Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #87280 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-20 15:33 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-01-27 06:40 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 92 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2016-01-20 15:33 +0100
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2016-01-20 14:22 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Bod <bodron57@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-20 20:02 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-20 15:04 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Bod <bodron57@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-20 20:23 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day android <here@there.was> - 2016-01-20 21:15 +0100
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2016-01-20 19:52 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-21 01:56 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-01-20 22:24 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-21 03:49 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-01-20 23:07 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-21 04:16 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-01-21 04:45 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-21 04:52 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-01-21 11:43 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-21 01:17 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> - 2016-01-21 08:57 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-21 09:59 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> - 2016-01-21 10:22 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-21 14:30 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-01-21 11:42 -0800
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-21 14:50 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-01-21 20:28 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-21 11:33 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> - 2016-01-21 12:05 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-21 11:35 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-01-21 11:41 -0800
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-02-21 22:19 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-01-21 11:46 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-21 14:30 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2016-01-20 23:38 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> - 2016-01-21 08:52 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-01-21 11:48 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-21 14:30 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-02-21 21:49 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-02-21 16:50 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-02-21 22:18 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-02-21 21:48 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> - 2016-02-21 19:09 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-02-22 00:18 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> - 2016-02-21 20:08 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-02-21 20:09 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> - 2016-02-21 20:34 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-02-22 13:06 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-02-22 17:34 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-21 01:08 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Ed Mullen <ejEMOVER@edmullen.net> - 2016-01-20 22:08 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-21 09:45 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2016-01-21 13:36 -0200
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> - 2016-01-21 11:31 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-21 11:39 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2016-01-21 02:37 -0800
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-01-27 06:43 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-27 07:26 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-01-27 13:15 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-01-27 11:27 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-01-27 16:41 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Bod <bodron57@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-27 17:01 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-01-27 17:23 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Bod <bodron57@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-27 17:58 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-01-27 18:22 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Bod <bodron57@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-27 18:44 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-01-27 19:21 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Bod <bodron57@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-27 20:06 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-01-28 03:17 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Bod <bodron57@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-28 08:25 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Bod <bodron57@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-28 10:42 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-01-28 16:33 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Bod <bodron57@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-28 16:55 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2016-01-29 18:47 -0800
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-01-30 03:28 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2016-01-31 12:03 -0800
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-01-31 21:27 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2016-02-01 07:01 -0800
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-02-01 17:16 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2016-02-02 17:05 -0800
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-31 23:02 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-02-01 02:04 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-31 01:02 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-01-31 04:35 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day "Jake" <jakethesnake@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 17:47 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-02-21 00:06 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2016-02-20 19:48 -0800
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2016-01-31 03:59 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-02-26 19:42 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2016-02-26 17:17 -0300
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-02-26 20:22 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2016-02-26 20:15 -0300
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-02-26 23:27 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-02-21 21:45 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-01-27 06:28 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-27 06:40 -0500
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-20 15:33 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day |
| Message-ID | <93c76ba20bc15232cbd872f06f244e83@msgid.frell.theremailer.net> |
In article <n7mj0a$kbf$1@dont-email.me> mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote: > > On 1/19/2016 5:31 AM, Slimer wrote: > > > > > GNU/Linux DOES have equivalents for most of what you might use but their > > equivalents are also awful. They have a great media player in VLC, but > > everything else they offer is mostly garbage. > > The most important word in that paragraph is "most". > > All those people who got "most" of the powerball numbers right > in the last drawing are not nearly as happy as the guy who > got them ALL. > Ninety-nine and a half just won't do. > > Linux will never be a viable windows alternative because the linux > community does not have that as a goal and viciously attacks > anyone who does. True statement. > They like it the hard way with all the chaos. chaos = anal lube
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Davoud <star@sky.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-20 14:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <200120161422330780%star@sky.net> |
| In reply to | #87280 |
Someone wrote: > > Linux will never be a viable windows alternative because the linux > > community does not have that as a goal and viciously attacks > > anyone who does. True, but I don't think that Linux was meant to compete with Windows or Mac OS. Like Mac OS, it was intended to occupy a certain niche, and it does its job in that niche. It would be my go-to system if I were running only servers. But for productivity, I'll stick with my Macs. No, GIMP is not a Photoshop substitute, and the free office suites are not MS Office substitutes. -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bod <bodron57@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-20 20:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dga7duFqi7pU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87281 |
On 20/01/2016 19:22, Davoud wrote: > Someone wrote: >>> Linux will never be a viable windows alternative because the linux >>> community does not have that as a goal and viciously attacks >>> anyone who does. > > True, but I don't think that Linux was meant to compete with Windows or > Mac OS. Like Mac OS, it was intended to occupy a certain niche, and it > does its job in that niche. It would be my go-to system if I were > running only servers. But for productivity, I'll stick with my Macs. > No, GIMP is not a Photoshop substitute, and the free office suites are > not MS Office substitutes. > Maybe not for you, but they are for a lot of people. It depends on an individuals requirements. I have used Microsoft Office for years, but Open Office supplies my basic requirements now. My demands do not warrant M$ Office. -- Bod --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-20 15:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <200120161504015227%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #87283 |
In article <dga7duFqi7pU1@mid.individual.net>, Bod <bodron57@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>> Linux will never be a viable windows alternative because the linux > >>> community does not have that as a goal and viciously attacks > >>> anyone who does. > > > > True, but I don't think that Linux was meant to compete with Windows or > > Mac OS. Like Mac OS, it was intended to occupy a certain niche, and it > > does its job in that niche. It would be my go-to system if I were > > running only servers. But for productivity, I'll stick with my Macs. > > No, GIMP is not a Photoshop substitute, and the free office suites are > > not MS Office substitutes. > > > Maybe not for you, but they are for a lot of people. It depends on > an individuals requirements. I have used Microsoft Office for years, > but Open Office supplies my basic requirements now. > My demands do not warrant M$ Office. you're actually confirming that the so called replacements actually do less than the originals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bod <bodron57@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-20 20:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dga8lhFqprjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87284 |
On 20/01/2016 20:04, nospam wrote: > In article <dga7duFqi7pU1@mid.individual.net>, Bod > <bodron57@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>>>> Linux will never be a viable windows alternative because the linux >>>>> community does not have that as a goal and viciously attacks >>>>> anyone who does. >>> >>> True, but I don't think that Linux was meant to compete with Windows or >>> Mac OS. Like Mac OS, it was intended to occupy a certain niche, and it >>> does its job in that niche. It would be my go-to system if I were >>> running only servers. But for productivity, I'll stick with my Macs. >>> No, GIMP is not a Photoshop substitute, and the free office suites are >>> not MS Office substitutes. >>> >> Maybe not for you, but they are for a lot of people. It depends on >> an individuals requirements. I have used Microsoft Office for years, >> but Open Office supplies my basic requirements now. >> My demands do not warrant M$ Office. > > you're actually confirming that the so called replacements actually do > less than the originals. > Yes, that's blatantly obvious from my comments. -- Bod --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | android <here@there.was> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-20 21:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <here-87BEDA.21151520012016@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87283 |
In article <dga7duFqi7pU1@mid.individual.net>, Bod <bodron57@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 20/01/2016 19:22, Davoud wrote: > > Someone wrote: > >>> Linux will never be a viable windows alternative because the linux > >>> community does not have that as a goal and viciously attacks > >>> anyone who does. > > > > True, but I don't think that Linux was meant to compete with Windows or > > Mac OS. Like Mac OS, it was intended to occupy a certain niche, and it > > does its job in that niche. It would be my go-to system if I were > > running only servers. But for productivity, I'll stick with my Macs. > > No, GIMP is not a Photoshop substitute, and the free office suites are > > not MS Office substitutes. > > > Maybe not for you, but they are for a lot of people. It depends on > an individuals requirements. I have used Microsoft Office for years, > but Open Office supplies my basic requirements now. > My demands do not warrant M$ Office. OO is great for some legacy MSO files that are unsupported by MSO. And it opens some WordPerfect (.wpd) stuff too. -- teleportation kills
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Davoud <star@sky.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-20 19:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <200120161952134050%star@sky.net> |
| In reply to | #87283 |
Someone wrote: > >>> Linux will never be a viable windows alternative because the linux > >>> community does not have that as a goal and viciously attacks > >>> anyone who does. Davoud: > > True, but I don't think that Linux was meant to compete with Windows or > > Mac OS. Like Mac OS, it was intended to occupy a certain niche, and it > > does its job in that niche. It would be my go-to system if I were > > running only servers. But for productivity, I'll stick with my Macs. > > No, GIMP is not a Photoshop substitute, and the free office suites are > > not MS Office substitutes. Bod: > Maybe not for you, but they are for a lot of people. It depends on > an individuals requirements. I have used Microsoft Office for years, > but Open Office supplies my basic requirements now. > My demands do not warrant M$ Office. A lot of people? Linux has a steady lock on about 1.5% of OS usage, with the majority of that in server applications. As a desktop productivity OS it's numbers remain steady in the tenths of a percent. The world collaborates with software that does not run on Linux. My wife is a writer and a children's book critic. Publishers will accept only genuine MSWord documents; proper formatting is the responsibility of the submitter and they're not going to spend their time reformatting the material they receive. But, once again, if one needs cheap servers and cheap parallel rendering, Linux seems to be the answer for "a lot" of industries. -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 01:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160120203236@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #87296 |
On 2016-01-21, Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote: > A lot of people? Linux has a steady lock on about 1.5% of OS usage, Only on traditional desktop and laptop PCs. Market share in servers as well as embedded and mobile devices is much more more significant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems In particular, Android ships on more than 48% of mobile devices, and identifiable Linux servers make up nearly 36% of web servers, with Unix systems of some type running on nearly 68%. This does not count embedded electronics such as TV sets, Blu-Ray players, printers, copiers, etc., most of which run Linux internally. > wife is a writer and a children's book critic. Publishers will accept > only genuine MSWord documents; proper formatting is the responsibility > of the submitter and they're not going to spend their time reformatting > the material they receive. A quick web search shows at least some publishers accept PDF files, which are platform-agnostic. Of course it depends on the publisher. IEEE, for example, prefers TeX, LaTex, or Troff submissions for technical manuscripts. This makes sense since word processing is not the same thing as typesetting: http://www.thebookdesigner.com/2010/01/the-trouble-with-word-processors/ -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.) NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-20 22:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n7pj1b$if8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87301 |
On 01-20-2016 20:56, Roger Blake wrote: > In particular, Android ships on more than 48% of mobile devices, and That number is plausible, but most of the sources in that wikitable are not — IOS at 20-25% ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 03:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160120223156@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #87308 |
On 2016-01-21, Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote: > That number is plausible, but most of the sources in that wikitable are > not — IOS at 20-25% ? That's actually a pretty good showing for a single vendor - Android devices are marketed by quite a few companies, IOS by a single company. Exact figures are difficult to come by of course. The point was that market penetration of Linux and other Unix-type systems is higher than one might think given the very low level of desktop adoption. Frankly the people trying push desktop Linux to the masses are pissing in the wind. Except in specialized cases it just doesn't make practical sense for most users, and I say that as a long-time Linux user myself. I maintain quite a few Linux systems but except for my own they are servers. The fact is that it's very likely that the people who are the most vehement haters of the non-Windows computing world are using routers, printers, TV sets, and many other devices that run Linux internally, as well as using internet-based services running on Linux and BSD servers. The amazing thing really is that there really has been very little new in operating systems for decades. Basically, you have Windows NT and its descendents on the one hand (which are cousins of DEC's VMS) and Unix-type systems on the other hand. (Maybe the hate is hereditary, Dave Cutler absolutely despised and may well still despise Unix!) There are a few minor, specialized players in niche markets but overall the computing world has come down to Windows and Unix. I probably shouldn't even get involved in these poop-flinging fests, but hate to see so much garbage being thrown out there. Haters are going to hate for whatever reason. I've been working in the computer industry for about 40 years now and have worked with many different systems. I believe in using the right tool for the job. In many cases that is Windows. In other cases it may be Linux, or one of the BSDs, or Mac OSX (which is also Unix), or one of the specialized niche products. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.) NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-20 23:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n7plid$lf2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87311 |
On 01-20-2016 22:49, Roger Blake wrote: > On 2016-01-21, Happy.Hobo<Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote: >> >That number is plausible, but most of the sources in that wikitable are >> >not — IOS at 20-25% ? > That's actually a pretty good showing for a single vendor - Android > devices are marketed by quite a few companies, IOS by a single company. It's not plausible to me because of the quantity of iPads and iPhones I see in use. It's no longer the overwhelming majority, but it's still WAY more than 25%
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 04:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160120231006@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #87313 |
On 2016-01-21, Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote: > It's not plausible to me because of the quantity of iPads and iPhones > I see in use. It's no longer the overwhelming majority, but it's still > WAY more than 25% Here's another stat for comparison, it shows IOS market share at 38.58% and falling: http://bgr.com/2015/10/01/iphone-market-share-q3-2015-android/ -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.) NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 04:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dgb62oF2nd7U11@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87315 |
On 2016-01-21, Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote: > On 2016-01-21, Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote: >> It's not plausible to me because of the quantity of iPads and iPhones >> I see in use. It's no longer the overwhelming majority, but it's still >> WAY more than 25% > > Here's another stat for comparison, it shows IOS market share at 38.58% > and falling: > > http://bgr.com/2015/10/01/iphone-market-share-q3-2015-android/ Those are typically bullshit since they typically includes tons of "dumb" Android devices that don't even qualify as smart phones other than technically. This whole argument is a silly one, for sure. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 04:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160120234905@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #87317 |
On 2016-01-21, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > Those are typically bullshit since they typically includes tons of > "dumb" Android devices that don't even qualify as smart phones other > than technically. This whole argument is a silly one, for sure. Anyone with access to more accurate stats is of course welcome to provide them. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.) NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 11:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n7r1qp$16b8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87317 |
On 01-20-2016 23:45, Jolly Roger wrote: > On 2016-01-21, Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote: >> On 2016-01-21, Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote: >>> It's not plausible to me because of the quantity of iPads and iPhones >>> I see in use. It's no longer the overwhelming majority, but it's still >>> WAY more than 25% >> >> Here's another stat for comparison, it shows IOS market share at 38.58% >> and falling: >> >> http://bgr.com/2015/10/01/iphone-market-share-q3-2015-android/ > > Those are typically bullshit since they typically includes tons of > "dumb" Android devices that don't even qualify as smart phones other > than technically. This whole argument is a silly one, for sure. Nevertheless, 38% is at least plausible. Twenty percent is not even in the right county. Make that country.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 01:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <210120160117001954%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #87315 |
In article <20160120231006@news.eternal-september.org>, Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote: > > It's not plausible to me because of the quantity of iPads and iPhones > > I see in use. It's no longer the overwhelming majority, but it's still > > WAY more than 25% > > Here's another stat for comparison, it shows IOS market share at 38.58% > and falling: > > http://bgr.com/2015/10/01/iphone-market-share-q3-2015-android/ market share is completely meaningless. apple makes over 90% of smartphone profits.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 08:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n7qnus$5ud$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87322 |
On 01/21/2016 01:17 AM, nospam wrote: > In article <20160120231006@news.eternal-september.org>, Roger Blake > <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote: > >>> It's not plausible to me because of the quantity of iPads and iPhones >>> I see in use. It's no longer the overwhelming majority, but it's still >>> WAY more than 25% >> >> Here's another stat for comparison, it shows IOS market share at 38.58% >> and falling: >> >> http://bgr.com/2015/10/01/iphone-market-share-q3-2015-android/ > > market share is completely meaningless. > > apple makes over 90% of smartphone profits. > Apple phones are only 15% of the smartphone market. Says a lot about the pricing. -- Caver1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 09:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <210120160959574567%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #87338 |
In article <n7qnus$5ud$1@dont-email.me>, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote: > >>> It's not plausible to me because of the quantity of iPads and iPhones > >>> I see in use. It's no longer the overwhelming majority, but it's still > >>> WAY more than 25% > >> > >> Here's another stat for comparison, it shows IOS market share at 38.58% > >> and falling: > >> > >> http://bgr.com/2015/10/01/iphone-market-share-q3-2015-android/ > > > > market share is completely meaningless. > > > > apple makes over 90% of smartphone profits. > > Apple phones are only 15% of the smartphone market. depends how you count and it doesn't make any difference. > Says a lot about the pricing. no it doesn't. similar android phones cost the same as an iphone and in some cases, they cost more, such as the galaxy note 5. the difference with android is that there are a lot of low end phones that are basically feature phones which happen to run android. they aren't smartphones and can't be compared to smartphones, including other android smartphones, such as the galaxy s6, htc one, etc. some of those low end phones are still shipping with gingerbread or even froyo, systems that are several years old. as i said, market share numbers are meaningless. it assumes all devices are the same and all users are the same and they're not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 10:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n7qsu4$pb4$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87341 |
On 01/21/2016 09:59 AM, nospam wrote: > In article <n7qnus$5ud$1@dont-email.me>, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> > wrote: > >>>>> It's not plausible to me because of the quantity of iPads and iPhones >>>>> I see in use. It's no longer the overwhelming majority, but it's still >>>>> WAY more than 25% >>>> >>>> Here's another stat for comparison, it shows IOS market share at 38.58% >>>> and falling: >>>> >>>> http://bgr.com/2015/10/01/iphone-market-share-q3-2015-android/ >>> >>> market share is completely meaningless. >>> >>> apple makes over 90% of smartphone profits. >> >> Apple phones are only 15% of the smartphone market. > > depends how you count and it doesn't make any difference. > >> Says a lot about the pricing. > > no it doesn't. > > similar android phones cost the same as an iphone and in some cases, > they cost more, such as the galaxy note 5. > > the difference with android is that there are a lot of low end phones > that are basically feature phones which happen to run android. > > they aren't smartphones and can't be compared to smartphones, including > other android smartphones, such as the galaxy s6, htc one, etc. > > some of those low end phones are still shipping with gingerbread or > even froyo, systems that are several years old. > > as i said, market share numbers are meaningless. it assumes all devices > are the same and all users are the same and they're not. > Market share only counts if it's on your side. -- Caver1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 14:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <210120161430348813%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #87344 |
In article <n7qsu4$pb4$2@dont-email.me>, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote: > >>>>> It's not plausible to me because of the quantity of iPads and iPhones > >>>>> I see in use. It's no longer the overwhelming majority, but it's still > >>>>> WAY more than 25% > >>>> > >>>> Here's another stat for comparison, it shows IOS market share at 38.58% > >>>> and falling: > >>>> > >>>> http://bgr.com/2015/10/01/iphone-market-share-q3-2015-android/ > >>> > >>> market share is completely meaningless. > >>> > >>> apple makes over 90% of smartphone profits. > >> > >> Apple phones are only 15% of the smartphone market. > > > > depends how you count and it doesn't make any difference. > > > >> Says a lot about the pricing. > > > > no it doesn't. > > > > similar android phones cost the same as an iphone and in some cases, > > they cost more, such as the galaxy note 5. > > > > the difference with android is that there are a lot of low end phones > > that are basically feature phones which happen to run android. > > > > they aren't smartphones and can't be compared to smartphones, including > > other android smartphones, such as the galaxy s6, htc one, etc. > > > > some of those low end phones are still shipping with gingerbread or > > even froyo, systems that are several years old. > > > > as i said, market share numbers are meaningless. it assumes all devices > > are the same and all users are the same and they're not. > > Market share only counts if it's on your side. nope. market share only matters for parity products such as toothpaste, where there's no significant difference between brands or how it's used. when there's a wide difference in features and price, from high end smartphones with many gigs of storage and top of the line cpu/gpu to low end phones that are little more than a feature phone and running a 5 year old version of android, overall market share numbers don't mean much at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web