Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distro for the general computer/device mark

Discussion in 'Windows Vista General Discussion' started by ultimauw, Oct 7, 2007.

  1. ultimauw

    spike1 Guest

    I have no idea how you can claim to be a linux advocate and yet you still
    come out with crap like this.

    How is this FUD advocating linux? Name one home user who needs a custom
    kernel? AVERAGE mind, no specialist computing needs where they have the
    knowledge and wherewithall to do it themselves.

    | | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
    | | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
    |Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
    | in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
    | Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
    spike1, Oct 8, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. They don't have to do it and it applies to many things not just windows.
    If you have 9,999 employes it is frequently cheaper to buy everything in
    units of 10,000, be it paper clips, name badges or PCs.
    Why its wrong for M$ and not wrong for Staples or the vending machine
    supplier to be cheaper if they buy 10,000? I don't understand the
    Its the companies decision, they can buy 9,999 and pay more if they want.
    At least with software licenses its not harming the environment like it
    would be buying an extra name badge.

    BTW the big company I worked at had licenses for each windows PC not for
    each employee so it must have been cheaper that way.
    They did not have windows licenses for the PCs running UnixWare and M$
    didn't try and force them to get them either.
    Oh and they were supplied with Unix installed by the manufacturer (they were
    made by Intel and would have been branded HP) so it is quite possible to get
    machines without windows, at least in the UK.
    [email protected], Oct 8, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. ultimauw

    Stephan Rose Guest

    Uhh, people who actually run custom kernels aren't likely going to need a
    professional to install it for them. I think that if someone needs a
    custom kernel and knows why they need one they also likely know enough to
    install it themselves.

    2003 Yamaha R6

    Stephan Rose, Oct 8, 2007
    Hash: SHA1

    Are you excluding yourself from the ranks of "Linux users"

    when was the last time you paid "the hourly rate required for a computer
    professional" to install your "custom kernels"?

    Or were you just blowing hot air?


    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Jim Richardson, Oct 8, 2007
  5. ultimauw

    Rick Guest

    He's blustering... again.
    Rick, Oct 8, 2007
  6. ultimauw

    chrisv Guest

    It's called "lying". Quack is a lying asshole.
    chrisv, Oct 8, 2007
  7. ultimauw

    spike1 Guest

    I know... just stomping on the lie.
    | | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
    |Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
    | in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
    | Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
    spike1, Oct 8, 2007
  8. ultimauw

    Hadron Guest

    What lie?

    I don't see many small companies making a lot of money from installing
    Linux. Do you?
    Hadron, Oct 8, 2007
  9. What you "see" is irrelevant, "true linux advocate", "kernel hacker", "emacs
    user", "swapfile expert", "X specialist", "CUPS guru", "USB-disk server
    admin", "newsreader magician" and "hardware maven" Hadron Quark, aka Hans
    Schneider, aka Damian O'Leary
    Peter Köhlmann, Oct 8, 2007
  10. I doubt if it would "beat the pants off" of either OSX or Vista. Even though
    Linux is better than Windows "anything" MS is too entrenched in the computer
    world, and OSX is simply too sophisticated to be displaced by an OS like

    But what a single distro would do would be to stimulate acceptance in the
    "shrink-wrap" software world to the point where they could release
    pre-compiled versions of their software for that one distro for one platform
    (PC compatible) that would be relatively safe. Not wanting to open their
    source-code to prying eyes is, IMHO, the single biggest reason why companies
    like Adobe et al don't port their software to Linux is because of the need
    for that software to be compiled by the user due to the non-standard
    configurations of various distributions of Linux on a myriad of

    Once this happened, the MS hegemony would truly start to fall apart as there
    would be fewer and fewer reasons not to replace Windows with Linux.
    George Graves, Oct 8, 2007
  11. ultimauw

    Oxford Guest

    good post George!

    i really don't think anyone is "against" Linux, its just their own
    internal "perceived strength" is really their "greatest weakness" when
    they come up against very well organized, funded UNIX distros like OSX.

    they need to learn to focus on 1 or 2 distros, then let the others die
    off, this diluted effort has killed Linux so far, but it doesn't have to

    Later this month they are going to get hit with another massive round of
    a better UNIX that is incredibly "organized". I feel sorry for them in a
    way, but if they can't match this, they can't compete:

    Oxford, Oct 8, 2007
  12. In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hadron
    I don't exactly see Dell making pots of money installing
    Windows, either. In fact, they are delinquent in their
    filings, and are being served apparently with a notice
    of delisting according to

    You do have what appears to be an unwarranted supposition
    in there; it's not exactly a lie, but the bracketed area

    Linux users don't pay for the OS {and certainly
    wont pay the hourly rate required for a computer
    professional to install their custom kernels}.

    is an accusation without supporting data of some sort. Do
    you have a survey corroborating this statement?

    The other area

    {Linux users don't pay for the OS} and certainly
    wont pay the hourly rate required for a computer
    professional to install their custom kernels.

    leads us into somewhat more interesting territory.
    Briefly, how does one pay for an OS when most of the
    dollars paid for packaged sets goes instead into support?

    What precisely does that mean, exactly? At least with
    Windows one knows that one is paying for the OS -- and
    Microsoft then funnels the dollars paid therefor as it
    sees fit (within legal limitations). Clearly, however,
    that doesn't mean a better product, just a slicker one.
    The Ghost In The Machine, Oct 8, 2007
  13. Could a company like, for instance, Adobe, release a single shrink-wrapped
    fully compiled version of its applications marked "For Linux" and have it
    install as easily on ALL modern Linux distributions as it now does on PCs or
    Macs? If so, then you're right. But that begs another question. If all the
    distros are that alike, why haven't any of the major software publishers
    released any of their applications on Linux?.
    George Graves, Oct 8, 2007
  14. ultimauw

    spike1 Guest

    Seems to work fine for google earth and opera.
    Oracle isn't a major software publisher now?
    | |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
    | |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
    | |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
    |Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
    | in |good to you so far... |
    | Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|
    spike1, Oct 8, 2007
  15. Yes, provided the distros are for the same processor family
    The libc and other supporting stuff are basically at the same level on
    modern distros
    Because they have to port first?
    Peter Köhlmann, Oct 8, 2007
  16. Well, platform gnostics are like any other true believers. They are blind to
    their platform weaknesses and indeed assert that what others see as
    weaknesses They see as strengths. I.E, "Sure, Linux doesn't have Photoshop
    but we lave The GIMP and it's free while Photoshop costs six hundred bucks."
    We've all done it, and the point is not to denigrate Linux or its
    enthusiasts, but to show them that as true believers, they simply can't see
    their platform as enthusiasts of other platforms see it. It's like an
    Orthodox Jew waltzing into a Southern Baptist church and spouting off about
    the weaknesses he sees in the Baptist faith. The people in the church are
    simply not going to be very receptive to his comments.
    George Graves, Oct 8, 2007
  17. ultimauw

    Oxford Guest

    from my understanding Linux simply doesn't have a modern enough
    foundation to support high level apps like PhotoShop, InDesign, etc.

    they'd have to do a lot of software kludges to make a Linux versions
    work correctly and since the Linux market is so tiny compared to the Mac
    one in the creative fields they simply can't afford do it.

    Same for all other professional level apps, like Office, iLife, AutoCad,
    etc. Their approach is too fractured and hard to support is the other
    issue. Wish it was different, but unless they "focus", they will never
    be a serious contender.
    Oxford, Oct 8, 2007
  18. ultimauw

    Oxford Guest

    java based apps and a few open source apps are fine. but when you get
    into "professional" level code, Linux doesn't work without a LOT of
    extra fine tuning.
    Oracle works on anything, linux is nothing special there.
    Oxford, Oct 8, 2007
  19. ultimauw

    yakety yak Guest

    OTOH, I don't have to wonder how long before Apple starts bricking
    computers, too. :)
    yakety yak, Oct 8, 2007
  20. ultimauw

    Kier Guest

    Good luck with getting that to happen, moron.
    Yawn. Never learn, do you, Oxford>
    Kier, Oct 8, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.