Linux is free. But windows cheaper than linux????

[kenny]

***Disclamer*** I am not bashing linux, I am not a troll. I am just writting
an answer to the linux users who make fun of windows users, and some food
for thought for everyone. I think that even though this is a general post it
is not in any way irrelivent to the windowsXP newsgroups, since I am sure
lots of people would like to read this point of view.

A linux advocate downloads linux, installs it on a $500 - $800 powerful
computer, and is happy that you he has a free OS.
Furthermore he goes about making fun of everyone else with windows
computers, calling them stupid.

How blind can a person be?

If you look further into the mechanisms that made this possible
you will see that windows was the OS responsible for this.

Windows was the OS that let people of all kinds to start using computers in
an everyday basis. Windows was the OS that changed computers from a thing
only
super geeks that had gone to 5 years to learn how to program, to a thing any
person could do, even a child. Childsplay!
Windows was the OS that changed the whole market for software and hardware,
created new opportunities, new hardware innovations, new technologies, and
the expansion of the internet to what we have now.

Thousands went to study computer programming because of windows.
Thousands of jobs where created to fuel the windows and computer revolution.
Thousands of computers were installed in businesses, homes, schools and
everyone
started using them.

Windows created all this foundation that we have today.

Linux now stepped on that foundation of cheap computers, the expanded
internet, and computer literate community
and used that to try to develop a user friendly version of its OS. THIS HAS
NOT BEEN ACCOMPLISHED even to this day.
As any logical person would observe, it is stealing resources from the
windows platform. Not to say that most of its programs
are developed like clones or rip-offs of windows applications.

If you take everything I said into account, if people had not used windows,
the computers would be more expensive, the internet would be smaller,
less people would be using computers, less people would be designing
hardware, less people would be being educated to be programmers,
less software would exist. Practically we would be 10 years behind... and 10
years in computer time is like hundreds of years normal time.

So if windows made everything cheaper and more accessible, isn't it more
cost efficient for it to exist, than linux? I say that it has a negative
cost...
meaning that it brings more money in that it takes out and created new
possibilities that would never exist without it.
In other words if we wanted to have what we have now, with technology that
was 10 years older, the cost would be unbearable, even if it was possible.

Having said all that, I know of course that windows was created on top of a
unix prehistory... MS found programmers and ideas from unix.
But you cannot disregard the influence windows had on the advancement of
technologies we have today.

I personally would slap a linux geek on the face if he giggled at me saying
that I was stupid because I used windows.
I would call that disrespect to what enabled him to be in that position.


Kenny.

 

[Alias]

***Disclamer*** I am not bashing linux, I am not a troll. I am just writting
an answer to the linux users who make fun of windows users, and some food
for thought for everyone. I think that even though this is a general post it
is not in any way irrelivent to the windowsXP newsgroups, since I am sure
lots of people would like to read this point of view.

A linux advocate downloads linux, installs it on a $500 - $800 powerful
computer, and is happy that you he has a free OS.
Furthermore he goes about making fun of everyone else with windows
computers, calling them stupid.

How blind can a person be?

If you look further into the mechanisms that made this possible
you will see that windows was the OS responsible for this.

Windows was the OS that let people of all kinds to start using computers in
an everyday basis. Windows was the OS that changed computers from a thing
only
super geeks that had gone to 5 years to learn how to program, to a thing any
person could do, even a child. Childsplay!
Windows was the OS that changed the whole market for software and hardware,
created new opportunities, new hardware innovations, new technologies, and
the expansion of the internet to what we have now.

Thousands went to study computer programming because of windows.
Thousands of jobs where created to fuel the windows and computer revolution.
Thousands of computers were installed in businesses, homes, schools and
everyone
started using them.

Windows created all this foundation that we have today.

Linux now stepped on that foundation of cheap computers, the expanded
internet, and computer literate community
and used that to try to develop a user friendly version of its OS. THIS HAS
NOT BEEN ACCOMPLISHED even to this day.
As any logical person would observe, it is stealing resources from the
windows platform. Not to say that most of its programs
are developed like clones or rip-offs of windows applications.

If you take everything I said into account, if people had not used windows,
the computers would be more expensive, the internet would be smaller,
less people would be using computers, less people would be designing
hardware, less people would be being educated to be programmers,
less software would exist. Practically we would be 10 years behind... and 10
years in computer time is like hundreds of years normal time.

So if windows made everything cheaper and more accessible, isn't it more
cost efficient for it to exist, than linux? I say that it has a negative
cost...
meaning that it brings more money in that it takes out and created new
possibilities that would never exist without it.
In other words if we wanted to have what we have now, with technology that
was 10 years older, the cost would be unbearable, even if it was possible.

Having said all that, I know of course that windows was created on top of a
unix prehistory... MS found programmers and ideas from unix.
But you cannot disregard the influence windows had on the advancement of
technologies we have today.

I personally would slap a linux geek on the face if he giggled at me saying
that I was stupid because I used windows.
I would call that disrespect to what enabled him to be in that position.


Kenny.

Actually, "windows" was invented by Xerox and implemented by Apple.
Microsoft *stole* it. When I bought the first Mac, Windows wasn't even
available yet. All you had was DOS.

Alias

Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me.
Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail.

 

[Text Stephen]

Inline:



Sure, it's a peer-to-peer newgroup. You might have put "OT" at the start of
the subject to indicate "Off Topic" e.g.:

OT Linux is free. But windows cheaper than linux????



Well, he has a "free" OS if his time has no value. Linux installs are
"spotty" to say the least. And hunting for Linux compatible drivers, when
they exist, can be incredibly time consuming. Then installing them,
configuring them and getting them to work can almost be an odyssey.



Very. Just post something sensible about Windows in COLA and you will see
how blind people can be about operating systems.



Oh, geez, and all this time I thought it was MS-DOS!



Especially Windows 95, which made certain aspects of operating a PC very
easy.

Agreed.

Just thousands? Try hundreds and hundreds of millions and then some ..



Key word "try". Linux + X-windows etc. is still "trying". Once past a
very thin veneer, the OS is quite difficult to use. Config files all over
the place. Innumerable distributions. Inconsistent quality and support.
Half-baked programming. Even RedHat can't seem to get it right.



Well, "rip-off" is a bit extreme. Programmers have a right to program and
rework and recreate and make variations of etc. etc. You would be hard
pressed to find any code that doesn't stand on someone else's shoulders
somehow.



Without the popularization of computers and the drive for MHz, we might just
be seeing 133MHz now and be thinking it's "blazing", maybe.



Probably true. Mandrake, makers of the more popular versions of Linux
actually had to file for bankruptcy. OSS model is not often economically
feasible. Some people call it "freedom" and "free software", but I call it
the heavy and extensive chains of the GPL.



Yup, when we use computers we are standing on the shoulders of the greats
who went before us.



That's about it, they giggle. So do teen girls. But don't slap anyone, it
could get you jail time.



Thanks Kenny, I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head.

 

[Gil Baron]

Actually, "windows" was invented by Xerox and implemented by Apple.
Microsoft *stole* it. When I bought the first Mac, Windows wasn't even
available yet. All you had was DOS.

SO WHAT, who cares how it was created? The point that it enabled all the postersaid is still valid.

 

[Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)]

Kenny

Not unlike many fringe groups, Linux aficionados feel the need to surface
every now and again to proclaim themselves.. people 'in the know' recognise
that there is a place for all OS'es, all of them having individual
attributes that make them perfect for use in a particular sector of the IT
community.. the concept of one being better than all of the others in all
scenarios is ridiculous..

Nearer the truth is the fact that many just like to get on the 'We hate Bill
G and Microsoft' bandwagon.. it gives these people a unified cause,
something to whine about.. I would imagine that some have 'personality'
problems, difficulty fitting into mainstream society..

Best way is to ignore them.. they won't go away of course, but lack of
response to their rants and name calling often sees them dip below the
surface quite rapidly.. if there was no Linux, it would be something else..
MacOS vs Windows was always an old favourite, and still is for some..
however, Linux runs on cheap x86 architecture, so has become much more
available to the fringe than MacOS..

 

[Kerry Brown]

***Disclamer*** I am not bashing linux, I am not a troll. I am just
writting an answer to the linux users who make fun of windows users,
and some food for thought for everyone. I think that even though this
is a general post it is not in any way irrelivent to the windowsXP
newsgroups, since I am sure lots of people would like to read this
point of view.
A linux advocate downloads linux, installs it on a $500 - $800
powerful computer, and is happy that you he has a free OS.
Furthermore he goes about making fun of everyone else with windows
computers, calling them stupid.

How blind can a person be?

If you look further into the mechanisms that made this possible
you will see that windows was the OS responsible for this.

Windows was the OS that let people of all kinds to start using
computers in an everyday basis. Windows was the OS that changed
computers from a thing only
super geeks that had gone to 5 years to learn how to program, to a
thing any person could do, even a child. Childsplay!
Windows was the OS that changed the whole market for software and
hardware, created new opportunities, new hardware innovations, new
technologies, and the expansion of the internet to what we have now.

Thousands went to study computer programming because of windows.
Thousands of jobs where created to fuel the windows and computer
revolution. Thousands of computers were installed in businesses,
homes, schools and everyone
started using them.

Windows created all this foundation that we have today.

Linux now stepped on that foundation of cheap computers, the expanded
internet, and computer literate community
and used that to try to develop a user friendly version of its OS.
THIS HAS NOT BEEN ACCOMPLISHED even to this day.
As any logical person would observe, it is stealing resources from the
windows platform. Not to say that most of its programs
are developed like clones or rip-offs of windows applications.

If you take everything I said into account, if people had not used
windows, the computers would be more expensive, the internet would be
smaller, less people would be using computers, less people would be
designing
hardware, less people would be being educated to be programmers,
less software would exist. Practically we would be 10 years behind...
and 10 years in computer time is like hundreds of years normal time.

So if windows made everything cheaper and more accessible, isn't it
more cost efficient for it to exist, than linux? I say that it has a
negative cost...
meaning that it brings more money in that it takes out and created new
possibilities that would never exist without it.
In other words if we wanted to have what we have now, with technology
that was 10 years older, the cost would be unbearable, even if it was
possible.
Having said all that, I know of course that windows was created on
top of a unix prehistory... MS found programmers and ideas from unix.
But you cannot disregard the influence windows had on the advancement
of technologies we have today.

I personally would slap a linux geek on the face if he giggled at me
saying that I was stupid because I used windows.
I would call that disrespect to what enabled him to be in that
position.

Kenny.

This takes the prize as the weirdest, most convoluted, illogical reasoning
I've ever read. By your reasoning we should all be driving Fords as Henry
Ford popularised automobiles and everything since is a ripoff of his idea.
What becomes popular is often not the most innovative or even the best
product but one that works good enough and has the best marketing. Usually
the most popular products are based on someone else's work, refined, and
then marketed better than what came before. Windows fits this model. Linux
at some point may.

The computer revolution was well on it's way before Microsoft. IBM was
negotiating with Digital Research for an OS which in many respects was
better than MS-DOS. If things had gone that way we may be much further ahead
now. Technology would have progressed with or without Microsoft.

I agree somewhat with your last paragraph. Many Linux zealots are irrational
in their support of Linux and can be very annoying. Why not just ignore them
and get on with using Windows if that's what you prefer.

Kerry

 

[Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)]

Kerry, Kenny

An interesting article for you..

http://www.millennium-technology.com/HistoryOfOS2.html

 

[Kerry Brown]

Kerry, Kenny

An interesting article for you..

http://www.millennium-technology.com/HistoryOfOS2.html

I used and loved OS/2 up to and including OS/2 warp version 3. It was light
years ahead of Windows at the time. It proves my contention that the best
often doesn't become the most popular and that marketing has more to do with
popularity than technical superiority. IBM didn't market OS/2 right so it
didn't get 3rd party support. Part of this is due to Microsoft forcing pc
manufacturer's to pay for their OS even if another one was installed and
MS-DOS wasn't even supplied with the machine. The legality and morality of
this tactic can be debated but it is superior marketing. Another problem
with OS/2 was public perception at the time. Microsoft was actually viewed
by many as the little guy fighting the established monopoly (IBM).
Microsoft's monopolistic marketing practices were just starting to come to
public notice.

Kerry

 

[Vagabond Software]

I used and loved OS/2 up to and including OS/2 warp version 3. It was
light years ahead of Windows at the time. It proves my contention that the
best often doesn't become the most popular and that marketing has more to
do with popularity than technical superiority. IBM didn't market OS/2
right so it didn't get 3rd party support. Part of this is due to Microsoft
forcing pc manufacturer's to pay for their OS even if another one was
installed and MS-DOS wasn't even supplied with the machine. The legality
and morality of this tactic can be debated but it is superior marketing.
Another problem with OS/2 was public perception at the time. Microsoft was
actually viewed by many as the little guy fighting the established
monopoly (IBM). Microsoft's monopolistic marketing practices were just
starting to come to public notice.

Kerry

Worse than Microsoft's licensing tactic was IBM's refusal to allow
clone-makers to ship their clones with an IBM operating system
pre-installed. IBM only allowed true blue IBM systems to ship with their
true blue operating system.

carl

 

[capitan]

***Disclamer*** I am not bashing linux, I am not a troll. I am just writting
an answer to the linux users ...

<snip>

You may not be a troll, but since you feed them by responding to them,
that makes you worse than a troll.

 

[Text Stephen]

Inline:


That's right, surface out of their holes and pits.



And for Linux it's the trash bin.



True. And when one wants an OS to ridicule, Linux fits that bill.



That's all they got. They hate Microsoft because it is successful and
Windows because it is popular.



And the Linux community whines and whines and whines and whines ..



That would be your Linux user.



If there would be no Linux there would be nothing to flush.



That's because, until you can use Intel chips and install Windows on a Mac,
Macs will suck, it's a simple as that .



Yes, Linux is "cheap", but please do not confuse that with "inexpensive".

 

[Gordon]

Well, he has a "free" OS if his time has no value. Linux installs are
"spotty" to say the least. And hunting for Linux compatible drivers,
when they exist, can be incredibly time consuming. Then installing
them, configuring them and getting them to work can almost be an
odyssey.

When did you last try a distro? Modern distros like Ubuntu install FAR
quicker than windows and have ALL the drivers for most hardware right off
the CD

Very. Just post something sensible about Windows in COLA and you will
see how blind people can be about operating systems.

If it's "sensible" about windows then the sensible posters in COLA will be
alright. What they don't like is people spreading downright lies about Linux
which is what is usually done by the likes of "Kenny".

Oh, geez, and all this time I thought it was MS-DOS!




Especially Windows 95, which made certain aspects of operating a PC
very easy.




Just thousands? Try hundreds and hundreds of millions and then some ..




Key word "try". Linux + X-windows etc. is still "trying". Once
past a very thin veneer, the OS is quite difficult to use. Config
files all over the place. Innumerable distributions. Inconsistent
quality and support. Half-baked programming. Even RedHat can't seem
to get it right.

Ubuntu is VERY easy to use. If you put a novice Windows user in front of an
Ubuntu machine, they find it very hard to tell the difference.

Well, "rip-off" is a bit extreme. Programmers have a right to program
and rework and recreate and make variations of etc. etc. You would be
hard pressed to find any code that doesn't stand on someone else's
shoulders somehow.

And MS has NEVER copied any code or applications? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Without the popularization of computers and the drive for MHz, we
might just be seeing 133MHz now and be thinking it's "blazing", maybe.

And without the "bloat" of MS programs that would have been a very true
possibility. Code writers in the old "640k RAM" days had to write very slick
apps to get them to work. The ONLY result of the huge increases in RAM is
the HUGE increases in slack programming.

Probably true. Mandrake, makers of the more popular versions of Linux
actually had to file for bankruptcy. OSS model is not often
economically feasible. Some people call it "freedom" and "free
software", but I call it the heavy and extensive chains of the GPL.




Yup, when we use computers we are standing on the shoulders of the
greats who went before us.




That's about it, they giggle. So do teen girls. But don't slap
anyone, it could get you jail time.




Thanks Kenny, I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head.

So why then, are more and more countries and organisations turning to Open
Source Software?

 

[Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)]

At the time, IBM could not see that the clones would take over.. they
persisted in making expensive MCA machines that used equally expensive MCA
expansion cards and, as another said, they didn't want to market OS/2 lessen
it was installed on a machine that few could afford other than the
corporates.. it was all just too proprietary..

As the sales of the Intel/Microsoft clones rose sharply and with the advent
of Intel's PCI plug n play abilities, OS/2 and MCA slowly committed
themselves to obscurity, not because they were no good, but purely because
the unfolding market for computers was not prepared to pay the price.. MCA
technology was way ahead of it's time, and is still used in some of the
RS/6000 machines..

 

[Rock]

***Disclamer*** I am not bashing linux, I am not a troll.

<snip's the drivel>

No, you just like to read your words. At the least put OT as the first
item in the subject line.

 

[Frank]

***Disclamer*** I am not bashing linux, I am not a troll. I am just
writting an answer to the linux users who make fun of windows users,
and some food for thought for everyone. I think that even though this
is a general post it is not in any way irrelivent to the windowsXP
newsgroups, since I am sure lots of people would like to read this
point of view.
A linux advocate downloads linux, installs it on a $500 - $800
powerful computer, and is happy that you he has a free OS.
Furthermore he goes about making fun of everyone else with windows
computers, calling them stupid.

How blind can a person be? snip snip
Kenny.

This whole OS argument is nothing more than spin. Especially your
statement
about how stupid can a person be.
The only advantage of using windows is that there are more people to ask
how
to do something.
The disadvantage of using windows is the expense. $150 for the OS, $400
for
the office suite, $50 for the financial software, and I don't know how
much for
AV, Spyware, adware to keep the gremlins out.
I have experienced the truth that the learning curve from windows to
Xandros
Linux was no more of a curve than going from 3.x to W95 or from W98 to
XP.

 

[Text Stephen]

Gordon wrote drivel:

Why on earth would I waste my time with Linux? Fool me once shame on you,
fool me again shame on me.



Sensible posters in COLA? Yeah? Since when?



Yes, I'm sure if you put someone in front of Ubuntu Linux who's never used a
computer before, then sure, they couldn't tell the difference. They also
probably won't know to click the mouse button.



That statment is sort of well, thick, don't you think? Microsoft often will
outright buy software companies and take owership of source code ..um .. so
what?



Or programming made easier. If you don't have to worry about saving every
RAM bit then you can spend your time on other things like functionality or
speed, or usefulness. Worriying about fitting PC programs into tiny amounts
of RAM is a waste of time.



Why is Communist China, which was so behind Red Flag Linux at one point,
executing ten thousand disenfranchized people a year? Because summary
execution a good thing? No. But it's done. I can't explain why people make
dumb choices.

 

[Kerry Brown]

Worse than Microsoft's licensing tactic was IBM's refusal to allow
clone-makers to ship their clones with an IBM operating system
pre-installed. IBM only allowed true blue IBM systems to ship with
their true blue operating system.

carl

Actually you could buy OEM PC-DOS and retail OS/2 and install them on
clones. I sold quite a few systems with OEM PC-DOS. It was priced the same
as MS-DOS but had a built in anti-virus. I believe MS still got a license
fee from IBM but I could purchase both for the same price. I even sold a few
with OS/2 retail version as the only OS installed. As I remember it wasn't
that much more expensive than MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 at the time.

Kerry

 

[Vagabond Software]

Actually you could buy OEM PC-DOS and retail OS/2 and install them on
clones. I sold quite a few systems with OEM PC-DOS. It was priced the same
as MS-DOS but had a built in anti-virus. I believe MS still got a license
fee from IBM but I could purchase both for the same price. I even sold a
few with OS/2 retail version as the only OS installed. As I remember it
wasn't that much more expensive than MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 at the time.

Kerry

Yes, but Compaq and Zeos could NOT do that. I was reselling their systems
and once I got a taste of OS/2 Warp, I called them about having it
pre-installed on their systems and representatives for both told me that IBM
does not license OS/2 to OEM clone-makers.

Now, I agree that I could go out and buy the stuff retail, fdisk the clone,
and install the OS I wanted. However, the problem, at least according to
the OEM clone-makers I talked to was not Microsoft licensing but rather the
lack of licensing from IBM.

carl

 

[Text Stephen]

IBM didn't believe in their own OS. Linux was never ready for prime-time.
Apple operating systems didn't run on x86. Microsoft won by default. Now
they all boo-hoo and cry foul, but let's face it, they either couldn't (in
the case of Linux), or wouldn't (in the case of Apple and IBM), compete. For
this Microsoft was dragged through the court system.

 

[Kerry Brown]

IBM didn't believe in their own OS. Linux was never ready for
prime-time. Apple operating systems didn't run on x86. Microsoft won
by default. Now they all boo-hoo and cry foul, but let's face it,
they either couldn't (in the case of Linux), or wouldn't (in the case
of Apple and IBM), compete. For this Microsoft was dragged through
the court system.

You are worse than many of the Linux zealots. The last I heard Microsoft
lost when they were "dragged" through the court system.

Kerry