On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 12:08 PM, willhill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I dunno, you Windows people are thin skinned. I innocently did not know > the > difference between Windows and DOS as far as embedded applications go and > you > and Dustin got all steamed up. Dustin took me to task for it and you > started > talking about woodies. These things always take my by surprise. I think this is simple trolling here, so I'll let it go. > > Version name fights are laughable to me. Windows is the same old code > base > with lots of hype for what would be considered point releases in the free > software world. You know this is true because each time someone finds a > hole > in Windows code, it always traces back to as many previous version as are > cared about. The Linux kernel is the linux kernel, regardless of > distribution and version, GNU is GNU, Iceweasel is Firefox and so on and so > forth. Of the thousands of distributions, many have silly names based on > Toy > Story or animals. It's strange that anyone would care about things like > that. sigh. The major differences between distributions are releases of the XORG and Gnome/KDE toolkits. I could use the same argument about functions within the Linux kernel not changing much between 2.2, 2.4 and 2.6. > Is there something else I said that might have motivated you write so much > about nothing? Was it my surprise that anyone would use M$ for embedded > applications or that I think it's a poor choice that does not work well? I > do not understand people's attachment to a megacorp like M$ or non free > software in general. I don't understand why anyone would have a political/religious attachment to any type of software and use/recommend based on technical merit alone. for example, if someone needs a analog TV PVR box, I'll recommend MythBuntu with a pair of Hauppage cards. If they need cable/premium HD, I'll recommend they go Vista MCE. If someone has a p133 laying around and needs a firewall, I'll recommend slackware or myDSL with iptables. If someone needs a cheap hosted web server for static content or small database apps, I'll recommend LAMP. If they need developed and well supported business applications, collaboration, and management solutions, I have to recommend Microsoft. > > My poor opinion of M$'s technical failures is not emotion driven and it's > common. I can share DOS and early Windows application experience with you, > and I can share personal experience with newer embedded networking problems > if you like. It was never very good and it's gone down hill thanks to > product activation and DRM. With free alternatives available for mundane > work, I don't know why anyone would chose anything else and GNU has indeed > taken the embedded world by storm. > Windows was/is a desktop OS that they tried to shoe-horn into the embedded market. It hasn't worked well so far, I'll agree with you on that one. However, you stating confusion between embedded DOS and embedded Windows because "Microsoft brand names and versioning make my head hurt" is pure silliness. > > How does anyone form a bond with a company that's so hostile to it's > customers? It's like watching a battered wife. One minute they are filled > with hatred for their abuse, the next they figure they have no choice, get > all defensive, say nasty things and continue to invest in their bad > relationship. I've only hated one product from Microsoft..... Windows ME. > > On Tuesday 16 September 2008, Andrew Baudouin wrote: > > Right.... I mean, if we can't talk about the silliness of Ubuntu and > Debian > > distro names, then what can we talk about? > > > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net >
_______________________________________________ General mailing list [email protected] http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
