Why Linux is worried now that Vista is harder to pirate!

Maybe it shouldn't surprise anyone that this is a comment from a ZDNet
reader. But this reader is conviced that Linux runs *under* Windows, and
now that Windows is becoming harder to pirate, it's going to leave Linux
out in the cold.

Here's a discussion about Linux vs. Windows, which takes a hilarious turn:

http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-1235...579073&start=43

jerryleecooper wrote:
> I dont see how this will happen at all.
>
> Vista is far more powerful than windows XP, and runs twice as fast. It is also much harder to pirate, and this point more than anything else has the Linux crowd in a panic.
>
> It wont be long until Windows XP is no longer supported, and when that happens, what is Linux going to do ?
>
> Linux will have to find a way to work under Vista from here on, since it wont be able to rely on XP being readily available anymore.
>
> Linux may seem like a good alternative to Office, but all that is happening in linux is that the windows interface is cleverly hidden away. It still needs the drivers and software services in order to run, and in most cases - that happens WITHOUT a valid windows licence.
>
> This is just plain piracy.
>
> Vista will finally put an end to this blatant abuse of intellectual property, and linux should decline, taking the pirates with it.
>
> Anyone that supports the continuation of Windows XP in place of Vista surely has a hidden agenda .. and you will surely be caught out.

Then later the same user jerryleecooper replies to a series of replies
that said that Linux doesn't need Windows to run, to which he replied in
the following message:

http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-1235...579806&start=43

jerryleecooper wrote:
> You are kidding arent you ?
>
> Are you saying that this linux can run on a computer without windows underneath it, at all ? As in, without a boot disk, without any drivers, and without any services ?
>
> That sounds preposterous to me.
>
> If it were true (and I doubt it), then companies would be selling computers without a windows. This clearly is not happening, so there must be some error in your calculations. I hope you realise that windows is more than just Office ? Its a whole system that runs the computer from start to finish, and that is a very difficult thing to acheive. A lot of people dont realise this.
>
> Microsoft just spent $9 billion and many years to create Vista, so it does not sound reasonable that some new alternative could just snap into existence overnight like that. It would take billions of dollars and a massive effort to achieve. IBM tried, and spent a huge amount of money developing OS/2 but could never keep up with Windows. Apple tried to create their own system for years, but finally gave up recently and moved to Intel and Microsoft.
>
> Its just not possible that a freeware like the Linux could be extended to the point where it runs the entire computer fron start to finish, without using some of the more critical parts of windows. Not possible.
>
> I think you need to re-examine your assumptions.

Just love these discussions. :-)

Yousuf Khan

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:38:52 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Maybe it shouldn't surprise anyone that this is a comment from a ZDNet
>reader. But this reader is conviced that Linux runs *under* Windows, and
>now that Windows is becoming harder to pirate, it's going to leave Linux
>out in the cold.

First wrong idea, that Vista is hard to pirate!





--

Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

This sig censored by the Office of Home, Land & Planet Insecurity...

Remove XYZ to email me

This same clown also concluded that Vista is the future of enterprise
computing, based on an ad featuring somebody walking in the woods and
seeing a deer. I smell a troll infesting ZDNet.

http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-1235...579070&start=45

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:38:52 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Maybe it shouldn't surprise anyone that this is a comment from a ZDNet
>reader. But this reader is conviced that Linux runs *under* Windows, and
>now that Windows is becoming harder to pirate, it's going to leave Linux
>out in the cold.

NICE! Full marks for Jerry Lee Cooper! Normally trolls can only get
a few dozen angry replies, but he managed HUNDREDS! He managed over
400+ comments on the Digg connection, got listed on dozens of Linux
sites! A Google search of "jerryleecooper linux windows" shows 23,000
hits!

Now THAT is trolling done right!
--
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

On Mar 25, 6:42 pm, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeif...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
> This same clown also concluded that Vista is the future of enterprise
> computing, based on an ad featuring somebody walking in the woods and
> seeing a deer. I smell a troll infesting ZDNet.
>
> http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-1235...threadID=31199&...

I think you're right. One clueless post can be chalked down to just
cluelessness. Two equally ridiculous posts so close together is a
troll.

Yousuf Khan

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:38:52 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Maybe it shouldn't surprise anyone that this is a comment from a ZDNet
>reader. But this reader is conviced that Linux runs *under* Windows, and
>now that Windows is becoming harder to pirate, it's going to leave Linux
>out in the cold.
>
>Here's a discussion about Linux vs. Windows, which takes a hilarious turn:
>
>http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-1235...579073&start=43

>jerryleecooper wrote:

I dunno, this looks like an obvious troll/sarcastic piece to me. And
isn't Jerry Lee Cooper some famous US celebrity or something? pP


--
A Lost Angel, fallen from heaven
Lost in dreams, Lost in aspirations,
Lost to the world, Lost to myself

The little lost angel wrote:
> I dunno, this looks like an obvious troll/sarcastic piece to me. And
> isn't Jerry Lee Cooper some famous US celebrity or something? pP

Maybe you're thinking of Jerry Lee Lewis? He was a 1950's rock star.

Yousuf Khan


--
There is no failure, only delayed success

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:39:17 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>The little lost angel wrote:
>> I dunno, this looks like an obvious troll/sarcastic piece to me. And
>> isn't Jerry Lee Cooper some famous US celebrity or something? pP
>
>Maybe you're thinking of Jerry Lee Lewis? He was a 1950's rock star.

Jerry Lee Lewis + Alice Cooper = Jerry Lee Cooper?
--
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

On Mar 25, 3:38 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Here's a discussion about Linux vs. Windows, which takes a hilarious turn:
>
> http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-1235...threadID=31199&...
>

Up to your old tricks, I see. Posting software issues to a hardware
group. ;-)

Robert.

On Mar 27, 11:14 am, "Robert Myers" <rbmyers...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 25, 3:38 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Here's a discussion about Linux vs. Windows, which takes a hilarious turn:
>
> >http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-1235...threadID=31199&...
>
> Up to your old tricks, I see. Posting software issues to a hardware
> group. ;-)
>
> Robert.

What about hardware issues with M$ Vista Software; ie software
drivers, I guess you could consider a bios software right? I would
consider any hardware that requires drivers or firmware to be somewhat
on topic. For instance asking about the settings to use in a bios, or
even a proper driver choice for some hardware could be proper.

Heck we get more Usenet Spam then regular posts, so the occasional off
topic post is really not a big deal. But using the word troll, in this
instance is a little harsh.

Rthoreau