Free Republic

I feel like a cat batting around a cat toy.

"...driver signing just says that Microsoft has made a cursory inspection of the driver."

Ever been involved in one? No, I didn't think so. Therefore, you are talking out of your a$$. You would equate a complete protological exam to a "cursory inspection" if you thought you needed to in order to defend Linux.

"And you've confirmed the presence of the Microsoft shill."

I spend a big chunk of a post talking about what I don't like about Microsoft, and I keep mentioning Apple as an alternative, but to the Linux fanatic, I'm still a shill. Because I don't worship at the holy altar of Torvalds, I can't possibly be anything else, can I?

As I've said, anyone reading this thread can come to their own conclusions about who is in connection with reality and who is not. You may think your lathered-up Linux fanboy posts are helping your case, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of readers would disagree.

Back for another round of "Missing the Point" I see.

"Ah, because Windows never has problems, right?"

I never said that. Yet another attempt on your part to change the subject. (I can understand why. Defending Linux as enthusiastically as you do would require any weapon at hand, disingenuous or not.)

"Wifi problems in Linux are almost always due..."

Why would the typical desktop user care where the problems came from? The facts are that Vista is very smart about wireless networks and Linux is not. (That does not mean Vista never has problems, but it does work transparently for a wide variety of wireless hardware, and Linux apparently does not.)

"But with Windows you get these..."

Not very often. Only happens on catastrophic failures (such as disk failures). The driver certification program makes it rare for drivers. I've yet to see the blue screen on Vista. I've seen the blue screen perhaps two or three times in six years using XP.

You're reaching, pal. Every post you make proves how desperate you are to make Linux look better than it is and Windows look worse than it is. Neither is perfect, and neither is garbage. They just suit different classes of people.

Hey, hate Microsoft all you like. They get on my nerves too, particularly with their stupid activation thing. And I still don't like Office 2007 compared to earlier versions. It's made for users who are pretty much ignorant, and they actually took out features that power users want and need.

But don't let Microsoft's flaws cloud your perception of reality. Microsoft did not get to be the biggest, most successful software company in history by selling products people don't find useful. They invest many millions in trying to make their products install cleanly. With the wide variety of hardware out there, they can't make the process perfect, but they do pretty well.

The Linux community will not, in any foreseeable future, have the investment dollars to match that kind of effort to make Linux as transparently easy to install on the desktop as Mac or Windows. That's simple fact. Denying it just makes you look out of touch.

In fact, this entire exchange with you has confirmed every impression I've ever had about the Linux fanatic who just won't face up to the limitations of Linux. I suspect I'm not the only one who sees it. I think you're hurting your own case by looking so out of touch, and thereby actually making it less likely that people will try Linux.

I'm sorry you don't get my point. But others do:

So you just go on believing what you like. And in five years or so I'll check in and see if you have faced reality yet.

"But because of your nasty dislike of Linux, the low number simply MUST BE."

I should probably address this one too. Linux isn't to my taste, but I bear no particular dislike of it, and certainly no "nasty dislike". I have Linux installed on one system, which I use for browser compatibility testing. It's OK, though I can't say I'd like to use it for my regular system.

But it seems perfectly functional for some tasks, and if someone want to use it, I have no beef with that. I also don't find Macintosh to my taste, though I have to admit they have done some pretty interesting and innovative things, and I understand why some people use them.

No, I don't dislike Linux. When it comes to overzealous Linux advocates who bend the facts to make Linux look better than it is... well, that's another story.

"You do realize that of all the links I posted, the estimates are the ones that showed how they gathered the data."

Get back to me when you understand the difference between a prediction and a survey.

"The one's you cite as "real surveys" have no information on how the data was gathered."

From the bottom of the page:

"This report was generated 02/29/2008 based on the last 20,873,774 unique visits to all tracked websites at that time. W3Counter's sample currently includes 12,370 websites. The last 25,000 page views to each website are analyzed to identify unique visits. Some visits may occur before the month of the report."

And the other site has this page:

"We use a unique methodology for collecting this data. We collect data from the browsers of site visitors to our exclusive on-demand network of live stats customers. The data is compiled from approximately 160 million visitors per month. The information published is an aggregate of the data from this network of hosted website statistics. The site unique visitor and referral information is summarized on a monthly basis.

"In addition, we classify 430+ referral sources identified as search engines. Aggregate traffic referrals from these engines are summarized and reported monthly. The statistics for search engines include both organic and sponsored referrals. The websites in our population represent dozens of countries in regions including North America, South America, Western Europe, Australia / Pacific Rim and Parts of Asia."

Are you going to keep coming back with more nonsense? How many times do you want to get pwned on this thread, anyway?

What, are you kidding? The first article is an opinion piece with some anecdotes. The 7% thing is a prediction, not a measurement. The 12% thing is for servers, when we're talking desktops. The 20% thing is another prediction.

You want predictions? I've still got the graph from the Gartner Group from 1990 that said that Unix would be the most popular desktop OS by 1995.

So you've got nothin'. Prediction and anecdotes about people laughing in the server room are all you can trot out.

You just don't want to accept the numbers generated from real surveys. Too bad, but your ardent desire for Linux' success does not change reality.

"As soon as you provide hard numbers for Linux installs then we can proceed with a discussion about marketshare."

Why should I even try? If you don't like the numbers, you'll just come up some handwaving excuse not to accept them.

The ones I already cited were done by a reputable survey firm with no ax to grind. And notice that the 2% number was the high end. But you don't like the numbers, so you simply don't accept them. Fine, but then don't tell you us you are not emotionally wedded to Linux. It insults our intelligence.

I read that post you referred to supposedly rebutting what I said. I still don't see anything in it that says Microsoft is ever a good choice or that Linux is less than perfect. It's all a comment about how Windows is awful, and Microsoft can't do anything but screw up and Unix is so much better.

Posting a link that doesn't come anywhere near to proving what you claim it proves doesn't exactly bolster your case. It makes you look like a desperate partisan.

"While at the same time casting aspersions on Linux due to it's percieved lack of market share, with the assumption that market share, or lack of it, has any bearing on the quality or suitability of the product."

Ya know, a believer in free market capitalism would say that lack of market share is pretty relevant as to the quality or suitability of a product. If it were high quality, more suitable, and cheaper to boot, you would think it would have taken over the world by now. Somehow it hasn't.

"You would be wise to take your own advice."

I would simply point out that I've been the one mentioning Apple as a viable option, and that they have figured out what it takes to compete with Microsoft. I'm also the one that has been saying that if you like Linux, that's fine with me.

On the other hand, I've yet to see a single statement from you that indicates that Linux is less than perfect or that Microsoft technologies ever make sense as a choice. From that, I'd say it's pretty clear who is emotionally attached to their technologies.

One, Linux developers are not chasing market share. They build a product that they, and those users that interact with them, want to use.

Good, because the market share is not there and is never going to be there as long as Linuxen have the same "Linux is ideal and everything else sucks" attitude that I see exhibited by most of them. That position simply ignores reality and the cost/benefit comparison of various options for various users.

"...how do you count the numbers?"

Those numbers are from surveys of real users, asking what they actually use (not what they've downloaded and played around with).

"And let's not forget that once upon a time, MSDOS had a microscopic share of the market."

And how long did that microscopic share last? About a year or so. Then in less than four years it went from nowhere to the dominate operating system for personal computers.

You're really trying hard to blow off the most salient facts here. Two percent! Fifteen years! Come on, doesn't that suggest something less than optimal about this platform that you are so enamoured with?

"Spoken by someone that doesn't really understand how Linux works. Since all Linux distros are based on the same kernel and userspace apps, there is a large amount of consisitency that doesn't appear in closed-source software. All a distribution does is package the same Linux kernel and same GNU userspace apps with some integration utilities. Much like how a dozen different chefs, given the same ingredients, all can come up with different dishes, Linux distros are much the same inside but different in how they are prepared."

This is nonsense on toast! If someone has a problem with a Linux system and asks a Linux maven for help, the very first question that will be asked is "what distro are you using?" If what you say is true, there would be very little need to ask that question!

"The links you posted were interesting, and highly typical of Microsoft converts. While he didn't post an entire list of his hardware, he did make some posts concerning certain kinds of hardware that pointed out pretty clearly that what he did was take his crappy old hardware that used to run Windows and throw Ubuntu on it. "

First, he didn't have crappy old hardware. It was a recent Thinkpad.

Second, don't you Linux guys constantly tell us that one of the benefits of Linux is that it allows people to run old hardware that's obsolete for Windows? So now you're changing the story to "the problem was crappy old hardware".

I could find plenty of other incidents. I just happened to run across that one recently. But I don't think it would matter how many I showed you. You would find some minor point that explained why they just didn't do it right. Because goodness forbid that the fault be on the Linux side!

If you don't like Microsoft, that's fine. If you think Linux hung the moon, that's fine too. But if you can't face reality about the costs, benefits, advantages, and disadvantages of both those technology sets (plus Macintosh), then you have no place in advising anyone about what technology to choose because you're too biased.

In short, don't get emotionally attached to your technologies. They're just tools. Different jobs need different tools. And when the tools are functionally similar, different people will have different tastes.

Despite your long reply, I still think you missed the point of my post. Two percent! Max! That's what you've got after, what, fifteen years of effort?

Microsoft certainly has their problems. Apple is doing a good job of capitalizing on those problems, with desktop penetration now approaching ten percent.

And part of your very reply indicates why Linux can't do the same. With all the "distros", the Linux community seems determined to avoid the consistency that might actually get to critical mass on support, community, device drivers, and the other factors that have to be there for mass market acceptance.

You may think Ubuntu is the cat's pajamas, and doesn't need twiddling. Read this thread from someone making the plunge (and not for the first time), and his hope that he can be free of Microsoft. Then note the here six weeks later where he admits that he's thrown in towel.

This is someone who seriously dislikes Microsoft, and a very smart fellow to boot. Yet, he keeps going back to XP, after spending far too much time trying to get Linux to do what he needs it to do.

I'm glad it all works for you. Really. But this idea that Linux is anywhere near competitive on the desktop for casual users just isn't very close to reality.

Reading through this thread brought such a sense of nostalgia. I've been reading threads just like it for at least six years here on FR, as the Linux advocates continue telling the rest of us how wonderful Linux is for the desktop.

Meanwhile, out in the real world, Linux share of the desktop is between 0.8% and 2%, depending on whose numbers you prefer. And the head of a Linux firm throws in the towel on Linux on the desktop.

Hey, if you Linux guys like it, more power to you. But your arguments about how great Linux runs on old hardware don't mean much when new computers are dirt cheap. And, like it or not, the mass market is never going to do all the twiddling you guys do to install and keep your systems running.

(Posted from a Windows Vista system, one of four in the house, all of which run great.)

Get over yourself.

Wow. What a comeback. I am devastated by your logic and eloquence...

Look, if you expect to debate serious subjects, you're going to have to do better than your current level of "debate". You and the other Ron Paul supporters are exhibiting all the worst characteristics of those college protestors that are as interested in making a spectacle of themselves as convincing anybody.

This is politics, bud. You win because you convince a lot of people to back your side. Acting superior by telling them that you know better than they do how their own mind works will not win you any political debates or battles. And it tells the undecideds exactly how weak your own position is.

"If Al Gore had started the Iraq war with the support of a democratic majority, no one here would support this war..."

I would have, because I think it was the right thing to do. And I did not support Bush the Elder's Somalia adventure, because I thought it was the wrong thing to do at the time.

I'm not a Republican. I'm a small-l libertarian, and there are times the GOP sets me off as much as the Democrats. And I certainly don't judge a matter as serious as war based on who is in the White House. So I think you need to reconsider your "no one here" stance, which sounds more than a touch sanctimonious. You're in no position to tell other people why they think the things they do. Just engage their arguments.

"The neo-cons claim surrender should not be an option. In the same breath they claim we were attacked because of our freedoms. Why then, are they so anxious to surrender our freedoms with legislation like the Patriot Act, a repeal of our 4th amendment rights, executive orders, and presidential signing statements?"

This is conflating two separate things. One can be against various types of over-reaching of the federal government in the US and still in favor of an aggressive policy against the enemy in locations such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

In fact, I submit that failure to deal with the terrorism problem in the Middle East inevitably leads to more restrictions on freedom at home. If we get out of Iraq in disgrace and encourage the fanatics, who are in poor shape right now if Osama's video is any sign, then the result is virtually certain to be more attacks here. That leads to more clampdowns, more demands by the feds to have the right to violate our freedom.

I'm sympathetic to many of Ron Paul's positions. I want a minimalist federal government too. But giving up on the one function of the federal government that I support whole-heartedly, namely national defense, is not part of that bargain, and I think Paul is a fool to think his policies would lead to anything but a disaster for freedom.

"I never thought we would be railing the President for his beliefs and his resolve, but he is flat wrong. If he has lost us on Free Republic, he no longer has any support. I pray that he comes to is senses soon."

For some of us, this is no surprise. We tried to tell the rest of FR years ago that Bush is no conservative. Look for my own comments in these threads.

The standard answer from Republican loyalists was always "But we can't turn control over to the dastardly Democrats!" Well, why not? When Clinton was president, the GOP Congress showed enough guts to fight him on major issues. For all his philandering, Clinton did not damage this country domestically as much as Bush has already, and Bush is still at it.

The Republican leadership long ago decided that they could take you guys for granted. You pretty much told them you were not going anywhere, so they rationally switched their attention to other voters they might still attract. Many of us told you way back when that if you're not prepared to withhold your vote (and suffer temporary consequences while they realize they must meet your desires), then you have thereby signed up for supporting a party that drifts further and further away from conservatism.

And lo and behold, that's where you now are.

When all is said and done, through it might be fifty years, Bush will be with the near-greats: Truman, Polk, Eisenhower, and Jackson.

Unlikely. He'll end up middle of the pack, I think. He did a pretty good job in his first couple of years after 9/11, and the fact that he was re-elected certainly puts him in a different category from Carter, et. al. But his lack of a consistent philosophy on domestic matters had led to a mish-mash.

Tax cuts, economic growth, and low unemployment are on the good side. Those are balanced on the bad side by a new welfare state program (Medicare Rx), high overall rates of government growth, lack of progress on reforming the Social Security and Medicare before they reach crisis mode, and abandonment of firm defense of free speech by signing CFR.

Plus consider that modern historians don't have the same values that you do. Even if the Middle East turns out exactly the way Bush envisioned (which looks chancy), the historians will still tag Bush with the "Iraq civil war/failure" theme.

Hey that M&M's reward offer sure paid off fast. Maybe they should offer one for bin Laden.

"The fact that the moon always faces the earth on one side and faces away on the other, should have been enough proof that it came from the earth, weather spit out from some huge explosion or a collision with a very large object."

Uh, no offense, but if your physics knowledge is at the level that you would claim this, I don't think I want to be taking your opinion on the matter very seriously.

And I don't know what the public schools are teaching these days, but NASA says:

This morning at perihelion both hemispheres were 147.5 million km from the Sun. That barely differs from the greatest distance, 152.6 million km in July, which astronomers call aphelion.

I figure that at about three percent variation from perihelion to aphelion. That's close enough to call near-circular in my book.

If Earth collided with a Mars-sized planet, it's not clear to me how Earth could still have a near-circular orbit around the sun. I would think any such collision would seriously alter the orbit, perhaps even out of the plane of the ecliptic.