Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #320962 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-15 19:04 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-09-16 15:11 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 142 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 19:04 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-15 19:48 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-09-15 20:57 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 01:04 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 01:02 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-15 20:11 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 01:18 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-15 20:26 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 12:20 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-16 10:12 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-16 10:43 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 18:25 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-16 21:50 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 22:16 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-16 22:27 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 22:35 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-16 23:08 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 23:18 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-16 23:35 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2015-09-16 18:46 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 00:22 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 00:44 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-16 18:01 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-17 09:36 +0200
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-17 14:06 +0200
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 12:39 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-17 08:08 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 10:39 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 10:53 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 10:41 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-09-18 07:52 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 07:57 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-18 17:56 +0200
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 09:11 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-09-18 12:39 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 11:17 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-18 12:46 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 10:26 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-18 15:24 +0200
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-18 08:42 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-18 16:04 +0200
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 08:01 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 08:05 -0700
Peter Köhlmann thinks UNIX did not exist before OS X Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 10:49 -0700
Snit Michael Glasser lying his ass off (again) Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-17 21:47 +0200
Re: Snit Michael Glasser lying his ass off (again) Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 13:04 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-17 11:09 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2015-09-17 13:13 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 13:07 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-17 14:03 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 03:25 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2015-09-17 08:02 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 13:45 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 17:14 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-16 17:33 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 03:17 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-16 20:50 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-17 09:44 +0200
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 10:52 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-17 21:50 +0200
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 13:04 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 22:49 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 16:05 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-17 19:25 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 17:33 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 14:23 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 10:43 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-09-17 08:09 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 13:50 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 17:07 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-09-17 22:03 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-16 17:24 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-17 01:40 +0200
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2015-09-16 18:46 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 00:45 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 00:48 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-16 23:55 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 12:36 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 12:44 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-17 19:01 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 00:05 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-17 20:36 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 18:44 -0700
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:55 +0000
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 18:00 +0000
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-18 13:56 -0500
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 19:11 +0000
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 13:13 -0700
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 20:42 +0000
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 13:59 -0700
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 21:07 +0000
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-09-18 15:47 -0600
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-09-18 17:17 -0700
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 17:40 -0700
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 17:24 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-09-18 20:55 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-09-18 07:49 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 13:09 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-09-18 09:26 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-18 10:01 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:42 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:58 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-16 18:02 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-16 23:21 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 12:34 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-17 19:04 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-16 19:44 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2015-09-16 18:48 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 03:32 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-16 20:53 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-17 08:45 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 12:51 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 11:04 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 10:55 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-17 08:40 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 14:29 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-17 12:35 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-17 18:51 +0200
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 17:05 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 17:05 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-16 17:22 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-09-17 06:49 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 14:05 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-09-17 07:48 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 15:35 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-17 12:32 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-09-17 10:42 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 19:54 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 17:09 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 19:48 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2015-09-17 14:59 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 22:15 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 22:19 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 22:33 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 15:54 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 15:55 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-09-17 19:20 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 15:52 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-17 19:24 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 13:06 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 13:07 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-09-16 15:11 -0500
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
| From | ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-18 17:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mthidt$1lc$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #321435 |
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 07:49:38 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote: > On 2015-09-17, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote: >> On 9/16/2015 7:48 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 00:45:33 +0000, ronb wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 01:40:24 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote: >>>> >>>>> Apple does not compete in OS market at all. They compete in hardware >>>>> market and that is completely different category. If they let OSX in >>>>> the wild it would take over OS desktop market in no time... >>>> >>>> I don't think so. But they would definitely cut into the Windows' >>>> monopoly. Unfortunately for iCultists it's never going to happen >>>> because Apple likes to gouge their suckers ... err ... customers for >>>> huge their profit margins. >>> >>> Those grapes are really sour huh, wRonG? Sour grapes? About Apple Crap? You really are delusional, aren't you, you bitter old biddy? Go back to sucking your lemons. Believe it or not, those a whole non-Apple world out there (a difficult concept for iCultists, I'm sure). > That implies some sort of jealousy which is absurd since most of the > zealots here consider Apple a failure. Their real success is in iPods > and iPod variants. > > >> False analogy. Yep -- and even there iCultists like to pretend Apple invented the concept of an MP3 player. They really are delusional. But, if they love Apple so much, why are they dragging their knuckles and drooling 24/7 in COLA? -- Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-18 17:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d631muF6lt5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #321500 |
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 17:42:22 +0000, ronb wrote: > On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 07:49:38 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote: > >> On 2015-09-17, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote: >>> On 9/16/2015 7:48 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 00:45:33 +0000, ronb wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 01:40:24 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Apple does not compete in OS market at all. They compete in >>>>>> hardware market and that is completely different category. If they >>>>>> let OSX in the wild it would take over OS desktop market in no >>>>>> time... >>>>> >>>>> I don't think so. But they would definitely cut into the Windows' >>>>> monopoly. Unfortunately for iCultists it's never going to happen >>>>> because Apple likes to gouge their suckers ... err ... customers for >>>>> huge their profit margins. >>>> >>>> Those grapes are really sour huh, wRonG? > > Sour grapes? About Apple Crap? You really are delusional, aren't you, > you bitter old biddy? Go back to sucking your lemons. Believe it or not, > those a whole non-Apple world out there (a difficult concept for > iCultists, I'm sure). > Yep, and some more of your sour grapes I see. Yes, there is more than Apple gear out there, own a fair bit of it myself. Apple chose the premium part of the market and is able to charge appropriate to that market. I know that anything more than free or just a little over that is strange to you, but really? Even Google found some traction in the premium market with the Chromebook Pixel. Starts at $995 and goes up from there. Similar construction to the MacBook Pros. Other mfgs also do some items at the higher end, they just can't seem to wean the market away from the el-cheapos. >> That implies some sort of jealousy which is absurd since most of >> the >> zealots here consider Apple a failure. Their real success is in iPods >> and iPod variants. >> >> >>> False analogy. > > Yep -- and even there iCultists like to pretend Apple invented the > concept of an MP3 player. They really are delusional. But, if they love > Apple so much, why are they dragging their knuckles and drooling 24/7 in > COLA? Uh no, there are very few that believe that mp3 crap story you're trying to pass off as fact. What Apple did was refine the hell out of the gear and the ecosystem and the public keeps buying it. And other than snit, I don't know of anyone that populates COLA 24/7. For me it is a very few minutes of each day. I like to point out the stupidity of the linux loonies as they either try to explain that the conspiracy against them keeps it from being a commercial success on the desktop, or that it doesn't really matter. Same people try to make both points. -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 18:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D21F5F33.5C152%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #321204 |
On 9/16/15, 5:45 PM, in article mtd2fd$n4h$1@dont-email.me, "ronb" <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 01:40:24 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote: > >> Apple does not compete in OS market at all. They compete in hardware >> market and that is completely different category. If they let OSX in the >> wild it would take over OS desktop market in no time... > > I don't think so. But they would definitely cut into the Windows' > monopoly. Unfortunately for iCultists it's never going to happen because > Apple likes to gouge their suckers ... err ... customers for huge their > profit margins. Ah, your poor iCultist imaginary friends. Are they going to be OK? LOL! -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 23:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mtdf3h$u05$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #321204 |
On 9/16/2015 7:45 PM, ronb wrote: > On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 01:40:24 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote: > >> Apple does not compete in OS market at all. They compete in hardware >> market and that is completely different category. If they let OSX in the >> wild it would take over OS desktop market in no time... > > I don't think so. But they would definitely cut into the Windows' > monopoly. Unfortunately for iCultists it's never going to happen because > Apple likes to gouge their suckers ... err ... customers for huge their > profit margins. I don't think so either. Apple makes themselves look good by constraining their OS to hardware they tightly control, and even at that they still have problems. If they allowed their OS to run on as much hardware as Linux or Windows does, people would realize there's nothing all that special about Apple's BSD variant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 12:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mtec11$imu$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #321225 |
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:21:05 -0500, Nobody wrote: > I don't think so either. Apple makes themselves look good by > constraining their OS to hardware they tightly control, and even at that > they still have problems. If they allowed their OS to run on as much > hardware as Linux or Windows does, people would realize there's nothing > all that special about Apple's BSD variant. You're right. Good point. -- Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 19:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mtfkdi$bcd$3@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #321262 |
On 9/17/2015 7:34 AM, ronb wrote: > On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:21:05 -0500, Nobody wrote: > >> I don't think so either. Apple makes themselves look good by >> constraining their OS to hardware they tightly control, and even at that >> they still have problems. If they allowed their OS to run on as much >> hardware as Linux or Windows does, people would realize there's nothing >> all that special about Apple's BSD variant. > > You're right. Good point. Thank you. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 19:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mtcups$d9v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #321187 |
On 2015-09-16 7:08 PM, owl wrote: > Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:27:51 +0000, owl wrote: > >>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:50:50 +0000, owl wrote: >>> >>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:12:01 -0500, chrisv wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Nobody wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly. >>>>>>>> “As David said, we learned that the Deb based package system >>>> wasn’t >>>>>>>> workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy, >>>>>>>> where we put the developer of a typical app almost completely in >>>>>>>> control of publication.”" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's very puzzling, very cult-like, that assholes like "Lloyd" take >>>>>>> pleasure in the "failure" of such a small business, an alternative >>>>>>> product with little apparent significance. >>>>>>> >>>>>> No pleasure taken, just noting that the failures exist and that you >>>>>> linux loonies are a big part of that problem. How many of you bought >>>>>> software in their software center? >>>>> >>>>> Never heard of it. What were they selling? >>>>> >>>> Software obviously. Try to keep up! :) >>> >>> Well there's teh problem right there. Trying to *sell* software. >>> LOL. What were they thinking? Seriously, what software were they >>> selling? I've bought software in the past. $thousands and $thousands >>> worth over the years. I'd say at least two thousand of that was >>> Linux-related. Hell, I just paid a couple hundred for vmware 11, and 12 >>> is out now i believe. I'll probably upgrade in the near future. >>> >>> >>>>>> Hell, how many of you bought and/or donated to >>>>>> Canonical to help ensure the success of a small business that is >>>>>> trying to get Linux on the desktop to be a viable and profitable >>>>>> product? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Unity sucks. Why give those fuckers money? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I know the answer, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF YOU! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Why should we? >>> >>>> Because you are the one wanting some growth in desktop linux >>>> marketshare. >>> >>> I couldn't care less about that. >>> >>>> Do you think the tooth fairy is going to help with that? Or is it >>>> possible that the 'advocates' and 'supporters' should be putting up a >>>> little cash? >>> >>> Linux is not Canonical. Linux is doing fine. Nobody cares if Canonical >>> dies off. Just another blip on the timeline. > >> Slight correction, linux on the desktop is doing fine in the hobbyist/ >> developer market and is finding some much smaller acceptance beyond >> that. And that will not change until attitudes change no matter how good >> linux on the desktop is or gets to be. > >> Canonical and others have tried to monetize linux desktop and have found >> no market. > > No market for their crap. What were they selling again? Unity? Support? > Peace on Earth and goodwill toward man? Standardization and ease of us in what is otherwise a very miserable experience. >> And with the 'free and open' nature of linux it never will >> happen. Couple that with the really piss poor attitudes of some very >> vociferous 'advocates' and 'supporters' and you have the sure fire >> formula for commercial failure. > > What's the explanation for Apple's massive failure to capture the desktop > after all these years and billions? The high price of the hardware, the impossibility of gaming on their machines, the lack of upgradeability of a machine (you can't change the internals and Apple prefers it that way), lack of the professional software businesses need which prevents companies from investing in the product and therefore prevents people from buying them at home since they would rather have the same kind of machine at home as they do at work. -- A.M
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 18:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <d5udfaF250hU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #321194 |
On 16 Sep 2015 19:44, "A.M" wrote: > On 2015-09-16 7:08 PM, owl wrote: >> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:27:51 +0000, owl wrote: >> >>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:50:50 +0000, owl wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:12:01 -0500, chrisv wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nobody wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly. >>>>>>>>> ÃfÂ,Ã,Â"As David said, we learned that the Deb based package system >>>>> wasnÃfÂ,Ã,Â't >>>>>>>>> workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy, >>>>>>>>> where we put the developer of a typical app almost completely in >>>>>>>>> control of publication.ÃfÂ,Ã,Â"" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's very puzzling, very cult-like, that assholes like "Lloyd" take >>>>>>>> pleasure in the "failure" of such a small business, an alternative >>>>>>>> product with little apparent significance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> No pleasure taken, just noting that the failures exist and that you >>>>>>> linux loonies are a big part of that problem. How many of you bought >>>>>>> software in their software center? >>>>>> >>>>>> Never heard of it. What were they selling? >>>>>> >>>>> Software obviously. Try to keep up! :) >>>> >>>> Well there's teh problem right there. Trying to *sell* software. >>>> LOL. What were they thinking? Seriously, what software were they >>>> selling? I've bought software in the past. $thousands and $thousands >>>> worth over the years. I'd say at least two thousand of that was >>>> Linux-related. Hell, I just paid a couple hundred for vmware 11, and 12 >>>> is out now i believe. I'll probably upgrade in the near future. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Hell, how many of you bought and/or donated to >>>>>>> Canonical to help ensure the success of a small business that is >>>>>>> trying to get Linux on the desktop to be a viable and profitable >>>>>>> product? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Unity sucks. Why give those fuckers money? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I know the answer, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF YOU! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Why should we? >>>> >>>>> Because you are the one wanting some growth in desktop linux >>>>> marketshare. >>>> >>>> I couldn't care less about that. >>>> >>>>> Do you think the tooth fairy is going to help with that? Or is it >>>>> possible that the 'advocates' and 'supporters' should be putting up a >>>>> little cash? >>>> >>>> Linux is not Canonical. Linux is doing fine. Nobody cares if Canonical >>>> dies off. Just another blip on the timeline. >> >>> Slight correction, linux on the desktop is doing fine in the hobbyist/ >>> developer market and is finding some much smaller acceptance beyond >>> that. And that will not change until attitudes change no matter how good >>> linux on the desktop is or gets to be. >> >>> Canonical and others have tried to monetize linux desktop and have found >>> no market. >> >> No market for their crap. What were they selling again? Unity? Support? >> Peace on Earth and goodwill toward man? > > Standardization and ease of us in what is otherwise a very miserable > experience. > >>> And with the 'free and open' nature of linux it never will >>> happen. Couple that with the really piss poor attitudes of some very >>> vociferous 'advocates' and 'supporters' and you have the sure fire >>> formula for commercial failure. >> >> What's the explanation for Apple's massive failure to capture the desktop >> after all these years and billions? > > The high price of the hardware, the impossibility of gaming on their > machines, the lack of upgradeability of a machine (you can't change the > internals and Apple prefers it that way), lack of the professional > software businesses need which prevents companies from investing in the > product and therefore prevents people from buying them at home since > they would rather have the same kind of machine at home as they do at work. > > -- > A.M > You're almost right! Apple has found plenty of commercial and consumer users among those that appreciate the value they bring to the table. In corporate America you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a MacBook of one sort or another. -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 03:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fmvnx83.kif@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #321194 |
A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > On 2015-09-16 7:08 PM, owl wrote: >> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:27:51 +0000, owl wrote: >> >>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:50:50 +0000, owl wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:12:01 -0500, chrisv wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nobody wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly. >>>>>>>>> “As David said, we learned that the Deb based package system >>>>> wasn’t >>>>>>>>> workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy, >>>>>>>>> where we put the developer of a typical app almost completely in >>>>>>>>> control of publication.”" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's very puzzling, very cult-like, that assholes like "Lloyd" take >>>>>>>> pleasure in the "failure" of such a small business, an alternative >>>>>>>> product with little apparent significance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> No pleasure taken, just noting that the failures exist and that you >>>>>>> linux loonies are a big part of that problem. How many of you bought >>>>>>> software in their software center? >>>>>> >>>>>> Never heard of it. What were they selling? >>>>>> >>>>> Software obviously. Try to keep up! :) >>>> >>>> Well there's teh problem right there. Trying to *sell* software. >>>> LOL. What were they thinking? Seriously, what software were they >>>> selling? I've bought software in the past. $thousands and $thousands >>>> worth over the years. I'd say at least two thousand of that was >>>> Linux-related. Hell, I just paid a couple hundred for vmware 11, and 12 >>>> is out now i believe. I'll probably upgrade in the near future. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Hell, how many of you bought and/or donated to >>>>>>> Canonical to help ensure the success of a small business that is >>>>>>> trying to get Linux on the desktop to be a viable and profitable >>>>>>> product? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Unity sucks. Why give those fuckers money? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I know the answer, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF YOU! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Why should we? >>>> >>>>> Because you are the one wanting some growth in desktop linux >>>>> marketshare. >>>> >>>> I couldn't care less about that. >>>> >>>>> Do you think the tooth fairy is going to help with that? Or is it >>>>> possible that the 'advocates' and 'supporters' should be putting up a >>>>> little cash? >>>> >>>> Linux is not Canonical. Linux is doing fine. Nobody cares if Canonical >>>> dies off. Just another blip on the timeline. >> >>> Slight correction, linux on the desktop is doing fine in the hobbyist/ >>> developer market and is finding some much smaller acceptance beyond >>> that. And that will not change until attitudes change no matter how good >>> linux on the desktop is or gets to be. >> >>> Canonical and others have tried to monetize linux desktop and have found >>> no market. >> >> No market for their crap. What were they selling again? Unity? Support? >> Peace on Earth and goodwill toward man? > Standardization and ease of us in what is otherwise a very miserable > experience. Windows is a miserable experience. So is Unity. >>> And with the 'free and open' nature of linux it never will >>> happen. Couple that with the really piss poor attitudes of some very >>> vociferous 'advocates' and 'supporters' and you have the sure fire >>> formula for commercial failure. >> >> What's the explanation for Apple's massive failure to capture the desktop >> after all these years and billions? > The high price of the hardware, the impossibility of gaming on their > machines, the lack of upgradeability of a machine (you can't change the > internals and Apple prefers it that way), lack of the professional > software businesses need which prevents companies from investing in the > product and therefore prevents people from buying them at home since > they would rather have the same kind of machine at home as they do at work. Those problems are Apple's making. They could fix them. But they don't, because it's all about flyers. They've got the flyer market cornered, and I guess they're satisfied with that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 20:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D21F875A.5C238%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #321220 |
On 9/16/15, 8:32 PM, in article fmvnx83.kif@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: ... >>>> Slight correction, linux on the desktop is doing fine in the hobbyist/ >>>> developer market and is finding some much smaller acceptance beyond >>>> that. And that will not change until attitudes change no matter how good >>>> linux on the desktop is or gets to be. >>> >>>> Canonical and others have tried to monetize linux desktop and have found >>>> no market. >>> >>> No market for their crap. What were they selling again? Unity? Support? >>> Peace on Earth and goodwill toward man? > >> Standardization and ease of us in what is otherwise a very miserable >> experience. > > Windows is a miserable experience. So is Unity. My first real look at Win 10: <https://youtu.be/tKxKyv1K91s> Not as bad as KDE, and not as messed up as having a mix an match KDE / GNOME system, but certainly a 1.0 level product. >>>> And with the 'free and open' nature of linux it never will >>>> happen. Couple that with the really piss poor attitudes of some very >>>> vociferous 'advocates' and 'supporters' and you have the sure fire >>>> formula for commercial failure. >>> >>> What's the explanation for Apple's massive failure to capture the desktop >>> after all these years and billions? > >> The high price of the hardware, the impossibility of gaming on their >> machines, the lack of upgradeability of a machine (you can't change the >> internals and Apple prefers it that way), lack of the professional >> software businesses need which prevents companies from investing in the >> product and therefore prevents people from buying them at home since >> they would rather have the same kind of machine at home as they do at work. > > Those problems are Apple's making. They could fix them. But they > don't, because it's all about flyers. They've got the flyer market > cornered, and I guess they're satisfied with that. Er? iPads on planes? Not even sure what you mean here. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 08:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mtech9$lfc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #321223 |
On 2015-09-16 11:53 PM, Snit wrote: > On 9/16/15, 8:32 PM, in article fmvnx83.kif@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > > ... >>>>> Slight correction, linux on the desktop is doing fine in the hobbyist/ >>>>> developer market and is finding some much smaller acceptance beyond >>>>> that. And that will not change until attitudes change no matter how good >>>>> linux on the desktop is or gets to be. >>>> >>>>> Canonical and others have tried to monetize linux desktop and have found >>>>> no market. >>>> >>>> No market for their crap. What were they selling again? Unity? Support? >>>> Peace on Earth and goodwill toward man? >> >>> Standardization and ease of us in what is otherwise a very miserable >>> experience. >> >> Windows is a miserable experience. So is Unity. > > My first real look at Win 10: <https://youtu.be/tKxKyv1K91s> > > Not as bad as KDE, and not as messed up as having a mix an match KDE / GNOME > system, but certainly a 1.0 level product. I notice that the problems are with tablet mode. In my case, I never used it at all and wouldn't know but I have to say that the desktop mode is highly satisfactory. -- A.M
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 12:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d5vrb1FbvdqU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #321271 |
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:45:16 -0400, A.M wrote: > On 2015-09-16 11:53 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 9/16/15, 8:32 PM, in article fmvnx83.kif@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >> ... >>>>>> Slight correction, linux on the desktop is doing fine in the >>>>>> hobbyist/ developer market and is finding some much smaller >>>>>> acceptance beyond that. And that will not change until attitudes >>>>>> change no matter how good linux on the desktop is or gets to be. >>>>> >>>>>> Canonical and others have tried to monetize linux desktop and have >>>>>> found no market. >>>>> >>>>> No market for their crap. What were they selling again? Unity? >>>>> Support? >>>>> Peace on Earth and goodwill toward man? >>> >>>> Standardization and ease of us in what is otherwise a very miserable >>>> experience. >>> >>> Windows is a miserable experience. So is Unity. >> >> My first real look at Win 10: <https://youtu.be/tKxKyv1K91s> >> >> Not as bad as KDE, and not as messed up as having a mix an match KDE / >> GNOME system, but certainly a 1.0 level product. > > I notice that the problems are with tablet mode. In my case, I never > used it at all and wouldn't know but I have to say that the desktop mode > is highly satisfactory. Even though I'm on touch enabled computers, I'm not impressed by 'tablet mode' either. Desktop mode is fine. I noticed yesterday that the developer of NewsgroupsRT has made some big changes in the UI of his app that better fit W10. I expect to see others doing some of those things going forward. -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 11:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D2204EA9.5C33D%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #321273 |
On 9/17/15, 5:51 AM, in article d5vrb1FbvdqU5@mid.individual.net, "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>> My first real look at Win 10: <https://youtu.be/tKxKyv1K91s> >>> >>> Not as bad as KDE, and not as messed up as having a mix an match KDE / >>> GNOME system, but certainly a 1.0 level product. >> >> I notice that the problems are with tablet mode. In my case, I never >> used it at all and wouldn't know but I have to say that the desktop mode >> is highly satisfactory. > > Even though I'm on touch enabled computers, I'm not impressed by 'tablet > mode' either. Desktop mode is fine. Agreed. My one complaint with it is they do not have enough of a sign as to what is the front window. On a dark background, even the default color, it can be hard to tell. Edge does not even have its widgets change when it is front or not (though Notepad does). I also think the tiles in the Start menu are too "active" - like ads on websites people use blockers to avoid. But it certainly does not have the problems I show with Tablet Mode. > I noticed yesterday that the developer of NewsgroupsRT has made some big > changes in the UI of his app that better fit W10. I expect to see others > doing some of those things going forward. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 10:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D2204CA0.5C324%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #321271 |
On 9/17/15, 5:45 AM, in article mtech9$lfc$1@dont-email.me, "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > On 2015-09-16 11:53 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 9/16/15, 8:32 PM, in article fmvnx83.kif@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >> ... >>>>>> Slight correction, linux on the desktop is doing fine in the hobbyist/ >>>>>> developer market and is finding some much smaller acceptance beyond >>>>>> that. And that will not change until attitudes change no matter how good >>>>>> linux on the desktop is or gets to be. >>>>> >>>>>> Canonical and others have tried to monetize linux desktop and have found >>>>>> no market. >>>>> >>>>> No market for their crap. What were they selling again? Unity? Support? >>>>> Peace on Earth and goodwill toward man? >>> >>>> Standardization and ease of us in what is otherwise a very miserable >>>> experience. >>> >>> Windows is a miserable experience. So is Unity. >> >> My first real look at Win 10: <https://youtu.be/tKxKyv1K91s> >> >> Not as bad as KDE, and not as messed up as having a mix an match KDE / GNOME >> system, but certainly a 1.0 level product. > > I notice that the problems are with tablet mode. In my case, I never > used it at all and wouldn't know but I have to say that the desktop mode > is highly satisfactory. > I think desktop mode is pretty good and like how they did away with the huge window borders. I do think they should make the "front" window stand out a bit more. Look at Edge when it is or is not the front window: the shadow changes a bit but on a dark background that is almost impossible to see. Also think they should have the task bar be something other than black (or have the Tablet Mode change colors). Something to show you have changed contexts. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 08:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mtec7c$jqj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #321220 |
On 2015-09-16 11:32 PM, owl wrote: > A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >> On 2015-09-16 7:08 PM, owl wrote: >>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:27:51 +0000, owl wrote: >>> >>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:50:50 +0000, owl wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:12:01 -0500, chrisv wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nobody wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly. >>>>>>>>>> “As David said, we learned that the Deb based package system >>>>>> wasn’t >>>>>>>>>> workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy, >>>>>>>>>> where we put the developer of a typical app almost completely in >>>>>>>>>> control of publication.”" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's very puzzling, very cult-like, that assholes like "Lloyd" take >>>>>>>>> pleasure in the "failure" of such a small business, an alternative >>>>>>>>> product with little apparent significance. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No pleasure taken, just noting that the failures exist and that you >>>>>>>> linux loonies are a big part of that problem. How many of you bought >>>>>>>> software in their software center? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Never heard of it. What were they selling? >>>>>>> >>>>>> Software obviously. Try to keep up! :) >>>>> >>>>> Well there's teh problem right there. Trying to *sell* software. >>>>> LOL. What were they thinking? Seriously, what software were they >>>>> selling? I've bought software in the past. $thousands and $thousands >>>>> worth over the years. I'd say at least two thousand of that was >>>>> Linux-related. Hell, I just paid a couple hundred for vmware 11, and 12 >>>>> is out now i believe. I'll probably upgrade in the near future. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> Hell, how many of you bought and/or donated to >>>>>>>> Canonical to help ensure the success of a small business that is >>>>>>>> trying to get Linux on the desktop to be a viable and profitable >>>>>>>> product? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Unity sucks. Why give those fuckers money? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I know the answer, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF YOU! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why should we? >>>>> >>>>>> Because you are the one wanting some growth in desktop linux >>>>>> marketshare. >>>>> >>>>> I couldn't care less about that. >>>>> >>>>>> Do you think the tooth fairy is going to help with that? Or is it >>>>>> possible that the 'advocates' and 'supporters' should be putting up a >>>>>> little cash? >>>>> >>>>> Linux is not Canonical. Linux is doing fine. Nobody cares if Canonical >>>>> dies off. Just another blip on the timeline. >>> >>>> Slight correction, linux on the desktop is doing fine in the hobbyist/ >>>> developer market and is finding some much smaller acceptance beyond >>>> that. And that will not change until attitudes change no matter how good >>>> linux on the desktop is or gets to be. >>> >>>> Canonical and others have tried to monetize linux desktop and have found >>>> no market. >>> >>> No market for their crap. What were they selling again? Unity? Support? >>> Peace on Earth and goodwill toward man? > >> Standardization and ease of us in what is otherwise a very miserable >> experience. > > Windows is a miserable experience. So is Unity. About 90% of the world disagrees with you. In my case, Windows 10 is as close as any developer has gotten to providing me with exactly the functionality I crave and require. >> The high price of the hardware, the impossibility of gaming on their >> machines, the lack of upgradeability of a machine (you can't change the >> internals and Apple prefers it that way), lack of the professional >> software businesses need which prevents companies from investing in the >> product and therefore prevents people from buying them at home since >> they would rather have the same kind of machine at home as they do at work. > > Those problems are Apple's making. They could fix them. But they > don't, because it's all about flyers. They've got the flyer market > cornered, and I guess they're satisfied with that. Their business depends on selling new machines to the same user every few years so allowing upgrades, rather than forcing the person to buy an entirely new machine, would cut into profits significantly. I understand their position but I'm not a fan of it. -- A.M
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 14:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rhsd.vk12d@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #321265 |
A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > On 2015-09-16 11:32 PM, owl wrote: >> A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>> On 2015-09-16 7:08 PM, owl wrote: >>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:27:51 +0000, owl wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:50:50 +0000, owl wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:12:01 -0500, chrisv wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nobody wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly. >>>>>>>>>>> “As David said, we learned that the Deb based package system >>>>>>> wasn’t >>>>>>>>>>> workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy, >>>>>>>>>>> where we put the developer of a typical app almost completely in >>>>>>>>>>> control of publication.”" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It's very puzzling, very cult-like, that assholes like "Lloyd" take >>>>>>>>>> pleasure in the "failure" of such a small business, an alternative >>>>>>>>>> product with little apparent significance. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No pleasure taken, just noting that the failures exist and that you >>>>>>>>> linux loonies are a big part of that problem. How many of you bought >>>>>>>>> software in their software center? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Never heard of it. What were they selling? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Software obviously. Try to keep up! :) >>>>>> >>>>>> Well there's teh problem right there. Trying to *sell* software. >>>>>> LOL. What were they thinking? Seriously, what software were they >>>>>> selling? I've bought software in the past. $thousands and $thousands >>>>>> worth over the years. I'd say at least two thousand of that was >>>>>> Linux-related. Hell, I just paid a couple hundred for vmware 11, and 12 >>>>>> is out now i believe. I'll probably upgrade in the near future. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hell, how many of you bought and/or donated to >>>>>>>>> Canonical to help ensure the success of a small business that is >>>>>>>>> trying to get Linux on the desktop to be a viable and profitable >>>>>>>>> product? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Unity sucks. Why give those fuckers money? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I know the answer, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF YOU! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why should we? >>>>>> >>>>>>> Because you are the one wanting some growth in desktop linux >>>>>>> marketshare. >>>>>> >>>>>> I couldn't care less about that. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you think the tooth fairy is going to help with that? Or is it >>>>>>> possible that the 'advocates' and 'supporters' should be putting up a >>>>>>> little cash? >>>>>> >>>>>> Linux is not Canonical. Linux is doing fine. Nobody cares if Canonical >>>>>> dies off. Just another blip on the timeline. >>>> >>>>> Slight correction, linux on the desktop is doing fine in the hobbyist/ >>>>> developer market and is finding some much smaller acceptance beyond >>>>> that. And that will not change until attitudes change no matter how good >>>>> linux on the desktop is or gets to be. >>>> >>>>> Canonical and others have tried to monetize linux desktop and have found >>>>> no market. >>>> >>>> No market for their crap. What were they selling again? Unity? Support? >>>> Peace on Earth and goodwill toward man? >> >>> Standardization and ease of us in what is otherwise a very miserable >>> experience. >> >> Windows is a miserable experience. So is Unity. > About 90% of the world disagrees with you. In my case, Windows 10 is as > close as any developer has gotten to providing me with exactly the > functionality I crave and require. If Windows 10 has the GUI you've been craving, you're demented. >>> The high price of the hardware, the impossibility of gaming on their >>> machines, the lack of upgradeability of a machine (you can't change the >>> internals and Apple prefers it that way), lack of the professional >>> software businesses need which prevents companies from investing in the >>> product and therefore prevents people from buying them at home since >>> they would rather have the same kind of machine at home as they do at work. >> >> Those problems are Apple's making. They could fix them. But they >> don't, because it's all about flyers. They've got the flyer market >> cornered, and I guess they're satisfied with that. > Their business depends on selling new machines to the same user every > few years so allowing upgrades, rather than forcing the person to buy an > entirely new machine, would cut into profits significantly. I understand > their position but I'm not a fan of it. I'm waiting for Apple to follow Mercedes, BMW, and all the other logo-happy companies down the "Certified Pre-Owned" path.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 12:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mteq02$cds$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #321288 |
On 2015-09-17 10:29 AM, owl wrote: > A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >> On 2015-09-16 11:32 PM, owl wrote: >>> A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>> On 2015-09-16 7:08 PM, owl wrote: >>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:27:51 +0000, owl wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:50:50 +0000, owl wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:12:01 -0500, chrisv wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nobody wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly. >>>>>>>>>>>> “As David said, we learned that the Deb based package system >>>>>>>> wasn’t >>>>>>>>>>>> workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy, >>>>>>>>>>>> where we put the developer of a typical app almost completely in >>>>>>>>>>>> control of publication.”" >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It's very puzzling, very cult-like, that assholes like "Lloyd" take >>>>>>>>>>> pleasure in the "failure" of such a small business, an alternative >>>>>>>>>>> product with little apparent significance. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No pleasure taken, just noting that the failures exist and that you >>>>>>>>>> linux loonies are a big part of that problem. How many of you bought >>>>>>>>>> software in their software center? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Never heard of it. What were they selling? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Software obviously. Try to keep up! :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well there's teh problem right there. Trying to *sell* software. >>>>>>> LOL. What were they thinking? Seriously, what software were they >>>>>>> selling? I've bought software in the past. $thousands and $thousands >>>>>>> worth over the years. I'd say at least two thousand of that was >>>>>>> Linux-related. Hell, I just paid a couple hundred for vmware 11, and 12 >>>>>>> is out now i believe. I'll probably upgrade in the near future. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hell, how many of you bought and/or donated to >>>>>>>>>> Canonical to help ensure the success of a small business that is >>>>>>>>>> trying to get Linux on the desktop to be a viable and profitable >>>>>>>>>> product? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Unity sucks. Why give those fuckers money? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I know the answer, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF YOU! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why should we? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Because you are the one wanting some growth in desktop linux >>>>>>>> marketshare. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I couldn't care less about that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you think the tooth fairy is going to help with that? Or is it >>>>>>>> possible that the 'advocates' and 'supporters' should be putting up a >>>>>>>> little cash? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Linux is not Canonical. Linux is doing fine. Nobody cares if Canonical >>>>>>> dies off. Just another blip on the timeline. >>>>> >>>>>> Slight correction, linux on the desktop is doing fine in the hobbyist/ >>>>>> developer market and is finding some much smaller acceptance beyond >>>>>> that. And that will not change until attitudes change no matter how good >>>>>> linux on the desktop is or gets to be. >>>>> >>>>>> Canonical and others have tried to monetize linux desktop and have found >>>>>> no market. >>>>> >>>>> No market for their crap. What were they selling again? Unity? Support? >>>>> Peace on Earth and goodwill toward man? >>> >>>> Standardization and ease of us in what is otherwise a very miserable >>>> experience. >>> >>> Windows is a miserable experience. So is Unity. > >> About 90% of the world disagrees with you. In my case, Windows 10 is as >> close as any developer has gotten to providing me with exactly the >> functionality I crave and require. > > If Windows 10 has the GUI you've been craving, you're demented. It's familiar, quick and includes the elements I consider essential. I don't see what's wrong with it. >>>> The high price of the hardware, the impossibility of gaming on their >>>> machines, the lack of upgradeability of a machine (you can't change the >>>> internals and Apple prefers it that way), lack of the professional >>>> software businesses need which prevents companies from investing in the >>>> product and therefore prevents people from buying them at home since >>>> they would rather have the same kind of machine at home as they do at work. >>> >>> Those problems are Apple's making. They could fix them. But they >>> don't, because it's all about flyers. They've got the flyer market >>> cornered, and I guess they're satisfied with that. > >> Their business depends on selling new machines to the same user every >> few years so allowing upgrades, rather than forcing the person to buy an >> entirely new machine, would cut into profits significantly. I understand >> their position but I'm not a fan of it. > > I'm waiting for Apple to follow Mercedes, BMW, and all the other logo-happy > companies down the "Certified Pre-Owned" path. I believe that they already have that with their certified refurbished models being sold on the website. -- A.M
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 18:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mtequp$gff$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #321294 |
A.M wrote: > On 2015-09-17 10:29 AM, owl wrote: >> A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>> On 2015-09-16 11:32 PM, owl wrote: >>>> A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>>> On 2015-09-16 7:08 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:27:51 +0000, owl wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:50:50 +0000, owl wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:12:01 -0500, chrisv wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied >>>>>>>>>>>>> matter-of-factly. “As David said, we learned that the >>>>>>>>>>>>> Deb based package system >>>>>>>>> wasn’t >>>>>>>>>>>>> workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to >>>>>>>>>>>>> snappy, where we put the developer of a typical app almost >>>>>>>>>>>>> completely in control of publication.”" >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's very puzzling, very cult-like, that assholes like "Lloyd" >>>>>>>>>>>> take pleasure in the "failure" of such a small business, an >>>>>>>>>>>> alternative product with little apparent significance. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No pleasure taken, just noting that the failures exist and that >>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>> linux loonies are a big part of that problem. How many of you >>>>>>>>>>> bought software in their software center? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Never heard of it. What were they selling? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Software obviously. Try to keep up! :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well there's teh problem right there. Trying to *sell* software. >>>>>>>> LOL. What were they thinking? Seriously, what software were they >>>>>>>> selling? I've bought software in the past. $thousands and >>>>>>>> $thousands >>>>>>>> worth over the years. I'd say at least two thousand of that was >>>>>>>> Linux-related. Hell, I just paid a couple hundred for vmware 11, >>>>>>>> and 12 >>>>>>>> is out now i believe. I'll probably upgrade in the near future. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hell, how many of you bought and/or donated to >>>>>>>>>>> Canonical to help ensure the success of a small business that is >>>>>>>>>>> trying to get Linux on the desktop to be a viable and profitable >>>>>>>>>>> product? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Unity sucks. Why give those fuckers money? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I know the answer, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF YOU! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why should we? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Because you are the one wanting some growth in desktop linux >>>>>>>>> marketshare. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I couldn't care less about that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you think the tooth fairy is going to help with that? Or is it >>>>>>>>> possible that the 'advocates' and 'supporters' should be putting >>>>>>>>> up a little cash? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Linux is not Canonical. Linux is doing fine. Nobody cares if >>>>>>>> Canonical >>>>>>>> dies off. Just another blip on the timeline. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Slight correction, linux on the desktop is doing fine in the >>>>>>> hobbyist/ developer market and is finding some much smaller >>>>>>> acceptance beyond >>>>>>> that. And that will not change until attitudes change no matter how >>>>>>> good linux on the desktop is or gets to be. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Canonical and others have tried to monetize linux desktop and have >>>>>>> found no market. >>>>>> >>>>>> No market for their crap. What were they selling again? Unity? >>>>>> Support? Peace on Earth and goodwill toward man? >>>> >>>>> Standardization and ease of us in what is otherwise a very miserable >>>>> experience. >>>> >>>> Windows is a miserable experience. So is Unity. >> >>> About 90% of the world disagrees with you. In my case, Windows 10 is as >>> close as any developer has gotten to providing me with exactly the >>> functionality I crave and require. >> >> If Windows 10 has the GUI you've been craving, you're demented. > > It's familiar, quick and includes the elements I consider essential. I > don't see what's wrong with it. That is simple: It is windows
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 17:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d60a7lFga3eU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #321295 |
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 18:51:24 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > A.M wrote: > >> On 2015-09-17 10:29 AM, owl wrote: >>> A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>> On 2015-09-16 11:32 PM, owl wrote: >>>>> A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>>>> On 2015-09-16 7:08 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:27:51 +0000, owl wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:50:50 +0000, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:12:01 -0500, chrisv wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied >>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter-of-factly. “As David said, we learned that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Deb based package system >>>>>>>>>> wasn’t >>>>>>>>>>>>>> workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> snappy, where we put the developer of a typical app almost >>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely in control of publication.”" >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It's very puzzling, very cult-like, that assholes like >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Lloyd" >>>>>>>>>>>>> take pleasure in the "failure" of such a small business, an >>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative product with little apparent significance. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No pleasure taken, just noting that the failures exist and >>>>>>>>>>>> that you linux loonies are a big part of that problem. How >>>>>>>>>>>> many of you bought software in their software center? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Never heard of it. What were they selling? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Software obviously. Try to keep up! :) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well there's teh problem right there. Trying to *sell* >>>>>>>>> software. LOL. What were they thinking? Seriously, what >>>>>>>>> software were they selling? I've bought software in the past. >>>>>>>>> $thousands and $thousands worth over the years. I'd say at >>>>>>>>> least two thousand of that was Linux-related. Hell, I just paid >>>>>>>>> a couple hundred for vmware 11, and 12 is out now i believe. >>>>>>>>> I'll probably upgrade in the near future. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hell, how many of you bought and/or donated to >>>>>>>>>>>> Canonical to help ensure the success of a small business that >>>>>>>>>>>> is trying to get Linux on the desktop to be a viable and >>>>>>>>>>>> profitable product? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Unity sucks. Why give those fuckers money? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I know the answer, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF YOU! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why should we? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Because you are the one wanting some growth in desktop linux >>>>>>>>>> marketshare. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I couldn't care less about that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do you think the tooth fairy is going to help with that? Or is >>>>>>>>>> it possible that the 'advocates' and 'supporters' should be >>>>>>>>>> putting up a little cash? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Linux is not Canonical. Linux is doing fine. Nobody cares if >>>>>>>>> Canonical dies off. Just another blip on the timeline. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Slight correction, linux on the desktop is doing fine in the >>>>>>>> hobbyist/ developer market and is finding some much smaller >>>>>>>> acceptance beyond that. And that will not change until attitudes >>>>>>>> change no matter how good linux on the desktop is or gets to be. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Canonical and others have tried to monetize linux desktop and >>>>>>>> have found no market. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No market for their crap. What were they selling again? Unity? >>>>>>> Support? Peace on Earth and goodwill toward man? >>>>> >>>>>> Standardization and ease of us in what is otherwise a very >>>>>> miserable experience. >>>>> >>>>> Windows is a miserable experience. So is Unity. >>> >>>> About 90% of the world disagrees with you. In my case, Windows 10 is >>>> as close as any developer has gotten to providing me with exactly the >>>> functionality I crave and require. >>> >>> If Windows 10 has the GUI you've been craving, you're demented. >> >> It's familiar, quick and includes the elements I consider essential. I >> don't see what's wrong with it. > > That is simple: It is windows That is just a non-response. -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 17:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d60a61Fga3eU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #321288 |
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:29:31 +0000, owl wrote: > A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >> On 2015-09-16 11:32 PM, owl wrote: >>> A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>> On 2015-09-16 7:08 PM, owl wrote: >>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:27:51 +0000, owl wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:50:50 +0000, owl wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:12:01 -0500, chrisv wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nobody wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied >>>>>>>>>>>> matter-of-factly. ÃÂÃÂAs David said, we learned that the >>>>>>>>>>>> Deb based package system >>>>>>>> wasnÃÂÃÂt >>>>>>>>>>>> workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to >>>>>>>>>>>> snappy, >>>>>>>>>>>> where we put the developer of a typical app almost completely >>>>>>>>>>>> in control of publication.ÃÂÃÂ" >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It's very puzzling, very cult-like, that assholes like "Lloyd" >>>>>>>>>>> take pleasure in the "failure" of such a small business, an >>>>>>>>>>> alternative product with little apparent significance. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No pleasure taken, just noting that the failures exist and that >>>>>>>>>> you linux loonies are a big part of that problem. How many of >>>>>>>>>> you bought software in their software center? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Never heard of it. What were they selling? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Software obviously. Try to keep up! :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well there's teh problem right there. Trying to *sell* software. >>>>>>> LOL. What were they thinking? Seriously, what software were they >>>>>>> selling? I've bought software in the past. $thousands and >>>>>>> $thousands worth over the years. I'd say at least two thousand of >>>>>>> that was Linux-related. Hell, I just paid a couple hundred for >>>>>>> vmware 11, and 12 is out now i believe. I'll probably upgrade in >>>>>>> the near future. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hell, how many of you bought and/or donated to >>>>>>>>>> Canonical to help ensure the success of a small business that >>>>>>>>>> is trying to get Linux on the desktop to be a viable and >>>>>>>>>> profitable product? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Unity sucks. Why give those fuckers money? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I know the answer, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF YOU! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why should we? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Because you are the one wanting some growth in desktop linux >>>>>>>> marketshare. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I couldn't care less about that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you think the tooth fairy is going to help with that? Or is >>>>>>>> it possible that the 'advocates' and 'supporters' should be >>>>>>>> putting up a little cash? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Linux is not Canonical. Linux is doing fine. Nobody cares if >>>>>>> Canonical dies off. Just another blip on the timeline. >>>>> >>>>>> Slight correction, linux on the desktop is doing fine in the >>>>>> hobbyist/ developer market and is finding some much smaller >>>>>> acceptance beyond that. And that will not change until attitudes >>>>>> change no matter how good linux on the desktop is or gets to be. >>>>> >>>>>> Canonical and others have tried to monetize linux desktop and have >>>>>> found no market. >>>>> >>>>> No market for their crap. What were they selling again? Unity? >>>>> Support? >>>>> Peace on Earth and goodwill toward man? >>> >>>> Standardization and ease of us in what is otherwise a very miserable >>>> experience. >>> >>> Windows is a miserable experience. So is Unity. > >> About 90% of the world disagrees with you. In my case, Windows 10 is as >> close as any developer has gotten to providing me with exactly the >> functionality I crave and require. > > If Windows 10 has the GUI you've been craving, you're demented. > >>>> The high price of the hardware, the impossibility of gaming on their >>>> machines, the lack of upgradeability of a machine (you can't change >>>> the internals and Apple prefers it that way), lack of the >>>> professional software businesses need which prevents companies from >>>> investing in the product and therefore prevents people from buying >>>> them at home since they would rather have the same kind of machine at >>>> home as they do at work. >>> >>> Those problems are Apple's making. They could fix them. But they >>> don't, because it's all about flyers. They've got the flyer market >>> cornered, and I guess they're satisfied with that. > >> Their business depends on selling new machines to the same user every >> few years so allowing upgrades, rather than forcing the person to buy >> an entirely new machine, would cut into profits significantly. I >> understand their position but I'm not a fan of it. > > I'm waiting for Apple to follow Mercedes, BMW, and all the other > logo-happy companies down the "Certified Pre-Owned" path. They kind of do now with the store 'specials' section. Reduced prices with full new unit warranties same as a new one. -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web