DeMoN_LaG wrote:
>
> JTK wrote:
[snip]
> > I'd love to see AOL be Linux-ONLY. That way they'd have exactly zero
> > customers and the AOL blight would disappear from the earth.
> >
>
> Who said anything about Linux only?
I did. Wouldn't that be sweet? No more AOL CD's choking the planet's
rivers and oceans, no more AOL users, no more AOL.... You may say I'm a
dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
> Right now, AOL can't release a
> linux/BeOS/FreeBSD/non Win32 or Mac client because they have to use IE
> as their browser.
Right, plus there is absolutely no market for them on
Linux/BeOS/FreeBSD/non-Win32. But I thought they did have a Mac client.
> MS will not release IE for any other OS.
Uh... as somebody already pointed out, they have indeed done so, for the
Mac and for some Unii.
> Why? Well,
> I would imagine that they can't do it for Linux because Linux is an open
> source project, and as such they'd have to not integrate it into the
> persons desktop. IE loses 100% of it's advantages when it's uncoupled
> from Windows (takes about as long as current Mozilla builds take to
> start).
You have numbers to that effect? As for rendering speed, current
oficcial Politburo numbers have Mozilla at about six *TIMES* slower than
IE.
> And *if* AOL went linux only, the only reason that there would
> be zero customers is that anyone who can set up their own linux box is
> beyond AOL's user friendly environment and they use a real ISP.
Exactly. Plus Linux boxes account for, what, 0.000000001% of the
desktops out there?
> Oh,
> hey, troll boy. What's the most common web server out there? Is it Win
> NT? Oh.. hey look at that. It's Apache, an OPEN SOURCE web server that
> runs on Linux, an OPEN SOURCE operating system.
Runs on Windows too, demon boy. But what's that got to do with AOL?
> When was the last time
> that Linux needed an emergency patch to fix a security hole?
I guess last month, according to another respondent to your anti-MS
religious rantings.
> Linux is
> BUILT by people who know how hackers can attack systems (and even some
> hackers themselves).
Linux is BUILT by people who like to code in their spare time. Windows
is BUILT by people who are paid to do so.
> They aren't dumb enough to do stuff like MS does
Hehehe, yeah, must be a real bunch of dumbasses that wrote the OS that's
on virtually all of the world's desktops.
> with it's IIS software and leave it vulnerable to a buffer overrun that
> let's anyone take complete control of the server over without you
> knowing. But hell, Open Source sucks anyway, right?
Yes, "Open Source" (aka, "you do the work for free, we get the rights,
so long sucker"), sucks for the developer (obviously it can't be
anything but good for AOL, Sun, and whoever else uses that form of slave
labor). But of course, you think "Open Source" is the same as "Free
Software", don't you?
> Why bother with
> all this, why not just go spend a couple hundred thousand dollars on
> anything with an MS logo and wait for Bill Gates to appear in your
> dreams saying "You will be assimilated"
Hehehe, yeah, I'll do that. While you're waiting, how about you make an
extra tithe to the Church of the Holy Anything-But-Microsoft this
month? Maybe that'll put BeOS on one more desktop, doubling its
penetration into the market!
