In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Peter Köhlmann
<peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Wed, 20 Sep 2006 00:25:52 +0200
<eepqms$ocb$03$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Oliver Wong wrote:
>
>>
>> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:eepmjk$btj$02$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Oliver Wong wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why do the Linux advocates here feel they need to mislead people on
>>>> the
>>>> changes between Vista and XP? Linux can do almost everything Vista can
>>>> do and does it better, right? Probably 95% of the features listed on
>>>> that page are "catch-up" features that Linux has had years ago, right?
>>>> So why should we have to lie about Vista? Linux should be able to beat
>>>> Vista on merit, rather than on FUD.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because "features" MS claims to be included turn too often out as being
>>> not
>>> included at all, crippled or simply not-working as intended
>>
>> Okay, so by your reasoning, because MS at one point planned on having
>> certain features, but later found that they could not implement those
>> features, and publically announce that they were going to drop said
>> features, it's okay for Linux advocates to spread FUD about Vista?
>>
>
> Well, if you think some lipstick on a pig makes a new OS, more power to you
> Face it, MS dropped nearly everything which could have made Vista a "new OS"
> Instead, it is just XP SP3 with a hefty price tag
... and maybe a facelift with extra lipstick. :-)
>
>> If the problem is MS' history of dropping features, how about instead
>> of
>> "There's no reason to upgrade to Vista except for a new set of icons", we
>> phrase it as "Vista promises a lot, but MS has a history of dropping
>> features, so let's wait 'till it's release before commenting on whether an
>> upgrade from XP is worthwhile or not"? Doesn't that sound convey the
>> message you're trying to send, without anti-Microsoft bias?
>>
>>
>>> *All* planned features slightly interesting in Shorthorn MCD have been
>>> dropped because of utter incompetence of the MS code monkeys
>>
>> You don't find a rewritten user-mode driver framework "slightly
>> interesting"? You don't think that the new user interface is "slightly
>> interesting"? IPv6? Symbolic link support? .NET 3.0? Native RSS support?
>> Volume Shadow Copy? Heap-tuning? Non-uniform memory access support? The
>> sidebar? Breadcrumbs?
>>
>> - Oliver
>
> What in those features is worth mentioning?
Billions of dollars of potential revenue? :-)
>
> user-mode driver framework - > in other words, MS has
> made sure *again* that new drivers have to be written.
> Apart from that, this is something linux already has
Maybe they'll get it right this time.
>
> new user interface -> You've got to be kidding. Linux
> is *now* already way ahead of that.
Ah, but remember ... this is Microsoft Innovation(tm).
After all, it's not official until it's Extended(tm). ;-)
> This is exactly the lipstick on a pig MS does
>
> IPv6 -> Excuse me while I giggle. Linux has this since several *years*
Parts of Linux, anyway. I'd frankly have to look to see what systems
support IPv6 properly, and which still assume the old n.n.n.n format.
I know SNMP traps are going to require some work, for example.
>
> Symbolic link support -> Linux has this from the very start.
> Talk about some severe delays here
Especially considering symlinks have been in Unix since
maybe 1985, if not 1970.
>
> NET 3.0 -> who in his right mind would want another lock-in?
Scott Nudds would probably get very excited about .NET. Me,
I don't think I would, though Gtk# looks interesting.
>
> And yada yada yada
>
> In short: MS does not provide anything you could describe as new. Oh, I am
> certain they "innovated" a lot of stuff, like IPv6 or Symbolic links
>
> And in other words: Shorthorn isn't worth shit. It is simply a SP to WinXP
> which should have been provided at least one year ago, without any costs
>
But where's the profit in that? :-)
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
|
|
