__/ [ Jim Richardson ] on Sunday 05 March 2006 06:25 \__
> On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 17:56:16 -0600,
> Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 15:39:06 -0800, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>
>> Fuck off, Kelsey. I'm not even going to bother arguing with you anymore,
>> you'll just continue to misrepresent what i've said.
>>
>> So go screw yourself. You pathetic piece of shit.
Behave yourself. Even /flatfish/ does not degrade to this level.
> What a great debating technique.
>
> You could just call him a liar again, when he says they are getting a
> 10Gbs pipe for work...
Probably just a bad day for him. The usual, you know: defrag hard-drive, then
scan hard-drive, Registry, etc. Not much work done...
__/ [ Kelsey Bjarnason ] on Saturday 04 March 2006 23:39 \__
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:48:27 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 05:53:22 -0600, Robt. Miller wrote:
>>
>>>>> Name one linux distro/company that has 6 current version for their
>>>>> workstation client?
>>>>
>>>> debian/ubuntu/kubuntu/edubuntu... that's 4.
>>>
>>> None of those has crippled functionality, all run all software.
>>
>> And the same is true of Vista. Any software that runs on, say Vista
>> Ultimate, will run on Vista Home Basic. It just doesn't come with the
>> same software bundle.
>
> Good. So where do I get my budget version of Vista that includes all the
> bundled apps of the more expensive versions?
You pay for it on-line and it unlocks the features contained in the DVD or CD
set.
> Some clueless zombie, upthread, mentioned Ubuntu, KUbuntu and EdUbuntu as
> examples of something somehow similar to Fister - yet I can install Ubuntu
> and still have all the apps which I'd have if I'd used either of the other
> two. And vice versa.
I can confirm that, but the language used was derogatory. You enter a
dangerous territory.
> So where's the bottom-end version of Vista, the cheapest one, but
> including all the apps available to the more expensive versions? Or was
> the poster who made such an asinine comparison just simply stupid beyond
> words?
>
> 'Course, the poster hasn't quite compared the applications installed even
> in the full, top-level version of Vista with any of the Ubuntu variants.
> For example, with Ubuntu, I get OpenOffice bundled. And MySQL. And
> Postgres. And several IM clients, including multi-protocol ones. And a
> variety of email clients. And development tools. And Apache. And a
> variety of news clients. And IRC clients. And PDF viewing - and
> creation. And gobs of file format conversion tools. And archivers which
> can handle multiple formats. And video, audio and graphics production
> tools. And 3D modellers and renderers. And a whole variety of different
> desktop environments. And the ability to run without any GUI whatsoever.
> And Konqueror, which, among other things, can browse an audio CD and
> automagically offer virtual directories containing mp3s, flacs, even oggs,
> of individual tracks or the entire CD, which can be created as real files
> on your HD by a simple copy-and-paste. Plus true multi-user (i.e.
> multiple users with multiple GUIs, at the same time) support. Plus backup
> tools for my desktop - or my entire LAN.
>
> Vista, at least the expensive one, comes with all this, right? Bundled?
> So installation of all these goodies is simply checking off the
> appropriate check box at install time? And, of course, it will
> automatically update all the applications I have installed, via a couple
> of mouse clicks and entering a password, right? All in one step, without
> the need for me to manually find and download all the individual
> application updates, then install them one by one, right?
Oddly enough, I believe that Microsoft will rave about having these features.
Only later will the baffled customer realise that all which was promised is
in fact behind lock and bar. It is then that the credit card relinquishes
another lump of gold.
I believe it was you, Kelsey, who mentioned the couple that wrongly assumed
Office to be part of Windows. Ultimately they felt ripped off.
> Or is Fister just another in a long series of "Pay us lots of money for an
> OS that doesn't actually *do* anything... so you can pay more to go buy
> the applications in order to actually get anything done" ripoffs?
>
> At least tell us Fister can finally run, safely, without the need of AV
> software. That would at least be a step forward. You know, AV software -
> like the Ubuntu versions the OP brought up simply *don't need*? Yeah,
> those. Or is Fister going to be just as helpless and fragile as every
> other version of Windows, needing that sort of crap to hold its poor
> little hand?
Well said. I am glad to have seen it posed so objectively.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "All your archives are (sic) belong to Google"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
7:20am up 4 days 2:58, 13 users, load average: 0.71, 0.73, 0.54
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
|
|
