Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #348544 > unrolled thread

The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure.

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-04 14:14 -0400
    The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-04 12:27 -0700
      Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-04 16:18 -0400
    Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 13:18 -0700
      Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 00:48 -0700
        mental illness comes in many different flavors John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 03:21 -0700
          Re: mental illness comes in many different flavors DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-05 10:47 -0400
            Happily, mental illness comes in many different flavors.. DooFuS prefers Shit flavored, above all else. John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 07:50 -0700
          Gohde wants to ban CLI in Linux is like the Muslims want to ban pork in Western schools Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 18:29 -0700
            Who let the dogs out? John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 02:13 -0700
        Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-05 10:26 -0400
      Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-07 10:55 -0400
        Just because you can does NOT mean that you should, Ass Wipe John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 08:03 -0700
          Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-07 12:19 -0400
            Says, who? The DooFuS on COLA, says you. Enough said ... John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 10:24 -0700
            Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. "Dr. John Grubor" <grubor@grubor.invalid> - 2016-04-08 10:17 +0000
              What does a Goober know about anything? John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 03:29 -0700
                Re: What does a Goober know about anything? "Dr. John Grubor" <grubor@grubor.invalid> - 2016-04-08 12:13 +0000
                  Re: What does a Goober know about anything? John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 05:28 -0700
                  Re: What does a Goober know about anything? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-08 07:32 -0500
                    Re: What does a Goober know about anything? John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 05:53 -0700
                    Re: What does a Goober know about anything? "Dr. John Grubor" <grubor@grubor.invalid> - 2016-04-08 23:33 +0000
                      Re: What does a Goober know about anything? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-08 19:41 -0400
                      Re: What does a Goober know about anything? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-11 07:28 -0500
              Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-08 10:56 -0400
                Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-08 11:15 -0400
        Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-07 12:01 -0400
    Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. X11 Sucks <xsucks@xxx.org/null> - 2016-04-04 21:52 +0100
    Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-04 23:11 +0000
      Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-04 19:19 -0400
    Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-05 08:48 +0200
      The Troll Community is directly responsible for Trolling's abject failure. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-05 05:53 -0400
        Re: The Troll Community is directly responsible for Trolling's abject failure. Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-05 07:09 -0400
          Re: The Troll Community is directly responsible for Trolling's abject failure. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-05 14:15 +0200
            Re: The Troll Community is directly responsible for Trolling's abject failure. Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-05 09:35 -0400
              Re: The Troll Community is directly responsible for Trolling's abject failure. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-05 16:09 +0200
                Re: The Troll Community is directly responsible for Trolling's abject failure. Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-05 10:23 -0400
            Re: The Troll Community is directly responsible for Trolling's abject failure. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-05 09:50 -0400
              Re: The Troll Community is directly responsible for Trolling's abject failure. Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-05 10:22 -0400
        Re: The Troll Community is directly responsible for Trolling's abject failure. William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-05 13:05 +0100
          Re: The Troll Community is directly responsible for Trolling's abject failure. Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-05 09:34 -0400
    Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-05 10:57 +0200
      Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-05 07:06 -0400
    Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2016-04-08 01:23 +0100
      Re: Hordes of people would _love_ to have a desktop, but can't afford it. Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2016-04-08 03:01 +0100
        I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies. John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 01:52 -0700
          Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies. Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2016-04-08 18:28 +0100
            Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-08 15:55 -0400
              Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies. Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-08 16:07 -0400
              Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies. Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2016-04-10 01:02 +0100
                Countless millions exposed to microshaft viruses as well 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-10 11:46 +0000
                  Re: Countless millions exposed to microshaft viruses as well Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-10 09:45 -0400
            Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies. John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 13:52 -0700
            Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-11 08:09 -0500
              Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies. ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 18:45 +0000
                Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies. Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-11 12:08 -0700
                Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-11 14:58 -0500
                  Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies. ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 00:56 +0000
                    Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies. Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-12 09:55 -0700
        Re: If you've $700 phone, you have desktop too, most likely. Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2016-04-08 18:07 +0100
          Re: If you've $700 phone, you have desktop too, most likely. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-08 15:42 -0400
            Re: If you've $700 phone, you have desktop too, most likely. Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2016-04-10 00:55 +0100
              Re: If you've $700 phone, you have desktop too, most likely. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-10 08:10 -0400
                Re: If you've $700 phone, you have desktop too, most likely. Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-10 09:36 -0400
          Re: Apple doesn't sell what I want, nor does Google; so I go DYI/custom. Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2016-04-10 00:53 +0100
      Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-08 07:05 -0500
        Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2016-04-08 17:46 +0100
          Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-08 13:04 -0400
            Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. sbd <sbd.pambu@safe-mail.net> - 2016-04-09 07:48 -0300
              Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-09 08:37 -0400
              Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-09 14:53 -0400
                Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-09 17:49 -0400
            Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-04-12 12:46 -0500
            Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-04-12 12:46 -0500
              Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Silver Slimer <linux@sucks.balls> - 2016-04-12 17:05 -0400
                Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-12 14:13 -0700
                  Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Silver Slimer <linux@sucks.balls> - 2016-04-12 17:27 -0400
              Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-12 23:13 +0100
          The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's great success Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-08 13:48 -0400
            The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-08 13:56 -0400

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#348605 — Re: The Troll Community is directly responsible for Trolling's abject failure.

On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 13:05:04 +0100, William Poaster wrote:

> It was reported that Chris Ahlstrom posted:
> 
>> Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> Omar wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Wintroll Community is directly responsible for their abject failure
>>>> in trolling in COLA
> 
> Corrected.

You are in the denial phase.


>>> Idiot
>>
>> Nah, he's not even *that* "good".
>>
>> The same stupid shit over and over.
> 
> Yeah, just the same old spew from the same old wintrolls.

Maybe the product, that would be Linux, is defective?
 
> "Move along folks, nothing to see."

Say those who have tried and dumped Linux. Usually within hours of
trying it the first time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#348578

Omar wrote:

> The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure
> on the desktop.
> 
> Stand up and take a bow Linux advocates because you deserve the credit
> for dooming Linux.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_desktop_Linux

This article's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date 
information. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly 
available information. (May 2012)

Idiot

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#348590

On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 10:57:20 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> Omar wrote:
> 
>> The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure
>> on the desktop.
>> 
>> Stand up and take a bow Linux advocates because you deserve the credit
>> for dooming Linux.
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_desktop_Linux
> 
> This article's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date 
> information. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly 
> available information. (May 2012)

And Linux's usage hasn't changed in 4 years either. In fact due to the
increase in blogging, twitter and social media, the Linux community
has become even more rabid and zealot like.
So the article is even more accurate today than 4 years ago.

It's interesting that you Linux kooks have no problems dragging up
Apple or Microsoft issues from 20 years ago but a 4 year old article
causes you to start whining.
Sometimes the truth is painful.
Deal with it or start improving Linux and it's reputation and become
part of the solution instead of being a part of the problem.

You need to ask yourself why the masses ignore free Linux.
One major reason is the lunatic Linux community.

> Idiot

Interesting signature.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#348919

On Monday 04/04/2016 7:14 PM, Omar wrote:
>
> PC World Executive Editor Robert Strohmeyer commented that although
> Linux has exceptional security and stability, as well as great
> performance and usability, the time for desktop Linux to succeed
> has been missed.

Where his definition of "succeed" is market share.

But surely a "market" is where commodities are bought and sold.

So of what relevance is "market share" to something that's given away
for free?

GNU/Linux is made by the users, for the users. The "market share" of the
results is entirely irrelevant to those users, not least of which
because they're not actually selling anything, and therefore they aren't
even attempting to participate in that market, they're simply being
self-sufficient.

Certainly it's true that companies like Red Hat and Google subsequently
use the end results as the foundation of their products and services,
and profit greatly from it, by all accounts, but again that has nothing
to do with the "market share" of this (or any) Free Software, as the
software itself is not even being offered for sale, it's given away for
free.

You could speak sensibly about the "market share" of hardware
preinstalled with particular Free Software, or services powered by Free
Software, but then that's only a measure of the market share for that
hardware or service, since that's the only bit actually being sold.
Similarly you could speak sensibly about the "market share" of one
proprietary operating system versus another proprietary operating
system, since they are both sold and therefore actually compete for
market share.

But comparing the "market share" of something that's sold with something
that isn't, is frankly just a bit silly. It's like saying that Twinkies
have a bigger "market share" than cakes baked by millions of people in
the privacy of their own homes, when not only is the latter not even
offered for sale into this "market", but in fact you have absolutely no
way of knowing how many of these cakes are baked in private, so your
assertion is just wild speculation at best, even in terms of ubiquity,
and utter nonsense in terms of "market share".

On the other hand, if you want to speak about _ubiquity_, then Free
Software wins hands down, given that Linux is used in billions of
devices the world over, and the number of Linux instances outnumbers
that of all other proprietary systems by several orders of magnitude.

This is still of very little interests to the actual developers of that
Free Software, however, since very few of the millions of people who use
those billions of Linux devices actually contribute anything to its
development, mainly because most of them are not even aware of its
existence, or that it's Free, or that they are permitted to contribute.
That's perfectly understandable, as they're not developers and nobody
expects them to be, but equally the widespread adoption of Linux (and
other Free Software) is therefore also of no particular benefit to the
developers, for that very reason.

Even though it has actually happened, Linux and Free Software in general
is everywhere, that fact is of little more than a passing curiosity.
Except to those obsessed with money, of course. This might make more
sense if it was your _own_ money you were obsessed with, but an
obsession with _other people's_ "market share" is just ... odd.

For those who care about such things as "market share" (which should
probably be no one outside the boardroom), they would do well to take a
keener interest in the fact that the sales of x86 (i.e. "PC") hardware
continues to plummet, as this is the only platform upon which Microsoft
still has a foothold, given it's eternal failure in pretty much every
other emerging technology - the "mobile" space in particular.

Put simply: dominating a dying platform is not really something to gloat
about, but if you absolutely must then please understand that nobody
outside the boardroom actually cares.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#348924 — Re: Hordes of people would _love_ to have a desktop, but can't afford it.

On Friday 08/04/2016 1:59 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> 
>      
>     Hordes of people would _love_ to have a desktop, but can't afford it.

And yet that same demographic somehow manages to spend over $700 on a
smartphone (or more if they pay by contract), with which they could
probably have bought your PC at least twice, had they been interested.

>     It takes me 3.5 seconds to copy a 3.5 GigaByte video.
>     I watch 4K videos on my 4K monitor; CPU-GPU, no graphics card.
>     I download 4K videos from YouTube, to wit:
>       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep_mf6ZE9U0

None of the world's billions of mobile device users care. They already
have the freedom to buy a "desktop" and do the above, but choose not to.

They have radically different interests and priorities than the
remaining fringe minority of die-hard "PC" dinosaurs. They want to play
Candy Crush and make silly faces at each other on Snapchat, in the brief
intervals between what most of us call "having a life". The era of fat,
balding, middle-aged geeks living in their mother's basement, spending
all day stroking a beige tower stuffed with power-sucking, noisy and
overpriced hardware, is well and truly over.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#348929 — I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies.

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 10:01:33 PM UTC-4, Homer wrote:
> On Friday 08/04/2016 1:59 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> > 
> >      
> >     Hordes of people would _love_ to have a desktop, but can't afford it.
> 
> And yet that same demographic somehow manages to spend over $700 on a
> smartphone (or more if they pay by contract), with which they could
> probably have bought your PC at least twice, had they been interested.


Funny, how Moi can buy a modern class tower case desktop PC for just $5 USA?  In fact Dell computers offers their Dell OptiPlex 745 model series in several different designs, featuring a smaller case.

Still the distinguishing feature of a desktop is that they are computers designed for a fixed location.

Of course, for more money and more headaches, used Dell mobile laptops are in fact available for $50.

As a closet Web Developer, I have absolutely no interest in writing content for the new zombie class of Web surfers. The new worldwide generation of zombies would screw you over for a nickel, in a heartbeat.

Hey, I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies. Zombies are less than human, in Moi's humble opinion.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#349031 — Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies.

On Friday 08/04/2016 9:52 AM, John Gohde wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 10:01:33 PM UTC-4, Homer wrote:
>> On Friday 08/04/2016 1:59 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hordes of people would _love_ to have a desktop, but can't afford it.
>> 
>> And yet that same demographic somehow manages to spend over $700 on a
>> smartphone (or more if they pay by contract), with which they could
>> probably have bought your PC at least twice, had they been interested.
> 
> 
> Funny, how Moi can buy a modern class tower case desktop PC for just
> $5 USA?  In fact Dell computers offers their Dell OptiPlex 745 model

That's a Goodwill initiative, not Dell itself.

But in any case, that doesn't actually change the argument, in fact it
only reinforces it, as it demonstrates that the majority would rather
spend $700+ on a smartphone than even as little as $5 on a desktop.

> As a closet Web Developer, I have absolutely no interest in writing
> content for the new zombie class of Web surfers.

That's your prerogative, however be aware that you are excluding a
demographic that is at least three times that of the desktop, and
growing exponentially year by year.

http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2645115 (Table 2).

If your objective is earning a living, then excluding the largest
demographic is a self-defeating exercise. If not, then good luck and
enjoy your hobby.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#349048 — Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies.

On 4/8/2016 1:28 PM, Homer wrote:
> On Friday 08/04/2016 9:52 AM, John Gohde wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 10:01:33 PM UTC-4, Homer wrote:
>>> On Friday 08/04/2016 1:59 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hordes of people would _love_ to have a desktop, but can't afford it.
>>>
>>> And yet that same demographic somehow manages to spend over $700 on a
>>> smartphone (or more if they pay by contract), with which they could
>>> probably have bought your PC at least twice, had they been interested.
>>
>>
>> Funny, how Moi can buy a modern class tower case desktop PC for just
>> $5 USA?  In fact Dell computers offers their Dell OptiPlex 745 model
>
> That's a Goodwill initiative, not Dell itself.
>
> But in any case, that doesn't actually change the argument, in fact it
> only reinforces it, as it demonstrates that the majority would rather
> spend $700+ on a smartphone than even as little as $5 on a desktop.

Idiot.

The devices don't compete, and nobody but GodHesBroke even WANTS a $5 
piece of crap desktop.



>> As a closet Web Developer, I have absolutely no interest in writing
>> content for the new zombie class of Web surfers.
>
> That's your prerogative, however be aware that you are excluding a
> demographic that is at least three times that of the desktop,

Horseshit.


> and growing exponentially year by year.

And more horseshit.

You always were a shitty, lying "advocate", Homer.  Not as bad as Rex 
Ballard, but still plenty will to spew lies and idiocy all over the place.


> http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2645115 (Table 2).

What do you think it shows?

Table 1: mobile phone shipments (000)
2012:  1,746,177
2013:  1,804,334
2014:  1,893,425
2015:  1,964,788

Total: 7,408,724

What do you think that shows?

Go ahead and interpret that number for us, compared to the world population.



> If your objective is earning a living, then excluding the largest
> demographic is a self-defeating exercise. If not, then good luck and
> enjoy your hobby.


The "largest demographic" barely pays for apps:

"By 2016, 94.5 percent of all mobile apps downloaded will be free apps, 
Gartner predicts."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2014/01/13/mobile-apps-may-not-pave-the-way-to-developer-riches-sales-average-less-than-1250-a-day/#22204c8f35d1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#349050 — Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies.

On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 15:55:35 -0400, DFS wrote:

> On 4/8/2016 1:28 PM, Homer wrote:
>> On Friday 08/04/2016 9:52 AM, John Gohde wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 10:01:33 PM UTC-4, Homer wrote:
>>>> On Friday 08/04/2016 1:59 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hordes of people would _love_ to have a desktop, but can't afford it.
>>>>
>>>> And yet that same demographic somehow manages to spend over $700 on a
>>>> smartphone (or more if they pay by contract), with which they could
>>>> probably have bought your PC at least twice, had they been interested.
>>>
>>>
>>> Funny, how Moi can buy a modern class tower case desktop PC for just
>>> $5 USA?  In fact Dell computers offers their Dell OptiPlex 745 model
>>
>> That's a Goodwill initiative, not Dell itself.
>>
>> But in any case, that doesn't actually change the argument, in fact it
>> only reinforces it, as it demonstrates that the majority would rather
>> spend $700+ on a smartphone than even as little as $5 on a desktop.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> The devices don't compete, and nobody but GodHesBroke even WANTS a $5 
> piece of crap desktop.
> 
> 
> 
>>> As a closet Web Developer, I have absolutely no interest in writing
>>> content for the new zombie class of Web surfers.
>>
>> That's your prerogative, however be aware that you are excluding a
>> demographic that is at least three times that of the desktop,
> 
> Horseshit.
> 
> 
>> and growing exponentially year by year.
> 
> And more horseshit.
> 
> You always were a shitty, lying "advocate", Homer.  Not as bad as Rex 
> Ballard, but still plenty will to spew lies and idiocy all over the place.
> 
> 
>> http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2645115 (Table 2).
> 
> What do you think it shows?
> 
> Table 1: mobile phone shipments (000)
> 2012:  1,746,177
> 2013:  1,804,334
> 2014:  1,893,425
> 2015:  1,964,788
> 
> Total: 7,408,724
> 
> What do you think that shows?
> 
> Go ahead and interpret that number for us, compared to the world population.
> 
> 
> 
>> If your objective is earning a living, then excluding the largest
>> demographic is a self-defeating exercise. If not, then good luck and
>> enjoy your hobby.
> 
> 
> The "largest demographic" barely pays for apps:
> 
> "By 2016, 94.5 percent of all mobile apps downloaded will be free apps, 
> Gartner predicts."
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2014/01/13/mobile-apps-may-not-pave-the-way-to-developer-riches-sales-average-less-than-1250-a-day/#22204c8f35d1

And extrapolating out to Android, the profit margin per device is so
slim I wonder how long the field is going to be populated by all these
different vendors before some just drop out because it's not worth the
meager profit.

It's a race to the bottom.
And when racing to the bottom the first thing that comes to mind is
Linux.
Linux is truly the bottom of the barrel.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#349189 — Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies.

On Friday 08/04/2016 8:55 PM, DooFuS wrote:
> 
> The "largest demographic" barely pays for apps:
> 
> "By 2016, 94.5 percent of all mobile apps downloaded will be free apps,
> Gartner predicts."

That's also true on Windows.

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Ubisoft-Goes-Free-play-Because-95-PC-Gamers-Pirates-46015.html

However, even a paltry 5% of a market that's 3 times as big, is still a
bigger demographic.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#349195 — Countless millions exposed to microshaft viruses as well

 wrote:

> Apple doesn't sell what I want. 

Don't buy appil.

Most of its customer are in USA.
Its too expensive. And you must learn to queue
in dumbness in USA stores or go without.

All microsahft customers exposed to numerous viruses.
That makes it very expensive.

Use Linux its free.
That makes it very cheap.
It comes with Libreoffice free to do all your office work.

Microshaft has stated there is no more windopws after
windopws 10. It can't win.
More reasons to use Libreoffice now.

Some 2 billion Android on Linux versus while windopws
10 has about 10th of that.

More reasons to switch to Linux.

So microshaft has added Linux gubbins to its OSen.
And hired Linux gurus to bring Linux to microshaft
OSen.

Microshaft Azure cloud is Ubuntu:

https://insights.ubuntu.com/2016/04/07/ubuntu-is-everywhere/

You can download ubuntu for free and set up your own
cloud in no time:

http://www.ubuntu.com
http://www.distrowatch.com
http://www.livecdlist.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#349219 — Re: Countless millions exposed to microshaft viruses as well

On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 11:46:42 +0000, 7 wrote:

>  wrote:
> 
>> Apple doesn't sell what I want. 
> 
> Don't buy appil.

What the fuck is "appil" ?
I've never heard of it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#349055 — Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies.

On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 1:28:40 PM UTC-4, Homer wrote:
> 
> If your objective is earning a living, then excluding the largest
> demographic is a self-defeating exercise. If not, then good luck and
> enjoy your hobby.


Perhaps, you should focus more?

The Zombie Apocalypse absolutely sucks!

Fuck the Zombies!

Fuck the Millennials!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#349323 — Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies.

Homer wrote:

>John Gohde wrote:
>> Homer wrote:
>>> Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hordes of people would _love_ to have a desktop, but can't afford it.

Oh, really?
 
>>> And yet that same demographic somehow manages to spend over $700 on a
>>> smartphone (or more if they pay by contract), with which they could
>>> probably have bought your PC at least twice, had they been interested.
 
Even the "poor" people have smartphones, amazingly.

>> Funny, how Moi can buy a modern class tower case desktop PC for just
>> $5 USA?  In fact Dell computers offers their Dell OptiPlex 745 model
>
>That's a Goodwill initiative, not Dell itself.

$5 is not typical, but certainly decent refurbed PC's can be had for
less that $200...

>But in any case, that doesn't actually change the argument, in fact it
>only reinforces it, as it demonstrates that the majority would rather
>spend $700+ on a smartphone than even as little as $5 on a desktop.

Most already have the desktop, but so no reason to replace it.  Poor
Micro$oft.

-- 
"Poor Homer, he gets so upset when anyone makes a choice that's
different from his."  -  trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#349393 — Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 08:09:22 -0500, chrisv wrote:

> $5 is not typical, but certainly decent refurbed PC's can be had for
> less that $200...

Less than $100 in the United States, even with Windows 7 Pro installed.

-- 
Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#349395 — Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies.

On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 1:48:33 PM UTC-5, ronb wrote: 
> Less than $100 in the United States, even with Windows 7 Pro installed.

The fact that it includes a legitimate OS and not some GNU/Linux crap makes that a really good price.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#349398 — Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies.

ronb wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>>
>> $5 is not typical, but certainly decent refurbed PC's can be had for
>> less that $200...
>
>Less than $100 in the United States, even with Windows 7 Pro installed.

If they had Windwoes 8 installed, they would have to pay YOU to take
them!    8)

-- 
"By definition it's hobbyware, since most of it is created by unpaid
developers in their spare time, for fun."  -  Dumfsck, lying
shamelessly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#349436 — Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 14:58:18 -0500, chrisv wrote:

> ronb wrote:
> 
>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> $5 is not typical, but certainly decent refurbed PC's can be had for
>>> less that $200...
>>
>>Less than $100 in the United States, even with Windows 7 Pro installed.
> 
> If they had Windwoes 8 installed, they would have to pay YOU to take
> them!    8)

That's for the benefit of the WinTrolls ... you can actually get good, 
serviceable Optiplexes for about $50 or $60 if you want to install Linux 
on them. The $100 price tag will just about get you an Intel i5 Optiplex 
now. 

-- 
Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#349535 — Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies.

On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 7:59:56 PM UTC-5, ronb wrote:
> That's for the benefit of the WinTrolls ... you can actually get good, 
> serviceable Optiplexes for about $50 or $60 if you want to install Linux 
> on them. The $100 price tag will just about get you an Intel i5 Optiplex 
> now. 

If they had Linux installed no one would want them even if they were free.

Kind of like... Linux itself.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#349029 — Re: If you've $700 phone, you have desktop too, most likely.

On Friday 08/04/2016 5:32 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> 
>     If you've $700 phone, you have desktop too, most likely.

I see no evidence for that. Mostly I see at least two generations of
people who have only ever owned a mobile device (and possibly a games
console), and their "PC" experience has been almost entirely limited to
the classroom and workplace (and even there the "PC" is rapidly being
replaced by tablets).

Computer geeks have always been on the fringes of society. These days
we're virtually extinct.

Although you're right in the sense that, if you have a smartphone, you
already have a "desktop", as they can be connected to keyboards, mice
and large displays, essentially transforming them into "desktops".

But again, as with simply buying a "PC", the fact is that a rapidly
dwindling number of people have much interest in that use case. They
want small, mobile and simple, and they just don't care about storage or
computing power, for which most of the burden has been transferred into
the Cloud.

That's the new de facto paradigm, like it or not.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web