____/ Mark Kent on Monday 06 August 2007 10:34 : \____
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> ____/ waterskidoo on Sunday 05 August 2007 18:51 : \____
>>
>>> On 2007-08-05, Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Linux is more secure, stable, and less expensive. Once you put KDE on top
>>>> of Windows, then you need to learn a new environment anyway. The only
>>>> advantage then might be the ability to run Windows applications natively.
>>>
>>> Well said! Linux's claim to fame if you will is the infrastructure that
>>> it is built upon although I admit I am addicted to the eye candy.
>>
>> Really? I'm always afraid of installing /anything/ that might sip resources,
>> awn included. I'm still using a 1.8Ghz box and a lot of resources are
>> drained when indexing (in RAM) 120,000 USENET posts, running Firefox with
>> dozens of plugins, and using Thunderbird which can be made equally 'fat'. At
>> the moment, I maintain a fairly minimal KDE desktop. It used to be the
>> opposite, with lots of panels all over the place and maximal eye candy.
>>
>>> Putting a Linux face on Windows is like building a mansion upon
>>> the sand. It will look good until it starts to sink due to
>>> the collapse of the underlying infrastructure.
>>
>> The thought of running a KDE desktop with KDE apps and having Norton
>> anti-virus underneat is just bizarre (and resource-draining). Then you have
>> the system updates with forced reboots, WGA, and the rest of these
>> deficiencies. Registry bloat, defrag, and so forth...
>>
>> Weird...
>>
>
> And yet you were agreeing with Peter K regarding having binary-only
> portions to the Linux kernel...
Huh? When? I would say that it's better than nothing at all, but like many
people whom I talk to, I know that open source drivers are the way to go.
Predictable devices which operate in a way that their owner /understand/. We
should also be allowed to study the code that we run on our PC, especially
when computers are all connected, so there's room for spyware, not just
neglect and sabotage.
> have you really considered just how
> risky this is? Once something is binary-only, you are completely at the
> mercy of the vendor, they can drop support at any time, force you to
> replace your card or your operating system or as nVidia do now, prevent
> you from using certain hardware combinations.
nVidia is not much of an issue. Not a critical one anyway, unless you work on
rendering where Linux is a prime choice. To must people nVidia=multi-head or
games.
> The concept of free software is that people can do what they want with
> it, they are guaranteed their four freedom areas. This means that if
> they want to, they can port their code to Windows. We also know that,
> just like the nVidia drivers which only work with certain Linux/hardware
> combinations, Microsoft also have the power to prevent any top-end on
> Windows working properly, and have exercised that power many times, and
> will continue to do so.
Yes, but that is not new. Microsoft (at least at the top) is just a bunch of
greedy criminals in suits. They are too *blind* to even see their crimes, as
Jason showed us some days ago when reacting to the Mass. fiasco.
> Freedom is not easy to come by, and it's very easy to give it up for
> some jam today - but don't be fooled.
True, but one has to be cautious. I don't need to lose my jobs because I refuse
to do some things that are 'against then rules'. Leave that to Stallman, who
truly needs to serve as a role model in that respect (he doesn't play computer
games either, according to what I read earlier today).
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Kernel panic - more exciting than being /.'ted
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 126 total, 1 running, 124 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
|
|
