On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:19:11 -0000, Rick wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:12:17 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> ____/ 7 on Monday 21 January 2008 20:09 : \____
>>
>>> Micoshaft Corporation's Fraudulent Asstroturfer Moshe Goldfarb wrote on
>>> behalf of Micoshaft Corporation:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:09:51 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Anyway, to sum up all the grief of getting your Ubuntu pre-installed,
>>>>>>it kind of goes like this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1. Spec and order PC
>>>>>>2. Obtain mouse, keyboard & monitor
>>>>>>3. Plug it all together
>>>>>>4. Use it.
>>>>>
>>>>> What? No hour installing drivers after the OS in installed? No hour
>>>>> downloading and installing "critical updates" No hour fixing
>>>>> brain-dead defaults, like dancing dogs, file-extension hiding, and
>>>>> Fisher-Price themes? No hour installing the basic utilities required
>>>>> to actually DO something with the computer?
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>> He spent all that time trying to find some obscure application in
>>>> order to make his dual monitor set up work.
>>>
>>>
>>> Its looking like micoshaft is getting worried by the minute as more and
>>> more small PC houses start taking orders and shipping cutting edge
>>> Linux installed. They are not dependent on micoshaft for anything.
>>>
>>> Web Servers, Media Servers, Beryl + Compiz fitted desktops, laptops,
>>> UMPCs, flat TVs, tom toms, MP3 players, MP4 players, home servers,
>>> telephony servers, firewalls, database servers, virtual servers, etc.
>>> etc. etc..
>>
>> Ubuntu has a nice graphical front end that manages multi-head displays.
>> Fedora and SUSE have that too (SUSE has had it for _AGES_ with
>> YaST/SaX2).
>>
>> Gary Stewart is just spreading FUD (Big lie, big lie, big lie) because
>> the ease of Linux setup scares Microsoft, which has /already/ lost
>> control of the OEM channel.
>
> Microsoft has NOT lost control of the OEM channel. There may be some
> cracks in the wall, but they are very small cracks in a very large wall.
Yea, but your analysis of the situation, which is correct IMHO, doesn't
make for attention grabbing headlines for Roy's SPAM.
Also Mark Kent DID have problems, so Roy, once again is lying and hoping
nobody will check,.
|
|
