All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software

Why people choose Microsoft.

<< < (2/11) > >>

slave:
Hmm, DVD playback works almost out of the box for me in Red Hat Linux 8 after enabling DMA for my dvd drive (it's disabled by default for some strange reason)and typing "apt-get ogle".  If Calum's dvd player doesn't work with Linux, that's not Linux's fault, it's the hardware maker's fault.

hm_murdock:
lets not forget that Windows is tied to the shit eater x86 processors and the everloving piece of shit that is the IBM PC architecture. Linux runs on ANYTHING. I can install Linux on my iBook 800, on my Power Mac 7200, on the busted ass old Sun workstation that I hijacked from the dumpster of the Little Rock Public Works building. I can run Linux on a PS2, or an xSux. I can run Linux on an iPod, or a PocketPC, or... or damn near anything.

let's reiterate...
x86 "IBM PC" sucks ass
Windows only runs on it
Other platforms eat x86 for breakfast
Linux runs on nearly all of them.
Therefore
Windows sucks ass
Linux eats Windoze for breakfast.

edit: most hardware makers seem to do as much as they can to make things incompatible.

[ February 07, 2003: Message edited by: Jimmy James: Mac Commando ]

cahult:
Tradition is, I think, the main reason for not going with another OS. Most users are older than 25, as odd as it may sound to you, and they were trained (read: brainwashed) on Microsoft

DC:

quote:Originally posted by Jimmy James: Mac Commando:
let's reiterate...
1) x86 "IBM PC" sucks ass
2) Windows only runs on it
3) Other platforms eat x86 for breakfast
4) Linux runs on nearly all of them.
   Therefore
5) Windows sucks ass
6) Linux eats Windoze for breakfast.

--- End quote ---

Let's see...
1 is arguably true (x86 has some advantages, but performance-wise they tend to suck)
2 is true
3 is true
4 is true
So at least your premises are true.
5 does not follow from the premises (if it is true or not (well, it is) is another point). x86 may suck - that doesn't mean every software written for said architecture. If this were the case, Linux sucks too, since it too is written for x86. You can have a fantasctic piece of software running on the most appaling pieces of crap. The performance may not be that good, but if it accomplishes more than a 'decent' software system the software is still good.
6, equally, does not follow from the premises. Running on more/better system is at most a minor argument in quality debates.

Whay you say may be true, but the logic you use is non-existant.

Fett101:
Howabout some reasons Linux isn't doin' for regular people.

1. Don't care because it's just an OS. They'd rather drive thier SUV or listen to thier Spears.
2. Lack of media exposure. If it's not in a commercial, they don't know it exists.
3. RPM's and dependence hell. Thay'd never put up with that, and apt-get doesn't do well over dial up. Or even having to compile software. I can imagine the headaches caused by just the thought of it.
4. They'd freak out at the first site of the command line.
5. lack of software/hardware support. Not Linux fault' but still a problem. And an abundance of amatuer looking software.

There's plenty of articles about this if you google for them.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page