William Poaster wrote:
> It was on, or about, Sun, 08 Jul 2007 17:00:40 +0200, that as I was
> halfway through a large jam doughnut, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> Hadron Quark wrote:
>>
>>> "jim" <jim@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>> "jim" <jim@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>> news:KXVji.11998$K9.2999@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>
>>>>> "John Locke" <johnlocke98513@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>> news:l88093tnsh7s7hmgcmsb2ba4nogvc6vkdo@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 13:46:53 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
>>>>>> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "But the company behaves like if enough people believe what it says,
>>>>>> then it's true enough"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ......isn't this the same philosophy that Joseph Gerbils employed ?
>>>>>> Worked quite well for the Nazis.
>>>>>
>>>>> It does work well. It is a brainwashing technique used by governments
>>>>> and
>>>>> media houses. If you tell the people anything enough times, they
>>>>> will start to believe it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Microsoft's moves seem to be based on manipulation and the "where we
>>>>> go, they will follow" schools of thought.
>>>>>
>>>>> When is the last time that you saw Microsoft openly asking users for
>>>>> input before begining a new project?
>>>>
>>>> Of course, this give Linux a big advantage. We have seen how their
>>>> philosophy works and fails. We should invest more in delivering what
>>>> users want by simply asking them and doing what they ask during BETA
>>>> testing.
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft seems to BETA test only to ramp up it's media guns to
>>>> deflect the objections of users.
>>>
>>> MS, and other real SW companies, BETA test to iron out the bugs.
>>
>> You mean, like OpenSuSE having alpha- and Beta-versions available to
>> test them? So what makes that different from a "real SW company"?
>>
>>> They,
>>> you see, are aware of the huge diversity of HW out there and that
>>> paying customers do not like getting buggy, ugly and unusable programs.
>>>
>>>
>> Another fine "true linux advocacy" post from the "true linux advocate",
>> "kernel hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile expert", "X specialist" and
>> "CUPS guru" Hadron Quark
>
> Is he saying M$ *don't* produce buggy,
He can't actually say that, as windows and its apps are a lot buggier than
OSS ones.
In actual comparisons OSS code had a significant lower "bugs per 1000 lines"
count than windows
But Hadron will pretend that those don't exist
> ugly
There are some real ugly windows programs too
> & unusable programs?
"Useability" is way too often "being used" to something
> How about bloated programs?
Windows "wins" often hands down. There is some real bloat there
> How about programs which are incompatible with other OSs?
>
Well, windows apps are compatible with Windows, and often just with a
certain version of it. Porting is often a pain in the ass
--
The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them
to choose from. -- Andrew S. Tanenbaum
|
|
