Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 09:55:59 -0700, Au79 wrote:
>
>>> On the desktop, I simply believe it's nowhere near ready for average use
>>> and that the level of maturity of support is sadly lacking. For
>>> example, not one single Linux vendor provides the kind of resource
>>> Microsoft does via the MSDN and Technet.
>>
>> The support that you refer here has nothing to do with Linux but with the
>> vendors. You are talking apples vs oranges: Is MS richer than Novell,
>> yes. Is Linux OS BETTER than windows, yes, in every respect.
>
> Spare me the "Linux is only a kernel" mantra. We're talking about
> complete
> systems here. Distro's. Linux being usable to get the job done.
>
O.K. then- Any Linux Distro is BETTER than Windos, yes, in every respect.
I'm able to get all my professional work done with more reliability than if
I was using that loser MS system.
>> So its no surprise that MS is able to spend vast amount of resources
>> spawning microserfs everywhere with its programs. However, check this
>> out: http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/008200609091840.htm
>
> Bah. The rumors of Microsoft's demise are a bit exagerated. Microsoft
> knows it has to make sweeping and global changes. It remains to be seen
> if they can do that, but it's by no means a sure bet that they will not be
> able to.
>
You betray your love for microsoft whilst displaying a considerable lack of
cognition on current events as they may affect the future. Why would you
think that microsoft considers Linux such a formidable threat? Mr. Gates
had no trouble quelling OS/2 and BeOS in little time- Yet, Linux has proven
indestructible to numerous marketing assaults.
This is no coincidence. Linux has tremendous momentum within the
technological sector which has put it beyond reach of microsoft's war
machine. Quality triumphs over hype.
>>> Sure, there's a billion how-to's spread across the net, but this
>>> informaiton is typically out of date, incomplete, distro specific, and
>>> often times plain wrong. Not to mention you end up having to scour the
>>> net looking for them (which is ironic considering all the bullshit Linux
>>> users
>>> spew about having to search for drivers for Windows. I spend easily
>>> 1000x more time searching for information about Linux than I do looking
>>> for drivers for Windows).
>>
>> It is quite evident that after so called 15 year using Unix you have
>> developed a self-loathing attitude that only reflects your personal
>> failures: Spending 1000x more times searching for information about Linux
>> simply means that you are grossly incompetent- which is keeping in line
>> with your real Windos aptitude.
>
> First, I said I've spent 1000x more time searching for information than
> searching for Windows drivers. I was making a point that Linux advocates
> like to wine about that all the time, but conveniently ignore how much
> time they spend looking for solutions themselves.
>
Ah, under your logic, there is far more information about how to fix windos
and its multitude of problems than Linux How-to's. This makes sense since
Linux does not require even a portion of troubleshooting and repairs.
> Second, spare me the "you're too stupid to use Linux" argument. It only
> reinforces my point. If you have to be a guru to use Linux, it's not
> ready for anybody but Guru's.
>
Given the success of SuSE, Red Hat, Mandriva, and Ubuntu to provide distros
that are simply install-and-use environments, I very much doubt that the
notion that Linux is for the uber-geek is valid; in fact quite unbelivable.
> Third, the fact of the matter is, howto's are poorly written, often times
> incomplete, and many times give you just enough information to make it
> work
> (for various values of "work). It may not be the right way to do it at
> all.
>
For somebody with 15 years of Unix "experience" you do sound rather
amateurish. Here, we need to realize two points: One, How-to's are written
by volunteer contributors that may have formulated a particular solution,
not by professional writers, therefore you have to appreciate the solution
provided over its delivery. Two, There is a vast wealth of information
about all things Linux out there: Not only from publishing companies such
as O'Reilly, McGraw-Hill Osborne, John Wiley & Sons, and even For Dummies,
but also from websites and newsgroups.
I have not found a particular task or problem for which a solution was
lacking. Your criticism of Linux documentation sounds like an obnoxious
whining of an amateur, and one with claims of 15 years experience. Now,
that's sad.
>> Anybody with the slightest technical knack can really appreciate the
>> beauty of an advanced and sophisticated operating system like Linux. it's
>> sad that you have not reached this level of appreciation, which again, is
>> not surprising.
>
> I would appreciate the beauty of and advanced and sophisticed operating
> system if the documentation were equally as advanced and sophisticated.
>
That jus shows how immature you are from a technical point of view. The
quality of content cannot be judged by its delivery method, and your claims
of "incomplete" is absurd indeed.
> it's not.
It doe not have to be.
Maybe microsoft should start engineering their OS's as good as their
advanced and sophisticated documents, then it may work without endless
patching and the legions of third party software that it needs just to be
marginally functional.
--
....................
http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
|
|
