It's all about using the big words when you persuade them to switch.
So, basically, you're using the same questionable tactics to attract users that you soundly criticise when coming from any other "camp"? Sounds like more of the standard OSS "do as I say, not as I do" heroics.
You really are one of the stupidest, most illiterate "people" stumbling around this web site, aren't you? It's even funnier when you act superior, as in the post I am replying to right now.
Face some facts, Junior, mindless zealots like you are a dime-a-dozen, and your startlingly comprehensive ignorance makes you much worse than any Microsoft fan. It is nice, however, to now have another example to use in my "why nobody likes linux fanboys" conversations.
But, it was clever of you to pick a nickname that outlines your level of communication skill and IQ in one fell-swoop.
It is quite normal for teenage boys with no social life(something they have no control over) to hide in their basement.
Oh, baloney. A healthy vast majority of the basement cretins I've known are ostracized because they've got the same "I'm better than you because I hate sports" attitude that makes so many of the Slashbots unlikable, unironically. That's controllable.
Unquestionably, Microsoft has an image problem, so I grant you that. In my opinion, only nerds are bothered enough to instantly doubt "generous" contributions. You yourself said above, "a surprising proportion of IT people," which is my point. Jerry the electrician probably won't doubt it and he's a hyuuuuge percentage of Microsoft's clientele. If Jerry does have some doubts, they're probably not any different than he would
have over the philanthropy of any large company.
In summary, Microsoft ain't any worse than AT&T, McDonald's or Toyota to the average jerk. The public at large is used to being forced into upgrades and the corporate mumbo-jumbo and what Microsoft does is just typical business. Need an example? Sure -- who makes a VCR (or CD player, etc) that lasts for more than five years now-a-days?
For what it's worth, I use both Microsoft and non-Microsoft products and don't wish to come off as being biased in either direction.
[Microsoft] can't even donate money to schools without people thinking they're trying to brainwash kids!
That's what Slashdot thinks, not people. Ask the non-linux zealot in the street what he thinks of a Microsoft donation to schools and I guarantee that it's a lot more reasonable.
Soon, we'll see 500+ snide comments about how Microsoft is on its last legs. In the same duration, Microsoft will have earned about ten million dollars and will have left linux a little further behind.
Too much talking, guys, and not enough doing. As much as you apparently enjoy these long, drawn out anti-Microsoft circlejerks, all it really means is less time to create any actual alternatives. Don't tell me that you're not really the world-class coder that you claim to be. That would be lying... on Slashdot... and I won't hear of that.
All totally true except this. Many bands, even the large ones, insist on using the same war-torn equipment that they use on the road to maintain "their sound". Using Nirvana as an example again, Cobain used a $30 pawn shop accoustic (with 5 ancient strings), a couple Frankenstein electrics and comparatively junk amps and pedals to record Nevermind. Objectively speaking, he probably didn't have $1000 worth of equipment for that recording.
I agree that F1 is, in terms of actual racing, about as riveting as watching paint dry, but any car-guy-geek who doesn't get a chubby at the idea of a BMW V10 turning just shy of 20K rpms ain't no geek at all.
NASCAR seems like the antithesis of technology to me but, as you said, that's just an opinion.
Domain name registration does not seem to be a major source of spam
On this one, I call bullshit. My domain registrations are the only public displays of one e-mail address and that account gets between 10 and 30 spam messages daily. Since that happened, I have given that address up for dead and started using it as a catch-all shit account, but it all started with domain regs.
No, I wade through that junk account once every week or two with Mailwasher, so anything that's vital still gets through (albeit much more slowly than my main account that is checked every ten minutes). I am not saying that spam is invisible, but I am claiming that it is far from making e-mail as "useless" as the original poster claimed if one uses common sense. And, because my main account is crap-free, I don't have to put up with my computer shouting at me every time some jerk figures I need a bigger penis. THAT would bug me exponentially more than spending five minutes weekly to run Mailwasher on the crap account.
Besides, in five years of owning four domains, I have received less than a half-dozen legitimate e-mails to the admin contact. Probably 80% of those, even, have been, "want to buy my.org version of what you already have?" I can live with the thought of those being lost in space.
Email is becomming a useless means of communication for far too many people
That's because they're stupid. My main e-mail address is pushing two years old and has received three pieces of spam (all dumb-luck matches). I have a crap account that appears on my domain name registrations and anywhere else that is likely to garner crap mail. Virtually every ISP worth its weight in beans offers more than one e-mail address with an account, so why is this so difficult?
This has nothing to do with being a luddite, either. People, by and large, have learned that handing out one's personal information to sketchy operations will probably result in either endless telemarketing phone calls or mountains of junk mail. As a result, there are roughly 6.2 million people living at 123 1st street with the phone number 555-1212. Why is that same logic STILL not being applied on the web by these same "educated" consumers?
Junk mail is an utter non-issue to those with any common sense and computer savvy has little to do with it.
And you are a sad pathetic fuck for not knowing better than to use the words "intellectual property" when asking RMS a question.
Yeah, otherwise he'd have to actually defend himself instead of attacking the questioner. That guy is as useless as a no-mouth dog at a frisbee contest.
The problem is that there are no new models for those of us who just want a fucking phone. Believe it or not, there is a large demographic that just wants a mobile phone. Just a phone. Not something that has ten million other irritations that are purely unwelcome, no games, no screensavers and no web access. Just a phone.
If you want one of these abominations, have fun. Meanwhile, the manufacturers are missing out on a lot of revenue from people like me who want a new phone, but not an arcade in my pocket.
With all the bullshit, useless gimmicks built into phones these days, why not a programmable "peak/off peak" timer to take into account the fact that different carriers start evenings and weekends at different times? Then again, I suppose that would take valuable memory space that is better suited to, what, a "your weight on Jupiter" calculator that is probably being offered soon.
God forbid that phones actually do phone-related things.
Well, I didn't think I had related anything to the Slashbots in that last comment, but you are free to interpret as you wish.
What I am saying is that I've never met anyone with corporate signing authority who cares about the points you listed (with, again, the exceptions). I have, however, met a few who are turned off by specific aspects of the linux "revolution" that are often the parts that techies like most. For example, distributed peer support. Even CTOs or CEOs who may ordinarily consider alternatives get darty-eyed at the idea of a midnight crash with something like Red Hat and news groups as the only lines of support.
Microsoft and Sun, despite the costs, are guaranteed to be there in a year. Red Hat isn't and I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that this means a lot more in most offices than an ability to recompile the kernel.
I am sure that there are companies specializing in linux support, but I can't name even one. I haven't looked, mind you, but the fact that nothing comes to mind means that they can't be doing a very good job of promoting their presence.
Like many others, I have worked in IT departments of relatively large companies and, while it seems that linux is somewhat popular in the trenches, I assure you that nerds are not the ones who cut infrastructure development cheques. Those who do are not particularly impressed by the points you originally made, with the possible exceptions I have noted.
The suits are well aware that "third-party" vendors such as Red Hat are hanging by a thread and that a vast majority of linux development happens in someone's basement. I have personally seen the tide turn in board meetings simply because Sun, Microsoft and others look rock-solid economically in comparison. Despite Microsoft's EOLing of several common products, it still looks like a better deal to Joe CEO than the image of some geek being fed up and dropping support at a moment's notice. Sure, others can take up the task, but that requires time and leaves the entire thing in purgatory until it happens. On the other hand, until Microsoft says, "that's it, no more support on product X," it will be supported come hell or high water. Big difference.
Someone doesn't get it, that's for sure. In your original post, you listed reasons why linux "is so popular." You didn't say anything about how it's only popular to fringe groups like this one, which make up a comically small piece of the overall pie.
So, indirectly, you have supported my point. The fact that it holds any value only to "sophisticated" (read: smug) users, when coupled with the insignificant percentage of the world that falls into such a category, means that its not popular. I will avoid a re-hashed commentary on how the points you listed polarize the entire "popularity" even further.
By your logic, if I am incredibly handsome to only blind women (probably true), should I then write a comment stating "why I am so handsome"? People would rightfully laugh, and so I laugh.
It will defeat Windows if for nothing other than that it's free, as is it's office applications
Nice try. History has shown that people are happy to pay for something when there are free alternatives when the paid product is even marginally better or the free product requires more energy. Why else are there shopping mall tax return kiosks?
Linux is already free, but Windows 2000 and XP are still better products for a desktop PC. Windows: 98%, Linux: ~1%. Thus, you're wrong.
Oh, this makes no sense. Of your impressive list, only 1 and possibly 5 mean anything to anyone who doesn't hang out at Slashdot. Furthermore, how popular is linux anyway when less than 1% of worldwide non-Slashdot users have any interest in it at all? Additionally, things like X11 "support" are subjective positives, as there are a large number of people who think X is a dramatic weakness in comparison to Win2000 and OS X. Oh, and it's a pretty wild stretch to call basement hackers "third party support," not that it's ever stopped pundits before.
All this wishful thinking, while fun to watch, is little more than that.
Slashdot Mirror
You'll fit in very well here at Slashdot.
So, basically, you're using the same questionable tactics to attract users that you soundly criticise when coming from any other "camp"? Sounds like more of the standard OSS "do as I say, not as I do" heroics.
Careful : your hypocrisy is showing.
Face some facts, Junior, mindless zealots like you are a dime-a-dozen, and your startlingly comprehensive ignorance makes you much worse than any Microsoft fan. It is nice, however, to now have another example to use in my "why nobody likes linux fanboys" conversations.
But, it was clever of you to pick a nickname that outlines your level of communication skill and IQ in one fell-swoop.
Oh, baloney. A healthy vast majority of the basement cretins I've known are ostracized because they've got the same "I'm better than you because I hate sports" attitude that makes so many of the Slashbots unlikable, unironically. That's controllable.
In summary, Microsoft ain't any worse than AT&T, McDonald's or Toyota to the average jerk. The public at large is used to being forced into upgrades and the corporate mumbo-jumbo and what Microsoft does is just typical business. Need an example? Sure -- who makes a VCR (or CD player, etc) that lasts for more than five years now-a-days?
For what it's worth, I use both Microsoft and non-Microsoft products and don't wish to come off as being biased in either direction.
That's what Slashdot thinks, not people. Ask the non-linux zealot in the street what he thinks of a Microsoft donation to schools and I guarantee that it's a lot more reasonable.
Maybe I'm out of touch with the "new math," but how many different ways are there to count this?
Too much talking, guys, and not enough doing. As much as you apparently enjoy these long, drawn out anti-Microsoft circlejerks, all it really means is less time to create any actual alternatives. Don't tell me that you're not really the world-class coder that you claim to be. That would be lying... on Slashdot... and I won't hear of that.
All totally true except this. Many bands, even the large ones, insist on using the same war-torn equipment that they use on the road to maintain "their sound". Using Nirvana as an example again, Cobain used a $30 pawn shop accoustic (with 5 ancient strings), a couple Frankenstein electrics and comparatively junk amps and pedals to record Nevermind. Objectively speaking, he probably didn't have $1000 worth of equipment for that recording.
Just being picky.
...was missing. How does it feel to be dying? I mean, Netcraft has confirmed it and everything.
What did I win?
NASCAR seems like the antithesis of technology to me but, as you said, that's just an opinion.
People who actually like high-tech automotive engineering watch WRC or F1.
On this one, I call bullshit. My domain registrations are the only public displays of one e-mail address and that account gets between 10 and 30 spam messages daily. Since that happened, I have given that address up for dead and started using it as a catch-all shit account, but it all started with domain regs.
Besides, in five years of owning four domains, I have received less than a half-dozen legitimate e-mails to the admin contact. Probably 80% of those, even, have been, "want to buy my .org version of what you already have?" I can live with the thought of those being lost in space.
That's because they're stupid. My main e-mail address is pushing two years old and has received three pieces of spam (all dumb-luck matches). I have a crap account that appears on my domain name registrations and anywhere else that is likely to garner crap mail. Virtually every ISP worth its weight in beans offers more than one e-mail address with an account, so why is this so difficult?
This has nothing to do with being a luddite, either. People, by and large, have learned that handing out one's personal information to sketchy operations will probably result in either endless telemarketing phone calls or mountains of junk mail. As a result, there are roughly 6.2 million people living at 123 1st street with the phone number 555-1212. Why is that same logic STILL not being applied on the web by these same "educated" consumers?
Junk mail is an utter non-issue to those with any common sense and computer savvy has little to do with it.
Yeah, otherwise he'd have to actually defend himself instead of attacking the questioner. That guy is as useless as a no-mouth dog at a frisbee contest.
That's a very slick little phone (especially the external LCD)... thanks for the heads up.
If you want one of these abominations, have fun. Meanwhile, the manufacturers are missing out on a lot of revenue from people like me who want a new phone, but not an arcade in my pocket.
God forbid that phones actually do phone-related things.
What I am saying is that I've never met anyone with corporate signing authority who cares about the points you listed (with, again, the exceptions). I have, however, met a few who are turned off by specific aspects of the linux "revolution" that are often the parts that techies like most. For example, distributed peer support. Even CTOs or CEOs who may ordinarily consider alternatives get darty-eyed at the idea of a midnight crash with something like Red Hat and news groups as the only lines of support.
Microsoft and Sun, despite the costs, are guaranteed to be there in a year. Red Hat isn't and I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that this means a lot more in most offices than an ability to recompile the kernel.
I am sure that there are companies specializing in linux support, but I can't name even one. I haven't looked, mind you, but the fact that nothing comes to mind means that they can't be doing a very good job of promoting their presence.
The suits are well aware that "third-party" vendors such as Red Hat are hanging by a thread and that a vast majority of linux development happens in someone's basement. I have personally seen the tide turn in board meetings simply because Sun, Microsoft and others look rock-solid economically in comparison. Despite Microsoft's EOLing of several common products, it still looks like a better deal to Joe CEO than the image of some geek being fed up and dropping support at a moment's notice. Sure, others can take up the task, but that requires time and leaves the entire thing in purgatory until it happens. On the other hand, until Microsoft says, "that's it, no more support on product X," it will be supported come hell or high water. Big difference.
So, indirectly, you have supported my point. The fact that it holds any value only to "sophisticated" (read: smug) users, when coupled with the insignificant percentage of the world that falls into such a category, means that its not popular. I will avoid a re-hashed commentary on how the points you listed polarize the entire "popularity" even further.
By your logic, if I am incredibly handsome to only blind women (probably true), should I then write a comment stating "why I am so handsome"? People would rightfully laugh, and so I laugh.
Nice try. History has shown that people are happy to pay for something when there are free alternatives when the paid product is even marginally better or the free product requires more energy. Why else are there shopping mall tax return kiosks?
Linux is already free, but Windows 2000 and XP are still better products for a desktop PC. Windows: 98%, Linux: ~1%. Thus, you're wrong.
All this wishful thinking, while fun to watch, is little more than that.