Hi David, On Tuesday 30 Dec 2003 12:42 am, David Bowles wrote:
Courting criticism and playing devil's advocate here...
No criticism due here. You have a valid point.
I personally object to the rabid hate-quest against 'Micro$oft'. Surely we would do better advocating alternatives such as Linux on the basis of their merits rather than what looks to an outsider like prejudice.
However, the problem is more (I think) with with terminology and phrasology than ideology. Everyone here wishes to advocate Linux because of it's positive points, and not because of the alternatives negative ones. Linux is good and bad for all the reasons that we all know. M$ is good and bad for all the reasons that we all know. It is just that both the products and business activities of M$ do create much emotions in people. The problem that this thread has highlighted and discussed (okay whinged about too) is the very poorly defined Spec based on vague and inaccurate preconceptions and (in my personal opinion) a failed attempt by people trying to look knowledgable. The fact that *we* know that this spec is effectively meaningless and wrongly restrictive is not kn doubt - what to contructively do about it should be more the point of this thread.
This reminds me of born-again Apple users, some of whom come across as frustrated 'flashers' underneath their macs.
There is nothing wrong with mac users - as long as they remember to take their medication.
Happy new year,
David
Hi Paul,
ROFLMAO
What does that mean? Sorry but I don't have a mobile phone.
Are you sure you should be on a linux mail list? You luddite! You sound like an apologist for M$; you can have any OS so long as its Windoze.
Not wishing to get on your case specifically, because you're not the only one, but childish misspelling of anything to do with Microsoft is just that, childish. Either one has a valid argument or one does not. Not liking something because it's fashionable or because of prejudice doesn't hold water. One needs to use the best tools available which fit the need and the budget. Sometimes it's one of the many flavours of LINUX, sometimes it's a windows solution, another time it may be Novell, or Unix, or one of the umpteen other OS's available, or even a mix - they ALL have their strengths and weaknesses! I've used many and even written my own OS once!
As to Luddite, if standing back and reassessing the situation on a regular basis rather than running full tilt in the middle of a startled herd makes me a luddite, then please, let the luddites reign! And if setting out your viewpoint, even if it's wrong, makes just one of the herd prick up it's ears and think for itself, even if it reaches the same conclusion as before, that must surely be a good thing! (better if they agree, obviously!) (get it? Christmas? reindeer? herd? :-) )
I think you'll see that I was careful not to specify any OS other than Apple/MAC (PC may have been hijacked by IBM (not Microsoft), as windows was by Microsoft, but it stands for personal computer, even if it has LINUX on it!) and OE as an example of the genera of program because it's well known. Although it stifled interface innovation (single button mouse? How annoying and limiting is that? and now round to boot!), by dictating procedures and code to be used, one was always sure of slick reliable software. If you do not take this approach, you need to either, spend a fortune on ensuring good quality code, not bother about the quality but sell on some other aspect, or constantly offer updates. Either of the latter are not really acceptable in a consumer led society - but that IS what we put up with, be it from the LINUX camp or Microsoft or any of the others.
May everything Microsoft crash & burn and none of their back-ups work for the new year! Just joking, can you imagine the mess world-wide! :-)
Paul, (and everyone else) have a great 2004
Adrian (Luddite) Wells
-- Gary Stainburn This email does not contain private or confidential material as it may be snooped on by interested government parties for unknown and undisclosed purposes - Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, 2000