Matt wrote:
> Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>> Matt <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> Could you please stop crossposting this drivel to
>> comp.os.linux.development.apps?
>
>
> I could stop cross-posting.
>
> But I am trying to answer an important question, and I want to get it in
> front of people who are likely to know the answer. Can you help?
>
His qualification of your garbage as "drivel" should have answered that
question
>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Matt belched out
>>>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>>>
>>>>> Please find for me a FOSS project that:
>>>>>
>>>>> * does not have a Windows-only FOSS equivalent
>>>>> * is made to run equally on Windows, Mac OS, and Linux desktops
>>>>> * is not growing
>>>> Why?
>>>
>>> Well now why do you think a cross-platform advocate might ask it?
>>
>> I think that a MS-advocate, as you quite obviously are,
>
>
> obvious to someone who is wrong
>
Nope, he is right. You posted nothing by MS shite in COLA.
You are, quite simply, a troll
>> asks such
>> questions in order to again deliver one of his boilerplate speeches.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Okay, I got a little sloppy in stating my question.
>>>
>>> Along the lines I intended, let's try this: Show me a Linux-only app
>>> that is growing better or being used more _on Linux_ than an
>>> equivalent cross-platform app is growing or being used _on Linux_.
>>
>> Show me a popular cross-platform app which is being used 'on Linux'
>> (whatever that is supposed to mean)
>
>
> I didn't know that it was somehow ambiguous.
It was anything but clear. But that was, naturally, your intention. You
need the possibility to redefine your "requirements" on the fly
< snip pure, unadultered garbage >
--
Windows: Because everyone needs a good laugh!
|
|
