JTK wrote:
> DeMoN_LaG wrote:
>
>>JTK wrote:
>>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>>I'd love to see AOL be Linux-ONLY. That way they'd have exactly zero
>>>customers and the AOL blight would disappear from the earth.
>>>
>>>
>>Who said anything about Linux only?
>>
>
> I did. Wouldn't that be sweet? No more AOL CD's choking the planet's
> rivers and oceans, no more AOL users, no more AOL.... You may say I'm a
> dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
>
No you're not. Count me in there. AOL is the scorge of the universe.
Only Bill Gates is more evil than Steve Case.
>
>> Right now, AOL can't release a
>>linux/BeOS/FreeBSD/non Win32 or Mac client because they have to use IE
>>as their browser.
>>
>
> Right, plus there is absolutely no market for them on
> Linux/BeOS/FreeBSD/non-Win32. But I thought they did have a Mac client.
>
I think he already allowed for that is his argument. You snipped "or Mac
client" that came right after "non-Win32"
>
>> MS will not release IE for any other OS.
>>
>
> Uh... as somebody already pointed out, they have indeed done so, for the
> Mac and for some Unii.
>
For the Mac, which he already included in the argument, and for 2 Unices
Solaris and HPUX -- no other Unix variant, not SCO, not AIX -- and
certainly no linux distribution. (yeah, yeah, linux is irrelevant)
>
>> Why? Well,
>>I would imagine that they can't do it for Linux because Linux is an open
>>source project, and as such they'd have to not integrate it into the
>>persons desktop. IE loses 100% of it's advantages when it's uncoupled
>>from Windows (takes about as long as current Mozilla builds take to
>>start).
>>
>
> You have numbers to that effect? As for rendering speed, current
> oficcial Politburo numbers have Mozilla at about six *TIMES* slower than
> IE.
>
>
>> And *if* AOL went linux only, the only reason that there would
>>be zero customers is that anyone who can set up their own linux box is
>>beyond AOL's user friendly environment and they use a real ISP.
>>
>
> Exactly. Plus Linux boxes account for, what, 0.000000001% of the
> desktops out there?
>
Linux on the desktop may not be large, but it's WAY more than
0.000000001%, it's much closer to the 4 or 5% that Mac has. Certainly no
great shakes, but more than you're giving it credit for.
>
>> Oh,
>>hey, troll boy. What's the most common web server out there? Is it Win
>>NT? Oh.. hey look at that. It's Apache, an OPEN SOURCE web server that
>>runs on Linux, an OPEN SOURCE operating system.
>>
>
> Runs on Windows too, demon boy. But what's that got to do with AOL?
>
>
>> When was the last time
>>that Linux needed an emergency patch to fix a security hole?
>>
>
> I guess last month, according to another respondent to your anti-MS
> religious rantings.
>
DL is off base on this argument. The beauty of linux and open source is
that bug fixes and security patches are much more forthcoming than that
from Microsoft. Although, MS IS better at it than it's reputation in
linux-land. linux, however, is better at releasing patches to security
problems that have no known exploits. Typically, MS will issue patches
AFTER the exploit.
>
>> Linux is
>>BUILT by people who know how hackers can attack systems (and even some
>>hackers themselves).
>>
>
> Linux is BUILT by people who like to code in their spare time. Windows
> is BUILT by people who are paid to do so.
>
So what? I know lots of people who do crappy work and get paid for it.
And I know lots of people who do great work for free. What's your point?
>
>> They aren't dumb enough to do stuff like MS does
>>
>
> Hehehe, yeah, must be a real bunch of dumbasses that wrote the OS that's
> on virtually all of the world's desktops.
>
Success <> intelligence. There are plenty of stupid, inept millionaires
in this world to prove that. But I'll grant you that Windows is a
substantial piece of software written by some awfully good programmers.
Boy, it'd be nice if it were on top of a linux kernel and was open
source. I'd gladly pay $100 for it ;)
>
>>with it's IIS software and leave it vulnerable to a buffer overrun that
>>let's anyone take complete control of the server over without you
>>knowing. But hell, Open Source sucks anyway, right?
>>
>
> Yes, "Open Source" (aka, "you do the work for free, we get the rights,
> so long sucker"), sucks for the developer (obviously it can't be
> anything but good for AOL, Sun, and whoever else uses that form of slave
> labor). But of course, you think "Open Source" is the same as "Free
> Software", don't you?
>
Interesting. Open source == slave labor. Hmmm. I guess you've never
heard of volunteerism. No one who freely participates in an open source
project is required to do so, as a "slave" would be. Arguing that is
just as ignorant as arguing that Open Source == Free Software.
>
>> Why bother with
>>all this, why not just go spend a couple hundred thousand dollars on
>>anything with an MS logo and wait for Bill Gates to appear in your
>>dreams saying "You will be assimilated"
>>
>
> Hehehe, yeah, I'll do that. While you're waiting, how about you make an
> extra tithe to the Church of the Holy Anything-But-Microsoft this
> month? Maybe that'll put BeOS on one more desktop, doubling its
> penetration into the market!
>
Do you mean in the same way that you're kneeling at the almightly MS alter?
I use Microsoft software because I HAVE to, not because I want to. Excel
is not as good a spreadsheet as Lotus 123, but it's everywhere and we
must comply. Word is not as good a word processor as AmiPro, but it's
everywhere and we must comply. Because of the friggin' winmail.dat files
created by Outlook, which used to be just the mail text in RTF format
but now is starting to contain embedded file attachments, we may be
forced to use Outlook for mail. America is supposed to be the land of
the FREE, we're supposed to have CHOICE. MS has been ripping that away
from us for more than a decade. I, for one, am sick of it.
Quite frankly, when I'm home, on my own time, on my own PC, I'll use the
software I want to use, and it won't be from MS. Is that zealotry?
Maybe.. probably. For much the same reasoning, I won't use AOL. That AOL
is as involved in the Mozilla project as it is sickens me. I HOPE that
AOL reaches an agreement with MS to use IE for ANOTHER 5 years. I HOPE
Netscape abandons the browser. Mozilla will survive and probably be
better off.
Regards,
Tim
