Ray Ingles wrote:
> On 2006-08-16, billwg <billwg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Nope. My mail reader doesn't run with all kinds of unneeded privileges,
> >> and doesn't execute code without asking me first. I actually *said*
> >> that:
> >
> > Yes, but it was off topic.
>
> I noted a flaw in Outlook that would allow a malicious message to suborn
> your machine, even if you just previewed it. You replied that you never
> preview messages unless you know who they are from (which BTW, won't
> protect you from worms that have suborned someone you know). I replied
> that I don't have to give up previewing messages in Linux. And you say
> that's 'off topic'? Your chutzpa is, as always, remarkable.
>
Is this: http://www.itworld.com/App/332/021011outlookflaw/ what you
were referencing?
My point was that I do not read all the email because I am not
interested in reading it, not because it may be infested with malware.
You keep insisting that I am disadvantaged by Outlooks presumed but not
demonstrated vulnerabilities and that is not the case.
> > Oh for major document sets, ray! Why do you think the corporations keep
> > buying MS Office? The ersatz office can't do VBA.
>
> Can do similar stuff, and VBA use is nowhere near universal. Those apps
> will just be legacy eventually, that's all.
>
You seem to dismiss the amount of effort needed to replace these
"legacy" apps, ray. It is far more costly to do that than to simply
continue with MS Office on new machines. It is called "protecting
prior investment" and is a significant factor in keeping one's
customers satisfied.
> > Kind of small potatoes to do so much fretting about, ray. "Click-through
> > advertising" scams? Do you actually know anyone who has suffered from any
> > of this?
>
> People who have been victims of malware doing this stuff? Yes, I do.
> I've cleaned several computers of friends and relatives.
>
No, silly, people who have lost money in click-through or phishing
schemes. Try to focus.
> > "Once people are using these on Windows, the transition to Linux is *much*
> > simpler."
> >
> > But linux is totally unnecessary if there is no differentiation, ray.
>
> Ah, yes, your standard merry-go-round ploy. Here are just a few
> examples of where I've described the advantages of Linux:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/7c0149d452085248
Not a reply to me, ray, but even so all you do is claim that linux is
better and dismiss negative comments as not meaningful. No definitive
reasoning there. The rant about Firefox is equally off the mark since
the great majority of Firefox users use it on Windows. Firefox at
least lists things that IE does not do as reason to use it. Linux
points to nothing of the sort.
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/5dba213085e9e088
Nothing in this one either. You hint that linux can more effectively
use its "security model", presumably the notion that it is not supposed
to be run at root privilege level as many Windows apps are. That goes
way over most people's heads, IMO, and sounds like you are telling them
that they cannot administer their own personal machine and need some
geek to come by an load their software. People do not like that
thought, ray.
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/6fcb49fbd4509f54
Just a little standard handwaving here, ray, nothing definitive. Most
of this was about other things.
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f34b298b8b60bfab
Still nothing definitive. Just the same old abstract mantra: "Linux
wins on security, reliability, customizability, support (both in terms
of technical support and support of diverse hardware), price,
usability, etc." To sell the product you have to find a real issue
that someone cares about and show some proof that you have the best
solution.
So I'll ask my question once more: What is the most significant
feature of linux that should make someone switch in order to obtain it?
>
> Just to save time, let's summarize the normal progression here.
>
> billwg: "Nobody will switch to Linux. It's too much effort."
>
> Me: "No it's not, it's quite easy, and getting easier all the time."
>
> billwg: "But there's no reason to switch."
>
> Me: "Sure there are reasons. Linux wins on security, reliability,
> customizability, support (both in terms of technical support and
> support of diverse hardware), price, usability, etc."
>
> billwg: "But it's too much effort."
>
> Me: "I just explained why that's not true."
>
> billwg: "But there's no reason to switch."
>
> Me: "I just gave you plenty of reasons."
>
> billwg: [Stops responding to this thread, starts over again in
> another.]
>
Because you never address the facts, ray. Linux is a non-zero effort
to change, if not a major effort, regardless and a zero improvement if
not a major loss of functionality due to losing access to many
applications commonly used by Windows users.
> > You misunderstand the phenomenon of customer expectations, ray. It is not
> > that they are reluctant to learn something new, they simply want the old
> > familiar stuff unless you can show them that the new stuff is better.
>
> As I've noted before, Toyotas are just cars, too, but they are beating
> Ford up because they are better quality for less. I see similar things
> happening with Linux and Windows. And I've explained why numerous times,
> but you never address my points.
>
Toyotas advertise like sin, ray. Linux does not. The consumers never
hear much of linux and what they do hear is mostly that it is cheap.
Like the Yugo, if you need a car analogy.
> You repeat claims like "Linux just copies OSS", but you never, *ever*
> respond when I point out that IE7 is just a feature copy of Firefox - a
> *late* copy at that. Indeed, just bringing it up seems to automatically
> make you stop responding to the thread and move on to another. It's like
> garlic to a vampire or something.
>
Firefox runs on Windows mostly, ray, and is not in the same situation
as changing OS platforms. I don't see where it is all that successful
either.
> > It would have to start first, ray. That has yet to happen. AFAICT, the
> > folks in Munich are still looking for a guinea pig to use linux, years after
> > the decision was "made".
>
> As usual, you ignore the steady stream of successful transitions that
> Roy posts almost daily.
>
I ignore most of what Roy posts, ray, and it is much more often than
"almost daily". He has about 90% of the posts here. Do you think he
is sane?
|
|
