Uh, where the hell did you get the impression that I got angry? Pipe down, cowboy. Take a deep breath.
Being anti-Microsoft for the sake of being anti-Microsoft is lame and based in ignorance.
Indeed. I have lots of reasons to be anti-Microsoft, and none of them is "for the sake of it". But that's beside the point. You made a funny (if faulty) analogy, and I simply carried on by making a humorous reply of my own.
Oh, and before you ask: your analogy was faulty because it didn't take into account that OS licensing is at the core of Microsoft's business, while brick-and-mortar buildings aren't. Therefore, the reasons they like the BSD license are directly related to their business goals (which involve taking free software, modifying it and releasing it back as proprietary), while the reasons why they like solid buildings has nothing to do with their business whatsoever.
I was simply making a joke, but it seems you took it quite seriously, to the point of calling me ignorant. The irony is that in doing so you forced me to expose your own ignorance...better luck next time!
WTF? You explicitly said that Linux was "virus-safe". Don't give me that bullshit. You said it. Explicitly. You're wrong. Explicity.
The words "virus-safe" don't mean "immune from viruses". It means "there are no Linux viruses in the wild therefore Linux is safe from viruses at this point." So, yeah, until there's a Linux virus propagating out there, at a rate sufficient to make the probability of being infected statistically relevant, it is correct to say that Linux is "virus-safe" while Windows is "highly susceptible to virus infection" if you don't have AV installed.
UNIX has fallen victim to worms and viruses.
Yes, but never to the extent that Windows has. Not even in the same order of magnitude. The fact is that, as of today, malware is not a noticeable problem for Linux/UNIX.
Not only that, a stupid user running as root - which is exactly what will happen the first time Joe Sixpack gets pissed off that he can't run xyz without jumping through even the most insignificant of hoops
What wouldn't he be able to run as a regular user, except for administrative stuff? In any case, most administrative programs ask the root password when started as a normal user, and they won't let the user do anything else than what they're supposed to be doing with that program.
Quit ignoring the stupid user problem.
And quit assuming that all users are stupid.
But let's backtrack a little here. Your original point was that since you had a random, weird problem with your Linux install, then Linux is a worthless desktop OS and that people should stick to Windows (and FreeBSD for servers). The problem is that this argument is extremely weak - by the same logic, if I was to have a random, weird problem with Windows XP (and, believe me, people do indeed have those) then it would be considered a worthless desktop OS.
Following this highly emotional, aggressive post, I replied that I had never had this problem, nor have I heard about it much except from people using cooker and other "experimental" distros. Therefore, I correctfully remarked that it was unfair to judge an entire OS just because of what seemed like a corrupted installation and/or hardware problem. This made you even more aggressive and condescending, however the facts remain as they are: you cannot judge Linux on an anomalous, isolated problem, just like I can't judge Windows on similarly anomalous, isolated problems. Therefore, your experience cannot be used to argue against the fact that Linux is indeed ready for many desktops, for the simple fact that Linux works correctly on the vast majority of desktops it's installed on.
Yea, okay Mr. Linux Guru. As an AC already pointed out, the lo probably died. Why? No fucking clue. Why don't you tell me you 1337 penguin, because I sure as hell couldn't find anything wrong.
See what I mean when I speak of aggressiveness and condescension? With that kind of attitude, how can you expect anyone to help you? Tsk tsk.
Ah yes. I've done nothing but complain about X and the two popular window managers and that's anti-Linux even though the two are only superficially related. Of course. So, because X sucks (X being a perfectly viable BSD app, mind you), which invalidates Linux as a good desktop system since nobody seems to be willing to implement an alternative, that's anti-Linux.
Uh, what are you trying to say, exactly? You're not making much sense, I'm afraid. What does X have to do with it? In any case, X most definitely doesn't suck, and X.org development has gained new momentum over the past few weeks. Nobody seems to be willing to implement an alternative because that would be counter-productive. With the imminent inclusion of the Damage extension and other goodness developed by Keith Packard and the other talented X programmers, expect X to blow the competition away in features and performance (don't worry, you'll be able to use it on your precious BSD box).
Go ahead man. Keep going. You're doing well, really.
I know I am. Meanwhile, you should quit before embarrassing yourself any further. It's getting quite pathetic.
Don't be ignorant. If people were keeping themselves in their own damned user accounts on Windows we wouldn't have to worry about viruses that require privileges either.
Wrong. In Windows it is possible to install a program and have it affect system files without being an Administrator - especially when some buffer overflow or other vulnerability is concerned.
Although you'll undoubtedly take this as a personal attack, that statement right there is an example of the wealth of ignorance that plagues the people who insist on touting Linux as some cure all for the computer world's ills.
Please, let's be serious for a moment. I didn't say that Linux was immune from viruses - just that there are virtually no Linux viruses in the wild. There are, what, 40 known viruses for Linux? There are over 50,000 viruses for Windows, several hundreds of which are presently in the wild. That's more than a 1000:1 ratio!! Adjusted for market share, that about 35 times more viruses.
So, while in theory viruses are a threat to Linux, in the real world that threat is negligible, and will remain thus for years. Next!
Why is it that when someone relates a negative experience about Linux they're "whining"?
No, someone is "whining" when they whine. That's what you were doing, so that's how I called it.
This is NOT EXPECTED BEHAVIOR. There were NO changes done to the system during the uptime prior to it crashing.
I seriously doubt this. What distro were you using? Were you using beta versions of software?
A reinstall of Linux failed to resolve the issue.
So let me get this straight: you installed Linux once, it worked fine, then it stopped working without you installing new software and/or changing the configuration, then you reinstalled the same Linux and still it wasn't working? I think I've narrowed down the problem to two possibilities: a) there was a hardware failure (i.e. something broke over time), or b) you made the whole thing up. Considering your aggressive attitude, I'd be tempted to go with b) at this point.
Good answer. "I'm advocating Linux. Windows is bad because of x. Linux isn't bad because of y, however, because other systems aren't good when y occurs"
Try this instead: "saying that Linux is worse than Windows because it exhibits a behavior that Windows also exhibits is an illogical statement." That's what I said - you'd have understood it the first time if you weren't blinded by your mindless anti-Linux zealotry.
Yes, her using Linux does represent real-world experience in meaningful way, even though you seem threatened by that for some reason. And just because you are too ugly to get a girlfriend doesn't mean the rest of us are...
If you're talking about CMYK, then yes, there is a plugin for that. If you're talking about Pantone, then that's up to Pantone to provide the plugin...or for us to wait until their patents are no longer valid. In any case, the program is ready to incorporate those features - it's legal issues that are holding them back.
That's why I said that it's good enough for most users - the exception being those who need Pantone processing. However, Photoshop nowadays is often used for the Web, for Film/TV and/or for video games. For these uses, Gimp 2.0 is a strong contender.
Yes, something changed through no explicit action of my own.
Systems don't just stop working for no reason - except in MS atroturfers' anti-Linux posts. You must have done something to your system, or had a hardware problem, or used beta software.
I have directories with upwards of 1200 files that load faster in Windows than my 200-300 file directories do on Nautilius
I wouldn't know, I use Konqueror. Opening up/usr/bin, with it 2957 files, takes about 10 seconds the first time. Closing it, then opening it again, it takes about 2-3 seconds. Switching from icon view to list view takes less than 2 seconds. I definitely think there was something wrong with your setup. What distro were you using?
Oh, what? You're going to sit here and try to tell me that the Linux community doesn't give itself a bad name the way it acts?
So, because some Linux users have bad manners, that gives you an excuse? The truth is that every OS has its zealots. That doesn't change anything to the fact that you're an arrogant prick.
Respond to my point about why I should switch to Linux then.
Stability, security, price and freedom from vendor lock-in are some good arguments. Now, you may think that it's okay to encourage a convicted monopolist, but I happen to believe that it is very dangerous for the future of the IT industry (and society at large) to place so much power into the hands of a single corporation. People who don't realize this make me think of toads in a pot of water that is slowly brought to a boil. The toad will die without ever realizing the danger he's in, because of the gradual nature of the threat. But, if you don't want to use Linux, then that's your right. I don't see why you'd spend so much energy attacking people who suggest that Linux is read for a lot of desktops, though. Unless you're yet another astroturfer...
They're obnoxious, condescending, boorish, arrogant, and ignorant.
Takes one to know one, I guess. Personally, I've been using Linux for three years and I've perused countless Internet message boards and forums for information. What I've found out is that, contrary to the FUD cliches you shamelessly peddle, Linux users are actually very polite, helpful, friendly and logical. Anti-Linux posters, however, are frequently rude, immature and unhelpful. Your post once again confirmed this image.
RPMs don't have to be executable. The last system I installed had, by default, files ending in.rpm bound to the rpm tool so that double-clicking them launched an install procedure.
...which requires the use of the root password. And if it doesn't come from a trusted software repository, you'll get a warning that the signature doesn't match. That's not foolproof, but at least it gives a bit more time for the user to realize that something's fishy. Compare that to programs automatically launching themselves with administrative rights through a double-click, and tell me with a straight face that one isn't more secure than the other...
the stupid-user-executed-virus isn't going to magically disappear.
For that, Linux viruses would have to actually exist in the wild. Following the "popularity" logic, such viruses will not exist until Linux has a much larger market share. Therefore, there is a definite security gain from switching to Linux at this moment. One can make scenarios as to how it may be in the future, but these are all conjecture. The hard truth is that Linux is virus-safe, and will remain so for years. That in itself is a good argument for switching.
Until then, you're just a bunch of whiny children who think you're oh-so-cool because you're not using Windows.
Kinda ironic, considering you're the whining one. And don't believe that Linux users don't also use Windows. I use both, daily (Windows a bit more than Linux). I consider myself in a good position to judge the merits of both.
Linux (Mandrake 10.0): on main toolbar, click on Control Center. Then click on Software, then Install New Software. Choose the software you want from the categorized list. Click on Install. Sit back and relax.
Things are as easy (or easier) with Red Carpet, Linspire Click'N'Run, the Lycoris isntaller (whose name eludes me for the moment) and Xandros Networks. For those who really want a Windows-type installer, autopackage.org is coming along quite nicely. It's also possible to use the Loki installer, or the OpenOffice installer.
The point is: you don't need to go to the command line in Linux if you don't want to. To claim that you're obligated to is just more FUD from the MS astroturfers.
Windows XP doesn't have 100% app and hardware support, why should Linux be expected to? BTW, regarding Photoshop, Gimp 2.0 is an acceptable substitute for 95% of uses.
So that one day, after no changes what-so-ever, it just stopped working? I'd say that's a good argument for not using Linux on the desktop...
Well, definitely something changed, right? Otherwise it wouldn't just have stopped working. Again, it's pretty clear that something was wrong on your system because - here at least - Mandrake 10 works flawlessly.
See, all you Linux people are amusing.
And you're incredibly condescending. May I politely suggest that you go screw yourself?
Are most Linux distros secure out of the box? HA! Hell no.
More secure than Windows boxes, for sure (i.e. less services set up by default).
There's no reason to expect that mailed executables targetted at most of the home users wouldn't still largely be run.
Actually, there is: attachments cannot be made executable by default. And most clueless users will not know what a.rpm is, but rather will use the distro's software installer which will only connect to official repositories.
not counting that little fact that there are hardly any worthwhile apps for it
Actually, there are quire a few worthwhile apps for it, and a lot more if you use Crossover Office. But I get it - you're not interested in having a rational discourse, only to spread FUD against Linux. Oh well, just another Troll under the bridge. Have a nice day.
Now, just try to image, TRY to imagine those people installing a new program under Linux.
You haven't used a Linux system in a while. Installing programs is now easier and quicker than under Windows if you have an Internet connection.
My gf is a complete non-geek, computer neophyte. I set her up an account on my Linux box. Now she uses it as much as her Windows 98 box...actually, she uses the Linux box more often, because it's a more powerful computer and the media player shows better performance. She had very little trouble adjusting to the change. So real-world experience seems to contradict your assertion...
Most people don't use Photoshop, After Effects and Premiere. And they buy 50-100$ HP or Epson scanners that work just fine with Linux.
Linux is good enough to go on most desktop, as most people use computers for 3 specific tasks: e-mail, web browsing and general Office stuff.
One might want to add P2P (Apollon rocks!) and games, but most serious gamers I know (and I know a lot, considering I work as a designer for a game developer) play on consoles, not computers (except for FPS and RTS games, which are well-represented on Linux).
Did you consider the fact that your Linux system was misconfigured? I haven't encountered any of the problems you mention. My Linux system (Mandrake 10) boots up in an amount of time comparable to Windows, and starting up applications is quite snappy.
This is the sort of assinine nonsense that makes Linux supporters look like completely raving idiots.
One could say exactly the same thing about your comment and *BSD supporters.
You must have missed the fact that the Kurds are fuming about the latest development in Iraq. Some prominent Kurdish leaders have already stated that once again the Kurds have been betrayed.
The war on terror should always have been considered a law enforcement issue, not a military one. Bush's biggest mistake was to believe he could simply use the U.S. unsurpassed military might to make everyone get along with everyone else.
I fail to see the relevance of your question. We were talking about the exact market share figure of Linux, not whether Windows was dominating or not. Of course Windows is dominating the market! What's that got to do with the current discussion, which is about the discrepancy between Google Zeitgeist and IDC figures? Nothing.
If you're going to argue with the big boys, make sure you know what you're doing, m'kay?
If I'd put the figures in my first post, we wouldn't have had the occasion to trade arguments. A bit boring, isn't it? I'd rather keep the hard data for the coup de grace.
As far as broadband is concerned, until we know for sure how Google calculates its Zeitgeist figures, it is still a valid theory. You may not agree with it, but it is possible. Anyway, no hard feelings.
OK, I'm talking to a guy who will nitpick Google's 1% to death
Why do you feel the need to exaggerate to make a point? I didn't "nitpick" to death, I just noted that I don't feel that Google's Zeitgeist is an accurate representation of Market Share.
but then thinks it's perfectly OK throw out a number like "2.5%" with no source whatsoever and then claim it's "generally accepted"
You see, contrary to what your knee-jerk reaction has led you to believe, I didn't start by saying: "Google Zeitgeist puts Linux at 1%? That's way too low! I'm sure I can find reasons to justify my biased views!" What really happened is that I already knew that IDC and others put Linux at approximately 2.5% of the desktop market, so when I saw Google's figures I thought "Hmmm...there seems to be a discrepancy between Google's index, which does not profess to represent accurate market share figures, and the numbers of respected research firms. I wonder what could cause that difference..."
See the problem with your argument?? Maybe, just maybe, that's why people think you are an irrational zealot.
In light of this it seems you shouldn't be so quick in calling other people zealots. You'd look less like one yourself.
By the way, right now I'm a Windows user. So please, do suck on it.
Ha ha. I wasn't saying that Linux Counter is an accurate measure. I was saying that 2.5% is the generally accepted market share figure for Linux. Out of 800 million computers, that's about 20 million Linux computers. It just so happens that this is close to Linux counter's 18 million estimate. I was merely pointing out the fact that Linux counter seemed close to the generally accepted figure. No need to be all uppity about it...
...which goes back to my original argument that Google Zeitgeist is not an accurate representation of market share, whatever the method employed. You're probably right that the IP address method is no more accurate than the cookie one, or a per-access one. And yet MS apologists keep citing that figure with smug arrogance...
Okay, let's assume for a moment that Google uses cookies. This introduces its own random element into the statistics, i.e. people who reject cookies, or clean out their cookies regularly (I know at least two Windows users who do this regularly, even though I've told them it's useless). These will greatly increase the margin of error. With that in mind, it's pretty clear that a measurement of 1% would be anything but precise.
Anyway, since none of us knows for sure how Zeitgeist makes its calculations, and what the margin of error is, the least we can do is agree that it should not be taken as an accurate representation of Market Share, as anti-Linux advocates and astroturfers are fond of doing...
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, where the hell did you get the impression that I got angry? Pipe down, cowboy. Take a deep breath.
Being anti-Microsoft for the sake of being anti-Microsoft is lame and based in ignorance.
Indeed. I have lots of reasons to be anti-Microsoft, and none of them is "for the sake of it". But that's beside the point. You made a funny (if faulty) analogy, and I simply carried on by making a humorous reply of my own.
Oh, and before you ask: your analogy was faulty because it didn't take into account that OS licensing is at the core of Microsoft's business, while brick-and-mortar buildings aren't. Therefore, the reasons they like the BSD license are directly related to their business goals (which involve taking free software, modifying it and releasing it back as proprietary), while the reasons why they like solid buildings has nothing to do with their business whatsoever.
I was simply making a joke, but it seems you took it quite seriously, to the point of calling me ignorant. The irony is that in doing so you forced me to expose your own ignorance...better luck next time!
Does Microsoft hold a monopoly on the construction business?
/shudders to even think about it...
It is measured in bits per second per Hertz (bit/s/Hz).
Maybe I'm just an idiot, but wouldn't it be simpler to just use "bps/Hz" or "baud/Hz"? That's one funky looking unit there...
Support is still in its early stages, but from what I hear it's useable.
l
http://www.blackfiveservices.co.uk/separate.shtml
http://www.freecolormanagement.com/color/gimp.htm
WTF? You explicitly said that Linux was "virus-safe". Don't give me that bullshit. You said it. Explicitly. You're wrong. Explicity.
The words "virus-safe" don't mean "immune from viruses". It means "there are no Linux viruses in the wild therefore Linux is safe from viruses at this point." So, yeah, until there's a Linux virus propagating out there, at a rate sufficient to make the probability of being infected statistically relevant, it is correct to say that Linux is "virus-safe" while Windows is "highly susceptible to virus infection" if you don't have AV installed.
UNIX has fallen victim to worms and viruses.
Yes, but never to the extent that Windows has. Not even in the same order of magnitude. The fact is that, as of today, malware is not a noticeable problem for Linux/UNIX.
Not only that, a stupid user running as root - which is exactly what will happen the first time Joe Sixpack gets pissed off that he can't run xyz without jumping through even the most insignificant of hoops
What wouldn't he be able to run as a regular user, except for administrative stuff? In any case, most administrative programs ask the root password when started as a normal user, and they won't let the user do anything else than what they're supposed to be doing with that program.
Quit ignoring the stupid user problem.
And quit assuming that all users are stupid.
But let's backtrack a little here. Your original point was that since you had a random, weird problem with your Linux install, then Linux is a worthless desktop OS and that people should stick to Windows (and FreeBSD for servers). The problem is that this argument is extremely weak - by the same logic, if I was to have a random, weird problem with Windows XP (and, believe me, people do indeed have those) then it would be considered a worthless desktop OS.
Following this highly emotional, aggressive post, I replied that I had never had this problem, nor have I heard about it much except from people using cooker and other "experimental" distros. Therefore, I correctfully remarked that it was unfair to judge an entire OS just because of what seemed like a corrupted installation and/or hardware problem. This made you even more aggressive and condescending, however the facts remain as they are: you cannot judge Linux on an anomalous, isolated problem, just like I can't judge Windows on similarly anomalous, isolated problems. Therefore, your experience cannot be used to argue against the fact that Linux is indeed ready for many desktops, for the simple fact that Linux works correctly on the vast majority of desktops it's installed on.
Yea, okay Mr. Linux Guru. As an AC already pointed out, the lo probably died. Why? No fucking clue. Why don't you tell me you 1337 penguin, because I sure as hell couldn't find anything wrong.
See what I mean when I speak of aggressiveness and condescension? With that kind of attitude, how can you expect anyone to help you? Tsk tsk.
Ah yes. I've done nothing but complain about X and the two popular window managers and that's anti-Linux even though the two are only superficially related. Of course. So, because X sucks (X being a perfectly viable BSD app, mind you), which invalidates Linux as a good desktop system since nobody seems to be willing to implement an alternative, that's anti-Linux.
Uh, what are you trying to say, exactly? You're not making much sense, I'm afraid. What does X have to do with it? In any case, X most definitely doesn't suck, and X.org development has gained new momentum over the past few weeks. Nobody seems to be willing to implement an alternative because that would be counter-productive. With the imminent inclusion of the Damage extension and other goodness developed by Keith Packard and the other talented X programmers, expect X to blow the competition away in features and performance (don't worry, you'll be able to use it on your precious BSD box).
Go ahead man. Keep going. You're doing well, really.
I know I am. Meanwhile, you should quit before embarrassing yourself any further. It's getting quite pathetic.
Don't be ignorant. If people were keeping themselves in their own damned user accounts on Windows we wouldn't have to worry about viruses that require privileges either.
Wrong. In Windows it is possible to install a program and have it affect system files without being an Administrator - especially when some buffer overflow or other vulnerability is concerned.
Although you'll undoubtedly take this as a personal attack, that statement right there is an example of the wealth of ignorance that plagues the people who insist on touting Linux as some cure all for the computer world's ills.
Please, let's be serious for a moment. I didn't say that Linux was immune from viruses - just that there are virtually no Linux viruses in the wild. There are, what, 40 known viruses for Linux? There are over 50,000 viruses for Windows, several hundreds of which are presently in the wild. That's more than a 1000:1 ratio!! Adjusted for market share, that about 35 times more viruses.
So, while in theory viruses are a threat to Linux, in the real world that threat is negligible, and will remain thus for years. Next!
Why is it that when someone relates a negative experience about Linux they're "whining"?
No, someone is "whining" when they whine. That's what you were doing, so that's how I called it.
This is NOT EXPECTED BEHAVIOR. There were NO changes done to the system during the uptime prior to it crashing.
I seriously doubt this. What distro were you using? Were you using beta versions of software?
A reinstall of Linux failed to resolve the issue.
So let me get this straight: you installed Linux once, it worked fine, then it stopped working without you installing new software and/or changing the configuration, then you reinstalled the same Linux and still it wasn't working? I think I've narrowed down the problem to two possibilities: a) there was a hardware failure (i.e. something broke over time), or b) you made the whole thing up. Considering your aggressive attitude, I'd be tempted to go with b) at this point.
Good answer. "I'm advocating Linux. Windows is bad because of x. Linux isn't bad because of y, however, because other systems aren't good when y occurs"
Try this instead: "saying that Linux is worse than Windows because it exhibits a behavior that Windows also exhibits is an illogical statement." That's what I said - you'd have understood it the first time if you weren't blinded by your mindless anti-Linux zealotry.
whether he fucked it up or linux fucked it up, you'd think it would be a little less ambiguous as to why things stop working.
It would only matter if Windows or BSD were themselves unambiguous in the same situation.
Yes, her using Linux does represent real-world experience in meaningful way, even though you seem threatened by that for some reason. And just because you are too ugly to get a girlfriend doesn't mean the rest of us are...
If you're talking about CMYK, then yes, there is a plugin for that. If you're talking about Pantone, then that's up to Pantone to provide the plugin...or for us to wait until their patents are no longer valid. In any case, the program is ready to incorporate those features - it's legal issues that are holding them back.
That's why I said that it's good enough for most users - the exception being those who need Pantone processing. However, Photoshop nowadays is often used for the Web, for Film/TV and/or for video games. For these uses, Gimp 2.0 is a strong contender.
Yes, something changed through no explicit action of my own.
/usr/bin, with it 2957 files, takes about 10 seconds the first time. Closing it, then opening it again, it takes about 2-3 seconds. Switching from icon view to list view takes less than 2 seconds. I definitely think there was something wrong with your setup. What distro were you using?
.rpm bound to the rpm tool so that double-clicking them launched an install procedure.
Systems don't just stop working for no reason - except in MS atroturfers' anti-Linux posts. You must have done something to your system, or had a hardware problem, or used beta software.
I have directories with upwards of 1200 files that load faster in Windows than my 200-300 file directories do on Nautilius
I wouldn't know, I use Konqueror. Opening up
Oh, what? You're going to sit here and try to tell me that the Linux community doesn't give itself a bad name the way it acts?
So, because some Linux users have bad manners, that gives you an excuse? The truth is that every OS has its zealots. That doesn't change anything to the fact that you're an arrogant prick.
Respond to my point about why I should switch to Linux then.
Stability, security, price and freedom from vendor lock-in are some good arguments. Now, you may think that it's okay to encourage a convicted monopolist, but I happen to believe that it is very dangerous for the future of the IT industry (and society at large) to place so much power into the hands of a single corporation. People who don't realize this make me think of toads in a pot of water that is slowly brought to a boil. The toad will die without ever realizing the danger he's in, because of the gradual nature of the threat. But, if you don't want to use Linux, then that's your right. I don't see why you'd spend so much energy attacking people who suggest that Linux is read for a lot of desktops, though. Unless you're yet another astroturfer...
They're obnoxious, condescending, boorish, arrogant, and ignorant.
Takes one to know one, I guess. Personally, I've been using Linux for three years and I've perused countless Internet message boards and forums for information. What I've found out is that, contrary to the FUD cliches you shamelessly peddle, Linux users are actually very polite, helpful, friendly and logical. Anti-Linux posters, however, are frequently rude, immature and unhelpful. Your post once again confirmed this image.
RPMs don't have to be executable. The last system I installed had, by default, files ending in
...which requires the use of the root password. And if it doesn't come from a trusted software repository, you'll get a warning that the signature doesn't match. That's not foolproof, but at least it gives a bit more time for the user to realize that something's fishy. Compare that to programs automatically launching themselves with administrative rights through a double-click, and tell me with a straight face that one isn't more secure than the other...
the stupid-user-executed-virus isn't going to magically disappear.
For that, Linux viruses would have to actually exist in the wild. Following the "popularity" logic, such viruses will not exist until Linux has a much larger market share. Therefore, there is a definite security gain from switching to Linux at this moment. One can make scenarios as to how it may be in the future, but these are all conjecture. The hard truth is that Linux is virus-safe, and will remain so for years. That in itself is a good argument for switching.
Until then, you're just a bunch of whiny children who think you're oh-so-cool because you're not using Windows.
Kinda ironic, considering you're the whining one. And don't believe that Linux users don't also use Windows. I use both, daily (Windows a bit more than Linux). I consider myself in a good position to judge the merits of both.
Yea, okay, I'm a troll
At least you admit it. That's a start.
FUD, or just ignorance?
Linux (Mandrake 10.0): on main toolbar, click on Control Center. Then click on Software, then Install New Software. Choose the software you want from the categorized list. Click on Install. Sit back and relax.
Things are as easy (or easier) with Red Carpet, Linspire Click'N'Run, the Lycoris isntaller (whose name eludes me for the moment) and Xandros Networks. For those who really want a Windows-type installer, autopackage.org is coming along quite nicely. It's also possible to use the Loki installer, or the OpenOffice installer.
The point is: you don't need to go to the command line in Linux if you don't want to. To claim that you're obligated to is just more FUD from the MS astroturfers.
Windows XP doesn't have 100% app and hardware support, why should Linux be expected to? BTW, regarding Photoshop, Gimp 2.0 is an acceptable substitute for 95% of uses.
So that one day, after no changes what-so-ever, it just stopped working? I'd say that's a good argument for not using Linux on the desktop...
.rpm is, but rather will use the distro's software installer which will only connect to official repositories.
Well, definitely something changed, right? Otherwise it wouldn't just have stopped working. Again, it's pretty clear that something was wrong on your system because - here at least - Mandrake 10 works flawlessly.
See, all you Linux people are amusing.
And you're incredibly condescending. May I politely suggest that you go screw yourself?
Are most Linux distros secure out of the box? HA! Hell no.
More secure than Windows boxes, for sure (i.e. less services set up by default).
There's no reason to expect that mailed executables targetted at most of the home users wouldn't still largely be run.
Actually, there is: attachments cannot be made executable by default. And most clueless users will not know what a
not counting that little fact that there are hardly any worthwhile apps for it
Actually, there are quire a few worthwhile apps for it, and a lot more if you use Crossover Office. But I get it - you're not interested in having a rational discourse, only to spread FUD against Linux. Oh well, just another Troll under the bridge. Have a nice day.
Now, just try to image, TRY to imagine those people installing a new program under Linux.
You haven't used a Linux system in a while. Installing programs is now easier and quicker than under Windows if you have an Internet connection.
My gf is a complete non-geek, computer neophyte. I set her up an account on my Linux box. Now she uses it as much as her Windows 98 box...actually, she uses the Linux box more often, because it's a more powerful computer and the media player shows better performance. She had very little trouble adjusting to the change. So real-world experience seems to contradict your assertion...
My Samsung printer also came with a Penguin logo.
Most people don't use Photoshop, After Effects and Premiere. And they buy 50-100$ HP or Epson scanners that work just fine with Linux.
Linux is good enough to go on most desktop, as most people use computers for 3 specific tasks: e-mail, web browsing and general Office stuff.
One might want to add P2P (Apollon rocks!) and games, but most serious gamers I know (and I know a lot, considering I work as a designer for a game developer) play on consoles, not computers (except for FPS and RTS games, which are well-represented on Linux).
Did you consider the fact that your Linux system was misconfigured? I haven't encountered any of the problems you mention. My Linux system (Mandrake 10) boots up in an amount of time comparable to Windows, and starting up applications is quite snappy.
This is the sort of assinine nonsense that makes Linux supporters look like completely raving idiots.
One could say exactly the same thing about your comment and *BSD supporters.
Read up on a guy named Napoleon Bonaparte. He won more than his fair share of wars (though he got exiled in the end).
You must have missed the fact that the Kurds are fuming about the latest development in Iraq. Some prominent Kurdish leaders have already stated that once again the Kurds have been betrayed.
The war on terror should always have been considered a law enforcement issue, not a military one. Bush's biggest mistake was to believe he could simply use the U.S. unsurpassed military might to make everyone get along with everyone else.
I fail to see the relevance of your question. We were talking about the exact market share figure of Linux, not whether Windows was dominating or not. Of course Windows is dominating the market! What's that got to do with the current discussion, which is about the discrepancy between Google Zeitgeist and IDC figures? Nothing.
If you're going to argue with the big boys, make sure you know what you're doing, m'kay?
If I'd put the figures in my first post, we wouldn't have had the occasion to trade arguments. A bit boring, isn't it? I'd rather keep the hard data for the coup de grace.
As far as broadband is concerned, until we know for sure how Google calculates its Zeitgeist figures, it is still a valid theory. You may not agree with it, but it is possible. Anyway, no hard feelings.
OK, I'm talking to a guy who will nitpick Google's 1% to death
Why do you feel the need to exaggerate to make a point? I didn't "nitpick" to death, I just noted that I don't feel that Google's Zeitgeist is an accurate representation of Market Share.
but then thinks it's perfectly OK throw out a number like "2.5%" with no source whatsoever and then claim it's "generally accepted"
Is IDC a good enough source for you? This , by Paul Thurrott no less, gives a 2.3% market share in 2002. Are you going to call IDC a dubious source, and Thurrott an irrational Linux zealot as well? Oh, and those are desktop figures, according to the article.
But wait a minute - it seems I was too conservative in my assessment: for 2003, IDC gives Linux on the desktop 2.8 percent, not 2.5!
You see, contrary to what your knee-jerk reaction has led you to believe, I didn't start by saying: "Google Zeitgeist puts Linux at 1%? That's way too low! I'm sure I can find reasons to justify my biased views!" What really happened is that I already knew that IDC and others put Linux at approximately 2.5% of the desktop market, so when I saw Google's figures I thought "Hmmm...there seems to be a discrepancy between Google's index, which does not profess to represent accurate market share figures, and the numbers of respected research firms. I wonder what could cause that difference..."
See the problem with your argument?? Maybe, just maybe, that's why people think you are an irrational zealot.
In light of this it seems you shouldn't be so quick in calling other people zealots. You'd look less like one yourself.
By the way, right now I'm a Windows user. So please, do suck on it.
Ha ha. I wasn't saying that Linux Counter is an accurate measure. I was saying that 2.5% is the generally accepted market share figure for Linux. Out of 800 million computers, that's about 20 million Linux computers. It just so happens that this is close to Linux counter's 18 million estimate. I was merely pointing out the fact that Linux counter seemed close to the generally accepted figure. No need to be all uppity about it...
...which goes back to my original argument that Google Zeitgeist is not an accurate representation of market share, whatever the method employed. You're probably right that the IP address method is no more accurate than the cookie one, or a per-access one. And yet MS apologists keep citing that figure with smug arrogance...
Okay, let's assume for a moment that Google uses cookies. This introduces its own random element into the statistics, i.e. people who reject cookies, or clean out their cookies regularly (I know at least two Windows users who do this regularly, even though I've told them it's useless). These will greatly increase the margin of error. With that in mind, it's pretty clear that a measurement of 1% would be anything but precise.
Anyway, since none of us knows for sure how Zeitgeist makes its calculations, and what the margin of error is, the least we can do is agree that it should not be taken as an accurate representation of Market Share, as anti-Linux advocates and astroturfers are fond of doing...