Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #242580 > unrolled thread
| Started by | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-05-08 16:07 +0000 |
| Last post | 2014-05-08 21:03 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 415 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2014-05-08 16:07 +0000
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-08 09:11 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-08 18:35 +0200
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-08 09:41 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-05-08 11:51 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-08 12:46 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-08 11:43 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-08 14:59 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-05-08 18:09 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-08 19:37 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-08 22:02 +0000
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-08 19:40 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 02:46 +0000
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-08 19:48 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 02:42 +0000
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-08 19:49 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-08 11:35 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Richard Starkey <nobody@ringo.jpunix.net> - 2014-05-08 14:23 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-08 11:35 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-08 21:12 +0200
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-08 12:27 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... John Kennerson <nobody@isis.cpunk.us> - 2014-05-08 15:25 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-08 18:12 +0200
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-08 12:34 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-08 18:46 +0200
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-08 11:42 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-08 11:17 -0600
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-08 11:41 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-05-08 14:42 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-08 13:22 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2014-05-08 19:27 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-08 18:34 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-09 07:09 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-05-09 07:40 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-09 07:47 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-05-09 08:02 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-09 08:36 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-09 09:51 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-09 09:57 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-09 10:13 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 16:16 +0200
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-09 10:53 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-09 11:05 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-09 11:19 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 17:23 +0200
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-09 11:45 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 17:21 +0200
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-09 11:46 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-09 11:50 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-05-09 10:43 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-09 11:36 -0600
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 10:42 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-05-09 19:13 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-09 18:25 -0600
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-10 16:13 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-05-10 09:16 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-10 10:32 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-10 16:39 +0200
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-10 10:47 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-10 09:34 -0600
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-10 11:29 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-10 09:35 -0600
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-05-10 10:43 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 10:42 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-09 08:18 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2014-05-09 07:07 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-09 10:11 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-05-09 09:20 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-09 11:30 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-09 11:48 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-09 11:52 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2014-05-10 03:08 +0000
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-10 07:52 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-05-10 09:10 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 16:27 +0200
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-09 10:44 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-09 10:48 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-09 10:58 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-09 17:42 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2014-05-10 03:12 +0000
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-12 14:01 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2014-05-10 03:07 +0000
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2014-05-09 10:37 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-09 11:14 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-09 11:27 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-09 12:46 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-05-10 09:14 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-10 10:30 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-10 16:30 +0200
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-10 11:27 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-10 09:39 -0600
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-05-10 10:44 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-10 11:53 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-05-10 10:42 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-10 18:05 +0200
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-10 12:14 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-10 18:21 +0200
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-10 12:28 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-05-10 12:02 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-10 12:07 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-10 12:15 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-05-10 12:15 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-05-10 12:05 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-05-10 12:13 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-10 09:29 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2014-05-11 01:45 +0000
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-10 20:32 -0600
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2014-05-11 03:08 +0000
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-05-10 22:13 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2014-05-12 10:51 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-10 22:06 -0600
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2014-05-11 05:06 +0000
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-12 07:58 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-05-12 08:32 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-12 08:35 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-12 15:38 +0200
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-12 21:28 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-12 21:28 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-12 09:44 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-12 16:03 +0200
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-12 21:28 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-12 21:25 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-12 08:00 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-05-12 08:33 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-12 08:36 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-12 21:28 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-12 15:39 +0200
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-12 17:51 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-12 11:06 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-12 10:12 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2014-05-12 08:27 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-12 17:39 +0200
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-12 08:50 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-12 10:30 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-12 17:37 +0200
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-12 21:29 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-12 13:10 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-12 21:29 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-12 10:20 -0600
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-12 21:25 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2014-05-12 10:49 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-12 11:56 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-12 12:25 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2014-05-12 12:13 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-12 13:03 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-12 21:30 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-05-12 13:19 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-12 13:36 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-05-12 11:58 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2014-05-12 12:02 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-05-12 14:34 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-12 16:02 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-12 15:28 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-12 16:47 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-12 15:07 -0600
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-05-12 14:12 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-12 21:30 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-13 09:39 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-13 12:28 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2014-05-12 16:10 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-12 21:40 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2014-05-13 04:24 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-05-12 13:29 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-05-12 14:33 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-12 14:44 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-05-12 14:52 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-14 09:20 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-12 12:58 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-12 21:30 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@strtml.cm> - 2014-05-12 15:10 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-05-12 14:37 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@strtml.cm> - 2014-05-12 15:50 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-05-12 14:53 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@strtml.cm> - 2014-05-12 19:41 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-12 17:09 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2014-05-12 16:50 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@strtml.cm> - 2014-05-12 20:21 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-12 18:28 -0600
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2014-05-13 15:14 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-13 18:17 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2014-05-14 15:04 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-14 22:25 +0200
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-14 17:20 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-14 17:22 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-14 17:29 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-14 17:32 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-14 17:38 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-14 17:47 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-14 17:49 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-14 15:34 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-14 15:37 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-14 19:08 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-14 17:37 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-15 08:22 +0200
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-14 15:33 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2014-05-14 16:47 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-14 19:03 -0400
Dual Quad Cores, with a faster RAID controller. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2014-05-14 19:02 -0700
Re: Dual Quad Cores, with a faster RAID controller. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-14 22:31 -0400
Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2014-05-14 22:15 -0700
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-15 09:04 -0400
Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2014-05-15 06:23 -0700
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-15 10:39 -0400
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-15 16:48 +0200
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-15 11:08 -0400
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> - 2014-05-15 16:13 +0100
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-15 11:26 -0400
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> - 2014-05-15 16:35 +0100
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-15 11:54 -0400
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> - 2014-05-15 17:01 +0100
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-15 12:08 -0400
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> - 2014-05-15 22:31 +0100
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-16 12:56 -0400
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> - 2014-05-16 18:06 +0100
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-16 13:39 -0400
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> - 2014-05-17 10:31 +0100
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-17 08:22 -0400
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> - 2014-05-17 16:45 +0100
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-17 09:01 -0700
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-17 16:22 -0400
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> - 2014-05-17 21:32 +0100
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-17 15:47 -0700
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-17 19:30 -0400
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-17 16:34 -0700
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-18 14:02 -0400
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.ca> - 2014-05-18 18:53 +0000
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-17 21:47 -0400
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-17 15:49 -0700
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-17 07:35 -0700
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-17 19:24 -0400
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> - 2014-05-18 01:07 +0100
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-17 17:22 -0700
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-17 22:55 -0400
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-17 20:29 -0700
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-17 21:52 -0400
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-17 18:56 -0700
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-17 16:26 -0700
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-16 17:49 -0700
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-15 17:01 -0700
Like @snit, @Hadron is hopeless. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2014-05-15 13:25 -0700
Re: Like @snit, @Hadron is hopeless. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-15 18:38 -0400
Re: Like @snit, @Hadron is hopeless. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-05-16 00:59 +0200
Re: Like @snit, @Hadron is hopeless. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-15 19:16 -0400
How would you do this, in Linux ? Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2014-05-15 16:02 -0700
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-15 19:18 -0400
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-15 17:20 -0600
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-15 19:46 -0400
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-15 17:03 -0700
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-15 16:51 -0700
How would you do this, in Linux ? Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2014-05-15 17:02 -0700
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-15 20:07 -0400
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-15 23:30 -0400
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-16 14:52 +0200
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-16 16:51 -0400
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-16 17:09 -0400
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-16 18:41 -0400
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-16 18:55 -0400
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-16 20:31 -0400
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-17 08:20 -0400
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-17 10:39 -0400
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-17 10:47 -0400
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-05-17 20:49 +0200
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-17 11:57 -0700
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2014-05-17 20:08 +0100
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-17 12:29 -0700
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? "Cola Zealot" <Cola_Zealot@fuckoff.com> - 2014-05-18 11:44 +0200
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-18 08:45 -0400
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-18 08:40 -0700
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-17 16:27 -0400
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-17 16:24 -0400
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-17 19:53 -0400
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-17 21:53 -0400
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-05-18 11:14 +0200
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-18 09:31 -0400
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-18 08:36 -0700
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-18 08:42 -0700
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-05-18 17:47 +0200
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-18 09:15 -0700
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.ca> - 2014-05-18 18:28 +0000
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-18 11:53 -0700
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2014-05-18 23:09 +0100
Re: How would you do this, in Linux ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-18 16:37 -0700
Re: Like @snit, @Hadron is hopeless. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-15 17:03 -0700
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-15 11:11 -0400
I like MicroSoft -because- it's mainstream. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2014-05-15 13:35 -0700
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-15 17:22 -0700
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-15 11:09 -0600
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-15 14:50 -0400
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-15 13:25 -0600
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-15 18:35 -0400
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-05-16 00:56 +0200
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-15 19:12 -0400
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-16 00:15 -0400
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-16 12:43 +0200
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-16 07:43 -0400
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-15 17:13 -0600
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-15 19:34 -0400
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-15 18:21 -0600
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-15 20:27 -0400
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2014-05-15 16:15 -0400
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-16 12:42 +0200
Re: Windows 8's UI uses DirectX 11.1, big time. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-16 13:00 -0400
DirectX 11.1 is now part of the Windows 8 SDK. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2014-05-14 22:21 -0700
Re: Dual Quad Cores, with a faster RAID controller. Jesse <jesse.rehmer@blueworldhosting.com> - 2014-05-14 22:02 -0500
Re: Dual Quad Cores, with a faster RAID controller. ?? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-15 06:51 -0500
Re: Dual Quad Cores, with a faster RAID controller. ?? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <gregoryhall@home.fake> - 2014-05-15 18:53 -0400
Re: Dual Quad Cores, with a faster RAID controller. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-26 22:55 -0400
$999 Dell UltraSharp UP2414Q. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2014-05-26 21:32 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-15 08:20 +0200
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2014-05-15 04:33 -0700
I just bought a $430 graphics card. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2014-05-15 06:51 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-14 15:33 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-14 13:16 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-14 14:31 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-14 19:19 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-14 19:45 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-14 17:12 -0700
The Linux advantage. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2014-05-14 20:02 -0700
Re: The Linux advantage. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-05-15 09:46 +0200
Re: The Linux advantage. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-15 02:09 -0700
Re: The Linux advantage. Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-15 11:29 +0200
Re: The Linux advantage. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-15 16:51 -0700
Re: The Linux advantage.  Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-15 09:55 +0200
Re: The Linux advantage. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-15 08:50 -0400
When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2014-05-15 06:35 -0700
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-15 10:47 -0400
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-05-15 09:56 -0500
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-15 10:05 -0500
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-15 12:00 -0400
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-15 12:03 -0400
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2014-05-15 22:47 +0000
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-15 19:05 -0400
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-15 23:51 -0400
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-16 07:41 -0400
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-16 04:57 -0700
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-16 18:10 -0400
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-16 18:21 -0400
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-16 18:45 -0400
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-16 18:57 -0400
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-16 20:40 -0400
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-16 17:54 -0700
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-16 18:16 -0700
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-16 17:53 -0700
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-20 10:03 -0400
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-20 10:11 -0400
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-20 21:09 -0400
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-21 07:51 -0400
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.ca> - 2014-05-20 16:22 +0000
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-20 10:16 -0700
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-20 13:29 -0400
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.ca> - 2014-05-20 18:53 +0000
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-20 12:11 -0700
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. Tralfaz <directly_above_the_center_of_the_earth@santas_deer_poop_too_much.org> - 2014-05-20 16:24 +0000
The average troll has the brain of a Spider Monkey Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-20 13:02 -0400
Re: The average troll has the brain of a Spider Monkey Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.ca> - 2014-05-20 17:12 +0000
Re: The average troll has the brain of a Spider Monkey Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-20 10:26 -0700
Re: The average troll has the brain of a Spider Monkey DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-20 13:36 -0400
Re: The average troll has the brain of a Spider Monkey flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-20 14:11 -0400
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-20 13:47 -0400
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-20 14:19 -0400
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-16 18:41 -0400
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-16 19:20 -0400
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-16 20:43 -0400
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-16 18:17 -0700
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-16 17:52 -0700
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-16 00:09 -0400
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-16 12:44 +0200
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-16 12:56 -0400
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-16 13:25 -0400
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-16 13:55 -0400
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-16 14:17 -0400
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-16 14:35 -0600
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-15 11:09 -0400
Re: When you quote too much, I dump the post, unread. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-15 17:00 -0700
Re: The Linux advantage. Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2014-05-16 11:52 +0000
Re: The Linux advantage. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-16 12:01 -0400
Re: The Linux advantage. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-16 09:15 -0700
Re: The Linux advantage. "Steve Carroll." <fretwizzin@gmail.com> - 2014-05-16 09:19 -0700
Re: The Linux advantage. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-16 11:06 -0600
Re: The Linux advantage. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-16 13:27 -0400
Re: The Linux advantage. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-16 13:57 -0400
Re: The Linux advantage. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-16 14:18 -0400
The best relationships are all business, no bullshit. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2014-05-16 16:26 -0700
Re: The best relationships are all business, no bullshit. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-16 20:49 -0400
Re: The best relationships are all business, no bullshit. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-16 22:25 -0400
Compared to the internet, people are boring. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2014-05-16 20:25 -0700
Re: The best relationships are all business, no bullshit. Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-17 10:33 -0400
Re: The Linux advantage. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-16 13:51 -0400
Re: The Linux advantage. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-16 14:40 -0600
Re: The Linux advantage. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-16 17:40 -0700
I automate Visual Studio Pro 2013, big time. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2014-05-16 16:07 -0700
Re: I automate Visual Studio Pro 2013, big time. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-16 19:17 -0400
100% off Visual Studio Ultimate 2013, today only. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2014-05-16 16:59 -0700
Visual Studio 2013 costs $500; $315 to upgrade. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2014-05-16 15:52 -0700
Re: Visual Studio 2013 costs $500; $315 to upgrade. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-16 17:11 -0600
Are you using Visual Studio Pro 2010 ? Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2014-05-16 16:51 -0700
Re: Are you using Visual Studio Pro 2010 ? GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-16 19:54 -0600
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-12 12:52 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-12 15:10 -0600
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@strtml.cm> - 2014-05-12 20:11 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-12 17:20 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-12 18:32 -0600
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@strtml.cm> - 2014-05-12 20:39 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-12 17:41 -0700
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2014-05-13 15:16 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-13 18:06 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-05-13 17:29 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-13 18:30 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-05-13 17:39 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-05-10 09:11 -0500
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-10 11:24 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2014-05-09 00:53 +0000
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-08 21:02 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-09 07:35 -0400
Re: And Amazon's No. 1 selling Desktop is ... Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-05-08 21:03 -0400
Page 5 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 21 Next page →
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-12 14:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lkr28u$nl6$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #242795 |
On 5/9/2014 11:58 AM, chrisv wrote: > Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > >> ><chuckle> Last week Office Depot's Sunday brochure offered, for $29.99, >> >to "remove trialware", "install anti-virus", and a couple of other services >> >for people who just bought their billy-box. >> > >> >What a racket! The hardware vendor gets paid to install the trialware, and >> >Office Depot gets paid to remove it! >> > Yeah, that cheap Windows license has those hidden costs. Windows is > only inexpensive if your time has no value. X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564 Good one, turd!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 03:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lkk54n$iel$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #242762 |
On Fri, 09 May 2014 10:11:18 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > <chuckle> Last week Office Depot's Sunday brochure offered, for $29.99, > to "remove trialware", "install anti-virus", and a couple of other > services for people who just bought their billy-box. > > What a racket! The hardware vendor gets paid to install the trialware, > and Office Depot gets paid to remove it! What a racket. Who would knowingly use the Malware Magnet Hobbyware OS from Redmond? I guess, besides WinDrones and iCultists (i.e., bitter old biddies and obsessive cranks) that would leave people who just don't know there's a choice. Making Windows "run faster" is a huge industry. And because of bitrot and the propensity of the Malware Magnet OS to attract viruses and malware, it's always going to be a huge industry. Which brings us back to the topic of "mainstream" choices ... Chrome OS and even Android desktops. The better choice, of course, would be a conventional Linux distribution, but if Redmond victims knew that that choice existed, they would have freed themselves years ago. -- Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 10:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlmptil.1jq.jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
| In reply to | #242738 |
On 2014-05-09, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
> On 2014-05-09 12:09:09 +0000, chrisv said:
>
>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
[deletia]
>> But, let's face it, spending money to "market" something which is
>> available for free doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's a
>> two-edged sword - it's free, but there's no business case for
>> marketing-to/educating the masses.
>
> Which explains the very low uptake of Linux on the desktop.
>
> Of course since there isn't anything compellingly different about Linux
> on the desktop compared to Windows or OSX, and those products are
> actively marketed, the case will never be made.
...and yet MacOS still can't manage to break double digits despite all of
the time and effort. It's an ancient brand really. It dates back to the days
of MS-DOS. It barely escaped those days in one piece.
Nothing else did.
Don't lump your marginal also-ran in with the monopoly.
[deletia]
You're so desperate to avoid looking like an idiot. It's not even funny any more.
--
When you don't want to be limited by the Apple Fanboy mentality, MKV is something
that you are likely to reach for. It's more powerful and flexible than either |||
Apple technology or an Apple user's imagination. / | \
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 11:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <b3vpm9hmctcfh6l360c4ljel4o268tva7e@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #242794 |
JEDIDIAH wrote: > Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote: >> >> Of course since there isn't anything compellingly different about Linux >> on the desktop compared to Windows or OSX, Sure there is, liar. It offers much that the others do not, as has been advocated in here countless times. For a large chunk of the market, those two choices are *far* away from being optimal. It's *not* a healthy market with real consumer choice. Only lying assholes take the fact of this product's small uptake, and claim that it demonstrates all sorts of shit like it's "inferior", or "there's nothing compellingly different", or "there's confusion over too much choice". >> and those products are >> actively marketed, the case will never be made. > >...and yet MacOS still can't manage to break double digits despite all of >the time and effort. It's an ancient brand really. It dates back to the days >of MS-DOS. It barely escaped those days in one piece. > > Nothing else did. > > Don't lump your marginal also-ran in with the monopoly. > >[deletia] > > You're so desperate to avoid looking like an idiot. It's not even funny any more. -- "That should be clear even to a dick like you who doesnt seem to think 1% is a pretty poor showing." - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 11:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2a0qm9tc0t6ka9df3n4e3nj1vi1t6njfor@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #242796 |
>-- >"That should be clear even to a dick like you who doesnt seem to think >1% is a pretty poor showing." - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark "Hadron" believes that someone thinking that Linux has actually done pretty well, all things considered, makes them a "dick". Such a "true Linux advocate".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 12:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <yvwhllbg0e00.1im8t84mum0sv.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #242796 |
On Fri, 09 May 2014 11:14:28 -0500, chrisv wrote: > JEDIDIAH wrote: > >> Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote: >>> >>> Of course since there isn't anything compellingly different about Linux >>> on the desktop compared to Windows or OSX, > > Sure there is, liar. It offers much that the others do not, as has > been advocated in here countless times. For a large chunk of the > market, those two choices are *far* away from being optimal. It's > *not* a healthy market with real consumer choice. Manufacturers are free to install Linux on consumer machines. They have tried it in the past and it has failed, miserably. And Linux is free which makes it even worse.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 09:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <bt6qhsF4t7qU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #242796 |
On 2014-05-09 16:14:28 +0000, chrisv said: > JEDIDIAH wrote: > >> Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote: >>> >>> Of course since there isn't anything compellingly different about Linux >>> on the desktop compared to Windows or OSX, > > Sure there is, liar. It offers much that the others do not, as has > been advocated in here countless times. For a large chunk of the > market, those two choices are *far* away from being optimal. It's > *not* a healthy market with real consumer choice. > > Only lying assholes take the fact of this product's small uptake, and > claim that it demonstrates all sorts of shit like it's "inferior", or > "there's nothing compellingly different", or "there's confusion over > too much choice". Nice attempt to shift the goalpost. The problem isn't that Linux isn't good, it just isn't compelling in any way on the desktop. Why would the vast majority never even bother with it when there isn't a compelling reason to make the switch. That's why Linux on the desktop will stay at the low level of uptake, and is the reasons that OSX doesn't get more traction too. The main reason OSX gets more traction than Linux on the desktop is that there is a marketing schema in place to get it. > >>> and those products are >>> actively marketed, the case will never be made. >> >> ...and yet MacOS still can't manage to break double digits despite all of >> the time and effort. It's an ancient brand really. It dates back to the days >> of MS-DOS. It barely escaped those days in one piece. >> >> Nothing else did. >> >> Don't lump your marginal also-ran in with the monopoly. >> >> [deletia] >> >> You're so desperate to avoid looking like an idiot. It's not even funny >> any more. -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 10:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1wdlp8aip2f2z.1acz7tj9air7o$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #242958 |
On Sat, 10 May 2014 09:14:22 -0500, Lloyd E Parsons wrote: > On 2014-05-09 16:14:28 +0000, chrisv said: > >> JEDIDIAH wrote: >> >>> Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Of course since there isn't anything compellingly different about Linux >>>> on the desktop compared to Windows or OSX, >> >> Sure there is, liar. It offers much that the others do not, as has >> been advocated in here countless times. For a large chunk of the >> market, those two choices are *far* away from being optimal. It's >> *not* a healthy market with real consumer choice. >> >> Only lying assholes take the fact of this product's small uptake, and >> claim that it demonstrates all sorts of shit like it's "inferior", or >> "there's nothing compellingly different", or "there's confusion over >> too much choice". > > Nice attempt to shift the goalpost. It's a common tactic used by the Linux advocates. > The problem isn't that Linux isn't good, it just isn't compelling in > any way on the desktop. Why would the vast majority never even bother > with it when there isn't a compelling reason to make the switch. Main reason would be a religious pilgrimmage to be "free of evil corporations". Secondly, Linux does have light versions which run well on older hardware. Third would be less chance of security problems. None of that is compelling enough to entice people into using substandard applications, deal with substandard hardware support and quite frankly an overall substandard computing experience in general. > That's why Linux on the desktop will stay at the low level of uptake, > and is the reasons that OSX doesn't get more traction too. The main > reason OSX gets more traction than Linux on the desktop is that there > is a marketing schema in place to get it. I found the netbook saga very interesting. When netbooks were first introduced, they were Linux versions only. And they were being sucked up like crazy but the typical buyers were tech types who wanted something small to carry around for troubleshooting, tinkering etc. Sure some average Joe's were buying them as well, but that was not the bulk of the market. As soon as the Windows versions were released, people, including average Joe's, flocked to them and the Linux versions died a quick death. That, IMHO, is a perfect demonstration of Linux and Windows competing on an even keel and in fact Linux had the advantage of being there first. Linux failed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 16:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <871tw1aeos.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #242958 |
Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> writes: > On 2014-05-09 16:14:28 +0000, chrisv said: > >> JEDIDIAH wrote: >> >>> Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Of course since there isn't anything compellingly different about Linux >>>> on the desktop compared to Windows or OSX, >> >> Sure there is, liar. It offers much that the others do not, as has >> been advocated in here countless times. For a large chunk of the >> market, those two choices are *far* away from being optimal. It's >> *not* a healthy market with real consumer choice. >> >> Only lying assholes take the fact of this product's small uptake, and >> claim that it demonstrates all sorts of shit like it's "inferior", or >> "there's nothing compellingly different", or "there's confusion over >> too much choice". > > Nice attempt to shift the goalpost. > > The problem isn't that Linux isn't good, it just isn't compelling in any way on > the desktop. Why would the vast majority never even bother with it when there > isn't a compelling reason to make the switch. Its free and a well configured system is probably more stable. I have no complaints with Debian. The main issue with Linux is the reduction in choice. Sure I can configure my OS for years on end and its fun for a while but when its "done" I like it to stay done. The main issue is the lack of quality desktop apps and games for businesses OO simply doesnt cut it : but luckily I dont need those apps and dont game on my PC anymore (its old but Debian runs fine on it for Java development with IDEA Intellij CE) and I like running xmonad for example which wouldnt be all that easy with Windows. I also like the way all the system level type SW is properly integrated in a Linux system withtout that botched "hack" feel of it when it's configured to run on Windows. Me personally? You couldnt drag me back to Windows if you paid me - obviously I have more starch in my eier than Creepy Chris Ahsltrom, Kohlkopf and turd. > > That's why Linux on the desktop will stay at the low level of uptake, and is the > reasons that OSX doesn't get more traction too. The main reason OSX gets more > traction than Linux on the desktop is that there is a marketing schema in place > to get it. And the integrated desktop appeals to many people. Not to me I must say. > >> >>>> and those products are >>>> actively marketed, the case will never be made. >>> >>> ...and yet MacOS still can't manage to break double digits despite all of >>> the time and effort. It's an ancient brand really. It dates back to the days >>> of MS-DOS. It barely escaped those days in one piece. >>> >>> Nothing else did. >>> >>> Don't lump your marginal also-ran in with the monopoly. >>> >>> [deletia] >>> >>> You're so desperate to avoid looking like an idiot. It's not even funny any >>> more. -- "I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact." The turdv/chrisv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree. PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 11:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lklghr$b32$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #242958 |
Lloyd E Parsons wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > On 2014-05-09 16:14:28 +0000, chrisv said: > >> JEDIDIAH wrote: >> >>> Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Of course since there isn't anything compellingly different about Linux >>>> on the desktop compared to Windows or OSX, >> >> Sure there is, liar. It offers much that the others do not, as has >> been advocated in here countless times. For a large chunk of the >> market, those two choices are *far* away from being optimal. It's >> *not* a healthy market with real consumer choice. >> >> Only lying assholes take the fact of this product's small uptake, and >> claim that it demonstrates all sorts of shit like it's "inferior", or >> "there's nothing compellingly different", or "there's confusion over >> too much choice". > > Nice attempt to shift the goalpost. > > The problem isn't that Linux isn't good, it just isn't compelling in > any way on the desktop. Why would the vast majority never even bother > with it when there isn't a compelling reason to make the switch. > > That's why Linux on the desktop will stay at the low level of uptake, > and is the reasons that OSX doesn't get more traction too. The main > reason OSX gets more traction than Linux on the desktop is that there > is a marketing schema in place to get it. Sounds like we're kind of in agreement here, Lloyd. Marketing requires a company. "Linux" doesn't have one (on the "desktop"), mostly because vendors know that they cannot compete head-to-head with the <cough> aggressive <cough> <cough> marketing of <cough> Microsoft. -- Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might be a law against it by that time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 09:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <GI-dnSKcm5y61fPOnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #242972 |
On 5/10/2014 9:27 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > Lloyd E Parsons wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > >> On 2014-05-09 16:14:28 +0000, chrisv said: >> >>> JEDIDIAH wrote: >>> >>>> Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Of course since there isn't anything compellingly different about Linux >>>>> on the desktop compared to Windows or OSX, >>> >>> Sure there is, liar. It offers much that the others do not, as has >>> been advocated in here countless times. For a large chunk of the >>> market, those two choices are *far* away from being optimal. It's >>> *not* a healthy market with real consumer choice. >>> >>> Only lying assholes take the fact of this product's small uptake, and >>> claim that it demonstrates all sorts of shit like it's "inferior", or >>> "there's nothing compellingly different", or "there's confusion over >>> too much choice". >> >> Nice attempt to shift the goalpost. >> >> The problem isn't that Linux isn't good, it just isn't compelling in >> any way on the desktop. Why would the vast majority never even bother >> with it when there isn't a compelling reason to make the switch. >> >> That's why Linux on the desktop will stay at the low level of uptake, >> and is the reasons that OSX doesn't get more traction too. The main >> reason OSX gets more traction than Linux on the desktop is that there >> is a marketing schema in place to get it. > > Sounds like we're kind of in agreement here, Lloyd. > > Marketing requires a company. "Linux" doesn't have one (on the "desktop"), > mostly because vendors know that they cannot compete head-to-head with the > <cough> aggressive <cough> <cough> marketing of <cough> Microsoft. > Yep. I remember a car paint shop advertising on TV ... "I'll paint any car for $99.95!!" And the guy made money off his shoddy paint shop too. It was in Seattle at the time. -- We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true -- Robert Wilensky, 1997
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 10:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <bt6vrqF60nqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #242976 |
On 2014-05-10 15:39:12 +0000, GreyCloud said: > On 5/10/2014 9:27 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >> Lloyd E Parsons wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: >> >>> On 2014-05-09 16:14:28 +0000, chrisv said: >>> >>>> JEDIDIAH wrote: >>>> >>>>> Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course since there isn't anything compellingly different about Linux >>>>>> on the desktop compared to Windows or OSX, >>>> >>>> Sure there is, liar. It offers much that the others do not, as has >>>> been advocated in here countless times. For a large chunk of the >>>> market, those two choices are *far* away from being optimal. It's >>>> *not* a healthy market with real consumer choice. >>>> >>>> Only lying assholes take the fact of this product's small uptake, and >>>> claim that it demonstrates all sorts of shit like it's "inferior", or >>>> "there's nothing compellingly different", or "there's confusion over >>>> too much choice". >>> >>> Nice attempt to shift the goalpost. >>> >>> The problem isn't that Linux isn't good, it just isn't compelling in >>> any way on the desktop. Why would the vast majority never even bother >>> with it when there isn't a compelling reason to make the switch. >>> >>> That's why Linux on the desktop will stay at the low level of uptake, >>> and is the reasons that OSX doesn't get more traction too. The main >>> reason OSX gets more traction than Linux on the desktop is that there >>> is a marketing schema in place to get it. >> >> Sounds like we're kind of in agreement here, Lloyd. >> >> Marketing requires a company. "Linux" doesn't have one (on the "desktop"), >> mostly because vendors know that they cannot compete head-to-head with the >> <cough> aggressive <cough> <cough> marketing of <cough> Microsoft. >> > > Yep. I remember a car paint shop advertising on TV ... > "I'll paint any car for $99.95!!" And the guy made money off his shoddy > paint shop too. It was in Seattle at the time. $99.95? What a rip off, I remember when Earl Scheib was doing them for $19.95! And being damned succesful at it nationwide. :) -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 11:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mhwq8yiydmt$.11uw2n9eo1hu$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #242979 |
On Sat, 10 May 2014 10:44:58 -0500, Lloyd E Parsons wrote: > On 2014-05-10 15:39:12 +0000, GreyCloud said: > >> On 5/10/2014 9:27 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: >>> >>>> On 2014-05-09 16:14:28 +0000, chrisv said: >>>> >>>>> JEDIDIAH wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course since there isn't anything compellingly different about Linux >>>>>>> on the desktop compared to Windows or OSX, >>>>> >>>>> Sure there is, liar. It offers much that the others do not, as has >>>>> been advocated in here countless times. For a large chunk of the >>>>> market, those two choices are *far* away from being optimal. It's >>>>> *not* a healthy market with real consumer choice. >>>>> >>>>> Only lying assholes take the fact of this product's small uptake, and >>>>> claim that it demonstrates all sorts of shit like it's "inferior", or >>>>> "there's nothing compellingly different", or "there's confusion over >>>>> too much choice". >>>> >>>> Nice attempt to shift the goalpost. >>>> >>>> The problem isn't that Linux isn't good, it just isn't compelling in >>>> any way on the desktop. Why would the vast majority never even bother >>>> with it when there isn't a compelling reason to make the switch. >>>> >>>> That's why Linux on the desktop will stay at the low level of uptake, >>>> and is the reasons that OSX doesn't get more traction too. The main >>>> reason OSX gets more traction than Linux on the desktop is that there >>>> is a marketing schema in place to get it. >>> >>> Sounds like we're kind of in agreement here, Lloyd. >>> >>> Marketing requires a company. "Linux" doesn't have one (on the "desktop"), >>> mostly because vendors know that they cannot compete head-to-head with the >>> <cough> aggressive <cough> <cough> marketing of <cough> Microsoft. >>> >> >> Yep. I remember a car paint shop advertising on TV ... >> "I'll paint any car for $99.95!!" And the guy made money off his shoddy >> paint shop too. It was in Seattle at the time. > > $99.95? What a rip off, I remember when Earl Scheib was doing them for > $19.95! And being damned succesful at it nationwide. :) I remember that. He made his real money on body work because no car that needed to be painted had a decent, dent free, rust free body.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 10:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <bt6vnmF60c8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #242972 |
On 2014-05-10 15:27:55 +0000, Chris Ahlstrom said: > Lloyd E Parsons wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > >> On 2014-05-09 16:14:28 +0000, chrisv said: >> >>> JEDIDIAH wrote: >>> >>>> Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Of course since there isn't anything compellingly different about Linux >>>>> on the desktop compared to Windows or OSX, >>> >>> Sure there is, liar. It offers much that the others do not, as has >>> been advocated in here countless times. For a large chunk of the >>> market, those two choices are *far* away from being optimal. It's >>> *not* a healthy market with real consumer choice. >>> >>> Only lying assholes take the fact of this product's small uptake, and >>> claim that it demonstrates all sorts of shit like it's "inferior", or >>> "there's nothing compellingly different", or "there's confusion over >>> too much choice". >> >> Nice attempt to shift the goalpost. >> >> The problem isn't that Linux isn't good, it just isn't compelling in >> any way on the desktop. Why would the vast majority never even bother >> with it when there isn't a compelling reason to make the switch. >> >> That's why Linux on the desktop will stay at the low level of uptake, >> and is the reasons that OSX doesn't get more traction too. The main >> reason OSX gets more traction than Linux on the desktop is that there >> is a marketing schema in place to get it. > > Sounds like we're kind of in agreement here, Lloyd. We are more than we are not. The confusion is from the points of viewing the issues. I tend to look at the marketability of a product and most here want to view from the technical standpoint. The two are often not anywhere near the same thing. Just look the the OS2 wars for a prime example. OS2 was at the time, a much superior OS to Windows but lost the war because IBM couldn't figure out how to out market Microsoft. Of course the geeks had a different view of the reasons, but in the end it was business reasons and not technology reasons that killed OS2. > > Marketing requires a company. "Linux" doesn't have one (on the "desktop"), > mostly because vendors know that they cannot compete head-to-head with the > <cough> aggressive <cough> <cough> marketing of <cough> Microsoft. That's true, there isn't anyone. And that is as much caused by one of the strengths of Linux from a tech standpoint, the many distros. To marketing many distros of essentially the same thing dilutes the message which confuses the market. Frankly MS didn't have to do much to keep Linux desktop off the market, the techs/geeks did most of the heavy lifting for them. From an end user standpoint, if we consider the average consumer and their uses, Windows is just fine. Even in business, most of the users have no need or want for anything more and where they do, they plug in whatever is needed. That might be a Mac of one sort or another or a Linux box, but it will always be just a few. For the consumer, Windows is the simplest choice. There is no question that they can and will find whatever hardware add-on they might need because they know it will be compatible with Windows. Same goes for software they might want/need. Because of marketing they've heard of Office and PhotoShop (for instance), but because there is no marketing they probably haven't heard of OpenOffice or Gimp (for instance). It is all about perception and perception is more often than not, driven by effective marketing. -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 18:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <87sioh8vr9.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #242977 |
Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> writes: > On 2014-05-10 15:27:55 +0000, Chris Ahlstrom said: > >> Lloyd E Parsons wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: >> >>> On 2014-05-09 16:14:28 +0000, chrisv said: >>> >>>> JEDIDIAH wrote: >>>> >>>>> Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course since there isn't anything compellingly different about Linux >>>>>> on the desktop compared to Windows or OSX, >>>> >>>> Sure there is, liar. It offers much that the others do not, as has >>>> been advocated in here countless times. For a large chunk of the >>>> market, those two choices are *far* away from being optimal. It's >>>> *not* a healthy market with real consumer choice. >>>> >>>> Only lying assholes take the fact of this product's small uptake, and >>>> claim that it demonstrates all sorts of shit like it's "inferior", or >>>> "there's nothing compellingly different", or "there's confusion over >>>> too much choice". >>> >>> Nice attempt to shift the goalpost. >>> >>> The problem isn't that Linux isn't good, it just isn't compelling in >>> any way on the desktop. Why would the vast majority never even bother >>> with it when there isn't a compelling reason to make the switch. >>> >>> That's why Linux on the desktop will stay at the low level of uptake, >>> and is the reasons that OSX doesn't get more traction too. The main >>> reason OSX gets more traction than Linux on the desktop is that there >>> is a marketing schema in place to get it. >> >> Sounds like we're kind of in agreement here, Lloyd. > > We are more than we are not. The confusion is from the points of viewing the > issues. I tend to look at the marketability of a product and most here want to > view from the technical standpoint. The two are often not anywhere near the > same thing. > > Just look the the OS2 wars for a prime example. OS2 was at the time, a much > superior OS to Windows but lost the war because IBM couldn't figure out how to > out market Microsoft. Of course the geeks had a different view of the reasons, > but in the end it was business reasons and not technology reasons that killed > OS2. That isnt strictly true. Certainly IBM fucked up - they were at 7s and 9s and were SO disorganised it was a joke. Gerstner changed a lot of that. Trying to get hard copies of their, actually very good, PM, WPS and GPI manuals was a herculean task in itself. The other issue was ..... HW compatibility. New video HW was starting to make an impact and frequently drivers were slow in coming and buggy. Meanwhile gates and co were courting the video card mfrs and helping them develop for D3D etc. IBM were too big and important to bother with that and got left behind. Getting OS/2 up and running on netware was far from trivial at the start. Tie that in with Warp's *much* higher memory and CPU requirements over Windows and it was pretty much doomed : though that said it's astonishing now to think that a 32Meg of memory was a pretty good development machine and getting a 17" monitor felt like you were in Cheyenne Mountain. All of that said it was rock solid and technically far superior. The fact it could run Win 3.1 and DOS SW was evidence enough of its "real OS" claim. It was also the start of StarDock whose Object Desktop built on the WPS and was very purty indeed. Of course, like Linux now, OS/2 had such a tiny user base they soon started developing for Windows and then deserted OS/2 altogether pretty much and got flamed by the usual retards who never bought any of their SW anyway. > >> >> Marketing requires a company. "Linux" doesn't have one (on the "desktop"), >> mostly because vendors know that they cannot compete head-to-head with the >> <cough> aggressive <cough> <cough> marketing of <cough> Microsoft. > > That's true, there isn't anyone. And that is as much caused by one of the > strengths of Linux from a tech standpoint, the many distros. To marketing many > distros of essentially the same thing dilutes the message which confuses the > market. Frankly MS didn't have to do much to keep Linux desktop off the market, > the techs/geeks did most of the heavy lifting for them. > > From an end user standpoint, if we consider the average consumer and their uses, > Windows is just fine. Even in business, most of the users have no need or want > for anything more and where they do, they plug in whatever is needed. That > might be a Mac of one sort or another or a Linux box, but it will always be just > a few. > > For the consumer, Windows is the simplest choice. There is no question that > they can and will find whatever hardware add-on they might need because they > know it will be compatible with Windows. Same goes for software they might > want/need. Because of marketing they've heard of Office and PhotoShop (for > instance), but because there is no marketing they probably haven't heard of > OpenOffice or Gimp (for instance). It is all about perception and perception is > more often than not, driven by effective marketing. -- "I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact." The turdv/chrisv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree. PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 12:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k79nb4lv23rg.7eixbqy86r1s.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #242981 |
On Sat, 10 May 2014 18:05:14 +0200, Hadron wrote: > Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> writes: > >> On 2014-05-10 15:27:55 +0000, Chris Ahlstrom said: >> >>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: >>> >>>> On 2014-05-09 16:14:28 +0000, chrisv said: >>>> >>>>> JEDIDIAH wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course since there isn't anything compellingly different about Linux >>>>>>> on the desktop compared to Windows or OSX, >>>>> >>>>> Sure there is, liar. It offers much that the others do not, as has >>>>> been advocated in here countless times. For a large chunk of the >>>>> market, those two choices are *far* away from being optimal. It's >>>>> *not* a healthy market with real consumer choice. >>>>> >>>>> Only lying assholes take the fact of this product's small uptake, and >>>>> claim that it demonstrates all sorts of shit like it's "inferior", or >>>>> "there's nothing compellingly different", or "there's confusion over >>>>> too much choice". >>>> >>>> Nice attempt to shift the goalpost. >>>> >>>> The problem isn't that Linux isn't good, it just isn't compelling in >>>> any way on the desktop. Why would the vast majority never even bother >>>> with it when there isn't a compelling reason to make the switch. >>>> >>>> That's why Linux on the desktop will stay at the low level of uptake, >>>> and is the reasons that OSX doesn't get more traction too. The main >>>> reason OSX gets more traction than Linux on the desktop is that there >>>> is a marketing schema in place to get it. >>> >>> Sounds like we're kind of in agreement here, Lloyd. >> >> We are more than we are not. The confusion is from the points of viewing the >> issues. I tend to look at the marketability of a product and most here want to >> view from the technical standpoint. The two are often not anywhere near the >> same thing. >> >> Just look the the OS2 wars for a prime example. OS2 was at the time, a much >> superior OS to Windows but lost the war because IBM couldn't figure out how to >> out market Microsoft. Of course the geeks had a different view of the reasons, >> but in the end it was business reasons and not technology reasons that killed >> OS2. > > That isnt strictly true. Certainly IBM fucked up - they were at 7s and > 9s and were SO disorganised it was a joke. Gerstner changed a lot of > that. Trying to get hard copies of their, actually very good, PM, WPS > and GPI manuals was a herculean task in itself. The other issue was > ..... HW compatibility. New video HW was starting to make an impact and > frequently drivers were slow in coming and buggy. Meanwhile gates and co > were courting the video card mfrs and helping them develop for D3D > etc. IBM were too big and important to bother with that and got left > behind. Getting OS/2 up and running on netware was far from trivial at > the start. Tie that in with Warp's *much* higher memory and CPU > requirements over Windows and it was pretty much doomed : though that > said it's astonishing now to think that a 32Meg of memory was a pretty > good development machine and getting a 17" monitor felt like you were in > Cheyenne Mountain. All of that said it was rock solid and technically > far superior. The fact it could run Win 3.1 and DOS SW was evidence > enough of its "real OS" claim. It was also the start of StarDock whose > Object Desktop built on the WPS and was very purty indeed. Of course, > like Linux now, OS/2 had such a tiny user base they soon started > developing for Windows and then deserted OS/2 altogether pretty much and > got flamed by the usual retards who never bought any of their SW anyway. Another problem was that IBM went to a seperate business unit model. So the PC division was responsible for their own profits while the software division was responsible for their own profits. A gross simplification of course, but what this resulted in was the PC division decided pre-installing Windows would sell more PC's than installing OS/2. This was especially true on their consumer boxes like Aptiva. This of course led to bad press for OS/2 because if IBM isn't even installing it, Windows must be superior. Then of course Microsoft led developers by the hand to build drivers for Windows and gave away a lot of free tools. IBM in all of their arrogance tried to charge big money for their DDK. End result was Windows had better hardware support out of the box. The list of screw ups by IBM is endless.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 18:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <87oaz58uzj.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #242986 |
flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> writes: > On Sat, 10 May 2014 18:05:14 +0200, Hadron wrote: > >> Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> writes: >> >>> On 2014-05-10 15:27:55 +0000, Chris Ahlstrom said: >>> >>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: >>>> >>>>> On 2014-05-09 16:14:28 +0000, chrisv said: >>>>> >>>>>> JEDIDIAH wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course since there isn't anything compellingly different about Linux >>>>>>>> on the desktop compared to Windows or OSX, >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure there is, liar. It offers much that the others do not, as has >>>>>> been advocated in here countless times. For a large chunk of the >>>>>> market, those two choices are *far* away from being optimal. It's >>>>>> *not* a healthy market with real consumer choice. >>>>>> >>>>>> Only lying assholes take the fact of this product's small uptake, and >>>>>> claim that it demonstrates all sorts of shit like it's "inferior", or >>>>>> "there's nothing compellingly different", or "there's confusion over >>>>>> too much choice". >>>>> >>>>> Nice attempt to shift the goalpost. >>>>> >>>>> The problem isn't that Linux isn't good, it just isn't compelling in >>>>> any way on the desktop. Why would the vast majority never even bother >>>>> with it when there isn't a compelling reason to make the switch. >>>>> >>>>> That's why Linux on the desktop will stay at the low level of uptake, >>>>> and is the reasons that OSX doesn't get more traction too. The main >>>>> reason OSX gets more traction than Linux on the desktop is that there >>>>> is a marketing schema in place to get it. >>>> >>>> Sounds like we're kind of in agreement here, Lloyd. >>> >>> We are more than we are not. The confusion is from the points of viewing the >>> issues. I tend to look at the marketability of a product and most here want to >>> view from the technical standpoint. The two are often not anywhere near the >>> same thing. >>> >>> Just look the the OS2 wars for a prime example. OS2 was at the time, a much >>> superior OS to Windows but lost the war because IBM couldn't figure out how to >>> out market Microsoft. Of course the geeks had a different view of the reasons, >>> but in the end it was business reasons and not technology reasons that killed >>> OS2. >> >> That isnt strictly true. Certainly IBM fucked up - they were at 7s and >> 9s and were SO disorganised it was a joke. Gerstner changed a lot of >> that. Trying to get hard copies of their, actually very good, PM, WPS >> and GPI manuals was a herculean task in itself. The other issue was >> ..... HW compatibility. New video HW was starting to make an impact and >> frequently drivers were slow in coming and buggy. Meanwhile gates and co >> were courting the video card mfrs and helping them develop for D3D >> etc. IBM were too big and important to bother with that and got left >> behind. Getting OS/2 up and running on netware was far from trivial at >> the start. Tie that in with Warp's *much* higher memory and CPU >> requirements over Windows and it was pretty much doomed : though that >> said it's astonishing now to think that a 32Meg of memory was a pretty >> good development machine and getting a 17" monitor felt like you were in >> Cheyenne Mountain. All of that said it was rock solid and technically >> far superior. The fact it could run Win 3.1 and DOS SW was evidence >> enough of its "real OS" claim. It was also the start of StarDock whose >> Object Desktop built on the WPS and was very purty indeed. Of course, >> like Linux now, OS/2 had such a tiny user base they soon started >> developing for Windows and then deserted OS/2 altogether pretty much and >> got flamed by the usual retards who never bought any of their SW anyway. > > Another problem was that IBM went to a seperate business unit model. > So the PC division was responsible for their own profits while the > software division was responsible for their own profits. A gross > simplification of course, but what this resulted in was the PC > division decided pre-installing Windows would sell more PC's than > installing OS/2. This was especially true on their consumer boxes > like Aptiva. > This of course led to bad press for OS/2 because if IBM isn't even > installing it, Windows must be superior. Yup. Like Creepy buying Windows laptops instead of using his Windows related salary that he was boasting about to support Linux OEMS. > > Then of course Microsoft led developers by the hand to build drivers > for Windows and gave away a lot of free tools. Yup. > IBM in all of their arrogance tried to charge big money for their > DDK. Yup. > End result was Windows had better hardware support out of the box. > Yup : as I said above pretty much. I was there man. > The list of screw ups by IBM is endless. Yup. -- "I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact." The turdv/chrisv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree. PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 12:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <7i1ss053o9za.34bkdccycxvx$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #242989 |
On Sat, 10 May 2014 18:21:52 +0200, Hadron wrote: >> flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> writes: > >> End result was Windows had better hardware support out of the box. >> > > Yup : as I said above pretty much. I was there man. Me too :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 12:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <bt74csF709iU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #242991 |
On 2014-05-10 16:28:10 +0000, flatfish+++ said: > On Sat, 10 May 2014 18:21:52 +0200, Hadron wrote: > >>> flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> writes: > >> >>> End result was Windows had better hardware support out of the box. >>> >> >> Yup : as I said above pretty much. I was there man. > > Me too :) I did beta testing on many of the apps during the OS2 war days. I loved OS2, still have all the versions too! Unfortunately I don't have any computers that will run, or at least I doubt they will. -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 12:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lklirn$tb3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #242977 |
Lloyd E Parsons wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > On 2014-05-10 15:27:55 +0000, Chris Ahlstrom said: > >> Sounds like we're kind of in agreement here, Lloyd. > > We are more than we are not. The confusion is from the points of > viewing the issues. I tend to look at the marketability of a product > and most here want to view from the technical standpoint. The two are > often not anywhere near the same thing. > > Just look the the OS2 wars for a prime example. OS2 was at the time, a > much superior OS to Windows but lost the war because IBM couldn't > figure out how to out market Microsoft. Of course the geeks had a > different view of the reasons, but in the end it was business reasons > and not technology reasons that killed OS2. Microsoft thought IBM was incompetent, and basically Microsoft double-crossed them. >> Marketing requires a company. "Linux" doesn't have one (on the "desktop"), >> mostly because vendors know that they cannot compete head-to-head with the >> <cough> aggressive <cough> <cough> marketing of <cough> Microsoft. > > That's true, there isn't anyone. And that is as much caused by one of > the strengths of Linux from a tech standpoint, the many distros. To > marketing many distros of essentially the same thing dilutes the > message which confuses the market. Frankly MS didn't have to do much > to keep Linux desktop off the market, the techs/geeks did most of the > heavy lifting for them. Not really. It goes far beyond Linux. Alternative versions of Windows, BeOS, various niche products, office suites... Microsoft double-dealing, back-stabbing, vaporware, and other techniques served their purpose quite well for a lot of products. > From an end user standpoint, if we consider the average consumer and > their uses, Windows is just fine. Even in business, most of the users > have no need or want for anything more and where they do, they plug in > whatever is needed. That might be a Mac of one sort or another or a > Linux box, but it will always be just a few. > > For the consumer, Windows is the simplest choice. There is no question > that they can and will find whatever hardware add-on they might need > because they know it will be compatible with Windows. Same goes for > software they might want/need. Because of marketing they've heard of > Office and PhotoShop (for instance), but because there is no marketing > they probably haven't heard of OpenOffice or Gimp (for instance). It > is all about perception and perception is more often than not, driven > by effective marketing. -- "jackpot: you may have an unnecessary change record" -- message from "diff"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web