+Elі Subscriber² Posted May 8, 2002 Subscriber² Share Posted May 8, 2002 Originally posted by werejag looks from your poor swipe at linux you have no clue about linux. so in your "1984 view" choice means death. truth means microsoft. " m$ standard" means life for the computer world Look, Im NOT gonna argue with you what I know and I dont know about Linux, all I can tell you is that I run my own dedicated machine running FreeBSD and I run a web server, mail server , game server and chat network, all running own my own direction and command, what you think, I can't really care less. greetings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazydesert Posted May 8, 2002 Share Posted May 8, 2002 Originally posted by Ely greetings whats up, dude! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Elі Subscriber² Posted May 8, 2002 Subscriber² Share Posted May 8, 2002 LOL lazydesert you are funny as hell! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
werejag Posted May 8, 2002 Share Posted May 8, 2002 cheer to you! why are you complaining about linux then??? and putting a "m$ 1984 standard" as good for custumers??? these do make me say huh!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Elі Subscriber² Posted May 8, 2002 Subscriber² Share Posted May 8, 2002 Originally posted by werejag cheer to you! why are you complaining about linux then??? and putting a "m$ 1984 standard" as good for custumers??? these do make me say huh!!!!!!!!!!!!! Back to the point we started, my answer is: because I believe the way Windows has been standard is what has made possible for MS to achieve a high level of ease for the desktop home PC. something that would have not been possible if Windows was so erratic and chaotic as the states want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazydesert Posted May 8, 2002 Share Posted May 8, 2002 Originally posted by Ely LOL lazydesert you are funny as hell! i think its the avatar, i only recently became funny after attaching my gay face to the wine linux penguin . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctified Veteran Posted May 8, 2002 Veteran Share Posted May 8, 2002 dont get it as a personal comment but is funny how some users talk about a company named m$, [sarcasm] there?s no company names m$ :roll: [/sarcasm] I know that you?re talking about ms I agree with you in your other comments but that?s childish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazydesert Posted May 8, 2002 Share Posted May 8, 2002 Originally posted by Ely Back to the point we started, my answer is: because I believe the way Windows has been standard is what has made possible for MS to achieve a high level of ease for the desktop home PC. something that would have not been possible if Windows was so erratic and chaotic as the states want. agreed. i think we'd be no where without MS.. well, actually we'd probably be in a heaven of mac proprietary hardware where supply is less than demand.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
werejag Posted May 8, 2002 Share Posted May 8, 2002 Originally posted by Ely Back to the point we started, my answer is: because I believe the way Windows has been standard is what has made possible for MS to achieve a high level of ease for the desktop home PC. something that would have not been possible if Windows was so erratic and chaotic as the states want. please o'guru see the future for us, tell us of the doom's day that will happen if we are allowed to remove useless programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
werejag Posted May 8, 2002 Share Posted May 8, 2002 Originally posted by [saint dark]dont get it as a personal comment but is funny how some users talk about a company named m$, [sarcasm] there?s no company names m$ :roll: [/sarcasm]I know that you?re talking about ms I agree with you in your other comments but that?s childish /b> i was saving keystrokes microsoft is shortened to M$ or micro$ost. is everything aright with you now. please use this table to understand! m$ = microsoft micro$oft = microsoft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctified Veteran Posted May 8, 2002 Veteran Share Posted May 8, 2002 read my next post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Elі Subscriber² Posted May 8, 2002 Subscriber² Share Posted May 8, 2002 LMAO , you are all great people, please noone get mad, we all have the right to agree or disagree on things, that's what makes the world beautiful, varity! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctified Veteran Posted May 8, 2002 Veteran Share Posted May 8, 2002 then use just ms, is more easier lol, you?re just a child that even dont worth a comment :roll: btw, thank you for the table, my life is easier now [edit] I stand my agreement with some of your point, but your attitude is not gonna help you, you are the typical user who feels that was "forced" by the terrible/horrible/asassin/child rappist corporation names micrs>oft to install/use their products, poor creature, your life must be terrible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krome Posted May 8, 2002 Share Posted May 8, 2002 some people just don't understand things... short sighted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
werejag Posted May 8, 2002 Share Posted May 8, 2002 Originally posted by Ely LMAO , you are all great people, please noone get mad, we all have the right to agree or disagree on things, that's what makes the world beautiful, varity! :) again more choices!! now your getting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted May 8, 2002 Share Posted May 8, 2002 I find it interesting in the parallels you can draw between operating systems and politics. Consider these parallels: Microsoft and Liberalism *nix and Conservatism At first glance; you'd think that microsoft, being the immense software giant corporation that it is, would be sided with conservatism. This is not the case however, and here's why. Liberals are, for the most part, in favor of "big[ger] government." They prefer that the government be the provider of the people, that they regulate economy, moderate business, and "look out for the little guy." Remind you of an operating system? Consider Microsoft's Windows operating system. With each new releases its "own" version of software generally made by other companies and integrate it into windows. And let's not forget how much it costs. Some examples: 1. Internet Explorer: It wasn't as seemlessly integrated into windows 95 as it is now in XP. It also largely replaced other browsers (one obviously being netscape). 2. Windows Media Player: Originally, "WMP" was a small media player for (primarily) wav and midi files, almost like winamp (I kind of miss it personally), which I first remember being in windows 95. Since then, WMP has bloated into a 500 pound beast for "all of your media needs." Now it plays everything ranging from mp3's to divx to dvds. 3. With the release of Windows XP, MS introduced Windows Movie Maker, further expanding into what's traditionally been other software company's territory. 4. All the other small programs: Although few use them on a regular basis, other programs such as wordpad, paint, firewall, and ICS are included as part of the windows operating system. I'm sure everyone can think of other examples. (Office XP, etc). It seems pretty clear to me that Microsoft wants to be your "one stop shop" for all your software and operating system needs, similiar in the manner that liberals want the government to supply as many services to people as possible. Now consider *nix (linux, unix, other open source operating systems). Linux distributions can usually be either downloaded for free or purchased for a (relatively) low price. The only part that all Linux distributions share in common is the kernel, the core of the operating system, and even then, some distributions modify it slightly to suit their needs or 'fix' a problem. ALL other software is up to the user, although many users choose to use some similiar software (such as GCC, BASH, or XFree86). Some parallels with conservatism: 1. Linux encourages the 'privatization' of services. Different people write different programs that do similiar (if not the same) thing. Competition is encouraged, different groups sometimes merge similar products to make a single better product (like wine), and nothing is "forced" down a users throat. 2. Cost. One of the strengths of linux is the price; normally if you purchase a distribution, you're paying for the cds, a manual, and support (primarily support). But you don't have to. Most can be downloaded and burned on a cd for free. 3. If anyone hates Microsoft, it's linux people. Microsoft brought things like "winmodems," and now threaten the wireless industry with "winwireless." I don't even have to go into the bugs and security flaws (can we say code red?) that have daunted windows users. 4. Open standards, open source. When a new standard is recommended, it's shared; when new API's are created, the source code is distributed for others to take advantage of. Different organizations collaborate with each other to produce better products, in the same laissez-faire manner that conservatives dream about. Of course there are inconsistencies; but the parallels far outweigh them. I just find it interesting the way operating systems can be reminiscent of politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
werejag Posted May 8, 2002 Share Posted May 8, 2002 Originally posted by Vlad I find it interesting in the parallels you can draw between operating systems and politics. Consider these parallels: Microsoft and Liberalism *nix and Conservatism lets not go religous here i want have both but wish that more softare came out for linux. Conservatist want the big government controled by the church. liberal want big government controled by the small people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glowstick Posted May 8, 2002 Share Posted May 8, 2002 Nautilus is bound to Mozilla. I don't want Mozilla, I want it around the Lynx engine. I will sue the makers of Nautilus, they're forcing Mozilla on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
werejag Posted May 8, 2002 Share Posted May 8, 2002 huh?????????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted May 8, 2002 Share Posted May 8, 2002 I don't remember making any references to religion in my post. Nor do I remember saying that "this is how it is." I just said that parallels exist between the two. The conservatives who want "government controlled by religion" are ultra-conservatives; these are, infact, fundamentalists. Saying conservatives want a government controlled by religion is like me saying that all liberals are communists. That's an extreme; all liberals are certainly NOT communists. I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "big government controlled by the small people." I think it's safe to say that liberals and conservatives alike (in America, anyways) both favor a republic in which representatives are elected by the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
werejag Posted May 8, 2002 Share Posted May 8, 2002 Originally posted by Vlad I don't remember making any references to religion in my post. Nor do I remember saying that "this is how it is." I just said that parallels exist between the two. The conservatives who want "government controlled by religion" are ultra-conservatives; these are, infact, fundamentalists. Saying conservatives want a government controlled by religion is like me saying that all liberals are communists. That's an extreme; all liberals are certainly NOT communists. I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "big government controlled by the small people." I think it's safe to say that liberals and conservatives alike (in America, anyways) both favor a republic in which representatives are elected by the people. SORRY FOR ANY HARD FEELING "big government controlled by the small people" controled by the minororty not the majority Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted May 8, 2002 Share Posted May 8, 2002 If I have said it once ill say it again. The Only People winning from this government action is the Laywers, anyone would the states are just doing this to kick start the law industry again. A Lighter Version of MS Will not and cannot be better for the consumer. Whats the Issue Here? They used There Market power to do some things inappriopriately. Well How the hell does Disassembling the most popular OS Software in the World Today fix that problem, and help consumers and other business? It Helps other competition a little too much. Consumers will be shortchanged, MS will just make there money back from a Light version by Making you pay for the "Extra Addon Downloads" Or by Adding them in the Horrible Plus Pack. Okay its MS they are tgoing to get there money back one way or another Okay. And why Not im happy with my copy of XP pricey but its served me Well. And listen to what weve heard " I want Media Player but no Movie Maker, I want IE but No Paint etc etc. Well fine dont use them, goto components and un-install them and okay I use ALOT of the windows pre-packaged Programs but paint okay we could prob all do without that. But you see my point, No One WIll benefit from this ludicrious action it will be a pain in the ass, and a tremendous inconvience for regular consumers who use several or alot of the PrePackagaed Apps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daybreak Posted May 8, 2002 Share Posted May 8, 2002 For those who are saying modularity is the way to go.. and pointing to XP embedded as an example.. you're wrong. (IMHO ) First off, XP Embedded is EMBEDDED. Sure, its Modular. BUT, and the big BUT here is that Embedded systems assume NO further modifications to the system. You don't go install things on.. say ur Toaster do you? (quoting an example of an embedded system )... Second off, modularised isn't good for the consumner. At least not bundled... Imagine support issues. Say manufacturer A includes a browser using the Mozilla 0.9.2 codebase. Manufacturer B uses the Netscape 4.x codebase, C uses the 0.9.8 codebase. And when a problem pops up with their system.. who's going to handle the tech support? The tech reps from the manufacturer? Seeing as how .. most of them are rather incompetent.. I think it'll be even more of a tech headache. There are the other issues of component hell ( imagine developers statically linking every library. Heh )... Trojans supplanting the components ( imagine .. if one day some sleazy developer writes a HTML engine that replaces the existing one.. and captures ALL ur mouseclicks and stuff .. ALL thanks to Modularity )... Kinda tired now :dead: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazydesert Posted May 8, 2002 Share Posted May 8, 2002 Originally posted by Osiris And listen to what weve heard " I want Media Player but no Movie Maker, I want IE but No Paint etc etc. Well fine dont use them, goto components and un-install them and okay I use ALOT of the windows pre-packaged Programs but paint okay we could prob all do without that. OMG! I cannot imagine life without paint!! Long live paint! :old: [i'm serious] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KC Posted May 8, 2002 Share Posted May 8, 2002 then what would I do when I am drunk???? here's my drunken 2 cnets I beleive if the gov is allowed 2 screw MS we are all f***ed why. read my thoughts: here is the problem, those nine state's I live in on of them (utah) want it to be moduler, and they want the source code 2 be free like in GNU/Linux. Now we all can agree that GNU/Linux is very powerfull, yet 2 us people who know what the hell we are doing......well most of us......So let's say these states get what they want.....1-2 years from now the Windows market will be like the linux market to many choice's, not enough compatiblity. There will be other companies making Windows (Realwindows think of that only run's realplayer/Bonzibuddy windows) so in the end we arnt gonna have a choice any ways cuz we will have 2 boot into 8 diffrent versions of windows 2 run a couple programs. Biggest problem is the mass markets, I do tech support for a Nation wide ISP, there are people out there that CAN NOT RUN WINDOWS it's like it's impossible for them 2 use a computer, the sit in front of it and ther brain implodes........So my Question is will they be able to run Linux at it's current state? HEck no! Well soon windows will be just Like Linux/ linux will be just like windows so the mightey doller (this is what it's all about anyways) will stop being spent on computers, The Mass's stop buying computers, so the market will go down, sooner later they will stop makeing computers, the internet will start getting smaller.......Till ONe day neowin just disappers, What a sad world. Yet all the farmers will be happy on that note! (that's all the republicans care about is the RICH farmers.) :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :bandit: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts