Unity is dead

[Bleipriester]

They purchased it and turned it into a successful and reliable OS for IBM.

That is arguable, it was so reliable that IBM tried to write their own to get away from Microsoft.
But, IBM, by their own admittance, are truly terrible at writing software - so it failed.
Reliable is downright hilarious. WIndows was deathly unreliable as an OS until the 2nd Gen of Windows 98...and even that was not that reliable.
The first honestly good OS M$ wrote was Windows 2000...which was the precursor to XP.
It only took them like 15 years to make the first reliable OS.
Hilarious.

We are talking about DOS now, aren´t we? However, Windows has always been a good system with minor issues. That Windows produces bluescreens every few minutes is simply nonsense.

 

[Bleipriester]

Its because thy had to use Linux and then switch to Windows for certain tasks. Completely senseless. A failed prestige project (LiMux) by Munich.

So in other words some people tried to make a distro, they couldn't complete and you blame Linux.
Got it.

Yes, a special distro. And I don´t "blame" Linux.

Coulda fooled me.........

Linux could certainly be a a good OS. But its free. No professionals make free stuff, they have a living to manage.

Professionals don't have hobbies? They don't do things like create and maintain distros on a collective basis simply due to the love of what they do?
Basically you're so full of shit your eyes are brown........

Yes, they have. Bicycling, swimming, ect.

 

[Ringel05]

So in other words some people tried to make a distro, they couldn't complete and you blame Linux.
Got it.

Yes, a special distro. And I don´t "blame" Linux.

Coulda fooled me.........

Linux could certainly be a a good OS. But its free. No professionals make free stuff, they have a living to manage.

Professionals don't have hobbies? They don't do things like create and maintain distros on a collective basis simply due to the love of what they do?
Basically you're so full of shit your eyes are brown........

Yes, they have. Bicycling, swimming, ect.

Amongst others...... Keep swingin' though, you're 0 for 0 so far.

 

[Ringel05]

They purchased it and turned it into a successful and reliable OS for IBM.

That is arguable, it was so reliable that IBM tried to write their own to get away from Microsoft.
But, IBM, by their own admittance, are truly terrible at writing software - so it failed.
Reliable is downright hilarious. WIndows was deathly unreliable as an OS until the 2nd Gen of Windows 98...and even that was not that reliable.
The first honestly good OS M$ wrote was Windows 2000...which was the precursor to XP.
It only took them like 15 years to make the first reliable OS.
Hilarious.

We are talking about DOS now, aren´t we? However, Windows has always been a good system with minor issues. That Windows produces bluescreens every few minutes is simply nonsense.

Sooooo, are you implying that Linux creates blue screens every few minutes or do you think that is what he is solely referring to?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

We are talking about DOS now, aren´t we? However, Windows has always been a good system with minor issues. That Windows produces bluescreens every few minutes is simply nonsense.

Hahahaha....once again you show your ass Blie.
You have no idea, you wasn't around back then. I was. I was a Sys Admin for a large company in the mid 90's to 2001. I dealt with the excruciating pain of having to deal with NT servers and their inexplicable inability to maintain anything but abysmal uptimes.
We had numerous *nix servers with uptimes measured in YEARS Blie - YEARS. There was never an NT server that could survive maybe, if all it was was a file server, a month without needing restarted and often restored from back up. I can honestly say that the failed and miserable MacOSX servers were better than NT Servers.
Nothing even came close to the reliability and uptimes of *nix servers....nothing.

 

[Bleipriester]

We are talking about DOS now, aren´t we? However, Windows has always been a good system with minor issues. That Windows produces bluescreens every few minutes is simply nonsense.

Hahahaha....once again you show your ass Blie.
You have no idea, you wasn't around back then. I was. I was a Sys Admin for a large company in the mid 90's to 2001. I dealt with the excruciating pain of having to deal with NT servers and their inexplicable inability to maintain anything but abysmal uptimes.
We had numerous *nix servers with uptimes measured in YEARS Blie - YEARS. There was never an NT server that could survive maybe, if all it was was a file server, a month without needing restarted and often restored from back up. I can honestly say that the failed and miserable MacOSX servers were better than NT Servers.
Nothing even came close to the reliability and uptimes of *nix servers....nothing.

So why do companies and people buy Windows, then?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

We are talking about DOS now, aren´t we? However, Windows has always been a good system with minor issues. That Windows produces bluescreens every few minutes is simply nonsense.

Hahahaha....once again you show your ass Blie.
You have no idea, you wasn't around back then. I was. I was a Sys Admin for a large company in the mid 90's to 2001. I dealt with the excruciating pain of having to deal with NT servers and their inexplicable inability to maintain anything but abysmal uptimes.
We had numerous *nix servers with uptimes measured in YEARS Blie - YEARS. There was never an NT server that could survive maybe, if all it was was a file server, a month without needing restarted and often restored from back up. I can honestly say that the failed and miserable MacOSX servers were better than NT Servers.
Nothing even came close to the reliability and uptimes of *nix servers....nothing.

So why do companies and people buy Windows, then?

You already know that answer.
Ask any 1000 people why don't they use Linux and you would get the same look if you asked them to explain nuclear fission.
Take those same 1000 people and install and configure Linux Mint on their home computer and virtually all of them would ask why doesn't every computer come with this.
And that is the truth.

 

[Iceweasel]

You made a LOT of stupid statements. I never claimed to be a Linux fanatic, hardly a geek. The POINT it is not as complicated as Microsoft assholes like you make it out to be. Windows on ATMS? Food stamps? You're a dumb shill trying to pretend to know something. MS relies on dumbfucks just like you.

"An estimated 95% of American bank ATMs run on Windows XP"
95% of bank ATMs face Windows XP security deadline

An article over 3 years old? And it's means what, I don't use ATMs? What's wrong with you?

A hyperbole but it shows your irrational MS hatred.

It's irrational? You stupid smug little MicroNazi.

Aw c'mon Blei, embedded linux is everywhere...everywhere. And it is superior to embedded windows. It just is, and that is why so manufacturers of specific use systems use a Linux kernel...you can literally make the OS less than 1MB..which is the beauty, so little to go wrong. To this day the best Firewall I have ever used is the old "floppy firewall"...virtually unhackable since it runs completely in RAM and the server has no hard drive. But gee - you can't make money with uncomplicated software that can run on any used computer or $50 mini computers.

I didn´t say embedded Linux is bad. It is made under professional conditions. Superior to Windows? I doubt it since Windows is omnipresent. Even in buses of the local public transport.

Oh wow. It's in buses, fuck me to tears.

Look, it's obvious how you get your bread buttered. A lot of Mac fans will be disappointed to learn how inferior their choice is as well. Go back to playing Fourth Reich or whatever you were doing.

Just watch your language. You are not a good example for a Linux user. People might think those are degenerated and crazed morons with tourette syndrome.

You didn't like the Fourth Reich reference?

 

[Iceweasel]

Aw c'mon Blei, embedded linux is everywhere...everywhere. And it is superior to embedded windows. It just is, and that is why so manufacturers of specific use systems use a Linux kernel...you can literally make the OS less than 1MB..which is the beauty, so little to go wrong. To this day the best Firewall I have ever used is the old "floppy firewall"...virtually unhackable since it runs completely in RAM and the server has no hard drive. But gee - you can't make money with uncomplicated software that can run on any used computer or $50 mini computers.

I didn´t say embedded Linux is bad. It is made under professional conditions. Superior to Windows? I doubt it since Windows is omnipresent. Even in buses of the local public transport.

Windows isn't "omnipresent" because it's better, it's omnipresent because of marketing.

Munich has changed to Linux and they regret it. They are currently changing back to Windows. It is because it works.

Yet no definitive examples of why they "regret it"........... Uummmmm.........

Most simple stuff didn´t work. MS office is far superior to Open Office. The order to change to Linux was a political decision. And it was the employees who had to use it who protested.

Libre Office replaced Open Office years ago.

 

[Ringel05]

We are talking about DOS now, aren´t we? However, Windows has always been a good system with minor issues. That Windows produces bluescreens every few minutes is simply nonsense.

Hahahaha....once again you show your ass Blie.
You have no idea, you wasn't around back then. I was. I was a Sys Admin for a large company in the mid 90's to 2001. I dealt with the excruciating pain of having to deal with NT servers and their inexplicable inability to maintain anything but abysmal uptimes.
We had numerous *nix servers with uptimes measured in YEARS Blie - YEARS. There was never an NT server that could survive maybe, if all it was was a file server, a month without needing restarted and often restored from back up. I can honestly say that the failed and miserable MacOSX servers were better than NT Servers.
Nothing even came close to the reliability and uptimes of *nix servers....nothing.

So why do companies and people buy Windows, then?

Existing market share........ Something that is painfully obvious to anyone who understands Microsoft's marketing history.

 

[Montrovant]

We are talking about DOS now, aren´t we? However, Windows has always been a good system with minor issues. That Windows produces bluescreens every few minutes is simply nonsense.

Hahahaha....once again you show your ass Blie.
You have no idea, you wasn't around back then. I was. I was a Sys Admin for a large company in the mid 90's to 2001. I dealt with the excruciating pain of having to deal with NT servers and their inexplicable inability to maintain anything but abysmal uptimes.
We had numerous *nix servers with uptimes measured in YEARS Blie - YEARS. There was never an NT server that could survive maybe, if all it was was a file server, a month without needing restarted and often restored from back up. I can honestly say that the failed and miserable MacOSX servers were better than NT Servers.
Nothing even came close to the reliability and uptimes of *nix servers....nothing.

So why do companies and people buy Windows, then?

You already know that answer.
Ask any 1000 people why don't they use Linux and you would get the same look if you asked them to explain nuclear fission.
Take those same 1000 people and install and configure Linux Mint on their home computer and virtually all of them would ask why doesn't every computer come with this.
And that is the truth.

I'm sorry, but that just isn't true at all. I use Mint, and I know for certain that some of the things I've had to do, the information I've spent lots of time trying to look up, that many people would be unwilling to do. Networking can be a pain, common programs aren't always as up to date (VLC, for example, sometimes will not play videos in Mint that it will play in Win7), and for anyone who likes to play PC games, Linux just isn't a good option.

Now, that isn't necessarily an issue with Linux per se. If there were more support for Linux, it would be different. As it stands, though, I don't think your average PC user would be happy with ever having to use command line. Your average user would have no idea how to install programs in Linux, and probably wouldn't want to have to learn a new way of doing things. Given time and more familiarity, again, things would be different, but for now, I think the average PC user would end up unhappy with Linux.

 

[Bleipriester]

"An estimated 95% of American bank ATMs run on Windows XP"
95% of bank ATMs face Windows XP security deadline

An article over 3 years old? And it's means what, I don't use ATMs? What's wrong with you?

A hyperbole but it shows your irrational MS hatred.

It's irrational? You stupid smug little MicroNazi.

Aw c'mon Blei, embedded linux is everywhere...everywhere. And it is superior to embedded windows. It just is, and that is why so manufacturers of specific use systems use a Linux kernel...you can literally make the OS less than 1MB..which is the beauty, so little to go wrong. To this day the best Firewall I have ever used is the old "floppy firewall"...virtually unhackable since it runs completely in RAM and the server has no hard drive. But gee - you can't make money with uncomplicated software that can run on any used computer or $50 mini computers.

I didn´t say embedded Linux is bad. It is made under professional conditions. Superior to Windows? I doubt it since Windows is omnipresent. Even in buses of the local public transport.

Oh wow. It's in buses, fuck me to tears.

Look, it's obvious how you get your bread buttered. A lot of Mac fans will be disappointed to learn how inferior their choice is as well. Go back to playing Fourth Reich or whatever you were doing.

Just watch your language. You are not a good example for a Linux user. People might think those are degenerated and crazed morons with tourette syndrome.

You didn't like the Fourth Reich reference?

I am unaware of that game but it sounds interesting. Is it the follower of Sim Reich?

 

[Bleipriester]

Is MS responsible for the failure of Linux on desktops?

 

[Ringel05]

They purchased it and turned it into a successful and reliable OS for IBM.

That is arguable, it was so reliable that IBM tried to write their own to get away from Microsoft.
But, IBM, by their own admittance, are truly terrible at writing software - so it failed.
Reliable is downright hilarious. WIndows was deathly unreliable as an OS until the 2nd Gen of Windows 98...and even that was not that reliable.
The first honestly good OS M$ wrote was Windows 2000...which was the precursor to XP.
It only took them like 15 years to make the first reliable OS.
Hilarious.

We are talking about DOS now, aren´t we? However, Windows has always been a good system with minor issues. That Windows produces bluescreens every few minutes is simply nonsense.

Oh and for someone who claims to not be a Linux hater or a Microsoft shill you certainly expend a great deal of energy bashing Linux at every turn and promoting Windows/microsoft to include minimizing, denying or deflecting it's faults. Interesting..........

 

[Ringel05]

Is MS responsible for the failure of Linux on desktops?

Linux has failed on desktops? Really? Guess that's why Linux has grown from barely 2% of the market share to 5% of the market share...... Sounds like failure to me......

 

[Iceweasel]

Is MS responsible for the failure of Linux on desktops?

I have three going strong, including this laptop. You're a failure at having any credibility.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

We are talking about DOS now, aren´t we? However, Windows has always been a good system with minor issues. That Windows produces bluescreens every few minutes is simply nonsense.

Hahahaha....once again you show your ass Blie.
You have no idea, you wasn't around back then. I was. I was a Sys Admin for a large company in the mid 90's to 2001. I dealt with the excruciating pain of having to deal with NT servers and their inexplicable inability to maintain anything but abysmal uptimes.
We had numerous *nix servers with uptimes measured in YEARS Blie - YEARS. There was never an NT server that could survive maybe, if all it was was a file server, a month without needing restarted and often restored from back up. I can honestly say that the failed and miserable MacOSX servers were better than NT Servers.
Nothing even came close to the reliability and uptimes of *nix servers....nothing.

So why do companies and people buy Windows, then?

You already know that answer.
Ask any 1000 people why don't they use Linux and you would get the same look if you asked them to explain nuclear fission.
Take those same 1000 people and install and configure Linux Mint on their home computer and virtually all of them would ask why doesn't every computer come with this.
And that is the truth.

I'm sorry, but that just isn't true at all. I use Mint, and I know for certain that some of the things I've had to do, the information I've spent lots of time trying to look up, that many people would be unwilling to do. Networking can be a pain, common programs aren't always as up to date (VLC, for example, sometimes will not play videos in Mint that it will play in Win7), and for anyone who likes to play PC games, Linux just isn't a good option.

Now, that isn't necessarily an issue with Linux per se. If there were more support for Linux, it would be different. As it stands, though, I don't think your average PC user would be happy with ever having to use command line. Your average user would have no idea how to install programs in Linux, and probably wouldn't want to have to learn a new way of doing things. Given time and more familiarity, again, things would be different, but for now, I think the average PC user would end up unhappy with Linux.

Really? You ever hear of rinse and repeat? You do it well.
Networking is easy to do with any computer, Linux included. In fact Mint connects to your network for you before you even install it....so..again...your little stories fail.
We have heard you before lament on the horrors of Linux and it just doesn't pass the smell test.

 

[Ringel05]

We are talking about DOS now, aren´t we? However, Windows has always been a good system with minor issues. That Windows produces bluescreens every few minutes is simply nonsense.

Hahahaha....once again you show your ass Blie.
You have no idea, you wasn't around back then. I was. I was a Sys Admin for a large company in the mid 90's to 2001. I dealt with the excruciating pain of having to deal with NT servers and their inexplicable inability to maintain anything but abysmal uptimes.
We had numerous *nix servers with uptimes measured in YEARS Blie - YEARS. There was never an NT server that could survive maybe, if all it was was a file server, a month without needing restarted and often restored from back up. I can honestly say that the failed and miserable MacOSX servers were better than NT Servers.
Nothing even came close to the reliability and uptimes of *nix servers....nothing.

So why do companies and people buy Windows, then?

You already know that answer.
Ask any 1000 people why don't they use Linux and you would get the same look if you asked them to explain nuclear fission.
Take those same 1000 people and install and configure Linux Mint on their home computer and virtually all of them would ask why doesn't every computer come with this.
And that is the truth.

I'm sorry, but that just isn't true at all. I use Mint, and I know for certain that some of the things I've had to do, the information I've spent lots of time trying to look up, that many people would be unwilling to do. Networking can be a pain, common programs aren't always as up to date (VLC, for example, sometimes will not play videos in Mint that it will play in Win7), and for anyone who likes to play PC games, Linux just isn't a good option.

Now, that isn't necessarily an issue with Linux per se. If there were more support for Linux, it would be different. As it stands, though, I don't think your average PC user would be happy with ever having to use command line. Your average user would have no idea how to install programs in Linux, and probably wouldn't want to have to learn a new way of doing things. Given time and more familiarity, again, things would be different, but for now, I think the average PC user would end up unhappy with Linux.

Really? You ever hear of rinse and repeat? You do it well.
Networking is easy to do with any computer, Linux included. In fact Mint connects to your network for you before you even install it....so..again...your little stories fail.
We have heard you before lament on the horrors of Linux and it just doesn't pass the smell test.

He is a relatively "new" Linux and has had some of the problems faced by many new users. Hell I didn't know how to install new programs that were not in the repository until years after I started using Linux. Much of the issue there is knowledge of not only the operating system but the packages included. More than half the people I've turned on to Linux went back to Windows for one reason or another, it's to be expected. You're just being defensive now.

 

[Bleipriester]

Is MS responsible for the failure of Linux on desktops?

Linux has failed on desktops? Really? Guess that's why Linux has grown from barely 2% of the market share to 5% of the market share...... Sounds like failure to me......

5% now? Really? What a fantastic success!!

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Is MS responsible for the failure of Linux on desktops?

You like asking questions you already know the answer to? Perhaps you hope we don't. But that has failed you many times before.
M$ is undisputed king of the desktop because of one reason - they made deals with PC makers and Game writers. And that is the only reason.
Today, the overwhelming lionshare of computer users do at minimum 90% of everything they do with a computer through a browser. And that can be done regardless of the OS. And that is done with Linux infinitely better than Windows 10. Win10 requires at least 16 GB of RAM if you want to anything beyond email and remain calm. It is a system HOG. It comes with gallons of bloatware that if you uninstall, it will reinstall on the next upgrade - that you can't stop.
Minimum systems out there selling with 4 GB of RAM have people pulling their hair out if they try to do anything besides stare at the desktop with nothing running. These systems operate at 80% plus swap memory doing nothing. 60%-70% CPU usage in IDLE!!!!!
All so M$ can fill your computer with ad generating bloatware.