On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 22:52:04 -0400, DFS wrote:
> Kier wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 01:58:28 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> Every once in a while, especially while on vacation in foreign
>>>> houses, I receive a reminder as to why Windows is an _utterly
>>>> terrible_ environment for work.
>>>
>>> Of course it's not. It's not like it's Ubuntu or Fedora.
>>
>> Ubuntu and Fedora work, and work well. It's pretty clear you know
>> little about either one.
>
> I've used them both.
And learned nothing much about either, it seems. How much did you use
them? Did you use them daily, doing all your work? Or just fiddle around,
looking for faults and things to whine about? That's your usual style.
>
>
>
>
>>> And on the topic of work, I have to wonder about a few things:
>>>
>>> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why do some Linux apps
>>> take great pains to blatantly and blanketly tell you they "have been
>>> reported to cause data loss"? (KPilot) They don't even qualify the
>>> statement as occurring under
>>> certain conditions, or with certain settings. It's as if they've
>>> resigned their software to losing your data, so use it at your own
>>> risk, at work.
>>
>> Because the developers are honest.
>
> Then someone else (Roy 'The Liar' Schestowitz) isn't, 'cause he says Windows
> is a bad work environment, but nobody of any discernment who values their
> data would ever trust it to an app that makes such a bogus statement.
Don't be ridiculous. Do you think that because you say he is a liar we are
going to fall into line and accept your assessment? And how about all the
others not in this group who complain about Windows and how bad it is,
people who use it daily, are they all liars too?
>
>
>
>
>>> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why do Linux
>>> installations prompt you to make boot and recovery diskettes?
>>
>> Because you would be stupid not to do so - howefvfer good an install
>> process is, something might go wrong. This goes just the same for
>> Windows, and don't pretendit doesn't.
>
> I see. Just in case Linux doesn't live up to the claims of the "advocates"?
No, just in case something untoward happens, or the users makes a mistake.
That can happen with any OS, Windows included.
>
>
>
>
>>> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why do so many people
>>> have such a hard time installing and configuring it, for work?
>>
>> What hard time? It's easier than installing Windows from sctratch,
>> that's for sure.
>
> Some is, some isn't. Apparently getting an entire business organization up
> and running on Linux isn't so easy. In fact, it's downright *rare* to see
> it.
You were talking about it being hard to install and configure. Which it
mostly isn't. Getting any organisation to change any major part of its
ioperation is likely to be difficult. It would be no easier going from
another system to Windows, than going from Windows to Linux. And the
larger the business, the more difficult the process is likely to be.
>
>
>
>>> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why does OpenOffice
>>> load so slowly that you have to drum your fingers so you don't fall
>>> asleep, at work?
>>
>> It doesn't. Unless you fall asleep in eight seconds, which is how
>> long it usually takes to load on my PC.
>
> You don't work in an office where you see how people actually use their
> computers. Almost universally, they navigate the filesystem with the
> full-screen Windows Explorer, then dbl-click on the document and it loads
> the app and the document. This happens almost instantaneously with MS
> Office products. But using OpenOffice is like moving back 2 generations in
> hardware. I can't imagine anyone used to Windows\Office would accept it.
Its lack of speed in loading is being adressed as of this moment. So when
it loads quickly, what will you whine about?
>
>
>
>
>>> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why hasn't the
>>> corporate world embraced it, for work?
>>
>> It has, in many places. The smart ones.
>
> The cheap ones. The slow ones. The unprofitable ones. The charities.
You know, you're a real slimeball, DFS. An liar, and a arsehole.
>
>
>
>>>> Among the many perils that I had: O/S
>>>> comes incomplete and remains incomplete in most households, e.g. no
>>>> graphical toolkit other than paint.exe, no Web browser with
>>>> something as fundamental as the notion of the tab.
>>>
>>> Interesting: you still don't understand the difference between an
>>> operating system and an application.
>>
>> Of course he does.
>
> I don't think so. He just said the OS comes and remains incomplete, as if
> installing GIMP changes the OS. He's confused.
No, he isn't.
>
>
>
>>>> Then come deficiencies such as:
>>>>
>>>> -Only a single (virtual) desktop
>>>
>>> There are many free ones available for Windows.
>>
>> They aren't included, though. You have to find them.
>
> But they're FREE!
No, they're just freeware. Not the same thing at all. And they aren't
properly integrated either.
>
>
>
>>>> -No clipboard stack. Copy something and say farewell to whatever
>>>> else you help. Forget about being about to copy 3 things and then
>>>> spew them out.
>>>
>>> There are only about a dozen free Windows clipboard managers.
>>
>> Why aren't they included, then?
>
> Don't know. Office has one.
>
>
>
>>> But one thing confounds me: why do some Linux slopware apps blow
>>> away the clipboard contents when you close the app? Why do they
>>> insult the user and his data and his wishes with such rude behavior?
>>> This doesn't happen in the Windows world. Only OSS.
>>
>> You are such a liar.
>
> Jesus H, man, why don't you get a clue and research it for yourself before
> calling me a liar?
'This doesn't happenin the Windows world?' Come off it. That one specific
thing may indeed happen. But I was referring to your usual lie about
'Linux slopware'.
>
>
>
>>>> -Speed is terrible. It makes you re-evaluate the need for so-called
>>>> bleeding-edge hardware, which Linux rarely needs.
>>>
>>> Lots of Linux nuts justify their cheap ways with this excuse. But
>>> don't worry, Windows users will continue to purchase leading edge
>>> equipment and fund hardware development so the Linux "community" can
>>> eventually enjoy 5th generation equipment for $39.
>>
>> Lying idiot.
>
> hee... this one always gets your goat. Truth hurts.
How can it, when it isn't the truth? You're just proving yourself a
sneering slimeball again. You thnk having less money to spend makes a
person inferior to you? Grow up.
>
>
>
>
>>>> -Crashes. The modern Windows XP computer crashed on me for no
>>>> reason.
>>>
>>> Lie.
>>
>> I'd like to see you prove that he lied. I really would. Just calling
>> him a liar because you want to believe he is, is meaningless.
>
> Obviously the computer didn't crash for no reason.
No reason he could discern, not reason it should have crashed.
>
>
>
>>>> It took no less than 5 minutes to
>>>> restore and attain the same position.
>>>
>>> I doubt it. Just like I doubt everything you say.
>>
>> Why should anyone believe you over him? Why should *you* be considered
>> homest, not him?
>
> Who said anything about believing me? I said I don't believe him. And I
> don't. He's a typical cola nut "advocate" who can't write a sentence
> without spastically insulting MS\Windows. Look at the last sentence in his
> post; he could barely wait to "unburden" himself after going a week without
> insulting Windows.
And that does not prove that he lied, or lies, because *you* happend to
think so. Others think differently. Are they all liars too?
And trolls spend all their time lying about and insulting Linux, yet you
remain silent. Why is that? It's okay to insult Linux, but not okay to
insult Windows, is it? Not in my book.
Personally, I could do with less banging on about Windows, since the
majority of it is just boring.
>
>
>
>>>> By that point, the trail of thought was cut. Where is
>>>> productivity? Where has user confidence gone?
>>>
>>> You use Linux. You're used to reduced productivity: slow boot, slow
>>> app launching, slow file navigation, multimedia hassles beyond
>>> compare, poorly-interoperable office apps, etc.
>>
>> Bollocks.
>
> All true.
No, pal, not all true. Not even half true.
>
>
>
>
>>>> Anyone who chooses to use Windows for
>>>> day-to-day use has my commiserations.
>>>
>>> That would be at least 94% of the computer-using world. That would
>>> be the vast majority of employees at EVERY Fortune 500 company.
>>
>> Really? YOu checked them all, did you?
>
> Of course.
I don't believe you.
>
>
>
>>> Executives of GE, Boeing and Morgan Stanley, versus lying Linux
>>> lunatics? Let me think...
>>
>> That would make a change, since you so rarely do.
>
> When an efficient, profitable business enterprise has to choose between
> desktop systems on which to run their day to day business, they almost
> always choose to pay for Windows.
Since you are not privy to their decision-making process, you cannot say
why, or indeed whether, they do any such thing. Most probably 'choose'
what they're used to. And MS does a lot of hard-sell.
>
>
>
>
>>>> It is sad to think that many people out there are
>>>> handling businesses in such a poor environment.
>>>
>>> Don't worry - you personally will never have to run a real business
>>> with Linux. That's a guarantee.
>>
>> Really? Once again, I'd love to see you prove that, considering how
>> little you know about him.
>
> Check back with him in 25 years.
That isn't proof. You know nothing about Roy, certainly not enough to make
such an insulting statement.
>
>
>
>>>> I have not even touched the issue of security, among others.
>>>
>>> Why? It's not like you'll have anything honest to say about it,
>>> either.
>>
>> And you do? Ahhahahhahahahah!
>
> Of course I do.
No, you don't.
>
>
>
>
>>>> This is just q quick mental note
>>>> that I had to unburden myself of.
>>>
>>> Meaning you couldn't help yourself; you HAD to mentally masturbate
>>> on cola. Better here than in "foreign houses" I guess...
>>
>> You're disgusting.
>
> hahahaha... you know, Kier, sometimes you're just too much a weenie for
> words. You really need to get more fun out of life.
I don't find your kind of sneering rubbish fun, thanks all the same. Keep
your digusting comments for those who appreciate them. I prefer to discuss
Linux. If you spent less time praising Windows and more time discussing
the merits of Linux, you might be less disliked.
Think about this: there are many, many Linux users out there in the wide
world beyond COLA. Are they all cheap, stupid liars who like inferior
software? I very much doubt it.
--
Kier
|
|
