Re: LINUX: First Wave - OS Migration, Second Wave - Program Migration

On Mar 11, 6:37 pm, flyer <f...@there.net> wrote:
> We'll need to give the major program developers a little time, but not
> too much. The Linux avalanche doth wait for no one.
>
> If they can't see the Linux writing on the wall, then they don't deserve
> to survive, and we don't want them. Hungry Linux develpoers are wedging
> weak windows cracks wider every day.
>
> The larger developers are either actively (and quietly) developing a
> Linux version of their programs, or they are so blind they are hopeless.
>
> With broken windows falling by the wayside, and therefore a decent
> foundation of secure code now proving it's worth and workability, major
> vendors can no longer afford to ignore loud demands for LINUX.

Where do you get this crap from?
Do you invent it or is there some script that you Linux wastes read
from?

You are out of your mind if you actually believe even one word you
wrote.

Is this the year of Linux?
I thought last year was the year of Linux?
Or was it the year before that?

In fact, I hear the same story every year that "this is the year of
Linux".
Yet, Linux, except in your own twisted mind, is going no place.

So who is paying you to spread this misinformation?
Perhaps the same people that are paying that Roy Schestowitz joker?
It must be because they aren't getting their moneys worth.
The two of you, along with that blob B Gruff are doing more to make
Linux users look foolish than
any Wintroll could ever hope to do.

Keep up the good work and don't forget your Koolaid!

http://gopvixen.blogs.com/gop_vixen/images/kool_aid.jpg

In article <1173658610.416105.293500@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups .com>,
opensource.sucks@yahoo.com says...
> On Mar 11, 6:37 pm, flyer <f...@there.net> wrote:
> > We'll need to give the major program developers a little time, but not
> > too much. The Linux avalanche doth wait for no one.
> >
> > If they can't see the Linux writing on the wall, then they don't deserve
> > to survive, and we don't want them. Hungry Linux develpoers are wedging
> > weak windows cracks wider every day.
> >
> > The larger developers are either actively (and quietly) developing a
> > Linux version of their programs, or they are so blind they are hopeless.
> >
> > With broken windows falling by the wayside, and therefore a decent
> > foundation of secure code now proving it's worth and workability, major
> > vendors can no longer afford to ignore loud demands for LINUX.
>
> Where do you get this crap from?
> Do you invent it or is there some script that you Linux wastes read
> from?
>
> You are out of your mind if you actually believe even one word you
> wrote.
>
> Is this the year of Linux?
> I thought last year was the year of Linux?
> Or was it the year before that?
>
> In fact, I hear the same story every year that "this is the year of
> Linux".
> Yet, Linux, except in your own twisted mind, is going no place.
>
> So who is paying you to spread this misinformation?
> Perhaps the same people that are paying that Roy Schestowitz joker?
> It must be because they aren't getting their moneys worth.
> The two of you, along with that blob B Gruff are doing more to make
> Linux users look foolish than
> any Wintroll could ever hope to do.
>
> Keep up the good work and don't forget your Koolaid!
>
> http://gopvixen.blogs.com/gop_vixen/images/kool_aid.jpg


Well Done! Many words to say nothing much at all.

Reread ALL the Linux Adoption news posts, and then weep little
bootlicker.

I think Microsoft Windows won't go away. I see Windows as cleverly made
to confuse and hide from uninformed users what the vistas of computer
technology actually are -- I chose that 'vistas' deliberately but in a
most
unfriendly way. But increasingly, people out there are informed and one
thing they see in Microsoft's products is their butcher-fingered
clumsiness
and opaqueness to individual need. There is also Microsoft's insistence
that they *own* the method by which creators can access what they
create -- this is untenable over the long run. Yet, despite all that, I
think
an ecological niche exists for a product like Microsoft Windows; it's
just
not the totality of all computer work. (Nor even a sizable part of it.)

But also, if we get people out there living in space, their needs for
quality
software will completely forbid using any closed-source software:
Microsoft
products can never be life-rated / human/rated.

Meanwhile, I think much of the material I see in this thread is dogmatic
and
empty: it can't help the movement to Linux.

Cheers -- Martha Adams [cola 2007 Mar 11]

"flyer" <flyer@there.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.205e4e667aee5d2a989694@news.lafn.org...
> In article <1173658610.416105.293500@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups .com>,
> opensource.sucks@yahoo.com says...
>> On Mar 11, 6:37 pm, flyer <f...@there.net> wrote:
>> > We'll need to give the major program developers a little time, but
>> > not
>> > too much. The Linux avalanche doth wait for no one.
>> >
>> > If they can't see the Linux writing on the wall, then they don't
>> > deserve
>> > to survive, and we don't want them. Hungry Linux develpoers are
>> > wedging
>> > weak windows cracks wider every day.
>> >
>> > The larger developers are either actively (and quietly) developing
>> > a
>> > Linux version of their programs, or they are so blind they are
>> > hopeless.
>> >
>> > With broken windows falling by the wayside, and therefore a decent
>> > foundation of secure code now proving it's worth and workability,
>> > major
>> > vendors can no longer afford to ignore loud demands for LINUX.
>>
>> Where do you get this crap from?
>> Do you invent it or is there some script that you Linux wastes read
>> from?
>>
>> You are out of your mind if you actually believe even one word you
>> wrote.
>>
>> Is this the year of Linux?
>> I thought last year was the year of Linux?
>> Or was it the year before that?
>>
>> In fact, I hear the same story every year that "this is the year of
>> Linux".
>> Yet, Linux, except in your own twisted mind, is going no place.
>>
>> So who is paying you to spread this misinformation?
>> Perhaps the same people that are paying that Roy Schestowitz joker?
>> It must be because they aren't getting their moneys worth.
>> The two of you, along with that blob B Gruff are doing more to make
>> Linux users look foolish than
>> any Wintroll could ever hope to do.
>>
>> Keep up the good work and don't forget your Koolaid!
>>
>> http://gopvixen.blogs.com/gop_vixen/images/kool_aid.jpg
>
>
> Well Done! Many words to say nothing much at all.
>
> Reread ALL the Linux Adoption news posts, and then weep little
> bootlicker.
>

In article <Ly3Jh.4009$0W5.1342@trndny05>, mhada@verizon.net says...
> I think Microsoft Windows won't go away. I see Windows as cleverly made
> to confuse and hide from uninformed users what the vistas of computer
> technology actually are -- I chose that 'vistas' deliberately but in a
> most
> unfriendly way. But increasingly, people out there are informed and one
> thing they see in Microsoft's products is their butcher-fingered
> clumsiness
> and opaqueness to individual need. There is also Microsoft's insistence
> that they *own* the method by which creators can access what they
> create -- this is untenable over the long run. Yet, despite all that, I
> think
> an ecological niche exists for a product like Microsoft Windows; it's
> just
> not the totality of all computer work. (Nor even a sizable part of it.)
>
> But also, if we get people out there living in space, their needs for
> quality
> software will completely forbid using any closed-source software:
> Microsoft
> products can never be life-rated / human/rated.
>
> Meanwhile, I think much of the material I see in this thread is dogmatic
> and
> empty: it can't help the movement to Linux.
>
> Cheers -- Martha Adams [cola 2007 Mar 11]
>

Yes, using windows or anything at all from MS for mission critical
deployment is literally putting lives and who knows what else at risk.
Incredibly dangerous.

The thread is devoid of specifics, but mentions large scale long range
strtegy which will result in specific statistics of migration and
adoption.

It points out an important SEQUENCE -- OS first, programs second -- which

if considered, makes the whole game clearer.

I'm just curious about what you meant by:

"There is also Microsoft's insistence that they *own* the method by which
creators can access what they create..."

What exactly do you mean by this? All I see is Microsoft creating tools for
creators and protecting their investments.

--
/* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Robert Firth *
* Windows Vista x86 RTM *
* http://www.WinVistaInfo.org *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */

"Martha Adams" <mhada@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Ly3Jh.4009$0W5.1342@trndny05...
>I think Microsoft Windows won't go away. I see Windows as cleverly made
> to confuse and hide from uninformed users what the vistas of computer
> technology actually are -- I chose that 'vistas' deliberately but in a
> most
> unfriendly way. But increasingly, people out there are informed and one
> thing they see in Microsoft's products is their butcher-fingered
> clumsiness
> and opaqueness to individual need. There is also Microsoft's insistence
> that they *own* the method by which creators can access what they
> create -- this is untenable over the long run. Yet, despite all that, I
> think
> an ecological niche exists for a product like Microsoft Windows; it's just
> not the totality of all computer work. (Nor even a sizable part of it.)
>
> But also, if we get people out there living in space, their needs for
> quality
> software will completely forbid using any closed-source software:
> Microsoft
> products can never be life-rated / human/rated.
>
> Meanwhile, I think much of the material I see in this thread is dogmatic
> and
> empty: it can't help the movement to Linux.
>
> Cheers -- Martha Adams [cola 2007 Mar 11]
>
> "flyer" <flyer@there.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.205e4e667aee5d2a989694@news.lafn.org...
>> In article <1173658610.416105.293500@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups .com>,
>> opensource.sucks@yahoo.com says...
>>> On Mar 11, 6:37 pm, flyer <f...@there.net> wrote:
>>> > We'll need to give the major program developers a little time, but not
>>> > too much. The Linux avalanche doth wait for no one.
>>> >
>>> > If they can't see the Linux writing on the wall, then they don't
>>> > deserve
>>> > to survive, and we don't want them. Hungry Linux develpoers are
>>> > wedging
>>> > weak windows cracks wider every day.
>>> >
>>> > The larger developers are either actively (and quietly) developing a
>>> > Linux version of their programs, or they are so blind they are
>>> > hopeless.
>>> >
>>> > With broken windows falling by the wayside, and therefore a decent
>>> > foundation of secure code now proving it's worth and workability,
>>> > major
>>> > vendors can no longer afford to ignore loud demands for LINUX.
>>>
>>> Where do you get this crap from?
>>> Do you invent it or is there some script that you Linux wastes read
>>> from?
>>>
>>> You are out of your mind if you actually believe even one word you
>>> wrote.
>>>
>>> Is this the year of Linux?
>>> I thought last year was the year of Linux?
>>> Or was it the year before that?
>>>
>>> In fact, I hear the same story every year that "this is the year of
>>> Linux".
>>> Yet, Linux, except in your own twisted mind, is going no place.
>>>
>>> So who is paying you to spread this misinformation?
>>> Perhaps the same people that are paying that Roy Schestowitz joker?
>>> It must be because they aren't getting their moneys worth.
>>> The two of you, along with that blob B Gruff are doing more to make
>>> Linux users look foolish than
>>> any Wintroll could ever hope to do.
>>>
>>> Keep up the good work and don't forget your Koolaid!
>>>
>>> http://gopvixen.blogs.com/gop_vixen/images/kool_aid.jpg
>>
>>
>> Well Done! Many words to say nothing much at all.
>>
>> Reread ALL the Linux Adoption news posts, and then weep little
>> bootlicker.
>>
>
>

In article <3DD9B4AA-8697-4A5B-AE86-C804A24EF002@microsoft.com>,
webmaster@winvistainfo.org says...
> I'm just curious about what you meant by:
>
> "There is also Microsoft's insistence that they *own* the method by which
> creators can access what they create..."
>
> What exactly do you mean by this? All I see is Microsoft creating tools for
> creators and protecting their investments.
>
>

Format lockin, massive opposition to open standards. Lock you OUT of your
data until you pay. What do you THINK he meant?

Protecting Investments?? You mean the ones they STEAL or the ones they
legally "acquire."

All you see is what you want to see. It's called self imposed partial
blindness.

I suppose you enjoy calling someone for permission to use your computer.

If you desire to be screwed, fine. But don't you dare expect others to go
along with it.

This is Linux Advocacy, not MS Shillville.

Martha Adams wrote:
> I think Microsoft Windows won't go away. I see Windows as cleverly
> made to confuse and hide from uninformed users what the vistas of
> computer technology actually are -- I chose that 'vistas'
> deliberately but in a most
> unfriendly way. But increasingly, people out there are informed and
> one thing they see in Microsoft's products is their butcher-fingered
> clumsiness
> and opaqueness to individual need. There is also Microsoft's
> insistence that they *own* the method by which creators can access
> what they create -- this is untenable over the long run. Yet, despite
> all that, I think
> an ecological niche exists for a product like Microsoft Windows; it's
> just
> not the totality of all computer work. (Nor even a sizable part of
> it.)
> But also, if we get people out there living in space, their needs for
> quality
> software will completely forbid using any closed-source software:
> Microsoft
> products can never be life-rated / human/rated.
>
> Meanwhile, I think much of the material I see in this thread is
> dogmatic and
> empty: it can't help the movement to Linux.

Another hypothesis, which fits all the known facts, is that Microsoft is
secretly funding the Linux movement.

Microsoft does this so that all the malcontents, pettifoggers, cut-purses,
and lick-spittles will have someplace to congregate and, in so doing, quit
pestering us sane folk.

HeyBub wrote:

> Martha Adams wrote:
>
>>I think Microsoft Windows won't go away. I see Windows as cleverly
>>made to confuse and hide from uninformed users what the vistas of
>>computer technology actually are -- I chose that 'vistas'
>>deliberately but in a most
>>unfriendly way. But increasingly, people out there are informed and
>>one thing they see in Microsoft's products is their butcher-fingered
>>clumsiness
>>and opaqueness to individual need. There is also Microsoft's
>>insistence that they *own* the method by which creators can access
>>what they create -- this is untenable over the long run. Yet, despite
>>all that, I think
>>an ecological niche exists for a product like Microsoft Windows; it's
>>just
>>not the totality of all computer work. (Nor even a sizable part of
>>it.)
>>But also, if we get people out there living in space, their needs for
>>quality
>>software will completely forbid using any closed-source software:
>>Microsoft
>>products can never be life-rated / human/rated.
>>
>>Meanwhile, I think much of the material I see in this thread is
>>dogmatic and
>>empty: it can't help the movement to Linux.
>
>
> Another hypothesis, which fits all the known facts, is that Microsoft is
> secretly funding the Linux movement.
>
> Microsoft does this so that all the malcontents, pettifoggers, cut-purses,
> and lick-spittles will have someplace to congregate and, in so doing, quit
> pestering us sane folk.
>

Shhuush, the "honey-pot" project is supposed to be confidential.

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 03:12:43 GMT, "Martha Adams" wrote:

Heh... I never know whether to ignore these threads or try to shine a
new light on them, if I can...

>I think Microsoft Windows won't go away. I see Windows as cleverly made
>to confuse and hide from uninformed users what the vistas of computer
>technology actually are -- I chose that 'vistas' deliberately but in a
>most unfriendly way.

That's an interesting perspective, and may be gaining truth as the
media pimps warp the technological reality field with the black-hole
gravity of their money.

We need Linux to keep MS honest, else Windows may drift off into some
untethered bubble of vendor pipe-dreams a la Nero's inappropriate
musicianship in the midst of a flaming empire.

Windows may be MS's empire, but we (Windows users) are its citizens.

As long as Linux remains unacceptable for general use, MS are free to
do what they want, and one just has to hope they won't want to push
the licensing envelope past the point of unacceptable pain.

As it is, if MS did something nutty, like "Windows will now be
licensed annually, you must swallow all patches, and if you're offline
for a week so we can't touch your OS, your installation wipes itself",
we'd be left without much in the way of lifeboats.

Right now, the choice would be:
- grab bits of Linux wood and build a raft, quickly
- join the rapacious Apple slave ship, and start rowing

It always amuses me to see folks saying "oooo I don't like Microsoft's
monopoly, so I'll go and overpay for an Apple Mac from a tin-pot
monopolist who owns both OS and the hardware".

As Burnt Face Man would say, "I don't see that happening" ;-)


With this opportunity being so open for the last decade or more, why
has Linux so far failed to fill it?

Linux is written on a peer basis, i.e. folks write things they'd find
useful, and gicve it to others to use.

Folks who can write code generally don't find hand-holding GUIs and
wizards useful, so they don't bother to write them. Why should they,
if they don't need them anyway?

Most of the current Windows user base can't code, and do need that
sort of GUI and wizard hand-holding - myself included. Just as a car
that requires you to grip the front axle and tilt it to steer is not a
completed motor product for general use, so an OS that requires you to
memorise and type commands that look like modem noise to do simple
things is not a completed OS product for general use.

So the consumers who use Windows today, are like beggars to the Linux
feast. They have nothing to offer as peers, as they will never
reciprocate by coding something you'd need, so why would you as a part
of the Linux coding community code for their needs?

>Meanwhile, I think much of the material I see in this thread is dogmatic
>and empty: it can't help the movement to Linux.

See my opening sentence.

>"flyer" <flyer@there.net> wrote in message
>> opensource.sucks@yahoo.com says...
>>> On Mar 11, 6:37 pm, flyer <f...@there.net> wrote:

>>> > The Linux avalanche doth wait for no one.

Ah yes, the "thousand year empire" heh heh...

>>> > Hungry Linux develpoers are wedging
>>> > weak windows cracks wider every day.

This may be true, but it's not happening where we, as beleagured
consumers, need it to happen. Yes, the smart peripherals we buy are
increasingly using "Linux inside", and Linux makes it practical to
develop stand-alone sub-PC devices.

But it's not doing much on the consumer desktop.

In terms of the subject line, a better strategy would be:
- 1st; app migration (to apps available to both Linux and Windows)
- 2nd; OS migration (to run these now-familiar apps)

They built it (Linux) and they didn't come (consumers), so I think an
OS-first strategy is ingerently doomed. Time to find a softer wall to
bang your head against, and that's the apps.

>>> You are out of your mind if you believe one word you wrote.
>>>
>>> Is this the year of Linux?
>>> I thought last year was the year of Linux?
>>> Or was it the year before that?

Agreed. There's no surer way to sink an enterprise than to believe
your own spin... and that's one of MS's biggest risks. I don't see
signs of that happening precipitously as yet, but the risk is so large
(in terms of impact, rather than probability) that it must be hedged.

(flamage snipped)



>------------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
The rights you save may be your own
>------------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:48:16 -0800, flyer <flyer@there.net> wrote:
>In webmaster@winvistainfo.org says...

>> "There is also Microsoft's insistence that they *own* the method by which
>> creators can access what they create..."
>>
>> What exactly do you mean by this?

>Format lockin, massive opposition to open standards. Lock you OUT of your
>data until you pay. What do you THINK he meant?

Standards can be tricky. A truly open standard is one thing, but
defacto standards are another, in that at the volumes MS works with,
it's cheaper to develop their own "standard" than to adopt a de facto
standard and pay royalties on it. This may be one reason why they
went .CAB instead of .ZIP, and have been slow to write .PDF

Also, the quality of standards is often too wobbly to sit on, without
perturbing the boat. By "quality", I mean in terms of what a standard
has to do, i.e. exclude ambiguity.

Often what happens is that standards follow after the fact, and are
bedevilled by work already done by dominant vendors. In order to
appease these opposing factors, you may have an interim standard (e.g.
fax Class 2) that can generate surprises when later ratified (e.g. fax
Class 2.0), or the standard is intentionally vague, so as to allow
different implimentations to fit within the standard.

Now, what happens when MS comes along and places its huge weight of
volume in one corner of a wobbly boat? Which faction does it favor?

So... it's not always as easy as it looks, and one should be careful
what one wishes for. Imagine the yelps from vendors A, B and C if MS
were to adopt the standard variation used by vendors X, Y and Z?


There is an anti-competitive effect in the corporate sector, in that
MS has a well-oiled enterprise-wide patch delivery system that raises
the bar for competing products.

For example, an organization that uses IE will have IE seamlessly
updated via WUS, Auto-Update etc. and big shops can manage their own
update distribution. If the same organization switches to Firefox,
they have to develop their own update channel for it. That
effectively blocks Firefox from much of the large corporate sector.

There are two anti-competitive aspects to this:
- exclusivity of Microsoft's update service
- inability to truly remove MS bundleware

My attitude to these differs.

In the first case, I'm against regulatory intervention, because it
would in effect be punishing success and reducing functionality. MS
can't open up their patch delivery system to anyone who calls
themselves a "software vendor" for reasons that I hope are too obvious
to need further explanation.

In the second case, I'm more in favor of regulatory intervention,
because the result may be a better functionality. Why should servers
have to have Media Player, DirectX and even a web browser? There's
value to being able to truly remove these, as opposed to papering over
them and still having to patxch them.

Unlike the first case, where MS's practice adds value, the second
looks like one where MS's practice deliberately subtracts value in
order to consolidate their position. Certainly this is the case with
DirectX and Media Player; by now, there may be genuine dependencies on
IE, it's been embedded for so long and HTML is so internally pervasive
within the OS that it may be too late to remove it.



>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Reality is that which, when you stop believing
in it, does not go away (PKD)
>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -