Re: Linux/OSS: doomed to a lifetime under Windows' thumb

[Rick]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:47:01 -0700, Damian wrote:

> Rick wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:39:00 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>
>>> Rick wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:05:53 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> bob wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:50:08 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only thing pathetically flawed, is your argument. Crawl back
>>>>>> under your bridge troll.
>>>>>
>>>>> He kinda lost the argument by saying linux had captured 0.6% of the
>>>>> desktop, huh. Probably it's below 0.2% don'tcha think.
>>>>
>>>> .8%:
>>>> <http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8>
>>>>
>>>> 1.95%:
>>>> <http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php>
>>>>
>>>> 3.7%:
>>>> <http://w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp>
>>>>
>>>> These are all based on web statistics as opposed to units sold.
>>>
>>> Are those "Must Click On This Link Daily" links posted on every linux
>>> site in the world? That's about the only way linux would ever see 1%
>>> of the desktop.
>>
>> I see you didn't actually read the references.
>
> Read a different one instead... This one is full of linux references:
> http://asianideas.com/maosredbook.html

So much for any credibility you might have had.



--
Rick

 

[Rick]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 03:14:40 +0100, Ben wrote:

> Snit wrote:
>> "Ben" <beno1990@gmail.com> stated in post g60pme$2cs$4@news.mixmin.net
>> on 7/20/08 6:44 PM:
>>
>> ....
>>>>> Of course, that's why you keep repeating your .6% drivel even when
>>>>> given other references.
>>>> 0.8% seems more likely... though Linux is likely over represented on
>>>> the web... so maybe 0.6% or so actual usage.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I'm not so sure, I'd like to say that Linux has grown enough in the
>>> last couple of years to become 0.8% of total desktop OS, especially
>>> with the release and failure of Vista, but the more realistic side of
>>> me says... Nah... More likely to be something like 0.5-0.6%, although
>>> it's undeniably rising.
>>
>> Either way it is quite small... and almost surely less than 1%. I
>> think it will, with the help of people such as Shuttleworth and distros
>> such as Ubuntu, grow in a significant way over the next, say, 5 years.
>> I am not thinking in terms of coming close to Windows or even OS X, but
>> maybe 2-5%.
>>
>>
>>
> Which is pretty sad, it seems that Microsoft have destroyed the
> competitiveness of the OS market irreparably.

Not necessarily. Apple is doing things that increase its market share. It
is using its OS, media players and phones to move each other. As Apples
installed base increase, others see that Microsoft isn't the only game in
town. Severs aren't Microsoft only. Neither are cell phones or PDAs. And
Cell phones, media players and PDAs are well to their way to merging. Add
a keyboard to a phone/PDA with a decent screen, and you have a portable
computer.

So far, new "Netbooks" are released with a Linux based distro first.
Hopefully, in the near future, vendors will no longer feel compelled to
add Windows based models.


--
Rick

 

[Ben]

Rick wrote:
> Hopefully, in the near future, vendors will no longer feel compelled to
> add Windows based models.
>
>

I'd love to see that happen, truth be told. And it's not just about
Linux for me. It's about genuine competition. I'd like to see at least 4
different OSs on the desktop market in good competition. I just think
Linux should be one of those 4.

Also, if ReactOS is a success, that might knock down the Windows market
share a little by those who want a Windows binary compatible OS for free.

 

[Damian]

Rick wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:47:01 -0700, Damian wrote:
>
>> Rick wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:39:00 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:05:53 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> bob wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:50:08 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only thing pathetically flawed, is your argument. Crawl back
>>>>>>> under your bridge troll.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He kinda lost the argument by saying linux had captured 0.6% of
>>>>>> the desktop, huh. Probably it's below 0.2% don'tcha think.
>>>>>
>>>>> .8%:
>>>>> <http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.95%:
>>>>> <http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3.7%:
>>>>> <http://w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp>
>>>>>
>>>>> These are all based on web statistics as opposed to units sold.
>>>>
>>>> Are those "Must Click On This Link Daily" links posted on every
>>>> linux site in the world? That's about the only way linux would
>>>> ever see 1% of the desktop.
>>>
>>> I see you didn't actually read the references.
>>
>> Read a different one instead... This one is full of linux references:
>> http://asianideas.com/maosredbook.html
>
> So much for any credibility you might have had.

Your cult cites are somehow better than Chairman Mao's?

 

[Rick]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:07:50 -0700, Damian wrote:

> Rick wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:47:01 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>
>>> Rick wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:39:00 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:05:53 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> bob wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:50:08 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only thing pathetically flawed, is your argument. Crawl back
>>>>>>>> under your bridge troll.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He kinda lost the argument by saying linux had captured 0.6% of
>>>>>>> the desktop, huh. Probably it's below 0.2% don'tcha think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .8%:
>>>>>> <http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.95%:
>>>>>> <http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3.7%:
>>>>>> <http://w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These are all based on web statistics as opposed to units sold.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are those "Must Click On This Link Daily" links posted on every
>>>>> linux site in the world? That's about the only way linux would ever
>>>>> see 1% of the desktop.
>>>>
>>>> I see you didn't actually read the references.
>>>
>>> Read a different one instead... This one is full of linux references:
>>> http://asianideas.com/maosredbook.html
>>
>> So much for any credibility you might have had.
>
> Your cult cites are somehow better than Chairman Mao's?

Since when is W3Schools a cult?

Since when is Net Applications a cult?

Since when is w3counter a cult?



--
Rick

 

[Snit]

"Rick" <none@nomail.com> stated in post
NtKdnWZmu6EBbB7VnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@supernews.com on 7/20/08 7:17 PM:

> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 02:44:45 +0100, Ben wrote:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> stated in post
>>> NtKdnWpmu6Hmex7VnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@supernews.com on 7/20/08 6:29 PM:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:20:19 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:45:30 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Damian" <nospam@rabid-dog.net> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:05:53 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> bob wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:50:08 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The only thing pathetically flawed, is your argument. Crawl back
>>>>>>>>>> under your bridge troll.
>>>>>>>>> He kinda lost the argument by saying linux had captured 0.6% of
>>>>>>>>> the desktop, huh. Probably it's below 0.2% don'tcha think.
>>>>>>>> .8%:
>>>>>>>> <http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1.95%:
>>>>>>>> <http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3.7%:
>>>>>>>> <http://w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> These are all based on web statistics as opposed to units sold.
>>>>>>> Are those "Must Click On This Link Daily" links posted on every
>>>>>>> linux site in the world? That's about the only way linux would ever
>>>>>>> see 1% of the desktop.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think they are broadly accurate. A higher % of Linux users are
>>>>>> technical and this likely to visit the w3 sites. The 0.8% roughly
>>>>>> ties in with an OS agnostic site like the BBC although my own
>>>>>> estimate would be lower from what I see out here in the wild
>>>>> Same here....
>>>> Of course, that's why you keep repeating your .6% drivel even when
>>>> given other references.
>>>
>>> 0.8% seems more likely... though Linux is likely over represented on
>>> the web... so maybe 0.6% or so actual usage.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I'm not so sure, I'd like to say that Linux has grown enough in the last
>> couple of years to become 0.8% of total desktop OS, especially with the
>> release and failure of Vista, but the more realistic side of me says...
>> Nah... More likely to be something like 0.5-0.6%, although it's
>> undeniably rising.
>
> Well, let's see. Average the stats of the three pages ...
> .8, 1.95, 3.7... comes to 2.15%.

You never took a stats class, did you?


--
Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value.
--Albert Einstein

 

[Snit]

"Ben" <beno1990@gmail.com> stated in post g60reg$4uc$1@news.mixmin.net on
7/20/08 7:14 PM:

> Snit wrote:
>> "Ben" <beno1990@gmail.com> stated in post g60pme$2cs$4@news.mixmin.net on
>> 7/20/08 6:44 PM:
>>
>> ....
>>>>> Of course, that's why you keep repeating your .6% drivel even when given
>>>>> other references.
>>>> 0.8% seems more likely... though Linux is likely over represented on the
>>>> web... so maybe 0.6% or so actual usage.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I'm not so sure, I'd like to say that Linux has grown enough in the last
>>> couple of years to become 0.8% of total desktop OS, especially with the
>>> release and failure of Vista, but the more realistic side of me says...
>>> Nah... More likely to be something like 0.5-0.6%, although it's
>>> undeniably rising.
>>
>> Either way it is quite small... and almost surely less than 1%. I think it
>> will, with the help of people such as Shuttleworth and distros such as
>> Ubuntu, grow in a significant way over the next, say, 5 years. I am not
>> thinking in terms of coming close to Windows or even OS X, but maybe 2-5%.
>
> Which is pretty sad, it seems that Microsoft have destroyed the
> competitiveness of the OS market irreparably.

There may come a time when Apple has 15% to 20% and Linux has 5% to 10%...
which would put Windows down to, say, 75% or so... if that happens things
just might snowball out of control for MS and both Apple and somewhere
between 1 and 3 Linux distros will take off as well. I would welcome that.
If they were each between 25% to 40% or so I think that would be great.


--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?

 

[Ben]

Snit wrote:
> "Ben" <beno1990@gmail.com> stated in post g60reg$4uc$1@news.mixmin.net on
> 7/20/08 7:14 PM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> "Ben" <beno1990@gmail.com> stated in post g60pme$2cs$4@news.mixmin.net on
>>> 7/20/08 6:44 PM:
>>>
>>> ....
>>>>>> Of course, that's why you keep repeating your .6% drivel even when given
>>>>>> other references.
>>>>> 0.8% seems more likely... though Linux is likely over represented on the
>>>>> web... so maybe 0.6% or so actual usage.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I'm not so sure, I'd like to say that Linux has grown enough in the last
>>>> couple of years to become 0.8% of total desktop OS, especially with the
>>>> release and failure of Vista, but the more realistic side of me says...
>>>> Nah... More likely to be something like 0.5-0.6%, although it's
>>>> undeniably rising.
>>> Either way it is quite small... and almost surely less than 1%. I think it
>>> will, with the help of people such as Shuttleworth and distros such as
>>> Ubuntu, grow in a significant way over the next, say, 5 years. I am not
>>> thinking in terms of coming close to Windows or even OS X, but maybe 2-5%.
>> Which is pretty sad, it seems that Microsoft have destroyed the
>> competitiveness of the OS market irreparably.
>
> There may come a time when Apple has 15% to 20% and Linux has 5% to 10%...
> which would put Windows down to, say, 75% or so... if that happens things
> just might snowball out of control for MS and both Apple and somewhere
> between 1 and 3 Linux distros will take off as well. I would welcome that.
> If they were each between 25% to 40% or so I think that would be great.
>
>

I'd welcome it too it'd allow for some actual competition. I feel
Microsoft's monopoly is holding back technological advancement since
they can choose not only what software to promote and support, but what
hardware, too.

 

[Snit]

"Ben" <beno1990@gmail.com> stated in post g614c0$de3$1@news.mixmin.net on
7/20/08 9:46 PM:

> Snit wrote:
>> "Ben" <beno1990@gmail.com> stated in post g60reg$4uc$1@news.mixmin.net on
>> 7/20/08 7:14 PM:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> "Ben" <beno1990@gmail.com> stated in post g60pme$2cs$4@news.mixmin.net on
>>>> 7/20/08 6:44 PM:
>>>>
>>>> ....
>>>>>>> Of course, that's why you keep repeating your .6% drivel even when given
>>>>>>> other references.
>>>>>> 0.8% seems more likely... though Linux is likely over represented on the
>>>>>> web... so maybe 0.6% or so actual usage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not so sure, I'd like to say that Linux has grown enough in the last
>>>>> couple of years to become 0.8% of total desktop OS, especially with the
>>>>> release and failure of Vista, but the more realistic side of me says...
>>>>> Nah... More likely to be something like 0.5-0.6%, although it's
>>>>> undeniably rising.
>>>> Either way it is quite small... and almost surely less than 1%. I think it
>>>> will, with the help of people such as Shuttleworth and distros such as
>>>> Ubuntu, grow in a significant way over the next, say, 5 years. I am not
>>>> thinking in terms of coming close to Windows or even OS X, but maybe 2-5%.
>>> Which is pretty sad, it seems that Microsoft have destroyed the
>>> competitiveness of the OS market irreparably.
>>
>> There may come a time when Apple has 15% to 20% and Linux has 5% to 10%...
>> which would put Windows down to, say, 75% or so... if that happens things
>> just might snowball out of control for MS and both Apple and somewhere
>> between 1 and 3 Linux distros will take off as well. I would welcome that.
>> If they were each between 25% to 40% or so I think that would be great.
>>
>>
>
> I'd welcome it too it'd allow for some actual competition. I feel
> Microsoft's monopoly is holding back technological advancement since
> they can choose not only what software to promote and support, but what
> hardware, too.

If the hardware is not, in some way, focused and even controlled then it
will cease to be compatible... even as much as it is now (which is not
perfect). Then again, I think there could be more in the way of
forward-thinking standards (and there is to a large extent now).


--
Teachers open the door but you must walk through it yourself.

 

[the wharf rat]

In article <C4A96491.CA06A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>If the hardware is not, in some way, focused and even controlled then it
>will cease to be compatible...

Sure. Look at what happened with SCSI. Since there was no
focus or control by Microsoft it's not like I can install some crappy
old Tekram SCSI card and a 2/4GB DAT drive and expect it to work
perfectly.

Not on Windows at any rate. Works fine on Linux of course.
Thank God Microsoft is out there protecting me from being able to run
legacy hardware by providing focus and control.

 

[Damian]

the wharf rat wrote:
> In article <C4A96491.CA06A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>> If the hardware is not, in some way, focused and even controlled
>> then it will cease to be compatible...
>
> Sure. Look at what happened with SCSI. Since there was no
> focus or control by Microsoft it's not like I can install some crappy
> old Tekram SCSI card and a 2/4GB DAT drive and expect it to work
> perfectly.
>
> Not on Windows at any rate. Works fine on Linux of course.
> Thank God Microsoft is out there protecting me from being able to run
> legacy hardware by providing focus and control.

SCSI is king on Servers, not Desktops. Any *Windows Server* product has full
support for them, always have.

 

[Damian]

Rick wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:07:50 -0700, Damian wrote:
>
>> Rick wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:47:01 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:39:00 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:05:53 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> bob wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:50:08 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The only thing pathetically flawed, is your argument. Crawl
>>>>>>>>> back under your bridge troll.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He kinda lost the argument by saying linux had captured 0.6% of
>>>>>>>> the desktop, huh. Probably it's below 0.2% don'tcha think.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .8%:
>>>>>>> <http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1.95%:
>>>>>>> <http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3.7%:
>>>>>>> <http://w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These are all based on web statistics as opposed to units sold.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are those "Must Click On This Link Daily" links posted on every
>>>>>> linux site in the world? That's about the only way linux would
>>>>>> ever see 1% of the desktop.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see you didn't actually read the references.
>>>>
>>>> Read a different one instead... This one is full of linux
>>>> references: http://asianideas.com/maosredbook.html
>>>
>>> So much for any credibility you might have had.
>>
>> Your cult cites are somehow better than Chairman Mao's?
>
> Since when is W3Schools a cult?
>
> Since when is Net Applications a cult?
>
> Since when is w3counter a cult?

Idiot child, *linux is a cult* and it makes you stupid.

 

[relic]

Linonut wrote:
> * Damian peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> Rick wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:39:00 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>
>>> I see you didn't actually read the references.
>>
>> Read a different one instead... This one is full of linux references:
>> http://asianideas.com/maosredbook.html
>
> Another "Linux is Communism" troll.

I believe him.

 

[Ben]

Damian wrote:
> the wharf rat wrote:
>> In article <C4A96491.CA06A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>,
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> If the hardware is not, in some way, focused and even controlled
>>> then it will cease to be compatible...
>> Sure. Look at what happened with SCSI. Since there was no
>> focus or control by Microsoft it's not like I can install some crappy
>> old Tekram SCSI card and a 2/4GB DAT drive and expect it to work
>> perfectly.
>>
>> Not on Windows at any rate. Works fine on Linux of course.
>> Thank God Microsoft is out there protecting me from being able to run
>> legacy hardware by providing focus and control.
>
> SCSI is king on Servers, not Desktops. Any *Windows Server* product has full
> support for them, always have.
>
>

Yes, but ANY Linux operating system will support it. Not just the ones
made specifically for servers which you have to pay more for. (not that
you have to pay anything for Linux to begin with.)

 

[the wharf rat]

In article <g62g16$52c$1@news.tornevall.net>,
Damian <nospam@rabid-dog.net> wrote:
>
>SCSI is king on Servers, not Desktops. Any *Windows Server* product has full
>support for them, always have.
>

Sure about that? Try picking a random SCSI controller - hell,
try picking a random SATA controller - from the parts box and booting
Windows from it.

Can't detect a disk drive, can it? Huh?

 

[Rick]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:09:18 -0700, Damian wrote:

> Rick wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:07:50 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>
>>> Rick wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:47:01 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:39:00 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:05:53 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> bob wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:50:08 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The only thing pathetically flawed, is your argument. Crawl
>>>>>>>>>> back under your bridge troll.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He kinda lost the argument by saying linux had captured 0.6% of
>>>>>>>>> the desktop, huh. Probably it's below 0.2% don'tcha think.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> .8%:
>>>>>>>> <http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1.95%:
>>>>>>>> <http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3.7%:
>>>>>>>> <http://w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> These are all based on web statistics as opposed to units sold.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are those "Must Click On This Link Daily" links posted on every
>>>>>>> linux site in the world? That's about the only way linux would
>>>>>>> ever see 1% of the desktop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see you didn't actually read the references.
>>>>>
>>>>> Read a different one instead... This one is full of linux
>>>>> references: http://asianideas.com/maosredbook.html
>>>>
>>>> So much for any credibility you might have had.
>>>
>>> Your cult cites are somehow better than Chairman Mao's?
>>
>> Since when is W3Schools a cult?
>>
>> Since when is Net Applications a cult?
>>
>> Since when is w3counter a cult?
>
> Idiot child, *linux is a cult* and it makes you stupid.

So, you cannot answer the questions, and you are stupid, too.

Since when did Google, the Cities of Largo and Chicago, ILM, Disney, and
NASA join a cult?

--
Rick

 

[Damian]

Rick wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:09:18 -0700, Damian wrote:
>
>> Rick wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:07:50 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:47:01 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:39:00 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:05:53 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> bob wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:50:08 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The only thing pathetically flawed, is your argument. Crawl
>>>>>>>>>>> back under your bridge troll.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He kinda lost the argument by saying linux had captured 0.6%
>>>>>>>>>> of the desktop, huh. Probably it's below 0.2% don'tcha think.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> .8%:
>>>>>>>>> <http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1.95%:
>>>>>>>>> <http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3.7%:
>>>>>>>>> <http://w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> These are all based on web statistics as opposed to units
>>>>>>>>> sold.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are those "Must Click On This Link Daily" links posted on every
>>>>>>>> linux site in the world? That's about the only way linux would
>>>>>>>> ever see 1% of the desktop.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see you didn't actually read the references.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Read a different one instead... This one is full of linux
>>>>>> references: http://asianideas.com/maosredbook.html
>>>>>
>>>>> So much for any credibility you might have had.
>>>>
>>>> Your cult cites are somehow better than Chairman Mao's?
>>>
>>> Since when is W3Schools a cult?
>>>
>>> Since when is Net Applications a cult?
>>>
>>> Since when is w3counter a cult?
>>
>> Idiot child, *linux is a cult* and it makes you stupid.
>
> So, you cannot answer the questions, and you are stupid, too.

No, it's a known fact that *linux* makes you stupid. I use Windows.

>
> Since when did Google, the Cities of Largo and Chicago, ILM, Disney,
> and NASA join a cult?

The day they installed linux.
<aside, 'talk about stupid'>

 

[Linonut]

* relic peremptorily fired off this memo:

> Linonut wrote:
>> * Damian peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>
>>> Rick wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:39:00 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I see you didn't actually read the references.
>>>
>>> Read a different one instead... This one is full of linux references:
>>> http://asianideas.com/maosredbook.html
>>
>> Another "Linux is Communism" troll.
>
> I believe him.

Then you're just as idiotic.

(Where do these lunatic fringers come from?)

--
The difference between reality and unreality is that reality has so
little to recommend it.
-- Allan Sherman

 

[Rick]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:36:32 -0700, Damian wrote:

> Rick wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:09:18 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>
>>> Rick wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:07:50 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:47:01 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:39:00 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:05:53 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> bob wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:50:08 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The only thing pathetically flawed, is your argument. Crawl
>>>>>>>>>>>> back under your bridge troll.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> He kinda lost the argument by saying linux had captured 0.6%
>>>>>>>>>>> of the desktop, huh. Probably it's below 0.2% don'tcha think.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> .8%:
>>>>>>>>>> <http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1.95%:
>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3.7%:
>>>>>>>>>> <http://w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> These are all based on web statistics as opposed to units sold.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are those "Must Click On This Link Daily" links posted on every
>>>>>>>>> linux site in the world? That's about the only way linux would
>>>>>>>>> ever see 1% of the desktop.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I see you didn't actually read the references.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Read a different one instead... This one is full of linux
>>>>>>> references: http://asianideas.com/maosredbook.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So much for any credibility you might have had.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your cult cites are somehow better than Chairman Mao's?
>>>>
>>>> Since when is W3Schools a cult?
>>>>
>>>> Since when is Net Applications a cult?
>>>>
>>>> Since when is w3counter a cult?
>>>
>>> Idiot child, *linux is a cult* and it makes you stupid.
>>
>> So, you cannot answer the questions, and you are stupid, too.
>
> No, it's a known fact that *linux* makes you stupid.

You might want to tell that to engineers at NASA, city employees in
Chicago and Largo, the teachers and students at the University of
Florida, and a host of others.


>I use Windows.

... and that's the only thing you can understand.

>
>
>> Since when did Google, the Cities of Largo and Chicago, ILM, Disney,
>> and NASA join a cult?
>
> The day they installed linux.
> <aside, 'talk about stupid'>


Idiot.
--
Rick

 

[WhøKñèw]

"bob" <bob@home.now> wrote in message
news:AeqdnfbJGLvCOR7VnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@earthlink.com...
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:50:08 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>
> The only thing pathetically flawed, is your argument. Crawl back under
> your bridge troll.

You sound like Aliassssss. Another f*cking linsuck loser