing a crown of thorns, and
>>> flogging myself with a cat o' nine tails compared to Windoze.
>
> Transpose linux and windows and I feel much the same. Depends on what you
> are used to, huh. The first year was a little tough perhaps as I had to
> unlearn all the crappy old C: drive floppy architecture of winDOS world...
>
>>> I know Linux has dedicated followers (some of whom seem to have an
>>> irrational hatred of Billy Bob Gates and Windoze), but it would appear
>>> that
>>> it will never been commercially successful at the same rate as Windoze.
>
> People get shitty when crooks, liars and general assholes get to the top,
> whether it's bill gates or gw bush... It happens all the time tho...
>
> --
> -
> Leafnode. Making usenet a better place.
> -

[Ext User(Uncle Bully)]

"Ernest" <deadly@REM.netspace.net.au> wrote in message
news:dpjjs1t16o8gofo93c13d2f66mmn2crvie@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 12:03:42 +1100, "Uncle Bully"
> <wakeupcall@optushome.com.au.Remove> wrote:
>
>>
>>"amosf (Tim Fairchild)" <usenet@bcs4me.com> wrote in message
>>news:t4en93-v47.ln1@shiva.home...
>>> Uncle Bully wrote something like:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) You are too stupid to operate a computer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Close to half of the population, by definition, are of below average
>>>>>> intelligence. These people are allowed computers too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even my wife can use linux.
>>>>
>>>> How would she fare if she wasn't married to a Linux guy?
>>>
>>> The same as any housewife. She would have to call in a tech if it broke.
>>> Up
>>> until last year I did that as a job, going to fix PC's belonging to
>>> housewives. They were running windows. They called when it didn't go any
>>> more and the majority of calls involved very trivial things. Modem
>>> setups,
>>> software installs. Mostly malware problems.
>>>
>>>>> It's a common misconception that it is hard.
>>>>
>>>> It's harder than Windows. Even Linux people admit that
>>>
>>> It is not harder to use. A KDE interface is simple point and click. I've
>>> put
>>> complete computer novices behind both windows and linux boxes and there
>>> is
>>> no difference in there use of the PC.
>>
>>True to certain extent, but when the user eventually gathers the
>>confidence
>>to expand their system, the Windows road is strewn with far less
>>obstacles.
>>
> Wrong, it is harder to do anything but basic actions in
> Windows as it will automatically override what you want;
> I have lost count of the number of different items of
> hardware I have used where Windows has killed the
> manufacturer'sd drivers to replace them with default
> Windows drivers that do NOT have the capabilities
> of the manufacturer's drivers - their only fault being that
> the manufacturer did not pay MS big dollars to have
> the driver MS certified and a special 'leave me alone'
> code inserted by MS.
>>
>>> The points where linux can be seem to
>>> be harder is the install and particular hardware - not an issue on a
>>> preinstall system. Also perhaps the setting up of some services, like
>>> samba
>>> perhaps in a mixed network. Not an issue for the ordinary person. The
>>> difficulties do arrise when trying to use windows software and games
>>> with
>>> linux, but crossover and cedega have made these easier. Installation of
>>> software is seen as difficult, but smart online package management has
>>> made
>>> this far easier - and more secure. Linux doesn't have the double click
>>> install any exe type install yet. I hope it never does as that's a
>>> security
>>> issue with windows that causes more trouble than it's worth.
>>
>>This is a phlosphical difference. There will always be a trade off between
>>usability and security. I prefer (and I think most other people do to) the
>>Windows usability bias the Linux's security.
>>
> Most Linux installations are more usable than MS nowdays and
> you get the better security.
>>>
>>>>> Once installed on a PC (just as the normal user gets windows
>>>>> pre-installed)
>>>>> anyone can sit at the keyboard and use it. Just put any 8 year old on
>>>>> a
>>>>> linux box and watch.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) You can only point and click a mouse to use a computer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is what most people want
>>>>>
>>>>> All you need do on a linux, mac or windows box. They are all just
>>>>> point
>>>>> and
>>>>> click these days. My wife wouldn't know what a command line was.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3) You are too lazy to learn a real operating system
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A 'real' operating system. The catchcry of the desperate. Get a real
>>>>>> Operating system. How do you define real and pretend?
>>>>>> If it supports all the hardware and applications you need, that's
>>>>>> real
>>>>>> enough.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing to learn anyway. Just sit and point and click. People that
>>>>> have
>>>>> trouble with linux are usually tinkerers that are used to tinkering
>>>>> with
>>>>> windows and then move to linux and then find it is different. An
>>>>> ordinary
>>>>> person can just sit in front of a linux box these days and use it the
>>>>> same as a windows box or a mac. Same thing, just different.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not just different, it's not as easy. It may do similar things, but it
>>>> doesn't do them nearly as easily.
>>>
>>> Such as? Sure there are some things that you can do easier in windows.
>>> That's because certain software, say video editing, comes in windows
>>> format... But that is changing and there is more software available.
>>> There
>>> are some things that are easier to do with linux as well. They are just
>>> different.
>>
>>The whole multimedia/entertainment thing (DVD, MP3, HT, gaming etc) is the
>>biggest struggle from my point of view.
>>
> Yep because they are propriatary code items and even Windows
> has stopped providing usability for some due to concerns re being
> sued under the latest USA laws re proprietary code violations.
>>>
>>>> Every Linux/Unix guy I've met or worked with admit this. They love the
>>>> flexibility of Linux/Unix for production systems, but when you just
>>>> want
>>>> your desktop to work, they all pick Windows everytime.
>>>
>>> I use a linux desktop exclusively and have done for many years. I have
>>> the
>>> opposite point of view. I like it because it does 'just work'. I can
>>> leave
>>> the PC up 24/7 and know it won't have any problems, doesn't need virus
>>> scans or defrags and won't crash unexpectedly. Windows XP has now come
>>> close to this sort of stability for the normal desktop user, but I get
>>> the
>>> same with linux for free.
>>>
>>> People don't really pick windows so much as it's what always came with
>>> the
>>> PC and most think that it's a bit like a Mac. A PC just runs windows.
>>
>>A good analogy is cars. Even if a Hyundai is as good as a Toyota, People
>>will always choose Toyota more often.
>>
> Most of the people using Windows do so simply because the
> hardware came with it preloaded and the seller gets to make
> a bigger profit if he can sell the hardware with MS Windows,
> than if he sells it with Linux.
>
>>>
>>>>>>> 4) You are too lazy to read anything on the Linux operating system
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would you want to?
>>>>>
>>>>> My wife has never read an instruction in her life. She just sits at
>>>>> the
>>>>> linux pc and clicks. If it breaks (rarely), she calls the tech guy
>>>>> (me).
>>>>> Same as any housewife windows user...
>>>>
>>>> Our cases are not typical. Your average Joe family wants what is easy
>>>> and
>>>> works (and what most of everyone else has).
>>>
>>> The average person would do best with an appliance PC. And we will see
>>> these
>>> more and more in the future. The funny thing is that a lot of appliances
>>> are likely to run linux or some other non-windows OS. It will be
>>> transparent and people won't know or care what OS it runs. The idea of a
>>> brand name OS is really kind of strange when you think of it.
>>
>>I think that Windows Media Centre is heading in the right direction. I'm
>>sure there are/will be Linux equivalents. Branding is all part of
>>marketing,
>>and marketing is how companies make lots of money (unfortunate but true).
>>Linux already has a nerd/geek/hard to use image which even if this isn't
>>reality, will be almost impossible to shake off without some massive
>>centralised marketing effort (which won't happen due to the nature of open
>>source)
>>
> Speaking of marketting, I think it is important to note how
> scared of Linux Microsoft is as that is what is driving their
> multi million dollar anti-linux campaign.


Unfortunately for Bill and the gang, it wasn't Linux that was the biggest
threat. Google just came out out nowhere and MS are still numb from the
impact :)


>>>
>>>>>>> 5) You want somebody to hold your hand every time you use a
>>>>>>> computer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or you want to be able to figure it out reasonably easily without
>>>>>> having
>>>>>> to read a manual.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The main point is, why should you have to. If you like tinkering then
>>>>>> good
>>>>>> for you. A lot of people want a computer like a toaster. turn it on,
>>>>>> push the button, it works. Sure windows isn't perfect, but it's a
>>>>>> whole
>>>>>> lot closer to the mark than Linux will ever get.
>>>>>
>>>>> My wife demanded linux on her PC. She was sick of the crashing and the
>>>>> malware (this was back in 9x days). I put it on for her and added
>>>>> (win4lin then) crossover to run the couple of win apps she uses.
>>>>> People
>>>>> can use whatever OS they like. Linux is as good an option as any and
>>>>> has
>>>>> the bonus of being free and relatively malware safe and stable.
>>>>>
>>>>> My wife uses it like the toaster, although it's switched on 27/7. She
>>>>> just sits and clicks. Mail, browsing, openoffice, breedmate database,
>>>>> frozen bubble, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Use it or not. It's an option and a good one at that.
>>>>
>>>> It is an option, but you can't honestly say Linux is a better overall
>>>> desktop OS than WinXP.
>>>
>>> Well, yes I do. I find windows difficult and really quite a pain to
>>> use...
>>> And they still use the same old ancient filesystem structures..
>>>
>>>> Good for some people who can live with the quirkyness and 'cool' factor
>>>> of
>>>> not being so mainstream. Window's uniformity is one of it's strengths.
>>>> Linux will never have this.
>>>
>>> Of course the uniformity is also it's weakness. It's a monoculture,
>>> which
>>> is
>>> led to the malware problem. And MS has trained users to use their PC as
>>> administrator rather than user, so they are even more open to malware
>>> attack. Heck of a social engineering problem ahead.
>>
>>User's will adapt.. I learnt more about security from the various Windows
>>outbreaks than any text book :)
>>'Monoculture' is not all bad. It has it's weaknesses, but so does
>>variation.
>>There's a long discussion that could start just over this topic.
>>
>>>
>>> It's certainly not the coolness or quirkiness for me. It's just a
>>> reliable
>>> tool that allows me to get on the net, do email, usenet, web, blog, tax,
>>> whatever.
>>>
>>> Mainstream? Who cares.
>>
>>Shouldn't matter, but we all know it does.
>>
>>> Linux doesn't need a market share and it's users
>>> don't care what market share it has. More market share does help a
>>> little
>>> in hardware and commercial software support, but the last 15 years have
>>> shown that linux can thrive without that.
>>
>>And that model will only ever have limited success. Depends on how
>>'successful' Linux wants to be I guess.
>>
> A telling point about this whole discussion is that the
> people who are responsible for ensuring that the Internet
> works, and that their servers and gateways work go to
> great lengths NOT to use Windows servers as they find
> that they are to unsafe and use Unix or Linux. If everyone
> had Windows only the Internet would be down more
> often than up.

I have no question that Linux/Unix makes a better higher end server
platform. Greater flexibilty, and you usually have a paid expert on site.
Although for small and medium business, Windows still works well.
The scope of this is purely desktop.


>>
>>>
>>>>> There are pros and
>>>>> cons. The malware situation favours linux. Application and hardware
>>>>> vendor support favours windows.
>>>>
>>>> Malware is a misleading topic always raised by Linux people. Malware
>>>> isn't
>>>> that big a problem. I've been through all the big ones and I've still
>>>> spent less time on them than I have figuring out how to get simple
>>>> things
>>>> to work in Linux.
>>>
>>> As I say, up until last year I spent many hours with client PC's riddled
>>> with malware. I quit as I was sick of it. I used to like PC repair, but
>>> it
>>> can to a point where it was the same old trogan week in and week out. So
>>> I
>>> know the malware problem out in Joe Sixpack land.
>>>
>>>> In my experience it is better to have root access and greater exposure
>>>> to
>>>> Malware (but know how to avoid it), than to be locked down and always
>>>> struggle when you need to modify or reconfigure your system.
>>>
>>> That is the windows attitude that MS created. I use this PC as a user.
>>> This
>>> is not a struggle. All it means is that I type in a password when I use
>>> a
>>> config tool. But 99% of the time I am on here as a normal user and it I
>>> use
>>> the PC without any issue and couldn't tell the difference for a root
>>> user.
>>>
>>> Even if you use XP you are better off as a limitted user. Any security
>>> tech
>>> will advise this.
>>
>>Security advice is not always good advice.
>>
>>>
>>>>> Dual boot. Or run multiple machines. Windows has the edge on games
>>>>> numbers so the kids keep a win box running here, tho a large nuber of
>>>>> games also run on linux - I think I have (major size games)
>>>>> wolfenstien,
>>>>> UT, UT2004, Doom3, quake 1 & 2 & 3, CS:condition zero, Jedi knight 1 &
>>>>> 2
>>>>> & academy, HL 1 & 2 (plus many smaller) on this box at the moment...
>>>>> Only
>>>>> so much disk space...
>>>>
>>>> I imagine every OS released it the last 5 years is better than Win95.
>>>> XP
>>>> is a whole other kettle of fish.
>>>
>>> XP is better than the 9x series. It's not quite 2000, but it's okay. I
>>> still
>>> prefer linux, esp a mandriva distro. With a good linux distro I install
>>> pretty much all the software I will use off the one dvd. Finished.
>>>
>>>> I used Ubuntu 5.1 which was voted best Linux desktop distro last year.
>>>> It
>>>> is better than Windows95, but it blows incomparison to XP.
>>>
>>> That's an opinion. You tend to prefer what you are used to. I have used
>>> linux a long time and prefer it.
>>>
>>>> After touting
>>>> Windows-like usabilty it didn't come with an MP3 player as default, and
>>>
>>> There are legal problems with mp3 and dvd software. Most distros will
>>> not
>>> carry them these days, but they are easy to get.
>>>
>>>> even though Evolution is touted as Exchange compatible, it still wasn't
>>>> working at the end of the day. Even after perusing the Google cache for
>>>> solutions all I got was that lots of other people who couldn't get it
>>>> to
>>>> work either, and there was no common solution.
>>>>
>>>> This type of thing doesn't happen in Windows world.
>>>
>>> Sure it does. I can just as easily say that windows is no good. I tried
>>> windows and MS office the other day. Windows couldn't open my kmail
>>> folder
>>> and MS office couldn't open my openoffice docs. What rubbish this
>>> windows
>>> is. It's not even openoffice or kmail compatible.
>>
>>But I've never seen a Windows ad that says it is. Linux is selling as
>>alternative to Windows, but i doesn't live it up to expectation. Evolution
>>advertsies easy Echange compatibility, but it's not easy. (Easy to me
>>means
>>you dick about for a bit and you should be able to figure it out. Even if
>>you can't figure it out the answer should found in a manual or google in
>>less than 15 minutes or so)
>>
> I have used, and still do use, both Windows and Linux
> systems and Office software - all the versions of Linux
> based word processors open all the MS Word document
> types that existed at the time that version of the software
> was released, as well as Word Perfect and several others.
> Yet my latest version of Word will not open some of the
> early version of MS Word documents I have in archived
> files. Funny how Linux software will open old MS apps
> whilst current MS software wont - I see this as a difference
> in attitude. Linux looks at client usability and lets that
> drive what they do, whilst MS try to drive the client usability
> and will only support what they want to do.
>
>>>
>>>> I may just be Linux illiterate, but I've given it a fair go over the
>>>> years
>>>> (started with Linux in 94).
>>>
>>> So did I (tho used OS/2 tho the period as well). I stuck with it :)
>>>
>>>> And when Linux guys still prefer Windows, that tells me Linux isn't
>>>> quite
>>>> at the same level yet.
>>>
>>> I don't know any 'linux guys' that prefer windows - and I know a LOT of
>>> linux guys :)
>>
>>It's a philosophy thing I guess. I prefer convenience over security. I
>>think
>>21st century society is heading the same way, as much the Bush cartel
>>would
>>like us to think otherwise :)
>>
>>
>>
>
> Regards,
>
> Deadly Ernest
> (all typos fault of server or
> other gremlins)

[Ext User(Dogfart)]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, at 10:09:18 [GMT GMT] (21:09:18 Sunday, 15 January 2006
where I live) "The Old Bloke" wrote:

> I also believe in "top posting". There's some ammo

Now they can flame both of us ;-)

[Ext User(The Old Bloke)]

Why don't you stick to answering Super 8 questions??
"Uncle Bully" <wakeupcall@optushome.com.au.Remove> wrote in message
news:43ca3003$0$26131$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
> "Ernest" <deadly@REM.netspace.net.au> wrote in message
> news:dpjjs1t16o8gofo93c13d2f66mmn2crvie@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 12:03:42 +1100, "Uncle Bully"
>> <wakeupcall@optushome.com.au.Remove> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"amosf (Tim Fairchild)" <usenet@bcs4me.com> wrote in message
>>>news:t4en93-v47.ln1@shiva.home...
>>>> Uncle Bully wrote something like:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) You are too stupid to operate a computer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Close to half of the population, by definition, are of below average
>>>>>>> intelligence. These people are allowed computers too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even my wife can use linux.
>>>>>
>>>>> How would she fare if she wasn't married to a Linux guy?
>>>>
>>>> The same as any housewife. She would have to call in a tech if it
>>>> broke.
>>>> Up
>>>> until last year I did that as a job, going to fix PC's belonging to
>>>> housewives. They were running windows. They called when it didn't go
>>>> any
>>>> more and the majority of calls involved very trivial things. Modem
>>>> setups,
>>>> software installs. Mostly malware problems.
>>>>
>>>>>> It's a common misconception that it is hard.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's harder than Windows. Even Linux people admit that
>>>>
>>>> It is not harder to use. A KDE interface is simple point and click.
>>>> I've
>>>> put
>>>> complete computer novices behind both windows and linux boxes and there
>>>> is
>>>> no difference in there use of the PC.
>>>
>>>True to certain extent, but when the user eventually gathers the
>>>confidence
>>>to expand their system, the Windows road is strewn with far less
>>>obstacles.
>>>
>> Wrong, it is harder to do anything but basic actions in
>> Windows as it will automatically override what you want;
>> I have lost count of the number of different items of
>> hardware I have used where Windows has killed the
>> manufacturer'sd drivers to replace them with default
>> Windows drivers that do NOT have the capabilities
>> of the manufacturer's drivers - their only fault being that
>> the manufacturer did not pay MS big dollars to have
>> the driver MS certified and a special 'leave me alone'
>> code inserted by MS.
>>>
>>>> The points where linux can be seem to
>>>> be harder is the install and particular hardware - not an issue on a
>>>> preinstall system. Also perhaps the setting up of some services, like
>>>> samba
>>>> perhaps in a mixed network. Not an issue for the ordinary person. The
>>>> difficulties do arrise when trying to use windows software and games
>>>> with
>>>> linux, but crossover and cedega have made these easier. Installation of
>>>> software is seen as difficult, but smart online package management has
>>>> made
>>>> this far easier - and more secure. Linux doesn't have the double click
>>>> install any exe type install yet. I hope it never does as that's a
>>>> security
>>>> issue with windows that causes more trouble than it's worth.
>>>
>>>This is a phlosphical difference. There will always be a trade off
>>>between
>>>usability and security. I prefer (and I think most other people do to)
>>>the
>>>Windows usability bias the Linux's security.
>>>
>> Most Linux installations are more usable than MS nowdays and
>> you get the better security.
>>>>
>>>>>> Once installed on a PC (just as the normal user gets windows
>>>>>> pre-installed)
>>>>>> anyone can sit at the keyboard and use it. Just put any 8 year old on
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> linux box and watch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2) You can only point and click a mouse to use a computer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is what most people want
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All you need do on a linux, mac or windows box. They are all just
>>>>>> point
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> click these days. My wife wouldn't know what a command line was.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3) You are too lazy to learn a real operating system
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A 'real' operating system. The catchcry of the desperate. Get a real
>>>>>>> Operating system. How do you define real and pretend?
>>>>>>> If it supports all the hardware and applications you need, that's
>>>>>>> real
>>>>>>> enough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing to learn anyway. Just sit and point and click. People that
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> trouble with linux are usually tinkerers that are used to tinkering
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> windows and then move to linux and then find it is different. An
>>>>>> ordinary
>>>>>> person can just sit in front of a linux box these days and use it the
>>>>>> same as a windows box or a mac. Same thing, just different.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not just different, it's not as easy. It may do similar things, but it
>>>>> doesn't do them nearly as easily.
>>>>
>>>> Such as? Sure there are some things that you can do easier in windows.
>>>> That's because certain software, say video editing, comes in windows
>>>> format... But that is changing and there is more software available.
>>>> There
>>>> are some things that are easier to do with linux as well. They are just
>>>> different.
>>>
>>>The whole multimedia/entertainment thing (DVD, MP3, HT, gaming etc) is
>>>the
>>>biggest struggle from my point of view.
>>>
>> Yep because they are propriatary code items and even Windows
>> has stopped providing usability for some due to concerns re being
>> sued under the latest USA laws re proprietary code violations.
>>>>
>>>>> Every Linux/Unix guy I've met or worked with admit this. They love the
>>>>> flexibility of Linux/Unix for production systems, but when you just
>>>>> want
>>>>> your desktop to work, they all pick Windows everytime.
>>>>
>>>> I use a linux desktop exclusively and have done for many years. I have
>>>> the
>>>> opposite point of view. I like it because it does 'just work'. I can
>>>> leave
>>>> the PC up 24/7 and know it won't have any problems, doesn't need virus
>>>> scans or defrags and won't crash unexpectedly. Windows XP has now come
>>>> close to this sort of stability for the normal desktop user, but I get
>>>> the
>>>> same with linux for free.
>>>>
>>>> People don't really pick windows so much as it's what always came with
>>>> the
>>>> PC and most think that it's a bit like a Mac. A PC just runs windows.
>>>
>>>A good analogy is cars. Even if a Hyundai is as good as a Toyota, People
>>>will always choose Toyota more often.
>>>
>> Most of the people using Windows do so simply because the
>> hardware came with it preloaded and the seller gets to make
>> a bigger profit if he can sell the hardware with MS Windows,
>> than if he sells it with Linux.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> 4) You are too lazy to read anything on the Linux operating system
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why would you want to?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My wife has never read an instruction in her life. She just sits at
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> linux pc and clicks. If it breaks (rarely), she calls the tech guy
>>>>>> (me).
>>>>>> Same as any housewife windows user...
>>>>>
>>>>> Our cases are not typical. Your average Joe family wants what is easy
>>>>> and
>>>>> works (and what most of everyone else has).
>>>>
>>>> The average person would do best with an appliance PC. And we will see
>>>> these
>>>> more and more in the future. The funny thing is that a lot of
>>>> appliances
>>>> are likely to run linux or some other non-windows OS. It will be
>>>> transparent and people won't know or care what OS it runs. The idea of
>>>> a
>>>> brand name OS is really kind of strange when you think of it.
>>>
>>>I think that Windows Media Centre is heading in the right direction. I'm
>>>sure there are/will be Linux equivalents. Branding is all part of
>>>marketing,
>>>and marketing is how companies make lots of money (unfortunate but true).
>>>Linux already has a nerd/geek/hard to use image which even if this isn't
>>>reality, will be almost impossible to shake off without some massive
>>>centralised marketing effort (which won't happen due to the nature of
>>>open
>>>source)
>>>
>> Speaking of marketting, I think it is important to note how
>> scared of Linux Microsoft is as that is what is driving their
>> multi million dollar anti-linux campaign.
>
>
> Unfortunately for Bill and the gang, it wasn't Linux that was the biggest
> threat. Google just came out out nowhere and MS are still numb from the
> impact :)
>
>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> 5) You want somebody to hold your hand every time you use a
>>>>>>>> computer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or you want to be able to figure it out reasonably easily without
>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>> to read a manual.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The main point is, why should you have to. If you like tinkering
>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>> for you. A lot of people want a computer like a toaster. turn it on,
>>>>>>> push the button, it works. Sure windows isn't perfect, but it's a
>>>>>>> whole
>>>>>>> lot closer to the mark than Linux will ever get.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My wife demanded linux on her PC. She was sick of the crashing and
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> malware (this was back in 9x days). I put it on for her and added
>>>>>> (win4lin then) crossover to run the couple of win apps she uses.
>>>>>> People
>>>>>> can use whatever OS they like. Linux is as good an option as any and
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> the bonus of being free and relatively malware safe and stable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My wife uses it like the toaster, although it's switched on 27/7. She
>>>>>> just sits and clicks. Mail, browsing, openoffice, breedmate database,
>>>>>> frozen bubble, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Use it or not. It's an option and a good one at that.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is an option, but you can't honestly say Linux is a better overall
>>>>> desktop OS than WinXP.
>>>>
>>>> Well, yes I do. I find windows difficult and really quite a pain to
>>>> use...
>>>> And they still use the same old ancient filesystem structures..
>>>>
>>>>> Good for some people who can live with the quirkyness and 'cool'
>>>>> factor
>>>>> of
>>>>> not being so mainstream. Window's uniformity is one of it's strengths.
>>>>> Linux will never have this.
>>>>
>>>> Of course the uniformity is also it's weakness. It's a monoculture,
>>>> which
>>>> is
>>>> led to the malware problem. And MS has trained users to use their PC as
>>>> administrator rather than user, so they are even more open to malware
>>>> attack. Heck of a social engineering problem ahead.
>>>
>>>User's will adapt.. I learnt more about security from the various Windows
>>>outbreaks than any text book :)
>>>'Monoculture' is not all bad. It has it's weaknesses, but so does
>>>variation.
>>>There's a long discussion that could start just over this topic.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's certainly not the coolness or quirkiness for me. It's just a
>>>> reliable
>>>> tool that allows me to get on the net, do email, usenet, web, blog,
>>>> tax,
>>>> whatever.
>>>>
>>>> Mainstream? Who cares.
>>>
>>>Shouldn't matter, but we all know it does.
>>>
>>>> Linux doesn't need a market share and it's users
>>>> don't care what market share it has. More market share does help a
>>>> little
>>>> in hardware and commercial software support, but the last 15 years have
>>>> shown that linux can thrive without that.
>>>
>>>And that model will only ever have limited success. Depends on how
>>>'successful' Linux wants to be I guess.
>>>
>> A telling point about this whole discussion is that the
>> people who are responsible for ensuring that the Internet
>> works, and that their servers and gateways work go to
>> great lengths NOT to use Windows servers as they find
>> that they are to unsafe and use Unix or Linux. If everyone
>> had Windows only the Internet would be down more
>> often than up.
>
> I have no question that Linux/Unix makes a better higher end server
> platform. Greater flexibilty, and you usually have a paid expert on site.
> Although for small and medium business, Windows still works well.
> The scope of this is purely desktop.
>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> There are pros and
>>>>>> cons. The malware situation favours linux. Application and hardware
>>>>>> vendor support favours windows.
>>>>>
>>>>> Malware is a misleading topic always raised by Linux people. Malware
>>>>> isn't
>>>>> that big a problem. I've been through all the big ones and I've still
>>>>> spent less time on them than I have figuring out how to get simple
>>>>> things
>>>>> to work in Linux.
>>>>
>>>> As I say, up until last year I spent many hours with client PC's
>>>> riddled
>>>> with malware. I quit as I was sick of it. I used to like PC repair, but
>>>> it
>>>> can to a point where it was the same old trogan week in and week out.
>>>> So I
>>>> know the malware problem out in Joe Sixpack land.
>>>>
>>>>> In my experience it is better to have root access and greater exposure
>>>>> to
>>>>> Malware (but know how to avoid it), than to be locked down and always
>>>>> struggle when you need to modify or reconfigure your system.
>>>>
>>>> That is the windows attitude that MS created. I use this PC as a user.
>>>> This
>>>> is not a struggle. All it means is that I type in a password when I use
>>>> a
>>>> config tool. But 99% of the time I am on here as a normal user and it I
>>>> use
>>>> the PC without any issue and couldn't tell the difference for a root
>>>> user.
>>>>
>>>> Even if you use XP you are better off as a limitted user. Any security
>>>> tech
>>>> will advise this.
>>>
>>>Security advice is not always good advice.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Dual boot. Or run multiple machines. Windows has the edge on games
>>>>>> numbers so the kids keep a win box running here, tho a large nuber of
>>>>>> games also run on linux - I think I have (major size games)
>>>>>> wolfenstien,
>>>>>> UT, UT2004, Doom3, quake 1 & 2 & 3, CS:condition zero, Jedi knight 1
>>>>>> & 2
>>>>>> & academy, HL 1 & 2 (plus many smaller) on this box at the moment...
>>>>>> Only
>>>>>> so much disk space...
>>>>>
>>>>> I imagine every OS released it the last 5 years is better than Win95.
>>>>> XP
>>>>> is a whole other kettle of fish.
>>>>
>>>> XP is better than the 9x series. It's not quite 2000, but it's okay. I
>>>> still
>>>> prefer linux, esp a mandriva distro. With a good linux distro I install
>>>> pretty much all the software I will use off the one dvd. Finished.
>>>>
>>>>> I used Ubuntu 5.1 which was voted best Linux desktop distro last year.
>>>>> It
>>>>> is better than Windows95, but it blows incomparison to XP.
>>>>
>>>> That's an opinion. You tend to prefer what you are used to. I have used
>>>> linux a long time and prefer it.
>>>>
>>>>> After touting
>>>>> Windows-like usabilty it didn't come with an MP3 player as default,
>>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> There are legal problems with mp3 and dvd software. Most distros will
>>>> not
>>>> carry them these days, but they are easy to get.
>>>>
>>>>> even though Evolution is touted as Exchange compatible, it still
>>>>> wasn't
>>>>> working at the end of the day. Even after perusing the Google cache
>>>>> for
>>>>> solutions all I got was that lots of other people who couldn't get it
>>>>> to
>>>>> work either, and there was no common solution.
>>>>>
>>>>> This type of thing doesn't happen in Windows world.
>>>>
>>>> Sure it does. I can just as easily say that windows is no good. I tried
>>>> windows and MS office the other day. Windows couldn't open my kmail
>>>> folder
>>>> and MS office couldn't open my openoffice docs. What rubbish this
>>>> windows
>>>> is. It's not even openoffice or kmail compatible.
>>>
>>>But I've never seen a Windows ad that says it is. Linux is selling as
>>>alternative to Windows, but i doesn't live it up to expectation.
>>>Evolution
>>>advertsies easy Echange compatibility, but it's not easy. (Easy to me
>>>means
>>>you dick about for a bit and you should be able to figure it out. Even if
>>>you can't figure it out the answer should found in a manual or google in
>>>less than 15 minutes or so)
>>>
>> I have used, and still do use, both Windows and Linux
>> systems and Office software - all the versions of Linux
>> based word processors open all the MS Word document
>> types that existed at the time that version of the software
>> was released, as well as Word Perfect and several others.
>> Yet my latest version of Word will not open some of the
>> early version of MS Word documents I have in archived
>> files. Funny how Linux software will open old MS apps
>> whilst current MS software wont - I see this as a difference
>> in attitude. Linux looks at client usability and lets that
>> drive what they do, whilst MS try to drive the client usability
>> and will only support what they want to do.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> I may just be Linux illiterate, but I've given it a fair go over the
>>>>> years
>>>>> (started with Linux in 94).
>>>>
>>>> So did I (tho used OS/2 tho the period as well). I stuck with it :)
>>>>
>>>>> And when Linux guys still prefer Windows, that tells me Linux isn't
>>>>> quite
>>>>> at the same level yet.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know any 'linux guys' that prefer windows - and I know a LOT of
>>>> linux guys :)
>>>
>>>It's a philosophy thing I guess. I prefer convenience over security. I
>>>think
>>>21st century society is heading the same way, as much the Bush cartel
>>>would
>>>like us to think otherwise :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Deadly Ernest
>> (all typos fault of server or
>> other gremlins)
>
>

[Ext User(Gary R. Schmidt)]

Jollyrodgers wrote:

> "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote in message
> news:42sc0uF1i261cU1@individual.net...
>
>>Dogfart wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, at 19:17:21 [GMT +0800] (22:17:21 Friday, 13 January
>>>2006 where I live) "Sandgroper" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>4) You are too lazy to read anything on the Linux operating system
>>>
>>>
>>>How about:
>>>
>>>"You want an operating system that works out of the box, without frigging
>>>around and wasting time trying to get things to work?"
>>>
>>
>>So, you ring up Sun and you order an Ultra 20 running Solaris 10.
>>
>>Works like a dream.
>>
>>Or, for that matter, you go and buy a barebones PC at the corner computer
>>shop, download Solaris 10 (or order a media kit from Sun) and install it.
>>
>>Yes, I am posting from a box running XP, it's a laptop, and I haven't been
>>able to find a Conexant modem driver for Solaris. The wifi, however,
>>works fine under Solaris 10, and it's just that I'm away from home at the
>>moment and dialled in that means I'm using it.
>
>
> mmmm modem works on XP with default install.
>
>
Yes.

And for the occasional week or two in the year when I am away from a
wifi/LAN connection and don't take an external modem with me I have to
boot XP to check my mail &c.

Still boot into Sol10 to do development and testing and so forth.

Can't really develop or test code for big BIG _BIG_ systems under XP,
the code I write on Sol10 x86 compiles and runs just fine on an E15K,
sadly this is _not_ true for code written under XP, it may not work (or
even compile) on a 2003 Server. And vice-versa.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

--
__________________________________________________ ____________________________
Armful of chairs: Something some people would not know
whether you were up them with or not
- Barry Humphries

[Ext User(Clockmeister)]

"Ernest" <deadly@REM.netspace.net.au> wrote in message
news:huths15mqfr56bip9d8gu6nfgs3l4oq4af@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:26:58 +1100, Dogfart
> <flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, at 19:17:21 [GMT +0800] (22:17:21 Friday, 13 January
>>2006 where I live) "Sandgroper" wrote:
>>
>>> 4) You are too lazy to read anything on the Linux operating system
>>
>>How about:
>>
>>"You want an operating system that works out of the box, without frigging
>>around and wasting time trying to get things to work?"
>
> Then you best buy either Linux

Like fuck, every Windows install since '95 has worked flawlessly on every
computer I've installed it on. Sure, a couple of driver updates may have
been required to smooth out some bugs but every single install was painless
and just worked out of the box.

Linux, not a fucking chance you always have to fuck around to get some basic
thing working.

[Ext User(amosf (Tim Fairchild))]

Clockmeister wrote something like:

>
> "Ernest" <deadly@REM.netspace.net.au> wrote in message
> news:huths15mqfr56bip9d8gu6nfgs3l4oq4af@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:26:58 +1100, Dogfart
>> <flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, at 19:17:21 [GMT +0800] (22:17:21 Friday, 13 January
>>>2006 where I live) "Sandgroper" wrote:
>>>
>>>> 4) You are too lazy to read anything on the Linux operating system
>>>
>>>How about:
>>>
>>>"You want an operating system that works out of the box, without frigging
>>>around and wasting time trying to get things to work?"
>>
>> Then you best buy either Linux
>
> Like fuck, every Windows install since '95 has worked flawlessly on every
> computer I've installed it on. Sure, a couple of driver updates may have
> been required to smooth out some bugs but every single install was
> painless and just worked out of the box.
>
> Linux, not a fucking chance you always have to fuck around to get some
> basic thing working.

Like fuck, every Linux install since '95 has worked flawlessly on every
computer I've installed it on. Sure, a couple of kernel drivers may have
been required to smooth out some bugs but every single install was
painless and just worked out of the box.

Windows, not a fucking chance you always have to fuck around to get some
basic thing working.

:)

--
-
Leafnode. Making usenet a better place.
-

[Ext User(Dogfart)]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, at 11:40:03 [GMT GMT] (22:40:03 Monday, 16 January 2006
where I live) "amosf (Tim Fairchild)" wrote:

> Like fuck, every Linux install since '95 has worked flawlessly on every
> computer I've installed it on. Sure, a couple of kernel drivers may have
> been required to smooth out some bugs but every single install was
> painless and just worked out of the box.
>
> Windows, not a fucking chance you always have to fuck around to get some
> basic thing working.

Why is it? Linux v. Windoze always seems to bring the worst out in most
people?

[Ext User(amosf (Tim Fairchild))]

Dogfart wrote something like:

> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, at 11:40:03 [GMT GMT] (22:40:03 Monday, 16 January
> 2006 where I live) "amosf (Tim Fairchild)" wrote:
>
>> Like fuck, every Linux install since '95 has worked flawlessly on every
>> computer I've installed it on. Sure, a couple of kernel drivers may have
>> been required to smooth out some bugs but every single install was
>> painless and just worked out of the box.
>>
>> Windows, not a fucking chance you always have to fuck around to get some
>> basic thing working.
>
> Why is it? Linux v. Windoze always seems to bring the worst out in most
> people?

I don't know. I use both. They have their uses. Windows esp with games.

Now you quote me here, but that was a direct conversion of the post before,
not my words. I cut and pasted that directly and substituted linux and
windows and editted a couple of words :)

I note you didn't quote the pro-windows user before that who actually used
that language. Are you being a little biased here? :)

--
-
Leafnode. Making usenet a better place.
-

[Ext User(Dogfart)]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, at 01:50:09 [GMT GMT] (12:50:09 Tuesday, 17 January
2006 where I live) "amosf (Tim Fairchild)" wrote:

> I note you didn't quote the pro-windows user before that who actually used
> that language. Are you being a little biased here? :)

Not at all! Personally couldn't care what os I use (even TRSDOS) if it gets
the job done!

Err.. perhaps not "TrashDOS"!