Windows Vista Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moshe Goldfarb.
  • Start date Start date
M

Moshe Goldfarb.

Guest
Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 22:40:16 -0500, chrisv wrote:

> bob wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:44:01 +0200, Hans wrote:
>>>
>>> 2)> There are too many software projects which duplicate effort.
>>
>>Right....we know that in Windows, there is only a single app for any
>>function.....
>>
>>What an asinine attempt at a put down.
>
> What these wintards have trouble understanding is that *far* more
> effort is "wasted" in the closed-source world. The OSS model is *far*
> more efficient, allowing people to build-upon the work of others,
> instead of re-inventing the wheel all the time.

You're kidding right?
Linux has 15 different sound systems, none of which actually fully work.
Windows has one (two if you consider professional sound ASIO vs WDM)
Linux has how many windowing environments?
Maybe 20?
Why?
Windows has one and maybe a couple of add ons like Stardock.
Linux has how many package mangers?
Maybe 5 ?
Why?
Windows has Windows update and the manufacturers have FTP etc....
Linux has how many file systems?
Maybe 10 or more?
Why?

and so forth.....

It's LINUX that keeps re-inventing the wheel, only in the Linux world the
wheel turns out square, every single time.

You guys really need to pool your resources.

--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

Moshe Goldfarb is a Troll of the worst kind. A real jerk who thinks stupid,
continuous arguments that fill the groups with piles and piles of trash are
entertaining. He should consider masturbation, instead. It's a more private
addiction can be even more addicting than trash talk. Anything to get him to
shut up.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

"Moshe Goldfarb." <brick_n_straw@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ovany1fryorq.jd4qnqcziq37$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 22:40:16 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>
>> bob wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:44:01 +0200, Hans wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 2)> There are too many software projects which duplicate effort.
>>>
>>>Right....we know that in Windows, there is only a single app for any
>>>function.....
>>>
>>>What an asinine attempt at a put down.
>>
>> What these wintards have trouble understanding is that *far* more
>> effort is "wasted" in the closed-source world. The OSS model is *far*
>> more efficient, allowing people to build-upon the work of others,
>> instead of re-inventing the wheel all the time.
>
> You're kidding right?
> Linux has 15 different sound systems, none of which actually fully work.
> Windows has one (two if you consider professional sound ASIO vs WDM)
> Linux has how many windowing environments?
> Maybe 20?
> Why?
> Windows has one and maybe a couple of add ons like Stardock.
> Linux has how many package mangers?
> Maybe 5 ?
> Why?
> Windows has Windows update and the manufacturers have FTP etc....
> Linux has how many file systems?
> Maybe 10 or more?
> Why?
>
> and so forth.....
>
> It's LINUX that keeps re-inventing the wheel, only in the Linux world the
> wheel turns out square, every single time.
>
> You guys really need to pool your resources.
>
> --
> Moshe Goldfarb
> Collector of soaps from around the globe.
> Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
> http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

Moshe Goldfarb. schreef:
> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 22:40:16 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>
>> bob wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:44:01 +0200, Hans wrote:
>>>> 2)> There are too many software projects which duplicate effort.
>>> Right....we know that in Windows, there is only a single app for any
>>> function.....
>>>
>>> What an asinine attempt at a put down.
>> What these wintards have trouble understanding is that *far* more
>> effort is "wasted" in the closed-source world. The OSS model is *far*
>> more efficient, allowing people to build-upon the work of others,
>> instead of re-inventing the wheel all the time.
>
> You're kidding right?
> Linux has 15 different sound systems, none of which actually fully work.
> Windows has one (two if you consider professional sound ASIO vs WDM)
> Linux has how many windowing environments?
> Maybe 20?
> Why?
> Windows has one and maybe a couple of add ons like Stardock.
> Linux has how many package mangers?
> Maybe 5 ?
> Why?
> Windows has Windows update and the manufacturers have FTP etc....
> Linux has how many file systems?
> Maybe 10 or more?
> Why?
>
> and so forth.....
>
> It's LINUX that keeps re-inventing the wheel, only in the Linux world the
> wheel turns out square, every single time.
>
> You guys really need to pool your resources.
>
Why?
Limiting the diversity of your DNA is not good for survival.
A good example is Windows which has tens of thousands of
viruses/exploits out in the wild, Linux has none.

Did your mom make you come in early that you are here again Moshe?
 
Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 10:19:05 +0200, Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:

>> It's LINUX that keeps re-inventing the wheel, only in the Linux world
>> the wheel turns out square, every single time.
>>
>> You guys really need to pool your resources.
>>
> Why?
> Limiting the diversity of your DNA is not good for survival. A good
> example is Windows which has tens of thousands of viruses/exploits out
> in the wild, Linux has none.


The DNA of Linux would be, err, Linux -- the kernel! In that sense
there's almost no variation between the distros, unless they're modifying
the kernel.



-Thufir
 
Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

for some thing you don't have to pay for and you have a choice of what you
use you can't complain about linux.
 
Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

* thufir peremptorily fired off this memo:

> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 10:19:05 +0200, Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:
>
>>> It's LINUX that keeps re-inventing the wheel, only in the Linux world
>>> the wheel turns out square, every single time.
>>>
>>> You guys really need to pool your resources.
>>>
>> Why?
>> Limiting the diversity of your DNA is not good for survival. A good
>> example is Windows which has tens of thousands of viruses/exploits out
>> in the wild, Linux has none.
>
> The DNA of Linux would be, err, Linux -- the kernel! In that sense
> there's almost no variation between the distros, unless they're modifying
> the kernel.

Or the ".config" file.

--
What is now proved was once only imagin'd.
-- William Blake
 
Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

>Mentally-ill loser moshe/flatshit wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 22:40:16 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> What these wintards have trouble understanding is that *far* more
>>> effort is "wasted" in the closed-source world. The OSS model is *far*
>>> more efficient, allowing people to build-upon the work of others,
>>> instead of re-inventing the wheel all the time.
>>
>> You're kidding right?

Not at all, fsckwit. Code re-use makes all those things you
bicker-about much less "wasteful" than closed-source apps, which need
to be developed from the ground-up.
 
Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

> FWIW too much choice is exactly what is holding Linux back.

Spoken like a true Communist.
--
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free
 
Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 09:02:54 -0500, chrisv wrote:

>>Mentally-ill loser moshe/flatshit wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 22:40:16 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What these wintards have trouble understanding is that *far* more
>>>> effort is "wasted" in the closed-source world. The OSS model is *far*
>>>> more efficient, allowing people to build-upon the work of others,
>>>> instead of re-inventing the wheel all the time.
>>>
>>> You're kidding right?
>
> Not at all, fsckwit. Code re-use makes all those things you
> bicker-about much less "wasteful" than closed-source apps, which need
> to be developed from the ground-up.

Nice snip job again...
BTW I thought you plonked me like years ago, chrisv?

--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

Linonut wrote:
> * Moshe Goldfarb. peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> You're kidding right?
>> Linux has 15 different sound systems, none of which actually fully work.
>
> You may now name them all.
>
> ALSA works fine. Arts is a KDE thing. OSS is for oldies. Maybe some
> apps still use esd.
>
> That's about it, really.
>
>> Windows has one (two if you consider professional sound ASIO vs WDM)
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms678518(VS.85).aspx
>
> This documentation describes the core audio APIs in Windows Vista.
> These APIs serve as the foundation for the following higher-level
> APIs:
>
> * DirectSound
> * DirectMusic
> * Windows multimedia waveXxx and mixerXxx functions
> * Media Foundation
>
> Those are the higher-level APIs. That same link then talks about the
> legacy audio API (Win32?):
>
> An application that uses a legacy audio API to play or record audio
> might require additional capabilities that are not supported by the
> legacy audio API, but that are supported by the core audio APIs. In many
> cases, the application can access these capabilities directly through
> the core audio APIs, which can be used in conjunction with the legacy
> audio API.
>
> The "core" audio APIs are:
>
> * Multimedia Device (MMDevice) API. Clients use this API to
> enumerate the audio endpoint devices in the system.
> * Windows Audio Session API (WASAPI). Clients use this API to
> create and manage audio streams to and from audio endpoint
> devices.
> * DeviceTopology API. Clients use this API to directly
> access the topological features (for example, volume
> controls and multiplexers) that lie along the data
> paths inside hardware devices in audio adapters.
> * EndpointVolume API. Clients use this API to directly
> access the volume controls on audio endpoint devices.
> This API is primarily used by applications that manage
> exclusive-mode audio streams.
>
> I've used the Windows waveXxxx API to implement a networked audio player
> as part of a project that also uses ALSA to implement the same
> application on Linux.
>
> I found that the waveXxxx and ALSA were easy to wrapper with very few
> real implementation differences; they were relatively similar in how
> they worked.
>
>> Linux has how many windowing environments?
>
> Nah, just one. X Windows.
>
>> Maybe 20? Why? Windows has one and maybe a couple of add ons like
>> Stardock.
>
> There are two main windowing environments (Gnome and Kwin). There are a
> multiplicity of GUI frameworks, but most of them also work on Windows.
>
>> Linux has how many package mangers? Maybe 5 ?
>
> Nah, each major distro has their own.
>
>> Why?
>
> Because, in package management, one size does not fit all.
>
>> Windows has Windows update and the manufacturers have FTP etc....
>
> No, each manufacturers has a choice of Installshield, Wyse, Microsoft
> MSI, and probably some others. And if you install enough software on
> Windows, you'll probably end up using just about all of them.
>
>> Linux has how many file systems?
>> Maybe 10 or more?
>> Why?
>
> Because one size does not fit all. In fact, the Debian installer will
> ask you what you are going to use your partition for -- lots of little
> files? Lots of large files? A server? A user's /home partition.
>
> The sad thing is, bozos like you can make stuff up, and fool a lot of
> people who are googling for information about Linux.
>

Hence the reason for the unending negative posts and cross posts.
 
Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

Linonut <linonut@bollsouth.nut> writes:

> * Moshe Goldfarb. peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> You're kidding right?
>> Linux has 15 different sound systems, none of which actually fully work.
>
> You may now name them all.
>
> ALSA works fine. Arts is a KDE thing. OSS is for oldies. Maybe some
> apps still use esd.

More lies and fraud.

Gnome system sounds use ESD if you want system sounds to mix.

Why do YOU think Pulse Audio is in development? And try to answer before
your pull your usual stunt of posting some stuff you googled up. We can
all use Google.

>
> That's about it, really.

Even a casual glance around show thats total nonsense.

>
>> Windows has one (two if you consider professional sound ASIO vs WDM)
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms678518(VS.85).aspx
>
> This documentation describes the core audio APIs in Windows Vista.
> These APIs serve as the foundation for the following higher-level
> APIs:
>
> * DirectSound
> * DirectMusic
> * Windows multimedia waveXxx and mixerXxx functions
> * Media Foundation

Erm, these are APIs not replacement sound systems.
 
Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

* Hadron peremptorily fired off this memo:

> Linonut <linonut@bollsouth.nut> writes:
>
>> * Moshe Goldfarb. peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>
>>> You're kidding right?
>>> Linux has 15 different sound systems, none of which actually fully work.
>>
>> You may now name them all.
>>
>> ALSA works fine. Arts is a KDE thing. OSS is for oldies. Maybe some
>> apps still use esd.
>
> More lies and fraud.

The "lies and fraud" schtick is getting old, Hadron. Put up or shut up.

> Gnome system sounds use ESD if you want system sounds to mix.

You don't need ESD for mixing. I /never/ use it. Ever. ALSA is
enough.

> Why do YOU think Pulse Audio is in development? And try to answer before
> your pull your usual stunt of posting some stuff you googled up. We can
> all use Google.

Then do so, and list all of the sound systems and their usage.

Pulse audio is a sound /server/. And it runs on Win32 systems as well.

A quick Google would have told you that.

>> That's about it, really.
>
> Even a casual glance around show thats total nonsense.

Then post the proof. After all, a casual glance should be enough.

>>> Windows has one (two if you consider professional sound ASIO vs WDM)
>>
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms678518(VS.85).aspx
>>
>> This documentation describes the core audio APIs in Windows Vista.
>> These APIs serve as the foundation for the following higher-level
>> APIs:
>>
>> * DirectSound
>> * DirectMusic
>> * Windows multimedia waveXxx and mixerXxx functions
>> * Media Foundation
>
> Erm, these are APIs not replacement sound systems.

So what? You try to pick one off the top of your head to code, hmmm?

Right now, in Linux, you have only /two/ choices of sound system to
build in the kernel: ALSA and OSS. You're a clever guy -- download
the kernel source and check the configurator out for yourself. That is
all you will find.

The rest are APIs or frameworks at various levels -- just like the
Window system that Moshe was trying to paint as a simple one-choice
item.

The fact is, this abundance is a natural consequence of wanting to
achieve varying kinds of tasks, in both Linux and Windows.

To use it to denigrate one platform or the other is simply silly.

--
My mother is a fish.
-- William Faulkner
 
Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

Moshe Goldfarb is a Troll of the worst kind. A real POS. Does more damage to
the reputation of Windows than any million Linux users could.

Which makes me believe that you're really a Linux user, Moshe.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com
 
Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 17:21:00 -0700, Gary S. Terhune wrote:

> Moshe Goldfarb is a Troll of the worst kind. A real POS. Does more damage to
> the reputation of Windows than any million Linux users could.
>
> Which makes me believe that you're really a Linux user, Moshe.

There really isn't much that anyone can do to make Vista's reputation any
worse than it is.
Face it, Vista is a piker.


--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

Thanks.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

"Moshe Goldfarb." <brick_n_straw@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:190nrpt4gfc3a.1cznwqkjffcyx$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 17:21:00 -0700, Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>
>> Moshe Goldfarb is a Troll of the worst kind. A real POS. Does more damage
>> to
>> the reputation of Windows than any million Linux users could.
>>
>> Which makes me believe that you're really a Linux user, Moshe.
>
> There really isn't much that anyone can do to make Vista's reputation any
> worse than it is.
> Face it, Vista is a piker.
>
>
> --
> Moshe Goldfarb
> Collector of soaps from around the globe.
> Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
> http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

some idiot froging chrisv wrote:

> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>> Moshe Goldfarb is a Troll of the worst kind. A real POS. Does more
>> damage to the reputation of Windows than any million Linux users could.
>> Which makes me believe that you're really a Linux user, Moshe.
>
> Hush child. We consider Moshe a bit of a hero.

"We" being nym-shifting, nym-stealing cretins? How impressive.
 
Back
Top