Microsoft 96.97%, Linux 0.36%

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Ron Martell, Aug 29, 2006.

  1. Ron Martell

    Ron Martell Guest

    Ron Martell, Aug 29, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ron Martell

    SgtMinor Guest

    Ron Martell wrote:
    > http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Owns-96-97-of-Global-OS-Market-33363.shtml
    >
    > Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada


    If true, this is very depressing news. I don't know of a single
    instance where mankind was well served by a monopoly. To think
    that this monopoly is represented by such a rapacious enterprise
    as Microsoft is particularly troubling.

    The article, and possibly the research behind it, is suspect to me
    because it twice used the term "Microsoft solution." For many
    users, especially those who have watched IT grow, those two words
    together represent an oxymoron.
    SgtMinor, Aug 29, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ron Martell

    Respondant Guest

    SgtMinor wrote:

    > Ron Martell wrote:
    >> http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Owns-96-97-of-Global-OS-Market-33363.shtml
    >>
    >> Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada

    >
    > If true, this is very depressing news. I don't know of a single
    > instance where mankind was well served by a monopoly.


    BZZZZZT! How's it a 'monopoly' when you have other choices available to
    you, some of which are free?

    Nobody forced you to buy a PC. You could have just as easily purchased a
    Mac.

    And nobody IS forcing you to run a Microsoft OS on your PC, if that's the
    platform you opted for.

    <more monopoly stuff snipped>
    Respondant, Aug 29, 2006
    #3
  4. David Matthew Wood, Aug 29, 2006
    #4
  5. In article <>,
    "Respondant" <> wrote:

    > SgtMinor wrote:
    >
    > > Ron Martell wrote:
    > >> http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Owns-96-97-of-Global-OS-Market-333
    > >> 63.shtml
    > >>
    > >> Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada

    > >
    > > If true, this is very depressing news. I don't know of a single
    > > instance where mankind was well served by a monopoly.

    >
    > BZZZZZT! How's it a 'monopoly' when you have other choices available to
    > you, some of which are free?
    >
    > Nobody forced you to buy a PC. You could have just as easily purchased a
    > Mac.
    >
    > And nobody IS forcing you to run a Microsoft OS on your PC, if that's the
    > platform you opted for.
    >
    > <more monopoly stuff snipped>


    Umm.. no, actually Microsoft has been trying to force this many times.
    Can we say Java (which thank GOD they lost)? Can we say Internet
    Explorer or sites that only work with Internet Explorer running in
    Windows, when HTML is by definition supposed to be completely 100%
    compatible and cross platform? Can we say Active X? Can we say......
    my Verizon Wireless Samsung SCH-a950 cell phone which I had to "hack"
    (although I wouldn't call it hacking, but it is something that involved
    voiding the warranty) so that I could re-enable the mp3 player on it and
    use that, instead of having to convert all my already lossey mp3s to
    close ended Windows Media Audio format - which by the way, would have
    involved building a machine to put Windows XP and WMP 10 on it if I
    wanted to do it the "official" way? And what about content that will
    only play in the latest version of Windows Media Player - which by the
    way, will only run in Windows?

    Yeah...No monopoly there.
    David Matthew Wood, Aug 29, 2006
    #5
  6. This message was posted on Usenet, NOT JLAforums, & on Tue, 29 Aug 2006
    13:02:38 -0400, SgtMinor wrote:

    > Ron Martell wrote:
    >> http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Owns-96-97-of-Global-OS-Market-33363.shtml
    >>
    >> Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada

    >
    > If true, this is very depressing news. I don't know of a single instance
    > where mankind was well served by a monopoly. To think that this monopoly
    > is represented by such a rapacious enterprise as Microsoft is particularly
    > troubling.


    IF linux is only 0.36%, then how come MS's Ballmer called it the Number
    One Threat to MS? That was *linux*, & NOT Macintosh (which that sight says
    was fourth with 2.32%). Just *how* do you count an OS which (unlike Macs
    & MS OS's) you can install on as many machines as you like from only *one*
    copy, with *no* licence restrictions to worry about.
    With the MS "one licence per machine", at least you could get a rough
    idea of how many machines there are

    > The article, and possibly the research behind it, is suspect to me because
    > it twice used the term "Microsoft solution." For many users, especially
    > those who have watched IT grow, those two words together represent an
    > oxymoron.


    Indeed so. Wanna bet the "research" was funded by Redmond, & wasn't an
    independent one?

    Someone (in another group a while ago) said something similar about some
    website who's counter showed MS hit at 98% & linux at 0.01%. Rubbish, of
    course. Google gave up their webcounter ages ago, saying they couldn't get
    accurate figures.
    A *big* factor many people forget is, that people may own multiple
    computers per household, and those computers may be running GNU/Linux too.
    No matter how many machines there are running GNU/linux, they will *only*
    count for one in the statistics, as they typically only have one public IP
    address - which is the one of the LAN, server or the router. Mine are
    behind a router, but only the *one* IP will show. I know of at least 6 or
    7 households with between 3 & 4 machines running linux, but again only
    *one* IP will show.
    So all you get to see when you try to compile your statistics, is *one*
    public IP address. Behind it could be dozens of GNU/linux machines.

    Another thing too, some windoze users try pointing to
    http://counter.li.org/ to show how many linux machines there are, but
    that doesn't work either, because not all machines are registered (it's
    not compulsory). I have one that isn't, & know of at least half a dozen
    more in this area which aren't.

    --
    Linux is not a desktop OS for people
    whose VCRs are still flashing "12:00".
    That eliminates a lot of windows users.
    William Poaster, Aug 29, 2006
    #6
  7. Ron Martell

    Leythos Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > In article <>,
    > Ron Martell <> wrote:
    >
    > > http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Owns-96-97-of-Global-OS-Market-33363.
    > > shtml
    > >
    > > Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada

    >
    > I'd love to know where they got those figures. If that were actually
    > true, the whole interweb would be constantly going down!


    Not true at all, there are a LOT of very stable Windows based web
    servers running. I know a lot of Fortune 500 businesses that use ASP
    still and many that have moved to ASP.Net. We have one client with an
    ASP.Net server that has not been rebooted in more than a year, and
    another with a web cluster that has (from the web) been online for 4
    years without any public loss of service.

    It's all about knowing how to code, spec hardware, and knowing the OS
    well enough to build something stable, regardless of the platform.

    --


    remove 999 in order to email me
    Leythos, Aug 29, 2006
    #7
  8. Ron Martell

    Leythos Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > Umm.. no, actually Microsoft has been trying to force this many times.
    > Can we say Java (which thank GOD they lost)? Can we say Internet
    > Explorer or sites that only work with Internet Explorer running in
    > Windows, when HTML is by definition supposed to be completely 100%
    > compatible and cross platform?


    Microsoft has no more of a Monopoly than GM or Ford.

    Pages that don't work by W3C standards are not a fault of Microsoft,
    they are a fault of coders that are to lame to do it right, companies
    that don't want to pay for full development and testing.

    In the old days we used CPM and Unix, still use Unix today. Now we have
    a good choice of the following:

    Apple MAC OS/x
    Linux (pick any of 8 popular distros)
    Unix (pick any of several popular versions)
    Windows XP and Server

    I run both Fedora Core 5 and Windows XP on our workstations/laptops. I
    run only MS Servers for web/email. It's a choice I made for our company.

    I could easily moved to all Linux, as Linux supports running MS Office
    XP with CrossOver, the only challenge would be getting a couple spare
    servers to do the migration so that we would have no down-time during
    the migration.

    If you really think that MS has a monopoly then you've not really looked
    at the other platforms.

    --


    remove 999 in order to email me
    Leythos, Aug 29, 2006
    #8
  9. This message was posted on Usenet, NOT JLAforums, & on Tue, 29 Aug 2006
    13:21:56 -0400, Respondant wrote:

    > SgtMinor wrote:
    >
    >> Ron Martell wrote:
    >>> http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Owns-96-97-of-Global-OS-Market-33363.shtml
    >>>
    >>> Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada

    >>
    >> If true, this is very depressing news. I don't know of a single
    >> instance where mankind was well served by a monopoly.

    >
    > BZZZZZT! How's it a 'monopoly' when you have other choices available to
    > you, some of which are free?
    >
    > Nobody forced you to buy a PC. You could have just as easily purchased a
    > Mac.
    >
    > And nobody IS forcing you to run a Microsoft OS on your PC, if that's the
    > platform you opted for.


    Try buying a computer in a store *without* Windows installed. Quite
    often the store assistants don't even *know* there are other OSs. MS gives
    discounts to OEMs for installing windows, & even warned them that *if*
    they install *any other OS* MS would withdraw the discount & the OEM would
    pay full price. A threat, blackmail? Whatever it was, it stopped OEMs from
    installing other OSs on their products. Hence why Joe Public buys a store
    computer, & has *no* idea there are alternatives.

    --
    Linux is not a desktop OS for people
    whose VCRs are still flashing "12:00".
    That eliminates a lot of wintrolls then.
    William Poaster, Aug 29, 2006
    #9
  10. Leythos wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    >> Umm.. no, actually Microsoft has been trying to force this many times.
    >> Can we say Java (which thank GOD they lost)? Can we say Internet
    >> Explorer or sites that only work with Internet Explorer running in
    >> Windows, when HTML is by definition supposed to be completely 100%
    >> compatible and cross platform?

    >
    > Microsoft has no more of a Monopoly than GM or Ford.


    Right. Both GM and Ford have 97 percent of the auto market.


    --
    Blinky RLU 297263
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    Blinky the Shark, Aug 29, 2006
    #10
  11. Ron Martell

    Leythos Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > This message was posted on Usenet, NOT JLAforums, & on Tue, 29 Aug 2006
    > 13:21:56 -0400, Respondant wrote:
    >
    > > SgtMinor wrote:
    > >
    > >> Ron Martell wrote:
    > >>> http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Owns-96-97-of-Global-OS-Market-33363.shtml
    > >>>
    > >>> Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
    > >>
    > >> If true, this is very depressing news. I don't know of a single
    > >> instance where mankind was well served by a monopoly.

    > >
    > > BZZZZZT! How's it a 'monopoly' when you have other choices available to
    > > you, some of which are free?
    > >
    > > Nobody forced you to buy a PC. You could have just as easily purchased a
    > > Mac.
    > >
    > > And nobody IS forcing you to run a Microsoft OS on your PC, if that's the
    > > platform you opted for.

    >
    > Try buying a computer in a store *without* Windows installed. Quite
    > often the store assistants don't even *know* there are other OSs. MS gives
    > discounts to OEMs for installing windows, & even warned them that *if*
    > they install *any other OS* MS would withdraw the discount & the OEM would
    > pay full price. A threat, blackmail? Whatever it was, it stopped OEMs from
    > installing other OSs on their products. Hence why Joe Public buys a store
    > computer, & has *no* idea there are alternatives.


    Everyone has a choice, and big box stores are not the only place to buy
    computers. It's a choice, like all others.

    As for the OEM's, they had a choice in those days (and this has not
    happened for more than a Decade) and many didn't follow the directions
    of MS, I know, I lived through those days and we still provided non-MS
    products for servers and other computer systems too (Commodore,
    Apple)...

    Joe public remains blissfully ignorant by choice, all around him is
    information on computers, security, internet, operating systems, but, he
    remains ignorant by choice. Joe Public wants to take the easy path, not
    be in a position to have to learn anything about their purchase of a
    $1500 computer system.... You can bet that if they were to spend $1500
    on a new TV that they would research the different products available or
    if they spent $1500 on a new home theater system that they would
    research it first...

    Joe public has only to walk into the many mom-pop computer stores in
    their city and ask, or get on the web and look around, or ask many kids,
    or they can just remain ignorant and keep supporting the MYTH that MS
    has a monopoly.

    --


    remove 999 in order to email me
    Leythos, Aug 29, 2006
    #11
  12. Ron Martell

    Ron Martell Guest

    William Poaster <> wrote:


    >Try buying a computer in a store *without* Windows installed. Quite
    >often the store assistants don't even *know* there are other OSs. MS gives
    >discounts to OEMs for installing windows, & even warned them that *if*
    >they install *any other OS* MS would withdraw the discount & the OEM would
    >pay full price. A threat, blackmail? Whatever it was, it stopped OEMs from
    >installing other OSs on their products. Hence why Joe Public buys a store
    >computer, & has *no* idea there are alternatives.


    Several major computer manufacturers have offered models with Linux
    instead of Windows. Almost all (or maybe even all) of these models
    have been discontinued due to lack of sales.

    Most small OEMs and custom builders (including me) will sell you a
    computer with no preinstalled operating system. Many people have
    volume licenses or the "value pack" and don't need to pay for an extra
    license for Windows.

    Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
    --
    Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
    On-Line Help Computer Service
    http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
    Syberfix Remote Computer Repair

    "Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
    has never been in bed with a mosquito."
    Ron Martell, Aug 29, 2006
    #12
  13. Ron Martell

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2006-08-29, SgtMinor <> wrote:
    > Ron Martell wrote:
    >> http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Owns-96-97-of-Global-OS-Market-33363.shtml
    >>
    >> Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada

    >
    > If true, this is very depressing news. I don't know of a single
    > instance where mankind was well served by a monopoly. To think
    > that this monopoly is represented by such a rapacious enterprise
    > as Microsoft is particularly troubling.
    >
    > The article, and possibly the research behind it, is suspect to me
    > because it twice used the term "Microsoft solution." For many
    > users, especially those who have watched IT grow, those two words
    > together represent an oxymoron.


    I can't find the actual press release, but from OneStat.com's web site it
    looks as though the statistics are based not on the number of operating
    systems in use, but rather on the operating systems reported to web sites
    by visiting browsers.

    There is no indication of which web sites, beyond the "estimated 50,000
    subscribers" (presumably meaning users of OneStat's services) or how often
    each visitor at each site was counted, or how many of those sites are the
    sort that only work if the browser successfully spoofs itself as Internet
    Explorer.

    So what we have is a count of an unknown number of visits to an unknown
    selection of websites during an unknown period by an unknown number of
    people, split into percentages based on the declared operating system of
    those visits which made such declaration. That is to say, no firm
    conclusions can be drawn other than that ScanSoft (and possibly SoftPedia)
    wanted some free publicity. Well done them; I hadn't heard of either of
    them till now.

    I don't think anyone doubts that 'some sort of Windows' is by far the most
    common operating system in use on 'consumer' home computers; those are not
    'Microsoft solutions' any more than they are 'problems created by
    Microsoft', because close to 100% of home users don't know they could use
    anything else, and most of those who do either don't care or are afraid to
    try - and they aren't given the choice in the shop anyway. That is an
    indication of the success of Microsoft's (much despised and sometimes
    apparently illegal) marketing methods to computer makers, not an indication
    of any merit their operating systems might have.

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
    Whiskers, Aug 29, 2006
    #13
  14. In article <bY%Ig.79051$>,
    Leythos <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > says...
    > > Umm.. no, actually Microsoft has been trying to force this many times.
    > > Can we say Java (which thank GOD they lost)? Can we say Internet
    > > Explorer or sites that only work with Internet Explorer running in
    > > Windows, when HTML is by definition supposed to be completely 100%
    > > compatible and cross platform?

    >
    > Microsoft has no more of a Monopoly than GM or Ford.


    There are things that Microsoft has attempted to go to great lengths to
    prevent certain functionality is only available on a PC running Windows.

    > Pages that don't work by W3C standards are not a fault of Microsoft,
    > they are a fault of coders that are to lame to do it right, companies
    > that don't want to pay for full development and testing.


    Again.. Active X? There are quite a few sites I have gone to where I
    would instantly get a dialog box saying "sorry, not win32 compatible".

    >
    > In the old days we used CPM and Unix, still use Unix today. Now we have
    > a good choice of the following:
    >
    > Apple MAC OS/x


    Some content on the web will not work here, because it's encoded in
    Windows Media 10 using a codec that is only available in Windows Media
    Player 10 - which is only available in Windows.

    > Linux (pick any of 8 popular distros)


    See Apple Mac OS/x

    > Unix (pick any of several popular versions)


    Again.. see my reply to Apple Mac OS/x.

    > Windows XP and Server
    >
    > I run both Fedora Core 5 and Windows XP on our workstations/laptops. I
    > run only MS Servers for web/email. It's a choice I made for our company.
    >
    > I could easily moved to all Linux, as Linux supports running MS Office
    > XP with CrossOver, the only challenge would be getting a couple spare
    > servers to do the migration so that we would have no down-time during
    > the migration.
    >
    > If you really think that MS has a monopoly then you've not really looked
    > at the other platforms.


    I'm running one of those platforms right now. And on my video drive
    exists content that can only be played back in Windows, using Windows
    Media Player 10. Of course once I watch this, it will get deleted.

    Thanks for deleting what I had to say about mp3 vs wma..
    David Matthew Wood, Aug 29, 2006
    #14
  15. Ron Martell wrote:

    > http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Owns-96-97-of-Global-OS-Market-33363.shtml


    One item I can't seem to find on that page is a description of exactly
    how these stats were gathered. I also looked at onestat.com and there is
    nothing apparent there either.

    Since it probably some sort of 'counter' stats of page visits, this is
    important. Do they use the UA string from the browser? If so, this is
    easily skewed, and most probably by users of other than straight
    Microsoft software.

    <checks browser UA> Ah, yes, currently set to reflect Windows XP, IE6
    because the last site I visited would not work with my standard browser
    of choice. I would also guess that UA spoofing is a lot more prevalent
    with Linux (or even Mac) users.

    Calls ISP: "Hello, do you support Linux?"
    ISP: "No, we only support Outlook Express."

    And I suppose you have to be connected to the intarweb to get counted.

    So much for statistics.

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck.
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Aug 29, 2006
    #15
  16. In article <nS%Ig.79049$>,
    Leythos <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > says...
    > > In article <>,
    > > Ron Martell <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Owns-96-97-of-Global-OS-Market-33
    > > > 363.
    > > > shtml
    > > >
    > > > Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada

    > >
    > > I'd love to know where they got those figures. If that were actually
    > > true, the whole interweb would be constantly going down!

    >
    > Not true at all, there are a LOT of very stable Windows based web
    > servers running. I know a lot of Fortune 500 businesses that use ASP
    > still and many that have moved to ASP.Net. We have one client with an
    > ASP.Net server that has not been rebooted in more than a year, and
    > another with a web cluster that has (from the web) been online for 4
    > years without any public loss of service.
    >
    > It's all about knowing how to code, spec hardware, and knowing the OS
    > well enough to build something stable, regardless of the platform.


    ..... which Microsoft does not. How many security patches do they
    release every WEEK, in order to cover their asses for poorly written
    software? One of the stupidest ones I recently saw involved the print
    spooler. Why would anyone even give so much power to a print spooler,
    allowing it to be used to allow remote code execution? It's a friggen
    print spooler!

    Then again, Windows is the only so-called operating system I have ever
    heard of, that will execute code found in an mp3 tag..
    David Matthew Wood, Aug 29, 2006
    #16
  17. Ron Martell

    Leythos Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > In article <bY%Ig.79051$>,
    > Leythos <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <>,
    > > says...
    > > > Umm.. no, actually Microsoft has been trying to force this many times.
    > > > Can we say Java (which thank GOD they lost)? Can we say Internet
    > > > Explorer or sites that only work with Internet Explorer running in
    > > > Windows, when HTML is by definition supposed to be completely 100%
    > > > compatible and cross platform?

    > >
    > > Microsoft has no more of a Monopoly than GM or Ford.

    >
    > There are things that Microsoft has attempted to go to great lengths to
    > prevent certain functionality is only available on a PC running Windows.


    And you don't have to design a website or other side around that either.
    I can and we have, designed sites around MS platform that are fully
    compliant with all web standards. Making a broken site, that only works
    with IE is a choice, not a MS mandate.

    > > Pages that don't work by W3C standards are not a fault of Microsoft,
    > > they are a fault of coders that are to lame to do it right, companies
    > > that don't want to pay for full development and testing.

    >
    > Again.. Active X? There are quite a few sites I have gone to where I
    > would instantly get a dialog box saying "sorry, not win32 compatible".


    And again, it's a choice of the coders that designed the site, not
    Microsofts fault for the sloppy coding of the developers. If a site you
    connect to does not work with FireFox or Opera, well, it's the fault of
    the site owner/builder, not MS. You can and many do, operate MS based
    websites that provide standards based interfaces that work with FireFox,
    Opera, Netscape, and IE - we always test our sites with FireFox and IE.

    > > In the old days we used CPM and Unix, still use Unix today. Now we have
    > > a good choice of the following:
    > >
    > > Apple MAC OS/x

    >
    > Some content on the web will not work here, because it's encoded in
    > Windows Media 10 using a codec that is only available in Windows Media
    > Player 10 - which is only available in Windows.


    You don't seem to get it - the encoding of content is a
    designers/developers method, it has nothing to do with Microsoft. A
    person encoding files can use ANY METHOD THEY WANT.

    > > Linux (pick any of 8 popular distros)

    >
    > See Apple Mac OS/x
    >
    > > Unix (pick any of several popular versions)

    >
    > Again.. see my reply to Apple Mac OS/x.
    >
    > > Windows XP and Server
    > >
    > > I run both Fedora Core 5 and Windows XP on our workstations/laptops. I
    > > run only MS Servers for web/email. It's a choice I made for our company.
    > >
    > > I could easily moved to all Linux, as Linux supports running MS Office
    > > XP with CrossOver, the only challenge would be getting a couple spare
    > > servers to do the migration so that we would have no down-time during
    > > the migration.
    > >
    > > If you really think that MS has a monopoly then you've not really looked
    > > at the other platforms.

    >
    > I'm running one of those platforms right now. And on my video drive
    > exists content that can only be played back in Windows, using Windows
    > Media Player 10. Of course once I watch this, it will get deleted.


    And the fact that the content is encoded such that you need media player
    is the fault of the person that encoded it, not a fault of Microsoft.
    I've got lots of videos that can't be shown in Media Player or others,
    because I don't have the proper codec, but I don't blame the OS vendor
    or the player vendor, I blame the moron the encoded the file in a non-
    common or non-standard format.

    > Thanks for deleting what I had to say about mp3 vs wma..


    Thanks for missing the entire point that media is encoded by the USER,
    the USER picks the format, it's not a microsoft conspiracy.

    --


    remove 999 in order to email me
    Leythos, Aug 29, 2006
    #17
  18. Ron Martell

    Leythos Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > In article <nS%Ig.79049$>,
    > Leythos <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <>,
    > > says...
    > > > In article <>,
    > > > Ron Martell <> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Owns-96-97-of-Global-OS-Market-33
    > > > > 363.
    > > > > shtml
    > > > >
    > > > > Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
    > > >
    > > > I'd love to know where they got those figures. If that were actually
    > > > true, the whole interweb would be constantly going down!

    > >
    > > Not true at all, there are a LOT of very stable Windows based web
    > > servers running. I know a lot of Fortune 500 businesses that use ASP
    > > still and many that have moved to ASP.Net. We have one client with an
    > > ASP.Net server that has not been rebooted in more than a year, and
    > > another with a web cluster that has (from the web) been online for 4
    > > years without any public loss of service.
    > >
    > > It's all about knowing how to code, spec hardware, and knowing the OS
    > > well enough to build something stable, regardless of the platform.

    >
    > .... which Microsoft does not. How many security patches do they
    > release every WEEK, in order to cover their asses for poorly written
    > software? One of the stupidest ones I recently saw involved the print
    > spooler. Why would anyone even give so much power to a print spooler,
    > allowing it to be used to allow remote code execution? It's a friggen
    > print spooler!


    Strange, I know several medical centers running Windows 2003 / XP, same
    for Pharmacies, same for my home, same for my business, same for almost
    2000 stations we support for clients.

    We've never had a "Fault" or "Unstable" system in the last few years.
    Yes, we have updates, after we test them in QA, but our servers have
    been rock stable, as have our workstations.

    I had one machine, server, windows 2000, running SQL 7, that had more
    than 3 years of up-time, running in a shipping facility... I have other
    samples like that.

    I have a Exchange 2003 server in a Pharmacy, with 12 fax lines connected
    to it, with 83 users, that has more than a year of up-time...

    You can claim Windows XP and 2000/2003 are not stable, but unless you've
    really used them on properly spec'd hardware you would not have any
    idea.

    My personal workstations, running XP, have not had to be rebuilt in more
    than a year (almost 3 years on the workstation itself). Seems to be rock
    stable.

    > Then again, Windows is the only so-called operating system I have ever
    > heard of, that will execute code found in an mp3 tag..


    Which has nothing to do with this thread.

    --


    remove 999 in order to email me
    Leythos, Aug 29, 2006
    #18
  19. This message was posted on Usenet, NOT JLAforums, & on Tue, 29 Aug 2006
    16:27:03 -0500, Mara wrote:

    > On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:25:48 GMT, Ron Martell <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>William Poaster <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Try buying a computer in a store *without* Windows installed. Quite
    >>>often the store assistants don't even *know* there are other OSs. MS
    >>>gives discounts to OEMs for installing windows, & even warned them that
    >>>*if* they install *any other OS* MS would withdraw the discount & the
    >>>OEM would pay full price. A threat, blackmail? Whatever it was, it
    >>>stopped OEMs from installing other OSs on their products. Hence why Joe
    >>>Public buys a store computer, & has *no* idea there are alternatives.

    >>
    >>Several major computer manufacturers have offered models with Linux
    >>instead of Windows. Almost all (or maybe even all) of these models have
    >>been discontinued due to lack of sales.

    >
    > I wouldn't run Lindows either. I do, however, run Linux.


    Nor would I. You will note I said "Try buying a computer in a store
    *without* Windows installed." not *mail-order*, so IMO it was a strawman
    argument from the MS apologist.

    >>Most small OEMs and custom builders (including me) will sell you a
    >>computer with no preinstalled operating system. Many people have volume
    >>licenses or the "value pack" and don't need to pay for an extra license
    >>for Windows.

    >
    > But you paid for the volume license, didn't you?


    Which is not the same, & how many home owners would think they'd need to
    *buy* that? With linux (under the GPL) you pay *nothing*, no matter how
    many machines you install it on. So, *no* worries about *any* licences.

    > I didn't pay a cent for Linux. :)


    Did you know that MS actually tried to *stop* "barebones" machines being
    sold, claiming that pirated Windoze could be installed on them?
    http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39261437,00.htm

    Did they actually care that people may be installing *another* OS on the
    machines? No, of course they didn't. Some believed that MS was trying to
    use it's muscle to quash any competition.
    Fortunately it was tossed out.

    I wonder how many chairs Blammer threw, when that request was refused! <g>

    --
    Linux is not a desktop OS for people
    whose VCRs are still flashing "12:00".
    That eliminates a lot of wintrolls then.
    William Poaster, Aug 29, 2006
    #19
  20. This message was posted on Usenet, NOT JLAforums, & on Tue, 29 Aug 2006
    17:50:11 -0500, Mara wrote:

    > On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 23:25:24 +0100, William Poaster <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>This message was posted on Usenet, NOT JLAforums, & on Tue, 29 Aug 2006
    >>16:27:03 -0500, Mara wrote:

    >
    > <snip>
    >>> I wouldn't run Lindows either. I do, however, run Linux.

    >>
    >>Nor would I. You will note I said "Try buying a computer in a store
    >>*without* Windows installed." not *mail-order*, so IMO it was a strawman
    >>argument from the MS apologist.

    >
    > It does seem like it.
    >
    >>>>Most small OEMs and custom builders (including me) will sell you a
    >>>>computer with no preinstalled operating system. Many people have
    >>>>volume licenses or the "value pack" and don't need to pay for an extra
    >>>>license for Windows.
    >>>
    >>> But you paid for the volume license, didn't you?

    >>
    >>Which is not the same, & how many home owners would think they'd need to
    >>*buy* that? With linux (under the GPL) you pay *nothing*, no matter how
    >>many machines you install it on. So, *no* worries about *any* licences.

    >
    > No. :)
    >
    >>> I didn't pay a cent for Linux. :)

    >>
    >>Did you know that MS actually tried to *stop* "barebones" machines being
    >>sold, claiming that pirated Windoze could be installed on them?
    >>http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39261437,00.htm

    >
    > I can't imagine, for the life of me, how blank machines would encourage
    > piracy. There's too many free Linux distro cds out there, just for the
    > asking. And too many people already own Windows cds anyway, I would think.


    I would agree.

    >>Did they actually care that people may be installing *another* OS on the
    >>machines? No, of course they didn't. Some believed that MS was trying to
    >>use it's muscle to quash any competition.

    >
    > Given M$'s track record, I can well believe that.
    >
    >>Fortunately it was tossed out.

    >
    > Good.
    >
    >>I wonder how many chairs Blammer threw, when that request was refused!
    >><g>

    >
    > Dunno, but I'm glad I wasn't there - could have been a "Springer
    > Incident." <g>


    LOL!

    --
    Linux is not a desktop OS for people
    whose VCRs are still flashing "12:00".
    That eliminates a lot of wintrolls then.
    William Poaster, Aug 29, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,325
  2. loyola
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,541
    Cerebrus
    Nov 14, 2006
  3. loyola
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,384
  4. Lennier
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    297
    Bruce Sinclair
    Nov 24, 2003
  5. Have a nice cup of pee

    Linux... yeah linux.. Linux

    Have a nice cup of pee, Apr 12, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    616
    Bette Noir
    Apr 17, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page