(no subject)
From: Peter Hayes (peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk)Date: 08/12/02
- Next message: Jack Daniels: "Re: hardware and software firewall?"
- Previous message: Peter Hayes: "(no subject)"
- In reply to: : "Re: The Beginning Of The End For Micro$oft Reign Of Terror"
- Next in thread: : "Re: The Beginning Of The End For Micro$oft Reign Of Terror"
- Reply: : "Re: The Beginning Of The End For Micro$oft Reign Of Terror"
- Reply: 0§âmâ ßíñ Këñ0ßí: "(no subject)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: Peter Hayes <peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 23:32:58 +0000
In article <MNq59.8152$zX3.11354@news.indigo.ie>, Gerry Quinn wrote:
> In article <slrnalcfqj.ck9.peter@vlad.seahaze>, Peter Hayes <peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <5ez49.7684$zX3.9990@news.indigo.ie>, Gerry Quinn wrote:
>>> In article <mis4lusd8lldtmccmb2c7pjdn0gqm9bbvl@4ax.com>, Rebel Alliance
>> Galactic Usenet News Service wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Now if you'd like to tell us why the Registry is a better system than
>>>>using multiple config files then feel free to do so.
>>>
>>> Somebody already did explain why it is better, at least in some ways.
>>
>>To deliberately design a system with a single point of failure is madness
>>beyond belief, and all the more so since there's no fundamental requirement
>>for it.
>
> What single point of failure? The same could be argued of any software
> depending on a file system.
Indeed, but hard drive failure or filesystem corruption is something most of
us accept as a fact of computing life and allow for with a rigorous backup
regime. The registry is a single point of failure that is totally unnecessary
but M$ chose to design Win95 and its succesors around this single
vulnerability - they weren't forced into it. There's a fundamental
philosophical difference here.
>>>>You see, people are upset about this because the MAJORITY of the
>>>>computer world used to be like Linux. People did the best they could
>>>>to create the best product they could. Micro$oft changed it all into a
>>>>warzone, where the consumer is the main casualty.
>>>
>>> But Windows is vastly superior to Linux, so things have improved. Open
>>> source programmers' best just wasn't good enough.
>>
>>Linux can deliver everything that most users want from their machines - Web
>>browsing, e-mail, Office apps. Those that want games can use Windows or buy
>>a games console (which is a much better option anyway since dedicated
>>hardware/software will always outperform a general purpose machine).
>
> Linux is free, and still has an insignificant amount of the market -
> that should be evidence enough for anyone.
The reason Linux has an insignificant amount of the market is due to
Microsoft's illegal monopoly control of the market, nothing else. Your
"evidence" is flawed - based on a defective premise.
<...>
> Open source coders produce mostly clones of
> archaic commercial software. Some of them can program a bit, but
> every other quality of good software such as art, design and
> ergonomics tends to be parasitic or non-existent. (And yes, I'm sure
> exceptions do exist.)
Such that Shrek, Final Fantasy, Lord of the Rings, etc were produced almost
entirely on Linux machines, and I don't mean just the render farm.
Softimage runs 8 (eight) times faster on Linux than IRIX. Lightwave (Babylon
5) for Linux is on its way, as is a rumoured port of 3DSMAX.
>>Linux/Unix will still be around when Microsoft and Windows.* are a footnote
>>in computing history.
>
> Unix maybe. Linux will soon be forgotten. There was never any real
> point to it.
Oh, there's every point to it. The difference between Linux/Unix and Windows
is that Windows is a computing cul-de-sac, and Linux is an evolutionary
stage to whatever will supplant Windows. No matter how hard Gates tries to
hang on to his monopoly he's the dinosaur of the computing world, and I
think he knows this.
>>> The consumers flock to Windows, not Linux, because it's designed to
>>> satisfy their needs.
>>
>>The customers don't flock to Windows, it's force-fed to them by an illegal
>>monopoly imposing lock-in contracts on OEMs who are too worried about their
>>bottom line to resist. If Gates had any confidence in his products he
>>wouldn't be so paranoid about OEMs offering dual-boot systems. Unfortunately
>>for the end-user, he realises that if they discovered alternative OSs his
>>market would disappear virtually overnight.
>
> You are funny. There have always been real alternatives such as Mac
> systems.
Apple priced itself out of the market, almost to its demise, until recently.
Even now, its products are struggling at around 5% of the market, mainly the
professional graphics and video editing sector, with the rest being iMac
users. The other 95% belongs to Microsoft by dint of their illegal monopoly
and nothing else.
>>The whole illegal operation is bolstered by a government unable or unwilling
>>to see the downside of allowing Microsoft complete control of the World's
>>desktop. (Or maybe the conspiracy theorists are right and there's NSA back
>> doors
>>built into every M$ OS, thereby giving the US Government control by proxy of
>>every networked PC running a M$ OS anywhere in the world).
>
> Another conspiracy freak. Take it to
> alt.primitive.homemade.os.advocacy.
Don't you mean alt.os.windows-xp :)
Peter
- Next message: Jack Daniels: "Re: hardware and software firewall?"
- Previous message: Peter Hayes: "(no subject)"
- In reply to: : "Re: The Beginning Of The End For Micro$oft Reign Of Terror"
- Next in thread: : "Re: The Beginning Of The End For Micro$oft Reign Of Terror"
- Reply: : "Re: The Beginning Of The End For Micro$oft Reign Of Terror"
- Reply: 0§âmâ ßíñ Këñ0ßí: "(no subject)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
