Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => The Lounge => Topic started by: hm_murdock on 10 November 2003, 05:02
-
man, this place is a shitty joke. I'm sick with coming to this place where there's no interesting discussion.
it's one of several things
1) Rehashing the same tired anti-MS arguments. Yes, we KNOW WHY THEY'RE BAD! Allright already!
2) Dudes whining about people that make fun of Linux. It's okay for them to bash "all those closed source OSes" but say ANYTHING about Linux or OSS, and you're an "idiot" or "child". Especially shitty ass X11. Why don't you guys give up on that turd? It's hopelessly outdated and, well... SUCKS ASS. It might be interesting to hear some reasons why it doesn't but I never hear them. I just get flamed for saying anything bad about it. Fuck off.
3) Trolls TROLLS TROLLS EVERYFUCKINGWHERE AND NOBODY CAN STOP THEM. Webmaster doesn't care. He doesn't give a fucking shit. He's too lazy and shitty to delete accounts. Maybe he should give admin rights to someone who will actually fucking do something, but no.
This place sucks ass because of Linux pussies and trolls.
Why don't you change the name of this shithole to "The Linux and Troll Club"
(http://ecsyle.com/jimmy/media/suxass.jpg)
YOU KNOW IT TO BE TRUE
[ November 18, 2003: Message edited by: jimmy james ]
[ November 18, 2003: Message edited by: jimmy james ]
-
nevermind
Thanks laukev
[ November 09, 2003: Message edited by: Ecsyle ]
-
post made redundant
moved to Friends of the MES
[ November 09, 2003: Message edited by: [root@localhost /]# ]
-
[email protected]
-
AHHHHH!
[ November 09, 2003: Message edited by: jimmy james ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Great_Satan:
Hello. My IP number is 172.156.216.40, and I want you all to hack into my computer and spam me. Thank you.
[ November 09, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
I should probaly quote this post in case Great_Stupid tries to change it.
-
Great idea, M51DPS!
Ecsyle, are you sure AOL can do anything about this? I think the abuse address is only for email abuse, not forums.
[ November 09, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
Jimmy James, X11 isn't technically the best graphics system out there right now, but what do *you* suggest the free software community use? Something immature and unstable, like Y or Fresco? Trust me, it would be a mistake.
Anyway, there are some projects that are attempting to address the shortcomings of X11, such as:
cairographics.org
Cairo is a vector graphics library with cross-device output support. Currently supported output targets include the X Window System and in-memory image buffers. PostScript and PDF file output is planned. Cairo is designed to produce identical output on all output media while taking advantage of display hardware acceleration when available (eg. through the X Render Extension).
freedesktop.org - they are currently doing a lot of work to make the various toolkits interact properly with copy/paste, also some interesting hacking to make X11 render in a more "modern" way.
have a look at Havoc Pennington's blog here to see what exactly is going on there:
http://log.ometer.com/2003-11.html#3 (http://log.ometer.com/2003-11.html#3)
The thing is, X11 has a lot going for it, and the only thing we can do is keep working on it, especially since it is is the only viable open source graphics system out there. Personally I find it much more flexible than the Windows graphics system (not tied to the kernel, multiple window managers/interfaces, faster at rendering 3d graphics in my experience, unmatched remote display capabilities)
X11 isn't what's holding desktop Linux back -- the immaturity of certain end-user applications and necessary polish in GNOME and KDE are the main problems.
-
if the GNU movement had made a push for something more modern years ago when they could have, it would have made a world of difference.
Display Postscript has existed since 1988, why not an OSS version of it?
NeXTStep is the OS that Linux should try to be, not generic UNIX!
-
Hey, Jimmy James's complaining has created the greatest thread of all!
-
Yah Linux sucks
It's pretty unimpresssive that the stoopid comunity only developed a viable server and desktop os with only volunteer support
People like stallman and Torvalds gave GNU/Linux to the world for free.........I'm not gonna bitch.
BTW you're obviously not using it so why do you even bother to bitch?
-
Jimmy James there is a reason we defend linux so much, not because we think it is perfect, but because we like it. The truth is that mac users are the same way with their OS, they insist nothing is better regardless of countless facts. The truth is that linux is the only truly viable alternative to proprietary hardware and operating systems. That is it.
-
Basically, but FreeBSD isn't so bad, just not my kind of thing, really. I think Linux is being developed at a faster rate and therefore will be more relevent in the future.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
Basically, but FreeBSD isn't so bad, just not my kind of thing, really. I think Linux is being developed at a faster rate and therefore will be more relevent in the future.
I like FreeBSD, but it made me feel like a moron the first time I used it, and this is coming from a linux geek. Besides FreeBSD is x86 only, you cant run it on proprietary hardware like Macs, and Sparcs. Linux is the only OS aside from NetBSD, that runs on every major architecture. The usability of linux and NetBSD are about equal , so what it comes down to are little things like new hardware support, ease of install, number of users for user based support, easy config utilities. Linux is beating NetBSD in these fields. That is why I still praise linux as being the most viable alternative on proprietary hardware, or against a proprietary OS.
Basically what Im trying to say is that if you have a Sparc and you dont like Solaris, or you have a mac and dont want to use mac OS (like that would ever happen) you dont have too many other options. Linux is the best one in my opinion.
-
quote:
Originally posted by ThePreacher:
Jimmy James there is a reason we defend linux so much, not because we think it is perfect, but because we like it. The truth is that mac users are the same way with their OS, they insist nothing is better regardless of countless facts. The truth is that linux is the only truly viable alternative to proprietary hardware and operating systems. That is it.
1) The truth is that Linux is, in fact, nothing more than a kernel. The Darwin kernel is just as open/free as the Linux kernel.
2) Most mainstream Linux distros are nothing more than copycats, with interfaces ripped off from the flawed interface of Microsoft Windows, based on a kernel ripped off from another kernel and based on a dated architecture misadapted for desktop operating systems, unlike OpenStep. Not to mention the countless Linux apps that are direct rip-offs of other apps. Still today, many Linux features come, albeit via Microsoft Windows, from Apple innovation.
3) Linux is based on an OS designed for servers, whereas Mac OS X is based on OpenStep, which was designed for the desktop.
4) Despite being open source, Linux desktops have been very slow to evolve, and are still not as easy to manage as Mac OS, which in comparison has been easy to use since day one in 1984. Countless other OSes, including Mac OS X and BeOS, have achieved in a few years what Linux has not done in a decade: ease of use for simple AND complex tasks.
5) Even software development tools are easier on Mac OS X than on Linux, which is supposedly a stronghold for programmers. Apple's Xcode allows you to change source code of a running program, while compiling it as you change the code!
6) For the record, even some system administrators considered UNIX (not counting OpenStep) a nightmare compared to other easier, more powerful and more flexible server OSes like VMS (I cannot testify this, for I have never used VMS).
7) Not only Mac users say that Linux is not as good as OS X. BeOS users have said it, OpenStep users have said it, Windows users have said it, people who have tried to switch to Linux (ie. me) have said it. Even the CEO of Redhat said that Linux is not ready for the desktop.
-
quote:
I like FreeBSD, but it made me feel like a moron the first time I used it, and this is coming from a linux geek.
I didn't know nearly as much as you do when I started using FreeBSD, and I could still appreciate how easier it was than Linux after having played with it for a while.
quote:
Besides FreeBSD is x86 only,
No, it's not. It's available for Alpha and SPARC architectures as well. As for the Mac, Mac OS X is based on it (though mostly modeled after OpenStep); you might as well use Darwin. OpenBeOS will also be available for PPC when it's finished.
-
You know what the shittiest part about this site is, PEOPLE WHO COME HERE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT HOW SHITTY IT IS!
Either bring up topics you think are worthy, or shut the fuck up and leave. Jeezz...
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
No, it's not. It's available for Alpha and SPARC architectures as well. As for the Mac, Mac OS X is based on it (though mostly modeled after OpenStep); you might as well use Darwin. OpenBeOS will also be available for PPC when it's finished.
Sorry about the little incorrect info about the architectures FreeBSD supports, however it still is nowhere near as many as linux or NetBSD. The architectures that Debain supports are listed here and total 12 which is 4 times as many as FreeBSD's.
http://www.debian.org/ports/ (http://www.debian.org/ports/)
As for Darwin, since it is part of the Mac OS in the first place, it can not be considered an alternative. This is why linux and NetBSD are alternatives on Apple hardware.
As for OpenBeOS you had better read the fine print.
Quoted from http://www.openbeos.org (http://www.openbeos.org)
" It will be up to the community as to whether or not OpenBeOS will run on these platforms -- volunteers writing OBOS drivers will be a major factor. "
In other words if the community decides they dont want it they wont make it. And there has to be driver support. Nothing with BeOS on PPC is guaranteed yet. However linux and NetBSD are already available for PPC.
OpenBeOS isnt exactly the fastest moving project at sourceforge either.
-
quote:
The architectures that Debain supports are listed here and total 12 which is 4 times as many as FreeBSD's.
Actually, it's a bit less than twice as much, since FreeBSD is being developped for 7 architectures, including PPC. And FreeBSD supports AMD64, whereas the Debian port is not finished yet.
http://www.freebsd.org/platforms/ (http://www.freebsd.org/platforms/)
quote:
" It will be up to the community as to whether or not OpenBeOS will run on these platforms -- volunteers writing OBOS drivers will be a major factor. "
Isn't that one of the major POINTS of open source? And as far as I know, there was no specific plan to port Linux to the PPC at the time of its creation either.
Edit: By the way, Debian isn't even specific to Linux. Check the link you sent me. Debian supports GNU Hurd and yes, FreeBSD as well.
[ November 11, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
[ November 11, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
I do like BeOS,
I do like BSD,
I don't like Hurd (it doesn't even work yet),
but I like Linux even more.
I don't understand why so many people say:
"Linux is only a kernel". A kernel is the most important piece of an OS.
Why do I like GNU/Linux more than BSD, BeOS, ...?
Cause I find the Linux kernel better than the others.
-
quote:
I don't understand why so many people say:
"Linux is only a kernel". A kernel is the most important piece of an OS.
Well they say that because Linux is only a kernel. Wether or not it's the "most important part of an OS" is debatable, but even if that's true it doesn't really make a difference. It's like saying that the most important part of a plane is the engine, so you should call a Boeing a Rolls Royce.
quote:
Why do I like GNU/Linux more than BSD, BeOS, ...?
Cause I find the Linux kernel better than the others.
What about Linux do you prefer to the BSD kernel? I'm not suggesting that's not a sensible statement, I'm just wondering what it is that you find better.
-
You know what you are 100% right. We all should stop using linux and use FreeBSD, because it is superior in everyway.
Do not try and make the suggestion that linux could possibly be better than anything else. So far everyone agrees that it goes like this.
1. MacOS X The almighty God and Best OS ever made
2. Old MacOS Former king dethrowned by itself
3. BeOS
4. FreeBSD
5. Microsoft Windows 2000 I dont like it but everyone else does
6. Microsoft Windows XP
7. Windows 9x
8. Linux - All versions
9. Dos Windows 3.1
This is what you believe so there it is. By the way if anyone believes any other OS is superior to linux just tell me and ill add it.
[ November 11, 2003: Message edited by: ThePreacher ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
Isn't that one of the major POINTS of open source? And as far as I know, there was no specific plan to port Linux to the PPC at the time of its creation either.
Edit: By the way, Debian isn't even specific to Linux. Check the link you sent me. Debian supports GNU Hurd and yes, FreeBSD as well.
[ November 11, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
[ November 11, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
Laukev you are right and Im wrong, Ive given up on linux and Im writing this from my new operating system. Its called EROS. It kicks the ass of BeOS, FreeBSD, MAcOS, hell everything.
Check out the website. It was last updated in 2001 but they will get a version out soon.
http://www.eros-os.org/ (http://www.eros-os.org/)
[ November 11, 2003: Message edited by: ThePreacher ]
-
quote:
Well they say that because Linux is only a kernel.
You know what I mean. (Why do people keep using that as a negative argument?)
quote:
What about Linux do you prefer to the BSD kernel? I'm not suggesting that's not a sensible statement, I'm just wondering what it is that you find better.
*Even though they're both monolistic (I don't like microkernels.), Linux is more flexible (modules support, different LWP, ...)
*All parts of the Linux kernel are free, making them more customizible.
*Better compatibility with other systems.
*Better hardware support.
*It runs on very old systems(I still have a lot of them).
*Linux has the best community support.
...and I just find it more fun to use...
(http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
You know what I mean. (Why do people keep using that as a negative argument?)
It's because when people continually call the system "Linux" they're both not giving proper credit to the people who wrote most of the system and came up with the idea of producing a Free OS in the first place, and also more importantly they're not publicising the ideals of the GNU project. Personally I agree that it's awkward to call it "GNU slash Linux" so I'd much rather just call it GNU.
quote:
All parts of the Linux kernel are free
All parts of the *BSD kernels are free as well, as far as I'm aware.
quote:
It runs on very old systems
Again, true for BSD.
quote:
Better compatibility with other systems.
What do you mean by that?
quote:
Better hardware support.
BSD-based systems run on as many different architectures as Linux-based ones.
I'm not really disagreeing with you here, just trying to find out what you mean. Personally I also prefer to use a Linux-based OS because it's the simplest/best-supported way I can use a GNU system.
-
quote:
It's because when people continually call the system "Linux" they're both not giving proper credit to the people who wrote most of the system and came up with the idea of producing a Free OS in the first place, and also more importantly they're not publicising the ideals of the GNU project. Personally I agree that it's awkward to call it "GNU slash Linux" so I'd much rather just call it GNU.
True.
quote:
All parts of the *BSD kernels are free as well, as far as I'm aware.
Prabably in the future, but know their's still a mess with the old license.
quote:
Again, true for BSD.
Some old 386 systems can only use 4MB mem.
Linux is based on this, BSD needs at least 4.4MB or more (the later 386 systems).
quote:
What do you mean by that?
Better compatibility with an other OS. This can be important for networking.
quote:
BSD-based systems run on as many different architectures as Linux-based ones.
I mean all HW.
[ November 11, 2003: Message edited by: insomnia ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by ThePreacher:
You know what you are 100% right. We all should stop using linux and use FreeBSD, because it is superior in everyway.
Do not try and make the suggestion that linux could possibly be better than anything else. So far everyone agrees that it goes like this.
1. MacOS X The almighty God and Best OS ever made
2. Old MacOS Former king dethrowned by itself
3. BeOS
4. FreeBSD
5. Microsoft Windows 2000 I dont like it but everyone else does
6. Microsoft Windows XP
7. Windows 9x
8. Linux - All versions
9. Dos Windows 3.1
This is what you believe so there it is. By the way if anyone believes any other OS is superior to linux just tell me and ill add it.
[ November 11, 2003: Message edited by: ThePreacher ]
Linux better than DOS, I don't think so!
BTW I hate it when people say Linux is only the Kernel not the entire OS
No it's not the entire OS but it is just a shorter way of saying GNU/Linux
We don't expect Mac users to say "Macintosh Operating System Version Ten point Three"
Geeze!
-
No, but you also don't expect to hear Mac owners call the OS "Darwin".
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
BSD-based systems run on as many different architectures as Linux-based ones.
I'm not really disagreeing with you here, just trying to find out what you mean. Personally I also prefer to use a Linux-based OS because it's the simplest/best-supported way I can use a GNU system.
Well I know that linux is GPL'd however BSD is not GPL'd, they use their own licensing system, and if I remember correctly that means they can take FreeBSD and modify its source code and not share the changes they made in it.
-
k... gotta pitch in some...
1. MacOS X
2. NeXTStep/OpenStep/Rhapsody
3. BeOS
4. FreeBSD
5. Mac OS 9
6. Linux and friends
7. Microsoft Windows 2000/XP/Server 2K3 (NT 5.x)
8. Darwin (since it is distributed freely separate of OS X)
9. DOS w/ Windows 3.1
Yeah, I know NeXTStep/OpenStep became Rhapsody which became OS X, but there's important differences that make it "all new".
Linux is a perfect server OS. It *isn't* ready for desktop. UI and graphics framework are only two problems. Also, software installation, hardware support (that is, more companies need to support it openly), and general usability need to improve.
X11 is allright for server use, where network transparancy and other factors win out over graphic abilities. A server doesn't need eyecandy. X11, however is hopelessly outclassed by other desktop OS display layers.
Give it some time, guys... and... also, give a little. Support projects that push Linux distros past their UNIXy heritage. Stryker's CalyptOS, and mine and Jeffberg's CthulOS/Next Generation Desktop are prime examples. Use the Linux kernel to make a nice, user-friendly desktop OS... perfect. Linus made a good, solid, and quick kernel. Give it an OS that's worthy of what it can do instead of dragging it down with the outdated UNIXness.
-
Must put in my two cents.
I've now used Linux for a little over a year now (Mandrake 8.2-9.1). I'll be the first person to say that it is not perfect. Software installation can be a pain (although one thing I like about Mandrake is that 90% of any dependencies you may need are already on the CD's) and hardware support isn't perfect. (Which isn't the fault of Linux, but it's still an issue) However, I still think it's far better than any Windows OS I've ever tried. I just realized recently how great of an operating system it is for music recording and production.
Is Linux ready for the desktop? In my opinion, yes it is. In the first month, I had some trials and tribulations with Mandrake 8.2, but after I got some things working, I was really happy with it. Now, just because it's ready for me, doesn't necessarily mean it's ready for someone else. There is a bit of a learning curve involved, especially if you've used Mac or Windows for years before. For me, Mandrake Linux is very user-friendly and everything can be set up with a few clicks of the mouse. Now, this might not be the case for someone else.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that, Linux is as ready for the desktop as you want it to be. And the issues I mentioned will only get better the more people use Linux.
-
I don't know about freeBSD, but I've used linux and by far, I think it's better than macs. It has utilities like screen capture and openoffice with makes superior.
-
openoffice also has a mac verison i think... and for sure you can take a screenshot, right?
-
quote:
I think it's better than macs.
I would suggest that you get more familiar with Macs, then, as both reasons reasons you stated are obviously wrong. By the way, many Linux apps, including KDE, are available for OS X, as it is a UNIX-based OS like Linux.
[ November 15, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
openoffice also has a mac verison i think... and for sure you can take a screenshot, right?
http://porting.openoffice.org/mac/ooo-osx_downloads.html (http://porting.openoffice.org/mac/ooo-osx_downloads.html)
-
I tried to download that. But I couldn't figger out how ta.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Macman: No longer posts here:
I tried to download that. But I couldn't figger out how ta.
You'll first need to install X11 for OS X.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/x11/ (http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/x11/)
I only know a few persons who use OS X, but they all seem to like it's X11 version.
;)
-
quote:
Originally posted by jimmy james:
k... gotta pitch in some...
1. MacOS X
2. NeXTStep/OpenStep/Rhapsody
3. BeOS
4. FreeBSD
5. Mac OS 9
6. Linux and friends
7. Microsoft Windows 2000/XP/Server 2K3 (NT 5.x)
8. Darwin (since it is distributed freely separate of OS X)
9. DOS w/ Windows 3.1
Well if that is your list here is mine.
1. GNU/Linux
2. FreeBSD
3. NetBSD
4. Sun Solaris x86
5. Microsoft Windows 2000
6. Mac OS X
7. Windows XP
8. Old Mac OS
9. Windows 9x
10. BeOS
11. Windows 3.1/DOS
As for that shit about x11 being suitable only for server use, you know that is bullshit. A server doesn't even need a gui, and X11 has a lot more features than the old gui's such as windows 3.1, which might I add was part of a "Desktop" OS. So be quiet with that server only nonsense.
[ November 17, 2003: Message edited by: ThePreacher ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by The Merciless Darth Jimmy James:
man, this place is a shitty joke. I'm sick with coming to this place where there's no interesting discussion.
it's one of several things
1) Rehashing the same tired anti-MS arguments. Yes, we KNOW WHY THEY'RE BAD! Allright already!
2) Dudes whining about people that make fun of Linux. It's okay for them to bash "all those closed source OSes" but say ANYTHING about Linux or OSS, and you're an "idiot" or "child". Especially shitty ass X11. Why don't you guys give up on that turd? It's hopelessly outdated and, well... SUCKS ASS. It might be interesting to hear some reasons why it doesn't but I never hear them. I just get flamed for saying anything bad about it. Fuck off.
3) Trolls TROLLS TROLLS EVERYFUCKINGWHERE AND NOBODY CAN STOP THEM. Webmaster doesn't care. He doesn't give a fucking shit. He's too lazy and shitty to delete accounts. Maybe he should give admin rights to someone who will actually fucking do something, but no.
This place sucks ass because of Linux pussies and trolls.
Why don't you change the name of this shithole to "The Linux and Troll Club"
You know whats shitty!!! Its trolls like yourselves that have nothing better to do but post stupid topics like this.
Personaly I'm sick of all the mac os l33tests out there.
The perpose of this site is to explain the positives of all alternative OS'es out there, be it mac/bsd or linux. There is no need to critise any of them really since they are not as flaud as Windows.
Even MAcOSX has its share of problems. Its nothing new. Its just that any OS is a better alternative than M$.
As for X11. Whats wrong with it? I love it!!! I think I performs wonderfuly and I jhave no problem with it.
If your using a mac. Then X11 doesn't even concern you! So why bother bitching!
you said
quote:
This place sucks ass because of Linux pussies and trolls.
Well I say this place sucks ass because of over l33test Mac users like Jimmi James over there and trolls!
-
GNU/Linux Is perfect for the Desktop!!! It has all the applications I need and I can do anything and more in my linux box that I used to do in my windows.
Heck if windows is considered a great desktop after alll those virii/trojens/ Stable issues, ugly UI etc etc etc.... Then Linux is more than ready!!!
-
From A BusinessWeek article of June 2003
quote:
Steve Jobs can thank Linux. Long maligned as a desktop nonstarter, Linux should pass Apple in market share for desktop operating systems on computers sold in the coming year. That means from 7% to 10% of all PCs shipped won't bear the Windows icon.
web page (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2003/tc20030618_7983_tc056.htm)
From a ZDNet article
quote:
"Certainly by...2005, possibly by the end of 2003, Linux will pass Mac OS as the No. 2 operating environment," said IDC analyst Dan Kusnetzky.
web page (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-978408.html)
From a NewsForge.com article
quote:
One of the world's largest IT companies is declaring that the Linux desktop will capture 20% of the market for desktop computers in large enterprises within 5 years.
Siemens Business Systems, the $6 billion global IT consulting and outsourcing company, has conducted extensive testing with real-world, non-technical workers and is declaring that Linux has matured as a desktop and will quickly vault to the #2 most-installed OS in the world.
web page (http://http://www.newsforge.com/business/03/08/13/1424212.shtml?tid=3)
And China Just made a deal with Sun to buy one MILLION Linux desktops
quote:
McNealy announced today that the Chinese government has pledged to deploy a million computers in the next year using Sun's Linux desktop software.
web page (http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/7285339.htm)
So after that it's pretty obvious that Linux is useless for desktop use (http://tongue.gif)
Oh yah, when you've only got a few small companies like IBM,Nokia,Intel,Cisco,HP and Dell supporting Desktop Linux you really don't have a chance in hell anyway
web page (http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/22675.html)
I guess Linux is doomed :(
[ November 18, 2003: Message edited by: suselinux ]
-
I have openoffice on my mac, oh yeah, and i can also take screenshot.
I do not think Linux is ready to replace windows on the desktop yet. No way. I cant change screen resolutions without restarting x. Windows lets me. OSX lets me. In fact, the only thing holding Linux back in my humble opinion, is x11. it dosent feel as "tight" as Quartz, or even Windows. Once Linux "feels" as good as the other major players, then i can see it taking over. then you will see more apps ported over, maybe even ome of the major players, like Adobe, Macromedia, Autodesk,
Dont get me wrong. I love Linux. I use it often. It just needs some polishing and something to make people want to switch. Make it appeal to the masses. They dont care about price. I dont know anyone who actually buys new versions of windows, except, of course, when they bought their computer. It is kicking ass as a server os. But, it would take a fucking miracle for me to switch to linux from osx.
-
Check out Xserver, produced by the freedesktop.org hackers. It will include a vector-graphics library with PDF output and accellerated graphics using OpenGL when available. It may bring the X window system one step closer to Quartz:
http://freedesktop.org/~keithp/screenshots/ (http://freedesktop.org/~keithp/screenshots/)
-
quote:
As for that shit about x11 being suitable only for server use, you know that is bullshit. A server doesn't even need a gui, and X11 has a lot more features than the old gui's such as windows 3.1, which might I add was part of a "Desktop" OS. So be quiet with that server only nonsense.
lol
I'm glad it has more features than windows 3.1! considering 3.1 handled drawing primatives, and some vector-oriented shit like lines, simple curves and beziers and crap.
X11 is a turdburglar. here... this should say it all...
(http://ecsyle.com/jimmy/media/suxass.jpg)
yeah, even Captain Picard and the shitty ass Borg think that X11 sucks ass.
Let's do a scientific comparison here...
(http://ecsyle.com/jimmy/media/turdburglarx11.jpg)
Okay, Quartz is able to perform real-time transforms on each individual window, including that QuickTime movie (MPEG4 format, 720x404x24-bit 30fps video) when I activate the "Tile All Windows" function. This tiles all open, non-minimized windows so that all are visible simultaneously. I can then choose the window I want.
During the transition, and while the QuickTime window is scaled down, the video continues to play, with ZERO SKIPPED FRAMES... on a 500MHz G3 iMac with a 16MB Rage 128 video card. I've got ZERO OpenGL acceleration. This machine CANNOT use Quartz Extreme... and I still get those results. The experience really isn't even that bad on older video circutry either. Take Rage 2 and Rage Pro for example. The original bondi blue iMac, and the 5-flavor slot-load models all used Mach64-based Rage 2 and Rage Pro video chipsets. Quarts fully supports ALL EFFECTS with video acceleration. It took some time for it to be implemented, but guess what... IT'S THERE.
If I were to minimize that video window, the video CONTINUES TO PLAY during the minimize animation... that is, the now famous "genie" effect, as the window is sucked down into the Dock. Once in the Dock and miniturized, the video STILL PLAYS!
Guess what... I'd say that Quartz is MUCH MORE ADVANCED than X11. Oh... another thing... these abilities aren't new. NeXTStep, OpenStep, and Rhapsody could all do these things. The capability existed, because they use Display Postscript. Quartz is simply Display PDF. Quartz Extreme is OpenGL accelerated Display PDF.
Quartz is double-buffered and layered. Quartz Extreme is multi-layered. Buffering isn't an issue, because with QE, each window is a plane in OpenGL and its contents are a texture. Each window continues to render, without regard to whether it is visible or obscured. It's only drawn into video memory if it's visible.
Quartz supports 24-bit alpha, at any color depth (Display Postscript and Quartz both dither the display at lower depths instead of getting the ugly "8-bit" effect). Menus are equally translucent at millions of colors as they are at 256.
Quartz supports real-time vector transforms on ANY on-screen element... whether it be stored as a vector image or as a bitmapped image. Quartz cares not. The display is rendered as PDF.
What of Windows you ask? Guess what, Longhorn's new desktop compositor is ALSO vector based! But that's not quite so important, as it's not here yet. But don't you worry, because it too can perform real-time vector transforms. It, too is fully GL accelerated.
Also, both Quartz and the Windows Desktop Compositor use much more user-friendly methods of providing hardware support. Instead of having to change the core program (the X server binary), they use plug-in drivers. The program code that runs and takes care of things is hardware-independent.
Yes... in today's day and age, X11 is less-than-optimal.
Oops... sorry.
[ November 18, 2003: Message edited by: jimmy james ]
-
quote:
Jimmi James
Question...
WHO THE FUCK IS JIMMI JAMES?
-
Linux User... that's just exactly what's needed. It supports X11 calls so existing software can run.
I like it...
Here's an idea guys... USE THAT!
-
You are right, X11 cant draw a line or a curve. Gee Wiz Jimmy James, Using X11 is like using a TI-82 graphing calculator. No wait, the calculator has a better gui.
Nothing you say can convince me that X11 is trash. In fact nothing you say will convince me that Macs arent proprietary, bullshit, so similar to microsoft windows. Where is the source code to quartz? How much did Mac OS X cost you? Maybe the truth of the matter is that your insecurities about mac os make you trash talk linux so much.
-
Believe me, it will be widely used once it has stabilized... it's kinda beta now. Also my current laptop has a Savage 8MB video card, so alpha blending would probably be horribly slow on it. When I get back home I may test it on my athlon system with a geforce 4.
-
<sarcasm>I can see why Linux isn't ready for the desktop in some peoples eyes.
In order to over take M$ and apple. It would first need to crash ALL THE TIME!!!!
Have virii and trojens up the wazooo!!!!
Not be able to change the UI to the way you like it!!!!
And Oh, have poor security! </sarcasm>
To bad Linux has non of these traits eh?
Oh wait, so thats why linux is better than any desktop OS!!!
[ November 18, 2003: Message edited by: -=Solaris.M.K.A=- ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by -=Solaris.M.K.A=-:
<sarcasm>I can see why Linux isn't ready for the desktop in some peoples eyes.
In order to over take M$ and apple. It would first need to crash ALL THE TIME!!!!
Have virii and trojens up the wazooo!!!!
Not be able to change the UI to the way you like it!!!!
And Oh, have poor security! </sarcasm>
To bad Linux has non of these traits eh?
Oh wait, so thats why linux is better than any desktop OS!!!
[ November 18, 2003: Message edited by: -=Solaris.M.K.A=- ]
And these problems affect Apple how?
OSX still trumps linux in the user-friendly area, while providing all the security and custimizability.
-
Mac OS X running X11 (for Jimmy (http://tongue.gif) ):
(http://a1840.g.akamai.net/7/1840/51/682bbd9dd454d5/www.apple.com/macosx/features/x11/images/x1110102003.jpg)
quote:
cant change screen resolutions without restarting x. Windows lets me. OSX lets me
No they don't. They do an auto-reset for the UI.
You can configure X11 the same way.
IMO, most of you just fail to understand the X window system.
[ November 18, 2003: Message edited by: insomnia ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by insomnia:
IMO, most of you just fail to understand the X window system
No, most of us don't want to.
Why should I have to have an indepth technical knowledge of a GUI? Shouldn't it just work right outa the box no questions asked?
Maybe that makes me lazy, or dumb, or something. But other GUI's (e.g. Aqua), have no learning curve. Everything is easely configurable.
Mind you, Im not an X11 hater like Jimmy, though it is slow in some distros and redraw could be nicer.
-
quote:
Originally posted by ThePreacher:
Nothing you say can convince me that X11 is trash. In fact nothing you say will convince me that Macs arent proprietary, bullshit, so similar to microsoft windows. Where is the source code to quartz? How much did Mac OS X cost you? Maybe the truth of the matter is that your insecurities about mac os make you trash talk linux so much.
lol. thats funny.
As much as i love open source and free software, i am not that concerned with apple being proprietary. They are taking steps to embrace the open source community, but are still a business. they have to make some money to stay afloat. You cant expect them to just open up everything and retire. Drop what they have spent decades building, all to satisfy some linux geeks?? please. maybe its the other way around here dude. You are so insecure about your linux, that you have to bash osx because they did what linux couldnt. made *nix easy, and look good, and still retain all the stability and power that *nix is known for.
quote:
Originally posted by insomnia:
No they don't. They do an auto-reset for the UI.
You can configure X11 the same way.
IMO, most of you just fail to understand the X window system.
[ November 18, 2003: Message edited by: insomnia ]
So much for user freindliness. Who wants to manually restart x11? Why should i have to? I shouldnt have to "understand" x11. I should be able to just use it, without some deep knowledge of its source, or why it does what it does. The point of user freindliness is that I can just use it without being a master, you know, like what osx and windows do. I dont have to configure quartz to read my mouse, or have to kill it and restart it when i want to change something. Until Linux is ready for the average "idiot" user, it will never take over the desktop. I dont care how much "better" it is than anything else. In fact, noone does. at least, not enough people to actually matter. Mom and dad sure arent going to switch to a linux distro because it is superior to windows, all they want is something that they dont have to deal with. Get online, type some emails. And not worry about shit. They could probably do this now, but they cant have their aol, or msn, or have the kodak photo software installed that they are so familiar with. My roommate sure as hell wont switch. She tried openoffice & staroffice, and both failed. she didnt like them. She even used them for a month to do her homework. So, no ms office on linux, no switching for her. I think that would apply to alot of people.
The only people i know who use linux as an everyday os, are actually quite intelligent, and like to get their hands dirty, so to speak. They know computers. I dont. Id rather not deal with it you know. As long as i can get my work done with little to no hassle, then im set. Linux does not let me do this. Sorry to say that.
-
Linux has a lot of problems, that is certainly true.
However, how long will it be before it catches up to the proprietary operating systems? I believe Linux is the "internet" operating system; that is, it is a standard that everyone (well, almost everyone) is beginning to rally around, even if they sometimes drag their feet in the process. (see Sun)
I really believe that, given the immensely rapid development pace and adoption of Linux, (China's recent deal with Sun, Brazil's adoption of Linux, big companies and governments in Asia committing themselves to improving Linux to where it can be used by its citizens as a general-purpose operating system) it is only a matter of time - 20 years max I say - before Linux and other free operating systems like *BSD which share a lot of programs (desktop environments, etc) will be the only relevent OSs in existance.
That doesn't mean there will be no proprietary software - it just means the death of purely proprietary operating systems. Meaning MS Windows will be dead, but OS X will likely still be alive because the core of OS X is open source.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
Linux has a lot of problems, that is certainly true.
However, how long will it be before it catches up to the proprietary operating systems? I believe Linux is the "internet" operating system; that is, it is a standard that everyone (well, almost everyone) is beginning to rally around, even if they sometimes drag their feet in the process. (see Sun)
I really believe that, given the immensely rapid development pace and adoption of Linux, (China's recent deal with Sun, Brazil's adoption of Linux, big companies and governments in Asia committing themselves to improving Linux to where it can be used by its citizens as a general-purpose operating system) it is only a matter of time - 20 years max I say - before Linux and other free operating systems like *BSD which share a lot of programs (desktop environments, etc) will be the only relevent OSs in existance.
That doesn't mean there will be no proprietary software - it just means the death of purely proprietary operating systems. Meaning MS Windows will be dead, but OS X will likely still be alive because the core of OS X is open source.
I agree completely. 100%. I just do not think that the time is right for Linux to take over on the desktop. Maybe in 20 years i can ditch osx ;)
-
20 years!
No way, sooner. Id say, maybe 5 years tops. Not for a total takeover, but certainly for total user-friendliness.
Im soooooo loving Slackware 9.1 it's disgusting :D
My g/f is getting jeulous.
-
I agree that linux will be right for the average person in 5 years, for sure. But 20 years may be how long it takes for MS to go completely out of the OS business (they have 50 billion in revenue or something)
-
(http://ecsyle.com/jimmy/media/turdburglarx11.jpg)
ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAH!! I feel you, brotha', I feel you.
-
How is Linux not ready?
Linux can use M$ office. It can load kodak picturs with ease. It has MSN/AOL/IRC and even a few other chat clients.
Its stable, its secure and VERY easy to use. No constant tinkering or reinstalling.
Yes, It may be different than OSX in the way it handles things but as far as the Windows vs Linux goes.
Linux has already killed it.
For the record. My wife and my parents use Linux and they are total computer illitrate people. There just people who want to get their work done and not worry about another BSOD or virii attack.
Linux deliveres this where as windows just does not!
-
quote:
Originally posted by -=Solaris.M.K.A=-:
How is Linux not ready?
Linux can use M$ office. It can load kodak picturs with ease. It has MSN/AOL/IRC and even a few other chat clients.
Its stable, its secure and VERY easy to use. No constant tinkering or reinstalling.
Yes, It may be different than OSX in the way it handles things but as far as the Windows vs Linux goes.
Linux has already killed it.
For the record. My wife and my parents use Linux and they are total computer illitrate people. There just people who want to get their work done and not worry about another BSOD or virii attack.
Linux deliveres this where as windows just does not!
Oh, quit foolin yourself (http://smile.gif)
I use linux every day, and it has a huge learning curve.
Sure, if you got it all configured, it will be rather easy for someone to use. But try and get your wife to solve dependencey issues by herself, perhapse compile from source, and you got a different story.
It is better than windows, but not esier, and it has no Photoshop :(
Sorry, but the GIMP suxors.... and ya, we have argued that up and down a million times.
I'm typeing from Slackware 9.1, the best distro ever!!! :D
-
The Gimp isn't as advanced as Photoshop, but Codeweavers Crossover office fixes that
allows you to use Macromedia, Adobe, and MS office natively well almost natively on Linux
Crossover Office is basically a front end to a tweaked version of wine, but it actually works, and is SOOOO easy to use, a friend of mine bought it to use MS Office in Linux for work projects
all you do is open CXOffice setup, click "install from" and find your .exe in a filesystem explorer (just like explorer infact) click it and then install it exactly the same way you would in Windows.
ITS REALLY EASY (http://tongue.gif)
as for building from source being hard
if you can spell the words configure, make and install, you've basically got it figured out!
-
As opposed to using them natively on the Mac OS? Just use a Mac, problem solved, much simpler. No need to encourage Microsoft by buying software running on Windows platforms.
-
quote:
Originally posted by suselinux:
ITS REALLY EASY (http://tongue.gif)
as for building from source being hard
if you can spell the words configure, make and install, you've basically got it figured out!
Ok, heres a good one then....
You install your linux distro, but during the configure process you set your resolution out of scan range by accident.
Now, what does a compleat computer newb do when his screen boots up blank?
Here is another one:
In other OS's I double click and install. If your a newb, you need to boot up a terminal (learn a few comands)
cd to your directory
ls-1 to see whats in it
su to root
./configure
make install
install
Now, these archaic commands are a far cry from double click and done. Also, what happens if durink the make process, the Terminal starts scrolling by a huge list of errors due to dependancy issues etc.
Another OS will never have these issues. "But Psyjax! RPM's show nice dialogue boxes explaining what you need!", yes, so now I have a dialogue box telling me I have 10 crypticaly named librarys I need to scour the net for and install. And a common user should know this, or have to deal with this because?
Not to mention poor modem users.
Then their application is finally instaled via RPM. Phew! Let me go use it.... where is it???
Now other OS's put it where you want it, or an Applications folder, and maybe even provide a nifty little icon. In linux, more often than not however, the user has to venture behind /Home/user
to the dreaded 3 letter hell!
Hmmm... is it in /etc, etc/var... no not there. Hmmm likely in the /usr directory... hmmm is it /usr/local or usr/bin ... hmmm
Ahhh!! it must be in her- What the!!! Jezus fucking christ! There have got to be like 8000 porgrams in this folder! And suddenly it occurs to you.... "WHAT THE HELL IS THE BINDARY NAMED!!!!"
Ok.... so, it's taken me quite a bit to learn the ins and outs, and get used to the systems structure. But how on earth, could I sit my grandma down infront of this machine and say: "Use it, you can figure it out!"
-
I couldn't figure out how to fucking download the damned thing!
-
Easy to compile?
root@localhost# configure /home/laukev7/xcheapcloneofsomepopulargame
blah blah blah
error: liballegro 1.2.1 detected. Needs liballegro 1.2.2. Stop.
root@localhost# configure /home/laukev7/liballegro
error: depends on someotherlibrary 2.3.4. Stop.
root@localhost# configure /home/laukev7/someotherapp
blahblahblah again
error: depends on allegro 1.2.2. Stop.
...
root@localhost# configure && make /home/laukev7/xgamethatdoesnotdependonallegro
blah -o gnustuff /blah/blah/ copy -mess /usr/stuff
blah blah blah
error 1 could not link blahblahblah
exits directory /blah/blah/blah
error 2
error
root@localhost# /home/laukev7/xsomeotherappthatisalmostasbuggyasthelastonebutstillallowsyoutocompileit
segmentation fault
[ November 18, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
psyjax wins.
close this thread ;)
-
Ahem, Ecsyle: http://forum.microsuck.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=000054 (http://forum.microsuck.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=000054)
-
well this is a bootscootin' good 'ol time, ain't it?
Linux has to put aside its reliance on UNIX conventions to achieve great amounts of success in taking over the desktop!
nobody gives a rat's ass about being able to compile. if it doesn't work, then it's "crappy" and "doesn't work"
people think this way. linux has to change so that everything works right every time. people don't need to be made to change to think "oh, I need to recompile the thing"
how arrogant
btw, I've changed my mind about X11...
(http://ecsyle.com/jimmy/media/xplanex11.jpg)
The X-11 was badass. The Titan missile was developed from this X-Plane.
-
quote:
Originally posted by xeen:
Ahem, Ecsyle: http://forum.microsuck.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=000054 (http://forum.microsuck.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=000054)
Ahem. Taken care of.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Ecsyle:
So much for user freindliness. Who wants to manually restart x11? Why should i have to? I shouldnt have to "understand" x11. I should be able to just use it, without some deep knowledge of its source, or why it does what it does. The point of user freindliness is that I can just use it without being a master, you know, like what osx and windows do. I dont have to configure quartz to read my mouse, or have to kill it and restart it when i want to change something. Until Linux is ready for the average "idiot" user, it will never take over the desktop. I dont care how much "better" it is than anything else. In fact, noone does. at least, not enough people to actually matter. Mom and dad sure arent going to switch to a linux distro because it is superior to windows, all they want is something that they dont have to deal with. Get online, type some emails. And not worry about shit. They could probably do this now, but they cant have their aol, or msn, or have the kodak photo software installed that they are so familiar with. My roommate sure as hell wont switch. She tried openoffice & staroffice, and both failed. she didnt like them. She even used them for a month to do her homework. So, no ms office on linux, no switching for her. I think that would apply to alot of people.
The only people i know who use linux as an everyday os, are actually quite intelligent, and like to get their hands dirty, so to speak. They know computers. I dont. Id rather not deal with it you know. As long as i can get my work done with little to no hassle, then im set. Linux does not let me do this. Sorry to say that.
My mom doesnt give a damn about macs. She knows nothing about macs other than, they are expensive, they dont have as many easy to find applications as Windows, and they are slower than PC's. This info might be true or false, however, that is the public image that macs have. After all linux users arent the ones who create anti-mac sites.
As for no MS Office on linux, try CrossOver office. As for aol use lindows. I think its funny people run at the mouth about what linux cant do without knowing the facts. Thats why Im here, not because Im insecure about linux.
-
quote:
Originally posted by ThePreacher:
My mom doesnt give a damn about macs. She knows nothing about macs other than, they are expensive, they dont have as many easy to find applications as Windows, and they are slower than PC's. This info might be true or false, however, that is the public image that macs have. After all linux users arent the ones who create anti-mac sites.
That's not my momma! And my mom is better than your mom (http://tongue.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by ThePreacher:
My mom doesnt give a damn about macs. She knows nothing about macs other than, they are expensive, they dont have as many easy to find applications as Windows, and they are slower than PC's. This info might be true or false, however, that is the public image that macs have. After all linux users arent the ones who create anti-mac sites.
As for no MS Office on linux, try CrossOver office. As for aol use lindows. I think its funny people run at the mouth about what linux cant do without knowing the facts. Thats why Im here, not because Im insecure about linux.
Crossover office will only discourage vendors from actaully writing native software for linux.
-
quote:
My mom doesnt give a damn about macs. She knows nothing about macs other than, they are expensive, they dont have as many easy to find applications as Windows, and they are slower than PC's. This info might be true or false, however, that is the public image that macs have. After all linux users arent the ones who create anti-mac sites.
that's too bad for your mom. as for the public image... that's because the public is stupid.
sorry, but it's the truth. I don't put stock in what "the public" thinks because I know I'm smarter. I'm one of those guys who is referred to as an "intellectual elitist". I'm a proud owner of a near-super genius IQ (avg 2 pts away on four different IQ tests) who's been offered membership into MENSA several times.
If this perhaps explains why I'm such a dickhead, then good. You now understand me.
so, back to the subject at hand. I really am glad that most of the world uses Windows. they don't deserve a good computer. I wouldn't want these idiots who can't figure shit out even when Windows holds their hand to try to use something real and good.
I'm happy that for the majority of people, computers are scary and intimidating. it makes me look all the better when I come in and easily fix their problems, or tell them how simple it is to do something they thought was long and difficult.
maybe Linux is ready for the desktop... that way I can conveniently fix peoples' problems with it when they happen and look like TEH MEGA SUPER MASTARBLASTAR COMPUTAR WIZZARDE!!!!!111lolololololololollllolloolo
GODDAMN DO I ROCK
-
Originally posted by jimmy james:
I'm a proud owner of a near-super genius IQ (avg 2 pts away on four different IQ tests) who's been offered membership into MENSA several times.
Wow me too, we have so much in common!
-
quote:
Originally posted by suselinux:
Originally posted by jimmy james:
I'm a proud owner of a near-super genius IQ (avg 2 pts away on four different IQ tests) who's been offered membership into MENSA several times.
Wow me too, we have so much in common![/b]
Yes, well. I'm a nobel loriet! So shame on you both! HAHAHHAHA!
-
quote:
Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
I agree that linux will be right for the average person in 5 years, for sure. But 20 years may be how long it takes for MS to go completely out of the OS business (they have 50 billion in revenue or something)
If anyone doesnt believe linux can be #1 in 5 years, I invite them to look at linux distros from 1998 and compare them with current distros. The difference is night and day.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Ecsyle:
Crossover office will only discourage vendors from actaully writing native software for linux.
This is true, however you and I both know that microsoft will NEVER write a version of Office for linux, so that is an irrelavent comment.
-
quote:
Originally posted by ThePreacher:
This is true, however you and I both know that microsoft will NEVER write a version of Office for linux, so that is an irrelavent comment.
If linux takes the desktop in the next 5-10 years, then yes, i do think ms will write office for linux. They will have to in order to remain a player in the field.
-
quote:
Originally posted by The Merciless Darth Jimmy James:
man, this place is a shitty joke. I'm sick with coming to this place where there's no interesting discussion.
fuck off then.
no offence intended, but you know, thereare internet forums for just about everything. if one doesn't suit you, there are others. erudition perhaps? promote-opensource.org perhaps? etcetera.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum:
fuck off then.
no offence intended, but you know, thereare internet forums for just about everything. if one doesn't suit you, there are others. erudition perhaps? promote-opensource.org perhaps? etcetera.
I'm glad he's here to tell us this! I had no idea there are other forums! :eek:
-
my lazor is better than your lazor
-
quote:
Originally posted by evil fucking bastard jimmy james:
my lazor is better than your lazor
what's a lazor?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Stryker:
what's a lazor?
a lazor is what a laser should have been. kickas.
-
How about '1450R'?
-
I call it a (lay)----(zor)
(http://www.nrk.no/img/205404.jpeg)
-
quote:
Originally posted by psyjax: plain 'ol psyjax:
Oh, quit foolin yourself (http://smile.gif)
I use linux every day, and it has a huge learning curve.
Sure, if you got it all configured, it will be rather easy for someone to use. But try and get your wife to solve dependencey issues by herself, perhapse compile from source, and you got a different story.
It is better than windows, but not esier, and it has no Photoshop :(
Sorry, but the GIMP suxors.... and ya, we have argued that up and down a million times.
I'm typeing from Slackware 9.1, the best distro ever!!! :D
Well your on slackware. That distro was made for geeks.
My parents, sister and my wife use linux and guess what?
No dependency problems!
If it was RH 6 or 7 or back in the day i could of at least seen your point. But it is not and even then there were still distros that got the job done like caldera.
There IS no learning curve. If you have to figure out all the problems on windows then linux is DEAD EASY!
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Calum:
fuck off then.
no offence intended, but you know, thereare internet forums for just about everything. if one doesn't suit you, there are others. erudition perhaps? promote-opensource.org perhaps? etcetera.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm glad he's here to tell us this! I had no idea there are other forums!
--------------------
LOL, Hey this place is Cool,
hackers.com is the place that really sucks, those losers could'nt hack their way out of a used rubber!
(http://tongue.gif)
-
This Christmas the MES has been reborn. Cleaning up the place is in progress.
1 vote for bin!
-
quote:
Originally posted by Ecsyle:
If linux takes the desktop in the next 5-10 years, then yes, i do think ms will write office for linux. They will have to in order to remain a player in the field.
If they create a version of any of their products for linux, it could seriously impact sales of their other products, such as their OS. Thats why MS will never make a version of Office for linux. Then people might think that linux is actually a viable alternative.
-
1 vote for xeen to fuck off and die