convince me to switch over to linux

[smc13]

"Windows is the OS that asks you to surrendor freedoms for. Windows is the software that asks you to pay money for. Windows is the OS that tells you you can't copy me and you can't let your friends use me unless they pay for it also. "

What freedom am I giving up when I choose to use Windows? Why is buying a product a bad thing? Why is it wrong for my friends to buy the software as well? Seriously, why is it wrong for a business to make a profit off of their hard work? Did you get your keyboard for free? Your CPU? Your hard drive? Do you pay to see Movies? how about music? Why is it wrong to pay for software? Why is it wrong to sell software?

I think buying products is a good thing. It helps the economy. It enables people to buy things themselves. It helps them keep a roof over their head, food on their plate, and cloths on their backs.

While windows isn't the best O/S for a home user (Mac is), it allows me to play games on (more games then the Mac, freebsd, solaris, and linux). Since I enjoy playing games, I have a windows box. When more games are available for the Mac (I can dream), I'll drop windows (I'll miss building computers but Macs are cool).

Btw, what makes Linux better then Mac OS?

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: smc13
"Windows is the OS that asks you to surrendor freedoms for. Windows is the software that asks you to pay money for. Windows is the OS that tells you you can't copy me and you can't let your friends use me unless they pay for it also. "

What freedom am I giving up when I choose to use Windows? Why is buying a product a bad thing? Why is it wrong for my friends to buy the software as well? Seriously, why is it wrong for a business to make a profit off of their hard work? Did you get your keyboard for free? Your CPU? Your hard drive? Do you pay to see Movies? how about music? Why is it wrong to pay for software? Why is it wrong to sell software?

Nothing is wrong with selling software. I buy software time to time. I even have paid for Linux.

I was simply stating a fact, that's all. With Linux people work hard to ensure that you have freedom, they work for a living, too, you know. Plus they help other programmers by providing lots of free code and open framework for accomplishing things.

Maybe I shouldn't of mentioned money a whole lot since it's one of the big mistaken things they think about when they think of Free software. It's about Freedom, not realy free from $.

I think buying products is a good thing. It helps the economy. It enables people to buy things themselves. It helps them keep a roof over their head, food on their plate, and cloths on their backs.

What is it about free software that makes you think that people don't make a living working on it? They do.

The screwed up part is that people think that you have to restrict the rights of people that use your software in order to make a living.

While windows isn't the best O/S for a home user (Mac is), it allows me to play games on (more games then the Mac, freebsd, solaris, and linux). Since I enjoy playing games, I have a windows box. When more games are available for the Mac (I can dream), I'll drop windows (I'll miss building computers but Macs are cool).

Btw, what makes Linux better then Mac OS?

I like Linux more. It's a personal thing and I could go into different aspects of OS X suckiness vs Linux suckiness, but it's not worth it. Most it has to do with the command line and the openness of the OS and the ability to run on much more hardware.

Also, I don't know if you noticed it or not, but OS X itself is built on LOT of free software. Apple couldn't of done it without it. Hell they even use GPL'd software written by Richard Stallman himself (classic gnu/linux anti-hero of sorts). Much of the positive qualities of OS X besides the Aqua interface is directly attributable to code that you and I can download from the internet and Apple has contributed back some code that goes into Linux and the BSD's.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: smc13
I think buying products is a good thing. It helps the economy.

That's bs (at least as it applies to software). The fundamental idea behind a capitalist economy is that there is a lack of resources. When you can create resources out of nothing (or at least cheaper), the economy as a whole benefits. Since software is essentially free to reproduce after its creation, charging per copy does the exact opposite of this: it makes the resource scarcer than it naturally is. I would agree with you if no one made any decent open source software, since paying for it would be the only way to have it made, but that's just not the case.

Granted, proprietary software does offer some things that open source doesn't, as far as support and some guarantee of reliablility, but that can be overcome too. Take a look at JBoss' business model. They provide a free product that is comparable to ones that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars for yearly licences but they are still a profitable company. Thousands of other companies are now more profitable because they can build their products cheaper. It's simply a more efficient economic model.

 

[mysticfm]

Open source might well work for enterprise software like what JBoss makes, where training and support are essential and ongoing needs for their clients regardless of the quality of the software. But I don't think you should generalize that into saying that open source makes more economic sense for all software development. For example, how can a development group that builds a cutting-edge game, or perhaps a DVD movie player, profit in an wholly open-source environment? Training for such types of software is a non-issue (unless, for example, they are going to issue the software without any manual or built-in help whatsoever, which I'd call a ridiculous and user-unfriendly thing to do). And as far as the concept of paying for support goes - the better the team does their job on these types of software, the less need for support there is and hence the less profit they stand to make, thereby actually discouraging good software design, sound implementation and thorough testing.

 

[kamper]

I agree, open source doesn't provide every type of software needed (yet 😛). However, in the case of something like a dvd player, who says the developper needs to profit? People do write this stuff for free and they benefit by having others contribute to making it a better piece of software. Often people just donate money to the developer anyways. I believe Bram Cohen is better off now than he was before he gave Bittorrent away for free (even though most people don't even use his software, just the protocol).

As for releasing the code for free and charging for the documentation, that's still more user-friendly than charging for both the binaries and documentation and not releasing the code at all.

I say as long as people are willing to give the results of their efforts away for free the whole world is better off for it. The only reason money needs to get involved is to provide resources that cost on a per-unit basis, like support, or to stimulate the work that people just don't feel like doing for free, like documentation or development that no one feels like doing for free (like maybe cutting edge games).

And as far as the concept of paying for support goes - the better the team does their job on these types of software, the less need for support there is and hence the less profit they stand to make, thereby actually discouraging good software design, sound implementation and thorough testing.

Who are you refering to here? Companies like JBoss or companies like Microsoft? I don't think that JBoss' non-paid developers are doing a worse job to encourage people to pay for support contracts. And companies like Microsoft are free to do it if they wish, but in most cases it'll come back to bite them when a comparable product with less issues comes along. Are you saying that there is an environment where people purposely produce an inferior product in an attempt to get more support dollars? Please explain.

 

[mysticfm]

Originally posted by: kamper
I agree, open source doesn't provide every type of software needed (yet 😛). However, in the case of something like a dvd player, who says the developper needs to profit? People do write this stuff for free and they benefit by having others contribute to making it a better piece of software.

Counterpoint: what if I, for example, came up with some new and spectacular DVD player that has some amazing features that had never occurred or even seemed possible to anyone before? And what if it took me two years of full-time effort to implement said player? How do I pay my rent and put food on the table by someone else adding more features to it later on? No, in that situation I'd have to conclude that I could not afford the time investment needed to write the software, and so the world has to do without it until someone else (who perhaps has an richer family to support him) comes up with the same idea (if ever).

So, you see, I believe that total conversion of the software market to an open-source model would actually slow down the advancement of software, by artificially limiting the pool of developers to those who don't need to make a living at it.

As for releasing the code for free and charging for the documentation, that's still more user-friendly than charging for both the binaries and documentation and not releasing the code at all.

Difference of opinion on that one, so I'll let it go as such.

I say as long as people are willing to give the results of their efforts away for free the whole world is better off for it.

Whereas I still believe in capitalism to some extent? 🙂

The only reason money needs to get involved is to provide resources that cost on a per-unit basis, like support

Sometimes I feel that many of the proponents of open-source software think that all software developers have a trust fund to live off of while they write free software. :/ The problem with this assertion that software should be free because it can be duplicated for free completely disregards the often enormous initial investment that a developer or team has to make to create it before even that 1st copy is sold. I think the open-source movement needs to come up with a better way to allow developers to be reimbursed for that startup time investment than the questionable idea of charging users for training or support before I for one could fully embrace it.

And as far as the concept of paying for support goes - the better the team does their job on these types of software, the less need for support there is and hence the less profit they stand to make, thereby actually discouraging good software design, sound implementation and thorough testing.

Who are you refering to here? Companies like JBoss or companies like Microsoft? I don't think that JBoss' non-paid developers are doing a worse job to encourage people to pay for support contracts.

I would hope not. But like I said in my earlier post, the open-source model makes more sense for JBoss's field (middleware) than it would for, say, a cutting-edge computer game.

Are you saying that there is an environment where people purposely produce an inferior product in an attempt to get more support dollars? Please explain.

Not at all. Here's what I'm saying: if someone knows that, given sufficient effort (I mean the type of effort that requires more than a weekend or after-school commitment), they can write a better piece of software than what is currently available ... in fact write something that would be so much easier to use that hardly anyone would require support for it ... that an open-source model which espouses profiting solely through support would discourage or even outright prevent them from creating such a product (unless they are already wealthy enough to not need to live off of their development work ... but limiting the talent pool to those who already have it made financially is not a good way to advance the state of software development).

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: mysticfm

Originally posted by: kamper
I agree, open source doesn't provide every type of software needed (yet 😛). However, in the case of something like a dvd player, who says the developper needs to profit? People do write this stuff for free and they benefit by having others contribute to making it a better piece of software.

Counterpoint: what if I, for example, came up with some new and spectacular DVD player that has some amazing features that had never occurred or even seemed possible to anyone before? And what if it took me two years of full-time effort to implement said player? How do I pay my rent and put food on the table by someone else adding more features to it later on? No, in that situation I'd have to conclude that I could not afford the time investment needed to write the software, and so the world has to do without it until someone else (who perhaps has an richer family to support him) comes up with the same idea (if ever).

I'd say most good software is not created in this manner. If you do manage this then you may sell it and I will have no problem with that but I will not buy your software unless I absolutely have to. But again, look at Bram Cohen. He quit his job (he has a family) and went through some hard times while coming up with bittorrent. He still doesn't have a job, afaik, and probably doesn't need one. <edit>As per your point below, you are correct, this is not a good model for many forms of software.</edit>

So, you see, I believe that total conversion of the software market to an open-source model would actually slow down the advancement of software, by artificially limiting the pool of developers to those who don't need to make a living at it.

Agreed. Total conversion would be bad right now.

I say as long as people are willing to give the results of their efforts away for free the whole world is better off for it.

Whereas I still believe in capitalism to some extent? 🙂

I still believe in capitalism; my initial argument started off with the first thing that I learned in economics class. But I don't believe in condemning sharing because it reminds people of the failed attempts at communism in asia. We don't need to force people to give away the results of their efforts but, if they do, I see no reason we should condemn it. 🙂

The only reason money needs to get involved is to provide resources that cost on a per-unit basis, like support

Sometimes I feel that many of the proponents of open-source software think that all software developers have a trust fund to live off of while they write free software. :/ The problem with this assertion that software should be free because it can be duplicated for free completely disregards the often enormous initial investment that a developer or team has to make to create it before even that 1st copy is sold. I think the open-source movement needs to come up with a better way to allow developers to be reimbursed for that startup time investment than the questionable idea of charging users for training or support before I for one could fully embrace it.

Absolutely. It would be fantastic if such a system existed. It will take quite some time before the industry matures to that point, though. I think trying to impose a system like that right now would work about as well as banning proprietary software but it is surely something that we can work towards.


I see your point about support. The corporate section of JBoss would certainly benefit in the short term from discouraging proper documentation. That is something we should also try to avoid at all costs. (But, for the record, a support contract from JBoss is still far less than a license for WebLogic 😛).

 

[mysticfm]

Kamper,

It seems we've either agreed or at least agreed to disagree on most of the points. However I still want to respond to one item:

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: mysticfm
Counterpoint: what if I, for example, came up with some new and spectacular DVD player that has some amazing features that had never occurred or even seemed possible to anyone before? And what if it took me two years of full-time effort to implement said player? How do I pay my rent and put food on the table by someone else adding more features to it later on?

I'd say most good software is not created in this manner. If you do manage this then you may sell it and I will have no problem with that but I will not buy your software unless I absolutely have to.

I am unable to ascertain which part of my scenario you have such a problem with that you say you'd never buy such software. Is it that new ideas aren't worthwhile unless they either come from or are contributed freely to the open-source community at large, or that software shouldn't take two years of fulltime effort to write, or that I shouldn't feel that I should be able to pay for my basic living with the fruits of my development work, or simply that you feel you should never have to spend money on software, period? (It probably doesn't need to be said again, but I can't concur with any of those reasons.) If there's a reason I've missed, please enlighten me.

Also, I'd say that a lot more good software is created in that approximate manner than you may realize. Not everything good comes from open source. Linux itself didn't spring from open source, not in any way shape or fashion - obviously it was based rather closely on (copied from?) Unix, which was a commercial OS. I personally paid a hefty amount for a copy of Unix on at least two occasions ... AT&T System V the first time, Solaris the 2nd time. (I only got around to throwing out some of my aging manuals on the latter about a year ago.)

But again, look at Bram Cohen. He quit his job (he has a family) and went through some hard times while coming up with bittorrent. He still doesn't have a job, afaik, and probably doesn't need one.

I think I'd need a bit more concrete evidence of Cohen's profit from his work on bittorrent than "he probably doesn't need a job now" before I would decide to attempt to follow in his footsteps. 😀 😉

 

[kamper]

I think we do agree, I just like o-s a little more 😉

As for the point in contention, I wouldn't have any deep reasons for not buying your dvd software. I really just couldn't be bothered unless there was a real need for it (like no other way to watch dvds, period). On the whole I like my money better in my pocket than in yours (no offence 😉).

I'll withdraw my Bram Cohen argument, since I can't find the story that I read on him. I won't be quitting my day job anytime soon either 😀

 

[drag]

keep in mind that the vast majority of software that is created is for taylored for specific purposes. Its something that is designed for a corporate intranet website, or scripts for a online store, or custom database application for some small business.

In situations like this F/OSS software has significant advantages. There are lots of free and very high quality libraries you can gain functionality, lots of code and example help, good languages like Python or Perl, and if you have a application that does close to what you need you can borrow as much from as it you need to get the job done.

It's very very rare for people to create something exiting and new in software. It's mostly a incremental proccess.

Like your DVD player for instance. Most of what you'd want done is already taken care of by applications/groups like Xine, gstreamer, and Mplayer. They have very nice players and code, they have codecs developed for reading a wide veriaty of formats and the software to decrypt and play DVDs is free, too. That way your fantastic and new idea for a DVD player software would be much easier to accomplish because the majority of it is already written for you. You then are free to work on the parts of the software that will provide what new functionality you wanted that way with a couple months of work you'd have something great.

If you wanted to write something like that from scratch it could take years before you had a product that was completely functional and stable. It would be a miserable commercial enterprise and you'd probably loose whatever company you started to write it and then nobody would be able to use (much less buy) your software anyways.

😉

 

[mysticfm]

If I were going to write this hypothetical software DVD player, I think I'd rather start from scratch than use MPlayer's code ... when I was playing around with Linux last year I was far from impressed by either the functionality or the robustness of that application. (I'm not familiar with the other two you mentioned.) Fortunately it was just an example of a genre of software development ... whatever innovative software ideas I may have, they fall into areas other than DVD players.

You are right about where the lion's share of software development takes place, and the greater benefits of open-source code for that type of thing. I tend to think about software development in commercial, shrink-wrap terms because that's the realm in which I've spent most of my career.

 

[Alex]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

i'm not contradicting that point but i'd like more concrete examples other than just saying that...

Have you tried to remove MSN Messenger from XP? It's not exactly easy and every SP puts it back AFAIK.
Same thing with IE, only worse because you can't remove it without horribly breaking the OS.
You have to 'hack' XP to use more than the 2 default themes MS gives you.

believe windows is fine for the majority of users because of its intuitive interface

Windows is far from intuitive, it's just that everyone's already seen it. The Start Menu, double-clicking, right-clicking, scroll-wheel, etc are all totally unintuitive and are things that have been learned.

yeah but i mean come on it makes sense... at least for me... select: one click, open: two clicks, scroll with up and down with the wheel, shortcuts to programs you use on the startmenu... nothing too bizarre here...
i'm strongly for the point that yeah sure, you do have to 'hack' windows to do some things but it is possible to eventually have a fully-customized, efficient windows OS...

 

[Alex]

Originally posted by: smc13
I am a linux admin (working even as I post this). I can't think of a reason why a normal person would use linux. If you play games use windows. If you want ease of use, use a Mac. If you want secure and stable, use freebsd.

Linux is more stable then windows and is a little more secure, but neither issue is that critical. I would guess most people turn off their PCs so who cares if it can stay up for months (unless you are running a mission critical server)? As far as security goes, most of these accesspoint/switch/router jobs have a built in firewalls which will stop the vast majority of attacks, which are just script kiddies. If you use a free web based email client with virus protection (like yahoo or gmail), you don't really have to worry about. If you use firefox instead of IE you won't be suseptible to any of the active X exploits. As long as you don't hook up a windows box directly to the internet, and as long as you stay away from outlook and IE, you are fairly secure.

Personally I have three computers, a windows box for games, a dual boot linux/solaris box to connect to work, and a mac to play around with. The one that I like the best is the Mac. It has the best gui and darwin is a decent version of unix. If all games were available for it, I would dump the windows box.

As far as freedom is concerned, I think the BSD license is better then GPL.

nice post, i still can't get over the fact that osX look better than windows... maybe my buddies all have crappy imacs (very possible! heh) but it just doesn't look that good... sure i admit my xp theme kinda has a Mac-ish look to it tho... i don't really think its hypocrisy though cause its not actually a mac-theme per-se, just a one that looks similar and when i get bored of it i can just change it..

Originally posted by: bersl2
My personal good reasons:

1. I know exactly what's being done to my computer. I can look at the source or ask a developer if nothing else can answer a question.

2. I can easily tell whether progress is being made, either by reading mailing list archives or by checking CVS.

3. I can't find the quote that more impactfully says this, but the console is so much more powerful and extensible than any GUI tools combined.

4. I don't have to give my money to The Man if I don't want to. And I don't want to.

I'm sorry if none of these work for you; I'm not much of a utilitarian. Really, the best reason I use Linux is that it feels right to me.

Still, why don't you burn yourself a Knoppix live-boot CD? You don't need to do anything to the hard drive, so there's no risk.

And let's look now at whay you acutally said:

maybe im just bored but lately i've been pondering whether or not to set up a linux dual boot again... i had it like that last year for school but i got rid of it when i didn't need it anymore and it was not that i didn't like linux...i used mandrake 9.2 for the most part and it was pretty solid, except for ATI drivers but that has changed lately apparently... anyway it was just that i didn't see a single advantage over windows... im 21 and i've pretty much grown up with windows 3.1+ and linux just seems like an uglier, simpler version of windows...
call me spoiled but i guess i got used to having a cool xp theme, transparency on windows, samurize and the rest of the bells and whistles that come with windows.... so for the average user like myself... WHY switch over? most of your games won't run, you need some 3rd party MSN clone and you can't use MS office (general accepted standard)...

Others are trying to say something, but they're doing so in a very crude way; namely that if you look at Linux the way you are now, then you'll never see any benefits in using Linux.

First of all, talking about our applications as "3rd party... clone" indicates that you aren't grasping the philosophy of Free/open source correctly. When you see a commercial app, you implicitly think of it as a product produced by a company. This is not the way things work in our world. We make apps which conform to some open standard which accomplishes a certain goal, thus allowing software to become modular. So gaim is not a "clone," but an "implementation." It just so happens that Billy likes to keep his standards and protocols hidden, so we have to reverse-engineer them. Furthermore, you have obviously never heard of OpenOffice or Abiword, which do understand MS Word documents, which are a closed file format, which is absolutely stupid.

OK, you may have us on the eye candy, but if you love eye candy so much, why haven't you started buying Mac hardware (in other words, is eye candy really an issue)?

ATI definitely hurts us by not producing drivers, but that's not our fault. We've asked them repeatedly to open up documentation for their hardware, and they won't do it. This once again emphasizes the difference in philosophies: in the Linux world, we want open source drivers, we'll offer to help you make and maintain them, and we'll make them ourselves if we have to; but that only works if hardware companies actually give us the documents telling us the information we need. This is a big problem, because the graphics companies won't do it, some of the wireless networking companies won't do it (I'm looking at you, TI), and neither will a random assortment of other hardware makers.

In short, you really do have to understand that we fight for the existence of Free/open source software on a daily basis, and that the cards are greatly stacked against us.

Or if you still don't care for any of that ideology, you can still burn that Knoppix CD and do things the empirical way. Just be aware that such ideology exists and does shape the way things are.

as far as the whole open-source argument you made, i admit that i may have been a little ignorant by disregarding that altogether in my previous posts... personally i think open-source software is awesome, if there's nothing to hide why hide it? also it makes software so much better and efficient... i don't really think that open-source has to be restricted strictly to linux stuff though.. cdex, firefox, pdf creator, shareaza & open office are some of the open-source programs i've been using lately and i love them all they are awesome tools.
what i think is happening is that people are mixing up microsoft's business practices with windows in the sense of this discussion... i realize that the way that 'billy' and microsoft have gone about business in the past hasn't always been very ethical and geared towards the entire software-development community and consumers in general. that's why all that antitrust stuff is goin down... but really that doesn't make windows a bad operating system... i think they've come a long way since 3.1, 95, 98 all the way to XP as far as making an operating system for everyone is concerned... if you want you can install windows xp home, apply sp2 and just forget about it and its an easy to use standard home computer... the multiple users feature and fast switching is excellent in that respect. i don't like the new start menu but i see the advantage and ease of useand most average users in my experience tend to like it. the my documents folder, organizing everything into music, video, pictures... i admit that for me adapting to this system was a chore, it took me a while but i finally gave in and it works just fine now. for the average user though its great because whether they don't really understand the need for organizing their files effectively, having this basic structure makes using the computer and finding their files a lot easier

if you are a power user however, like i consider myself to be, you can change xp significantly to make it suit your needs. you can alter the uxtheme file and change themes as easily as double clicking a file, you can change boot screens, even the text on the start menu. you can use the taskbar/startmenu/system tray or eliminate it altogether and use objectdock or yzdock instead, you can use samurize to get system info on your desktop, you can turn off unecessary services and tweak windows privacy settings and also do some other registry tweaks to improve performance. you can run bootvis to speed up booting up... plus the whole list of stuff i forgot to mention... like using nlite to burn an xp cd without outlook express and windows messenger and without all of the crap you don't want...

so basically my argument is that despite all of bill gates and microsoft antitrust and monopoly and bad software practices, windows has evolved to be a stable and versatile operating system for most users. it is easy enough to use...imagine getting someone who has never used a computer before and placing them in front of a pc with xp, mac with osx and pc with any linux distro (maybe mandrake for this example) honestly i really don't see osx as being easy to use at all, not compared mandrake (using KDE for instance) or windows xp... just think about it! 🙂 also getting help is easier on a windows computer... the man pages suck and mac help is ok but windows help is soo easy to use and helpful cmon....
and for all of the people that say that microsoft 'makes' you do things a certain way, maybe it might make the average user do things a certain way but that's just part of what makes it easy to use and i'd look at it more like pointing users in the right direction... you don't have to use all the wizards and default handlers for everything... but they are there in case you don't know what to do... but i think most of it can be bypassed, making windows just as fast and stable as any linux installation on the same computer...

 

[Nothinman]

nothing too bizarre here...

It's not bizarre because your'e used to it. And what about the option for single-click to open? It was the default when IE 4 was released, in Win98 and I believe in WinME.

you do have to 'hack' windows to do some things but it is possible to eventually have a fully-customized, efficient windows OS...

But MS doesn't want you to, otherwise they wouldn't make you hack the system to do it.

 

[Abzstrak]

Originally posted by: franguinho
maybe im just bored but lately i've been pondering whether or not to set up a linux dual boot again... i had it like that last year for school but i got rid of it when i didn't need it anymore and it was not that i didn't like linux...i used mandrake 9.2 for the most part and it was pretty solid, except for ATI drivers but that has changed lately apparently... anyway it was just that i didn't see a single advantage over windows... im 21 and i've pretty much grown up with windows 3.1+ and linux just seems like an uglier, simpler version of windows... :roll:
call me spoiled but i guess i got used to having a cool xp theme, transparency on windows, samurize and the rest of the bells and whistles that come with windows.... so for the average user like myself... WHY switch over? most of your games won't run, you need some 3rd party MSN clone and you can't use MS office (general accepted standard)...

just wondering...

-frang

PS - don't say security cause thats not really a practical issue and zone alarm and an antivirus and regular windows patches keep it safe enough 🙂

Stay on windows, we dont feel like answering your questions on linux... Anyone who wants to be conviced is going to be a burden on the community... go buy a Mac

 

[OffTopic1]

Pick and use what you like as long as it do the job.

 

[Nothinman]

Pick and use what you like as long as it do the job.

The problem with that is most people don't like what they don't understand so the "other" OSes get the backseat while Windows gets the benefit of the doubt because it's all they know. To make a really informed decision you have to understand all of the available options and most Windows people don't want to take the time to learn the other options. Luckily that's changing on the server side, but on the desktop there's still a long way to go.

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: Abzstrak
Stay on windows, we dont feel like answering your questions on linux... Anyone who wants to be conviced is going to be a burden on the community... go buy a Mac

Actually *nix users and Macs users are meant for each other. Elitists with a very snotty attitude that cares less about what's practical (one's pocketbook and time) and everthing about being "hip" (the iPod's the status symbol now -- what a way to throw away cash!).

This sums up the exchange:

*nix user: I'm a networking genius, and you Windows users are idiotic n00bs.
Mac user: I'm the reincarnation of Oscar Wilde, and everyone else are ill-bred tramps.

Meanwhile the rest of the world says: Get a life!

 

[Nothinman]

Actually *nix users and Macs users are meant for each other. Elitists with a very snotty attitude that cares less about what's practical (one's pocketbook and time) and everthing about being "hip" (the iPod's the status symbol now -- what a way to throw away cash!).

You appear to be doing the same thing, running around calling the non-Windows users names...

Meanwhile the rest of the world says: Get a life!

Maybe you should take your own advice?

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Originally posted by: Presence
Linux

Dont seem to have a problem with transparency for me =)

My linux machine looks a hell of a lot better and runs a lot smoother then on my faster winxp system.

THAT is the hottest thing I have seen all night, who is she?

Nothin, what's up with the hostility bro?

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Terumo

Originally posted by: Abzstrak
Stay on windows, we dont feel like answering your questions on linux... Anyone who wants to be conviced is going to be a burden on the community... go buy a Mac

Actually *nix users and Macs users are meant for each other. Elitists with a very snotty attitude that cares less about what's practical (one's pocketbook and time) and everthing about being "hip" (the iPod's the status symbol now -- what a way to throw away cash!).

This sums up the exchange:

*nix user: I'm a networking genius, and you Windows users are idiotic n00bs.
Mac user: I'm the reincarnation of Oscar Wilde, and everyone else are ill-bred tramps.

Meanwhile the rest of the world says: Get a life!

Oh great...I mention OS she dives right in to pick fights...
Ignore her would be my advice.

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Maybe you should take your own advice?

Maybe when *nixers stop raining on every Windows/MS thread. Even Mac users are better behaved. 😀

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: Sunner
Oh great...I mention OS she dives right in to pick fights...
Ignore her would be my advice.

I'm not suprised that you're here bad mouthing Windows at every chance.

IE wasn't enough. Next thing it'll be about MS and maybe Bill Gates again. :disgust:

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Terumo

Originally posted by: Sunner
Oh great...I mention OS she dives right in to pick fights...
Ignore her would be my advice.

I'm not suprised that you're here bad mouthing Windows at every chance.

IE wasn't enough. Next thing it'll be about MS and maybe Bill Gates again. :disgust:

Actually, I told him he should continue to use Windows since it obviously works for him.
I'm not surprised you don't care though, since all you wanna do is pick fights.

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: Sunner
Actually, I told him he should continue to use Windows since it obviously works for him.
I'm not surprised you don't care though, since all you wanna do is pick fights.

This is what you wrote....

Well, your first post made me firmly believe that Linux isn't for you, so don't bother.

How does a challenge qualify as being not good enough for him? Or is that he bothered to challenge that *nix pedestal?