OT sorta, another reason to love linux

[Dave]

Yes, big business is where Microsoft's dominance stopped. But it
owns the personal computer.

You know most home users tend to like to use what is running on their workstations at work. It's only a matter of time before a significant percentage of those are running linux, seeing as they are already connected to linux servers.

Microsoft Corporation has $24 billion in cash. Microsoft could buy
every Linux company in the world (if antitrust would allow it) and
still buy Yahoo.

Only someone who doesn't understand linux at all could post something as stupid as that. Linux is a user-developed OS. The only "companies" associated with linux are certain companies that make money packaging certain distros for retail sale, and selling "support" services for same. If Microsoft bought every single one of those companies, it could stop the retail sale of certain distros. But the distros themselves would still be freely available for download (the way most linux users get it) and here's the real BITCH of the situation (as far as Microsoft goes)... those distros that Microsoft thought they bought would still be developed.

Quite simply, you can't purchase linux. Not with all the money in the world. It is open source. -Dave

 

[Dave]

Then why didn't you compare it to Fedora or Red Hat or even Ubuntu?

I could. I've used all of those in the past, as well as several others. But I don't get your point. Microsoft would look really bad compared to any or all of them.

Point is, you can't really compare the two. The apples and oranges
thing!

Really? Serious question...do you even KNOW what an operating system IS? I most definitely can and will compare the two. It is NOT an "apples and oranges" thing. Just comparing one OS to another OS.

Your hatred of Microsoft and your infatuation with Linux have clouded
your perception of reality. Your test was biased from the begining, so
your results are suspect.
And that's my final word on the matter.

You think anybody who hates Microsoft would be running Vista at home and vehemently defending Vista against all the ignorant people who have never tried it but love to bash it? I've seen many people compare Vista NEGATIVELY to XP, and I don't hesitate to point out to them that they are WRONG. I don't think Vista is better than XP, but it's not worse, and Vista does -boot- faster than XP, and run all applications just as fast as XP. My view on them is, as far as Microsoft goes, Vista and XP are both OK.

Oh and the results are not suspect. I have reproduced them many (dozens) of times. -Dave

 

[John Doe]

The Seabat wrote:
Puppy?? Puppy?? You're comparing a full blown operating system
[WinXP] to an itty bitty little distro that will fit on a 128MB
stick of RAM??? And then you're amazed that it uses less
resources than WinXP?? Holy shit! You know I once compared the
milage I was getting in my golf cart running to the store to my
pickup, running the same errands. And, do you know that, WOW,
my golf cart beat the pickup hands down!! Now isn't THAT
amazing?? Bozo.


What's so bad about that? If it fits the user's needs, all is
fine.

Exactly, Linux doesn't even come close to fitting my needs or the
needs of the vast majority of other real PC users. Windows runs
the games, but it also runs the big money making applications in
business and science.

Do you just make this stuff up?

Of course not, Linux Lunatic troll. It's been that way for about 15
years.

Big business lives on linux!

You are out of your freaking mind, troll.

I wasn't talking about big business server applications, I was
talking about business and science applications for workstations.
International Business Machines thought that personal computers were
insignificant compared to its server computers, and eventually
Microsoft became powerful enough to push IBM around.

Yes, big business is where Microsoft's dominance stopped. But it
owns the personal computer.

Microsoft Corporation has $24 billion in cash. Microsoft could buy
every Linux company in the world (if antitrust would allow it) and
still buy Yahoo.

 

[John Doe]

The Seabat wrote:
Puppy?? Puppy?? You're comparing a full blown operating system
[WinXP] to an itty bitty little distro that will fit on a 128MB
stick of RAM??? And then you're amazed that it uses less
resources than WinXP?? Holy shit! You know I once compared the
milage I was getting in my golf cart running to the store to my
pickup, running the same errands. And, do you know that, WOW,
my golf cart beat the pickup hands down!! Now isn't THAT
amazing?? Bozo.


What's so bad about that? If it fits the user's needs, all is
fine.

Exactly, Linux doesn't even come close to fitting my needs or the
needs of the vast majority of other real PC users. Windows runs
the games, but it also runs the big money making applications in
business and science. Macs used to run the graphics applications,
but now even they are being written for Windows first. Have you
seen those recent Apple Computer commercials? One of them boasts
about "Office for the Mac". But Office is written by Microsoft,
you know? At one time Microsoft threatened Apple that it wasn't
going to write Office for the Mac anymore. That would've killed
Apple, and still would. Apple survives because Microsoft lets it,
and Linux isn't even in the picture.

First off:
What's this weird obsession with posting my headers?(or the
headers of anyone you reply to?)

That's a lie.

What do you think you think you are accomplishing?

I like to archive information about spammers and trolls.

BTW, Windows doesn't cut it in the electric power utility area.
It's not mission critical capable when you push gigawatts and
kilovolts around. My wurk uses Solaris for this. It's a 'nix.

That's nice, but like it or not Microsoft owns the personal
computer.

 

[John Doe]

I'd have to re-read the entire thread to be sure, but I sure didn't see any spammers or trolls in this one.

Everybody has an opinion.

You know where microsoft gets most of their profits? It sure as hell isn't Vista Home Premium. It's from OS licensing for business servers...

Says who?

I think their greatest income is from personal computer and
workstation sales of Windows and Office. Office is a huge moneymaker.

the systems that are switching to linux at an ever-increasing pace. Microsoft may be dominant at the moment, but they are also in big trouble if they don't figure out how to reverse this trend. -Dave

That pie in the sky has been there for over a decade.
Linux Lunatics are singing the same tune as they always have.

 

[John Doe]

Really? Serious question...do you even KNOW what an operating system IS?

An operating system is the software layer between the hardware and
applications, including user input/output.

The definition varies among professionals. If you think you know
definitively what an operating system is, you're just a big ego.

I've seen many people compare Vista NEGATIVELY to XP, and I don't hesitate to point out to them that they are WRONG.

That means you're good with the simplistic.

Still would be nice if you could wrap your lines.

And why can't you introduce prior authors like everybody else on USENET?

Apparently Linux wants you to stand out among the crowd.

 

[John Doe]

...and here's the real BITCH

The real bitch is your need to shill for a closet dweller operating
system here among real PC users. That's similar to your inability to
format a USENET post like everyone else does. Maybe it makes you
feel special, even though it looks weird. In fact you're just
ignorant.

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

* class_a:

Big business lives on linux! Pixar, Dreamworks, the New York Stock
Exchange [1], China's largest bank [2],

Right, but have you read the article?

"...The shift to Linux is driven by the banks' need for better software
performance and better vendor support, said Nielse Jiang, an analyst at
IDC in Beijing. Currently, most of these banks are running their
applications on SCO Unix and they are looking to upgrade their systems.
"In China, SCO Unix offers very weak support for customers; they have so
few employees," he said."

SCOs support is equally bad worldwide, so even a change to Windows would
have been an improvement. Additionally, until more recently China didn't
had access to mission-critical failsafe computer systems that are run by
western banks. Besides that, Linux is the official operating system
choosen by the all-regulating government.

German banks [3],

No, German Bank (which is called "Deutsche Bank" and not "German Bank"
indeed). Singular (bank, not "banks"). And they are using it only for a
certain task. Otherwise, banks in Germany heavily rely on Windows and
still OS/2 on the client side while mission-critical tasks is done by
big irons like HP Superdome running HP-UX or Nonstop-UNIX. There are
several efforts to get Linux deployed on the client, though.

Benjamin

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

* Dave:

Why should that matter? That only becomes a factor if I let the
system set idle

Nope. Power management settings also influence the power consumption
under load.

Benjamin

 

[SteveH]

* Dave:

Nope. Power management settings also influence the power consumption
under load.

Benjamin

Exactly my point, and the power management settings would have to be set the
same under both Windows and Linux to make this a fair comparison.