Rex Ballard wrote:
<Quote> Small laptops are becoming a big problem for
Microsoft Corp.'s Windows business.... Acer Inc. and
Asustek Computer...are using the rival Linux software on
about 30 percent of their low-cost notebooks. [...]
One of the key factors in the OLPC/Sub-Notebook design is
the assumption that Linux would be the primary operating
system rather than Windows. This lowered the hardware
requirements and made it possible to cut costs as much as
70% compared to a fully functional Windows XP Professional
laptop running a full version of Microsoft Office
In order to capture a piece of the OLPC market, Microsoft
offered the OEMs a stripped down version of XP home edition
and a stripped down version of Microsoft Works. Even then,
it was usually necessary to add a hard drive to handle the
storage requirements of the larger system, and an extra 1/2
gig of RAM to get performance comparable to the Linux
ASUS set the MSRP of the Linux versions much higher, so that
retailers could get more profit from the Linux versions of
the machine which retails for about %50-80 less than the
Windows version. As a result, retailers are taking the time
to study the ASUS Linux environment and can present it
effectively to retail customers. As a result, ASUS Linux
machinse now make up about 60% of their sub-notebook market.
Acer has simply put a $100-$150 price difference between the
Linux version and the Windows XP versien. The larger
display and keyboard make it attractive compared to the
ASUS, but the Linux version is a bit more of a challenge to
configure if you want to add features like a USB cellular
modem. On the other hand, the Linux version appears to have
many more applications and more robust applications.
Why do you so disrespect the intelligence of the readers here,
Rex Ballard? You selectively cite and then pull numbers out of
your ass that are directly disputed by your own citation. Do
you not bother to read what you quote or do you think that we
are so stupid as to not be able to check on your fantasies?
Either way it is a sloppy and useless endavor on your part.
You should be ashamed.
This is an example of an ad hominem attack:
Ad hominem troll
Ad hominem troll at its simplest, will attack people personally,
rather than the merits of their statements or methodologies.
The ad hominem troll often has already lost a rational argument
about a topic, and thus its goal is to change the argument from
being about a topic, to being about the people opposed to the
troll (which could mean any/all rational person(s) in the
discussion), in the hopes of both discrediting people's ideas
indirectly by discrediting the people, and engendering an
emotional reaction from the people by attacking their egos /
self-image. The "getting a reaction out of" goal is common to
most troll types.
The simple ad hominem troll is easily detected and dealt with by
calling them on their ad hominem attacks.
However, often ad hominem troll will start its discourse with
seemingly reasonable commentary, perhaps an analogy etc. Using
rational tone, they may lull you into thinking that they are
rational in general and thus their entire message should be
considered rational. Once they have established such an
impression, then they will then descend into personal attacks
which may even sound reasonably worded, until you recognize them
for what they are, nothing more than personal attacks.
Example: thacker. thacker starts by ignoring the previous comment
(which itself was a rational challenge to thacker's earlier
statements), repeating himself (see the section below on
Repeating themselves), then moves onto an analogy. Afterwards he
continues with personal attacks, starting subtly worded, then
* "some here, yourself included, will not see nor understand
* "Your noses are simply buried too deeply into the
* "Or you lack the courage, will, ability to step away and
ask the truly difficult questions. That is a shame."