Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
> "Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message
> news:85v0k.179962$rd2.36576@pd7urf3no...
>>
>> "Billy Smith" <chungkingchungking******.com> wrote in message
>> news:y7qdnXLyX-hJmt_VnZ2dnUVZ_tLinZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>>
>>> "Dave" <nospam@biteme.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4841F669.4020705@biteme.com...
>>>> Billy Smith wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> How do you explain this?
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Top500_OS.png
>>>
>>> What it says to me is that your corporate and university level people
>>> working with supercomputers are going to Linux versus Unix or in the
>>> case of Microsoft they aren't going to use it. Thats doesn't mean
>>> that Microsoft makes a bad product for the general consumer market.
>>> Linux does have its use and one of its uses is that it tends to be
>>> rather fast for an operating system. However, if you consider speed
>>> anything you should use Linux. Yet when you use a wide variety of PC
>>> appplications, you will find that they aren't usable in Linux format.
>>> You can partition your drive to use both Microsoft based stuff and
>>> Linux or you can stick with what you know.
>>> For most people, they are not going to use Linux because A: There is
>>> no need for using it and B: They don't have the capability to babysit
>>> Linux based systems. The average computer science grad or expert in
>>> the computer field very well might get some usage out of it. For most
>>> people, they are content in using Microsoft Office or whatever works
>>> for plug and play applications.
>>>
>>> Theyr'e not going to waste their time formatting their hard drive to
>>> run a program and system that while being faster doesn't have the
>>> applicable uses that a Microsoft system has. The Microsoft systems
>>> have that advantage because you can put in any XP or Vista or 98
>>> based software of which I have at least one in each operating system.
>>> You can put in any program that is made for that system and use it.
>>> That cannot be said for converting your system to Linux no matter how
>>> much faster it may be. Its not really worth the time for most people
>>>
>>> If you want to put Linux and make it customizable to your system that
>>> works for those applications then go for it.. For the general
>>> computer user that exists in the general public, then most people go
>>> for Microsoft. They're not going to use Linux and I would venture
>>> than Microsoft is much more recognizable than what Linux has been or
>>> probably will ever be.
>>>
>>> Linux is still at the infancy state of the computer realm. Its not
>>> going to catch on all that much for the hundreds of millions of
>>> computer users.
>>>
>>> Thats why Mac will never be a viable competitor to Microsoft. They're
>>> still stuck in the proprietary and infant stage. Just like the
>>> Iphone. I would have actually been interested in getting an Iphone
>>> but when I have to use ATT for service, they can forget it. I used to
>>> have Cingular and it was a joke for phone service but also their
>>> customer service section was incompetent at best. I can actually pay
>>> my bill through Verizon and know what I actually owe. Nice concept
>>> isnt it.
>>>
>>> Macs will never become more than fancy overpriced boxes for graphics
>>> users, game players, etc. You never see that many Macs ever used for
>>> servers, internet commerce, etc. Thats why you can go to the Apple
>>> store here in Louisville and find out that a Mac will cost you 1500
>>> to 2000 dollars when a basic Vista/XP computer will net you half
>>> those amounts. When Apple learns to market their computers and
>>> systems correctly and produce something worth really having, then
>>> they will take off. Until then, they don't have a prayer competition
>>> wise.
>>
>> If you mean is Linux finished growing up and fully mature? Heck no,
>> it has only begun. I suspect it will be evolving well past my lifetime.
>>
>> Linux is vastly superior to Vista in most ways, you bet. I place it
>> just on the heals of XP right now but ahead of Vista. I will grant,
>> XP is quite mature, but stagnant. Where as Linux is still, and will
>> always perpetually evolve.
>>
>> The Linux maturity is going to be evolutionary and not the dump
>> everything change now you see with Microsoft products. Where as
>> Microsoft has a grand-batch mentality. The later can't get continuous
>> improvement, can't evolve. Take Vista, is now in maintenance mode.
>> Its active development has ceased! Understand that. They all moved
>> on to Win 7 for the next disruption.
>>
>> Mind you, Vista is a bad batch of soup, the best place is the garborator.
>>
>

First the fluff off:

> You people don't give up easily, do you. This argument has been raging
> for years,

Then the put down:

> but only at user level mainly because users don't understand
> the whole picture.

No, Mike, you don't understand the whole picture. Ubuntu and other
versions of Linux are taking off. If you can joggle your poor memory a
bit, when XP came out, you didn't see *any* posts about Linux in the XP
General newsgroup. No media was covering it and practically no major OEM
was offering it preinstalled. All that's changed and the reason is that
distros like Ubuntu are so user friendly, easy to install and easy to
configure and tweak.

Alias