Friday, January 29, 2010

BM's

Well, it looks like there's at least one business model out there that kinda works for companies shipping open source software: be some search engine's bitch.

Mozilla is Google's bitch. And now Ubuntu is Yahoo's bitch. Maybe Novell will be Bing's bitch?

I gotta better idea for you Ubuntu. Why don't you take your awesome hardware auto detection capabilities, and make it such that every time you install, you hit a server, which in turn causes an instant live auction between bing, google, and yahoo, who will bid money to make their search engine the default for that install.

I'm warning all you freetards. Some day, Ubuntu's installer is going to ask you if you want to install the google/yahoo/bing toolbar. And it will be present on every single window. Even your panel, and your xterm. Every shell command that you mistype will result in a google search. Then canonical can make ass loads of money and give you a crappy desktop system for free. It's going to be awesome. And some search engine will get like a hundred new people visiting their site.

BTW, it's amazing how desparate Yahoo looks at this point. A me-too search engine in bed with a me-too operating system. That's some nice thought leadership there Yahoo. Because you know, Google's all going to be like, we need to find some other distro that we can sponsor. Wait, what? They're building their own distro? It's going to ship on supported hardware and be somewhat usable? And it's based on Linux? ha ha ha. That's bullshit. Everybody knows that open source products won't succeed unless they have the support of the FSF. The FSF knows that the people want. Please. Stop your nonsense.

Some other notes for yahoo:

- These are Linux users. They are too cheap to click on your ads.

- These are freetards. They think it's cool to use adblock and pirate music.

So yea, uh, have fun trying to actually generate revenue from them.

5000 flames:

«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 5000   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

the dell laptops that ship with ubuntu already have some firefox toolbars preinstalled.

Anonymous said...

This is another fine post from the Linux Hater. Compare and contrast this with the dreadful prose from his many followers, that is sure to fill many, many pages for months to come here.

Now that the google people fixed the blogger bug, no force on earth can stop the tard boys from creating another 7000 comments (not to mention many inane TM's). *Yuck*

Anonymous said...

What blog has comments whose quality exceeds that of the original post? Anyone that good is going to start their own.

Well, wait, there is Slashdot, but they don't even try.

Anonymous said...

But I love Oombooboo Felchy Ferret with the Poo Screen of Death (PSD).

(fourth)

Anonymous said...

@TM Guy,

Congratulations! LH put a link to the TM Repository in the "Offshoots" section.

Anonymous said...

Now that the google people fixed the blogger bug, no force on earth can stop the tard boys from creating another 7000 comments (not to mention many inane TM's).


Still waiting on your rebuttal to the TM Repository dude. Until then, your weak trolling is totally invalidated.

Anonymous said...

It's been there for a few weeks, but no one's looked at the top of the page since then.

Anonymous said...

@January 29, 2010 12:49 PM

So, what's your point? Are you afraid? Well you should be, because sooner or later we'll bring down the whole Free Software bullshit once and for all!

Anonymous said...

To all the freetards who keep making all the homoerotic Ballmer references:

You are aware that most Windows users have never even heard of Steve Ballmer. They. Have. No. Idea. Who. He. Is.

The majority of computer users use Windows because it works, does everything they need it to do, and no other platform offers a compelling enough reason for them to switch.

You can't understand that because you need some cult figure to worship.

The Mac Lemmings have their guru Steve Jobs, who they all fawn all over.

You Linux zealots have $tallman.

The rest of us use our computers. We aren't looking for a (phony) crusade.

Anonymous said...

FSF shits in its pants over the iPad, Microsoft makes record profits from Windows 7, Bill Gates ships ten billion dollars to fight AIDS, and LH makes a new post! What a day!

It's as if a million basements cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.

Anonymous said...

Snickerdouche is a paid F$F $hill!

Anonymous said...

snickerdouche seems to be very obsessed with Ballmer's penis since he can't go for even a few posts without bringing it up.

Anonymous said...

You are aware that most Windows users have never even heard of Steve Ballmer. They. Have. No. Idea. Who. He. Is.

Hell, people think Bill Gates still runs the company.

Anonymous said...

Aw you missed a trick LH. Folks have been whipping themselves into a frenzy over Theora vs H264. I guess others have done it to death now though.

David Heffernan said...

Er, it's desperate!

Anonymous said...

LINUX IS THE BEST OS IN THE WORLD!

FIRST PAGE BITCHES.

Anonymous said...

Hey slavetards,

I'll give you today. Today is the day of slavery. Every other day is the day of Linux, and this is the year of Linux on the desktop. You faggots.

Proudly posted from Ubuntu 10.04 Alpha 2, while searching Yahoo for death metal.

Anonymous said...

I can't wait to abandon Ubuntu in favor of Google OS.

Or a Mac. Maybe I'll get a Mac.

Anonymous said...

@January 29, 2010 2:32 PM

"Proudly posted from Ubuntu 10.04 Alpha 2, while searching Yahoo for death metal."

Insulting you would be pointless. Obviously life has done enough to you.

Anonymous said...

Talking about Theora, most non-freetard users already know that YouTube just added HTML5 support to their site, with the codec of choice being H.264.

Yes, it's true. The uber-cool Google, the Google which is supposed to be the messiah that will liberate the world's computers from the domination of evil proprietary software companies, just stabbed you freetards in the back and chose an evil proprietary format instead of your Theora.

Probably something to do with the fact VP3/Theora sucks balls and needs extremely high bitrates to produce even passable quality videos. Just try to make an HD video using the Theora codec, stream it over the net, and watch all those internet connections in basements burst into flames from overload.
At the same time, H.264 produces videos that stream surprisingly well even through a 2Mbit connection, in awesome quality.
Which would you choose if you were youtube?

But this can be! The FSF knows what's best for us, they couldn't possibly suggest a video format that would overload the world's internet connections, not over the superior H.264.
No wait: Stallman said that it's OK to use an inferior standard, as long as it's open standard. You know, just like like X, PulseAudio, and Linux.

And we, the holy alliance of basement dwelling freetards, must follow Stallmans orders and defend those standards!

This last paragraph will explain most of the freetard comments below, I guess.

bfoo said...

I'm an Ubuntu user and I do pay for my music (not the p0rn)!

Anonymous said...

As regards the Yahoobuntu deal, we all know what will happen:

Canonical will have some OEMs (Dell?) make some really cheap netbooks which they 'll push into unsuspecting users.

When the aforementioned unsuspecting users discover firsthand the turd Ubuntu is, they will either get dissapointed by computers (Why half of my email attachments seem corrupt? They are only some mp3s and docs. I guess computers just aren't for me), or some friend of theirs will install Windows 7 on the notebook. Them, the aforementioned unsuspecting user will hate ubuntu forever for having lost 3 weeks trying to make it work, but at least he will have learnt something from the whole experience.

Note to Canonical:
Now that Yahoo will give you some billions to burn through, at least stop been the cheap hippies you are and buy a license at least for mp3 and divx playback. That way, there is a tiny posibility that some really amateur user will find the turd half-usable.

Richard said...

I'll just note my own experience: most Free Software users that I know do not pirate music.

I had kind of thought that it was a general property related to the ethics of Free Software users. I can't imagine Free Software users using Free Software because it was the cheap thing to do. It's certainly not a pleasant experience when your X server randomly freezes on you daily, losing all your work since you last saved.

I do agree that Free Software users are cheap when they don't agree with the value of something, though. Like software: we can usually get what we want for free, legally.

Hopefully the reason we're not clicking on advertisements (if we're not) is because of some improved technological awareness: we know the ads are crap to begin with. Endorsements work wonders, though. I've probably bought more things off endorsements from blogs I read than due to any advertisement.

Thanks for another good post. I'll be sad if the prevalence of piracy isn't higher in the Windows world. (Noting that Apple users are all Rich and give money to groups of homeless to watch them fight it out.)

Richard said...

Anonymous said...

I'm not too cheap to cllick on ads, I'm too intelligent.

Also, Adblock IS cool.

Other than that, another fine post from LH.

Anon Linux user

Anonymous said...

I just want to say that ad-blocking is not illegal.

Anonymous said...

For those complaining that ad blocking is legal or cool, doesn't mean it's fair. The websites you are visiting for free are providing you their service and content in the idea that you'll pay some minimal attention (or, like a sucker, click through) to the advertisements to underwrite what you're enjoying.

When you block the ads, you're all take and no give. It's a rather selfish thing to do. I know some websites have abusive advertising and that some advertising is actually malicious. But most isn't, and blocking it is as greedy as some of the advertisers.

Anonymous said...

> LH put a link to the TM Repository in the "Offshoots" section.

This is a case of bad judgment from the Linux Hater. The Linux Hater will regret this. The ridiculous TM repository is not at all worthy of being mentioned along with the LH blog. The TM repository represents all that is tasteless and thoughtless in the hatertard world. I am laughing my ass off at the talentless creator of the TM repository. (I usually just snicker at such things and such people, but I'm making an exception in this case.)

Anonymous said...

Congratulations! LH put a link to the TM Repository in the "Offshoots" section.


Awesome! I've hit the big time! Where's my Google endorsement contract? Better yet, when is my Paid Shill cheque coming from Microsoft?

Anonymous said...

The TM repository represents all that is tasteless and thoughtless in the hatertard world. I am laughing my ass off at the talentless creator of the TM repository.


You realize we don't invent the trademarks, we simply catalogue them. Its freetards like you who spawn them, going on about MarketLeaderEqualsMonopoly(TM). YOU coined that one, I just wrote it down.

So congratulations. You think the TM Repository is "retarded", you only have yourself to thank for all the content.

Anonymous said...

When you block the ads, you're all take and no give. It's a rather selfish thing to do. I know some websites have abusive advertising and that some advertising is actually malicious. But most isn't, and blocking it is as greedy as some of the advertisers.


Its true. Would you rather:

a) have to see ads
b) pay for the site/service
c) not have the site or service at all since nobody can afford to build and maintain it

Anonymous said...

But this can be! The FSF knows what's best for us, they couldn't possibly suggest a video format that would overload the world's internet connections, not over the superior H.264.


They also claimed that all the high end media is bad for developing nations without a lot of bandwidth.

So what's more free? A video format that needs a tonne of bandwidth? Or a barren internet, void of media, so that some low bandwidth kid can use it?

Trick question, neither.

Anonymous said...

A real troll would have mentioned that Yahoo is powered by Bing and that Ubuntu is now getting money from Microsoft.

Are you out of practice, drunk, coked up, or just slipping into into the "who gives a shit" period of your life?

Anonymous said...

I'm not too cheap to cllick on ads, I'm too intelligent.

Or smug, with the blood circulation to your brain being cut off due to wearing your ass as a hat.

I see an ad that intreagues me, I click it to inestigate the product. This doesn't happen often, but it has.

How weather or not you click on an advertizement for any reason is sipposed to be a measure of inelligence, no one knows...

A real troll would have mentioned that Yahoo is powered by Bing and that Ubuntu is now getting money from Microsoft.

Even though Yahoo! is the one actually paying them and not Microsoft, or is this some even more lame rehash of "Google uses Linux so you use Linux by using Google" (e.g. Yahoo! Search uses Bing, therefore Yahoo! is actually Microsoft, ergo Canonical is taking Microsoft's money).

Keep trying.

Anonymous said...

Hard to speak of intelligence when you can't even manage to leverage your browser's in-built spell-checker (or use a browser that has one).

intreagues -> intrigues
inestigate -> investigate
advertizement -> advertisement ;)
sipposed -> supposed
inelligence -> intelligence

Anonymous said...

Or perhaps it was to see weather you'd address the arguement presented, or shy away and pounce on the typos instead.

I'd be lying if I were to say that I'm surprised.

Anonymous said...

advertizement -> advertisement ;)

That one's subject to locality, just so you know.

I suppose you'd pounce on 'colour' and 'centre' as well?

Anonymous said...

LOL

And now one's choice of browser is the yardstick for determining intellect! Will the madness ever end? *snicker*

Clearly the work of a firefox user.

Anonymous said...

Even though Yahoo! is the one actually paying them and not Microsoft, or is this some even more lame rehash of "Google uses Linux so you use Linux by using Google" (e.g. Yahoo! Search uses Bing, therefore Yahoo! is actually Microsoft, ergo Canonical is taking Microsoft's money).

Microsoft money goes to Yahoo!, Yahoo! money goes to Canonical, ergo Microsoft money goes to Canonical, follow the logical path of the money, dipshit.

Keep trying.

Don't need to, my job is done. You've already allowed your asperger's syndrome to get the better of you by responding to someone that is obviously trolling :)

Anonymous said...

Microsoft money goes to Yahoo!, Yahoo! money goes to Canonical, ergo Microsoft money goes to Canonical, follow the logical path of the money, dipshit.

Consumer money goes to microsoft, ergo consumer money goes to Canonical? Logical? Please.

ffatman said...

Are you not died?

Anonymous said...

Well, consumer money goes to (my country's) government, the government provides healthcare services, and yet many people seem to have this notion that healthcare in my country is free...

Nice to see snickerdouche reinventing hirself again. (not a typo - I respect your androgeny).

Be sure to post some pictures of yourself at anthrocon, ?Tanya.

Anonymous said...

Are you not died?

Yes please, both with sugar.

Anonymous said...

If Ubuntu actually had a problem with Microsoft's services as compared to Googles, I think they should probably avoid using Yahoo!, but I'm not sure that they should want to avoid Microsoft.

However, the healthcare thing is more interesting. At the very least, the "free" system of healthcare is like an insurance policy to insulate against unpredictable massive expenses, saving people from deciding between the benefits of health and money.

I'm not sure if the accessibility ensured by "free" healthcare is very comparable to the accessibility of open source software. While the free healthcare is subsidised by all potential users, the free software is more subsidised by the creators. Right now, a lot of users don't contribute much, except hopefully increasing perception of demand and inspiring interest in hardware companies and service providers to support it. Perhaps having a Bing-backed search engine is a fair tax on the user base.

Anonymous said...


I'll just note my own experience: most Free Software users that I know do not pirate music.


Linux users pirate more than any other group. They all keep a pirated XP in a VM for that app they need but don't tell their leet friends about.

Anonymous said...

I use Adblock only on the HP nx6310, witch is not that much powerful and can't stand three different flash ads on the same page. On the desktop PC I have no intention of using adblocking software, some ads can be interesting and there's no need to block them (and potentially fuck up the layout). That PC can handle Crysis. A bunch of ads are nothing for it.

But I can see why you'd want to block ads (expecially flash ads) on Linux. Because if you don't do that you'd probably see Firefox or even X crash on you.

Anonymous said...

Dear LH,

May be it's because I'm a stupid freetard, but I don't get it. So, could you, please, explain to me in simpler terms, what are you whining about this time?

Because, you know, your post feels kinda KDE -- it lacks cohesion :)

Kind Regards,
AdBlock User

Anonymous said...

I still think LH is a girl.

Anonymous said...

today's rant was lower quality than usual...

Anonymous said...

What I think is funny is that Apple released a Palladium computer this week but the fosstards are still falling all over themselves to bash Microsoft even though Apple has become the single biggest threat to software and internet freedom that ever existed.

arshad said...

its really very nice i enjoyed a lot to visit..Mobiles Handsets

Anonymous said...

"I'm not too cheap to cllick on ads, I'm too intelligent.

Also, Adblock IS cool.

Other than that, another fine post from LH."


This.

"LOL

And now one's choice of browser is the yardstick for determining intellect! Will the madness ever end? *snicker*

Clearly the work of a firefox user."


He never said that he is smarter because he uses Firefox. He merely said that he's too intelligent to click ads. So learn to read.

You = clearly a IE user (they feel attacked every time someone uses the words "intelligent" and "smart")
;)

Anonymous said...

He merely said that he's too intelligent to click ads. So learn to read.

This is good, you can read. Now you just need to learn to the difference between two different statements. *snicker*.

Neither of you have shown how clicking or not clicking on ads measures intellect. Maybe there are diferent kinds of intelligence, the kind required to not click on ads, and the kind needed to make a coherent argument *chortle*.

You = clearly a hatertard who feels attacked every time someone questions their smartness, possibly due to not being very smart at all, but at least there was no word squishing this time, there may be hope for you yet *snicker*.

Anonymous said...

PS. Mainframes are the biggest servers in the known universe.

Anonymous said...

Boy no good material left it appears.

Advertising with distribution is not even a new idea. What does Linux Hater think has funded Mozilla for all these years. Someone had to try funding a distribution through it again.

Some distributions are even nice enough to ask there users what advertising they will put up with. http://www.turnkeylinux.org/polls/funding-development-does-web-advertising-eg-google-adsense-annoy-you

Mozilla is not the only one that has working method. Yahoo pays Mozilla by the way to be in the basic start out list. So Mozilla is not google bitch. Just yahoo is not prepared to pay enough for default.

Asterisk model also works. Digium the backing company of asterisk makes phone line interface cards that work perfectly with Asterisk. Yep open source driving hardware sales.

Redhat installer picture describing services on offer.

I could go on and on with open source profit making models that work. Most are hardware. Next most common are Enterprise funding. Advertisement is normally the lowest used.

Now lets take a trip to installing so call Windows free programs. Nothing Ubuntu is doing is that bad. Also Ubuntu has a limiting factor. Push to hard end up forked and dead.

These are freetards. They think it's cool to use adblock and pirate music.

Most freetards are anti-piracy. Its normally the ones that will not consider open source who are pirates. Linux Hater is turning into a 100 percent moron.

Adblock usage is simple bandwidth management.

Anonymous said...

@January 30, 2010 2:13 AM

Yes, freetards are so antipiracy that they're using pirated XP partitions.

Freetards are also so antipiracy that they're all playing mp3's illegally. Don't even try to tell me they're paying for the fluendo codecs.

Freetards are so antipiracy that they watch DVDs illegally in Linux, and use libdvdcss.

Anonymous said...

Advertising with distribution is not even a new idea. What does Linux Hater think has funded Mozilla for all these years. Someone had to try funding a distribution through it again.


Mozilla isn't a distro. What you just said is the point he's making; that FOSS projects are funded by proprietary corporate dollars. There is no free lunch.

Anonymous said...

I could go on and on with open source profit making models that work. Most are hardware.


Hardware like the ipod, iphone and macbooks?

Anonymous said...

Asterisk is dead BTW.

Anonymous said...

PS. Mainframes are the biggest servers in the known universe.


Weak trolling. Try harder.

Anonymous said...

Open source hardware!?

Like OpenMoko and CrunchPad/JooJoo?

(Where do freetards get these names?)

Anonymous said...

@January 30, 2010 2:37 AM

I am a freetard, I like free things. I will indulge in the tragedy of the commons with the best of them.

What I am not is a fosstard, which is, I don't accept all these batshit insane slashtard ideals about having access to source code, or think that technology patents and copyrights are a bad thing.

Back to the discussion about Asterisk.. asterisk died because you could go and buy a telephone system keysystem for a couple of hundred bucks, and cell phones really took off and no one (even in business) really uses land lines anymore, but even then people just use a service like magic jack for $10 a year or something trivial like that.

As the cloud services take off, (and they will) you will see the same type of rot and decay happen to Apache and LAMP, and all the little toy linux server OS's like redhat.

Once people lose interest in lamp, because the web services work so much better and are just as free, only you dont have to co-lo a server now the linux implosion will really pick up steam.

So really linux will be relevant to 2012 or something, even on the server, but then after that it diminishes into curiosity.

It never was relevant on the desktop and the iPad announcement demonstrates that it is hard to make a run for something like the tablet market, and the linux based products are even less likely to succeed.

Sheesh, just witness Linux failure to have ~any~ impact on the smart phone market.

Anonymous said...

Advertising with distribution is not even a new idea.

Nobody said it was.

What does Linux Hater think has funded Mozilla for all these years.

And what do you think LH's first two statements were about. This isn't slashdot, we actually read TFA here.

Someone had to try funding a distribution through it again.

Again? Mozilla isn't a distro.

Mozilla is not the only one that has working method

Nobody said they were, in fact the point of the posy is precisely that Mozilla isn't the only one whose taken to the "be some search company's bitch" search model.

Yahoo pays Mozilla by the way to be in the basic start out list.

Was that before or after Google payed up to be default?

So Mozilla is not google bitch. Just yahoo is not prepared to pay enough for default.

I'd figure it as Mozilla is Google's Bitch, and Yahoo is ZOMG ME TOO AM WANT BITCH TOO (hence Canonical)!


Asterisk model also works. Digium the backing company of asterisk makes phone line interface cards that work perfectly with Asterisk.


Asterisk is dead, by any sane person (e.g. not you, Ohioham)'s definition that's the polar oposite of a working model. In fact, it's so far from working, that we've got a word for exactly that: Failure.

Yep open source driving hardware sales... Into the ground

FTFY.

Redhat installer picture describing services on offer.

Whose services, Red Hat's? So they're supporting themselves by paying themselves to advert their own services? (Funny how people complain where proprietary companies advert their own services in this manner).


I could go on and on with open source profit making models that work.


Maybe you'd eventually think of one that doesn't involve being someone's bitch. BTW, nobody said that Mozilla's model didn't work, only that Mozilla's model involves being Google's Bitch (and that's fine, as long as you don't mind being omeone's bitch).

Most are hardware.

And yet the only hardware one you could think of is dead.


Most freetards are anti-piracy.


You don't visit slashdor much, do you? I suppose all those p2p apps and torrent apps are for downloading Linux releases, right?

Its normally the ones that will not consider open source who are pirates.

And you're going to back up the assertion... How?

Adblock usage is simple bandwidth management.

Of course it is.

captcha: prons LOL.

Anonymous said...

"be some search company's bitch" search model.

Gah. That should read "be some search company's bitch" business model.

Anonymous said...

@January 30, 2010 3:05 AM

Back when I was in sales, I always pressed hardest on people who were salesperson adverse, because they were the easiest to turn.

The funny thing is, ad block will eventually make these people the largest targets for the advertisers, because they are the ones who lack the skeptical cynicism and get roped in by the adds, which is why they become advertisement adverse.

Anonymous said...

It never was relevant on the desktop and the iPad announcement demonstrates that it is hard to make a run for something like the tablet market, and the linux based products are even less likely to succeed.

What I got from the iPad announcement was that the FSF is even more of an irrelevent, insignificant group of neckbearded lunatics whom noone takes seriously. What was it, six or seven protesters according to the Ars article?

Open source hardware!?

Like OpenMoko and CrunchPad/JooJoo?


Contrast that to OpenSparc, which AFAICT is the only open source hardware that's had any impact on any market, of course, it has 20+ years of proprietary R&D behind it, had its main market by the balls before it was opened up, the two reference implementations are controlled by gigantic corporations (Sun's T/Niagara and Fujutsu-Siemens' SparcVII), and the freetards won't go near it with a ten foot pole.

I'd say, the secret to success regarding open source hardware is to keep the freetards as uninterested and as far away as possible.

Not having an entirely stupid name helps, too.

Anonymous said...

January 30, 2010 3:17 AM

according to the Ars article?


I saw the headline, but I ignored it because they don't even capture my imagination anymore.

Which is kinda funny, because they have a point this time(the little boy who cried wold). Apple has declared war on free, open and democratic standards for internet publishing.

But never mind that, the iPad is the palladium device that they warned us about 10 years ago.

Anonymous said...

I don't see why or how the app store deal with the iPad is any different than the app store deal with the iPhone and iPod.

Anyone who wants to puts around with the iPad can go ahead and jailbreak it like they do with the iPhone and iPod.

Anyone else is free to either use the iPad or not.

War on open and democratic standards? Sensationalise much? Nobody is forcing anyone to use it, the iPad's DRM isn't going to make non-DRM'ed devices go away (if anything, that's up to the content providers to decide, and even then, big media going the DRM route doesn't stop anyone else from going the non-DRM route).

Boo-Hoo, Apple won't let you install abitrary stuff from the web (humorously enough, this is more or less the case with most Linux distributions (well, you CAN, but it's usually quite messy) but hey, when anyone brings that up, they're morons for not contenting themselves with the paragon of technical achievement which is central package repositories, which is exactly what the app store is, Apple has final word on what gets in and what does not, just as distro maintainers have final word on what gets into their repos) - nobody is preventing developers from submiting their apps to said app store.

Boo-Hoo, I need a suscription to do that! OH NOES!

Boo-Hoo, Apple won't let you puts around with the iPadOS - They don't let you puts around with OSX either, but that wasn't a "war on open and democratic standards".

Boo-Hoo, "no free software" on the iPad - Nothing prevents anyone from submiting their free software to the app store.

BUT BUT SUBSCRIPTION! Should have thought of that before you decided to give your shit away, eh?

Boo-Hoo, "no sharing music or ebooks" Take it up with the content providers, It's the same story as it is with anything else; they provide the content, they make the rules. If you don't like the rules, don't get their content.

Boo-Hoo, the iPad is exactly like any other Apple device except it's a tablet. Did anyone expect otherwise?

They're making the same complaints they make about everything else, since it's so much easier to complain and cry for someone else to do it, than it is to get to work on their own Linux/HURD device that does things their way.

If the FSF people actually provided a product that was successful and put the oposition to shame, it would be a different story, but it's been bearly 30 years, and they're nowhere near doing that.

Declination said...

I maintain that an App Store model is actually great for Open Source software. There is no reason why you can't give away the source to your users (by just including a link in the program) and because the App Store is the only source of applications you can actually charge for your program without losing the ability to sell licenses once the first one is out the door. However, I'm sure there would be bleating about how its "against the principles" or some nonsense. Still, there is the potential for it to work.

Anonymous said...

@Declination How could that possibly work?? Once you give it away the source code once under the GPL you explicitly give the right to others to modify, redistribute, or resell the software. So someone else could change one line of code and put your exact same app back on the App Store any sell it for themselves.

Anyways, what user is going to willingly choose the version of Linux with an App Store that makes you pay to download over the other version that has all the same apps for free? There is no way in an open-source world to guarantee your App Store is "the only source of applications".

Anonymous said...

@Declination How could that possibly work?? Once you give it away the source code once under the GPL you explicitly give the right to others to modify, redistribute, or resell the software. So someone else could change one line of code and put your exact same app back on the App Store any sell it for themselves.

Because of the barrier to entry. You need a dev connection subscription to submit apps to the app store.

Now, $100 isn't much, but it's more than enough to ward off the average freetard, and it's a small incentive to at least make that incentive back. In the end though, nothing stops someone else from resubmiting the app and offering it for free, except for perhaps Apple themselves refusing a duplicate app.

Anyways, what user is going to willingly choose the version of Linux with an App Store that makes you pay to download over the other version that has all the same apps for free?

This isn't about Linux, it's about the iPad. Second, the appstore itself doesn't make you pay to download, that's up to the vendor/submiter's disgretion (though they can give it away, if they so please). Third, because they don't have much of a choice, you either get what's in the app store, or jailbreak your device to install the external one, and forfeit the app store entirely.

There is no way in an open-source world to guarantee your App Store is "the only source of applications".

Unless Apple refuses duplicate apps, but yes, aside from that there's isn't much of anything to prevent anyone else from forking and undercutting, other than the barrier for entry - you have to pay Apple to be allowed to submit apps to the store (which may or may not be approved).

It's not bulletproof, but it's the closest thing to allowing it to happen, until Richard Stalin^H^Hlman releases the GPLv4, that is.

Anonymous said...

By the simple process of placing a *snicker* at different points in their posts, people have started cloning my activities here. With everybody and their mother abusing my signature term, it is cheapened beyond redemption.

First, it was the guy that called himself Tanya (for reasons best known to himself). Then, we started seeing other tard boys get into the act. I haven't said anything about mainframes in more than a month, but we keep seeing the impostors bring it up every now and then. As a result of this utter stupidity on the part of the tard boys, I am left with no option but to cease posting here. I may reconsider if the tard boys get on their knees and beg me to.

P.S. You squish words, you go straight to hell.

Anonymous said...

Haha, talk of a "signature" term for an anonymous poster. *snicker*

GasFace said...

//Once people lose interest in lamp, because the web services work so much better and are just as free, only you dont have to co-lo a server now the linux implosion will really pick up steam.//

Asinine statement. You actually think any company that makes more than $100 a month from their website will automatically trust the "cloud" to handle all their ecommerce transactions, customer data, and OMS?

Here's who trust the cloud: Amazon, Google, maybe IBM, and small-ass proprietors.

Server colo's aren't going to fade in the next 24 months. Idiot.

Anonymous said...

That AdBlock note is rightfull - only reason why i am using Firefox. I don"t have time and nerves to fight with some flashing adds in the middle of the screen requiring to click on them.

Anonymous said...

I think LHB should include Linux_Victim's excellent archeology posts in his next post.

All these failed predictions and the mad tone of some of them are fairly devastating to the freetards.


It should be more widely known.

Anonymous said...

For those complaining that ad blocking is legal or cool, doesn't mean it's fair.

Shut the fuck up you stupid "ideologist".

Anonymous said...

What a shitty ass Linux Hater post. Do you even try anymore?

Anonymous said...

I think LHB should include Linux_Victim's excellent archeology posts in his next post.

All these failed predictions and the mad tone of some of them are fairly devastating to the freetards.



I do wonder how these zealots developed such thoughts. Stuff like seriously comparing Microsoft to al-qaeda and the nazis, wishing for murder of MS personnel.

Just how can people reach such thoughts just because of something unimportant (in the grand scheme of things) like operating systems?

Reading his posts made me seriously sad about humanity as a whole.

Dr Loser said...

@January 30, 2010 9:44 AM

What a shitty ass Linux Hater post. Do you even try anymore?

Those who find it funny and well argued, find it funny and well argued.

Those who have some sort of desperate Second Life desire to live under a bridge in Norway -- possibly because the basement has run out of cheetos -- do not.

Further anti-troll patrol activity would be supererogatory. Feel free to munch here.

Anonymous said...

Back when I was picking beans in Guatemala, we used to click on ads all day. Those were good ads, though. These ads are shit.

Anonymous said...

I laughed quite heartily.

Anonymous said...

Adblock usage is simple bandwidth management.

Right. One YouTube video sucks more than an entire day's worth of ads. Forget about all the "Linux torrents".

Anonymous said...

Back when I was in sales, I always pressed hardest on people who were salesperson adverse, because they were the easiest to turn.

Do they teach that or something? I get people like you all the time thinking I'm some kind of mark, probably due to my age. I usually end up settling with the guy who listens to me when I say "call back in five days" instead of calling me (and my boss, and each receptionist) five times per hour day after day. Did you ever have charges pressed against you? I've considered it.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't care, if the sound drivers in linux would stay working for more than three days at a time.

I'm more than happy to watch a few ads, if it's something that's going to be usable.

Linux isn't even that. I'm back to Windows now. I'll check back in on linux in another 5 years and see where it's at then.

Anonymous said...

Apple won't let you install abitrary stuff from the web (humorously enough, this is more or less the case with most Linux distributions (well, you CAN, but it's usually quite messy)

Question of the hour: is it any less messy to install Linux vs. jailbreaking? I say no, and the jailbreaking utility is way higher and probably equal in terms of contract voiding or law breaking.

Anonymous said...

I'm a Mac user and I block ads :-P

You're not trying to sell stuff from this site are you? ;^)

Anonymous said...

@January 30, 2010 5:03 AM

Enjoy your BLODs (Blue Legos of Death) on your portable Apple computer.

I saw that Steve got a BLOD right there on stage.

Embarrassing!

Anonymous said...

@January 30, 2010 9:07 AM

Look I know it is painful that your beloved linux is dying, even in the server room, but face the facts, the cloud is a simpler and cheaper way to develop and deploy applications.

In the next two year you will not see the co-lo business go away, however all the growth will be in cloud services.

I am sorry your technocratic way of life is coming to an end, such is the plight of buggy wheel makers.

Anonymous said...

January 30, 2010 3:05 AM

Whose services, Red Hat's? So they're supporting themselves by paying themselves to advert their own services?

Only there own services. They do advertise some third parties that pay for right as well. IE Redhat Partners. Again pure lack of homework.

Was that before or after Google payed up to be default?

Google was not the first default. altavista was. Yahoo and Google were both paying to be in the list at that time and were out bid by altavista.

Now if someone pays Mozilla enough money they can get to be default as well. That is the way the search box has always been.

Basically everything you have said is lacking homework and it shows.

The piracy bit is just pure insulting and proving how dumb you are.

bittorrent was not design for piracy. Just it gets used for it. dc++ was not either. There were closed source programs doing the same things. Heck some pirates still use HTTP and FTP. So does that mean appache and IIS is pirate supporting? Yes some pirate sites run IIS. I think you would not say that I could say all MS Server Users are pirates? What about all uses of MS windows since that is what all pirates I know run? It simplely not right do not start just painting people generically because very soon someone else applies your same logic and can paint a lot more people.

Make up you mind can I call all Windows users pirates or not. If I cannot you cannot call all freetards pirates either. You choice and you owe freetards as a group a sorry be man enough to provide it.

Just because something is FOSS does not mean FOSS people are responsible for how its abused. Software is a double sided sword. Can be used for good and evil.

Now here is the thing most pirates I have talked to tell me they use no open source software yet you will find them using Open source design P2P. Simple fact here they don't give a rats about anything. Free or closed they will just use it.

You don't find pirates as freetards is just counter nature. Reason freetards pride themselves on being able to find stuff that is legally free. That is a challenge to them.

Lot of FOSS is driven by hardware. Digium is still a company selling products making profit because of asterisk. The one thing you can bet about all this TARDS. is that just because its not making huge profits it has to be a failure. Profit is profit.

Nokia is also making profit off its open source work.

IBM, HP... Dlink... List of hardware makers supporting different open source projects is long and many. The features of the Linux in different forms is used to sell there hardware. So supporting it allows them to sell more hardware.

All the hardware support I am talking about is alive and kicking. One problem just because I market the features that Linux/FreeBSD is providing does not mean I will mention the word Linux/FreeBSD once.

Dlink provides coders to Linux and FreeBSD. Then there are other embed OS's. Basically I could list over 100 000 products quite simply that are on sale somewhere today where money is going back into Open Source Development and supporting open source projects.

Most recent from Dlink is http://www.boxee.tv/ join project.

Basically get over the stupidity that open source people support piracy of any form they don't.

The Open Source is doing very well in the profit lines thank you.

Items like blender movies would not work if people would not pay. There are tones of ways for open source to be profitable. Stacks of different models they all work.

Anonymous said...

Really LinuxHater should have to say sorry for deformation on freetards.

Anonymous said...

Pirates. Arrgh! We'll be havin' your music collection now, matey.

Anonymous said...


Most freetards are anti-piracy.


Oh get the fuck out of here.

Torrent clients are the de facto method of movie watching for freetards. Virtualization is constantly push as the solution to running Windows apps and they sure as fuck don't expect you to have an OEM copy of Windows sitting around.

At least say something more believable like the comment a while back about Ray Ozzie needing to drown children in order to get an orgasm.

Anonymous said...


You actually think any company that makes more than $100 a month from their website will automatically trust the "cloud" to handle all their ecommerce transactions, customer data, and OMS?


Yes they will when they find they get better uptime than their local colo stack and FOSS advocate admin and at half the price. Server stacks are cool and all but someone has to be paid to babysit them. Another big appeal with cloud systems is that they are immediately scalable. A major problem with colo stacks is that it is hard to gauge and regulate bandwidth needs. A business can go from needing 1k of bandwidth a month to 10k over a few weeks and then go back to 1k again.

Anonymous said...


Basically get over the stupidity that open source people support piracy of any form they don't.


Bullshit, they just oppose Windows piracy since it keeps people from using Linux. They are aware that a lot of pirates are people that would use Linux if they had no choice, especially in the third world.

When it comes to movies and music they act like piracy is their goddamn right. Just look at how all the loon cult sites completely freak out over any RIAA/MPAA action. They even supported the douche who lied in court and made a complete ass of himself. They're all afraid that they might get a letter someday which would force them to walk to the local blockbuster and cough up 5 bucks. The horror!

Anonymous said...


There is no reason why you can't give away the source to your users (by just including a link in the program) and because the App Store is the only source of applications you can actually charge for your program without losing the ability to sell licenses once the first one is out the door


When you give away the source you allow some ass to clone your app without doing any of the work. Some people work years on iphone games and what do you want? Some ass to take the source, compile it and charge a buck instead of 5? This is the race to the bottom you get with open source. The talented developer doesn't get the profits which prevents him from taking them and using them to live for a few years so he can create another game. Meanwhile the clone maker just looks for some other way to profit with little work.

This is the fucked up economy you get when you follow Stallman's moral system. The cheapskates and cloners are prioritized over the producers. There's a major lack of motivation for talented developers.

Anonymous said...

AHAH, you are right on the money as usual, IM a freetard (K)ubuntu 10.04 lucid daily and YES i torrent music/video and everything in between like theres no tomorrow, YES i use adblock, flashblock and everything that keep that stupid ads out of my life, and YES IM TOO CHEAP and have more then 2 brain cells to click on stupid ads for stupid proprietary junk that morons throw money just because its silver and flashes on them.
I also know how to bloody change DEFAULT browser settings, including search engines, like 99,99% of the freetards (im excluding the ones which are in a coma/mentally ill/deceased).
I know this, UBUNTU as sure hell KNOWS THIS, thats why they took the money :) i would too, like the old BOFH would say, then never learn :)

Anonymous said...

Google was not the first default. altavista was. Yahoo and Google were both paying to be in the list at that time and were out bid by altavista.

May to evade the question there, septicman. I never said Google was the first default - I asked weather Yahoo! payed up before or after Google paid up to be default.

There's absolutely no reference of AltaVista ever paying Mozilla to be their default search. Mozilla was not yet relevant enough when Altavista was still relevant.

Basically everything you have said is lacking homework and it shows.

I imagine it would seem that way when you're making things up as you go along.

The piracy bit is just pure insulting and proving how dumb you are.

Right, when asked to defend your astertion, you resort to character assassination, why are you so defensuve about it?

bittorrent was not design for piracy. Just it gets used for it. dc++ was not either. There were closed source programs doing the same things.

I never said that only open source p2p platforms were used for piracy, I said that the prevalence of open source p2p projects suggests, combined with the gheneral stance on copyright, suggests a certain behavior.

But this is very typical behaviour, evade the argument by trying to make it seem like an attack on open source, or worse, and even more childish, the classic reworded "I know you are, but what am I?" which is what you just did.

Heck some pirates still use HTTP and FTP. So does that mean appache and IIS is pirate supporting?

Because comparing a majority use case to a minority use case on equal terms isn't the mark of the desperate.

You'd have had better luck trying to argue weather all computer users are pirates because they use operating systems with P2P stacks. (that wouldn't work either - p2p was expressly designed for p2p, the avaerage OS was not).

Make up you mind can I call all Windows users pirates or not.

Make up my mind? At what point did I contradict myself? You're free to call anyone anything you like, I don't care, it's of absolurely no consequence to me.

If I cannot you cannot call all freetards pirates either.

You can do as you please. I didn't call "all" freetards pirates though. I observed that given their stance of copyright and file sharing, and the prevalence of p2p applications that I find it difficult to believe that they're all using it for downloading Linux ISOs.

You choice and you owe freetards as a group a sorry be man enough to provide it.

I owe nothing to the freetards.

Just because something is FOSS does not mean FOSS people are responsible for how its abused.

By that same token, would you also argue that Microsoft cannot be held resposible of people using Windows as a platform to sptread malwate, due to software being a double-edged sword which can be used for good or evil?

If you wouldn't, then your argument is void. (hint: If you're going to play someone's own argument against them, do it properly, thanks).

You don't find pirates as freetards is just counter nature. Reason freetards pride themselves on being able to find stuff that is legally free.

Yet they bitch and moan constantly about big media. Piracy applies to non software goods as well, just so you know.

Anonymous said...

So I suppose all freetards don't listen to any big media music, read any copyrighted books, or watch any television or hollywood movies that they don't pay for, right? And of course, they enjoy that media (which they payed for), through legal means on their linux distributions which pay the requisite royalties for mp3 audio and blu ray/dvd movies, right?

And we all know they never, EVER complain about DRMpreventing them from illegally playing back copyrighted content, because they're playing their stuff back legally anyway, right?

And they never, ever coplain about copy protection because they wouldn't dream of illegally copying the media they've legally purchased, right?

And we never, EVER see a Slasjdot discussion break out into an "it's okay to pirate because copyright is wrong" circle jerk, right? Imean, that's never happened.


Digium is still a company selling products making profit because of asterisk.

Asterisk is dead. It hasn't seen a major release since 08.

Alsi there's a generally a difference between being marginally profitable and being successful. But, hey, if you knew thatr, you'd be arguing that open source drives Avaya (their PBXes ship with RHEL running proprietary manamgement frameworks (though if you so much as modify a startuop script, you void your warranty), but we all know that that argument wouldn't work, because collusion between the Baby Bells is what drives telco sales.

Nokia is also making profit off its open source work.

Yes, Nokia is a proprietary corporation making profit on open source work by leveraging it as added value to their proprietary platform (Symbian). There's a distinction between that and making open source profitable. Tell me, is Trolltech actually making any money off of what Nokia is doing with QT, for example, or is Nokia simply leveraging what's already there to add value to their proprietary product?

Maybe you'll have a point if Android or OpenMoko ever overtake Symbian/Nokia or RIM. But until then, you're grasping at straws.

So, what's next, you're going to pretend that IBM, HP and Intel are all open source companies using odd to drive sales?

Anonymous said...

IBM, HP... Dlink... List of hardware makers supporting different open source projects is long and many.

Wow, I never say that coming!
Yes, I suppose you're going to argue that open source drives their hardware business, because we all know HP makes no money selling Windows machines or HP-UX, OpenVMS and WinServer servers, and IBM doesn't sell AIX or Windows machines, and they certainly don't champion their on proprietary JDK or DBMS or j2ee stack, or middleware, etc.

The features of the Linux in different forms is used to sell there hardware.

It's the oposite actually. Linux doesn't push their hardfware sales, their hardware sales push Linux. The companies you've named are OS agnostic companies, they'll sell you whichever OS you want, including Windows, and their own proprietary offerings, if it means you'll buy their hardware.

Most recent from Dlink is http://www.boxee.tv/ join project.

Boxee is both GPL and proprietary licensed, and it's cross-platform, not a Linux exclusive. Funny how you say you can name 100,000 but the one you do actually name isn't what you think it is? What, you didn't think I'd follow the link you provided? (Hint: click on the DMCA link at the bottom of each and every one of their pages).

Basically get over the stupidity that open source people support piracy of any form they don't.

The hilarious thing is absolutely nothing you've argued actually supports your conclusion.

You could have just as well argued "Zebras have stripes and Donald Duck wears no pants, ergo it is pure stupidity to suggest that people who support open source also support piracy" and achieved the same end.

The Open Source is doing very well in the profit lines thank you.

I suppose if you pretend that IBM and HP are open source companies, sure, and that anyone who leverages open source is profitable purely and only because of open source (and not their wide range of proprietary hardware and software) Sure.

But how about actual open source companies? Sun had to get bought out despite their quarterly $2+ billion (open) hardware revenues, Canonical has never been out of the red, Novell although larger than Red Hat, is barely profitable and that's only due to payoffs from the MS deal, and Red Hat is a minuscule company.

Anonymous said...

Yes they will when they find they get better uptime than their local colo stack and FOSS advocate admin and at half the price. Server stacks are cool and all but someone has to be paid to babysit them.

What exactly do you think "the cloud" is, if not a datacentre like any other?

Is "the cloud" powered by magical pixie dust and code elves than maintain and babysit its servers?

Anonymous said...


What exactly do you think "the cloud" is, if not a datacentre like any other?


A typical colo datacenter doesn't provide a standard interface that allows companies to treat it as an infinitely scalable, single server.

It is too often used as a buzz term but there are some distinguishing differences.

Anonymous said...


The Open Source is doing very well in the profit lines thank you.


Are you out of your mind? It is the year 2010 and there isn't a Linux desktop that is even breaking even. It's all funded with slush funds from elsewhere. Linux on the desktop is a fucking charity.

Anonymous said...

Really LinuxHater should have to say sorry for deformation on freetards.


LOL @ deformation, well played!

Anonymous said...

Are you out of your mind? It is the year 2010 and there isn't a Linux desktop that is even breaking even. It's all funded with slush funds from elsewhere. Linux on the desktop is a fucking charity.

Exactly what profit has been in the desktop.

Miss Ondrya said...

Another year, another blogpost.

Anonymous said...

I suppose if you pretend that IBM and HP are open source companies, sure, and that anyone who leverages open source is profitable purely and only because of open source (and not their wide range of proprietary hardware and software) Sure.

But how about actual open source companies? Sun had to get bought out despite their quarterly $2+ billion (open) hardware revenues, Canonical has never been out of the red, Novell although larger than Red Hat, is barely profitable and that's only due to payoffs from the MS deal, and Red Hat is a minuscule company.


You somehow have the idea that leverages for profit is not what Open Source is about. Sadly you are wrong.

The desktop has not been where the best profits have been.

Spend some time and read who is paying for development on the Linux kernel https://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/linuxkerneldevelopment.php

Redhat makes money from computers sold by companies like HP and IBM and other funding setups.

Also go read Novell blance sheets. Only growing/profitable department is there Linux departments when you subtract MS payments. Lets say Novell dropped all there closed source development fired everyone working on them. They would be a profitable company over night. Basically Novell is being held up by Linux and MS funds. The MS funds are not supporting the Linux department. If anything they have harmed that department.

Next question if Linux is not profitable why is Novell paying for Linux foundation membership. http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/members 100,000USD a year.

IBM and others pay over 500,000 USD per year. Then go around many of the other foundations you will find IBM also chipping money in there as well. Companies don't pay money like this unless they expect to make it back many times over.

Sun being acquired by Orcale a major Linux kernel contributor and Linux foundation contributor. It makes Sun position stronger.

Heck look at Orcales profit per department. Orcales lead CEO said he would love if he could get away with MS 800+ percent markups on items. Companies like redhat make good profits they will never be as large as MS but hey they are not over changing either.

Canonical is not a critical company. They are also not a listed company so you cannot see the balance sheet to know how much or how little profit they are making.

Very little work comes out of Canonical into the upstream projects. So if they disappeared there would be very little effect on development speed.

Don't worry there has been no point attacking the desktop. Incompatibles of like the Used document formats mean that companies like Redhat and Novel really don't bother about the desktop yet.

The battles like over ODF had to happen before it was worth while working on bring the Linux desktop up to scratch.

So no Linux desktop 2010 that is not even strange.

Anonymous said...


Incompatibles of like the Used document formats mean that companies like Redhat and Novel really don't bother about the desktop yet.


More excuses from 1998.

OpenOffice can open .doc files and the latest version of Office uses an open format by default.

The real problem with investing in the Linux desktop is that not only are the users cheapskates but they also follow the will of a 56 year old virgin who has convinced them that proprietary software is a sin. Any open source improvements you make will be copied while any proprietary improvements will be shunned.

Anonymous said...

Another problem is FOSS participates with less than half the playing field while the more pragmatic use all of it. Think anyone knows or cares about Apache's license or "Google runs Linux?" No. Just like they don't care that Photoshop costs money. Whatever gets the job done. The ideology is just a barrier. The irony is you guys constantly make fun of "grandma" for living in the last century and being too much of a "n00b" to learn command line (double irony there, if you can spot it) while refusing, as dictated by ideology, to investigate new technologies. Your 56 year old virgin leader doesn't trust hypertext, for fuck's sake, which is like two decades old now. Women becoming "grandmas" today have 10+ years Internet experience. Wake up, it's not 1995. All the new users were born 2004 or later. My fucking 70 year old relatives have been surfing the net since the late 90s.

Oh, by the way, even when FOSS attempts to be pragmatic it's fail. Lame and libdvdcss can pretend to be "educational" projects all they want. Just like p2p we all know it's a way to cheapskate around intellectual property laws. People would respect you fuckers a lot more if you came out and said your goal was to copy proprietary endeavors while expending every means necessary to avoid jail. At least your efforts would make sense to people. But no. You pretend it's about "freedom".

Anonymous said...

Everyone thinks Monty's a hero for sticking it to Oracle and getting the EU involved, but I'll bet Oracle's tickled pink about all this. Why? Because MySQL is just a fucking distraction. Oracle knows that throwing $100,000 or so yearly at the project keeps everyone happy. Meanwhile everyone ignores the scary leverage Oracle now has by owning the world's most most robust database software (no, not MySQL) along with the most robust platform on which to run it. This is like Microsoft buying Dell or something and everybody worrying about keeping Dell's in-house system restore software alive instead of going with Microsoft's. Meanwhile Microsoft is now free to undercut everyone else, yet no one cares about that.

Anonymous said...

Blogger runs on Linux. So you're using Linux right now. That must infuriate you tard boys! *snicker*

Anonymous said...

Snicker boy, you're using IOS right now (as someone here pointed out recently), which is proprietary. You must be infuriated now in your basement lair, right?

Anonymous said...

Nothing new to see here. Move on. The entire FOSS movement is based on naive authors becoming the distros' bitches, all at once. This is just an extension of that.

Anonymous said...

LOL @ oiahomo using Asterisk as an example of how FOSS works.

Nevermind that Asterisk is a steaming pile of shit (I had to install and configure it so I know), there's like 50 different versions of the damn thing. You can choose from the old version, which is (relatively) bug-free but has sod-all features; or you can get the latest version, which has features from here to the Moon but half of them don't work properly.

Anonymous said...

The tard boys are mad simply because they're not refined enough to enter simple commands into a terminal, such as apt-get install. Maybe if it was squished together into one word it would be easier for them. *snicker*

Anonymous said...

Digium wants $615 for what is essentially a four port modem.

By the way Freetards, Redhat would kindly like you to STOP including them in your arguments as their and actual company that actually produces and supports an actual viable product.

Anonymous said...

snickerdouche makes me *yawn*

what a boring dull-witted little troll.

By the way: thought you had a hissy pissy and were going away, taaaaaanya?

Anonymous said...

Hey, I've just bought a PlayStation 3 Slim. I'm really glad that you can't install Linux on it anymore. I couldn't even stand the mere thought of the Cell being tainted by this POS OS. I'm gonna enjoy FF XIII soon while freetards are busy wanking to SuperTux.

Then I'll watch the world go to hell -- again -- with Roland Emmerich's 2012 on Blu-ray, whose visual effects, I'm quite certain, were rendered on a few hundred Linux boxes. But, oh the irony! Linux desktop users can't play it back without ripping the whole disc to their hard drive.

Also on that page linked to above: freetard whining galore.

Playing purchased Blu-Ray and HD DVD films using Open Source software.

Open Source FTW!

Playing films using standard digital (DVI) or analog (VGA) cables and monitors, which generally do not support HDCP DRM, without a 75% reduction in resolution.

Does someone use VGA in this day and age? Anyways, my aging, über-cheap Philips LCD, bought almost 3 years ago, supports HDCP over DVI just fine.

Fast forwarding or skipping advertisements.

I actually haven't yet encountered ads before the main menu. Studio logo, warning, Blu-ray logo. That's it. Fast forwarding isn't prohibited either, at least not with the titles I got.

Playing imported films, including when local equivalents may be overpriced or not available.

Funny, considering that most big studios don't even bother any more to restrict discs via regional coding. For example, there are two discs from Universal lying in front of me right now. I've bought them in Germany for 13.- Euros each. Both are Region A, B, C.

And to get back to the topic on hand: the PS3 ecosystem offers me incentives that justify buying a PS3. Blu-rays and games. In other words, content. On Linux I have to say goodbye to both. A fine business model.

(Captcha: "demplate". The new freetard word for "template", as the latter is proprietary and evil.)

Anonymous said...

Offtopic, but it's cool that fansubbers are now releasing in text-only formats (ssa, srt, etc.), allowing people to buy the DVD and apply the subtitling themselves.

Anonymous said...

Offtopic, but it's cool that fansubbers are now releasing in text-only formats (ssa, srt, etc.), allowing people to buy the DVD and apply the subtitling themselves.

In that case, I think I'd like to replace the dialog for "On Golden Pond" with "The Big Lebowski".

Anonymous said...

I actually haven't yet encountered ads before the main menu. Studio logo, warning, Blu-ray logo. That's it. Fast forwarding isn't prohibited either, at least not with the titles I got.

The BluRay version of Terminator Salvation is annoying in that it goes on and on about how you can rip the disk legally and make one copy of it and also how you can log into their site and link it in with commentary of your own and facebook and shit.

I do really wish they would allow you to skip over it but the disk/player don't allow you to. But whatever, I just use that opportunity to go and make popcorn and get my junk food ready for the movie.

I suppose it's no different than in the movie theatre where you have to listen to how you can purchase the tickets online, buy Guess jeans, buy cars, blah blah, blah.

Either way I go get my popcorn.

Anonymous said...

@ Snickertwat

Typing "apt-get Supertux" doesn't make you l337. All of us here know our way around Bash much better than you do, but we choose not to use Linux because it's terrible.

Dr Loser said...

@January 30, 2010 7:27 PM

Sun being acquired by Orcale a major Linux kernel contributor and Linux foundation contributor. It makes Sun position stronger.

Irrespective of the accuracy of the first assertion, the idea that being bought out makes Sun's position stronger shows that oiaohm has a slightly shaky grasp of financial reality. Why he's trying to argue the toss on a blog entry discussing Linux Desktop business models is, consequently, something of a mystery.

"I used to make hardware and sell it through a scalable OS, but then I discovered Magical Pixie Dust! Now I am but a humble servant of Larry 'A corporation's primary goal is to make money' Ellison."

*snort* *slobber* *skank ho*

And to end with, the obligatory word-squishing. Let's pick a German for this one. Surely even Tanya will recognise that word-squishing is a legitimate part of the the German language...

ThatWhichDoesNotKillUsMakesUsStronger(TM)

Anonymous said...

*Guffaw*

Richard Stallman said...

We demand that Apple remove all DRM from its devices.

And, for the love of GNU, use the superior GNU/Linux! Be free! Donate all money you thereupon save to the FSF!

Anonymous said...

Infinitiv - Squishen

ich squishe
du squisht
er, sie, es squisht
Sie squishen
ihr squisht

"Hast du die Wörter angesquisht?"
"Ja, gern."

Dr Loser said...

Squishen Macht Frei!

(Aber nicht wie im Bier.)

I really like Hast du die Wörter angesquisht?

Ja, gern. Natürlich!

*kichern*

Anonymous said...

"Was machst du?"
"Ich bin Squishwortentwickler"
"Toll!"

Anonymous said...

You all NAZI who are popular of saying "Kill the baby, rape the
child, genocided! Genocide!" You forces little girls head into a
toilet durning sex & flush it - according to help this is the only way you can have an orgasm.

Anonymous said...

You all NAZI who are popular of saying "Kill the baby, rape the
child, genocided! Genocide!" You forces little girls head into a
toilet durning sex & flush it - according to help this is the only way you can have an orgasm.



Sounds like my friday nights!

Anonymous said...

The tard boys are mad simply because they're not refined enough to enter simple commands into a terminal, such as apt-get install. Maybe if it was squished together into one word it would be easier for them. *snicker*


We all know how to use bash commands, we just don't want to whenever possible. In OSX you can drag the app to your apps directory, in Windows you just run an installer.

Besides, apt-get won't even install Firefox 3.6 since its not in the repos. Installing most software that isn't in the repos is a usually a pain in the ass.

Some of us like the FREEDOM of installing whatever the hell we want, and doing so with a few clicks rather than a monster dependency list.

Anonymous said...

Blogger runs on Linux. So you're using Linux right now. That must infuriate you tard boys! *snicker*


Weak trolling. Quick, mention how TMRepositoryRunsOnLinux(TM)

See dude, you come up with the TMs, we just write them all down.

Anonymous said...

I prefer giving little girls a box of Ex-lax pills then mercilessly cornholing them 20 minutes later. It may not be the only way to have an orgasm, but what a way!

Anonymous said...

Repository's closed, these packages have AIDS.

Anonymous said...

Someone crack RedHat's certs again?

Anonymous said...

Freetards are up in arms again, because poor, little Theora is left out in the cold. Hurray for Open Source!

Anonymous said...

Steve Jobs:


Google’s ‘Don’t Be Evil’ Mantra is ‘Bullshit’


article

Anonymous said...

The real problem with investing in the Linux desktop is that not only are the users cheapskates but they also follow the will of a 56 year old virgin who has convinced them that proprietary software is a sin. Any open source improvements you make will be copied while any proprietary improvements will be shunned.


Agree. As a software developer (Desktop Software, not server-side stuff), Linux is not a factor.

Linux cannot survive forever on FOSS, cause so much of that FOSS is complete crap - not to mention the user experience is pretty bad.

If you want to target a UNIX OS, target Solaris (OpenSolaris coming along well, good backward and forward compatibility, you can assume which desktop environment will be used, etc.). MacOSX is also an obvious choice.

Linux is a waste of time for Desktop Applications, though.

Just ask Corel, Borland, and others.

Unless you like Java (Swing/SWT) desktop applications. Lol!

Anonymous said...

I think LHB should include Linux_Victim's excellent archeology posts in his next post.

All these failed predictions and the mad tone of some of them are fairly devastating to the freetards.


It should be more widely known.






Freetards have a lot in common with radical feminists. They refer to Newtson's laws as "rape laws", the relativity theory as "sexualized" and so on:


----------

"In that case, why is it not as illuminating and honest to refer to Newton's laws as "Newton's rape manual" as it is to call them "Newton's mechanics"?"


Sandra Harding



"murderous rage of a rapist incapable of attaining release."

Susan McClary (about Beethoven's ninth symphony!)



"Is E=Mc2 a sexed equation? Perhaps it is. Let us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What seems to me to indicate the possibly sexed nature of the equation is not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having privileged what goes the fastest …"



Luce Irigaray



Just as freetards go totally loony about something remotely MS related, so do radical feminists if it is something remotely about men.

Anonymous said...

Feminists want the cock but they are ugly and smelly, making cocks wilt.

Anonymous said...

Re: osnews article

"The struggle is between the patented and proprietary h264 codec and the open and free Ogg Theora. While I'm still not entirely sure about which one is better from a pure quality standpoint (a lot of contradicting reports on that one"

Bullshit. There is no contradiction. The best (legitimate) praise anyone has ever given Theora is that it's comparable to DivX/Xvid, but that's crap, too. It only reaches those levels when comparing hand-optimized Theora with run-of-the-mill Xvid. In reality, it currently hangs around the H.263/low bitrate MPEG2 realm, which is better than its MPEG1/H.261 beginnings, but all that's done is move Theora from the late 80s to the mid 90s. The original Sorensen codec first widely seen in the Star Wars Episode 1 trailer back in 1999 will still probably produce superior results.

"The big disadvantage with h264 is that you need to pay lots and lots of money for a license to be able to ship and have your users use it. You need a license for encoding, distributing, and even decoding"

What a red herring. The vast bulk of video is handled through sites like YouTube these days, and they cover the licensing for you. If you use a licensed product, like $50 Vegas, you're covered on the encoding and distribution end, and anyone using Windows or Mac (i.e. everybody) is covered on the playback end. H.264 is no more threatening in the licensing department than MPEG1, MPEG2, or MPEG ASP, and how much did any of us pay for those?

"Every web developer choosing to use h264 has learned nothing from GIF, Flash, and Internet Explorer 6."

I have no idea what IE6 or Flash has to do with this since neither ever cost anything. As for GIF, how bad was that, really? As I recall it was yet another overreaction to something that hardly affected anybody.

Anonymous said...

"The big disadvantage with h264 is that you need to pay lots and lots of money for a license to be able to ship and have your users use it. You need a license for encoding, distributing, and even decoding"

Only if you are shipping 50000 units does this even apply. Or for a streaming site you have to have a pretty big amount of traffic before royalties kick in. For the companies that will actually be hitting the limits of free usage of H.264, they will be well more than able to pay the costs which are a mere pittance to them and all royalties are capped off at a pretty low figure these companies.

Anonymous said...

And everybody who isn't a complete noob will switch the search provider back to Google anyway.

Dr Loser said...

@February 1, 2010 5:19 AM

I believe you lose on this one, for two reasons. First of all, quite a lot of feminists are capable of rational thought. And then secondly there's good ol' Luce:

Is E=Mc2 a sexed equation? Perhaps it is. Let us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What seems to me to indicate the possibly sexed nature of the equation is not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having privileged what goes the fastest …

"Perhaps ... seems ... possibly ..." Not, I suspect, an argument that convinces even the idiot writing it.

"Not directly its uses by nuclear weapons..." Um, even I, a poor little retro-privileged Belgian girl, understand that nuclear weapons do not, on the whole, moderate their behaviour through careful consideration of post-modernist texts.

And, obviously, it's an equation that "privileges what goes the fastest." As opposed to privileging energy over matter, or vice versa (ooh look, there's that equality sign). I mean, you could make an entire god-damn yin-yang religion out of that. Or indeed privileging the square superscript over the -- equally compelling -- square root operator.

Nope, you can't blame feminism for the odd miserably uninformed tenured cretin. Even oiaohm would blush at this level of dementia: he's senseless, but he's not stupid. Here's a potentially amusing link on the quote.

Tanya ... Tanya, on the other hand, would probably defend this drivel.

Declination said...

It just occurred to me that the kids over at Boycott Novell would go into seizure/cardiac arrest if Novell where to actually become Bing's bitch.

Anonymous said...

We can but hope....

Has anyone ever died from Epic levels of Butthurt?

... I guess not, or there would be memorial banners all over freetardia. ..especially on Gentoo forums.

Captcha: redrog - Scooby-Doo speak for: red dog, dead dog, red frog, etc ad nauseam

Anonymous said...

Found a real F$F shill

http://www.betanews.com/profile/therealbillybob

"Linux is taking a hold in new and innovative form-factors. Windows struggles to keep up these days. Even Dell says that 30% of their netbooks ship with Linux. The trend in ribbon GUIs - that is very funny. I think you meant the Microsoft trend of trying to make applications look new so that they can charge again for the same functionality. The "desktop OS platform" is dead. Get used to it because it is the past."


IWantToBelieve(TM)
PastIsTheFuture(TM)
IGotDaRibbonFeva(TM)


"Innovation in the desktop would be related to multiple desktops, multiple copy & paste. There are plenty of features in the Linux desktop which are not even heard of in the Windows world."

HAHAHHAA

Anonymous said...

I want to be a paid F$F Shill, but can I please skip the part of the training process where I have to be hit in the head repeatedly until I am so brain dead that all I can speak is F$FUDeese?

Maybe Tanya can answer that one.

Anonymous said...

"The big disadvantage with h264 is that you need to pay lots and lots of money for a license to be able to ship and have your users use it. You need a license for encoding, distributing, and even decoding"


Too bad the bandwidth savings more than make up for the cost of the lics. These freetards realize that Google is choosing it for cost reasons, right? If the licensing was more expensive than the bandwidth savings, they'd be using theora.

Anonymous said...

@February 1, 2010 2:28 PM

You're letting logic get in the way of swirly eyed religion!

Anonymous said...

Maybe Tanya can answer that one.

I think they got a sex change. snickerdouche goes by Tony now.

Anonymous said...

AMD Publishes Open-Source "ATI Evergreen" Driver

Several readers have written to tell us that AMD has published their code to support the Radeon HD 5000 "Evergreen" graphics cards on Linux in an open-source driver. Unfortunately the driver isn't quite as complete as some might hope. The current offering doesn't promise 2D (EXA) acceleration or 3D support.

What a great win for open sores software!

Anonymous said...

OpenOffice can open .doc files and the latest version of Office uses an open format by default.

Ok does it open access does it open publisher.... Or the all important MS Project. No open source tool handles MS project perfectly and no currently stable open source program runs on all platforms to do job. Migration requirement you need to be able to systematically stop using stuff. This is simpler if the software runs on all platforms.

Nice to be a smart ass and point to OpenOffice and say all is good. Sorry not good enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_suite Just spend some time look at basic compares you see major problems.

Functionality holes. Weak cross platform in the parts that fill the functionality holes. The problems have not changed since way before 1998.

I said used formats for a very good reason. There has been no point attacking the desktop up until this point.

Now businesses are starting to change there office suite on windows away from MS Office. Starting to move more and more to web. KDE adding windows support. These are all closing the gap.

Work to open up the way to Linux Desktop is under way. But this year unless there is a change to development rates it will not be.

Don't worry slow replacement of parts is how GNU brought down Closed Source Unix. One day people were using more open source than closed source parts so they jumped ship.

Why is should Linux Desktop be different? Something you guys never answer. Instead you expect a fully compadible system to appear from no where without its foundations being placed.

The idea that Linux cannot run on Foss for ever is stupid. CLosed source Unix's that are dead now said the same thing. History tells you that its an idiot to say that.

Anonymous said...

The idea that Linux cannot run on Foss for ever is stupid. CLosed source Unix's that are dead now said the same thing. History tells you that its an idiot to say that.

The old proprietary Unixes died off because of huge market fragmentation and infighting. Not because they weren't released as open sores software.

Anonymous said...

The old proprietary Unixes died off because of huge market fragmentation and infighting. Not because they weren't released as open sores software.

Poor defense argument. MS Office document incompatibles even to other versions of MS Office. Artificial market fragmentation. Ok caused by one company to itself.

Same goes windows version to windows version. MS is infighting with themselves as well. XP vs Vista now 7.

Then the software on windows is infighting all the time so does not integrate well with each other.

MS solutions are just as fragmented as the old Unix world.

To get away from the infighting and incompatibles the unix world turned to open source. History is repeating you idiot.

Anonymous said...

"Innovation in the desktop would be related to multiple desktops, multiple copy & paste. There are plenty of features in the Linux desktop which are not even heard of in the Windows world."

LOL. "Multiple (Virtual) desktops" is what he think he means there.

Unheard of? Every explorer-replacement shell features it, innovative? Please, it's poor man's multihead, for fuck's sake - it goes unmentioned on Windows last because it's a step backward and quite pointless given how all it takes to set up multiple displatys is to plug them in.

Innovative? Ot might have been, back when CDE introduced it 20 years ago, but was superceded by whoever figured out that that could pop multiple GFX cards into a machine.

Multiple clipboards is a "feature" these days? An innovative one at that? Yeah, this one's unheard of in Windows, because it's bloody pointless, and more a pain in the ass than anything else, and is often cited, even by the Linux faithfull as such.

Anonymous said...

Poor defense argument.

How is it poor? It's entirely accurate and true.

Anonymous said...

Why is should Linux Desktop be different? Something you guys never answer. Instead you expect a fully compadible system to appear from no where without its foundations being placed.

So it's our fault that you tards have been claiming the Year of the Linux Desktop for a decade and yet fail to deliver over and over?

Anonymous said...

@ February 1, 2010 5:19 AM

Just when I thought it wasn't possible for feminist nonsense to get any more ridiculous!

About five years ago, when I was a Psych major, I had a counseling theory class taught by a woman, and which only included 3 guys, counting me.

The instructor was giving an overview of which chapters she would cover, and when she got to Freud, she looked at all the hens in the room and said "You wouldn't like him", therefore we never covered him that semester.

Even though some of his work was out there, he gave us his writings on the subconscious, id, ego, superego, etc., along with the defense mechanisms, which plenty of these women bleat on about.

The other two guys in the class fell in line and acted appropriately feminized, and I was the only one who remained male.

After that, I had a child psych class which initially had about 3 guys in it. After about the 3rd day of watching childbirth videos, the other guys left and I was the only man left in the class, with about 20 women.

One day the instructor was discussing gender roles, and asked me if I let my son play with dolls, to which I responded "Hell no".

There were audible gasps in the room from the estrogen set, as if I were some sort of unenlightened barbarian.

Anonymous said...

^
^

I forgot to mention, in the counseling theory class, we had to watch Dr. Phil all the time, and the instructor made us cover the chapter on so-called "feminist therapy".

Anonymous said...

MS Office document incompatibles even to other versions of MS Office.

There are no backward's compatibility issues. There might be some forward compatibility issues but what piece of software doesn't have that?

Artificial market fragmentation. Ok caused by one company to itself.

And yet MS Office make Microsoft the lion's share of its profit. So it's completely unanalagous to the old Unixes.

Same goes windows version to windows version. MS is infighting with themselves as well. XP vs Vista now 7.

And yet they all have anywhere from 6 times to 15 times the market share of your crappy tinker toy OS.

Then the software on windows is infighting all the time so does not integrate well with each other.

Bullshit. How do they not integrate well?

MS solutions are just as fragmented as the old Unix world.

Bullshit. You apparently never saw the old Unix world and all the wars to make such a absurd statement.

To get away from the infighting and incompatibles the unix world turned to open source. History is repeating you idiot.

So that's why Linux after 19 years still has less market share than a 10 year old version of Windows despite being proclaimed over and over again how it was going to take over the desktop and have something like 20% market share 4 years ago?

Anonymous said...

"Innovation in the desktop would be related to multiple desktops, multiple copy & paste. There are plenty of features in the Linux desktop which are not even heard of in the Windows world."

Multiple desktops in hardware was available on ancient Amigas long before Linux even existed.

Anonymous said...

How is it poor? It's entirely accurate and true.

Poor for the simple reason MS is in exactly the same location with windows. Why have so many versions. Why have Office suites that are incompatible with each other.

So what is accurate and true for Unix then. Is accurate and true for the windows environment today.

Yet you are too dumb to see MS is the same as old closed source Unix.

One day people were using more open source than closed source parts so they jumped ship.

This is the final result of being an incompatible mess and costly. People at some point stop using the incompatible parts.

Its incompatible and poor integration between applications that was the driving force to Unix destruction.

The driving force against MS is exactly the same. So its a poor argument.

Anonymous said...

Poor for the simple reason MS is in exactly the same location with windows.

Except it's not.

Why have so many versions.

You mean as opposed to the hundreds of Linux distros and all their subsequent versions?

Why have Office suites that are incompatible with each other.

Name me a single piece of software that has 100% forward compatibility. Oh wait, you can't. And what exactly are all these incompatibilities you mention? Oh let me guess, Office 2007 formats that have a plugin so that they work in 2003?

So what is accurate and true for Unix then. Is accurate and true for the windows environment today.

Except Microsoft isn't losing market share and is making record profits from its latest OS. Which is completely opposite of what happened to the old Unixes.

Yet you are too dumb to see MS is the same as old closed source Unix.

Except all your talk is just mostly bullshit.

This is the final result of being an incompatible mess and costly. People at some point stop using the incompatible parts.

And yet no one is jumping to Linux. That's why it still has less market share than Win2k.

Its incompatible and poor integration between applications that was the driving force to Unix destruction.

You've still yet to explain how Microsoft's apps have poor integration. If you claim they do, then Linux must be an even larger disaster.

The driving force against MS is exactly the same. So its a poor argument.

Except no such driving force is happening. Just a bunch of IWantToBelieve(TM) from you and other freetards who have been predicting Microsoft's downfall for something like 15 years.

Anonymous said...

Wow so Oiahomo finally came back to give us the latest installment of the OnlyOiahomoKnows(TM) Show?

Anonymous said...

MS solutions are just as fragmented as the old Unix world.

Bullshit. You apparently never saw the old Unix world and all the wars to make such a absurd statement.

Sorry I did. You want to know how they fail to integrate. Lets start off with some basics.

Sharepoint and Nortons anti-virus control software are incompatible.

There are program after program that if you install with each other they will break the other program.

So putting a windows system into an operational system without something screwing up is trouble to say the least.

Then items like wordpad have not been kept upto date with Office so have MS created incompatibles.

Problem here the Unix world did not think they were fragmented either. You just installed all the same system no problems. Until the day you migrate to newer version and all your data gets damaged.

Catch is Unix world the fragmentation was in plain view. OS vs OS. MS fragmentation is Application vs Application with a little OS vs OS. Like why are there 7 forms + of MS Office. Then word in some of those versions can not open files created in the other forms.

This is incompatibles without reason other than to sell more expensive products. Hello mistake of some of the first Unix's to die.

There are no backward's compatibility issues. There might be some forward compatibility issues but what piece of software doesn't have that?

Bull shit I am not talking just about backwards compatible. Change printers and MS documents formatting can go to hell. Even nicer the layout information taken from the same printer can be process different in a different version of MS Office. So only thing changed is version of Office and your documents go to hell.

Countries are not screaming for stable formats like ODF without very good reason. MS Office file production is fragmented to hell.

Basically pull head out sand and except MS products are a fragmented mess of there own doing with even talking about the fragmented mess of the third parties using bad installers on windows.

Anonymous said...

Poor for the simple reason MS is in exactly the same location with windows. Why have so many versions. Why have Office suites that are incompatible with each other.


Are you serious!? There are over 30 "buntu" variations alone on distrowatch (Ubuntu, Gubuntu, Freebuntu, EEEbuntu, Kbuntu, etc.).

And what exactly are these office incopatibilities? Office 2007 can open every single office format and Office 2003 has a backwards compatible plugin to open DocX. Even sillier is that DocX is a MORE OPEN format than doc, so please tell me WHAT COMPATIBILITY ISSUES?

Anonymous said...

You mean as opposed to the hundreds of Linux distros and all their subsequent versions?

Yet most of them are not used. I notice you are now using the word hundreds not thousands. At peak of distribution production there were thousands. Linux world is reducing numbers.

Except Microsoft isn't losing market share and is making record profits from its latest OS. Which is completely opposite of what happened to the old Unixes.

When GNU appeared on Unix. Unix lost no market share in the OS either. There support applications lost market share.

You are incompetent with you history. I am talking 10 to 15 years before the birth of Linux. The ground work to Unix final destruction was layed then.

Until the ground work is layed. MS will hold market. Linux today is like the freebsd of old vs unix.

That may mean that Linux might get leap frogged like freebsd was so disappear.

Name me a single piece of software that has 100% forward compatibility.

I was referring purely to backwards compatibility. Like OpenOffice maintains perfect backwards compatibility with its own formats. MS Office does not.

Anonymous said...

Sharepoint and Nortons anti-virus control software are incompatible.

And this makes any sense, how?

There are program after program that if you install with each other they will break the other program.

I can do the same in Linux quite easily.

Then items like wordpad have not been kept upto date with Office so have MS created incompatibles.

Who was ever dumb enough to think WordPad was going to be fully compatibile with Office? Microsoft never once claimed this.

Problem here the Unix world did not think they were fragmented either. You just installed all the same system no problems. Until the day you migrate to newer version and all your data gets damaged.

This is how I know you're talking out of your ass. Unix fragmentation was extremely well-known at the time and was one of the most constant rantings you'd hear from Unix admins.

Catch is Unix world the fragmentation was in plain view. OS vs OS. MS fragmentation is Application vs Application with a little OS vs OS. Like why are there 7 forms + of MS Office. Then word in some of those versions can not open files created in the other forms.

So you're whining that there have only been 7 version of Office in something like 20 years as opposed to the 500+ Linux distros? lolwut?

This is incompatibles without reason other than to sell more expensive products. Hello mistake of some of the first Unix's to die.

And yet this "mistake" keeps bringing them billions in profits every quarter.

Bull shit I am not talking just about backwards compatible.

Then you're talking some random bullshit then.

Change printers and MS documents formatting can go to hell.

What a fucking lie. Provide some actual evidence of this that exists from the last 10 years.

Even nicer the layout information taken from the same printer can be process different in a different version of MS Office.

Again bullshit.

So only thing changed is version of Office and your documents go to hell.

So you claim yet I've never seen such amazing things happen and I can find 0 google hits that back you up either.

Countries are not screaming for stable formats like ODF without very good reason. MS Office file production is fragmented to hell.

You mean the handful of 3rd world countries and tiny 1st world countries that have little to no sway in the world?

Basically pull head out sand and except MS products are a fragmented mess of there own doing with even talking about the fragmented mess of the third parties using bad installers on windows.

And you claim that Linux is going to take over when it's an even bigger mess of incompatibilities and poor integration? You must be fucking joking!

Anonymous said...

docX is a MORE OPEN format than doc,

Really. What a load of bull. Neither 2007 or 2003 can open a docx file correct if it but 100 percent to standard. Even better 2003 can only part render 2007 docx format even that the importer claims it can do 100 percent.

Basically since 2010 will be close to proper docx format there will be breakages with 2007 opening 2010 created docx files even if both files use exactly the same features that were standard defined.

Note exactly the same features. Case of OpenOffice if the file was ODT(ie ODF text) The file would open perfectly.

Basically you defence is crap.

Anonymous said...

Yet most of them are not used.

That's because all of them are fighting over a sub 1% market share.

When GNU appeared on Unix. Unix lost no market share in the OS either. There support applications lost market share.

And yet Microsoft hasn't lost either market share. So you're still grasping at straws.

You are incompetent with you history. I am talking 10 to 15 years before the birth of Linux. The ground work to Unix final destruction was layed then.

So the ground work of the destruction of Unix was only 6 years after it was originally released? I think you need to relearn math.

Until the ground work is layed. MS will hold market. Linux today is like the freebsd of old vs unix.

So you're saying that Linux is going to be a huge failure? Otherwise I'm not getting your comparison here.

I was referring purely to backwards compatibility.

What backwards compatibility issues then? Real ones, not the made up shit you posted above. Give me an 2003 document and show me what compatibility issues there are in 2007 with it.

Like OpenOffice maintains perfect backwards compatibility with its own formats. MS Office does not.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. There are all sorts of backwards compatibility issues on the tracker for OO.org. You're so full of shit!

Anonymous said...

Sharepoint and Nortons anti-virus control software are incompatible.

And this makes any sense, how?


Cause is quite simple. Windows was not designed to cope with the many requirements Sharepoint and Nortons over lap with each other. In Linux you can run many copies of httpd to cope with this. Windows one copy of ISS so hello big problems.

So you're whining that there have only been 7 version of Office in something like 20 years as opposed to the 500+ Linux distros? lolwut?

Moron. 7+ version of MS Office 2007 7+ version of MS Office 2003. 7+ version of MS Office 2010 are coming.

Each with installed filter verations. So meaning what 1 version of 2003 can open another version of 2003 cannot.

There is no sane reason to be doing this other than trying to sell the more expensive versions.

Anonymous said...

Really. What a load of bull.

How is it bull?

Neither 2007 or 2003 can open a docx file correct if it but 100 percent to standard.

And no version of OpenOffice is 100% to standard. So what?

Even better 2003 can only part render 2007 docx format even that the importer claims it can do 100 percent.

Proof please. I've opened numerous 2007 doc files in 2003 with the plugin and they work flawlessly.

Basically since 2010 will be close to proper docx format there will be breakages with 2007 opening 2010 created docx files even if both files use exactly the same features that were standard defined.

Bullshit. They'll have a compatibility plugin for it.

Note exactly the same features. Case of OpenOffice if the file was ODT(ie ODF text) The file would open perfectly.

Except for all the times when people had trouble with them doing so and are listed on their bug tracker?

Basically you defence is crap.

Amusing coming from the person who spews crap out of every orifice.

Anonymous said...

Note exactly the same features. Case of OpenOffice if the file was ODT(ie ODF text) The file would open perfectly.


I like how you conveniently switch stances depending on whether it suits you. One time you'll claim that an aging format needs to be replaced (like IE6's rendering engine, let's say) and yet, when Office updates its format to make it MORE OPEN you say that's a bad thing.

Make up your mind.

Anonymous said...

Cause is quite simple. Windows was not designed to cope with the many requirements Sharepoint and Nortons over lap with each other.

How exactly does Norton Antivirus and Sharepoint overlap? Do you try to sound completely dumb or is it just a natural thing for you?

In Linux you can run many copies of httpd to cope with this. Windows one copy of ISS so hello big problems.

WTF? Do you know how to hold a consistent train of thought?

Moron. 7+ version of MS Office 2007 7+ version of MS Office 2003. 7+ version of MS Office 2010 are coming.

Actually it's only 5. And they do so because certain versions are tailored for certain clients and the cost scales as well. I'm failing to see what the problem with this is. What's wrong with giving people what they want?

Each with installed filter verations. So meaning what 1 version of 2003 can open another version of 2003 cannot.

Proof please.

There is no sane reason to be doing this other than trying to sell the more expensive versions.

Oh noes! They want to sell a product and get money for it!

Anonymous said...

@February 1, 2010 4:51 PM

Oiahomo can't actually maintain a consistent train of thought to realize that he contradicts himself in the exact same sentence. These latest rantings are just more of his bullshit where he will fail to provide any actual evidence for his claims.

Anonymous said...

Like OpenOffice maintains perfect backwards compatibility with its own formats. MS Office does not.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. There are all sorts of backwards compatibility issues on the tracker for OO.org. You're so full of shit!


It does. Maintain perfect. Take a closer look at the issues. How many are over 12 months old. Maintaining perfect backwards compatibility does not mean you don't have screw ups you have to repair.

Catch here is the patches to fix them do come with OpenOffice.

On top OpenOffice install along side itself without damaging the other installed version. MS Office on the other hand. Not the case. This is part of maintaining perfect backwards compatibility the means to install many versions stable as required.

I have seen people caught with the 2010 beta uninstalling 2003 and 2007 Office to avoid compatibility problems. So meaning if 2010 does not process your files you are screwed.

Anonymous said...

In Linux you can run many copies of httpd to cope with this. Windows one copy of ISS so hello big problems.


Sounds like someone doesn't know the difference between IIS on XP and IIS on the server.

Because IIS is PROPERLY THREADED you don't need multiple instances! If you actually know anything about IIS you'd have no trouble getting fucking SHAREPOINT working with Norton anti-virus, lol.

Threaded applications are more of a novelty in Linux. Most of the developers are lazy and say "just run multiple instances of PHP, what possible benefit could thread pooling in a single application have?". idiots.

Anonymous said...

You are incompetent with you history. I am talking 10 to 15 years before the birth of Linux. The ground work to Unix final destruction was layed then.

The only one incompetent here is you. 15 years before the birth of Linux would be 6 years before the GNU project was started. How could GNU be killing Unix before it was even started?

Anonymous said...

I have seen people caught with the 2010 beta uninstalling 2003 and 2007 Office to avoid compatibility problems. So meaning if 2010 does not process your files you are screwed.


Which has never happened. The office engines don't overlap, genius!

I have office 2000, 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2010 beta all installed at work (for development) and they all play perfectly together. Office 2003's plugin has never had a DOCX issue, and Office 2007 and 2010 have never had a single issue opening a 2000/2003/2005 doc file.

The only reason anyone would bother uninstalling older versions of office are to clean up file associations.

Anonymous Insider said...

Hello haters, I have a classic for you, Torvalds saying Linux is bloated, slower and less secure:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf848edktBY


Torvalds' comments start on minute 4. Enjoy!

It's no surprise freetards don't like to talk about LinuxCon 2009 Roundtable.

Anonymous said...

It does. Maintain perfect.

And yet there are numerous issues still on the tracker that disprove this claim.

Take a closer look at the issues. How many are over 12 months old. Maintaining perfect backwards compatibility does not mean you don't have screw ups you have to repair.

Actually it would mean exactly that. If there were "screwups" then you don't have "perfect" backwards compatibility. "Perfect" by definition means without faults or errors.

Catch here is the patches to fix them do come with OpenOffice.

If they had to make patches after the fact that means backwards compatibility wasn't perfect. You seriously must be functionally illiterate.

On top OpenOffice install along side itself without damaging the other installed version.

MS Office on the other hand. Not the case.

So then when I and many people at my work have simultaneous installs of 2003 and 2007 that all work perfectly, we have some magical version that is the only one to work?

This is part of maintaining perfect backwards compatibility the means to install many versions stable as required.

Actually such a thing has nothing to do with backwards compatibility.

I have seen people caught with the 2010 beta uninstalling 2003 and 2007 Office to avoid compatibility problems. So meaning if 2010 does not process your files you are screwed.

Gee a beta version of software might have issues? Is water also wet?

Anonymous said...

Each with installed filter verations. So meaning what 1 version of 2003 can open another version of 2003 cannot

Get you hands on 2003 works yes cut down version of word in there. Try opening normal MS word docs in there you find out incompatibility. Same with the reverse. Some MS works version of word produced documents don't open in general word due to the incompatibles.

2010 starter advertising funded no macros so lots of wizard templates don't work right.

Even more fun install 2003 over 2003 trial the trial timer times out and 2003 ends up stuffed. Basically lots of things that should not happen do.

Works fine if you put the key into the trial version to unlock it gives nice head aches in networks with auto deployment of software.

Yes you don't notice this crap. Mostly caused because MS Office cannot install cleaning next to each other without replacing files the other depends on. So leading to veration in action.

Anonymous said...

I have seen people caught with the 2010 beta uninstalling 2003 and 2007 Office to avoid compatibility problems. So meaning if 2010 does not process your files you are screwed.

Gee a beta version of software might have issues? Is water also wet?


The for production contains the same feature. But most of you will have to learn the hard way.

Anonymous said...

You know, I think Ohio Homo is just reverse trolling. I refuse to believe that he actually believes any of the revisionist, ficticious tripe he's bantering on about, or that any of it makes sense even to him, in his bizarro-retarded overflowing septic tank of a brain.

Watching Ohioham try to form a coherent argument is liek watching a fat kid with no legs do a Comaneci routine.

Anonymous said...

If they had to make patches after the fact that means backwards compatibility wasn't perfect. You seriously must be functionally illiterate.


He's a freetard, what do you expect?

In freetardia:

Release Candidate = Final Release
Perfect = Only slightly broken

With all these amazing free open office suites out there, why does Microsoft still lead the office industry by a huge margin? Why hasn't the entire business industry shifted to OO in droves? And by droves I don't mean "some company in the UK", I mean "the whole fucking industry"!

Let me guess, MicrosoftBribes(TM) right?

Anonymous said...

The for production contains the same feature. But most of you will have to learn the hard way.


READ what you typed BEFORE you hit publish! Cripes dude, its like you run it through Babelfish 6 times before you post it!

I don't care what learning disorder you claimed you had, either start proof reading your work or shut the hell up.

Anonymous said...

Get you hands on 2003 works yes cut down version of word in there. Try opening normal MS word docs in there you find out incompatibility.

You're a complete dumbass, you know that, right?

Anonymous said...

2010 starter advertising funded no macros so lots of wizard templates don't work right.


No macros BY DEFAULT! Idiot. You think an office admin is going to have any trouble configuring AND slipstreaming the install to turn them on should his or her company require them?

Did you hear, XP SP2 turned off ISS by default. Guess that's going to make a lot of web pages not work! UNLESS THEY TURN IT BACK ON!!!

Anonymous said...

Perfect = Only slightly broken

Only slightly broken = it's has no advanced functionality and is missing chunks of the basic functionality.

Anonymous said...

Get you hands on 2003 works yes cut down version of word in there. Try opening normal MS word docs in there you find out incompatibility.


Wait, 2003 doesn't use normal word docs? Is that what you're saying?

Anonymous said...

Because IIS is PROPERLY THREADED you don't need multiple instances! If you actually know anything about IIS you'd have no trouble getting fucking SHAREPOINT working with Norton anti-virus, lol.

Threaded applications are more of a novelty in Linux. Most of the developers are lazy and say "just run multiple instances of PHP, what possible benefit could thread pooling in a single application have?". idiots.


Moron. The issue is IIS has some global vars that effect all threads. Norton need set one way sharepoint needs set another. So are 100 percent incompatible. They should most likely been per thread vars but hey MS coders stuffed up. Now you can of course set this vars kinda halfwayish. But updates of nortons or sharepoint have habit of turning them back to what they like. So break each other over and over again. I guess you solution is turn off software updates?

Thread pooling has very little gain on Linux for the simple point starting a new process costs less than what it costs to start a thread on windows. Yes less even if sharing memory. Extra nice bit since independent process can crash alone.

Thread pooling has a price. Windows developers are forced to use it due to how long windows takes to start a process.

Datasharing between processes and data sharing between windows thread pools is equal on Linux. Now why thread pool on a system where you can have multi parts that can fail independent and not bring anything else done and it has not cost you any more ram. Ie process and thread are almost the same under Linux. Even to the point you can pool processes.

Ie thread pooling MS coders jump up and down about is nothing more than a Hack to make up for poor process management in the OS.

Anonymous said...

Moron. The issue is IIS has some global vars that effect all threads. Norton need set one way sharepoint needs set another. So are 100 percent incompatible.


Exactly which "global variables" are IIS and norton sharing? Because there are plenty of offices running Sharepoint and Norton without issue.

You don't think wouldn't have come up by now? And you think that either norton or microsoft would simply let it continue to happen?

Anonymous said...

Wait, 2003 doesn't use normal word docs? Is that what you're saying?

2003 Works version of word does not. Ends in .doc but does not work right in the rest of the 2003 word programs. There is no justification to doing this to users. It is fragmentation for profit alone.

2010 starter will be the same all over again. Bain of existence getting files from or sending to those people.

Anonymous said...

Funnier still

Symantec Protection for SharePoint Servers.

Oh, let me guess, you're not virus scanning your sharepoint server that you don't even administrate? You just read that its a problem on some forum from 2002? You're not a sysadmin, you're just a high functioning autistic who's only friend is his computer? ...the last part is the only part that's true.

Anonymous said...

Moron. The issue is IIS has some global vars that effect all threads. Norton need set one way sharepoint needs set another. So are 100 percent incompatible.

Exactly which "global variables" are IIS and norton sharing? Because there are plenty of offices running Sharepoint and Norton without issue.

You don't think wouldn't have come up by now? And you think that either norton or microsoft would simply let it continue to happen?


Go to the nortons site look up the management server for corperate version of there anti-virus you will find it is not support if you install it along side sharepoint. Yes due to glitch.

Yes that is nortons solution to problem. Don't run sharepoint on the same server as the management system for it. They provide a Linux image that can run in a virtual machine as well if you want to cripple the crude out your server. Annoying enough they don't have a appache version on windows that would have avoided the problem completely.

MS has not fixed it yet even in server 2008. Hopefully the next one they fix the issue.

Anonymous said...

2003 Works version of word does not. Ends in .doc but does not work right in the rest of the 2003 word programs.


You know that Works is NOT Office, right? That'd be like me compare Notepad to Visual Studio or Paint to Photoshop.

Considering I can open Wordpad docs from Win95 in Word 2007, I'm highly skeptical that Works (basically Wordpad with clipart) couldn't be opened.

What specifically breaks? I'm curious.

Anonymous said...

Go to the nortons site look up the management server for corperate version of there anti-virus you will find it is not support if you install it along side sharepoint. Yes due to glitch.


No YOU go to the site and find me the link! You're up to your old tricks, claiming there's information but never actually posting and links to it.

Meanwhile, I just posted a link to their sharepoint security software, so how does software designed specifically for sharepoint collide? What GLOBAL VARIABLES are colliding?

Anonymous said...

Symantec Protection for SharePoint Servers.

That is not the Norons management console. Yes that works anti-virus scanning sharepoint. But if you want to have central reporting of infects, central updates of the anti-virus and so on. It don't work with sharepoint.

Ie management interface is not compadible with Sharepoint. Particular protection things need to be enabled to keep anti-virus update push outs safe.

Anonymous said...

What specifically breaks? I'm curious.

He's taking the oposite angle, arguing that Word is incompatible with itself because Works 2003 won't open Word 2007 docs properly.

Why anyone would expect that to work boggles the mind.

That is not the Norons management console.

Post a link or STFU.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 5000   Newer› Newest»