Re: [OT]: OS as religions (was: Raw Convertors)
- From: Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 04:38:50 +0200
Giftzwerg <giftzwerg999@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <dk0gm6-cb3.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ozcvgtt02
So you say it only took 24 years (Windows 1.0 was released
August 1985) for it to have technical merit and be user friendly?
What computers were you people using back then? How much RAM?
How large hard disks (if any)?
Pff. Who gives a shit.
You obviously.
Linux didn't even *exist* when Windows first appeared
Its philosophical and spritual forebearers existed and lived
on the Internet when Windows didn't even exist, not even as the
gleam in the eye that later became MS-DOS.
- and it was purely a For Geeks Only product when Win3 and
Win95 took over the world.
the world of single-user, single-machine ... and didn't do
internet either. Couldn't, wouldn't.
The first cartoon I put on my office wall
read, "X-windows: it could be worse, but it'll take time."
Whereas the X Window System is designed from the ground up to
*be* internet.
A lot of time, really.
.... to get worse. Lots of time.
Boy, if any other company took that long, especially on a field
where the speed is so breakneck high with new innovations every
second ...
Oh, please. I was cutting and pasting text from one application to
another on my Mac in 1986.
Nice for you, but Mac wasn't taking over the world, that was
Win3 and Win95, as you just told us.
Fifteen years later, the same facility appeared on Linux.
Actually, it appeared much earlier: as soon as X was available.
Of course, accuracy is overrated when FUD poison is being spread.
Yeah. Whew. Bottomless "innovation," this.
Just like Apple "innovated" copy and paste from the Xerox PARC.
And of course, we'll have to wait for SP1 to fix the worst bugs
of the public betatest named 'release' ... and we'll have to see
if any of your partisan claims (they cannot be informed claims,
you are no microsoftie) have any basis in truth instead of in
marketing.
My "partisan" claims about Win7 are informed by the fact that I've been
running the beta, RC, and RTM versions since January.
I see. So you signed the NDA forbiding you to a) say anything
negative and b) admitting said NDA?
I'm simply saying
that Win7 is solid, supported, and secure to a degree that Linux has
*never* been able to claim.
Linux doesn't claim, claims are just empty words from marketing.
Linux does, and not just in controlled demos, but openly for
everyone to see, understand, improve and build upon.
MS and their partisans claim, and sometimes they claim vapourware,
much to the detriment of the competition. For example that
"secure" --- how much are you willing to pay for each security
fix MS will have to hotfix in the first 6 months for just their
base system? (i.e. excluding about everything found on a normal
Windows system?)
-Wolfgang
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Different colors
- Next by Date: Re: Different moments
- Previous by thread: Re: [OT]: OS as religions (was: Raw Convertors)
- Next by thread: Re: [OT]: OS as religions (was: Raw Convertors)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
